The United States of Hysteria

[holston]

Scheuer writes,

“it is as if a historian were to set out to write a biography of George Washington and decided both to ignore the collected works of Washington and to rely exclusively on the testimony of those most opposed to him—political rivals, American Tories, King George III, British army officers, and today’s present caste of history professors who see Washington purely as a slave-owning dead white male. The resulting assessment might win a Pulitzer but would shed little light on Washington’s life and career. So it has been with works on bin Laden.”

 

[numan]

'
And if one were a jingistic America-worshipper ready to believe any pile of bull-shit, provided it was complimentary, or if one were an academic willing to commit any act of intellectual treason if it would advance his career, one would, no doubt, wind up with the intellectual pablum and lies which the simple-minded Idolaters of the Insurrectionary Terrorists of 1776 are all too ready to believe.
.

 

[holston]

'
And if one were a jingistic America-worshipper ready to believe any pile of bull-shit, provided it was complimentary, or if one were an academic willing to commit any act of intellectual treason if it would advance his career, one would, no doubt, wind up with the intellectual pablum and lies which the simple-minded Idolaters of the Insurrectionary Terrorists of 1776 are all too ready to believe.
.

Oh well, nobody's perfect.

 

[numan]

'
"America has no functioning democracy" --– Jimmy Carter on NSA

Former US President Jimmy Carter lambasted US intelligence methods as undemocratic and described Edward Snowden’s NSA leak as “beneficial” for the country. "America has no functioning democracy at this moment," Carter said, according to Der Spiegel.

He also believes the spying-scandal is undermining democracy around the world, as people become increasingly suspicious of US internet platforms, such as Google and Facebook. While such mediums have normally been associated with freedom of speech and have recently become a major driving force behind emerging democratic movements, fallout from the NSA spying scandal has dented their credibility.

.

 

[numan]

'
Well, our brave War Machine has finally recognized the truth about the Insurrectionary Terrorists who founded the United States!!
Could it be that rationality is making progress in these rebel colonies united?

DoD training manual suggests Founding Fathers followed "extremist ideology"

A Department of Defense training manual obtained by a conservative watchdog group pointed to the original American colonists as examples of an extremist movement, comments that have sparked fear of a broader crackdown on dissent in America. Now, if the Department of Defense has its way, historical figures who risked their lives to free America from British colonial rule – names like Paul Revere, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams – will be rebranded as dangerous extremists, alongside the likes of skinheads and neo-Nazis.

The first paragraph of the section entitled ‘Extremist Ideologies’ opens with a statement that has drawn heated criticism: “In US history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

The military manual defines extremism as a “term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups who take a political idea to its limits, regardless of unfortunate repercussions, and show intolerance toward all views other than their own.”

Well, thank goodness, there are no "terrorist types" like that on this Message Board !! · ·
.

 

[kiwina]

Why pick on US history? Do you hate America that much? The US entered WW1 to stop the never ending squabbling between European countries and we had to do it again about a quarter of a century later. America tried to prevent bloodthirsty maniacs from overrunning the Korean peninsula about five years after that. America tried to save the peaceful country of Vietnam when communist maniacs tried to overrun it and the war was handled so poorly that left wing socialists and freaking cowards managed to blame America. The US was attacked on a pretty day in September and the UN authorized the US to use force to enact sanctions. The only hysteria I can detect on the horizon is the extortion scheme called global warming.

what typed the scales on us entering WW1 was the Zimmerman telagrph. At the out brake of the war England cut all trancalantic cables out of GremanyThe intercepted a telegraph to Mexico reveling a plot invalving Germany and Japan calling for Mexico to attact us and keep us out of the war. I agree with you analysis on the rest.

 

[Auteur]

Why pick on US history? Do you hate America that much? The US entered WW1 to stop the never ending squabbling between European countries and we had to do it again about a quarter of a century later. America tried to prevent bloodthirsty maniacs from overrunning the Korean peninsula about five years after that. America tried to save the peaceful country of Vietnam when communist maniacs tried to overrun it and the war was handled so poorly that left wing socialists and freaking cowards managed to blame America. The US was attacked on a pretty day in September and the UN authorized the US to use force to enact sanctions. The only hysteria I can detect on the horizon is the extortion scheme called global warming.

what typed the scales on us entering WW1 was the Zimmerman telagrph. At the out brake of the war England cut all trancalantic cables out of GremanyThe intercepted a telegraph to Mexico reveling a plot invalving Germany and Japan calling for Mexico to attact us and keep us out of the war. I agree with you analysis on the rest.

It tipped nothing of the sort. US entry into WW1 was a calculated geopolitical move, based in large measure on the fact that America had lent a great deal of money to Britain and France, and in the event of a German victory, this money might not be seen again. To a lesser degree, it occurred because of Germanys foolish policy of submarine warfare, culminating in the sinking of civilian passenger liners.

As for whitehalls comments, there is so much in error that it is hard to know where to start correcting. Maybe later.

 

[kiwina]

Why pick on US history? Do you hate America that much? The US entered WW1 to stop the never ending squabbling between European countries and we had to do it again about a quarter of a century later. America tried to prevent bloodthirsty maniacs from overrunning the Korean peninsula about five years after that. America tried to save the peaceful country of Vietnam when communist maniacs tried to overrun it and the war was handled so poorly that left wing socialists and freaking cowards managed to blame America. The US was attacked on a pretty day in September and the UN authorized the US to use force to enact sanctions. The only hysteria I can detect on the horizon is the extortion scheme called global warming.

what typed the scales on us entering WW1 was the Zimmerman telagrph. At the out brake of the war England cut all trancalantic cables out of GremanyThe intercepted a telegraph to Mexico reveling a plot invalving Germany and Japan calling for Mexico to attact us and keep us out of the war. I agree with you analysis on the rest.

It tipped nothing of the sort. US entry into WW1 was a calculated geopolitical move, based in large measure on the fact that America had lent a great deal of money to Britain and France, and in the event of a German victory, this money might not be seen again. To a lesser degree, it occurred because of Germanys foolish policy of submarine warfare, culminating in the sinking of civilian passenger liners.

As for whitehalls comments, there is so much in error that it is hard to know where to start correcting. Maybe later.

i sopose you are right except it just sounds like you have gotten Hittler mixed up with Wilson. Maby you should cheek the time line, and and do some resurch in sted of taking some fools word for things.

 

[numan]

'


Our Constitution Wasn’t Built for This

Exactly 230 years ago, on Sept. 17, 1787, a group of men in Philadelphia concluded a summer of sophisticated, impassioned debates about the fate of their fledgling nation. The document that emerged, our Constitution, is often thought of as part of an aristocratic counterrevolution that stands in contrast to the democratic revolution of 1776. But our Constitution has at least one radical feature: It isn’t designed for a society with economic inequality.



There are other things the Constitution wasn’t written for, of course. The founders didn’t foresee America becoming a global superpower. They didn’t plan for the internet or nuclear weapons. And they certainly couldn’t have imagined a former reality television star president....



But there is a different, and far more stubborn, risk that our country faces — and which, arguably, led to the TV star turned president in the first place. Our Constitution was not built for a country with so much wealth concentrated at the very top nor for the threats that invariably accompany it: oligarchs and populist demagogues....



As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "There can be no real political democracy unless there is something approaching an economic democracy."



For all its resilience and longevity, our Constitution doesn’t have structural checks built into it to prevent oligarchy or populist demagogues. It was written on the assumption that America would remain relatively equal economically. Even the father of the Constitution understood this. Toward the end of his life, Madison worried that the number of Americans who had only the "bare necessities of life" would one day increase. When it did, he concluded, the institutions and laws of the country would need to be adapted, and that task would require "all the wisdom of the wisest patriots."

At last, intelligent people are daring to conclude that the antiquated, horse-and-buggy American Constitution must be abolished or radically reformed.

.

 

[regent]

'


Our Constitution Wasn’t Built for This

Exactly 230 years ago, on Sept. 17, 1787, a group of men in Philadelphia concluded a summer of sophisticated, impassioned debates about the fate of their fledgling nation. The document that emerged, our Constitution, is often thought of as part of an aristocratic counterrevolution that stands in contrast to the democratic revolution of 1776. But our Constitution has at least one radical feature: It isn’t designed for a society with economic inequality.



There are other things the Constitution wasn’t written for, of course. The founders didn’t foresee America becoming a global superpower. They didn’t plan for the internet or nuclear weapons. And they certainly couldn’t have imagined a former reality television star president....



But there is a different, and far more stubborn, risk that our country faces — and which, arguably, led to the TV star turned president in the first place. Our Constitution was not built for a country with so much wealth concentrated at the very top nor for the threats that invariably accompany it: oligarchs and populist demagogues....



As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "There can be no real political democracy unless there is something approaching an economic democracy."



For all its resilience and longevity, our Constitution doesn’t have structural checks built into it to prevent oligarchy or populist demagogues. It was written on the assumption that America would remain relatively equal economically. Even the father of the Constitution understood this. Toward the end of his life, Madison worried that the number of Americans who had only the "bare necessities of life" would one day increase. When it did, he concluded, the institutions and laws of the country would need to be adapted, and that task would require "all the wisdom of the wisest patriots."

At last, intelligent people are daring to conclude that the antiquated, horse-and-buggy American Constitution must be abolished or radically reformed.

.

Can anyone even imagine what a new American Constitution, written by a new group of founding fathers, would be like today?

 

[Picaro]

'


Our Constitution Wasn’t Built for This

Exactly 230 years ago, on Sept. 17, 1787, a group of men in Philadelphia concluded a summer of sophisticated, impassioned debates about the fate of their fledgling nation. The document that emerged, our Constitution, is often thought of as part of an aristocratic counterrevolution that stands in contrast to the democratic revolution of 1776. But our Constitution has at least one radical feature: It isn’t designed for a society with economic inequality.



There are other things the Constitution wasn’t written for, of course. The founders didn’t foresee America becoming a global superpower. They didn’t plan for the internet or nuclear weapons. And they certainly couldn’t have imagined a former reality television star president....



But there is a different, and far more stubborn, risk that our country faces — and which, arguably, led to the TV star turned president in the first place. Our Constitution was not built for a country with so much wealth concentrated at the very top nor for the threats that invariably accompany it: oligarchs and populist demagogues....



As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "There can be no real political democracy unless there is something approaching an economic democracy."



For all its resilience and longevity, our Constitution doesn’t have structural checks built into it to prevent oligarchy or populist demagogues. It was written on the assumption that America would remain relatively equal economically. Even the father of the Constitution understood this. Toward the end of his life, Madison worried that the number of Americans who had only the "bare necessities of life" would one day increase. When it did, he concluded, the institutions and laws of the country would need to be adapted, and that task would require "all the wisdom of the wisest patriots."

At last, intelligent people are daring to conclude that the antiquated, horse-and-buggy American Constitution must be abolished or radically reformed.

.

Can anyone even imagine what a new American Constitution, written by a new group of founding fathers, would be like today?

Scary prospect given who could vote then and who can vote now. Best to keep the old one rather than some new one that will be a certain disaster.

 

[numan]

Can anyone even imagine what a new American Constitution, written by a new group of founding fathers, would be like today?

Yes, I can!

LINK
.

 

[Picaro]

Can anyone even imagine what a new American Constitution, written by a new group of founding fathers, would be like today?

Yes, I can!

LINK
.

I read that way back when. And, I liked reading about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem thingy. Too bad social and cultural evolution much more resemble Lamarckian evolution, and the outcomes at any stage of those theorems are more likely to be far different than those projected. The Commies tried the silly pseudo-intellectual fashion of violently destroying the 'old' constructs and attempting to replace them with the latest in constructionist 'rationalism' fashion, and ended up becoming merely the same old totalitarian dictatorship that relied on mass murder, prison camps, and psycho-babble that nobody ever believed or felt inspired by. The 'Social Darwinism' so admired by the 'free market' fantasists, having it roots in the same constructionist 'rationalism' rubbish, also failed, becoming merely a 'socialism for the rich, and to hell with everybody else' scam, which of course is why modern corporations and the Maoists are getting along so famously these days, with even the CFR's own media mouthpiece touting up Red China as the new hope for 'Globalism' and 'international trade', cuz like, those 'Deplorables' just don't know their places and keep patriotism and nationalism alive here in the U.S., and harshing the Davos Set's buzz.

 

[regent]

Was the McCarthy period one of those periods of hysteria?

 

[numan]

Can anyone even imagine what a new American Constitution, written by a new group of founding fathers, would be like today?

Yes, I can!

LINK
.

I read that way back when. And, I liked reading about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem thingy. Too bad social and cultural evolution much more resemble Lamarckian evolution, and the outcomes at any stage of those theorems are more likely to be far different than those projected. The Commies tried the silly pseudo-intellectual fashion of violently destroying the 'old' constructs and attempting to replace them with the latest in constructionist 'rationalism' fashion, and ended up becoming merely the same old totalitarian dictatorship that relied on mass murder, prison camps, and psycho-babble that nobody ever believed or felt inspired by. The 'Social Darwinism' so admired by the 'free market' fantasists, having it roots in the same constructionist 'rationalism' rubbish, also failed, becoming merely a 'socialism for the rich, and to hell with everybody else' scam, which of course is why modern corporations and the Maoists are getting along so famously these days, with even the CFR's own media mouthpiece touting up Red China as the new hope for 'Globalism' and 'international trade', cuz like, those 'Deplorables' just don't know their places and keep patriotism and nationalism alive here in the U.S., and harshing the Davos Set's buzz.

So, since according to you, the traditional "right" and "left" having been abject failures, that means that we should not try something different?
.

 

[Picaro]

Can anyone even imagine what a new American Constitution, written by a new group of founding fathers, would be like today?

Yes, I can!

LINK
.

I read that way back when. And, I liked reading about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem thingy. Too bad social and cultural evolution much more resemble Lamarckian evolution, and the outcomes at any stage of those theorems are more likely to be far different than those projected. The Commies tried the silly pseudo-intellectual fashion of violently destroying the 'old' constructs and attempting to replace them with the latest in constructionist 'rationalism' fashion, and ended up becoming merely the same old totalitarian dictatorship that relied on mass murder, prison camps, and psycho-babble that nobody ever believed or felt inspired by. The 'Social Darwinism' so admired by the 'free market' fantasists, having it roots in the same constructionist 'rationalism' rubbish, also failed, becoming merely a 'socialism for the rich, and to hell with everybody else' scam, which of course is why modern corporations and the Maoists are getting along so famously these days, with even the CFR's own media mouthpiece touting up Red China as the new hope for 'Globalism' and 'international trade', cuz like, those 'Deplorables' just don't know their places and keep patriotism and nationalism alive here in the U.S., and harshing the Davos Set's buzz.

So, since according to you, the traditional "right" and "left" having been abject failures, that means that we should not try something different?
.

We already know most of what works; the problem is we have a mentality now that all neurotic nonsense must be indulged in and pandered to, or somehow we aren't 'free' or something.

 

[regent]

One reason our Constitution lasted so long is because it was written in an age when American's thoughts on government and people merged and the Constitution fit this new merger.

 

[numan]

One reason our Constitution lasted so long is because it was written in an age when American's thoughts on government and people merged and the Constitution fit this new merger.

the reason that the Constitution has lasted so long is that most of the American people are political idiots.
.

 

[Picaro]

Why pick on US history? Do you hate America that much? The US entered WW1 to stop the never ending squabbling between European countries and we had to do it again about a quarter of a century later. America tried to prevent bloodthirsty maniacs from overrunning the Korean peninsula about five years after that. America tried to save the peaceful country of Vietnam when communist maniacs tried to overrun it and the war was handled so poorly that left wing socialists and freaking cowards managed to blame America. The US was attacked on a pretty day in September and the UN authorized the US to use force to enact sanctions. The only hysteria I can detect on the horizon is the extortion scheme called global warming.

what typed the scales on us entering WW1 was the Zimmerman telagrph. At the out brake of the war England cut all trancalantic cables out of GremanyThe intercepted a telegraph to Mexico reveling a plot invalving Germany and Japan calling for Mexico to attact us and keep us out of the war. I agree with you analysis on the rest.

Well, it certainly helped, but the unrestricted U-boat warfare was the primary cause, having sunk over 114 merchant ships carrying American goods under various neutral flags before they got around to the Lusitania; the latter made all the papers, but it was far from the only one.

 

[Picaro]

One reason our Constitution lasted so long is because it was written in an age when American's thoughts on government and people merged and the Constitution fit this new merger.

the reason that the Constitution has lasted so long is that most of the American people are political idiots.
.

So far they've been smart enough to ignore you completely, so obviously they're not all that dumb.