Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic
Wake up America, it's not Russian interference - it's the party politics. Russia doesn't really care who won, but they sure are enjoying our divisive country right now. Remember Ross Perot? "United we Stand, Divided we fall, America." Well, the more we divide this country the sooner we may be destroyed; and it's both parties and the Media encouraging it. Enough already. Party politics isn't the answer and trying to impeach President Trump (notice I use President Trump) sure won't protect America.
I'm so tired of hearing and reading about what Russia did, what about taking care of America! Do your job Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell. And Democrats, you lost my votes after JFK. I will never vote for a Democrat again, as long as your party has the anti-America attitude. It's time for the silent majority to start speaking out, ENOUGH.
I've sent this to the local Madison, WI (Wisconsin State Journal) and to a local newspaper in Mazomanie. The local will print it, but not sure of the State Journal - it been taken over.
The history of governance/rule since antiquity clearly shows a strong bias toward
rule by the intuitively wise and temperamentally strong, whether the form be
Monarchy/ championed by Aristotle and Oligarchy/championed by Plato.
While the ancients were not infallible, they persevered for some 16 centuries and
founded Western Civilization.
Then the French Enlightenment arrived, producing such schmucks such as Rousseau,
St.Just, Voltaire, etc; who insisted that we are all equal and democracy was the way to go.
This disastrous and insidious secular heresy has held the world in its vise like grip for
some 300 years and we see its effect daily.
Our infantile Congress and Parliaments across the globe are mute testament to the
consequences of rule thru democratic populism
You forgot Self aggrandizing Dictatorial Self serving manipulative and overbearing iron fisted despots in the description of the rulers. Sure they were smarter but on the other side they were vicious and unbending in their roughshod rule. The rulers in modern times that come very close to your descriptions were Hitler, Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot, and their ilk. every rule in antiquity you cite had slavery as the base for getting the necessary work done with little if any concern for the slaves well being. It usually stratified as 1% rich rulers and their toadies to 99% poor and oppressed.
M, fair point indeed..
Yet for every Philip of Macedon there was a Pericles and a Solon;
as well as, for every Caligula, a Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius.
Otherwise the ancients would likely never have made it past a century.
In my judgement the likes of Adams, Jefferson, Madison. Monroe,
Henry, Randolph. Lee, to name a handful; were of the same cloth as
the wise ancients.
But sadly their genes have disappeared w/their legacies forgotten or ignored.
And in their place are our current embarrassments, too stupid. for words.
The silent majority already spoke when everyone predicted it wouldn't. Do you realize that the TOTAL anti-liberal vote was a dash over 50%? After EIGHT years of indoctrination by Obama? I feel certain they will speak out again.
Your letters to papers is something like mine used to be to NYT, who published most of mine. But NYT and its sister liberal outlets changed a lot. Before they were sure Hillary will win, and thus could afford a few contrarian voices. No longer. One gets tired of being called foul names, even in pages of NYT, just for uttering support for Trump. The left no longer even attempts to reason or argue; perhaps they no longer can.
But don't get discouraged. Perhaps NY is impervious to our views; I know MD is. Perhaps in Wisconsin you will find a friendlier reception.
Thomas and M:
Personally I stay away from extrapolating from History. It is not linear, and variables always change. Very few patterns can be relied on.
One of them is rather simple: when people are shafted for too much and too long, they rebel. The new ruler may be good, or may be bad. And I feel that Trump's win resulted from Obama shafting too many people too much. In my opinion, Obama is the first president who purposely tried to undo what our Founders put together. Many other presidents weren't too hot, but they liked America.
Santayana asserted;"Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.";
in my judgement the very reason we are in the mess we are.
As for Obama being the bogeyman for our malaise; I start w/Woodrow Wilson.
And with even greaer respect to you and Santayana, I summon the courage to argue that both of you are only half right. What he said is true about those who ignore history. But the same, if not more so, is also true about those who study and remember history well. And that's worse.
There are many, literally oddles, of knowledgable men in power who know their history, know enough to teach others and speak on same level as Santayana, and still went against it. Chamberlain comes easy to mind. Can you or Santyana claim he was ignorant of history? And yet his actions were as disastrous as those who truly ignore history.
Allow me to correct Santyana. Knowing history isn't enough. One must understand it. Perhaps his statement could be changed to "Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it". My reason for this is the liberal historians in our universities: of course they know history, of course they don't ignore it (they actually live it), but so few, oh yes so very few, truly understand it.
I agree that Wilson is good start for Obama's disaster. But history is much older than the time since Wison, and one should queston and dig for facts which led to his election. And continue digging backwards. And that's where one encounters the nonlinearity which I spoke of initially: just too many dots to connect for even an erudite mind to know which are important and which are not.
(PS: I am sure the Bushes know their history, and do not want to repeat the worse of it. But they are weak people, easy to be manipulated by those who don't like them).
Marrand, consider the following timeline.
Organized culture/society commenced w/the Kingdom of Egypt more than 5000 years ago; then underwent multiple transformations down thru the Ages.
Yet, till mid-18th century, the linchpin of civilization was land and its derivative, agriculture. During that time history, arguably, produced its wisest minds, led by the Greeks and Romans who founded western civilization; creating/developing Architecture, Astronomy, Drama, Geometry, Literature, Logic, Medicine, Philosophy, Science; among other disciplines.
And just reflect that they managed to achieve all this w/o college degrees!!! Consider how deprived these poor souls were???
Then the Industrial Revolution, comprising but 4% of the time since Ancient Egypt, ushered in the 'modern era' moving us away from subsistence toward surplus. But other that producing "more stuff" in what way have we moderns bettered mankind???
I emphatically argue that we have not and our preening and strutting hubris is at the root of our malaise; our worldwide political assholery being mute testimony to this reality.
On some points I will argue. Linchpin of civilization was land? Only because there were fewer people and land/person was much more plentiful than today. In those days of fewer people, it was much easier for the wisest to leave their mark.
Today we have almost 10 times more people but the earth hasn't gotten any larger. I claim that the proportion of brilliant minds (mind you, education has nothing to do with brilliance) today is still about the same, but their brilliance is drowned out by huge noise of increasing population. It is harder to improve our lot today and to make a mark on the world than in days past.
Please note that our medicine today is far superior in concept and practice than the ancients ever dreamed of. Einstein is a modern creature, and his mind no less brillliant than the wisest ancient you can name. The "more stuff" is just a byproduct of human progress. It is not indicator of pride, hubris or accomplishment.
For every brilliant mind there always are some less brilliant wanting to cut him down. In older days the detractors were fewer and far away. Today the detractor, who wants to belitle you because he is less brilliant, maybe living next door.
Seems you are trying to extrapolate history again. Just because today we have a lot of political assholery doesn't mean that the we will have it forever.
And of course you must have realized that the rate of progress is much much faster today than it was centuries ago. Did you know that after people discovered that planets circle the sun, they thought the path was egg shaped? It took them over 100 years to apply the concept of ellipse to their orbits, a concept known well before. Ok, they had a mental block; but today such blocks clear up faster. And that is good.
Opinion invites a contrary view, as it should, so I demur w/several of yours.
But firstly, my viewpoint was framed 1000 years ago by Bernard, Archbishop of Chartres, who asserted; "We are dwarfs who see as far as we do, only because we stand on the massive shoulders of the giants of antiquity who created our civilization."
And Bernard lived in the High Middle Ages among the likes of Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, .Albertus Magnus; among other geniuses of his time!!!!
As for your contention that we have as many brilliant minds today as in the past, it's so beyond preposterous, I assume it's a feeble attempt at humor.
As an example, Euclid imagined a point in space, then another and another; moving them ever closer and creating a line, then another line and another; leading him to a 2-dimensional shape envisioning a square or rectangle.
More lines led him to 3-dimensional shape such as a cube or prism.
He created shape, the foundation of Architecture and Civil Engineering w/o which nothing could be built/constructed. Stone cold reality!!!!!
As for Science, our forebears created Laws, that still apply, among them:
* Archimedes who defined the Principles of Flotation, making ocean shipping possible.
* Bernoulli who identified the the pressure and velocity of fluids making transit by pipeline possible.
* Galileo who defined Gravitational Force.
* Newton who defined the Principles of Motion that govern all mechanical movement to this very second.
* Pascal who defined the Laws of Probability.
There are hundreds more but the point is obvious.
In contrast, are the creators of Evolution and Relativity; two of the most ballyhooed individuals of the past 100+ years; whose conclusions are unproven Theory, hardly Scientific Law.
Most critically, Darwin and in particular Einstein's speculations have little if any application in the here and now of average people, unlike their forebears who at their core were of plain people rather than cloistered academics.
Reflecting on the nostrum that we are immersed in brilliance just awaiting recognition; next time you find a clone of Michelangelo or Haydn alert us immediately.
Again, I take issue with your contention that somehow the past was full "giants", but today we have none. As if, there are still many things to learn and understand, but no one can to do it today.
You mention a list of "greats". Of course they are! But they would have died nobodies if there weren't nearly equal minds to understand them and to spread their wisdom. We know of them, we can stand on their shoulders ONLY because others close enough to them, and rather brilliant themselves, saw, understood and spread the word. In fact, I propose that less than 0.01% of the then population could apprecuate these greats, and they are lucky to be have been in the company of their peers.
Allow me this comparison. Picture a knowledge tree, with fruits of wisdom growing on them. The greats you are talking about (and no need to narrate their accomplishments - I too know them, and have used them) had the fortune to pick the lowest handing fruits and peers to share them with and distribute. As generations proceeded, it became more difficult and difficult to pick the fruits residing higher. The remaining fruits are equally as worthy (I claim) but much more difficult to pick. It takes more time. People have become impatient. And those determined to climb this tree are repeatedly discouraged by their peers to settle for something less than absolute excellence. Do you think Archimedes or Pascal were discouraged by their peers?
You mention Michellangelo. I give on this point - I can't imagine another one like him showing up any time soon. But Haydn? Those immediately after him, and his contemporaries like Mozart, called him great, but 200 years later came Puccini and composed music surpossing Haydn's. Here we are talking about emotion, not intellect. Michelagnelo's work was so beutiful it uplifted men's souls; and so was Puccini's, much more so than Haydn's. You may ask if another Puccini will ever show up? Frankly, I think not in my life time or yours. But one will; I have that much faith in humans.
Regarding theories of relativity and evolution. True, both are theories. But certain apects of each were truly notable. How about Einstein's prediction of light being bent by mass? How about Darwin's thesis of the "survival of the fittest"??? Don't you think the later applies to animals and humans as well???? Or do you believe in the liberal position that everyone is equal and everyone shall remain equal - like equal outcomes proposals? Our Founding Fathers, wisely so, said everyone is born equal, but did not say, and again wisely so, that everyone will remaiin thus. Some will prosper and turn to leaders; others will remain poor forever. Can't you see the principle of "survival of the fittest" operating in the basic tenets of our nation? You see, Darwin was on to something which no one else ever thought of. Just like Pascal was onto probabitliy when everyone else didn't think random events can be handled and understood.
Please note that Pascal's wisdom can't be understood by the average people, yet Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is easy to fathom even by the least educated. You think Euclid, in his time, was truly at "the core of plain people"? His peers could very well be considered to be the "cloistered academics" of antiquity.
(And don't attack me for supporting the entire theory of evolution; I do not. I simple believe that God created us in a way He saw fit, and if HE used some form of evolution, so be it. It's not up to me to question His wisdom. But it is up to me to use the wisdom God gave me to question people like Pelosi, Clinton, Trurmp, Gingrich, Obama, and oh yes, you too Thomas).
I'm attacking no one, merely exchanging ideas which hopefully will radiate more light than heat.
Not to nit pick but it was Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, who coined "survival of the fittest" and it is indeed an apt descriptive for the modern era.
As for music, preference is in the heart of the listener; mine being Haydn and Brahms.
Regarding equality it's another idiotic secular heresy of the French, home base for virtually every crackpot nostrum foisted on mankind.
Some 400 years before Christ, Plato defined the "soul" as that attribute that differentiates each and every one of us for all eternity; the very essence of the miracle of creation.
As long as there have been politicians there has been political assholery.