Back to Back Issues Page
Still Worrying Over NuVo Consequences.
December 27, 2006
Subscribers Newsletter

Still Worrying over the Potential Consequences of SANE’s NuVo Initiative

Back in town after Christmas, and I still see no responses to my questions on where NuVo is going over at SANE, after quite a few days now. If you haven’t been following, allow me to refresh you a little.

  1. Only Science = Certainty
    • According to Jay Tyler, all science is reduced to mathematical physics (the meaning is the mathematization of physics as set in the context of the reduction of ALL body to indefinite and identical matter). This simple first premise of NuVo is that it reduces all Speech (mathematical physics is not speech) to Uncertainty.
  2. All Non-Science = Uncertainty.
  3. Modern Science is falsely but popularly equated with Modern Reason, and it dominates cultural discourse in America today.
  4. All religions, ideologies, moral standards, traditions, systems, etc., are seen as equal, since they cannot be measured by Science; all are seen to be uncertain and therefore none may validly claim superiority over any other.
  5. All of this feeds the trend to use flawed reason in order to not discriminate, merely for the sake of not discriminating. Good reason demands discrimination, but in the face of uncertainty of the value of any system or ideology or tradition, the trend is to not discriminate through flawed reason.
That’s the core of the problem, in a nutshell. What this leads too is an ever increasingly Open Society in which anything goes. SANE refers to this problem as the Science-Democracy Reciprocal problem, or sometimes as the Science-Democracy Obversion. It contributes to an almost auto-pilot driven and quite natural-seeming Redirection of general popular political thought that leads, SANE thinks inevitably, to what they call the One World State, and what I call the Global Village. Same thing.

If you’re completely new to this whole discussion, it began right here:
Some Problems with NuVo: the so-called Null-Vote Initiative.
A "philosophical" movement aimed at keeping religious conservatives from voting? Seriously? Let me state my problems with NuVo.

Which lead to here:
If an American Redirection is underway; we all need to look at it.
Reviewing some implications of the newly coined Science / Democracy Obversion theory underlying the new American Redirection.

And then to here:
"There is no such thing as Scientism" say those who practice it.
If Scientism is a false term, then by what title to we refer to "Scientific Theory Established By Vote"?

And here:
The Democracy-Open Society problem: Does it spell doom for Democracy?
The "Redirection" and the increasingly Open Society born of Democracy. Inevitable chaos?

Then the 11th in the NuVo Initiative series appeared, to which I commented here:
A 2006 Christmas and Hanukkah wish.
May the Holy Days we celebrate remind us all of who we are, and how we are different from other peoples.

The major part of that last item was just another comment to SANE regarding my disappointment that SANE had yet to come up with anything other than not voting as a way out of the problem. Not voting seemed to me, again, to be contributing to the problem rather than resolving it, if our ultimate aim really is a return to basics, or as nearly as possible to our original American Constitutional Republic. A literal reading of the Constitution and the first Ten Amendments shows at once the intended distribution of powers and the pre-ordained Constitutional limitations on the wide-open Democracy toward which we seem to be inexorably moving. Some took exception to that comment, and carried the discussion on as follows:

From: Mike Rodney
Date: Wed, December 20, 2006, 11:34 AM
Subject: NuVo

In regard to the communication from Mr. Biorseth NuVo is not "fatally flawed" because men can discriminate etc. The point you state --that NuVo opposes voting because any vote for any one or policy cannot fail to affirm the world State --is what you must refute. Your objections are not responsive to that point, i.e., the point that the order of democratic action, such as voting, is itself preparatory to the World State; is "totalitarianism in the resting phase." NuVo, and the site overall, make this point in every possible way. This, in particularity but if you wish, too, overall, is what you must refute. I've followed this series closely. It is very tight and sound.

Mike Rodney

From: Lyman Victor Biorseth
Date: Wed, December 20, 2006, 12:55 PM
Subject: NuVo 11

Mr. Rodney:

Regarding the point that voting represents ”totalitarianism in the resting phase”; please, let’s just put that point aside for the moment.

Look at the SANE Mission Statement; most particularly, the line that says:

So at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic, with a vibrant and real federalism at work, providing for an Executive that can execute its mandate to lead the country, a legislature limited to legislating and to its other enumerated powers, and a court system fully reined in to adjudicate facts before the law and not to legislate by judicial fiat.
Now, a “return to a constitutional republic”, if it’s the same constitutional republic we began with, involves a voting populace. Therefore, I have not and still do not take SANE’s “rejection of democracy” to be an outright rejection of all democracy, including democracy tempered by our original form of constitutional republicanism.

If that’s wrong, and SANE actually rejects all citizen rights to vote, always and everywhere, then let’s clearly state it so, out loud and out in the open.

And if that’s not the case, then, what, exactly, is hoped to be gained by nobody in America voting? Certainly not “a return to (our original) constitutional republic, . . . “ as stated in the SANE Mission Statement.

So where, exactly, are we going with NuVo?



From: Mike Rodney
Date: Thu, December 21, 2006, 06:24 AM
Subject: voting

I have been asked to justify the SANE mission statement. Favoring a constitutional republic thereby implying voting, SANE's opposition to voting is found ambiguous or perhaps even a contradiction.

Not being a party to SANE or its mission statement, but a strong convert to NuVo, I'd say if this is the best you can come up with it's not much. The Founders were famously troubled about the notion of seeing their Revolution turned into a circus (as it has been). The World State aspect was clear to everyone just around the corner in French Terror --a penchant and affliction it's never lost as being cheek by jowl with the modern basis. Again, the NuVo opposition to voting is it cannot produce other than an affirmation of a World State. The Founders or Framers went as far as they dared --and it was obvious, in effect immediately that they'd gone too far. And the worst offenders were the yeoman limosine liberals of the day, starting with Jefferson, and then on to his quandom pal Burr.

As to what SANE had in mind about the U.S. starting point as an end point, I can't say. The Voting aspect is perceptible as itself a block to the World State, that is, to centralization or what came about with the Civil War. The bottom line is there is no traction in objection to NuVo based in the SANE mission statement!!

Anyhow, my suggestion to this man (who so badly wants or needs to vote, is): vote and be done with it.

The field is now his.

All the best,


From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Thu, December 21, 2006, 08:32 AM
Subject: NuVo 11

Mr. Rodney:

Let me reiterate: the Problem as laid out by SANE is accurately portrayed, and I concede all points regarding the existence, nature and danger of the Problem. I have no quarrel with the Problem. It is only the Solution I am addressing.

So I’m not sure where you’re coming from when you say “If this is the best you can come up with it’s not much.” I’m an action kind of guy. I have no interest in redefining or disqualifying the basic premise, which I agree with. My only interest is in finding a real, practical and viable solution to the problem; a solution at which to aim my website, my readers and myself.

I do not desperately need to vote nearly so much as I desperately need to see a practical and realistic way out of this conundrum.

You indicate that “the Founders and Framers went as far as they dared,” indicating (I think) that they really intended some sort of dictatorship rather than a Republic; where is there any evidence of that? I’ve got quite a collection of the writings of the Founders, and I have never seen any such indication.

A free voting populace was and is an absolutely required component of the Constitutional Republic as created by the Founders, and as aimed at in the mission statement of SANE. NuVo has been saying so far, and you have solidly confirmed, that we should all stop voting. My only question is, to what end?

How, exactly, are our Executives and Legislators to come into office? Who appoints them? You? If not you, then who? I do not reject NuVo out of hand; but practicality says this cannot be all. I need to know where this is leading; surely SANE has more to say about this.

My last question remains unanswered: where, exactly are we going with NuVo?



And there it has stood since the 21st. But, that day, another article appeared at SANE, which you can see here, followed by more comments re NuVo, again on the 21st, as you can see right below:

From: R. J. Loewenberg
Date: Thu, December 21, 2006, 07:59 AM
Subject: Prep for Nuclear War

This guy is great. Sign him up! (And he hints he knows what the answer is for that fellow who wants to know our Action Item at NuVo so he can keep voting. Our action item is to find a mode of national life that is not wedded to the Elites and the Political Classes whose notion of government is to guide the ruled to incinerate themselves for the sake of mankind.)

From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Thu, December 21, 2006, 12:57 PM
Subject: Iran, N. Korea, bombs and NuVo

Mr. Loewenberg:

Does that mean you haven’t yet found it, and are still searching for it?

When existing representative government, as we know it, goes out of existence due to the most moral and cognizant yielding the vote to the least, might it not be just a bit too late to try and deal with Iran, or anyone else, or to apply any of your recommendations?



And there it stands; as yet, no one has commented further.

If the Mission Statements of our two sites are accurate and compatible, and I think they are, then there is more coming from SANE on this issue. There must be. As shown by Mr.s Midbar, Tyler, Yerushalmi, Loewenberg and others, some heavy-duty thinking has gone into this NuVo Initiative endeavor. The logic seems pretty solid. And if these guys are smart enough to explain the problem sufficiently for a dummy like me to begin to understand it, then I have every confidence that a practical real world solution could be forthcoming from them.

Logic is a wonderful thing, but it cannot produce any set of absolute rules by which we may predict human behavior with anything close to absolute precision. What goes for individual human behavior goes even more for large populations of humans.

Our unique American Republic came with solid rules that made life predictable. An essential part of the Republic was the notion of Representative Government, via a voting populace. If we are simply to not vote, then we need some new rules so we know how people are to get into office, by what authority, how transitions are to occur between administrations and so forth. Lacking a vote, the options range from heredity through coup to civil war. I do not believe any of these options are acceptable to SANE.

At question is the essence of being. SANE is quite right in the assessment that we are no longer a distinct people once all distinctions between us and all other peoples are lost. Indeed, once we can no longer discriminate, there will be no real difference between us and pigs, which do not know how to discriminate, as described wherever I talk about the ethos of BMDFP and Leftists. Note well that Tocqueville tied American national greatness indispensably to American citizen religiosity. That was then, and this is now.

What are we?

Every mainstream newspaper, magazine, TV channel, radio station, educational institution, government entity and major American business of any kind has absolutely cleansed itself of any hint of relationship to, affiliation with or the slightest support for or even agreement with Judaism and/or Christianity.

So what the Hell are we? What are you? What is your company?

How can you tell? How can anyone tell?

It’s time for a major turning, and a major atonement.

This is the free periodic e-zine of the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center.

Forward this e-mail to a friend.

All previous articles are available right here.

Back to Back Issues Page