Pessimistic, Confused, Paranoid

I possess these traits, each contributing to the other.

1. I am pessimistic because:

a) Perhaps only a small percentage within a culture have the ability (from whatever source) to really question its premises. Our nation springs from FDR's premises, Wilson's premises, and Lincoln's premises. (Founding Fathers, who themselves were defeated intellectually by anti-federalists, are invoked only selectively, for specific rhetorical but illogical debate points, and are largely ignored by the Establishment). Moreover, this percentage will not have positions of power. Most revolutions (as opposed to secessions like the American Revolution) were based on the concept that the State should do more and the people should do less. Which will the people choose, especially when the Establishment's intellectuals side with the State?

b) Even if the intentions of our leaders are good, the problem of economic calculation in government as laid out by Mises over 80 years ago, leads to error upon error. Even in something like security: we let the government, not the market, determine what our security needs are. Though they can vary from person to person and house to house. Just like our nutritional needs.

c) Nationalistic fervor and reflexive trust in our leaders, our leaders' passion in their own good intentions, and every English-speaking politician's desire to become the next Churchill, causes further damage. If it is "worth it" for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to starve under sanction, or to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in war, then our leaders will not be restrained by conscience and morality - their conscience and morality actually determine such outcomes.

d) Religious and cultural prejudices exacerbate these problems still further.

e) And this is all under the assumption that the intentions of our leaders are "good!"

2. I am confused because

a) I suppose no ideologue - and I am one - will ever be happy, and allegiance to such concepts as consistency are in some people's eyes evidence of madness. Perhaps I should lighten up, go with the flow, and just ride it out.

b) Working "within the system" doesn't work. Cheer Ronald Reagan because he was for limited government, and what did he give us? More government. "Third" parties that I would support, from Libertarian to various anti-war right-wing parties (Constitution, America First, Southern) are marginalized because of politically-incorrect positions they hold, such as that you have the right to choose your business associates on your own property. I believe rank-and-file Democrats are anti-war, and there is hope that that will soon be reflected in its candidates and leadership. But there is not even a hint that Democrats believe in smaller government. That's a gleam in the eyes of a determined few. I wish them well. But change from within the two parties, or from a third-party movement, both appear quixotic.

c) Working "outside the system" doesn't work. You don't vote, and the government will assume you are content. You break the law individually (such as tax evasion), and the government makes you a criminal. A real yet peaceful revolution will take a "conspiracy" of millions cheating on their tax returns or not filing at all. And if there isn't already, there'd be a federal law against that kind of discussion over e-mail and the web.

3. I am paranoid because

a) Let's put it this way. There is no evidence that Bob Woodward is not CIA, which makes it a possibility that the downfall of Nixon was a CIA operation, akin to a Mafia hit on one of their own.

b) We all know that secret societies do exist. They are inimical to both our nation's predominant religion of Christianity, and to the principles of a democratic republic. But members of secret societies are not mocked and marginalized; they are rewarded. Nobody cares.

c)If you're the head of the CIA, who can investigate you?

d)Secrecy can be assured by mutually assured blackmail. Even an honest agent could be confronted with framed evidence against him to keep him quiet.

e) Our infatuation with preventing Islamic countries from obtaining nuclear weapons is to keep them under subjection. So that the West can nuke Mecca with no retaliation. And therefore dictate oil policy to bribed Arab princes.

f) Any movement that gains traction, whether a Southern movement, or libertarian, or green, is going to be infiltrated and either diluted or sabotaged. To be frank, I doubt that Lyndon LaRouche, with whom I agree on virtually nothing, ever committed any real crime. I read some of his prescriptions, and he actually sounds like a typical Democrat. But no, we MUST believe he's a corrupt cult leader.

g) I wanted to be brief, so I didn't provide links for my evidence. But, under the rules of honesty, I'm not obliged to, because I've already confessed that I'm paranoid, and paranoid people believe in coming doom without evidence. That said, I'd direct you to Rigorous Intuition, Prison Planet, and the sidebar of The Sampler.