Traditional man and country

[hrai]

Re: Traditional man and country

Sometimes I wished I knew for sure which way to point my chariot. hahaha

Just forwards will be fine.

[Eddo211]

Re: Traditional man and country

Sorry, I thought you were serious in stating that so I addressed it as such.

Its cool Anon, don’t even mention it.

I am just amazed at the level of intelligence and wealth of information that exists within the majority of Armenians on this website including our none Armenian good friends who honor and support us from around the world.

Cheers

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

The Federal Reserve and its policy of fractional-reserve banking is probably the main reason if not one of the most primary culprits of all of this.

As far as the "wealthy" are concerned, at least in America, their wealth will not mean much. The continued devaluation of the dollar which has been exponential since 1913 and under Obama's "New Deal II" policies, it will only get worse.

Anon, as a person living outside of the American system, on the US/CAN border, working between the US and Canada and constantly comparing the political/geopolitical.... I could see how the wealthy are using the American system to get richer. For example, there are times where the CAN/US dollar ratio fluctuates so much that just by exchanging CAN dollars to US dollars, waiting a month then exchanging back can give you a 25% return. So if you were a well off Canadian, you could take $100,000, exchange it to US currency, wait a month and exchange it back and make $25,000 income. The same goes for EUR/US exchange, etc. And all this is tied into the fluctuations of the OIL PRICES, Stock Market. So in essence, you could be doing the same with American Currency, using it to build up reserves in other currency so that if the US dollar crumbles, it wouldn't affect you since you were prepared to jump ship and "get the hell out of dodge".

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

The rich very much successfully manipulate the economic system in their favor, i dought anyone can truely dispute this fact.I think anon is implying that if left alone the free market system will serve humanity better but this assertion is very much flawed.There is a reason why every society on earth tries to controll the free market to some degree, the ups and downs of a truely free market are just too drastic for most people to handle and effect lives in a similar drastic manner.Also a point to consider is that a free market is a consept created by humans and is very much effected by human behavior.I just finished doing research on economic cycles two semesters ago and it was very interesting to see that the economic cycle has not changed since it was first observed thousends of years ago.The cycle exists because of human nature, a good example is what happened to the economy recently, when things are going well economicly people tend to barrow and spend as if things will continue in this manner forever, They eventually endup overextending them selves and must liquidate to survive economicly.This is what drives the ups and downs of economic cycles(human nature) and everyone can take advantage of this cycle not just the elites, but the elites manipulate the cycle through institutions like the fed to make the economy do what they want. The market was successfully manipulates by the very few since its inception in the usa and it has never stopped being manipulated by the very rich and powerfull to make them even more rich and powerfull.Economic cycles exist because of human nature and they are manipulated by the rich and powerfull to serve their own interests.This last down turn of the cycle was predicted long ago but was made more severe by the fed derregulating banking , this made the boom cycle of the economy get much higher then it would have gotten by letting people barrow more then they could pay back, this inturn assured that the economic bust which would follow would neccesseraly be much more severe then if the said regulations had been left in place.While anyone who knows of the economic cycle can take adventage of it, the rich by using financial institutions (fed, buying power, markets,banks...) are the onlyones who can maximixse their profits off the cycle.The point is that economic systems including the free market are hardly free and are subject to the human behaviour(even if you derregulated everything there is to derregulate) and the elite can and does manipulate the economy to serve its own interests and has been doing it in the USA since the inception of the stockmarket.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

Perhaps "The economy" needs to be put in perspective with traditionalism... I think this text should help, especially in returning the focus I intended of this thread, back to life.

WORK
THE DEMONIC NATURE
OF THE ECONOMY
I have previously discussed the analogy that exists between the single individual and a collective entity, and the legitimacy that this analogy was accorded in the ancient past. I have also remarked that in modern times the dimension of sociopolitical organization has descended from a plane in which the vital, material part is subordinated to higher faculties, forces, and goals, to a plane in which this higher dimension is lacking or, worse yet, through an inversion, deprived of its own dimension and subordinated to inferior functions, which in the single individual correspond to the merely physical plane. The counterpart of this, in the State, is the economy. I will now consider the phenomenon in question from the perspective of this particular aspect.
Sombart's thesis that we are living in the age of the economy expresses in an accurate manner the above-mentioned anomaly. He is referring, first of all, to the general type of an entire civilization. All the exterior aspects of power and of technical-industrial progress of contemporary civilization do not detract from its involutive character—rather they depend on it, because all this apparent "progress" has been realized almost exclusively in terms of the economic interest, insofar as this interest has overshadowed all others. Nowadays it is possible to speak of a demonic nature of the economy, because in both individual and collective life the economic factor is the most important, real, and decisive one. Moreover, the tendency to converge every value and interest on the economic and productive plane is not perceived by Western man as an unprecedented aberration, but instead as something normal and natural, and not as an eventual necessity, but as something that must be accepted, willed, developed, and praised.
165
166 WORK—THE DEMONIC NATURE OF THE ECONOMY
As I have said before, when the right and primacy of interests higher than those of the socioeconomic plane are not upheld, there is no hierarchy, and even if there is one, it is only a counterfeit; this is also true when a higher authority is not accorded to those men, groups, and bodies representing and defending these values and interests. In this case, an economic era is already by definition a fundamentally anarchical and antihierarchical era; it represents a subversion of the normal order. The materialization and the soullessness of all the domains of life that characterize it divest of any higher meaning all those problems and conflicts that are regarded as important within it.
This subversive character is found both in Marxism and in its apparent nemesis, modern capitalism. Thus, it is absurd and deplorable for those who pretend to represent the political "Right" to fail to leave the dark and small circle that is determined by the demonic power of the economy—a circle including capital-ism, Marxism, and all the intermediate economic degrees.
This should be firmly upheld by those who today are taking a stand against the forces of the Left. Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, "productivity," and "consumption." And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential, even though new theories, beyond Marx-ism and capitalism, might be formulated.
The starting point should be, instead, a firm rejection of the principle formulated by Marxism, which summarizes the entire subversion at work today: The economy is our destiny. We must declare in an uncompromising way that in a normal civilization the economy and economic interests—understood as the satisfaction of material needs and their more or less artificial appendices—have always played, and always will play, a subordinated function. We must also uphold that beyond the economic sphere an order of higher political, spiritual, and heroic values has to emerge, an order that neither knows nor tolerates merely economic classes and does not know the division between "capitalists" and "proletarians"; an order solely in terms of which are to be defined the
WORK-THE DEMONIC NATURE OE THE ECONOMY 167
things worth living and dying for. We must also uphold the need for a true hierarchy and for different dignities, with a higher function of power installed at the top, namely the imperium.
But where is the battle waged today in these terms? The "social question" and various "political problems" are increasingly losing any higher meaning, and are being defined on the basis of the most primitive conditions of physical existence, conditions that are then made absolute and removed from any higher concern. The notion of justice is reduced to this or that system of distribution of economic goods; the notion of civilization is measured mostly by that of production; and the focus of people's attention tends to be on topics such as production, work, productivity, economic classes, salaries, private or public property, exploitation of the workers, and special-interest groups. According to supporters of capitalism and to Marxists, nothing else exists or matters in this world. According to Marxists, everything that exists is regarded as a "su-perstructure" and as a derivative; supporters of free-market economy are not inclined to be as drastic, though their standard and main concern is always the economy.
All this is proof of the true pathology of our civilization. The economic factor exercises a hypnosis and a tyranny over modern man. And, as often occurs in hypnosis, what the mind focuses on eventually becomes real. Modern man is making possible what every normal and complete civilization has always regarded as an aberration or as a bad joke—namely, that the economy and the social problem in terms of the economy are his destiny.
Thus, in order to posit a new principle, what is needed is not to oppose one economic formula with another, but instead to radically change attitudes, to reject without compromise the materialistic premises from which the economic factor has been perceived as absolute.
What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system, but the value of the economy itself. Thus, despite the fact that the antithesis between capitalism and Marxism dominates the background of recent times, it must be regarded as a pseudo-antithesis. In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based. Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped" those civilizations that do not amount to "civilizations based on labor and production"—
168 WORK—THE DEMONIC NATURE OE THE ECONOMY
namely, those civilizations that, luckily for themselves, have not yet been caught up in the feverish industrial exploitation of every natural resource, the social and productive enslavement of all human possibilities, and the exaltation of technical and industrial standards; in other words, those civilizations that still enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom. Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities. This is the premise for a true restorative reaction, beyond "Left" and "Right," beyond capitalism's abuses and Marxist subversion. The necessary conditions are an inner detoxification, a becoming "normal" again ("normal" in the higher meaning of the term), and a renewed capability to differentiate between base and noble interests. No intervention from the outside can help; any external action at best might accompany this process.
In order to resolve the problem, it is necessary, first of all, to reject the "neutral" interpretation of the economic phenomenon proper to a deviated sociology. The very economic life has a body and soul of its own, and inner moral factors have always determined its meaning and spirit. Such spirit, as Sombart has clearly shown, should be distinguished from the various forms of production, distribution, and organization of economic goods; it may vary depending on individual instances and it bestows a very different scope and meaning on the economic factor. The pure homo oeconomicus is a fiction or the by-product of an evidently degenerated specialization. Thus, in every normal civilization a purely economic man—that is, the one who sees the economy not as an order of means but rather as an order of ends to which he dedicates his main activities—was always rightly regarded as a man of lower social extraction: lower in a spiritual sense, and furthermore in a social or political one. In essence, it is necessary to return to normalcy, to restore the natural dependency of the economic factor on inner, moral factors and to act upon them.
Once this is acknowledged, it will be easy to recognize the inner causes in the actual world (which have the economy as their common denominator) that preclude any solution that does not translate into a steeper fall to a lower level. I have previously suggested that the uprising of the masses has mainly been caused by the fact that every social difference has been reduced to those that
WORK—THE DEMONIC NATURE OF THE ECONOMY 169
exist between mere economic classes and by the fact that under the aegis of antitraditional liberalism, property and wealth, once free from any bond or higher value, have become the only criteria of social differences. However, beyond the strict limitations that were established within the overall hierarchical system prior to the ascent of the economy, the superiority and the right of a class as a merely economic class may rightly be contested in the name of elementary human values. And it was precisely here that the subversive ideol-ogy introduced itself, by making an anomalous and degenerative situation into an absolute one and acting as if nothing else had previously existed or could exist outside economic classes, or besides external and unfair social conditions that are determined by wealth alone. However, all this is false, since such conditions could develop only within a truncated society: only in such a society may the concepts of "capitalist" and "proletarian" be defined. These terms lack any foundation in a normal civilization, because in such a civilization the counterpart constituted by extra-economic values portrays the corresponding human types as some-thing radically different from what today is categorized as "capitalist" or "proletarian." Even in the domain of the economy, a normal civilization provides specific jus-tification for certain differences in condition, dignity, and function.23

[axel]

Re: Traditional man and country

While they are a few good things to find in Evola's writings (I once gave a link to one if his books on this very forum) and related thinkers (see http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/texts.html), one should really go beyond their writings, theories and consider them for who they are, that is, modern critics of modernity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is Evola the embodiement of "tradition" as he understands it? No, he is, with Guénon, one of its theoreticians.

Consider other thinkers outside the realm "integral tradition". Take the case of Nietzsche.
Is Nietzsche the Übermensch he phantasized in his philosophy (before ending up in an asylum)? Obviously not. He is anything but that.
If you cannot put your words into deeds, if you are unable to preach by example, your preaches soon prove out to be empty and vain.
In the case of Nietzsche, his fate in itself is the condemnation of his philosophy.

Compare this to Christ and his martyr followers, the pre-cited authors so ardently denounce/despise (mostly out of ignorance/misunderstanding, if not mediocrity).
Who is the true embodiment of solar virility, the embodiment of the triumph of will? The lamb of God who died willingly on the Cross or the narcisstic intellectuals who made up a few lofty sentences for modern readers to faint over?

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

Integral tradition would say, Christ. Just because Guenon and Evola attack Christianity's social effect of democratization and inverting the natural hierarchy of a society (where a figure who is the archetypal warrior-leader-priest at the head) does not mean they disagree with the solar virility of Christ seen in an esoteric perspective. I know well how savagely Evola's attacks can be on Christ and Christianity, yet at the same time, he explains how a society which is more "enlightened" in being able to interpret Christianity as a solar religion (Such as the Germanic tribes who still embraced their warrior, and soon, imperial spirit even though they embraced Christianity as their official religion) could disregard certain aspects that are decreed in their religion (especially ideals of pacifism and egalitarianism) in order to maintain their traditional order. A give and take if you will, embrace the esoteric, limit the exoteric commandments of the religion.

Further, not all the authors in this school express the same interest in surveying all the same religions when they try to discuss "the integral/primordial tradition". They each make insights in the ways they feel fit to do so, analyzing either the esoteric (spiritual/transcendental/internally realized doctrines) and exoteric (less divine inspired social laws and morality, organization of religious society. Often more inspired by a preponderance towards human relationships with each other and the Earth rather than the Supra-natural/God) aspects, or both. If you want an author who shows Christianity's solar esotericism in plain light with several other religious traditions, this book might interest you: http://forum.hyeclub.com/showthread.php?t=16669

This school aims to put cultural/religious traditions in perspective so that readers can have a chance to reconnect with them, distilling them from the values of modernity. If a reader gets carried away and makes a cult out of a given author and his ideas, that's another story altogether. You could say the same thing about any "intellectual" with a following. It is evident that man must go beyond the views of any author, he must see for himself what comes off as truth, and what does not, and be sensitive to changes in his knowledge and thinking which call for a reanalysis of what he has previously held to be true. Just by reading the different authors within this one genre of traditionalism, you sometimes have to re-evaluate what the other one has said. The same is true with any genre, and between different genres.

Authors are still human, they do not necessarily live up to all the laws of their theories on man and society, however in the case of Guenon, Schuon and Evola, I think they very much set their respective examples in how to live with Hermeticism, reject modernity seriously and embrace a spiritual life that seeks to connect with the divine. In the case of Evola, he participated greatly in making his theories known in official Fascist, Nazi and other far-right circles during the 30s until the end of WWII, after which he continued to speak about Fascism, both its strengths and weaknesses. He saw WWII as a chance for mankind to harken back to a traditional social structure lead by a true warrior caste, such as the SS, a structure based on loyalty to hierarchical principles of tradition, rather than the economy. Once hierarchy would be firmly re-estabilished, National Socialism could be properly dismantled, as it has become a useless and inferior form of social organization. It's worthy to note that this appeal towards showing how political movements can be used as a means (but never as ends) to achieve a revival of traditionalism in society was heavily critiqued upon by Guenon, who was firmly against any appeal whatsoever to political structures.

Just because these men work with theories does not mean they do not live in the realm of "deeds" as you described. You could in fact say that their theories, published, are their "deeds", and that is all they can offer with their lives to be considered by the rest of society/mankind. Other men could pick up their work and adhere to it in ways which the author might've felt limited in. In the case of the Traditionalist genre however, I personally don't feel that the authors had much trouble in adhering to their mostly spiritual ideals which can only be manifested internally and require no other individual to be accomplished.

Thank you for the link btw, it is a good one.

[axel]

Re: Traditional man and country

What you can reap off this stuff is more of an individual ethic although sometimes questionable (I, for one, wouldn't advocate "riding the tiger"/active nihilism) rather than something which may translate to society as a whole. In fact, later followers of this school of thought (Alain de Benoist & cie) have slipped into the meta-historical precisely because of their inability to have an impact on the historical front.

Christian orthodoxy is traditional btw. Why look anywhere else?
Still, if you are looking for God, you may only find Him in your heart. This requires humility though, a virtue our elitist "primordial tradition" intellectuals almost always lack.

"a true warrior caste, such as the SS"

This is pathetic statement really. Get some documentation and reconsider.

There is nothing traditional in nazism.
In nazism as in all ideologies, propaganda is the key.
How far from tradition/spiritual awakening can it get?
Evola got it all wrong, as other dilletantes in this period (take the example of Drieu la Rochelle for instance. He realized, but too late)
Not all "conservatives" fell in the trap though.
I know people such as Möller van den Bruck or Ernst Jünger despised nazis if only for their primitiveness. Evola himself later realized biological racism was a primitive conception (cf Revolt against the modern world).

I am not willing to engage in a conversation.
Still I hope this will make you think a bit. Maybe later.

[axel]

Re: Traditional man and country

rational mind

Well, we're in the "traditional man" thread, not in the modernist thread!
To a "traditional man", being is the measure of all things.
And the preponderance of intellect is a sure sign of spiritual decay.

Ideologies, systems... nothing may be further from the "traditional man"'s cosmic view. And why is that? because ideologies (as the name suggests) are intellectual constructions forced upon others by either physical coercion or propaganda or both. No transcendence, no spirituality whatsoever.

I'm not interested in understanding or changing the grand scheme of things.
I am no God and I don't intend to play God either.
But it is not primitiveness that is behind man's greatest achievements but rather elevation of spirit beyond mere animality.

Listen to some Bach when you get the chance.
So long,
Gabriel

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

This is incorrect and quite misinformed. No doubt many of the views you, and to a lesser extent, KanadaHye hold, reflect a one-sided exposure to 'economics' or a reading of economic literature or analysis of the opposing side. It's far too easier to hold the views you do, because that's what is heard by majority of academics, politicians and media of all stripes. Can you name 10 books on economics you have read? And if you have read 10 books on economics, they will presumably all be one-sided and within the realm of the typical politics of envy, always casting blame on "greed" and "free markets".

Your assertion that "there is reason why every society on earth tries to controll the free market to some degree" highlights one sided viewpoint, and the inability to distinguish the division between politics and economics. All societies have realized that absolute control of the free market is impossible. The Soviet Union proved this to it's extreme. All communist and socialistic nations as of this moment are floundering and lagging behind in development.

In fact, the greatest point in human history and developed was ushered in precisely because of the freedoms from the restraints of the feudal system. Feudal society was bound up in rules, regulations, guilds and restraints on alienation of property and information. The greatest human revolution was indeed the capitalist revolution, ushered in by what is popularly known as the "Industrial Revolution." The shift from a feudal society to an allodial society is a shift in the idea of how much freedom of information and exchange are private people allowed to have.

Thus, your whole misconception of "Free market" is in line with the misconception of most politicians, bureaucrats and other talking heads who have no idea what this means. This is not a reference to some corporate transaction or NYSE stock exchange; it goes much beyond that. Thus, contrary to your ignorant assertion that all societies have sought to reign in the "free market," most have settled for what we have currently, i.e., the "mixed-economy." History and time have only shown that when restraints on information and trade have been relaxed and lifted by governments, the natural order of things have prevailed, and people have always prospered, knowledge has expanded, and development has taken to new heights. In other words, if left to themselves, there is "order in chaos."



That is untrue. In fact, the unsubstantiated assertions you state are much in line with the what many politicians, bureaucrats, liberals, leftists, egalitarians and others state.

The "Free market" isn't a "consept created by humans." There is this prolific and lazy mindset that likes to charge and indict things that don't jive and co-exist with their ideologies as a "consept created by humans," or a "intellectual construction," or a "social construct," and any other stupid and nonsensical phrase similar to those which can be used to eternally indict things they don't agree with. In the process, this seems to explain everything yet explain\s nothing. Also, this serves as a comfortable way to deal with something akin to brushing the dirt underneath the carpet - a way around having to deal with uncomfortable ideas that logically crack the fundamentals of our cherished belief systems.

So, in the sense that we humans subjectively perceive the world and have to attach labels, words, and language to things in which we experience, in an effort to communicate, then yes, all things by that definition are "social constructs." But in the sense that these are phenomenon and states of existence and processes we live through and experience, they cannot possibly be "social constructs."

It's also interesting that you state: "it was very interesting to see that the economic cycle has not changed since it was first observed thousends of years ago.The cycle exists because of human nature" This seems to contradict your earlier statement that money changes "human nature," and human nature is in fact malleable and a reflection of our environment (much like Marx) and referenced some natives you saw on the Discovery Channel. Yet, here you are, making yet other bold assertions that "human nature" indeed has not changed for "thousands of years." Which is it?

Part of the reason for the current economic mess is indeed due to "human nature," but your allegation of human nature is too broad. Human nature as it relates to politics and the political class is applicable. But blaming the current economic mess on "greed" and the "free-market" in your larger charge of "human nature," is misinformed and highlights that one does not really pay much attention to political and economic news, shifts and currents.



This is partly correct and partly incorrect. Economic cycles have not been the same at all for "thousands of years" as you claim without any substantiation. In fact, if anything, the economic boom and bust has grown more volatile the more government has intervened into the private sphere. In fact, in America alone, the boom and bust cycle has grown worse and more volatile ever since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 in an attempt to "reign in the market" which is the rationale you stated in the opening, above, in your post because "there must be a reason," why they want to control the market, right? So in an attempt by the government to "control" the market, the Federal Reserve via government legislation, has created a bigger problem than it set out to address, and here we are currently.

In fact, this is all reflected in the value of the greenback. Since the Federal Reserve System began operating in 1913, right up until today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the dollar has declined in purchasing power by 95%. [Go to to their website here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl and use their inflation calculator to enter any amount from as far back as 1913, until the present to verify this.]



I'm sorry, but sometimes, the things I read from many people are so simplistic, it's just nonsensical. If you believe that such simplistic explanations can explain away the current economic woes, then I don't have anything else left to say.



More misinformed and unsubstantiated assertions. It's a typical charge by politicians in Washington, talking heads on the media, all sorts of Republicans and Democrats, and mostly leftists, liberals, egalitarians, socialists, who like to charge that the current crisis is a result of government deregulation.

These and other baseless arguments have been thoroughly debunked by people who actually know what's going on and who also predicted this exact economic crisis many years ago; people like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Bill Bonner, anyone at the Mises Institute or Cato Institute or Reason. Not that you will read these, but if you care to confront the other side of the debate and expose your mind to that here they are:

Did Lack of Regulation Cause the Financial Crisis?

The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis

The Crisis in 10 Points

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse

Dude you sure do like to ramble on and on endlessly while putting people into catagories like you have been doing since the begining. I would like to hear about some of your own scholarly reasearch regarding this or any other issue (let me guess you have non?). You attack people without provocation and will label them leftist if they suck in more air through the left nostril then the right one. Most sources in my research regarding economic cycles was taken from legitimate scholarly articles and journals and it was a actually evaluated by a PHD instructor who actually graded the thing.In your earlier posts you display such hostility to anything progressive and you actually attack learning itself. You reason that since people are by nature limited, they have no business questioning things or exploring the outer regions of these limitations.I do not know why you are such a dark hearted individual or what fuels your hostility and i much less care. You actually want me to disregard what scientific research done by expert scientists in their field on the grounds that so and so politition said this or that. Look man my class started and i am going to be doing some more learning and research so i won't have time to bullxxxx with you but i am sure you will be sharpening your own skills and arguments while listening to rush limbau or some other clown stooge. I realy did try to be nonhostile and reasonable with you but you are the very limited person you define all of us to be, like a self fullfilling prophecy you become what you believe, while i am trying to learn through research, you are preaching limitations(limitations which exist mostly in your own mind). As you can see you are not the only one who can be hostile and i am tired of your crap.I know who Ron Paul and Peter Sciff are and i agree with much (not all)of what they say(omg i thought he was a leftists, marxists red commy) but you disregard the fact that niether of these two people are scolars in any way(one is a politition and the other a investment advisor).I am sorry the cold war was not enoughf for you and i know you really wanted to kill some left wing commies but for the sake of all the people you label and catagorise like get a life and leave us alone.