As per Yahoo! News:
As the Toileting of America becomes more apparent, there has arisen a genre of non-fiction that might help someone just becoming aware of the decay wrap his or her head around the history, nature and seriousness of the problem. Below is some recommended reading for the emerging declinist:
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline by Robert Bork–Deep, historical analysis of the rise of the especially corrosive form of liberalism currently ascendant in the United States from its origins in The Enlightenment through various incarnations to the late twentieth century. A good overview of Moonbattery and its effects up to about the mid-1990s.
The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students by Allan Bloom–Allan Bloom, a moderate conservative politically (though he denied it), was a professor of philosophy at Yale and the University of Chicago. In Closing, he exposes about the kind of hard-left/anti-Western/morally relativistic crap that American universities were teaching (and still teach) as indisputable fact in history and the humanities. In 1987, when this book came out, this was somewhat controversial as many parents were unaware of what their kids were being indoctrinated with and many professors liked it that way. Bloom paints a bleak picture of American academia as a place for ex-radicals to idle and pass along their intellectual viruses. His intent wasn’t political; he was lamenting the DOCTRINAIRE and unexamined nature of the nonsense being taught more than its mere existence. The criticism is even more poignant now as the sort of PC crap that was extreme and “out there” enough to be noticed in 1987 is deeply embedded in the curriculum by now and has largely stopped raising eyebrows.
The De-Valuing of America by William J. Bennet– Bennet, the lawyer and philosophy Ph. D. who was head of the national Endowment for the Humanities and Department of Education under Ronald Reagan, warns us that someone is purposely mis-educating your kids. Written in 1994, the book accurately predicts that the unceasing attacks on “bourgeois culture” by the media and academia will result in a nation where nobody can be shocked, nobody can follow a line of intelligent reasoning and nobody can explain what they stand for. His book is worth a read just to snicker at how gullible all those leftist lunkheads were when it came to the “Beautiful Revolution” of the Sandanistas (which brings to mind the media’s slobbering over the equally misunderstood “Arab Spring” last year).
Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire by Morris Berman
The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman
Why America Failed: The Roots of Imperial Decline by Morris Berman
Morris Berman is the pre-eminent voice of America Declinism, laying bare the apparently hopeless future of American society and the political system dependent upon it. In this trilogy of books, Berman explores how dumb, shallow and lazy Americans have become (Twilight), the effect this has had on domestic and foreign policy (Dark Ages) and what the next steps must be for those of us who read the news and smell death in the air (Failed). In Why America Failed, Berman spends some time pretty courageously exploring the notion that the agrarian South that seceded from the Union in 1860, based in tradition and Christian mores as it was, might have been a more promising society to seed a long-lasting civilization than the self-righteous industrial North that burned the plantations down. Anything by Berman is good reading for the Toilet-conscious.
Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges–What have we become? 300 million obese idiots listening to Clear Channel Radio, masturbating to Internet porn and watching professional wrestling and the Kardashians. That about sums it up. What happens to a nation that, collectively, never picks up a book written above a ninth-grade level (if at all) or puts down the remote? What happens to economy, culture and morality in a nation of over-privileged illiterates? This book explores that question.
That’s enough for today, class. More recommended reading in the future.
As Per American Conservative:
“When people speak of “the national debt,” they usually have in mind the official Treasury securities held by the public. This figure is currently about $11.45 trillion (72% of GDP). However, this is just a small portion of the total indebtedness of the federal government, once we include all of the implicit obligations in the current benefit schemes for Medicare, Social Security, and other social insurance programs. Using GAAP procedures the way they would be applied to a corporation that had pension obligations for its employees, the federal government could be in the hole more than $70 trillion.“
Let’s reason this out.
The United States, like most countries, formed over time. A core of 13 colonies, mostly peopled by Western Europeans and descendants of Western Europeans (many from England) had a few pretty bright people living in them. Every society has them. Readers. Talkers. Intellectuals. The kind of people who, at parties, can be overheard asking questions of their drinking companions during intense discussions. Questions like: “But what presumptions is that premise based on, Ray? And why do you presume them?” And the other person stands there thinking, perhaps having never been asked that question before. Well, the Founding Fathers were all “What Presumptions?” Guys.
The questioning of presumptions was just starting up as a popular political pursuit in the late 18th century, and people like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Ben Franklin were really digging it, especially when it came to the relationship between monarchies and their subjects. These guys were even “crazy” enough to question whether monarchies–assumed to be empowered by God–were even legitimate. This was, literally, blasphemous at the time.
Now, perhaps you are enough of a douchebag to regurgitate the knee-jerk rebuttal that the Founding Fathers were steeped in presumptions of their own. Maybe you are the kind of predictable, public university pseudo-intellectual who is dying to sneer and use the words “slavery” or “sexist” or “smallpox blankets” or “Trail of Tears” or some other automatic denial of the Founding Fathers’ greatness. To those words, I make the universal “jerk off” gesture and continue making my point.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, they were doing more than just telling the King to buzz off. They were asserting that they saw self-determination as a universal right. They were under the sway of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” and they were declaring that they agreed with Paine’s premises.
What were Paine’s premises?
1. Government is a necessary evil, meant only to protect a people from the worst elements among them. A government’s job is to protect life, liberty and property and a government’s worth should be judged only on its ability to do that.
2. Mankind’s practice of choosing Kings to rule them is a slap in the face of God, The Universal King. (Paine based this notion on his reading of the Bible. So sue him.)
3. People ruled by a government have the right to judge the government ruling them and either give consent or deny consent based on its efficacy and responsiveness.
4. Independence of a sub-state or colony must be worked out with some thought. If the new nation can defend and provide for itself and ensure the “rights of man” within its new borders in a way they believe is superior to the way their rights are being looked after in their current situation, and if the people in the sub-state or colony judge themselves to be ill-served by their current patron state, they have a human right to separate and declare themselves a new nation. Paine says this in terms specific to the relationship between the American colonies and the British Crown, but his themes are universally applicable.
At this point, take a few minutes and read at least the first two big paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. Click these words and then come back.
Notice that at no point does it say “and if the King disagrees, we’ll re-think it.” Nor does it say “but we could be wrong about all this, and we await your rebuttal.” Nor does it say “and if we lose a war with you, the political ideology herein becomes null and void.” No. They stated their premises, confidently listed THEIR grievances–some of which historians have insisted were unfair to the King–and said, “We’re outta here.”
The people who founded America, in other words, were pro-Secession.
There is no need to go over the Civil War, because it–more than people seem to understand–is irrelevant. This is not 1860. There are no slaves and slavery is not the issue. I am presuming here, for argument’s sake, that the Yankee notion that slavery was The One Big Issue of The War is correct. I’m being nice. But, now, there are no slaves.There is no One Big Issue.
What issues might propel a state to secede from a nation like the United States? Well, try:
>severe political intransigence at the national level
>social and moral decay
>exploding debt with no serious efforts to control it
>expensive and deadly and unnecessary foreign wars
>immigration policy designed to quickly shift the demographic make-up of the country for political purposes
>unfair tax burdens on the working class
Any one of those is worth considering and, together, are burdensome indeed. And, as the Founding Fathers’ example shows, it doesn’t matter if these grievances are only PERCEIVED. ALL grievances are a matter of perception.
For example, if Texas wants to secede and be an independent nation for the reasons listed above–which I think is possible and would probably be a great thing for both the United States left behind and The Republic of Texas–then the precedent is there, being the intellectual, ideological and political premise upon which the United States itself was founded. Also, Texas is not a special case, in terms of separation. Any state that is in the Union is a state of FREE PEOPLE who have the collective human right to declare themselves a Nation and cut ties with the federal government and any other state that chooses to do the political will of the federal government.
The Founding Fathers said so, and I believe it, too. What’s the big deal?
Quote: “When you got married did your wife understand there was an expiration date on that promise? When you borrowed money to buy your house did you say, ‘Oh geez. That mortgage? That was 10 years ago. You’re still asking me for money?’ You make a commitment, you make a commitment,” says Norquist.
Grover, honey, give me my keys. It’s over. This isn’t easy for me, either, but times have changed. We’ve changed. Sure, you and your friends helped get me elected and I’ll always appreciate that. And, sure, we had a LOT of good times. The barbecues, the Tea Parties, the Fox and Friends appearances. And I know I made a “pledge” not to entertain the notion of raising taxes, but I took an OATH to the American people and the Constitution, and I’m afraid an OATH is a bigger deal than your two-bit pledge. I mean, I “pledged” allegiance to the Bay City Rollers in 1978 to “be a BCR fan for life.” But, you know, we grow up.
Oh. So now the pouting. And don’t go back upstairs with that, Grover, I need to load it. Grover? Fine. Keep it.
Look, Grover. The national debt is so big and growing so fast one would need to DROP ACID to expand one’s mind enough to even begin to ponder it. The deficit is, well, HUGE. Nobody wants to cut anything. Nobody seems to want to close any bases anywhere or stop building aircraft carriers–of which we already have, like, 15 times as many as the next “competitor” nation…I mean, who are we fighting? Martians?And the wars, Grover. The goddamn wars.
And then the programs. Shit, we’ve got so many “entitlements” that have become expected parts of American life that if we ever cut enough of them or cut them enough to make a difference (which, mathematically, is impossible), there would be rioting and civil unrest. Oh. Right. There’s the face of the angry prick I know and love. You wouldn’t give a fuck, would you, you impotent closet queer?
Grover, I’m sorry. Don’t cry. That wasn’t fair. That wasn’t fair. It happens. I know it does. Don’t cry. Grover…no.
Grover. We are going to have to raise taxes to avoid this country being irreparably financially ruined for all time. Don’t you see? This is like an ATOMIC TIME BOMB ticking in our economy. We’re BORROWING money and spending it with absolutely no plan to repay it and no kind of real credit other than the fact that we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And that just won’t be good enough much longer. We don’t PRODUCE, Grover, mostly because of tax-dodging idiots like you doing business overseas to avoid paying taxes!
We need to close the loopholes, cut the spending AND increase revenue. Billionaires have had a good run. What is it now? Almost 35 years? They’ll be fine.
Oh. So you’re going to “ruin me”? Real mature. I’ll just come running back now, won’t I? Pathetic. Oh. Attack ads? Really? Well, maybe my principles just kicked in, Grover, and I don’t care that much about hanging around in D.C. anymore. How much blow can I snort, anyway? Go ahead. Throw your tantrum and elect some asshole you can agree with. I don’t care. I’m leaving. Here. Take your ring. I signed up to be a REPUBLICAN, not a slave. Goodbye, Grover. And good luck.
Now get off my hood.
Fault the kid if you will for daring to bite the hand that’s feeding him, but I see his awakening as akin to kicking heroin and, in an effort to keep the next addict from getting hooked, turning his dealer over to police. Too bad he’s about to find out that in Toiletnation, USA, starring in a show that spews sexual innuendo so fast that the human mind can barely keep up is just fine while simply stating that one is a Christian and would like to live as one is a one-way ticket to scorn, contempt and loathing. It’s just starting for this kid.
Remember, Angus: “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.“–John 15:19
No need to go over the plot in detail. Lincoln wants to pass the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery before the war ends, and he has to fight hard for the votes in the House. Ably acted by most in the cast, script predictably politically correct and revisionist in inflection if not in tone. See it, but expect the same old same old, historically.
If all I ever learned about America and American history came from Steven Spielberg films, here’s what I would know:
Historical Figures Regularly Gave Each Other Backstory–Suppose you are Abraham Lincoln and your Secretary of State comes into the room to talk to you about whatever political machinations you are involved in at the moment. He won’t just say: “The Secretary of War disapproves of what you’re doing.” No. He’ll say: “Edwin M. Stanton disapproves of what you are doing. You don’t want to upset your Secretary of War, do you?!” This is, of course, to fill the audience in as to who is saying what, because Spielberg’s films attract the sort of Americans who know their own history, on average, about as well as they know what the weather is doing on Mars.
Black People Have Always Been Stoic and Noble–In Spielberg’s cinematic universe (hereafter “cineverse”), one thing black people excel at is repressing their emotions just to the point where the White Racist Idiots around them (see below) can’t see how hard black people have to bite back on their outrage at whatever racist idiocy is going on while simultaneously allowing the audience to see the tears welling up in their sad eyes. Also, black people walk around just waiting for the opportunity to give long soliloquies on injustice while the White Racist Idiots surrounding them at all times respectfully wait for them to finish speaking.
White People are Racist Idiots–Whether they are night-riding terrorists in the Ku Klux Klan or janitors doing a bad job cleaning out the garbage can in a black teacher’s classroom, white people are propelled by racism, and they are so socially inept as to openly show it with some regularity. This is especially true of southern white rednecks, who chew tobacco and have dirty, greasy faces. (Here I refer to the scene in “Lincoln” in which a greasy-looking Congressman votes “no” on the 13th Amendment in a vaguely southern accent and, then, immediately, spits a giant gob of tobacco juice, apparently on the floor).
In fact, in the very FIRST scene of Spielberg’s latest deposit (right after black Union soldiers are depicted orgiastically slaughtering white Confederates), even the deified Abraham Lincoln gets his comeuppance at the hands of a black soldier who comes close to reading him the fairness riot act regarding pay inequality, until he is drowned out by a fellow black soldier being very Stoic and Noble. Lincoln is so blind, being white, that he doesn’t even seem to worry that much about pay inequality for blacks! It isn’t clear if the rest of his executive record clears him of idiot status in Spielberg’s mind, but it’s pretty clear that Spielberg wants to lay some groundwork about historical guilt as even Lincoln doesn’t get off scot-free. In Spielberg’s cineverse, a white character has to be pretty special to escape the implicaton that he isn’t a White Racist Idiot.
Whites are Vacillating Cowards, Too–Sure, they talk tough, but they tremble in fear in the face of black Stoic Nobility. Or, if not completely cowardly, they sure are niggardly about simply helping a brother out!
For instance, suppose it’s 1865 and you’re a Kentucky Congressman being called upon to vote for a constitutional amendment to make slavery illegal. Lo and behold, you show some reluctance. Is any historical perspective called for in Spielberg’s cineverse? Any exploration of what such a sweeping change would mean for said Congressman’s economy that had, for good or ill, depended on slave labor with no constitutional problem until the relatively quick and recent growth of abolitionism? No, you White Racist Idiot! Slavery is bad and anyone who ever didn’t know that or ever argued otherwise is a Vacillating Coward.
Or. take the case of Thaddeus Stevens (played by Tommy Lee Jones). Here’s a guy who’s living in hot sin with a high-yellow mixed race chick for years and even HE can be turned into a Vacillating Coward by politics (he publicly moderated his stance on racial equality to appease the White Racist Idiots who read the papers back then). If it wasn’t for him going to bed with said “black” girlfriend in the final scenes (in real life, she was his quarter-black common-law wife), the viewer would have to conclude that even Stevens himself was a White Racist Idiot. Spielberg seems to give him a bit of a pass, though. Probably because, in real life, Stevens was the engineer of some of Reconstruction’s most punishing, harshest anti-white measures. And, of course, because he slept with black women.
For Good Measure, White Men Are Guilty of Other Stuff, Too–There’s a scene in which even the abolitionist men rise in protest at the suggestion that they eventually want to see America on the slippery slope to women being enfranchised to vote. They are outraged at the suggestion! Spielberg is making a good point, here. “See? Even the liberal white men back then were SEXIST IDIOTS! Jeez! What a mess those jerks were!”
So, as with Amistad, Spielberg is teaching us what we need to know about America’s past: it was unfair and Whitey is to blame. Even when he was trying to “fix” it.