Southern California braces for possible race riot.

Southern California braces for possible race riot.

US Census Bureau completely vindicates CofCC.org on Haitian Death Toll.

Photo Right: While Haitian citizens looted and beat each other in the streets, white people from all over the world rushed in to save lives.

Right after the Haitian earthquake, international groups estimated the death toll at 10k-25k.

The Haitian government, which failed to do anything to aid victims, soon began exaggerating this number to increase foreign support. Soon the Haitian government was claiming 100k and then 200k. Western newspapers dutifully reported the baseless Haitian death toll as if it was factual. However, when newspaper pointed out that 200k was “almost as much as the Asian tsunami death toll,” Haiti immediately raised their toll again to 300k.

CofCC.org reported that the death toll figures released by the Haitian government were baseless, and left-wing websites attacked us as “racists.” CofCC.org was vindicated by the US Census Bureau, which now says that the Haitian population saw no significant decline. In fact, just months after the earthquake, Haiti’s population appears to be growing.

Left-wing outfits, like the Huffington Post, called CofCC.org “racists” simply for pointing out the obvious! CofCC.org, as usual, was way above the curve.

The Haitian government now admits that their population has not been significant changed and even predicts a 1% growth for 2010.

From Miami Herald…

“There was a blip, a slight down tick [in population] because of the earthquake but I don’t think there’s anything that will prevent it from going to a . . . 1 percent per year increase,” which is slightly above average, said Peter Johnson, a senior demographer in the Census Bureau’s population division.

Diversity Watch: Not even Chinese dictatorship can make multiculturalism work.

Diversity Watch: Not even Chinese dictatorship can make multiculturalism work.

Riots by the  Uighur minority have left 197 dead.

Photo: Eurasian Uighurs in Western China. This Islamic minority more closely resembles the populations of the central Asian “stans.” Uighurs rioted and murdered scores of ethnic Han Chinese. Xinjiang is the site of the now famous Caucasian mummies, remnants of a sophisticated early Caucasian community in the region that was absorbed by numerically superior Asiatic populations.

Photo Below: Ethnic Hans take to the streets seeking revenge. The famous Tienanmen square riots in Chinese also began as an ethnic clash between African college students and local Chinese residents. It seems that even a strict dictatorship can’t make multiculturalism work.

From UK Telegraph…

Armed police and riot squads patrolled the city in formation, concentrating especially on areas where local Uighur Muslims live.

To guarantee peace across the wider region of Xinjiang, the Chinese government has near doubled the security budget to 2.9 billion yuan (£281 million) this year. Around 5,000 extra police have been drafted and almost 40,000 riot-proof surveillance cameras have been installed, 8,000 of which in Urumqi.

Last year, long-running tensions between the Uighurs and immigrant Han Chinese erupted into days of violence which left at least 197 dead and 1700 injured.

Armed police and riot squads patrolled the city in formation, concentrating especially on areas where local Uighur Muslims live.

Last year, long-running tensions between the Uighurs and immigrant Han Chinese erupted into days of violence which left at least 197 dead and 1700 injured.

After a night in which Uighurs burned Han Chinese shops to the ground and clubbed passengers to death on board public buses, mobs of Han Chinese took to the streets armed with makeshift weapons baying for revenge.

Since then, the city, which is split 70 per cent Han Chinese and 30 per cent Uighur, has existed in a state of apartheid, with tensions between the two populations still fraught.


China is 92% Han and only 8% ethnic minorities. If a totalitarian police state that is 92% homogeneous can’t even make multiculturalism work, how can it be expected to succeed in America?

<!– var fbShare = {
url: ‘http://cofcc.org/2010/07/diversity-watch-not-even-chinese-dictatorship-can-make-multiculturalism-work/&#8217;,
size: ‘small’,
google_analytics: ‘true’
} –> //

Suiting Up for a Post-Dollar World

Suiting Up for a Post-Dollar World

by John Browne

(Editor’s note: The dollar is going to be replaced by the rest of the world as the world’s reserve currency. But with so many players on the chessboard, it will only take ONE of them making a mistake as they disconnect from the Dollar to collapse the system. If you have not protected yourself by buying gold and silver, you are whistling past the graveyard. Too bad…you’ll be buried in a mass grave with the rest of the fools who wouldn’t listen to guys like me. Change or die…it’s your choice.)

The global financial crisis is playing out like a slow-moving, highly predicable stage play. In the current scene, Western governments are caught between the demands of entitled welfare beneficiaries and the anxiety of bondholders who fear they will be stuck with the bill. As the crisis reaches an apex, prime ministers and presidents are forced into a Sophie’s choice between social unrest and bankruptcy. But with the “Club Med” economies set to fall like dominoes, the US Treasury market is not yet acting the role we would have anticipated.

Our argument has always been that the US benefits from its reserve-currency status, allowing it to accumulate unsustainable debts for an unusually long period without the immediate repercussions of inflation or higher borrowing costs. But this false sense of security may be setting us up for a truly monumental crash.

There is fresh evidence that time is running out for the dollar-centric global monetary order. In fact, central banks outside the US are already making swift and discrete preparation for a post-dollar era.

To begin, the People’s Bank of China has just this week decided to permit a wider trading range between the yuan and the dollar. This is the first step toward ending the infernal yuan-dollar peg. While the impetus behind this abrupt change remains a mystery, I have a sneaking suspicion that, as my colleague Neeraj Chaudhary explained in his commentary last week, the nationwide labor strikes were a prime motivator.

In response to the 2008 credit crunch, the Fed printed so many dollars that the People’s Bank of China was forced to drive Chinese inflation into double digits to maintain the peg. The pain has fallen on China’s workers, who have seen their wages stagnate while prices for everything from milk to apartments have skyrocketed. This week’s move indicates that, regardless of its own policy motives, the Communist Party can no longer afford to keep pace with the dollar’s devaluation. The result will be a shift in wealth from America to China, which may trigger a long-anticipated run on the dollar, while creating investment opportunities in China.

Just days before China’s announcement, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev rattled his monetary sabre by telling the press of his intention to lead the world toward a new monetary order based on a broad basket of currencies. Giving strength to his claim, the Central Bank of Russia announced that it would be adding Canadian and Australian dollars to its reserves for the first time. Analysts suggest that the IMF may follow suit. While Russia floats in the limbo between hopeless kleptocracy and emerging economy, it does possess vast natural resources and a toe-hold in both Europe and Asia. In other words, it will be a strategically important partner for China as it tries to cast off dollar hegemony.

Speaking of Europe, the major powers there are moving toward a post-dollar world by rejecting President Obama’s calls to jump on America’s debt grenade. The prescriptions coming from Washington translate loosely to: our airship is on fire, so why don’t you light a candle under yours so that we may crash and burn together. Given that dollar strength is largely seen as a function of euro weakness, debt troubles in the eurozone’s fringe economies have created a distorted confidence in the greenback. However, as you might imagine, Europe has higher priorities than being America’s fall guy. Led by an ever-bolder Germany, the European states are wisely choosing not to throw themselves on our funeral pyre, but to wisely clean house in anticipation of China’s rise.

In another ominous sign for the dollar, the Financial Times reported Wednesday that after two decades as net sellers of gold, foreign central banks have now become net buyers. What’s more, more than half of central bank officials surveyed by UBS didn’t think the dollar would be the world’s reserve in 2035. Among the predicted replacements were Asian currencies and the euro, but – by far – the favorite was gold. This is supported by Monday’s revelation by the Saudi central bank that it had covertly doubled its gold reserves, just about a year after China made a similar admission. There is no reason to assume these are isolated incidents, or that the covert trade of dollars for gold doesn’t continue. To the contrary, this is compelling evidence that foreign governments are outwardly supporting the status quo while quietly preparing for the dollar’s almost-inevitable devaluation. What people like Paul Krugman believe to be a return to medieval economics may, in fact, be the wave of the future.

In peacetime, hardened troops will likely tolerate a blowhard general for an extended period; but when the artillery opens up with live ordnance, an ineffectual leader risks rapid demotion. The newspapers are now riddled with hints that foreign governments have lost faith in Washington and the dollar reserve system. It seems to me only natural that after a century of war, inflation, and socialism, the next hundred years would belong to those people who hold the timeless values of hard money and fiscal prudence. Unfortunately, our policymakers are not those people.

June 26, 2010

John Browne is senior market strategist for Euro Pacific Capital.

Copyright © 2010 Euro Pacific Capital

Diversity and Failure

Diversity and Failure

by Jeff Davis

One of my biggest fears has always been that America would slowly slide into a Depression instead of a rapid collapse as it neared a non-White majority. We need White people to understand that a large non-White population equals economic failure. You can’t maintain a First World standard of living and infrastructure if your society has filled up with too many needy, low-IQ, Third World parasites. Well, it looks like the states with non-White majorities are going to fail in the very near future just as Arizona is taking actions to stem the flow of Third World illegal aliens.

Over the last five years, California has gone from an economic superpower to a basket case that can’t even balance a budget. Bankruptcy seems inevitable for California, but suddenly New York and Illinois have pushed their way past in the race to see which majority non-White state will go bankrupt first.

The New York Times reports: “For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession. Now Illinois has shouldered to the fore, as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state’s bills and refuses to take the painful steps — cuts and tax increases — to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half the state’s budget. Then there is the spectacularly mismanaged pension system, which is at least 50 percent underfunded and, analysts warn, could push Illinois into insolvency if the economy fails to pick up.”

Unfortunately, millions of White people with state jobs are going to be hammered with pay cuts if they don’t lose their jobs entirely thanks to the crushing burden caused by 20 million illegal aliens. We should be thankful that we have the legal right to deport them, but so far only Arizona is taking this vital step to avoid bankruptcy while California insists on clinging to its illegal aliens like an anchor that will drag them down to the bottom of the ocean.

The Times article notes “As the recession has swept over states and cities, it has laid bare economic weakness and shoddy fiscal practices. Only an infusion of federal stimulus money allowed many states to avert deep layoffs last year. The federal dollars are nearly spent.”

Last month, local governments nationwide shed more than 20,000 jobs. Should the largest struggling states — like California, New York or Illinois — lay off tens of thousands more in coming months, or default on payments, the reverberations could badly damage a weakened economy.

Obama’s political home state (Illinois) and home city are the most notoriously corrupt in the nation and the former governor, Rod Blagojevich, is now on trial for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. Obama meanwhile could buy Senators’ votes openly for his health care scheme. Blagojevich however isn’t a quota-hire with a Teflon coating.

The welfare checks are about to stop coming in California, New York and Illinois, home to millions of Black and Latino recipients. Don’t expect minorities to react rationally to losing their government hand outs. There’s a good chance the Blacks will start rioting.

The “Rightful Remedy”

The “Rightful Remedy”

Thomas Woods Jr. Calls for Nullification

The Thomas Jefferson (Rembrandt Peale, 1805)

Americans are sick of their rulers.  Trust in the Federal Government is near an all time low, and there’s little reason to believe things will change any time soon. The national debt is over $13 trillion and healthcare reform passed over the wishes of the majority of the population.  Everything else that the Democrats would like to do, such as cap-and-trade and immigration reform, the American people don’t want either. Voting in the Republicans, even if it prevents any new liabilities from coming into existence, may well get us into another war.

We’re told that everything would be better if we just would follow the Constitution.  And that’s true enough, as nowhere in the document does it allow Washington to force people to buy health insurance, participate in programs such as Social Security and Medicare, set up a Federal Reserve system, or do a thousand other things now taken for granted as state prerogatives.

Where did things go wrong?  How can we resist the leviathan?  Tom Woods attempts to tell us in Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.  Every school child learns that there are three branches of government.  The Legislative makes laws, the Executive enforces, and the Judiciary interprets.  The problem with this setup, according to Woods, is that it’s not what the Founders intended.  The arrangement doesn’t stop all three branches of government from infringing on the rights of the states and individuals.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The federal government has gotten around this by three methods.  The first is the “general welfare” clause.  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the national legislature “shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” A broad reading of the phrase could be taken as allowing Congress to do just about anything.  James Madison was an early and forceful opponent of such an interpretation. If the government were allowed to do whatever it calls advancing the “general welfare,” why would the same sentence spell out the power to tax, etc.?  As Madison pointed out near the end of his life, “it exceeds the possibility of belief” that those who value liberty “should have silently permitted the introduction of words or phrases in a sense rendering fruitless the restrictions & definitions elaborated by them.”  Thomas Jefferson took a similar view. The expansive reading of the welfare clause would allow the Federal government “to do whatever evil thing they please.”

The Constitution’s commerce clause allows Congress to regulate trade between the states and with foreign nations. “Regulate” in the eighteenth century meant to “make regular” or “standardize,” not “micromanage” which best describes what’s done today. The original purpose was that the United States would be a free-trade zone: Alabama, for example, couldn’t put tariffs on goods coming in from Georgia. But already in the 19th century, proponents of big government were arguing that Congress had the right to interfere with trade that went on within a state if it had the potential to affect interstate commerce. Under this reading, if I grow too many potatoes and that drives the price of the good down across the country, Washington can tell me to grow less, grow more, destroy my crops, or whatever. The Supreme Court had basically gone along with this interpretation without finding any argument based on it too absurd until the 1995 U.S. v. Lopez. The 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act made carrying a firearm into a school zone a federal crime. The government had the gall to argue that firearms around students could upset children, who would do worse academically and have poorer job prospects, thus hurting the US economy (!).

Finally, there’s the “necessary and proper” clause, known as an “elastic clause” to Social Studies students. Congress is allowed to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”  The original purpose here was a clarification: the government could do what was necessary to carry out its already spelled out duties. It was inserted so not everything would have to be explicitly stated. For instance, since the government could erect “needful Buildings,” the necessary and proper clause allowed the state to purchase lumber, hire workers, etc. Alexander Hamilton wrote that the “operation of the intended government would be precisely the same” if the clause wasn’t there.

Woods quotes Jefferson and Madison often, and it’s not surprising since they were the ones who held opinions closest to his own. For example, Madison asserted in Federalist #45

The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

On the other side of the Founders spectrum was Alexander Hamilton. It’s true enough that he believed in a broad interpretation of the “general welfare” clause, but he only made the full extent of his opinions known after the Constitution had been ratified and he was the secretary of the Treasury. In Federalist #17 and #34, he argued that an area like agriculture would never be regulated under the welfare clause, but changed his mind a decade later.

Hamilton, anyway, was out of step with most of the rest of the Founders.  Even the Federalist Samuel Chase declared in the 1798 Calder v. Bull, “The several State Legislatures retain all powers of legislation, delegated to them by the State Constitutions; which are not expressly taken away by the Constitution of the United States.” Such a sentence and many others like it would be completely meaningless if the “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses allowed Congress to do whatever it liked.

After determining what the Constitution says, we must look at who has the power to interpret it. This issue was a contentious one in the first decade after the founding document was ratified. In the mid-1790s, while Britain and France were at war, the latter adopted the policy of seizing U.S. ships that were trading with Britain. To clamp down on the war hysteria that gripped the nation, President John Adams signed into law four bills that came to be known as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. They made it more difficult to achieve U.S. citizenship, allowed the federal government to deport aliens it deemed dangerous, and made it against the law to “write, print, utter, or publish” anything that was “false, scandalous and malicious” against Congress or the President.  The Federalists used the general welfare and necessary and proper clauses to justify the laws. The Supreme Court, also controlled by Federalists, upheld the constitutionality of the acts, and politicians and journalists were imprisoned.

Thomas Jefferson, the Republican Vice-President at the time, was afraid that he himself would be jailed! He didn’t subscribe to the now-fashionable view that the Supreme Court had the last say over what was and wasn’t allowed:

To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions, would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson drafted a set of resolutions that he gave to Virginia State Senator Wilson Cary Nicholas, who in turn transferred a copy of the documents to Kentucky State Representative John Breckinridge. The documents became the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and according to one historian, contain Jefferson’s “whole theory of the federal union.” They asserted the sovereignty of the states, which joined the union under the condition that they would hold on to all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government, and declared that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Since the individual states voluntary joined together for a few common purposes, each had an equal right to decide when the federal government overstepped its boundaries; the federal government would not itself decide when it had gone too far. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 would first use the term that is the title of Woods book

That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a nullification, by those sovereigns, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy…

The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were even more forceful. The state asserted for itself and others when the government committed unconstitutional acts the right “to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties pertaining to them.”

The rest of the states opposed or were silent on the Kentucky-Virginia resolutions.  But less than a decade later, Thomas Jefferson was president, Britain was boarding American ships, and New England was asserting its right not to comply with federal laws.  In December 1807, trying to avoid being dragged into a European war, Jefferson instituted an embargo preventing American ships from traveling to any foreign port in the world.  The economy of the Northeast, dependent on international trade, collapsed.  Private individuals smuggled their goods into Canada and the state governments of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts declared the embargo void in their states.  It seems as if they didn’t have as solid of a constitutional case as Kentucky and Virginia did a decade before — after all, the federal government is allowed to regulate international trade (though not speech).  But the more important point was the states had a say in which laws were binding.

The War of 1812 saw more conflicts between the federal government and the states.  The Constitution declared that the president could call on state militias to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”  Judges in Massachusetts declared that the states had the right to decide when such conditions applied.  Neither Congress nor the president were given the right in the Constitution to determine whether “the said exigencies do in fact exist.” The governor of Connecticut refused to make his militia available for the war effort, and the state legislature formally endorsed his act.  A tougher embargo than the one under the Jefferson presidency was placed and once again states refused to comply.  The Massachusetts legislature reminded President Madison that they were putting into effect the principles he himself had articulated years before.

Some opponents of the federal government may say that although Woods makes a cogent argument, the Constitution has failed.  Lysander Spooner argued that either the Constitution allows the current government or failed to prevent it from coming into being.  Whichever it is, the document is “unfit to exist.” But while we may sit here over two centuries and a few decades after the Constitution was adopted and say it failed, the United States did manage to maintain local rule and economic freedom at an unprecedented level from at least 1787 to 1860 (yes, yes, excluding slavery), and then again after Reconstruction to the time of Woodrow Wilson.  By world historical standards, that’s a pretty good record.

The federal government was founded mainly to deal with foreign threats and ensure free trade between the states.  Today it can only do evil, as military conflicts between advanced states have become unheard of, and we’ve seen sovereign nations sign free trade agreements with one another. Ideally the union would cease to exist. But politics is the art of the possible, and most Americans are attached to the idea of being an infinitesimal part of the most powerful force in history. Washington wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t be dismantled in one either.

That said, all across the country states are reclaiming their constitutional rights. Two dozen states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005, which the federal government has given up trying to enforce.  Medical marijuana is technically illegal, but as of now, 14 states allow it.  Encouragingly, the conservative states of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi formally backed the right of liberal California to set its own policy on the issue when it went to the Supreme Court.  The highest court in the land sided with the federal government, but marijuana dispensaries continue to operate as if the whole thing never happened.  On the other side of the political spectrum, Tennessee, Montana and South Dakota have passed laws putting guns manufactured, sold and used within their respective states outside the jurisdiction of Washington. Over 20 other states are considering passing similar laws.

If a true states’ rights movement swept the land, we would not like all the results.  California may very well become a socialist state with Spanish as the official language. But the alternative is leaving power in the hands of a federal government that only exists for egalitarian ends, insatiable in its quest for power and with an arrogance rarely matched in human history.

Woods writes

This need not be a traditional left-right issue.  Before the Left decided that bureaucratization of all of life, administered by a remote central government, was the ideal social arrangement, some on the Left considered such a system repulsive and inhumane.  Kirkpatrick Sale, for instance, argued in his book Human Scale that so much of modern life, its political dimension included, had grown dysfunctional simply by virtue of having grown.  Everything was simply much too big, its scale grotesquely out of proportion to what a humane existence would appear to demand.

There does seem to be friction between the liberals’ love of big government and their self-conception as rebels.  Perhaps they see whites and the rich as the true powers in society, and government as simply a meager tool to even things out a little bit.  The most important task of a decentralization movement is to educate people on the true nature of the state and the fact that the bigger and more distant it is, the more evil.

Americans who believe in limited to no government, individual rights and local autonomy are lucky.  We, unlike other Westerners, already live under a document that guarantees all the mentioned concepts, and one which every mainstream thinker and politician swears fidelity to. The Constitution didn’t fail us; the American nation failed it. The fact that the federal government was violating the spirit of the document within 10 years of its ratification should give us pause, but as long as the people retained the spirit of liberty the capital was kept in its place. Had anyone but Lincoln been elected in 1860, the federal monster may never have come into being in the first place. The American people believe in the Constitution. Yes, unfortunately they believe in the union, too. Weening them off of it should be our long-term strategy, but as things stand, Americans could do a lot worse than see the writings of men like Thomas Jefferson and Tom Woods as antidotes to the designs of their present rules.

The Semblance of a Constitutional Republic

The Semblance of a Constitutional Republic

Vox Daily reveals the reality:

I find it remarkable that so many Americans still believe they live in a Constitutional democratic republic when it’s quite clear that it is neither Constitutional nor democratic, nor is it even a republic any longer.

Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that “deemed as passed” a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the “deeming” document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget. The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.

Never before — since the creation of the Congressional budget process — has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.

I mean, Congress isn’t even seriously trying to make things look legitimate anymore. They’re barely bothering to go through the motions and they’re certainly not concerned about whatever the will of the People might happen to be. But please don’t let that get in the way of enjoying your Department of Public Safety-regulated, Division of Fire Safety-approved, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms-licensed pyrotechnics celebrating liberty today.

Natural and Unnatural Acts

Natural and Unnatural Acts

The untutored or perhaps commonsense view is that there’s something out of order about certain sexual acts. They’re “unnatural,” as people once said, or “intrinsically disordered,” as the Church says today.

Nowadays of course educated people think that’s all ridiculous. After all, no one says sodomy or whatnot is miraculous, so it evidently complies with the order of nature. And all intentional actions are unnatural in some sense, since they change what would happen if we let things go their own way.

So to discuss sexual conduct with people today it seems you have to go with the flow and start with the assumption that there’s no natural or unnatural in human affairs. Still, there’s less to the change than meets the eye. “Free to be you and me” is not the sum of all wisdom. There’s still the question how choice should be exercised.

Our dealings with everyone and everything can certainly be understood as a matter of choice. But it’s a good idea (for example) to have some definite system of property and government, and some systems work much better than others. The world may be what we make it, but some choices work out well and others badly, and we should choose the good and leave aside the bad.

So it’s not clear what’s gained by denying that some things are more natural than others. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret–you may drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she will keep coming back. Whatever people say, they still have to deal with life in ways that make sense. That means they have to know what things are and how they work–that is, they have to understand their nature and notice what goes with the grain and what goes against it.

The question as to sex seems to be how it can be civilized and made part of the pattern of a good life. It’s evident something has to be done. Like anger or the desire for power or gain, it’s a strong impulse that’s not self-regulating. It can wander off in all sorts of directions that cause big problems. If it becomes obsessive we’re not happy and if we make it trivial we’re not happy either.

So far as I can tell, the universal solution has been to tie it into a functional pattern that tells us what it is and what it’s for so we can know what to do about it and it can add to human life and order it rather than disrupt it. The solution hasn’t been applied with strict consistency, since sex is hard to nail down and people do odd things, but it’s always been fundamental. Otherwise marriage would not be a universal institution.

What kind of pattern is needed though? The solution won’t work if it’s an arbitrary one that people can make into anything they want. To say that it’s the nature of sex to serve the individual’s scheme of fulfillment, for example, would leave it with no definite point or function. It would remain whatever someone makes of it at the moment.

Sex is too basic and affects the interests of other people and our own psychology too deeply to treat that way. It constructs the world we inhabit, so it can’t be simply a routine object of choice within that world. For that reason it seems that the general pattern for dealing with things and people in modern America–property, contract, and consumer sovereignty–can’t really apply.

That’s not surprising, since property and contract never apply to the most basic things. For example, they don’t apply to themselves. No one owns the rules of property and we don’t contract into them (John Locke to the contrary notwithstanding). The same is true of contract.

Ditto for all basic human connections–friendship, marriage, nationality. We can’t simply decide what those things will be. As Hegel points out, marriage starts in contract but it’s a contract to transcend the standpoint of contract. To treat it as simply a matter of contract or property violates it. Ditto for friendship and nationality. They’re not objects of trade or ownership and we can’t turn them at will into this or that.

Sex is no less basic than property, contract, friendship, marriage, and nationality. It’s how we come to be and it determines who we are and our most important relations to others–man, woman, mother, father, husband, wife, brother, sister, son, daughter. Those relations aren’t bureaucratic or commercial, so current ways of thinking can’t deal with them, but they’re nonetheless basic to what we are and our position in the world.

Sex is therefore a serious part of how things work. As such, it has a natural function with innumerable tendencies and connections that seem innate and determine what it is and what to do about it. If you accept its essential connection to procreation, for example, then it’s clear that its very nature ties it to loyalty, acceptance of responsibility, love that goes beyond momentary feeling, and so on. The connection means that it points beyond itself, so the absence of loyalty is a violation of what it is.

If you tie sex to procreation you can understand marriage and family life. Otherwise you can’t. But what does it mean to tie sex to procreation? People today interpret the asserted connection technologically, because they think technology exhausts reason. They think that if it means anything it means sex has to be treated as a reproductive technique.

That’s absurd and a bit creepy, so people reject the idea of functional connection. They believe the essence of humanity is self-definition, so sex is humanized by making it a matter of arbitrary will. We’re back to free to be you and me.

They would do better to reject the idea that technique and willfulness are the whole of life. Sex is a human relationship, and we should view human relations humanly. That means we should take their function seriously but not view it technologically.

Consider friendship, marriage, and nationality. If those relationships had no function they’d have no particular content and there’d be no way to take them seriously. They wouldn’t be what they are. So they do have functions, but that doesn’t make them means to something else.

It’s not human to turn human relations into pure means. That’s why those relations don’t normally disappear if some particular thing happens to frustrate their general function. Friends help friends, husbands and wives support each other, and citizens support their country, but you don’t stop being a friend, husband, wife, or citizen if you’re lying deathly ill in prison and can’t do much of anything for anybody. You stop when you give up the connection or intentionally do something at odds with its nature.

The same applies to sex. Masculinity and femininity are basic to sex and to who we are. The natural function of sexual union is procreation. So that union is part of a functional system that engages the identity of the parties and involves the creation of new life. That remains true even if some particular thing–time of month, age or physical condition of the parties–happens to prevent new life from coming about. What matters is the identity of the act and parties.

People who think about things technologically–educated Western people who go along with what they’ve been told all their lives–can’t make sense of that view of things. Ordinary human ways of thinking that involve concepts like identity don’t have the rigor they’ve been taught to view as essential to rationality, so they see them as subjective expressions of inherited prejudice. “Gay marriage” has the same practical effect as the marriage of two 60-year-olds, so they think it’s crazy to treat it differently.

So much the worse for educated Westerners. The technological way of thinking about human affairs isn’t human, isn’t adequate, and isn’t going to last. We are not rational economic calculators, and that’s not a bug but a feature. We understand ourselves, others, and our actions by reference to what we and they are. The question for living is what understanding of identity and function best serves the best purposes of human life.

What is man? What is woman? What is life? Those are big questions, but they are unavoidable, and pure cogitation can’t deal with them. In the long run we can’t live by modern rationalism. People think they’re stuck with it, because they think the alternative is arbitrariness and irrationality. It would be better if they opened their eyes and showed more respect for how people have always lived–that is, for human nature.

A better way forward is renewed acceptance of tradition as the means by which fragmentary arguments and partial understandings come together to become part of an overall way of life with definite institutions, orientation, and standards. That is how men have always lived, and it is part of what it means to be social and cultural. Only by such means can we live a truly human life.

Neocons turn on Michael Steele

Neocons turn on Michael Steele

-http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/
He’s done nothing but embarrass the GOP since he was hired to head the party simply because Republicans wanted a black token as their figurehead, no matter how unqualified or inept. But neocons have had little to say about his appalling statements and behavior. Until now. Like the buffoon he is, Steele said Afghanistan is Obama’s war. Apparently the head of the GOP has forgotten all about George W. Bush. But like the blind pig and the acorn, Steele accidentally got it right, saying the war is unwinnable. That finally set the neocons off. You can attack your party as a bunch of racists, call for a hip hop makeover of the GOP, agree with a TV host that the GOP convention “literally looked like a Nazi Party rally”, go off on a self serving book tour instead of running the party, mismanage finances, call anyone who criticizes you a racist, and neoncons are cool with that. But criticize their wars, and it’s suddenly “you best know your place, boy.”

Another prominent neoconservative has called for RNC Chairman Michael Steele to resign in the wake of his calling the Afghanistan war a largely un-winnable conflict of President Obama’s choosing.

In a statement provided to the Huffington Post Friday night, Liz Cheney, an influential figure within conservative foreign policy circles and an obviously vocal critic of the president, endorsed a similar call for Steele’s resignation from The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol.

“RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s comments about the war in Afghanistan were deeply disappointing and wrong,” Cheney’s statement read. “The chairman of the Republican party must be unwavering in his support for American victory in the war on terror — a victory that cannot be accomplished if we do not prevail in Afghanistan. I endorse fully Bill Kristol’s letter to Chairman Steele. It is time for Chairman Steele to step down.”

And being a spineless coward without an ounce of self respect, Steele immediately cried “yes, massa!” and said his remarks had been “misconstrued” and he’s all for the war in Afghanistan. What an absolute clown this guy is.

Your Basic Conspiracy Theory

Your Basic Conspiracy Theory

[This wandered in off the Net. Don't know who wrote it.]

Israel knew that the US was doomed financially in 1999 when four Jews (Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Levitt) went to Brooksley Born at the CFTC and forced her to allow Credit Default Swaps which they knew would destroy Western finances but would as planned transfer all of our savings and pensions to Zion.

In 2001 they remotely controlled four planes to hit the Pentagon and the WTC though one plane was shot down after the crew regained control. They used nanothermite to take down WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7.

They used 911 as a pretext to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

But they also used 911 as a pretext to set up a National Security State in America and Europe because they knew they would need a dictatorship to protect themselves after the dollar collapsed due to their thefts and the Bailouts which allowed them to continue to steal our money.

The occupation of Iraq was made easy by the co-operation of the pro-Israeli Kurds in the north and the pro-Iranian factions in the south.

One purpose of the combined Israeli-American flotilla in the Persian Gulf is to destroy Iran and thus allow Israel to exterminate the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians and the Arabs in the Gulf..

The second purpose is to destroy America and let America’s impending financial collapse be blamed upon the Iranians.

The Israelis would like the Iranians to fire first and give them the moral advantage.

But, if you look at Iran’s defenses, you must conclude that any conventional attack would. They have Russian made Sunburn SS-N-22 and Yakhonts SS-N-26X anti-ship missiles. They have 150 kilometer range rocket artillery. They have Chinese made HQ9 anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 75 kilometers.

As I see it, the only plan of attack that does not result in the loss of the American fleet is for the US and Israel to launch 100 missiles from submarines, surface ships and airplanes with 220 kiloton nuclear bombs bursting in the air to prevent any Iranian response. By comparison the Hiroshima bomb was 13 kilotons.

Russia might object but has not done so strenuous;y to date because the Russian President and Premier are both of Jewish descent.

One great hope to stop this nuclear genocide is that Alan Sabrosky, a former Director of Studies at the Army War College, who has been telling people in the Pentagon that Israel did 911, will persuade enough men inside the military to say no.

Our other great hope is that China will see this as a tremendous blow to their interests and will threaten to pull the plug on the dollar.

If I were the President of China, I would see the Israeli-American flotilla as an attempt to kill the Muslims and to seize their oil. I would respond by selling ten billion dollars of US Treasury bonds and using the money to buy oil, gold and silver. Then I would say call me when you are willing to behave like an adult. If not I will sell even more bonds in one hour.

I think we will avoid war with Iran but that we will have a worldwide financial panic worse than the Depression of 1929-1939. And I expect that economic collapse very soon.

Sunday, July 04, 2010

America Is Dead