On Replacing America.

Vic Biorseth, Thursday, July 14, 2011
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Replacing America, or eliminating America – what are the real intentions of America’s Democrat Party and other Marxist-leaning people who are always so antagonistic to her Declaration, her Constitution and her representative government?

All my life I’ve been hearing critics and detractors running America down, emphasizing her worst points, glossing over her finer points, re-interpreting her history in the most negative light, pretending her founders were actually evil, claiming she was being run by “the Jews” or “the Bourgeois” or “the Families” or some secret cabal or other evil entity.

If the intent is to replace the American system with something else, then, what is it to be replaced with?

That should be a very easy thing to describe, for those who intend to “improve” America. Nothing to it; just describe it. Go ahead. Let me see you do it.

America is already described, in beautiful detail, in her founding and constituting documents. America’s very Purpose For Being is beautifully described in the American Declaration of Independence. Exactly how America is constituted and governed is described in detail in the American Constitution. The Constitution is a very simple and straight-forward legal document, written in English, that says very specific legal things. You don’t need any law degree to be able to read and understand it.

So, we – meaning, we America-loving Constitutionalists – have our description of what we love, support, seek to improve and reinforce, primarily in these two brief, simple and straight-forward documents. They are small enough that a copy of both of them fits nicely in my shirt pocket, with lots of room left for a cell phone, a small pad of paper and a pen. Nothing to it. Easy to read, easy to defend.

So, where, pray tell, is the description of what America’s detractors would like to replace all that with? It seems to me that every time I ask one of them to describe it, they are flummoxed. They launch into another anti-American tirade, and have to be brought back to the point again, and again. They cannot describe what they would replace the American system with. They just know – they have been taught – that the American system is bad.

But, you see, they cannot come up with a replacement system. They are incapable of exercising Critical Thinking, because they have never been taught what that is, let alone how to apply it. They have been “educated” in what to think, rather than in how to think.

All of this proves that the typical anti-American is really little more than a simpleton, pretty much incapable of coming up with an original idea of any kind.

The really stupid ones will promote Marx’s invention, which is, of course Communist Utopia. The fact that Communism, as Marx described it, does not exist, has never existed, will never exist, and is quite impossible, is lost on them.

And, of course, there are the real idiots – the anarchists. All they “know” – or think they know – is that the system, like all systems, is bad, and must be destroyed. It’s what they were taught in school. Embedded in “public” education is the effort, invented by Eric Fromm and Abraham Maslow, to develop the new man known as the anti-authority Revolutionary. Here is their glowing description of this New Man:

”The revolutionary is the man who has emancipated himself from ties of blood and soil, from his mother and his father, from special loyalties to state, class, race, party, or religion.”

Now, this revolutionary “philosophy” born of the likes of Fromm and Maslow, and other Darwin-Freud-Marx – inspired anti-Americans such as John Dewey, is deeply imbedded in what is taught in teaching universities, most particularly Columbia University, where the educational elites would have us know that the best of the best public school teachers are taught how to teach. Public – i.e., government – education is, in reality, anti-American political indoctrination.

All those unthinking imbeciles you see walking around wearing Che Guevara T-shirts would love to see “The System” come crashing down, but they don’t have the foggiest clue as to what will come after that. They are not smart enough to even give it a thought.

If you truly hate America, give us an idea as to what might be a good replacement for her. I know it’s hard, and it requires thinking, but try. Give it a good, hard think, and let us know what you can come up with.

Otherwise, just shut the hell up.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Sun Jul 17 19:11:26 2011
From: Karl
Email:
Location: Toronto
Comment:

Why did you stop the argument on your facebook page? It was just getting good and suddenly it disappeared. What are you afraid of?

I have looked at your site contents, and you seem to oppose scientific reality at every point. You deny the scientific theory of life, and you have your own theory on the beginning point of human life, in opposition to all scientists on the subject.

Do you even know what the term anal-retentive means? You should look it up; it applies to you.

Date: Mon Jul 18 06:06:50 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Karl:

While I do love a good argument, it is never profitable to argue with a fool. The guy on FaceBook did what all unprepared, provably wrong and yet obstinate people do in that situation: he turned to vulgarity and the ad hominem attack on the messenger rather than the message. I argue points of contention; I do not merely stand around and swap insults. When I blocked him, I didn’t know that blocking him would remove all the previous things he said; but that’s what happens in FaceBook, and whenever a conversation descends to that level, blocking the person is what I will resort to. I won’t have that kind of garbage on my own FaceBook wall.

Again, I fear nothing. I stand in the center of the open field with my rhetorical sword drawn. If you want to continue the argument, just step out here.

To what scientific theory of life do you refer? The beginning point of life? Show me the observations, the duplicable empirical evidence and the peer-reviewed independently verified experiments.

Regarding the beginning point of human life, what did the DNA say that the living sperm cell was? What did the DNA say that the living egg cell was? What did the DNA of the living Zygote cell say that it was? Human life does not begin, it is transmitted; it continues, until an event called extinction. What do you think is developing in the uterus of a pregnant woman? It’s not a particularly good place to grow potatoes, is it? What do you suppose it could possibly be if it is not alive and it is not human? Of course, if it was not alive, or if it was not human, then it would not be a human pregnancy, would it?

Regarding Freud’s theoretical five stages of development, including the anal retentive stage, like the rest of Freud’s half-baked theories, is just a lot of crap, like everything else in Freudianism. It sounds good, and it seems to answer a lot of questions.

If someone asks for your astrological sign and you lie and say that you are a Capricorn, an expected response may be “I knew it!” because, for many who follow astrology, everything makes sense only when put into astrological terms. They will force-fit you into the category that astrology says you belong in.

In a similar manner, many students read Freud’s stages of development for the first time, and suddenly, to them, everything makes sense, and they begin putting everyone they know into Freud’s little boxes, just as the fans of astrology put everyone into astrological boxes, because, suddenly, “it makes everything so clear!” to them.

But there is nothing to back it up other than Freud’s purely subjective “observations” of people – not from infancy, just from pure subjective theory. Never tested, never backed up by anything, and most certainly, not scientific by any stretch of the imagination.

You should look up the scientific method some time; you might be surprised at how often it was not used by the founders of great, recognized scientific theories.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.