Hi Revolt76, thanks for posting. I agree with your statement "Prepare to fight or be prepared to accept what you are given." However, there is a right time to fight if you want your fighting to be more than pointless self-sacrifice. Remember the "whites of their eyes" idea? When would be a better time to fight oppression, under current circumstances or during the middle of what would essentially be a nationwide Katrina? Remember, during a limited Katrina it took the resources of a nation, then some, to keep a lid on things. Now imagine 300 simultaneous Katrinas, plus, which is what we would have if the monkeys began fighting each other, and us, for food. If we back away until they are sufficiently self-defeated, then the remainder of the situation is relatively easy to handle.

As far as the recovery, if you get a chance read Herman Kahn's book "On Thermonuclear War". The first third of this, which is the most relevant part, is available online somewhere. I have a link to it on my site. That book, from the Rand Corporation think tank was written from the perspective of 1960 America where most people were still productive and had character. The central premise was that there are two countries, the urban A and the rural B. The idea is that if A Country was totally destroyed B Country could rebuild in ten years and in the meantime the US would still have been the world's most powerful economy. Now imagine a scenario in which all of the resources of A Country remain intact (roads, most buildings, etc.), but the leeches which now infest it have been removed. Recovery should be even faster. Think of this as a neutron bomb that has the most dramatic effects on those who have chosen to be the most dependent on handouts and regulations (yes, that even means some on here who depend on regulations for a living).

I make my living with technology and teaching. But, in a crisis I am more than willing to help my chicken farmer neighbor keep his houses running and fix his tractor, and help him get a pyrolysis plant running to keep his houses warm in the winter. Not as socialists, but as free traders who both benefit by trading our best work to others for theirs. Between the two of us we can trade chickens to the guy who has cattle, and the three of us can trade food to the guy who can fix diesel engines, and so on. And not a tax dollar spent on any of it. With a continent to plunder for parts your millions can eventually get the pipelines running again and power plants operating and nuclear arsenals manned and factories built etc. If someone is willing to get his hands dirty and his mind educated and trade fairly with his fellow producer, there is nothing to fear about where we are headed.

Hi GeoatBeck, I suppose you have me there. Despite my claim that flocking behavior explains what would appear to be conspiracies, my assertion that Beck is already in possession of his list of 56 and is simply waiting to dribble it out as carefully staged marketing does appear to claim conspiracy. Hmmm. What if major parties like the GOP actually enlist the aid of people like Beck to re-elect their guys in a seemingly apartisan way? I wonder if that qualifies as flocking or conspiracy. Certainly those on here, for the most part, aren't in an inner circle, but instead will flock to support Beck in response to their zeal to fix the country, which serves the purpose of a GOP circle that stands to benefit. Wow, I'm going to have to think about that! I would also classify Hillary's assertion of a "vast right wing conspiracy" to be more of a "vast right wing flocking" since I doubt that everyone involved sat around smoking cigars or pouring on the faxes.

Here is a repost of a topic posted during the Vent bobble in response to some questions that popped up on another topic.

Jimbo_52, Bawnyfwank and Reagan10. The monkey electorate has figured out how to use our virtues as weapons against us. Civility simply means that they get to evade our challenges simply by claiming that we are rude. Charges of racism, for example, trigger that "good little boy" response that mommies try to train into their children. Classic maleness, which is assertive and dominant, has been classified as rude. When crisis nears, civility will not keep barbarians at bay. For an example, consider Chamberlain versus Hitler. Civility is a luxury that we can't afford if we are to preserve civilization itself. On the other hand, rudeness sends a message to the primal brain of our opponents that they are treading near the breaking point, whereas self-imposed civility is interpreted as a sign of weakness by barbarians. And the apology, which used to be a sign of character among people of character, has now been twisted into the social equivalent of a forced Marxist confession.

Wow, Vent seems to be flushed, and then starts, and then goes back to the original. So, here is a repost of a topic that I posted to catch up with some comments after it went down.

Tracer asks whether we can get the country back without a physical fight. I don't think so. But I think there is a better option than a direct physical fight, and that is to get our enemies out in the streets fighting each other.

I consider myself an individualist first and foremost. As such, I abhor collectives of any kind or political flavor as they all tend toward Marxist behaviors to enforce compliance with a collective. Producers in this country are by necessity individualists more than they are collectivists. Producers distinguish themselves by using their ideas to improve quality of life. No team or collective has ever come up with an idea. Only individuals do. Teams or collectives may pretend that they originate ideas, but each idea must either originate or be improved by an individual on the team. Productive people can team together on their own if need be, but our social systems exist to enforce teaming so that non-productive people benefit, too.

Cubicles, human resource departments, deep bureaucracies, complicated tax and regulatory environments, all of these collectivist innovations exist to suppress individuality and enslave individuals to the collective. Even attitudes are policed, which is why so many people who claim that free speech is essential demand that victims of the collective never once be so rude as to challenge their oppressors.

So, we, the productive people, are hopelessly outnumbered by the nonproductive electorate, or the monkeys on both the left and the right. If we can begin withholding value, then both groups begin to starve, and will eventually be fighting each other in the streets for food. After the herd has been thinned sufficiently, we can rebuild anew.

Hi Jimbo_52, I understand your point of view but I think there is a limit to politeness, too. I'm going to start a new topic on that to see where it goes.

Hi Tracer, thanks for thanking me! I have to admit you are one of VERY few people who have ever accused me of being polite. I agree with you that Wilson shouldn't have apologized. I think that whole topic is worth of a high-level post. I'm also going to post a high-level topic on the physical fight subject you bring up.

Hi Bawnyfrank, I understand your point of view, but sometimes rude IS called for. Otherwise, we look like pasty victims. I'm going to post a high-level topic on that in a minute to switch gears.

Hi Reagan10, I can't think of a better forum for a Congressman to speak his mind than during a joint session of Congress, can you? The more strident the better. I'm going to start a new high-level thread on that topic (I did it a few minutes ago and Vent switched back again).

Hi GeoatBeck. Hmmm, first there is the old Vent, and then a new one, and now the old is back. No, I don't think that collectivist flocking behavior is necessarily conspiratorial, no more than birds conspire where to flock next. I think collectivist behavior is the result of an evolutionary process, part of which involves our coerced smiles and enforced civility as our noble institutions are destroyed and our property and lives stolen from us. Individualism dies in these circumstances under influences from collectivists on the left and right alike.

I appreciate all the comments you guys made to my Joe Wilson post. Before Vent reset early we had a pretty good discussion going. Let me summarize the responses I didn't get to answer before the topic went poof:

Tracer: Do I think we can get our country back without a physical fight? No. But I think there is a better option than a direct physical fight, and that is to get our enemies out in the streets fighting each other. More later.

Jimbo_52, Bawnyfwank and Reagan10. The monkey electorate has figured out how to use our virtues as weapons against us. Civility simply means that they get to evade our challenges simply by claiming that we are rude. Charges of racism, for example, trigger that "good little boy" response that mommies try to train into their children. Classic maleness, which is assertive and dominant, has been classified as rude. When crisis nears, civility will not keep barbarians at bay. For an example, consider Chamberlain versus Hitler. Civility is a luxury that we can't afford if we are to preserve civilization itself. On the other hand, rudeness sends a message to the primal brain of our opponents that they are treading near the breaking point, whereas self-imposed civility is interpreted as a sign of weakness by barbarians.

GeoatBeck, (different topic, but relevant, and dumped by vent anyway) no, I don't think that collectivist behavior is necessarily conspiratorial. I think collectivist behavior is the result of an evolutionary process, part of which involves our coerced smiles and enforced civility as our noble institutions are destroyed and our property and lives stolen from us. Individualism dies in these circumstances.