Here is what people are saying about the new political thriller “Gods of Ruin”
From author Robert Donovan:
Inspired by Ayn Rand’s Altlas Shrugged, this book gives an excellent portrayal of the kind of corrupt, expedient political deal making that goes on in Washinton, DC that can and, in this reader’s opinion, is destroying this country. It tells the story of freshman Senator Com DeGroot as he trades votes for committee assignments without even reading the bills he votes for. This book is a bit scary in this regard because it rings so true in light of current events. The result is that the idealistic but largely ignorant and naive DeGroot winds up voting away significant parts of the Constitution, the unwitting pawn of power-hungry senior politicians.
The solution and antithesis to this proposed in the book is the town of Ur, a fictitious charter city run along libertarian, Constitutional-originalist lines. I thought the author’s portrayal of the city was very well-done. The author presents the case well within the context of the story, without falling into the trap Ayn Rand tended to fall into of lengthy speeches by characters or laying the ideology on too thick where it wasn’t called for. I also liked the Author’s respectful treatment of religion in the story. Ur was not an atheist enclave. Religion was tolerated and encouraged in Ur. This is a refreshing departure from the Rand model. In the end, the final conversation DeGroot has with the character of Arun Kula does a superb job of demonstrating that one can’t serve “larger issues” if the smaller ones get compromised along the way. Kula makes DeGroot see that this has been his mistake all along and that no solution is permanent, not even Ur, if the American people don’t wake up and demand that the people we elect follow the principles of limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, and accountability as called for in the Constitution. Absent that, there is no government action that can restore freedom because freedom must start with the individual, not government authority.
I must compliment the author on presenting the ideas well without laying the ideology on too thick or compromising the story and lecturing the reader. All in all, a very good read and I highly recommend it.
From Amazon reader Ryan Freed:
`Gods of Ruin’ is a classic fictional account of a civilization in social and political turmoil. Like `Atlas Shrugged’ or `Nineteen Eighty-four’ before it, this book takes the great questions of the current age and frames them around a gripping narrative that draws the reader in and reveals truth in a very entertaining way. In fact, many of the same problems Rand and Orwell faced in the ’40s and ’50s are still relevant, and, as Morse has shown, still make for a compelling story. But `Gods of Ruin’ is in no way a simple rehashing of those standards; it is original and timely in its own right and provides another name to the list of political masterpieces.
The most unique aspect of this piece is the brilliant insight the author lends into the inner workings of contemporary policy making and Washington D.C. culture. No one can know for sure if this exact story would ever take place in real life, but the reader can be sure that similar stories are going on right now in the power centers of the world–simply read the headlines or tune into chatter in political spheres. With `Gods of Ruin,’ Morse puts faces and names to those obscure images, and gives the audience something tangible with which to grasp the state of the modern geopolitical system.
In doing so, Morse provides us with a constellation of characters that are absolutely unforgettable–the outsider Com DeGroot, the political hack Kevin Donovan, the career people’s man Roger Thurston, the slimy back-room guy Duane Delano, the old sage Freeman Jennings, the cheery idealist Santiago Garza, the sophisticated beauty Cate Heatherton. Their interactions all weave together to form some of the most memorable scenes and dialogues this reader has come across in modern fiction, scenes that almost beg for a follow-up movie.
Perhaps the best endorsement one could give for this book is the fact that these characters and scenes stand out beyond the ideological underpinning. It is true that Morse has political beliefs and he uses this book as a way to promote those beliefs (successfully, I might add), but he does so in such a way that is not hostile or condescending like other political novels might. He does not put his own words in the virtuous and productive characters and then put anyone else’s in fruitless and lazy characters–all shades of the political spectrum are represented in this text, and good cases are made for each. Morse leaves it up to the reader to decide what to make of the libertarian city Ur and modern civilization as a whole. It is that approach that makes this book such a great work, and, one might speculate, makes this book a central component to solving the various problems we currently face.
All in all, this is an absolute masterpiece of socio-political commentary. Read it today, then give copies to everyone you know. Get together and discuss the ideas, and, above all, promote and support any endeavor you come across that stands as a true defender of freedom. You can’t go wrong starting here.
From Amazon reader John Otini:
It’s very defficult to write a novel about your political and philosophical belief (libertarianism) without making it sound too preachy or without placing the message above your characters and the plot. I think JSB Morse has accomplished what many others have not, he has managed to stay true to message while still creating a wonderful and moving novel.
Although, this story is set in the USA, in the future……it easily applies to today. It’s a story about love, freedom, political lies, blackmail and an out of control federal government that only gives lip service to the Constitution. It’s about having the courage to stand up for what you believe in and the conviction to do something about it.
This is a wonderful novel and I really enjoyed reading it. I hope that JSB Morse has more novels in the works, because I can’t wait to read them!
Note: The formating in this ebook is not as good as it could be, but that by no means takes anything away from the quality of the writing or the over all novel.
From Amazon reader Ronnie Samuelson:
I see this book as a summary of the mess we’re in as a country. We got politicians who could give a crap about us. Pressure groups and corporations dictating laws. and no one else cares. Well some people do care- and those people who actually realize that this country is going down the drain will love this book. It’s not a thriller on the level of Alfred Hitcock or M. Night Shamalan, but the plot is pretty good and the characters are intersting. The biggest thing about this book is the awesome quotes you get on every other page. My favorite is “I don’t believe in the Constitution because I’m American, I’m American because I believe in the Constitution.” Words to live by my friends! Buy this book and let’s start turning things around.
Part of the not-so-brilliant stimulus from Congress and the Obama administration was to prop up the dead housing sector with tax credits of $8000 for some buyers. Mixed in with the no-money down (you’re welcome to walk out of your loan obligation) FHA mortgages, lots of homes were bought that wouldn’t have been if the market had its way. We recommended taking advantage of this credit in Surviving the Second Great Depression because if the government was going broke to prop up the dead “Bernie” housing market, you might as well be one of the beneficiaries.
The result was that housing prices leveled off and stabilized–at least that’s what it seemed. Behind the scenes, Bernie (the dead housing market) was just being propped up by the federal government. A quote from reveals the true state of affairs now that the credits have expired:
“From our vantage point, the first-time home-buyers credit pulled forward demand — by definition this is what stimulus measures achieve — however the issue this time is that there was so little demand to be pulled forward, the credit has left no demand for the summer,” Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak + Co., wrote in a research note Tuesday morning. “The result is exactly what we’re seeing: a near, if not outright, collapse in housing.”
What can you do now that it appears housing prices are going to fall even further? Wait it out and demand a really good rate when you find your dream house.
Intrepid said: Only if you want to say it was their fault for *Lack of regulation*. The loosening of controls by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 made Credit Default Swaps legal after 90 years of it being illegal. It led to speculation and bad risk taking beyond the mathematical intellectual capacity of bankers. …
All of that said, if one wants to condemn the greed of those who were caught in the credit crunch, then equal attention must be given to the fact that the federal government was actively encouraging that very greed. We need to keep in mind that a huge reason the banks and insurance companies didn’t look more closely was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AT THE INSISTENCE OF CONGRESS were a) insisting that banks and mortgage brokers make dangerously large amounts of sub-prime loans to people who were at high default risk, and b) promising to buy up the sub-prime loans under the banner of “affordable housing.” Had they not done that, the free market would have seen to it that most of those bad loans and the credit default swaps and other so-called toxic assets derived from them would never have been created. The only reason mortgage brokers and bankers were interested in selling sub-prime loans in the kind of numbers they did was that the government was artificially skewing the market, skewing the perception of risk low, creating a surplus of credit as it were, and keeping the price of high-risk credit artificially low. As any economist will tell you, an artificially low price on anything will eventually result in a shortage, in this case, a credit shortage.
Capitalism must go if the race is to survive. … Private ownership is not wrong except when it allows for unearned wealth. Unearned wealth is any wealth that was not gained through physical or mental work, ref. the stock market.
Would anyone that supports Capitalism honestly say that ‘unearned income’ is a fundamental component of the system? It seems that by adding it to the definition makes it a straw man that no one wants to support and is very easy to knock down. … If greed is ever-present, and greed causes the recession, then why is the economy not perpetually in a recession?
No not at all. That’s where a bunch of us are even to the point of civil disobedience. We own our lives and resent this arrogant and vindictive system that exploits and micromanages people to death. Many of us get arrested from time to time as we pursue actual freedom.
You’re right that business owners want subsidies, laws against their competitors, and other unfair special privileges from government. I wouldn’t call them free-market advocates, though! And *real* free-market advocates (like the Cato Institute) are against corporate welfare.
“The reason that there cannot such a thing as a free market in advanced societies is that for any transaction to take place there must be rules (for example a simple rule such as “if I take merchandise from you , then I must give you something in exchange”). The more advanced the society, the more complex and numerous are the rules.”
I agree that there have to be rules, but they don’t have to be complicated. The rule “Don’t take anybody else’s stuff without their permission” is simple and as far as I can see it’s the only rule necessary for a free market. There are a few other rules which can make a society slightly better, but they don’t have to be complex or numerous. I agree with Richard Epstein’s book Simple Rules for a Complex World where he explains why more complex societies actually work better with simpler rules!
Others, however, did not think elevated conversation was the right way to go in such a situation. A”Samantha Smith,” whom we can only assume is a pseudonym, decided to write comments like, “I just vomited a little.” Poor soul who cannot stomach ideas of freedom! The person behind the name went on to attack the book about which the topic was written, my new political thriller, “Gods of Ruin“. Two reviews (by Samantha Smith and S. Smith) were posted directly after the forum got started which ripped on the reviewer’s interpretation of the book. The reviews decried the poor dialogue in the book before criticizing it as a rehash of Fox News and Glenn Beck. Little did the hapless reviewer know that I actually criticize Fox News in the book as part of a typical media outlet designed to inflame partisan browbeating.
I welcome honest negative reviews and constructive criticism, but mindless attacks on my work to support some illogical hate is not beneficial to anyone.
After a report to Amazon, the reviews were immediately taken down, presumably because they were fraudulent. I am thankful for Amazon for their efforts in combating fraud and can breathe easier to know that the quintessential online retailer works so vigilantly for justice in such matters. My pity for S. Smith and my thanks to Amazon!
I recently took a trip to Europe in which a friend of mine and I shared expenses for hotel and travel. We went out, had dinners and met beautiful Scandinavian women.
But, over the course of the trip, the costs piled up and it became evident that there was an imbalance—my friend owed me over $200 more than I owed him. After the trip I asked to reconcile and came to the figure owed. I asked if he disagreed with the balance and he did not. After two weeks of subtle hints and urging, it was clear my friend was not interested in paying me what he owed.
So what do you do to get what you are owed from a friend? Let it go? Become annoying and call every day? I looked online for a solution, and the only idea I found was take him to court. Well, I didn’t have a written contract with my friend and I didn’t like the other options based on principle.
After a month of texts, calls and emails, my friend had said he would pay the next week. I said great and awaited payment. It never came, so I took another option. I tried to figure out why my friend wasn’t paying. Was it because he couldn’t? He didn’t have the money? That didn’t seem to be a problem when we were on vacation and he was going to bars. Perhaps he thought he could keep delaying and I would forget the debt—easy $200? I came to the conclusion that he had other debt priorities and that he was embarrassed that he couldn’t pay.
But I wasn’t going to forget the debt. I believe in charity, but I also believe charity should be directed towards deserving people, not friends who can’t pay off their European vacation.
So, I turned to Facebook. I opened up browser windows with links to each of my friends’ friends and selected a handful to email and explain the situation. I texted my friend (who was AWOL at the time) and asked him where he was and that I was going to ask around to find out. I emailed a few of his friends with the story and asked them if they knew what had happened to him. I kept it lighthearted and friendly but got the message across that this guy had ripped me off and was not planning on paying.
It was unorthodox, but it worked. After an angry email from the friend, he paid me the next day.
If you have a friend that owes you money, the best, most civil solution is to make it public. Tell friends. Make the social penalty for not paying more than it would be to just pay up. It must work because it appears even debt collectors are using the technique.
Tips: (1) Keep it civil. There’s no reason to name-call or get violent with your words or otherwise. (2) Defriend your friend before you send your emails to prevent any sort of retaliation. (3) Don’t blow your wad and email everyone at once. Contact only a few friends at a time so that your friend knows there is more to come if he still doesn’t comply.
Attempting to collect from a friend is not a pretty situation, but with the advent of social-networking technology, there are ways to ensure justice without going to court and without stirring malcontent.
I recently took a trip to Europe in which a friend of mine and I shared expenses for hotel and travel. We went out, had dinners and met beautiful Scandinavian women.
But, over the course of the trip, the costs piled up and it became evident that there was an imbalance—my friend owed me over $200 more than I owed him. After the trip I asked to reconcile and came to the figure owed. I asked if he disagreed with the balance and he did not. After two weeks of subtle hints and urging, it was clear my friend was not interested in paying me what he owed.
So what do you do to get what you are owed from a friend? Let it go? Become annoying and call every day? I looked online for a solution, and the only idea I found was take him to court. Well, I didn’t have a written contract with my friend and I didn’t like the other options based on principle.
After a month of texts, calls and emails, my friend had said he would pay the next week. I said great and awaited payment. It never came, so I took another option. I tried to figure out why my friend wasn’t paying. Was it because he couldn’t? He didn’t have the money? That didn’t seem to be a problem when we were on vacation and he was going to bars. Perhaps he thought he could keep delaying and I would forget the debt—easy $200? I came to the conclusion that he had other debt priorities and that he was embarrassed that he couldn’t pay.
But I wasn’t going to forget the debt. I believe in charity, but I also believe charity should be directed towards deserving people, not friends who can’t pay off their European vacation.
So, I turned to Facebook. I opened up browser windows with links to each of my friends’ friends and selected a handful to email and explain the situation. I texted my friend (who was AWOL at the time) and asked him where he was and that I was going to ask around to find out. I emailed a few of his friends with the story and asked them if they knew what had happened to him. I kept it lighthearted and friendly but got the message across that this guy had ripped me off and was not planning on paying.
It was unorthodox, but it worked. After an angry email from the friend, he paid me the next day.
If you have a friend that owes you money, the best, most civil solution is to make it public. Tell friends. Make the social penalty for not paying more than it would be to just pay up. It must work because it appears even debt collectors are using the technique.
Tips: (1) Keep it civil. There’s no reason to name-call or get violent with your words or otherwise. (2) Defriend your friend before you send your emails to prevent any sort of retaliation. (3) Don’t blow your wad and email everyone at once. Contact only a few friends at a time so that your friend knows there is more to come if he still doesn’t comply.
Attempting to collect from a friend is not a pretty situation, but with the advent of social-networking technology, there are ways to ensure justice without going to court and without stirring malcontent.
In the following video, Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) claims that there is very little Constitutional restriction on the powers of the federal government. What he is saying is that we don’t have a limited government that our Founders wanted, but instead have a totalitarian regime in which there is no limit on what the government can do. Pete Stark is a god of ruin. This man has no regard for history or logic and this questioner adeptly points this out.
With the unprecedented increase in the money supply since the financial chaos of 2008 started, there is no reason that stocks should be going down. More money with the same amount of goods means that those goods, in general, will be worth more money. That’s inflation. Things aren’t inflating (and stocks are going down recently), because the economy is awful. It’s awful because 536 people in Washington seem to think it’s their duty to control everything that goes on in the economy.
Where in the Constitution was the power to regulate price controls on a service like credit cards enumerated? ANSWER: It wasn’t.
You may think that limiting fees is actually good. In a competitive market, that may be the case, but when government forces an industry to charge a certain price (because lobbyists from the other side pleaded for it), then the free market suffers. Most people would say that credit cards provide a good service, but they don’t realize that without the fees they charge, they would not have been able to provide that service in the first place and they are less likely to provide innovation to their services in the future because there is less motivation for them to do so.
Government continues to overstep its bounds and real people are suffering the consequences.
It’s no secret that America’s finances are a mess. So, what can be done about it? The problem has been mounting for a long time and it cannot be fixed overnight, but we need to start addressing it now.
So pathetic. If it were really up to me to reduce the debt I would start by getting rid of ridiculous government committees that waste taxpayer money on junk like this. There are organizations that do this on their own, without taxpayer funding. And they do it honestly- none of this ‘try to reduce the debt to an arbitrary 60% of GDP by 2018 by getting rid of tax cuts or killing puppies’. Absolutely infuriating.
The Founders of the United States formed a republic, not a democracy. They did so because of a rational concern for the tyranny of the majority. The thought process was along these lines: everyday people get carried away in emotion, so let’s not grant them direct legislative power, let’s have them elect representatives to do the legislation in a calm, thoughtful process, independent of emotion.
Well, that ideal would have been nice if it worked. Instead, today, we have our representatives (if that word really applies any more) rushing through 2000-page bills, which no one has read, full of an incomprehensible hodgepodge of randomly connected regulations and laws in order to feed off the emotional fervor of the day. President Obama consistently says that Congress needs to act quickly to “fix the flaws in our system.” On health care, financial regulation, campaign finance reform, you name it, he’s “acting quickly.”
Quick action may be good in a comic book or a sitcom, but it is horrifying in Congress, where real legislation that affects billions of people all around the world is shoved through the process without deep consideration and usually ends up with no one involved being particularly happy with the bill.
This is madness.
Instead of a tyranny of the majority of the entire voting populous, we have a tyranny of the majority of 535 people in the politically elite (Congress) and they get to decide what everyone else does. That resembles more what Hitler wanted than what Jefferson or Adams wanted.
It’s time to tell Congress to STOP. Stop acting like little kids when some media-driven crisis occurs. Stop the reactionary politics that give us bill after mounting bill that kills freedom. Stop the incessant nannying that implies they know how to live our lives better than we do.
Just stop.
Of course, they’re not going to listen to us. There’s way too much power involved for them to stop. But if the majority of the country is on board there are things we can do. We can make Congress read the entire bill before voting on it and we can encourage Congress to keep junk out of big bills. We can audit the Fed so that we all know where our money is going. And if they continue to ignore the majority, we can vote their asses out.
We can turn this around. We can make them stop. But to do so, we need to take a play from Obama’s book, we need to act quickly!
Here is what people are saying about the new political thriller “Gods of Ruin”
