Mad Magazine Sucks

That is all.

Fazoli's and Me

Dear Fazoli's,

I love Italian food. Unfortunately, being a resident of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, the least cosmopolitan city this side of the Ohio River, I am left with merely two Italian restaurants to choose from: Olive Garden, and Fazoli's. Even more unfortunate is the fact that one of these two restaurants--yours--possesses a chronic inability to serve their customers properly and in a timely fashion.

I realize that as a fast food restaurant, you are left to hire only the most incompetent dregs society has rejected and spit out, while the more skilled workers are cleaning spills in aisle six at Walmart, or delivering pizzas, so it is with a great sense of understanding that I overlooked multiple instances of inexplicable bumbling and ineptitude and kept returning to your restaurant. That and because, well, I'm an idiot.

It was my most sincere desire that it was an isolated incident of stupidity when I drove home from Fazoli's one evening to discover that the cretin who had prepared my sub had failed to include the lettuce, despite it being a time-honored and indeed a principal ingredient on these otherwise usually delicious confections. I begrudgingly consumed my bastardized sandwich anyway, rather than drive the 4 miles back to Fazoli's to wait an additional 20 minutes for the preparation of a Submarino with its proper components included.

If you are still reading this, I hope you will indulge me and continue to read this torrent of complaints I have unwittingly accumulated in the past several visits to your fine establishment, so that I can rest assured that there exists at least one employee at your company who can manage to perform his job properly.

Next, allow me to describe a young sixteen year-old server who may very well be the most oblivious and intellectually underprivileged girl this side of the San Fernando Valley. Although I must admit that it may not have been her fault when she was charged with the task of running the register without the necessary prerequisites, such as some basic training, or a cerebrum. The phrase "fast food" became a conspicuously grotesque misnomer as she struggled to find the buttons on the register corresponding with each menu item for subsequent customer after customer.

When I finally made my way up to the register, I ordered a Submarino and a dozen breadsticks. I was charged only $5.00 and suggested to her that she forgot to add the breadsticks to my order. She assured me that the breadsticks were free (in any quantity?), so it was with a sense of frustration that I acquiesced to failure ten minutes later and accepted a bag with only two breadsticks included, knowing that to obtain the dozen I wanted, I would have to waste even more time explaining my situation to a server with less brainpower than a toothbrush.

My most recent trip to Fazoli's involved a 15 minute wait from beginning to end in my foolhardy quest for the simplest order I could possibly devise: a dozen breadsticks, and nothing else. I suppose I should deduct up to five minutes of that wait from your culpability; rather, the blame probably rightly belongs to three cows in front of me in line who were preparing to embark on a feeding frenzy of gargantuan proportions in which they would no doubt gorge themselves on unlimited free breadsticks, a culinary commotion that undoubtedly will continue for the remainder of this evening.

Five minutes into my wait, I was finally able to order my breadsticks and assumed I would have them in my hands within 60 seconds, as there were two full trays of ready-to-eat breadsticks sitting out not eight feet away. This belief was founded on the even more moronic assumption that this 16 year-old server girl had, since our last meeting, gained the skills necessary to take an order, turn around and fulfill it herself. I guess I should also blame the two older workers who meandered around doing next to nothing while I stood there waiting for breadsticks that, it turned out, would have been easier to obtain had I made them myself from scratch. Ten minutes later, I finally managed to compel a random worker to perform the considerably difficult task of counting out 12 breadsticks and placing them into a bag so that I could go home and consume them at last.

In conclusion, I recommend hiring staff members who can perform customer service better than your current workers, e.g.; a team of trained apes, or non-English speaking illegal immigrants, both of which would have an infinitely greater probability of preparing my meals quickly and properly than your current employees, and additionally, would probably agree to work for you in exchange for free breadsticks. I am almost certain that bringing this situation to your attention is a tremendous waste of my own time when I could be doing something more productive, like playing with myself, an activity with which you at Fazoli's are undoubtedly both extremely knowledgeable and highly adept.

Thank you.

How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)

It was with a deep sense of shame that I recently trudged through the library with my reserved copy of Ann Coulter’s How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) clutched under my arm, wedged in between two DVDs, fearing that someone might mistake me for the sort of person who watches right-wing staples like The O’Reilly Factor and Triumph of the Will at home. I mean, what attitude should I have going into the book when the front cover flap reads;

“I am often asked if I still believe we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!”

Finally! The perfect book for anyone who thought that Joe McCarthy was “too moderate.” This book proved that my hatred for Coulter has been justified all along. I really felt like throwing up as I read this book. It would have been less painful if each of the 353 pages had nothing but a close-up image of Rosie O’Donnell bent over displaying her anus between her two outstretched butt cheeks while spanked by a midget. It’s not a book per se but a collection of articles Coulter has written in recent years, and it’s not so much a collection of articles as it is a $27 stack of ass wipes available at Barnes and Noble. It’s a steaming hot, nutty, moist pile of right-wing bullshit of the likes that would make Joseph Goebbels cream in his pants.

One thing I realized about Coulter: She likes to invoke men like John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to provide the illusion that her audience is reading political philosophy. I have studied actual political philosophers -- Hobbes, Plato, Rousseau, Locke -- and their works are not wrought with logical fallacies, nor written on a third grade level, nor are caustic insults substituted for legitimate arguments. In 2001, federal judge Richard Posner (a Reagan appointee) named her one of our top public intellectuals. Yet she is the complete opposite of an intellectual. Rather than engaging in the honest pursuit of debate and truth, she writes for those staunch readers who have already made up their minds to be religious nuts and right-wing fascists as they sit at home nodding their vacuous heads in agreement while she attacks such evils as civil liberties and defends, among other things, detaining Middle Eastern immigrants (see pg 57).

The result is a barrage of logical fallacies, lies, and non sequiturs like “liberals are terrorists.” The book is replete with examples of stereotypes, vitriolic language, and cheap shots at celebrities and politicians, all rolled into short, easily digestible nuggets of propaganda for the mental midgets that make up her fan base. But the poor quality of her arguments should surprise no one who realizes that they were written by someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old despite Satan’s attempt to fool us with the fossil record. Here are some highlights from the book:

This is War (pg 22). This is the notorious article where Ann made her infamous statement about invading the Muslim world and converting it to Christianity, an assertion so nutty that it even led to her being booted from ultra-conservative National Review magazine. How typical of a conservative; she has no problem sending others to fight in a holy war, yet has no desire whatsoever to dodge bullets and land mines herself. Besides, it requires pure stupidity for one to make such an argument. Only a complete retard would come to the conclusion that conversion to Christianity will pacify anyone, lest she forget the inquisition, witch burnings, the crusades, and centuries of church-backed corruption, persecution and tyranny in Europe.

Attack France (pg 27) Ann begins this article by noting that given the principles of the Bush Doctrine, one must logically conclude that the US should invade France. Most people -- normal people -- would see that as an indication of a serious flaw in the Bush Doctrine. Not Ann. She adamantly concludes that it is America’s imperative to invade France. She then proceeds to build her case for an attack on France. Kidding aside, she lists argument after argument in defense of her position (e.g., “they harbor terrorists“), and I repeat, she is not kidding.

Capitol Punishment (pg 313), is where Ann gives us guys some dating advice from her years of experience in Washington, at least since her sex change operation in the late 80s. Her years of experience, that is, if you believe there were actually guys who wanted to date her scarecrow-like physique, chicken legs, shapeless hips, her raspy, banshee-like voice, ratty hair, and malnourished, unshapely stick body (unless there is such a thing as an anorexia fetish). I do know several College Republicans who claim that they find her attractive, and I’m pretty sure they all masturbate to her photos online, but I guess that is to be expected when your political party has slightly more ovaries in it than the cast of Queer Eye.

The Plan (pg 62). There may be too many stupid Ann arguments in this article to refute them all, but goddamn it, I have to try. This article, believe it or not, is founded on the proposition that anyone who insisted that we have a plan for Iraq was misguided. Coulter quotes Senator Edward Kennedy on his concerns about the lack of a plan, and responds with an argumentum ad hominem without addressing his point. She then quotes Tim Russert of Meet the Press in an interview with Dick Cheney, and responds with an argumentum ad hominem without addressing his point. Then she goes on to claim that “plans are useless” (what the fuck!?) and continues laboriously with a series of arguments that make about as much sense as a James Joyce novel.

Drug Shills (pg 310). Coulter begins this article by admitting that the issue of drug legalization never interested her because, “It’s not going to happen” (see above: Coulter is no intellectual). That statement sums up the political ideology of a cankerous cunt with no concern for justice or truth. Of course, a little thing like ignorance doesn't prevent a pundit like Coulter from forming an opinion, and despite her alleged apathy towards the issue, she goes on to list what she sees as “6 stupid arguments” in favor of drug legalization. Included is a defense of prohibition (yeah, what a success story that was). Read it for a good sample of what a bitchy slut-bag she really is.

Chicks with Dicks (pg 142). Well, she writes “Chicks with D****,“ but I guess censorship comes naturally to fascists. I’m not sure what this one’s about, but I’m pretty sure it’s her autobiography.

Her last chapter, What You Could Have Read if You Lived in a Free Country, is a whiny, sniveling account of how the entire world is against her. In it, she includes four articles that she laments were never published by a host of editors more sensible than herself. Their refusal to print them is evidence, she says, that we don’t live in a free country, even though her ideas were rejected on the free market and in the absence of government intervention, as is required by the 1st Amendment. Ironically, it is exactly ideas like hers that you would be most likely to find in a country that wasn‘t free; drug criminalization, gay marriages bans, Christian theocracy, sodomy laws, etc.

You won’t even know how much this book sucks until you pick it up. Let's just say it's no coincidence that Ann Coulter is an anagram for "A Cunt Loner." For whatever reason, Coulter has a hard-on about Maureen Dowd, who is mentioned countless times as a victim of Ann’s standard pattern of ad hominem attacks, but Dowd isn’t Coulter’s only target. In addition to affirming the superiority of Christians multiple times, Ann attacks Islam throughout the book with labels like “Islamic lunatics” and jokes like “A Muslim by any other name blows up just the same” (remember kids, suicide bombing is funny!). These attacks finally managed to make me smile, though, when I realized that when Coulter dies, a very pissed-off Allah is going to lock her in a cell with 72 horny gorillas to anally rape her for eternity. But other than that, reading this book was the worst several hours of my life.

Bill O'Reilly

If Ann Coulter is the sand-filled, puss-ridden, oozing cunt of conservatism in America, then Bill is its diametrically opposed yet equally septic canker-covered limp dick. Like Coulter, O'Reilly manages to embody all of those qualities that make America the ponderous leviathan it is today, as he advocates a delicate balance of domestic liberty intrusions and international war-mongering tendencies that can only be described as fascism revived. Amazingly, if a given policy is guaranteed to leave innocents dead, or further expand the size of our bloated, self-serving mega-state, you can count on O'Reilly to advocate it, as the true motive force behind those of his mindset is the enlargement of government for the purpose of forcing an irrational worldview on everyone else while terminating dissenters, partially inspired by the worship of an imagined deity and partly by a love for carnage (and the lack of a healthy orgasm).

Bill O'Reilly is a seemingly superhuman amalgamation of qualities that make him at once loathsome to the rational layman that has become the exception rather than the rule in our society, and appealing to the average dullard who remains content to tolerate civil liberty encroachments by the federal government as long as he has 500 television stations to help him pass the time in a state of semi-sedation in between his countless hours spent working and sleeping. In viewing O'Reilly's televised tirades, one will witness the most appalling and unimaginably eclectic juxtapositions of completely incompatible and illogical ideas, the inconsistencies of which defy any serious attempt to offer anything beyond bullshit right wing propoganda to a docile audience. As soon as anyone counters O'Reillys endless stream of logorrhea, he shuts off their mircrophones in a hissyfit.

O'Reilly is firstly the worst kind of polemecist, and in our day and age the most effective -- one for whom truth is no object; He is secondly the worst kind of war-mongerer -- an abject coward who remains a safe distance of thousands of miles from the front lines, preferring the regurgiutated epithets of Fox News to the epitaphs of foxholes. And he is lastly the lowest of all pundits -- the hypocrite who in his actions, demonstrates the low regard he has for the behavior he seeks to impose on everyone else, professing such unnatural lifestyles as abstinence all while serenading a female coworker to the point of sexual harassment http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html Only one who holds his audience in low regard could continue to preach principles to them that he wouldn't lower himself to obey - that a beaten circus dog wouldn't even obey - but they only love him more. It takes a special kind of pundit to become enflamed over a contrived "War on Christmas" while treating a botched and erroneous actual war with cold indifference.

He operates as an intellectual sycophant for mental midgets across the nation who seek a man of seemingly intellectual authority to persistently reinforce their delusional ideologies. The historical propensity of masses to surrender their judgment to those charismatic figures who assume the appearance of authority and power is too well known and documented to dwell on here. Homo Sapien has an almost infinite capacity for producing an assembly line of father figures to assert that the earth is flat, that Aryans are ubermenschen, or that a Nazarene magician rose from the dead, and where there is a charismatic leader spouting this crap, you will find a collection of brainless followers that lap up these doctrines.

His repetitive use of the word "ideologue" as an insult to his intellectual opponents is perplexing... According to Dictionary.com, an ideologue is "An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology." What kind of person considers such a charge as defamatory? Probably someone who shouldn't be helping to shape public opinion about politics. Every big swinging dick in the history of political philosophy from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx has been an "ideologue." Most people would realize the futility of debating such thinkers by calling them ideological advocates. But at least O'Reilly is consistent on this one issue; he is in fact not an ideologue, but the poster child for the modern death of political philosophy in our society, replaced with rhetoric, easily digestible slogans, and a generous serving of bullshit.

We need not wonder about the success of the likes of O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the rest; in a society that values shouting matches, pedantic punditry, and militant dogmatism over rational discourse and an honest pursuit of truth, it is the crap that rises to the top.

My Publications

Goals/Status/Publications/Submissions:

The Columbus Dispatch Success 2 / 3
The Lantern Failed 0 / 2
The Sentinel Success 41 / 41
Ruthless Reviews Success 10 / 10
Lew Rockwell.com Failed 0 / 1
Capitalism Magazine Failed 0 / 2
The Free Liberal Success 2 / 2
Objectivist Center Pending
The New Individualist Pending
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Journal of Austrian Studies
Front Page Mag
National Review Online

Rate My Life

This Is My Life, Rated
Life:	4.5
Mind:	4
Body:	5.7
Spirit:	4.5
Friends/Family:	3.8
Love:	0
Finance:	3.9
Take the Rate My Life Quiz

A Poem

To the tune of, I am the Very Model of a Modern Major General

I am the very model of the new Utilitarian,
I advocate in politics a rule majoritarian,

Where at the risk of suffering the pains democracy befalls,
Majorities shall never have their powers circumscribed by laws.

The masses should in every case pass laws that they themselves contrive,
And if it makes them feel better, then two plus two shall equal five.

You have no rights, I have no rights, our god's name is Utility,
Measured in terms of certainty duration and propinquity!

Measured in terms of certainty duration and propinquity!
Measured in terms of certainty duration and propinquity!
Measured in terms of certainty duration and propinquity!

Psychology and State

The kind of government a person advocates says a lot about who he is

The great plethora of diverse political beliefs people have developed is a remarkable phenomenon. There must exist a hundred political parties in the United States alone. An abundance of websites with quizzes offering to determine your ideology reflect our fascination with them, though no simple quiz could possibly encompass the wide range of beliefs held by Americans.

If Einstein was right, most people develop their basic principles by age 18 and, as Francis Bacon once wrote, proceed to vehemently defend them with the support of all henceforth learning, or lack of it. Only a fraction of Americans vote and fewer still give the subject of political philosophy serious study. Topics such as current events and world politics seem completely disregarded by entire segments of the population. That is unfortunate, as the realm of politics affects us all; what could be more important than a learned understanding of the institutionalized use of violence in our society? Regardless, almost everyone has opinions regarding the proper role of the state as well as its proper constraints. The question is, why does an individual come to develop his particular political ideology?

Dr. George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, offers an explanation in his book, Moral Politics. In it, he concludes from his studies in cognitive linguistics that the opposing political beliefs of conservatives and liberals represent the political manifestation of their respective views on the proper functioning of the family unit. It is his contention that whether one views the role of parents as nurturing caretakers or steadfast rule enforcers results in the dichotomy we observe between the nanny-state maternalism of the left (where he falls) and the big brother paternalism of the right. Yet the most compelling explanations of why we think the way we do are found not in linguistics, but rather in the rapidly expanding field of cognitive psychology.

Self Esteem

The study of self esteem has exploded over the past several decades, and so has the understanding of its tremendous importance in our lives. If the essence of man’s life on earth can be summarized into one principle, it is his struggle to overcome the environment towards the achievement of his happiness. Self esteem entirely encompasses this struggle in its two components, which are: first, a sense of self efficacy, meaning trusting in one’s own mind and judgment, and having confidence in one’s ability to cope with life’s challenges; second, a sense of self respect, meaning confidence in one’s rights to be successful, to experience happiness, and to achieve fulfillment.

Both components of self esteem have been extensively researched by Dr. Nathaniel Branden, a pioneer of the field and perhaps the world‘s foremost expert on the subject of self esteem. “The survival value of these two areas of confidence is obvious,” Branden explains, and “So is the danger when they are lacking.” A healthy (high) self esteem reveals one’s ability to trust ones own judgment, and one’s knowledge that they deserves happiness above all else. Without the achievement of both areas of confidence, one’s struggle to overcome hurdles and enjoy life becomes frustrated, impeded or completely thwarted.

The man who asserts his independence and seeks to live life on his own effort reveals a high self esteem. The man who fearfully trudges through life in the hope that he can survive on the contributions of others reveals a low self esteem. The man who insists that the fruits of his labor are his own, recognizing no higher purpose of his life than his own enjoyment reveals a high self esteem. The man who accepts the morality of self-sacrifice and subordination to others at the expense of his own achievement- accepting the morality of altruism- is a man of low self esteem.

It should be obvious which politico-economic systems are conducive to high and low self esteems. Laissez faire capitalism is the only market system in which men are permitted to act freely and on their own judgment in the unadulterated pursuit of their happiness. It is the man of ability, sound judgment and rational selfishness who will advocate nothing more from their government than for it to leave him alone. However, for the man who desires an omnipotent state to care of him, fearing a society in which men reap the rewards and, what is unbearably frightening for him, pay the consequences of their own labor and judgment, only democratic socialism or one of its many variants will do.

Any form of authoritarianism, including that which emerges in a nation of democratically elected leaders, inexorably attacks men of high self esteem who, trusting their own judgment, must be forced or intimidated to behave in a way they otherwise would not. Authoritarianism assails the first component of self esteem by preventing man from acting as he would in a state of total freedom, and assails the second component by requiring man to sacrifice the pursuit of his happiness to some other, higher beneficiary- sacrifice to god, to king, to country, to the people -- to anything but himself. Nothing could be more tyrannical.

Collectivism

Unlike self esteem, which is a uniquely human phenomenon, the herding behavior that stimulates collectivism is found even in lower animals. While the neocortex (in which all rational thought and conscious deliberation originates) is a highly advanced section of the brain found only in higher primates and humans, the limbic system is a brain structure that we inherit from, and share in common with, our evolutionary predecessors. The limbic system also represents a very useful tool for survival. It contains nerves that motivate a great deal of animal behavior regarding things such as fear, pleasure, greed, fighting, choosing a mate, breeding and other drives and instincts. This set of nerves is also responsible for the phenomena of schooling, herding and flocking seen in animals such as fish, ants, and birds.

Impulses from the limbic system drive individual animals, including humans, to align their knowledge and behavior with the group as a whole in what seems to be a drive to belong and be accepted. Herding helps to obtain food, defend against predators, and avoid death from one’s own kind due to perceived strangeness. Such impulses certainly influenced early humans, for whom tribes were the primary social unit. The legacy of these unconscious mechanisms continues today, where those who voice the majority opinion on any subject are respected, and “One who utters an opposing opinion is immediately punished by a chorus of deprecating smiles, cackles, mooing, snorting, nipping or outright hostility,” as socionomist Robert Prechter puts it. Deviating from the cultural norm can be painful experiences which most people dare not experience.

As Prechter writes in The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior, "The less that reality intrudes on the thinking of a group, the stronger is its collective conformity. Dependence most easily substitutes for rigorous reasoning when knowledge is lacking or logic irrelevant." In man, the tendency towards collective codependence is most pervasive in areas such as investing, where few are experts, or fashion, where conclusions are arbitrary. As Prechter observes, "Trends in such activities are steered not by the rational decisions of individual minds but by the peculiar collective sensibilities of the herd."

The realm of political philosophy seems to be another area in which “few are experts” and yet many have opinions. With little basis to base one’s own judgment, the best alternative for most is to assume the herd knows what it is doing. The danger of this methodology is disconcerting, however. Perhaps Paul Maclean, former head of the Laboratory for Brain Evolution at the National Institute of Mental Health, says it best; “It is one thing to have the anciently derived limbic system to assure us of the authenticity of such things as food or a mate, but where do we stand if we must depend on the mental emanations of this same system for belief in our ideas, concepts, and theories?” Herding behavior can be counterproductive when men choose to abdicate their rational capacities and defer their judgment to their peers.

Much herding behavior seen in humans is harmless, such as fads for pogo sticks or bellbottom pants. However, the mental contagion of the herding impulse, in all its unreasoned emotion, can be dangerous when it manifests itself politically, co-opting the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The witch crazes of the colonial period and the persecution of Jews in 1930s Germany are perfect examples of the social hysteria and violence that results when individuals surrender their judgment to the superorganism of "the people." Since man's rational faculties can override the herding impulse, it is those with a low self esteem- those who question the efficacy of their own rational faculties - who are most susceptible to collectivism and the violence it so often results in, and it is those with a high self esteem most likely to resist the tribe with all their might.

Aggression

What do the following have in common? A husband who beats his wife; a thug who robs a store clerk at gunpoint; a tribe that slaughters a rival tribe; and a state that invades another? According to Dr. Aaron T. Beck, who is widely considered the founder of cognitive therapy, the answer is that all forms of aggression, whether initiated by individuals or groups, are founded on the same cognitive distortions. As he writes in his book Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility and Violence, “In either case, the aggressor shows the same “thinking disorder”: construing the facts in his favor, exaggerating the supposed transgression, and attributing malice to the opposition.”

In Prisoners of Hate, Beck argues that aggressors always see themselves as victims while their actual victims are perceived as the Enemy. Consequently, groups of aggressors have a positive bias about themselves and a negative bias about the Enemy they are attacking. He criticizes such thought patterns as “primal,” representing a tendency that once served man a purpose, but is obsolete in modern civilization where animal predators and enemy tribes no longer threaten his daily life.

Cognitive distortions like those above never leave the initiators without a sense of righteousness and justice in their acts of aggression. As Beck explains, “Aggressive, manipulative people generally believe that their entitlements and rights override those of others. An aggressive nation operating under slogans like “The Need for Lebensraum” (living space) (Germany) or eminent domain (United States) views opposition by the weaker country in much the same way the aggressive driver views the slow driver: as interfering with its legitimate goals.” Violence, whether acted out by groups or individuals, is founded on the same motives- seeing the adversary as wrong or evil and the self as right or good.

Those prepared to willfully harm others as a deliberate strategy of achieving their wants can not be reasoned with and the management of their behavior relies on control and deterrence -- meeting strength with greater strength. That makes it all the more difficult to combat aggression when it is carried out by collectives or states rather than by relatively easy to overpower individuals. Yet Beck's research can be considered a victory for libertarians, who have so often pointed out that what we perceive as "crime" on an individual level is given the name "welfare" when carried out by righteously indignant collectives.

Collectivism only enhances the tendency towards violence as individual members surrender their judgment to the tribe or its leader, which can only be the product of their low self esteem. The most loyal members of the tribe (or its modern counterpart, the nation) are those who feel incompetent to judge on their own or to face the difficulties of reality alone. Experiments have shown that peer pressure can actually influence people to adjust their reports of perception to conform to the evaluations of other group members regarding matters as simple as stating observations of a stimulus. As Beck writers, "The subject would assume, for example, that her initial pinpointing of an object in space was wrong and change her judgment to conform to the judgment of others. Such collective thinking, often leading to clear cognitive distortions, helps to bind a group together."

In addition to surrendering his judgment to the group, Beck tells us that the member of a collective "not only subordinates his personal interests to those of the group but opposes the interests of out-group members unless they are compatible with the interests of his group" A low self esteem, a low intelligence, and a closed mind are the prerequisites for voluntary membership in such collectives, being the traits that make each member most susceptible to emotional contagion.

Conclusion

If capitalism embraces enlightened ideals such as rationalism and happiness, democracy is built upon foundations of irrationality, sacrifice and subjectivism. While laissez faire capitalism represents the system most conducive to rational thought and mental health, democratic socialism and its variants, in all their institutionalized violence, are most conducive to the advancement of the goals of those suffering from low self esteem, primitive brain functions, mindless collectivism and a proclivity for aggression -- everything that modern democracy truly represents.

If the process of civilization was a drive towards individual liberty and property rights, the advancement of democracy represents nothing more than regression to ancient tribalism and man's surrender to his savage impulses of greed and violence, where mere want of another man’s property becomes license to confiscate it. Democracy allows men to organize into competing pressure groups so that they may extract favors from each other by force with the state as their medium of attack. It is a system that punishes the rational and productive for the benefit of the indolent dullards, fools, and parasites. Democracy is nothing more than a return to the primal savagery of the vast majority of human history, best described as the subordination of man to men.

Ultimately, the kind of government we advocate depends on our self esteem; the extent to which we trust our own judgment, and the extent to which we consider ourselves the rightful beneficiaries of happiness. We need not be ruled by our primal impulses, as long as we take Nathaniel Branden’s advice and live consciously to the fullest extent possible, taking advantage of our rational faculties and remaining always aware of our motives and the consequences of our actions. And when it comes to politics, we must remember the importance of actually devoting ourselves to its study, always prepared to question our premises and to justify our principles on rational grounds. In a word, we do well to remember the advice in Ayn Rand’s book, Philosophy: Who Needs It. Her answer? Everyone.