Replies

When a nation or civilization continually engages in self-deprecating, self-destructive criticism instead of healthy beneficial introspection and constructive criticism, it is sowing the seeds of its own demise. This is exactly what political correctness is predicated on with the further aspect that it NEVER makes critical assessments in a fair and balanced relationship to the positive factors of societies or weighs such deficiencies against those existing in other societies or cultures equal to or worse than the object of their scorn. In short, political correctness is a suicidal, malignant philosophy with the single-minded purpose of destroying the civilizations which gave birth to it. For societies to survive and flourish, political correctness must die.

By infusing themselves with massive racial diversity, the countries of the West are ceasing to be nation-states and are planting seeds of future conflict without precedent in world history.

Our strength (used to be) in our unity, not our diversity. I fear Roberts is right. I believe the world is on the brink of some very scary times. Political Correcness has already done a pretty good job of destroying the West.

In the US Senate is a symbol that comes from Roman times - it has the head of an ax, and consists of many thin rods (reeds, actually, as I recall) bound together.

This is meant to represent the concept that great strength comes from many bound together in a single purpose. Where one would be too weak, all together are capable.

And diversity is the antithesis of working together for one unified goal. The various groups' lack of any agreed upon culture or standards other than a shared marketplace means that the government must regulate ever more elements, and must enforce those laws and rules. The governed no longer agree sufficiently for the phrase "consent of the governed" to have meaning. And thus we may be destined to descend into empire, and thence into tyranny.

Further, an outside force may enjoy the aid of a fifth column already in place within the US. We see at least the suspicion of such a possibility with moslems in the post 911 world. This too weakens us - especially if we face an enemy with a large domestic constituency.

A king or hereditary line of rulers has a long-term view because he and his heirs have a proprietary interest in the country.

This is exactly why I favor electing 'sons of the rich' like our current President, as opposed to the 'self-made' politician, of which Clintoon stands as the most infamous example. Bush is much like a hereditary ruler in that he benefits from 'insider' knowledge of world affairs, and his business/social relationships impress upon him a profound respect for the forces and families who made and hold this country together. BC, by contrast, wanted to 'reinvent' government, and his ilk always want to plow up the social fabric, keep things in turmoil, which keeps them afloat politically. Always in need of money, they are more open to corruption.

As long as Americans have the good sense to elect enough aristocrats to high office, we will pull through. If demogogues grab power, they will promote their various 'cultural revolutions', always finding grievous fault with the existing order, and promising a quick solution to the gullible and less-advantaged. They will also be unwilling to take foreign-policy risks, preferring short-term accommodation to long-term security.

>>Hans Hermann Hoppe makes the case that democracy causes rulers to use policy for their short-term gains

...ala the Democratic party. We can't have democracy without the impossible combination of a propaganda ban and an absolute cap on the size of government. If the USSR had elections - Joe Stalin would have had no trouble getting re-elected by the sheeple