Cycle of National Destruction

[Freedom Lover]

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

 

[nakedemperor]

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."

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

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?

 

[Freedom Lover]

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?

 

[nakedemperor]

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?

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

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?

 

[nakedemperor]

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

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.

 

[nakedemperor]

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.

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??!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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??!

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?

 

[nakedemperor]

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?

What dishonest tactics!?!?! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! I'm going to explicate, once and for all, what I said. Again, here's the quote: "I could say something typically liberal like...[here goes the stupid liberal sentiment which i was making fun of]...BUT THAT IS SIMPLISTIC, RIDICULOUS, AND NAIVE".

Therefore, before you go slandering me saying I'm "dishonest" and that I "backpeddled" from a position which I stated merely to belittle, and to seperate myself from because I hate being thought of as so far left on this board. I'm not dishonest, I did NOT backpeddle, and get off my case!

I'm sorry if this was unclear. I don't think it was, but what are you gonna do?

 

[Mainframe]

yeah, that was a nice spin. well, not nice, it was too easy to see actually.

i mean he said what he said and then stated in so many words.. IF I thought that way, I'd be naive.

I read this from top to bottom, completely unbiased. It's no backpeddle.. haha


this seems more applicable

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What dishonest tactics!?!?! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! I'm going to explicate, once and for all, what I said. Again, here's the quote: "I could say something typically liberal like...[here goes the stupid liberal sentiment which i was making fun of]...BUT THAT IS SIMPLISTIC, RIDICULOUS, AND NAIVE".

Therefore, before you go slandering me saying I'm "dishonest" and that I "backpeddled" from a position which I stated merely to belittle, and to seperate myself from because I hate being thought of as so far left on this board. I'm not dishonest, I did NOT backpeddle, and get off my case!

I'm sorry if this was unclear. I don't think it was, but what are you gonna do?

Next time you want to belittle libs, I want you to say "libs are dumb!" Can you do that for me?

I still maintain, as well, that we should leave the infinite realm of what can be said to the ether of unexplained thoughts.

Your prescription for crazy pills will run out soon. Be sure to sign up for your next list of talking points from the DNC.

I'm on your case because I was assigned to you.

 

[Bonnie]

How about Rome as an example? True they had a much longer run than 200 years and they were for the most part a pagan society, but their societal decay has much of the same characterisitcs. Their glutony, and apathy did lead to their end.

 

[nakedemperor]

Next time you want to belittle libs, I want you to say "libs are dumb!" Can you do that for me?

I still maintain, as well, that we should leave the infinite realm of what can be said to the ether of unexplained thoughts.

I only belittle far left liberals. No, I won't call liberals dumb for you.

I would have left my sentiment to the ether of unexplained thoughts, but more and more I have to preface my posts with instructions not to take liberties with what the label "liberal" means that I wear so proudly. Case in point: even though I said that a far-left liberal idea was ridiculous and naive, you read that I believed in it.

 

[nakedemperor]

How about Rome as an example? True they had a much longer run than 200 years and they were for the most part a pagan society, but their societal decay has much of the same characterisitcs. Their glutony, and apathy did lead to their end.

Exactly, I'd like to see Rome applied to this paradigm.

 

[Bonnie]

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

As I look at the model Im thinking we are right now at about 6 or 7, and depending upon which way this election goes we may be steaming right into 8 or 9.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I only belittle far left liberals. No, I won't call liberals dumb for you.

I would have left my sentiment to the ether of unexplained thoughts, but more and more I have to preface my posts with instructions not to take liberties with what the label "liberal" means that I wear so proudly. Case in point: even though I said that a far-left liberal idea was ridiculous and naive, you read that I believed in it.

What do you think should be the highest rate of taxation for personal income? Let's see how liberal you are. Do you think taxes are too high?

 

[Bonnie]

Or even English, Spanish, and French Monarchies. Each had about a 200 year run, all had although not exclusively periods of bondage, freedom, glutony, apathy, crisis as exemplified by people turning against their rulers and sending them to the chopping block, only to be ressurected by another monarchy promising more and delivering nothing all the while muzzling true freedom.......And so the cycle goes. We are imprisioned, we seek freedom, we get freedom, we revel in freedom, we start to take freedom for granted, with rules and over regulation, absolute power corrupts absolutely..........We get complacent, apathetic, head into crisis/revolution mode.....New people come in etc........Maybe it's just human nature needing a good spanking to jar us back to reality............Is that why those that don't remember History are doomed to repeat it??

 

[nakedemperor]

What do you think should be the highest rate of taxation for personal income? Let's see how liberal you are. Do you think taxes are too high?

I'm still a student, and have not yet paid my own taxes, nor had a full time taxable job, so I have no perception of what the tax rate is or how fair it might be...I'll call you back after grad school.