If you enjoy old books, you really should get a Kindle – most of them are free at Amazon or Google Books. As Frost puts it, "If you regularly read anything longer than a stop sign, I strongly, STRONGLY recommend you pick up one of these bad boys now" – and here’s a flowchart to help you figure out what you want.
"The crisis of our time is also a crisis of manliness and true masculinity which the left always suspected as ‘reactionary’" – EKL
76% of pakistani marriages in oxford in the 1980s were to first- through-third cousins (a couple of those first-cousins were double-first-cousins, so the genetic relatedness is even closer) — and another 11% were to someone in the same biradari (i.e. patrilineage). that’s a whopping 87% endogamous marriage rate!
Science Fiction Author and Blogger Eric S. Raymond has a post up on Reconsidering Sexual Repression. Basically his point is that we will likely have to give up two of the following three things: family formation, sexual equality (women equal to men in all legal and social and cultural forms), and sexual liberty (no restrictions legal or social in any way of women’s sexual activity).
Protectionism is not the answer for keeping manufacturing jobs at home, but neither should Americans naively assume that all paths toward a more liberal global order are equally prudent, equally advantageous for the United States, or equally sustainable. the great weakness of the globalist consensus of the 1990s — one of the Clintonian concepts that made the transition into the Bush years and has survived into the Obama era — was its naively ahistorical understanding of economic policy and its role in American strategy. American intellectuals need to search for a more sustainable internationalism which takes our interests into account. Many paths to a more open world economy exist, but determining which works best for the U.S. is a task that America’s leadership has largely neglected for almost twenty years.
Ron Unz’s piece on immigration is still making the rounds. I haven’t read it yet, since it’s long. Chuck summarizes it nicely here.
In short, Unz is – apparently – recommending an increase in the minimum wage to stem the tide of immigrants.
I have two questions:
1) what reason do we have to believe that absurdly high minimum wage laws would be enforced any more than current immigration laws are enforced?
2) Unz may not be a full-fledged HBDer, but he’s writing for a race-realist audience. What then does he think a very high minimum wage will do to blacks? It seems to me that elite liberals favor higher minimum wages to ensure that many blacks don’t work at all, thus creating dependencies that are exploitable. Even if we grant that a very high minimum wage would solve the immigration problem, it seems pretty obvious that it would create some additional problems.
The warm glow of diversity. Incidentally, it’s pretty clear that Drudge is a race realist at this point, right?
Tyler Cowen wants dual central banks. This is the latest absolutely friggin’ crazy idea uttered by mainstream economists. I predict in the future – as economics progresses, as it assuredly will – that money will be created much like the Pope gives blessings. Mainstream economists will gather in secret and elect a world Central Banker. In times of trouble, everyone will pile worthless assets in a room. This Central Banker will enter, hold up his hand, and the worthless assets will be worth lots. The Central Banker will then retire. I can’t think of anything crazier, but if I could, I would predict that instead. Can I have tenure now?
nydwracu – whom I haven’t been reading until recently, my apologies – on ungovernments and the American left. From the latter: "Considering the history of American politics, it is clear the American political theory is fundamentally liberal." This statement is a pretty good test of whether someone is a reactionary or a conservative. If you agree and you’re not happy with it, you’re a reactionary.
The idea that “racism” is a unitary phenomenon is seriously wrong. To select a paired set of example. Hitler was a racist. So, in a way, was Garnet Wolseley, a Victorian officer whose memoirs I recently read. But they were “racist” in totally different ways. Hitler was an ideological fanatic, impervious to evidence, hating a “Jew” that mostly existed in his imagination. Wolseley was an extremely practical man who had limited resources with which to conquer and hold vast territories and populations under the potitical control of his government. Hitler made up a fantasy world based on racial myths. Wolseley observed that certain groups had certain characteristics, as a general matter, and he took those facts into account just like terrain, weather, and weaponry and other practical considerations. He did not have the luxury of living in a make-believe world where everyone was exactly the same, or where one group was generically superior. Hitler told himself a self-congratulatory and flattering story about his own group, which led him to make incredibly impractical decisions. Wolseley looked just as hard at his own group, the English, and saw its strengths and weaknesses. He admired and extolled the former, but admitted and tried to work around the latter. He treated these facts about his own people with the same cold practicality that he treated all practical questions. To celebrate “culture” when it suits us or pleases us or flatters us, but to deny its reality and force when it does not, is ultimately dishonest. We need to understand people in the past as they understood themselves, not merely as chess pieces in our current struggles.
Dysgenics: "A full 43% of skilled white-collar Gen X women, ages 33 to 46 years old, haven’t yet had children based on a study of 2,952 college-educated white-collar workers released last week." It’s incredible that this is considered progress.
Whenever I meet a vegan, I ask her (or him, but really still her) if she’s pro-life. So far none of them have been pro-life (but it’s been a pretty small sample size). Presumably, this means that the vegans I’ve met think it’s wrong to eat an animal fetus, but ok to abort a human fetus.
The Politician is a book – actually it’s a letter written to friends – about Dwight Eisenhower. Welch’s thesis is that Eisenhower is a Communist or is controlled by Communists.
After reading the book, I don’t believe that Ike was a commie, however I believe that if I had been a Commie in the US in ’52 or ’56 that I probably would have voted Ike. Or as Welch puts it: "In April, 1957, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President of the United States on the Socialist ticket, stated that ‘the United States is making greater strides toward socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt.’" That’s really saying something!
Instead of providing my thoughts, I think I provide some tastes of Welch’s evidence. Much of it is impossible to include since it would take up too much space, but here is a small, abbreviated sampling. If you’re looking for more evidence, basically the entire book is just a chronicle of evidence – read the whole thing if you need more:
At the end of WWII, America got schooled by the Soviets. "It simply was not possible to lose so much ground, so rapidly, to an enemy so inferior, by chance or by stupidity."
Welch believes that George Marshall was a communist. "I defy anybody, who is not actually a Communist himself, to read all of the known facts about his career and
not decide that since at least sometime in the 1930’s George Catlett Marshall has been a conscious, deliberate, dedicated agent of the Soviet conspiracy." Here I think Welch has some solid ground, as Marshall was instrumental in ensuring that Mao defeated Chiang. Eisenhower owned his incredibly rapid ascent through the military ranks (suspicious in itself) to Marshall.
dozens of their kind were flitting in and out of the White House and Washington with the vicarious authority of the President in their voices or at the ends of their fountain pens; when Roosevelt himself stated openly that Communists were among his personal friends, and turned the presidential spleen on anybody who didn’t like them as well as he did. It should be remembered that Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme, to put over Communist inspired New Deal measures despite the Constitution, was planned by the Communists and first announced by Earl Browder in a speech in Providence, Rhode Island. That in 1941 it was only three years since Roosevelt’s attempted purge, of the Senators who had voted against this scheme, had been conducted by America’s leading Communist, Earl Browder, from inside the White House. And that it was to be only three years more before Alger Hiss would be playing his part at Roosevelt’s right hand, despite everything both Martin Dies and the FBI had already done to indicate that Hiss was a Communist traitor.
Please remember, too, that in all the countless conferences of the early war years, in Washington and London and everywhere else, it was usually George Marshall, speaking for the military, and Harry Hopkins, speaking for the President, who represented the United States or carried the real weight among our representatives. It was Marshall and Hopkins who had by far the most to say about which generals should be moved or promoted into which commands, in the rapidly coalescing and increasing Allied forces.
Welch provides lots and lots of evidence that early war plans in WWII were designed to help Stalin – obviously there are non-nefarious reasons why this should be so, but the amount of evidence is very compelling. In addition, there is lots of evidence that Eisenhower, as commander, went to great lengths to ensure the Soviets were able to capture as much territory as possible, for example: "Eventually, in 1944, Stalin, George Marshall, and Eisenhower together were able to overrule Churchill and the British, stop the Allied forces which had invaded Italy from crossing the Po Valley into the Balkans, and open up their second front in France. This not only increased the relief for Stalin on the Eastern front, which was being provided by the Allied campaigns anyway, but from Stalin’s point of view it accomplished what was now a far more important purpose. It left the Balkans wide open for the Soviet agents and Soviet armies to take them over, in the chaos that accompanied the German collapse."
"Most notorious of these ‘mistakes’ was his stopping of our troops from entering Prague and Berlin, in order to give the Russians time to reach and take those capitals, when both cities were begging to be allowed to surrender to the Americans."
"These orders to halt our troops were emphatically confirmed by Eisenhower — he had already wired Stalin his generous "you go first" concession — over the vigorous protest of Churchill, who could foresee the tremendous cost to the anti-Communist world in the ultimate political and economic effects of these pro-Communist ‘blunders.’"
Then, there is lots of evidence that Eisenhower allowed the Soviets to do terrible things to the areas they occupied and to US prisoners of war that Eisenhower insisted on returning to the Soviets. For example: "Actually, what the barbarian Russian soldiers did in Berlin, while Eisenhower kept our troops obligingly waiting in the outskirts, has been described, probably without exaggeration, as ‘the most ghastly and enormous raping and looting orgy which Christian Europe had ever had to suffer.’"
"Let’s look next at another tremendous boost given the Russian Communist plans by Eisenhower, for which he justifiably took some of the credit in 1948, but which he undoubtedly would prefer to disclaim today. This was the instigation and early implementation of the so-called Morgenthau Plan for the conversion of Germany into a goat pasture — so that it could never stand as a bulwark against the eventual Russian march across Europe. But for the foresight, patriotism, and determination of just one man, James Forrestal (whom the Communists later, either directly or indirectly, murdered), Eisenhower and his Communist pushers would have succeeded in carrying out the complete and final devastation which they planned."
"Among the Yalta papers there is a letter from Anthony Eden to the U. S. Secretary of State, informing him of repatriations of Soviet nationals, from both England and Mediterranean areas, which had already been made, before Yalta; and stating that Allied Supreme Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had already decided to extradite Russians as quickly as possible. And it was not just Russian nationals concerning whom he had made this decision. Those readers with good enough memories will recall the wave of suicides of Polish officers, who had served gallantly as volunteers with our troops in Italy, when these men found that they were being forcibly returned by our army to their certain death in a Poland which was now ruled by Stalin’s Lublin Gang."
"There have been few crimes in history more brutal and more extensive than this forced repatriation of anti-Communists, to which Dwight Eisenhower committed the honor of the United States."
Welch claims that Eisenhower suppressed evidence that Katyn was committed by the Soviets.
Eisenhower enjoyed incredibly favorable media coverage. "Just suppose that some real anti-Communist general, like Albert Wedemeyer, had had the smelly liaison with his female chauffeur that Eisenhower enjoyed with Kay Summersby. Do you suppose that half the press of the country would be constantly playing up Wedemeyer (even if he were president), by pictures and by articles, as a wonderful family man? Or suppose MacArthur, as Supreme Commander in Europe, had been drunk and unavailable the night the Battle of the Bulge began. Can you imagine how many times that story would have been retold by the Communist- inspired columnists? Or suppose Taft, at the 1952 Republican Convention, had made the dirty undercover deal with a candidate for the Vice-Presidency that Eisenhower made."
"So a left-winger named Leonard Finder becomes the official and widely publicized discoverer and promoter of Eisenhower for the Republican nomination. And the whole American press, gladly even if in large part unconsciously, does your job for you, of spreading the information to every corner of America, and to every Communist far enough up in the ranks to recognize its significance, that Leonard Finder wants Eisenhower to be the Republican nominee."
The presidential nomination process is interesting. Welch believes that the Communists orchestrated Eisenhower’s rise to the top of the Republican Party to prevent Taft from outing all the Communists in government. Welch also spends some time discussing Eisenhower’s flirtation with the Democratic Party: "But when you turn to the list of those who — knowing well what Eisenhower stood for and where he belonged in the political spectrum — tried to make him the Democratic candidate in 1948, the flock is something to behold. Among its leaders were Adlai Stevenson, Millard Tydings, James Roosevelt, Frank Hague, Jake Arvey, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., (a vice-president of Americans For Democratic Action), A.A. Berle, Jr., Helen Gahagan Douglas (who had won high political office through Communist support and later lost it through supporting the Communists), William O’Dwyer, David Dubinsky (who had raised American money to help the Communist forces in the Spanish civil war), Claude Pepper (of whom the less said the better), Chester Bowles (of whom we may have more to say later), Walter Winchell, Drew Pearson, Eleanor Roosevelt, most of the leaders of the Americans For Democratic Action — and Sidney Hillman."
"Eisenhower as President has initiated and sparked a continuing, unhesitating, and highly successful effort to prevent any real exposure of Communists high up in government, and to minimize the exposure of Communists in the lower echelons — of either the Truman Administration or his own." He specifically ordered Brownell to stop investigating Communists in government.
"Eisenhower quietly clamped a dictatorial embargo on the supply of any information by government departments to investigating committees, which made the Truman gag rule look almost cooperative, and which has been in effect ever since. . . . For the order, as we have said, was not limited to personnel security matters, but prohibited government departments from giving Congressional committees any information. This Presidential directive works as a complete shield, behind which the Communists can do anything they wish, in any department, with impunity and without fear of exposure."
Welch marshals lots of evidence that Eisenhower did not help other Republicans – unless they were very left-wing – in getting elected. In addition: "The ruthless weeding out of the followers of Taft, and of conservatives in general, from positions of influence within the Republican organization, had started the minute Eisenhower was elected. At the same time Eisenhower did an effective job of dragging his feet, a very clever job but one so extensive as to provoke widespread comment and criticism, in not giving jobs to Republicans at all; not even jobs which, despite Civil Service regulations, were open and supposed to be available to a new administration as favors to the party faithful. The magazine, Human Events, charged on September 15, 1954, that no federal administration in history had so strikingly disregarded party loyalty in this respect."
Welch believes that Eisenhower’s appointments were designed: "(1) To split the Republican Party, and weaken the conservative faction, by giving jobs to leftwing Republicans, whenever anybody calling himself a Republican was appointed at all; (2) to frustrate and break down the whole Republican Party, as well as to gather strength and implementation for socialistic measures, by giving important jobs to leftwing Democrats; and (3) to put actual Communists or Communist sympathizers into influential positions, to whatever extent the political climate made it feasible. Eisenhower’s catering to this third purpose has steadily increased during the last two or three years." He lists and analyzes 40 such appointments.
Perhaps most effective was Earl Warren: "Our Supreme Court is now so strongly and almost completely under Communist influence that it shatters its own precedents and rips gaping holes in our Constitution, in order to favor Communist purposes. Its ‘Red Monday’ decisions in 1957 were described by a notorious Communist in California as ‘the greatest victory the Communist Party ever had.” This gloating comment may have been entirely correct. Just one result of those decisions was that more than three hundred known Communists or Communist sympathizers were actually restored to their positions within our federal government."
It’s worth quoting a bit about Eisenhower’s time at Columbia: "It was as president of Columbia University, however, that Eisenhower got in some of his most effective blows for the cause. Best known of these was his acceptance of the grant, from the Communist puppet government of Poland, of thirty thousand dollars as an endowment for a ‘Chair of Polish Studies.’ He was warned by Columbia faculty members, as well as patriotic Polish citizens in this country, that the endowment was solely for the purpose of setting up a Communist propaganda center at Columbia. [which it turned out to be] . . . A few months later, in February, 1949, the American Legion officially appointed a delegation to call on President Eisenhower of Columbia University and give him the facts about Communists on his faculty. Eisenhower refused even to receive the delegation."
Welch comes up with, what seems like, hundreds of anecdotes like this one: "In 1953, paying lip service to conservatism as a part of his act for the whole nation when he first went in as President, he called the TVA a good example of creeping socialism. In his 1957-58 budget, he asked for 14.7 million dollars of new funds for TVA, against 5.3 million dollars the previous year." Or, quoting Eisenhower: "I must say that during the years that I knew him ( Zhukov ) I had a most satisfactory acquaintance and friendship with him …. We had many long discussions about our respective doctrines …. We tried each to explain to the other just what our systems meant, to the individual, and I was very hard put to it when he insisted that their system appealed to the idealistic …. And I had a very tough time trying to defend our position …. "
It would be possible to write a whole book on the strange facts surrounding the end of the Korean war, but in short: "After the death of Stalin, and because of various other factors which we shall touch upon in due course, the Communists were extremely anxious for peace in Korea. They were delighted to have the American President make a trip to Korea, and suggest by his actions that he was practically suing for peace — which Eisenhower obligingly did — both for appearances in Asia, and because this made it more plausible for them to force on us the ignominious terms and arrangements which we later accepted."
The same is true for the Suez Crisis, but again, in short form: "The net results were: (1) to make England and France look like silly third-rate powers, in the whole Middle East, where their influence had been so strong for so long; (2) to glorify Nasser, in the eyes of the whole Arab world, as the native hero who had reduced the lions to slinking cats; (3) to create in both England and France a hatred and distrust of the American government, especially among the real anti-Communists in those countries, which later actions would make even more fatal to any defense of Western Europe."
Welch also believes Eisenhower’s policies began the end for Cuba: "The delivery of Cuba into Communist hands, and eventual conversion of Cuba into the Communist spearhead for subjugating all of the Americas, really began with an order of the Eisenhower Government on March 14, 1958, which suspended all deliveries of arms to the legitimate government of Cuba. . . . Just one week later [i.e. after Castro had a tenuous hold on Havana], on January 7, 1959, Eisenhower recognized this group of known Communist murderers—Fidel Castro, Raoul Castro, Che Guevara, and their associates — as the legal government of Cuba."
Welch offers lots of evidence that American foreign aid was used to prop up and encourage various Communists in other parts of the world. For example, "In 1957 he threatened to call a special session of Congress if the foreign-aid appropriation he had currently demanded was cut by just the 13% which was indicated. Although a very suspicious secrecy about what was to be done with the money made it difficult for even Congress to learn any of the details, it was possible to find out that this proposed new appropriation included fifteen million dollars of economic aid for Tito plus ‘some’ military assistance, and many other grants of equally doubtful character." Or, if you prefer: "It is simply impossible any longer to classify the gift of jet planes to Yugoslavia, or of forty million dollars per year to Laos, as stupidity."
Welch lists Eisenhowers’ Communist friends, acquaintances, assistants and aides. The list is too long for me to re-type. Belfrage, for example, was his press control officer at his headquarters while he was Supreme Commander. I already mentioned Barnes. Others include: "John G. Winant, Harry Dexter White, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Anna M. Rosenberg, Sidney Hillman, Pearl Mesta, Jacob Javits, W.Averell Harriman, Milton Katz, and Harry Hopkins." At least according to Welch.
Welch believes Eisenhower encouraged immigration of Communists, for example: "Eisenhower’s State Department has waived — for more than two years now — all documentation for persons coming to this country from Cuba, if they claim they are coming for less than twenty-nine days."
The book is called The Politician because Welch believes Eisenhower, while a mediocre military man, was an incredible politician. He is best understood as such – and this understanding contributes much to Welch’s thesis. In the end, Welch basically concedes that it’s possible to conclude that Eisenhower wasn’t a Communist, but this alternative conclusion raises many – perhaps more interesting – questions. Welch is almost certainly wrong about some specifics – for example, he assumes that Yugoslavia under Tito did not have a falling out with the Soviets (they’re both Communists so they’re friends). Nevertheless, even if you were to throw out 50% of his evidence, you’d still have a lot of evidence left. Or, as Welch puts it, regardless of which conclusion you draw:
For the Communists can now use all the power and prestige of the Presidency of the United States to implement their plans, just as fully and even openly as they dare. They have arrived at this point by three stages. In the first stage, Roosevelt thought he was using the Communists, to promote his personal ambitions and grandiose schemes. Of course, instead, the Communists were using him; but without his knowledge or understanding of his place in their game. In the second stage, Truman was passively used by the Communists, with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President. In the-third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims. And who, in situations where his personal effort and participation are needed, brings to the support of those aims all of the political skill, deceptive cunning, and tremendous ability as an actor, which are his outstanding characteristics [i.e. he's a hell of a politician].
Anyway, I think I’ll leave it at that. Welch must be taken with a grain of salt, but then so too must all mainstream sources from this time, since the mainstream sources were so inter-connected with Communists.
But, before I sign off, here’s Welch on Communism in general:
Communism is imposed on every country, from the top down, by a conspiratorial apparatus, headed and controlled by suave and utterly ruthless criminals, who are recruited from the richest families, most highly educated intellectuals, and most skillful politicians within that country. The rest of the show, including all of the noise made and work done by the poor "revolutionary" beatniks and dupes at the bottom, is mere pretense and deception.
I think the idea of raising children without reference to the modern world is interesting. I’ve complained before that, once you step into the modern world, you become a progressive in many ways. You just can’t help but imbibe the progressive worldview and (particularly) language.
It would be really cool to raise someone with the mindset of an 18th Century nobleman. However, would life in the 21st Century really be all that cool for a reincarnated 18th Century nobleman? I’m not so sure. He’d probably walk around in constant awe of how vulgar everyone around him was. Anyway, like it or not, eventually the kid is going to have to make his way in the modern world.
In short, I think it would be irresponsible not to prepare him for this eventuality.
I don’t intend to even try to completely isolate my kid(s) from the reality of the modern world. I hope to create a nice, old-fashioned lifestyle in my home and let that example – set against the rest of the world – do it’s thing.
One asks: "So in raising our children, should we teach boys the tricks of Game and social dynamics, knowing that the corresponding tactics undermine the society we aspire to?"
The alternative to not teaching children about the realities of modern social dynamics would mean throwing them into the pit of the modern sexual marketplace totally unequipped. That just seems cruel.
Aretae has a free trade "puzzle" that does a good job of cutting to the differences I have with him. He asks: "How many people does it require before free trade is a bad idea?"
To answer his question with a question, I would ask: "How different do two populations have to be before their optimal trade policies would differ?"
For example, the free trader apparently believes that Mali and Singapore have the exact same optimal trade policy. That is an incredibly strange finding and I would be willing to wager a lot that it’s not true.
I’ve just started reading Lee Kwan Yew‘s memoirs. It’s interesting that even Singapore went through of phase of protectionism. It would be nice if the free traders at least would admit that reality doesn’t seem to comport with their theory – i.e. it seems that all actually developed countries went through a phase of protectionism. Yew feared mass unemployment much more than high-priced, lower-quality goods. Is it really too much to ask that we admit that this trade-off exists?
This has become one of my refrains when talking to people in person. If you’re a progressive and you feel that the political system isn’t doing what you want, it’s misguided to look at this as a personal failure of elected officials. It’s, if anything, a personal failure of you and people like you. Justice and equality doesn’t just happen because it’s nice, people need to make it happen. If it’s not happening, then its advocates are failing. . . .
Be personally annoying about your political views when they’re relevant to your interactions in everyday life. I, being a jerk, will absolutely not allow someone to make a remark about the high prices, crowding, and mediocrity of DC bars without subjecting them to a discourse about the DC liquor licensing regime. Lots of people who think they’re not interesting in the DC liquor licensing regime are interested in its consequences. If you are in a car with me and we’re in a rush hour traffic jam, you are damn well going to listen to me talk about congestion pricing.
I am widely considered to be an extremely not nice person because I don’t believe that public intellectual discourse should be hamstrung by those virtues appropriate for an eighth grader approaching her bat mitzvah. I’m not in eighth grade anymore.
Now, in person, as those few of my readers who have met me can attest, I am the perpetual extremely nice eighth grader. But, I don’t really meet with people much in person anymore because it seems like a waste of everybody’s time. I have a goal — helping my fellow citizens understand better how the world works — and I have a talent — demolishing cant. My personal niceness tends to get in the way of my helping my country.
Setting aside the fact that Matt’s first paragraph is pretty fucking creepy – if you pause to think about it – Sailer and Yglesias are saying almost completely opposite things.
In person, Matt says he would be an asshole and Sailer says he’d be a nice guy. When they write, Sailer says he’ll tell the truth even if it hurts your feelings, while Yglesias will be studiously politically correct (almost by definition at this point).
This – more or less – mirrors the my real world experiences with reactionaries and progressives.
Jim: "Any organization that calls itself a non government organization turns out in practice to be largely a government organization. It follows therefore, that an NGO is a government doing something evil."
A major difference between real science (as it was) and scientific research (as it is now) can be stated in the form that real scientists aimed to be as honest as possible, while scientific researchers do not allow their honesty to fall below a minimum level.
Whiskey on Sweden. I disagree with his analysis. IMHO, feminism is a symptom of a deeper disease.
By "communist" I don’t mean the current definition, which means "Stalinist". I include under communism everything from communes like the Oneida community to Stalin’s Five Year plans and Mao’s collective farms, to New Deal Socialism-lite, to European "social democracy". Communism is a system where society is collectively regulated by a caste of bureaucrats or intellectuals who rule in the name of the people with the purpose of enforcing equality.
A cashflow approach is much more effective for figuring out where we’re headed. Money flows out to the folks on Wall Street who bankrupted their firms, to schoolteachers who’ve failed to teach their students, to government workers who feel that simply showing up to work is a heroic achievement, to executives and union workers in America’s oldest and least competitive industries. If times are tough and money is tight, that means almost nothing is left over for productive investment. What would have been a short recession will turn into a long depression and decades of higher taxes and slow growth to pay for all of the cash ladled out. Special interest groups will continue to gain in power.
You are currently browsing the Foseti blog archives for September, 2011.
Certainly the Art of Writing is the most miraculous of all things man has devised. Odin's Runes were the first form of the work of a Hero; Books written words, are still miraculous Runes, the latest form! In Books lies the soul of the whole Past Time; the articulate audible voice of the Past, when the body and material substance of it has altogether vanished like a dream. Mighty fleets and armies, harbors and arsenals, vast cities, high-domed, many-engined,—they are precious, great: but what do they become? Agamemnon, the many Agamemnons, Pericleses, and their Greece; all is gone now to some ruined fragments, dumb mournful wrecks and blocks: but the Books of Greece! There Greece, to every thinker, still very literally lives: can be called up again into life. No magic Rune is stranger than a Book. All that Mankind has done, thought, gained or been: it is lying as in magic preservation in the pages of Books. They are the chosen possession of men.
"To have been always in the right and yet always on the losing side; always being ruined, always under persecution from a wild spirit of republican-demagogism,—and yet never to lose anything, not even position or public esteem, is pleasant enough. A huge, living, daily increasing grievance that does one no palpable harm, is the happiest possession that a man can have. There is a large body of such men in England, and, personally, they are the very salt of the nation. He who said that all Conservatives are stupid did not know them. Stupid Conservatives there may be,—and there certainly are very stupid Radicals. The well-educated, widely-read Conservative, who is well assured that all good things are gradually being brought to an end by the voice of the people, is generally the pleasantest man to be met."
- Anthony Trollope (in The Eustace Diamonds)
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
- H. L. Mencken
The more I see of men, the better I like dogs.
- Madame Roland
vox populi, vox humbug
- W. T. Sherman
Once there was The People - Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once There was The People - it shall never be again!
- Rudyard Kipling (quoted from Easy as A.B.C.)
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams
[T]he first Whig was the devil
- Samuel Johnson
The people that awakes, first shouts, then gets drunk, pillages, [and] murders, and later goes back to sleep.
- Don Colacho