Tag Archives: politics

THE AVOWED DEMOCRAT

THE AVOWED DEMOCRAT

The avowed democrat (he who wishes to be ruled by nothing more than the “will of the masses”) is so lowly a creature that he is matched in his abject cowardice and absolute illogic by no other being alive than he who willingly lives under the rule of the sole tyrant. But in either case, whether he clamors to be ruled by the unchecked tyranny of the masses, or to be ruled by the unrestrained tyranny of the individual, he is certainly a pathetic coward, demonstrably an outright idiot, and most truly a puny fool.

from Political Cause

HIGHER HUMAN ENTERPRISES

Politics in this nation should have never been about politics.

It should have always only been about higher human enterprises.  Truth, Justice, Honor, Honesty, Liberty, Human Rights, Equality, etc.

But because politics became, and remains, a pursuit of base and grasping power it can only produce the very lowest of animalistic ambitions; greed, avarice, corruption, crimes, and eventually, tyranny.

Until you tame the vice-laden and real aims of politics government will forever remain degenerate and diseased and destructive to the entire nation. And as long as government remains a degenerate, diseased, and destructive enterprise it must be overthrown and replaced with far better.

from Political Cause

YOU DON’T HAVE A GOVERNMENT

America, you don’t have a government. You have a set of theoretical governing principles which your leaders completely ignore, you entirely lack the courage to truly respect or enforce, and which no one takes seriously to any degree at all.

Thus if you had any sense at all you would have understood by now what this actually implies: that you don’t really need a government. Most certainly not the one you have.

But you don’t have any sense at all. 

You have unquestioned indoctrination, and an habitual and innate sense of abject submission.

Thus you are as you are…

 

CHARISMA AS WONDER AND WEAPON

John Potts

is a professor of media at Macquarie University in Australia. He is interested in culture and technology, digital media, media history, contemporary arts, and intellectual history. His latest book is The New Time and Space (2015). 

What is charisma? 

Idea sized paolo sarteschi 16588317022 ec1fd6b001 o
Mixed blessings. Photo by Paolo Sarteschi/Flickr

Charisma is easier to recognise than to define. Newspaper and magazine articles consistently identify charismatic leaders – such as John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, Barack Obama – but those same articles rarely describe exactly what charisma is. It is often debated whether charisma is necessary for a ‘transformational’ leader, while shelves of self-help books optimistically promise to impart the ‘secrets’ of charisma. Other people hold that charisma cannot be ‘unlocked’ or ‘discovered’ at all because it is innate and present only in the rarest of individuals. So, to ask anew, just what is charisma?

Charisma’s origins are found in the letters of Paul the Apostle, written from around 50 AD. This is the first written use of the word ‘charisma’, derived from the Greek ‘charis’ (grace). For Paul, charisma meant ‘the gift of God’s grace’ or ‘spiritual gift’. In Paul’s letters to the fledgling Christian communities spread around the Roman empire, he wrote of the ‘charismata’ or spiritual gifts available to each member of the community. He identified nine charismata, including prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, interpreting that speech, teaching, and service – a range of gifts both supernatural and pragmatic.

For Paul, charisma was a mystical notion: the gifts were thought to alight on each individual without the need for church authority or institution. And there was no charisma of leadership: the interlocking charismata were meant to serve the community without the need for an imposed leader. By the fourth century, however, the Church had largely suppressed the notion of charisma deriving directly from the Holy Spirit. Conveniently, in its place was a hierarchy of Church leadership, with bishops at the top, interpreting the fixed religious laws inscribed in the newly authorised Bible. Charisma survived only in heretical outposts, such as prophets claiming direct inspiration without the mediations of bishop or scripture. Such heresies were forcibly repressed by the Church.

The idea of charisma then lay largely dormant for centuries. Only in the writings of the 20th-century German sociologist Max Weber was it reborn. In fact, we owe the contemporary meaning of ‘charisma’ to Weber, who took Paul’s religious idea and secularised it, placing charisma within a sociology of authority and leadership. For Weber, there were three types of authority: the rational-legal, the traditional, and the charismatic. Weber saw the charismatic form of authority as the revolutionary, even unstable, antidote to the ‘iron cage’ of rationalisation found in the contemporary ‘disenchanted’ world. He held that there was something heroic about the charismatic leader, who galvanised followers with great feats or with the ‘charisma of rhetoric’ found in inspiring speeches.

Weber defined charisma as ‘a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities’. He traced charismatic leadership through history, in the person of great military or religious leaders – and also held out the hope that charismatic leadership would continue to emerge, even in the highly regulated bureaucracies of the modern world.

Weber died in 1920, and did not live to see the application of his idea to contemporary politics and culture. Perhaps that’s a good thing, since the first political leaders to be described as charismatic were Mussolini and Hitler. For many European intellectuals, this created the sense that charismatic authority had a sinister dimension. That same dark side of charismatic leadership long remained: 1960s cult leaders such as Charles Manson, with their spellbinding hold on followers, were readily termed charismatic. By this point, Weber’s works had been translated, so that ‘charisma’ was popular in the English-speaking world from about the 1950s.

The first politicians that the media identified as charismatic in a positive, rather than demagogic, sense were JFK, and his brother Robert F Kennedy. After the 1960s, ‘charisma’ moved more into mainstream usage as it was applied to outstanding individuals other than political leaders: the late Muhammad Ali, for instance, was perhaps the most charismatic of all.

Today, charisma is used to describe a range of individuals: politicians, celebrities, business leaders. We understand charisma as a special, innate quality that sets certain individuals apart and draws others to them. It is considered a rare, specially endowed quality: in US politics, for instance, Bill Clinton was thought to have a charismatic presence, as is Obama – but nobody else in recent political memory earns the accolade. In business, Steve Jobs is the archetypal charismatic leader: visionary, driven, but also volatile and unstable. And in celebrity culture, charisma is regarded as a sign of rare authenticity when much of the entertainment industry is devoted to the plastic manufacture of fame in the manner of Idols or The Voice. Charisma cannot be created by reality TV.

Is charisma even desirable in contemporary politicians? The political biographer David Barnett has called charisma ‘one of the most dangerous concepts in a democracy that you can find’. Charismatic leaders can inspire followers with soaring rhetoric – which can also prove divisive and damaging to a party’s (or a nation’s) fortunes. Political parties are generally content with popular, unthreatening, folksy leaders who appeal to ordinary people. In Australia, Paul Keating was a charismatic, visionary prime minister, but also a schismatic leader who alienated much of the Labor Party’s traditional ‘heartland’ with his perceived arrogance. His successor, John Howard, was universally regarded as charisma-free, but his very ordinariness turned out to be his greatest asset: it was a reassuring rather than threatening style of leadership. Meanwhile in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was a populist leader whose tenure as prime minister was deleterious for democracy. The charismatic leader might be thrilling, even captivating, but the success of that leader might not leave a political party, or a democracy, in a healthy state.

‘Charisma’, as an idea, spans 2,000 years. Is there a link between contemporary charisma – considered a special form of authority – and the religious charisma of Paul’s time? It lies in the notion of innateness, of the gift. Paul said that no bishop or Church required the blessing of charisma: it simply lighted on the individual, as a spiritual gift. Charisma today is enigmatic, an unknown or X factor, somehow irreducible. Nobody knows why rare individuals are blessed with charisma: it remains, as ever, a mysterious gift.

THE ASH-FIRE from POLITICAL CAUSE

The Hammer of Truth has always been a far harder and far hotter forge-tool than the soft language of lies. But it is the soft language of lies that is the cold black ash-fire which so thoroughly melts and molds the timid hearts of modern men.

 

CRUZ ANNOUNCEMENT – ACCULTURATION

I watched the announcement a few minutes ago. Video later when I can get it.

Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential bid with Twitter post, video

Published March 23, 2015
·FoxNews.com

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announced that he will run for president in 2016 via a Twitter post early Monday, becoming the first major candidate to officially declare.

The 30-second video accompanying the tweet featured Cruz speaking over a montage of farm fields, city skylines and American landmarks and symbols, calling on “a new generation of courageous conservatives to help make America great again.”
More on this…

Will Ted Cruz throw his hat in the 2016 ring?
“I’m ready to stand with you to lead the fight,” Cruz says as the video concludes. Shortly after midnight Monday, the campaign had launched its website.

Cruz had been expected to make the official announcement later Monday during a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. He is expected to start his campaign immediately rather than launch an exploratory committee, which many do as a precursor to a campaign.

Watch Cruz on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Monday at 10 p.m. ET.

Amy Kremer, the former head of the Tea Party Express, told the Associated Press Sunday that the Republican pool of candidates “will take a quantum leap forward” with Cruz’s announcement, adding that it “will excite the base in a way we haven’t seen in years.”

Other candidates who have been rumored to run for the GOP nomination include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Cruz, 44, a favorite of the Tea Party movement who has made headlines for his conservative stance on immigration, has gone after other Republicans for their more moderate views.

In December, Cruz defied party leaders to force a vote on opposing Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The strategy failed, and led several of his Republican colleagues to call Cruz out. “You should have an end goal in sight if you’re going to do these types of things and I don’t see an end goal other than irritating a lot of people,” Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time.

“Cruz is going to make it tough for all of the candidates who are fighting to emerge as the champion of the anti-establishment wing of the party,” GOP strategist Kevin Madden told AP. “That is starting to look like quite a scrum where lots of candidates will be throwing some sharp elbows.”

“He’s awfully good at making promises that he knows the GOP can’t keep and pushing for unachievable goals, but he seems very popular with right wing,” added veteran Republican strategist John Feehery. “Cruz is a lot smarter than the typical darling of the right, and that makes him more dangerous to guys like Scott Walker and Rand Paul.”

In recent weeks, Cruz has faced questions over his own citizenship. Two former Justice Department lawyers said last week there is no doubt the Canadian-born senator is eligible to run for the White House.

“There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in the President George W. Bush administration, wrote in a joint article.

Anti-Cruz “birthers” challenged his citizenship status because he was born in Canada. However, two years ago, Cruz released his birth certificate showing his mother was a U.S. citizen born in Delaware, presumably satisfying the requirements for presidential eligibility as a “natural born citizen.”

Last month, Cruz addressed the citizenship issue during a question-and-answer session with moderator Hannity at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth,” Cruz said. “Under federal law, that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”

With a little more than a year and half to go before the 2016 election, speculation is heating up that several presidential contenders will soon officially throw their hats into the ring. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enjoys a wide lead among potential Democratic candidates despite the recent uproar over her use of a personal email account while leading the State Department, is expected to announce her candidacy next month.

THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC

The real fault then lies with the fact that the People are either so greedily complicit with, or so pathetically apathetic towards, their own demise they they consent to their own enslavement and destruction.

The Greeks cannot fault the Persians when they intentionally gave birth to and then elevated Alcibiades.

It is always seemingly ideal to have a bad guy to blame for the evils around you but the Truth is the Joker still lives only because you lack the courage to kill him yourself.

DECEPTION from POLITICAL CAUSE

Intelligence and Wisdom rely upon clever and well-crafted speech every bit as much as deception does. It’s just that deception usually has a far more eager and willing audience.

It is not that the tongue of the deceiver is so much more skillful than the Speaker of Truth, it is that the ear and mind of the fool is ever more anxious and enthusiastic in consuming the lie.

TO CONQUER, NOT TO SUBSIDIZE from HUMAN EFFORT

If I had a weakness (and I have weaknesses) I would not say to myself, “Let me indulge this weakness of mine,” but rather I would say, “Let me find the way to conquer this weakness.”

And if I knew another man who had a weakness I would not say to him, “Let us gather together and commiserate upon your weakness, in order to advance, indulge, or subsidize it,” but rather I would say, “Let us analyze and reflect upon your weakness, and then discover the method by which it may be conquered and brought under your control so that you no longer suffer this problem.

Human weakness is a part of human nature, but the willful indulgence of human weakness is an unnatural and corrupting choice of self-degeneration.

No True Man willingly indulges his own faults and weaknesses. Every man should seek to conquer and eliminate his own such faults and weaknesses.

The trouble with modern man therefore is not that he is by nature  weaker than any other type of man to ever walk upon the face of the Earth, but rather that by unnatural and unwise choice he chooses to be so.

TOTALLY INSANE from POLITICAL CAUSE

Why people are so cravenly afraid of words and pictures nowadays and yet so totally unafraid of their own behavior I have no idea but it only goes to show how effeminate, insane, and totally undisciplined they are.

WHAT THIS NATION REALLY NEEDS…

What this nation really needs at this moment in time is a Justinian style ass-whooping applied with extreme prejudice to its entire governmental and legal system. Be that federal, state, or local.

About 80% of all laws ever written by Congress need to be immediately abolished, about 90% of all regulations ever written by any agency or branch or institution of government need to be immediately obliterated, the powers of the president of the United States need to be severely curtailed, most of the powers of the US Senate need to be very seriously reduced (if not eliminated), the powers of the courts need to be greatly reduced, the size and scope of all government needs to be reduced by about 2/3rds (at least by 1/2), and all of those freedoms and powers need to be immediately returned to the Individual Citizen.

Otherwise we’re just gonna become the Byzantine Empire, Part Deux, but five times as corrupt and ten times as bankrupt.

I don’t know about you but screw that Deux, and the diseased, gum-eyed, broken-back, lame-legged, flea-bitten, mangy governmental mare it rode in on.

THE PEOPLE – from POLITICAL CAUSE

The people must be spoken to as if they were a person, for without

the Person there is no People.