MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘racism’

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Can the Fed End Racism?

Posted by M. C. on October 14, 2020

Supporters of this scheme say that inflation raises wages and creates new job opportunities for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. However, these wage gains are illusory, as wages rarely, if ever, increase as much as prices. So, workers’ real standard of living declines even as their nominal income increases.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/october/12/can-the-fed-end-racism/

Written by Ron Paul

undefined

House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters and Senator Elizabeth Warren have introduced the Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act. This legislation directs the Federal Reserve to eliminate racial disparities in income, employment, wealth, and access to credit.

Eliminating racial disparities in access to credit is code for forcing banks and other financial institutions to approve loans based on the applicants’ race, instead of based on their income and credit history. Overlooking poor credit history or income below what would normally be required to qualify for a loan results in individuals ending up with ruinous debt. These individuals will end up losing their homes, cars, or businesses because banks disregarded sound lending practices in an effort to show they are meeting race-based requirements.

Forcing banks to make loans based on political considerations damages the economy by misallocating resources. This reduces economic growth and inflicts more pain on lower-income Americans.

The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act has already shown what happens when the government forces banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers. This law played a significant role in the housing boom and subsequent economic meltdown. The Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act will be the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids.

This legislation also requires the Fed to shape monetary policy with an eye toward eliminating racial disparities. This adds a third mandate to the Fed’s current “dual mandate” of promoting a stable dollar and full employment.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has already publicly committed to using racial disparities as an excuse to continue the Fed’s current policy of perpetual money creation. Since inflation occurs whenever the Fed creates new money, Powell and his supporters want a policy of never-ending inflation.

Supporters of this scheme say that inflation raises wages and creates new job opportunities for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. However, these wage gains are illusory, as wages rarely, if ever, increase as much as prices. So, workers’ real standard of living declines even as their nominal income increases. By contrast, those at the top of the income ladder tend to benefit from inflation as they receive the new money — and thus an increase in purchasing power — before the Fed’s actions cause a general rise in the price level. The damage done by inflation is hidden and regressive, which is part of why the inflation tax is the most insidious of all taxes.

When the Fed creates new money, it distorts the market signals sent by interest rates, which are the price of money. This leads to a bubble. Many people who find well-paying jobs in bubble industries will lose those jobs when the bubble inevitably bursts. Many of these workers, and others, will struggle because of debt they incurred because they listened to “experts” who said the boom would never end.

The Federal Reserve’s manipulation of the money supply lowers the dollar’s value, creates a boom-and-bust business cycle, facilitates the rise of the welfare-warfare state, and enriches the elites, while impoverishing people in the middle and lower classes. Progressives who want to advance the wellbeing of people in the middle and lower classes should stop attacking free markets and join libertarians in seeking to restore a sound monetary policy, The first step is to let the people know the full truth about the central bank by passing the Audit the Fed bill. Once the truth about the Fed is exposed, a critical mass of people will join the liberty movement and force Congress to end the Fed’s money monopoly.


Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Progressive Racism of the Ivy League – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

The taproot of progressive racism is LBJ’s Executive Order 11246. This altered the meaning of “affirmative action” from guaranteeing the equality of opportunity to bringing about an equality of “results.”

As for Yale and other Ivy League universities, it is an indictment of conservatives who have held executive power often in the past 50 years that they have not chopped federal funding for these bastions of progressive racism.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/patrick-j-buchanan/the-progressive-racism-of-the-ivy-league/

By

If the definition of racism is deliberate discrimination based on race, color or national origin, Yale University appears to be a textbook case of “systemic racism.”

And, so, the Department of Justice contends.

Last week, Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband charged, “Yale discriminates based on race… in its undergraduate admissions process and race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year.

“Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials…

“Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission.

“Yale racially balances its classes.”

Yale defends this admissions policy by claiming it considers the “whole person” — leadership, a likelihood students “will contribute to the Yale Community and the world,” and, says Yale President Peter Salovey, “a student body whose diversity is a mark of its excellence.”

Yet, somehow, when all these factors are considered, the higher-scoring Asian and white students invariably come up short, because the racial composition of Yale’s incoming classes remains roughly the same every year.

The Justice Department refused to wave its big stick — a threat to cut off tax dollars that go yearly to Yale. Incidentally, Yale sits on an endowment of some $30 billion — second only to Harvard’s.

A court case alleging that Harvard emulates Yale, or vice versa, and admits Black and brown students whose test scores would instantly disqualify white and Asian students is headed for the Supreme Court.

At the heart of this dispute over diversity are basic questions, the resolution of which will affect the long-term unity of the American nation.

Is discrimination against white students in favor of Black students with far lower test scores morally acceptable if done to advance racial “diversity”?

And, if so, for how long? Forever?

Is it praiseworthy to advance Hispanic applicants over Asian applicants with far higher test scores and academic achievements?

Why? What did these Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Vietnamese high school seniors do to deserve discrimination in the country to which their parents came where, supposedly, “All men are created equal”?

President Lyndon Johnson first formally introduced this notion of benevolent racial discrimination. Addressing D.C.’s Howard University in 1965, LBJ said in a speech written by Richard Goodwin, “We seek… not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.”

But what if equality of opportunity, an equal chance at the starting line, fails to produce equality of results?

What if Black Americans dominate America’s most richly rewarded sports such as the NBA and NFL, while Asians and whites excel in academic pursuits and on admissions exams at Yale and Harvard?

Why is it right to discriminate against working-class white kids from Middle America in favor of urban and middle-class Black kids in admissions to prestige colleges?

If so, what does social justice mean? Who defines it?

In California, the state legislature has put on the ballot a measure to overturn the ban on all racial and ethnic discrimination that was voted into California’s Constitution in Proposition 209 in 1996.

That prohibition reads:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

What Californians said in 1996 was: No discrimination means no discrimination.

Civil rights activist Ward Connerly, who is fighting the repeal of Prop 209, argues that while street mobs may be tearing down statues, West Coast liberals are tearing down the principle of equality.

It is the character of the republic that is at issue here.

If Asian Americans, outnumbered 5 to 1 by Black and Hispanic Americans, can be indefinitely discriminated against, this would appear to be the very definition of “un-American.”

And if white Americans, the shrinking majority of the nation and a minority in our most populous states, can indefinitely be discriminated against in favor of people of color, they will eventually embrace the tribal politics of race and identity that would risk the breakup of the union, as is happening in Europe and around the world.

The taproot of progressive racism is LBJ’s Executive Order 11246. This altered the meaning of “affirmative action” from guaranteeing the equality of opportunity to bringing about an equality of “results.”

President Donald Trump, before or after Nov. 3, should convene with Ward Connerly and ask him to redefine “affirmative action” to mean exactly what its original author, JFK, intended it to mean.

As for Yale and other Ivy League universities, it is an indictment of conservatives who have held executive power often in the past 50 years that they have not chopped federal funding for these bastions of progressive racism.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Racism Responsible for Today’s Black Problems? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 29, 2020

As Thomas Sowell reported: “Going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, we find that census data of that era showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/walter-e-williams/is-racism-responsible-for-todays-black-problems/

By

I doubt whether any American would defend the police treatment of George Floyd that led to his death. But many Americans are supporting some of the responses to Floyd’s death — rioting, looting, wanton property destruction, assaults on police and other kinds of mayhem by both whites and blacks.

The pretense is that police conduct stands as the root of black problems. According to the NAACP, from 1882-1968, there were 3,446 black people lynched at the hands of whites. Today, being murdered by whites or policemen should be the least of black worries. In recent times, there is an average of 9,252 black-on-black murders every year. Over the past 35 years, that translates into nearly 324,000 blacks murdered at the hands of other blacks. Only a tiny percentage of blacks are killed by police. For example, in Chicago this year, there were 414 homicides, with a total of 2,078 people shot. So far in 2020, three people have been killed by police and four were shot. Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald reports that “a police officer is 181/2 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.” Crime is a major problem for many black communities, but how much of it can be attributed to causes such as institutional racism, systemic racism and white privilege?

The most devastating problem is the very weak black family structure. Less than a third of black children live in two-parent households and illegitimacy stands at 75%. The “legacy of slavery” is often blamed. Such an explanation turns out to be sheer nonsense when one examines black history. Even during slavery, where marriage was forbidden, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. Professor Herbert G. Gutman’s research in “The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom 1750-1925” found that in three-fourths of 19th-century slave families, all the children had the same mother and father. In New York City, in 1925, 85% of black households were two-parent. In fact, “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” During slavery and as late as 1920, a black teenage girl raising a child without a man present was a rarity.

An 1880 study of family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of all black families were nuclear families. There were only slight differences in family structure between racial groups. The percentages of nuclear families were: black (75.2%), Irish (82.2%), German (84.5%) and native white Americans (73.1%). Only one-quarter of black families were female-headed. Female-headed families among Irish, German and native white Americans averaged 11%. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers. As Thomas Sowell reported: “Going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, we find that census data of that era showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940.”

The absence of a father in the home predisposes children, especially boys, to academic failure, criminal behavior and economic hardship, not to mention an intergenerational repeating of handicaps. If today’s weak family structure is a legacy of slavery, then the people who make such a claim must tell us how it has managed to skip nearly five generations to have an effect.

There are problems such as grossly poor education, economic stagnation and poverty that impact the black community heavily. I would like someone to explain how tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson and Confederate generals help the black cause. Destruction of symbols of American history might help relieve the frustrations of all those white college students and their professors frustrated by the 2016 election of President Donald Trump. Problems that black people face give white leftists cover for their anti-American agenda.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Young white woman killed by BLM thugs simply because she spoke the TRUTH: “All Lives Matter” – NaturalNews.com

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2020

“To top it off after the 2 young people continued their walk and then turned back, that is when the multiple black Blm assailants came out of hiding and shot JESSICA in the head.

“Why isn’t anybody outraged about this?” Snavely added. “Is it that BLM was involved or that it was white young adults that [were] the victims?”

Or both.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-07-14-young-woman-killed-blm-thugs-truth-all-lives-matter.html

 

Image: Young white woman killed by BLM thugs simply because she spoke the TRUTH: “All Lives Matter”

Have you heard any of the wall-to-wall coverage of the young white woman who was killed by Black Lives Matter thugs after she dared to challenge them with the truth — that “All Lives Matter?”

What do you think about all of the nationwide protests, massive demonstrations, rampant destruction, wanton looting, and violence directed towards police as a result of that murder?

What are your thoughts about ‘ALM’ activists now intimidating and attacking black people, toppling and defacing monuments to Martin Luther King Jr. and painting murals saying, “All Lives Matter” across the street from Barack and Michelle Obama’s homes in Washington, D.C. and Martha’s Vineyard?

You don’t have an opinion on any of these things, no doubt, because they haven’t happened and they aren’t going to happen.

And yet, a young white woman was killed by BLM thugs along the canal in Indianapolis, Indiana over the Fourth of July holiday specifically because she told them All Lives Matter.

Outside of local media and a few independent news sites, few Americans have heard this heartbreaking story — because it is ‘anti-Mainstream media narrative’ and does not comport with the Democratic Marxism of the ongoing culture war against our founding.

Fox59 reports:

An Indianapolis mother was shot and killed along the canal early Sunday, marking the second homicide on the canal in a week.

According to the victim’s family, the shooting started over some racially charged language. 

The victim, Jessica Doty Whitaker, leaves behind a little boy.

“She shouldn’t have lost her life. She’s got a 3-year-old son she loved dearly,” said her fiance Jose Ramirez.

According to Ramirez, he and the victim and two other people were hanging out along the canal when someone in their group used a slang version of the N-word.

That led to a confrontation from a nearby group of black males who, you know, never call each other the “N” word (except that they do, and they celebrate it in rap music as well).

At one point, Fox59 noted, someone in the shooting suspect’s group shouted, “Black Lives Matter,” prompting a response from Whitaker or someone in her group, “All Lives Matter.” (Related: Marxist BLM terrorists cut down memorial to 9-11 firefighters in New York: This isn’t about George Floyd anymore.)

The local station says that eventually both groups realized each other were armed so they “fist-bumped” and separated. But then, according to Ramirez, as he walked with his fiancee, someone from the other group ambushed them from a bridge and ran off.

Whitaker, 24, was struck in the head and leg, according to reports.

“It was squashed and they went up the hill and left we thought, but they were sitting on St. Clair waiting for us to come under the bridge and that’s when she got shot,” said Ramirez, who admitted he returned fire but did not hit anyone.

“It’s hard to tell him his mom is in heaven and if you want to talk to her you have to look up and say, ‘I love you mom,’” he said.

Whitaker’s response — ‘All Lives Matter’ — was confirmed by her family in interviews with The Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra Fairbanks.

According to her report, the victim’s grandfather wrote on Facebook that she was attacked by “multiple black assailants.”

“How is it that 2 white young people are out for some alone time they drop her 3 year old off at her grandmas house expecting to have an evening to reconnect, but all they got was terrorized by multiple black BLM assailants on the canal in downtown Indy,” the grandfather, Dale Snavely, wrote.

“To top it off after the 2 young people continued their walk and then turned back, that is when the multiple black Blm assailants came out of hiding and shot JESSICA in the head.

“Why isn’t anybody outraged about this?” Snavely added. “Is it that BLM was involved or that it was white young adults that [were] the victims?”

That’s a great question.

Sources include:

TheGatewayPundit.com

Fox59.com

NaturalNews.com

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How the Left Uses “Public Health Crises” to Get What It Wants | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 10, 2020

In another case, researchers in the Annual Review of Public Health focus on suicides committed by firearm. But instead of taking issue with the mental health problems that lead to suicide, the pat and easy answer is simply more firearms prohibition, with the assumption that there can be no downside to this at all. Also ignored is the fact that the data doesn’t support the notion that suicides decline in the absence of firearms.

Not surprisingly, we find that these researchers often have little to no expertise in criminal justice or the actual history of homicides and gun usage. By labeling crime and gun usage to be a matter of “public health,” they have designated themselves, by virtue of being medical doctors, “experts” in the field. Peter Klein has noted how this attitude plays out:

https://mises.org/wire/how-left-uses-public-health-crises-get-what-it-wants?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=d548f54f68-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-d548f54f68-228343965

After insisting for weeks that leaving one’s home or gathering in groups of any size was “irresponsible” and a “slap in the face” to medical professionals, doctors and nurses completely changed their minds. The prohibitionist view toward gatherings was specifically applied to those who protested the stay-at-home orders. “Shame on you!” was the general attitude of many medical professionals who opposed the protests. “How dare you not follow the edicts of science!” But, when protests and riots broke out in the wake of George Floyd’s apparent murder by Minneapolis police officers, many doctors, nurses, pundits, and activists completely changed their tune. These protests, the doctors and nurses assured us, were perfectly fine.

The inconsistency in this position was obvious, of course. There clearly was no scientific difference between a gathering designed for protesting forced business closures and a protest against racism. Many suspected (with good reason) that the only relevant difference between the two was that the antiracism protests happened to line up with the left-wing views of the doctors and nurses in question. Suddenly, the dour moralizing and finger wagging of the nurses was gone, replaced by enthusiasm for public gatherings.

But then the supporters of the new protests figured out a way to slap a patina of science on the obviously political nature and incoherence of the views expressed by groups like “Healthcare Workers for Justice“: let’s call racism a public health crisis.

The phrase immediately became common currency among pundits and mainstream media sources. The idea that racism is not just a bad thing but a “public health crisis” thus put the George Floyd protests on equal footing with stay-at-home orders as a necessary thing designed to combat a grave threat to public health. Countless headlines sprang up declaring “systemic racism is a public health issue” and that just as we need masks to protect ourselves from COVID-19, so we need mass gatherings and protests to protect us from racism.

There’s nothing new about this strategy, though. Declaring a wide variety of social ills to be a “public health crisis” is a timeworn tactic used to raise the profile of a specific policy issue. Thus, poverty, pornography, inequality, inadequate housing, road traffic deaths, and capitalism have all been declared to be public health crises.

“Public health crisis” is essentially a left-wing stock phrase at this point, as is reflected by the fact that the solutions proffered to the social ills in question are virtually always some sort of government regulation or income redistribution scheme forced upon the nation’s population.

“Gun Violence” Is a “Social Disease”

Perhaps the most robust example of this can be found in the literature of how “gun violence” is a public health crisis. It is now common to find research on homicides and suicides with firearms in academic journals devoted to epidemiology and public health.

On an article in the International Journal of Epidemiology titled “The Role of Epidemiology in Firearm Violence Prevention,” the authors conclude, “Firearm violence has reached pandemic levels” and is a “social disease.” The prescribed solution can be easily predicted by anyone familiar with these types of articles. The authors’ demand:

[P]ublic health can create, scale up and evaluate interventions designed to address social and behavioural factors associated with firearm violence. We call on governments, community leaders and community members to take meaningful action to support public health in addressing the problem of firearm violence.

These interventions, of course, are all assumed to be more government prohibitions and regulations punishable by fines and jail time.

In another case, researchers in the Annual Review of Public Health focus on suicides committed by firearm. But instead of taking issue with the mental health problems that lead to suicide, the pat and easy answer is simply more firearms prohibition, with the assumption that there can be no downside to this at all. Also ignored is the fact that the data doesn’t support the notion that suicides decline in the absence of firearms.

Not surprisingly, we find that these researchers often have little to no expertise in criminal justice or the actual history of homicides and gun usage. By labeling crime and gun usage to be a matter of “public health,” they have designated themselves, by virtue of being medical doctors, “experts” in the field. Peter Klein has noted how this attitude plays out:

A few years ago an economist colleague of mine debated a professor from our university’s school of public health on gun violence and gun control. My colleague walked through the empirical evidence on the effects of gun control laws on crime, accidental injury, and other social ills, citing well-known studies by economists and legal scholars…The public health professor — an MD who also teaches in the medical school — ignored these issues entirely, instead telling emotional stories about ER patients he’d treated for gunshot wounds and how everything must be done to stop this “epidemic” of gun violence.

It is only natural, of course, for scholars of public health to automatically assume that coercive state measures are the solution to nearly every problem. This is how public health officials and scholars think. Moreover, over the past century the field of public health has expanded to cover nearly every field of public policy as a public health concern. Whether we’re talking about urban planning, crime, highway design, or climate change, bureaucrats and academics—there’s really no difference between the two—in the field of public health have an easy “solution” for you. Chances are it involves a new set of laws and government regulations.

Once upon a time, public health was much more limited in its scope. “Public health” once implied that infectious diseases were involved in some way. This was notable, for example, in public health crusades against tuberculosis, which often spread quickly in the dirty and overcrowded urban tenements of the early twentieth century. In many cases, because of the weakness of state institutions, public health officials relied on education and voluntary adoption of better health practices.

This is rarely the practice anymore. In an age of supercharged state institutions, public health is far more characterized by laws, regulations, coercion, punishment, and mandatory “compliance.” The very use of the phrase “public health crisis” is designed to justify these measures. After all, if something is a threat to public health, we must surely all agree it is of the utmost importance. The Left has mastered the use of this phrase as a political ploy. “Public health,” after all is just a matter of scientific objectivity, and those who disagree are “anti-science.”

It’s a very effective ruse. It remains to be seen how long people will fall for it.

Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Love of Ancestors and American History – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 9, 2020

This is exactly what the internal haters of America seek to bring about. By claiming that the key players in America’s history were racists, they try to portray our past as a tale of injustice. Needless to say, their charge of racism is as both misplaced and unjustified. Slavery, which they position at center of their narrative as America’s original sin, has existed throughout the world since the advent of society and probably even before that. It is only relatively recently, in historical terms, that this practice has been largely relinquished.

In fact, slavery exists in a number of places in the world to this day. Most of those places are in Africa and most of the enslavers as well as the enslaved are black. One wonders why today’s racism crusaders do not focus their attention where the real problem is.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/vasko-kohlmayer/love-of-ancestors-and-american-history/

By

In the past few weeks we have watched the widespread vandalization of statues and memorials dedicated to men who played a pivotal role in the story of our nation. Among the targets were such giants of American history as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

The purge was carried out on the charge of racism. Something, however, did not add up. A number of the men whose statues were desecrated were well ahead of their time in their views of race and they did much to further the cause of black people. But the vandals would hear none of it, which came as a surprise to many. There is, however, nothing surprising about their actions once we understand what they are truly after.

What the statue slayers really want has nothing to do with racism. Their goal is not to fight or remedy racial injustice, which in the US has been done decades ago. Their goal is to tear America apart. The way they attempt to achieve this is quite insidious: They seek to make us ashamed of our history which, they maintain, is one of continual racism that persists to this day.

Once we internalize this spurious narrative, we cannot but repudiate our past. The moment this happens we become doomed as a nation, since no people can survive as a national entity without the intuition of togetherness which a sense of shared history helps to foster. It is precisely for this reason that all sane and healthy countries preserve and honor the landmarks of their past, especially those dedicated to the men who shaped their history. It is this collective sense of history that binds a people together and gives them a feeling of belonging to a larger polity, which we call a nation. When the glue of a mutually shared history loses its binding power, a nation will, sooner or later, come apart.

This is exactly what the internal haters of America seek to bring about. By claiming that the key players in America’s history were racists, they try to portray our past as a tale of injustice. Needless to say, their charge of racism is as both misplaced and unjustified. Slavery, which they position at center of their narrative as America’s original sin, has existed throughout the world since the advent of society and probably even before that. It is only relatively recently, in historical terms, that this practice has been largely relinquished.

The United States has paid a greater price in blood and treasure than any other nation to stop this practice and eliminate racism from its institutions. It did it so well that in the second half of the 20th century America’s black population enjoyed more rights, opportunities and freedoms than black people in any other country at any point in history.

The claims of the statue topplers that America’s past is somehow uniquely egregious because of slavery betray a lack of historical perspective. If we should condemn American history because it has been marked by this practice, then we would have to condemn almost ALL of history. In nearly all great civilizations of the past – Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, etc. – slavery was commonly practiced. In fact, these civilizations were to a great extent built on slave labor.

Are we going to blanketly condemn them all? Are we going to say there was nothing good in them and discard their great contributions to the development of mankind? Are we going to tear down statues of Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius because all of them either owned slaves or directly benefited from their labor?  Are we going to condemn Jesus who lived at a time when slavery was a widespread practice and yet chose not to launch a crusade against it? When asked how people should behave toward their Roman overlords, he stated, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He said this even though slavery was endemic in Roman society.

Until relatively recently, nearly every society or historical figure was – by the logic of today’s crusaders –“tainted” by slavery in one way or another. In Europe, for instance, serfdom, which was essentially a soft form of slavery, lasted in many places well into the 18th century. In the rest of the world such practices lasted well beyond that time. In fact, slavery exists in a number of places in the world to this day. Most of those places are in Africa and most of the enslavers as well as the enslaved are black. One wonders why today’s racism crusaders do not focus their attention where the real problem is.

In any case, we cannot judge history through the lens of today’s political correctness which is a luxury that comes with our modern cushioned existence. Given slavery’s historical ubiquity, it is obvious that there existed very strong natural tendencies toward it as an institution. Neither was slavery seen as uniformly negative or injurious to those subjected to it. Sad though it may sound, for many in the past slavery was preferable to the alternatives they faced in life. Many people sold themselves or their children to slavery voluntarily, because they simply could not provide enough to survive. Furthermore, when in past wars armies were defeated and prisoners taken, there were often only two options for those on the losing side: death or servitude. Many a prisoner was glad of the availability of the latter.

  As far as American history goes, it is nothing like the haters try to portray it as. No person or country is perfect, and every person and country has committed their share of errors. America is no exception. This being said, America’s is an inspiring and magnificent history. It is a history of a people who made a perilous voyage across the ocean in search of a new home. It is a history of those who faced very difficult conditions and managed to survive despite the odds. It is a history of a people who from humble beginnings managed to build the most prosperous and free nation the world has ever seen. Ours is a history of a young nation which after many struggles, errors and setbacks managed to build a society which translated into reality the noblest aspirations of the human soul: equality and freedom for all, white, black, yellow and everything in between. The efforts of our forefathers eventually made America a shining city on the global hill, a magnet for people from all over the world regardless of the color of their skin. That’s the essence of the American story.

The miracle of America has come about because of the dedication, strength and ingenuity of our ancestors who overcame immense challenges to make their country a better place for those would come after them. All of us – including the ungrateful complainers of today – are the fortunate beneficiaries of their sweat and blood and we should be deeply grateful for their efforts. We should be thankful regardless of our race, for America is a fair, equitable and opportunity-rife place for all who live here.

But nothing is apparently good enough for the self-righteous critics who spit not only on the memory of our ancestors but also on everything that is good and noble. Blinded by ill-will born of their own misguided ways, they condemn America’s past generations who laid the foundation for the most affluent and racially accommodating country in history. And even while living in the fairest and most institutionally unprejudiced society in the world, the critics still claim that it is “systemically” racist. The fact that they fail to submit any good evidence for their allegations is of no consequence to them.

For brats like this nothing will ever be good enough. Put to shame by the nobility of the great men who came before them, they stand as boors next to the grand souls whose memorials they seek to desecrate. Spoiled, self-indulgent and crass, these people could never build or create a great nation, or anything worthy for that matter. All they can do is to scream, criticize, loot and destroy. Instead of trying to better themselves and make their own contribution to the great story of America, they tear down what the generations before them built with so much effort and sacrifice.

By any historical standard or measure, we Americans are very fortunate to have had great forefathers. We must not allow the ransackers and assorted malcontents to cast false aspersions on their memory. We must not let them besmirch our history by their distorted interpretations of it, because if we give up our past we will surely lose our nation. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to generations past, and we must not let anyone sever the bond of love that many of us feel towards them. Above all, to be the worthy heirs of our forefathers we must not become intimidated by the screeching of the agitators. Instead we need to strengthen our resolve to keep defending and fighting for what we know is right. Let those who come after us say that our generation rose to the challenge and that we did it well.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

How the Left Exploits Antiracism to Attack Capitalism | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 8, 2020

For example, in an article titled “Black Politics and the Neoliberal Racial Order” authors Michael C. Dawson and Megan Ming Francis are quite clear that an attack on neoliberalism is no mere limited attack on an international elite of central bankers:

We define neoliberalism as a set of policies and ideological tenets that include the privatization of public assets; the deregulation or elimination of state services; macroeconomic stabilization and the discouragement of Keynesian policies; trade liberalization and financial deregulation.

Neoliberalism is any movement in the direction of less government intervention in the everyday lives of business owners, entrepreneurs, and households. To be a “non-neoliberal”—and thus ideologically correct—is to be in favor of Keynesian policies, trade controls, and more government regulation.

https://mises.org/wire/how-left-exploits-antiracism-attack-capitalism?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=b8b3373a63-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-b8b3373a63-228343965

Joseph Schumpeter once observed, “capitalism stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets.” Capitalism is to be condemned no matter what, even if the executioners have yet to settle on the specific reason for its condemnation.

The forces of anticapitalism have long morphed into whatever form best suits them for taking advantage of the zeitgeist. Whatever the latest injustice may be—from a polluted environment to poverty to racism—the solution is always the same: the destruction of markets and market freedom. As Ralph Raico has noted:

In earlier times, they [i.e., the anticapitalists] indicted capitalism for the immiseration of the proletariat, inevitable depressions, and the disappearance of the middle classes. Then, a little later, it was for imperialism and inevitable wars among the imperialist (capitalist) powers….

Capitalism was charged with being unable to compete with socialist societies in technological progress (Sputnik); with promoting automation, leading to catastrophic permanent unemployment; both with creating the consumer society and its piggish affluence and with proving incapable of extending such piggishness to the underclass; with “neo-colonialism”; with oppressing women and racial minorities; with spawning a meretricious popular culture; and with destroying the earth itself.

At the moment, the Left has apparently settled on racism as the justification for the latest round of anticapitalist invective. Indeed, if we delve into the Left’s narrative underpinning of the current Black Lives Matter movement we find a sizable undercurrent of anticapitalism. This isn’t to say antiracism has nothing to do with the controversy. Clearly it is an element of the movement. Moreover, it may certainly be the case that most of the movement’s rank and file—those who demonstrate in the streets—are animated simply by a desire to end mistreatment by government police. But when it comes time to formulate policy responses to the current crises of police abuse, we’re likely to discover that the Left is demanding a “solution” that goes far beyond merely holding abusive cops accountable and will focus instead on further dismantling what’s left of the market economy.

“Neoliberalism” as White Supremacy

While the connection between police abuse and the evils of capitalism may not be readily apparent to some, the indictment of capitalism as the ultimate culprit will flow naturally from the fact that the Left has long attempted to connect racism to market economies. We find the evidence in countless leftist-authored books and articles which claim capitalism and racism are inseparable. The vocabulary used here employs the usual pejorative term for capitalism employed by the Left: neoliberalism.

Although many free market liberals (i.e., “classical” liberals) and conservatives have tried to reassure themselves that attacks on neoliberalism are merely benign attacks on globalist elites, this is a naïve view. The Left has consistently used the term “neoliberal” to describe nearly any ideology or policy agenda that is even moderately procapitalist. In their minds, neoliberalism is simply market capitalism.

For example, in an article titled “Black Politics and the Neoliberal Racial Order” authors Michael C. Dawson and Megan Ming Francis are quite clear that an attack on neoliberalism is no mere limited attack on an international elite of central bankers:

We define neoliberalism as a set of policies and ideological tenets that include the privatization of public assets; the deregulation or elimination of state services; macroeconomic stabilization and the discouragement of Keynesian policies; trade liberalization and financial deregulation.

Neoliberalism is any movement in the direction of less government intervention in the everyday lives of business owners, entrepreneurs, and households. To be a “non-neoliberal”—and thus ideologically correct—is to be in favor of Keynesian policies, trade controls, and more government regulation.

The anticapitalism is apparent when researcher Felicia Rose Asbury concludes: “Black Lives Matter…operates as both a byproduct and site of resistance to the material and ideological manifestations of neoliberal projects.” This, of course, makes perfect sense if neoliberalism is inextricably linked with racism, and thus Asbury goes on to describe neoliberalism as being characterized by “exclusion and erasure” of nonwhite groups, which its “structural manifestations of violence” perpetuate. Consequently, it becomes necessary to “create a black future beyond the neoliberal paradigm.”

Dawson and Francis similarly lament the “the intertwined history of white supremacy and capitalist economic structures,” and this is especially alarming to them, because, in the anticapitalist narrative, free market capitalism is the dominant ideology in the world today. The story behind this is a familiar one for anyone well-versed in the Left’s historical narrative around neoliberalism. Specifically, as Dawson and Francis describe it:

Neo-liberalism is a set of policies and an ideology that has led to the transformation of government, starting under President Ronald Reagan, from New Deal – type social policies to policies that not only would be dictated by market principles but also would seek to have market values dominate every sphere of human existence from entertainment to science, from education to the arts. Reagan and his contemporaries Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany were mostly successful in waging war on the Keynesian social contract by attacking the social safety net, labor and its organizations, and any argument or policy that favored, even if ever so slightly, those who were not members of “the 1 percent.”

Moreover, in the mind of the typical anticapitalist intellectual, the story of the 1980s and 1990s is one in which capitalists moved from victory to victory in overturning the old paradigm of the New Deal, which valued egalitarianism and social justice. An almost laissez-faire economic order has been the rule ever since.

Yet to anyone who has been paying attention, this narrative is clearly absurd. Whether we look at tax receipts, government spending, government employment, or the regulatory burden, state control of the economy—at least in the United States—is far larger today than at any time in the past. The economy has not been “deregulated” and the Keynesian paradigm has not been scaled back. Yet the narrative remains immensely powerful. Both leftists and conservatives believe it, which is why even conservatives will claim that “market fundamentalists” dominate the the entire government apparatus.

“Racial Capitalism”

The centrality of racism to capitalism is further reinforced by the relatively recent term “racial capitalism.” The term is employed by Dawson and Francis, who define racial capitalism as “the system that is produced by the mutually constitutive hierarchical structures of capitalism and race in the United States.” This sentence may be difficult to understand for those unfamiliar with the Left’s view of capitalism: capitalism is inherently hierarchical and characterized by top-down and bottom-up conflict between the social classes. In this view, capitalism is fundamentally inseparable from state coercion, which must must be employed by capitalists to keep workers in their place. Capitalists then employ racial divisions to reinforce this hierarchy.

Numerous examples of this theory are fleshed out in Walter Johnson’s new book The Broken Heart of America: St. Louis and the Violent History of the United States. Although Johnson focuses on the city of Saint Louis, the book is really his history of how capitalists nationwide have used racism to exploit the middle and working classes over the past two centuries. It is a history of how “racial capitalism has been one in which white supremacy justified the terms of…capitalist exploitation.” Johnson makes it clear he views the promotion of racism as a necessary tactic in perpetuating capitalism at the expense of the workers. For Johnson, it is possible to control racial and ethnic minorities with shows of physical force. But the numerically superior white workers require a different strategy: specifically, “white supremacy is necessary to control the white people.”1

Consequently, in Johnson’s view, we find that capitalism rests on a shaky foundation in which racism is not just part of the capitalist framework. Racism must be perpetuated by capitalists in order to maintain the capitalist status quo. The conclusion becomes obvious: destroy capitalism and we destroy racism.

It’s easy to see, then, how a well-meaning opponent of bigotry might conclude that the cause of decency must necessary demand the destruction of capitalism. According to the Left’s intellectuals, not only is neoliberalism (i.e., capitalism) inextricably linked with racism, but the neoliberal order is the dominant one. We might then conclude that the injustices we see around us—presumably a product of the status quo—can only be fixed by overturning that dominant ideology. Moreover, the current ruling class—the ascendant capitalists—employ racism to prop themselves up at the expense of everyone else.

Who wouldn’t want to strike at the capitalists after accepting this narrative?

The problem with all this, of course, is that capitalism is certainly not the dominant ideology of the status quo. If it were, Paul Krugman would not be a media darling, and the US would not be running trillion-dollar deficits each year, funded with government-printed money. Moreover, capitalism has long been the enemy of caste systems, which tend to find the most support in noncapitalist traditionalist systems of privilege and protectionism. It’s no coincidence, of course, that the slave drivers of old vehemently slandered capitalism at every opportunity.

But even if we were to win that argument, the anticapitalist narrative would simply switch to environmentalism or the moral turpitude of consumerism. This year, the popular anticapitalist narrative is about race. Next year, it may be something else entirely. The evidence presented at capitalism’s trial will change. But the presumed death sentence will remain.

  • 1. It should be noted that Johnson did not invent this theory, although he employs it extensively. Martin Luther King, Jr., hinted at a similar theory in 1965 when he claimed: “The segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land.” The “Bourbon interests” were the Bourbon Democrats of the late nineteenth century, who were notable for their support of hard money, decentralization, and market capitalism in general. The most famous Bourbon Democrat was Grover Cleveland of New York, probably the last true economic liberal in the White House.
Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Racism is Dead! Racist Elk Statue Burns In Portland, Oregon

Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/racism-is-dead-racist-elk-statue-burns-in-portland-oregon_07022020

Mac Slavo

According to the recent media headlines, the way to end racism is to destroy statues. Well, an iconic elk statue has been burned in Portland, Oregon, so does that mean racism is now dead?

Portland protestors were rightly mocked after setting fire to an elk statue. On Wednesday night, protestors lit fires around the downtown landmark, quickly engulfing the elk in flames. Videos show a small inferno wrapped around the base of the landmark with some graffiti. It looks like “ACAB 1312” was sprayed on the statue that somehow advocates police brutality and racism.

As reported by RT, it’s unclear why protesters targeted the statue. It was donated by former mayor David P. Thompson back in 1900 to commemorate the elk herds that once populated the region. However, there was plenty of speculation about what the animal had done to deserve being consumed by flames.

After the mob torched the stature, Twitter users began to mock and theorize that perhaps the animal was a “slave owner” or a “white supremacist.”

“That elk owned several slaves and was one of the biggest cotton-farm owners around Portland,” joked one Twitter user. Others wondered if perhaps “extinct elk herds” represent the “last bastion of white supremacy” in Oregon. Conservative pundit Ian Miles Cheong jokingly applauded the protesters for finally finding a way to end racism.

Recently, demonstrators and rioters have targeted statues across the United States as part of the ongoing Black Lives Matters demonstrations, claiming that the landmarks are rooted in oppression.  BLM is funded by major corporations and George Soros. 

Protesters first toppled Confederate monuments but soon turned their attention to statues of historical figures such as Christopher Columbus and Thomas Jefferson.  Now, the elk seems to have been some kind of racist, but thank goodness BLM was there to torch it to teach the animal a lesson about racism.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Economists Are So Often Accused of Being Indifferent to Social Problems | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 16, 2020

For example, one can argue both economically and medically that if people are permitted to mingle again and return to their jobs, although in the short run we may see a spike in COVID-19 infections and even a spike in death rates, over the longer term, it would result in fewer deaths. To a certain extent, this is an empirical assessment that we cannot confirm until we actually engage in the activity and permit certain policies. The economists’ logic goes as follows: we know that in the short term there may be more infections and premature deaths, but over time such a policy would result in fewer infections and deaths in the longer future.

The critics, however, tend to look only at the short term.

https://mises.org/wire/why-economists-are-so-often-accused-being-indifferent-social-problems?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=14274f5d69-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-14274f5d69-228343965

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

~Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson

As someone who has written articles and papers on police and prosecutorial matters (yes, economists analyze those things, too) for two decades, I am not surprised to see the kinds of police killings that provoke people to anger, frustration, and helplessness.

When economists look at what only can be called bad things that happen time and again, we ask why that is so. More specifically, we want to know about the structures of incentives that encourage things to occur time and again, even when there is general agreement that things need to change. Our analyses and our recommendations (when we make them) often are seen either as insensitive or outright offensive to people who don’t know or understand the language of economics and economists.

For example, many economists have been much more critical of the lockdown response to COVID-19, so we are accused by others of wanting people to die. People accuse of us being “unscientific” or insensitive to the needs of others during a pandemic. It seems that it is impossible to cross the divide between economists and their critics.

So, what do economists believe regarding something like dealing with COVID-19? Is our criticism of the lockdowns due to right-wing ideology (as some of my colleagues would claim), lack of compassion for the sick, or something else?

First, and most important, economists hold that we live in a world of scarcity and that our options always are going to be limited. We also will operate in logical fashion, working off sets of assumptions. So, let me demonstrate how the analysis might work.

Economists Must Consider Scarcity

Let us first assume that the national lockdown strategy (one size fits all) was the most effective in preventing more COVID-19 deaths. Now, there was no basis in fact for the original prediction of 2.2 million American deaths, and we know in hindsight that the model that came from Imperial College of London was terribly flawed and vastly overestimated the “if we do nothing” results. We cannot know if our assumption is correct given that we didn’t try anything else, so we would have to deal with a counterfactual, which speaks for itself.

The question, then, would be how long we could be locked down before becoming overwhelmed with the unemployment and the lack of production of essential goods. In other words, How long before the negative results of the lockdown become so dire that we cannot continue on this path? To put it bluntly, if we stay locked down too long, people will die from the consequences; lots of people. Think of all of the people with medical conditions that could not see doctors and receive treatment because most of the medical resources were being directed toward dealing with treatment and prevention of COVID-19. (See? There we go again with the law of scarcity.)

Do we know where the crossover point might be? Well, no. The worlds of medicine and public policy will depend upon models that are imperfect, that are likely to be ideologically biased (especially the more apocalyptic ones), and that do not “predict” the past very accurately, let alone the future. (When I was doing graduate work, one of my professors once told me regarding the use of econometric models: “Econometrics: Predicting the past with ever increasing reliability.”)

However, we can make general observations, and we also can look at the occupational (and racial) makeup of those who are directing the lockdown policies and those who are most negatively affected by them. Phil Magness notes that when we consider policy decisions these occupational differences are not trivial:

Many in elite academia and journalism have the luxury of a paycheck for the time being, as well as the ability to do their work from home with only modest disruption. Vast numbers of newly unemployed Americans do not.

At the same time, most academic efforts to cast the lockdown debate along racial lines miss or omit another dimension that belies their critical theory-infused attacks on any attempt to reopen the economy. The very same lockdowns, social distancing mandates, and shelter-in-place orders that these writers defend are also backed by heavy-handed enforcement by the state. And in many cases, that enforcement falls disproportionately on racial minorities, the poor, and people with fewer means to defend themselves.

Magness was writing in response to those who claimed that people who protested the lockdown did so either out of selfishness or racism or both. (That the lockdowns have disproportionately harmed racial minorities seems to have escaped the notice of many academic and media elites. One doubts that this omission is accidental.)

Looking at the Long-Term

 

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

White America, Black America, the set-up, and the con « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Posted by M. C. on June 16, 2020

Many people fail to understand that, when elite Globalist forces
stage an op, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO CHOOSE TWO SIDES TO PIT AGAINST EACH
OTHER THAT HAVE NO EMOTIONAL OR FACTUAL REALITY.

They’re going to choose black vs. white, because that has electric force inside people.

They’re going to choose black vs. white, because there is history,
and because both sides have positions and arguments and accusations and
claims of prejudice and reverse-prejudice.

I’m betting you or your children will be busy sweeping dust and sand in Death Valley. On a welfare check.

And if that day never comes, you know what? It’ll be because
individuals who believe in freedom down to the last non-material atoms
of their non-material souls stood at the gate to slavery and blocked it
and canceled the whole operation.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/06/15/white-america-black-america-the-set-up-and-the-con/

by Jon Rappoport

Whether you believe in God the Creator or evolution or something else
as the explanation for the human race, progress was meant to involve
the individual coming out of the group and staking his claim to a life
of his own making, according to his best vision of his greatest thoughts
and values.

THIS was a struggle of blood and courage and intelligence for many
centuries. THIS was the journey out of the caves and the clans and the
brutal leaders and the mind control imposed from the top. THIS was where
each one of us “came from,” that struggle.

And now, through every foul means available, elite controllers want
to turn back the clock and take each one of us into the past.

“THERE IS RACISM IN AMERICA.”

Yes, and there is widespread poison by pesticide and GMO, there is
widespread and devastating autism by vaccine, there is lung damage by
corporate pollution, there is widespread death caused by the medical
system and there is insurance fraud and welfare fraud and voter fraud
and money-creation fraud, and there are corrupt judges and there are
corrupt cops and insane governors running lockdowns….there is a great
deal of major ongoing crime in America. All of it affects the black and
the white.

The current riots are an operation designed to produce more top-down control in America.

The operation is also designed, through riots, to wreak more havoc on
the US economy—piling on the COVID lockdowns, which are themselves part
of the overall op: destroy America.

What starts out as fair and just and right for black people has nothing to do with it, THE HIGHER YOU GO on the ladder of power.

Many people fail to understand that, when elite Globalist forces
stage an op, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO CHOOSE TWO SIDES TO PIT AGAINST EACH
OTHER THAT HAVE NO EMOTIONAL OR FACTUAL REALITY. They’re not going to
choose daisies vs. tulips. They’re not going to choose canned pork vs.
canned spam. They’re not going to choose single payer health insurance
vs. Obamacare.

They’re going to choose black vs. white, because that has electric force inside people.

They’re going to choose black vs. white, because there is history,
and because both sides have positions and arguments and accusations and
claims of prejudice and reverse-prejudice.

But the INTENT is to get white people and black people looking through different and unalterable lenses at each other.

And to ignore all situations in which black and white people get
along. I repeat, TO IGNORE ALL SITUATIONS IN WHICH BLACK AND WHITE
PEOPLE GET ALONG.

The rise of the union movement in America produced a vast amount of
black and white cooperation and friendship and mutual loyalty—until
unions themselves became big business and mafia money laundries and
would-be monopolies.

“But there is racism in America.”

As I said, the planners of an op are going to choose a situation that has reality.

There is also this reality: “You’re white, and so you can’t possibly
understand what is going on, because you have inherent privilege, it’s
built into you, and you can’t escape it. Therefore, everything you say
is tainted.”

That’s a very strong and very divisive and very insane argument.
Individuals, no matter who they are, see clearly or see dully, and the
ability to know something isn’t determined by skin color or cultural
background. Privilege is a con. It’s a con as an argument. It was
injected into academia to brainwash the young, to produce class and race
hatred, on both sides. And it’s worked.

“I hate you.”

“I hate you, too.”

Perfect.

“You have to take a knee to me.”

“Like hell I do.”

Perfect.

“Black people have to rise through the ranks based on merit alone.”

“Like hell we do. We can’t, because there is institutional prejudice and racism.”

Perfect.

Stoke the fire of opposition. Kill off cooperation. Kill off
friendship. Silence the millions of people who are beyond any kind of
racism. Drown out their voices. Drown out their warmth for each other,
turn it to ice, turn it into ideology that substitutes for human
connections. Rip those human connections out of America.

People with black skin and people with white skin have found ways to
get along. That is a much larger reality than “race war.” MUCH LARGER.

THE UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL is a much larger reality than race war. The
ideas embedded in the Constitution turn out to have a lot to do with the
unique individual developing his own vision and power and creative
force—if he will realize that fact.

I haven’t spent the last 40 years writing for white people or black
people or yellow or tan or red people. If that had been my goal, I would
have burned out long ago.

Coming out of World War 2, propagandists and government planners and
marketers and intelligence agencies and think tanks and corporate
advisors and mass communications experts began to realize they could
strengthen their position by: convincing individuals to think of
themselves as GROUPS.

Groups are easier to control.

Make a group, define it, urge the members to conceive of themselves
in limited terms, profile the group, sell products to the group, show
the group they have political aspirations that can be satisfied by big
government…and the whole society changes.

Face it, these marketers and propagandists are, in many ways, the
scum of the earth. They see a glint of promise in group-think, and their
goal becomes: create groups. By name, by agenda, by class, by race, by
religion, by age, by preferences, by economic background, by every
possible marker.

Believe it or not, the marketers caught on to what was happening in
the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s; they looked at Martin
Luther King, and they said, “WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE.” Yes. And it
was an opportunity that went far beyond the justice of voting rights and
integrated education.

The marketers said, “We can create a new group. Not just black
Americans. Black Americans with government benefits. We can dead-end the
whole Civil Rights movement into a Welfare State of vast proportions.
We can create total dependence on government—and at the same time, we’ll
be expanding the size and power of government over the people. It’s a
double winner.”

From the point of view of the marketers, the fairness and justice and
right of black Americans to receive welfare was entirely beside the
point. That wasn’t the issue at all. The issue was the pacification of
black Americans. A way to use money and benefits to keep black Americans
under control. The cynicism was breathtaking.

The marketers realized, of course, that they would need black leaders
to say, over and over again, that welfare was a right, and it was fair
and just and reasonable, based on the history of slavery. Based on
racism. And some black leaders who emerged were co-opted into that cause
and that OPERATION.

“But black people DO deserve welfare.”

Again—the marketers are going to choose an issue that can be argued, that can be justified. But the real motive is hidden.

It all starts with forming a group. “Black people must be taught to
think of themselves as black and nothing else. As black victims.
Certainly not as unique individuals.”

Certain members of the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X, recognized the
basic con. They saw certain white liberals who were “on their side” as
the enemy. They saw that these fawning liberals were actually hoping and
working for a way to PACIFY and sideline black independence.

And of course, on the other side, the marketers would need to create a
group of white liberals, a very large group, who would support “black
rights,” naively believing this was all about fairness and justice and
NOTHING ELSE.

THE WHOLE THING BECAME SYNTHETIC. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »