Journal Community




Explore Group

The Low Information Voter




« »
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon

    @ Joe

    "Abraham Lincoln was nothing but a statist . Lincoln was a statist and a racist ." You're trying to demonize the man. You read a few books and you present their biased opinions here. Rewriting history is a sport these days.

    You don't seem to know the definitions of Statism either.




      Lincoln caused the death of over 600,000 Americans due to his insistence that the union be preserved. That insistence makes him a statist, at least in my book.

      Are you going to tell me he isn't responsible for those deaths?

      Why else would the "State" erect a statue of him?

      It should be obvious that history is written predominately by the victor. That doesn't make it the truth, or at least not the whole truth.




        Thanks for your input Bill. You need to look up the definition of statism also. What book of yours are you refering to?

        The war started in SC with that State firing on the US Government.

        The State erects many statues to many famous people. Are they statist's because they have a statue erected of them?

        No, no, history is never based on the truth. LOL.

        Unfortunately, Napoleon Bonaparte was trying to protect his legacy.

        It's interesting that he's the one you choose to lend credence to your argument. I'm pretty sure that Napoleon Bonaparte was dead some 40 years before the Civil War began and I'm even more certain that he never wrote a History book on the matter.

        Have a nice night.



      Jay - You never answered my question - Is Lincoln responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 people?

      The first shot fired isn't necessarily indicative of who pushed first. The US pushed Japan by blockading its supply lines prior to WWII. Pushed hard enough even a pacifist like me will push back and push back real hard. The US is pushing Iran now just itching for an excuse to unleash its superior weaponry. That technique is as old as the hills and was used by the north against southern interests.

      All wars are wrong, but Lincoln was quite pleased to use a war to support a stupid ideology. Both sides could have peaceably parted company, but Lincoln wouldn't have it. Lincoln was the ultimate aggressor.

      I picked a quote from the thousands I have that fit the situation. Napoleon was as much of a swine as Lincoln, but he had a good quote. I have some good Lincoln quotes too.

      1 Recommendation


        No. You can't blame a single man for the Civil war although you're really trying your best to do just that. Nationalists (in the North and elsewhere) refused to recognize the secession of the Southern States, (before Lincoln was elected and took office) nor did any foreign government, and the U.S. government in Washington refused to abandon its forts that were in territory claimed by the Confederacy.

        I'm sure you have many Lincoln quotes, so what? Now we're the ones who started the WWII with japan. Amazing. Do you have the slightest Idea why we had economic sanctions against Japanese industry (oil). There was no "blockade" of Japan.

        Sorry, You seem to want to blame the US for WWII and Lincoln for the Civil War. I'm not buying into your nonsense, I know better.




      This is just one of many references to the Stimson quote:

      All countries are full of disgusting politicians ready to kill to further their political aims. I'm just willing to admit that the US is no exception. You appear to believe the US wears the white hat. It doesn't. Wake up!



        "Obligatory Disclaimer: The contents of this entire website, as well as all emails sent, are based upon the opinions of individual authors, unless otherwise noted.

        The information on this website is not intended as advice on which to base life-changing decisions. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from our research. We encourage you to make your own decisions on how this information affects you personally, based upon your ongoing research and critical thinking."

        So much for your source. A site devoted to WWIII.

        Thank you for playing. You have displayed your bias on the matter, however, I'm not really interested in the rhetoric or in rewriting history.

        1 Recommendation


        Your site of reference is a conspiracy site. Why am I not surprised?


        That all historic events of importance have happened by design (see An Introduction to Conspiratorial History);

        That three world wars were planned as far back as 1776 and that the commonly believed reasons given for the start of World War I and World War II are contrived;

        That the plans for World War III are well laid out and are already following a clearly defined script, with only minor adjustments made to the timing thereof to allow for unforeseen delays to the grand plan;

        That the major elements necessary for the start of World War III and the subsequent destruction of society as we know it are now in place, waiting only for the correct combination of events before final world domination is achieved;

        That God is in control and permitting the events of today to occur in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy;

        That it is our duty to inform and educate those who wish to be informed;

        That resistance is futile and that no effort should be expended in trying to prevent world domination by a few. Instead we should prepare as best we can.

        That the commonly debated issues on other conspiracy sites like Globalization; Man-Made Diseases; Secret Societies like The Illuminati, Bilderbergers, Skull & Bones, Freemasons, Knights Templars, Rosicrucian's, Opus Dei, etc., are all simply noise and distraction, UNLESS they are discussed within the understanding of the larger battle going on in the spiritual world, which is manifest in the physical world here on earth. This is where most other conspiracy sites get it wrong, by focusing on non-important issues.

        I have no specific credentials relevant to the content on this site (my background is IT and Telecommunications). However the site is the result of many years (at least 15, but I've lost track) of study, research, questioning and personal observances. I have read and summarized countless sources (probably approaching 2,500) and over time have built an understanding of the Conspiratorial View of History in general and the development of the New World Order in particular. "

        Funny stuff Bill.

        1 Recommendation


      I referred you for the Stimson quote, not the site itself. Reread my post. Are you asserting Stimson didn't say it?

      I don't particularly trust any site. Not the ones that parrot the company line, nor the conspiracy sites. I think for myself.

      When Madeline Albright says that 500 Iraqi child deaths are worth it, when Bush can initiate wars via outright lies and then Obama continues them, expands them and starts a few more skirmishes, I'm pretty certain the administration in Washington DC is not to be trusted.

      You seem to idolize Lincoln. I don't understand why. Yes he "freed the slaves". That would have happened with or without him. What could have been avoided was the entire Civil War had he just let the union dissolve. We are stuck with his precedence today and have an additional 600,000 graves thanks to him.

      Given that the US debt will arithmetically crush the economy sooner or later, the mistake Lincoln made in forcing the states to stay in the Federal sphere will self correct in my life time.



        I understand where you're coming from Bill. Sorry I'm not a conspiracy freak so I'm really not interested in your point of view. Maybe someone else will be interested but I'm not.

        You have a nice day, if you can, seeing that the world is about to come to an end at the hands of our Government and "The New World Order."



      I always find it interesting when people get on a blog and make comments. I wonder if they were face to face they would make the same comments. You make comments and assertions out of thin air. Do you have many discussions with people where you make such wild accusations? First of all how do you know I only read a few books and that my opinions are biased? What books are you referring to that are biased? If you want to have a debate then be specific and point out what I said was biased and give an argument to the contrary. Then you say I don't "seem" to know the definition of statism. Well I have a definitlon but I think it would be more beneficial to have you give your definition then we could bat it around and see where we stand. Instead of sitting on the sideline and acting like "Yoda" with such great wisdom, share some of that widsom with us all.
      If you notice in my comments with Ronald I never entered into a conversation about the economics implications of the Civil War only because the issue of slavery was the more pressing point. Also, I never said I totally disagreed with Ronald on all his points. One in particular was the realization that most whites were what would be termed today white supremists. So give a shot and let's learn about your knowlegable input since you probably have read a lot more books then me and they were totally objective.



        Are you calling for a "face to face" or is that just false bravado? Do you have many discussions where you don't make wild accusations?

        It seems that you don't know the meaning of "statism" : It's the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, hence my refernece to economic policies. Lincoln was not a "statist"(sic).

        Your contention that Lincoln was a racist because of snippets from statements that he made during his life. If he was a racist then he would have let the Southern States secede and the Democrats could keep their slaves for another hundred years or so.

        As far as your racist comment about the majority of whites being racist, you must have some census to back that up, right?

        360 thousand Union deaths and 275 thousand Union troops wounded. Those figures alone disproves you comment on white "supremists (sic).

        I'm not interested in your attempts to libel the 16th President of the United states. He inherited the slavery problem, research the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the slave question. He solved the slavery problem to a certain extent with hundreds of thousands ow white men dead for the cause.

        Try reading Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life (2 volumes). Johns Hopkins University Press,

        Mark E Neely, Richard Miller on Lincoln and his Presidency.

        Robert Forbes on the Missouri Compromise and slavery.

        I'm not interested in your attempt to rewrite history and libel Lincoln, there's too much of that going around right now.



      I have to go on a short trip but I haven't forgot about responding to you. Here is something that will whet your appetite while I'm going.




      Statism is a political ideology where the central state, rather the people, are the ultimate source of authority and power. Statism tends towards increased central planning in the economics sphere and a curtailing of civil liberties, which may be deemed necessary by those in power to achieve social or militaristic goals.
      Lincoln and the National Currency Act of 1862 established central banking and fiat currency:massive subsidies were given to railroads, the steamhip industry, and hundreds of other rent-seeking businesses; tarriffs were increased threefold; internal revenue bureaucy was created; the federal government was massively centralized.
      Here's a snippet from an old Republican:
      Another great old Republican was John Taylor of Caroline. He was not only a brilliant political philosopher; he led the opposition to the Northern protective tariff. "Give us a free and open competition in our own market," he said, "and we fear not to encounter like competition in the general market of the world." Taylor saw the tariff as part of the apparatus of statist domination. The interest groups behind it were northern industrialists who wanted to feed their private greed at public expense. Rather than selling their wares on a level playing field of free competition, they sought government privilege. In 1821 the Congressional Committee of Manufacturers issued a report calling for protective tariffs to expand industry. In today's language they called this growing the economy, expanding trade, enacting fair trade, or any of another number of other shibboleths used to centralize trade authority. But Taylor saw the real motive of tariffs. They were a power grab.
      There are so many examples of the statist policies of Lincoln. Lincoln was is the direct line of protectionist philosophy as Alexander Hamiltion and Henry Clay his mentor and hero. Read about the "American System" that Clay was an originator of and he died before it became institutionalized under Lincoln.
      You seemed to disregard my comment that most whites in the 1800 were racist and you try to make Lincoln above the influences of his day. I apologize but here is another snippet that supports my position.
      Mark Goldman is a liberal whose second book, City on the Lake: The Challenge of Change in Buffalo, New York, is about official racial discrimination against blacks in the 20th century. About Civil War-era Buffalo, he writes:
      "Like most Americans in the middle of the nineteenth century, Buffalonians were distinctly racist, and while many may well have abhorred slavery (no working man in his right mind would want to compete with slave labor), the overwhelming majority had no desire to live among blacks. This was true of the reform-minded WASP community who supported colonization of America's blacks in Africa as well as for the German and Irish immigrant community who for racial as well as economic reasons wasted little love on the black race."
      Goldman quotes from a German-language newspaper: " We want no negroes in the northern states because we anticipate nothing good from the mixing of the black and white races. We want the region of Kansas to be reserved for honest white workers." Almost sounds like Lincoln!
      Lincoln was racist but so were many other white American's of that time. He believed that blacks were an inferior race. He promoted colonization up to the day that he died. There are many comments that were made by him that would defy logic to not understand his position on the races.
      Please present a logical argument that disputes what I have said then maybe we can have a conversation.



    @Ronald Kirchem

    Your post is fine propaganda Ronald.

    "We the People" are responsible for the development of this Nation, not the Government. We are a "Representative Republic" not a Democratic Republic, look up the difference.

    As far as businesses polluting the country, we're one of the cleanest industrial nations on the planet.

    We regulate ourselves, as a people we passed "child-labor laws, pure food and drug laws, workplace-safety laws, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, equal opportunity/affirmative action, environmental laws, unions, consumer-protection laws." All done by "We the People" not the political left as you claim. We are a representative Republic.

    "Examples of positive government: victory in two world wars, the Interstate Highway System, the Internet, space travel, the TVA, dams, ports and airports, weather forecasting, public education, public hospitals, veterans benefits, National Institute of Health, scientific research, museums (the Smithsonian, e.g.), Coast Guard, national parks, fire protection, police protection, the FBI, the CIA, toxic-waste removal, disaster relief (FEMA), support for UN peacekeeping, family planning, and I could go on and on."

    All made possible by the people! You fail to see this simple fact but I'm not surprised reading your posts here.

    It's saddening to see that you think that we progress as a people and a Nation because of the political left.

    You demonize businesses in this country like a follower of the political left. Thinking like yours has successfully divided this country.

    You attribute all advances to Liberalism but fail to mention that it was a Liberal Democrat who developed the Atomic bomb and it was one of you Liberals who actually used it against women and children.

    The truth is that "We the People" through a representative Republic are responsible for that development but you only see the political left as a means of development for the people in this country so I'll leave the blame for the "A Bomb" on your shoulders. It's interesting that you failed to mention the Constitution in your rant once.

    With all that said, your hatred for business, Republicans and people who don't believe as you do is duly noted. One thing for certain, your myopic view of the nation is unhealthy for the Republic and our future progress.

    1 Recommendation


      @Ronald K.

      It has been said that Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today". It is said that Atlas Shrugged sold over 7 million copies and sold about half a million copies in 2009. Thus there must be some merit to the book even if you don't agree with it. So far you haven't discussed any specifics of the book that would make your remarks seem even remotely intelligent.

      Do you wish to add ignorance to the list of negative traits you have become known for?



      " I have wasted enough of my time ..."

      ... he said in the middle of a comment which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. This is the post of someone who has lost the debate and has nothing left to offer but insults.

      I would say pity him, but really ... pity us. He is an excellent example of the low-information that is the subject of this topic. Ignorant, yet convinced he is more knowledgeable than anyone here. He can't defend his opinions, yet continues to hold them despite being cut to shreds by factual counter-assertions. He even falls into the logical fallacy of believing he must be correct if 51% of the population agrees with him.

      I say pity us because the tyranny of the majority has become reality.



    Well I can't sleep so I might as well join this gathering. I'm pretty much a libertarian. I went to business school. I try to stay informed. But as I get older I require less and less information in order to vote. Our principles are simple: small government is our primary goal. In this age that means a protest vote on most of the ballots. It pains me to see a nation going down the path to socialism but what can we do other than protest? The scary part is that my only goal now is to safeguard my retirement and have an escape plan. There are plenty of small countries that would make suitable resting places. Be well, freedom-lovers!




    Although it has been generously suggested that I move to North Korea due to my views, 8 years ago I decided to permanently move to the Caribbean.

    Do your research and pick a spot that suits you. As the US becomes ever more tyrannical, your options will become more and more limited over time. Act as quickly as you can.


  • I have one very specific proposal: the removal of party affiliation from ballots, and the corollary elimination of the 'straight ticket'. The Republican and Democratic parties need to be recognized as factions of a single oligarchical elite that makes its money from a combination of selling favors and a protection racket, distinguished only by some variation in the beneficiaries of their loot. Another corollary would be the elimination of 'nomination' by a party as the basis for appearance on a ballot in favor of the production of a certain number of qualified signatures.

    2 Recommendations



      Your analysis of how the parties work is spot on, but your proposal is a bit timid. Allowing the parties themselves to continue to exist means that "the machine" still functions. That organization ( It is one organization with two branches ) will purchase elections just as it does now. Just making the party names disappear from obvious view won't really solve the problem.

      How about limiting the total amount of money a campaign can spend. For arguments sake, $100,000 total. That would preclude Radio & TV for the most part. There wouldn't then be the need to raise a Billion dollars as there's no way to spend it legally. That would remove the corporate influence and return campaigning to a people focus. What's left ? The Internet! Each person wanting the job of tyrant could set up a web site and explain his position without any party affiliation at all.

      By forcing campaigns to spell out their positions in no uncertain terms that can be tracked in the future, it would potentially limit the outrageous lying that all the politicians do. I would also add the ability to fire the SOB if he's discovered to be just another lying politician out to line his own pocket.

      Of course this is all just a rant as the people in charge like the system just the way it is.



    It's amazing how the liberals are now calling for us to amend the constitution so they can push through their ideas with no resistance. That's how sick the nation has become, like an alcoholic who must have a drink, so are the American people who must have their government checks. Like a junkie who steals in order to buy his drugs, the Fed will print more money to feed its appetite for bonds and bailouts.



    "Ronald Kirchem" shows that it's possible for "high information voters" to be moronic a**holes (who, as Jeffrey Gugas points out, is using a new alias after being banned). Whatever his faults may be, however, a lack of reading and thinking about politics is not one of them.

    In this, he unintentionally provides a great service by whacking the core premise of this question.

    Here's my counter-thesis: Democracy doesn't work because of how well informed the average voter is, how much they read and think about politics, etc. It works because most people have a sense of when they are being screwed. This makes it hard for oligarchies and their naturally despotic tendencies to gain sustained control.

    That's not a 100% guarantee, and if you look at US history we've gone off the rails more than a few times at the state and national levels. Eventually, our system has been good at correcting it.

    Which brings me to the "2" in my 1-2 punch. The correction has nothing to do with how much people pay attention to politics, either. It's a matter of culture and bedrock values. If they're good, people who wake up to the fact that they're being screwed can self-correct onto a more virtuous and sustainable path. If they're toxic, you live in a Latin American cycle of massive screwup, begets failure, begets mega-violence, whose "stability" is shortly followed by massive screwup, which begets failure, which begets mega-violence... wash, rinse, repeat.

    I'll submit to this discussion that our Founders grasped this when they talked about our system of governance being suited to a moral and virtuous people, and no other.

    The purpose of voting laws should be to prevent fraud. I'd be cautiously sympathetic to a corollary that restricted voting to those who on net pay more in taxes than they receive in direct monetary benefits from the government. I'm very unsympathetic to efforts that would broaden voting laws beyond those 2 goals.



      What you say makes sense, except for one problem. In the founders day, voting was restricted in an important way - more important than any racial or gender discrimination was the fact that voting was limited to property owners.

      Property-ownership is an interesting, non-racial and non-sexist way of segregating short-term thinking from long-term thinkers.

      The "give it to me now" crowd does not seem to realize the consequence of putting 40% of everything you buy on the national credit card. Most property owners do, or they soon cease being property owners.

      3 Recommendations


    I don't think there's any way constitutionally to limit voting rights to only those who are intelligent. Unfortunately it's one man (and now woman) one vote. All we can hope is that the media will continue to magnify and expose candidates' positions and personalities. The good news is that those of us who are conservative don't need a whole lot of information. I for one seem to enter a voting booth in order to say "no" to everything. And since I live in a liberal state I'm pretty much wasting my vote. Oh well, c'est la vie.

    1 Recommendation

« »
To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.


Your Groups Here…

