Cycle of National Destruction

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Freedom Lover, Oct 12, 2004.

  1. Freedom Lover
    Offline

    Freedom Lover Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    80
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +27
    The following is something some of you may have read before. Given Kerry and the Dem Party's philosophy of ever expanding government, where do you think this country will be after four years of Kerry/Dem rule?

    Cycle Of National Destruction


    Alexander Tytler, Scottish Jurist and Historian, formulated this cycle, except for item 9. [Item 9 is added for more detail.]

    On this cycle, where would you place the United States today?

    "The average life of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. During this period each has progressed through the following sequence:

    1. From bondage to spiritual faith.
    2. From spiritual faith to great courage.
    3. From courage to liberty.
    4. From liberty to abundance.
    5. From abundance to selfishness.
    6. From selfishness to complacency.
    7. From complacency to apathy.
    8. From apathy to dependency.
    [9. From dependency to crisis.]
    10. From crisis back to bondage."













    Previous Educational Bombshell
    Government Powers
    Educational Bombshells
    Table Of Contents
    Next Educational Bombshell
    Declaration Of Independence:
    Divine Quote
     
  2. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    I'm no history major, but this seems rather far-fetched. It appears overly simplistic, and not a particularly good archetype for any civilization that has 'fallen' that I can think of. I know this is antithetical to my take on this 'cycle', but would anyone like to try to frame a civilization's (or nation's) rise and fall according to this pattern? I personally think this is a huge undertaking, and ultimately an impossible one, considering the infinite factors omitted by this self-proclaimed 'cycle'.

    Its therefore unhelpful to try to 'place' the United States on this ladder. I could say something typically liberal like, "We're in crisis, therefore we give up our civil liberties and our checks on the executive, who uses our fear to put us back into bondage, where the wealth and power flow upwards to an increasingly small ruling class." But that is ridiculous, simplistic, and naieve.
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    You can ignorantly dismiss this paradigm but it is fairly accurate. Our population is divided too, and that complicates matters. SOme of us are mindful of sticking to the values that made the country great, we're conservatives. The libs are somewhere in the apathy range.

    Stating our executive is using fear to keep us in bodage implies that the war on terror isn't real. Is that what you want to say: "The war on terror is just a figment of our imaginations invented by the neocons"? Is that what you want to go on record with?
     
  4. Freedom Lover
    Offline

    Freedom Lover Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    80
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +27
    Mr. Tytler was a historian and obviously took the time to research this before developing the "Cycle" many years ago. You appear to be too young to know the America I grew up in when people helped each other directly instead of relying on government; when people were ashamed to be on welfare and did everything they could to get off it; they did not expect government to solve their personal probelms, they took responsibility for their own actions; when government was far less intrusive and much more trusted. I could go on, but I will err on the side of brevity.

    Things began to change drastically with the advent of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Those changes have brought this nation to the point of every group saying, if you want us to vote for you what are you going to give me? In other words. who are you going to tax so I can have another government benefit? That has all the signs of dependancy to me.

    Don't ever believe that the United States is forever. As one who grew up, and lived through the entire Cold War, never in my wildest dreams did I ever think the Soviet Union would not someday be. If this nation does not reverse this pattern of dependancy, how many generations will it take to arrive at bondage once again?
     
  5. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    The war on terror is a figment of our imagination? I'm not sure what I've said that you've interpreted thusly, but if it was my fault and not yours, I don't believe that crock.

    I'm not ignorantly dismissing it-- I'm asking for an explication of this paradigm in terms of a historical application. If Mr. Tyler or anyone else has a reasonably-lengthed answer, I want to read it.
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    What do you mean then when you say the executive is using fear? Are we not to fear terrorism and make adjustements? or are we to ignore it? Or is it not real? Your implication is that the fear is unwarranted. Why is it unwarranted?
     
  7. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Dude, are you serious? I said: "I could say something typically liberal like, "We're in crisis, therefore we give up our civil liberties and our checks on the executive, who uses our fear to put us back into bondage, where the wealth and power flow upwards to an increasingly small ruling class." But that is ridiculous, simplistic, and naieve."

    So let me rephrase that for you: I COULD give a simplistic answer to a simplistic paradigm, but that answer that I gave was RIDICULOUS, SIMPLISTIC, and NAIVE.

    In other words, I don't believe it. So...yeah.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Oh I see you COULD have said it. THis way you can spout your lib crap and then when someone calls you on it you can backpedal. Now you can have it both ways. How very Kerry.
     
  9. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Good lord you are so great at spinning.

    I said I "could have said" in my original damn post! I was BELITTLING the liberal viewpoint you know think I'm "backpeddling" from.

    Are you TRYING to misrepresent what I say, or are you just that careless??!
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I'm revealing your dihonest tactics to the good citizens of the internet.

    Let's leave the infinite list of things we all could have said to wither in the ether of unexpressed thoughts, shall we?
     

Share This Page