Monday, June 17, 2013

Are We Born Innocent?

One of the presumptions of civilized men everywhere is that the newborn child is "born innocent," which in this application means "not guilty of any crime or evil deed." The conception rests on a precept of justice that's been under heavy attack for decades: individual responsibility, the assertion that a man cannot justly be held responsible for the deeds of others.

Among the more significant aspects of the attack is the clamoring of black racialist hucksters for "reparations:" a demand that present-day white Americans pay trillions of dollars in penalties -- through the federal government, of course -- that present-day black Americans would receive in "compensation" for the economic harm done to blacks of 150 years ago by slavery. Inasmuch as no present-day white American has ever owned a slave and no present-day black American has ever been a slave, that would constitute a transfer of the presumed guilt of all white Americans of 150 years ago onto the shoulders of white Americans of today. It's a jarring premise, inasmuch as slaveholders were less than one percent of the population of pre-Civil War America. Indeed, less than one percent of contemporary Americans are even related to the slaveholders or the slaves of yore.

Should the precept of individual responsibility be removed from our legal system, claims such as the above could be fashioned into law and rammed down our throats at once.

The application to race relations could hardly be clearer. Young blacks, steeped in rhetoric that persuades them that "whitey is the enemy," proceed to treat whites that way. Whites, few of whom wish blacks anything but good, sense the hostility of blacks and distance themselves reflexively. Tensions rise that cannot be dissipated. Incidents of interracial violence become more frequent. The cycle of hostility stokes itself.

Scary, eh? But there are other facets to it that tend to escape our notice...until someone possessed of unusual percipience brings them to light:

Our society has forgotten the wonder of men in its quest for retribution against men and boys who often weren't even alive when women were being discriminated against. [Helen Smith, Men on Strike: Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream -- and Why it Matters] [Emphasis added by FWP]

Dr. Smith's focus is on the effects on American men of the perverse incentive structures now in place concerning marriage, fatherhood, career, and other aspects of male behavioral choices. The modern feminist movement, which rides on an undercurrent of resentment of men for being men, has transferred its anger at prior generations of men -- much of which is entirely irrational and unjust -- onto current and future generations who have done them no harm. Its success at reshaping the laws concerning marriage, divorce, and family matters to favor women heavily has reaped the whirlwind: a gale that propels young men away from the traditional pattern of acceptance of commitment, responsibility, and hard work for the welfare of their families.

In the environment thus produced, young women have come to assume predatory intentions and a lack of responsibility in young men. That attitude is quite clear to young men, many of whom have seen their parents' marriages collapse from the same effect, usually with savagely destructive effects upon their fathers. Their suspicion of the "marriage trap" and its potential consequences has caused men to resist romantic involvement, sometimes lifelong. That shift in male behavior has left innumerable women involuntarily single long into their thirties...if, indeed, they ever marry at all. Since women's desire for children has not been dampened, many conceive by young men unwilling to assume the burdens of marriage and fatherhood, such that approximately four out of every ten minor children are being reared in single-parent households.

Well, that's what you get when you pre-convict a baby of various high crimes and misdemeanors for the sin of being white, or possessing a Y chromosome.

Forgive me, Gentle Reader. This is a subject about which it's difficult for me to remain calm. Too many people are suffering unjustly. Too many of the sufferers are children. And as Mark Steyn has ably pointed out, "demography is destiny." Our ongoing production of interracial and intergender hostility, coupled to its consequences for child-bearing and child-rearing, is enough all by itself to doom these United States. We're already seeing some of its consequences in contemporary politics. (Cf. Eric Holder and the New Black Panther voter-intimidation scandal.)

I prefer a world in which we're presumed innocent at birth -- a world in which a man cannot be held liable for the crimes of others. But we won't have such a world until we cease to pay even the slightest degree of respect to the rantings of persons who make angry demands in the name of races, sexes, ethnicities, religions, or groups of any other sort. To these eyes, that day appears far off.

Just one more reason to stay home behind a dead-bolted door.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Why Fiction?

Due to the rapid success of Freedom's Scion, which has in turn stimulated fresh interest in Which Art In Hope, I've been getting quite a pile of email. The question most frequently asked in those emails is "Why?"

No, no! Not "Why do you waste your time writing this crap, Fran, when you could be doing something constructive, like putting diapers on piss clams or sifting the fly dung out of pepper," but "Why do you regard fiction as a suitable vehicle for popularizing the ideas of freedom, Christianity, and perpetually hot intramarital sex?"

In a sense, my correspondents' questions are their best answers. The great majority of them express admiration for the story of Hope and the ideas it promotes. But then, my typical reader is already in 95%-or-better agreement with me on those ideas, so the sample does possess a certain bias.

Nevertheless, the core idea is reliable: Fiction is a more effective vehicle for the promotion of an idea than non-fiction. Ask any of the millions who've been enthralled and uplifted by Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy, Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, or...or...well, I can't think of another novel that promotes perpetually hot intramarital sex at the moment. Perhaps one will come to mind later.

Fiction sells an idea by depicting attractive, plausible characters as they put it into action.

This is true even with some ineptly written fiction. No one in his right mind would call Edward Bellamy's proto-Socialist novel Looking Backward a piece of great fiction qua fiction. But it did inspire the Progressive movement of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, which grew inexorably into the horrors we suffer today. The power of Bellamy's ideas eclipsed the one-dimensionality of his characters and the dreadfulness of his prose.

Non-fiction works principally through abstractions. Yes, the non-fictional expositor of an idea can cite examples of the ideas he's promoting as they've occurred in the real world. Indeed, he must. But such depictions are, to use a term I generally try to avoid, bloodless. They cannot move the reader as fiction could, for the "characters" of real life don't get much opportunity to win the reader's affections and engage his allegiance. A novel, to be effective at its primary mission of entertainment, must show its protagonist(s) in a fashion that makes the reader root for him/them. That greatly amplifies the power of the ideas beneath the protagonist's course of action.

Think of it as hero-coupling. The reader hitches his emotional wagon to the protagonist's star. Having done so, he cannot root for the protagonist without also rooting for the success of the ideas that animate him. Should the protagonist succeed, the reader cheers for him and his cause at the same time. Should he go down to defeat in a "new wave" Unhappy Ending, the reader will feel a surge of anger and sorrow...once again, out of sympathy for both the character and the ideas that move him.

So I write fiction. Not quite as much, damn it all, as the voluminous opinion-editorial tirades that appear here, but I'm working on that. My day job tends to get in the way, though I'm certain that once I'm retired I'll find another excuse.

And I hope you who drop a few piasters on one or more of my books will keep writing to me with your ideas. Fiction isn't just a more effective idea-salesman than non-fiction; it's also one hell of a lot tougher to produce. I can use all the help I can get!

Saturday, June 15, 2013

They Walk Among Us...

...silent and effectively undetectable. You can't tell them from normal folks by appearance, most of their statements and behavior pass unremarked, and they're on a mission, though definitely not from God:

More than 7,000 academics are gathered in Victoria, B.C., this week for the annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, presenting papers on everything from the errant lessons of Grey’s Anatomy to Justin Trudeau’s political brand power. In this week-long series, the National Post showcases some of the most interesting research.

Parents who read their kids stories about happy, human-like animals like Franklin the Turtle or Arthur at bedtime are exposing their kids to racism, materialism, homophobia and patriarchal norms, according to a paper presented at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Most animals portrayed in children’s books, songs and on clothing send a bad message, according to academics Nora Timmerman and Julia Ostertag: That animals only exist for human use, that humans are better than animals, that animals don’t have their own stories to tell, that it’s fine to “demean” them by cooing over their cuteness. Perhaps worst of all, they say, animals are anthropomorphized to reinforce “socially dominant norms” like nuclear families and gender stereotypes.

Please read the rest. Any offense you give or small, valuable items you break during the subsequent fit of uncontrollable laughter are entirely your own affair.

I do believe it's time to say a few things very, very plainly:

  • Normal means usual, or overwhelmingly more common than any alternative.
  • Therefore, when we speak of human attitudes, convictions, and behavior, normal should be interpreted to mean "what the overwhelming majority of humans feel, think, and do."
  • It follows that:
    • "Racism," when applied to the human race vis-a-vis the subhuman races, is normal.
    • "Materialism," i.e. the desire / preference for material comfort and security, is normal.
    • Heterosexuality is normal.
    • "Homophobia," whether anyone likes it or not, is normal.
    • "Patriarchal norms," to the extent the phrase was intended to convey anything more than "men are icky," are normal.

Furthermore:

  • From the anthropocentric viewpoint, "animals exist only for human use" is exactly correct.
  • With due respect to Caligula et alii, humans are better than animals intellectually and ethically.
  • Animals have no stories to tell, regardless of whatever stories humans tell about animals.
  • "Cooing over their cuteness" is far better than what PETA does to the ones it "rescues."
  • Nuclear families are the basis of modern civilization.
  • Assuming the "gender stereotypes" the "researchers" have in mind are the usual ones, those stereotypes are irrefutably correct.

In short, the use of animals in children's books is rational, pro-social, and pro-child-development. Indeed, the practice helps children to develop kindness toward animals. But these "researchers" are angry about it. That says a lot more about the "researchers" than about animals, their use in children's fiction, the various ideas and attitudes mentioned above, or anything else.

If you need a list of dead-giveaway words by which to detect and reject such bilge without needing to read it attentively, my favorites are:

  • Racism
  • Homophobia
  • Heteronormative
  • Patriarchal

Are these "researchers" entitled to their opinions of our "racism," "homophobia," "materialism," and "patriarchal norms?" Of course:

Porretto's Bio-Social Theorem:
Opinions are like assholes:
Everyone's gotta have one.

But the rest of us are equally entitled to laugh ourselves hoarse at their notions...and to keep them as far away from our kids as contemporary technology and the laws of physics will permit.

Of course, this is the beginning of yet another attempt to condition our children into politically correct "pre-liberal" mindsets. Its risibility should not be taken as an indication of harmlessness. (It's certainly not an exculpation.) Fortunately, harsh, derisive laughter from a multitude of sensible sources is the best detoxifying agent for such malicious nonsense. Use it!

Friday, June 14, 2013

Of Optima, Antipodes, And Asymptotes

"Trust us. We know what's best. We're here to help." -- Motto of the Totalitarian Party (fictional).

I generally find Sean Hannity annoying. He shouts continuously, repeatedly misuses the word principles, and is entirely too willing to make exceptions to his supposed ideal of "limited government" to suit his own preferences. Even so, from time to time he does capture an idea and express it properly. Yesterday during his afternoon radio show was such a time.

I don't remember his exact phrasing, but here's my paraphrase:

Left-liberalism can be expressed in two words:
"TRUST US!"

That's not a new insight, of course. I've been saying it for more than twenty years, and I'm sure I wasn't the first. But it's a perfect encapsulation of what the left-liberal demands from the people he seeks to rule. Its relevance to the current bumper crop of federal scandals could hardly be clearer.

A certain low comedy beautifully expresses just how bad a mistake we've made:

"You ****ed up. You trusted us."

We trusted them...and now we get to sift through the shards and ashes of a once-mighty Republic, in the hope that there's something we can still save.

Well, as it happens, there is.


"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it!" -- George Bernard Shaw

The message of the freedom-lover has always been the exact opposite of that of the left-liberal:

"DON'T TRUST THEM!"

"Them" being (of course) anyone and everyone who promises you security, comfort, prosperity, medical care, a safety net, free movie tickets, or anything else in exchange for power over you. Once they've got the power they seek, they tend to forget the promises they made. Not that that matters in practical terms; their promises were unfulfillable anyway. And as for power over you, they come back over and over for just...a little...more...

Surely we've had enough examples of this progression by now. Surely the Gentle Readers of Liberty's Torch don't need yet another repetition of that novena. But we must be in a tiny minority; else why would the majority keep trusting them?

There are many reasons, not the least of which is that the typical freedom advocate is all too willing to make exceptions for particular purposes. More often than not, he's trying to reassure someone who doesn't really agree with him that it's "safe" to "allow" the rest of us to do as we please, kinda/sorta, more-or-less. Safety net? Oh, sure. Laws against "vice?" Okay, if the majority insists. Protective tariffs? Farm subsidies? Public libraries? Public education? The list of exceptions demanded of us can seem to go on forever...and we have a terrible tendency to wave a dismissive hand and mutter "all right."

And there's nothing to be done about it, for a simple, terrible, yet irrefutable reason:

Most people, including most Americans, don't really want to be free.


"That's why it's called a revolution....A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face." -- William Stranix (played by Tommy Lee Jones) in Under Siege

Jonah Goldberg seems to get better with every column:

It's true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here's an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either. America's great, but it ain't perfect. Sweden's social democracy is all right, but if it were perfect, I suspect fewer cars would be on fire over there.

Ideals are called ideals for a reason: They're ideals. They're goals, aspirations, abstract straight rules we use as measuring sticks against the crooked timber of humanity....

It's a little bizarre how the left has always conflated statism with modernity and progress. The idea that rulers -- be they chieftains, kings, priests, politburos or wonkish bureaucrats -- are enlightened or smart enough to tell others how to live is older than the written word. And the idea that someone stronger, with better weapons, has the right to take what is yours predates man's discovery of fire by millennia. And yet, we're always told that the latest rationalization for increased state power is the "wave of the future."

That phrase, "the wave of the future," became famous thanks to a 1940 essay by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She argued that the time of liberal democratic capitalism was drawing to a close and the smart money was on statism of one flavor or another -- fascism, communism, socialism, etc. What was lost on her, and millions of others, was that this wasn't progress toward the new, but regression to the past. These "waves of the future" were simply gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.

The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it's still unfolding.

Goldberg's grasp of the situation is far better than most, albeit incomplete. Yes, the revolution for human freedom is still rolling, but there are other revolutions in motion too, including Anne Morrow Lindbergh's "wave of the future:" the unending drive, by persons who lust for power above all other things, for unopposable control of all human action. It is in the nature of Man that neither of these revolutions will ever triumph completely or permanently over the other.

We won't attain perfect freedom, ever. We'll always have persons among us who demand exceptions for this or that "problem." We'll always have persons among us shouting about "crises" that demand that some strong man take command...just "for the duration," of course. And we'll always allow for some of that; it's easier than perpetuating an interminable, unwinnable argument. For as long as Man remains Man, freedom lovers' yearnings for the universal abjuration and permanent downfall of the State can never be fulfilled.

But we can draw closer. We can become freer. What we can't do, now or ever, is cement any particular degree of human freedom permanently into place. The counter-revolution toward totalitarianism will keep "coming back around in your face." There will be periods, such as the one we suffer today, when the freedom revolution is badly beleaguered, "on the ropes" in the overwhelming majority of cases. But the totalitarians cannot snuff it out completely. No more than we can they cement their gains into place. That, too, is in the nature of Man.

There will never be a completely free society. Neither will there ever be a completely regimented society, in which one or a few dictate absolutely to all others exactly what they must and must not do. These two strains of human desire will last as long as Mankind itself.


"Freedom: That which you demand for yourself but would deny to others." -- Thomas Szasz.

Freedom and Tyranny are abstractions capable of many interpretations and gradations. Each of us supposes he knows what he means by it. Few of us agree completely on the meanings, even when posed in the simplest terms. Many a person who claims to stand for "freedom" wants a long list of "buts" appended to the word.

For the freedom lover, the optimum is the complete absence of indemnified coercion from human life. He does as he pleases with that which is rightfully his. No one can invade his prerogatives without suffering just redress. It should be plain that that optimum, however closely we might approach it, cannot be completely attained.

For the power-luster, the optimum is that all human action is subject to his personal rule and permission. No one may do anything without his approval, or without first having done what he has commanded. That, too, is an unattainable position, if only because no one who has attained great power can do so without engendering rivals and enemies.

These antipodal conceptions will writhe and wrestle with one another until our kind is no more. Each will wax in its turn, rising asymptotically toward its ideal, as the other wanes toward annihilation. Yet neither can be forever extinguished. For that very reason, even in the darkest hour, there will always be a hope of light.

Their hour is upon us.
But ours will return.
Be not afraid.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Evidence For An Ugly Proposition

I'm a bit pressed this morning, so I'll make this quick and blunt:

The federal government:
  1. Has decided to ignore the Constitution,
  2. Is in the process of suppressing dissent by force,
  3. And can no longer be stopped by peaceful means.

If you're new to these ideas, you may rest assured, Gentle Reader, that others are not.


1. Telling the truth is no longer deemed the obligation of a "public servant."

Witness this demonstration:

Admission that James Clapper gave 'least truthful answer' on domestic surveillance could become a problem for the president. As the Obama administration insists that Congress was fully informed about the National Security Agency's widespread surveillance on Americans' phone records, its intelligence chief is becoming a complication.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, has now admitted he gave the "least untruthful" answer to a direct question in March about the extent of surveillance on US citizens. The admission sets up a critical test of Clapper's relationship with the congressional committees that oversee him – committees the Obama administration is relying on for its defense of the surveillance efforts.

The Obama team is expressing support for Clapper as criticism of him mounts. "The president has full faith in director Clapper and his leadership of the intelligence community," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told the Guardian on Wednesday.

Please read the rest.


2. Elected legislators are willing to tailor their statements to their audiences.

And that applies to both Democrats and Republicans:

My email to Senator Rubio (?-FL):

Stop lying to your constituents-at least the English-speaking ones. I’m assuming you consider us to be part of your constituency, though there is considerable evidence against that claim. We know you are not saying the same things to Univision that you’re saying to us, and what’s even worse than the knowledge that you’re lying to somebody is the overwhelming suspicion that you’re telling them the truth.

Marco Rubio was a Tea Party favorite. Among the Tea Party's greater concerns -- very near the top -- is the erection of firm and lasting border security and ingress controls. But no matter how ingenious, such controls could never be effective if there are overwhelming incentives to violate them. But such incentives are exactly what blanket legalization of America's estimated 11 million illegal aliens would create -- and Rubio knows it.

But saying different things in different languages worked for Yasser Arafat. Maybe Rubio has chosen a new role model.


3. Enforcers enforce the will of those who pay them.

They seem to enjoy the process, too:

A short documentary by Jan Morgan of JanMorganMedia, called "Rampant Injustice" exposes the federal abuse of power that has taken place since Obama was elected. This underexposed video documents the egregious trampling of the Constitutional rights of Americans during white collar crime investigations by the Department of Justice and the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.

Between 2009 and 2011, IRS audits against small businesses increased 32%. Federal warrants against businesses have also increased substantially with many of the raids conducted by SWAT teams.

Among the hundreds of businesses raided by the IRS and Department of Justice, using paramilitary, gestapo like tactics, was Mountain Pure Water Bottling Company and Duncan Outdoors, Inc., both situated in Arkansas and Gibson Guitar located in Tennessee. Their stories are profiled in the documentary which has been up on YouTube since October 31 of last year. The abusive targeting practices of the IRS toward conservative organizations have finally made the news, but these stories need exposure too.

The IRS and DOJ are out of control, and have been at war against small businesses.

At 8:00 a.m. on January 18, 2012, 40 -50 heavily armed, hostile government agents raided Mountain Pure water, scaring the dickens out of everyone in the building.

What you're about to see is a reenactment of something that really happened. The owner, John Stacks told me on the phone that it was even worse than depicted in the video. He says he was cursed at, spat on, and bullied in such an egregious fashion, he felt like they were trying to provoke him to react violently. His son, Court Stacks, the General Manager, had a loaded gun pointed to his face. His seven and a half month pregnant wife watched news coverage of the raid at home in horror. She would later lose the baby.

The video:


4. Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question...

Oh, do not ask "What is it?" I'll tell you straight off:

HAD ENOUGH YET?

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Lunatics Are Running The Asylum

When I encountered this article, I was tempted to assume it's a satire. Unfortunately, it isn't:

HAYWARD -- An elementary school will hold a toy gun exchange Saturday, offering students a book and a chance to win a bicycle if they turn in their play weapons.

Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill maintains that children who play with toy guns may not take real guns seriously.

"Playing with toys guns, saying 'I'm going to shoot you,' desensitizes them, so as they get older, it's easier for them to use a real gun," Hill said.

At Saturday's event, called Strobridge Elementary Safety Day, a Hayward police officer will demonstrate bicycle and gun safety, and the Alameda County Fire Department is sending a rig and crew to talk about fire safety.

Fingerprinting and photographing of children will be offered, with the information put on CDs for parents to use, if needed, in a missing child case. All youngsters attending will be given a ticket to exchange for a book, Hill said.

Every child who brings a toy gun will get a raffle ticket to win one of four bicycles, Hill said....

Hill hopes the toy gun exchange idea catches on.

"If we want older kids to not think guns are cool, we need to start early," he said.

Ahhh, California: The Land of Fruits and Nuts. But the Golden State has long been a trendsetter for the Left -- and the Left controls the government-run schools.

Did you notice that "fingerprinting and photographing of children will be offered" -- ? The rationale: "missing child" searches. Children do go missing now and then in these United States, though not nearly as often as the fear-mongers would have us believe. But under what circumstances would a record of a missing child's fingerprints assist in locating him? Does anyone really expect a kidnapper to allow his victim's fingerprints to be matched against a missing-persons database? As for the identification of a juvenile corpse, there are several other ways...but those other ways wouldn't assist the police in amassing a database of Americans they have no business having in the first place.

But let's return to the central thrust of the above: conditioning children against guns. Note that the program described will barter books and raffle tickets for the toy guns. Maybe those items will prove more attractive to the kids than I imagine. But however that turns out, I'd love to know what books are being offered, whether the kids get to choose among them...and who preselected them, and according to what criteria.

If this idea catches fire and spreads to other parts of the country, I'd like to see the NRA, GOA, et alii whip up a counter-campaign that will lay the motivation bare and explicitly counteract it. Perhaps free seminars on gun safety, specially designed for children, would do the job. Given that approximately half of all American households have one or more firearms in them, such a campaign could prove very popular indeed.

As I've written before, the three pillars upon which a free society must rest are:

  • The education of its citizens, particularly as regards the history of political forms and the thinking behind its own constitution;
  • The ability to communicate freely, privately, and without interference;
  • The possession of weaponry adequate to overthrow the government or to resist its usurpations, should the necessity arise.

At this time, all three are under heavy attack. Indeed, the Left practically owns American classroom education. The recent NSA and PRISM scandals suggest that private communication might soon be a thing of the past, sacrificed to the dubious needs of "national security." There is yet time, and there are yet alternatives, that might rescue education and communications from Leviathan's grip. But may God help us if it succeeds in disarming us, either forcibly or by cleverly conditioning our children. Weapons in private hands are the one and only obstacle to tyranny upon which a people can rely. There is no imaginable substitute.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Prediction, Confidence, And Language

The news is all bad, as usual, but it's also getting pretty old, so I thought I might spend a few pixels on an old irritant of mine. Perhaps it's occasionally bothered you, too: the predilection far too many people have for "predicting" the past...and getting it wrong.


There are a few words in the English language that defy precise categorization. One of my favorites is should. Let's start here: What part of speech is it?

Various dictionaries list should as a verb, the "implicative" form of shall. I suppose that's one way to view it, though to me it looks more like an adverb. The spectrum of its uses adds ambiguity to its place in the lexicon:

  1. The moral-ethical application: "You should do this."
  2. The forward-prediction application: "That should result in this outcome."
  3. The boy-am-I-an-idiot application: "Hm, that should have worked."

Each of these applications involves a knowledge context. In the first case, the speaker implies a knowledge of moral or ethical constraints, whether positive (obligations) or negative ("thou shalt nots"). In the second case, the speaker has imperfect confidence in his understanding of the current situation; he thinks his recommendation will lead to a particular outcome, but will allow, perhaps grudgingly, that he might be wrong. These are both perfectly comprehensible uses of should, and unobjectionable from most standpoints.

The third case is among the most important of all indicators of a lack of understanding. After all, what does the speaker really mean?

"According to my grasp of the situation in which I operated, I expected a particular outcome from my work. But I didn't get it. I don't know why I didn't get it, and it's near to pissing me off!"

The speaker is irritated by reality itself. By denying him the results he expected, it demonstrated that his "grasp of the situation" was, at best, incomplete. The dissonance he's experiencing over that is stressing him somewhat.

Upon hearing that third use of should, a prudent observer will retreat out of flailing range to await developments.


A departed friend, when he heard a colleague say "that should have worked," liked to ring in, "And here we are once again in the Land of Should, where all programs work on the first try." This is exactly correct:

If your understanding of a situation is correct,
And your application of that understanding is appropriately and accurately executed,
You will get the outcome you seek with perfect reliability...
But how often is that, really?

"That should have worked" is an erroneous attempt to predict the past. It tells no one anything of importance. The impulse to say such a thing is educational to him who feels it. He'll be best off for not succumbing to it, but he should draw the lesson nonetheless.

All right, all right. Given the high intelligence of the typical Gentle Reader of Liberty's Torch, all that "should" be obvious at this point. But there's one aspect of it that deserves further exploration: a forward-going prediction that "should" be closely scrutinized, specifically because of its application to politics and current events.


"A strong sense of confidence is always misplaced." -- James Hogan

Politics and economics are full of "shoulds." This is quite appropriate: the dominant feature of both realms of thought is ignorance. Therefore, he who deigns to make a prediction in either field is expressing confidence in his grasp of human nature, the dynamics of power, the laws of economics, and the bloody-mindedness and intransigence of ordinary individuals.

If you encounter such a person, cross the street and walk quickly.

We do not know enough to make firm predictions -- that is, predictions of a specific stimulus yielding a specific outcome at a specific future time -- about political or economic systems. It's likely that we cannot know and therefore never will know enough to do so. And indeed, you will note that even the very best oracles on these subjects routinely omit to state a time-to-completion of the processes they delineate. It's clearly the path of wisdom not to be too certain of anything in these domains.

It's possible to have good confidence in the outcomes of certain political and economic processes, if all the relevant aspects of the context to which our knowledge is applied can be kept from changing. But one who predicts must be mindful of the likelihood that the context embeds features of which he is not aware, and even more mindful of the uncontrollability of processes that interact with human desires, fears, and beliefs. Physicists insist on replicable experimental conditions. We who prognosticate about politics and economics know that we can never have them.


The power-seeker often speaks with an air of confidence to which he is not entitled. He propounds his nostrums as if their efficacy could not be more certain. It doesn't matter whether he truly feels that confident or whether his confidence is entirely rhetorical. What he wants is to win the trust of those listening...and tragically, an air of confidence, even when it's utterly mistaken, is a very attractive thing.

Americans might be coming to understand this. In the scandals of recent weeks, we've heard a lot, almost all of it from Democrats and other power-mongers, about what "should" be done to correct the abuses about which we've all heard. Most of it has been laughable or self-serving, because it's been done before and it brought us directly to the present messes. But you can bet your bottom dollar that we'll be deluged with "shoulds" -- and worse, "wills" -- before the furor dies down, for a simple reason:

Political egotism trumps both logic and experience.

So it has ever been, and so it will always be...no matter what you think "should" be the case.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Weapons Part 3: Mass Destruction

Political weaponry, like the sort that really maims, kills, and destroys, comes in various gradations. In today's tirade, which will probably be the last of the Weapons series, we'll look at a political weapon of mass destruction: a freedom-killer that, if it detonates on-target, leaves nothing salvageable behind.

There might be other, equally fearsome political weapons, but just now I can't think of one.


Courtesy of Mike at Cold Fury comes this brief rant by Harry Stein:

Yet in America today, only one of the dominant political parties--guess which one--is actually dependent on the idiot vote for its very survival. Ignoramuses are the Democrats' core constituency. Can't name your congressman or a single Supreme Court justice? Have vaguely heard of Gettysburg, but can't quite place the war? Get your idea of news from People and Us or Comedy Central? You're a singe-issue voter and the single issue is more-more-more and who-cares-how-it-gets-paid-for. The Dems not only want you to vote, they'll hunt you down, fill out the registration form for you and show up on Election Day to drag you to the polls. And if you can't make it, they'll send someone else and say you did. And all the while, proudly cast themselves as defenders of democracy, because the right to vote is, you know, like, sacrosanct.

Feel free to doubt the veracity of Stein's accusation if you like. I don't. I can't; I've known far too many such "citizens" to dispute him...and they all vote for whatever baboon the Democrats have nominated, regardless of the character of the candidate, the elevation of the office, or any other consideration. You couldn't get them to vote against a Democrat with a loaded gun to the temple.

However, to mutter "idiots" and stop there falls short of a complete analysis. Commenters at the mighty Ace of Spades provide a few snippets of confirmation that this isn't just about stupidity:

99 My ultra-Leftist sister told me she could never vote Republican because of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and the plight of the American Indian.

I informed my sister that the Republican Party was founded by fifty men determined to end slavery, that her Democrats tore America in two and went to war in defense of slavery, that her Democrats founded and controlled the Ku Klux Klan, and that the Trail of Tears was the direct result of a lawless Democrat president choosing to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court.

She told me that “everyone knows that none of that is true.”

I offered her three history books. She refused to take them.

Posted by: Sam Adams at June 01, 2013 12:19 PM (ECDAN)

221 91 This isn’t quite as stupid but my father, who has a PhD in mechanical engineering so he’s no dummy, told me that Bush lied and the Republicans forced the authorization of force through the Senate. I told him that the Democrats controlled the senate in September 2001. He wouldn’t look at my phone when I pulled it up on the internet.

Posted by: Timon at June 01, 2013 12:17 PM (LGDTn)

200 “Margret Sanger was not a racist eugenicist!”

Upon showing him a website to the contrary (this was before Wikipedia) he declared it to be conservatively biased.

The website in question: Columbia University’s History Department.

Posted by: tsrblke at June 01, 2013 12:41 PM (GaqMa)

555 Another otherwise bright co-worker was upset that Military Spending was more than the US GDP. When I pointed out that it was more around 5% or less of GDP he said I didn’t know what I was talking about. When I sent him a link to the government figures he responded “Everyone is entitled to their own facts.”

Yes, really. He said that.

I'll go refill my coffee cup while you get over your shock and dismay.


If you're familiar with Eric Hoffer's conception of the "true believer," you've probably had occasion to classify persons such as those mentioned above in that category. But you might be surprised to learn that they tend to do the same to you. Consider this snippet from a highly unfavorable review of Hoffer's book:

President Eisenhower mentioned The True Believer during a press conference, and Hoffer won the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983. The ringing endorsement of this man by the United States government shows that he was a tool of the establishment as well as a hack. Do your mind a favor and read Chomsky instead.

It's staggering when it happens -- I should know; it's been done to me often enough -- because conservatives, in the main, place a great deal of importance on knowing the facts. But when you're confronted by someone who's already decided that you simply must be stupid, evil, or both, you're no longer dealing with facts...because you're in the presence of one who dismisses the conception of truth itself:

Truth is an evaluation: a judgment that some proposition corresponds to objective reality sufficiently for men to rely upon it. The weakening of the concept of truth cuts an opening through which baldly counterfactual propositions can be thrust into serious discourse. Smith might say that proposition X is disprovable, or that it contradicts common observations of the world; Jones counters that X suits him fine, for he has dismissed the disprovers as "partisan" and prefers his own observations to those of Smith. Unless the two agree on standards for relevant evidence, pertinent reasoning, and common verification -- in other words, standards for what can be accepted as sufficiently true -- their argument over X will never end.

An interest group that has "put its back against the wall" as regards its central interest, and is unwilling to concede the battle regardless of the evidence and logic raised against its claims, will obfuscate, attack the motives of its opponents, and attempt to misdirect their attention with irrelevancies. When all of these have failed, its last-ditch defense is to attack the concept of truth. Once that has been undermined, the group can't be defeated. It can stay on the ideological battlefield indefinitely, preserving the possibility of victory through attrition or fatigue among its opponents.

Without the prior concession that facts are independent of anyone's opinions or preferences -- the acceptance of objective reality -- there can never be agreement about the nature of truth. But if there is no agreement about how to test the truth of a proposition, there can never be an end to an argument. Either side's assertions of fact and inferences from them will be deemed "partisan" or worse by the other side.

No one can so much as cross the street without acknowledging the existence of opinion-proof facts:

  • If you quaff battery acid instead of orange juice, you will die.
  • If that onrushing truck hits your undefended body at highway speed, you will die.
  • If you saunter up to that maniac with the bloody machete and demand that he "play nice," you will die.

Them's the facts, Jack.

Yet in political intercourse, millions of Americans are unwilling to concede facts inimical to their positions. They'd much rather accuse you of delusion, idiocy, partisan propagandizing, or worse...even though bad politics has killed more people than any other single factor over the century behind us.

The one and only question of importance now arises to bedevil us:

Why?


The dismissal of facts for political purposes must proceed from one of two things:

  1. A desire, on the part of the dismisser, that something be true that cannot withstand the contradiction those facts create;
  2. A desire for power over others.

The second motive describes the sort of person who profits from the operation of the first, but those of the first category are far more numerous. What notions could such a person be defending against destruction by those nasty, intolerable facts?

  • His conviction that government can be made into an engine of social or economic improvement;
  • His conviction that power itself is not inherently evil -- that unlimited power is safe in the hands of "the right people;"
  • His insistence that he's been right all along, without which he cannot maintain his assumption of superior intelligence and morality.

These three motivations couple with one another in obvious ways. It's my contention that the third one is the key, because among the most powerful of all human desires is the desire to believe oneself superior to others.

Dale Carnegie wrote that "the unvarnished truth is that almost all the people you meet feel themselves superior to you in some way," and he was absolutely correct. But when the subject is wisdom about social and moral-ethical matters, each and every one of us wants to believe he, and perhaps he alone, possesses the Golden Key.

Salesmen have known for a long time that appealing to the customer's vanity, when it's possible and plausible, is a powerful sales technique. When you invoke the other fellow's image of himself as a sage and an exemplar, you are eliciting his very best feelings about himself. If you can couple those feelings to something you want him to accept, you have virtually guaranteed your success.

Inversely, when you advance a proposition whose acceptance demands that the other fellow admit to error, you're hoping that his self-knowledge includes knowledge of his own fallibility, and betting that his honesty and humility will eclipse his desire to think well of himself...especially in comparison to you, you brute. When the error in question is one that (in combination with others' coordinated errors) has caused damage to innocent others, you're on the short end of the odds. That's the circumstance in which "true believer" behavior is most common.


The salesmen of the Omnipotent State have striven with all their might to persuade Americans that the acceptance of their nostrum is an infallible indicator of superior wisdom and virtue, and by implication, that those who reject it are beneath contempt. Far too many of our fellow citizens, being without adequate supplies of honesty and humility, have snapped at the hook. They now find themselves trapped in a contradiction that can only be resolved in one of two ways: either by admitting to having been gulled, or by denying the very possibility that they could be wrong.

A great many of them -- perhaps the majority -- have chosen the latter path. Such is the power of the appeal to human vanity. He who lacks adequate honesty cannot even conceive of the possibility of personal limitations; if he lacks adequate humility as well, he would rather go on in error and ignorance than confront facts that would abrade his self-esteem. In the most extreme case, he would rather see the entire world destroyed than admit to them.

That's what makes it a true weapon of mass destruction.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Assorted

These are too much fun. Maybe you should consider yourselves lucky that I don't succumb to them every day!


1. Chivalry.

In her informal history of 14th Century Europe, A Distant Mirror, Barbara Tuchman had very little good to say about the code of conduct called chivalry. She deemed it poisonous to both social stability and relations between the sexes. Granted that the aspects of it upon which she focused were somewhat less than savory, at least according to Christian standards...but back then, a fair fraction of the nobility was persuaded that a nobleman could buy his way out of such piddling little sins as adultery. It was a fantasy in which the Church of that era had a pecuniary interest.

Chivalry in our time means something different. This rather poignant article makes the differences plain -- and emphasizes why American men shouldn't let the code decay into desuetude:

Let's start from the simple truth that as a group, men are stronger and more aggressive than women. Yeah, I know, sexist pig, stereotypes, yadda yadda. Deal with it. Pick 15 random men and 15 random women, match them up one on one, and you're going to find 12 or more men still standing. That's just the way it is.

So, women are naturally going to feel about as nervous as a long tailed cat in room full of rocking chairs whenever she is surrounded by a group of men, even if she knows them. It will be even worse if they are strangers. She has no way of knowing whether they will take advantage of the power differential in order to take advantage of her. So what can we do, as men, to allay her very reasonable fears?

Actions always speak louder than words, so saying it isn't enough. We have to show it. And that's what this [i.e., chivalrous conduct] is all about.

When I open the car door for my wife, which I do every time, (What, you don't?) I'm not placing her on a pedestal above me, nor am I insinuating that she is incapable of opening the car door herself. What I'm demonstrating is that I am voluntarily using my strength for her benefit. I'm signalling by my actions that I have control over my strength and my aggression, and that I will use them for her, not against her. In the same way, when I carry the groceries in, or her shopping, or perform any other function that she could do as well on her own, I'm reinforcing that basic message. When I stand when a lady enters the room, or wait for her to be seated before I sit, I'm not idolizing her; I'm showing her respect so that she can relax her natural caution.

Of course, this goes both ways. She signifies her understanding and acceptance with a gracious ‘Thank you,' and possibly a warm smile. It has nothing to do with sexual flirtation, but acknowledges that I am a man, and that I have demonstrated that I can be trusted.

Yeah, I know, Hopelessly out of touch and old fashioned. But here's the problem. In our rush to be all modern and trendy, we've tossed out social mechanisms that evolved culturally over centuries without replacing them with an equivalent means of communicating these vital messages.

Is it any wonder now that women are distrustful of men? Is it any wonder that men are no longer willing to be gentlemen?

The author, Rich Hailey, has shown more insight into proper conduct, relations between the sexes, and the natural order of things than the entire never-to-be-adequately-damned feminist movement. Yet it's guaranteed that those who most need that insight are the ones least likely to accept and absorb it...if they bother to read it at all.

I tried to illustrate that aspect of chivalrous conduct in Freedom's Scion:

    "Up for a longish walk?"
    "Hm? Where to?"
     "Morelon House." The encounter with Barton Kramnik had goosed the innate wildness that [Althea] seldom allowed free rein. She decided to give it its day. "There are a couple of things I'd like my new friend to see."
     "Oh?" Martin's smile turned tentative. "Not things you could show me here and now, I take it?"
     "Well, I could," she allowed, "but it might shock the other patrons. Besides, I think my new friend has a couple of things I'd like to see." She widened her eyes to their widest. "And feel."
    He regarded her soberly for a long moment. "You're quite sure you want me to be that good a friend?"
    She opened her mouth, closed it abruptly.
    —It's called chivalry, Al.
    Hm? What are you talking about, Grandpere?
    —Comes from an old word for 'horseman.' It refers to the gentleman's code. A gentleman would never encourage a woman he admires to put herself out for him, much less at risk of heartbreak, disease, or an unplanned child. Beside that, you've let him know that you're rich. He wants you to have every chance to rethink your offer.
    Hm. It's not like he twisted my arm.
    —Irrelevant. A gentleman...strike that: A good man tries to protect the women around him from anything that might endanger them, including their own flights of fancy. This appears to be a good man. Very.
    I hardly need to be protected, Grandpere.
    —But he doesn't know that, does he?
    Ah. Gotcha. A little reassurance would be in order, then?
    —Just so. Proceed deliberately, but with confidence.
    Count on it.

    "Martin," she murmured, "I'm not a virgin. I've had regular injections of Inconceivable these past thirteen years. I've got an immune system that can't be beat. And if I even thought you might be trying to 'play' me, I wouldn't invite you home; I'd rip off your head and drop-kick it into the river. So: yes or no?"
    He glanced at the restaurant door, looked back at Althea, and squeezed her hand. "Okay, let's be off."
    They were.

A strong woman doesn't spurn the chivalrous gestures of a strong man; she accepts them for what they signify and treats the giver according to his deserts. Would that we still understood that such courtesies are not a denigration, but a gift -- and one all too seldom given!


2. A Brilliant Homilist.

A fellow I work with told me something interesting about one of his parish priests: that Father Joseph (I think that's his name) has a literal following. That is, a great many of his "home" parishioners will go to wherever he's celebrating Mass, including a distant parish where he's been asked to assist for the weekend, just to hear his homilies. Today I found out why.

Father Joseph expounded on two of the day's Bible readings: the first from First Kings, wherein Elijah prays to the Lord to restore life to the recently deceased son of a widow; and the second from Luke, wherein Jesus restores life to a widow's son a few miles from Jesus's birthplace in Nazareth.

Father Joseph enumerated several of the reasons conjectured for Jesus's willingness to revivify the young man, and then touched on one that few scholars or homilists have deigned to consider: compassion for a woman Jesus knew personally. The place of the miracle was close enough to Christ's "home town" that He very probably knew her, and was moved to pity by her loss. In those days, a woman alone faced a harsh and probably foreshortened existence. Jesus, being as fully human as He was divine, could hardly have avoided feeling human compassion for the bereaved widow, just as Elijah did in the earlier time of First Kings.

Among the partial views one can take of Our Savior is that of him as God, or that of Him as a great human preacher. Only in combination do we get any sense of the Whole -- and in my hearing at least, only Father Joseph has ever troubled to elucidate that view of Our Lord.

It strikes me as fitting that Father Joseph, a humble and self-effacing man, should be followed from place to place. The Church needs many more priests like him.


3. A Puzzle.

Imagine along with me, if you please.

Some very evil people have created a nanite -- i.e., a biotechnological machine on the scale of a single (large) molecule -- with the following properties:

  • It is self-replicating.
  • It attacks human spermatozoa to remove a particular group of genes -- the ones that give rise to intelligence and sentience in the human male -- but otherwise leaves the sperm intact and capable of fertilizing an ovum.
  • It regards all sufficiently simple organic chemicals as food stock for its operations and reproduction. ("Sufficiently simple" being well below the level of living human tissue.)

Nasty crap, eh? No, I don't know of anyone who's made such a thing. You may rest assured that if I did, I'd personally blow him to Hell and burn all of his works to inert ashes. But such an abomination is a key player in Freedom's Scion, and also in its sequel, tentatively titled Freedom's Fury. And now I have to come up with a plausible counteragent!

I might manage to solve this conundrum on my own, but I might not -- and so I'd appreciate help from my imaginative Gentle Readers. He who provides the neatest and most plausible solution will be credited with the idea when the book is published.

Any takers?

(Georges Perec, author of A Void, called this sort of problem a "lipogram:" a literary puzzle the author poses to himself or to other writers. I had no idea I'd done such a thing to myself until just a few days ago. That'll learn me.)

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Alternatives

Mike Hendrix has an important piece at Cold Fury this morning. He leads off by quoting an insightful bit of Mark Steyn:

Because the formal, visible state has been neutered by political correctness, the dark, furtive shadow state has to expand massively to make, in secret, the judgment calls that can no longer be made in public. That’s not an arrangement that is likely to end well.

...and expands on it as follows:

I would quibble with Mark’s distinction between the “visible” state and the “shadow” one; seems to me what has really happened is not that the “visible” state has been neutered with political correctness, but that it has neutered US. It has hounded us into submission to an ideal of helpless cowardice; trained us to be suspicious and fearful of any notion of self-defense and strength, on every possible level from individual to national; taught us that to question its unsubtle PC edicts on “diversity” and such will bring consequences most dire, and that even harboring thoughts of resistance or insubordination is the mark of a degenerate, criminally actionable as a “hate crime”; and now seeks to cow us permanently with open displays of its limitless power, lawlessness, and will to subjugate us (remember, the IRS’s harassment of dissidents was “exposed” by Lois Lerner herself, with a question she planted for that specific purpose).

To recast Steyn’s argument, then: the formal, visible state has neutered us with political correctness to abet the rise of the dark, furtive shadow state, so that both may then expand massively and rule us more expediently, efficiently, and completely–at which point, the gloves of the shadow state will finally come off for good....

Corruption on this Grand National scale is indivisible from power on the same scale: they go together like beans and cornbread (as straight and true an analogy now as it was when Louis Jordan sang it). That corruption will metastasize; that power will be used. Which makes it all the more bitterly hilarious when the architects of that power complain about any “unintended” consequences of their industriousness....

They are not going to go away merely because we’re “outraged”–and even at that, better than half of us aren’t even bothered at all. We will not save the Shire by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo. It’s doubtful that we’ll save it at all, and far more likely that we’ll all be slaving away for Sharkey and Wormtongue in one of their vile sweatshops soon enough–built on a fruitful, goodly land that was once owned by us, but has now been stolen and desecrated by them.

Only one thing is missing from Mike's analysis: something I've explored both here at Liberty's Torch and in a fictional setting.


Wealth and freedom severed from their rightful owner draw looters and thieves, as a body severed from life draws vultures and flies. ["John Galt," Dreams Come Due: Government and Economics as if Freedom Mattered]

The American model of governance rests on a foundation of ideas:

  1. Lockean natural rights inherent in the individual;
  2. Social Contract theory (a.k.a. "the consent of the governed");
  3. The use of power balanced against power to achieve overall limitation of government.

Ideas #1 and #2 synergize in an involute manner. If we recognize individuals' rights but insist that there is to be government -- i.e., an institution pre-indemnified for its uses of force against those within its jurisdiction -- then the individuals subject to that jurisdiction must agree to be coerced in certain contractually specified ways. Idea #3 -- the separation of powers (a.k.a. "checks and balances") -- was the Founding Fathers' scheme for keeping government within its Constitutional boundaries.

Note what has become of those ideas -- that is, of the overall allegiance to them among Americans:

  1. Perhaps half of us genuinely believe that individuals possess inherent rights of the Lockean variety.
  2. Those who seek power over us regard our "social contract" -- the Constitution -- solely as an impediment...and their supporters and well-wishers have no problem with that.
  3. The three branches of government have coalesced into a single mechanism for the extension and application of State power. In this regard, they buttress and are buttressed by a vast unelected bureaucracy that wields the supposedly "separated" executive, legislative, and judicial powers as a single rod for our backs.

Thus, we face a situation in which perhaps half the country consciously disavows America's founding ideas in their entirety...and the other half is continuously induced to "make exceptions" here and their to suit their personal interests or preferences.

I am of the opinion that our ideological deterioration was inevitable.

Ideas have consequences, but they cannot and do not defend themselves. The more abstract -- depersonalized -- an idea, the more vulnerable it is to attacks from ideas with greater personal appeal. Subsidies and legal privileges will always find supporters among those at whom they're aimed. That's why aspiring tyrants always seek out "the unfortunate" and "the oppressed" to champion...and why the New Deal succeeded in brushing aside so much of our Constitutional framework.

In this connection, it is important to remember than only about a tenth of the population of Revolution-era America actively supported the aims of the Revolution. Perhaps a tenth was equally ardent for reconciliation with the British Crown. The rest mainly kept their heads down and accepted what was given them.


The corruption of an institution with coercive powers proceeds from those powers. Therefore, once an institution is granted coercive power of any sort, its corruption is guaranteed. It might be difficult to establish a time frame for its deterioration. The early stages of its corruption might be debatable. But the conclusion of the process is written in the nature of Man.

The heart of the matter is simple:

Power over others is most attractive to those who desire it over all other things.

Lord Acton said that "Power tends to corrupt." A friend of mine was even more cynical: "Power attracts the corruptible." And the corrupt and corruptible are most adroit at forcing out those who don't share their orientation and their aims.

In the distribution of human characteristics, the love of power correlates quite negatively with altruism, charity, moral scruple, and respect for others. You will seldom find a Mao, a Hitler, or a Stalin who sincerely believes in individuals' right to be left alone...or, for that matter, in "the greatest good of the greatest number." Yet those are exactly the sort of men who will pursue political power most determinedly, and who are therefore most likely to acquire it. Friedrich Hayek wrote incisively about the process in The Road To Serfdom, specifically in the chapter titled "Why The Worst Get On Top."

The most important aspect of this progression is the utter absence of any countervailing influence, once a government has been created and legitimized.


If every government is, by the nature of government, doomed to be corrupted into an instrument of tyranny, the naive and credulous will leap to an unsustainable conclusion:

Abolish Government Now And Forever!

If only. The problem lies in the nature of anarchism, which by the nature of Man is just as unstable as government.

An anarchic setting will be stable only as long as it experiences no perturbations exploitable by men who desire power over others. As soon as one arises, the would-be wielders of political power will leap into action:

  1. They will magnify the situation rhetorically into a "crisis" that demands "firm leadership."
  2. They will put forth a "program" for the redress of the "crisis."
  3. They will denigrate or demonize dissenters, inducing a division within the community.
  4. When they've acquired sufficient backing, they will use the power of the mob -- the original form of "democracy" -- to coerce the dissenters into compliance.
  5. A precedent having been established, the extension of political power into new areas of life merely awaits a fresh "crisis" to provide a pretext...and it's easy to create a "crisis" by the use of power already established.

This process will be resisted at first, for just as there will always be men who seek power, freedom will always have its defenders. There might be several sallies at the creation of a State before one finally "takes." But there is no limit to the number of sallies the power-seekers can make. Once they've succeeded in creating a State, its growth is guaranteed by the dynamics of power itself.

Anarchy gives birth to the State as a mother might bear a deformed child: reluctantly, with much lamentation, but according to laws of nature that know nothing of our sorrows and regrets.


Revolutions, as long and bitter experience reveals, are apt to take their color from the regime they overthrow. -- Richard Tawney
Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder. -- George Bernard Shaw
Politics, as hopeful men practice it in the world, consists mainly of the delusion that a change in form is a change in substance. The American colonists, when they got rid of the Potsdam tyrant, believed fondly that they were getting rid of oppressive taxes forever and setting up complete liberty. They found almost instantly that taxes were higher than ever, and before many years they were writhing under the Alien and Sedition Acts. -- H. L. Mencken
Those who have seized power, even for the noblest of motives soon persuade themselves that there are good reasons for not relinquishing it. This is particularly likely to happen if they believe themselves to represent some immensely important cause. They will feel that their opponents are ignorant and perverse; before long they will come to hate them...The important thing is to keep their power, not to use it as a means to an eventual paradise. And so what were means become ends, and the original ends are forgotten except on Sundays. -- Bertrand Russell

It's exceedingly rare for the collapse of a State to result in an enduring anarchy. In by far the most common case, the old State is replaced by a new State...and not necessarily, or enduringly, a better one by any freedom-oriented measure.

He who desires freedom and suffers oppression can dream about a libertarian revolution, but if he's a realist, he must allow that revolution is much less than likely to serve the ends of freedom. If he "plays the odds," he will look for a better alternative: a path forward that has better prospects for freeing him and his like-minded fellows in an enduring fashion. There was a time in human history when such an alternative was at hand: a land frontier.

The first European colonists came to North America for freedom and economic opportunity. The crowned heads of Europe attempted to control them and their enterprises from afar, with consequences we all know well. After the colonists had won free of their former masters and had cultured a homegrown State, the westward frontier, to which the willing and energetic could repair and where the powers of the State could not reach, provided a freedom-laden alternative. That alternative also helped to restrain the ambitions of the Eastern power-mongers: too tight a grip would accelerate the westward movement, with consequent loss of revenues and de facto power.

But there is no longer a land frontier on this planet. For the moment, other planets are both out of reach and unsuited to human habitation. He who seeks freedom has nowhere to run, unless it be Antarctica or the open sea.


Apologies for so depressing a screed, Gentle Reader. I don't like its thrust any better than you. But it's my honest conviction that we have no alternative superior to a desperate attempt to re-constrain our own governments...an attempt more likely than not to prove futile.

The shreds of individual freedom Americans retain are unraveling as we speak.
Our posterity will wear shackles heavier than any we've known.
There's little hope in revolution and nowhere to flee.
If there is hope, it lies outside politics.
Forget the "proles."
Pray.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Black Holes For Public Trust

We're already smarting from the Benghazi scandal, from the IRS scandal, from the Justice Department's crusade against various reporters, from the EPA's differential handling of requests from conservative and eco-fascist liberal groups, and from Kathleen Sebelius's well publicized attempt to raise private funds to drive the implementation of ObamaCare. That anyone anywhere in these United States should retain even a shred of willingness to trust the integrity and evenhandedness of the federal government might be the eighth wonder of the world. But wait: there's more!

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: "Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple."

(I find myself wondering how the barons of the National Security Agency, which was at one time virtually a secret division within the U.S intelligence-gathering apparatus, feel about having been made into front-page news by one of the most highly respected newspapers in the world. Time was, "No Such Agency" didn't even admit to its functions, much less their size and scope. Time was.)

The article continues in a somewhat ominous fashion:

In a statement issue late Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said "information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans."

But the corporate targets of PRISM want you to know that they have -- or have had -- no willing part of it:

Several companies contacted by The Post said they had no knowledge of the program, did not allow direct government access to their servers and asserted that they responded only to targeted requests for information.

“We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers,” said Joe Sullivan, chief security officer for Facebook. “When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.”

“We have never heard of PRISM,” said Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Apple. “We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.”

Someone here is lying. Someone here is being deceived. Given the Administration's record on civil-liberties issues to date, who would you place in each of those bins, Gentle Reader?


There is no need in human life so great as that men should trust one another and should trust their government, should believe in promises, and should keep promises in order that future promises may be believed in and in order that confident cooperation may be possible. Good faith -- personal, national, and international -- is the first prerequisite of decent living, of the steady going on of industry, of governmental financial strength, and of international peace. -- Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914 -- 1946

Dr. Anderson wrote the above words in speaking of the great and dishonorable convulsion inflicted upon the American financial system in 1933 by Franklin D. Roosevelt: the seizure of Americans' gold and the cessation of specie redeemability for the American dollar. Yet it speaks to far more than that one betrayal of the nation's trust.

The scandals of recent weeks have elicited a common reaction from observant commentators unblinded by partisanry: "The fish rots from the head." Though government malfeasance is inherent to government and has often seemed as common as hydrogen, malfeasance on the scale we see today is near to unprecedented in Western history. Indeed, the entire executive branch of the federal government has been tainted one way or another. Even Veterans Affairs, long viewed as an island of rectitude in a sea of corruption, has come under fire.

If there's anyone among my Gentle Readers who maintains that we should still trust "our" government, I recommend that he see his brain-care specialist at once.

The evaporation of trust is working its way into ever more of our society's public institutions. It rings a death knell for our political order as stark and indisputable as the nuclear destruction of New York. And I can see no clear way to halt it...nor any rationale for attempting to do so.


A thousand truths do not mark a man as a truth-teller, but a single lie marks him as a damned liar....Lying to other people is your business, but I tell you this: once a man gets a reputation as a liar, he might as well be struck dumb, for people do not listen to the wind. [Robert A. Heinlein, Citizen of the Galaxy]

At this point, the old maxim "Never believe anything political until it is officially denied" is near to irrefutable, at least as it applies to our current regime and political class. It's never been far from that, of course -- the quintessential political skill is to divine what the audience wants to hear and then say exactly that, irrespective of any inconvenient facts -- but for Americans of today, keeping it in mind at any encounter, however brushing or fleeting, with any agent or organ of any government at any level has become a matter of survival.

My great fear is that the perfusion of our society with distrust of government appears to be metastasizing into a general distrust of everyone by everyone. Common citizens, who ought to be able to go about their daily lives in Dr. Anderson's spirit of "confident cooperation," are beginning to suspect one another of hidden agendas and ulterior motives even in the most routine of transactions. Deals once concluded with a handshake today involve legions of lawyers and weeks of negotiations. Chiseling at the edges of the agreement is commonplace, even actively encouraged. Often, the litigation begins as the contracts are signed.

Our "Society of Contract" (Isabel Paterson) cannot withstand the loss of trust. It will devolve into the "war of each against all" (Thomas Hobbes) that pre-existed the emergence of ethically based social organization and cohesion we call civilization.

No, I'm not begging you to trust in defiance of your gut. I'm exhorting you to discriminate: to separate those categories of men who don't deserve the presumption of honesty from those who do. Having recognized those categories, I beseech you to treat them according to their respective deserts -- and to encourage them to do the same.

I don't think anyone who can comprehend the material here needs more direction than that.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Weapons Part 2: The Conditioners

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. [Book of Proverbs, 22:6]
"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" -- Jesuit motto
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future....It is not truth that matters, but victory." -- Adolf Hitler

As you can see from the above, there's general agreement on the importance of conditioning young minds...though, as you can see from the above, the motives involved in seeking to do so have varied rather widely.

It would be the greatest of errors ever to assume benevolence in one who demands the privilege of "teaching" your children. Yet there are large, well-funded organizations, that have the tacit cooperation of the federal government, demanding exactly that. That's the situation we face in these United States at this time.

As matters stand, the educrats can't compel you to send your kids to their schools. All they can do is whine about how unfair it is -- to them, of course -- that you should be allowed a choice in the matter. But, with the assistance of state and local governments, they can make it very hard for you to exercise that choice. Their principal tool is the local public-school tax. In many districts, that tax has risen so high that residents can't afford to pay it and pay for a private education for their children...not that most private schools are all that much better than the public ones, sad to say. The schooling industry -- they don't educate according to my lights -- has been so completely suborned by leftists that the formal alternatives are little better than the public carceratoria.


The public schools -- I prefer to call them government-run schools -- have become the Left's principal weapon in its drive to "gain the future." An illustrative incident arose quite recently:

OWINGS, MD -- The father of a middle schooler in Calvert County, Md. says his 11-year-old son was suspended for 10 days for merely talking about guns on the bus ride home.

Bruce Henkelman of Huntingtown says his son, a sixth grader at Northern Middle School in Owings, was talking with friends about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre when the bus driver hauled him back to school to be questioned by the principal, Darrel Prioleau.

"The principal told me that with what happened at Sandy Hook if you say the word 'gun' in my school you are going to get suspended for 10 days," Henkelman said in an interview with WMAL.com.

So what did the boy say? According to his father, he neither threatened nor bullied anyone.

"He said, I wish I had a gun to protect everyone. He wanted to defeat the bad guys. That's the context of what he said," Henkelman said. "He wanted to be the hero."

In his column of this morning, Todd Starnes provides still more details:

Since the incident happened a day before winter break, the principal reduced the suspension to one day. But the family was ordered to complete an ‘intrusive’ four page questionnaire and the deputy sheriff said he would have to search their home --- without a warrant.

“But he was emphasizing that it warranted a 10-day suspension,” [Henkelman] said.

Robin Welsh, the deputy superintendent for school system, confirmed to Fox News that the incident occurred. She also said there was misinformation about the case. However, she declined to go into any details citing federal and local confidentiality laws.

Welsh did point out that the principal of the middle school did nothing wrong.

“The principal followed our policies and procedures and absolutely did handle it in an appropriate manner,” she said....

After Henkelman picked up his son from school, the deputy sheriff said he would need to search their home.

“I said, by what authority and he said that he had to make sure the house is clear of guns,” he said.

The deputy arrived at their home 15 minutes later armed with a four-page questionnaire.

“I was uncomfortable answering the questions,” he said. “But I was told if I don’t fill this form out – he would not be allowed back in school.”

The questions covered topics ranging from mental health to how many guns and weapons the family owned.

“They were very intrusive questions,” he said.

At some point, the deputy said he had to search the home. They got as far as the kitchen when Henkelman decided to feel uneasy.

“I asked him to leave,” he said. “The deputy became agitated and said he would get a search warrant. I said that’s what I needed.”

After the deputy left, Henkelman called the sheriff’s department. He was told over the phone that officers would not be searching his home.

The deputy later returned to complete the four-page document.

Henkelman said he’s speaking out because he never got answers from the school district.

“When I tried to get to the bottom of this – they refuse to answer any of my questions,” he said.” I called the director of transportation and he would not put anything in writing. I told him that was very cowardly.”

Contemplate that for a moment while I fetch more coffee.


There's an awful lot to talk about in there, no?

  • First, there's the school district's assertion of an outrageous power over speech outside the school grounds;
  • Second, there's the punishment and terrorizing of a good child who had placed no one in any danger;
  • Third, there's the sheriff's department attempt to abridge the Henkelmans' Fourth Amendment rights;
  • Fourth, there's the business about the questionnaire as a condition for the child's readmission to school;
  • Fifth, there's the refusal of the transportation functionary to commit to a written statement about the event and the circumstances.

But here's the question I find most relevant: Why?

I can find only this answer:

The school district seeks to condition the students to react to even the thought of weapons with fear and revulsion, while the sheriff's department seeks to compel private citizens to reflexive submission.

That all this took place in the United States should terrify anyone with three functioning brain cells.

Different persons will focus on different aspects of this outrage. My focus keeps drifting back toward the intrusive questionnaire, which the sheriff's department told Bruce Henkelman was a condition for his son's readmission to school.

A law-enforcement department told a private citizen that unless he accepted a completely unConstitutional invasion of his privacy, his child would be denied the education he was forced by law to pay for.

The wonder of it is that the deputy sheriff didn't attempt to force the search upon the Henkelmans. Perhaps he realized it would be "a bridge too far." But given the tenor of our times, he might have gotten away with that, just as the school district and sheriff's department appear to have gotten away with the questionnaire business.


The rise of the 3D-printer has gotten a lot of column-inches, mainly because of the device's recently revealed potential for fabricating weapons parts. Though such parts are currently quite limited in their utility, the continuing development of the 3D-printer will make for ever more sturdy and reliable fabrications, such that anyone with access to such a device will be able to manufacture a working gun at will.

This is the death knell for effective gun control. Because of this technology, it will never be possible to collect and destroy all the firearms in private hands. That dream of the statists has been shattered once and for all. But we mustn't expect them to give up on their drive to disarm us. Rather than campaigning against our rightful possessions, they'll strive to warp our children's minds.

They will seek to create a pervasive hoplophobia in future generations of Americans, such that even the thought of a gun induces a nauseating fear; incidents such as the one narrated above will provide the template. If they succeed in doing so, the Second Amendment will cease to be important in any practical sense. Our kids won't even be able to mouth the word "gun" without punishing themselves through their deeply embedded anti-gun conditioning.

It's a very low-tech approach to fastening fetters upon our nation...but it works:

"There are some religious orthodoxies which require a very specific diet, and the absolute exclusion of certain items. Given enough indoctrination for long enough, you can keep a man eating only (we'll say) flim while flam is forbidden. He'll get along on thin moldy flim and live half starved in a whole warehouse full of nice fresh flam. You can make him ill—even kill him, if you have the knack—just by convincing him that the flim he just ate was really flam in disguise. Or you can drive him psychotic by slipping him suggestions until he acquires a real taste for flam and gets a supply and hides it and nibbles at it secretly every time he fights temptation and loses."

C. S. Lewis pinned it equally well:

In order to understand fully what Man's power over Nature, and therefore the power of some men over other men, really means, we must picture the race extended in time from the date of its emergence to that of its extinction. Each generation exercises power over its successors: and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors. This modifies the picture which is sometimes painted of a progressive emancipation from tradition and a progressive control of natural processes resulting in a continual increase of human power. In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them....

Hitherto the plans of educationalists have achieved very little of what they attempted and indeed, when we read them—how Plato would have every infant "a bastard nursed in a bureau", and Elyot would have the boy see no men before the age of seven and, after that, no women, and how Locke wants children to have leaky shoes and no turn for poetry—we may well thank the beneficent obstinacy of real mothers, real nurses, and (above all) real children for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses. But the man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please.

Do not think the dreams of the tyrants stop short at a monopoly on instruments of force. He who seeks power over others ultimately demands it over others' thoughts and reactions. And as Orwell pointed out, the tyrant has but one way of assuring himself that his power is complete:

    "How does a man assert his power over another, Winston?"
    Winston thought. "By making him suffer," he said.
    "Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see then what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world that will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotion except fear, rage, and self-abasement. Everything else will be destroyed--everything!...If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever."

You know where that last citation comes from, don't you, Gentle Reader?

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Weapons

In a completely weaponless world, the biggest, strongest, and least scrupled can have their way with the rest. But once weapons have been introduced, other factors intrude, most important among them:

  • Who is armed?
  • How good is he with his weapons?
  • How willing is he to use them, and under what circumstances?

...which, of course, is why they who seek power above all else strive to deny weapons to others.


The United States is unique among societies in its tradition of citizen armament. It's near to the core of what makes us what we are: a people sovereign over themselves and their government, rather than a mass of subjects beholden to the State for all things. Granted that the tradition has taken some blows in recent decades, it's not dead yet. Indeed, it seems in some ways to be regaining ground lost to prior incursions.

But the power-mongers aren't ready to concede the field. Rather, they seek new weapons. Weapons with unique characteristics. Weapons no civilian can possess. Weapons against which there's no imaginable defense.

And it appears they've found one:

What the IRS was doing behind closed doors may soon be official policy in California. Last week, the State Senate voted to revoke the nonprofit status of any group within the state that does not allow full participation of homosexuals, a move aimed directly at the Boy Scouts of America. According to the Associated Press, the bill "would require those organizations to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, camp fees and other sources of income, and to obtain sellers permits and pay sales taxes on food, beverages and homemade items sold at fundraisers." Groups that sponsor troops would also have their tax returns and membership policies scrutinized by the Franchise Tax Board, California’s version of the IRS....

The thread that connects California’s proposed tax policy with the IRS scandal of recent weeks is the unmistakable trend toward weaponizing the tax code. What was once a neutral instrument used for the purpose of collecting revenue for legitimate governmental functions is now employed to punish behavior that powerful people don’t like. Lois Lerner of IRS infamy had a concealed carry permit but the State of California is carrying theirs right out in the open....

But at least the IRS had the good sense to hide their tyrannical machinations. The California Senate wants to do the same thing, right out in the open. The right of private organizations to exclude anyone they want is well established and there’s nothing California can do to stop them; nothing, that is, except to extract a punitive "tax."

My wife, a practicing accountant who deals extensively in tax law and its consequences, is of the opinion that this gambit by the State of California will put it into direct conflict with the federal IRS. I'm not so sure; the IRS might elect to defer to the judgment of the state government about such things, especially since it would increase federal revenues. But we shall see.

The above points to a specific agenda -- special privileges for homosexuals -- but hints at a far broader attack upon freedom of speech and association. If taxes can be imposed differentially upon groups according to their positions on certain political topics, then why not on individual persons? In which case, the dreaded Form 1040 might soon become a longer and more intrusive questionnaire: about how you voted; about how you stand on subjects such as same-sex marriage and abortion; about whether you've ever dared to associate with a conservative organization; and so forth.

Given John Eastman's testimony about the travails of donors to the National Organization for Marriage, which was one of the principal promoters of California's Proposition 8, it becomes quite clear that this trend toward using the tax code as a political weapon against opponents of the ruling regime is:

  • Immensely appealing to those who attain power;
  • Among the greatest dangers citizen activists and their associations could face.


Among the foolish defenses offered up in the attempt to deflect the investigations into IRS skullduggery, perhaps the subtlest was the one offered by political tool David Plouffe: it would be a huge political mistake:

"There’s been no suggestion— the Inspector General said there was no politics involved in this," Plouffe said this morning on "This Week." "This was not an effort driven by the White House. It would be the dumbest political effort of all time."

And indeed, it would be a huge political mistake if it were detected and plumbed to the bottom, as is happening right now. But a president and advisors confident that they could get away with it would not be deterred by that prospect. Indeed, a president and advisors confident that they could get away with it even if it were detected would proceed with it...because it's the royal road to permanent power.

We sometimes forget that freedom of speech can be neutered by denying the speaker an outlet for his speech. If the State can tax away the resources required to publish and proliferate your message, you might have freedom of speech in the formal sense, but in the practical realm it won't matter at all.


The IRS is the most feared of all government agencies because its powers are unbounded by Constitutional constraints. It can demand that you incriminate yourself. It can seize your assets without first convicting you of a crime. It can compel you into a "tax court" in which you're presumed guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. The combination renders the typical citizen, and the typical citizen's association, utterly helpless before its rulings.

The IRS, and its various state-level equivalents, are weapons only the State can wield, and against which there is no defense.

It's high time Americans start asking ourselves why we've tolerated such a blot upon our Constitutional framework for so long. Indeed, it's high time we did something about it: something definite, sweeping, and final.

I'm sure my Gentle Readers can take it from there.