Author Archives: Kyle Becker

Hippienomics

The spirit of free love — and free stuff — has hit the United States, and let’s all wallow in the glory of an economy where that’s the only thing one can afford to do is love. The spiritual masturbation of sitting around in a circle smoking a peace pipe and slapping tambourines, imagining everyone’s needs get magically met by wealthy “others,” represents the nadir of a civilization that had given it a good run, but was ultimately defeated — by hippies.

The Dionysian orgy of intersubjective social stuff that was the 1960s led to a lot of great music, fed by mind-altering drugs that made anything seem possible. Growing a ponytail could cure world hunger and sitting around naked in the mud smoking pot and discussing Khalil Gibran could open up an interdimensional rift sucking out all the negativity in the world. The possibilities were as endless as the stream of government handouts that would make them possible.

As the great political philosopher Steve Miller put it:

Feed the babies, Who don’t have enough to eat, Shoe the children, With no shoes on their feet, House the people, Livin’ in the street, Oh, oh, there’s a solution.

Who would do this? Always the government — the “man” whom the radicals purported to be fighting, and the “power” whom the left purported to be speaking “truth” to. From Rebels without a Cause to “Causists” without a Rebellion — how did these drug-addled hippies go from job-duckers to goose-steppers?

The intolerance of tolerance ultimately led the left into a non-conformist conformity that made the hippies easily manipulable by the state. The politically correct notion is that if one is for living one’s own life and being left alone by the government, then one isn’t interested in the left’s social justice program of liberating minorities from not having more money. Opposing the left automatically makes one a latent racist or sexist or homophobe.

In other words, being for freedom and individuality automatically makes one dialectically opposed to the left’s collectivist viewpoint of “helping” racial, ethnic and gender minorities. Where the money to help these minorities is assumed to come from is through taxation of the “racist” folks who are opposed to them. Since capitalism is held out by the hippies to be structurally bigoted, since de facto people are equal and should have equality of means, that means “the white man” (not just particular individuals, mind you) systematically oppressed minorities to get into this position of “cultural hegemony.”

The state is meanwhile wrongly dismissed by these beatnik finger-snappers as its own interest, since we supposedly live in a “democracy.” This means that any majority the left can cobble together would automatically have “right” on its side — an obvious fallacy. Meanwhile, the morals of the nation are undermined through relativism, and the floodgates to illegal immigration are opened, while the introduction of foreign ideals and lifestyles (which are unerringly statist and collectivist) is lubricated by “cultural diversity.” The point is that the state-sanctioned looting of the capitalist system until its collapse is supposedly justified by opposing the racist, bigoted, sexist economy and the nation’s seemingly corresponding history — which was purportedly altered only by the radicals and progressives who championed the little guy (by building state power over his life).

Now, the history of the United States has been one of the systematic and predictable liberation of minorities, according to the internal logic of the founding documents. The original Declaration of Independence condemned slavery and this was supported by the great majority of colonies. The Constitution’s “three-fifths” clause actually undermined the southern states’ representation in the Congress. Not to mention that slavery is completely un-capitalist, because it is fundamentally opposed to property rights, individual rights, and economic freedom. One owns one’s own labor and can dispose of it as one sees fit; but this does not mean that one can enslave others to one’s own wants and needs through the government.

But because of the state income tax and progressive taxation, passed by the virulently racist Woodrow Wilson, the government not only has the license to control all the money in the economy, but can penalize producers and reward non-producers. Because of the central bank, the systematic destruction of the economy can be forestalled to some unseen, unknown date in the future, and the fingerprints for the predictable demise framed to be those of the rational opposition who try to halt the madness just prior to the inevitable collapse.

The reaction of the radical libertarians, whom Ayn Rand called the “hippies of the right,” has been to oppose state power to the utmost — seemingly for its own sake. Often unstated is the moral case for capitalism and the sanction for state power used for ethical purposes, such as to defend private property and make the case for individual rights.

The key to our nation’s implosion is the destruction of reason. As the great polemicist P.J. O’Rourke wrote of hippies:

Everything. You name it and I believed it. I believed love was all you need. I believed you should be here now. I believed drugs could make everyone a better person. I believed I could hitchhike to California with thirty-five cents in my pocket and people would be glad to feed me. I believed Mao was cute. I believed private property was wrong. I believed my girlfriend was a witch. I believed my parents were Nazi space monsters. I believed the university was putting saltpeter in the cafeteria food. I believed the NLF were the good guys in Vietnam. I believed Lyndon Johnson was plotting to murder all the Negroes. I believed Yoko Ono was an artist. I believed I would live forever or until twenty-one, whichever came first. I believed the world was about to end. I believed the Age of Aquarius was about to happen. I believed the I-Ching said to cut classes and take over the dean’s office. I believed wearing my hair long would end poverty and injustice. I believed there was a great throbbing web of psychic mucus and we were all apart of it somehow. I managed to believe in Ghandi and H. Rap Brown at the same time. With the exception of everything my mom and dad said, I believed everything.

This explains the view of the left-wingers today, who don’t feel compelled to pass something as trifling as a budget, stare unblinking at unending trillions in deficits and shrug, and believe that mankind itself is a toxic scourge that must be environmentally controlled by a necessarily totalitarian state.

The starkest contrast was provided of late between the fledgling tea party and Occupy Wall Street movement, and the cultural elites chose to demonize the former (apparently for their corny tee shirts and habit of leaving public spaces cleaner than when they found them) and lionize the drug-using, syphilis-spreading, criminal syndicate of smelly tramps and trust-fund free-loaders agitating for an omnipotent state. In other words, former hippies endorsed their own and ridiculed their targets. No surprise there.

But at some point, the enablers turn their backs on the parasites — Atlas has to shrug. Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping

The Fallacies of Fairness

We hear it repeatedly from the left: so-and-so’s not paying his “fair share.” Or “that’s not fair!” Or the rich need to pay their fair share. Or fair trade, not free trade. And for good reason: the notion of fairness is so vague, it bears repeating in whatever context the left deems appropriate.

But what is fair? The left thinks it’s really unfair that people who don’t work, or do work that isn’t valued much in the labor market, aren’t given their fair share of the profits that rich folks receive by providing more demanded products in the marketplace.

Half the country doesn’t pay income taxes. Is that fairness? The government is billing each household over $200 in a single day, more than the median income salary, without their permission. Is that really “fair”? Imagine you opened your credit card bill and each day an unauthorized charged for $212 appears. That would make anyone peeved.

The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes. How is that not enough? While Democrats on news outlets like CNN insist that the only way to get the debt-to-GDP level down to 40% by 2035 is through tax increases, even if the so-called Bush tax-cuts expire and rates on the rich go up, we’ll generate $83 billion a year or a whole eight days of “revenue” annually. Whoopee.

How about we slash spending and live within our means? Government, through the inflation that comes from buying its own debt, jacks up gas prices, utility prices, and food prices, hitting the poor hardest. It thus creates the need for poorer people to turn to the government for food stamps. This Keynesian-created vicious cycle is somehow fair?

Government inflates education tuition rates with its student loan programs and then bails the indebted students out by subsidizing their loans’ interest rates. Meanwhile, the job market is thoroughly saturated with graduates with  low-demand liberal arts and humanities degrees that colleges offer and to the extent that more than half of new grads can’t find a relevant job. This doesn’t strike me as “fair.”

Perhaps it’s heartless to think this way, but it seems impossible that someone is entitled to things he has done little or nothing to contribute to making. Just because someone is born on earth, he is neither owned by society, nor does he own society. Mutual slavery is not the natural condition of man.

But capitalism is taken to mean exploitation. Property is theft, as the radical slogan goes. So who should control it? “People,” says the leftist. And who should control the people? “No one.”  So how should the equal distribution of property be governed? “Democracy.” Then people vote for politicians who will make it equal? “Yeah.” And politicians will always make things equal because… ‘blank out’ (to borrow a phrase of Ayn Rand’s).

Or alternatively: “We all just come together and share stuff.” But no one has any clue how a business or any organization can function that way. Maybe that’s the point – disorganization is freedom, ahem.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Wealthy people’s money did not come at other’s expense without government arm-twisting. If someone thinks work is inherently exploitation and willingly paying for a product is being gouged, then it’s hard not to feel embarrassed for him.

So, Bill Gates exploits people, because Windows Vista sucked and was overpriced? Touché. But people cannot profit in a marketplace unless they provide something that is valued by the people willingly buying it. And they cannot charge whatever price they want for their crap, unless they have some brand-capital to burn. Like Microsoft did. It had to revamp and offer a new OS upgrade incentive on Windows 8 or spook people that didn’t want to get burned again.

No one gets screwed over when he voluntarily plops down $200 for some computer software. Like Bill Whittle put it, “nobody trades down.” People either prefer parting with their cash or going without a new Operating System.

The flip side of all the progressives’ complaining about being exploited by rich people is that a lot of those nasty bastards mass produce or mass market things that improve people’s standard of living. Apple makes IPads that do things that boggle the mind for the price of a low-wage earner’s salary for a few weeks of stocking shelves. Is that really unfair? Or someone working at McDonald’s can earn enough in an hour to feed himself for a day. That is definitely not considered “unfair” in non-capitalist systems around the world.

There is a lot of hand-wringing about supposedly evil Wal-mart, which saves people on tight budgets a bunch of money (or else they wouldn’t shop there). Its employees make about as much in three days as it costs to buy a medium-sized flat screen TV. And for what? Certainly nothing comparable to the marvels of engineering it took to build and ship the televisions to the store.

That’s not a knock on Wal-mart workers; they have necessary and tough jobs. But let’s not pretend it’s unfair that they aren’t paid the same as people who got themselves into debt and invested the necessary time and effort to graduate from college —  at least with meaningful degrees (and let’s be honest, most colleges don’t exactly have rigorous standards).

But young people expect government to clear all obstacles in their path to success. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. No one can be great unless he overcomes adversity. Looking to government to remove all hardship from life is a fatal illusion. This misperception has aided government’s growth to dangerous proportions.

All politicians can really do is pass the buck to other people or to generations down the line. Not owning up to this basic TANSTAAFL economic reality is harmful to people’s integrity and also to the young folks who will pay the price for it.

Young people are now saddled with $200,000 in national debt for all the gifts government is giving out (yes, I did go there). Where is the money going to come from? A lot of people don’t know and don’t care.

What about rich people? They have so much and poor people have so little. If only there were so many truly poor people in this country! There are a lot of folks below the poverty line who are rich by world standards, and it isn’t because of perpetual-poverty creating entitlement programs. Many own cars and televisions and cell-phones… not exactly the picture of sub-Saharan Africa.

But let’s dispel the myth anyway that soaking the rich is going to pay for all of our stuff: the government could seize all the incomes and savings of the so-called 1% and run the country for about a year.

We’re turning into a nation of beggars, and Americans who are getting something for nothing should stop burdening society. There is nothing fair about subsidizing the takers and penalizing the makers.

The West is the Best, But May Die Like the Rest

When a civilization fails to preserve itself from threats arising from within, which can be physical, material, or ideological in nature, it is at risk of collapse. This collapse is typically followed by anarchy, and ultimately tyranny; which can be of the mind or by the sword. When a civilization fails to defend itself from threats arising from without, it can be infiltrated or invaded. The civilization can be corrupted, subjugated, absorbed, or destroyed.

Civilizations rise when they are ideologically sound, and fall when they become ideologically corrupted. Cultural traditions provide the ideals that city-states, societies, colonies, states, and nations hold aloft as the guiding lights for greatness. Cultures define good and evil, right and wrong, and virtue and vice. Civilizations thrive on open information, free communication and social feedback mechanisms, like democratic elections and sound currency. Cut off human communication, and social systems collapse; they often revert to collective violence to futilely preserve the order.

Government coercion therefore reflects a failure of civilization. Debt and deficits are signs that a people are becoming detached from economic reality, and are immorally and unrealistically living at the expense of future generations. Rationalization of unsustainable lifestyles involve a corruption of language; and entail censorship in the final act when the exploited rise up against their exploiters.

Turning upside down who is being exploited by whom is thus a key strategy of socialism; it leads to civil war, or an intra-societal war, instead of an organized cooperative overthrow of the exploitative state. Scapegoating is a clear sign of a civilization in collapse: as Ayn Rand pointed out, the Nazis had the Jews, the Soviets had the kulaks, and Americans have the rich. When people are unable to accept personal responsibility for their own lives, they vote for a party that reflects this mental weakness.  The democratic party eggs this on and thrives on it. Socialism is in many ways the codification of an ethos of avoiding personal responsibility.

The ancient Greeks had a double-edged word for revolution and stagnation termed stasis. Stasis is that state when an existent polity has stopped believing in fundamental ideals necessary for societal cohesion and order; it is a state of fugue and entropy that disorients the citizenry by removing the institutional, cultural, and traditional framework that gives rise to a relatively predictable, stable, and orderly life. Stasis produces a mental state of aimlessness and desperation for strong leadership; it can give rise to tyranny, military adventurism, and hubris.

It is important to note that the rise of Western Civilization did not emerge from a utopian vision of mankind, but one which sees man as a political and vain animal that must be given the opportunity to compete with others for power and wealth, without holding out the possibility of political or economic domination. Thus the Madisonian idea, derived from the Baron de Montesquieu, of divided powers and checks and balances.

The philosophies of the Enlightenment hold out the promise of a better, more peaceful and prosperous world by acknowledging that men are capable of knowing their own self-interest and pursuing it, while allowing others the opportunity to do the same. If reasonable men can agree to these rules, then society can become collaborative, prosperous and enjoyable. If they reject them, then man is locked into a constant political war for resources.

These ideas and ideals can be categorized as “rational self-interest” and extended to imply not only political but also economic principles. Rational self-interest entails mutual cooperation and trade of the fruits of one’s freely chosen labor so that people in a just societal order can pursue happiness of their own accord and allow others to do likewise.

The proper and dignified life for man is one of personal challenge and triumph over obstacles, and the laissez-faire economic order provides all but the most helpless, clueless, and lazy the opportunity to eventually succeed. This is not to say that we cannot help one another, but help must be freely given, not coerced by exploitative politicians and their parasitical clients. Which brings us to another aspect of the Enlightenment, economic freedom built on the premise of private property.

Private property is indispensable to freedom, because without private property, one is vulnerable to the whims of the state or the collective. Without private property, one lacks the mental security and the sense of self-determination necessary to work in the confidence that the fruits of one’s labor will not be seized. Furthermore, one must be allowed to own and pursue wealth not only because it is key to freedom and prosperity, but also because it is conducive to peace.

When one has the freedom of opportunity to pursue wealth and ascend in social esteem and influence, then one has an alternative to the unabashed struggle for political power, which alternatively would imply economic control. History teaches that when a small group of elites have political and economic control, men are enslaved, persecuted, and oppressed in order for the elites to perpetuate their privileged status in society. Yet many fail to take such a hard-won historical lesson seriously. They fail to understand the historical struggle against tyranny that gave birth to the founding principles of life, liberty, and property.

Why do millions of Americans refuse to acknowledge or react to the dire threats to our nation? While many citizens are alarmed at the unchecked growth of government, there are still millions of apathetic, ill-informed, ignorant, parasitical, moderate, or progressive Americans who are unable or unwilling to see the dangers mounting from such growth. They cannot see that the increase of government power is directly related to the multiplication and exacerbation of our problems, which are economic, social, and national security-related.

This is because a nation becomes most vulnerable when the majority of people become removed from objective reality through the perversion of rational self-interest; this is how people’s ability to perceive threats is disabled.

The government uses a number of tactics to disarm people’s willingness or mental awareness to oppose the threat that comes from the growth of its power. It makes government power appear to these people as harmless, compassionate, or even desirable. It uses the false appearance of self-interest to “jujitsu” the system to collapse; it mainly does this by issuing paper money, which appears to be money, but it is not real money (Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises defined money as a “store of wealth”).

Since there is a “deal of ruin” in a nation, as Adam Smith put it, entire generations of Americans can live at the expense of future generations. The industrial base is gutted as people transfer into education, civil service, or bureaucratic jobs, who serve a growing number of clients of the welfare state.

The ultimate result of the corruption of rational self-interest is the collapse of the American system of ordered liberty, and, due to the ignoble state of all of Europe, the demise of Western Civilization. Intellectual leadership will be key to restoring the institutions that can preserve and promote any sense of rational self-interest for each citizen; an incremental return to citizens living in accordance with objective reality and the human psyche is therefore paramount to success.

The Politically Correct Guide to Racism for Idiots

Conservatives may be unaware that the Democrat Party has passed new legislation redefining the rules of logic and political discourse regarding racism. For those who have grown used to such concepts as “hypocrisy,” and “logical inconsistency,” they need to eliminate these from their thinking and vocabulary.

Everyone must get hip to the new rules of civility and tolerance, or else face serious penalties. The following are some examples that should get you racist wingnuts up to speed on the “New Discourse.”

Clear cases of Racism against Black Democrats:

  • Criticizing President Obama’s ineptitude
  • Criticizing President Obama for black unemployment and poverty going up, wages and political influence going down during his presidency
  • Criticizing the girth of domineering health food activist Michelle Obama
  • Criticizing UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s less-than-honest statements about the Benghazi scandal
  • Criticizing Reverend Al Sharpton for anti-semitism
  • Criticizing Reverend Jesse Jackson for dropping the N-bomb and saying he wanted to cut Obama’s n*** off
  • Criticizing Jesse Jackson Jr. for allegedly trying to buy a Senate seat
  • Criticizing Maxine Waters for telling the tea party to “go to hell”
  • Criticizing Hank Johnson for saying the island of Guam could “capsize”
  • Criticizing black caucus chair Emanuel Cleaver for calling debt compromise a “satan sandwich”
  • Criticizing Keith Ellison for obvious ties to Islamist organizations
  • Criticizing Diane Watson for opposing interracial marriage
  • Criticizing randomly elected Al Green for saying “take back the country”
  • Criticizing Sheila Jackson-Lee for championing women’s rights, like in Rwanda, China, Algeria, and Afghanistan
  • Criticizing Bobby Rush for describing his meeting with communist dictator Fidel Castro “almost like listening to an old friend”
  • Criticizing Barbara Lee for characterizing voter ID laws (which they have in Europe) as a racist plot

Clear false claims of Democrat Racism:

  • Criticizing the Democrat Party for never renouncing its racist past of supporting slavery and segregation
  • Criticizing Senator Robert Byrd’s history as a KKK recruiter and Kleagle who filibustered the Civil Rights Act
  • Criticizing Woodrow Wilson for screening racist, KKK-glorification film Birth of a Nation
  • Criticizing the KKK past of FDR-appointed Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
  • Criticizing FDR for his forced detainment of Japanese-Americans
  • Criticizing President Harry Truman for paying $10 to become a member of the KKK
  • Criticizing Lyndon Johnson for saying, “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
  • Criticizing Jimmy Carter for writing the book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” which was praised on numerous white supremacist websites
  • Criticizing Bill Clinton for once saying of Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”
  • Criticizing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for describing Obama as “light skinned,” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
  • Criticizing Hillary Clinton for faking a “negro dialect” (as Harry Reid put it) in front of a black church audience
  • Criticizing Joe Biden for once saying to an Indian-American voter, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
  • Criticizing Joe Biden for saying Republican Mitt Romney wanted to “put y’all back in chains”
  • Criticizing Joe Biden for saying of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Statements that are Not Racism or Reverse Racism made by Democrats against Republicans:

  • Criticizing former RNC Chair Michael Steele, like Steny Hoyer did, for his “career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”
  • Criticizing Condaleezza Rice like left-wing radio host Neal Rogers: “Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?”
  • Criticizing former Representative Allen West, like Andre Carson did, for aligning himself with the tea party, which “would love to see us as second-class citizens” and would love to see blacks “hanging on a tree.”
  • Criticizing Republican convert Artur Davis, like Gary Franks did: “I do not believe it is healthy for Americans to go around looking for blacks to put in a congressional district.”
  • Criticizing General Colin Powell, as Harry Belafonte did: “In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master…”
  • Criticizing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, like Spike Lee called him, “A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.” Leftists commonly call Thomas a “House N*gga,” but that’s not racist.
  • Criticizing rising Republican star Mia Love as a “token” and an “Aunt Tom”
  • Criticizing conservative media personalities like CDN’s Kira Davis, or Alonzo Rachel, “News Ninja”Wayne Dupree, blogger Sister Toldjah, Crystal Wright and many others using racial epithets
  • Criticizing Republicans for allowing numerous diverse speakers at their convention by playing a popular Twitter game called, “#Negrospotting.” (This would be tough to play while watching MSNBC, which refused to air minority speakers at the convention.)
  • Criticizing any black Republicans in the party as pure “tokenism”
  • Criticizing minorities in the way journalist Mike Wallace did: Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos” to learn how to read and write.

Racist code words about Black Democrats:

Simply put, if you are a conservative who is for Constitutionally limited government, free market capitalism, equality under the law, and freedom for all Americans, then you are a racist. If you are for unlimited government and increasing dependency on the Democrat Party, then you are not a racist. Any questions?

This Thanksgiving Brought to You By — Capitalism

Mmm, capitalism tastes great. Love the wonderful aromatics glazing the crispy turkey skin on this fist-sized drumstick, dipping that bad boy in spicy turkey gravy, and then a glob of silky smooth mashed potatoes, and then maybe a dollop of stuffing, and then a hint of cranberry sauce, and then — gulp, scene.

Oh, I’m sorry, was that uncompassionate of me? Children are going hungry somewhere in the world where there is no food and we shouldn’t be so greedy? Well, once upon a time in America, everyone was going hungry, and it wasn’t because of corporate fat cats stealing their turkeys.

That’s not the narrative you’re likely to get at one of the socialist think tanks masquerading as colleges nowadays. PETA (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) is comparing the plight of turkeys to those of gays and blacks (if you’d like to call them from “reality,” you’re going to have to leave a voicemail). Left-wing bloggers are showing solidarity with Native American students protesting the holiday, due to the ugly history surrounding the European immigrants settling the pristine wilderness and fighting off savages.

Of course, no land should ever be settled on our ever-so-gentle Mother Earth, which displayed its loving side by wiping out half of the Eastern seaboard a few weeks back. Not to mention that most “imperialist” powers like a few handfuls of religious dissidents in rickety sailboats wouldn’t be so kind as to offer free government everything and tax-free casinos to the conquered.

Let’s not pretend that certain Native American tribes didn’t declare war on each other (despite intense efforts to “white-wash” history); some of them even scalping their victims and trading their skullcaps for wacky weed. The idealized version where the Indians were just a bunch of brown-skinned, peace-loving hippies who sat around stringing wampum, skinning buffaloes, and smoking peace pipes is a nasty fiction, invented solely to make Americans feel guilty for being prosperous.

It wasn’t always that way. Oh no. Once upon a time, Americans were — shhhh — progressives.

Back in the day, “the day” meaning 1623, people fled to the New World to get away from the kind of nanny-statism our awesome left-wingers champion today. But our patriotic kindred who washed up upon former Taxachusetts’ shore were, one way to put it, a bit on the naive, utopian side. Another way to put it — they were socialist jackasses.

But we’ll forgive our Puritan brethren, because they were able to pull off a feat of such unparalleled brilliance that no modern left-winger has yet been able to achieve it. It’s called “learning from your mistakes.”

So there was this guy named William Bradford, Billy to his friends, and he was a bit of an overeducated nerd. See, he’d been reading this guy named “Plato,” and this ancient Greek dude said that all people should have things in common. Never mind that the smarter ancient Greek dude named Aristotle, who was nonetheless the pupil of Plato, said that was a bunch of bunk, and people should own their own property, but should generally be generous to others. He wasn’t real hardcore about property rights; but still, the guy was already about 2,500 years ahead of today’s Prius-driving radical professors.

Well, Bradford decided everyone would sing kumbaya and throw in lot together and that would make life good for the folks at Plymouth Plantation. One small problem: the system didn’t work. And it wasn’t because of greedy banksters’ ATM fees or even currency devaluation or anything wonky like that. It’s just that people had a tendency to “free ride” off of others in a situation known as the “tragedy of the commons.”

The stupid white man starved the entire winter and it really was a miserable experience. The Native Americans nearby, “Indians” in Old World speak (America’s forefathers didn’t have GPS), did help them a bit, and that was cool. But the main reason the people didn’t starve during the second winter was by implementing a primitive form of capitalism: private property and personal responsibility. The first “get off my lawn” signs went up. If you’re a hipster who has never read this story before, then study up, butter-cup.

“Right-wing” bloggers didn’t invent this story, it comes right out of Billy Bradford’s dream journal. Fleeing religious persecution in Europe, the members of various Christian sects set off to the New World to found their utopian societies. One of them was Plymouth Plantation, and its head honcho was Bradford. After successive winters of near starvation (aided in the first by the Native Americans), the HCIC (Head Calvinist-in-Charge) relates the experiences of the settlement (1623). Much apologies for not being able to translate this long passage into modern eight-grade level English:

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

The experience of Plymouth Plantation is that of other utopian societies in world history, that freedom from oppression by the state does not lead to absolute freedom. The revolution of private property did not merely provide the means for individuals to meet their own needs, but rather to flourish spectacularly. Those who thirsted for individual freedom risked their lives and fortunes to found a new nation on the pillars of liberty and property. These ideals gave birth to dreams of a world where all can strive for personal excellence, uninhibited by a tyranny of morally inferior men.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving! Even you lefty whiners.

The Democrat Party: Has It Already Seceded?

Demoralized conservatives, feeling dejected by an inexplicable election loss after being virtually water-boarded by the media for four interminable years, and savaged by an economy decimated by left-wing Treasury raids that make Alaric the Visigoth look like a piker, may be asking themselves the question: Has the Democrat Party finally succeeded? What they should be asking themselves is if the Democrat Party has seceded.

This is more than just a stupid pun. One glance at the electoral map above shows that tiny pockets of the country are lording over the rest of us, demanding we fund our own destroyers. Just a hair over half of the electorate is asking the rest to finance things they find morally reprehensible, fiscally unsustainable, and nationally self-destructive or else face the government gulag. Non-coincidentally, just about half of Americans pay exactly zero federal income taxes, and a smidgeon over half vote Democrat as reliably as the lunar cycle that drives the moon-barking mental midgets to howl ever for “more!”

In fact, Americans from all 50 states are so infuriated and petrified by the federal government’s hard lurch to the left that hundreds of thousands have signed onto a WhiteHouse.gov petition for their states to secede from the union. Seven states — Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina — have received more than 25,000 votes each to split the increasingly dismal mise en scene.

The petitions were instantly the talk of the town on the left-wing blog cocktail circuit, where snot-nosed, vanity eyeglass-wearing leftists who think “secession” is what someone does when he is addicted to cloves yucked it up before they likely took Princeton prof Peter Singer’s advice and sexually molested some hamsters.

The instant rejoinder from the serial abusers in our dysfunctional government relationship is that any such attempts to stop the bullying federal government from being so darned bullying has been null-and-voided by some left-wing lawyers. That’s cute. Y’all on the left want to violate the Constitution whenever you’ins damn well please, but insist that people obey the law whenever you say. Umm, what if people stop playing that game?

Whenever the elected President of the United States swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and then violates it by nationalizing part of GM (Art.I, Sec. 8 on uniform bankruptcy laws), committing troops to extended military combat without a declaration of war or authorization (Art. I, Sec. 8 on war powers), making recess appointments when the Congress is not officially in recess (Art. II, Sec. 2), appointing “czars” not subject to advise and consent (Art. II, Sec II), violating legal entities’ due process, as with BP (Fifth Amendment), trespassing against unreasonable search and seizure with the TSA (Fourth Amendment), and so on and so on, it’s hard to take his legal decrees seriously.

The secession question should therefore be flipped on its head: Has the Democrat Party already seceded from the United States? Because the U.S. government has no force of law except that granted by the Constitution, which the states ratified to bring it into being. America itself was founded by those who broke apart from the mother country of Britain by reasonably citing numerous grievances listed in The Declaration of Independence. A lot of those complaints look laughable in hindsight. Most people suffer through a litany of rights infringements comparable to the Intolerable Acts by breakfast.

As the blogger Jon Galt pointed out on his article on secession, the following are Thomas Jefferson’s words as found in the Kentucky Resolutions:

“[T]he several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those [states], of all unauthorized acts….is the rightful remedy.”

In other words, we the people will tell the federal government when our rights are being violated, and not vice versa. The left can attempt to legalize tyranny, but some of us know the history of the country, and we do not have to give our consent to immoral government acts. Democracy is not the final moral or legal authority; the Constitution, which is based on inalienable individual rights, is.

There is a huge difference between morality and legality, as the great writer Frederic Bastiat illuminated (cited at length):

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

What more is Obamacare than an attempt to legalize plunder by charging government with the enforcement of a non-existent right that requires that the entire medical field by usurped, its doctors chained to the government system, and the state’s subjects forced to foot the bill for it? Those who immediately benefit may think they are getting medicine for “free,” but there is always a price to pay for such immoral legislation that enslaves one part of the country and puts it in hock to the rest.

People have rights and they should not give the government license to abuse them; even in exchange for “gifts,” which all-too-quickly come to a grinding halt when the economy inevitably and finally collapses.

What more is tyranny than the unlimited ability of the U.S. government to tax and to spend? What separates this miserable state of affairs from some of the worst political systems of the twentieth century: communism, socialism, and fascism?

Nothing will change until the producers stop paying to support the lives of the parasites via government. When the American people finally “go Galt,” it may take the form of a national revolt, a mass refusal by taxpayers to pay their bills, or even secession.  “What happens next?” is a question that should be giving all good Americans serious pause.

It’s Never Enough: Why the American Left Won’t Stop Until It Has Ruined Everything

Such as it is that most leftists do not realize that the freedoms they have so vocally and stridently advocated for so long — the social freedom to say and do whatever you want, and the economic freedom to avoid meaningful employment — are about to be obliterated. The useful idiots will be astounded to find themselves in a full-fledged police state and bound in a state of serfdom to the demands of the central government.

“Comply or starve. Submit or face elimination,” will be the government’s refrain. The masochistic, subhuman degenerates will be all too glad to grovel to their Democrat Party masters.

When all is said and done, what will the leftists have rebelled against? A nation where forty hours (1/4 of the week) of the worst employment provides a standard of living higher than that of 95% of the world’s population? Where twenty minutes spent mindlessly slinging burgers and fries at McDonald’s can buy you enough calories to last the day? Where one of the ubiquitous public policy crises is not starvation, but obesity?

This is a country where we are being economically oppressed?

This is an economic system that needs to be “fundamentally transformed”? This is a country we are supposed to be so damned mad about?

And why? Because there is inequality? Of course, there is inequality, you fools! If I sit here and blog instead of sacking coal in a mine, then do I deserve to be paid as much as a coal miner? No! If I lay on my couch eating bon-bons and watching Judge Judy should I make as much money as the grease monkey who just expertly fixed a broken-down Volvo? Again, no!

So why in tarnation is everyone up in arms about Mitt Romney’s “gifts” comment? Why do people lose their collectivist minds when Romney talks about the 47% of takers, whom he accurately predicted would never vote for him? His comments hit a little too close to home, that’s why, they touched a nerve of truth, and they outraged those who feel entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. Good!

But Mitt Romney was wrong when he said that too many Americans were taking “gifts” from President Obama and that’s why he lost the election. When someone gives a gift, generally, he has to make it or pay for it. The president did neither; he just looted the private sector and redistributed Obama money to his voter-clients, who excused his theft with a shoulder shrug and the amoral rejoinder “well, that’s democracy.”

So what about America’s imperialist foreign policy, you say?

  • Like when the U.S. entered World War I to defeat the initiators of the war in Europe?
  • Or when GIs were plunged into WWII by Japan, whom we roundly defeated and rebuilt even stronger than before?
  • Or when we helped defeat the Nazis and saved much of Europe from Nazi and Soviet domination?
  • Or how about fighting for South Korea, which is a virtual paradise compared to its communist neighbor to the North?
  • Or maybe Vietnam, which saw tens of thousands of people killed or made refugees when the North Vietnamese finally conquered the South?
  • How about the Cold War, which saw the vilified Ronald Reagan proven correct about the moral and economic rot of the USSR once and for all?
  • Or what about Saddam Hussein, a genocidal madman who personally oversaw rape and torture rooms, and who used wmds on his own people?
  • And what of the Taliban, whose sick medieval atrocities defy polite description?

American foreign policy may be misguided at times, but it is far from imperialistic. The U.S. doesn’t enslave nations it fights for or against, it liberates peoples and does its best to protect and improve their lives. That doesn’t make the U.S., or any nation, perfect.

Of course, opposing the evils of communism and fascism, as well as the economic misery of socialism, makes Americans belligerent warmongers out to conquer the world, correct? Good little Leninists take note that the warmongers in each case cited above were not liberal democratic nations. And for further counterfactuals to the left’s insipid imperialism narrative, just ask the Canadians and Mexicans how unashamedly expansionist we are.

The left’s hunger for a perfect world can never be sated. That is why the shining beacon of liberty that has been the United States is derided as culturally imperialist or hegemonic —  because freedom frustrates utopian totalitarians. There always has to be more demands. There’s never enough to quell their envy and dissatisfaction with life.

But there won’t be anarchy and chaos if capitalism is crushed, says the unblinking leftist; you see, for some magical reason a spontaneous new order will arise and we will all be “new” human beings and we will all love each other equally and there will be peace forever and ever. Amen.

There will be peace – the peace that comes from the desolation of all that gets in the way of the left’s diabolical machine. The peace that comes from the absence of resistance to socialism. The peace that comes from assimilation to the Borg. And following that peace will come stagnation, societal and economic decay, alienation, apathy, and a ruling class entrenched above the whole tragic, despicable mess of it all.

But this is the left’s paradise, removed from the sappy, sanguine figments of their overactive imaginations. This is the brave new world of Barack Obama and his ilk. This is the eerie “transformation” of America that the Democrats were talking about.

The signs of collapsing societies throughout history were everywhere for everyone to see. Yet paradoxically, people were always baffled when their misery and destruction came upon them like a thief in the night.

The lazy, the ignorant, and the ideologically corrupt, naively believing empty slogans like “Land, Bread, and Peace,” wake up one day to find themselves deprived of all property, starving, or in a constant state of war — with other nations, against their own government, amongst each other, or even versus nature itself.

Soak up the misery, lefties. But never say we didn’t warn you.

The Triumph of the State

An Englishman once observed that the presidency (if we may be lenient enough to call it that) of Barack Obama had taken on the vestiges of the once-deposed ancien régime. Yet this ascendancy to the ranks of divine royalty by the left’s anointed one should be no surprise, given that is has been the priority of America’s elites for over a century to reverse the gains of The Enlightenment.

To understand how this tragic turn of affairs has come about, we must first assess the constituency of the modern American left, which we may describe as a criminal syndicate of megalomaniacs, casuists, and an endlessly expanding list of victim clientele.

Progressives purport to break down social hierarchy and thereby usher forth a never-before-seen utopian world order; but inevitably their anti-institutional agenda produces a stranglehold on the body politic, leading ironically to social ossification into the most primitive of class structures: A pyramid of power elites, a secular priesthood (sophists and entertainers), apparatchiks, and the great unwashed masses.

For those familiar with history, the parallels between the culmination of the leftist program and the pinnacle of stratified societies in ancient civilizations are too unmistakable to miss.

It should be noted that although America’s road to serfdom began in earnest under Bush’s presidency, during which the squealing Democrats lined up like pigs with their curly-q tails in tow to back all manner of statist excess: the Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (for all intents and purposes, the Congress abrogated its responsibility to declare war), as well as the massive expansion of Medicare.

The presidency of Obama built upon Bush’s police state infrastructure and meanwhile institutionalized a permanent state of economic chaos. The whiff of totalitarian ambition is now unmistakable.

It is crucial to recognize that the reason the United States is being transformed into a neofeudal society is not due to any particular party, but due to the fact that we are swimming in the modern manifestations of primitive ideology: Mysticism and socialism.

What the world is currently experiencing, threatening the upheaval of freedom in the West, and thus on the entire planet, is a convergence of European etatism and American welfare statism. What is the basis of this convergence, and to what condition of humanity is it leading?

Unbeknown to the majority of people, who are disposed to ignoring how ideas rule their lives, the source of the universal drive to construct the all-powerful State is political ideology. Essentially, it can be summed up as the left’s non-conscientious program to erase The Enlightenment.

To appreciate the significance of such a program we must turn to the history of ideas, and how certain philosophies reflect and drive specific kinds of politics. Recognizing first that the American and European political experiences are quite different, we must proceed along two tracts.

First, Europe. We begin with The Enlightenment, the political philosophical movement best encapsulated by John Locke, but abutted by Scottish Enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Adam Ferguson.

Locke disintegrated the premises of the “Divine Right” of kings by invoking rational argumentation and Christianity itself. Locke would inspire such American revolutionists as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, whose thoughts represent key touchstones connecting the European and American political experiences.

Briefly following the American Revolution, the French undertook their own program to rid themselves of the ancien régime. Unfortunately for France and the whole of Europe following, the Frenchmen did not take seriously the entirety of the tripartite schema of liberté, égalité, fraternité,” which conflated ‘liberty’ with ‘libertine.’ The democratic fervor in France, which dispensed of the monarchy of King Louis XVI, was whipped up into the Great Terror, followed by the Thermidorean reaction against the Jacobins, ushering in the emperor Bonaparte. The bloody turn of events proceeded as the American Founders familiar with the cautions of Edmund Burke might have foreseen, save the participant in the French Revolution Thomas Paine.

The Prussians, aghast at the brutal effectiveness of the nationalistic French under Bonaparte, were driven even further along in their proto-nationalistic impulses by romanticism and the thinking of the statist-collectivist Hegel. Hegel’s vision of the unity of the universal in the particular, and the particular in the universal, is the essential drive of all totalitarian regimes.

Multi-culturalism, diversity, and tolerance under the rubric of submission to the state is the perfect Americanized expression of this Hegelian ideal. We must only briefly mention the German philosopher’s pupil Karl Marx in order to more fully appreciate the significance of Hegelian thought in both American and European history.

Karl Marx’s materialist dialectics represented the perfect ideological canon to destroy not just capitalism, but all economics based on reality (based on the assumption of scarcity, viz.). Marxism’s assertion that change is synthetic wars against reason itself, and the Aristotelian assumptions that underpin Western notions of causality. Marx’s philosophy, if taken seriously, destroys social orders, leading ineluctably and inevitably to dictatorship.

Back to Hegel. Today’s left, not just in Europe but in America, are not followers of Marx in the pure sense, though they instrumentalize Marxian concepts such as class warfare, but are more driven to the Idealism of Hegel. Fusing Hegel with the nihilism of Nietszche, the categorical imperative of Kant, and the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey, today’s New Left carries out a program of social re-engineering using lies, myths, and “critical theory.”

Critical theory, developed by the Frankfurt School of neomarxists, is the deconstructive program that asserts no positive remedy for mankind except to destroy capitalism, whose assumption of private property is the lynchpin that undergirds the individual freedoms espoused by The Enlightenment.

The Frankfurt School was led most notably by Theodore Adorno, who reworked Marxian radicalism into a more Hegelian idealist program and then set up the Institute for Social Research at Columbia University. Adorno and his colleage Max Horkheimer would go on to write The Dialectic of Enlightenment, a critique of The Enlightenment that is the core text of Critical Theory.

Other European neomarxists, such as Gyorgy Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci, would inspire the New Left in America. Saul Alinsky, one such neomarxist who taught the “radical pragmatists” in his charge that the ends justify the means, changed the attitude of leftists towards power and exhorted them to seize it at all costs. And that is precisely what the self-styled Alinsky followers Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did.

The Marxist redistributive policies of Europe are leading it inexorably to their nadir. The last bastions of fairly free economies are descending along their rosy welfare-paved paths and converging towards their inevitable immolative ends. Their spectacularly ugly fates will be partly due to unfavorable demographics and partly due to quixotic social welfare schemes that defy human nature. Men do not seek out punishment for achievement, but they will take the road of least resistance to failure if subsidized by the state; and particularly if cheered on the entire way by the anti-competitive elites who cynically and gleefully wield its monopoly of coercion.

The trajectory of Europe is the vision of America’s future: The triumph of the state, and the return of the pre-modern, arbitrary rule of self-appointed elites, shameless fawned upon by sycophantic intellectuals. And beneath their petty heights of arrogance and condescension, shuffle the great, brooding underclass of humanity — perpetually in need and perpetually restrained from improving its own lot.

Note: Published originally at American Thinker

President Obama Decrees 19 Laws of Economics

President Obama decreed the following 19 laws of economics:

  1. Everyone should get everything for free without paying for it.
  2. Anyone should be able to demand that other people work to pay for his wants and needs.
  3. Making people work to support their own lives is mean and is therefore unnecessary.
  4. If someone forces others to work for him, it shall be known as slavery. If citizens force others to work for them through democratic government, it shall be called “social justice.”
  5. If someone wants to keep his own money, it shall be labeled “greed.” If some with less money want to take away from those with more money, that shall be called “fairness.”
  6. Politicians know more than the people themselves what are their wants and needs.
  7. Healthcare is a right, so anyone can demand that another citizen provide him free medical treatment on the spot and it is illegal to refuse.
  8. Housing is a right, so if you don’t have a home, force your neighbor to build one for you.
  9. Wages are arbitrary, and therefore, everyone deserves a raise.
  10. Debt is irrelevant, so we’re just going to pretend it’s not there.
  11. If you don’t feel like working, just retire, because it doesn’t matter how many people are supporting your needs.
  12. It doesn’t matter what country you’re from, we will give you money, whether or not you put anything into the economy.
  13. A job is a right, so everyone is now officially working for the government.
  14. All monopolies are outlawed, except for the government, which has a monopoly of coercion.
  15. If a citizen takes something by force, it shall be known as theft. If the government takes something by force, it shall be called “redistributive justice.”
  16. Taxing the rich will pay for all of our wants and needs forever.
  17. Success shall be punished, and failure rewarded.
  18. Hard work and talent shall be compensated with higher taxes, and mediocre work and idleness shall be compensated with government handouts.
  19. The only thing one must do to sustain these laws of economics is to continue voting Democrat.

Towards a New Paradigm of American Politics

Opposition in American politics is so ingrained into our bloodstream: right against left, conservative against liberal, Democrat against Republican, that we Americans do not always see a political way to solve our mutual problems. Our very real trials and travails, our family adversities, our personal highs and lows, obscure what politics really is: a way to use force to make other people do what we want them to do.

What if there was another way? What if there was a new paradigm to speak of: coercion and non-coercion?

We are so used to thinking about politics in terms of individualism versus collectivism that most of us don’t see that we can band together towards respect for each other as individuals, without recourse to the force of the state to make us get along. We may need collective action to achieve goals that are beneficial to the world, but none of us should be jettisoned as fodder in pursuit of that goal.

No one wants to see anyone starve. No one wants to see anyone go without a job. But let’s face it: we live on an earth with scarce resources. It may seem like a lofty ideal to turn over power to the state to determine who gets what, or who gets to succeed and who should fail (if the idea even could be banished), but we should be frank: the whole of human history shows this to be unwise, dangerous, even a deadly mistake. Once you grant a select few the power to determine the fate of the rest, undesirable results ensue.

That is why I believe that we need to turn to a new paradigm past the individual versus the collective, or the citizen versus the state. We need to look at the world as force and non-force; coercion versus non-coercion; love versus fear.

For if we frame our political views as opposition to the other, and invoke fear against the dreaded, then we shut off that realm of understanding that authenticates the other’s perspective. Not that there isn’t an objective reality, there most certainly is; but what is most to be feared in this world is cold-blooded hatred, and vengeance, and recrimination.

Conservatives, as they have been called, fear for the future not because they are opposed to progress, but because they are afraid of the inherent force of the state, and the tendency for its abuse. Progressives fear for the future in very basic terms: fear for not finding a job, or fear for not putting food on a child’s table, or fear for not being helped because of someone else’s profit motive.

There has to be some other way. Not a third way; not a blending of freedom and tyranny, not a blending of capitalism or socialism, but a way of approaching togetherness while respecting the rights and sanctity of each individual. This may sound very kumbaya, but I approach it with utter earnestness from a theoretical perspective.

Mutual fear is the opposite of what we humans should want. Therefore, it behooves us to understand what we all fear. If we fear the accumulation of power in the state, is that a legitimate or illegitimate fear? If we fear the inability to provide for ourselves and others, is that a legitimate or illegitimate fear?

I say both are legitimate fears, which explains the close division of the country’s electorate. I don’t believe that we should let force be the ultimate arbiter of disputes between human beings of equal inherent dignity, or the potential thereof; and we should not let our fellow human beings be left without aid, if aid be available and forthcoming.

But without letting the sentimentality of human compassion have free reign in the body politic; that is, without letting the habits of the heart inhabit the human body, and not legislated to some detached body, then our humanity will wither on the vine. Let charity, and compassion, and humanity inhabit ourselves and not be commissioned elsewhere.

Therefore, let us lead in our personal examples and not ask government to do something we ourselves would not do. Let us think not how to chastise our fellow citizens who are in want about the virtues of this system or that system of government. Rather let us demonstrate by our actions, without the use of coercion, that we are capable of living cooperatively, as is desirable by both the so-called right and left. We should never grant to an ever-dangerous third body of government the capability to force us to do right, when we are otherwise unwilling to do right on our own.

The body that is given the capability to do right also has the capability to do wrong; that kind of power may be employed selfishly and wickedly, if even it can be employed to do things generously. We must take power unto ourselves, as the most democratic possible way of approaching government, as individuals capable of self-government, and demonstrate that we are each human beings capable of love and triumph over fear.

Clueless Obama Voters And What to Do About Them

In the video above, we see college students lined up to vote for Obama without a single freaking clue about some of the basic tenets of American government. When all you know is that we are a “democracy,” and majority rules, then you are more likely to support slick demagogues like Obama who promise free stuff, trample on private property rights, and act like vengeful dictators.

These millennials or whatever they hell they are aren’t ideologues; they’re just out-to-lunch. And there is a commonality of interests between the lazy, over-educated snobs who blow fortunes getting worthless educations at liberal colleges and the ignorant, under-educated folks who depend on them to loot the government on their behalf for goodies. Neither want to do any real work; and while those in the big screen-watching, X-box playing underclass take what they believe rightfully belongs to them, the upper class intelligentsia demonize the productive, the successful, the creators in the economy who make all those snazzy high-tech gadgets to begin with.

Sure, we’re supposed to believe that the sick bastards who drive the engine of the world’s biggest economy are “selfish” and “greedy” and every other epithet because they feel like paying half the country’s bill is enough. And as for the supposedly cruel market system, it is a basic fact that you can’t get rich without attending to the wants and needs of others. Go ahead, sit in your garage, poop out something into a bag, and charge a million bucks for it. Good luck making a fortune that way, kids.

But there is this primitive concept that if one is greedy and selfish, then he must be taking things that don’t belong to him. That’s wrong! It’s taking things that don’t belong to you with the force of government democracy that is morally wrong. In other words, for every one person Obama supposedly helps, he makes someone else a victim. There is no way around it, geniuses. The sh*t isn’t Obama’s. It doesn’t belong to him. He didn’t build that.

There is something Ayn Rand said in Return of the Primitive that has stuck with me, which is that the New Left rebels taking over were “Castroites”; and she pointed out that they were driven more by existentialist angst than by ideological fanaticism. She said that their literary tastes run more to Sartre and Camus than to Marx. Apparently, the literary tastes of today’s rebels run more along the lines of 50 Shades and the appropriately named Twilight.

Snide left-wing trolls will be taunting conservatives with their witless one-liners for the next four years; but let’s not fools ourselves, we’re not exactly dealing with mental giants, folks. These people don’t get their cues from stale Sunday show punditry or the New York Times as much as they do from bile-spewing gangsta rappers like Jay-Z and from post-moral Hollywood films like “Wreck-it-Ralph”

What we need now to be successful in imbuing our values into those who are anti-value and beating principles into the soft skulls of the moral relativists is a way to cut through the progressive think-smog of bullsh*t cultural innuendo and Alinsky-style character assassination. What is meaningful to Americans in their real everyday life experience? How do you make things stick emotionally as much as intellectually?

Odds are whatever it will be will be quirky, funny, and unexpected. You’ve got to go pre-cognitive; and stay tuned to CDN for an article from myself that will describe a new political paradigm of approaching American politics, instead of going by the same-old left-right dialectic. Regardless, selling the “conservative” soap is not gonna take home the knife set.

Some people may be tempted to mail it in, believing they’d rather preserve their dignity and talk to other prospective American voters like they’re, well… adults. Writing, blogging, trying to influence others in the new media environment is probably not gonna be for you. We’re all on a giant playground now, and sometimes you’ve got to use humor to take down the school bully, especially if the star quarterback who said has your back is making out with the tight end under the bleachers.

On the other side of the ‘change’ coin, it must be nice to live in the liberal netherworld of knowing how to vote each election based sheerly on who all the cool kids think should be the country’s top political celebrity for four years. Yep, despite all the conservative crowing about President Kardashian and Big Bird politics, the lefty culture trumped our smarts. Time to get over it.

We were all thinking Alinsky, when we should have been going Gramsci. In other words, a lot of bloggers were thinking ridicule hatchet-job on Obama’s character when we should have been thinking about the immense institutional and cultural resources working against us. Our constant sniping at Obama made those of us on the right come across to the young, dumb and proud of it as petty (maybe even… racist?) because our message wasn’t being reinforced through cultural media: movies, music, television, etc.

We were yelling into the cultural marxist ocean only to find that while our fellow fail whales could hear us, the giant group-think schools of lib-fish had tuned us out. We didn’t know how to change the color of the red tide except to pee in the currents.

Did you think this velvet revolution was planned yesterday? Hardly. As soon as radicals got their hands on Frankfurt School lit, they started taking over the schools, universities, news and entertainment media, and the courts. We were content to salute the flag, eat apple pie, and sing “I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy” while the left was brainwashing our kids (and damn proud of it!).

Want to live in the black-and-white era of American politics, believing we can beat the other side with newspaper editorial-type posts filled with “facts” and “figures” and “logic”? You’re probably going to be sorely disappointed by the lack of results.

Want more evidence? Here you go.

Obama voters slam Mitt Romney, while supporting his policy proposals; and they hammer the policies of “Mitt Romney,” which actually belong to Obama.

Shock jock Howard Stern’s infamous videos of Obama voters before the election.

Bonus: epic Adam Corolla rant on participation trophy left. Caution: explicit language.

Bizarro ‘Bama

Stop me if you’ve heard this one. Corporate-backed fat cat politician runs on the Republican ticket in the most serious economic recession in 70 years. The boring old white guy is backed by Wall Street and promises to change Washington.

This GOP neocon is a multi-millionaire one-percenter who donates very little to charity. Backed by special interests, he claims not to be controlled by lobbyists, but he meets with them frequently in secret. The man talks a big game about transparency, but refuses to make all of his records public. He pretends to be a moderate, but he’s actually an extremist wingnut.

The slick politician comes into the presidency claiming to be a change from Bush, but he nevertheless copies his predecessor’s war-mongering ways. He continues the wars overseas and the civil liberties abuses. He supports the Patriot Act. Twice. And to top it off, he declares war on foreign soil without congressional authorization.

The man triples down on the failed Bush policies of the past. Bailouts for bankster buddies, a trillion-dollar stimulus slush fund for his crony allies, and billions in green energy graft for campaign contributors. Although he promises to cut the deficit in half, he actually triples it. The man is synonymous with corruption, as he props up the “too big to fail” at the expense of the little guy.

Then to top it off, this heartless Republican spends around ten work weeks on the golf course, meanwhile promising to work tirelessly to get people back to work. After getting bored with golf, he goes on the campaign trail about halfway into his presidency. He skips almost all of his jobs council meetings and his intelligence briefings for the rest of his term.

Further economic disaster comes as tens of millions remain without work. The soulless politician says that the private sector is “doing just fine,” while record profits keep rolling into corporate coffers. The rest of the economy is dismal, as productivity declines and people give up even looking for work.

The blue-blooded jerk then says that he is protecting the middle class, as average incomes drop some $4,300 and meanwhile, gas prices soar, food prices go through the roof, and utility bills skyrocket. Medical insurance jumps to astronomically high rates after he passes a gargantuan bill that was promoted by the insurance lobby.

The bloodthirsty Republican drops bombs on villages in Third World countries, killing thousands of innocent people as “collateral damage.” The draft-dodging chicken hawk beats his chest over killing a Muslim holy man. And when he gets a “3 am call” at 9 pm requesting help from Navy SEALS trying to rescue a U.S. ambassador, he yawns and takes a nappy so that he can get ready for a fundraiser with millionaires and billionaires.

Now consider that this politician is neither a “boring old white guy” nor a “Republican.” The man is Barack Hussein Obama. And you just re-elected him, America.

Mind. Blown.

Top World Reactions to Obama’s Re-election

Celebrations spontaneously erupted in the Muslim World after learning the news that Obama will return to office.

The terrorist community was exuberant that Obama will be back to provide more weapons-trafficking in the Middle East. Above is a photo of a Libyan militia member flashing the victory signal to the president.

Russian strongman Vladimir Putin wept tears of joy that America’s most flexible president will be returning to compromise on missile defense, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and other international issues.

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez joined fellow Obama-endorser Vladimir Putin in giving a shout out to President Obama for his victory.

President Obama took a bow before the Saudi Prince for running a brilliant campaign based on Big Bird, Mitt hates cookies, binders full of women, and horses and bayonets.

African Americans for Obama proclaimed the end of racism by tweeting “f*ck white people.”

Key Obama campaigner Beyonce Knowles tweeted out “Take that Mitches.” There’s no word if Jay-Z celebrated with another rendition of “99 Problems and Mitt Ain’t One.”

Bits of protoplasm often mistaken for human beings partied at the idea of re-electing a president who supports their arbitrary termination.

Children cried with joy at the thought of their debt burden skyrocketing over $200,000 per person for their age group.

Mother Gaia gave an official press announcement thanking Obama for restoring rightful control over the earth’s climate to unelected bureaucrats in Washington.

The devil was ecstatic over the election of a party that voted twice to remove God from its platform (before being overruled, of course).


Baby vampire bats smiled approvingly at the Democrat voters who returned Obama to power.

One Last Word to the Troops Before the Election

As President Obama ends his bitter and petty campaign of character assassination against his challenger Mitt Romney, one is struck by just how low the lofty orator has fallen from his 2008 bid. The erstwhile freshman Senator rode into office on a wave of disingenuous half-truths and outright lies promising “hope and change.” But at least Obama sounded vaguely optimistic and sunny while he lied — repeatedly — to voters’ faces.

About ending the War in Iraq in 16 months. About bringing the War in Afghanistan to a speedy close. About shuttering Guantanamo Bay. About extraordinary rendition. About cutting the deficit in half. About the need to curb healthcare spending. About not taxing the middle class. About becoming a post-partisan president.

Instead, he extended the War in Iraq to double his pledged time. He has our troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014, if not until 2024. He launched a new war in Libya, without Congressional authorization. He couldn’t bring himself to call America’s enemies ‘terrorists’ at Fort Hood and Benghazi.

On the economy, he tripled the deficit, starting with the 2009 Democrat-drafted budget he signed. Then he passed Obamacare, which has exploded to three times original cost estimates. He passed taxes on the middle class dozens of times. He hasn’t passed a budget at all in nearly three years. And then he recently implored his Democrat base to exact “revenge” on their opponents (for paying for all the Democrats’ compassionate social welfare programs, presumably.)

The suddenly churlish Obama then scapegoated former President Bush for the “same old” disastrous economics, apparently the one that led to 52 straight months of job growth. And at least Bush warned about the coming housing bubble burst. But whatever the legend is around liberal watercoolers to this day, President Bush did not save a free market, because there was no free market to begin with — especially when it came to housing mortgages.

But the GOP is still somehow to blame for the poor economy in Democrat voters’ minds, because we are talking about a right-wing party that is so insidious and formidable in Democrat mythology that not a single Republican voted for Obamacare and the bill still passed easily. Then the nefarious law was rubber-stamped by a Republican-appointed chief justice who bought a line about the Obamatax that not even the president’s council believed. The government lawyers argued it both was and was not a tax and apparently won. Heads we win, tails you lose.

So how are Republicans rigging the system? How can the GOP be considered the establishment? Some Republicans are lazy and apathetic, but they are not the face of big government, not even big business. The Democrats have handed trillions to big business on a silver platter, whether we are talking about green subsidies or flat-out stimulus slush. But the left still cries about “tax cuts for the wealthy,” as if they have prima nocta to screw taxpayers, rather than allow them to reward businesses with their hard-earned cash.

But maybe that’s what separates us and them the most, meaning conservatives and liberals. We assume that life is hard work, overcoming adversity, and dealing with unpleasant realities. The Democrats want to grant a make-believe generous and compassionate government with the power to control everything in the world. Oh sorry, make things “fair.”

What isn’t “fair” is when politicians and their crony capitalist allies determine what we do with our lives: in business, in society, in our homes. And cutting taxes is returning more power to us, to the market. De-regulating is returning more power to us, to the consumers. The Republican Party is not the establishment party, even if it concedes far too often to the political left and special interests. It is largely unprincipled, yielding ground to the entitlement state, and even swelling it drastically on occasion. It is far from ideal; even seriously flawed.

Tomorrow, I am voting Republican in the biggest race of my lifetime to limit the damage the Democrats can do, and voting Libertarian anywhere else I can to voice my contempt and disgust for the two-party status quo. People believe they can change the system by simply registering their objection to it by voting Gary Johnson. I disagree. I don’t think this will do anything but lead to a worse income in both the short-term and long-term.

We need to engage and fundamentally transform the Republican Party, and use it as a tool to advance freedom, even if that means exposing and throwing out any politician that is against the cause of liberty. We cannot just throw up our hands and abandon the best possible chance to advance our interests; even if it is incremental change, and even if it turns out to be too little, too late.

We on the conservatarian side of things have to feel good about New Media’s chances to change the culture, and thereby, change the conversation in a way that makes it harder for both parties to damage our freedoms.

We don’t need a political messiah in this election; what we need is time. Mitt Romney gives us that.

Note: Some of the documentation for this article’s claims can be found here: “1001 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama.”