OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL STEELE AND THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL STEELE AND THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
by Pat Wright—-Sealy, Texas 77474

On the first page of your website you have a section that says something to the effect, ‘tell me what you think.’ OK, here it is. How much longer do ‘we the people’ have to sit out here and wait for you to do something? Where is your voice? Where is your spine? Why does a talk show host/entertainer have to do your job? Where is the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress?

If the United States of America survives past 2009 it will certainly not be because the RNC and the congressional leadership stood firm and held news conferences and produced YouTube videos, to keep us, the citizenry informed. What a sad state of affairs when the media controls what we get to hear from you, the elected officials. Are you fearful of what they will call you? Have you no power? Do they own you?

The grassroots have been fighting since April to voice our opposition to what is happening in our government. We have held tea parties, town halls, rants in public places, we have all become proficient on face book, twitter, blogs , etc. We stay up most nights trying to Google information, watch Glenn Beck, read and re-read our constitution. We have been like blind people trying to put a puzzle together and now that we are succeeding in seeing what is being done to us, it’s a frightening thing. I can only speak for myself but there have been times in the last six months that I have to pinch myself and ask if I am still in my country.

We have spent time calling, writing, emailing, petitioning our elected officials and we are called un-American, terrorists, mobs, dangerous, right-wing extremists, kooks, etc. I don’t hear national voices calling the main stream media to task for attacking us. I have only heard of one congressman who is going to the Library of Congress before the session begins to look up information on ‘redressing of grievances’. Why hasn’t the entire Republican congress called a meeting to ask the same thing?

We begged the Republicans to stop cap and trade and they did not. I Can’t believe that any thinking person would even be talking about trying to pass something as heinous as HR 3200. When I hear a Republican, especially McCain talk about tweaking the bill and then passing it, I want to scream! What could these people be thinking? The only thing that could help this bill is for it to be flushed!

Do you watch television? Do you watch Fox News? Do you watch Glenn Beck? I’m appalled that there has not been a movement from the Republican Party to impeach this man who is living in our White House. Don’t even try to tell me that we can’t do that. We must impeach him. Are you aware that Van Jones, the green job czar, whose organization, the Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill and is receiving tax dollars to dismantle our country? Van Jones is a self-avowed communist! Those are his words. This man is an advisor to the President? How can that happen? How can any elected official stand by and let this happen? Who is representing us?

What about Cass Sunstein? This man is a fascist nut. Yes, I did say fascist. I’m sick of not being able to speak truths because we’re fearful of not being politically correct. Guess what? We are out of the p.c. closet. Sunstein is a proponent of the ‘nudge’ philosophy – Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Our decisions, our health, our wealth and our happiness. No thank you. This man thinks animals should have the right to take people to court??? This is not a fairy tale.

Now we hear that our Internet may be taken from us through legislation. SB 773. Will this be carried out through martial law? I have not heard one Republican official say that they are not going to allow this to happen. Are all the conspiracy theorists correct when they say that the Republicans are just as instrumental in destroying our country as the liberal fascist arm of the Democratic Party are?

The President is destroying the United States of America. If a Russian Professor can see it, and write articles about it, why can’t you? What do we need to do to start the impeachment process? I could list numerous other things that he has done that I believe are in direct opposition to our constitution but I don’t have the time or the space. You could contact Glenn Beck, he will fill you in. I am going to put this letter on Face book, Twitter, blogs; I’m going to email it to every address I can get my hands on. I will send it as a press release to every media outlet I can think of and who knows, maybe one or two will print it. I’m going to send it to talk shows and I’m also going to email it to you. I certainly hope I receive an answer and if I do, I will also send that out to all the above mentioned sites. Thank you for your time and I pray that God will Bless America.
Sincerely,
Pat Wright
Sealy, Texas 77474

Locust says:

Anything Steele and Obama have in common? Both were nominated because of Affirmative action policies within both parties, neither knows what the hell they are doing, and both want to continue the genocidal immigration policies.  The RNC wanted their own Black male just like the democrats wanted one, has the black community responded to it favorably? No they have not. So lets cut the bull, and Accept reality, the republican party is the default white party, and the democrats are the black/latino/asian party.  If the GOP wins next year, they will certainly heat things up a bit, but as everyone knows demographics are destiny.

Egalitarianism will come to an END.

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

by Murray N. Rothbard
by Murray N. Rothbard


DIGG THIS

This article, which first appeared in Modern Age for Fall 1973, is collected in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays.

For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on its side; the Conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the “impracticality” of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory,” but that it cannot “work” in practical life. What the Conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the “ideal” to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the “ideal” from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of “impracticality” becomes less and less directly relevant. The Conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the “practical” (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as the status quo moves further in the left direction. The fact that the unreconstructed Stalinists are universally considered to be the “Conservatives” in the Soviet Union is a happy logical joke upon conservatism; for in Russia the unrepentant statists are indeed the repositories of at least a superficial “practicality” and of a clinging to the existing status quo.

Never has the virus of “practicality” been more widespread than in the United States, for Americans consider themselves a “practical” people, and hence, the opposition to the Left, while originally stronger than elsewhere, has been perhaps the least firm at its foundation. It is now the advocates of the free market and the free society who have to meet the common charge of “impracticality.”

In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal. So committed is everyone to this ideal that “impracticality” – that is, the weakening of economic incentives – has been virtually the only criticism against even the most bizarre egalitarian programs. The inexorable march of egalitarianism is indication enough of the impossibility of avoiding ethical commitments; the fiercely “practical” Americans, in attempting to avoid ethical doctrines, cannot help setting forth such doctrines, but they can now only do so in unconscious, ad hoc, and unsystematic fashion. Keynes’s famous insight that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist” – is true all the more of ethical judgments and ethical theory. 1

The unquestioned ethical status of “equality” may be seen in the common practice of economists. Economists are often caught in a value-judgment bind – eager to make political pronouncements. How can they do so while remaining “scientific” and value-free? In the area of egalitarianism, they have been able to make a flat value judgment on behalf of equality with remarkable impunity. Sometimes this judgment has been frankly personal; at other times, the economist has pretended to be the surrogate of “society” in the course of making its value judgment. The result, however, is the same. Consider, for example, the late Henry C. Simons. After properly criticizing various “scientific” arguments for progressive taxation, he came out flatly for progression as follows:

The case for drastic progression in taxation must be rested on the case against inequality – on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing distribution of wealth and income reveals a degree (and/or kind) of inequality which is distinctly evil or unlovely. 2

Another typical tactic may be culled from a standard text on public finance. According to Professor John F. Due, “[t]he strongest argument for progression is the fact that the consensus of opinion in society today regards progression as necessary for equity. This is, in turn, based on the principle that the pattern of income distribution, before taxes, involves excessive inequality.” The latter “can be condemned on the basis of inherent unfairness in terms of the standards accepted by society.” 3

Whether the economist boldly advances his own value judgments or whether he presumes to reflect the values of “society,” his immunity from criticism has been remarkable nonetheless. While candor in proclaiming one’s values may be admirable, it is surely not enough; in the quest for truth it is scarcely sufficient to proclaim one’s value judgments as if they must be accepted as tablets from above that are not themselves subject to intellectual criticism and evaluation. Is there no requirement that these value judgments be in some sense valid, meaningful, cogent, true? To raise such considerations, of course, is to flout the modern canons of pure wertfreiheit in social science from Max Weber onward, as well as the still older philosophic tradition of the stern separation of “fact and value,” but perhaps it is high time to raise such fundamental questions. Suppose, for example, that Professor Simons’s ethical or aesthetic judgment was not on behalf of equality but of a very different social ideal. Suppose, for example, he had been in favor of the murder of all short people, of all adults under five feet, six inches in height. And suppose he had then written: “The case for the liquidation of all short people must be rested on the case against the existence of short people – on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing number of short adults is distinctly evil or unlovely.” One wonders if the reception accorded to Professor Simons’s remarks by his fellow economists or social scientists would have been quite the same. Or, we can ponder Professor Due writing similarly on behalf of the “opinion of society today” in the Germany of the 1930s with regard to the social treatment of Jews. The point is that in all these cases the logical status of Simons’s or Due’s remarks would have been precisely the same, even though their reception by the American intellectual community would have been strikingly different.

My point so far has been twofold: (1) that it is not enough for an intellectual or social scientist to proclaim his value judgments – that these judgments must be rationally defensible and must be demonstrable to be valid, cogent, and correct: in short, that they must no longer be treated as above intellectual criticism; and (2) that the goal of equality has for too long been treated uncritically and axiomatically as the ethical ideal. Thus, economists in favor of egalitarian programs have typically counterbalanced their uncriticized “ideal” against possible disincentive effects on economic productivity; but rarely has the ideal itself been questioned. 4

Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself – should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

Suppose, for example, that it has come to be adopted as a universal ethical goal that all men be able to fly by flapping their arms. Let us assume that “pro-flappers” have been generally conceded the beauty and goodness of their goal, but have been criticized as “impractical.” But the result is unending social misery as society tries continually to move in the direction of arm-flying, and the preachers of arm-flapping make everyone’s lives miserable for being either lax or sinful enough not to live up to the common ideal. The proper critique here is to challenge the “ideal” goal itself; to point out that the goal itself is impossible in view of the physical nature of man and the universe; and, therefore, to free mankind from its enslavement to an inherently impossible and, hence, evil goal. But this liberation could never occur so long as the anti-armfliers continued to be solely in the realm of the “practical” and to concede ethics and “idealism” to the high priests of arm-flying. The challenge must take place at the core – at the presumed ethical superiority of a nonsensical goal. The same, I hold, is true of the egalitarian ideal, except that its social consequences are far more pernicious than an endless quest for man’s flying unaided. For the condition of equality would wreak far more damage upon mankind.

What, in fact, is “equality”? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are “equal” if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be “equal” in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are “equal,” etc. There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be “equal” in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men – the egalitarian ideal – can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction – a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.

Indeed, it is precisely in horror fiction where the logical implications of an egalitarian world have been fully drawn. Professor Schoeck has resurrected for us the depiction of such a world in the British anti-Utopian novel Facial Justice, by L.P. Hartley, in which envy is institutionalized by the State’s making sure that all girls’ faces are equally pretty, with medical operations being performed on both beautiful and ugly girls to bring all of their faces up or down to the general common denominator. 5 A short story by Kurt Vonnegut provides an even more comprehensive description of a fully egalitarian society. Thus, Vonnegut begins his story, “Harrison Bergeron”:

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

The “handicapping” worked partly as follows: Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains. 6

The horror we all instinctively feel at these stories is the intuitive recognition that men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of an egalitarian society is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.

The great fact of individual difference and variability (that is, inequality) is evident from the long record of human experience; hence, the general recognition of the antihuman nature of a world of coerced uniformity. Socially and economically, this variability manifests itself in the universal division of labor, and in the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” – the insight that, in every organization or activity, a few (generally the most able and/or the most interested) will end up as leaders, with the mass of the membership filling the ranks of the followers. In both cases, the same phenomenon is at work – outstanding success or leadership in any given activity is attained by what Jefferson called a “natural aristocracy” – those who are best attuned to that activity.

The age-old record of inequality seems to indicate that this variability and diversity is rooted in the biological nature of man. But it is precisely such a conclusion about biology and human nature that is the most galling of all possible irritants to our egalitarians. Even egalitarians would be hard put to deny the historical record, but their answer is that “culture” has been to blame; and since they obviously hold that culture is a pure act of the will, then the goal of changing the culture and inculcating society with equality seems to be attainable. In this area, the egalitarians slough off any pretense to scientific caution; they are scarcely content with acknowledging biology and culture as mutually interacting influences. Biology must be read out of court quickly and totally.

Let us ponder an example that is deliberately semi-frivolous. Suppose that we observe our culture and find a common dictum to be: “Redheads are excitable.” Here is a judgment of inequality, a conclusion that redheads as a group tend to differ from the nonredhead population. Suppose, then, that egalitarian sociologists investigate the problem, and they find that redheads do, indeed, tend to be more excitable than nonredheads by a statistically significant amount. Instead of admitting the possibility of some sort of biological difference, the egalitarian will quickly add that the “culture” is responsible for the phenomenon: the generally accepted “stereotype” that redheads are excitable had been instilled into every redheaded child from an early age, and he or she has simply been internalizing these judgments and acting in the way society was expecting him to act. Redheads, in brief, had been “brainwashed” by the predominant nonredhead culture.

While not denying the possibility of such a process occurring, this common complaint seems decidedly unlikely on rational analysis. For the egalitarian culture-bugaboo implicitly assumes that the “culture” arrives and accumulates haphazardly, with no reference to social facts. The idea that “redheads are excitable” did not originate out of the thin air or as a divine commandment; how, then, did the idea come into being and gain general currency? One favorite egalitarian device is to attribute all such group-identifying statements to obscure psychological drives. The public had a psychological need to accuse some social group of excitability, and redheads were fastened on as scapegoats. But why were redheads singled out? Why not blondes or brunettes? The horrible suspicion begins to loom that perhaps redheads were singled out because they were and are indeed more excitable and that, therefore, society’s “stereotype” is simply a general insight into the facts of reality. Certainly this explanation accounts for more of the data and the processes at work and is a much simpler explanation besides. Regarded objectively, it seems to be a far more sensible explanation than the idea of the culture as an arbitrary and ad hoc bogeyman. If so, then we might conclude that redheads are biologically more excitable and that propaganda beamed at redheads by egalitarians urging them to be less excitable is an attempt to induce redheads to violate their nature; therefore, it is this latter propaganda that may more accurately be called “brainwashing.”

This is not to say, of course, that society can never make a mistake and that its judgments of group-identity are always rooted in fact. But it seems to me that the burden of proof is far more on the egalitarians than on their supposedly “unenlightened” opponents.

Since egalitarians begin with the a priori axiom that all people, and hence all groups of peoples, are uniform and equal, it then follows for them that any and all group differences in status, prestige, or authority in society must be the result of unjust “oppression” and irrational “discrimination.” Statistical proof of the “oppression” of redheads would proceed in a manner all too familiar in American political life; it might be shown, for example, that the median redhead income is lower than nonredheaded income, and further that the proportion of redheaded business executives, university professors, or congressmen is below their quotal representation in the population. The most recent and conspicuous manifestation of this sort of quotal thinking was in the McGovern movement at the 1972 Democratic Convention. A few groups are singled out as having been “oppressed” by virtue of delegates to previous conventions falling below their quotal proportion of the population as a whole. In particular, women, youth, blacks, Chicanos (or the so-called Third World) were designated as having been oppressed; as a result, the Democratic Party, under the guidance of egalitarian-quota thinking, overrode the choices of the voters in order to compel their due quotal representation of these particular groups.

In some cases, the badge of “oppression” was an almost ludicrous construction. That youths of 18 to 25 years of age had been “underrepresented” could easily have been placed in proper perspective by a reductio ad absurdum, surely some impassioned McGovernite reformer could have risen to point out the grievous “underrepresentation” of five-year olds at the convention and to urge that the five-year-old bloc receive its immediate due. It is only commonsense biological and social insight to realize that youths win their way into society through a process of apprenticeship; youths know less and have less experience than mature adults, and so it should be clear why they tend to have less status and authority than their elders. But to accept this would be to cast the egalitarian creed into some substantial doubt; further, it would fly into the face of the youth-worship that has long been a grave problem of American culture. And so young people have been duly designated as an “oppressed class,” and the coercing of their population quota is conceived as only just reparation for their previously exploited condition. 7

Women are another recently discovered “oppressed class,” and the fact that political delegates have habitually been far more than 50 percent male is now held to be an evident sign of their oppression. Delegates to political conventions come from the ranks of party activists, and since women have not been nearly as politically active as men, their numbers have understandably been low. But, faced with this argument, the widening forces of “women’s liberation” in America again revert to the talismanic argument about “brainwashing” by our “culture.” For the women’s liberationists can hardly deny the fact that every culture and civilization in history, from the simplest to the most complex, has been dominated by males. (In desperation, the liberationists have lately been countering with fantasies about the mighty Amazonian empire.) Their reply, once again, is that from time immemorial a male-dominated culture has brainwashed oppressed females to confine themselves to nurture, home, and the domestic hearth. The task of the liberationists is to effect a revolution in the female condition by sheer will, by the “raising of consciousness.” If most women continue to cleave to domestic concerns, this only reveals the “false consciousness” that must be extirpated.

Of course, one neglected reply is that if, indeed, men have succeeded in dominating every culture, then this in itself is a demonstration of male “superiority”; for if all genders are equal, how is it that male domination emerged in every case? But apart from this question, biology itself is being angrily denied and cast aside. The cry is that there are no, can be no, must be no biological differences between the sexes; all historical or current differences must be due to cultural brainwashing. In his brilliant refutation of the women’s liberationist Kate Millett, Irving Howe outlines several important biological differences between the sexes, differences important enough to have lasting social effects. They are: (1) “the distinctive female experience of maternity” including what the anthropologist Malinowski calls an “intimate and integral connection with the child . . . associated with physiological effects and strong emotions”; (2) “the hormonic components of our bodies as these vary not only between the sexes but at different ages within the sexes”; (3) “the varying possibilities for work created by varying amounts of musculature and physical controls”; and (4) “the psychological consequences of different sexual postures and possibilities,” in particular the “fundamental distinction between the active and passive sexual roles” as biologically determined in men and women respectively. 8

Howe goes on to cite the admission by Dr. Eleanor Maccoby in her study of female intelligence “that it is quite possible that there are genetic factors that differentiate the two sexes and bear upon their intellectual performance…. For example, there is good reason to believe that boys are innately more aggressive than girls – and I mean aggressive in the broader sense, not just as it implies fighting, but as it implies dominance and initiative as well – and if this quality is one which underlies the later growth of analytic thinking, then boys have an advantage which girls…will find difficult to overcome.” Dr. Maccoby adds that “if you try to divide child training among males and females, we might find out that females need to do it and males don’t.” 9

The sociologist Arnold W. Green points to the repeated emergence of what the egalitarians denounce as “stereotyped sex roles” even in communities originally dedicated to absolute equality. Thus, he cites the record of the Israeli kibbutzim:

The phenomenon is worldwide: women are concentrated in fields which require, singly or in combination, housewifely skills, patience and routine, manual dexterity, sex appeal, contact with children. The generalization holds for the Israeli kibbutz, with its established ideal of sexual equality. A “regression” to a separation of “women’s work” from “men’s work” occurred in the division of labor, to a state of affairs which parallels that elsewhere. The kibbutz is dominated by males and traditional male attitudes, on balance to the content of both sexes.10

Irving Howe unerringly perceives that at the root of the women’s liberation movement is resentment against the very existence of women as a distinctive entity:

For what seems to trouble Miss Millett isn’t merely the injustices women have suffered or the discriminations to which they continue to be subject. What troubles her most of all…is the sheer existence of women. Miss Millett dislikes the psychobiological distinctiveness of women, and she will go no further than to recognize – what choice is there, alas? – the inescapable differences of anatomy. She hates the perverse refusal of most women to recognize the magnitude of their humiliation, the shameful dependence they show in regard to (not very independent) men, the maddening pleasures they even take in cooking dinners for the “master group” and wiping the noses of their snotty brats. Raging against the notion that such roles and attitudes are biologically determined, since the very thought of the biological seems to her a way of forever reducing women to subordinate status, she nevertheless attributes to “culture” so staggering a range of customs, outrages, and evils that this culture comes to seem a force more immovable and ominous than biology itself.11

In a perceptive critique of the women’s liberation movement, Joan Didion perceives its root to be a rebellion not only against biology but also against the “very organization of nature” itself:

If the necessity for conventional reproduction of the species seemed unfair to women, then let us transcend, via technology, “the very organization of nature,” the oppression, as Shulamith Firestone saw it, “that goes back through recorded history to the animal kingdom itself.” I accept the Universe, Margaret Fuller had finally allowed: Shulamith Firestone did not.12

To which one is tempted to paraphrase Carlyle’s admonition: “Egad, madam, you’d better.”

Another widening rebellion against biological sex norms, as well as against natural diversity, has been the recently growing call for bisexuality by Left intellectuals. The avoidance of “rigid, stereotyped” heterosexuality and the adoption of indiscriminate bisexuality is supposed to expand consciousness, to eliminate “artificial” distinctions between the sexes and to make all persons simply and unisexually “human.” Once again, brainwashing by a dominant culture (in this case, heterosexual) has supposedly oppressed a homosexual minority and blocked off the uniformity and equality inherent in bisexuality. For then every individual could reach his or her fullest “humanity” in the “polymorphous perversity” so dear to the hearts of such leading New Left social philosophers as Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse.

That biology stands like a rock in the face of egalitarian fantasies has been made increasingly clear in recent years. The researches of biochemist Roger J. Williams have repeatedly emphasized the great range of individual diversity throughout the entire human organism. Thus:

Individuals differ from each other even in the minutest details of anatomy and body chemistry and physics; finger and toe prints; microscopic texture of hair; hair pattern on the body, ridges and “moons” on the finger and toenails; thickness of skin, its color, its tendency to blister; distribution of nerve endings on the surface of the body; size and shape of ears, of ear canals, or semi-circular canals; length of fingers; character of brain waves (tiny electrical impulses given off by the brain); exact number of muscles in the body; heart action; strength of blood vessels; blood groups; rate of clotting of blood – and so on almost ad infinitum.

We now know a great deal about how inheritance works and how it is not only possible but certain that every human being possesses by inheritance an exceedingly complex mosaic, composed of thousands of items, which is distinctive for him alone.13

The genetic basis for inequality of intelligence has also become increasingly evident, despite the emotional abuse heaped upon such studies by fellow scientists as well as the lay public. Studies of identical twins raised in contrasting environments have been among the ways that this conclusion has been reached; and Professor Richard Herrnstein has recently estimated that 80 percent of the variability in human intelligence is genetic in origin. Herrnstein concludes that any political attempts to provide environmental equality for all citizens will only intensify the degree of socioeconomic differences caused by genetic variability.14

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will – in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. Surely this sort of infantile thinking is at the heart of Herbert Marcuse’s passionate call for the comprehensive negation of the existing structure of reality and for its transformation into what he divines to be its true potential.

Nowhere is the Left Wing attack on ontological reality more apparent than in the Utopian dreams of what the future socialist society will look like. In the socialist future of Charles Fourier, according to Ludwig von Mises:

all harmful beasts will have disappeared, and in their places will be animals which will assist man in his labors – or even do his work for him. An antibeaver will see to the fishing; an antiwhale will move sailing ships in a calm; an antihippopotamus will tow the river boats. Instead of the lion there will be an antilion, a steed of wonderful swiftness, upon whose back the rider will sit as comfortably as in a well-sprung carriage. “It will be a pleasure to live in a world with such servants.”15

Furthermore, according to Fourier, the very oceans would contain lemonade rather than salt water.16

Similarly absurd fantasies are at the root of the Marxian utopia of communism. Freed from the supposed confines of specialization and the division of labor (the heart of any production above the most primitive level and hence of any civilized society), each person in the communist utopia would fully develop all of his powers in every direction.17 As Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring, communism would give “each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions.”18 And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the “abolition of the division of labor among people…the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it.”19

In his trenchant critique of the communist vision, Alexander Gray charges:

That each individual should have the opportunity of developing all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions, is a dream which will cheer the vision only of the simple-minded, oblivious of the restrictions imposed by the narrow limits of human life. For life is a series of acts of choice, and each choice is at the same time a renunciation.

Even the inhabitant of Engels’s future fairyland will have to decide sooner or later whether he wishes to be Archbishop of Canterbury or First Sea Lord, whether he should seek to excel as a violinist or as a pugilist, whether he should elect to know all about Chinese literature or about the hidden pages in the life of a mackerel.20

Of course one way to try to resolve this dilemma is to fantasize that the New Communist Man of the future will be a superman, superhuman in his abilities to transcend nature. William Godwin thought that, once private property was abolished, man would become immortal. The Marxist theoretician Karl Kautsky asserted that in the future communist society, “a new type of man will arise…a superman…an exalted man.” And Leon Trotsky prophesied that under communism:

man will become incomparably stronger, wiser, finer. His body more harmonious, his movements more rhythmical, his voice more musical…. The human average will rise to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, a Marx. Above these other heights new peaks will arise.21

We began by considering the common view that the egalitarians, despite a modicum of impracticality, have ethics and moral idealism on their side. We end with the conclusion that egalitarians, however intelligent as individuals, deny the very basis of human intelligence and of human reason: the identification of the ontological structure of reality, of the laws of human nature, and the universe. In so doing, the egalitarians are acting as terribly spoiled children, denying the structure of reality on behalf of the rapid materialization of their own absurd fantasies. Not only spoiled but also highly dangerous; for the power of ideas is such that the egalitarians have a fair chance of destroying the very universe that they wish to deny and transcend, and to bring that universe crashing around all of our ears. Since their methodology and their goals deny the very structure of humanity and of the universe, the egalitarians are profoundly antihuman; and, therefore, their ideology and their activities may be set down as profoundly evil as well. Egalitarians do not have ethics on their side unless one can maintain that the destruction of civilization, and even of the human race itself, may be crowned with the laurel wreath of a high and laudable morality.

References

1 John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1936), p. 383.

2 Henry C. Simons, Personal Income Taxation (1938), pp. 18-19, quoted in Walter J. Blum and Harry Kalven, Jr., The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 72.

3 John F. Due, Government Finance (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1954), pp. 128-29.

4 Thus: A third line of objection to progression, and undoubtedly the one which has received the most attention, is that it lessens the economic productivity of the society. Virtually everyone who has advocated progression in an income tax has recognized this as a counterbalancing consideration. (Blum and Kalven, The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation, p. 21) The “ideal” vs. the “practical” once again!

5 Helmut Schoeck, Envy (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1970), pp. 149-55.

6 Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., “Harrison Bergeron,” in Welcome to the Monkey House (New York: Dell, 1970), p. 7.

7 Egalitarians have, among their other activities, been busily at work “correcting” the English language. The use of the word “girl,” for example, is now held to grievously demean and degrade female youth and to imply their natural subservience to adults. As a result, Left egalitarians now refer to girls of virtually any age as “women,” and we may confidently look forward to reading about the activities of “a five-year-old woman.”

8 Irving Howe, “The Middle-Class Mind of Kate Millett,” Harper’s (December, 1970): 125–26.

9 Ibid., p. 126.

10 Arnold W. Green, Sociology (6th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), p. 305. Green cites the study by A.I. Rabin, “The Sexes: Ideology and Reality in the Israeli Kibbutz,” in G.H. Seward and R.G. Williamson, eds., Sex Roles in Changing Society (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 285–307.

11 Howe, “The Middle-Class Mind of Kate Millett,” p. 124.

12 Joan Didion, “The Women’s Movement,” New York Times Review of Books (July 30, 1972), p. 1

13 Roger J. Williams, Free and Unequal (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1953), pp. 17, 23. See also by Williams Biochemical Individuality (New York: John Wiley, 1963) and You are Extraordinary (New York: Random House, 1967).

14 Richard Herrnstein, “IQ,” Atlantic Monthly (September, 1971).

15 Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1951), pp. 163–64.

16 Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1949), p. 71. Mises cites the first and fourth volumes of Fourier’s Oeuvres Complètes.

17 For more on the communist utopia and the division of labor, see Murray N. Rothbard, Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor (chap. 16, present volume).

18 Quoted in Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1947), p. 328.

19 Italics are Lenin’s. V.I. Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (New York: International Publishers, 1940), p. 34.

20 Gray, The Socialist Tradition, p. 328.

21 Quoted in Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, p. 164.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), the founder of modern libertarianism and the dean of the Austrian School of economics, was the author of The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty and many other books and articles. He was also academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Copyright © 1973 Murray N. Rothbard
Copyright © 2003 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.

Murray Rothbard Archives

john_randolph

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality.

~~quoted in Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind.

AND

Among the strange notions which have been broached since I have been in the political theatre, there is one which has lately seized the minds of men, that all things must be done for them by the Government, and that they are to do nothing for themselves: the Government is not only to attend to the great concerns which are its province, but it must step in and ease individuals of their natural and moral obligations. A more pernicious notion can not prevail. Look at that ragged fellow staggering from the whiskey shop, and see that slattern who has gone there to reclaim him; where are their children? Running about, ragged, idle, ignorant, fit candidates for the penitentiary. Why is all this so? Ask the man and he will tell you. “Oh, the Government has undertaken to educate our children for us. It has given us a premium for idleness, and now I spend in liquor which I should otherwise be obliged to save, to pay for their schooling.”

~~John Randolph. Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention (1830)

For additional Information on John Randolph see Wikipedia or for greater detail Russell Kirk’s Randolph Of Roanoke : A Study In Conservative Thought (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1951).

Posted by Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

Leave a Comment »

Egalitarians – or at least the sort who rile me – believe that all humans are equal (”men” being no longer a politically correct synonym for mankind), and, worse that they should be, on a more or less permanent basis, whatever the real-world differences in their performance and contribution. However much Karl Marx may have been rejected by the nations that once enshrined him and ostensibly followed his dicta, American egalitarians continue to believe Marxian romantic twaddle about the blamelessness of the unaccomplished. They argue that talent is distributed absolutely evenly along class and educational lines, in defiance of everything we know about eugenics. Consequently, they insist that differences in attainment are explained entirely by social justice. Egalitarians fear and detest the competitive impulse. They regard exploration, conquest and colonization as having been unrelievedly barbaric and destructive, thereby mulishly overlooking the impact those movements had in dispersing administratively and technologically superior cultures and compelling inferior ones to adapt. Egalitarians are the sort who are trying to end ability tracking in elementary and sometimes secondary education, on the theory that bright children ought to be helping slow ones rather than maximizing their own achievements and pulling ahead. (I’m not making this up. This is actually popular, if not prevailing, educational theory.) Not far below the surface, this attitude embodies a Marxian belief that the smart pupils’ intelligence is not theirs alone to allocate and command but is instead a communal asset to be deployed for the whole class’s good.

~~William A. Henry. In Defence of Elitism. (New York : Anchor Books, c1994) p. 17-18.

Posted by Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

Leave a Comment »

We began by considering the common view that the egalitarians, despite a modicum of impracticality, have ethics and moral idealism on their side. We end with the conclusion that egalitarians, however intelligent as individuals, deny the very basis of human intelligence and of human reason: the identification of the ontological structure of reality, of the laws of human nature, and the universe. In so doing, the egalitarians are acting as terribly spoiled children, denying the structure of reality on behalf of the rapid materialization of their own absurd fantasies. Not only spoiled but also highly dangerous; for the power of ideas is such that the egalitarians have a fair chance of destroying the very universe that they wish to deny and transcend, and to bring that universe crashing around all of our ears. Since their methodology and their goals deny the very structure of humanity and of the universe, the egalitarians are profoundly antihuman; and, therefore, their ideology and their activities may be set down as profoundly evil as well. Egalitarians do not have ethics on their side unless one can maintain that the destruction of civilization, and even of the human race itself, may be crowned with the laurel wreath of a high and laudable morality.

~~Murray Rothbard. Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature.

Posted by Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

Leave a Comment »

Women are another recently discovered “oppressed class,” and the fact that political delegates have habitually been far more than 50 percent male is now held to be an evident sign of their oppression. Delegates to political conventions come from the ranks of party activists, and since women have not been nearly as politically active as men, their numbers have understandably been low. But, faced with this argument, the widening forces of “women’s liberation” in America again revert to the talismanic argument about “brainwashing” by our “culture.” For the women’s liberationists can hardly deny the fact that every culture and civilization in history, from the simplest to the most complex, has been dominated by males. (In desperation, the liberationists have lately been countering with fantasies about the mighty Amazonian empire.) Their reply, once again, is that from time immemorial a male-dominated culture has brainwashed oppressed females to confine themselves to nurture, home, and the domestic hearth. The task of the liberationists is to effect a revolution in the female condition by sheer will, by the “raising of consciousness.” If most women continue to cleave to domestic concerns, this only reveals the “false consciousness” that must be extirpated.

Of course, one neglected reply is that if, indeed, men have succeeded in dominating every culture, then this in itself is a demonstration of male “superiority”; for if all genders are equal, how is it that male domination emerged in every case? But apart from this question, biology itself is being angrily denied and cast aside. The cry is that there are no, can be no, must be no biological differences between the sexes; all historical or current differences must be due to cultural brainwashing. In his brilliant refutation of the women’s liberationist Kate Millett, Irving Howe outlines several important biological differences between the sexes, differences important enough to have lasting social effects. They are: (1) “the distinctive female experience of maternity” including what the anthropologist Malinowski calls an “intimate and integral connection with the child . . . associated with physiological effects and strong emotions”; (2) “the hormonic components of our bodies as these vary not only between the sexes but at different ages within the sexes”; (3) “the varying possibilities for work created by varying amounts of musculature and physical controls”; and (4) “the psychological consequences of different sexual postures and possibilities,” in particular the “fundamental distinction between the active and passive sexual roles” as biologically determined in men and women respectively.

Howe goes on to cite the admission by Dr. Eleanor Maccoby in her study of female intelligence “that it is quite possible that there are genetic factors that differentiate the two sexes and bear upon their intellectual performance…. For example, there is good reason to believe that boys are innately more aggressive than girls – and I mean aggressive in the broader sense, not just as it implies fighting, but as it implies dominance and initiative as well – and if this quality is one which underlies the later growth of analytic thinking, then boys have an advantage which girls…will find difficult to overcome.” Dr. Maccoby adds that “if you try to divide child training among males and females, we might find out that females need to do it and males don’t.”

The sociologist Arnold W. Green points to the repeated emergence of what the egalitarians denounce as “stereotyped sex roles” even in communities originally dedicated to absolute equality. Thus, he cites the record of the Israeli kibbutzim:

The phenomenon is worldwide: women are concentrated in fields which require, singly or in combination, housewifely skills, patience and routine, manual dexterity, sex appeal, contact with children. The generalization holds for the Israeli kibbutz, with its established ideal of sexual equality. A “regression” to a separation of “women’s work” from “men’s work” occurred in the division of labor, to a state of affairs which parallels that elsewhere. The kibbutz is dominated by males and traditional male attitudes, on balance to the content of both sexes.

Irving Howe unerringly perceives that at the root of the women’s liberation movement is resentment against the very existence of women as a distinctive entity:

For what seems to trouble Miss Millett isn’t merely the injustices women have suffered or the discriminations to which they continue to be subject. What troubles her most of all…is the sheer existence of women. Miss Millett dislikes the psychobiological distinctiveness of women, and she will go no further than to recognize – what choice is there, alas? – the inescapable differences of anatomy. She hates the perverse refusal of most women to recognize the magnitude of their humiliation, the shameful dependence they show in regard to (not very independent) men, the maddening pleasures they even take in cooking dinners for the “master group” and wiping the noses of their snotty brats. Raging against the notion that such roles and attitudes are biologically determined, since the very thought of the biological seems to her a way of forever reducing women to subordinate status, she nevertheless attributes to “culture” so staggering a range of customs, outrages, and evils that this culture comes to seem a force more immovable and ominous than biology itself.

In a perceptive critique of the women’s liberation movement, Joan Didion perceives its root to be a rebellion not only against biology but also against the “very organization of nature” itself:

If the necessity for conventional reproduction of the species seemed unfair to women, then let us transcend, via technology, “the very organization of nature,” the oppression, as Shulamith Firestone saw it, “that goes back through recorded history to the animal kingdom itself.” I accept the Universe, Margaret Fuller had finally allowed: Shulamith Firestone did not.

To which one is tempted to paraphrase Carlyle’s admonition: “Egad, madam, you’d better.”

~~Murray Rothbard. Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature.

The horror we all instinctively feel at these stories is the intuitive recognition that men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of an egalitarian society is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.

The great fact of individual difference and variability (that is, inequality) is evident from the long record of human experience; hence, the general recognition of the antihuman nature of a world of coerced uniformity. Socially and economically, this variability manifests itself in the universal division of labor, and in the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” – the insight that, in every organization or activity, a few (generally the most able and/or the most interested) will end up as leaders, with the mass of the membership filling the ranks of the followers. In both cases, the same phenomenon is at work – outstanding success or leadership in any given activity is attained by what Jefferson called a “natural aristocracy” – those who are best attuned to that activity.

The age-old record of inequality seems to indicate that this variability and diversity is rooted in the biological nature of man. But it is precisely such a conclusion about biology and human nature that is the most galling of all possible irritants to our egalitarians. Even egalitarians would be hard put to deny the historical record, but their answer is that “culture” has been to blame; and since they obviously hold that culture is a pure act of the will, then the goal of changing the culture and inculcating society with equality seems to be attainable. In this area, the egalitarians slough off any pretense to scientific caution; they are scarcely content with acknowledging biology and culture as mutually interacting influences. Biology must be read out of court quickly and totally.

Let us ponder an example that is deliberately semi-frivolous. Suppose that we observe our culture and find a common dictum to be: “Redheads are excitable.” Here is a judgment of inequality, a conclusion that redheads as a group tend to differ from the nonredhead population. Suppose, then, that egalitarian sociologists investigate the problem, and they find that redheads do, indeed, tend to be more excitable than nonredheads by a statistically significant amount. Instead of admitting the possibility of some sort of biological difference, the egalitarian will quickly add that the “culture” is responsible for the phenomenon: the generally accepted “stereotype” that redheads are excitable had been instilled into every redheaded child from an early age, and he or she has simply been internalizing these judgments and acting in the way society was expecting him to act. Redheads, in brief, had been “brainwashed” by the predominant nonredhead culture.

While not denying the possibility of such a process occurring, this common complaint seems decidedly unlikely on rational analysis. For the egalitarian culture-bugaboo implicitly assumes that the “culture” arrives and accumulates haphazardly, with no reference to social facts. The idea that “redheads are excitable” did not originate out of the thin air or as a divine commandment; how, then, did the idea come into being and gain general currency? One favorite egalitarian device is to attribute all such group-identifying statements to obscure psychological drives. The public had a psychological need to accuse some social group of excitability, and redheads were fastened on as scapegoats. But why were redheads singled out? Why not blondes or brunettes? The horrible suspicion begins to loom that perhaps redheads were singled out because they were and are indeed more excitable and that, therefore, society’s “stereotype” is simply a general insight into the facts of reality. Certainly this explanation accounts for more of the data and the processes at work and is a much simpler explanation besides. Regarded objectively, it seems to be a far more sensible explanation than the idea of the culture as an arbitrary and ad hoc bogeyman. If so, then we might conclude that redheads are biologically more excitable and that propaganda beamed at redheads by egalitarians urging them to be less excitable is an attempt to induce redheads to violate their nature; therefore, it is this latter propaganda that may more accurately be called “brainwashing.”

This is not to say, of course, that society can never make a mistake and that its judgments of group-identity are always rooted in fact. But it seems to me that the burden of proof is far more on the egalitarians than on their supposedly “unenlightened” opponents.

Since egalitarians begin with the a priori axiom that all people, and hence all groups of peoples, are uniform and equal, it then follows for them that any and all group differences in status, prestige, or authority in society must be the result of unjust “oppression” and irrational “discrimination.” Statistical proof of the “oppression” of redheads would proceed in a manner all too familiar in American political life; it might be shown, for example, that the median redhead income is lower than nonredheaded income, and further that the proportion of redheaded business executives, university professors, or congressmen is below their quotal representation in the population. The most recent and conspicuous manifestation of this sort of quotal thinking was in the McGovern movement at the 1972 Democratic Convention. A few groups are singled out as having been “oppressed” by virtue of delegates to previous conventions falling below their quotal proportion of the population as a whole. In particular, women, youth, blacks, Chicanos (or the so-called Third World) were designated as having been oppressed; as a result, the Democratic Party, under the guidance of egalitarian-quota thinking, overrode the choices of the voters in order to compel their due quotal representation of these particular groups.

In some cases, the badge of “oppression” was an almost ludicrous construction. That youths of 18 to 25 years of age had been “underrepresented” could easily have been placed in proper perspective by a reductio ad absurdum, surely some impassioned McGovernite reformer could have risen to point out the grievous “underrepresentation” of five-year olds at the convention and to urge that the five-year-old bloc receive its immediate due. It is only commonsense biological and social insight to realize that youths win their way into society through a process of apprenticeship; youths know less and have less experience than mature adults, and so it should be clear why they tend to have less status and authority than their elders. But to accept this would be to cast the egalitarian creed into some substantial doubt; further, it would fly into the face of the youth-worship that has long been a grave problem of American culture. And so young people have been duly designated as an “oppressed class,” and the coercing of their population quota is conceived as only just reparation for their previously exploited condition.

~~Murray Rothbard. Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.

Posted by Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

Leave a Comment »

For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on its side; the Conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the “impracticality” of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory,” but that it cannot “work” in practical life. What the Conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the “ideal” to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the “ideal” from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of “impracticality” becomes less and less directly relevant. The Conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the “practical” (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as the status quo moves further in the left direction. The fact that the unreconstructed Stalinists are universally considered to be the “Conservatives” in the Soviet Union is a happy logical joke upon conservatism; for in Russia the unrepentant statists are indeed the repositories of at least a superficial “practicality” and of a clinging to the existing status quo.

Never has the virus of “practicality” been more widespread than in the United States, for Americans consider themselves a “practical” people, and hence, the opposition to the Left, while originally stronger than elsewhere, has been perhaps the least firm at its foundation. It is now the advocates of the free market and the free society who have to meet the common charge of “impracticality.”

In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal. So committed is everyone to this ideal that “impracticality” – that is, the weakening of economic incentives – has been virtually the only criticism against even the most bizarre egalitarian programs. The inexorable march of egalitarianism is indication enough of the impossibility of avoiding ethical commitments; the fiercely “practical” Americans, in attempting to avoid ethical doctrines, cannot help setting forth such doctrines, but they can now only do so in unconscious, ad hoc, and unsystematic fashion. Keynes’s famous insight that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist” – is true all the more of ethical judgments and ethical theory.

~~Murray Rothbard.Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

The Egalitarian’s False Equality

“Yet Another Example”

African-Americans seem to occupy a privileged position in the hearts and minds of egalitarians the world over. How did I come to this conclusion? That has been an obvious fact for many years. But a certain event transpired that makes it even more so.

A while back I heard that Mestizoes from Mexico and a horde of other Latin-American countries have surpassed blacks as the largest minority group in America. They are now the number one minority. But is that new status being reflected in Movies, sports, TV commercials, sitcoms, and other areas of media?

Not from what I see. From what I see from what little time I can stand watching the TV, is that blacks are still vastly over represented in relation to their alleged 12 percent of the population. It seems that the sudden demographic ascendancy of the Mestizoes hasn’t had any effect on the love relationship the egalitarians hold with the black population in the least.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am a White Nationalist and my purpose in writing this essay is not to call for valid leftist practices and to champion the Mestizo. But I do strive to point out the invalidity and the outright idiocy of the egalitarian’s methodology at any and every opportunity, even when it concerns something as irrelevant as media exposure.

The so-called egalitarians and their idea of equality have always shown their asininity in such creations for example as so-called “Affirmative Action”. This legal form of institutionalized racism against working class European-Americans is just one type of anti-White spawn that’s been put into play by the self-described champions of all people’s rights.

It is alleged to create equality in the workplace but in reality, it takes from one group by means of quotas and transfers unearned positions and status to another. It’s defenders even try to imply that no quota exists when implementing this program. But such a claim is moronic as the only way to achieve such a goal would be to set aside a certain number of positions just for the target beneficiaries. That patently requires a quota, plain and simple. The hiring of those best suited and qualified for the job is thrown out the window.

Then they claim such quotas are necessary in order to achieve racial-balance in the workplace. But what they never worry themselves with is the fact that the only ones who suffer from such an anti-White program are working class and poor Whites. Liberals claim that being white is a socially constructed elite status that all Whites allegedly enjoy. That is spouted in spite of the fact that the largest numbers of citizens that fall into the poverty level are in America are of European descent. Those people not only suffer, but unlike the nonwhite beneficiaries of racial equality, there are no beneficial programs in place for poor Whites specifically.

The lefties say that also doesn’t matter. What does, they imply, is that a higher percentage of nonwhites fall in the poverty level than do Whites. But does that fact comfort the poor European-American worker that has nowhere to turn save for the overcrowded and limited avenues available to him/her? This is just more of the many examples of the warped liberal view of racial equality.

But getting back to the subject of media sharing, what the egalitarians would have us believe is that their dogma mandates that every part of America’s “gorgeous mosaic” receive a fair share of national attention. But in reality, certain categories of “persons of color”, Hispanic- Americans and Asian -Americans to be more specific, seem to be placed on the backburner. This situation basically reveals that the egalitarian leftie considers all nonwhite groups equal, but that some; the black ones in particular, are more equal than others.

Why do the equality crusaders have such an affinity with Afro-Americans? The answer to that is transparent enough. The White egalitarians, with their Jewish thought-masters fueling the furnace, have orchestrated a culture of White guilt that simply wouldn’t be usable in an agenda to promote the interests of Hispanic Mestizos or other nonwhites.

So in regards to the ‘other” minorities, there exist no racial sins that White liberals can tell gullible Whites they must atone for. And as of yet, there are no Mestizo versions of such guilt-mongers as Jessie Jackson who has the art of race baiting and extortion down to a science. So for now, the black race remains at the front of the gravy train.

There also exists other reasoning in this lop-sided serving of the equality pie. Liberal vote whore politicians know there exists a blind electoral obedience within the black voting collective. That collective will always receive a lion’s share of the fruits as long as the other nonwhites are less inclined to sell their souls to the demons of diversity. As of yet, the others are not on the same level of willingness to do that as blacks are. But that day is coming.

Then the Mestizoes can gain political favor solely from the results of their sheer numbers and their highly fertile sexual proclivity. But for now they will have to settle for the back of the equality bus. They are more equal than working class Whites. But they are certainly less equal than the coveted blacks.

From looking at present day evidence, such as the prior history and resulting status quo of such nonwhite controlled places as Dade County in Florida and Southern California in general, it has to be inevitable that one day a larger and hotter struggle for dominance will ensue between the black and brown races. Such superficial issues as media share will be a gone and way more degenerating issues will take precedence. The White egalitarians and their Hebrew mind-masters will then lose control of the monsters (Tolerance and Diversity) they created. Of course that eventuality can be seen today.

The egalitarians are stoking the embers of a fire that will only destroy the very essence of what makes up a 1st World society. And they are aiming this destruction towards all such societies today, or more accurately, all White societies. And caught in the middle and suffering from this ordeal will be what is left of the European-American taxpayer base. They will be our children and our children’s children. And they will be the ultimate losers no matter who wins such a struggle.

And yes, they will suffer in a 3rd World America. They (your children and your children’s children) will suffer in an American ruling structure consisting of only two classes, the very rich and powerful and the very poor. And in time, the genetic essence of what they (and we) are will perish. That is if something is not done to stop the steady browning and blackening of America and the rest of the civilized world. But something has to be done soon. Or there will be no turning back. The agenda of the liberal egalitarians and their ignoble thought-masters must be exposed for what it is and cast into the garbage pit of idiotic idealism where it belongs.

As David Duke wrote in his book “My Awakening”, we as a race are at a crossroads. Whether our unique genotype will be preserved to fulfill its destiny to the stars, whether our uniqueness as a people, and as a beautiful collection of cultures survives, will depend on all of us right now. I can only hope enough of us will awaken and choose to take the right direction before that option is lost forever.

We must strive to do all we can to expose the invalidity and the downright stupidity of liberal equality dogma in every avenue that’s available to us. With current events, along with more folks beginning to question the direction the status quo is taking, and with greater opportunity to reach the masses thru the Internet, the window of opportunity exists right now.

But it won’t be there much longer as the free speech and free thought-crushing wheels of tyranny get closer with every upgrade to such diabolical and freedom-devouring weapons as the so-called Patriot Act and Homeland Security. “Urgency” is the key word we must keep in mind right now.

Rick Kicklighter

WE CAN’T END THE INCOME TAX ONE PRISON SENTENCE AT A TIME – FREEDOM’S DESTRUCTION BY CONSTITUTIONAL DE-CONSTRUCTION

WE CAN’T END THE INCOME TAX ONE PRISON SENTENCE AT A TIME

By: Devvy
October 14, 2009
© 2009 – NewsWithViews.com

Way back in 1991, I began to learn the truth about the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking system. My research led me to connect the dots between the disaster that struck America in 1913: The fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. In order to syphon off the wealth of America, it was necessary to create two entities to get the job done: The so-called income tax amendment and the unconstitutional central bank. Lest the states should decide to rear up their heads over all this, the Seventeenth Amendment was fraudulently declared ratified and the states lost their right of representation in Congress.

Contrary to popular belief and propaganda by the ignorant in the controlled media and special interest groups, the federal income tax does not apply to domestic Americans. However, that fact of the law as its written doesn’t seem to matter to judges, U.S. Attorneys and companies out there who thrive on “tax season.” Pay up or go to jail.

Tommy Cryer is an attorney in Shreveport, Louisiana. He defied the system. Not because he doesn’t want to “pay his fair share,” but because he knows what the IR Code says and decided to take a stand for the truth. Even at great expense to himself — like so many others over the decades. Tommy was indicted and went to trial. He was acquitted in July of 2007 and went on a mission. Truth Attack was born and the results have been nothing short of amazing.

While Tommy was acquitted, other fine Americans like Sherry Jackson, are rotting in federal prisons. Not because this dear lady broke the law, but because the federal government has become lawless. Ignorant and/or cowardly juries continue to convict. Enough is enough. We cannot end the income tax one prison sentence at a time.

I don’t want to see one more American go to prison because thugs are running our courts and the U.S. Department of Justice’s tax division prosecutors. I don’t want to see one more American sucked into these scams run by cock roaches out there who claim to “keep the IRS out of your life.” All well and fine until you’re the one indicted. Then the cock roach who sold you the silver bullet is no where to be found. The latest rage being the dangerous and bogus OID-1099 scam.

Prohibition was ended because the country finally got fed up with the violence, corruption and graft and said no more. Take four minutes to watch this video of Sen. Harry Reid explain that the income tax is purely voluntary…uh, well, kinda, sorta. This pathetic pantywaist is the quintessential example of a professional liar.


Advertisement

Education is the key to getting the American people away from the taxing scams being sold out there (“lower taxes”, Fair Tax, Flat Tax, VAT) and get them to understand the law as it’s written. When enough Americans find out the truth, then we will see the real solution: No more federal income tax to feed the FED, unconstitutional, immoral invasions of foreign countries, foreign welfare, transfer payments – the sweat of YOUR labor – to the communist UN, the IMF, BIS and the list goes on. The absolute fleecing of the American people to enrich a cabal of evil people at the highest levels of governments and banking concerns world wide.

What do people think is going to happen next April 15th when all this debt that’s been created since Bush, Jr., signed off on the first round of illegal bank bail outs? Pile on the TRILLIONS of non existent debt money the Democrats and usurper in the Red House have shoved down our throats this year and the recipe is going to be disaster. How about that so called ‘stimulus money’ people received from the thieves in Congress?

April 26, 2009. What stimulus giveth, IRS may taketh: The Internal Revenue Service has fessed up about problems with the withholding tables but hasn’t done squat to warn “taxpayers” what’s coming. Ah, the great withholding taxing scheme. Congressman Ron Paul has twice tried to get bills through Congress to eliminate this massive rip off; those bills died under Republican controlled Congresses.

Tommy’s organization is about to embark on a massive educational effort in the State of Florida. I hope you can be part of it and attend the seminars. Like my state (Texas), Florida has no state income tax so there is no conflict of interest. If you’re wondering what I’m talking about here, please watch the video in the links section below, item 3. It is constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft. This video was shot live at an event I put on in 1998. On that video, Larry explains about the federal income tax and the states who have a state income tax.

First, go to Truth Attack’s web site and find out how this nationwide effort has been getting the truth to the American people.

Second, here is a list of cities for the truth train:

Oct. 31, Staff arrivals, staging and briefings Miami (Hollywood Holiday Inn)
Nov. 1, Lost Art Seminar Hollywood Holiday Inn 10 a.m.-3 p.m.; depart for Naples/Ft. Myers
Nov. 2, Lost Art Seminar at Three Oaks Banquet and CC, Estero
Nov. 3, Lost Art Seminar at The Westshore Hotel, Tampa
Nov. 4, Lost Art Seminar at ___________________, Ocala
Nov. 5, Lost Art Seminar at (tentatively) The Peabody Hotel, Orlando
Nov. 6, Lost Art Seminar at (tentatively) Jacksonville Marriott, Jacksonville
Nov. 7, Brief News Conference/Rally at Capitol steps and Lost Art Seminar at either the Tallahassee Civic Center or the Tallahassee Antique Car Museum
Nov. 8, Staff departures

Seating is limited in all of these venues. None of them will be able to seat more than 500. Early registration is strongly recommended. While Tommy, volunteers and speakers iron out the last minute details, make your plans now to attend these events.

Full information on each of these locations is here.

This is a document Tommy put together called The Memorandum. It is a bit of a read, but if you really want to understand tax law as it applies to mandatory filing of income tax returns, study it. Don’t let fear and lies keep you from the truth.

[Note: Free email alert service is available on my web site. Notification of upcoming votes and important information you should know.]

Learning links:

1 – Income tax causes crime
2 – The Right Argument on Taxation
3 – Larry Becraft video

FREEDOM’S DESTRUCTION BY CONSTITUTIONAL DE-CONSTRUCTION

By Chuck Baldwin’s Son: Timothy Baldwin
October 16, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today’s column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also regarded as one of America’s leading spokesmen for State sovereignty.]

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a “more perfect union” (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Indeed, those who proposed such a national system of government (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison) would not have the people of the states aware of this proposal for fear of outright rejection of the Constitution and for fear that they would remove their delegates from the convention altogether, giving no chance of success for the ratification of a new Constitution. It was hush-hush for good reason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was so tactful on the subject that he did not even present his nationalistic notions as a constitutional proposal, but only as his ideas of what America should be. (Ibid., 123) Despite these proposals, in the end, it was a federalist system that prevailed–a union of states and not a union of people, whereby the states retained complete and absolute sovereignty over all matters not delegated to the federal government. The states were indeed co-equal with the federal government. So, what was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?

The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (but rejected) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to “negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union.” (Ibid., 207) Hamilton, and his like, would have loved it had this national principle of supreme sovereignty been accepted by the delegates. Thankfully, it was not accepted. In fact, as the convention progressed, what became apparent to those who advocated for this national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified.

History proves with absolute certainty that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the US Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15)

So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America’s history and the US Constitution would say, “The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress’ power to reach the internal affairs of a State.” It is the “living Constitution” idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution. Interestingly, the “living Constitution” idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional “construction” that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The “living Constitution” idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America’s War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)

The ludicrous proposition of a “living Constitution” begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution’s framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?


Advertisement

How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention? After all, Hamilton and Madison both admit throughout the federalist papers that the states have complete and absolute sovereignty regarding the powers retained by them and granted to them by the people of each State, just as any foreign nation would. Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the only check on power is another independent power and thus, the only real power that could check federal power was State power. They even expected that the states would use their sovereign and independent power to the point of being the voice and, if necessary, the “ARM” of the people to implement a common defense against the federal government.

Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the federal government can never force the states out of existence and can never strip them of their rights and powers possessed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, except as delegated to the federal government. They even refer to the states’ right of self-defense in this regard to resist federal tyranny. Was this mere “bait and switch” rhetoric to get the people of the states to ratify what they thought was a pure federal system? How can the states possess the absolute sovereign power to check federal tyranny when they are bound to submit to the federal government’s interpretation of the Constitution? The two positions are necessarily incompatible with each other. To say that you have power, so long as I say you have power is to deny your power altogether.

Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the “supreme law of the land.” Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America’s earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.

But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted–not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the “supreme law of the land” and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed “supremacy” clause of the Constitution. What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery.

America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive “construction.” If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers’ form of government? Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!

In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the “more perfect union” of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a “more perfect union” as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!

Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism–the principles upon which America was founded–then this supposed federal power of constitutional “construction” will in fact be our freedom’s destruction.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Please Help us Wake up America, Donate Today

OPINION
Freedom’s Destruction by Constitutional De-Construction
“Living Constitution” Idea Destroys Federalism
Pastor Chuck Baldwin

OPINION
We can’t end the income tax one prison sentence at a time

How much more of the fruits of your labor will you allow government to steal?
Devvy Kidd

NEWS ANALYSIS
Criminalizing the Whole Nation
American citizens are being prosecuted in apparently increasing numbers
Former INS Agent, Michael Cutler, Ret.

THE LAND OF EMPTY, 2026 A.D.

THE LAND OF EMPTY, 2026 A.D.

Phyllis Spivey
June 29, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

The year is 2026. Well past middle age now, you still remember the life that was. Memory is a curse, you think, for it means endless grieving for the America that once meant freedom, hope, and plenty. Only 20 years ago you were part of a thriving middle class envied by the world. Despite encroaching globalism, your future seemed secure.

Today, your family hovers at poverty levels and there is no American middle class, just the corporate elite, an army of government operatives, the working and non-working poor — and the gangs. An endless supply of migrants willing to work for less keeps wages starvation-low.

You speak Spanish now in public, as discrimination against English speakers often turns ugly, and it’s unwise to attract attention. Your grandchildren, even at home, speak the country’s new language and reprimand you when you slip into English, which is now associated with hate and intolerance. You worry about what your grandchildren are taught at the government schools but hold your tongue, as they might report you.

Thankfully, you’ve so far escaped the dreaded human settlements but, like other families, you, your adult children and grandchildren live together. Massive housing shortages and economic necessity, but also personal safety, mandate multi-family living. The same kinds of knife-wielding, gun-toting gangs that once instigated drive-by shootings and forced cancellation of community events, now roam most neighborhood streets at will.

Appealing to the police is futile, since most either work for political bosses or drug lords which, in many areas, is the same thing. And, as light-skinned people are considered invaders and occupiers, the law is more threat than protection. There’s no relief from either the Constitution or the courts, the latter having dismantled the former, in the process shattering the concept of God-given unalienable rights as well.

You imagine conditions for today’s Christians are similar to those in China a few decades ago Most worship is private, occurring in the home, the churches having gradually been closed or commandeered by government agencies. The Gospel message is carried quietly, underground.

Surveillance cameras abound. Nevertheless, the government encourages people to spy on each other because, as the press constantly warns, fighting terrorism is everybody’s job. Since 2007, anyone crossing the old national borders has been required to accept tracking chips implanted under the skin, just as the VeriChip Company proposed in 2006. Then, the national – actually, international – identity cards were imposed on all citizens, but threats of terrorism only grew. Nor had Operation Gun Confiscation in 2009 reduced terrorism. It had simply put law abiding citizens at the mercy of terrorist gangs who suddenly possessed all the firepower.

Government at all levels has become hopelessly corrupt, the politicians and bureaucrats entrenched. Elections are still held – for the sake of our democracy, they say – but everyone knows that electronic results are changed with the click of a computer key whenever the bosses order it. Paper records long ago went the way of English-language ballots, outlawed by Mexican judges.

You’re certain the country is wallowing in depression, but the government insists the region is enjoying unprecedented prosperity. The dollar, once the world’s premier currency, was phased out in 2009 and a new currency – the Amero – phased in. It buys very little, but there’s very little to buy.

Unable to withstand the onslaught of millions of new dependents, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid collapsed several years ago, taking welfare systems and, finally, the whole economy with them.

You knew in 2006 that passage of the Bush-promoted McCain-Kennedy Immigration law would devastate the country and, according to all reliable polls, a big majority of your fellow Americans agreed. But, despite strong public opposition, a lame duck Congress called into session after the November elections, passed it into law.

Supporters claimed that 12 million illegal aliens resided in the U.S. and were good, hardworking people who didn’t deserve deportation. Never mind if they broke U.S. laws, used fraudulent documents and stole the identity of American citizens, they and their families must be offered a path to citizenship and all entitlements.

Further, advocates demanded, the U.S. must initiate a guest worker program, enabling additional “human capital” to enter the U.S. legally. Like illegal aliens, guest workers and their families could become permanent residents or citizens and babies born here would continue to get automatic citizenship.

Opponents cried foul, warning the scheme was nothing more than amnesty for foreign lawbreakers and would destroy the country. Secure the borders and kill the jobs magnet, they demanded, and worked for passage of competing legislation in the House of Representatives.

Then came that attention-grabbing report from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Even after his calculations forced the Senate to reduce the guest worker program, Rector predicted the Bush-McCain-Kennedy plan would increase America’s population by 66 million to 120 million over 20 years.

Critics railed against Rector’s calculations, accusing him of inflating numbers and making false assumptions. In reality, Rector’s figures were abysmally low and his assumptions inadequate.

Rector based his projections on an illegal population of 10 million, when the number likely exceeded 25 million. (A Bear Stearns study had put the number of illegals at 20 million in 2005, and even that might have been conservative. Another year, and a huge flood of new illegals hoping for easy citizenship accounted for at least an additional five million).

Appropriately, Rector warned that the guest worker program was essentially an open border provision that would “allow an almost unlimited number of workers and dependents to enter the U.S. from anywhere in the world and become citizens.” But he ignored effects of the open border provisions incorporated into hemispheric trade agreements, e.g., the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which by themselves would bring chaos.

Hugely significant: Rector’s analysis of the impacts of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy bill failed to consider the consequences of a new Hispanic voting bloc. It swept Hillary Clinton into the presidency in 2008. With a new Democrat-controlled Congress, she worked swiftly to remove all numerical limits on visas, guest worker programs, and hemispheric immigration in general.

Then, Hillary accomplished what the first Bush president and her husband had launched with NAFTA, and which was pushed forward by the second Bush president with the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the North American Community, stepping stone to a European-style union of the entire hemisphere.

After the merger of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., resulting in the continuous importation of crime, poverty, and disease, people stopped talking about the numbers. It was too late. Hillary had shown herself all too willing to use the sweeping police powers inherited from George W. Bush. The Patriot Act stifled all opposition.

By the end of President Schwarzenegger’s term, your America was a Third World jungle, devoid of all that had once made it the freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Now, life is cheap, liberty a hopeless dream, and the pursuit of happiness a distant memory.

Painfully, you recall how, in 2006, concerned patriotic leaders asked for help. You were too busy to join a group or write a check. Contact your legislator? Too busy If only you – and other concerned Americans –had picked up the phone, called your congressional representative at 1(877)762-8762 and demanded: NO AMNESTY! NO GUEST WORKER PROGRAM! NO COMPROMISES!.

© 2006 Phyllis Spivey – All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Phyllis is a researcher and freelance writer specializing in political analysis. She has been published in Lew Rockwell’s Rothbard-Rockwell Report, The Welch Report (on-line), The Orange County Register and is a regular contributer to NewsWithViews.com, The Sentinel Weekly News, Corona, California. She holds a Christian worldview and writes primarily on trade, economic, education, environmental, and immigration issues.

E-mail: SPIVEY2@infostations.com

BRICKS WITHOUT STRAW

BRICKS WITHOUT STRAW


by Arthur Robinson

June 22, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

As U.S. government authorities debate “cap-and-trade,” a gigantic new tax and rationing burden with which they plan to further hobble American coal, oil, and natural gas technology, consider for a moment the qualifications and accomplishments of the lawyers, bureaucrats, and now community organizers who have gradually displaced, as energy “decision makers,” the engineers and industrialists who built America’s energy industries.

Under the guidance of these worthies over the past several decades, a vast system of taxation, regulation, and government-sponsored litigation has been imposed upon our energy industries.

Cap-and-trade is just more of the same. Much more! These policies have created a business climate in the United States that is unfavorable for the production of energy, so most new energy production has been located abroad. Americans, therefore, now import 30% of their energy – a luxury they can no longer afford.

How much do we import? While most eyes glaze over in discussions of “gigawatts” and “zillions” of dollars, many have seen or read about Hoover dam – the great engineering miracle that harvests energy from the Colorado River. Hoover dam is still considered so important that it is now hidden behind “homeland security” precautions so rigorous that public photographs of the dam are forbidden, lest terrorists plot its destruction.

Today, the three-reactor Palo Verde nuclear power station near Phoenix, Arizona produces six times the electrical energy of Hoover Dam – electricity that powers Los Angeles. Palo Verde was supposed to have ten reactors, but the other seven were stopped by anti-nuclear propaganda in the 1970s and 1980s. Actual replacement cost of the three-reactor Palo Verde power station in 2009 – leaving out the extra costs imposed by government – is about $6 billion. So, the capital cost of nuclear equipment to replace the electrical output of Hoover Dam is about $1 billion. American energy imports currently cost about $1 billion per day.

Every day – every 24 hours – the energy policies imposed by Washington destroy an amount of capital that could build the electrical generating capacity of one complete Hoover Dam.

If one ten-reactor Palo Verde nuclear power station were built in each of the 50 states, the United States could be a net exporter of $200 billion per year of energy, rather than a net importer of $300 billion per year. Exports would probably be lower because, as prices dropped several-fold from the end of foreign dependency and installation of the best new technology, American use of energy – and concomitant prosperity – would markedly increase.

While not as clean, safe, and inexpensive as nuclear power, a similar scenario can be given for hydrocarbon power development. A free-market solution to our energy problem would involve the construction of large amounts of both nuclear and hydrocarbon capacity – each technology built for those specific applications where it is most useful.

The problem is that the best new technology uses hydrocarbon and nuclear fuels. The United States is awash in essentially unlimited quantities of these fuels – uranium, coal, oil, natural gas, and methane clathrates – but the U.S. government is inhibiting their use. That government instead insists that the energy industries use boutique energy sources such as windmills and solar panels to produce energy, even though these technologies are far too expensive for large scale power generation.

Last week, energy expert Obama spoke at Nellis Air Force Base, where government has caused the construction of a 140-acre solar array at a cost of $100 million (2005-2007) to produce 14 megawatts of electricity – when the sun is brightly shining. Nellis AFB reports power output of 30.1 gigawatt hours per year for this array. Obama lauded the Nellis plant as an example of taxpayer-subsidized energy production. He opposes free market hydrocarbon and nuclear power.

The cost to build the three-reactor Palo Verde nuclear power station was $5.9 billion (1976-1988). It produced 26,782 Gwh of electricity in 2007. Correcting costs by the U.S. consumer price index, Palo Verde cost $4.35 billion per reactor, and Nellis cost $106 million – in 2009 dollars. Therefore, each reactor at Palo Verde cost 41 times as much as the Nellis plant and produces 297 times as much electricity – while occupying less land than the Nellis solar array.

So, the capital cost of electricity from the solar array at Nellis is 7.2 times higher than that of Palo Verde. Over a 30-year period, this is 1.62 cents per kilowatt hour for Palo Verde and 11.7 cents per Kwh for Nellis. Moreover, built with modern designs (the Palo Verde plant is 1970s technology) and fuel reprocessing, the 2009 cost of a Palo Verde equivalent is estimated to be about half that of the original plant. This makes solar power as exemplified at Nellis 15 times more expensive than nuclear power.

Operating and other costs, including nuclear fuel, for the two installations are comparable. Actually, Palo Verde is less expensive here too, since its lifetime before major reconstruction is estimated at 50 years vs. 30 years for Nellis. Also, solar power is intermittent, so – if used in large amounts – solar power requires large additional expenditures on base load power plants and power grid changes.

Based on actual cost of construction – without government interference, the nuclear and hydrocarbon industries using private capital could increase U.S. energy production from 70% of our current requirements to 120% for a cost of between $1 and $2 trillion. Using solar technology this would instead cost $15 to $30 trillion.

The people of the United States have a clear choice – either continue to destroy the capital equivalent of Hoover dam every day, or get rid of the politicians in Washington who have caused and continue to cause this destruction. To force our engineers and industrialists to make useful energy without hydrocarbons and uranium is the modern equivalent of asking ancient Egyptian slaves to make bricks without straw. If we continue to allow this, we will have fewer bricks and inferior bricks – less energy and less prosperity.

© 2009 – Art Robinson – All Rights Reserve

NOW WHAT DO WE DO? By Paul Proctor – America is collapsing not because we have failed to fight our enemies, but because we have forgotten God

NOW WHAT DO WE DO?

By Paul Proctor
October 7, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Many, both here and abroad, are wondering now what will become of America. There’s a lot of intense speculation going on these days as to whether we should expect renewal, revival, revolution or the wrath of God.

People are losing their jobs, their businesses, their homes, their families, their pensions and everything they’ve worked a lifetime for. And because the problem is so profound and systemic, there’s really nothing the public or private sector can do to stop our economy from collapsing around us in spite of all the disinformation and outright propaganda to the contrary being manufactured by the government’s mainstream media machine and all those who have a vested interested in keeping the illusion of prosperity alive.

Even the money we use to buy and sell with – the world’s reserve currency – is an illusion that is quickly losing its appeal in the global marketplace. Americans may soon be the only people on earth that take U.S. dollars for goods and services – but for how long is anyone’s guess.

As I write, the Independent is reporting “the demise of the dollar” – that “Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading.” Japan and Brazil are reportedly following suit. And, there’s no reason to believe it will stop there.

Because the dollar has long been the world’s reserve currency, most of it has been in circulation and in storage overseas. Imagine what will happen to its value when all of that unwanted currency comes back home to America from the countries that no longer want it or need it.

Remember; the more there is of something, the less it’s worth. An item’s rarity and desirability are what determines its value – not the numbers printed on it.


Advertisement

Take a rock from your front yard down to McDonalds and see if they’ll give you a hamburger for it. My guess is, they won’t since the owner of McDonalds can’t buy more hamburger meat and buns from his supplier with rocks that customers offer him over the counter because rocks are not rare and therefore aren’t valuable. A homeless man can fill his pockets with rocks off the street – but they won’t buy him a hamburger no matter how many he gives the guy behind the register or what numbers he scratches on the rocks that he offers. They’re still just rocks.

When Americans wake up and realize that the dollars they have in their wallets and purses and on account at the bank are little more than surplus paper, they’re not going to desire them anymore than China, Russia, France, Japan or Brazil. When this happens, it’s going to be like shopping with rocks.

The day is coming when food is going to become a lot more rare and desirable than green paper with numbers on it. Even though I’ve never tried it myself, I’m quite sure that money is not very tasty, nutritious or sanitary, for that matter, though it could be filling, I suppose, if you ate enough of it. And, if the gas and electric company quit taking dollars, we could always burn them in our furnaces and fireplaces, if we had to, to stay warm in the winter.

As if our declining economy and currency weren’t enough to bear, we Americans are losing our country as well, along with all the rights, freedoms, privileges and responsibilities that came with being a citizen. In fact, it would appear the United States no longer belongs to its citizens. Even the word “citizen” has lost its meaning here. No, our country belongs to men of great wealth, power and privilege who rule from the shadows, recognize no borders and fear little in life but the light of truth.

From the pew to the pulpit – from Main Street to Wall Street and from the voting booth to Capitol Hill – it’s mostly a charade now – driven by “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” (1st John 2:16)

Should we be surprised? After all, this isn’t the Garden of Eden – nor is it the Promised Land. That means we have no eternal guarantee from God that He’ll sustain us as a nation indefinitely though He did give warning long ago about the hell that awaits nations that forget Him. But, as great and powerful as America once was, I have yet to find any mention of it in scripture. That ought to be humbling and a little disquieting for professing Christians here.

You see, empires come and go. History has taught us that their “15 minutes of fame” is a little over two hundred years which means America has statistically run its course.

So, what do we do now?

Do we take up the sword and our own perceived morality to exact vengeance on those we believe are to blame for the fall of our kingdom or do we take up our cross and follow Jesus to His?

This is the controversial question before us.

America is collapsing not because we have failed to fight our enemies, but because we have forgotten God, and in doing so, have made Him our enemy. Sure, we vehemently claim Him as our own but live day to day like He’s not there or doesn’t care what we think or say or do – like America is God’s home and we have some divine right to reside here forever.

But, that home has become a vain, vulgar and violent place under the throne of a righteous and holy God whose kingdom is not of this world. And, foreclosure is coming friends, because we’ve been living large on borrowed money, borrowed blessings and borrowed time.

“…Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” – Matthew 4:17b

Related article:

1. The demise of the dollar

© 2009 Paul Proctor – All Rights Reserved