I doubt that our rapidly failing country can be remedied via normal political means and have written on several occasions to that effect.
Some believe this outlook to be too negative, probably because they are unable or unwilling to conceive of the ending that results. Others suggest various “solutions” to remedy the problem. Some of these “solutions” would have merit if we had the luxury of time. Those which have the possibility of solving the underlying fundamental problems require more time than is available. The impending financial and economic collapse, resulting from political policies, obviates any workable political solutions.
Ilana Mercer has a bit of Lew Rockwell in her. She simplifies most matters, cutting aside the supposed complexity, discussing issues in their basic terms. While I don’t agree with some of her conclusions, she presents them clearly and concisely. Her recent commentary on the current political race is indicative of the possibility of elections changing much:
What are the odds that a Democratic commander in chief and his chief Republican rival declare their philosophical fidelity to the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt on the same day?
In an effort to better conjure Roosevelt, the shameless Barack Obama had flown to Osawatomie in Kansas, where, in 1910, Teddy delivered his “New Nationalism Address.” So radical was the Roosevelt political program that its author was condemned as “‘communistic,’ ‘socialistic,’ and ‘anarchistic’ in various quarters.”
On the day of this staged affair – in eerie synchronicity – Newt Gingrich, whose favorability among Republican “caucus goers” is at 33 percent and rising, described himself to broadcaster Glenn Beck as “a Theodore Roosevelt Republican.”
Back in the day, “the Eastern United States denounced [Roosevelt] as a ‘communist agitator.’” This was “the most radical speech ever given by an ex-president,” writes Robert S. La Forte in The Kansas Historical Quarterly:
“[Roosevelt's] concepts of the extent to which a powerful federal government could regulate and use private property in the interest of the whole and his declarations about labor … were nothing short of revolutionary.”
As La Forte chronicles, ”Roosevelt had no interest in retaining the ideals of Jeffersonian ‘state’s right’ demagogues, as he called them. He was interested in a Hamiltonian concept of power which he described as the ‘New Nationalism.’”
What could be simpler in terms of describing your choice? One takes you to Hell a bit faster than the other!
Ron Paul and Bachmann are the only two conservatives left in the race/ the state media has already assassinated Bachmann’s run. They did the same to Paul years ago.
[...] Another Election With No Choice? (economicnoise.com) As La Forte chronicles, ”Roosevelt had no interest in retaining the ideals of Jeffersonian ‘state’s right’ demagogues, as he called them. He was interested in a Hamiltonian concept of power which he described as the ‘New Nationalism.’” [...]
The only candidate that would really be something different is Ron Paul. He want abolish the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and establish sound money. He seems not so palatable to conservatives mainly for his foreign policy, but the US will have to call everyone home anyway when the dollar collapses.
Monty, I have learned a lot from you. But please be careful with the Lew Rockwell references. I don’t think Lew Rockwell represents the type of scholarship and integrity I associate with you.