Remember the old phrase: a whole is greater than the sum of its parts? Well, it is a mistranslation. That is not at all what Kurt Koffka uttered. Koffka was from a long list of Gestalt psychology sheep. Rather than bore the reader with attacking Gestalt in great detail (which it cannot survive), I’ll suffice with this simple definition: Gestalt theory depends on cutting a whole into its parts with the whole having nothing to do with them. IE a whole is NOT greater than the sum of its parts. It is magically something different.

What Koffka really said was: “The whole is other than the sum of the parts.” Gestaltites observe something then dissect it to attempt to determine what it is, how it works and why it exists. Top down. In other words, Gestalt ignores the summation. For something to be a sum of its parts it has to be something greater than the parts alone or it is not a sum. It is just a collection of parts. For a whole made up of parts to be ‘other’ than the sum of those parts, means magic and the ability to impose fiction upon fact to control the masses. This also accounts for neuroscientists viewing what a brain does and determining therefore there is a part inside of it that does that. And Global Warming. Never mind the whole.

Why discuss Koffka and Gestalt in a piece about politics? Well Democrats are Gestalt parrots. They concentrate of the parts, fully expecting that to result in something whole, when all it ever results in is a bunch of parts. (Which is why they like the democratic, socialist and communist forms of government so much, those tend to control the parts more directly.)

A prime example of this is the evolution of war. World War II was fought to gain ground, to create a new whole under which no Axis powers exited. (Democrats were in power then but the U.S. came in late to the conflict so the method was already established in the old world order of war.) Under sole Democrat rule, the Korean War was fought at first to make a new whole under which North Korea was kicked out of South Korea but Chinese blustering scared Truman into talks. Cowardice is an exception to this rule and the Korean War ended with a stalemate still in effect today. Not so good.

For thousands of years wars have been fought to make a result. I.e.: a new whole. The parts that were used to make that happen; were soldiers and weapons and ammunition. Then, along came Lyndon Johnson, who through people he appointed, changed the definition of fighting from the winning of a new whole, to fighting to lose less.

The Vietnam War was the first conflict in history where a fighting force was judged not by its accomplishments but by its loss of life. If the Viet Cong lost more lives in a battle than the good guys then the good guys won. They could leave where the battle was because they won. Of course that battle scene was retaken by the Viet Cong almost immediately and often had to be refought (they still fought the way wars are won). The parts were the point, not the whole created from them. That didn’t go so well either.

That same mentality resulted in a population viewing the Vietnam War as a total waste. And it was. No ground was taken. The communists were never driven out of South Vietnam. North Vietnam was not destroyed. The only thing that happened was that people died. But as long as more of them died than us, Johnson thought he was winning. Back home, the people knew better. When the only focus is on how many deaths happen what else could have been the outcome than the populace having enough of people dyeing?

Because of all of this: soldiers returning from the Vietnam War, were seen by many as bad. The parts became the point. Soldiers kill. That is their job. But they do so as warriors to a greater whole, not the point. Today, it isn’t the soldier who is attacked for being a killer it is the very thought of war that would result in the parts being destroyed. To Democrats the parts are all that matter. We all support the troops but the troops are tools of war, just as their weapons are. Wars weighed by the loss of life mean wars cannot be fought, which means tyrants will always win.

Another example is marriage. Marriage can be redefined so as to make other parts result in the same appearance of a whole. It doesn’t. It is a completely different whole by the same name, but that doesn’t stop Democrats. The parts are all that matter.

Another is abortion. If a part is all that matters then until that part can indeed be seen to be a whole part is doesn’t matter. Gestalt is a simple form of mental illness.

Another is community. A community is the whole greater than the sum of its population. Democrats do not address the community they address the individual population by breaking them into splinter groups. The result is less community and more division. (See Baltimore) That doesn’t stop Democrats either. Addressing human parts; addresses human emotions which results in greater power for the deceiving tyrant.

Another is country. A larger community made up of communities but certainly greater than the sum of those communities. But to Democrats a country is viewed as a controlling authority. Indeed something ‘other’ than the sum of its parts. A democracy is that controlling authority where the parts get a direct say in decisions and the person controlling the most magic with the loudest voice rules those parts.

Then there is Synergy. The theory that a whole ‘is’ greater than the simple sum of its parts. That means a greater thing is made by bringing things together. In this country, it means a Republic. It also means a Republican.

In all countries before this one, the ‘country’ was whatever the ruler said it was. The ‘ruler’ could be a Czar, a King or a Queen or an Emperor or a Parliament or a Politburo. The whole was indeed something ‘other’ than its parts. Then along came the notion of a Republic. A Republic is simply a country where decisions are made by the people (parts) THROUGH elected representatives (whole made up of its parts). In THIS Republic (the whole created greater than the sum of its parts) the same concept is carried into separate but equal branches of Government.

In Synergy the parts come together to win wars by accomplishing goals that have nothing to do with the parts. The melting pot is that synergy.

And that melting pot is the enemy of Democrats. The very existence of a country where newly arrived immigrants are expected to become Americans, not add that to their origin; makes Democrats’ skin crawl. A country where the people speak the same language is horrible to a Democrat as that means the whole could be greater than its parts and how would those people be split into controllable groups if they all had to become Americans to stay?

Never mind that synergy is a matter of physical law. The Gestaltite will argue their perception makes it irrelevant. And an insane person will never admit to being insane.

Problem is: this country is by design, a Republic. A whole greater than the sum of its parts. Made up of its parts. NOT something OTHER than it parts. That makes Democrats seditionists. They want a Democracy and this country simply is not a Democracy. Every utterance they make to gain greater control over groups of people is intended to cause them to rebel against the very Constitution this country is founded on:


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

That makes Democrats domestic enemies to the Republic. And their thinking keeps them from being anything else.