Series Finale: “Super-Humans” and My Thoughts on Nihilism.

If you have just found this series, I recommend starting with Part 1. Then go from there. Also check out the book this whole series is based on: NIHILISM : The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age by Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose.

Don’t forget to check out my last post on Objective Morality as it does intersect with this topic.

Thank You!

Before I start introducing this post, I want to thank everyone for reading this series. March was one of the best months I’ve had on this blog. It means a lot to me, because I work very hard to bring the absolute best content I can. Thanks again!

Anyway, lets address the strange title. This post will be broken into two very distinct parts. The first part will be about “Super-Humans” because it has to be the most intriguing topic to come out of nihilism. “Super-Humans” is also rooted in historical references, like Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. The point is that “Super-Humans” is actually a nihilist fueled creation. The second part will probably be shorter depending on how much I ramble (Spoiler: I went off), about my thoughts on nihilism. Up until this point, I’ve stuck to a discovery and exploratory lens. I have been avoiding for the most part any personal opinions. I’m basically going to answer two questions:

1. What do I think of Nihilism?
2. Why does Nihilism matter to politics in our society? (focusing specifically on Libertarianism/ Anarchism)

Without further ado lets jump straight into “Super-Humans”.

Origins of “Super-Humans”

You might remember earlier in the series, I wrote about the destruction of the old order. This is a series of events, starting with World War 1 and the Bolshevik revolution going forward to World War 2 , then onward to other wars such as Vietnam..etc.etc. The destruction taking place during each war. The important part is what the wars were destroying, namely divine kingdoms in the case of World War 1. In general, the destruction of the older, destroyed any symbolism of divine nature in both the physical, social and political forms. You can find more in Part 4 on liberalism.

Now that we have refreshed about the destruction of the older, lets see how Rose frames origin of “Super-Humans”:

The destruction of the Old Order, however, and the organization of the “new earth” are not the only items in the historical program of Nihilism; they are not, perhaps, even its most important items. They are but the preparation for a work more significant and more ominous than either: the “transformation of man.”

The organization of the new earth is something that Rose dedicates a chapter to, but I haven’t really covered.  To quickly summarize it, the new earth is one which Lenin envisaged as being like a “factory” that is focusing on “equal” work and pay. The new earth will ensure that all the “workers” (all people) will find happiness in this “earthly” work. They will find happiness because remember there is no God. From what I can gather, in a chronological order, the destruction of the old order occurs first then the new earth takes shape. After these two, then we get to “transformation of man” in other words, “Super-Human”. I mention in my introduction that its rooted in history, and Rose pinpoints the origins which come from unsurprising sources:

This was the dream of the pseudo-Nietzscheans, Hitler and Mussolini, of a “higher humanity” to be forged through a “creative” violence; “this is the mission of our century,” said Hitler’s propagandist Rosenberg: “out of a new life myth to create a new human type.” We know from Nazi practice what this “human type” was, and the world would seem to have rejected it as brutal and inhuman

The fact that Hitler had a whole program directed to do medical experiments amidst a full on two front war, tells you how obsessed he was. In this unfortunate research, came many medical inventions and innovations that we still use today. This is a very sad part of creating “Super-Humans”. But Hitler didn’t just have a random thought, in fact, the “transformation of man” was well thought out. Rose describes how Marx and Engels envisage the need for “mass change in humans”:

But the “mass change in human nature” to which Marxism looks is an end that is perhaps not very different. Marx and Engels are unequivocal on this subject:
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution: this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

Its pretty clear that Marx saw the “transformation of man” necessary because in laymen terms, it helps bring about communism by overthrowing the ruling class easier. It also weeds out the unwanted and undesirables from society. (Hmmm sounds like Hitler with Jews, Gays and others) Of course, the main ingredient for creating “Super-Humans” is violence. I mentioned earlier that new earth and new man or “Super-Humans” are connected chronologically. In fact, they are intertwined to achieve the same goal as Rose describes:

[new earth] and [new man] are intimately connected in the determinist philosophy of Marx, for “in revolutionary activity, change of self coincides with the change of circumstances.” The change of circumstances, and more to the point, the process of changing them through revolutionary violence, transform the revolutionaries themselves. Here Marx and Engels, like their contemporary Nietzsche, and like Lenin and Hitler after them, subscribe to the mystique of violence, seeing a magical change to be wrought in human nature through indulgence of the passions of anger, hatred, resentment, and the will to dominate. In this regard we must make note also of the two World Wars, whose violence has helped to destroy forever the Old Order and the old humanity, rooted in a stable and traditional society, and has had a large role in producing the new uprooted humanity that Marxism idealizes. The thirty years of Nihilist war and revolution between 1914 and 1945 have been an ideal breeding-ground for the “new human type.

I know this is a long quote but it can be easily summarized: Violence creates “Super-Humans”. The main thing to understand is that violence is the catalyst of the three stages: Destruction of the older leads to new earth leads to new man or “Super-Humans”. Now that we understand the origins, we need to go deeper! What kind of human or not human is a “Super-Human”?

Violence of Reduction

One of the things, that is easy to see in nihilism is that it reduces everything to be very simple. One of the reasons why for example, I was able to pick up this topic so quickly without ever encountering it before, was because its simple to grasp. Nietzsche is also easy to understand, he reduces (key word: reduces) everything into simple ideas. The world is very complex. Nothing is simple. (In the literal sense too) So you’re probably wondering where the hell this is going? Well, I’m preparing you for another quote by Rose that will make this paragraph make sense:

Nihilist philosophy that reduces reality and human nature to the simplest possible terms, and a Nihilist practice that similarly reduces the concrete man; not a few, also, realize the seriousness and the radicalness of this “reduction” even to the extent of seeing in it, as does Erich Kahler, a qualitative change in human nature.

“(The) powerful trend toward the disruption and invalidation of the individual … manifestly present in the most diverse currents of modem life–economic, technological, political, scientific, educational, psychic and artistic–appears so overwhelming that we are induced to see in it a true mutation, a transformation of human nature”

Its a powerful quote because I think when you look over time, you can definitely see that humanity has changed. The phrase “invalidation of the individual” really hits me hard. I am an anarchist if you didn’t know, so that bothers me because the individual holds all the natural rights. Anyway, the broader point here is that the destruction of the old order, new earth and new man are slowly being done through violence and revolutions on multiple different fronts across society.

Moving away from the big picture, lets focus in on what becomes of the human after the “transformation”. There isn’t a really easy way to help you understand this because I think Rose does better job than I could:

the man of the moment, without conscience or values and thus at the mercy of the strongest “stimulus”; the “rebel,” hating all restraint and authority because he himself is his own and only god; the “mass man,” this new barbarian, thoroughly “reduced and “simplified” and capable of only the most elementary ideas, yet scornful of anyone who presumes to point out the higher things or the real complexity of life.

Once again, we get a striking description that matches the definition of the Nihilist of Destruction. A “Super-Human” destroys all abstract thought and replaces it with “earthly” thoughts. Its hard to describe it, but because of the reduction and simplification of literally all knowledge it makes a “Super-Human” the equivalent to a caveman. This is despite having access to logic, language and math. However, because the nihilist rejects these absolute truths it renders them useless in understanding “his” earth existence.

To end it off, I want to share just one more quote before giving my own thoughts. This last quote is almost like straight out of a Marvel movie, I swear to you. In the beginning of this, I was discussing Hitler’s medical experiments program. This quote relates to that sort of but takes it a step further:

It is easy to dismiss as fantasy the “new humanity” foreseen by a Hitler or a Lenin; and even the plans of those quite respectable Nihilists among us today who calmly discuss the scientific breeding of a “biological superman,” or project a utopia for “new men” to be developed by the narrowest “modern education” and a strict control of the mind, seem remote and only faintly ominous.

You can definitely take this as a warning.

My Thoughts…finally.

Like I promised, I will answer two questions: What do I think of Nihilism? and Why does Nihilism matter to politics in our society? Lets start with the first one. My thoughts on Nihilism is first and foremost that its one of these most intriguing topics, I’ve ever come across. The depth and multi-faceted nature of it makes for some really interesting thoughts and realizations. I think that nihilism represents most of evil in the world. I believe it is the antithesis to Christianity. Personally, I am fully against the nihilist attitude. I believe that Christianity offers more in terms of happiness and fulfillment than nihilism will ever be able to provide. I also find that the historical background of nihilism makes it very tangible and easily understood in the reality. This point leads into my next question. However, before I get into that I want note that nihilism is extremely complex, and one could probably write a book or two about this topic. I really enjoyed discovering it along with you, dear reader.

Why does nihilism matter to politics in our society? Well, the historical roots make it easy to understand in reality. Unfortunately, those historical roots are connected to the events that happen today. History is not only a cycle but its a timeline. The cause and effect nature of history allows us to contextualize events. I was able to contextualize the Vietnam War in the frame of a nihilist revolution. It should be noted Rose never mentions it. But once you understand how and why nihilism works, then its really easy to see it everywhere. This is nowhere more apparent than in US politics.

For example, when I look at a Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, and others I see their platforms using Marxist based ideas. Aside from Nietzsche, Marx’s ideology is a foundation of nihilism. His ideas on class warfare, communism and revolution are drawn upon by famous nihilists like Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini and others. These American politicians are using some of Marx ideas, whether or not its intentionally nihilist doesn’t really matter. However, when you look at the economic consequences of UBI (Universal Basic Income) as Andrew Yang has imagined it; its impossible to not think it was intentional. You might think that me saying “whether or not its intentionally nihilist doesn’t really matter” is kinda of callous or something. But the reason is that nihilism in its most basic form doesn’t have to be intentional. The person thinking nihilist thoughts or doing nihilist actions may not even realize or admit it.

I think that the fact that one can be nihilist unintentionally is what makes this “disease” so dangerous. In Rose’s book, he calls nihilism a disease. I’ve always found socialism and communism to be disgusting and disease like as well. I think nihilism co-opts those for a greater purpose of destroying society. I hope that reading this series will help you see the nihilism that exists within our society. If we  have any hope of survival, we need to turn to the truth. We need to move past the bipartisan bickering and the crazy government overreach.

Something else that I’ve realized in writing about nihilism, is that even though Anarchy was at first strongly correlated with nihilists. Anarchy as its meaning being “Without Rulers” is the antithesis of nihilism. I believe that government represents nihilist intentions. The ends of corruption and greed are literally nothing. You get will end up with nothing after you cheat and steal. Its called karma. In this way, government results in the destruction that nihilist requires. This is despite the fact that “church” and “state” are supposed to be separated. So in order to properly fight nihilism, we need overthrow the tyrannical government and base our beliefs off the truth that God provides. This isn’t to say that you need to be religious. But in order to form a stronger argument against the nihilist revolution, you have accept the existence of God. Remember nihilist have no orientation because they deny those absolute truths that we use to put our world into proper context. The profound reality is that voluntary interactions are the best way to fight nihilism because they remove the government and its corruption.

I hope you enjoy this series. It was a pleasure to write it. Thank you for reading.

Shoutout to @FoAnimated

Check the social medias.

 

 

History Less Traveled: Cold War, Part 4

I highly recommend that you read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 before reading Part 4 of this series. Also please check out my updated Life Experience’s: Advertisement Campaign if you would like to help each other out. 

Today in Part 4, I’m going start domestically and then head abroad to Vietnam. Its going to be a 1200 word journey through some pretty interesting times in American history. The Great Society will consist of a bunch of smaller parts broken down by each law. At the end, I’ll give a brief critique of the results that we see today. After that, we will hit the jungles of Vietnam. Okay, not literally. I want to discuss the reasons for going into Vietnam and the bigger picture of why Vietnam mattered so much for the Cold War. A bit of this discussion will touch on the military industrial complex because in my understanding it plays large role. Lyndon B. Johnson or LBJ has a bipolar presidency, in one part he pushes his domestic vision quite successfully. In the another part, he manages to escalate a war that he can’t win. Unfortunately for me, despite his sweeping domestic legislation, all I see is a great politician but not great results from his work. If only presidents were measured by how much they did, President Trump seems think that is how it works too. I hope he knows that LBJ has him beat.

The Great Society: Immigration

Unlike our current President, LBJ wasn’t a big immigration fan. However, there was law passed for immigration reform. All it did was remove the origin quotas. Which might sound small, but the quotas really kept numbers down especially for certain countries. Now depending on your perspective this could be both good and bad. In general, my feeling is that this was a good thing. There isn’t any reason to block any certain origin or ethnicity. Plus the economy can thrive with plenty of lower wage workers or even better more high skilled ones.

The Great Society: Gun Control

My stance on gun control is well-documented throughout this blog. It doesn’t work. That being said the passage of this particular sweeping gun control measure was in demand because of recent assassinations. However, let me point out that banning guns doesn’t stop criminals from getting them or using them. Ronald Reagan had an attempted assassination in the 1980s. So unfortunately LBJ’s gun control act was in vein.

The Great Society: Education  

Everyone can related to this bill. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act gave us federal funding for schools and colleges. You are probably aware of the billions of dollars in student loan debt that exist today. Well, you can thank LBJ for that. This bill  had really great intentions, make school affordable for everyone. Unfortunately, when one artificially inflates the amount people who can afford college, then the price of college goes up. Its pretty simple economics, basically colleges saw that more students could afford to go college and raised their prices. Therefore, it was a win-win for colleges because the government pays them to take on students and they can make huge profits. Which is problem we have today, college is very expensive. The education act really just saturated the market for college graduates and gave us a ton of debt. Thanks LBJ.

The Great Society: War on Poverty 

In this piece of legislation, LBJ accomplished very little. He created things like minimum wage, medicaid, medicare and various other unsuccessful programs. Granted, he didn’t realize that fast food workers would protest for higher wages. Let’s be honest, government run healthcare isn’t that great, just ask one of our veterans. Aside from the obvious flaws of minimum wage and government run anything, this War on Poverty did nothing but increase poverty. I’ll give LBJ a break because they didn’t do studies on any of this. In hindsight, this wasn’t a good bill. Don’t worry, there is a positive one coming!

The Great Society: Voting Rights Act

This was by far one of LBJ’s most successful bills. In part because it was written by Martin Luther King Jr. The voting rights act removed most of the barriers set by Jim Crow laws and other racist laws to give people of color the right to vote. Its actually hard to explain how big of a step this was. LBJ and Martin Luther King Jr. had a fairly good relationship. Unfortunately King Jr. was assassinated not long after its passage, about 3 years later. This act had a lasting impact on civil rights. I keep saying that LBJ has good intentions and this bill proves it.

 The Great Society: Not great, but just barely decent.

Overall, I would give LBJ a C+ on the Great Society because if your looking at the results, most of them not that great. This isn’t even a personal attack on LBJ, I’m only judging the policies. His voting rights act really carried him on this bundle deal. Unfortunately over the past 54 years its been proven his economic policies are junk. Yet somehow, here we are today with AOC and Bernie Sanders pushing the same junk with a new fruity socialist twist. If you came here for the Vietnam discussion then get ready to lock and load my dudes.

Back in ‘Nam, We didn’t have Starbucks.

Just a little joke to lighten the mood. I mentioned in a previous part, that JFK had sent “advisers” or special forces to help the south Vietnamese. Over the course of the 1960s, first JFK sent as many as 16,000 advisers to Vietnam, then by 1967 there was over 500,000 troops in Vietnam. Over the course of LBJ’s presidency, he was advised by Robert McNamara, his secretary of defense. McNamara encouraged many of the troop increases and bombing campaigns.. He also oversaw many of the weapon development programs. I think its safe to say that we didn’t win the Vietnam war. The guerrilla war fighters managed to out maneuver and out-strategize the greatest military power in the world. In order to understand why the US went into Vietnam, we need to look at NSC-68.

NSC-68 and the Military Industrial Complex

I have rarely given any outside sources because this isn’t a research paper or even an academic essay its a story. However, I believe that NSC-68 is important enough to have an outside source. Here is that source, click on this. NSC-68 in a short summary is a document which was written during the Truman presidency for the purpose of guiding US foreign policy. In no uncertain terms, it says that the US has to build up a substantial war chest of nuclear weapons to keep the Soviet Union from taking over the world. The document created the basis for the national security council which has since advised every President since. The NSC-68 created within the government the actual competition between the US and the Soviet Union. It was made real and it was followed closely. The military industrial complex is that thing Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech. Unforgettably that warning was not heeded. I think it was outright ignored in fact. In many ways, the Vietnam conflict presented the perfect opportunity for government contracted weapons R&D companies to take advantage. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Halliburton…just to name a few.

On the next part I will finish explaining how Vietnam was shaped by these war profiteers. I will also explain how the Vietnam war represented a battle over communism vs. capitalism similar to Korea. You could say that the peak of the Cold War erupted in a hot war with Vietnam. Thanks for reading! Tune back in for Part 5!

Social Media

Minds: @gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

Also please check out my updated Life Experience’s: Advertisement Campaign if you would like to help each other out. 

Political Rhetoric is Stupid

Just a warning: This post might be all-over the place.  The reason is because I have nothing really specific to work with but I do know that there is something to political rhetoric being stupid.

I was thinking about my last post and the absolute trash of legislation that AOC and Democrats have come out with. To be honest, I haven’t been impressed by anyone in the government with the exception of the three libertarian congressmen (Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash) There has been a lot of talk in politics. Politics is after all, a debate about the greater good. But today, I think that talk is cheap and action is hard to find. For my taste, I like when politicians, in general, talk the talk and walk the walk. Not to be cliche, but shit-talking only gets so far.

I’m a libertarian-anarchist-whatever you call it. I believe that the best government is actually no government. I often find myself observing the current landscape of politics as a wasteland. You won’t find me supporting any party but I will support ideas that on the right track. Trust me, there hasn’t been many. The most interesting about political rhetoric is that usually just ends up making each side more extreme and entrenched in their own beliefs. On a weird note, it seems like whenever someone questions the party line or beliefs, that party doesn’t look to change direction. They decide to double down on their beliefs pushing them to the furthest extremes.

Let’s use two examples in both the Republican and Democratic parties. President Trump is a great example of the Republicans doubling down on immigration. I’m not gonna lie, I used read to a lot of Glen Beck in my early college years. In 2009, I would have voted for Trump. If you know Glen Beck, he was obsessed with building a wall on the Mexican Border. However, back in 2009, Glen Beck was seen as fringe of the Republican party. George Bush never really considered a wall. Nearly every president in recent years has sent troops to the border. The issue was boiling just below the surface. It seems like after Obama came with his amnesty plan that the Republican party just decided we need to take a harder line. If you take Trump’s presidency out of the vacuum that we often mistakenly judge politics in, then you can see why Trump would run based on “build on the wall”. Just look at Brexit, and the sentiment throughout Europe with mass immigration of refugees from Syria This was going on because of Obama and Russia intervention in Syria. The world in 2016 really started to scrutinize immigration policies more thoroughly as a whole. The point is that Trump basically is a perfect fit for this new thinking about immigration in Europe. Trump’s election is the result of dirty rhetoric by Democrats. How stupid is it that Trump was elected by his haters?

I literally can’t make this stuff up. Now lets do some Democrat rhetoric hard-line. I believe this one started with Bernie Sanders running against Hillary Clinton. Bernie is famous for many things like taking down the 1 percent and getting paid to lose an election then buying a third house. However, the thing about Bernie is that he challenged Hillary Clinton because she was fairly moderate until Bernie brought the hard-line socialist policies. In turn, Hillary Clinton went from running the usual Democrat platform to including universal everything, paid for by the government. This was just start of socialism in the Democratic party. Fast Forward to the most recent midterm elections and you have the election of AOC or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. A millennial socialist. AOC has literally revolutionized the economy of stupid. Every idea that she puts out has Bernie Sanders written all over it. The problem is that whenever she talks, it just stupid bullshit that comes out. At least Sanders made coherent statements half the time.

If you clicked my linked post, then you know the Green New Deal just dropped into Congress like an economy wrecking bomb that it is. This is the summation of all the hard-line socialist policies pushed by Bernie and Hillary. Its really sad too. If you were to go back and read about John F. Kennedy, some young people would probably call him alt-right. JFK was probably the last decent minded democratic president. Before he was shot, Martin Luther King Jr was talking to him about a civil rights bill. That civil rights bill eventually came to pass in 1965 under LBJ. In history I can find democrats who actually did real helpful things for our society. Today, I can’t find a democrat who doesn’t understand that socialism isn’t the answer. Unfortunately, the Green New Deal is the climax of all the President Obama policies and 2016 Presidential campaign.

I said earlier that Trump was elected by his haters. I want to clarify that haters didn’t actually elect him. Unfortunately, Democrats chose to use hatred against Trump himself. Its weird because they hate anything Trump related. Trump proposed to pull out of the wars. Democrats blocked it because they hate Trump. Just a few years ago they were for it. I swear Trump could pass the Green New Deal and Democrats wouldn’t support it because Trump does support it. Its insane. See why political rhetoric is stupid? Its like being in a boxing match where you hit your opponent then hit yourself twice as hard. Chances are, your gonna knock out yourself first.

One last note, if the Democrats keep up hating Trump as person, and don’t attack his actual policies, they are gonna have 4 more years of him. This has been my pet peeve for years. People will focus on the personality of the President rather than his policies. Why does matter what a private citizen does in his own business? His policies matter. Its even dumber to think that we need a popular vote election. We already have it. Its already a popularity contest.

As a Libertarian/Anarchist, my thoughts on all this are pretty simple. Get rid of this shitshow and let people live their lives without interference. I truly don’t feel like society has benefited from government especially now.

Thanks for reading

Social Media

Minds: gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

Communism: Why it only works on paper!

Surely, everyone knows who Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is by now. I’m gonna call her AOC because her name is ridiculously long.  Just like Bernie Sanders before her, AOC is making communism/socialism great again. (Side note: One too many shitty politician slogans in this intro lol) As if communism/socialism ever was great. But seriously, this joke of congress representative comes from the Bronx. (I sure as hell didn’t vote for her.) AOC seems to think and talk a lot. In fact, I think she talks too much. Let’s be honest her ideas aren’t the brightest. I digress but AOC is an easy target. What I really want to discuss the philosophy that she is trying (and failing) to push as the new way forward.

Before I start ripping AOC recent comment about how being morally right trumps being factually wrong, let me explain why communism/socialism is great on paper. I am going to totally ignore the facts, totally ignore the realities. In a literally ideal world, communism/socialism would function very smoothly. In the ideal communist society, there would be no classes. There would be no private property. There would be peace and love. Complete zen. Everyone would be workers who own the factories. There wouldn’t be anyone higher than anyone else. The shared responsibility for society’s success would fall on the shoulders of the great proletariat. In a similar and not so distant ideal world, socialism would be law of the land. The benevolent government would run social programs from healthcare to welfare. The government would nurture each man, woman, and child. The people would humbly pay taxes and gladly contribute more than their fair share. (Well OK, not gladly because if you don’t pay taxes you go to jail) Everyone would be so happy in these similarly ideal worlds.

Just keep dreaming… don’t these two forms of economic and ruling systems sound amazing?  Are Bernie Sanders and AOC on to something? NOPE.

I’m sorry to jar you from your wonderful dream, but there are realities that even most ardent communist or socialist can’t reckon to go away. Yes AOC, it doesn’t matter if your morally right, the facts are always right. I’ll be the first to admit that capitalism is not a moral system. In fact, there are no MORAL systems. You can argue whatever you want but trust me, in the end, someone always gets fucked.

Let’s start with the problems of communism:

Responsibility, Greed, self-interest, corruption, logic.

These are just some of the words, that could used to describe the problems with communism. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse because its clear that communist don’t understand simple political theory. Humans are naturally greedy and self interested when it comes to being political actors. Humans are very predictable. Any psychologist would tell you this. Communism doesn’t work because there will ALWAYS be a few greedy, corrupt and self interested individuals who take advantage of the system. You may have heard of Mao Zedong. Mao was a smart guy that decided that China should have communism and took advantage. Mao lived fabulously meanwhile upwards of 60 million Chinese died or more. My point is that communism is inherently flawed. You may ask why responsibility is on this list? Well, have you ever had a roommate who doesn’t wash the dishes? (If not, then you might be that guy) Communism assumes that all your roommates are going to wash their dishes and clean up. But the reality of communism is that only one or two roommates do anything. In some cases, maybe you all just do nothing. There is no motivation to do anything, because you don’t own or get anything for your work.

Now for socialism, its basically same case except one difference. Imagine, have a boss or manager like from work in your life all the time. And imagine, your paycheck also pays part of their paycheck. Just imagine being watched and monitor in everything you do. No privacy. That is socialism with similar problems to communism like lack of motivation to work, no responsibility for self, and still boat loads of corruption.

You may think now is the time where I lecture you about how great capitalism is. But unfortunately, capitalism is just an economic system. Capitalism can work with a dictator or democracy. It actually doesn’t matter.

My point is that communism doesn’t work in real life. Neither does socialism. On paper, they sound really amazing. I really wish that people would do just a little google search on the pros-cons of these systems. I find it really hard to understand how people can just flaccidly accept Bernie Sanders or AOC’s proclamations about socialism as morally right. Putting everything else aside, I think they are wrong to assume that any economic system is morally right. The facts don’t lie. The facts don’t support anything like socialism or communism as being a viable economic system. I mean yes, for a short time they work but they end up failing. Mankind needs a long sustaining system not just some short term system that just puts years behind from where we are currently.

I don’t have all the answers but I know for sure that if we keep heading down the road to socialism/communism, its not end in a wonderful dream….

Thanks for reading, Comrades!

Minds: gpslife12

The Collectivist Mindset: Government is My Babysitter

One of my biggest pet peeves is people who think that the government knows what’s best for them. I swear that these people are mentally ill. In what demented, delusional world do you live in? Alright, so I won’t just be roasting fools for the whole post although these types make it real easy. I’ve realized over time and looking back at the 2016 election that there is a growing number of people who actually embrace full government control. This is insane to me. It makes no sense. But then I think about it logically and I start to wonder if its really as surprising as I think.

Government Mistrust 

I wasn’t alive when John F. Kennedy was sworn into office, in fact I wouldn’t be born for another 29 years. It was around this time in history that Americans actually started to mistrust government. Of course, just a few years earlier Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his military industrial complex speech. The mistrust in government continued to grow especially after JFK was shot, and London B. Johnson came into office, only to escalate the Vietnam war against popular opinion, The sad part is that an unjust war is what it took to unearth mistrust. Now a days, we laugh because unjust wars are just the normal.

Fast forward 40 years; Socialism is acceptable

How did Americans go from Red Scare with Joe McCarthy to pushing socialist and idiot savant Bernie Sanders to runner up in a national election? Honestly I can’t answer that question fully but here is what I think the answer is: Entitlement. I think that Americans have become addicted to welfare. If you don’t believe just go look how much money we spend it on. Obviously its still far behind what we spend on war but that is an whole other post. Welfare in America costs about 700 billion dollars a year according to most current data from 2015 or 2016, If i remember correctly. All this welfare has led to a disease called entitlement. Everyone thinks their entitled to something. Personally, I know that I don’t deserve shit. I haven’t done anything useful. I’m basically a water bag with the emotions of rage and laughter. Anyway this sense of entitlement has some dangerous side effects.

Entitlement: Not to be confused with Ambien 

Yes, in case you were  wondering Rosanne Barr took ambien and wrote a racist tweet and she got fired then blamed it on ambien. According to Doctors, racism isn’t a side effect. Unfortunately entitlement is much worse than Ambien. Entitlement causes communism, socialism, racism, sexism, ageism, pretty much every –ism possible. But you may ask me; How is this possible, what is more humane than giving people help they deserve? Wrong, most of the degenerates on welfare don’t deserve it. Its unfortunate because its suppose to help those actually in need. But its abused by those who could work or could do something for themselves. Entitlement isn’t just the receiving of benefits from government (taxpayer subsidized) handouts, its also a mindset.

Collectivists mindset: Cancerous bullshit

The mindset of entitlement is the same that plagues boomers, millennial who support socialism, and people who justify welfare as helping others. Entitlement is a mindset of theft. It is always through the means of taxation which is theft and the ends are always to help people. The problem is that helping people with other people’s money is peak virtue signaling. What could be less helpful than stealing from the productive to help the lazy? The Government is enforcer of entitlement mindset, it rewards those who support it. There is a reason why is you speak out against entitlement, a rush of government bootlickers will come to your twitter or Facebook and write nasty comments or tell you that your heartless.

Breaking the Habit

So the question remains: How we do fight entitlement? How do kill off this collectivist mindset? Well there is no one solution but the easily way to kill the source is to get rid of the government. These brainwashed bootlickers who endlessly fight for more entitlement will die off with the government. The concept of charity and goodwill is way over their simple heads. Fortunately, Libertarianism or anarchism can be helpful for fighting against this toxic ideology. We can’t let these muppets ruin society forever. We must fight back. My suggestion is that we collapse the government, give these entitled retards a taste of what they want. A massive welfare state will always collapse on itself, it has throughout history. It sounds counter-intuitive but its honestly the best solution to the problem. Show people why this mindset is so deluded and dangerous. Government’s natural end is tyranny. Therefore, we need a socialist tyrant to show these idiots that actually entitlement is a dangerous source of power for government and shouldn’t be allowed in society.

Thanks for reading! Vote Bernie 2020

Twitter @gpslife12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

 

Alfie Evans: Socialized Healthcare is a complete FAILURE. Alfie is DEAD.

*UPDATE* Alfie Evans has died at 2:30am British time on April 28th. The Government has officially murdered a baby. It is a sad and disgusting day for humanity. Rest In Peace, Alfie.

I don’t believe this is a hot take. If you are even remotely in support of ANY of the actions that the British government/NHS has done towards Alfie Evans, then get the FUCK off my blog. You human scum. 

Sorry. I typically avoid using emotionally charged arguments or completely dismiss the opposition. But in this special case I will forever condemn you to bloody hell if you support this TRAGEDY perpetrated by the British. I have three basic objections to what is happening in Britain with Alfie Evans. Now if you haven’t heard about this then HERE is a run-down.

Hospitals must save lives!

One of the most immoral and disgusting things about this case, is that Alfie Evans is LITERALLY being held hostage by the hospital. They have police guards, and the doctors REFUSE to treat the baby. This is an absolutely disgrace to humanity. What the fucking hell did this poor baby DO to them? The Doctors should be jailed. They had absolutely no right to take Alfie off of life support. Treat his disease. The baby is only 23 months old. Not even two years. Even worse, there are doctors in Italy who are willing to treat the kid. Brings me to my next point:

Government IS NOT allowed to kill with “Dignity”!

The British government decided to somehow to block Alfie from being able to go to Italy for treatment. Apparently, because the British government would have to pay for it. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME! Listen, if your going to have SOCIALIZED medicine, the point is that GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR YOUR SHIT. This has to be legit the worse court decision in human history. Even worse than this, British health officials said that ” Alfie will die with dignity.” or some gross line. So let me get this straight: If someone wants to commit suicide with the help of doctor, its illegal. If someone wants to do closet abortion, its illegal and wrong. If your friend helps kill you for suicide, its murder. Yet, if the government benevolently decides to kill you with dignity then ITS TOTALLY FINE!!!!!

This is insanity! I don’t just feel bad for the baby but the parents. I would literally lose my mind. I would keep trying to sue them until they kill me. This is a GROSS overstep of government intervention.

Socialized Medicine DOES NOT WORK. Stop advocating for it.

Let’s face it, with this Alfie Evans situation, regardless of outcome, mind you right now Alfie is still breathing nearly 72 hours after being taken off life support. If Alfie Evans dies, it is on the British Government. The blood is on their hands. If Alfie Evans lives, the parents should move somewhere far away from Britain and BURN their fucking passports. If we set aside the emotional side of this story and just look at the bigger picture of government run healthcare, we can see that its a failure.

The utter failure of socialized medicine is disgusting. This case proves that we can never let government run our healthcare. Murder is immoral. It doesn’t matter how you justify it. I personally don’t want the government to make MY healthcare decisions for me. My doctor and I are responsible for that, alone. The government has no business in healthcare. The free market can provide cheap and fair healthcare with minimally invasive regulations and rules. Alfie Evans NEVER deserved this. The baby did nothing wrong. How can you let the government KILL A FUCKING BABY!

If you support free universal healthcare or socialized healthcare or single payer, you are a murderer. You are literally supporting the government’s right to KILL you with dignity whenever they want. Even the POPE, who is a known socialist, said that Britain should let Alfie go to Italy for care.

We have to wake up because we will become like Britain, killing toddlers with dignity for no reason. I believe that cheap healthcare is NOT more important than healthcare that doesn’t allow for killing with dignity. The cost of a human life is priceless.

Socialized ANYTHING is cancer. Please stop supporting.

I stand with Alfie Evans. I stand with is right and moral.

Stand up with me.

Thank you for reading!

Facebook: Garrett”s Life Experience’s

Twitter @gpslife12

#AlfieArmy

Tragedy of the Commons: Problem with Collective Policies

Have you ever heard of Tragedy of the Commons? Sound familiar? Tragedy of commons is typically associated with fishing. If fisherman go out to a popular fishing spot and catch fish at a rate that is more than fish reproduce, then that would be a tragedy of commons. Garrett Hardin came up with theory originally and applied it to biology or nature. There are many examples, but the basic principle is that demand overwhelms supply.  Just in case you fell asleep in Economics 101 or you happen to be Bernie Sanders then here is a little reminder of how supply and demand work:

I want to talk about tragedy of the commons in the terms of political policies and platforms. It’s a topic that is hotly contested among Libertarians and conservatives. On the other hand, Liberals tend to completely ignore it. Its this ignorance of the tragedy of commons that might explain why collectivist policies that liberals tend to advocate are just really bad. Liberals and even Conservatives both tend to argue for MORE government regulation in the face of a tragedy of the commons issue. (I’ll try to keep it relatively brief, one or two examples, I have a lot to say)

Let’s take on healthcare for example, is a tragedy of the commons. Liberals advocate for a universal healthcare system. This system would in theory depend on the taxpayer (theft) money to help cover the costs of healthcare. However, this policy would extremely expensive due to the increased costs to private health providers. Also the service given by providers would be slower due to a heavy volume and probably less staff. Healthcare is a complex issue but a tragedy of commons exists in both the taxation for it and the availability of quick medical care by providers. For example, in Canada, they have universal healthcare and experience longer wait times, sometimes for very important life saving procedures. In some cases they come to the US for faster care.

In short, universal healthcare is a collectivist policy pushed by liberals that creates many tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately the conservatives are not much better backing single payer with a government agency running the show. Less tragedy of the commons here, but still not the best option. The solution for a tragedy of the commons is deregulation in most cases, concerning government policies. In nature, like the fishing spot, the solution would be to have fisherman stop fishing in that particular spot until there were sufficient fish. I want to clarify what I mean by collectivist. Collectivist is a term usually meaning something is done in or by a group.

My second example is one of the hottest issues because of a vote coming up, Net Neutrality. Naturally my position is repeal because Net Neutrality isn’t consumer protections, its just dealing with bandwidth and if companies can block or censor stuff. From what I’ve read the new rules after repeal will be that the companies will have to report whatever they throttle, block, censor to the FCC who will make it public. I also see no problem with Netflix and Amazon and Hulu having to pay more for bandwidth. They use a lot of it, its only fair. Naturally that will be passed to the customer. However, the good news of repeal is that companies will offer different packages specifically geared toward streaming services. Unlike now, where you get all one price and it might be good or bad.

The tragedy of the commons in Net Neutrality stems from the issue of bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth that these companies can generate without losing money. Its interesting because if you look at bandwidth in a vacuum, it really highlights the problem. Watch: Let’s say Comcast and Verizon both offer 300 mbps of bandwidth under current Net Neutrality for an average price of 150 dollars. (Making up random numbers here). Let’s repeal those rules and see how prices and amount of bandwidth change. Under Net Neutrality, both companies would have similar prices and the max amount of bandwidth would be at 300, but of course you can pay less to get less. The problem with this is that the companies aren’t really competing. There’s very little variation because the going rate for bandwidth is 150 dollars for 300 mpbs. Everyone can gets to use that bandwidth to watch Netflix and play fortnite as much as they want. The companies might be struggling to keep all this bandwidth up with only 150 dollars per customer because their own business costs are going up.

If we repeal Net Neutrality, now Comcast charges $100 for 200 mpbs,  $200 for 300 mpbs and lets say $300 for 400 mpbs. Unheard of right? Well, Verizon charges $75 for 150 mpbs, $150 for 250 mpbs, $275 for 300 mpbs, $350 for 420 mpbs. Now you can see the competition as each company tries attract more customers. They may even offer a lower bandwidth but you get extreme streaming capabilities for an extra 100 bucks. Either way, the competition will naturally drive down prices. When supply goes up, demand goes down. In order to create demand you need to supply, but you also need to create an interest in your product and attractiveness or marketing.

The solution to the tragedy of the commons for nearly every aspect of Net Neutrality is deregulation. Let the consumers decide which companies will succeed and fail. Another positive aspect of net neutrality being repealed is that it will allow startups and other smaller companies to get into the market of internet.

I believe that through my two examples I have shown why some collectivists policies are broken due to the tragedy of the commons. I believe that the solution to tragedy of the commons is deregulation which means getting government out of our lives. This solution is the basis for the whole libertarian philosophy. If society is a tragedy of the commons then as libertarians we are for the deregulation and privatization of pretty much everything. Everything is harder in a large group. Its similar to when you ask your friends where they want to eat. Everyone has different opinion. Or when you ask your friends when they want to go out. Everyone is busy and has no time. Collectivism requires group-think and group decision making. Its not the most effective. Tragedy of the commons also tends to tread on the rights of the individual.

The rights of individual are the most important aspect in a free society. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Thanks for reading!

Please Tweet me @gpslife12 or like my facebook page at Garrett’s Life Experience’s

Hiatus Break: Big Picture Policies

Once again, I have been inspired to write. This time its because I witnessed a discussion in a class that I’m taking in college (Occupational Therapy Assistant is my major).  The class is a community health lecture. I expected to learn about health and how to be a healthcare professional.  Instead I got a lot of political statements that were pretty controversial. Given the fact that it was a health class and not politics 101 I kept my mouth shut. Trust me I was probably one of the few to feel that way.  I won’t even mention what was said but it got me thinking.

When people espouse political views and opinions do they actually think about the big picture? My personal belief is that most of time, people just have beliefs and views in a vacuum with no reference to the realities. I have studied history and politics for years and have learned to think about the reality before choosing to accept a certain view. A lot of times for me, I don’t know about anyone else, but I find myself objecting to the means of political policy not the ends. Typically political views and beliefs express the need for a positive outcome that everyone should want. However, I feel that most of time the means is either impossible, more destructive than helpful or just plain nonsense. I want to give a few examples of policies that express positive outcomes but the means of getting there is just not worth it.

Before I give my examples I want preface it with just a little explanation on my title. Big Picture Policies. I think the title is simple enough to understand because the words aren’t complex. But grasping the big picture of complex and difficult issues is very hard to do. It takes something they rarely teach kids anymore, critical thinking and logic. I know they say that they teach it but the reality is that kids are guided too much and aren’t allowed to have an original thought because education is all repetition and brainwashing. Fortunately, you can break it by studying things on your OWN. Self learning is very important. So when dealing in Big Picture Policies or BPP as I want to abbreviate it, you need to look the realities of your surroundings.

The realities of your surroundings is basically the effect that a policy has on other policies and people. For example, my first example is healthcare. Recently Bernie Sanders is back at again with a universal single payer healthcare system. (changes every week?) So Sanders supports this single payer medicare for all system. Now lets say he get his way and Congress (by some unholy miracle passes a friggin law!!! Unreal!) passes this single payer medicare for all. Obviously the outcome is positive for everyone because they get government subsidized healthcare. But what about the policies affected this legislation? Once again this sounds great in a vacuum but when you start looking around at your surroundings you can see the problems. One of the biggest policies affected is the US Federal budget. This new single payer healthcare cost billions even trillions of dollars. Recently, the national debt went above 20 trillion dollars! Massive debt is never a good thing. Another surrounding affect is the doctors, nurses and hospitals that have to deal with the changes in payments, patient frequency, and increased operational expenses.

Expanding medicare for all would also affect tax policy because the federal government doesn’t just have money they would need to raise taxes. Which directly affects everyone with a tax increase, rich or poor. So you could say it would even affect yourself. Unbelievably many people are just fine with these realities. I imagine they aren’t thinking too clearly about the consequences of massive national debt that is being bought up and held by our enemies and rivals as leverage over US interests.

Okay Garrett, so you made your point the realities are shitty but isn’t healthcare is a right? Glad you brought that up. Healthcare is in fact a privilege that you pay for. Let me explain like this: If you are doctor with a private practice, just imagine you drive a Mercedes Benz and live in a nice house in a gated community. One day the police and someone in need of medical care barge into your practice. The police tell you that this patient requires medical care. You oblige and say is it life threatening? They say no. So you ask for the potential patients health insurance or however they might pay. The patient refuses to give you any health insurance info or money. The police threat to take you to jail. Do you still help this patient? If you still help them would you continue to do for every patient? If you don’t help then its obvious that healthcare is privilege because taking care of patients might be your passion but its also your only source of income.

The point is that healthcare for everybody is achievable but you can’t force it. The government is not good at running things. (Country is a mess have you looked around? Veteran Affairs is government healthcare program and its horrible) I believe that good ideas don’t necessary need to be laws. One easy way of making healthcare for everybody is by decreasing the price. One of the best way to decrease prices is to let the consumers decide which service is the best for the money. This is called a free market system. Also natural competition creates lower prices because companies are competing for business. All it would take on the government’s side is the repeal everything and replacing it with just a few regulations to keep everything fair in terms of monopolies and consumer safety.

This is essentially how I look at every policy and judge it based on how it affects other policies. One of my favorite policies is Universal Basic Income. I did a whole post explaining how it might be implemented. Go read that first. Obviously UBI (Universal Basic Income) is a positive outcome for everyone because every citizen over 18 (non-felon) would receive a monthly stipend from the government. This policy over top of all other welfare programs would quite literally end America because of the massive amount money it would take. Things like inflation and lack of motivation would be huge problems. In my post, I revised it so that it could eliminate some of those problems.

One thing that I didn’t cover or even really think of in that post was inflation. I read something recently that made me go: oh shit! I think the easiest solution is to end the Federal Reserve. This would allow the government to stop printing money and readjust the interest rates and all that. To stop inflation created by UBI, basically no money could be printed and they would have take money out of circulation. By my calculations, the government would put about 500 billion dollars into the economy artificially so they would need remove 500 billion dollars from the currency circulating.

If you don’t know how inflation works then here is simple example: If you and five of your friends each have 5 dollars. You can all go to subway and buy a six inch sub of the day with your 5 dollars. Now lets say everybody gets an extra 2 dollars bringing each person total to 7 dollars. You all go to subway to buy that same exact sub which now instead of costing 5 dollars they raised it 8 dollars. So you can’t afford that sub. Inflation is devaluation of money. Essentially can it occur when minimum wage is raised, more money is printed than is backed up by gold or government bonds or when the government artificially stimulates the economy.  Now you may ask why did subway raise their price by 3 dollars? Well remember if everyone gets a two dollar raise then so do those subway workers. The cost of pretty much everything that is required to run that subway goes up, the workers are paid more so the ownership has to cover those costs. Usually its pass to the consumer because profits might be slim especially if his location has high renting cost.

Once again, this is a very simplistic example. Its much more complex than I explained. My point of this post is that when you espouse political views or beliefs try to think about the surrounding realities. Try to understand that policies don’t just have one positive outcome. You also understand that the negatives of policies might weigh more than the positives for some people. Its hard for people to understand but I’m for affordable healthcare, free college, and personal freedom on every level. However, I’m not a democrat or republican. I want all those things but I want them in a way that doesn’t hurt our future or present. Once you understand the realities and complexities you can come up with solutions to make dreams a reality. Unfortunately, the hardest part will be getting Congress to pass anything, so Good LUCK!

Thank you for reading! Have an awesome day!

The Deepening Divide: American Political Parties

You might be familiar with the term political parties. I think most people would conjure up images of a donkey and an elephant. Many people associate political parties with democrat and republican. In most countries, there is either no political parties or just one; or there are more than two. America is unique in having only two main parties. There may be some others but America is the best known. The point of this post is just to casually discuss the widening divide of the two main parties. I expect that with my own political compass to probably discuss the lack of a third-party.  Yesterday I was having a conversation with somebody who has some opposing views in terms of politics. The conversation really made me start to think about the political parties. In recent years, it seems that the democrats and republicans have gone to further extremes. Obviously if you were born in 2000 or after you probably wouldn’t notice.

You don’t have to be old to see the extremist stretch of the parties. All you have to know is a little historical context. I’m sure I have explained this before in some other post but its worth explaining again. Political parties started in America in 1776 on about the same day the declaration of independence was signed.  Typically historians will say somewhat ironically that after George Washington’s farewell address is when the parties really got going. I will get to George Washington’s farewell address too. But first lets discuss the political parties at that time. During the time before the constitution was signed, there were two sets of loosely based political beliefs. There was no actual organized parties til much later. The Federalists and the anti-Federalist. (Yes, very creative naming) The Federalists were led (loosely) by Alexander Hamilton. They believed that the constitution maintain a strong executive presence within the federal government. The anti-Federalists who led (loosely, not right away) by Thomas Jefferson. They believed that it should be the states who hold the majority of power not the federal government.

I say loosely lead because there wasn’t any organization not until after Thomas Jefferson’s presidency in 1801 to 1809. Now as for George Washington’s farewell address, this is part where its relevant to political parties: (Irony coming ahead)

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 Yale Avalon Project

So here is the ironic thing about George Washington and his address, Washington himself was not above joining a party. Throughout his presidency, he tended to call on his secretary of treasury and in the revolutionary war, his first clerk to attend to government business. Alexander Hamilton was one of George Washington’s closest confidants. He also happens to be the de-facto leader of the Federalist party. Washington was actually pretty persuaded by Hamilton’s beliefs. He felt that Hamilton had the country going in the right direction. Washington also did try to stay above the Federalist and Anti-Federalist mudslinging.

If we fast forward to just before the Civil War, we see that political parties have evolved from Federalist and Anti-Federalist to Whigs and Republican-Democrats. The names seem to be different and very much the same even ironic. However, the Whigs represented the Federalist view in many ways. The Republican Democrats represented the Anti-Federalist view. The Whigs dominated the north and the Republican Democrats dominated the south. Abraham Lincoln was the end of the Whig party and the beginning of what many call today’s Republican party. At a contested convention in 1860, Lincoln was able to swing votes to his Republican party from the majority Whigs. From Lincoln time until Teddy Roosevelt, the Republicans and Southern Democrats dominated American politics. Even now, parties tend to be very regional and sectional in popularity. Its one way to define who votes for them. Of course up til 1919, it was only white men who owned land then women’s suffrage was passed.

Teddy Roosevelt was elected by a third-party, one of the few presidents to do so. The 20th century represents a major change in the parties. After Teddy, the political extremes begin to take off. You can contrast the parties in the alternating decades of their rule. The republican decade of roaring twenties saw relaxed government meanwhile the progressive era of 1930s to 1940s  with Franklin D. Roosevelt saw the Democrats dominate because of the Great Depression. The democrats also held power during World War 2 and afterwards with Harry Truman. The 1950s saw the rise of Republicanism in Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was actually pretty moderate by today’s standards. The 1960s saw JFK and LBJ, the latter passing the Great Society, the so-called “second New Deal”. The 1970s saw even more moderates like Nixon and Carter but leaned Democrat. The 1980s is when the extremes pushed higher than ever with Ronald Reagan. Since Reagan, the Republicans have pushed for more tax cuts every year. The 1990s stay relatively moderate with Bill Clinton as a centrist democrat.

My point is that over years it seems like Democrats and Republicans seem to farther apart than ever especially today. I believe this last election really show how deep the divide came. I think when you politicians like Bernie Sanders running, whose view is more socialist than democrat, you have a problem. America always been able to stay the course and not veer to extremes. In part thanks to our constitution and our checks and balances. You know its extreme when Donald Trump is considered an acceptable candidate and is elected. I don’t have a solution to this extreme push to fringes. However, I would propose that we allow more than two dominate parties. I’m a libertarian and I take some opinions from both sides and mold them into one view. I think that being extreme politically is like being ignorant. You can irrationally argue just about anything but you won’t make progress. In order to make progress, you have to accept that there are other ways to achieving the same goals. I think one of the bests to describe the dysfunction of our political parties is that they all have the same goal with a different way to get there.So why can’t we just compromise. The reason is simple. Democrats want big government to control every aspect of our lives except abortions. Republicans want government out of lives except when it comes to abortions. We need to make our goal to make America the best it can be by any means necessary. We need to compromise. Until we can do that then the only thing that will happen is Congressional deadlock and fighting.

Thanks for reading!

Hack-A-DNC: The Real Face of the Party

Unless you live under a rock or maybe if you just really don’t care about politics then there is a good chance you have heard about the DNC email hack. Just the latest series of events proving that Democrats aren’t exactly the ‘good people’ they try to portray. You honestly couldn’t write this stuff if you tried. The origins of the hack seem to be from some pro-Russian hacker group or the Russia government itself. The origin of the hacker doesn’t change the content. Of course, Hillary and her campaign has been too quick to point out that these Russia hackers are trying to help Trump. However, there is no proof that says that’s the case at all. It seems that the DNC and the Clinton were collaborating to help Clinton and discredit Bernie Sanders. Not only that but they also degraded and made awful statements about voters and Sanders’ staff. This post will not be very long because the facts are out, I just want to point out that this is real democratic party.

I already knew that the Democrats were not the party of inclusion and fairness. Just look at their policies. Every policy that they propose is just a scam to help the elites. They market to the poorest, stupidest, and most underpriviledged people so that they easily trick them! Even worse, they are racist cheaters. Let’s start with poor Bernie Sanders who was not only cheated but also derided for his religious beliefs. If you read any of my blog you probably know that I am no fan of Sanders policies or platform. However, I would never attack him because he is Jewish. I would never call his campaign manager an asshole. It’s one thing to disagree with somebody. It’s a totally different thing to absolutely assualt their character and person.

As if that wasn’t enough, the DNC and their crooked ChairDemon (I don’t care, Debbie you belong in jail) also rigged the election so that it was an guarentee that Hillary Clinton would win. That is the eptiome of corruption. I am not even surprised. People need to re-evaluate who their voting for. If you think Trump is bad, the DNC and Clinton make Trump look like a good choice. At least Trump won fair and square. The worst of all these emails besides the assualt on Bernie, is the racism and sexism. Just type in google, DNC leaked Racist emails. You can find a few juicy ones. Like calling the outreach to Latinos the “Taco Bowl Engagment.” No Trump didn’t say that, it was the DNC calling their biggest base of voters fucking Taco Bowls! Are people really going to fucking vote for these lowlife pieces of shit?? Honestly!

Someone please help me understand this…The Democratic Party is the Demoncratic Party. It didn’t stop there with the racism. They even made fun of a black woman’s name. I won’t even say it because its that terrible. But if you want to see it, then here it fucking is. The biggest piece of shit is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is the Queen of the this evil empire. She is the mastermind behind slamming Sanders and fostering racism and sexism. She is the same woman who resigned from the DNC in shame, then in no shame was hired by Hillary Clinton to work on her campaign. In my opinion, this whole campagin and convention should have been stopped immediately. Number 1: They cheated, so there should be a re-vote. Number 2: Bernie Sanders should sue them for harassment and slander. Number 3: The FBI needs to put both Hillary and Debbie in fucking jail.

So If I could impart you with just one piece of advice, don’t vote for those crooked, lying, racist, sexist, piece of shit people that call themselves Democrats. Never vote them for again because they are probably slandering you in their private emails.  They probably think your retarded for even wanting to vote for them. They know how bad your gonna get fucked. 

This being said, with all my french, You should seriously consider a third party candidate. I would recommend Gary Johnson. However, if your dog or neighbor makes a better candidate then by all means write them in.

#NeverHillary #NeverDemocrat

Thanks for reading and sorry for the swearing but I’m pissed as hell.

 

US Foreign Policy: Terrorism is the New War

Welcome back to the second installment of US Foreign Policy  as it relates to the presidential candidates and their future presidencies. Today, I will continue a little bit on my China and US narrative. Then I will start on a new issue which can be considered the most alarming threat to US national security. If you read or watch the news you know all about ISIS. I am more interested in how the candidates intend to fight back against ISIS. I will also preview a short history of terrorism, very similar to this post I wrote awhile back. I would encourage you to read both that article and read my last post: US Foreign Policy: Commander and Peace. I hope your ready for some complex international relations because these two situations typify two classic international relations circumstances. Just a warning, this post may be very long.

In my last post, I started out talking about the Chinese rise to a world power via economic dominance in manufacturing. I also covered the economic interdependence that tie the US and China closely. In my concluding statements, I talked about Hillary Clinton and her corporate connections that might draw us into war because of corporate and self interests. Now I want to try to explain as simply as I can, the order of preferences for both China and the US. Trying to pick out preferences or national interests in this case, can show us where the relationship between China and US is heading. Its nearly impossible to predict because sometimes actors make irrational decisions. However, most of the time, it is assumed that actors are rational. A rational decision maker follows standard logic of any given circumstance making it easier to predict. Also my perceived preferences could be totally wrong because I’m merely an observer, not an actor inside China or the US. Observations can be inaccurate due to a lack of information. For the sake of education and knowledge though, I will try to be as accurate as possible.

Let’s start with China’s preferences or national interests. Its clear from Chinese actions that they want to build up their power. I would say that power is China’s first preference. They already have economic power but they want to be considered among the great world powers. The Chinese have perceived by history, that they have been sort of second class in terms of world power. This perceived lack of power leads into their two second preference or national interests. Chinese are looking to become influential within their sphere of influence. I can tell this because the US influence in Asian is quite large. The US holds some type of alliance or mutual defense agreement with Japan, Philippines, and Vietnam. Japan is a powerful economic engine itself. Also they happen to be a Chinese sworn rival. The last Chinese preference from what I can tell, is the continuation of their economic dominance. This is both a power AND influence preference because the economy can allow a country the resources and wherewithal to pursue their national interests.

Of course with any preference order there is a preferred set of outcomes. Based on the China’s building up a navy and their defiance of international law, one outcome is war. I would assume that in a rational decision making process they would try diplomatic  or non-violent ways to get power and influence. However, I sense that now after nearly 20 years of economic dominance they still don’t feel respected. The outcome of war is very likely something that the Chinese would embrace given their large navy and abundant population. The only downside is that their opponent is already who or what their aiming to be.

The US preference is very similar to the Chinese but for different reasons. The US prefers to maintain their power because unlike China, the US already has the world power and elite status. The US also prefers to increase their influence in Asian to push back China via the Asian pivot. America also prefers to increase their economic production to catch up with China. As you can see, the US preferences are similar to China’s because the US wants to keep China from gaining too much power and influence. The most important difference is the outcome of war. US does not want to go war with China, hence the Asian pivot. Another factor that helps US national interests is economic interdependence with China. It also hurts the US because China has the same ability to effect a war.

Now in the perspective of a presidential candidate like Trump or Clinton, they will have access to much more classified information and intelligence. The most important foreign policy decision in regards to China is how to handle their bullying of other Asian countries. We can’t get caught up in their games. Its very similar to a game of poker, if a player bluffs a good or bad hand, then its up to you to figure out which their trying to hide. Sometimes you guess wrong. I believe that as long as Clinton or Trump protect US interests only and don’t try to overreach, they can keep China at bay. At the very least avoid a war that might cost over a billion people due to nuclear weapons.

If you haven’t done so already, please read The Post 9/11 Narrative vs. The Past 50 years of American Foreign Policy. This is will give you some background about terrorism, also you could read my post on 9/11’s 14th anniversary. In order to save my word count and your time, I will get right into ISIS and how the candidates might deal with it. I think the best place to start is with former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State is an appointed position within the President’s cabinet. The Secretary of State is responsible for diplomatic relations with other countries. Under Clinton’s tenure, the rise of ISIS happened among the civil war in Syria and chaos in the Afghanistan and Iraq. Many news pundits like to blame Bush for creating a power void that let ISIS come to power. I don’t want to get into how it was formed or why because it would take a rather complex, scholarly effort to conclude such a hypothesis. However, if we look back on how Clinton handle foreign policy situations we can see how her policies might unfold as president.

One of Clinton’s most controversial moves as Secretary of State was a decision to leave ambassadors in Libya despite the dangerous conditions in the north African country. The political scandal that has followed Clinton because of the deaths of these four ambassadors under her watch. It has become known as the Benghazi Scandal. I feel like Clinton’s handling of the situation was poor, however the surprise attack cannot be faulted on her. At the same time, she should have known that surprise attacks are common and had prepare an appropriate security force to protect those ambassadors. I think from this situation, I gather the Clinton will follow a policy of national interests over human interests. During her tenure, she choose to remain out of the Syrian Civil War, which has just begun a year or two earlier. This was despite the reports of Syrian president Assad killing his own people. Once again, Clinton doesn’t deserve all the blame because I feel she made the right choice.

The Syria Civil war is a very complex conflict within the country of Syria. There are multiple warring factions. It would be stupid to get involved in such a conflict. Even to this day, President Obama and new Secretary of State John Kerry, have decided to stay away with the exception of training some rebels and bombing campaigns. An all out war on Syria would be more costly than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Unfortunately one consequences of not intervening has been the formation of ISIS. We have seen how Clinton handled some situations as Secretary of State, but how will she handle ISIS as president?

In the next series of this US Foreign policy, I will take the each of the Candidates platform on Terrorism and see how that will work against ISIS. To concluded this post, I will talk a little bit about why Trump worries me in foreign policy. Then I will do quick explanation of my title. Donald Trump is by profession, a business man. He brags about his book, Art of the Deal. Despite Trump being a savvy businessman, I have some anxiety about his foreign policy. Business deals tend not to have as high stakes as diplomatic talks can. Trump has to remember that in foreign policy, he represents the world’s most powerful nation. There are other countries and terrorist who want to see America go down in flames. Trump negotiating skills will definitely come in handy. However, his knowledge of foreign policy is probably not on par with many other past presidents.If there is one thing he could do to sooth my fears, it would be to get a very experienced Secretary of State that has been in foreign policy.

Obviously I can find positives and scary negatives about both candidates in foreign policy.  To conclude this post, let me explain why “Terrorism is the New War”. If you remember in your American and Global history classes,  in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries it was common for States or Nations to fight against each other. There is a multitude of wars that pit two or more countries against each other. The wars usually start over economic, religious, or land issues. Now, in the 21st century, we have seen a dramatic change in the face of war. Since the 9/11 terrorist attack, we have seen wars not to conquer other countries for land. The wars fought especially by the US have been over religious extremists and some economic interests like Oil.  War has changed and so has how we conduct foreign policy. Whoever becomes President in January 2017 will be dealing primarily with a terrorism threat. It was much easier when Nations fought each other because you know who your negotiating with. Also it was easy to impose international sanctions. Now, terrorists are just groups of people with a common cause. They don’t care about being diplomatic, they want to use force and coercion.

In order to defeat these terrorist who feed off fear and overreactions, we need to unite as country. We need to unite as allies with Europe and Asian. These groups of terrorist are not new or invisible. They are human beings. Whoever is President will need to bring peace of mind and stability. Their leadership will be instrumental in fighting back the terrorists. I personally feel that their intentions are to incite war. The best defense against another costly war is to be determined to keep peace through increased homeland security of our borders. We must keep out those terrorists and allow those who deserve to be here, to come freely. The future of our nation rests upon the foreign policy decisions made in these critical years.

Part 3 of this series in a few days! Thanks for reading!

 

General Election: Political Superbowl

As we approach June, the end of the primary season is near. There are two leading candidates whose nominations are in line without any major incidents. The primaries are always different than the general election. The primaries tend to sieve out issues in both parties. These headline issues then morph into the broader fights in the general election. On the Republican side, there is a lot of turbulence because of Donald Trump’s surprising run at the nomination. In some ways, the Republicans have splinter into different groups varying in support of Trump. It has revealed the establishment republicans haven’t been able to come to a consensus about any candidate. In the process, they have made room for a candidate like Trump. In an exact opposite reality, the Democrat’s have found their candidate in Hillary Clinton. Clinton has successfully talk down her baggage as Secretary of State. The Democratic establishment is firmly behind her despite the resurgent and popular Bernie Sanders.

(Pictured Above:By Abraham Lincoln, digital reproduction by George Chriss (GChriss). With prior publication, the Emancipation Proclamation, the most famous Executive Order became effective 1-January-1863. – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1627541)

This is post is more of an introduction to general elections. I have in previous posts written about different aspects of general elections, like the Electoral College.  I enjoy minute details of elections because its an interesting statistical study of the American voter population. The way that different people vote of different socioeconomic background, origins and biological sex. There is even regional bias that show up in the voter data. The voter base has changed dramatically since beginning of America. George Washington was elected strictly by white, landowning, men. A war hero like Washington is actually an common feature among Presidents especially before the 20th century. (1900) Over the years, the voting process has changed dramatically. After the civil war, free blacks were allowed to vote, however, Jim Crow laws in the South prevent many from actually doing so. Then in 1919, women’s suffrage was achieved throughout the US. This dramatically changed the way that Americans voted. The 1920s and beyond saw women gain a voice in politics and in the workforce.

Forty some years later, Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Voting rights act which made Jim Crow laws illegal. Unfortunately, some of the Southern state courts have rejected parts of this act. Voter suppression is a real problem among black and minority voters in the south. The most common form is now through voter id. Recently, I believe in Alabama, they closed all but 4 DMV offices so that voters could not easily get IDs. This type of voter suppression and the change in population by ethnic origin creates an ever changing statistical analysis of the American people. For example, the increase of Hispanics via immigration has created a large Latino bloc of voters. This changes the dynamic of who becomes president.

In my title, I refer to the general election as the political Superbowl. The general election certainly holds the most gravity in the American political sphere. Not only does the leader of the Free World get elected, so does most of congress. I have often stressed that voting is so important as a civic duty. Part of the reason is that congress seats are just as important as the presidency if not more so! The general election may be the Superbowl because of the presidential candidates, but the playoffs would be the congressional elections. These state wide elections hold greater consequences for the American people than the president.

Let me explain why the Presidential election is overrated and why you should be concerned who your state’s senator or house of representatives are. Its actually an simple explanation because if you know how our government operates then you can see it. As you probably know, the legislative branch writes and passes the laws. The executive branch executes them and makes sure they are being imposed in every state. The Supreme Court makes sure the laws are followed correctly and thanks to Alex Hamilton and John Marshall are constitution visa via Judicial Review. The legislative branch or Congress makes everything that government does, happen. They approve the budgets, increase and decrease taxes, declare wars, confirm appointments and etc etc. The President’s job has expanded but it remains simply to sign laws, veto laws, push for new laws, and be the Commander and Chief.

So if you are worried that Hillary or Trump might be the worst President ever just remember that their presidential fortunes are tied to the ambitions of Congress. Now if you follow politics closely there has been some outrage about executive orders. I can’t say that I blame Obama because house republicans tend to block everything. However, executive orders are not like martial law or above the constitution. Executive orders can be challenged by the Supreme Court. You can rest easy knowing that no President has unlimited power. Checks and balances are a wonderful thing. Each branch of government can be checked by another. Now I realize that Trump and Clinton don’t strike many people as favorable candidates.

You can also bet that Congress will be the opposite party of the elected Presidential candidate. Its almost inevitable that if Hillary Clinton is elected that she will deal with an Republican controlled senate and house of representatives. The same is true for Trump, he will deal with a Democratic senate and house of representatives. In rare cases of overwhelming sentiment there has been a same party President and Congress. More importantly, my point is that Congress controls what laws are made and passed. So unless your like me and your voting for Gary Johnson, then remember to focus on those congresspeople.

Despite who you vote for, just remember that Congress has the power. They are the engine that makes our government go. The President is just an enforcer and voice for foreign relations. So my point is that the general election has the hype of a Superbowl because of the Presidential election but the Congressional elections are the playoffs that really count in the clutch. I want to quickly go back to foreign relations, I have not written a whole ton of foreign relations posts because usually its a general election issue. I have a quite in depth knowledge of international relations. In the future, I will definitely be looking at foreign relations and how the candidates should act as President. The wildcard will be Trump because we have not seen him in such a role. At least with Hillary her stint as Secretary of State can clue us into what her foreign relations might look like.

Stay tuned for more foreign relations and election analysis. Thanks for reading!

 

Economic Intelligence: Politicans Lack it

Its occurred to me on multiple occasions that politicians seem to lack any sort of intelligence in regards to economics. My last post was a heated detest of Trump’s printing money comments. I scathingly scold him for being so stupid about messing with our currency and debt. Trump’s comment literally make me think that candidates running for President think that money grows on trees. In some magical way their tax plans and spending outlays will work out in some kind of utopian dream. Let’s be honest though, its not just Trump, its Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, even recently dropped out Ted Cruz and John Kaisch. I think for me, the biggest weight of decision on who to vote for is through economic policy.

As I usually do, I want to pose a question then slowly answer using historical and modern references. This time instead of posing any real question I just want to review a little historical background on who made our economy because its the subject this great biography on Alexander Hamilton. Then I want to review why the policies of both democrats and republicans alike are misguided. I may also dive into the problems with our economic system. The best starting point on a such a broad topic is to actually narrow it. More specifically, I want to discuss the taxation throughout American history. Then I want to get into the federal budget and debt.

On the subject of taxation, there is famous saying from the Revolutionary War that was a common rallying cry for independence from Great Britain. You may even remember this saying from middle school history: No Taxation without Representation!  The British heavily taxed the colonies to pay for their ever-growing debt. The monarch, King George III had many foreign wars and colonies to protect. As a result, high taxes were levied on the American colonies. The problem was that colonists had no representation in the British constitutional monarchy. When the colonist tried to gain influence and resisted the taxes, the British responded with even harsher taxes. In a simplified version, this lead to the Revolution and ended with the American colonist winning the war.

After the war, the issues of taxes came up again. The main proponent of America’s future financial stability was Alexander Hamilton, first secretary of Treasury. Hamilton wrote and pushed through many of today’s financial laws in government. Hamilton was able to establish excellent credit through the payment of debts. He was able to consolidate state debt and federal debt because each state held its own debt before the constitution was created. In order to make sure that the federal power came before the state’s power, Hamilton pushed for the consolidation. Hamilton also created bonds to help pay for the war debt. The main form of income in the early 1790s was import duties. Hamilton revamped the customs, invented the coast guard and cut down on the smuggling. (Smuggling was popular during the Revolution against the British.)

As the United States grew bigger its need for government revenue increased. Obviously this meant an tax on actual citizens. While Hamilton was still alive there was no such support for an income or land tax. Part of the reason that many rich landowners were against it, the same ones that were also in government. It was not until the Civil War that an actual income tax was passed.  The government also tried varies taxes on goods like alcohols. This only resulted in rebellions. These measures were never popular. Of course as we progress to the early 20th century we can see that taxes increase by each decade. One of main sources of income by the federal government was through bonds especially during the World Wars. If you don’t know how bonds work then its basically a government backed loan. You pay 100 dollars for a bond slip. In a certain period of time your able to cash it in with an interest rate.

In modern times, by this I mean post WW2, taxes are generally considered to be fairly certain like death. Taxes have always fluctuated, such as during the 1950s into the late 1960s with the Vietnam War saw taxes go high. Then in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan cut taxes and the trend of lower taxes continue up until about the early 2000s. Of course, our tax code is very complicated due to politicians messing with it. Many former presidential  candidates wanted to scrap this tax code. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse because I have talked about tax plans numerous times. To save my word count, I will just generally say that all three current candidates tax plans are either very wrong or very misguided or both. (scroll through my blog to find their tax plans)

Alexander Hamilton did a ton of good for America’s financial system. He also held the opinion that being in debt was a good thing. I honestly think that if he knew that we have accumulated 20 trillion dollars in debt, he would roll in his grave. America has always been in and out of debt through our history. You can typically identify times of debt with wars. I have also noticed that following a war, the debt will vanish due to economic dominance. The best example is probably World War 2. The post-war period saw America as the world’s number one creditor and business leader. This is mainly due to the fact that most of Europe and Asia had been destroyed. I believe that and many economists believe that our debt is way too big. It will nearly impossible to pay it off. Not to mention that people like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders want to wreck havoc with insane policies like printing money and spending as much as 10 trillion!

***

So your probably wondering where exactly I’m going with all this history and modern references. (to the bank, of course!) First, I think that Economic Intelligence is more than just an understanding of economics. Economic Intelligence is knowing when your policy is working or not working. Its knowing that printing money will surly ruin us, DONALD TRUMP! Economic Intelligence is being smart about money, its being similar to Alexander Hamilton. I’m not saying that Hamilton is the end all–be all, but his wisdom on economics has endured over 200 years. The fact is that I could take any of the three clowns running for president and poke holes in their economic and tax plans. The problem is that really don’t understand how economics works. Repentantly, they haven’t been paying attention because the last 75 years have shown that their methods won’t work.

For example, Hillary and Bernie plans to raise minimum wage and use a democratic socialism platform has been tried before by countries of similar or larger size. Let’s take Russia for example under the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin. All these communism leaders installed a socialist economic system or state run economy. The Russians faced problems of shortages, starvation and to add insult to injury, genocide. In a similar fashion to what Sanders wants to do, Stalin also wanted to take down the rich people. Guess what happened, he certain took them out by killing them. State run economies just don’t work. You need capitalism because the market should decide. I think economically speaking, I would rather have some poor and disadvantaged over having many poor and disadvantaged.

Unfortunately, economics dictates that re-distribution through unnatural means leads to more distress and poor. In addition, the biggest and most irritating issue that of spending and debt. I would love to understand how printing money won’t lead to disaster. Also how will spending MONEY decrease our debt that was created by SPENDING money? In conclusion, I want to underline the point that economic intelligence is necessary in a good presidential candidate. History has shown us both good and bad ways to make an nation economically viable. We need to choose carefully otherwise face consequences not unlike economic unintelligent nations before us.

Thanks for reading! Sorry it was so long!

 

Trump Goes Full Retard

I was peacefully eating my brunch of spaghetti because I didn’t wake up in time for breakfast. The TV just happened to be on CNN. I don’t typically watch CNN. However, for the few minutes that I was listening I heard a sound bite and explanation of Donald Trump’s newest controversial comments. These comments were regarding the national debt. If you haven’t heard yet, here is a link. I could not believe what I was hearing. I could have expected this from some democrat especially on CNN. I never heard any politician propose such a disastrous plan to fix our national debt. And yes, this is even worse than Bernie Sanders whose grasp of economics is about as good as a first grader.

Of many troubling statements that Trump uttered, I found two pieces to be the most unwise and cringe-worthy. So now I will quote parts of his quip then explain why ‘Trump Goes Full Retard’ as my title indicates.

If interest rates go up, and we can buy bonds back at a discount, if we are liquid enough as a country, we should do that. In other words, we can buy back debt at a discount. People said I wanted to go and buy debt and default on debt, these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you.

Well Donald Trump, I hate to tell you that buying back bonds at a discount is an unadvised action that would have major consequences. You see the US government has one of the best credit ratings in the world. (Recently was downgraded from AAA to AA during the recession though) This means that if we buy back bonds at a discounted rate it would undermine the value of those bonds therefore making the government liable for lost money on investment. The result is our credit rating sinks even lower! Its similar to private loans when you don’t pay the loan back in full, it tends to sink your credit rating and crush you with creditors phone calls.

The other problem with buying back bonds whether at an discounted rate or not, is that what money will you be buying with? Trump’s tax doesn’t actually raise any revenues because he doesn’t specify any spending cuts. I am curious to see how he will buy debt without just making more debt. It sounds like a person who addicted to credit cards. Its a good analogy because if you use the credit cards to outspend the money you actually have eventually it turns into more maxed out credit cards. The rate that your debt will increase will be huge because of interest rates. I don’t know what makes Trump think that creating debt by buying debt will help shrink anything. In fact, its bound to make it even worse. Trump is literally treating the national debt like its junk bonds or securities. Its totally different because your messing with America’s hard earned financial reputation.

My rant doesn’t end here because the second part of his statement about “you never have to default because you print money” is even more insane than the first part. I think Trump needs to go back to Economics 101 with Bernie! I believe that its common knowledge that printing money is a risky proposition. Its been tried before too by Europe, Asia and even here in the US! The results are never good. Just look at Germany during World War 2. Hitler decided that printing money was a good way to pay for his war. It resulted in mass hardships for the German people. The money was useless paper and all commodities like food and oil were either very expensive or scarce.

I hope Donald Trump realizes the printing money can lead to things like inflation and devaluation of money. As of right now the dollar isn’t the strongest because of the repeal of the gold standard. The dollar is only as good as the government that issues it. If Trump were to print money to pay off the debt this is what would happen. First off, he would never pay it off because before he could print enough money it would be pretty much worthless. Second, inflation would go way up given that our national debt is 20 trillion dollars. Third, the price of everything would go sky high because of inflation and devaluation. Just imagine a dollar being worth the equivalent of a less than penny. You would need hundreds of thousands of dollars just equal the value of a dollar now. I’m not sure of the math but I’m pretty sure that it would only take a couple billion or trillion to make it worthless.

Up until now I haven’t been too hard on Trump. Obviously his ridiculous stances on immigration and women are hard to overlook. I think we all know that Trump’s fantasies won’t come true because the US government tends to repel any major change. To some degree, I think that Trump tries to sensationalize his views in order to get media attention. I also feel like he may not truly be married to his policy positions. He is also not a politician by nature. Despite all of that, I had to throw down the hammer. These comments are pure garbage. It would be one thing if made any economic sense. I just hope that if Trump ends as President that he selects some good economic advisors. For the sake of America’s future financial status.

I hope the Trump supporters will make Trump realize his fatal error. We could be in some seriously trouble if Trump is able to pull any of this crap.

Thanks for reading! oh and Trump, YOU NEVER GO FULL RETARD!

Source of Power!

If you have not heard yet, the 2016 campaign has taken a strange twist since this past Tuesday. Both Ted Cruz and John Kaisch have dropped out of the race! No, Trump didn’t deport them. However, this paves the way for Trump become the presumptive nominee barring any convention chaos. One of my very first posts was on Trump, a polarizing and controversial character. Now Donald Trump is a businessman and a successful politician. He seems to have accomplished something that everyone thought was a joke. He also has marketed his “business mindset” better than his predecessor Mitt Romney in 2012. I predicted that Trump’s media coverage would probably propel him very far in this presidential race. Trump is not your typical republican, because he uses the News Media as his second party helping get the nomination.

However, the real challenge for Trump is yet to come. Hillary is a veteran politician and has been on many campaigns including her own senate races, 2008 presidential bid and her husband’s presidential campaigns. For now, I will wait til to primaries are over to start breaking down the general election. As of right now, its pretty clear who the candidates will be. This post is not going to be all about Trump and Clinton. This post will combine some modern politics with those of Alexander Hamilton’s time. I started this amazing book named after our first Treasurer, Alexander Hamilton. I realized that Hamilton was a great founding father with today’s democratic values in terms of government power. I couldn’t believe it. Let me explain.

Alexander Hamilton was a part of the federalist party before and after the signing of the constitution. As a federalist, Hamilton believed in a strong central government that had control over the states. The federalist beliefs were pitted against the much less organized anti-federalist. The face of this group was by far, Thomas Jefferson. Anti-federalists, as the name indicates are against an strong central government. They believe that the states should hold most of the power and that the central government should be weaker.  If you paid attention in history class you might recall the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison were the authors of this series of newspaper articles meant to help ratify the constitution.

Now let me explain the beliefs of both republicans and democrats in 2016 politics. Then I will make a nifty comparison bound to blow  you away. In 2016, the democrats believe that the central government should be strong. Just look at how Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supports government programs to help people. Obamacare is another example of government power. When they want to raise the minimum wage or make federal education curriculum that makes for a strong central government. On the flip side of that Republicans typically want less government (OK its a little flawed, actually libertarian beliefs are closer to anti-federalist beliefs) with looser regulations on business, no minimum wage, privatized education and healthcare. So like I was saying Hamilton would be kinda of democrat…just look at this:

Federalist and Democrat believe in strong central government

Anti-Federalist and Republican* believe in a weaker central government that gives power to the states. 

That is just crazy to think about that one of our smartest founding fathers had today’s democratic values. Then again maybe its not crazy because thanks to the federalist, we have the great constitution that we have today. I think its important to realize how our government came into being.This is just one small facet. Many of our founding fathers drew on the classics like Machiavelli, Cicero, Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Locke. Our government was not just made up out of thin air. It’s actually strongly based in Roman political theory and enlightenment economics.

You may be asking yourself why does this federalist and anti-federalist even matter. Well, it matters for two reasons. One of George Washington’s warnings in his farewell address was to avoid political parties. The federalist party and anti-federalist were formed right after he left office against his will. As for the issue of the power of government would never go away. In fact, it lead to the bloodiest war on American soil, the civil war. Before I talk about how the Civil War was actually issue of government power, I need to discuss the colonial times.

You may know the before the colonies became states they fought in a revolution against England. In the colonial days, each colony was considered its own separate entity under the British Monarchy. The colonies had their own economies, their own money, their own laws plus the laws that the King passed. This tradition of being independent did not just magically disappear when they won the revolution and signed the constitution. It is evident even before the signing of the current constitution that the states wanted to keep their independence. The Articles of the Confederation were used for a few years until a new constitution could be written. The Articles of Confederation did exactly what the Anti-federalist wanted. It made a weak central government with strong states. The problem was that the states could never agree on anything. It became a similar problem to when you and your group of friends try to pick a place to eat and who’s gonna pay. One person wants Mcdonald’s because their cheap, another person wants Chinese, another person wants steak. You can almost never decide because everyone’s intentions and motivations are different.

Fortunately for us, the federalist did win the day with the constitution. It settle those pesky problems with the states independence. It equaled out the balance of power with size and population using compromises. Now let’s fast forward about 60 to 65 years from the signing of the constitution in 1789. This brings us to the civil war. The main issue of the Civil War was slavery. However, the deeper issue which causes many historians to debate is that of state’s rights. This time it was the southern states trying to claim their right to keep slaves. The question of the time was whether or not the southern states had the right to keep slaves or did the federal government have the right to outlaw it? History decided it with a war, as Abraham Lincoln put it to keep the Union together. Lincoln maintained that he would rather keep the union together by freeing all of the slaves, none of them or some of them. He didn’t care which one.

In end, the 13th amendment to the constitution was passed that outlaw slavery in the United States. The southern succession proved to be an error because the union had the economic and population advantage. States rights play a big role because the war wasn’t just to keep slaves but about the right to keep them. The odd thing is that slaves actually hurt the southern economy. Slaves often put poor whites in poverty. The slaves only helped produce an overstock of cotton to be sold to Europe. Unfortunately for the south just producing cotton wasn’t enough to win against an industrialized North.

Today states rights usually appears in the politics of education because of government legislation like common core or No Child Left Behind. The same fight still exists partly because of the interpretation of the constitution and partly because deep down the states will always feel like they need to have a say.

I hope you enjoy this post. Thanks for reading 🙂

*(More accurately Libertarian because we believe in no federal taxes and minimal regulation)