Eknath Ende

Thanks Ruveyn. This is political history of America (very brief, mainly about its degeneration from republic to chaos). As I said about communities’ need of appreciation (or their demoralization), so also individuals more obviously need it. I believe that my book will play a good role in stopping the slide and turning America around. But if there is only demoralization around then we have to accept our fate.

(Just a response of some basic points, I have not even re-read. My sub-article about the phenomenon is much longer. I no more see the need to spend too much time when men have such opinions and I will end this argument from my side.) Af-Ams wouldn’t have known what is freedom, what are rights, what is champagne etc except for the magnanimity of the Anglo Saxons, as are the conditions in Africa – the world too would not have known civilization (its cornerstone being ‘rights of an individual’, a uniquely ASP concept) – More importantly, even today, neither the world understands it all, nor the Af-Ams who misuse that freedom and those rights to behave as a racial block and undermine the emancipators; and there are vested interests working all over the world (including inside America) not to let anybody understand the whole phenomenon. The whole world looks at America as Satan’s Land and as looters – but even within America this view is slowly being encouraged that the white man is evil. There is an imminent need externally to set an example and tell other people whom they should respect and emulate. The world will do it in its own time and till then will suffer the consequences. But there is more imminent need to do it within America so as to protect the way of life of the white Americans, which is substantially eroded due to lack of identification of who is eroding it. There is an imminent need to expose that party. It is the GOP that emancipated them, or rather the more rational whites fought with relatively less ones (the Democrats), who even later on ran KKK, segregation etc – BUT – who later on saw that this mass of emancipated people can be used for vested interest by again undermining America by huge doles, and who now “own” this vote-block by continuously further eroding America by socialism (which is not collectivism in your view so as to oppose me) and Reverse Racism. They vote 95+% for the Dems specifically for undermining America and this is merely their individual right and not a movement of destruction purposefully encouraged! The repeat of the same encouragement is now started with the other appreciable (in fact bigger) ‘minority’ who even run race based organizations like El Raza (the Race) – but this is their fundamental right, and one is not to identify it and alert rational people? I have not thrown dirt on GOP as ‘angry white men’, evil men have done so and encouraged by those who hate the good for being the good. It’s going on for very long time now – and one should not say anything in defense! (The danger of white-American becoming Nazi is far less than he getting demoralized and losing the meaning of his system by attacks of Reverse Racism; their sense of life is very strongly individualistic. They may become Nazi if demoralization is not stopped – but to do so requires identification of who is doing it. There are people who agreed that the whole movement is going on to exactly crush the white American by demoralization. Ayn Rand’s views on racism are limited to a single, small article when the more prevalent danger and example were KKK and Nazi respectively. Moreover the same were views of the Anglo Saxons who freed them. BUT – even there she has reproached the “Negroes” as soon as she saw irrationality on their part. (Changing their label to Af-Ams was a minor part of encouraging their irrationality). Reverse Racism, which is showing its true colors now, is the bigger danger. I cannot read Ominous Parallels not being available to me, but that too seems to be of the same period. Today Lincoln’s view – yeah, the same man who emancipated them – is far more important, and to be considered in arriving at a solution – that the two races are so apart that they will not be harmonious, so should be separated. This applies to a large section of mankind – unless they don’t adopt individualism and practice it properly they become a danger to the more rational people. It also raises questions: what are the preconditions to emancipating others and to what extent is it proper to endanger a free country to take risks? Just as men are good and bad, countries are good, bad, fanatic etc, so also communities are so because of their choices (culture / conscious or sub-conscious philosophy etc) and identifying it as example to less rational, and as precaution to more rational is not racism at all. They undergo demoralization, and require appreciation too (all of which requires identification of the phenomenon.) After having done so much good from which the world has benefited so much, to go on one way damning them, without the least recognition of their good, and to go on encouraging the irrational to destroy – there is hardly any evil on earth that can match this! The thesis of my book is that finally the emancipated people, who misuse their emancipation in a democracy, destroy that society – like the plebeians did to Rome mainly for the sake of doles, and which is what will happen in America. Leave alone 1-2 people here, even if most Americans do not accept it I will die with my theory – history will prove me right. A comparison of incidences I have described in the book is as follows: In 2012 there was news about Mitt Romney talking about his ASP roots in Britain, special relationship etc, but the next minute he denied to save himself from the haters. (This relationship is far older but the phrnomenon of Reverse Racism against white man has come to fruition now – not one cannot talk about that relationship which Churchill, Thathcher etc emphasized so much!) In the 60-70s a man named Cassius Clay purposely changed himself to Islam to taunt white America because Africa is majorly Islamic. Even then there were cannibals like Idi Amin and many other Islamicists were developing; what Ali got is sympathy and appreciation while a large section of whites merely hung their head in shame. So Romney is a white racist if he talks about his roots – and they being encouraged as Af-Ams is their freedom! It is the haters of the good for being the good that have encouraged so much destruction of America that she is in her last leg of fall. So Obama inviting UN in America’s internal matters is his freedom; opposing him is only because he is black! Earlier I thought this was just cowardice – now I see full scale hatred of the good for being the good. (Just a response of some basic points, I have not even re-read. My sub-article about the phenomenon is much longer. I no more see the need to spend too much time when men have such opinions and I will end this argument from my side.)

Thanks to these charges of racism (perhaps some resulting out of the deep misunderstandings created by political vested interest), I suddenly realized (i.e. sort of revelation, what Ayn Rand called as 'the light bulb effect') that there is an irrefutable argument against these charges. At the moment I am not producing it in this comment. But those who want to make allegations only when words white, anglo saxon etc are used, should reply to my previous comment -- why Af-Am allowed, why are they not only Ams, why El Raza (the race) allowed, etc. Please see that comment from me, just above. Presently I have included the following in the book based on John's comment above: Why single out Nazis, because of the holocaust, or white skin? Commies (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and many others), many Hindus, Muslims etc did same, but Dark Ages are most well documented (and this too was white skin). Whole human history is the same – even the Greeks and the Romans who produced the base of all human knowledge were not magnanimous to other races. Amongst all these ‘ways of life’ named after people only the Anglo Saxon ‘way of life’ is unique in its magnanimity and enlightenment, and the knowledge it has produced. What is wrong in stating this till ----- at this point comes my irrefutable argument against charges of racism against whites, included in my book, but not in this post ---- Does one become a Nazi or a Commie – or to use your charge – a racist when one says Anglo Saxon? Now, how to kill this magnanimous ASP ‘way of life’? Apart from the slow poisoning of welfare state, promote and pamper other races as ‘minorities’, name them as Af-Ams, Hispanics etc and practice huge Reverse Racism (described ahead). Create special name for some Americans as Af-Ams, but as soon as one utters Anglo Saxon, declare him to be a racist! All of this is the technique of those who practice hatred of good for being the good. When this happens beyond tolerable limits and threatens to destroy society, whites will resort to racism against entire races. This is described ahead as Backlash, which is developing in the US. An important part of the technique of the haters is not to allow study of racial characteristics, i.e. facts related with races (may be genetic / biological, i.e. evolved in nature, or cultural, i.e. due to underlying philosophy, ‘way of life’ etc, and therefore transient, changeable – as soon as such a study is undertaken, or one mentions superiority of certain races (obviously ASP in this instance because of their ‘way of life’), the hater starts shouting hoarse about racism while he himself practices covert Reverse Racism for nurturing vote-blocks. (At the moment this is not against anybody on this board, but vested interest who have deeply entrenched this practice). It is now upto the benevolent community to take their right back to study facts about races. Because some Chinese traveled twice in a container box (and died in the second attempt) to breathe fresh air in ‘the land of the free’, because some Afghans, Iranians etc ran away from their countries (usually carrying their hatred for freedom along with them), therefore it is not necessary for the benevolent community to feel embarrassed in pronouncing ‘my Anglo Saxon culture’ – they should not feel embarrassed that 4000 year old slavery overlapped the initial years of their great nation – they should be proud that ‘our culture emancipated whosoever is free amongst men on earth’ – and they should immediately undertake study of races for various purposes listed ahead. (The whites should realize that while huge Reverse Racism (described ahead) goes on in their society, only they not being allowed to refer to racial characteristics is a suppression of their freedom of thought and expression, of their right to defend themselves from things inimical to them. As far as I am concerned, they can call me a racist; I shall call them as ‘haters of the good for being the good’.) PS: I have also posted the third OP from my book, Post 3. Those interested in knowing truth beyond artificial chargesof racism may please see and shift discussion to other comments.

Post-3 of “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons?” Aspects of US Political History that changed the Republic to chaos of Democracy Legend: ASP-R == my book The Anglo Saxon Protestant Revolution; FFs == Founding Fathers of America; TPM == Tea Party Movement; Af-Ams == African Americans O’ism (ist) == Objectivism (ist); Dems and Reps == Democrats and Republicans (Note two points about the following: 1. The analysis of FFs’ actions, described in the following, is to be looked at from the above angle of inheritance – all of America’s great achievements are a climax of classical English philosophy, particularly Locke, and the negatives that have caused today’s slide are also part of the same philosophy, for the later generations to rectify. 2. It is very difficult to summarize the FFs’ political thoughts in a few pages, let alone 1 – 2 paragraphs. Sometimes they were contradictory, and there were many instances of being right on some scores and very wrong on some others. Some of these wrong ideas, differences of opinion and ego-problems were so strong that only god saved the fledgling republic in its infancy! Talks of secession, charges of sedition and bloody revolutions against their own government, etc were abundant. Non-payment of military salaries and its reduction leading to defeat in 1812 almost happened. Such were the ego-problems that George Washington stopped talking to Jefferson in later years; but its climax was Hamilton getting killed in a duel with Aaron Burr! We hardly call this type of ‘chivalry’ as civilized in present times. But still – further qualifications apply, that the contradictions / differences of opinion were about complicated issues coming from the past, many of which are even today unresolved! Honesty was not scarce despite a few exceptions – and honesty is different from ego-problems, different from being misinformed or wrong on some scores. Overall, they were the most enlightened of their times, were far ahead of most of the world and quite committed to individual liberty. What saved them is their commitment to reason, i.e. the Aristotelian atmosphere of those times. This being the situation, I have included below, the points I found to have maximum influence on subsequent development of America.) George Washington should be acknowledged amongst the greatest leaders of all times sincerely committed to the idea of a rational rule he demanded from the British. Apart from his military abilities and leadership qualities, his continued commitment is seen in one action he repeated several times in his life – no quest for power over others though within easy reach for him. Though he was very capable of leading the revolutionary army and appeared at the first convention of the Revolution in full uniform, he did not seek the post of commander-in-chief but was offered the same by others. He showed tremendous tenacity and courage in fighting a war with huge disadvantages of hastily recruited army without training, less money (which means fewer supplies, ammunition etc) against the mightiest empire spread all over the earth. As soon as he won the war he resigned from the post – an act that I do not know of anybody else committing in history. Nobody would have objected, mostly voluntarily, had he adorned the crown. He was unanimously chosen the president two times, and he gave up power setting a precedent of maximum two terms and an example that the post of president is meant for work alone and not for exercise of power. Because of the above Americans lost their most beloved president and he lost his life (otherwise he would not have contacted the fatal infection in the fields.) For months and months on the nation mourned. (He is an exception, perhaps the only one, to the rule, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.) Because he favored Hamilton’s Federalist Party, he was accused by Jeffersonians of being pro-monarchy and against republican ideals, because of which they even delayed erecting his memorial; but the above mentioned aspects of his life (and some other good aspects available in his biography), surely go against the charge. I surmise from reading about him that he was the perfect republican and not merely self-proclaimed and alleged one. He believed in political equality i.e. equality in front of the law, and therefore inequality in terms of returns to the individual, which would be as per his ability to produce. Not only that he did not misbehave with lower strata of society, but preached civil behavior with them. He set up funds for upliftment of Af-Ams and even made provision to set free, after his death, the ones who served him – all of which is, as said earlier, huge progress over inheritance. The FFs, though far ahead of rest of the world, were far from free of religion and prejudices. Continuing with Greece and Rome, they talked of ‘inalienable rights of an individual’ in gradation only, with very little of it applicable to slaves. Their individualism arose out of salvation of the individual’s soul within parameters of Protestant Christianity with aristocracy still having special privileges over ‘commons’ in England. This was the root of the intellectual war between Jefferson and Hamilton. Hatred of other races and religious denominations continued as far as 1960-70 (civil rights, JFK etc). Of-course all this is not exceptional – other Europeans were doing the same in a worse form, and Germans displayed its lowest depth in WWII – and even worse things go on all over the earth, India’s continued untouchability being just an example. Such was the hold of religion that Thomas Paine died a very disgraced death because of his atheism – and note the eulogies accorded to him later on by men like Lincoln and Edison! People even rhymed after the Revolution that without Paine’s pen Washington’s sword would have been in vain! (But such is mankind that a man who contributed so much died a disgraced death.) The FFs had studied the Roman Republic well. (E.g. Cato was an inspiration for the American Revolution, and many amongst FFs, foremost Washington, were his admirers.) Yet, even while they hated democracy, condemned monarchy and aristocracy, and eulogized republicanism which they endeavored to achieve, the demarcation between a republic and majoritarian democracy was not drawn properly. Their inability to do so is seen in Jefferson’s party which is variously called as The Republican Party, The Democratic Party and most popularly, The Democratic-Republican Party! (I met many Americans on the net who beat their chest, “ours is not a democracy but a republic” – Jefferson is the father of their republic and he called it as democracy in the previous quote, “The democracy will cease to exist …”.) This line of demarcation has not been drawn even today. Another thing to be noted is that it is very difficult to draw this line – not a simple matter. It needs work to be done on lot of complicated items, some of which are mentioned at the end of Part I. (That demarcation consists of whether majority is allowed to violate individual’s rights or no, to what extent government intervenes in the realm of ideas, in the economy, etc.) Despite this short-coming, the American republic achieved huge greatness because of Aristotelian sense of life prevailing then. (This misunderstanding about the American political system being totally different and moreover far superior to democracies and decadent monarchies of Europe is quite strongly established in American minds, so I will clarify it a bit more here, some further points being available elsewhere in the book. One explanation about American system is that it is representative democracy, not a democracy of unlimited majority rule. But all said and done, it still works on the basis of majority opinion – in America it is 50%+1 basis because of two-party system. (50%+1) is not even absolute majority, but just the majority of votes polled – and in triangular and multi-polar fights it may not even be 50%+1 of the votes polled, but just the maximum number of votes! In India parties come to power at state and centre levels even with votes between 20 to 30% of the populace. Imagine that with those numbers they can take complete rule in their hands! Remember that absolute majority is far better than maximum of the votes polled which could be as less as 20-30%, where America will eventually land when enough degeneration happens! The “Inverted America” described at the very beginning has been achieved on the basis of this 50%+1 majority (or maximum votes) only. It is because of this that I recently added the phrase “Worship of majority” to the title of Part I (this part) of the book; “Worship of majority” as major quest in American political history since the Revolution is fully described in this part. And about Rule of Law as part of their Republic -- If one gets laws changed with the help of this 50%+1 majority, then one gets a dual advantage while inflicting injustice and carrying out plutocracies – cheat, loot and still maintain a civilized face of rule of law. Then rogues perpetrate crimes but are seen as ‘unselfish’, law-abiding, looking after welfare of society etc, while honest people become ‘selfish’ usurpers. This is explained ahead in Part II as “Achieving Sainthood and Commission by Charity, but at the cost of others”. In more backward democracies the suppression of citizens carried out by obtaining 20-30% votes is unbelievable. Checks and balances become meaningless when the law itself is legally twisted. As far as wrong definitions / ideas that lead to such misunderstanding as the above are concerned, Americans may be nurturing the notion about democracy as the one which was practiced in ancient Greece – deciding issues based on number of raised hands. But such a democracy can never be practiced in most modern countries including the original thirteen colonies simply because of the large population and the distances involved. If any one wanted to be as close to Greek democracy as is practicable, it would exactly be like US or India, a so-called representative democracy which ultimately (in the long run) yields results similar to a democracy of unlimited majority rule. A properly defined republic would not have allowed the US to reach today’s degenerated state described at the start as “An Inverted America”. To give actual examples of what is going on in the US in recent times post the New Deal, apart from the sub-article on “Inverted America”, ‘too big to fail’ plutocracies etc, very recently there was a controversy about G W Bush(43) having said that “the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper”, which was never fully clarified. There are statements attributed to him such as “There ought to be limits on freedom”; “I care what 51 percent people think about me” etc. The last one is ‘direct democracy’. Obama was charged with using the executive order too often in his first term to side-step the Congress, undermining Rule of Law, Checks and Balances, etc.) Hamilton’s Federal Party considered men to be unequal – which is correct if seen in terms of men’s abilities and performances, but wrong if for this reason they were to be treated as politically unequal (i.e. unequal in front of law), and if this was further to be extended to privileges like European aristocracy. (Since Washington supported him more than he supported Jefferson, it is more likely that he did not propagate inequality in front of law.) The Federalist Party was mainly city based, had the support of bankers, financers and industrialists. Hamilton is normally held to be a proponent of modern capitalism in US, but his policies also included a national bank which could be the fore-runner for today’s Federal Reserve that operates the dollar printing factory to finish off the world economy. (See ** Note below.) His party’s drawback was that it never spread to the rural areas, amongst the farmers and the lower sections of society where the major chunk of voters lay – as if they did not matter at all. This party had a very strong influence on the federal government up to 1800, winning the first presidential election after Washington, but after this it never won many elections and slowly disappeared from the political scene. (One wrong view of Hamilton’s was to elect a President and Senators for life-long – it was never given any importance but merely used to malign him by his political opponents.) ** Note: The importance of Aristotelian sense of life can be seen in the following: The expenses of the national bank during Hamilton’s times almost never exceeded 2% of American GDP, at a time when America was a poor, agrarian country. (This can change during emergencies like war, but for that purpose one should not be on the look-out to create artificial wars!) Today, when America’s GDP has risen so many, many times, the government’s expenses exceed 25% of GDP! The most important difference between the two times is the Aristotelian atmosphere and its erosion due to democracy described in this book. The solution too is based on maintaining state and federal government expenses at a very small percentage of GDP. State and federal governments should be run as fiscally prudent corporations which will not go insolvent. Ahead, other instances of the importance of Aristotelian sense of life are given – the Draft, policy of FFs about wars consequent to spreading Empire of Liberty, etc. It is more important to study Jefferson’s party because, unlike the Federal Party, all later American politics to date is mainly influenced by this party. (I believe that the statement “All men were created equal”, though of-course made with the best of intentions, upheld as great by the whole of America, is the root of today’s degeneration.) As said above, the contradictions start right with the name of Jefferson’s party – the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson was predominantly anti-capitalist, against banks and financial institutions (all of which he held as root of corruption, but which is not so if the market is unregulated); he was pro-agrarian to the extent that he is charged with creating inequality in favor of the poor farmer. Accumulation of wealth, the back-bone of capitalism (and of an industrial society), is what he wanted to avoid by means of a graded system of taxation. (It can be inferred that his republicanism was close to egalitarianism, but which again was not extended to Af-Ams.) Woodrow Wilson and T & F Roosevelts repeated this egalitarianism. If Jefferson’s anti-capitalist thinking had really displaced the overall reasonable pro-science and pro-technology thinking prevalent amongst the ASPs, the US would never have become today’s leading nation. While being strong amongst the Southern farmers, the party was charged with the intention of strengthening slavery, and finally it was the Southern farmers who did fight for slavery. Jeffersonians believed that every citizen had a right to education, irrespective of their circumstance or status in life – but considering that all education costs and has to be paid for, this type of thinking is the root of government entering so many fields it should never have (ideas and economy in this instance). Shedding a lot of tears for poor Mexican children, Lyndon Johnson tried to complete his agenda 150 years later – in fact today’s Democratic Party is pursuing this agenda very seriously, and how this has contributed to class and racial divide is derived ahead. As per commentators, Jefferson considered it as Americans’ duty to spread Empire of Liberty to the world – many Americans of that time strongly opposed entanglement into wars. As part of his alleged “idealism”, Woodrow Wilson later on preached the same “duty” to Americans, but strong opposition also continued and only after WW II they launched into building an American empire. (Many politicians of both the parties have been using this idea for their war-mongering policies, Republicans most recently. But there is a hitch in it – Jefferson, and most others of the time were completely against conquest and a very good quotation to this effect is given ahead. Jefferson had two ideas in mind – eliminating British / European aspirations in North America, in particular Canada then; second, they thought of emancipating other people of the world. Second idea is dangerous if stretched beyond America’s national self-interest. Today’s politicians, mainly GOP, are opportunistically using this idea not only for war-mongering but in recent years for spreading empire of slavery via the UN.) As surmised by me, the reason why the Federalists won initially was poorer peoples’ awe of aristocracy on immediate release from it. (Other factors like money-power, tacit support from Washington etc may have helped.) And apart from Washington’s exit, the other reason why it soon had to vanish out of the political scene is that it never tried to woo the lower sections of society who were soon to become an appreciable majority – this majority determines the rule in democracy as it progresses over the years. The success of Jefferson’s party was based on capturing this lower section of society, after which it enjoyed a near monopoly influence over power for almost 25 years. (There is likelihood that, as men more loyal to principles of republicanism, the Federalists did not want to deviate from them in quest of wooing majority – but in that case either they had to come out with a solution to majority’s destructive power, or accept defeat.) The Contradictory Behavior of the Splinters of Jefferson’s Party As is normal, a large group enjoying such a monopoly usually breaks due to internal differences – around 1828 one faction separated out calling itself as (today’s) Democratic Party; the other faction formed an intermittent Whig Party, and finally in 1854, today’s Republican Party. Both the parties seek every opportunity to claim their descent from Jefferson’s party. The names of these parties do not necessarily convey what they stand for. Both are descendants of Jeffersonian ‘democracy’ in all respects, and all American virtues and vices, all pros and cons, draw-backs and contradictions of that party were inherited by both. For example, Theodore Roosevelt ®’s “trust-beating” is the same as Jefferson’s mistrust of large banks, financial institutions and accumulation of wealth in general. After Woodrow Wilson and FDR, today’s Democratic Party took over his agenda of egalitarianism-populism and heaped unearned benefits on all have-nots including Af-Ams. Prior to that, being anti-business to show themselves to be pro-people was mainly the Republican Party’s role, both parties being contradictory to their names. (What has happened is simple – while America is riding on the momentum of the past, the weaknesses / vices have magnified because of democracy.) Some facts about these contradictions are unbelievable. Slavery and Republic versus Democracy Today, Republicans are taken to represent big business, capitalism, and freedom from government (i.e. a republic) etc. So Af-Ams, Latinos and poor whites are generally against it (and the party cadre is frequently accused of racism); the above groups support the Democratic Party. But in reality the Republican Party waged a civil war for abolition of slavery (it was perceived as European inheritance), while the southern wing (of that time) of the Democratic Party fought for slavery, and decades after the civil war Democratic Party’s Woodrow Wilson imposed segregation! (This means that the racist elements of Jefferson’s Party actually went to the Dems, and still it later on hijacked most Af-Am voters.) This fight against slavery is laudable – but the famous slogan of the first President from Republican party, Abraham Lincoln, about a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is a direct blow to republicanism despite the party name, delivering government into the hands of the majority – sooner or later it is to turn into “of the mob, by the mob and for the mob”. (It could also be an attempt to show the party to be pro-majority and attract votes!) This means that they continued not to be able to draw the line between republic and democracy. Religious views Today, GOP is taken to be pro-religion and its church base is obvious: abortion, school prayers, Limbaugh, Beck, previously prohibition etc are examples. This is also the root of its inability to differentiate between: unselfishness and right to life, non-egoism and freedom of thought, private charity and government sponsored one! GOP’s big contradiction about religion is as follows: private men have right to preach any religion and form any associations based on it, but for a political party, being pro-religion has only one interpretation: imposing a particular religion even on dissidents, imposing some religious views on others – a government cannot be pro-religion in any other sense, because finally it has to adopt some religion, sect, or the church of a particular denomination – or a mixture drawn from different sources to which the majority agrees – but finally it has to impose this on a disagreeing minority. GOP may just be strengthening its hold over its voter-base of ASPs / Christians, but considering the first amendment and the diversity of religions in America, its religious bias is in total contradiction to its claim of championing individual freedom. (As already explained earlier religion’s intent is specifically to crush selfishness and egoism while America’s huge moral advance over rest of mankind is to allow men to be rational egoists, even if indirectly via right to life and freedom of thought and expression.) But Christian roots are not exclusive to GOP alone; originally Dems too were Christianity based because of inheritance from the past; both parties were like the Christian-Democrat parties of Europe trying to “combine” Christianity and freedom via democracy. Christians divided themselves amongst the two parties on group lines like ‘pietist’, ‘liturgical’ etc, influencing party policies despite separation between state and church. But as the Dems shifted towards communism via the welfare state (post Woodrow Wilson and FDR) in response to Reps’ show of being pro-people, the Reps inducted more of Christianity in their policies to gain votes. (I have to mention here, though it has not got developed properly in the book, that GOP’s ‘Dark Ages’ agenda of relying on religion to garner votes is as much or more dangerous than the Dems’ communist push. Religion will finally end in declaring ego and selfishness to be evil, except when practiced by the nexus of politicians and businessmen, throwing the greatest achievement in mankind’s history, the American Constitution, into the sewage tank. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage which made many Americans vote for Dems despite not liking the latter’s increase in doles, may become the cause for the civil war referred to ahead. Yet temporarily I have suggested that status quo be maintained in their case so that rational men are not divided in their fight for a small government limited to its legitimate functions alone, like they were divided in 2012 presidential elections. All this is especially for GOP-voters, i.e. ASPs, who consider Dems to be inferior.) The Draft One more item in both the parties’ list of contradictions is the draft. But for this I will produce two paragraphs from Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism the Unknown Ideal”, article “The Wreckage of Consensus”. From page 227: The most immoral contradiction – in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups – is that of the so-called “conservatives”, who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher -- though not much higher -- rung of hell should be reserved for those “liberals” who claim that man has the “right” to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but no right to life? Unquote The second quote is far more shocking – traditionally, military duty has at least some aura of patriotic need, attack by enemy, security of the country etc. The second quote is direct enslavement without such a seeming excuse. From pages 228 & 229: in World War II, the military draft was used as a justification for proposals to establish labor conscription – i.e., compulsory labor service for the entire population, with the government empowered to assign anyone to any job of its choice. “If men can be drafted to die for the country”, it was argued, “Why can’t they be drafted to work for their country?” Two bills embodying such proposals were introduced in the Congress, but, fortunately, were defeated. What political group, do you suppose, came up with a notion of this kind? Both bills were introduced by Republicans – and were defeated by organized labor, which was the only large economic group standing between us and a totalitarian state. Unquote. (Note one important point about America, repeated for emphasis – so much the Aristotelian sense of life prevailed amongst the ASPs that organized labor played the role of champions of freedom against the alleged champions, the Reps – nowhere else on earth is such an enlightened, benevolent labor force possible as in America during her better days. Effect of Aristotelian sense of life was seen previously when comparing government’s expenses during those times and now despite a central bank then – less than 2% of poor farmers’ government versus more than 25% of trillions because of debt! One more instance comes ahead as FFs’ policy about war consequent to spreading “Empire of Liberty”. Another country would have collapsed long time back due to such assaults, but America’s foundation was reason! Since Americans do not give much importance to this magnification of vices, “simile of Mt Everest” is very correct to describe their descent.) Today GOP is taken as pro-business, but its doings about the hugely anti-business 1890 anti-trust Sherman Act is so unrepublican, that it merits the next sub-article. But do not conclude one party to be the villain – performance of both is described all along the book. Nineteenth Century -- The Great Era of Republic and Unregulated Capitalism Note: In the analysis below, do not confuse capitalism with today’s plutocracy just because world calls it as capitalism and today many foolish Americans have joined them. Pure capitalism has never existed anywhere on earth, but America on her founding was the closest to it, as against today’s socialism and plutocracy under the name of capitalism. Despite all the FFs’ short-comings and lacks, commentators say that the nineteenth century, the most capitalistic era of free markets in man-kind’s history, was also the best era of laying the foundations of future industrial achievements in western countries, while the twentieth century has undone the freedom of those days, making government the owner of business and of people. Many like Ayn Rand hold 1890 Inter-state Commerce Act as that boundary. The start of capitalism is political, viz. granting freedom (or right to life) to the individual, but its most important social consequence or end is accumulation of money in a graded manner in the hands of a few at the top, the number of men slowly increasing (and money-power slowly decreasing) towards the bottom. Occupy Wall Street is presently protesting against this structure of society (as of Sept-Oct 2011). As shown in detail in ASP-R, ALL societies have the same pyramidal structure (with rulers at the top and masses at the bottom), except that only in capitalism it is based on morality, while in all other societies it is based on immorality, force and fraud. In capitalism men rise to the top as per the returns they get from the free market in exchange for the ideas and materials produced by them. In all other societies, Plato’s Men of Gold rise by suppressing rest of society. That is the reason for the massive boom in knowledge and production, that under capitalism the producers get freedom and strong incentives to do their best, and major portion of society strives to rise. It was this requirement of capitalism that was hit by the 1890 anti-Trust Act – the result was that the structure remained (i.e. few at the top and maximum at the bottom), but honesty was compromised and government and plutocracy crept in, exposing businessmen to compromise with causeless government authority and intrusion. It did not instantaneously change America to a completely irrational society like communism or religion but rendered it as an in-between diluted semi-rational version. Reason given for the passage of the 1890 Act is to restrict monopolies that cause danger to society. Many commentators (libertarians, Ayn Rand and her associates) have shown that free-market monopolies are not the same as the co-ercive government monopolies. The intent of non-coercive private monopolies is “selfish”, but they come into existence and continue to exist only so long as they keep serving the market the best i.e. finally giving best returns to society; else competitors are just behind to replace them at the first chance. Government monopolies (i.e. coercive) on the other hand exist by suppressing all competition (i.e. capability) and holding knowledge static, freezing all impetus for improvement, though their alleged intent is unselfish (i.e. alleged welfare of society). The 1890 Act, in which again the allegedly pro-business GOP had taken the lead in promoting governmental control over business, does not have any basis or rational arguments to back it except “majority opinion”. This act was believed to be pro small farmers (a huge majority) and anti “big business” (a minority). Theodore Roosevelt of GOP is said to have made the maximum use of this act against big businesses while the Dems like President Cleveland (The Bourbon Dems) were then pro-business. Perhaps TR is the only President called as “trust-beater” for too strong a stand against large corporations – this is apart from passing the Sherman Act in 1890 -- so much for GOP’s pro-business, pro-individual rights stand. TR coined the term “a square deal”, to convey that the ordinary man would get justice under his rule – instead of everybody getting justice, why single out the ordinary man during the days of trust-beating if not to please the majority? And who did he mean threatened the ordinary man? Of-course the small minority of “big men”, the businessmen! A famous sentence about his life is that his father was unselfish and would not tolerate selfishness in the children – what this is to be taken to mean in a rich family of slave-owners some of whose relatives had joined the Confederate army? Like his relative FDR later on, TR too is voted as one of the greatest of US Presidents – their only specialty seems to be using the government to favor the small man for personal elevation. (GOP’s anti-business stance then, is one of the major factors that have today made the government so very big that the Soviet Press made the above observations of the US having far surpassed them in socialism.) Why such contradictory positions and somersaulting of the two parties? The clue to it is the word majority in a democracy. This is the word over which the Federal Party vanished. If a party did not have enough votes, the party would become useless in democracy if a firm line of demarcation between democracy and republic did not exist. The developments just ahead will explain the reasons for this. But it can be argued that the source for transformation from free markets to government controls is in the Declaration of Independence itself, or rather in man-kind’s tribal state over which the FFs were making huge progress, though not complete. The idea of “unalienable rights of individual” in the Declaration is a giant step towards civilization, but the phrase about “consent of the governed” has potential of going back to savagery, which is slowly actualizing. Rights of man are not subject to consent of the majority – the majority has to accept it as self-evident truth and basis of a civilized society, else the majority is a tribe. (This paragraph includes a very important idea for a burning issue today, viz. that civilization is a gradual process and men cannot be separated from each other (i.e. a Free Society cannot be achieved) overnight – it will happen only gradually, with issues being separated out serially.) “Consent of the governed” seems to be borrowed from John Locke’s essay on Civil Government. In the same essay he says that all men have to submit their sovereignty to the majority, qualifying that “it being only with the intention in everyone the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse)”. (Chapter IX, ‘Of the ends of Political Society and Government’ of essay on Civil Government, Page 130 in the book ‘The Political Philosophers’ edited by Commins and Linscott, Modern Pocket Library, New York, 1st Printing 1953.) Locke and FFs after him have the correct intention of implementing individual rights but have depended on the good sense of the majority (Aristotelian sense of life) being dependable forever, which it did not remain so in the 20th century in America. (Its effect is shown in the first casualty in Atlas Shrugged, the first businessman who does not vanish but retires, “You did not expect the majority to do this to you?”) To depend on the majority for individual rights one has to draw a very distinct line which the majority will not violate to infringe on the individual’s rights. (I surmise the intent of the FFs, and I have to surmise it because they were not explicit about all their ideas, as follows: that the individual has the unalienable right to his own life (i.e. rational selfishness, also see the phrase “it being only with the intention in everyone the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse”)), but in running a government there will be huge differences of opinions and occasions of conflict – to overcome these, opinion of the majority is to be resorted to, so as to keep the overall right to life of the individual intact! The point where the slip occurred is not ensuring that the majority did not become the arbiter of truth in every aspect of life, which is what it has almost become today. This point is important and should be used for future development – to protect the individual from the majority to the extent possible (i.e. where knowledge is clearly established), but to take recourse to majority opinion in case of a few emerging issues becoming controversial.) Achieving Sainthood and Commission by Charity, but at the cost of others – the Witch-Doctor (This idea is explained better in Part II with examples of Johnson, Kennedy etc Democrats. As said in ‘Note of Helplessness’ at the start, this book lacks organization, but that can be done only later on.) So far (upto Theodore Roosevelt, about 1910) the Republican party was the most un-Republican, undoing the republic, playing by the side of the majority to get votes – now it was their opponents’ turn to play the same card. The response came with a big bang! Woodrow Wilson ended the competition between the two parties by incorporating all irrationality of the past into ‘Wilsonian idealism’, which heavily influences American domestic and foreign policies to this day. (Every evil that is practiced by US rulers of both parties today is preached in his ‘ideals’. Nobody can come close to him, let alone surpass.) Apart from his typically non-American Southern Racism (segregation even after Civil War), his policies that are most relevant to this discussion are: pushing America into wars for the suicidal purpose of “making the world safe for democracies”; opening the gates for ‘unlimited’ government interference into economy by de-linking dollar from gold and establishing the Fed (allegedly to overcome crises in economy); establishing the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen the 1890 anti-monopoly act. With his “idealism” he made it possible for others to achieve what I have called as “achieving sainthood (and commission) by Charity, but at the cost of others” (i.e. practicing charity via government to achieve superiority (while grabbing money), private charity being legal). Commission and money are in brackets because of the higher probability that corruption became common later on. His undoing the gold standard to support Bank of England’s irrational policies (including empire building) later led to the biggest economic crisis in modern history, the Great Depression. Crises like Great Depression are a normal consequence of every governmental intrusion into economy, to undo which repeal of the original action and time for healing are necessary. But instead, irresponsible politicians and bureaucrats blame it on businessmen’s greed, freedom, capitalism, etc – and follow up the original irrationality with further intrusions as remedial measures. To cover the crisis caused by Woodrow Wilson’s abolishing the gold standard, FDR initiated his New Deal communism supported by printing dollars, which almost landed America into the abyss. (Any rational man who reads details of the New Deal will call it only as that except that the first amendment was not undone, so it was economic communism. Making the first amendment redundant without declaring the intention to do so is being pursued in the 21st century, after the irrationalists having devastated the economy!) Only luck saved America in the unexpected form of Adolph Hitler, who did what is very necessary to come out of a deep recession, viz. creating new demand-supply equations, eliminating manufacturing capacities and several ‘consumers’, forcing a strong ‘belt tightening’, and giving time to business to overcome wrong policies. (Such was the belt-tightening that even cigarettes were not available, or were on ration.) Massive pains and a magnified version of today’s unemployment had to be borne -- whole developed world was brought back to square one, and got new markets in regions like Far East. (That ‘belt tightening’, imposed by the free markets with the government merely protecting individuals’ rights, is the only solution to today’s frequent recessions growing ever-stronger and longer – but see ahead whether that can be achieved in today’s social atmosphere.) So much is made of the New Deal, but one quote of 1937 attributed to FDR’s Secretary of Treasury, Morgenthau, tells the whole story about where America is headed today – “We have spent more money than ever before, and it does not work. … After 8 years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started – And an enormous debt to boot” Unquote. Morgenthau on stimulus as of 6:34 AM IST, 8/2/2011, reference book cited in the article (Roosevelt and Morgenthau, pg 256 by John Blum, Houghton Mifflin, 1970). (Look at it from angle of today’s stimuli and quantitative easing meant to reduce unemployment.) Same internet site also quotes Morgenthau as saying: "If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened." (Reference book cited in the article, The Forgotten Man (2007), p. 163, 148 by Amity Shlaes. The last quote tells about FDR type of bureaucrats’ basis for decisions, their capability to lead the nation, handle crises etc.) The most important change that occurred after the Great Depression was that the rulers gave up paper money and shifted to Gold Standard at Breton Woods. There were many wrong interpretations about the happenings, like ‘creation of governmental jobs saved the economy’ etc, but in reality Hitler slapped them, even if inadvertently, into the realization that people had to work to earn money, not just print it for war-mongering and distribution of doles. Today again, the US is on the same course as after FDR’s New Deal – the same unemployment, ‘stimulus packages’ etc, but remember that if Wilson’s ‘elastic money’ and FDR’s New Deal were a success, they would not have gone back to gold-standard in Breton-Woods! (Today it is because of the Republican, Nixon, undoing the gold-standard.) Most of today’s evils like Social Security, government ownership of businesses etc started with the New Deal, but Hitler’s Nazi’ism converted the communist FDR into a national hero in same league as George Washington, as one of the top three American Presidents! He is the biggest example of “achieving sainthood via charity, but at the cost of others”. Same is the case with most Dem-Presidents like LBJ, JFK etc. All of this is detailed in Part II while dealing with the degenerating aspect of democracy and may be merged in a later revision conditions permitting. The Founding Fathers had struggled very hard to save the populace from the ill-effects of exactly those “ideals” and politics of Wilson and FDR but had not made the constitution fool-proof. On the other hand, these very policies, particularly government being turned into an altruistic institution, are liked by so large a number of voters that any party resorting to populism would instantly become a winner. With these two decisive events, Wilson’s ‘idealistic push’ and FDR’s communism, the Democrats hijacked lot of GOP’s voter base, the people for whom they fought like yeoman farmers and Af-Ams, as well those by whose side they enacted unjust legislation (like Sherman Act against big business) – any mistake on the part of GOP, and Dems would be in power. The case of Af-Ams has to be specially mentioned -- the GOP had fought a civil war with the Dems (who were pro-slavery), to emancipate them, and they were GOP’s loyal voters till FDR’s first term, the other reason being Wilson’s anti-black segregation policies, Ku Klux Klan in the South etc. Yet as soon as FDR offered doles, along with other have-nots they too changed loyalties. Note important point about democracy (and also an unrestricted policy of emancipation, spreading democracy to ‘undeveloped’ nations etc): huge sacrifices like Civil War are made to emancipate the lower sections of society from religious and other dictatorships (i.e. not merely Af-Ams, but also poor whites, and even others trapped else-where, for example under communism like Cuba, other dictatorships like Libya today, etc) – but finally, evil intellectuals / politicians use these lower sections to take-over the political rule of democracy and lead it to collapse. It raises a crucial question about America’s internal and external policies – If certain section of the populace, referred to ahead as Group G3, Plato’s Men of Bronze, is so very fickle-minded and can be easily made to behave irrationally by offering doles, is it worth endangering a good country’s stability to emancipate them, which is what America is doing all over the earth today? The continuation of this leads to the most important question about democracy, around which fate of civilization hangs – it leads to the phenomenon of civilization turning full circle, dealt with ahead. (This important aspect applies not only to America’s internal democracy, but today also to their global endeavors of spreading democracy and enlightenment, where most of the undeveloped world considers them to be evil, while America is giving victory to the evil UN family.) Left with no alternative after the above, the GOP was pushed to the side it previously opposed, big business, capitalists, banks, corporations etc, and talks about protection of individual freedom and rights. Such is the story of the contradictions – the twists, gyrations and somersaults -- of American politics in pursuance of that elusive, magical word “majority” that could make a politician a king or a beggar in democracy. The Doings of the Conservative GOP (post New Deal), the other splinter of Jefferson’s Party – The Attila

To ewv: Because of your persistence I was forced to add the following to my file (initial part of it is repetitive on this board, but you are far more so): So much is the erosion of reason and confidence in America that the charge of racism was again repetitively thrown at me after the above hurriedly expanded Introduction. I responded that the complete explanation will come only when the sub-article on Racism is reached ahead. But at the moment I will say that merely expressing the following facts is not racism: "Anglo Saxon way of life in modern times brought back civilization. All people giving up their countries to migrate to America are specifically doing so because of that culture. Many other races made individual contributions but they would have remained unborn the way they remained during dark ages. Good example is India, representative for whole earth. Indians are making good in US, acknowledged as intelligent, did well during British times, but even today in India the same people are not doing as good at all. That is because of white man's culture and way of life (specifically ASP), and I refuse to accept that making this statement of fact is racist. Calling it so is encouragement to evil, as some politicians, and several appeasers are doing, and as I have shown in detail ahead." Amongst others, this is a major contributor to America's erosion today -- it is simply erosion of white man's way of life due to others' dole-demanding ways. This too is not racist because saying so has a basis. In a much planned manner some politicians are nurturing minorities as their vote-block -- show courage in fighting them; not me who is bringing out facts and undoing evil. Stop NAACP, BET, Black Music Awards, Black Beauty Contests etc, oppose the special name Af-Ams, why not Ams only? White-Ams is evil and Af-Ams is not? As per my info, El Raza is specifically race based organization of Hispanics, try and stop that. There are also people who have shown encouragement to this write-up – many are tired with the erosion as well as appeasement, and want to settle the issue now. GOP is always accused of being racist and recently admitted that they did not want to come off as ‘a bunch of angry white men’ – but close to 50% (+ or -) America has always voted for them. (Despite being the most magnanimous society, this maligning is the work of people like you – destroyers of civilization. What will remain once the whites are fully demoralized?) You have surprised me: If the moderator has passed my posts who are you to talk in that language, and moreover to talk for everybody? After GOP I specifically changed Anglo Saxons in sub-title of my book to Angry White Men – but there are reasons for doing all this. If the moderator tells me I will stop posting (but still not consider myself as racist). You talk about thoughts, but are also dragging nationality in to rally gullible people against me? Many Americans adopt Indian thoughts like Hare Rama-Krishna for example, or far eastern Zen Buddhism as another one. So I have adopted the ASP way of life, what has it got to do with rest of India? I stop responding to you (unless something better comes) and proceed with my work of further posting. If majority agree with ewv please tell me so, else let’s forget.

ewv: To attribute any historical trends to a race is itself racist. If you want to be taken seriously then explain whatever your positions are in terms of the ideas that people held, not their color. Reply: As I said, the complete explanation will come only when the sub-article on Racism is reached. But at the moment I will say that saying -- "Anglo Saxon way of life in modern times brought back civilization. All people giving up their countries to migrate to America are specifically doing so because of that culture. Many other races made individual contributions but they would have remained unborn the way they have remained during dark ages. Good example is India, representative for whole earth. Indians are making good in US, acknowledged as intelligent, did well during British times, but even today in India the same people are not doing as good at all. That is because of white man's culture and way of life, and I refuse to accept that making this statement of fact is racist. Calling it so is encouragement to evil, as the Democracts, and several appeasers are doing, and as I have shown in detail ahead." Amongst others, this is a major contributor to America's erosion today -- it is simply erosion of white man's way of life with others' dole-demanding ways. This too is not racist because it is fact of reality. In a very planned manner the Dems are nurturing minorities as their vote-block -- show courage in fighting them; not me who is bringing out facts and undoing evil.

This is a very big topic of misunderstanding, wrong ideas / definitions etc, and the inevitable has to happen if one does not soon adopt the correct ideas -- that the white American is in reality the one who brought in enlightenment and emancipation; rest of the world very strongly practices hate (in some form or the other like India's caste system) -- but these latter are never pointed finger at, while there is a barrage of allegations and accusations against the white American, and he is paying eternally and infinitely -- it represents a shockingly massive inversion which will never get cleared unless one attributes their characteristics to races. Anyway, I have said at the top that all ideas that look racist are justified ahead, and there is an 18 page long sub-article on Racism which will come ahead, so it would be premature to explain this at the moment. I hope you are aware about the wrong image that America has acquired the world over (Satan's Land etc), the opposite of the one she deserves! It has caused immense demoralization to the good people who partly respond with cowardice, appeasing evil, etc. I am just happy that some people have taken the efforts to read -- my purpose is to rectify the above wrongs. They have given me encouragment to continue posting further material.

I have just revised the Introduction to the book (from 1 page to 5 pages) because of big news that I came to know very late, that Obama had invited UN supervisors to observe the presidential elections. This new Intro partly repeats with the sub-article “Conundrum of Angry White Men” already posted because the “revelation” mentioned in Conundrum and the knowledge of above news, both happened very late, and successively. Introduction: (The man who invites the Serpent is Re-elected as President: Has the Dismantling of America started?) Around 2008-09 I sought comments on the net on the first draft of my book “The Anglo Saxon Protestant Revolution” (ASP-R) describing how the ASPs mastered the world after Renaissance, built new continents, and why they are now on a down-ward journey as seen in the recent slide of the US. (As ASPs I today include all people who got naturalized into Americans and broadly adopted the classical Anglo-Saxon philosophy of individualism as their way of life.) I was shocked by the trivial comments, the misunderstandings and criticism based on lack of knowledge and I felt the need to write a prologue to ASP-R as clarification. This prologue became a complete book on its own which I titled as “Is Democracy the Nemesis Also of the Anglo-Saxons?”, generally addressed to the ‘Tea Party (TP) Movement Supporters’, who formed the engine of Republican take-over of the House of Representatives in Nov-Dec 2010. It could not be completed in time for the 2012 elections, but had to be suspended for a long time, and perhaps the TP Movement lost steam in between. Very briefly, what the book achieves can be described as follows: Starting from a small island on the edge of Europe, the Anglo Saxons built, with tremendous courage, efforts and sacrifice of blood, sweat and life, two virgin continents on two sides of the Pacific, an entirely New World, the climax of rational man’s aspirations for civilization; they are the main contributors to huge discovery and invention of knowledge, and have emancipated 5 sets of people starting with poor ASPs followed by African-Americans, Europeans (many of them Catholics), myriad migrants from undeveloped societies including many Latinos, and finally, all those who are free in undeveloped societies, from 4000 years’ well established suppression and slavery. But today the emancipators are looked upon as enslavers and racists, the whole earth hates them, and every epithet is unquestionably thrown at them like greedy, selfish, looters of earth, war mongerers etc. But more importantly, the emancipated people who have not contributed much to civilization are out to take-over their countries, and the original creators almost have no answer to it! (Obama’s re-election in 2012 was generally described as contest between ‘angry white men’ versus ‘minorities’!) As I went on studying this topic of America’s slide (and as news developed and became available to me), today I am shocked into disbelief about the factors involved in it. All over the earth minorities are persecuted, victimized and are at a disadvantage. With America it is the opposite – it is the majority community that is being subjected to huge injustice! And the matter is not as simple as that, but shocking qualifications apply to it. The minorities inflicting injustice are either emancipated slaves (who have been slaves since mankind’s dawn) or illegal immigrants (Latinos and enemies and haters from all over the earth like Afghans, Iranians, Chinese etc) – men who have contributed nothing to civilization but gained heavily from the majority – such minorities are now destroying the civilization built by the white man led by the ASPs. The further qualification is that the minorities are not taking over because they are vastly improved, have acquired some great powers arising out of achievement, but they are the same doles-depending backward people who have now become self-righteously demanding – on the other hand the community of creators and achievers has been appeasing and apologizing to the extent of being cowards. (If one studies only the issue of racism (about twenty-six pages included in this book) – its rampant practice world over never opposed by anybody, compared to the enlightenment brought in by the ASPs, and the allegations made against them – one will be aghast at the inversion, what I call as Reverse Racism. The only phrase that should strike one is “hatred of the good for being the good”; but the way I experienced and observed it, even reckless over-magnanimity and cowardice on the part of the ASPs are involved.) This situation is so because the Anglo Saxons reached the end of their intellectual resources (sometime back when the slide started imperceptibly) and are unable to defend themselves and their unique way of life of individualism, and counter an irrational, ‘undeveloped’ world’s onslaught against them. They do not understand that this fight is not about muscles but about intellectuality. The Greeks lost in battle (but democracy contributed to their weakness). Romans fell because of Republic slowly degenerating into democracy and transforming into dictatorship, internal wars etc. America degenerated from Republic to democracy to chaos of mob-rule faster because of ‘minorities’ that were not allowed to participate in Rome. The way America is progressing it will mostly not be an honorable death, but a shameless, ignominious capitulation to the combined group of the immoral, murderous but impotent cowards of the United Nations whose only strength is white peoples’ cowardice, emancipated 4000 year-old slaves, and lastly illegal immigrants, all of them who obtain their funding / doles by making wild allegations and abusing the white man. As is being developed in this book, I will say: “You too deserve it white man! In fact your contribution has to be more than their ability to rob and destroy; else it can not happen on such a grand scale!” (Actually this is described ahead as civilization turning full circle – heroes are martyred, but bring in liberty from tyranny (along with knowledge and all other virtues) spreading emancipation to lowest men; but with the help of this lowest strata evil men destroy their civilization.) America has just unfolded the last leg of her fall! Suddenly the UN’s role is so expanded (mainly after Obama, 2008) that it looks like transforming itself from ‘moral authority’ to take over as ‘world government’! A huge part of science (climate change, clean energy etc) is with it (where big corruption and falsity is being practiced). Its issuing international currency, SDRs etc is being mooted for some time now, and even control over internet, arms trade are being surrendered to it. It has the largest army (‘peace-keeping force’) after the US; but the US, already subservient to the UN masters, is proceeding to submit her sovereignty to the impotents. (This book contains nearly 50 pages of writing about how and why America is commiting suicide by using the UN as E I Co – example of victory of evil when good tries to compromise with it.) The sub-article “An Inverted America – Is it heading towards a collapse?” just ahead, describes how much America is eroded in terms of basic principles. While I have shown how the two political parties (Dems and Reps) have been taking America imperceptibly to the abyss, one small step at a time, President Obama inviting UN inspectors to oversee US elections marks a very big downward jump. It indicates that the process of erosion due to democracy is over, and the process of dismantling America has started – it is a proof that the US cannot reconcile its internal differences and therefore needs an external umpire. (Primarily the internal differences are between the ‘way of life’ of the whites versus the minorities, individualism versus government welfare, but not allowed to so identify due to cowardice.) Everybody has heard about the monkey usurping all the butter belonging to the fighting cats. Here’s a similar one from ancient India – two groups of frogs in a well, yellow and black, fight unendingly like the cats. The leader of the yellow ones goes out and invites a serpent against the blacks. Predictably, the serpent first eats all the black frogs, and then starts with the yellow ones till he finishes all the leader’s relatives, children and wife. Then the yellow leader cries. In America, the yellow leaders are unlikely to cry – they may gloat, having achieved their purpose of destruction. A combination of the impotent (but deceptive) monkey and the venomous serpent is the more appropriate symbol for the UN impotents. (Yet – do not underestimate the impotent; his strength accrues out of the fact that the whites are cowardly about several allegations made against them, and are also unable to act unitedly because of reasons described below and in the entire book. The way I saw menial, slavish Sri Lankans defeating Europeans and ASPs at each others’ hands in the Iraq project I worked on, which is also the way the ASPs are imperceptibly losing to the UN, should make a rational man aghast – any rational man will take lessons from it, but not the mighty ASPs who are bent on committing suicide at the hands of impotents.) Also note another important point – the above was not the last news about UN’s intrusion in US, rather it was the start. Arms treaty happened, but it does not involve the US alone, it has a seeming international aura – one repercussion is that the UN is increasing its role as international authority. In the coming years more and more negative news about UN will develop because – the Dems will repeatedly employ this as their tool to defeat the Reps; they will surely increase US reliance on UN. Importantly, the Rep conservatives do not have any good answer to this issue except for cheating (using UN as E I Co), wherein they will always become the fools of the situation, being novices in cheating as compared to the post-doctorates of ‘undeveloped’ countries. This truly is going to be the last leg of the fight (even if stretched over a few decades), unless some drastic change of fundamentals is introduced as a game-changer. Another indication that the process of break-up of America is started is the formation of white groups (like the recent White Students Union in Baltimore to counter minorities’ collective savagery, the Neo-Nazi groups in US army, the comments seen on the net against illegal immigrants and anti-social activities by minorities, etc) – a society that was the most enlightened and magnanimous on earth is finally being forced to give up its rational way of life due to others’ refusal to accept rationality (and whites’ inability to answer it intellectually). Remember that the Latinos and other illegal migrants from all over the earth are set to increase in the coming decades (when I predict that final collapse will take place). The UN and the rest of the anti-white world will aid that process, I heard arguments while working for UN in Iraq that US and Australia could absorb more than today’s world population but the bastards don’t want to sacrifice – a few decades down the whites’ percentage in population will decrease far more than today – what will they do then? Those few decades is the only time they have to get their act together. America will not be defeated by an external enemy; but she is proceeding towards internal collapse. When that becomes imminent, other nations will move in – those nations are now already united, as United Nations. The vultures are not only circling in the skies in expectation of a feast, but are being invited to share the carcasses! So far the UN impotents, after taking American / Western money (with the West being their only strength), routinely slapped their benefactors in many matters like recognition of Palestine, encouragement to dictators, allegations against US army, etc, but that was from outside. Now, while shedding tears by writing reports about condition of homeless in America, they are suddenly the supervisors in America’s internal affairs! Important point: Whether the impotents entered US (for inspection of polls) is secondary – the more important point is that the man who made such a ghastly proposal was convincingly re-elected as President! (That is the more important indicator of America’s erosion. It raises the question: What is the use of so much abusive noise the whites are making on the net?) Even in India, a predominantly illiterate and semi-literate country, nobody would have dared to make such a proposal. There used to be rampant rigging, “booth-capturing”, prohibition of weaker castes in participation of elections, etc. But they sorted it out by computerizing and phasing the elections, supervison by an independent authority and observation by all political parties under military and para-military protection to reduce unfairness to appreciably low levels. But now with the US setting the precedent perhaps everybody may invite the UN in the future; after all, the US is the world leader, though in this respect the direction is wrong. Question is: can the US not settle the election issue internally, if India could with all its handi-caps, diversity, backwardness, illiteracy and corruption? For reasons explained continuously in the book I do not balme Obama exclusively – he is contributing to the fall, but not more than most of his political colleagues and opponents. (The big downward jump he has taken can be attributed mainly to the fact that that is the point where the competition between the two bad parties to win power reached. The previous big jumps were – not New Deal – but T Roosevelt’s anti-trust acts and Woodrow Wilson’s “idealism” which made New Deal, the UN etc possible.) Society too, having become irrational due to democracy, has influence on rulers’ behavior by discouraging better policies from being implemented. Note important point: Obama has merely invited the UN now – but the UN was originated and carefully nurtured (i.e. milk was fed to the cobra) by the ASPs during better times as some kind of (foolish) ideal (which covered their cowardice); later they tried to use it as East India Co. And only now the inevitable has happened that the UN monster is trying to take them under its control. And even now, many of the whites do not want the UN to be abolished – they only want that it be beaten to a level acceptable to them so that it will not come in their way but merely endorse their E I Co activities. Obama cannot alone be blamed. If the whites are unable to produce some good arguments, then the US is as good as gone, but for some gasping prior to death, which gives a small chance for recovery. (Dismantling US too will take decades). With some state governors threatening to attack UN inspectors (and setting the style of opposition), they are also progressing, even if imperceptibly, towards a civil war. (The ‘sentimental whites’ on the internet sites I visit were already describing family members crying on Obama’s re-election, prayers to the Lord, and some talking about migration! On the other hand, the Attila-like ‘angry white men’ (described ahead) were generally aggressive / defiant, a few even talking about civil war!) Overall I only feel a peculiar mixture of sorrow and shocked disbelief at the developments. How can they destroy themselves so very easily? They don’t deserve the greatness they inherited from their forefathers? As far as I see it, today’s Anglo Saxons do not have it in them to generate defense against – should I say ‘undeveloped’ people, to be politically correct and save myself from those ‘undeveloped’ people? They are unable to produce the arguments that will morally inspire and unite them for a combined defense. Just consider as an example one of their major forms of protests today, the Tea Party Movement (to whom this book was originally addressed) – who are they fighting against? Not any foreigners because as far as the external world is concerned America is truly beyond challenge. They protest against their own people; but these are the people in power because of wrong philosophy and it is against this wrong philosophy that the ASPs are unable to produce any convincing arguments that will unite them. Apart from these ‘angry white men’, most intellectuals too are ineffective (or the good ones have very less say in society); this is described in detail in this book, and how Americans should overcome it is also shown. Ego is the faculty one uses for knowing the world and making decisions; it is not infallible and any man can make mistakes while using it. Better men make less mistakes and more correct usage; mean little egoists are people who misuse the faculty in a peculiar manner; usually they are unwilling to see the better alternatives, and continue to stick to their small-time thinking in spite of it being obviously wrong, inspite of correct alternatives being obvious. This is the reason why today the whites are unable to put up a united defense and their shameful defeat at the hands of emancipated people and illegal immigrants dependent on doles! Both, the intellectuals and the rowdy angry white men, are sufficiently responsible for this state. The intellectuals stick to their mean little ego; the rowdies have the choice to support better intellectuals, but do not avail of it. Many factors contributed to this state of America, but all of them have a common root – aversion of basic principles (part of which is their anathema for philosophers like Plato and Aristotle). They justify this aversion by emphasis on what they call as pragmatism or practicality. (Even now, when the ‘undeveloped’ minorities are taking over their country, and the UN has made inroad into it, they don’t want to study basic principles; all they want is rowdyism and boisterousness.) This has made them ‘men without philosophy’ despite being good men, i.e. closer to Attila. Their magnanimity becomes over-generosity; they are subjected to demoralization due to “hatred of the good for being the good” practiced the world over; they have lot of misunderstandings about the world and in particular, lack of knowledge of evil; but they also have a strong arrogance of not accepting / rectifying these lacks. (Their confidence in superiority of American political system is unshakeable – even at a time when the weaknesses of that system are the cause of shameless defeat at the hands of the irrational! But that unshakeable confidence also comes out of not wanting to study basic philosophy). Aversion for basic principles has actually converted them into cowards, which is the root of giving in to all those unbelievable accusations and abuses from minorities who have contributed nothing to civilization, takeover by minorities and now induction of UN into their internal matters! Just as some examples of the above: It is as part of this aversion to basic principles that they sidelined Ayn Rand when she uniquely foresaw many things like the evil of UN; today they use her name as opportunism. Another example is that movements like the tea parties lose their strength so very fast because of lack of fundamental philosophy – today “I came, I conquered”, tomorrow foooos, so much steam gone. (The other alternatives of whites are not even worth discussing – e.g. appeals to religion – That was the base American Revolution dislodged first and foremost with the first amendment.) The important point is: There have to be some fundamental issues, some key principles / thoughts and line of action over which they have to unite; else they will never be able to stop the ‘undeveloped’ people taking over their country. In fact solution is available in the analysis and refutation of those wrong ideas / concepts which most Americans hold as unchallengeable and sacred – but such analysis is not allowed, the pragmatists are very strongly against it. But these angry white men and their small time intellectuals will never be able to find that line of action because of their aversion for fundamentals. (The main aim of this book is to refute the wrong ideas and find these key principles, this line of action that will save America.) Many sacredly held wrong notions of Americans are dealt with upto the end in this book, but just as example consider the concept “All men were created equal” – if all men were really equal (without proper qualification) then: 1. whatever is happening in the US is to be accepted as right (irrespective of whether it is really right or no), just because it is happening with the backing of more number of “equal” votes; 2. Importantly, we should have a global democracy (since all men are equal), and the agency most suitable for the purpose is the United Nations! Why should angry white men raise so much of a hue and cry against the Dems and the UN? And who will consider them as rational; rather why will people not oppose them? 3. At least 6 billion people on earth (out of 7 billion) will pronounce Americans as the most evil people on earth, looters and murderers, and Satan’s land – and if the phrase “All men are equal” is correct without qualifications we will have to accept that as true (because of such overwhelming majority saying it). (The fact is that the world does consider America to be evil, and instead of challenging it intellectually, they are apologizing together with minor cheating via the UN as E I Co). 4. As a final point against this concept here (its analysis is pursued to the end of the book) imagine the army (or any other organization) where the cadets, the junior officers etc tell their seniors that all men are equal and each one should take his own decision – there will be chaos if men really acted as per this idea. That is how it should be in socio-political and intellectual issues too, i.e. like in any organization, people should organize themselves in a hierarchical manner with top positions for the most rational and intelligent leaders; but in this realm, people have to choose the better politicians and intellectuals voluntarily, have to use their ego very scrupulously; and that is where everything breaks loose, mean little ego comes in, and the irrational takes over. Apart from “all men were created equal”, other sacred catch-phrases of Americans such as “ancient philosophers (including Aristotle) preach inequality”, “the only salient point about European / British rule of the earth was its looting” etc have also contributed to today’s slide, as shown in the detail in the book. Because of Americans’ anathema for basic principles, generally a foreigner only will save America. Americans’ highest influences – Locke, Von Mises, Ayn Rand were all foreigners and moreover fugitives and runaways. The big negative influences too were foreign, topmost Kant amongst them. All the above aspects are described in detail over the entire book. (Because Ayn Rand’s name surfaced strongly during the Tea Parties, quotes from her works are liberally used. But this book is not an endorsement of some small Objectivist group, rather as part of intellectuals critical comments are made against them also.) The book is divided into three parts. It would have been possible to merge these three parts with ASP-R itself, and also to better the write-up with final touches, but the situation arising out of the persecution I underwent has allowed me to present the material only as below. Part I lists out and briefly explains many political concepts that have influenced man’s attempts to form a good government since ancient times, particularly Greek and Roman civilizations from where America has borrowed so much. (Some of these are Americans’ unshakeable, unchallengeable, sacred, pious tenets that they use recklessly against opponents in arguments.) It takes review of American history since inception to bring out the contribution of the two bad parties in gradually changing the American republic into today’s chaos of unlimited majority rule. Part II uses history reviewed in Part I to further analyze why America is proceeding exactly on the same path as Greece and Rome towards collapse. A shocking fact related with this slide is that it is exactly predicted by a man 2500 years back – Plato! (But since Americans look down upon ancient philosophers, they will never learn things from them.) Even America’s Founding Fathers were strongly against democracy as “chaos of mob-rule” and had predicted the same path of destruction leading to today’s situation. This part of the book raises and partly answers what I have called as “The Problem of Civilization”, fundamental questions about democracy over which Greece and Rome failed, and America is faltering precariously. Part III deals with a practical example of ASPs’ moral cowardice during last century. It describes in detail an example of ‘Victory of Evil over Good’, of how the Anglo Saxons are bent on self-destruction at the hands of impotent evil from all over the world by dealing with it via ultra-evil bodies like UN. Importantly, it discusses why the British rule during the Empire, despite some deficiencies, was far better than American domination of the world today; and what is wrong with America’s external policies also throws light on internal policies which add to today’s slide. (This involves refutation of their unshakeable confidence in superiority of American political ideas, spread of Jeffersonian democracy, etc.) About this UN connection I have said with explanation that once the greatest emancipator in mankind’s history, today America has become the perpetrator of biggest crimes against humanity because of its support to the UN. Part III includes a long sub-article on Racism practiced the world over – a solid example of huge magnanimity of Anglo Saxons, their great emancipation of mankind, and very unfortunately and sorrowfully, also their lack of knowledge of evil, cowardice of accepting any allegations at the hands of the same evil world that practices hatred of the good for being the good as a routine way of life. Some more points covered in Parts II and III are given at the end of Part I. 26. The book offers a temporary solution to stop the slide and gain time, and finally offers at least guidelines for a permanent solution. One person commented that I have been critical to the point of rejection – but does the whites’ performance in the twentieth century merit praise? I do not agree with that. Will euphemizing, evasion, rationalization etc help in the present circumstances, particularly when America is hanging precariously and the whites have never acquired the habit of self-introspection about their political thoughts? I do not think not being critical, false eulogies etc will help; and I believe that I have criticized only to the required extent, according praise wherever merited – after all I have called America (in her original founding and achievements) as ‘the climax of rational man’s aspiration of civilization’! I have called the American as the most enlightened, magnanimous man – his magnanimity becoming over-generosity and cowardice in the twentieth century! Appeal to / Test of Patriotism of Americans seen on the Internet: I have been traveling on internet sites for 2 purposes: 1. to study the American mind; why a country as great as America should unstoppably slide and nobody be able to stop its fall; 2. to look for that / those rare mind(s) which will be able to connect me to help after noting that I have something worth contributing but am helpless due to my position in India. (Winning arguments, a loser’s game, was never my intention – even now I will pull out if I note it is heading towards that). I came under persecution for speaking vociferously against the UN but not writing, as demanded by a fanatic Hindu organization, against US-UK-Australia and Christians – they wanted it to help their propaganda against these countries leading to beating of Christians prior to elections. On some internet sites I have already given details of my complaint to Minority Commission in India which includes my challenge to the American President for supporting the UN; I can challenge them for whatever destruction is going on due to internal policies too (give good ammo to the whites who are shouting hoarse but ineffectively). There are people on these forums that are sympathetic but not in a position to help – but there are also many who have gathered only like illiterate women gather for gossip near village wells. I am not asking for anybody’s neck or even the smallest amount of money though Americans are super-rich and splurge madly. I have seen them talk a lot about patriotism, their family members cried on Obama’s re-election, they talk about civil war for the shining city on the hill, etc. But if somebody has genuine feeling for America and is in a position to do so, then all I am expecting is that he will lift a finger just from his sitting position in front of the computer – connect me to an organization that is fighting for the original America, or even dealing with persecution of Christians the world over from where my case with the Minority Commission in India will gain prominence and I will be able to fight for America.

It never was Atlantis, and never will be even with O’ism, because difference of opinion, individual intentions, opinion of mobs etc will have their influence everywhere. But we keep on striving for Atlantis, like in engineering we keep approximating nearer and nearer to reality. There were too many contradictions, lacks etc since the beginning of America – you have pointed out 1 or 2, but in fact imperfections start right with Locke, like his consent of governed, because today consent of governed is not merely Obama, but Obama re-elected! Some of the worst concepts then were “All men were created equal”, Aristotle too preaches inequality (like Plato ) …… etc. Demo-Party platform of 1960 showed to what extent the idea of men’s equality can be misused for evil purposes. Now there are many million voters who self-righteously say “We both are equal you bloody xyz, arrange champagne for us if you own so much!” What saved the Founding Fathers is the Aristotelian sense of life, continuing since renaissance, the British being the most Aristotelian, therefore being the most powerful, etc. One more is about racism – people will be astonished by my analysis of it (if it ever comes out) – how much the Anglo Saxons have given to the world, and what they got in return – in fact, the emancipated people taking over and destroying their countries is the thesis of my book! You can’t blame the Founding Fathers – their achievement is the greatest when looked at from what they inherited! Rectification was the work of future generations; and here too America has done tremendous work, but not in the field of intellectuality. In this field unfortunately, what many of them have inherited is only the drawbacks and weak-points coupled with tremendous arrogance about the superiority of the American system – to such a level that it forbids self analysis. Suddenly I discovered this recently on the Tea Party Forum which I converted to the sub-article Conundrum of Angry White Men and Foreigner as Savior of America – the wrong fundamentals in their minds almost forbid them from taking the correct direction to rectify .I have seen O’ists deride Europe’s monarchies and colonialism to no end, without being concerned of the question “What is America today”? Only now, after Obama-2012 they have admitted that something is wrong with America too – but that does not translate into taking correct path. GOP has already declared its wrong path: “We can’t come off as a bunch of angry whites” – it means competing with the Dems to woo blacks and Hispanics, means inducting their irrational ways of life into its agenda, further sliding, and no other meaning. Therefore it is futile to keep discussing small points in bits and pieces, the slide will go on till collapse. So I thought of writing a book in which to study all these drawbacks, lacunae, weak-points, and to give a solution based on today’s knowledge. Amongst many others, one point I have proved is almost unbelievable to most people – despite freedom of speech etc, YOU CANNOT PREACH ALTRUISM / CHARITY / DOLES VIA GOVERNMENT – but I have proved it. There is also a solution what better men should do to overcome today’s unstoppably deteriorating situation. For the first 30 years of my life (not less but 30) I was under strict Hindu upbringing, turned away from this false world of illusion around us in such a manner that no recovery should have been possible except almost a miracle (Ayn Rand and my perseverance). The way I understand evil (and how to overcome it), I don’t think an overwhelming number of Americans will – they live in too much of a benevolent world of richness, too far away from evil as of the moment. When they start understanding it will already be too late. So my passion to contribute to save America -- but here too bad-luck may continue pursuing me, my time being limited – nobody throws a bone at a Hindu slum-dog! For example, I am trying to put my entire book on this site, but nobody may even read it – I have already concluded that I will not get even a single comment. Coming days will make it clear. One can keep trying, but has to accept what comes one’s way.

Post-2 of “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons?” Inheritance -- An important factor while evaluating historical phenomena and personalities While evaluating historic people and phenomena like erosion of US, their inheritance (and antecedent history) should properly be taken into account so as to know how much progress such people achieved over what they inherited. Mankind’s progress is a tortuous struggle from ignorance towards enlightenment, in which the better men had to pay dearly for every small achievement (and many of whom got defamed, persecuted and martyred despite their greatness). So while the progress made by some tribe / civilization is lauded, its lacks have to be looked at as a legacy of past darkness. An example of this is the abolition of slavery achieved by Americans. Progress towards it started since times of Greek democracy, but from Greeks to Washington and Jefferson, everybody owned slaves – this was because of a darker legacy over which Americans achieved progress. For 5000 years, slavery was normal in human societies, in fact misuse of religion made it impossible to undo it. The FFs calling this system as evil, setting up funds for Af-Ams’ (African Americans’) rehabilitation etc were big steps in the direction of progress, and ultimately they fought for their liberation. In several countries many variations of bonded labor and slavery are supported (for example the ‘upper-castes’ do so in India even today). Appendix D gives two news items: i) Hillary Clinton’s revelation of 27 million slaves the world over; ii) Shockingly, remnants of practice of slavery in the Cherokee tribe in the US of A. A lot of criticism is seen about the FFs’ “double standards”, but it would be incorrect to expect them to make a complete break with the past in one shot – the fanatic society around would put them into far more difficulty than the civil war they faced without complete break. (In fact this is what happened to Thomas Paine as given ahead.) Same applies to Founding Fathers’ being “Christians” – that was a legacy of the Dark Ages over which they achieved substantial, but unfortunately not full, progress. (This principle is also to be used while evaluating today’s rulers of US.) Mankind will impose any expectations on better people, and if those are satisfied, people will find other excuses to throw muck because all that certain elements of society want is to malign better people – rational men should take inherited ideas and existing social conditions into account when evaluating historic figures and events / phenomena. Sudden deviation as compared to the thought-level of society around is a great achievement if in the rational direction; it is therefore that much rare to the extent of its greatness. (The above sub-article has huge relevance in answering some of today’s burning issues, dealt with ahead, like: If people are compulsorily to contribute to military and police without choice then why should they not be made to contribute to Social Security and Medicare?) Misuse of religion An important reason for taking legacy / inheritance into account is that “misuse of religion” (because of its hold over peoples’ mind via culture, implicit way of life etc called as ‘lingering effect’ herein) is too big a force of evil even today, though America was freer of it than rest of the world. (Note that ordinary people are free to privately pursue any religion; I have called its misuse as evil, by which I mean forcing one’s religious system on others by binding people into a collective or otherwise. Misuse of religion is explained in both these ASP books.) The complex web religion has woven is so powerful (and men’s need of some philosophy so strong) that it could hold men in its clutches for thousands of years – and even today, despite so much progress in 2–3 centuries, a huge section of mankind is not free of its hold. It forms the major part of ‘negative surrounding’ which most men inherit at birth, and acts as a very strong vicious circle in which mankind is trapped. Whatever efforts are made by good men against it, it has the potential of facilitating evil men to undo that progress and drag civilization back to level of ignorance – which is how Greek knowledge got destroyed during the Dark Ages. As explanation of the above, see the following: No matter what its dressing, subterfuge, paraphernalia, its talk of love and welfare of all, brotherhood of men and salvation of souls, its essence is suppression of ego and selfishness. For rational men these are the most fundamental essentials of life – rational usage of ego is the right to think, selfishness is the right to life. The Founding Fathers of US achieved substantial victory over religion, but not complete. They did not declare rational usage of ego and rational selfishness to be sacrosanct, but went in a roundabout manner using words like pursuit of happiness, right to life (a substitute for rational selfishness), first amendment for freedom of mind (i.e. right to usage of ego) etc. This means that while they achieved huge progress of freeing men from the clutches of religion they left open the possibility for its resurgence, scope for evil to strike again. Too many Americans, partly due to erosion of reason, are unable to see the above contradiction between religion and American constitution, and using such people, politicians who pose as champions of individual freedom, are again bringing it back into socio-political life, taking America back to Dark Ages! A further aspect highlighted ahead is that a political party propounding some religion has no other meaning but politically imposing the religion of its choice on others who do not agree – but this is going on in open day light in America which means that despite so much progress religion is again pulling men into Dark Ages. (As far as legacy / inheritance affecting thinking of society (via culture) is concerned, as explained ahead while dealing with racism, expressions such as “it’s in their blood” are actually wrong, but they also have a partial element of truth because habits acquired by some groups persist for centuries even after they achieve freedom due to other peoples’ efforts. This is the case with most people of undeveloped societies freed from clutches of religion as an effect of western civilization.) (Also note that the above described fundamental difference between religion and American Constitution about suppression of ego and selfishness versus freedom to exercise them, equally applies to communism, and all irrational philosophies like Kant’s, and these too have to be treated similarly.) Rational and irrational usages of ego, rational and irrational selfishness While dealing with human behavior difference has to be made between rational selfishness, rational usage of ego and their irrational version sub-humans resort to. I have done this in detail in ASP-R. Other-wise many people will blast my book by an easy retort that today’s plutocrats and dole-seekers are also selfish! Sub-human version of selfishness consists of grabbing that which belongs to others; it is robbery and stealing even if done openly like today’s government doles and plutocracy. Rational selfishness is taking that which one has made efforts for and earned by trading with others by mutual consent. In this write-up reference to rational as well as irrational usages of ego is made because that is how selfishness is practiced by men. But the latter usage is generally differentiated by inverted commas – in addition, the reader can also know it from the context. (A good example of rational versus irrational selfishness given ahead, is the Founding Fathers’ idea of man’s rights versus the idea propounded by the Democratic Party Platform in 1960 – while the Founding Fathers implied that each man had a right to retain whatever he had earned, the Democratic Party takes from those who have earned to give to parasites.) Historically, one important means by which evil intellectuals defeat the good is by erasing the difference between rational and irrational selfishness, between that which is rationally earned versus the irrationally grabbed. Ahead, I have talked about three types of societies: Rational, Thoroughly Irrational and Semi-Rational societies: The more a society is ruled by irrational theories (i.e. having higher element of collectivism in its governance), the more its rulers practice irrational selfishness by imposing unselfishness and non-egoism on the ruled. A Thoroughly Irrational Society is totally suppressed, the blood of the ruled is squeezed to satisfy the irrational selfishness of its rulers – examples are theocracies, communist rules of Soviet Russia and China, etc. But note important point that the rulers do so by imposing on the ruled the allegedly ‘pious’ tenets of unselfishness and non-egoism. Nineteenth century America was closest to a Rational Society, the least exploited by its rulers, because the government was restrained from coming into the way of any individual exercising his right to be rationally selfish. (Amongst others, one implication of this statement is that today it is far from being so). Apart from the rulers, even the ruled are different in the above three types of societies: The more irrational a society, the more it condemns rational men’s efforts as “selfish” (which is supposed to be immoral in irrational societies), while neglecting rulers’ aggrandizement. The more moral it is (note the word ‘moral’ instead of the word ‘developed’, today’s US being far more advanced than earlier times when it was more moral), the more it rewards rational men’s efforts. (It is from this angle that the plutocracy going on in America today has to be looked at – from being closest to ‘Rational Society’, i.e. from being the most moral society on earth, they have now moved towards other irrational societies – and while selfishness is automatically considered as evil, the corrupt rulers are loved by their respective followers even in America!) The above is as far as selfishness is concerned; as far as thinking i.e. usage of ego is concerned, dictatorships (Thoroughly Irrational Societies) declare it to be evil – but allow their rulers to exercise their ego whimsically, i.e. with total irrationality, in a hierarchical manner from the dictator to no right to the lowest citizens. The Rational Society at the opposite end is based on allowing complete freedom of thought and expression to all citizens, with the Semi Rational Society being in-between mainly by means of social pressure of customs, traditions and norms of behavior. A brief explanation about ‘moral cowardice’ of today’s Anglo Saxons Since the above is a central idea of this book (being part of the title), a brief explanation about it is due at the start. As said above, the FFs were securing rational selfishness and egoism for the populace from past rulers who exercised irrational sub-human type of selfishness and egoism, and curbed the populace’s right to use them rationally; but considering the stigma attached to words selfishness and egoism due to legacy of Dark Ages, it is understandable that the FFs used round-about words like right to life and freedom of thought and expression. (As firmly infused by religion in men’s mind, robbery, murder etc are selfishness; egoism goes far beyond, viz. genocide – Hitler, Stalin etc are modern day examples of egoism.) Today, more than 300 years after John Locke’s works, the situation, the atmosphere has completely changed – Ayn Rand’s ethics is of-course some sort of climax, but it has come after so much of hair-splitting, dissection, experience about political systems etc, with many other people having worked on these topics in between. (The change has happened to the extent that religion became out-dated for many influential people, while its hold was total during FFs’ times and they had to fight for the first amendment, Thomas Payne dying a disgraced death!) BUT – today’s ASPs (and also Europeans) continue to be as much afraid of such words as selfishness and egoism as savages are afraid of lightning and thunderstorm; they are afraid to uphold the spirit of FFs’ great Revolution (despite every thing having been proved many times, innumerable proofs being available of the greatness of FFs’ philosophy, and the evil of its opposite)! Their penchant for unlimited majority rule of ‘democracy’ including global majority rule shared with ruthless dictators via ultra-evil bodies like the UN, is a consequence of the fear of getting branded as ‘egoists’, and cowardice to uphold individualism whether internally or in front of an ‘undeveloped’ world; it is not only the root of slow erosion of FFs’ republic, but also of evil gradually taking over all aspects of life. Their penchant for undifferentiated charity is recourse to some kind of prestige and superiority, to be recognized as superior, achievers, emancipators etc, i.e. they want to be selfish, but at the same time want to avoid getting branded as ‘selfish’! They want to be considered as generous emancipators and benefactors – want charity to be considered as major part of their character, plus not imposing, but not to be branded as ‘selfish’! So their only answer to the take over of government by communists is war-mongering, wherein they again require the help of global majority via the UN. Details and consequences of this are developed in this book upto the end, but this is the reason for calling them as ‘moral cowards’! PS Nov 2012: Their cowardice was appreciably on display after Obama’s election as President for the second time. Many were so dejected and depressed as to talk of migrating to other white countries – ready to give up the country their fore-fathers had paid for by blood and sweat, the greatest country in man-kind’s history, beaten by the people they had emancipated, beaten by ‘undeveloped’ people who had illegally entered their country so as to escape the irrationalities back at home, beaten by people who had contributed nothing to civilization, but who live on doles – but not ready to muster courage so as to challenge the irrational intellectually! At the same time there was no sign of them giving up such ideas as spreading democracy and enlightenment to the same people who defeat them in elections! One thing I will tell them – “Dear Sir! Migrating to another country does not solve your problem at all for simple reasons: First that, most western countries are experiencing similar problems even if with lesser intensity today. Second, that the irrational will follow you there also; even if ‘undeveloped’ immigrants do not take over that country, yet welfare-state is the slow-poisoning that will ultimately destroy that particular country too, and most western countries have become welfare-states, have they not? Running away may temporarily solve your problems, but not those of your children. The meaning of this entire phenomenon is the concern of this book which may help you in fighting evil in US itself. Conundrum of Angry White Men (AWMs), the Simile of Mt Everest and Foreigner as Savior of America: (This sub-article was added as recently as Feb 2013. Its location, length etc could get changed in a future revision.) Apart from moral cowardice referred to above, there are other peculiarities of Americans to be considered while talking about solutions to America’s slide. Americans presented a conundrum during my migration from one web-forum to another on the internet: Most people on these forums seemed to have extraordinary knowledge about politics and sociology -- e.g. such quest for individual freedom (and knowledge about it) as I saw on American web-forums, is simply not possible in India and amongst educated people in most of the world. BUT – this knowledge of theirs almost had a common limit, beyond which shocking ignorance was seen. All my encounters on these websites ended with a peculiar feeling of dissatisfaction – at some point they suddenly seem to lack so much, or suddenly generate the feeling, how can men who know so much not understand certain simple things at the same time? On all net discussions I met with a barrage of wrong ideas expressed as almost inviolable sacred tenets which act as blinders prohibiting proper inquiry, but with which to recklessly oppose anybody trying to bring in new ideas / solutions. These tenets are the root of today’s slide; rubbishing them is partly the purpose of this book, which I have done all along the book. Apart from the weakness of attachment to Charity and inability to answer demoralization by rest of the world that hates their success, I also observed other peculiarities of Americans: the most important one is that they have no proper knowledge of evil (partly described within this sub-article and at length ahead), yet there is lot of over-generous magnanimity coupled with arrogance about the American system. Following are some examples of the sacred tenets: Ours is a Republic based on Rule of Law and Constitution of checks and balances, and not a democracy (in response to the title of the book ‘Is Democracy the Nemesis?’). It is answered ahead. Next is a big one held by almost entire America: All men were created equal – it is handled mainly in the next sub-article and pursued further ahead. Another one is anathema for ancient philosophers including Aristotle, who is (indirectly) the founder of America – they straight refuse to consider any material that refers to these philosophers (which this book does continuously). An unshakable conclusion preset in their minds is that these philosophers are preachers of inequality (which is true only in the case of Plato, yet it is important to study him and not discard off-hand.) All other ‘inviolable sacred’ (but many times wrong) ideas of Americans are dealt at appropriate places starting with the very next sub-article. I joined net discussions in 2008 and immediately realized that all so-called discussions were limited only to white Americans whether O’ists, Libertarians, Constitution Party, Tea Party Movement etc, most of them tilted towards GOP (except for Constitution Party). Many of these are also accused of white-racism, as in the case of Dr. Ron Paul, and even the TPM to some extent. (For more on the topic of racism, see the relevant sub-article ahead). For a long time they have been called as ‘Angry White Men’ (AWMs for short). But they would not accept my point that there is a huge voter-base that is totally unaware of the knowledge (part of it wrong) on these sites, but was very loyal to the opposite party of Dems, and unless some solution to their strength was found these discussions to improve American socio-political atmosphere were futile. (There were no takers for such views of mine; instead there would be all-round criticism and rejection with sarcasm.) Instead, so far the practice of the whites was to gather physically or on web forums and make noise about ‘victory of Reaganism’, tea-parties etc and conclude that the nation participated in AWMs’ protests. (That was because previously the whites’ majority margin was bigger than in recent years—only now they are being forced to accept the fact that the minorities matter a lot.) Generally in these gatherings / web-sites, they exchange their standard views coming since the times of FFs (along with inbuilt contradictions) and think the whole nation has agreed to it. In absence of taking all the facts into account (particularly the role of minorities in determining national policies), the protests of the whites were like ‘empty vessels making more noise’, impotent anger because of inability to counter irrationality despite being world’s most rational society (a phenomenon I have called as ‘intellectual paralysis’). The line of social division is automatic and consequent to the (conscious or sub-conscious) philosophy followed by the different communities (whites versus minorities). It is important for us to consider it because it is the whites whose philosophy, perseverance, efforts and sacrifice that has built America and brought the entire advance in knowledge in modern times. On the other hand it is the other communities (and their sub-consciously practiced way of life) that will bring in the fall using the weaknesses in whites’ philosophies (along with their magnanimity). Only in 2013 came the indirect admission, after Obama defeating GOP second time, that ‘we are a bunch of angry white men’ reflected in the title of news such as ‘We can’t come off as a bunch of angry white men’. (AWM news By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Fri, Jan 25, 2013). This admission coming so very late is proof of their having neglected those points so far which were obvious to a person studying the situation with an open mind (unlike Americans with the above mentioned preset ideas as blinders). It is a proof of what I continuously perceived amongst them and mentioned above as American characteristics. Minorities and the actual white racists leading them, despite being more irrational (because of being sub-conscious collectivists as explained ahead) are “silent winners” – they rarely organize and make noise akin to the whites – but 1. They always vote as block for victory of irrational; and 2. Their leaders continuously resort to strong allegations of racism against the whites (what I have described at length as Reverse Racism ahead in a long sub-article on Racism), and the whites are forced to accept slow erosion of their society. As per the above news, beyond this point (2013) GOP will give up the old strategy to woo white conservatives -- the new strategy will be to woo minorities also. This will be just the opening of a new leg in the game of democracy being described in this book (as its main topic), continuing the slide to abyss. They will try to woo the minorities, but the means will have to be doles / irrationality like allowing illegal immigration, Espanol as second official language, which means vitiation of culture of individualism, balkanization etc. This is described ahead as the 2EBBPs (two equally bad big parties) taking America gradually down to the precipice. The above mentioned conundrum about American psyche got solved after migrating on umpteen sites to know about it, almost as a revelation (what Ayn Rand called as ‘the light-bulb’ effect) on a Tea Party Movement Forum. All the above characteristics are part of Americans’ training since very young age – just like others are brought up as Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and those philosophies form a part of their basic knowledge and way of life, so also Americans are given a dual training as part of upbringing, which then becomes in-built part of their personality. Since the beginning they have been trained in Protestant Christianity (including charity) along with knowledge of American Constitution enmeshed with concepts of Liberty, Rights of Man, suspicion of big government, etc. In recent years some have given up Christianity and shifted to some type of Progressivism (i.e. charity as part of socialism), but the above is the overall idea. It is this knowledge that is a huge advancement over rest of the world, but at the same time has in-built weaknesses, lacunae and contradictions in it – Americans’ political training starts with anti Europe / anti British material, against European monarchies, particularly the King who would not give representation despite taxation, how the revolutionaries fought against suppression, and so on. That derision about Europe is included in the phrase “old Yorrup” used whenever they want to go against European allies, most recently used prior to GWB(43)’s Iraq war. Part of the training is that ancient philosophers (Plato, Aristotle etc) preached inequality – while the original English people (and also Ayn Rand whose books they uphold against Obama) were strong Aristotelians. (The tenet all men were created equal and opposition to ancient philosophers seem to be a ‘revolution’ against the inequality of British aristocracy and European monarchies, which are held to have emerged out of their philosophies.) Part of the training is a firm belief in superiority of American system of such a magnitude as to prohibit all further analysis! The above tenets (All men are equal; ours is a republic etc) are absolutely sacred and inviolable, the way religionists declared their ‘pious’ documents to be beyond human analysis. In reality, the system worked during those days only because of reasons discussed in this book, and now the short-comings are manifesting in today’s unstoppable erosion. It requires improvement and overhauling, but that is prohibited. For the above reasons my name for AWMs is MWBs – Men with Blinders! The shocking phenomenon of Libertarians approaching politics via economics and demanding a controlled government (as if human liberty is an automatically available, self-evident primary as compared to the tribal collective from which mankind is still trying to emerge), arises out of this training, anathema to fundamental philosophy, etc. What they do is that they discard / disregard the fundamentals, grab the derivative results and apply them to their requirements of Libertarianism. This is what they did to classical English philosophers – American constitution, way of life (individualism) etc is derived from those philosophers, but they deride the British and consider American way of life as something totally separate and far superior. That same thing they are now doing to Ayn Rand -- They vehemently opposed Ayn Rand for years together as a new-comer to their ‘conservative / Libertarian’ club, now sky-rocket sales of her books and wave them against Obama; but in the other hand they hold the Cross, neglecting that because of the latter they denounced her as destroyer of family and civilization; at the same time they vehemently oppose Plato and Aristotle, neglecting what she said about them – they are the only philosophers she studied in thorough detail, limiting all others to summaries only. Recently, I also saw some using her quotes as a tool to oppose others’ good arguments. Somehow, without deriving from fundamentals, they want things to work as per their feelings, they want conservatism, liberalism, Christianity, charity, over-generosity, democracy-cum-republic, freedom, American way of life, American supremacy, Shining City on the Hill, All men are created equal, etc etc etc etc everything to work along with all the in-built contradictions. Their training never gives an idea that American political system too could have weaknesses and could erode at a later date – it never makes ground for introspection and then proper analysis of happenings in political field. Talking about “An Inverted America” at the beginning of the book, I said that it is too trivial discussing the specific, individual policies of presidents of both the parties in recent years, but all discussion is limited to these very trivial doings of small-time rulers elected by parasitical people who now look upon the government as their provider, while the FFs advocated self-reliance and always being suspicious of the government. The AWMs are the people who engage in it life-long, in all their concerns – no long-term concerns, no thinking that starts with fundamentals. (Yet remember one thing – the AWMs are far ahead of non-whites anywhere on earth including America, India, Asia and anywhere.) What was the source of their huge strength and why they could afford such arrogance towards good arguments and also neglect evil? Two reasons – they were the best practitioners of classical English philosophy of reason (but without acknowledging this fact, which, as shown in this book is possible to man); all the best men in search of freedom (not only Britain but entire Europe) continued to migrate to US; these had a raw, undeveloped, virgin country in their hands, which coupled with an inquisitive attitude of investigation (in physical sciences) led to huge expansion in knowledge, wealth and power, leading to feeling of invincibility – this further strengthened anti-Europe sentiments and belief in truth of all American tenets neglecting their weaknesses and short-comings. Second – once on top of the world, the Simile of Mount Everest came into effect as described below. In this simile the position of Americans on earth (in terms of richness, strength, standard of life, opportunities, choices etc) is equated with that of a group of men on Mount Everest, i.e. far above rest of mankind. Not having experienced the Mean Sea Level (MSL) except for maybe looking at it from the top, they don’t realize the seriousness of the erosion they are undergoing i.e. traveling downwards; they don’t realize the need to study the factors that were already present in the system at the time of founding which have led to this erosion, because even today they are far above MSL. So the thought of collapse of society has not touched their minds at all, rather they laugh at this concept. This lack of understanding is further aggravated by two other factors: 1. that a man gradually, imperceptibly descending from Mt Everest, which is approximately 28000ft above MSL, will not notice the difference, if during the whole of his life he descends only upto 21-22000 ft. His children (the next generations) will be born at a lower level (an in-between level during the course of his life) will not understand the difference even at still lower levels … and so on for a few more generations (these are typically the times required for collapse of societies like Rome in the past, and today’s America.) 2. The second factor that obfuscates this process is that some men do realize that their society is eroding and has already appreciably traveled down. These then take society back to upper levels – in America they are called as ‘conservatives’ trying to restore what they believe is the original way of life. But all their efforts can take them only a little bit up, not at all to the original levels, because the original philosophy in itself had some weaknesses from where the slide is consequent. But – their taking society back a little bit to upper levels makes the extant generation more confident, and the slide even more imperceptible. (This is like two steps down followed by one up, etc.) This descending from Mt Everest is equivalent to imperceptibly inducting charity by socialism and Christianity into FFs’ government described above, gradually vitiating it by other means like war-mongering, etc. About the Nature of Evil unknown to AWMs / MWBs: The AWMs / MWBs can afford to rollick in their blinders-led thoughts because they are actually rollicking in luxury (which they inherited from their fore-fathers); the AWMs never suffered what the foreigners go through, so they literally have no experience of evil, almost no good idea of its nature, about which Ayn Rand’s quotation is given ahead, and which idea I have developed at length. This important concept needs to be explained in detail. I have already said above that Americans understand a lot more about freedom and liberty than rest of the world, but fail beyond a certain point. They understand direct encroachment, direct infringement of their rights and their liberty. They cannot understand the same thing being done gradually, imperceptibly. Which means that they easily understand the Attila, the dictator, the direct and open attacker of human rights; they cannot understand the Witch Doctor! ß This is an important statement pursued to the end in this book. They are able to understand communism and reject it outright; they even understand the welfare state as evil, but are not able to stop its progress; they have been unable to stop it even when it has gradually (but imperceptibly) taken communism into the White House. This has been achieved by the Witch Doctor element in their society whom they have not been able to stop by answering with proper intellectuality. It is the slow-poisoning of the welfare state (democracy, mixed economy etc, called as Semi Rational Society) that is the most important subject of this book which is a Prologue to my other book ASP-R. Totalitarian states, called as Thoroughly Irrational Societies, like Communism, Dark Ages of Europe (where America’s two parties, “the two equally bad big parties”, are competing to take America to) are dealt with in ASP-R. It is the Witch Doctor who leads to fall of civilizations and paves way for the return of the Attila. For this reason, as shown ahead, it is the Witch Doctor that is more dangerous, and the bigger danger to America is internal than external. While the internal Witch Doctors are destroying America via the welfare state, the AWMs are more concerned with external Attilas, external dictators (mainly because of their inability to deal with the Witch Doctor). The major point where they are unable to oppose the witch doctor is charity (and there are minor points like Racism etc) – as Protestants they are so much attached to charity as to be unable to do so. Foreigners as America’s Originators and Saviors: As said above, for a long time after America’s founding, Americans were the best practitioners of the best available philosophy (classical English), but never the originators. Amongst the original philosophers there was a fugitive on the run, John Locke, who has made the maximum contribution to the foundation of the colonies. (I believe he has also written a lot about their efficient administration!) In more recent times i.e. second half twentieth century onwards, the two most important influences on the AWMs are also of foreign origin, and both of them runaways from their countries of birth – Ayn Rand who starved under the communists and escaped by lying; Ludwig Von Mises too ran away from the Nazis. (No amount of verbal description can convey what these men understand about human evil, about the passion to contribute to America etc – it will take a rare mind born in America to understand it.) Even now, beyond this point, it will generally only be a foreigner who will save America, draw her out of channelized but imperceptible slide to self-destruction – Men with blinders will mostly not produce such a person because turning America around needs to go into fundamentals (actually rectify ideas strongly culturally embedded into them, and raise the questions I raised in the sub-article “The Phenomenon of America”.) Then they will slowly unravel mentally all the analysis in this book, and will agree that it is not about economics alone, psychology alone, even ethics alone (as some O’ists believe) or racism etc individually, but a combination of all these, starting with philosophy. It can only be described as a fight between Reason and Unreason, and if human symbols have to be chosen to describe it, then between Aristotle and Plato. Please note an important point especially mentioned because of the likelihood of misinterpretation, mainly by AWMs. This book is not against Dems and pro-GoP – it is about the above blinders and consequent intellectual paralysis, inability to defend against millenniums-old irrationality of charity, against the witch-doctor, about democracy as destroyer which no civilization has so far crossed, and so on. All this despite the whites having achieved so much. Also note what is said elsewhere: while blaming any single politician the ambient socio-political atmosphere also has to be taken into account, i.e. the people who determine the winner in politics and filter out better men. The most important party responsible for the current slide in western countries is collectively the whites, mainly intellectuals, who have not brought answers to the issues dealt with in this book – but the issues too are difficult and never solved in human history, rather civilization has never transcended these issues. Only post New Deal the Dems have gone overboard with socialism so they look a shade worse than the Reps. But if I were to analyze a particular Rep president, say around 2000, they would perhaps look worse, and prior to New Deal they were the more aggressive champions of ‘worship of majority’ over the individual. Therefore the two parties are called as equally bad big parties. (In fact lot of information, though not entire, is given about the GWB(43) presidency in the sub-article on UN, which is as bad as anything about the Dems in this book). Fundamental Factors that have affected the Three Civilizations based on Reason There are a few factors of political philosophy that have affected mankind’s development since pre-historic times, but have remained unresolved to this day and are contributing to the present slide of America. Briefly stated the issues are as follows: Are all men equal? If yes, then in what way? Men do not seem so in terms of their performances, their capabilities, productive outputs, intelligence, hard-work, ambition etc. All religions say they are equal because all are God’s children. But that in itself is one instance of religion’s cheating, because simultaneously, based on their inequality, all religions have a standard structure of social division, which corresponds to Plato’s social pyramid and division of men into Men of Gold, Men of Silver and Men of Bronze. (Surprisingly, in the long history of the rule of religion, not many people have pointed out this simple contradiction about equality and gradation – I have developed it as “The Grand Elaborate System of Compromise” in my other write-up to be incorporated in ASP-R.) Christians had this division as Clergy, Nobility and ordinary citizens. Similar division in India is four-layered, Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (Noble-men, men of sword), Vaishya (traders) and Shudras (lowest workers, slaves). Muslims have Ulema (scholars) as their men of gold to rule Islamic societies. Communism’s cheating also starts with the tenet of equality of men (as rebellion against inequality perpetuated by religion and capitalism), but they finally ended in the classes of rulers and slaves. Calling lowest strata as God’s children, talk about emancipation of proletariat etc is a means of grabbing power, after which equality turns into political inequality and God’s children are crushed under the boot. (The issue of equality and inequality of men, capitalism versus socialism, returns to men out of their efforts, etc is so ancient that it is referred to in Homer, centuries prior to classical Greek civilization. Achilles is an example when he decried: “I do the maximum work, but the booty is shared equally”.) If men were unequally graded (in a pyramid) then how was the society to be ruled? Universally the answer turned out to be the one described at length by Plato in The Republic, viz. that ordinary men were to submit themselves (i.e. their ego) to the Men of Gold, who would look after everybody’s welfare. No matter how much Plato talked of an ideal society in The Republic, no matter how many volumes religion wrote about salvation of souls, achievement of Moksha, welfare of all, and establishing a society of brotherhood and love – they all ended in Dark Ages, a real heartless, cruel rule with a very few rulers using remaining society as lower than cattle. While rebelling against this inequality of religion, the communists also ended with the same structure, inequality and injustices – continuous flow of society’s blood was needed to satisfy the ruling monsters. Plato’s men of Gold and all their counterparts in every other society turned out to be far worse than beasts of prey. It took several centuries or thousands of years for mankind to draw the inference that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anybody who gets power over others mostly misuses it for corruption and vested interests and to turn others into his slaves. One notable exception in human history was George Washington described ahead. One reason why all religious systems ended similarly with the rulers crushing the ruled under their boots is that all men are not equal but have different capabilities. Because of the deception of imposing equality on them by calling them as God’s children, and considering ego to be the root of all evil (i.e. allowing rulers to use ego but not the ruled), men’s differences manifested in the forms of physical power of kings and intellectual deception of priests. The Greeks also came up with the idea that all men were equal, but implemented it differently from rest of the world by means of the Greek Democracy based on majority opinion – all men had the same right to govern society as the Men of Gold. Their idea was closer to the modern concept of egalitarianism. Majority opinion is a big progress over the animal like capricious rule of the tribal chief or of Plato’s Men of Gold, but since this also was in obvious contradiction with reality, that all men do not have as good thinking capacity as the best men, Greek civilization itself collapsed. (The major difference between the democratic rule versus Plato’s Men of Gold is epistemological – first one is based on the tenet that whatever the majority decides is right for society including the people better at thinking, the second one says whatever the elite decide is right even for all others. Even today this remains an unresolved issue that highly influences human societies.) The Greek system was adopted and improved by neighboring Romans, who borrowed intellectuality and intellectuals from the Greeks, and who restored democracy into the hands of a small upper strata of society (the Patricians), but knowing that power corrupts and is almost always misused, they put in place several checks and balances so that the rulers could not become dictators like Plato’s Men of Gold. They called it a Republic as against Greek democracy. This civilization lived for long time (around 500 years) as the mightiest in a large area around. But at a later date two important points emerged which most of mankind have not studied: One, that no matter how much the Patricians were superior, yet they also depended on the Plebeians, and when the latter became restive as well as suspicious of the former, rights had to be spread to the lower strata of society. Second point was that as rights spread to the lower strata of society and they got more and more involved into ruling the society, the Republic got reduced to the same as Greek democracy – and then the rule was taken over by internal fighting, plutocracy and so on, till dictators emerged and society collapsed in the historic Dark Ages of Christianity. (See the relevance of these points to today’s America just ahead.) After Dark Ages, rediscovery of Aristotle by Aquinas from the Muslims, and some reason (i.e. some human-ness, some civilized-ness) being pumped into society, all the above steps were repeated in America – abhorrence of concentration of power, a constitution of checks and balances (i.e. a Republic to control misuse of power), spreading rights to lower strata to the extent of emancipating the slaves, and so on. Thomas Jefferson’s statement “All men were created equal” was in reality continuity of the same drama, except for the strong Aristotelian atmosphere of the days, due to which it was interpreted and implemented in a totally different manner than all previous history. It became highly celebrated just because it was against British (and European) aristocracy, who were the enemies then. Their big progress over religion was that their rule was based on the sanctity of the human mind, i.e. they did not consider ego and selfishness to be evil – only flaw was that, as said earlier, they did not declare this explicitly, but went in a roundabout manner using words like pursuit of happiness, right to life (a substitute for rational selfishness), first amendment for freedom of mind (i.e. right to usage of ego) etc, i.e. they left scope for return of religion. The tremendous advance that the FFs made over the religious political system was that for the first time in human history they brought in the concept of ‘political equality’ of men. This meant equality in front of law, but inequality of returns -- the difference between men’s capabilities reflected in their returns which were as per the productive abilities they showed in the market. But continuing with their inability to explicitly declare rational usage of ego and rational selfishness to be sacrosanct, they did not explicitly define their idea of men’s equality too, they did not make proper clarifications about the words equality and inequality, (Jefferson merely declared “All men were created equal” leaving the controversy unresolved), and the struggle continues to this day. Americans at the time of her founding interpreted political equality correctly because of the Aristotelian sense of life prevailing then. It is very important for mankind to sort out what they mean by this equality and inequality. There is another meaning evil intellectuals grant to the word ‘equality’ which meaning is the root of theories like egalitarianism, viz. that irrespective of their (varying) capabilities and outputs, all men are metaphysically equal and should get equal returns for unequal works. This idea (mostly implicitly) underlies all variations of theories of socialism, an example of which is the idea of man’s rights propounded by the Democratic Party Platform in 1960, described ahead, its extension being the doles distributed by western governments today. (It is the latter meaning of equality that is being used when Dems increase doles for poor, reduce taxes for in-between people, and increase them for the rich. The Reps play the opposite game to loot America.) (To apply the idea of Rational, Semi-Rational and Thoroughly Irrational to ‘equality of men’, the original American concept of men’s equality is Rational; religion and communism’s concept is Thoroughly Irrational; Greek democracy based on unlimited majority rule is based on a Semi-rational, mixed version of equality of men. This applies to today’s mixed economies and welfare states, being based on the same principle of unlimited majority rule). Due to lack of proper definition of meaning of equality of men, today Americans have landed with the same democracy of unlimited majority rule, plutocracy, external wars, national debt, etc. Because America was born as a climax of classical English philosophy, the following is observed: whatever changes the Roman Republic underwent while passing from rule of Patricians to ever increasing influence of Plebeians, America is passing through the same steps from British aristocracy to today’s democracy – class conflict, division of society into groups with strong irreconcilable differences etc is started, only nomenclature is different and civil wars are pending. This phenomenon is referred to as civilization turning full circle ahead in this write-up. (The record of the Roman Republic is quite impressive, yet superficially America seems to be far stronger than them – but this may even prove to be an illusion. America has one very big drawback as compared to the Romans – the Romans were solid libertarians and Americans borrowed that virtue from them. But Roman society remained ‘undiluted’ in the sense that non-Romans did not have any say in the rule, so could not vitiate, and the vitiation came from within the Roman society which took time to spread because they were strong libertarians. The ASPs on the other hand had spread freedom to non-ASPs (5 classes of emancipated people given ahead), and along with lower class of ASPs, these non-ASPs are vitiating the FFs’ government. The ASPs are already reduced in number and soon expected to be less than 50%. As shown in this write-up, many of the non-ASPs are not individualists; the ‘dilution’ renders the ASPs weaker than the Romans; it will be interesting to see how things develop in future, and how the ASPs cope-up with it.) The above analysis gives rise to a few types of rules listed below: 1. A cruel, heartless, crushing dictatorship (of several variations like tribal chiefs, kings, theocracies, communism, military chief etc); 2. A benevolent dictatorship as the English Monarchy after the Dark Ages, which encouraged science, progress, increasingly more freedom to citizens etc though it also maintained privileges for Aristocracy. (This is a sort of a balance between powers of the monarchs, the patricians and the plebeians). 3. A Republic where power is thoroughly controlled by checks and balances, of which Rome and America in their initial days are the best examples. 4. A full-fledged Greek democracy where the majority decides and rules – many alleged republics have moved substantially close to this rule due to degeneration including today’s America. In ASP-R, the suppressive, crushing dictatorship (type 1 above) is called as Thoroughly Irrational Society; Greek democracy and benevolent dictatorships (English monarchy) are both categorized as Semi Rational Society. A Republic will come closest to an ideal Rational Society if it is well-defined. An important characteristic about republic and democracy is that finally both of them depend only on majority. But there is a thin line of difference between a republic and a democracy and in absence of this demarcation a republic can easily be converted to a democracy, then to welfare state, and finally to collapse, as happened in Rome and is now imperceptibly being repeated in America, the freest country in mankind’s history. So far Americans are not concerned with dictatorship, though they may end into it like the Romans, because, as developed ahead in detail, they are not free of the reasons, the interplay, the misunderstandings and manipulations of people who change political rule from one type to other (despite being the most advanced country). Even today they are not at all free of the wrong political interpretation of ideas like majority, equality, inequality, ‘welfare of society’ etc (apart from the words ‘selfish’ and ‘egoist’), which have caused havoc in human history. In fact America’s 225 year old politics is just a story of a strong competition to somehow get the above-mentioned majority to one’s side by playing on these very words, which is described beyond this point. (As explained ahead, apart from charity, the other strong weakness of Americans is the belief in majority as the arbiter of truth – they are true believers in democracy despite FFs’ anathema to it.) An important point to be noted is as follows: On studying America’s slide (due to democracy) for the last 100 years, one conclusion will be apparent – far from everything being wrong about it, English aristocracy had a lot of merits. If tempered properly, aristocracy too had an advantage over democracy in that it nurtured merit over democracy’s rule of the mediocre. Americans may look down upon Lords and Dames as products of aristocratic nepotism, but democracy too has their counter-part in plutocrats and pull-peddlers thriving in today’s America. Democracy can undergo a far faster moral degeneration, which is why it was so vociferously abused by some Founding Fathers of America. (In the long, scurrilous battle amongst America’s Founding Fathers over democracy, Adams’ prediction was a typical argument: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” And though Thomas Jefferson was an ardent and enthusiastic proponent of democracy (alternately calling the same system as republic), he too was far away from today’s rulers. Like Adams he too predicted death for the nation when certain limits were crossed -- The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who do not – Unquote. Today democracy has dragged entire west so much down the abyss that we have to see whether today’s degenerated rulers have crossed the limit mentioned by Jefferson above – and to paraphrase Ayn Rand, considering the debt piled up, will America’s check bounce back, marked “account overdrawn”? Analysis of these aspects of democracy forms the most important part of this write-up. Further, despite the negatives of aristocracy and democracy, strong Aristotelian sense of life was the main factor of the ASPs’ faster progress and dominance over the world. This is the back-ground to America’s history of slide in the last 200 years, which we will study now. Aspects of US Political History that changed the Republic to chaos of Democracy Continued in Post-3 of “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons?”.

Post-1 of “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons?” Capitalism Forever’s OP essay “476 Rome, 2008 Washington DC” inspired me that something fundamental can be discussed. America’s slide is too big a juggernaut whose pace also cannot be reduced by discussing day-to-day doings of small-time politicians. Please see my reply to CF’s post for further details. Note: All comments that look racist at first glance, including the titles of the two books, are fully explained and justified within the books. Introduction: Around 2008-09 I sought comments on the net on the first draft of my book “The Anglo Saxon Protestant Revolution” (ASP-R) describing how the ASPs mastered the world after Renaissance, built new continents, and why they are now on a down-ward journey as seen in the recent slide of the US. (As ASPs I today include all people who got naturalized into Americans and broadly adopted the classical Anglo-Saxon philosophy of individualism as their way of life.) I was shocked by the trivial comments, the misunderstandings and criticism based on lack of knowledge and I felt the need to write a prologue to ASP-R as clarification. This prologue became a complete book on its own which I titled as “Is Democracy the Nemesis Also of the Anglo-Saxons?”, generally addressed to the ‘Tea Party (TP) Movement Supporters’, who formed the engine of Republican take-over of the House of Representatives in Nov-Dec 2010. It could not be completed in time for the 2012 elections, but had to be suspended for a long time, and perhaps the TP Movement fizzled out in between. Very briefly, what this book achieves can be described as follows: Starting from a small island on the edge of Europe, the Anglo Saxons built, with tremendous courage, efforts and sacrifice of blood, sweat and life, two virgin continents on two sides of the Pacific, an entirely New World, the climax of rational man’s aspirations for civilization; they are the main contributors to huge discovery and invention of knowledge, and have emancipated 5 sets of people starting with poor ASPs followed by African-Americans, Europeans (many of them Catholics), myriad migrants from undeveloped societies including many Latinos, and finally, all those who are free in undeveloped societies, from 4000 years’ well established suppression and slavery. But today the emancipators are looked upon as enslavers and racists, the whole earth hates them, and every epithet is unquestionably thrown at them like greedy, selfish, materialist looters of earth, war mongerers etc. But more importantly, the emancipated people who have not contributed much to civilization are out to take-over their countries, and the original creators almost have no answer to it! (There even was talk of migration to other countries after Obama’s re-election in 2012 which was generally described as contest between ‘angry white men’ versus ‘minorities’!) The various issues which show that many Americans have not understood the causes of the present slide (and are making wrong attempts to rectify it) are explained in detail in the book, and a solution is also given to them. (Because Ayn Rand’s name surfaced strongly during the Tea Parties, quotes from her books are liberally used herein.) The book is divided into three parts. Part I lists out and briefly explains many political concepts that have influenced man’s attempts to form a good government since ancient times, particularly Greek and Roman civilizations from where America has borrowed so much. It takes review of American history since inception to show that, despite being the most advanced country, Americans have not resolved some of the concepts properly, because of which the American republic has changed to today’s chaos of unlimited majority rule. Most men use these concepts casually with different (and many times wrong) meanings, but these concepts are at the foundation of civilization, and therefore at the root of its erosion in US today. Part II uses history reviewed in Part I to further analyze why America is proceeding exactly on the same path as Greece and Rome towards collapse. A shocking fact related with this slide is that it is exactly predicted by a man 2500 years back – Plato! Even America’s Founding Fathers were strongly against democracy as “chaos of mob-rule” and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (a proponent of democracy) predicted the same path of destruction for democracy, traversing which it has come close to self-destruction today. Most people are unaware of these aspects because not much analysis of the matter is seen in popular literature. This part of the book raises and partly answers what I have called as “The Problem of Civilization”, fundamental questions about democracy over which Greece and Rome failed, and America is faltering precariously. Part III deals with one major issue: though I tremendously admire the achievements of classical English philosophers (Bacon, Locke, Smith etc) culminating into the American Revolution, the ASPs’ performance in the last century, which Ayn Rand called as ‘the century of the second-hander’, can be classified only as ‘moral cowardice’. Part III gives an example of ‘Victory of Evil over Good’, of how the Anglo Saxons are bent on self-destruction at the hands of impotent evil from all over the world by dealing with it via ultra-evil bodies like UN. Importantly, it discusses why the British rule during the Empire, despite some deficiencies, was far better than American domination of the world today; and what is wrong with America’s external policies also throws light on internal policies which add to today’s slide. About this UN connection I have said with explanation that once the greatest emancipator in mankind’s history, today America has become the perpetrator of biggest crimes against humanity because of its support to the UN. Part III includes a long sub-article on Racism practiced the world over. Some more points covered in Parts II and III are given at the end of Part I. Part – I Review of America’s Political History -- A Study in “Worship of Majority” Legend: ASP-R == my book The Anglo Saxon Protestant Revolution; FFs == Founding Fathers of America; TPM == Tea Party Movement; Af-Ams == African Americans O’ism (ist) == Objectivism (ist); Dems and Reps == Democrats and Republicans The words socialism and communism are many times used interchangeably because both have the same intention; as shown in this write-up socialism (or welfare state or mixed economy or inclusive governance) is slow-poisoning and a screen to deceive men into gradually achieving the target of communism. About my Interest in Anglo Saxon Philosophy US-UK have a special place of respect in some Indians’ minds, very briefly because: Around 150 million Indians (the lowest social strata called untouchables) were liberated by Anglo-American philosophy, from inhuman slavery imposed on them as “pious religion” (and other 700 million Indians like me were also liberated, but they foolishly consider themselves ‘upper-caste’ below the Brahmins). Phule, who became their first emancipator after studying Paine and Washington in the Scottish Mission School, expressed his gratitude by thanking the British-Raj, celebrating British victory over Brahmin forces during 1857 rebellion and exhorting his followers to learn English language / theories. Even today, some of their intellectuals celebrate the Englishman Macaulay’s birthday and consider English language as Goddess! (They actually show the language embodied as a Hindu-style Goddess drawn on a slate to new-born children. And recently there was a festival about this in New Delhi attended by a British guest of honor. Some people may find this to be amusing, but I see their slum-dog lives around me and am able to better appreciate their efforts as the first steps to development.) Personally, considering the ultra-orthodox religious upbringing I suffered, I became a human being simply because of accidental reading of Ayn Rand’s novels. And after that I learnt about the founding of America as the climax of classical English philosophers. (ASP-R is sort of my homage to what I gained from them. In the following I have mainly analyzed American political history because, apart from Ayn Rand, America was the climax of classical English philosophy, at the front of man’s liberation from tyranny, including abolition of slavery considered normal till then.) Ayn Rand is influential even today as seen from the sale of her books creating ever-new records. She was prominent at the TP Movement, it is her books they catapulted to record sales as an opposition to Obama’s policies, her books that they waved to America to achieve their election victory (in 2010). Yet GOP’s policies so far, coupled with deterioration of US from around her birth (1905) to today, also makes one a bit skeptic about their enthusiasm for Ayn Rand, and to the extent opportunism is involved, it is dealt with ahead. An Inverted America – Is it heading towards a collapse? The deterioration of socio-political situation in the US, and generally in the west, has progressed to almost hopelessness. From all sides, and in all their multitudinous avatars, the irrational has taken over all aspects of life in the US. It’s a totally inverted America as compared to the one envisaged by the Founding Fathers (FFs). The FFs thought of ‘inalienable rights of an individual’ leading to the best period of capitalistic building in human history -- today, as per the Russian Press, the medical, social security and other doles of American Socialism has left Soviet Socialism far behind – they really give everything to the American parasites. That capitalistic building is today called as ‘greed’, but there is also a real side to it – plutocracy and crony capitalism are now real, as logically unavoidable effects of American socialism. The government owns substantial to 100% of several businesses, intervenes and dictates policies of private corporations, appoints directors and ousts them with a rap – and they call it as ‘capitalism’. Plutocratic corruption is suspected in selective intervention, but in the case of treatment to other banks versus Lehman Brothers (leading to its collapse in 2008), it was savage murder without even decorum. Apart from politicians and bureaucrats, Washington is full of lobbyists, hacks and consultants, and corporations gain or lose, not as per their productive ability, but based on how they handle ‘politics’ through these. “What is good for wall-street is good for America” became a sarcastic description of bank bailout plutocracy in 2008, a parody of the 50s phrase “what is good for General Motors is good for America”. The FFs framed death penalty for manipulation of currency; today the governmental robbery of peoples’ money by forever printing dollars has made people forget that money has to be produced not printed – it is sustained merely because of the irresponsibility of passing the burden to the next generations, neglecting that some day reality avenges with a crash. Same is the reason that while the FFs were stringent about government spending; today’s government extravaganza has put to shame the most pompous kings of the past. Knowing that imperialism and debt due to war-expenses was a sure-shot recipe for the fall of every previous power including Britain, the FFs abhorred wars -- today it’s history’s biggest world conqueror (with army in around 125 countries) that spends several hundred billion dollars of its own money on military operations, partly to emancipate others, but is still called as a marauder. It has become the only strength supporting the open gigantic evil of UN, WB and IMF, heading towards global collectivism. Perhaps one big casualty is the virtue of honesty, the foundation on which the English-speaking world was built. Following news dated 31 Oct 2011 titled “Judges are for sale – and special interests are buying” corruption in US is just a sample of the casual exercise of dishonesty in American society. (Deterioration of honesty is a central part of this book, see sub-article about democracy as fertile ground for moral degeneration.) Superficially, socialism talks about brother-love, welfare of all etc, in reality not only has the economy weakened due to debt, but apart from racial divide, class-divide too has become very strong. The British experiment with socialism, the slogan “Better Red than dead”, unionism wrecking their economy etc, is followed by repeated looting in London in eighties, and now in August 2011. With Occupy Wall Street movement gaining some credibility and some incidences of riots in USA in2011, America too is inching towards the same – as if the original philosophy that separated them from the world is gone! But even these rioters have an ironical element of logic on their side. In 2007-08 all western governments bailed out, with piles of public money, mighty corporations that were about to fail (due to their market operations) – today these corporations, called as fatty cats, are sitting on loads of cash, while the government is refusing much smaller quantity of money to the unemployed! (This is the result of government entering area it should never have, viz. economy, giving some crude excuse to the rioting looters.) Along with strong internal divisions, empire-building of the US is accompanied by enmity with major part of the world. These were never big problems while what I have called as the ASP Revolution was on ascendancy. Today they are an indication of a strong slide that is progressing to go out of control! (Quotes from Ayn Rand about “collapse of society” are given ahead when dealing with welfare state in Part II. In fact why the situation is imperceptibly inching closer to civil war in US is shown there. A strong indication of collapse is given by break-up of society into irreconcilable pressure groups and the emergence of dictatorial traits in rulers like reports about GWB(43) described ahead and Obama using “Executive Order” too frequently as in 2012.) Considering that all past civilizations have finally collapsed, the ASP Revolution is now close to 500 years old (since Francis Bacon), and heading towards collapse is a possibility one should not neglect keeping in mind recent trends. Rather one should think of a proper solution to the possibility. With the above in mind, it would be pertinent to say that civilizations rise and fall very gradually (and therefore imperceptibly) over centuries, and solution for America’s problems too will take time. But to stop the slide and gain time, an interim solution suggested in this book is of “going back to FF-Government” (Founding Fathers’ government). The ongoing deterioration also helps in knowing what the FF-Government is. Today’s American Governments in light of FF-Government (This sub-article is very important when compared with today’s governments in Part II ahead while studying a typical Democrat President L B Johnson. If America wants to stop today’s slide, this is where they have to go back so as to go ahead. The most important principle the FFs never violated was that the government was not the means of charitable endeavors – and the other one was about avoiding wars. This was achieved by minimizing the government’s expenses.) The American Supreme Court endorsing President Obama’s health care law gave rise to a lot of discussion on the net regarding government’s functions and limitations. Following two news items are typical: 1.Health Care a right like water (By Alex Marshall Jul 11, 2012 4:05 AM GMT+0530, rechecked as of Jul 20, 2012, 6:30 AM IST); This news is about FFs’ limit of government’s functions: leave alone Medicare and today’s massive doles, they had defeated a proposal even for “public water system” in 1798, declaring pure water to be citizens’ private concern! Even in 1842 public water system was widely opposed as, to quote, “an expensive system” and “an unwise assumption of government debt and a nanny-state intrusion into what was regarded as a private responsibility.” (Note the words expensive, debt, nanny-state intrusion etc in context of today’s welfare state). Even public education, despite being Jefferson’s strongly pursued policy, was opposed for a long time on the lines “I will be responsible for the education of my children, why should I be for that of my neighbors’?” The new settlers were strict individualists. 2. The second news: better leave policy for moms (By the Editors, Jul 20, 2012 4:26 AM GMT+0530) is self-speaking, generally tilted towards government and employers ensuring welfare of mothers during maternity – and ahead I have referred to females with more than a dozen children! The above news is encouragement to moms enjoying fifteen years of paid leave for fifteen children, and then the first child will get unemployment benefits! Sort of “Welcome to Marxist America”! The FFs more or less practiced “Separation of State and Economy”, but like many other issues, did not bring it out clearly and secure it properly. During their time the tax was the lowest, government spending was very low (as mentioned elsewhere, generally it was less than 2% of GDP against today’s more than 25 %!) With talk about “public water distribution and sanitation”, “public infrastructure like roads, bridges, dams etc”, the government extended its control to every economic activity and every industry via talks of environment degradation – now there are talks about “clean energy”, i.e. government wanting to enter the field of energy! (From this one single figure people can understand how much the government has encroached and arrogated to itself – 2% of poor farmers’ GDP versus today’s trillions of dollars!) Many intellectuals have elaborated on the topic of “Separation of State and Economy” including Ayn Rand whose work we are referring to the most in this book. The interested reader can know about FF-Government from her essay ‘The Nature of Government’. But since this is a contentious issue let me specifically further add that she is not the originator of this idea; the FFs starting with John Locke, had already brought it into reality for a small period of time, which is what the above-mentioned first news states – and then see what several presidents said about it below. So very suspicious were the FFs about the government being a major threat to the people (because of the power in its hands) that they went overboard in reducing it – even the army was considered to be a threat and its reduction became the real threat in the war of 1812 with Britain, but they were saved because of Britain’s pre-occupation in Europe. (Today, the army being a threat has become a reality – from one side the army has become too big and is draining the economy because of its empire-building activities; from the other side, with the government having become plutocratic and encroaching, people come onto the streets as the London rioters and American Tea Partiers. It is the army that they will finally use to impose “discipline”, i.e. put down all opposition.) One reason for American idea of right to keep and bear arms is that it’s the population’s final defense against the government becoming autocratic, crossing the limits of its authority. That is why it is said that the Bill of Rights is written against the Congress; it ensures freedom for the individual mainly by tightly tying down the government. Its language too emphasizes its suspicion of the Congress by prohibiting it from violating and disparaging citizens’ rights. By contrast, today too many people want a totalitarian government, except that as per their party affiliation they want it tilted towards their party. A very good web site: GOP anti-doles (dated Aug 30, 2012 12:00 noon IST) titled Is Welfare Unconstitutional, gives details of FFs’ total, fanatic opposition to the usage of government money for any purpose than the few enumerated then, i.e. full separation of state and economy. For example, it was recognized that widows of war heroes deserved help the most – but state help was refused in the Senate and the Senators chipped in their own money to help a widow! Victims of natural calamities, personal misfortunes etc were dealt with in similar manner. (Today the dollar is showered on every point on earth for whatsoever ‘misfortune’ the President sees fit to throw it.) Though the FFs were more stringent about limiting the government, yet the same social atmosphere continued to prevail in nineteenth century, as can be seen from the following quotes. Following is President Franklin Pierce, 1854 while vetoing a social welfare charity bill: "[i must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." (Note: This subversion “of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded” has already happened to such an extent that it merits consideration of civil war and secessions at least in discussions – other-wise the inevitable will definitely happen, secessions, civil war etc. The hunter does not desist just because the ostrich refuses to see him.) And following is President Grover Cleveland, 1887 while vetoing a bill appropriating relief charity from public monies: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." The third name is a big shock; I do not quote him because after all every opportunist is expected to change sides as the situation necessitates of him – Father FDR, the Father of Big Government! He said similar things as above as Governor of New York when he wanted to oppose Washington, and not only did exactly the opposite on reaching there, but on such a big scale! Now for a word of caution: Do not jump to big conclusions, why public has forgotten this spirit of the FFs and are supporting the opposite policies. The name of the above site gopcapitalist is revealing. We will be seeing GOP’s performance to date in detail ahead. But as part of what we will see, to counter the above, one can construct sites such as: dem-humanists with titles: Is Empire Building Unconstitutional? Or: Is Bail-out Plutocracy Unconstitutional? Etc. See details ahead before you conclude. Insistence on “bare minimum government” is not mere philosophical dogma, or something to be mystically admired because the FFs practiced it. Fundamentally, the government’s only function is to ensure “right to life” to the citizens – but not to offer them with the means to life, welfare or happiness, all of which the individual has to earn for himself from nature. As per historical record (of 4-5000 years of human endeavors) the means for the government to become destroyer of human life is to claim to look after citizens’ welfare – as it goes on imposing this on citizens in small bits and measures (as in a socialism, mixed economy or a welfare state), it goes on progressively trampling human life till it finally achieves its destruction – an important point dealt with in detail in this book. The reason for all the above elaborations is that so very severe is the erosion of intellectuality in America (described ahead as “intellectual paralysis”) that today most people have even lost the idea that such a great government ever existed in the recent past, and that that is the starting point for them to revitalize their nation! The solution is to go back to that point and then start undoing the contradictions, the deficiencies, the points missed in FFs’ government that gradually, imperceptibly led to today’s situation, using today’s knowledge! Continuing with today’s inversion of FFs’ achievements, the key to the shameful drama is the answer to the question, how did it happen that the FFs instituted a Republic, a ‘rule of law’ that was above the rulers as well as the majority, while today it is reduced to the chaos and corruption of majority rule? There are 2 important points about America’s slide: 1. that it is too trivial discussing the specific, individual policies of presidents of both the parties in recent years. 2. But all discussion is limited to these very trivial doings of small-time rulers elected by parasitical people who now look upon the government as their provider, while the FFs advocated self-reliance and always being suspicious of the government. (This point is very important for Part II where it is shown that differences over trivia and better peoples’ inability to join hands, is the reason for victory of evil.) I was trying to convey this change of fundamentals at the time of America’s founding versus today’s atmosphere with the help of The ASP-R, but was shocked by the trivial comments and criticism that I evoked on the net. Something has changed at the very basic, fundamental level of the English-speaking world – which is also the secret behind Ayn Rand’s continuing influence today, viz. that, in her own words, she was a writer of the Romantic school which deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence (Introduction to 25th year edition of The Fountainhead in 1968). Many people sense the seriousness of the deterioration and feel an intense need to invoke those principles! What has changed in the West is, to again use Ayn Rand’s ideas, ‘the cultural sense of life’ of the English-speaking world, from a solid Aristotelian sense of life, to a corrupt diluted one wherein the next generations are unable to deal in terms of fundamentals, but science, production etc are going on at high speed because of momentum derived from a recent Aristotelian past. I have explained this in my other writing as the British changing Indians’ mind-set! When British came to India, Indians believed in many irrationalities like: Food would turn into worms if a female was given education; wailing women were dragged in the streets by their hair to be burnt in their dead husband’s pyre and only the evil amongst priests had the right to collect their jewelery; the Brahmin was the god on earth and ladies and untouchables were to wash his feet and drink that water. Though such form of Dharma is even today practiced in some remote areas of India, and else-where milder variants of the Dharma are practiced, still the British changed the mind-sets to bring in whatever civilization that exists in India. This is the type of “change of minds” that has occurred in the English-speaking world itself – the ASPs were strong Aristotelians when they built the Empire and the foundation of the New World, but today they have changed substantially, except that the change is very slow and imperceptible. The other difference is that Indians have progressed while the ASPs have regressed on the social side despite huge scientific progress going on at fast speed. This statement is important and elaboration is given at the end of Appendix A. Like honesty, there is also deterioration of reasoning in western world which I have called as intellectual paralysis. Several examples of this are given ahead -- the most prominent one is “the intellectual fight to save capitalism” as follows: Today, there is a huge fight to save capitalism by its alleged defenders (GOP making big noise about it), and intellectuals keep engaging in arguments that still presume America to be a capitalist country. The disgusting fact is that there is no intelligent mind left to pronounce that this recession is a failure of American socialism, not of capitalism – and that the lead of US over rest of the world belongs to the lingering effects of an Aristotelian sense of life, which is in its final stages! Instead of seizing the opportunity to attack American socialism, the intellectuals foolishly try to defend capitalism against today’s fall-out of socialism, while the evil uses the situation to further bury freedom! C is the victim, S the culprit, but proponents of S further attack C, while proponents of C make odd, awkward defenses instead of being offensive, imparting legitimacy to the claim of socialists that C is evil One big factor that led to the change in Western social atmosphere was the spread of Kant’s anti-Reason philosophy in the western world around the formation of America – that has hijacked all later development in philosophy and substantially contributed to the vitiation of reason in western countries. (The other big factor is moral degeneration due to democracy explained ahead in detail.) The phenomenon of America America was too big a happening in man-kind’s history – the climax of rational man’s aspirations for civilization, as I have called it in ASP-R. It could not have got built over-night, nor by today’s politicians and bureaucrats – it has withstood huge erosion, and even today standing as the greatest country with several positive attributes – but today severely eroded and in danger also. Both the changes, the first one necessary for building it, and the second one leading to its erosion, require huge change in what Ayn Rand referred to as the ‘cultural sense of life’ of that society. To talk about America and to reform it, cannot be done so very easily, the way I saw discussions on internet forums, or the way the TP Express romped boisterously into the House. For that one has to go to the very bottom i.e. talk in terms of fundamentals – how did this phenomenon, so very different from the rest of the world, come into existence in the first place? What are the differentiating factors, the most important salient characteristics that will sustain it, and whose exclusion / erosion will kill it? (Without raising these fundamental questions one cannot meaningfully deal with America’s current problems, by attacking them as if in mid-air.) Then one will realize that only 3 civilizations so far reached the level of freedom of a meaningful republic / democracy and have produced majority of scientific knowledge – Greece, Rome and today’s Western. (If somebody wants to oppose this statement then he should accept the challenge I have made to upper-caste Indians of giving up all “evil” western knowledge and shifting to “pious” ancient Indian knowledge the priests hid from ‘lower caste’ Indians. A challenger may adopt any system of knowledge other than western.) The distinguishing feature of these 3 civilizations is that reason / logic was discovered, and meaningfully applied, only in them. Aristotle has made the most important difference to civilization! (See Appendix A for further details.) You will see this theme (Aristotle) all over Ayn Rand, but in particular, in “For the New Intellectual” she says: “If we consider the fact that to this day everything that makes us civilized beings, every rational value that we possess – including the birth of science, the industrial revolution, the creation of the United States, even the structure of our language – is the result of Aristotle’s influence, of the degree to which, explicitly or implicitly, men accepted his epistemological principles, we would have to say: never have so many owed so much to one man”. The people who inducted Aristotle the most into their culture and “way of life” were the English, who then came to dominate the whole world, because of the huge progress they achieved in civilization. That way of life finally climaxed in the New World -- they then surpassed even England. As part of erosion of reason my excerpts from ASP-R about Aristotle’s greatness, contribution and indispensability at the base of thinking were rejected with all round sarcasm on the net, backed by various flawed arguments. Several other-wise knowledgeable O’ists shocked me a lot with their arguments about this matter. But most such arguments are answered in ASP-R, and any remaining can also be. One difficulty is about the distinction between Aristotle’s philosophy and his particular sciences like physics and biology which one has to correctly take into account while evaluating his contribution / greatness. As part of the foolish ‘philosophical war’ between some O’ist groups and Libertarians, one Libertarian called my arguments as “Randroid nonsense” of declaring Aristotle to be prefect good and Plato to be total evil. This evaluation is so much of total nonsense that I do not wish to deal further with it – but this book in itself invalidates the argument. (I have briefly answered this comment in Appendix A dealing with this topic.) Such fools should not participate in upholding Ayn Rand’s books to Obama’s policies, and my book is not addressed to such low level of intelligence. Note: While many Americans shocked me by their anti-Aristotle comments which triggered this book as Prologue to ASP-R, a few also said that Appendix A is very important and should be brought here. Personally, I considered the above contribution of Aristotle to civilization so valuable that it was the start of ASP-R after the Introduction. If individualism, the specific ASP way of life was to be saved, then this was the starting point, the foundation – but in trying to do so, I got pasting from those very men. My shock about this matter became “the American conundrum” which got solved very recently, and I included the entire matter as a separate sub-article ahead. Readers who are interested in knowing why Ayn Rand evaluated Aristotle as above may read Appendix A at this point and then proceed further. See links: http://share.cx.com/BC7N7P or: http://www.filefactory.com/file/2bt4mf9togbt/n/Appendix_A.doc The first one is faster; second one requires more input on part of user.) Only after having seen all the above one can talk about why did America start eroding to the extent that today it is almost on the brink – then one will find that for all 3 civilizations, democracy was the last step before collapse. Of these, the Roman and American models were republics with checks and balances because of Greek experiences, which yet degenerated into unlimited majority rule. Why, how and when did it happen to America? From the best system in man-kind’s history so far that yielded so much, how did the US come to this stage of surpassing Soviets in socialism, together with plutocracy and cronyism? And further, despite the above, why is it standing even today as the greatest country, ahead in all rational endeavors, instead of collapsing like so many others? Answers to these questions are very important if one wants to reform the US for the better. Inheritance -- An important factor while evaluating historical phenomena and personalities Continued in Post-2 of “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons?”

This is a very interesting and inspiring post because it touches fundamentals necessary to stop America’s slide, as against talks about trivial issues that are many times seen on freedom-leaning forums. I don’t know how I missed this one, because I do visit forums frequently to read. But there is a negative tone in the article which I wish to change to hope – despite living in India’s hell I have not given up on America as of yet as the engine of civilization. Previously I have made some “fast posts” on various forums, but mainly with the intention of knowing American mind – why America is sliding unstoppably, and why no one is able to even slow down the pace. Obama’s re-election was such a jolt that several even talked of migration to other countries (like CF has declared it as the demise). Earlier when I talked about collapse of civilization I got thoroughly pasted. People on some Objectivist sites also ganged up against me when I talked about Aristotle’s greatness and contribution to civilization, like starting from metaphysics (apart from Libertarians calling it as “Randroid nonsense”). Other points about which I took beating were: Whether America is a democracy or a republic, the banality of Jefferson’s “All men were created equal” etc. All of it contributed as experience / knowledge to my writing. Now I have completed this book – Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons? It covers in detail all the fundamental issues (amongst many others) touched by CF and the replies to his OP like the argument between John Rgt and Yosef. I had like to discuss it one part after another serially. I will make these posts and interested readers can give their views. I do believe that the book will help in stopping the slide America is on, and in a few posts the readers will come to know whether they agree or it is just my fancy – and based on their response / replies I too will know when to stop posting. PS: Please note that other than good books there is no way of handling such a huge topic like stopping America’s slide. That it will happen “in a few words” (as I was advised to do on a forum) is out of question – its too very big a topic. So the posts will be a bit large, but perhaps OK for the essay section.

Stephanie has done something thankful by what she calls as 'resurrecting' an old but good essay (of the days when I was not a member). There is all-round confusion amongst knowledgeable people as to why so much of the great things that had been achieved in the past are given up, and how slowly communists entered the white-house. The list of govt’s infringements, not only as Russell, but many others say, is infinite – all without anybody ever coming anywhere nearer to declaring the intention to overturn America, rather every president talking about citizens’ welfare! (Many more horrific things have happened after 2005 when Russell made the OP.) An important clue to this is to be found in Russell’s first post QUOTE And if you think it was just the leaders who were wary of democracy please consider that it was the citizens themselves who refused to ratify the new constitution until their leaders guaranteed a bill of rights would be attached to it as its first amendments. Having just defeated a tyrannical government in a bloody war the new American citizens knew all too well how easily a government can infringe on the rights of its citizens. UNQUOTE. This is what got changed, viz. the culture, the social atmosphere, people’s knowledge, emphasis on that earlier way of life, demand for freedom etc. It would be a mistake to primarily blame the politicians alone – the better politicians, for e.g. the Founding Fathers, would not get elected today! Today’s style is to pay lip-service to their greatness, while step-by-step dismantling all their policies. The people and the politicians are going down-hill together, hand-in-hand. The politicians offer to the masses only that which will be lapped up by them, securing a seat for themselves in senate or where-ever – and the competition has been leading them down year after year, so that today nothing remains of the original constitution. It is obvious for Objectivists that the erosion started with the Kant virus spreading into society, though out-side not many would give any importance to this fact. Under the circumstances, the most important question to ask would be: What was there prior to Kant that raised those “people” far above today’s people, those who originally built America out of wilderness? The answer will bring forth the fact that, despite the existence of Christianity, avowed mysticism was on decline, and Aristotle, to the extent inducted, was sacrosanct, at least to the English, the best amongst whom culminated in America. With Kant, it was not merely Aristotle, but Aristotelian sense of life that eroded. The erosion is to such an extent that, as Russell found it, it is difficult to convey simple concepts like “freedom” to the masses – the ones who eventually determine the government. The reason why Aristotle (to the extent inducted) was sacrosanct was because the horrors of the just-ended Dark Ages (the underlying causes, related philosophies etc) were strong in peoples’ memory – today, they have tasted a lot of easy life as a result of founding farmers’ courage, sweat and blood, further spoiled by the dollar printing factories post Nixon detaching it from gold. The other important factor to be considered is the other philosophies (of other large groups that matter in a democracy) that have now grown appreciable and are competing side-by-side the Anglo Saxon individualistic way of life! This is a very important factor that has to be considered when analyzing the downward trend – other-wise no good analysis will be possible, means no good solution. One has to remember that when the foundation of America was being laid, the Anglo-Saxon culture of individualism was almost inviolable – today it is almost unutterable, being universally damned as “the evil of selfishness”! It would be, not an understatement, but a joke to say that Objectivism is a good philosophy – I consider that I became a human being from whatever else I was prior to just because of a casual reading of “the novels”, India is a very backward society with some pockets of civilization imparted by the British -- but can you tell all this to the masses, can you imagine getting an Objectivist elected as president primarily on the ground that he is a rational person, an Objectivist? Rather, as I saw (and responded to) on this very forum, within America itself but out-side the Objectivist fold, they are considered as nut-cases, nazi-like-cult etc. With Ayn Rand, some reason has again come back into the game – but the number of people adhering seems to be dwindling fast. (That tea-party affair just seems to be GOP gimmick, as usual, to use Ayn Rand’s name to get back into power – use her when out of power, and dump her when back in.) The trouble is, with “reason” gone out of society (or at least society being down-hill), the scales are tilted in favor of irrationality, and as far as I see it, it will not be possible to stop the slide till one more collapse occurs. Unfortunate part is: it will be one more repeat of Greek, Roman etc performances, from where the Founding Fathers had taken their lessons, while the progeny has forgotten / given up. Anyway, I have written a lot about this topic, but if some people find it difficult to communicate the meaning of freedom to the masses, then my attempts too are futile for the same reasons. Just happened to view this, and thought to put something on paper – other-wise this is a very big topic.

On another forum, I got an enthusiastic reply to my writing, and during discussion I explained to him the basis as follows (it should be read as addressed to him as part of our inter-action): America was too big a happening in man-kind’s history – the climax of rational man’s aspirations for civilization, as I have called it elsewhere. It could not have got built over-night, nor could it have got destroyed so easily – it has withstood huge erosion / onslaught, and even today standing as the greatest country with several positive attributes – but today severely eroded and in danger also. To talk about it (i.e. to describe the phenomenon of America), to reform it for the better etc, cannot be done so very easily, the way we see discussions on internet forums. There are a few sincere attempts (one of them being yours), but some of them go awry because they do not start with the very basic fundamentals (you have gone upto Greece / Rome etc); else they simply get drowned in the din of the trivia that goes on all around. To talk about America one has to go the very bottom (i.e. talk in terms of fundamentals) – how did this phenomenon, so very different from the rest of the world, come into existence in the first place? What did / does it depend on? Then one will come to the conclusion about “inalienable rights of an individual”, freedom of speech and so on, i.e. a democracy / republic (there is confusion about the terminology starting with founding fathers of the US who used both the words to describe it. But we can get it clarified in due course.) Then one will realize that only 3 civilizations so far reached a meaningful democracy – Greece, Rome and today’s Western. These 3 have a distinguishing feature as compared to the rest of the world, viz. that reason / logic was discovered, and meaningfully advanced, only in Greece upto today’s western. Aristotle has made the most important difference! (You will see this theme all over Ayn Rand, but in particular read comparison between Plato and Aristotle in “For the New Intellectual”, every achievement of civilization has Aristotle at its base, “never have so many owed so much to one man”, etc. Post Kant, westerners not only lost Aristotle, but substantially even the Aristotelian sense of life, and what you are calling as capitalism today is merely the remnants of that sense of life. Amongst other things, Ayn Rand re-discovered him for all of us. This theme is brought out in detail by me – and today’s erosion can only be explained / stemmed by getting Aristotle, i.e. reason, back into main-stream life. This is also the reason to talk about crisis of intelligence. Those who evade this under the excuse of allegiance to O’ism are indirectly betraying their conviction – Ayn Rand would not want it that way, she correctly expressed her indebtedness to Aristotle at appropriate places.) Only after having seen all the above one can talk about why did America start eroding to the extent that today its almost on the brink – then one will find that all 3 civilizations reached upto this point, viz. democracy, and then collapsed. Why? Because democracy is fertile ground for moral degeneration, this group you call as hedonists (etc) comes to the fore and determines the govt --- and so on. Only after studying this aspect to the necessary extent one can think of how to overcome it. Without doing all this its very foolish to engage in why GOP attacked Iraq, why Dems increased welfare etc. Their behavior is standard described by Plato step by step, so old it is – and Romans, America’s Founding Fathers etc everybody has studied them also (Washington was a fan of Cato), but so far solution has not been arrived at. If you take up day to day issues, they will go into so many directions of discussions (with every Tom and Dick interfering and steering discussion to his ideas) – till you finally give up, thinking this is all senseless realm. If you have a great philosophy – e.g. Objectivism – that also does not work, because, as you pointed out, the hedonists laugh at your “great philosophy” + they overwhelm you with their numbers, you are nothing in front of them. It is under all these conditions that I am trying to propose a solution to this problem – but I am myself under victimization / persecution here, ours being a fanatic society, my family back-ground being very bad etc. Also: I am not “one of you people”, this factor too has an effect no matter peoples’ proclamation to the opposite, and they tend to neglect me. But note the few effects of not starting from such fundamentals, I have pointed in the link given to you – today, there is a huge fight to save capitalism by its alleged defenders (GOP making big noise about it) versus Dems’ quest for its total annihilation to save the people from its ill-effects like today’s recession! Capitalism in US has died decades back, and we are seeing recessions, corruption etc due to American socialism, and knowledgeable people are defending capitalism instead of attacking socialism with this tool! The other example: The American is the greatest emancipator on earth – but today the white man is fighting to save himself from the emancipated people’s allegations of being a racist oppressor, the noise reverberating all over the earth. All such things will get erased because of my approach of starting from fundamentals. Having shown so much, I had like to hear something more from your side. See if you can take some time off.

On several of the web-forums that I visit, I have seen people abusing politicians in manner befitting only primitive societies. ‘Grave’ would be a very mild word to describe the divisive emotional atmosphere in US (e.g. resorting to racist abuses / charges etc). One such example on this forum is about civil war II: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=11650. With the proclaimed communists having entered the White House, I believe it is well past the time that people with similar political goals, viz. a small, restrained government and maximum freedom to the individual, came to an understanding for the purpose of reducing this government, while maintaining and declaring differences amongst themselves. Those interested may find following write-up to be contributing towards this: http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/8a55c6df0a_0.08MB The link to download the file is at the bottom of the page that appears.