PDA

View Full Version : How To Ruin a Perfectly Good Country


NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 06:06 AM
To get started, enshrine ignorance and elevate folly. Elect people to high office who don't know much about history, for instance, and then let them have pretty much unfettered powers free from the checks and balances that were originally concocted in order to keep things from getting ruined.

Be sure that your children graduate from school and enter adulthood even more ignorant of their history than their leaders are, and be sure that they are equally clueless about their system of government.

Undermine confidence in the significance of voting by clouding election results.

Elect people to govern who don't believe government is a good thing. Such elected representatives will, then, ensure that government fails to fulfill its functions because when government does exhibit such failures, those elected representatives have proven their point.

Instill passivity in the populace. In a democracy, for instance, a passive electorate will accept the subversion of the government bureaus instituted to serve the people's interests. When, for example, functionaries are put in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency who are actively hostile to the environment, a passive nation will countenance such an egregious betrayal of public trust.

But, if you are intent on ruining your nation, don't stop at one or two such agencies. Be sure that the Department of Justice is run by people who are fuzzy on the concept of justice, and that the people named to be in charge of guarding the nation's public airways and media outlets are actively working for media monopolists who restrict the public uses of those airways and outlets.

Be sure that your intelligence-gathering agencies spend much of their time spying on the citizenry, and that any foreign intelligence they turn up is first weighed and evaluated for possible political consequences to those in power. Intelligence inimical to the interests of those in power shall be excised or redrafted accordingly.

This same approach should also be applied to the findings of scientists. When and if scientific evidence reveals data injurious to political or pecuniary interests of the nation's rulers, then that science will be identified as junk and will, accordingly, be junked in favor of science purchasable from science vendors already in corporate employ.

Trivialize news and information until reporting about the activities of minor entertainment figures is equal to reporting about the decisions that are affecting the lives of the citizenry.

Employ a network of disinformation specialists on radio and TV whose role it is to simplify all matters of national consequence, and to turn global disputes into clashes of good and evil, with all acts of your government cast as good, and all contrary acts portrayed as evil. If you have created a sufficiently ignorant populace through the work of your schools and your media, such a rendering of reality will be readily accepted by the governed.

If possible--and it is always possible--create an external threat, and use that threat to sow a permeating atmosphere of fear. Tweak this fear whenever it is necessary to distract the public from anything you want to escape their attention.

And keep that public attention scattered and antic. Manipulating the various media will make this easy, as will the endemic obsession with celebrities and trendiness fostered and fed by those media.

Intrude religion into all public discourse as often as possible, and blur the distinctions between church and state. This has multiple advantages. Religion can be used to bathe the most venal acts in heaven-sanctioned righteousness. Religious zealots can be counted upon to respond to the code phrases that indicate that the nation's leaders share their zealotry, and religious disputes can also serve as a distraction from the things that put the aims and desires of the powerful ahead of the interests of the country.

Always manipulate the language, affixing labels to those who oppose your policies, repeating those labels in negative contexts until each of them retains the power to convey evil or harm simply by invoking them.

Positive connotations are as useful as negative connotations, so select words that associate policies with generally cherished values and attitudes. If you wish to strengthen domestic spying, for instance, push your objectives by lumping such activities under rubrics like "homeland" or "security," the kinds of words no one is ever against.

Waste is profit. Maintaining power--and ruining a perfectly good nation--is dependent upon waste because government waste generates the profits that line the pockets of those whose largesse keeps you in power.

The biggest bull in the herd of sacred cows is the military. Bolster that bull land gild that sacred cow. The gilding of the military begins and ends with the image of the foot soldier, the grunt, the G.I. Once "our boys," or "our brave men and women in uniform" have been properly gilded and enshrined, it is imperative that you associate yourself with those soldiers in every way you can, always taking pains to blur the distinction between the soldiers and the politicians who have put them at risk. One way to accomplish this blurring is by highly publicized behind-the-lines visits to media-friendly sites where you can be photographed sharing a safe meal with soldiers before hastening back to the nation's capital.

Always amplify division between people and contending interests, driving wedges between races and ethnic groups, remembering to pit working people against one another whenever possible--and it's always possible. Xenophobia will trump self-interest if you have been successful at maintaining the level of ignorance necessary to ruining the country for the benefit of yourself and your powerful associates.

Provide no models for emulation. Turn athletes into overpaid hucksters and drug abusers, and turn youth culture into a megaphone for the disaffected and the defeated, make everything venal and ripe for cynicism, turn the anger of the dispossessed back in on themselves in ways that market self destruction and self-punishing rebellion for the profit of media moguls. Make idealism uncool and unpopular. Channel the resulting spiritual hunger into illegal but readily available drugs, or into the evangelical religiosity that preys on the desire to have prayers heard for profit, or the aggrandizement of the merchants of messianic mercies.

Pump the people full of high fructose corn syrup, injecting the stuff into nearly everything they eat until they are as swollen as ticks, barely able to squeeze themselves into oversized gas-swilling SUVs for their pilgrimages to the big box stores that sell them all their overworked hearts desire.

Export jobs; import goods; borrow heavily from unreliable allies and trading partners. Ensure the indebtedness of future generations. Balance no budgets, but pass on the costs of war profiteering and government contracted waste to the children and grandchildren of the taxpaying classes. Spend taxpayer money as if there's no tomorrow, and live accordingly, indifferent to any concept of a healthy heritage that would mark your time here, guaranteeing that your memory will occupy a bleak and resentful place in the hearts of those who come after you, left with the debt and the mess you've bequeathed to them.
How To Ruin a Perfectly Good Country | The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12417)

excon
Jan 28, 2008, 06:48 AM
Hello Need:

That pretty well sums it up.

excon

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 12:08 PM
Yea, I haven't seen anyone put it all together in one article until this.

wolfcandy2
Jan 28, 2008, 12:09 PM
Well put

magprob
Jan 28, 2008, 12:15 PM
Protocals of the Learned NeoCons of new Zion?

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 12:50 PM
The story of the author, Jamie O'Neill, is a sad one indeed. When his Gay lover died Jamie took a job as a night porter at the Cassell Hospital, a psychiatric institution in Surrey from 1990 up to 2000.

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 12:53 PM
The story of the author, Jamie O'Neill, is a sad one indeed. When his Gay lover died Jamie took a job as a night porter at the Cassell Hospital, a psychiatric institution in Surrey from 1990 up to 2000.What does that have to do with anything? Off your meds?

excon
Jan 28, 2008, 01:01 PM
Hello DC:

People who let others do their thinking for them, base their beliefs on WHO reports the news. Others, however, base their beliefs on WHAT the news is.

excon

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 01:09 PM
Jamie O'Neill homepage (http://www.iol.ie/~atswim/)

WHAT!! NEWS, that is the whole problem with Lefties, they can’t separate fiction from fact. Jesus Christ, when will you people wake-up? Jamie O'Neill is a fiction writer.:p

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 01:13 PM
Hahahhahahahahahha... that's not the same guy.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 01:24 PM
Whatever it is it is satire, not fact.

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 01:28 PM
Nice try in attempting to defame someone though.
It's not satire, it's commentary BTW. One that many millions agree on.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 01:35 PM
I did not defame anyone, or want to. You see it that way because that is where your mind is; where your assumptions begin.

magprob
Jan 28, 2008, 01:38 PM
What's the difference between a philosopher and an engineer?
About 50,000 a year.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 01:53 PM
Money was never exciting for me. The real excitement is playing the game.

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 02:04 PM
The story of the author, Jamie O'Neill, is a sad one indeed. When his Gay lover died Jamie took a job as a night porter at the Cassell Hospital, a psychiatric institution in Surrey from 1990 up to 2000.What's wrong with a person being:
a) gay
b) a night porter
c) an employee in a psychiatric institute?

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 02:11 PM
Sad because of the reason he worked as a Porter


“In the back of my mind, I knew, I was fiddling with something close to a madness. I had a notion to tamper with the jigsaw. Just, say, a quarter of a quarter of a corner of it.”

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 02:24 PM
It's odd that you're first thought was not to comment on the content of the article but to find something "sad" about the author. There is no implication of causality either. Of course the person you found is not the author so the point is moot.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 02:37 PM
The article, as you inaptly call it is a non-sensible collection of metaphors, exaggerations, contradictions and misinformation.:p

magprob
Jan 28, 2008, 02:50 PM
Only if you are among the uninformed. (Brain Washed)

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 02:54 PM
If you truly believe that what is written in your OP is a matter of fact through research, and not political hay, it is you who are brainwashed.

magprob
Jan 28, 2008, 03:03 PM
It's not worth the effort to explain anything to you. Besides, I'm bored.

speechlesstx
Jan 28, 2008, 03:53 PM
Or, we could just elect Jimmy Carter again.

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 03:58 PM
Why? Ron Paul would do the trick, and he's younger.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 04:18 PM
A Marcus Aurelius is what America needs now, not diplomats.

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 04:26 PM
America needs someone who cares about Americans and their country's constitution not an expansionist who answers to others.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 04:28 PM
America needs someone who cares about Americans and their country's constitution not an expansionist who answers to others.
That certainly describes Marcus Aurelius and Rome.

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2008, 04:31 PM
Too bad he's long gone.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 04:34 PM
Fortunately his philosophy is still around, and it is taught; to bad most people are to lazy to study it.

magprob
Jan 28, 2008, 04:47 PM
And what would they do with all their books on Karl Marx? GW excluded. You know he is into Harpo.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 04:59 PM
Two schools of thought exist running parallel with one another; one, Habermas's theoretical system of the possibility of reason and in the human capacity to deliberate and pursue rational interests [Constitutional liberalism].
The other, Bourdieu's theoretical system argues that constitutional liberalism is a form of domination. The poor, pressed by the need to make a living, don't have the luxury of developing the social and intellectual skills needed to participate in political deliberation.

Bourdieu's philosophy is inline with Karl Marx…Defeatism for the status quo. People should read both.

magprob
Jan 28, 2008, 05:10 PM
"intellectual skills needed to participate in political deliberation."

It is simply a matter of some folks thinking they have superior intellectual skills that allows them to justify their lording over the common man. That's when the common man goes off and starts bar-b-queing and eating the aristocracy. Those tender young intellectuals are quite tasty, I really must say. To bad there ain't enough of them to go around in the next revolution. Oh well, them Rockefellers are good and fat, Pass the Rockefeller and the salt. Oh my, Rothschilds pig knuckles... don't mind if I do. They taste so... intellectually delicious!

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 05:13 PM
That sounds defeatist. "There is no security on this earth; there is only opportunity." --Douglas MacArthur

magprob
Jan 28, 2008, 05:16 PM
I agree, so when the opportunity presents itself, "Have a Rothschild."

Allheart
Jan 28, 2008, 05:25 PM
While most and perhaps all the points illustrated in the commentary may be true, Our Country is not ruined and I don't forsee it being ruined in the near future.

Despite our difficulties that we encounter, we still remain strong and on a good day, we still remain United.

What saddens me, is that our ability to remain standing, in the face of so many difficulties, does not please some and they will twist and turn in so many directions to highlight what is perceived to be flaws.

I simply will never understand those that wish such ill will.

Dark_crow
Jan 28, 2008, 05:33 PM
I agree, so when the opportunity presents itself, "Have a Rothschild."
:D

tomder55
Jan 29, 2008, 02:02 PM
There never were enough aristocrats to satsify the mob . When they run out of aristocracy they feed on their own. The French Revolution ended in dictatorship as does most revolutions started on the populist house of cards .

magprob
Jan 29, 2008, 03:34 PM
They had to keep going till they got the guy that invented the guillotine. It was all good. The French had a great time and some real tyrants met their demise.

inthebox
Jan 29, 2008, 06:17 PM
How To Ruin a Perfectly Good Country | The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12417)

This is pure opinion.

Just the same old whining and complaining. Nothing to back up his opinion. No solution[s] offered. Blame everyone and everything. How depressing.

tomder55
Jan 29, 2008, 06:18 PM
The French had a great time and some real tyrants met their demise.

Anarchy begetting a dictator. Populism at it's best . You saw it in the French Revolution and in the Russian. What is really sad is that the same emotion almost destroyed the American Revolution in the 1890s .Thank God for the cool leadership of Washington.

Galveston1
Jan 29, 2008, 08:47 PM
In all of this I detect a bit of religion baiting and a tablespoon of Bush bashing. I think that probably the most important thing that our President does is the appointment of federal judges. On this point "W" gets an "A". Those lifetime judges do more to influence our lives than several Presidents. My fear is that the next President will load the courts with activist judges who will legislate rather than adjudicate, as did Bill Clinton. To me, the choice of any Democrat and John McCain is a bad dream. Let's get back to the Constitution as closely as possible, if possible. Would this redneck's political assessment be permitted at this point? If the Republican candidate cannot win the conservative base, then we will have a government completely controlled by the Democrats. (Welcome to the United Socialist States of America [USSA]).

NeedKarma
Jan 30, 2008, 03:37 AM
Thanks Galveston, that was funny. :)

tomder55
Jan 30, 2008, 01:42 PM
It is worth noting that McCain said that he may not have appointed Alito because "he wears his conservatism on his sleeve " . He also led the gang of 14 who prevented a rule change in the Senate to stop the stalling of judicial appointments. Because of that many of the President's nominess still hang in limbo.

Galveston1
Jan 31, 2008, 05:09 PM
One problem with this thread is that we cannot question or challenge the author of it. There is no way we can find out where he is coming from. It sounds to me like just another liberal rant, with a lot of presuppositions and not much intelligence.

excon
Jan 31, 2008, 06:25 PM
Hello Gal:

I'm a politics wonk. Actually, if you took this piece apart paragraph by paragraph, it's pretty darn accurate. In fact, I could document most every accusation with who did it, and why.

Sure, there are couple things that are a little further out there than even I would go, like the high fructose syrup thing and the waste is good thing. But, the rest is right on.

excon

Galveston1
Feb 1, 2008, 06:07 PM
OK. Let's start with paragraph 2. Not that I disagree, but what would the author do about the situation? Public education is in the toilet. The only bright spot on the horizon are the private, Christian, and home schools. Those students consistently score higher and have a better grasp of just about everything. My youngest son completed his high school work 6 months ahead of schedule in home school and scored in the top 5% nationally on his final exams. After we kick this around some, maybe we can tackle some of the other statements.

magprob
Feb 1, 2008, 09:12 PM
Get rid of the Federal Department of Education.

Vote for Ron Paul!

inthebox
Feb 1, 2008, 10:09 PM
“Liberals have controlled education at the elementary, secondary and postsecondary level for decades. They own public education; they own the universities. If education in this country is failing, it's because liberalism is in charge of it.”
--Talk show host Rush Limbaugh




"The students are seated, the bell rings. As fast as you can say the Pledge of Allegiance without the "under God" part, the indoctrination begins. The government teacher steps in front of her virtual hostages and promptly delivers the first raw lesson in the power of government. The students are instructed to bring all of their precious school supplies – their property – to the front of the classroom and put them into a huge box. They are told that the supplies belong to all of the class now, and the teacher will assume the responsibility of distributing the supplies as they are needed.

"Whoaa! Hold on a minute here! These are my supplies. My daddy bought them for me. You can't have them! They're mine!"

Nope. Sorry! They were yours. Now all those supplies belong to – guess who? The government! "

- Neal Boortz

magprob
Feb 1, 2008, 11:21 PM
I just signed and important petition on UltimateRonPaul.com | Homepage (http://www.UltimateRonPaul.com). Won't you join me? To maximize the impact of our action, the results will be released to thousands of national, state, and local media outlets, including more than 2,000 bloggers.

Dark_crow
Feb 2, 2008, 09:27 AM
Get rid of the Federal Department of Education.

Vote for Ron Paul!
So, you want to eliminate student loans for college…some people would call that racist, others would call it aristocratic. Oh, that’s right; Ron Paul has been accused of that.:p

magprob
Feb 2, 2008, 10:19 AM
Yea DC, I want to eliminate student loans and I want to put an end to the Girl Scouts too. Them and their nasty little cookies.

Allheart
Feb 2, 2008, 03:13 PM
Yea DC, I want to eliminate student loans and I want to put an end to the Girl Scouts too. Them and their nasty little cookies.


LMBO - (laugh my butt off instead of a** - just came back from church :p )

Way too funny. If ANYONE needs any girl scout cookies.. plllllllease let me know, hubby can't say no to the little "darlings" when he passes them at the supermarket. As a result, I have so many boxes in this house, I am seriously thinking of putting a uniform on him, pasting little pontytails on the side of his head, and placing him on the street corner in hopes to resell these mounds of cookie boxes now taking up room on my kitchen counter!

Galveston1
Feb 2, 2008, 07:16 PM
So far, heads are nodding about the sorry condition of public education. The author states that students graduate ignorant about history. Correct. How so? What about the idea that this country was founded by Deists? Did that come from primary or secondary education? Where have so many younger people picked up the idea that this was founded a secular rather than a non-sectarian nation? (Read the prelude to the Constitution) When the schools teach situational ethics, why are we surprised when very smart children manipulate the internet to steal or vandilize? Having removed the foundation (God) from our culture, we see it crumbling before our eyes. Our crime rate continues to rise and jails and prisons are overcrowded, causing early release. Our children have not been given anything solid to build their lives on. They are an accident (probably) and life itself is an accident (no creator, no intellegent design) so why not do whatever feels good or whatever will gain money, prestige, etc. because when we are dead, we are forever dead. Laws can only punish the lawbreaker, they cannot prevent criminal acts, because every criminal thinks he/she is too smart to get caught. On the other hand, when children are taught that there is a higher power that they answer to, they are more likely to develop integrity, the reason to live above crime being within themselves. In short, they develop conscience, that inner voice that prompts toward correct action. Yes, public education is destroying our country.

magprob
Feb 2, 2008, 07:43 PM
Yes sir.

Dark_crow
Feb 3, 2008, 10:13 AM
Gal 1, when did the federal government get involved in education and why?

NeedKarma
Feb 3, 2008, 11:52 AM
So far, heads are nodding about the sorry condition of public education. The author states that students graduate ignorant about history. Correct. How so? What about the idea that this country was founded by Deists? Did that come from primary or secondary education? Where have so many younger people picked up the idea that this was founded a secular rather than a non-sectarian nation? (Read the prelude to the Constitution) When the schools teach situational ethics, why are we surprised when very smart children manipulate the internet to steal or vandilize? Having removed the foundation (God) from our culture, we see it crumbling before our eyes. Our crime rate continues to rise and jails and prisons are overcrowded, causing early release. Our children have not been given anything solid to build their lives on. They are an accident (probably) and life itself is an accident (no creator, no intellegent design) so why not do whatever feels good or whatever will gain money, prestige, etc. because when we are dead, we are forever dead. Laws can only punish the lawbreaker, they cannot prevent criminal acts, because every criminal thinks he/she is too smart to get caught. On the other hand, when children are taught that there is a higher power that they answer to, they are more likely to develop integrity, the reason to live above crime being within themselves. In short, they develop conscience, that inner voice that prompts toward correct action. Yes, public education is destroying our country.Also remember that the US is not representative of the rest of the world.

Galveston1
Feb 3, 2008, 03:16 PM
Gal 1, when did the federal government get involved in education and why?
If I recall correctly, it was in the '70's, and I think the official reason was to promote integration. What's your point?

Galveston1
Feb 4, 2008, 06:53 PM
I know! Two in a row. Definitely hogging it, but I spent some time putting this together and am anxious to share it with you.

In the thread leadoff, the point is made that our children are not being properly taught. I totally agree. When all mention of God is removed from the student's education, then the foundation of our culture is taken away. Several of you have let it be known in no uncertain terms that you consider the Bible irrelevant, but read on. The Bible speaks to biology, anthropology, physics, and geology.

It also addresses the subject of public sanitation. There are still countries that could have much healthier populations if they would practice what the Bible prescribes on that subject.

Biology: When did scientists determine that the human body is composed of the very same elements that are found in dirt? How did Moses know that 4,000 years ago?
Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(KJV)
Anthropology: Science now knows that all humans are related by blood. Dr. Luke told us that 2,000 years ago.
Acts 17:26
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(KJV)
Physics: How lately have scientists discovered that apparently solid materials are not really solid, but are made up of atoms, with all their sub-atomic parts? Once again, the Bible beat them to it.
Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV
Geology: The Bible tells us when Earth's land mass was split up. (I assume excluding Australia and Antarctica as these do not seem to have been involved in the division).
Gen 10:25
25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
(KJV)
Definition of the name “Peleg”
6389 Peleg (peh'-leg);
The same as 6388; earthquake; Peleg, a son of Shem:
KJV-- Peleg.
You will respond by saying that the continental drift is too slow for this time frame, but how can you prove that the rate of drift has not slowed dramatically in 4,000 years?

You should stop saying that intelligent design should not be taught in the science classroom.

Dark_crow
Feb 5, 2008, 09:13 AM
If I recall correctly, it was in the '70's, and I think the official reason was to promote integration. What's your point?
Actually it was about States Rights and Education. The Federal government had to nationalize the State National Guard in order to guarantee equality in education. I’m not really prepared to go back and revisit those times and especially teach children that there is a higher power that they answer to.

Galveston1
Feb 5, 2008, 04:52 PM
Actually it was about States Rights and Education. The Federal government had to nationalize the State National Guard in order to guarantee equality in education. I’m not really prepared to go back and revisit those times and especially teach children that there is a higher power that they answer to.

I have never agreed with the idea that the state is primarily responsible for the education of children. It is the parent's responsibility, and they have delegated it to the state. Now, the state takes the position that its rights in the matter are superior to that of the parents. That is more like socialism than liberty. If that takes it back to states rights arguments, then we got it wrong, and it is still wrong. Schools should be directly responsible to parents, even that has been usurped. Of course, that is the force driving the home school movement.

Dark_crow
Feb 6, 2008, 10:28 AM
I have never agreed with the idea that the state is primarily responsible for the education of children. It is the parent's responsibility, and they have delegated it to the state. Now, the state takes the position that its rights in the matter are superior to that of the parents. That is more like socialism than liberty. If that takes it back to states rights arguments, then we got it wrong, and it is still wrong. Schools should be directly responsible to parents, even that has been usurped. Of course, that is the force driving the home school movement.
Public education is determined by the majority, as it should be. Home schooling is not some new phenomena; it's been around longer than any other.

I was home tutored by qualified teachers and every parent has that right. Parents who use Public assistance, that is, Public education at the expense of all tax payers pay a price for it, in that they can't determine individually what is being taught.

EDIT: You're right, it is socialism.

Galveston1
Feb 6, 2008, 08:23 PM
Paragraph 4 of the article. This is not happening. All elected officials bellieve that government is a good thing. The Democrats more so than the Republicans. I think one of our early leaders (can't remember which one right now) said, "That government is best that governs least". The problem is that we have elected leaders that love all the government that they can impose.
And of course, we have the quote from Will Rogers, "If you think government is too expensive, be thankful that you are not getting all the government that you are paying for".