Marxism: an inescapable road to tyranny and murder

This recent work by David Horowitz is profound, personal and a passionately argued analysis and refutation of this century’s most cherished secular god, the socialist utopian state and the ideology that it is built upon. This work is nothing short of brilliant. While not lengthy, this work by Horowitz is one of the most important of the decade because of its substantiated thesis linking socialist ideology with religious presuppositions. Because socialism is a religiously held ideology, it is able to continue or perpetuate itself generation after generation despite its complete failure to achieve anything positive in history. In essence, socialism is a depravity that resides within the hearts of men, manifesting itself as theft and envy towards one’s neighbors. Socialism uses the power and force of government to achieve this perverse goal of theft towards one’s neighbor’s goods (usually called redistribution).

Horowitz shows how socialism once gaining political power inevitably uses the state to steal from its citizens and tyrannize them and consequently can never hold the allegiance of the people once in power except through brute military and police state power. Socialism is another name or face of Marxism or communism. Socialism has perfected this brute military and police state force into an evil art form. This is the only thing Marxism has perfected, brutal tyranny. If it were not for the religious dogmatic nature of socialism, which Horowitz demonstrates conclusively, this present work in and of itself would constitute a deathblow to the arrogant cult of Marxism. Horowitz gives us a rare look into the ethically depraved secular religious mindset that governs the left.

Those on the left in this country have given themselves to a religion hell bent on using the very freedom they enjoy (a product of the West) to destroy the very foundation of freedom in the West. This is an example of socialism living off the borrowed capital of those whom they are trying to destroy. Socialism always dresses up or covers its real intent or designs with expressive emotional speech utilizing undefined terms such as social justice. In reality, as Horowitz demonstrates repeatedly, socialism has not produced freedom anywhere in history. The author convincingly establishes that the attempts to construct utopian socialist dreams have never produced anything in history except misery and death for untold millions.

Horowitz persuasively connects the socialist ideology or the socialist “idea” with the terror that is the inevitable result of the implementation of this “idea” in history. Speaking of the Marxist revolutionaries in Russia he writes: “Though they had cast an entire nation into a living hell, they had to maintain the liberating truth of the socialist Idea. And because the Idea was no longer believable, they had to make the people believe it by force. It was the socialist idea that created the terror” (107). Most certainly, the results are always the same and predictable whether being Germany’s Nazi nationalist socialism, the Soviet (Gulag) Union, bloody Red-China, small time imitators such as Vietnam, the Cambodian “killing fields” or the island prison Cuba, it is always political tyranny. Or, as Horowitz explains this political terror, Stalinism being the most consistent and brutal expression as follows: “Stalinism is not just a possible interpretation of Marxism. In the annals of revolutionary movements, it is the prevailing one” (91).

With millions now dead and millions more living in the most backward of economic conditions and police state oppression, do the socialists admit a connection between their ideology and the results? With all the hallmarks of religious cultism, the socialists continue in denial and to believe (through the most amazing mental gymnastics) in the socialist “dream.” The left, like all religious cultists, tolerates no dissent. Horowitz painfully recounts how some of his closest former comrades have in effect disowned him (another hallmark of cultism). Horowitz has laid bare the suicidal depraved nature of socialist hypocrisy and the mindset of destruction slavishly adhered to by those on the left. Those committed to the cult of Marxism are trying to impose a hellish form of penance (destruction of freedom and prosperity) on everyone to assuage their own guilt.

Horowitz establishes the inescapable conclusion that: “The reign of socialist terror is the responsibility of all those who have promoted the socialist Idea, which required so much blood to implement, and then did not work” (108). Thus it can be said, ideas have consequences, and those who promote socialist ideology share the blame along with the enforcers for the death and misery that have resulted everywhere this perversion has been forced upon human beings. Accordingly, this work will absolutely make those on the left gnash their teeth and rend their clothes. Indeed, the chapter “A Radical Holocaust” will agitate the “PC” crowd, but more importantly will flush out the ideological allies of western styled Marxists. This work is truly magnificent. David, give us more.

David Horowitz, The Politics Of Bad Faith
New York, New York: The Free Press, 1998

Reviewed by
Jack Kettler

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 25 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Mr. Kettler can be reached through his business site at: http://www.undergroundnotes.com/ Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Author: Jack Kettler
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Anti-angiogenic Food

If they were asked to take a hard and honest look at the problems facing this country in today’s world, it is easy for most people to identify the five or six overriding issues that deeply affect the most Americans. I would bet that the following issues would make most people’s top ten:

- Two ongoing wars in the Middle East.
- A continuing battle against terrorism.
- Our failing public education system.
- An ongoing battle against the plague of illegal drug usage.
- Escalating health care costs.
- Both Social Security and Medicare heading for insolvency.
- Skyrocketing national debt and deficit spending.
- High unemployment.
- The lack of a national and rational strategic energy plan.
- Illegal immigrants and the problems caused by the lack of a national border security capability.

Wherever you fall on each of these major issues (e.g. against the wars or for the wars, against legalization of drugs or against legalization, etc.), most sane people would agree that if we could focus and solve just this small handful of issues, the real world would be so much better.

However, when you listen to politicians speak, you sometimes wonder what world and reality they are dealing with and living in. Have they fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole from Alice In Wonderland to a world that is different from the ones most Americans inhabit everyday? Could it be that these major problems facing the nation listed above, the same ones that have not been solved by the political class for decades, have not been resolved because the political class lives in a different dimension than us? Consider the following events relative to the American political class that have recently popped out of the rabbit hole of politics:

1) A county politician in Wisconsin, running for a political office, opines in a public forum and on camera that Arizona is definitely not a border state with Mexico.. In all of the maps of the country I have seen throughout my life, Arizona is shown to have a very long common border with Mexico. In this Wisconsin politician’s world, that is not the case, making it tough to solve the illegal immigration problem when we are looking at totally different maps.

2) When the Democrats took over both houses of Congress in 2006, the Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi, proclaimed that the Democrats would reign in the outrageous deficit spending habits of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. She vowed that there would be no new Federal government spending unless other areas of the Federal budget were reduced in order to pay for the new government spending, her highly touted “pay as you go” approach to curtailing the size of government. She proudly proclaimed on her website: “While the President’s (Bush) budgets have turned surpluses into deficits, the Democrats’ budget takes America in a new direction, returning fiscal responsibility to Washington and the right priorities for our nation.” Given the fact that Federal government spending has grown significantly and budget deficits have skyrocketed (tripled) since this Democratic Party Congressional takeover and into the first two budgets of the Obama administration, it is apparent that Nancy Pelosi exists in a different universe from us. Most of us would agree that fiscal responsibility does NOT mean tripling the size of the deficit within four short years as it does in Pelosi’s mind. However, we would agree with her assertion that the Democrats’ budget is taking us in a new direction, the fast track to national bankruptcy.

3) Let’s stay with Pelosi for another trip down the rabbit hole because her world is so fascinating and different than ours. The Speaker recently announced that high unemployment is good, and that, in fact, high unemployment is one of the best ways to create jobs. You cannot make this stuff up, check out her press conference on YouTube where she seriously made this claim. Thus, in her world, the more people that are unemployed, the more jobs are created for those in need of a job. In her world, if we can get to 100% unemployment, everyone might have a job created as a result. Obviously, economic theory is different where she exists.

4) In Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson’s world, physical laws of nature are suspended. In a recent Congressional hearing, the Congressman expressed his worry that the U.S. island of Guam might tip over in the ocean. Again, you cannot make this stuff up, check the YouTube video of the hearing.

5) The Associated Press reported on July 15, 2010 that Federal prosecutions of illegal immigrants jumped to new high levels in the spring as the “Obama administration continued an aggressive enforcement strategy championed under President George W. Bush.” Apparently, in our world, 4,145 cases were referred to Federal prosecutors in March and April. This was the highest number of cases for any two month stretch in the past five years. The article also reported that deportations have also climbed significantly, from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 in 2009. So let me get this right: the Federal government is prosecuting and deporting more illegal aliens than ever but has the chutzpah to turn around and sue the state of Arizona for trying to reign in the same large wave of illegal immigrants coming into its state from Mexico? Seems kind of contradictory, at least in our world of reason. Apparently, it makes perfectly good sense in Washington, send home illegal immigrants with one hand and slap the state of Arizona with the other hand for doing the same thing.

6) On July 13, 2010, the Associated Press reported that over 100,000 pieces of children’s jewelry had to be recalled from retail shelves because the jewelry contained high levels of cadmium, a dangerous heavy metal if ingested. That’s the good news. the bad news is that in the world of government safety regulation (e.g. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission), one does not learn from past mistakes. Several years ago, U.S. government safety organizations failed to realize that there were many, many children’s toys being sold in this country that had high levels of lead, another substance that can cause severe damage to a child if ingested. After that recall, it turns out that the same manufacturers replaced lead with cadmium, resulting in another recall earlier this year, a recall that included millions and millions of products. One would have hope that after the lead scare, the safety organizations would have been more on alert about similar type products. No such luck. After we got through the first cadmium scare, we now have another one. In the product safety dimension, learning does not happen, disasters just repeat over and over again.

7) In the surreal world of the American political class, all Republicans are vehemently against homosexuals and Democrats are the only advocates for the gay way of life. However, in our reality, this is not the case. An Associated Press report from July 13, 2010, reported that a Republican gay rights group, Log Cabin Republicans, is suing the administration in Federal court over the refusal of the Obama administration to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military doctrine on gays serving in the armed forces. This will set up the surreal situation where a Democratic administration will be using taxpayer funds to defend a policy, a policy it also wants to see repealed, against a group that is traditionally been painted as anti-gay. Got that, makes no sense to me either.

And finally, lets leave this post with some Orwellian and otherworldly snippets from President Obama. George Orwell in his novel, 1984, was very precise when he showed how by manipulating how you say things, e.g. war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc., you can make the unreal become real. In President Obama’s world, getting our military out of Iraq means staying in Iraq, closing the Guantanamo Bay prison means leaving it open, not hiring lobbyists to serve in his administration means hiring lobbyists to serve in his administration, significantly reducing earmarks means increasing earmarks, being fully engaged in helping the Gulf Coast residents survive the BP oil spill means taking two vacations, playing seven rounds of golf, participating in several athletic photo ops with various teams, and taking at least two trips to California to campaign for other Democrats, and not raising taxes for anyone earning under $250,000 a year means raising the taxes for those same people’s kids and grandkids by allowing unprecedented government spending and national debt increases, increases that every American, present and future, will eventually have to pay.

The sad thing is that the political class lives in their own world, a world where the pay is very good, the benefits are great, you can almost never get fired since you have rigged the election process, and you don’t have to care what your constituents think and the issues they face. You also do not have to solve real problems like the war on drugs, failing public education, wide open borders, etc. even though these problems have plagued the nation for decades. That is why imposing term limits on all Federally elected politicians is becoming more and more critical, forcing them out of their worlds and other dimensions after one term, hopefully replaced by regular people that are grounded in this world and the major issues listed above. It is time to bury the rabbit hole once a fall all, stop wasting taxes and start tackling real issues and problems.

Our new book, “Love My Country, Loathe My Government – Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class” is now available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in American can be followed at http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com.

Author: Bruno Korschek
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Benefits of electric pressure cooker

Fascism is commonly placed on the far right of today’s political spectrum when it is described. Despite this, most scholars agree that influences by the left and right contributed to its development.

Italian Fascism was created with both right and left influences. The “Fascist right” was made of members of fascist paramilitary and some ex-members of the Italian Nationalist Association. The “Fascist left” included those who wanted to replace Italy’s liberal parliament with a national syndicalism and promote the interests of common people and workers. The Fascist paramilitary members desired a dictatorship. The members originating from the Italian Nationalist Association wanted the existing elites to remain while implementing an authoritarian corporatist state. Fascist Italy also had small groups who tried to shift the movement towards their beliefs. These included the “clerical Fascists” who promoted Catholic beliefs and the “monarchist Fascists” who pushed for an absolute monarchy.

Several movements of fascism were self-described as a “third force” and not in today’s political spectrum. Benito Mussolini declined to specifically define his version of fascism in an attempt to gain support from as many people as possible. Benito Mussolini pictured that the economic system of his fascist Italy could be described as either state socialism or state capitalism.

Some political scientists have found that the left and right of the traditional political spectrum don’t allow for the complexity of the fascist ideology. Some multi-dimensional models of the political spectrum have been devised to help explain this.

As fascism started to spread in Italy it gained popularity around the world. The results of World War II quickly dampened this popularity. Marcus Garvy, Winston Churchill, and Franklin D. Roosevelt were all initial supporters of fascist Italy.

Following World War II, fascism became quite unpopular around the world. Today, fascist is usually used to describe a preference for authoritarian rule. Fascism is used to attack both left and right wing stances and is often over-used and misrepresented.

To learn more about the father of fascism visit Benito Mussolini. This site includes a full and detailed Benito Mussolini Biography.

Author: Derrick R Anderson
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
How Electric Pressure Cookers Work

We’ve all come across people who just seem incapable of modifying their perspective based on new data being presented. Most of us still mouth the words that additional education (or indoctrination/propaganda as is often the case) is what is needed since surely this person will turn around if his/her consciousness is sufficiently expanded with additional data backing your perspective. However, all too often deep inside we know that some people are “hopeless”. This conclusion concerning failure of propaganda is reached from all over the political, cultural, and religious spectrum at one point or another. It thus becomes fashionable to outright dismiss “inconvertible” individuals and opposing zealots (on political and religious fringes of any given population) as nuts and crazies.

Personality theory in psychology allows us to better categorize individuals in society without resorting to name calling. Myers-Briggs typology in particular offers a better construct (compared to useless terms like conservative and liberal for example) to predict how an individual will act politically and socially. Myers-Briggs research combined with biology and brain scan techniques also offers us hints at understanding the underlining anatomical basis that predisposes a person to be either a disagreeable radical or a gentle follower.

There’s been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It’s just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers. This assumption seems reasonable and obvious but gives rise to two other creeping and unsettling assumptions:

1) The human population is relatively fixed along a bell curve type continuum. Perhaps this is better visually represented by a sphere with a number of spikes extending from it. The moderate population is the bulk of the sphere and the zealous “radical” factions (whose opinions differ dramatically from the statistical average) are the spikes extending from the sphere’s surface (as well as into the interior to some degree which would represent silent sympathizers). It is irrelevant to label the spikes as extreme left, right, etc. All that is important is that a relatively fixed minority of the population (lets say 10-20% range) will be:

a) prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from majority’s

b) prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts

Authors like Friedrich Hayek for instance, observed that in 1920s Germany roughly a million workers swung their support between communists and Nazis based on who was winning. It was noted that the two seemingly opposing ideological parties clashed with one another the most because they were very often competing for recruits in the same psychological pool of young people. Considering how many overexcited Americans called both Bush and Obama the new “Hitler” in recent years, we can easily imagine how an aggressive drooling at the mouth anti-war protestor from a big city could have been an equally excitable protester at a teabag rally if only he was born in a small town and into a different culture.

2) Since the ratio of intensely active people (prone to being perceived by population at large as “wingnuts”or criminals or radicals or genuinely informed and committed activists, etc) to more relaxed apathetic majority seems to be roughly fixed across all societies and globally as a whole, the explanatory basis for such a dynamic can only be biological. Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in. Psychiatry has shown us that people are born with different ratios of neurotransmitter production and quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the types of chemicals that affect their mood and cognition. We now understand that people differ a lot more in terms of brain architecture than they differ in terms of things like body type, skin color, fast twitch/slow twitch muscle ratio, etc.

The reason why these assumptions are unsettling is not because there is a degree of fatalism involved (“he will be a radical of one stripe or another no matter what” or “he will be socially lazy, shallow, apathetic, and uninvolved no matter what). Obviously with modern socialization methods and pharmaceutical modification (with psychological genetic and cybernetic modification to follow in near future), an individual can be shaped more than ever before by society and by himself. The assumptions are unsettling because if the broad direction of our views, opinions, and political/cultural/religious affiliations are largely physiologically determined at birth, then societal progress becomes enormously more difficult. Societal progress can be defined here as one zealot faction (that is seen by majority as the most “correct” in its socioeconomic policy perspectives and formulations of what humans should do next) dragging everybody else along behind it as has always occurred throughout history.

Obviously people will disagree on what constitutes progress (some actually thought arrival of Reagan was progress) but if majority of people are physiologically predisposed towards the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society. In the past, one intense dedicated fringe of the aristocratic elites dragged the other nobility along behind it (since majority of nobility would also have a soft apathetic bulk) and thus dragged the rest of the population behind it as well. We also had scenarios of power vacuum developing and one intense fringe political faction overpowering the others (as in the case of Bolshevik and French revolutions) and filling the leadership position to then drag the rest of the serfs behind it.

In today’s democratic structure however, protection of the status quo is a lot more preserved since the moderate bulk of the population has a political voice and thus a way to provide the ruling elites with legitimacy. The moderate bulk of the elites now also has ever more sophisticated consent and perception manufacturing methods to influence the newfound voice of the majority. For a small number of dedicated activists, pushing society along towards desired version of progress against the forces of social inertia is now harder than ever. The powerful activists now need to sway both the fellow elites and the people simultaneously.

Let’s finally get to the Myers-Briggs part of the article to see what we are now dealing with.

The most widely used way to get a glimpse of people’s underlining neural physiology has been the Myers-Briggs psychological questionnaire (one of the better versions found online for free can be found here). Over the past few decades, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been utilized to collect enormous amounts of statistical data on personality types found within the human population. The statistical type breakdown (I am using a combination of 3 different sources on the %. Don’t mind the catchy positive nicknames each type and group cluster has been given. What matters here is the number within a population.) so far has been as follows,

Protectors (SJ)

ESTJ – Overseer, supervisor = 11.8%
ESFJ – Supporter, provider = 11.7%
ISTJ – Examiner, inspector = 9.8%
ISFJ – Defender, protector = 9.9%
All SJs = 43.2%

Creators (SP)

ESTP – Persuader, promoter = 8.4%
ESFP – Entertainer, performer = 10.3%
ISTP – Craftsman, mechanic = 6.4%
ISFP – Artist, composer = 7.9%
All SPs = 33%

Intellectuals (NT)

ENTJ – Chief, fieldmarshal = 3.2%
ENTP – Originator, inventor = 3.7%
INTJ – Strategist, mastermind = 1.5%
INTP – Engineer, architect = 2.2%
All NTs = 10.6%

Visionaries (NF)

ENFJ – Mentor, teacher = 3.4%
ENFP – Advocate, idealist = 4.2%
INFJ – Confidant, empath = 1.2%
INFP – Dreamer, healer = 2.4%
All NFs = 11.2%

Each of the personality types (the well defined strong ones at least who haven’t self reported to be a mutt of 2 or more different personalities) can be seen as a specific brain type. As mentioned above, the physiological neural difference between 2 people of vastly dissimilar brain types is a lot more significant than how a person looks on the outside. That is because the brain type determines a mental and emotional predisposition of a person for the rest of his life. People classified as “bipolar” or “anti-social/sociopathic” for instance, have neural structures that will make them lean towards some things more than others during their entire lives.

We can see from the statistical breakdown that SJ (left-brained people with parietal lobe strength) predominate in the overall population. The second biggest group are the SP (right-brained with parietal lobe strength). Together they are almost 80% of the population. The SJs tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete “what is”, and protective of the general society. They don’t rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. The SPs tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on “what is” (with their parietal lobe) in order to fix and modify it.

If you look at the cute nicknames given to different brain types, you can see that the human herd pretty much needs all of them if it is to evolve and survive. Some types are needed more than others in the great scheme of things. The SJ and SP groups for example are conveniently numerous. SJ population provides a great amount of soldiers, policemen, social workers, self sacrificing charity givers, accountants, and status quo protectors. In other words they keep the herd safe even if it means stagnating the herd through using their positions in the executive to slow down rapid change. SP group provides us with artisans who improve quality of life for the herd through provision of entertainers, artists, dancers, singers, and resourceful improvising mechanics. SPs can be said to exist to entertain SJs and keep them on their toes by having more fun than them.

It’s easy to see how SJs lean republican and SPs lean democrat overall. The jokes that democrats have better sex lives than republicans begin to acquire an element of truth (considering the different approach left and right sides of the brain take in deciding on how to deal with the here and now). However, the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person’s behavior and views on the world than simple political identification.

The overall theme emerges that people with neural computers that predispose them to either protect the status quo or be apathetic about it (since they are busy pursuing hedonistic adventures) are the supermajority that are not as interested in “what can be” (as the less numerous NP and NJ groups tend to be). A point must be made here that not one group is more important than another and that even their numerical breakdowns seem amazingly appropriate. It would be turbulent for the herd to have for example, more ENTJs/INTJs than ISTJs/ESTJs since the problem with authority that NJs have (due to their desire to be the authority themselves) would create unsustainable infighting and not allow enough people who follow orders. Each brain type has a very key social niche and function and over thousands of years there evolved an intricate genetic balance and ratio. There are of course also multitudes of physiological “mutts” who are a hybrid of all and can’t be “pigeonholed” (the most common complaint brought against psychological typology in general).

Interestingly enough, the Hindus have spent thousands of years evolving classification of human beings into 4 broad psychological varnas or classes. Each was considered as important as the other (all parts of the same body) with their own particular temperaments and duties.

Some brain types are literally made to create new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs (since strong T theorists are prone to being too rigidly rational and thus not take into consideration the emotional impact of their constructs) new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined. However, as explained above, these people will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups. “Think of the children!” is a call to arms for ESFJs and ISFJs for instance whereas being tough on crime, national strength, and defeating foreign enemies is the bread and butter of ESTJs and ISTJs.

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they don’t like and “radicalize” them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today’s Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as “radicals” can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.

Author: Pavel Podolyak
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Lowest price PCB Prototype

In the world of politics, people who describe themselves as moderate share in common a handful of fundamental beliefs. These people are united not around a party or organization but around a certain worldview. In this article I am going to tell you the most important things you need to know about what defines a moderate.

Oxford dictionary describes a moderate as an “individual who is not extreme, partisan or radical”. People often use centrist as a synonym with the term but it should not be used interchangeably. Moderates can be centrists, but they can also be classified either as center-left or center-right on the classic political spectrum. There is a significant degree of flexibility when it comes to party choice for these individuals as they have very pragmatic tendencies when it comes to voting.

There are, nevertheless, a select few beliefs and characteristics that ties every political moderate together. They are listed as follows:

Common Sense and Reason

A moderate’s thinking about political issues is founded on the premise that they think with their heads. Meaning, they try to not let their emotions get in the way of making decisions on often difficult and complex issues. They understand the various implications both positive and negative that could arise from taking one position or another on a given topic. Thus, moderates try to vote as rationally as they can. Moderates weigh the importance of one thing versus the other and decide which one is truly more crucial and will be more beneficial to the society in which they live. They also have a tendency to vote pragmatically or “strategically” when the occasion warrants such behavior. The moderate despises irrationality, which leads me to the next section.

Belief in Science

I strongly and personally believe that a belief in science is absolutely essential to the identity of a moderate. To discredit the basics of science is to exhibit an utter disregard for reason and rationality. In most western countries this is not an issue like it is in the United States of America. Statistics from polls that ask Americans about their beliefs in science and evolution are absolutely disheartening to the average person of sanity. After having a president for the last eight years that disrespected and misunderstood science, the numbers should not come as a shock. Regardless of whether one votes as a moderate conservative or moderate liberal, a belief in science is imperative to being able to justly hold the ‘m’ word in their title.

Middle-of-the-Road Politics

Moderates often describe themselves as “independents”, not affiliating themselves with any specific political party. However, they can favor one party over the other, hence the terms moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. When moderates’ party of choice starts to move too far to the left or the right, they can become uneasy. Candidates who take far left or right ideological positions are not appealing to average moderate voters. When the media reports that independents decide elections in places like the United States and Canada, what they are really saying is that moderates decide those elections. In the U.S., the last two Democratic Presidents were moderates, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. George W. Bush campaigned as a moderate with the slogan “compassionate conservatism” but governed mostly as an ideologue. In Canada, the Liberal party of Canada defines itself as a centrist/moderate party and dominated Canadian politics for most of the last 100 years. These kinds of parties are most attractive to moderates.

I believe that these three aspects best describe what a moderate is and what he or she believes in. In the world of politics, moderates know how to work together and how to get things done.

The author, Tyler, closely follows Canadian politics and has reported on the long gun registry.

Author: T Nes
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: WordPress plugin Guest Blogger

With an increase in the usage of blogs as a powerful tool of communication technology, economic blogs have proved to be an ideal platform for investors to keep abreast with the latest developments and happenings occurring in the financial world. It educates them about the actual workings of the market. Recent financial unrest occurring around the world has generated a lot of interest among people about how the economy works.

There are many economic blogs that are hugely popular among the visitors. These include the following:

*Blog by Greg Mankiw – Nicholas Gregory “Greg” Mankiw is an American macroeconomist, currently working as a professor in Harvard. His economic blog combines both resources for his students and various articles on financial matters, thus acting as an excellent source for anyone interested in economics.

*Conscience Of A Liberal: This economics blog is managed by the famous economist, Paul Krugman, who received Nobel Prize for Economics in the year 2008. This gives a person an in depth understanding of this subject from the view of both academics as well as the industry experts.

*Calculated Risk: This blog offers an insight into various diverse fiscal issues such as housing and security. The posts by different user groups also bring to the fore various financial issues, which affect the daily lives of common people.

*Economist’s View: This economic blog collects and presents information related to the financial matters from all the content floating on the Internet. It collects them and puts them all in one place.

*Freakonomics: Also having a book by the same name, this blog illustrates on various weird happenings taking place in the world of money. Although it is more suitable for people looking to be entertained rather than informed, the analysis done within the text acts as a helpful resource for “econoblogging”.

Features Of An Economic Blog

A good economic based blog has following features that define it:

*Regularly updated content.
*Properly organized sequence of contents.
*A possibility of interaction with blog writers along with having an option for the readers to post their comments.
*Rich quality.
*Contents syndicated through the usage of RSS feeds.

Misuse Or Demerits

Although these blogs are highly informative and create awareness among the people regarding the financial scenario, there are several demerits that can be associated with the same. These are as follows:

*Some of the so-called economics blogs are nothing but spam due to their irregular maintenance.
*Many blogs tend to provide inflated and exaggerated content to their users. This leads to incorrect information getting circulated in the market.
*The content of many blogs is many a times completely out dated. This may be due to the owners running out of quality topics to post.

Thus, there are various good and bad aspects of an economic blog that needs to be taken care while looking for credible information on net. However, the good outweighs the bad! They act as a perfect platform to diversify the investment options among various assets.

Economic blogs act as a reliable source for people to get information regarding various financial matters.

Author: Edna Love
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Guest blogger

We’ve all heard the old saying “Never discuss sex, money or politics”. Even conversation between good friends can end in an argument when discussing politics.

We have conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, independents, moderates… Everyone sees the world a certain way, and how we should go forth in improving our great nation. You would think it would be easy to talk about these things, discuss and come to agreements. Hardly! More often than not, these discussions turn into arguments, and at times get very heated.

For thousands of years there has been fighting over politics, many of which lead to wars. I we all agreed, it would obviously be a perfect world with no wars, but sometimes the political fighting gets fierce and things get ugly.

This is not only typical amongst our politicians but amongst every day people too. Seems less and less are willing to compromise when it comes to their political beliefs and the country is divided. We have world leaders arguing over politics, then we have the US politicians going at it, then state politics… you get the point, it all crumbles down, all the way to you and I.

The keys to staying cool when debating or discussing politics is to leave your emotions in check, leave room for compromise and/or discussion & realize that the other person believes in what they’re saying as well and remain respectful.

The best way to win a debate is to do so in a civil manner, presenting facts and explaining your point of view. Many times when points can’t get across, it quickly turns the debate into an argument. It’s best at that point to get back on topic, or try to move onto the next topic.

I have owned a few political on-line websites, been members & have moderated as well. Of all the forums I have participated on, the political scenery has to be the hardest for all of those involved. It’s a constant quagmire and the in-fighting never seems to cease. The best you can do is take the higher ground, remain impartial and apply rules equally.

Jim is owner of http://www.debatepolicy.com

Author: James Lutz
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
iPhone iPad apps

No matter where you live, politics probably plays a part in your day to day life. You might not immediately deal with political issues, but you can be sure that politics plays a part in what you do! Whether it is office politics deciding who gets that raise you’ve been hoping for; city politics determining where you are allowed to park downtown; county politics dictating your quarterly property tax or even nationwide politics deciding how your schools are funded, politics plays a part in your daily life.

It is important then that you understand what politics really is. Politics, at its core, is defined by Wikipedia as the process by which groups of people make decisions. At its core, politics sounds quite simple. What makes it complicated are the individuals involved in making the decisions. Because human beings are not perfect, the political system is never going to be perfect. This is something that most people don’t understand about politics. You can put all of the pomp and circumstance into politics that you want, in the end; it is more about human beings getting their way than about the process itself.

It has been said quite often that politics is a dirty business. In the United States Congress, for example, politics has taken on an air of hatred and manipulation. Many citizens of the United States feel that they are left out of the process of politics and that their elected representatives are more interested in scoring personal points than in working toward the betterment of their states and districts. In the last few decades special interest groups have taken on an entirely new role and lobbyists have become particularly vilified.

This disillusion toward politics is nothing new. Plato-the famous Greek philosopher-believed that all political systems were corrupt at their cores and that societies leaders should be chosen from an elite group of individuals who were began leadership training at birth. Aristotle argued that man is inherently political and that personal and political ethics are often the same thing.

One of the most famous political philosophers, Machiavelli advised that leaders of politics be brutal and manipulative and do whatever they could to retain their power. Machiavelli is studied today and his work is considered to be one of the leading authorities on how to behave in politics. Is it any wonder then, that the political systems of so many nations look corrupt?

The heart of politics is good: it is how laws are made and how individuals are judged by the societies that surround them. Without politics, nobody would know what was allowed and what was not allowed when they left the house. Unfortunately, many people view politics as a way to get ahead or to gain some sort of power over the people they live and work with. It is because of these “bad eggs” that politics has become regarded as an evil and ugly business.

For more information on politics, visit http://www.relatedarticles.net/bl-england_blog.cfm

Author: John Parks
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Tissot virtual reality

Well it seems to be the hot topic of the month on Internet forums, as many people go to political blogs to discuss the issues with Iraq and Iran in the Middle East. There are people from all over the world participating and some are even from the psyche war campaign of the President of Iran in his efforts to give the people of the United States of America and the politicians in the United States to not strike Iran’s is nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities.

Many in the Internet forums are talking about the progress in Iraq and a problematic issues with the insurgents. Some are trying to redefine who they are and what they want and why they are so difficult to remove. Here is a recent excerpt from an online think tank discussing this issue, as one international terrorists sympathizer anonymously states his views on what is going on in Iraq;

You state; “The foot soldiers who make up the Baathist part of the alliance have a military background.”

They also have background in wiping their butts with their left hand then using it to hold the gun stock of an automatic weapon, further advancing their e.Coli virus on the world and I will have none of that my friend. Indeed we should have led more of them out into the desert to kill in Gulf War II, as we advanced faster than we should have in the last 80 miles into Baghdad.

You state; “They are former members of Saddam’s army, where they served as low-ranking soldiers, or in the security and intelligence fields. They lost their jobs shortly after the war, when the coalition forces dissolved the army, security and intelligence apparatuses.”

Indeed and there previous job was a “dead end” one and they should be thankful they never caught a “cluster bomb drop.”

You state; “They were also brainwashed by ideas of Arab nationalism and anti-Americanism during the Saddam years.”

Irrelevant as the same thing is happening with this radical Islamic Fundamentalist President of Iran as he uses this tactic to rally his support by picking an enemy, namely the United States. Thus we need to remove him also so we do not get a repeat.

You state; “Being sacked from their jobs only reinforced the conspiracy theories they had been led to believe and it strengthened their anti-Americanism.”

So what is the point? This is obvious and Al Jazeera runs anti-American Stories every day to feed their customer base with BS. The Clerics run around behind the scenes and promote the same. Why would anyone expect anything thing different and surely you are not purporting any of this as news are you? Because it is not, it is no different than the liberals in our country using their primate politics tactics against our own presidential administration. It is guerilla warfare. But you can always destroy the forest if you cannot get your way right? And you approve of this tactic?

“Lance Winslow” – Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Author: Lance Winslow
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
iPhone/iPad apps

Have you ever been on an Internet Forum or Blog and some moron calls you a NAZI? It is truly incredible indeed. Usually someone who is acting as the self-proclaimed wannabe Security; PC Police will disagree with something you have said. Blow it all out of proportion, misrepresent what you said as they attempt to repeat it and then call you a NAZI? Isn’t it fascinating how some brain dead scoundrels attempt this?

Then if that doesn’t work they will condemn a miss-spelling or typo, or tell you “Obviously you cannot read” when it is they who cannot read or comprehend, because they cannot even repeat or even understand what you wrote anyway? Well isn’t this special indeed; and welcome to the world of the maniac depressant, Prozac induced world of Internet Forums, Online Chat and Blogs?

This recently happened to me and then the perpetrator told me I was an enemy of free speech, a NAZI and King George III? What ever, so I replied to this insanity, do not ask me why?

“Enemy of Free Speech Never; in fact I did not attack you or what you wrote, I mentioned that those who go too far over the line to condemn at a time of war and slander are not free speechers they are in fact abusing the privilege by attacking a man’s character without knowledge or proof, bound in hate, nothing more. I believe in Free Speech and Freedoms of the Press, I do not believe in making stuff up or purporting lies against the leadership of our nation, merely to call them “unfit to lead” in some bizarre rendition of primate guerilla politics, simply so their political party can take over and do the same thing they once condemned. Be real careful who you label you good for nothing SOB, I have given more to the common good than almost any man in my common acquaintance.”

No matter how you attempt to defend you personal character there is always some idiot out there to trash your good name. Imagine what it would be like to be a celebrity of any type? Consider all this in 2006.

“Lance Winslow” – Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Author: Lance Winslow
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Get my ex back