Diagramming a White America
By john – Posted on 24 January 2010
We can easily extrapolate from EAU’s basic positions and moderate tone what a nation under the authority of a white advocacy government might actually look like. Clearly, ending the integration and destruction of the founding race would have to be a top priority since our declining numbers are now a matter of public record. Following an undetermined period of cultural change implemented by an influential minority of race-conscious advocates; corruption of established law by those whose aims deviate from that law would result in public abhorrence and subsequent degradation to the offender.
Except for the discovery of an imminent threat to our safety as a people, invading a sovereign nation would be a last resort. Foreign wars would be pointless since a white nationalist government’s primary concern would be domestic in nature.
While the pursuit of wealth would be encouraged; those whose actions are to the detriment of everyone else will have to be effectively neutralized by evenhanded law & the proper re- introduction of ethics; an ethics plan based not on class or creed, but instead on moral character and personal achievement.
And finally, the traditional family unit would be the cornerstone upon which all else was derived.
Immigration: Because a white nationalist government supports the self-determination and preservation of all races and peoples, one of the first things the government would do is hermetically seal its borders. Since the preservation of genes and land is undoubtedly a priority, the border between the United States, Mexico and Canada would be fortified with manpower and technology to prevent further incursions. While turning away the oncoming interlopers, inwardly the administration would empty the jails and prisons of non-white criminals, and humanely deport them.
To supplement this action a public campaign would be implemented, encouraging the rest to return to their homelands, to make the necessary improvements they want therein. A WN USA would also make it as uncomfortable as possible in terms of employment and public assistance for them to continue to remain. (Without question however there would be exceptions based on individual merit, not necessarily applied exclusively to Latinos, especially with regard to long established ties and history.)
Nevertheless once all humane removal was accomplished the administration would then endeavor to collect by whatever means necessary– from the government of Mexico and the southern hemisphere — all of the billions of dollars the European American taxpayer lost by subsidizing the public assistance, health care and education during their people’s stay.
Finally, we would negotiate among ourselves a return to pre-1965 immigration laws when nearly all immigration was from Europe.
This is not to say, however, that foreigners would never be allowed to temporarily enter and work in the United States. But –they would only be admitted according to their potential of contributing to the host nation’s general progress. Immigration officials would first guarantee that immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their provisions and for their dependents. Foreigners WILL be barred from the country if their presence upsets the stability of the national demographics, or when they are considered negative to economic or national interests, when they do not act like good citizens in their own country, or when they have broken American laws, and when they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.
In fact a WN USA will have the option of suspending or outright prohibiting the admission of foreigners when it determines it to be in the national interest. Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, will most definitely be imprisoned.
Economy: Since our nation was founded on values coupling personal endeavor with joint co-operation, European Americans have demonstrated over the years that we all are better off when we adhere to fundamental standards of social justice and free enterprise. This is to say the federal government would adhere to the Tenth Amendment as originally intended by allowing each state’s citizens to create and maintain the kind of economy only the best and brightest can create, including international cordial trade policies with all other nations.
The implication of course is those that facilitated NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the Federal Reserve and the IRS would have much to answer for. Consequently those organizations, which do not have our people’s best economic interests at heart, would be gone overnight.
The best tax system to replace the punishing graduated tax code European Americans are now forced to endure through “voluntary compliance” would be the Fair Tax, or something akin to it, ensuring people keep all of what they earn while funding the government on the retail side. “Dog-eat-dog” global economics that has resulted in off shoring, outsourcing, the destruction of unions, and the gutting of the US economy would be outlawed. Incentives such as tax breaks for corporations to participate would be generous.
A WN USA would therefore promote economic nationalism, which places the economy at the service of the nation; believing that the welfare of our people should supplant all other things, including the capacity of multinational corporations to abuse or disregard our people for uninhibited profit margins. Again as far as international trade is concerned, the United States would trade freely with anyone who wishes to do business, provided it doesn’t minimize or harm our own manufacturing base.
Environment: Corporate interests more often than not damage the natural environment. This egregious practice would come to an immediate halt and remain stringently enforced. An over-reliance on foreign oil, which has harmed our foreign policy, would be replaced with environmentally “friendly” drilling and the exploration of our own oil, natural gas and the appropriation of technology that further minimizes the byproducts of using coal. A WN USA would work to emulate France, which has more nuclear reactors than any other nation on earth, building as many of its own safe and reliable nuclear reactors as possible to power the economy; thus keeping the charge of use affordable.
A white nationalist government would do what was possible to stabilize man’s relationship with the natural world. For example, mass public relations programs encouraging more telecommuting to keep as many vehicles as possible off the roads; the development of better mass transit by the private sector, the healthy utilization of unused (reclaimed) “brown fields” such as for orchards and root crops; allowing people to plant and raise what they wished to not only feed their families but financially support themselves and their local economies.
Heavier penalties than we see today would be imposed upon those whose careless ambivalence about the natural environment has claimed untold injury to the land, air and water; though regulations would be simplified so anyone would understand them. Likewise, a white nationalist government, which values the diversity of all races, would consequently lobby strenuously for the ethical treatment of domestic and wild animals; the preservation of scarce and vulnerable species, and the conservation of their diversity.
Freedom: Having examined the greatest successes of European peoples; we believe that our greatest growth and achievements (Greece, Rome and the U.S. up until the 1930’s) have always been under Republican rather than Socialist forms of government. So instead of turning to dictatorship, a white nationalist government turns to Thomas Jefferson. In essence, Jefferson conceived of a purely European-derived nation in which individuals (bound to the community’s wellbeing through morality) had wide latitude of action; while government could not be misused to benefit some people at the expense of others because its sphere of action was limited. (Obviously, the vision of Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Jay was perverted; almost from the very start, by a radical known as Alexander Hamilton.)
Furthermore, like any government structure, Republics must have limitations of scale, and may only achieve their desired outcomes with a majority European population as it was intended.
Clearly, some fine-tuning of this concept is required to make it workable. That fine-tuning in the ongoing work of the European New Right will be critically considered. However an American white nationalist political philosophy lies in a perfection of the U.S. Constitution which facilitates the defense and improvement of our folk. Additionally an honest re-assessment of the original Bill of Rights would include a zealous public undertaking at all stages of education and public discourse.
A white nationalist government would in essence be religion neutral and people would be free to worship, or not worship, as they wished.
In addition, traditional, hard-won freedoms—especially freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms – would be relentlessly protected. No citizen would fear an incursion on his home by agents of the state, or threatened with loss of livelihood, for simply questioning a government policy.
The vast spying capabilities of a white nationalist government would not undermine the people’s peace of mind, but would only be utilized after the most scrutinizing investigation.
Political correctness on college campuses would be a thing of the past, a relic of dark days, through a renewed effort of inculcating in our young people the learning of real history in an inspiring truthful context.
Moreover, a white nationalist government would call for a return to the vision of its European Founding Fathers who valued the rights of our people to dissent and subsist according to their natural inclinations.
Race: Thomas Jefferson warned us that, while the African slaves would have to be freed, that once emancipation had occurred they would need their own country separate from ours if we expected to be equally free. “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72
Because of the so-called “civil rights” movement an ever increasing number of white Americans are beginning to see that it was only they who were supposed to give up any sense of racial solidarity. However, a white nationalist government would support self-determination for all races and peoples domestically and around the world. It would also allow European Americans to decide where they wish to live and enforce a right to decide how they will live, provided their choice does not cause an undue financial or social burden on the rest.
Nevertheless, perceiving that a wholly white America is not realistic for the foreseeable future, in certain regions a domestic geographic separation would be necessary for the preservation of all unique cultures and ethnicities; allowing the natural proclivities of every race to live among their own kind provided these regions were beneficial to the European American nation as a whole.
While some will be repulsed at such a proposal, consider that over the past forty years, our current form of government and dozens of private organizations have tried to put things right in a variety of ways — generous scholarship programs, head start, affirmative action, early intervention and the investment of untold trillions of dollars. Yet, after all of this effort, the living conditions of the average black child are actually worse than they were 40 years ago.
Back in 1960, one-fifth of black children were born out of wedlock; whereas today, it is more than half. There can be no more telling example of a policy that not merely fails to achieve its stated objectives, but makes matters materially worse, and at a terrible cost in terms of human misery. Which is to say living under an ostentatiously apartheid system that regarded them as less-than-human, where blacks had their own schools, their own colleges, their own churches, their own social structures and so forth – blacks had stronger marriages, lower crime and in many cases higher academic achievement than they do today.
African-Americans didn’t somehow become less intelligent today than they were 80 years ago and IQ scores are not the explanation. European-Americans didn’t somehow become more “racist” than we were 80 years ago — if anything, they have become less “racist.” The major negative change that occurred to blacks was integrating them into white culture under the faulty auspices of ‘democracy.’
Therefore, the quest for the concept of racial equality is by default a search for the lowest common denominator as demonstrated today. When European Americans’ perceptions are hindered by alien or caustic influences, especially from a media whose sole aim is to promote shallowness, political correctness and consumption, (a media that would be wholly reigned in without compunction under a white nationalist government), the pursuit of equality is, in reality, the destruction of quality.
A white nationalist government’s primary concern then would be what most benefits European Americans as a people, again with the preservation of genes and land undoubtedly being in everyone’s best interest. By acknowledging true diversity, which can only be preserved by way of segregation, all residents will be able to celebrate not only their own improvement but their rising numbers, intra-personal group influence, and undreamed of possibilities for the future.
War: Rather than sending off our best and brightest to fight and die for nationally unfavorable corporate commercial and government entities, a white nationalist America would above all else seek peaceful co-existence with other nations, so long as they did not threaten the organic destiny of our people.
Conclusion: Our people’s enemies
Far and wide the Marxist elite continue to educate our children that to defend our genetic and historical legacy is the very depiction of evil; while assisting in the long term goals of non-white segments of society and the world at large is righteous and good. The end result will be not only the measured genocide of European derived people but the genocide of all races through war, miscegenation and loss of identity. A white nationalist government flatly rejects these outcomes.
Therefore if current political and social trends persist it will become unavoidable, and therefore necessary to conclude that what European Americans’ enemies refer to as a “haters” and “bigots” is going to be needed to prevent this kind of upheaval and loss, even potential violence European America’s enemies themselves have candidly promoted for decades.
NOTE CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF “WHITE” AND “WHITE NATIONALIST”
A White person is a human being of solely native European ancestry; or a human being who, if they have non-European antecedents, is nonetheless of a physical and genetic makeup that is within the range typical of people of solely European ancestry; or, the child of two Whites.A White Nationalist is a White person who is, by their actions and their voluntary public declaration, politically committed to the welfare of Whites, and to their continuing survival as a distinct and reproductively isolated group of human beings.
Diversity Causes Social Withdrawal
By john – Posted on 16 January 2010
Thomas Jefferson warned us that, while the African slaves would need to be freed, that once emancipation had occurred they would need their own country separate from ours if we expected to be equally free.
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72
Likewise, John Jay understood that homogeneity rather than diversity was both a blessing and a prerequisite for social cohesion:
“I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.” — John Jay, Federalist #2
More than 200 years later, along comes Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and notes: “Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can make a difference.”(1)
Naturally, being a liberal Harvard Professor and because these facts contradict both the Professor’s preconceived notions and the conclusions that diversity advocates demand, Putnam delayed publishing these findings until he could invent some way to positive spin on them, stating that releasing the facts without a positive spin would be “irresponsible.”(2)
His positive spin, based strictly on invalid apples to oranges comparisons, is that diversity is good in the long run. He bases this conclusion, naturally, on historical immigration of people who were of slightly different ethnicities, but of the same anthropological race. He has absolutely NO positive data to indicate that multiracial diversity carries ANY long term benefits.
So skip the spin and concentrate on the facts. Diversity doesn’t build community, it destroys it. It makes people feel isolated and to withdraw from community life in every way that matters. Thus diverse communities are WEAK communities.
Of course, we didn’t have to tune in to Professor Putnam to know this — the evidence is clear every day to anyone who has eyes.
(1) Putnam, Robert (2007) Quoted by Philip Johnston 6/19/2007 in the Telegraph U.K.
(2) Lloyd, John, Financial Times, October 8, 2006
The EAU View of Race
By john – Posted on 16 January 2010
The subject of race, at its most basic level, shouldn’t even be controversial, because it is a simple fact of reality. Race exists, and is far more than a social construct, and it furthermore goes far deeper than superficial differences in skin color. In fact, skin color is the least (and among the least important differences) between races.
The reality of race is attested to at the most basic levels by forensic anthropology. Dr. George Gill is Professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado, and an expert in forensic anthropology. That is, he is able to distinguish the race of an individual by looking at that person’s bones alone. Dr. Gill states the matter plainly:
“The “reality of race” therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether “real” or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is “only skin deep” is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.”(1)
The professor goes on to note:
“For the time being at least, the people in “race denial” are in “reality denial” as well. … Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence. Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship.”(1)
It just so happens that there are a huge number of credible sources that I could cite on this topic that demonstrate the reality of race and racial differences beyond any reasonable doubt. There are unfortunately people who, for reasons of philosophy, religion or politics, have a vested interest in deluding themselves into believing that race isn’t real. And I’ll never convince such folks anyway. But for those of you listening who have an open mind, and I suspect that is most of you, listen on!
The fact that a large number of traits are different between the various races is clearly demonstrated by the Ancestry By DNA test available from DNA Print Genomics. This test will tell you, plus or minus three percent by analyzing just 175 genetic markers, the percentage of your ancestry that is Caucasian, African, Asian or Native American – the classic races of physical anthropology.(2)
A little bit of logic will tell you that if racial admixtures as small as 3% are genetically detectable, and that if a forensic anthropologist can determine your race just by looking at your bones, race is an absolute, scientifically provable, physical reality. Way too many people base their interpretations of reality on their political or religious inclinations. In other words, they selectively ignore facts when doing so is convenient. By doing this, they end up making decisions on the basis of LIES – and thus the results of their decisions either accomplish great evil, or blow up in their faces. Such examples would include burning witches at the stake all across Europe, forcing Galileo to recant his heliocentric solar system model to avoid death, and the ridiculous notions of race being a mere “social construct” that get shoved down our collective throats in the modern era.
European Americans United isn’t like all of the politically-oriented groups of which you are aware. Rather than starting out with a political system as a preconceived notion and seeking to justify it by selectively reporting only the information that supports our views and suppressing or distorting the rest; we instead start at the level of provable factual reality and derive our political views from that.
This stands in stark contrast to far too many ethnic interest groups that celebrate their own unique identity, while conspiring with fellow-travelers in government, media and academia to deny European-Americans that very same expression.
So the first big idea you need to take away from this is that race exists, and it exists as non-superficial differences between major human populations at a genetic and inheritable level.
The acknowledgment of the factual reality of race and thus the existence of racial differences is a major step forward in understanding, and can serve as a springboard to the development more successful social policies that actually achieve their stated purpose.
Likewise, the denial of the reality of race and racial differences can be fatal. Dr. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist, made note of a number of racial differences in diseases, response to treatment, and reaction to medication in a 2002 article in the New York Times. She stated quite plainly:
“In practicing medicine, I am not colorblind. I always take note of my patient’s race. So do many of my colleagues. We do it because certain diseases and treatment responses cluster by ethnicity. Recognizing these patterns can help us diagnose disease more efficiently and prescribe medications more effectively.”(3)
Dr. Satel goes on to describe numerous racially-based differences in medication response including heart failure drugs like enalapril that work better for whites than for blacks, the lower doses of anti-depressants required for blacks as compared to whites and Asians, and the fact that Asians are more prone to narcotic-induced apnea and so require lower doses during surgery than whites or blacks. In fact, there is now a new drug on the market called BiDil for controlling high blood pressure in blacks specifically. It works well for blacks, but does nothing for whites at all.
Some extremely unenlightened individuals who have their heads in the sand regarding race may be shocked to learn that doctors routinely evaluate the race of a patient as an important factor in diagnosing and treating disease. But taking this important fact of reality into account can save a life.
Given this situation, the recent maltreatment of Nobel laureate Dr. James Watson is sickening. Dr. Watson, who won the Nobel prize for the discovery of DNA, and to whom all of mankind owes an incalculable debt of gratitude, was relieved of his duties – suspended from his job last week – for nothing more than acknowledging the factual reality of racial differences. But understanding those realities is essential for making realistic plans whose outcomes will be predictable.
So a corollary to my first point is that recognition of the factual reality of race is not automatically bad or evil in any way, and can, in practice, do a lot of good.
This brings me to another important point. Facts are simply that: facts. In and of itself a fact has no moral content or implications. The combination glycerin and nitric acid under certain conditions makes nitroglycerin. That’s a fact of reality. Nitroglycerin can be used to build highways over and through mountains, as a vasodilator to treat angina, or as the basis of a bomb that kills innocent children. The fact of nitroglycerin itself has no moral content. It is the way that fact is USED that provides the moral content.
So, as people with a sound ethical system, EAU members are constrained both to recognize the facts of reality without equivocation but also to use that factual reality in a fashion that upholds our highest ideals.
Unfortunately, the reality of racial differences can also lead some people to form comparisons in which some races are deemed to be “superior” or “inferior” to others, thus leading to subjugation and even the denial of the basic humanity of other races. This is unfortunate, because as Dr. J. Philippe Rushton (a staunch supporter of the reality of racial differences) has stated:
“The full range of behaviors, good and bad, is found in every group. No group has a monopoly on virtue or vice, wisdom or folly, capacity or incapacity.”(4)
Professor Rushton is merely pointing out something that most of us who are widely experienced in the world know from first-hand experience: white folks hold no monopoly on virtue, and there are many wonderful and decent non-white people on this earth. That’s a simple fact of reality as well, and it needs to be held, understood and acknowledged. Remember: social and political ideas that are based upon lies will ultimately fail.
Pay attention to this, because it is important. Attempts to serve the best interests of our People will not attract conscientious members of our Folk in sufficient numbers by vilifying other groups, denying their basic humanity or other such tactics. Our People are both fair-minded and intelligent. They have served in the Army with honorable black men. They have learned martial arts from exemplary Asians. They have put their lives in the hands of Jewish doctors and walked away whole. The evidence of their own eyes tells them that attempts to blanket-vilify an entire race or group of people are dishonest.
So the second big idea you need to take away from this … is that acknowledgment of the reality of race and racial differences does not, and ought not, ipso facto lead to ideas of racial supremacism and the evils attendant thereunto. The success of our endeavor to preserve and uplift our own People is predicated upon our faithful adherence to reality; not just the reality of race and racial differences, but the reality of common humanity.
Speaking of racial differences, it is important to understand the big picture of why it is imperative that these differences be preserved.
EAU is not a theological organization, and we take no position on religious matters except insofar as they may bear upon the achievement of our stated objectives. So when I speak of Nature with a capital “N” I am speaking of a Life force within the universe that runs counter to the force of entropy. If you are religious, you might equate this force with a deity; and if you did so you’d lose nothing in translation. I simply use the terms Nature and Life Force as a way of expressing the idea in a way that is universally applicable and won’t divide our Folk along religious lines.
Entropy, to refresh your memory, is a thermodynamic cosmological term describing the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. This is also known as heat death. We’ll come back to the concept of uniformity as it relates to entropy later. The point is that the natural tendency of all matter in the universe is to ultimately assume a simple, non-complex state with an energy of near-zero.
Life, and the evolution of life as we know it, has constantly increased in complexity. This force of life runs contrary to entropy; and it is for this reason that so many people see it as miraculous. Nature doesn’t put all of its eggs in one basket. Rather, it ceaselessly diversifies its portfolio of organisms from the simplest prions and viruses to trees and human beings. All of these organisms work together in a complex and inter-related symbiotic synergy.
The diversity of life is important. That is why you will find at least six genetically distinct variations of squirrels in North America alone. These variations are all capable of interbreeding, but even in cases where their territories overlap, they won’t freely choose to do so unless forced in some way. Obviously, these different sorts of squirrels have different physical characteristics, but they also have different behavioral tendencies. Some are diurnal, while others are nocturnal. Most are omnivores, but some are actually predators that eat other small vertebrates. Even with squirrels, race is more than skin deep.
Why does Nature diversify its portfolio? It’s hard to say without positing some sort of intelligent design. But what we can definitely say is that this diversity is responsible for the survival of life on earth, so it is incredibly fortuitous. At many times since the development of life, our planet has experienced major catastrophes that nearly destroyed the more complex life forms inhabiting our biosphere. As Philippe Claeys has described: ” … the solar system is a violent environment and … collisions taking place in the asteroid belt can have major repercussions for the evolution of life on Earth.”(5)
The dinosaurs existed from 230 million years ago to around 65 million years ago. Then, an extinction event occurred. The nature of this event is debated, and may have actually been a number of near simultaneous events that included massive volcanic eruptions that poisoned the atmosphere, the blast from a large meteor striking the Yucatan peninsula, and comet showers. The point, though is that Nature saw fit to diversify, and because of that certain dinosaurs survived to become the birds that exist today; and certain small mammals survived to become today’s humans.
Such massive extinction events occur fairly regularly. It is widely believed that sometime between 60,000 and 100,000 years ago, a catastrophic event wiped out most human populations, leaving us only 15,000 breeding pairs.(6)
Now let’s detail some very interesting differences between the races. Africans are 55% more vulnerable to lung cancer than Caucasians; and Caucasians are twice as vulnerable to lung cancer as Asians.(7) If the planet experiences massive volcanic activity with accompanying air pollution, which it certainly could at any time, it would probably be wise to have some Asians around.
Certain populations, predominantly though not exclusively people of African ancestry, are prone to a metabolic disorder known as favism. Favism manifests mainly in males because it is conveyed by an X-linked gene. It causes a form of anemia when fava beans are eaten, and during other sorts of oxidative stress. But this particular disorder also conveys protection against the most deadly form of malaria. If global warming expands the range of malaria-carrying mosquitoes, it will be good to have some Africans around.
The potential threat posed by emerging viruses has been well-publicized; and there are currently as many as 47 million people infected with the deadly and incurable Human Immunodeficiency Virus worldwide. More than 25 million people have died from AIDS since 1981. Dr. Robin Kimmell has something to say about this that you may find very interesting:
“Many people who are resistant to HIV have a mutation in the CCR5 gene called CCR5-delta32. The CCR5-delta32 mutation results in a smaller protein that isn’t on the outside of the cell anymore. Most forms of HIV cannot infect cells if there is no CCR5 on the surface. People with two copies of the CCR5 delta32 gene (inherited from both parents) are virtually immune to HIV infection. This occurs in about 1% of Caucasian people. One copy of CCR5-delta32 seems to give some protection against infection, and makes the disease less severe if infection occurs. This is more common, it is found in up to 20% of Caucasians.”(8)
Dr. Kimmell goes on to describe the probable origin of this very useful gene:
“Why is the CCR5-delta32 mutation so frequent in Northern Europe? It is possible that this gene provided resistance to previous epidemics. If true, people with CCR5-delta32 mutation would have been more likely to survive and pass it down to their offspring. At the same time, there is a relative decreased survival of people with normal CCR5. Two different deadly diseases were widespread in Europe when this mutation is believed to have arisen. Resistance to bubonic plague (also called the Black Death) might have influenced CCR5-delta32 distribution. Recent findings name smallpox immunity as another strong possibility. Smallpox affects younger people than bubonic plague, which has a more potent effect on which genes get passed down to offspring. Also, the type of virus that causes smallpox uses receptors such as CCR5 and CXCR4 to enter cells. As you can see, the genes of both people and the bugs that infect us change through evolution, though at very different rates.”(9)
Are you starting to see a pattern here? I certainly hope so. As the result of tens of thousands of years of differentiated evolution, Nature has bequeathed beautiful, unique and important gifts, different gifts, to every race and variety of human being. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of these marvelous wonders, any one of which could make the difference in mankind’s survival in the future.
But not only that, the unique genetics of Europeans could help us discover treatments for HIV that will save the lives of Africans dying from AIDS. The unique genetics of Africans could help us discover treatments for malaria that could save the lives of Europeans in the future. The possibilities are endless.
Yes, the possibilities are endless; but those possibilities can only exist so long as the forces of Dissolution and Chaos do not succeed in their evil and genocidal plan to amalgamate the wonderful diversity of humanity into a medium-tan “United Nations Man” in their rapacious lust for power and all-consuming greed to unjustly expropriate the labor of others. They want an alienated unit of production and consumption with no history, no culture, and no future beyond created consumerist desires. A creature with no ancestry that can serve as a source of pride or a well of patriotism that could lead him to stand against his evil overlords. The medium-tan United Nations Man is NOT forward progress in the evolution of Life, but rather the surrender to entropy in the devolution to inert and homogenized matter. It is the opposite of life: it is DEATH.
Genocide is evil — uniquely evil — because of all the crimes that can possibly be committed, it is the ONLY crime that carries with it the very real potential of ending ALL human life. Genocide can take place through direct killing, to be sure, but can also take place through intermarriage. The disappearance of an entire race of humanity, whether a little at a time or all at once, is still the same thing. And the extinction of even ONE race of humanity could very likely mean the ultimate extinction of ALL of humanity. Chew on that for a minute.
So the third big idea I want you to understand is that the preservation of human biodiversity is incredibly important; and that genocide — whether through killing, loss of living space, disincentives for having children or intermarriage — is a unique evil that cannot be permitted against ANY human population. Even our own.
Now, I would like to speak about culture, and by extension, the bane of so-called “multiculturalism.”
Every unique human population on earth has developed its own culture. A culture can be defined as a set of rules for behavior; but also encompasses a world-view in the form of art, religious development, social interactions and so forth. Some cultures value learning, while others value strength. Some cultures value conformity, while others value individualism. Some cultures value ethnocentrism, while others value universalism. The list of differences goes on and on. The point is that the rules of a culture reward certain behaviors with increased reproductive opportunities while penalizing other behaviors with a corresponding decrease of opportunity. As a result, over time, a given People will work symbiotically with its culture to emphasize and enhance its strengths while minimizing its weaknesses. Therefore, by definition, a culture will be most friendly and most accessible to the descendants of the founders of that culture.
An important thing to understand, therefore, is that the culture that was developed by a People nurtures that People. As a result, disrupting or replacing that culture can have the unintended (or intended) result of genocide. It can also have the result of turning non-native Peoples who attempt to assimilate into a culture into a permanent underclass.
Let me give you an example that will appear rather controversial at first blush, but will make perfect sense once you’ve thought about it a little.
African-Americans have, unfortunately, constituted a permanent underclass in this country for hundreds of years. Certainly, they were brought here in bondage and held in involuntary servitude for hundreds of years as well. After that servitude was ended, they were still subjected to apartheid and were not accorded full status as citizens until forty years ago. Over the past forty years, our government and dozens of private organizations have tried to put things right in a variety of ways — generous scholarship programs, head start, affirmative action, early intervention and the investment of untold trillions of dollars. Yet, after all of this effort, the living conditions of the average black child are actually worse than they were 40 years ago. Back in 1960, one-fifth of black children were born out of wedlock; whereas today, it is more than half. There can be no more telling example of a policy that not merely fails to achieve its stated objectives, but makes matters materially worse, and at a terrible cost in terms of human misery.
There are huge achievement gaps between African-Americans and European-Americans in every measurable respect: incarceration rates, standardized testing, children without fathers and everything else. Many well-intended people attempt to explain these gaps; yet they all fall short. Some experts, in cases where no racism can be found, blame the achievement gap on something called “systemic racism,” which is just a catch-all category for things they can’t explain while maintaining their delusions about race. Other experts, like J. Philippe Rushton, explain that racial differences in IQ are at fault. While that may well be a contributing factor, the simple fact is that (according to Professor Rushton), half of all American blacks have IQs over 85, and half of all whites have IQs under 100; so there is enough of an overlap between the two groups in this arena that IQ simply doesn’t explain the phenomenon, particularly in the area of incarceration and crime rates.
Let ME explain the gap. Let’s go back to what culture does: it holds and nurtures the people who developed it, emphasizing their strengths and compensating for their weaknesses. When the Africans were brought to this continent in chains, they were not only stripped of their human dignity, but their culture. Stripped of their culture, even after being freed of their shackles, they are still immersed in a culture that co-evolved with Europeans rather than Africans; and as a result the culture is not merely unsuitable for most people of African ancestry, but downright poisonous.
And THAT is why African-Americans are doing worse in practically every category AFTER the races were integrated than they were before. Think about that a second. Living under an ostentatiously apartheid system that regarded them as less-than-human, where blacks had their own schools, their own colleges, their own churches, their own social structures and so forth – blacks had stronger marriages, lower crime and in many cases higher academic achievement than they do today. African-Americans didn’t somehow become less intelligent today than they were 80 years ago. IQ scores are not the explanation. European-Americans didn’t somehow become more “racist” than we were 80 years ago — if anything, we have become way less racist. The major change that occurred was INTEGRATING blacks into white culture. It was just like handing Superman a rod of kryptonite.
By all means, a certain percentage of black folks are able to thrive in a white culture; just as a certain percentage of white folks are able to thrive in a black culture. But these folks are the exceptions rather than the rule. As a rule, integrating the two races has ultimately harmed generations of innocent children who were the victims of a social experiment based upon the flawed Marxist premise of human identicalness.
So the fourth idea I want you to see, is that culture is extremely important. The cultures of various Peoples must be preserved and allowed to develop and evolve naturally; and it is wrong to attempt to integrate alien races into a culture. No matter how decent and honorable your intentions in doing so, you will almost always end up doing more harm than good either to the new People you are attempting to integrate, or to the original People of that culture.
There is a certain trait in Europeans that has historically caused us to believe in the superiority and desirability of our own cultures, inventions and ideas. By all means, like all Peoples, we should have a certain pride in our achievements. But what we have lacked historically is the objectivity to understand that while our cultures and cultural artifacts may be perfectly suitable for ourselves, they may not be equally beneficial for other Peoples; any more than the cultures of alien races would be beneficial to us. As a result, we have spread our cultures and artifacts worldwide, and seldom to the benefit of the autochthonous people we encountered.
So, from this springboard, let’s put the premises of multiculturalism under our microscope.
As we have already discussed, the various human races have different, unique, and valuable traits that merit preservation. While they are all equally human and thus entitled to equal respect and even equal treatment under law, it is important to distinguish between the concept of legal or political equality and identicalness.
Legal and political equality stem from the idea that all people should be accorded the same rights under our Constitution, and should receive equal punishments when convicted of the same crimes. For European-Americans, who have a very universalist mindset that balks at injustice, this is a no-brainer and, in fact, the only situation tolerable to most of our Folk. Nevertheless, various intellectual movements that did NOT have the best interests of our people at heart sought to exploit the love that our Folk has of fairness and justice in order to confound the idea of equality with that of identicalness.(10)
As we have previously discussed, the races of man are far from identical, and furthermore ought not be integrated into the same culture, or exist under the same government. Thomas Jefferson, who abhorred the institution of slavery, saw things much the same way. He wrote of Africans thusly:
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”(11)
But there is more than that. A multiracial environment, in and of itself, destroys the natural cohesion, trust and civic duty felt by members of the community. As Jonathan Tilove reported in July: “New studies confirm earlier evidence that, at least in the short- to mid-term, diversity weakens civic ties, fostering mutual mistrust and detachment.”(12) The reporter goes on to describe the Mosaic study and a new study by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam:
“The Mosaic work is complemented by a massive national study by Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam, who reports that in the face of large-scale immigration, many Americans are overwhelmed by diversity. Putnam calls it “socio-psychological system overload.” With stunning regularity, he found Americans in more diverse locales tending to “hunker down and pull in like a turtle,” suspicious not just of the new or different, but of everybody. “They don’t trust their neighbors or shop clerks, they are not as involved in the community,” Putnam said. “The only two things that go up as diversity rises are protest marches and TV watching.”(13)
Certainly, I shouldn’t have to tell you that this sort of situation is not a recipe for a strong society. It demonstrates clear social harm to people of ALL races. Professor J. Philippe Rushton verifies this same phenomenon from a different angle when he states:
“Charitable donations are typically made in greater quantities within ethnic groups than between them and social psychological studies have documented that people are more likely to help members of their own race or country than members of other races or foreigners. The reason people give preferential treatment to genetically similar others is both simple and profound: they thereby replicate their genes more effectively.”(14)
Stop and think about this for a moment, and especially consider the implications of racial diversity, versus racial homogeneity, and the need for the massive welfare state that is sucking us so dry we can hardly afford to have children. MAYBE some members of SOME races benefit economically from multi-racialism on a short-term basis. But in the long run, the glue of social cohesion is destroyed, and that doesn’t help anyone of any race. The life of a People cannot simply be measured by the economic benefits that accrue to its members. Rather, it must be also seen within vibrant and mutually beneficial social interactions where people take an active role in their culture. Multiculturalism puts an end to this by isolating people from each other – even people of the same group — and replacing REAL culture with the artificial culture of television and the opiates of consumerism and workaholism. Clearly, as a whole, multiculturalism is bad for everyone of every race.
But there are other benefits to the racial homogeneity intended by the founding fathers. For example, racial homogeneity promotes smoother cooperation, as Professor Kevin MacDonald writes:
“Genetic similarity theory extends beyond kin recognition by proposing mechanisms that assess phenotypic similarity as a marker for genetic similarity. These proposed mechanisms would then promote positive attitudes, greater cooperation, and a lower threshold for altruism for similar others. There is indeed considerable evidence, summarized in Rushton (1989) and Segal (1999), that phenotypic and genetic similarity are important factors in human assortment, helping behavior, and liking others.” (15)
Patriotism also benefits from racial homogeneity. As Robert Nisbet noted, patriotism “… is quite evidently strongest where a political nation is overwhelmingly composed of citizens who can be thought to be of common ethnic descent.”(16)
Understanding this, and looking at the multicultural morass in which we are mired, is it any wonder that our Defense Department has been forced to deploy troops for longer than wisdom would dictate? Likewise, they keep lowering their recruiting goals.
Of course, a casual examination of the number of local, State and Federal agencies dedicated to smoothing out the wrinkles between races, along with the huge number of private companies with staff dedicated to interracial issues should be enough to point out that racial diversity is actually an impediment to cooperation, rather than a lubricant. For an illuminating view of this fact, just type the words “race,” “discrimination,” and “workplace” into Google. You will find lawyers trolling for cases, corporations who are being sued for millions of dollars, so-called “diversity consultants,” and an endless list of government agencies. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that multi-racial societies don’t run very smoothly.
One reason for this is the well-documented existence of ethnic nepotism. Professor Tatu Vanhanen states:
“Our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the struggle for existence because it was rational and useful. It is reasonable to assume that ethnic nepotism is equally shared by all human populations. Consequently all human populations and ethnic groups have an approximately equal tendency to resort to ethnic nepotism in interest conflicts. It explains the otherwise strange fact that ethnic interest conflicts appear in so many countries where people belong to clearly different ethnic groups, and that ethnic interest conflicts have emerged within all cultural regions and at all levels of socioeconomic development.” (17)
You can see this in the recent riots staged throughout central Europe by non-Europeans. These riots, and their scope, reached much further than France and turned entire cities into “no-go” zones where a native European caught after dark was in grave danger.
Dr. Tomislav Sunic adds to Dr. Vanhanen’s thoughts when he brings the following fact to our attention: “There is not a single case of a multiracial egalitarian society in recent history that has survived over an extended period of time. Sooner or later, it breaks up violently.” (18)
So, in essence, this is a biological characteristic of ALL humans of ALL races, and so the racial problems that all of the alphabet soup government agencies are trying to address cannot be solved in that fashion. The best solution to the problems of ethnic conflict is racial separation. Professor Vanhanen continues:
“Because every ethnic group wants to survive and at least manage its own affairs, if it is not capable of subjugating other groups, it would be advisable to give them sufficient autonomy, and leave them room to pursue their interests in national politics on the basis of equality. If ethnic groups occupy separate territories, it might be useful to establish federal structure even in relatively small countries.” (19)
So the fifth idea I want you to take away with you today is that multiculturalism is a recipe for disaster. Far from being a strength, it weakens all groups who partake while leading to unnecessary conflict. Racial separation in a state of equality and mutual respect is the most humanitarian solution for the ultimate betterment of ALL people.
This leads us right back where we ended with the last Western Voices broadcast: looking right into the tunnel of resource scarcity and we can see the headlights of the oncoming train of interethnic violence running toward us. We don’t have to like it. We don’t have to appreciate it. But what we MUST do is put on our big-boy pants and DEAL with it, ideally through the proverbial “ounce of prevention.”
Finally, I would like to talk to you a bit about the psychology of persons of European ancestry. It is impossible to completely stereotype such a large population; but in general it can be stated that we are forward thinking, fair-minded, universalist, conscientious and not particularly ethnically conscious.
This latter fact is the most dangerous matter, because it leaves us extremely vulnerable to genocide through assimilation. Religious leaders, television studios and public school administrators all push inter-racial mating as the ultimate Good. Maybe they see this is a solution to ethnic violence. If they do, they are wrong since even countries like Brazil have ethnic violence. We need to get the word out to our people, and to do that we need YOU.
At the same time, a philosophical framework of racial awareness that concentrates on a victim-mentality, vilification of other groups, or denying to other groups the very things we claim for ourselves will be rejected by the overwhelming majority of our Folk because it will contradict their fundamental sense of fairness. Philosophies that are racially aware but do NOT heed this admonition will find themselves disproportionately attracting members who are less conscientious than the rest of the population. As a consequence, such philosophies ultimately do more harm than good for our Folk.
EAU’s philosophy on race is a philosophy of love for our own Folk to be sure, but also for the earth and all of its diverse creatures, including other races. We are far-sighted enough to see the inter-related nature of all of Creation, and realize that the long-term survival of our own Folk may well depend on the survival of other races. Unfortunately, the globalist elites will stop nothing in their quest for profits, and think nothing of the destruction of human biodiversity that can never be replaced and could ultimately result in their own descendants dying.
(1) Gill, George, Does Race Exist? A Proponents Perspective, Nova Online http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
(2) Please see the products available at http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/productsandservices/anestrybydna/
(3) Satel, Sally (2002), I am a Racially Profiling Doctor, New York Times, May 5, 2002
(4) Rushton, J. Philippe (2007), Indians Aren’t That Intelligent (On Average) http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
(5) Dunham, Will (2007), Distant Space Collision Meant Doom for Dinosaurs, Reuters, Sep 5, 2007
(6) Dawkins, Richard (2004). “The Grasshopper’s Tale”, The Ancestor’s Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 416. ISBN 0-618-00583-8.
(7) Stein, Rob (2006), Race May Be Factor In Lung Cancer, Washington Post January 26, 2006; Page A12
(8) Kimmell, Robin ( ), The Evolving Genetics of HIV – Can genes stop HIV?
10) MacDonald, Kevin, (2002) What Makes Western Culture Unique?
(11) Jefferson, Thomas (1821), Autobiography
(12) Tilove, Jonathan (2007) Beneath surface, Americans ambivalent about diversity, Newhouse News Service, July 08, 2007
(14) Rushton, Phillippe J., Evolution, Altruism and Genetic Similarity Theory. See also Rushton’s “Race, Evolution and Behavior”, Chapter 4
(15) Macdonald, Kevin “The Numbers Game: Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World”
(16) Nisbet, Robert “Twilight of Authority”, 1975 p65
(17)Vanhanen, Tatu “Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism”, 1999
(18)Sunic, Tomislav (2007) Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age
(19) Vanhanen, Tatu “Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism”, 1999
Economics, Ideology, Freedom and Illusion
By john – Posted on 16 January 2010
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites,—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
— Edmund Burke
It is at times like this that I realize how tenaciously a world of illusion clings to many of our people. The overwhelming majority of any group of people, at any given time, operates under a mixed set of beliefs, some of which can be objectively validated in a scientific sense, and some of which cannot. As far as I can tell, that’s the way it has been throughout recorded history — and that’s the way it will be for the foreseeable future. In many cases, the aspects of a belief system that cannot be seen under a microscope are worthwhile in that they constitute important cultural memes that shouldn’t be trifled with lightly. But in too many cases, belief systems include fictions that serve to the detriment of our people.
Because we, the members of European Americans United, aspire to lead our people to greater happiness, meaning and prosperity; we can’t afford to allow ourselves to be mired in the world of illusion that encompasses most of our people. So, today, I’m going to dispel just a part of that.
Human beings are unlike any other creature in that they are able to deliberately delude themselves into believing ideas that aren’t true. Sometimes this is relatively harmless, such as the suspension of disbelief required to read a novel. But other times it has resulted in travesties on a truly epic scale.
Ideas are, first and foremost, tools that we human beings use to make sense of the world around us and interact with our environment. A tool, in and of itself, has no intrinsic moral content. It is the way that the tool is used that provides the moral content. So an idea or belief can be used beneficially or it can be used detrimentally. An excellent example is the idea of fairness. Used beneficially, it gives people a shot at success without regard to any pre-existing notions. Used detrimentally, it beats down the best and brightest and is used to justify theft and redistribution on a grand scale. It isn’t the idea itself that is bad. After all, the idea is just a tool. It is the character, goals and loyalties of the person using it that determines the outcome.
In every era there are sets of ideas that are fostered, promulgated and supported by the group of people who sit at the highest levels of a society. These ideas can be fostered for any number of reasons, some of which are benign, and others of which are self-serving. Sometimes an idea that is self-serving can still be beneficial overall, representing a sort of win-win for everyone.
In Europe, for centuries, the belief in “the divine right of kings” was prevalent. It was supported, of course, by kings who had been so anointed and certainly was supported by religious authorities who gained power thereby. This belief put the entire aristocratic class at a higher level than that of the rest of society by divine decree, even when their behavior demonstrated their lack of fitness for such a role.
But while their behavior was consonant with their role, the idea was beneficial to everyone and even served to secure freedoms that one would be hard-pressed to find in some democratic countries today. Certainly, when the people who implemented the idea and were its primary beneficiaries were noble people, the idea served everyone. But when the beneficiaries were less than noble, the idea benefited only themselves and ultimately harmed their posterity.
Another example is that over a period of centuries, tens of thousands of people were burned to death for practicing witchcraft. We can be fairly certain that intelligent people at the time knew full well that women didn’t smear themselves with ointment, fly through the air on brooms and consort with the devil. In the ninth century, French abbot Agobard of Lyons denied the existence of witchcraft, and many philosophers, clergy and people of importance and influence continued to deny the existence of witchcraft, even while witchcraft trials were ongoing. Accusations of witchcraft and heresy, though, since they could never be dis-proven and gave the ruling classes of the day absolute power of life and death, served as a powerful means of social control.
In the pre-Civil-War American South, ministers routinely preached from the pulpit that slavery was a divinely ordained institution given to us as a gift from God. This belief certainly supported the southern aristocratic slave-owning class, and was so prevalent that all of the Articles of Secession explicitly state the institution of slavery to have been sanctioned by God.
So we can see that beliefs that either had no rational basis whatsoever or had, at most, a tenuous scriptural basis, were used as a means to justify the behavior of the dominant castes of their day and maintain their grip on power. It is for this reason that, for centuries, crimes such as “heresy” — which is nothing more than a challenge to dominant beliefs — carried the penalty of death. Even in modern times, thought-crimes against a ruling oligarchy have been punished through ostracism, banishment to Siberia, jail and economic penalties.
This is not strictly a matter of ancient history, of course, as we have our own superstitions and irrational beliefs today that serve the purposes of a ruling caste. And those people who dare to challenge those beliefs find themselves persecuted.
But before I get into that, we need to delve into the philosophical difference between metaphysical reality and man-made ideology. An easy way to draw a distinction between the two is to ask this question: if all humans on earth vanished tomorrow, would the thing we are discussing still exist? If all the humans disappeared tomorrow, gravity would still exist. The strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism and electric fields would still exist. Human beings may put words to these phenomena, but they existed before humans did. Humans may have an imperfect understanding of these phenomena, but the fact that our understanding falls short of perfection doesn’t mean the phenomena we are describing don’t have an existence that supersedes our consciousness.
BUT if all humans disappeared, the so-called “laws” of economics would cease to exist, as would ideas such as rights, fairness and equality. The reason why it is important to make this distinction between metaphysical reality and man-made ideology is so we can tell the difference between things that are immutable and unchangeable, like the laws of gravity; and things that are within human capacity to change, such as economic policy.
And as I described above, ideology has been used very effectively by ruling castes up to the present day to justify their behavior and maintain their own dominant societal positions. The primary method they use to accomplish this task is deliberately confounding man-made laws and ideology with metaphysical laws of nature.
A few centuries ago, the ruling classes used religion — the will of God — to provide this stamp of approval. By invoking religion, they were able to convert man-made institutions such as monarchy into divinely ordained laws of nature as immutable as gravity in the public mind. Today’s ruling elites use perverted science and a form of abstracted religion from which all of the divine elements have been removed. Being a scientist myself, I find this practice objectionable, but it is most certainly real. The scientist of today is seen in much the same way as the priesthood was viewed 1000 years ago: as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
Unfortunately, just as the priesthood of yesteryear could be swayed in its pronouncements by temporal concerns, the scientist of today is beholden to the ruling caste for both his salary and reputation. Thus it should come as no shock that scientists are routinely trotted out to lend credibility to pronouncements that our managerial rulers want us to believe. An example of such a pronouncement is the nonexistence of race.
The scientific basis for the existence of race is every bit as rock-solid as the basis for the existence of gravity. It’s a metaphysical reality. Yet a handful of scientists get written up in the newspaper once in a while making sage announcements that race doesn’t even exist. This is an example of a man-made human idea — that of “equality” — being used as a tool by a handful of people to accomplish something that is to their benefit, but probably not to anyone else’s.
Another trick they have pulled recently to lend credibility to their arguments is the idea of consensus. Without regard to what is actually going on regarding the phenomenon of global warming, and whether human activities are affecting it; the most recent argument I have heard supporting the need for curtailment of human activities is that a “consensus of scientists” agrees. Consensus simply indicates agreement, not truth, fact or right. No doubt a consensus of Taliban officials believes that women shouldn’t be able to learn how to read. Certainly, a consensus of Nazi SS officers approved the notion of building concentration camps. Likewise, a consensus in the Kremlin thought starving millions of Ukrainians to death deliberately was a pretty swell idea.
I hate to burst their bubble, but consensus means nothing. Almost all human progress in culture, science, engineering and dozens of related fields has been made by individual human beings with the confidence and courage to go against consensus and reach their own conclusions. John Snow, Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch all stood against the consensus of their times in progressively developing the germ theory of disease. While that theory, particularly Koch’s last postulate, is by no means seamless even today, it was a quantum leap forward from the “spontaneous generation” theory it eventually supplanted and has saved untold millions of lives.
So today’s ruling caste mis-uses science and confounds it with notions of consensus in order to make the ideas they want us to believe seem to be metaphysical realities when they are really just man-made ideas used to justify their own behavior and preserve their positions. And, for areas where science has nothing to say, the ruling caste sets up a pseudo-religion in which a person’s moral worth is premised upon his or her degree of agreement with the ideas that support the activities and continuity of the ruling elite.
Thus, moral approbation and condemnation flow freely in attempts to force people to conform their views within a very narrow range. You can rest assured that moral condemnation doesn’t flow freely against people whose views regarding metaphysical realities lie outside the mainstream; but such condemnation comes in a flood that can sweep away those who contradict the man-made ideas that artificially support an elite that isn’t really very elite.
So, another way to tell the difference between ideas representing true metaphysical reality — as opposed to man-made ideas that are put forth as being true even if they are not — is that people who contradict the ideas of true metaphysical reality are not persecuted for it. Members of the Flat Earth Society may be scoffed at, but they aren’t being tracked and spied upon by law enforcement agencies. People who dispute the germ theory of disease, believe that alien spacecraft are zipping across the skies or that the lost continent of Atlantis will soon rise again don’t lose their jobs, have their addresses published in newspapers, or find themselves entrapped in elaborate investigations.
With man-made ideology, though, quite the opposite is often true, especially if those ideas under-gird the structure of the ruling elite of the time. Disputing the existence of witchcraft or denying the divine right of kings could buy you a one-way trip to the gallows in certain ages. And today, pointing out that race is both real and socially important can quickly put you in the soup line if you aren’t careful.
This is a key aspect of ideologically driven political systems. At a certain level, all such ideologies can be seen to advance the interests of one group or clique over the interests of other groups or cliques. But at another level, ideology-driven politics and economics almost always assumes an authoritarian or totalitarian character.
Any given ideology is a human creation and as such, no matter the intentions of its creators, is imperfect. The content of the ideology is based upon limited observation and limited knowledge. When it gets applied to real people in the real world, it doesn’t work. If the true goals of the purveyors of an ideology really ARE as laudable as usually claimed, then the ideology is adjusted and changed in order to add knowledge and minimize bad effects.
Unfortunately, ideologies are seldom actually intended to achieve their stated goals. You can see this with programs like the Great Society that have actually increased the problems they were supposed to solve, yet haven’t been changed. The stated goals serve as a smokescreen for the real intentions — intentions that always benefit some group of people to the detriment of other folks.
In their zealous pursuit of ideology, the ruling caste discards or re-interprets any aspect of history or reality that doesn’t fit. And the True Believers never give up, even when the proof of the failure of their ideas is undeniable.
There are Marxist professors all over America today who state that there is nothing wrong with Marxism as an ideology, and that its failures in the USSR, China, Cuba and elsewhere are all attributable to failed human interpretation. There are even a few believers in National Socialism who steadfastly believe that if America had stayed out of Europe during WWII, Germany would be a utopia today. There are capitalists today who use the so-called free-market to justify breaking basic immigration laws required for our physical safety.
Current capitalist practice in the United States discards everyone with with an IQ under 85 as unemployable and paradoxically depends upon the welfare state (the living contradiction of capitalism) to support these people in order to avoid mass starvation.
These are all True Believers who use ideology in place of religion, and who will adhere to that ideology even in the face of tragic human costs or fundamental contradictions. At a minimum, they will deny failures or rationalize them on the basis of inadequate implementation. But as failures reach a point where fundamental questions could pose a threat to the ruling oligarchy, they will suppress and persecute.
Thus, materialistic economic ideologies are always at war with truth.
I’ve spent a long time on this fairly esoteric philosophical point, but the purpose is to explain how to see through the layers of illusion so you can get to the truth of any subject, no matter what that subject may be.
Today, our primary topic is economics, so with no further delay, let’s jump right in.
Very often, economic systems are discussed in terms of capitalism and communism. Both of these systems are man-made ideologies that encompass particular views of human nature and moral virtue. Likewise, both have a Utopian world-view that envisions the greatest good for the greatest number in materialistic terms. Both, also, dispense with traditional non-materialistic means of judging the value of individuals and institutions with the exception of their pseudo-religious condemnation of dissenters.
Economic systems are entirely man-made. They are certainly essential for societies of any size, but within the limits where they bump up against the walls of metaphysical reality, they are malleable. Moses didn’t walk down from the mountain with the writings of Smith, Keynes and von Mises chiseled into tablets of stone, interest rates can’t be found under a microscope, and the moral content of these systems only exists in comparison to non-economic realities. Therefore, before looking at labels and definitions, I want to look at certain non-economic realities.
We humans are complex creatures whose needs go far beyond the basics of food, water and shelter to encompass family, community, relationships, interests, creativity, sometimes spirituality, and much much more. Economic systems are devised as a mechanism to serve the material aspect of those needs. As such, they are essential because it is difficult to be spiritual or conduct research into areas of interest if we are cold, hungry or dying from thirst, as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates.
Well-designed economic systems can do a pretty good job of serving our material needs, but are utterly incapable of fulfilling our non-material needs. Unfortunately, economic systems — without regard to their provenance — tend to define everything in terms comprehensible within those systems. Being strictly materialistic in nature, they cannot conceive of poor people who are also happy and fulfilled; and they either discount or attempt to supplant crucial human needs for a life filled with meaning. They try to replace transcendent meaning with material goods. In practice, this doesn’t work out very well.
In the modern West, economics in the form of capitalism has gradually expanded to fill almost every aspect of our society and culture. In effect, capitalism has obtained — through gradual encroachment — the preeminent position that communism could only attain through violence. In such a world, we are seen as strictly economic beings, through measures of “consumer confidence” and “consumer spending” and we are administered through a system of “human resources.”
The problems that have manifested as a result are more attributable to the importance economics plays in every aspect of our lives than the details of a particular economic system. This is what happens when economics leaves its rightful place as the servant of a people, and instead becomes its master. As I covered in the last Western Voices podcast, this has led to spiraling rates of alienation, depression and suicide.
Life can be difficult — not just for the poor, but for the relatively well-off as well. We are mortal, and have a limited amount of time on this earth individually. The core question that faces every person is how to invest that life with meaning. WHY am I working so hard? WHY should I get out of bed in the morning? In practice for most of our history, that meaning has been derived from a sense of our individual contributions to both the happiness and wellbeing (both morally and materially) of our families and communities. People have had a sense of their role in the scheme of things, and a sense of connection to both the past and the future.
But in a world where the family unit has been shaken to its core and increased “diversity” has led to social alienation, it has become harder for people to find meaning in their lives. This problem has become even more pronounced as definitions of right and wrong have become increasingly fluid in order to accommodate both the behavior of our ruling caste and the need to accept practically anything in the name of their idea of “diversity.” So, while, in the past a person could be motivated by the desire to do good deeds, in the post-modern West there’s no longer any real sense of what that even means. It is from this understanding that we will launch into an analysis of modern capitalism.
The basic definition of capitalism according to Merriam Webster is: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control and by prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”
There is nothing wrong with this definition at face value. After all, the right to property is premised upon our right to life. That is, our lives are finite, a fact that gives their every moment value. When we invest the precious and finite time of our lives in the act of creating or acquiring something, it is — and by right ought to be — our own. For anyone else to exercise control over our property, then, is to exercise control over the finite time of our lives. In other words: slavery.
Likewise, we use the time of our lives to produce or acquire those things which are necessary for our survival; and the seizure or assault of these things can be reasonably seen as a risk to life itself. Some hard-core anarcho-capitalists take this association too far. When people form societies, cultures and governments in order to accomplish things on a scale too large to be accomplished individually, they incur an obligation to pay for these things such as the building of roads, the common defense and so forth. Thus, taxation cannot legitimately be seen to automatically constitute theft. Rather, the place where taxation crosses that line is when the funds extracted from individuals are used to fund projects, people and entities outside the original authority of government.
Thus, in the United States, taxes for purposes of boondoggle projects and establishment of social controls ARE theft in that they exceed the powers given to Congress in the Constitution; whereas taxes to secure our borders and provide for the common defense are a simple obligation of citizenship. A simple comparison is that of employment. If I have performed the agreed-upon work, I have every right to my paycheck in full. It’s my employer’s obligation to pay me. But if I undertake a project outside of work without his or her prior agreement, if I turn around and seize my employer’s assets in order to pay for that, I am stealing.
So the core idea underlying capitalism in the dictionary — private property — is supportable on the basis of metaphysical reality, even if we apply that idea only to the extent of the food we eat. Our property is an extension of the only thing we truly have — our finite time on this planet — and as such it is ours by right. It is when we go beyond the basic metaphysics of this equation into the man-made ideology surrounding capitalism that we run into a minefield of problems, contradictions, inconsistencies and injustices.
Capitalism, we are told, is both essential for the existence of freedom and inevitably creates freedom wherever it is practiced. All we have to do to see that this isn’t true is look upon the abuses of child labor and coal mining that existed in our own country at the turn of the century, or look at how American search engine companies have willingly provided the despots in China with lists of political dissidents in exchange for continued access to that market.
China, itself, is economically capitalist and growing its economy rapidly. Yet capitalism has only spurred technological innovation that has enabled the totalitarian regime in Beijing to keep an ever-more-watchful eye on the population. While Christians and advocates of democracy are persecuted — often with the help of American corporations — their successful economy is creating a new middle class. Material well-being derived from capitalism does not depend upon even the most basic freedoms that Americans take for granted.
This is a critical error made by many advocates of capitalism, even though well intentioned. Ayn Rand, one of capitalism’s most zealous advocates, stated that “The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion.” This is only partially true. After all, many people created weapons systems to destroy human life while under Soviet rule, and others continue to create a good many innovations under the authoritarians in China. Likewise, many people invest effort on behalf of corporations on projects about which they may have moral reservations, but do so under the threat of economic loss. In essence, the boss says: “Do this, or you’re fired.”
As an engineer, I perform creative tasks under externally imposed deadlines all the time. Throughout the Middle Ages, architects who could have been put to death by dictatorial decree at any time created some of the most timeless and inspiring architecture ever formulated by human beings. Ms. Rand stated her principle as an irreducible primary, when, in fact, it was an only partially-correct conclusion.
I said it is partially correct, and it is. Obviously, our creativity and ability to solve problems can be artificially limited in a number of ways. For example, laws, rules or customs that prohibit the honest exploration of reality will necessarily result in our creations being based upon falsehoods, and therefore they will be limited. Such intellectual censorship tends to snowball and block off entire areas of knowledge from human exploration. Likewise, compulsion that prohibits the very things we wish to create can most assuredly have a chilling effect on both that proximate creation while simultaneously giving other creators pause. Before Galileo was confined for his heliocentric solar system theory, Italy had been the greatest bastion of invention and creativity in Europe. But for hundreds of years afterwards, Italy lagged behind.
The important thing to see here is that the problems with creativity are not tied to a particular governmental or economic system, but rather to the degree of intellectual freedom that a person has. Capitalism doesn’t guarantee such freedom, and lack of such freedom doesn’t completely stifle productivity because while the profit motive is certainly a good motivator, so is the desire to avoid punishment. Clearly, capitalism, as an economic system, does not automatically guarantee freedom in the important ways in which our Founding Fathers codified it in the Bill of Rights. In many cases, in fact, it is used as a way to take away freedom.
The reason for this lies in three points. First, freedom and responsibility are interdependent and when the link between the two is broken, freedom will suffer. You see this in the very nature of a corporation. The first benefit to incorporating a business is that doing so limits your liability, or the level of personal responsibility you will have to take for your actions and decisions. Limiting the responsibility of the decision makers of a company gives them a wider ability to take actions that infringe upon the freedom and wellbeing of others.
As a corporation depends upon profit just as human beings depend upon food and water, profit ultimately becomes the standard of value by which decisions are evaluated. When the level of personal responsibility that accrues to decision-makers is limited, free reign can be given to the darkest impulses of the human heart.
From 1995 to 2001, Purdue Pharma realized $2.8 billion in revenue from its painkilling drug, Oxycontin. Purdue Pharma admits that the company lied when it marketed Oxycontin as being less addictive and less likely to be abused than other pain medications, and therefore suitable for treating the moderate pain of injuries doctors see routinely. The truth of the matter is quite different, so thousands of unsuspecting doctors prescribed the drug for control of moderate pain, and untold thousands of people wound up addicted. The societal harm has been immense, and a whole generation of young people in rural America are addicted. Over 500 people have paid with their lives so far.
According to Steve Berman, an attorney working to sue Purdue Pharma, “From the beginning, OxyContin’s enormous profit potential drove an operating modus of lies and deceit.” In a recent settlement, Purdue Pharma paid a $624M fine to the government for fraudulent marketing, and three company officials, Michael Friedman, Howard R. Udell, Dr. Paul D. Goldenheim paid $34.5M in fines. They received NO jail time because their case was skillfully negotiated by a person whose name you might recognize: Rudy Giuliani. (Remember this when he tells you he’s tough on crime. He’s only tough on certain types of crime, but not the sort of folks who murder by the hundreds.)
Only in corporate America can someone engage in a deliberate deception that kills hundreds of people, pay less than a quarter of the revenue derived from the crime in fines, and walk away. The violation of a person’s life, or addicting them to drugs by lying to them, is a serious affront to freedom to say the least.
For every case like that of Oxycontin where the miscreants are brought to at least some form of justice, there are dozens where the corporate veil effectively protects wrong-doers. As a result, corporate America has not become a den of idealized virtue, but rather an environment in which outright sociopathic behavior nets profits and rewards. Such behavior, by definition, compromises the freedom of innocent people. You simply cannot have freedom without responsibility, and the very nature of corporations separates the two.
Even though I’ve just given a pretty horrible example of the results of divorcing freedom and responsibility, a lot of people still don’t understand the concept because when they visualize it in their mind, they are thinking about a lone individual.
Instead of a lone individual, think instead of five people on a desert island. As long as each of their actions doesn’t result in infringements or impositions on the others, they are all equally free. Likewise, if one of them steps out of line and starts stealing … as long as the others are able to assign responsibility to the malefactor and seek justice, his behavior will be controlled in most cases so that freedom continues. But what if, due perhaps to a disparity of force, someone on the island has the ability to do whatever he wants to the others without fear of retribution? Well, HIS freedom is not diminished, but EVERYONE ELSE’S is. This is why an absolute prerequisite of a free society is the ability to identify and seek justice against people who violate the life, liberty or property of others.
So even though there is nothing wrong, per se, with the idea of private ownership of property, the very nature of the corporate structure as currently constituted is such that it presents a threat to freedom. Since corporations are man-made institutions, and they are subject to man-made laws, this problem CAN be fixed.
The benefits of corporations, including their economies of scale and ability to leverage profit-driven initiative are extremely important. Without a doubt, up until the early 1970’s capitalism helped to make the United States and its people the most prosperous the earth had ever seen. Used properly, the ideological tool of capitalism was a great boon. And, it must be acknowledged that a number of lawyerly notions make it nearly suicidal to engage in business without some form of limitation of liability. And, certainly, individual directors or employees of a corporation shouldn’t be held accountable for its debts.
Nevertheless, corporate behavior that is criminal in nature seldom brings the hand of justice to bear on the actual criminals, and this must be changed.
Second, freedom requires a common set of values. As an example, the only reason our founding fathers could include the right to keep and bear arms in our Bill of Rights is because they were confident that, in the main, the values held in common among our people would allow armed citizens to act, much more often than not, morally. As people lose confidence that their neighbors share the same values, they are more willing to see reductions in freedom in order to feel safe. And when those neighbors just happen to own a business, restrictions, regulations and rules will be placed on that business in response to the community’s sense of the degree to which businesses in general can be trusted.
Most people understand that a business shouldn’t lie, cheat, steal or attempt to deceive. And if every business were run this way, there would be few regulations. But now there are thousands and thousands of business regulations specifying everything from the accounting methods to be used to the height of desks. A long parade of dishonest businessmen have eliminated any pretext of freedom from business. Moreover, the regulations adopted in order to prevent the sorts of abuses perpetrated by the folks at Purdue Pharma raise the cost of engaging in those businesses through the stratosphere so that in practical terms it isn’t possible for folks who don’t already control enormous wealth to get into those businesses.
The cost of getting a single pharmaceutical through the FDA process nowadays is roughly $800M. Already-established businesses have the staff and regulatory experts to clear the governmental hurdles with no difficulty, but starting a new business of that nature is prohibitive because the bar is set so high. Thus, the so-called “free market” becomes severely compromised. It is no longer free.
John Jay recognized long ago that a commonality of values was a prerequisite of freedom. We have lost that commonality of values, and as a result the free market is no longer free.
Another aspect of this point worth considering is that the breakdown of a common set of values in this country has set the stage for the misbehavior we are seeing in corporate America. The sociopaths we are seeing as CEOs would never be installed in such positions by boards of directors whose values were consistent with the best interests of our country as a whole. Greed at such a level that it allows people to, quite literally, die in exchange for profit can only exist in an environment where coworkers, peers and superiors refuse to call such malefactors to account. Evil can only exist where good people will fail to shine the light of discovery upon it. So when that job isn’t being done by the people involved in the business, it falls to government.
Businesses cry that government regulations force them to move offshore to save costs, but fail to cite why those regulations exist in the first place.
Third, through property rights and one-sided contractual arrangements in which they hold all the cards, businesses gain the ability to abridge your rights in ways that government isn’t even allowed. If you are planning to go hunting after work, most businesses disallow you from keeping a firearm in your trunk. Many businesses have random and pre-employment drug and even alcohol screenings. One prominent company, the folks that make Miracle Gro fertilizer, even fires employees who test positive for nicotine. A number of retailers make receiving discounts contingent upon your agreement to allow them to catalog everything you purchase — for purposes we can’t even yet imagine. Internet providers routinely adopt Terms of Service that explicitly restrict your freedom of speech even in areas where that speech is legal.
Advocates of the so-called “free market” say that if you don’t like these policies, you can always work elsewhere, shop elsewhere or switch to a different ISP. But many policies are adopted across the board by thousands of employers, retailers and service providers at a time, effectively removing that choice.
The purpose of our Constitution, as stated in the preamble, is to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
As the foregoing describes, capitalism as it is currently practiced perverts justice and most assuredly is not a guarantor of liberty. In an environment in which CEO salaries have skyrocketed in comparison to those of workers while workers have been losing real buying power for years, it is reasonable to question if the economic status quo even serves the general welfare, as opposed to the welfare of a very small group of people.
Our founding fathers did not establish or seek to establish a particular economic philosophy. Rather, they sought — explicitly — liberty, justice and the general welfare. Thus it is no surprise that the term “capitalism” doesn’t exist in our Constitution. In fact, the term wasn’t even invented until 1854, long after our Founding Fathers had penned the Bill of Rights. In addition, the term “free market” wasn’t invented until 1907. When people try to associate a particular economic system like capitalism or a form of competition, such as the free market, with the thought that went into our Constitution, they are engaged, at best, in rather dubious historical revisionism and, at worst, in outright deception.
Our Founding Fathers were very bright people. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t write it to the tenets of a particular named philosophical system. Rather, they named the goals they were trying to achieve specifically so that their posterity — that means us — can stay focused on what is important. By guaranteeing us the common law right in the Constitution, they set us on the path of organic tradition rather than an abstract philosophy.
So let’s take a look at what capitalism has become in post-modern America. Today it is utterly inseparable from a tandem utopian philosophy known as globalism or “free trade.” And this is, partly but not exclusively, where capitalism has gone awry. But a big part of the problem is that — like any tool — capitalism takes on the character of those who are using it, and the character of capitalists has changed considerably in the past 150 years.
The most wealthy Americans 100 years ago put America on wheels, constructed railroads that tied the nation together, built a steel industry that was the envy of the world and endowed libraries and institutions of higher learning. They employed Americans almost exclusively and had no qualms about asking Congress to exercise the power of protective tariffs included in the Constitution. Today, the wealthiest Americans, with few exceptions, are bankers, stock traders and gambling magnates who import illegal aliens, export our industrial base and encourage foreign companies to dump cheap goods into our markets.
So what happened to our capitalists? According to Professor Robert Hare, corporations already have psychopathic tendencies in that they ruthlessly pursue shareholder value without regard to the harm they may cause others, such as environmental damage.(1) Professor Hare is not a light-weight. He developed the P-test, a screening test used by both the FBI and British justice system for detecting psychopaths. His tests are also used by schools, police, fire departments and for high-risk jobs like nuclear power plant operators. In short, Professor Hare knows whence he speaks. According to Hare: “I always said that if I wasn’t studying psychopaths in prison, I’d do it at the stock exchange, there are certainly more people in the business world who would score high in the psychopathic dimension than in the general population. You’ll find them in any organization where, by the nature of one’s position, you have power and control over other people and the opportunity to get something.”(2)
His speculation isn’t idle. A Fast Company research article on the subject stated: “Such scandals as Enron and WorldCom aren’t just aberrations; they represent what can happen when some basic currents in our business culture turn malignant. We’re worshipful of top executives who seem charismatic, visionary, and tough. So long as they’re lifting profits and stock prices, we’re willing to overlook that they can also be callous, conning, manipulative, deceitful, verbally and psychologically abusive, remorseless, exploitative, self-delusional, irresponsible, and megalomaniacal. So we collude in the elevation of leaders who are sadly insensitive to hurting others and society at large. … There’s evidence that the business climate has become even more hospitable to psychopaths in recent years. In pioneering long-term studies of psychopaths in the workplace, … Babiak [an industrial psychologist] found that … organizational shake-ups created a welcoming environment for the corporate killer. ‘The psychopath has no difficulty dealing with the consequences of rapid change; in fact, he or she thrives on it,… organizational chaos provides both the necessary stimulation for psychopathic thrill seeking and sufficient cover for psychopathic manipulation and abusive behavior.’ And you can make a compelling case that the New Economy, with its rule-breaking and roller-coaster results, is just dandy for folks with psychopathic traits too.”(3)
Psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon performed a study of 39 high-level executives and concluded: “The Personality Disorder profile of the senior business manager sample was found to contain significant elements of Personality Disorder, particularly those that have been referred to as the “emotional components” of Psychopathic Personality Disorder.”(4)
Alan Deutschman put several big-name CEOs through the test for psychopathy anonymously, and ALL of them scored as moderately psychopathic. The average person scores 3 or 4 out of 40 on the test, whereas someone like the BTK killer scores around 30. Big-name CEOs score in the low 20s. Perhaps we shouldn’t find this phenomenon so shocking, as a standard police textbook from 1990 states that “… modern American society makes heroes out of psychopaths. Further, the adaptability of this type of character structure makes the psychopath likely to emerge in increasing numbers. The modern world provides fertile ground for the rise of the psychopathic personality.”(5) Some psychologists have even surmised that the psychopath is a new sort of human being that is being produced by the selective evolutionary pressures of the modern economic environment.(6)
The unfortunate phenomenon of our corporations being led by psychopaths has become so prevalent that an industrial psychologist, Paul Babiak, and psychopathy expert Robert Hare have written a book about the topic entitled “Snakes in Suits.” According to Harvard psychologist Martha Stout, if western society continues in its pursuit of glorified self-interest and the rejection of the importance of community bonds: “evolutionarily speaking, it doesn’t end well.” (1)
Look, again, at the example I gave a few minutes ago regarding Oxycontin. Lying to people, causing their deaths and addiction in order to realize profits is classic psychopathic behavior. The executives of Worldcom, Enron, ImClone and Purdue Pharma are not abberations. Rather, they are examples of what has become the norm for leadership in corporate America.
Capitalism is particularly vulnerable to infiltration by people affected with this sort of personality disorder because it is the only economic system whose proponents extol the virtue of selfishness(7) and proclaims that “greed is good.” By its very nature, capitalism in a free market is competitive — that’s the whole point. This competitive situation, in a perfect world, results in equilibrium pricing, each person employed at the highest level he or she can achieve, better products and a host of other benefits. But it is also a system that incentivizes dishonesty, corporate espionage, anything that reduces costs including off-shoring American jobs, etc. etc. etc.
These incentives come in the form of higher stock prices, impressive CEO compensation packages, and sometimes even the opportunity to cheat retirees out of their pensions. In practice, people are sometimes penalized simply for being more competent than their bosses, women who have the audacity to actually have children don’t get promoted, fathers who opt to work only a 40 hour week don’t get raises, and all the while Human Resource directors specialize in explaining to employees why they should be grateful that the increase in the employee share of their health insurance is bigger than the raise they are getting that doesn’t keep pace with inflation.
In fact, over the past seven years, while CEOs of companies like Home Depot have walked away with tens of millions of dollars for dismal performance and Gillette’s CEO collected over a hundred million dollars for selling out to Proctor and Gamble … good-paying jobs with benefits have gone to China and India, and the real income of average Americans has actually been declining. In a nation where nearly everyone shared common values that kept even the extremely wealthy in line, capitalism did well for everyone. But in a world where common values are under assault, psychopathic behavior is rewarded and CEOs collect bonuses of hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for laying off thousands of workers; there are no barriers to the evil they can accomplish.
Capitalism is an idea, a tool, a servant. When it comes to government, George Washington said: “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” The same reasoning applies to capitalism. In order to derive its potential benefits, structures need to be put in place to tame its more deadly manifestations.
For much of our nation’s history, such structures were provided by common blood and a common value system. But with those values perverted and replaced, capitalism needs to be restrained externally.
And speaking of its more deadly manifestations, none is more dangerous to this country and our people than the idea of free trade. Like most ideological zealots, Free trade advocates have a Utopian world-view in which all peoples of the world trade with each other to derive mutual benefit and as a result nobody goes to war. I’m not going to ask from which country these Utopians imported whatever they’ve been smoking, but they are wrong.
Prior to WWI, Britain and Germany were trading partners. It didn’t help. Plenty of countries with substantial ties via trade have spilled each others’ blood. One need not have a very long memory, either, to recall the spies that China placed in our most sensitive nuclear programs. Such behavior indicates hostility and malicious intent, rather than friendship.
A second problem with so-called free trade is that it puts consumption rather than production first. That is, free trade concentrates on whatever makes a product better and/or less expensive for the consumer. This works well … temporarily for the consumer, and certainly allows fat cats to get even fatter; but ultimately it lowers wages and destroys the nation’s self-sufficiency — all so that only a few corporations can hold the wealth and power that had previously, and properly, belonged to nations.
Historically, nations have grown more wealthy rather than less when protective tariffs have been enacted. Great Britain had always had such tariffs until they were repealed in 1860. In 1860, Great Britain was the greatest economic power on earth. Within fifty tears, the United States who had kept her tariffs in place had an economy twice that of Great Britain, and Great Britain was well on her way to losing her empire. In fact, according to Pat Buchanan’s research, “… every modern state that rose to preeminence and power — Britain before 1846, the United States from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan after WWII and China today — was protectionist … All four presidents on Mount Rushmore — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt — were economic nationalists. All believed in tariffs to finance the government, spur industry, and give U.S. manufacturers an advantage over foreign manufacturers in the American market. And what is wrong with preferring your own? Does not every family?”(8)
I have heard some advocates of unrestrained global trade argue that protective tariffs allow our manufacturers to be fat, lazy and inefficient. This sort of argument is either frivolous in the extreme or so un-informed as to be laughable. Manufacturers in the United States have historically maintained the safest work environments, the tightest environmental standards and the best working conditions of anyplace on earth. Even without competition against overseas firms, they have to compete against each other. Our manufacturers have to contend with minimum wage laws, workers’ compensation laws, contribute an employer match to social security and shoulder numerous other costs that (generally) contribute positively to our environment and quality of life. There is no way on earth that a manufacturer under such conditions could be expected to compete against a foreign company that employs child-slave labor and dumps its pollution directly into the local river.
Our environmental laws, safety regulations and amendments prohibiting slavery exist for very sound reasons; and moving manufacturing offshore where they can all be flouted with impunity doesn’t do anyone any favors in the long run except the handful of people who pocket the difference.
But meanwhile the American industrial base has been moved offshore to such a dramatic degree that we are running trade deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
Trade deficits are a straightforward concept. A trade deficit represents the amount of money we send to foreign countries after the money that people in foreign countries send us is subtracted. In other words, it is money coming out of the pockets of United States citizens and going to foreign countries where it is used to create jobs overseas, build foreign military might, subsidize the education of people who will be competing against our children, and so forth. In exchange, we get nothing back. Well, that’s not entirely true, because foreign countries have to do something with all of those trillions of dollars. And what they are doing is buying the bonds that fund our federal deficit so that our Congress dares not defy them and buying up companies right on our soil that used to be American companies. It has gotten so bad that foreign-based companies even own some of the toll roads we drive on outright.(9)
As if toll roads weren’t already a serious problem that causes accidents and funds quasi-governmental agencies filled with hacks, these very roads built on OUR land with OUR labor using OUR tax dollars are now providing the monetary benefit of toll collections to foreign countries.
But that’s not all. Foreign countries are now establishing their own investment houses for the express purpose of buying up our economy. Steven Weisman noted in the New York Times: “For years, the Bush administration has shrugged off concerns about the trillions of dollars that the United States owes to China, Japan and oil-producing countries in the Middle East, arguing that these debts give no undue leverage to foreign governments. But at a time of global financial instability, the administration has started to worry that foreign governments are increasingly converting their dollar holdings into investment funds to acquire companies, real estate, banks and other assets in the United States and elsewhere. The fear is that these so-called sovereign wealth funds could destabilize markets or provoke a political backlash.”(10) Mr. Weisman makes the source of this problem clear when he states: “The funds are a product of decades of the United States importing more than it exports.”
Right now, these so-called “Sovereign Wealth Funds” control roughly $2.5 trillion in assets, but that will grow to about $17.5 trillion within ten years. And the potential consequences economically and politically aren’t just theoretical. Weisman points out: “Probably the most political turbulence caused by a sovereign wealth fund occurred when Temasek Holdings, the state-owned investment branch of Singapore, purchased a stake in the company owned by the prime minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra. The deal fed anti-government demonstrations that led to his ouster in a coup in 2006. The worry is that beyond the possibility of foreign funds pushing up prices on bonds, stocks and real estate, they might exercise inappropriate control politically or in the private sphere.” Today, it is Thailand. Tomorrow, OUR political system that is already corrupted by special interests, will be doing the will of China as Chairman Mao’s capitalist successors grab our politicians by the balls and squeeze.
Congressman Duncan Hunter recently described the situation in stark terms that anyone can understand: “In World War II, our manufacturing base made more than: 100,000 tanks; 2.4 million vehicles; 36 billion yards of cloth; 3 million rifles; 41 billion rounds of ammunition; and 41,000 artillery pieces … carried Eisenhower’s forces to Berlin and paved the way for the Marines in the Pacific as they pushed the Japanese back to their mainland. This great arsenal, our industrial base, was important to collapsing the Soviet Empire and the Berlin Wall because it provided the strength in Ronald Reagan’s stand against the forces of evil. Today my friends … massive production of textiles, steel and machine tools are no longer found in South Carolina, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania, nor dozens of other states. In fact, as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, when I sent my team to get more steel to protect troops against roadside bombs in Iraq, they found only one company in the U.S. making armor plate grade steel. When a Swiss company cut off the critical component for our smart bombs only one U.S. company remained which could supply it. Now, if you want to find where our Arsenal of Democracy has gone, you must look in places like Korea, France and, perhaps more ominously, China. China is cheating on trade. They are piling up over 200 billion U.S. dollars each year as a result and they are buying ships, planes and missiles with American trade dollars. They have purchased Russian Sovreignny Class missile cruisers designed to destroy American aircraft carriers. They have built between 750 and 1,000 medium range ballistic missiles and they have 17 submarines under construction. How are they cheating? China gives 17% tax rebate to their exporters and a 17% penalty to our businesses who export to them. In addition, they maintain a 40% currency devaluation just to make sure the U.S. business doesn’t win. This is not free trade. This is not fair trade. It’s cheating and if we put up with it, then we are dis-serving not only business and workers, but also our security. If this was a football game, it means China has put 74 points on the score board before the opening kick-off.”(11)
Any American with more than two neurons in his or her skull should be deeply concerned and hopping mad that a situation of this sort has even been allowed to come to pass. I mentioned earlier that the real income of working Americans has been declining for the past several years; and the proximate cause of this phenomenon is free trade, also known as globalism. In the near-term, off-shoring the production of a product to a place where the average hourly wage is only $1.50/hour will certainly allow the product to be priced lower. But in the mid-term, the people who once had good jobs at good wages making that product find themselves in jobs paying lower wages. They have lost ground and are worse off financially than they were when paying a higher price for the product. The only people who benefit in the long run are the fat-cat “citizens of the world” who have tossed their national loyalties aside in order to realize personal benefit.
In the long-term, the nation’s standard of living for most people becomes equalized with that of the third world, and our ability to pursue our national interest is severely compromised.
That process has already begun. Free trade and globalism have, for the first time, managed to create an unbridgeable rift between the working class and the owners of corporate America. In the past, through constraints of common ethics and national loyalty, we could all dream of becoming a success in America. The founders of our great corporations were held in high esteem because their success really DID “trickle down” and become everyone’s success. The rising tide really lifted every boat and gave us the most prosperous nation in the world. But today that rising tide is really a tide of red-ink on the ledger sheet where a globalist oligarchy gobbles the wealth of our country and our people are becoming more and more impoverished. Because the working class can clearly see the source of their impoverishment while stock brokers are flying high, class-warfare and resentment have replaced what had previously been a solid, if occasionally troubled, relationship. For most of American history, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased, wages went up as well. But now, quite the opposite happens. As corporations increase their share value by cutting costs through off-shoring, wages decline.
None other than Karl Marx predicted this eventuality when he noted in 1848: “The Protective system … is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of the proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In the revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.”(12)
So if you have ever wondered why left-wingers like Bill Clinton favored agreements like NAFTA and GATT, now you know. Furthermore, these agreements set up international unelected and unaccountable governing bodies like the World Trade Organization that exercise authority within our national borders. Finally, capitalism and democracy have not worked out very well in tandem in the United States over the past fifty years. In fact, the combination has corrupted our political process to such a degree that it can truly be said that our Congress doesn’t represent the best interests of the American people at all anymore.
The fault of this lies both in the nature of capitalism AND in the nature of representative democracy. In 1790, when the first census was taken, there were fewer than 4 million Americans divided among the thirteen states. The largest city in America at that time was Philadelphia with 42,000 residents. New York followed with 33,000 residents and Boston had 18,000. At that time, the average Congressman represented 30,000 people — men, women, children, white indentured servants and black slaves combined. Of those 30,000, fewer than 11,000 were eligible to vote. In our earliest elections, fewer than 1-1/2 percent of eligible voters actually voted at the Federal level because our government was effectively constrained by the Constitution so that it couldn’t be used as a weapon to advantage some people at the expense of others. It’s powers and duties were straightforward and didn’t present a threat to anyone, so very few people even bothered to vote.
Think about that for a moment. When each representative stood for 30,000 people, these representatives were well-known in their respective communities and subject to being confronted by their neighbors. Our ancestors met their representatives at the hardware store or the barber shop, or while on their way to visit relatives. A change in circumstances due to sudden wealth from corruption would be immediately evident, and the comings and goings around our Representatives’ homes could be keenly observed. As a result, we truly had a government of, for and by the People. Most Representatives and Senators served for only a few years and then returned home to their regular occupations. Of the Representatives from Virginia, Alexander White served for four years, John Brown served for two years, Andrew Moore served for 9 years, Richard Bland Lee served for six years, and so forth. You see, in that era, being a Representative or Senator was truly about service. It paid so poorly that most politicians couldn’t afford to ensconce themselves in Washington for decades while their plantations, law practices and other enterprises languished.
Meanwhile, any attempts to use the power of government as a mechanism for wealth redistribution or to give someone a business advantage were immediately squashed by those presidents who had been involved in the founding of our country.
Today, of course, matters are quite different. Our government has gradually seized the power to regulate practically every aspect of our lives and every aspect of business under the guise of a perverted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution. The federal government tells me how many gallons of water I’m allowed to use to flush my toilet, how many bullets my pistol can hold, what my child needs to learn at school and on and on and on. It’s ability to regulate business is even more profound; and because it has the ability to create businesses, destroy businesses, grant monopolies as it has for major league sports and prevent certain businesses from ever starting … because of this, our legislators have a keen interest in business. And businessmen, quite understandably, have a keen interest in influencing the legislative process.
So the core cause of the corruption that lies at the interface between capitalism and democracy lies in the fact our federal government now wields far more power than the founding fathers ever intended. The day of the citizen legislature is gone. Ted Kennedy has been in Congress since before I was born, and I’m not exactly a youngster. Looking again at today’s House delegation from Virginia, Frank Wolf has been there for 27 years, Robert Scott has been there for 18 years, and Bob Goodlatte has been a Congressman for 16 years.
The character of the task has changed from one of service, to one of pursuit of power and personal advantage. I was almost — but not quite — shocked to find the biography on another Virginia Representative’s official Congressional website specifically referring to his positions on committees described as “powerful.” I won’t name the particular Congressman. I just want him to know that, in the words of a popular song, “that don’t impress me much.” Show me some tariffs against foreign manufacturers, THEN I’ll be impressed. All the power in the world means NOTHING unless it is being used ethically.
The world has changed since when each Representative represented fewer than 11,000 potential voters. In the 2004 election, 197 million Americans were eligible to vote. Congressional districts now encompass over 660,000 residents. The franchise has also been expanded to include women and African-Americans. As a result, the influence of a single individual’s vote in a Congressional election is only 2% as great as it was 200 years ago.(14)
The power that we, as individual citizens, have over our governance is now 1/50th of what it was at the founding of the Republic. But, as Representatives need to reach an ever increasing population of hundreds of thousands of people in order to win election, and they have to turn to expensive media in order to do this, the power of people who can buy influence with MONEY rather than votes has increased substantially. That’s why your Congress no longer represents you. Speaking, by the way, of ethics …. Far too often, when our Congress-critters finally get around to vacating their positions, they move directly into jobs with lobbying firms. Recent incumbents who lost the last election and then moved straight into lobbying firms for various industries include Congressmen Richard Pombo, Nancy Johnson, Conrad Burns, Curt Weldon and Jim Davis.(13)
An article in USA Today gave two clear examples: “Weldon, a former member of the House Armed Services Committee, was named chief strategic officer this month by Defense Solutions, a defense contractor that consults and lobbies for other companies. One of the company’s executives, in a previous job, benefited from federal funds secured by Weldon. … Burns was hired last month as a senior adviser by Gage LLC, a lobbying firm headed by his former chief of staff and whose clients benefited from funding Burns inserted into spending bills.”(15)
Anybody whose brain hasn’t been completely liquefied by the idiot box should see the corruption here with crystal clarity. Because, under the Constitution, our House and Senate are allowed to make their own rules regarding such behavior, what I have just reported to you isn’t illegal. But it OUGHT to be. Far too many of the people who are supposed to be our servants are salivating like Pavlov’s dog at the ringing of a bell whenever a lobbyist shows up. The depths of this sort of perfectly-legal corruption are so extensive I can barely touch on them in this podcast; but I’d like to give a few more examples just to drive this point home.
After George W. Bush won his first Presidential bid, the New York Times ran an article describing what would become of Clinton administration officials:
“From the Clinton administration, top prizes are Defense Secretary William S. Cohen; Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser; Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart E. Eizenstat; and two former lobbyists, John Podesta, the White House chief of staff, and his deputy, Steve Ricchetti. Just this week, the Boeing Company announced it was hiring Thomas R. Pickering, a departing under secretary of state, for its Washington office. In making the trek from Congress to the lobbying firms clustered on K Street in downtown Washington, many of these departing officials will be following a well-trod path. Already such marquee names as former Senators George J. Mitchell and Bob Dole are employed by the lobbying powerhouse of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand, which represents such giants as Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Brown & Williamson Tobacco. ”Anyone who has been in the Congressional leadership or had high-profile positions in the administration and who have had experience working the business community are going to be very attractive,” said Robert S. Walker, chief executive of the Wexler Group, a major lobbying firm and a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania.” (16)
A 2005 article from Public Citizen put the matter in more quantifiable and qualitative terms:
“People used to run for Congress to serve the greater good and help the public … now Congress has become a way station to wealth. Members use it for job training and networking so they can leave office and cash in on the connections they forged as elected officials. No wonder the public is cynical about whose interests lawmakers are protecting in Washington. Lobbying has become the top career choice for departing members of Congress. … Forty-three percent of the 198 members who have left Congress since 1998 and were eligible to lobby have become registered lobbyists.” (17)
The corruption is beyond description. You see, in a capitalist system, the majority of the wealth is held by people known as capitalists. These are the folks who have the concentrated wealth necessary to fund major political campaigns. Politicians want their share, and they get it. Politics started in this country as an avenue of temporary service to the country, and has ended as a nearly naked pursuit of power, personal advantage and personal enrichment. America’s first legislators left behind productive and profitable enterprises in order to serve for a short time, and then returned to their communities where they had to live with the results of the legislation they had formulated among the friends and neighbors it had affected. Today, many of our legislators actually get a raise when they go to Congress, and they walk out of the legislature straight into a career paying millions of dollars a year as a kickback for the service they provided to special interests while they were supposed to be serving US. Our federal legislators no longer live near us and are effectively insulated both from the effects of their actions and the people they adversely affected with their corrupt behavior. The feedback loop of disapproval that served to keep them honest in the past no longer exists, and they see themselves as a different class of people altogether from those they serve. But rather than a natural aristocracy such as what Jefferson envisioned, they are more like parasites that need to be removed from the body politic before they kill us.
Of course, the interface between capitalism and democracy also nets special legislation that corrupts the free market.
In July of last year, the House of Representatives passed the 2007 Farm Bill. Along with all the usual corporate subsidies and miscellaneous dreck and pork spending that such bills usually contain, this bill contained some very special provisions intended to assist certain large agricultural corporations, Monsanto in particular. This language was a federal pre-emption that prevented states from adopting more restrictive laws and regulations on food than those imposed by the Federal Government. The provision in question states: “no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has inspected and passed; or determined to be of non-regulated status.”
Most people are blissfully unaware of the fact that Genetically Modified Organisms, particularly corn and rice, have entered the food chain. The most common modifications are those that employ patented bacterial genes that change some of the core metabolic compounds in soy, corn, rice, and other crops so that they will be immune to certain common herbicides. Other modifications include splicing bacterial genes into corn so that the corn will make its own insecticide for common pests such as corn ear worm. Theoretically, such advances make farming much less labor intensive, and therefore less expensive.
Clearly, however, changes at the genetic level of crops that splice in genes from an entirely different form of organism and that change the enzymes used in critical metabolic pathways change the nature of a plant substantially, and the resulting product should be extensively tested before being used as food by people or animals. Studies that have been suppressed indicate that many if not all genetically modified plant products can have serious health effects. According to Jeffrey Smith:
“Rhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that genetically modified (GM) foods are no different from their natural counterparts that have existed for centuries. But this is a political, not a scientific assertion. Numerous scientists at the FDA consistently described these newly introduced gene-spliced foods as cause for concern. In addition to their potential to produce hard-to-detect allergies and nutritional problems, the scientists said that “s23The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants”might produce “s23unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”GM crops, they said, might have “s23Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins, . . . appearance of new, not previously identified”toxins, and an increased tendency to gather “s23toxic substances from the environment”such as “s23pesticides or heavy metals.”They recommended testing every GM food “s23before it enters the marketplace.”But the FDA was under orders from the first Bush White House to promote the biotechnology industry, and the political appointee in charge of agency policy was Monsanto’ormer attorney—er their vice president. The FDA policy ignored the scientists’warnings and allowed GM food crops onto the market without any required safety studies. From the few safety tests that have been conducted, the results are disturbing— animals fed GM diets show damage to virtually every system studied. Reports from farmers are even less encouraging—usands of sick, sterile and dead animals are traced to GM feed.”(18)
I’m going to give you another long quote from this article in order to demonstrate that Genetically Modified foods are a cause for concern. The author continues:
” … the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes; in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged. In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production or inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy. And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats. In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink. In mice, young sperm cells were altered. Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.”(19)
Obviously, animal studies do not necessarily translate for humans, and few if any human studies have been done on the effect of Genetically Modified foods. But as noted in the quote above from Jeffrey Smith, the fact that such studies haven’t been done is the result of political rather than scientific motives. The point I am making here is that, in the absence of human studies and the presence of a vast body of research indicating potential risk from genetically modified foods, Americans should at LEAST have a right to know if the food they are eating contains such ingredients. That is where this preemptive legislation comes into play.
Under federal law, only one type of food is guaranteed to be free of Genetically Modified organisms; and that is food carrying the “USDA Organic” label. In addition, food produced by a Certified Naturally Grown farmer is GMO-free, but this is by virtue of a private agreement rather than by law. That’s it. Anything else you eat can contain GMO food; and under federal law, food producers are under no obligation to inform you as to whether or not their products contain it. Many state legislatures were becoming concerned, and were poised to require that foods containing GMO ingredients be labeled so that we would at least be aware; and this federal preemption effectively prevented states from protecting us.
Who benefits? Mainly, but not exclusively, the Monsanto corporation. Naturally, they have shown their … appreciation … to Representative Leonard Boswell who inserted the federal preemption into the farm bill in the form of a PAC contribution to his election fund.(20)
That’s not all. The federal government is also funding two new full-time positions in the country of Jordan. The purpose of those folks, according to the job descriptions, is to research how to short-circuit the regulatory process in Middle-Eastern countries in order to gain acceptance for the importation of United States grown GM crops.(21) So your tax dollars are funding employees whose sole purpose is to advance the interests of particular corporations. Does that sound like a “free market” to you? It sure doesn’t to me. This is the sort of meddling in foreign nations that gives our country a bad name.
The reason for creating these jobs is because the nations of Europe reacted swiftly to completely ban the use, growing or importation of genetically modified crops. This has stuck in the craw of the corporations that own our legislators. Even now, the United States government is trying to use the World Trade Organization in order to force our cousins in Europe to eat these crops. A Wikipedia article contains a synopsis of the matter that also points out just how powerful unelected and unaccountable global regulatory groups are becoming:
“In May 2003, after initial delay due to the war against Iraq, the Bush administration officially accused the European Union of violating international trade agreements, in blocking imports of U.S. farm products through its long-standing ban on genetically modified food. Robert Zoellick announced the filing of a formal complaint with the WTO challenging the moratorium after months of negotiations trying to get it lifted voluntarily. The complaint was also filed by Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, and Uruguay. The formal WTO case challenging the EU’s regulatory system was in particular lobbied by U.S. biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Aventis and big agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association.
EU officials questioned the action, saying it will further damage trade relations already strained by the U.S. decision to launch a war against Iraq despite opposition from members of the U.N. Security Council. The US move was also interpreted as a sanction against the EU for requesting the end of illegal tax breaks for exporters or face up to $4 billion in trade sanctions in retaliation for Washington’s failure to change the tax law, which the WTO ruled illegal four years ago.”(22)
Is this a “free” market? Is forcing our brethren in Europe to ingest potentially dangerous products against their will “free trade?” Can you see how incestuously intertwined our government has become with large corporations? And, most importantly, can you see that all of this is at the expense of the fundamental principles of self-government and republicanism that underlie our form of government? Aren’t you outraged, as well, that the WTO had the authority to rule ANY American tax to be illegal?
If you want people to feed you high fructose corn-syrup and cover it with artificial cherries, that’s fine. You can get that right off the television or talk radio most of the time. But if you are listening to me, you are going to get hard-core analysis that leaves the emperor of postmodern ideologies naked. Capitalism, as it is practiced today, has no relationship to freedom in the way our nation’s founders understood it. It is nothing more than a man-made ideological sham used to trick you into supporting rule by an oligarchy. And it IS rule. Our legislative process is corrupted and OWNED by people whose names we don’t even know. Their interests are NOT our interests. They do not share our fate and they don’t have to live with the consequences of their actions. We do.
What I’ve told you today reveals a very dismal future. But things don’t have to be this way. Listening to everything I described today could leave you feeling depressed and hopeless. But there IS room for hope, plenty of it, and there are already mechanisms in place that we can use to bring both politics and economics back to sanity if we are willing to stand up and make our voices heard. We have a lot more power than you think, and the rulers of the status quo depend upon a combination of illusion and leverage to effectuate their plans. That leaves them extremely vulnerable on a number of fronts, and there are effective ways to exploit those vulnerabilities in order to secure a bright future for our people and all of humanity.
We exist at an intersection of past and future. The time in which we exist is the product of the application of human Will. The future is also the result of the application of human will, and is NOT fore-ordained. At any moment in time, we encompass both the past and the future, and can embody the best of the past in a new historical context. We cannot and should not attempt to re-create the past, but what we can do is learn from it and apply our highest ideals in today’s context in order to reclaim the future for our posterity. Rather than a nostalgia for the past, we should have what Benoist calls a nostalgia for the future.
This brings to mind something important that I need to point out. The status quo didn’t just magically pop into existence. Rather, it is the culmination of millions and millions of individual decisions. Most of those decisions weren’t made by some other ethnic group, but were actually made by our own ancestors. It is important that we understand why they made the decisions that they did so that we, as leaders, can manifest a better future.
I’ve pointed out today, in very strong terms, the psycho pathologically evil nature of our politicians and economic captains. I think I have pointed out the corruption and wrong doing in a sufficiently unambiguous fashion that you have to accept that we are dealing with people who are incredibly evil –sufficiently evil that they really have no place in our society and should be jailed or exiled at least. You must accept this fact, because our ancestors didn’t and couldn’t.
It is a fact of nature that most of us assume that other people have motivations and goals similar to our own. Because we don’t have psychopathic traits, we don’t expect to see them in others and so when we are back-stabbed, it takes us by surprise. While we can acknowledge the potential existence of such people in an intellectual sense, it isn’t quite real to us. This is what our ancestors did, and what far too many of our people do today. Because we simply can’t conceive of such evil, we look for any possible excuse to avoid reaching such a conclusion. We can’t afford to do that any longer. Failure to identify and label evil, and to exact justice upon the perpetrators gives it license. And evil people, given license, will kill the innocent and destroy entire cultures. We MUST withdraw that license.
Likewise, as a whole, we are vulnerable to shame. We care what our neighbors and coworkers think of us, and you can rest assured that the ruling oligarchy has no compunction about using that fact against us to control our every utterance and behavior, just as they did for our parents. We must distinguish between the metaphysical and man-made, and understand that shame is inappropriate and counterproductive when it it is serving the interests of an artificial ideology. The ruling oligarchy, of course, has no shame. These are people who will brazenly take bribe money from the Chinese government and declare it legal because there was “s23no controlling legal authority.”We have to understand that they feel no shame and so aren’t subject to normal social controls, and therefore must be handled in a different fashion. If our ancestors had simply realized these two things, we would be dealing with a different reality today. But there is one more thing.
Multicultural societies of multiple religions, hundreds of languages and who knows how many races by their very nature must shove everything that is most important about human beings –their culture, their spirituality, their ethical and bio-cultural core –out of the public sphere in order to pursue harmony. What is left is only the materialistic aspects of humanity; and the only way to judge people in such an environment is on the basis of wealth. Never mind the fact that this generates the sort of bizarre upside-down-world in which a drug-addled basketball star can earn millions of dollars while a classical scholar is stuck at a convenience store at minimum wage; the fact is that a dollar earned through machinations spends just as well as a dollar earned by inventing a new technique to save lives. As a result, the way that our culture confounded wealth with virtue created an environment in which psychopaths could find themselves held in reverence and awe.
We need to re-establish, first for ourselves and then for our wider culture, a greater emphasis on what we are –and a lesser emphasis on what we have as a way of assigning moral virtue. There IS a natural aristocracy among us, but it is based upon noble character. If our ancestors had felt more confident about asserting themselves in this regard, we would be in a very different country today.
In order to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemies of our people and all of humanity, we need you. We have modeled European Americans United as a system of distributed responsibility and effort, rather than top-down-driven where the people at the top represent a choke point. My friend and colleague Frank Roman has been calling members, and I’ve been calling members. Based upon our members’ interests and skills, we are currently organizing teams for effective action. If you are not already a member, it’s time for you to join. Don’t tell me that you’ll join once everyone else has done the hard work of building and achieving. This isn’t a condominium that we build for you, maintain and invite you in. This is a community, and you will reap from it proportionately to your own efforts and contributions. So if you aren’t already a member, go to our website at European Americans United dot Org, download our application and send it in. This is an important step toward becoming a part of the solution for our people’s future.
Already, some of our membership has access to members-only online tools for organizing their cooperative efforts; and soon ALL of our members will have that access. We’re gearing up and getting organized. A number of our special projects are moving forward. We’re adding people to existing projects, and starting new ones. The future is bright, and it will come about as an exercise in our will to nobility as applied to the post-modern context. You owe it to yourself to be part of it.
This has been John Young with European Americans United. Thank you for joining me again today.
(1) Deutschman, Alan (2005), Is your boss a psychopath? Fast Company, July 2005 pg 44
(4) Board, B. & Fritzon, K. (2005), Disordered personalities at work, Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 17-32.
(5) Russell, H. & Beigel, A. (1990), Understanding Human Behavior for Effective Police Work, 1990
(6) Harrington, A. (1972), Psychopaths, Commentary, October 1972
(7) Rand, Ayn (1961) , The Virtue of Selfishness
(8) Buchanan, Patrick (2007), Day of Reckoning, pp195-196
(9) ibid. pg. 214
(10) Weisman, Steven (2007), “A Fear of Foreign Investment,” New York Times, Aug 21, 2007
(11) Hunter, D. (2008), Duncan Hunter 2008 Announcement Speech
(12) Marx, K., Engels, F. (1976), Collected Works, Volume 6, pg. 465
(13) Where are they Now? USA Today, Feb. 12, 2007.
(15) Kelley, M. (2007), Ex-Lawmakers find work with lobbyists, USA Today, Feb 21, 2007
(16) Wayne, Leslie (2000) THE 43RD PRESIDENT: SECOND CAREERS; Lucrative Lobbying Jobs Await Many Leaving Government Service, New York Times December 16, 2000
(17) Public Citizen, July 25, 2005, “Members of Congress Increasingly Use Revolving Door to Launch Lucrative Lobbying Careers”
(18) Smith, Jeffrey (2007), Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures
(21) Corroborated tip forwarded from anonymous federal source
The Black Hubris of Eugene Robinson Race; Posted on: 2010-07-31 17:32:13 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
Black. Bigot. Liar.
Eugene Robinson (right), the name-calling scourge of all critics of Obama who writes one of the anti-conservative columns at the Washington Post and serves the same function on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” has just provided another example of what post- — or in this case, Post– — partisanship looks like in Obama’s Washington.
According to the Post-partisan Robinson, Arizona’s embattled S.B. 1070 “amounts to a prescription for racial profiling on a scale not seen in this country since the days of Jim Crow laws in the South.” It is “anti-Latino” and “patently unconstitutional.” Those who support it are “xenophobes” and “demagogues … who delight in turning truth, justice and the American way into political liabilities.”
It appears as though the vituperative Mr. Robinson hasn’t gotten the message — stated by pre-presidential Obama on the Rick Warren show in 2008, repeated (with increasing shrillness, as it has turned out) ad nauseum during the campaign, and just recycled on “The View” this week — that “we can disagree without being disagreeable.”
As one can clearly see, there is never any shortage of political invective in Eugene Robinson columns, but there frequently is a severe fact shortage. In the column under review (“Immigration Helps Dems Long Term,” July 30), for example, he asserted that:
[a]side from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio — a grandstanding publicity hound who already stages immigration raids for the television cameras — virtually all prominent law enforcement officials in the state opposed the law.