Please check to make sure the entire text has downloaded. Go to the end of the text now and make sure the final words are The time to act is NOW! If not, then refresh the text.
I plan to use this website to build and lead a
movement to take our nation back to where the Founding Fathers wanted it, with
low taxes, majority rule, private property rights ensured, and the freedom to
prosper.
E-mail me your comments so that we can start a
feedback section and a national dialogue on the issues presented herein.
I am available to address your group in person, on a limited basis for now. Eventually, I plan to make both personal and webcast speeches.
Please check this website regularly. It will
grow.
Together we prevail!
Thank you,
Nikitas
How Liberal Socialists Try to Undermine It
by Nikitas
It will be shown
here that conservative capitalism, under the guiding hand of rational men, has
created all of the prosperous, free and equitable societies in history which
have been, and today remain, the sources of the world’s economic, scientific,
technological, political and artistic achievement.
And how leftist
socialism tries to undermine Western achievement at every step.
In this book:
Why we should
base our lives on the lives of rational men and women living in an ‘ordered
reality’
How the wishes of the Founding Fathers are reflected in free-market economics,
private property rights and religious morality
Why capitalism
succeeds everywhere it’s allowed to
Why real men are
neither seduced nor intimidated by the feminine spirit
Why modern
American technology, including nuclear power, is good for the environment
And:
How relentless taxation is gutting the middle class
Why liberals
persistently side with criminals
Why
Why
socialist idealism is targeted at weak people
How environmentalists
squander our resources, pollute our environment and restrict our freedoms
The Visitor
Imagine you are a visitor from another world who knows nothing about
You note the abundance and low price of food at the supermarket, and the
variety and reasonable cost of lamps, clothing, electronics and furniture
available for sale in one of the department stores. The hardware store is
brimming with every type of gadget and tool. The crime-free suburbs are full of
proper homes, with cars in every garage. Your host explains that this cornucopia
is made possible only through government control of the factories, mines,
forests and fields, which makes workers happy and spreads the wealth that is
created.
Then your host takes you to an inner-city public school and shows you
poor children suffering in crumbling buildings and studying old, torn books in
an atmosphere of chaos. “This is the part of our society run by the
capitalists,” your host says. “They don’t care about people.”
She takes you to a gray government office where people are barely
working, just rubber-stamping endless piles of documents. “This is the
bureaucratic system created by the Republicans, in which nobody wants to work
and people are lazy.”
You visit an urban neighborhood rife with crime. “Our cities are under
the control of Bush and Cheney. They refuse to enforce the laws. And they tax
you endlessly to support their high lifestyles,” she explains.
Of course we all know that this scenario is the mirror opposite of the
truth. Right Is Right will show how
leftist socialists turn truth on its head and claim it for themselves.
Republicans,
Democrats
A ‘republican’ (a member of what Americans call
the Republican party) favors a form of government referred to as a republic in
which elected officials represent the people in governing the nation. It is the
most orderly form of government. ‘Republicanism’ also means ‘self government’.
American Republicans also are known as conservatives, are said to be on the
political ‘right’ and are allied with a free-market or capitalist economic
platform.
A ‘democrat’ (a member of what Americans call
the Democrat party) favors a form of government referred to as a democracy in
which every member of the population could potentially be involved in voting on
every decision that is made by the government. This pure form of democracy works
in private meetings and small towns, but otherwise is only theoretically
possible, and is chaotic compared to the republican way. The word ‘chaos’ is
important because it represents the liberal approach to social structure as
opposed to Republicans’ sense of order. Democrats also are known as liberals,
leftists or socialists and ally themselves with a welfare-state or
government-command economic platform.
But there are so-called elections, mock democracies and phony representative
governments even under dictatorships. The only meaningful result of any form of
government is liberty, and the freedom to live your life without interference
from your own government.
The achievement and maintenance of liberty is an ‘active’ endeavor undertaken by
virtuous and disciplined people living in an ordered reality.
Weak, passive and pacifist people are easily subjected to despotism.
And in the history of the
America is a constitutional republic, not a
democracy.
Republicans and conservative capitalists favor a
small government and low taxes to promote individual initiative and
self-reliance so that citizens can provide for themselves. People who vote
Republican statistically are better educated, more technologically adept, have
closer, happier and bigger families, are more ambitious, and are more prosperous
than those who vote otherwise. Thus they do not want or need the government to
tell them how to live. The Republican party fares best among the self-reliant
people in suburban, small-town and rural
The core of conservative ideology is
individualism, that the competent, disciplined individual is capable of caring
for himself or herself, and for the lives of their families. The family itself
represents individualism because it is the smallest, most natural and strongest
unit of society above the lone individual. Conservative individualism is a
positive trait deeming that people will work to be self-reliant and positive in
outlook; will depend on nobody else; and will contribute to the community
through those traits, rather than expecting anything from the community.
Working hand-in-hand with the concept of
individualism is the free-market capitalist economic system of risks and
rewards, which says that those who take the risks are eligible for the rewards
And while a static, theoretical analysis – on which all socialist theory is
based – would deem that a risk/reward system would produce an equal number of
winners and losers, history has shown that risk/reward capitalist systems
produce high levels of economic growth while risk-less socialist/communist
always systems shrink and die, and ultimately provide opportunity for none.
Conservative Republicans believe in everything that
Socialism, on the other hand, is an urban and
academic phenomenon that seeks higher taxation, and favors the idea that people
rely not on themselves but on government for the necessities of life. This is
part of the contrary socialist mindset: To disagree with the principles of
rational individualist capitalism. Every tenet of socialism is diametrically
opposed to the wishes of the Founders of our nation.
One of the core premises of socialism is utterly
false, that all people have roughly equal abilities and that it is thus the duty
of the government to distribute wealth equally and to ‘level out’ the ‘playing
field’ of life so that everyone gets their equal opportunity. Socialism actually
is a system in which risk is eliminated by government. But socialism
historically has created suffering by
failing to account for human nature, by forcing people into theoretical economic
systems concocted and operated by urban and academic intellectuals, systems that
deprive productive people of the fruits of their labors, and of the natural
incentive of simple economic reward.
Socialism represents the institutionalization of
mediocrity and conformity. It stifles individual creativity in favor of
collectivism and consensus thinking, and thus socialist societies never have and
never will produce great art, architecture, literature, philosophy, technology
etc.
There is no objective truth in socialism, no
‘right’ and ‘wrong’. For socialists, opinion is everything, and this is why
their ideology is prevalent on college campuses, where opinion is all, and thus
all opinions are considered valid. This is one of most crucial ways in which
leftist socialism works to refute a central principle of rational conservatism
which says that there is right and wrong, and that universal truths exist.
Socialism forever is proclaiming itself to be
mankind’s savior and a friend of ‘the little guy’ but in fact it is capitalism
that repeatedly has turned out that way because capitalism is the only system
that creates wealth. Even the anti-capitalist United Nations in its 2002
Human Development Report stated that world poverty fell 20% between 1990 and
1999, an era when aggressive globalization (free-trade capitalism) was spreading
at a pace unequaled in the entire 20th century. Poverty fell most markedly in
Socialism creates no wealth; it consumes, dissipates and destroys wealth.
It is anti-business.
It is a system of government control that only redistributes existing wealth.
In fact, every time wealth is created, there is a leftist to complain –
environmentalists complain about the pollution; college professors complain
about the profit you’ve made; union activists complain about the wages paid. In
other words, the focus is on the negative.
Since it creates no wealth, the heart of socialism is the appropriation of
wealth through taxation, patronage and cronyism. Since their system creates no
wealth,
socialists are infinitely more obsessed with wealth than capitalists.
And since socialism creates no wealth while its mission is to redistribute
wealth, socialism is by nature paradoxical. This is why socialism always
produces the opposite result of its stated ideals.
It is crucial to recall at all times that socialists are interested in helping
“the poor” or “the environment” only to the extent that the systems they
establish first transfer wealth and power to the socialist elite itself and to
its nonproductive allies (i.e., government bureaucrats, trial lawyers,
environmental organizations and activists etc.) who work to keep the elite in
power. This all happens while consuming wealth, not producing it.
Since it creates no wealth, the life force in socialism comes from controlling
the lives of other people. Therefore
political power is everything to the socialist.
That is why they devote their lives to building political machines and winning
elections by any means possible, because that is the only way that the socialist
can feel that he is contributing to society, by influencing that society through
legislation, patronage and bureaucracy.
And this is why the economically declining states in the Northern Tier of the
And since they create nothing, socialists must take control of as many
institutions as possible, once the hard work of building those institutions
(corporations, the media, the universities, the arts, the nonpartisan judiciary,
churches, foundations) has been completed. One example: Atheist, pro-abortion
feminist Patricia Ireland was hired in 2003 as CEO of the Young Women’s
Christian Association, an organization started during the Civil War and built on
years of good deeds by caring Christian women.
This
is how socialists work – one person at a time, they insinuate themselves into
healthy, conservative institutions that represent discipline and order. Once
like-minded people within those institutions reach a numerical tipping point,
socialists begin to dictate those institutions’ policies. Even traditional
purely democratic institutions like
Individualism is a bad word to liberals. Yet
they preach another type of individualism which is the polar opposite of that
espoused by conservatives. It is a feminine self-centeredness or an insecure
narcissism, where the individual considers himself or herself to be the most
important entity in the world exclusive of others and of the community at large,
and focuses only on how the world can cater to his or her needs, pleasures,
emotions, weaknesses and phobias. This creates an uncertain and dependent
society that can be catered to by a centralized elite that manifests these same
attributes.
Socialism drains away your positive, productive
energy with negative emotions, like the endless Kennedy family drama does.
Negativity and narcissism are omnipresent weaknesses in human nature, and
liberals insistently cultivate them for their own political ends.
But it is impossible to find inner
peace when one is obsessed only with oneself – the good human soul must give of
itself to truly be alive. Thus narcissism produces distress and chaos. This
self-absorption concentrates in cities (
Obviously there are good people in
Thus while advocating socialism, many New
Yorkers – and many liberals everywhere – enjoy their private wealth and private
property and wish to remain free of exorbitant taxation (as conservatives do);
live disciplined and ordered lives and wish to advance on their own merits (as
conservatives do); want to live free from crime (as conservatives do); own
businesses, and wish to remain free of governmental edicts and regulations (as
conservatives do); want their children kept away from the permissive
drugs-and-sex culture condoned by the leftists who control our universities;
they keep their children away from bad public schools; they enjoy leisure travel
which uses the energy that leftist environmentalists block production of; they
keep their families intact through traditional values; and after the 9/11 terror
attacks, they value our national security (as conservatives always have).
Too, many in New York still greatly appreciate
the sublime painting, sculpture, music, architecture, literature and poetry that
have made European/American culture the world’s leader.
Typically, one of New York’s few staunchly
Republican neighborhoods on the Upper East Side of Manhattan is its most
famously wealthy, clean and elegant quarter, and is home to a disproportionate
concentration of art galleries, museums and other cultural institutions. This is
appropriate because high Western culture only has been made possible through the
discipline and order of an intelligent capitalist economic structure, linked to
Christianity and nurtured by liberty.
If
people voted according to the way they actually live their own lives, the
At the same time, however,
Polls show that most Americans are increasingly
disdainful of
Socialism is strident all over urban
Political power centered in an academic and
urban elite is key to socialism. Socialist ideas are transmitted to the middle
class wherever possible through misrepresentation, and they smolder in the
poorest and most violent urban neighborhoods where leftist politicians exercise
unchallenged control. Poor, uneducated and gullible people are easily convinced
of the idealistic nature of socialism because they do not actually think deeply
about what it means. Thus they provide a solid and unified voting bloc for the
Democrat party.
Socialism is disseminated by
American socialists rely on certain nonproductive constituencies for
their power. They include, but certainly are not limited to:
Environmentalists
who block the extraction of minerals, oil, timber and other resources that must
be accessed to build the economy. John Muir, who is called
Radical college
students who are quarantined and
indoctrinated by a rabid and censoring leftist elite before they live life and
come to understand the realities.
Animal-rights
activists who regard any human
achievement as an afterthought.
Dead people
who vote Democrat in election after election by dint of chronic urban voter
fraud.
Millions of lazy welfare dependents who vote
Democrat year after year in exchange for government handouts of YOUR money.
Organized crime, which historically has been
linked closely with the Democrat party through urban political machines and
labor unions. It is an established fact that the Chicago Mafia helped John F.
Kennedy steal the 1960 Presidential election.
Folk singers
who pine endlessly about an ideal world but who build nothing and offer only
silly songs as an antidote to the world’s problems.
Yet
the votes of these groups cancel out the votes of knowledgeable, productive and
self-reliant citizens who actually create the nation’s wealth. Thus when
Democrats ‘win’ an election, millions of votes from unproductive, dependent and
even deceased people contribute to the victory. Without their votes, the
Democrat party would cease to exist.
It
has been repeatedly shown that leftist
socialists operating in free and stable societies built by capitalist endeavor
seek to minimize and undermine order and prosperity. This does not refer to the
little old lady down the street, or your well-intentioned friends who vote
Democrat. They rarely appreciate the bigger picture of what socialism really
means. They are encouraged to vote according to their emotions, not manly
reason.
A perfect example of leftist negativity toward
the social order is the way in which
Five of the so-called
When you feel dismay about a criminal demanding
frivolous rights, a judge freeing a murderer, or a rapist or terrorist seeking
lenient punishment or even freedom on mere technicalities, you know that a
socialist is behind it. There’s an old story about two liberals who come across
a beaten man. “We’ve got to find the person who did this!” they exclaim. “He
obviously needs our help!” A society that routinely sides with criminals is
unhealthy. Healthy people recognize that fact.
There is one inescapable outcome to all this,
though, and that is that liberalism always consumes itself. Unfortunately, it
takes millions of people down with it. Socialist societies always collapse from
their own static weight as did, for instance, the communist Soviet Union, which
slowly imploded right from its very start in 1917. New York City in postwar
America, the richest city in the world in the richest period in history,
spiraled down into bankruptcy, crime and exhaustion due to its own
self-indulgent ethic. Public education has backed itself into a corner of
incompetence, with union power coming first on its list of priorities, and kids
coming last. Spendthrift bureaucrats become so greedy that they end up
prescribing their own irrelevance.
Socialism is like rust eating away at steel; it never rests and never stops
criticizing and undermining the productive, durable aspects of our society,
incrementally, day after day, year after year. And one morning you wake up, and
the foundation of our nation – economic, social, moral and cultural -- has
reached a point of no return. The rust has eaten through. This is why we must be
vigilant, to stop America’s slide into incremental socialism.
Republicans and conservatives are said to be on
the political ‘right.’ What does that mean?
To begin with the
Random House Dictionary of the English
Language defines ‘right’ as “in accordance with what is good, proper or
just” and “sound or normal, as in the mind.” It continues: “in good health or
spirits” and “genuine, authentic.” The word ‘right’ means ‘correct.’ The word
‘righteous’ is defined as “characterized by uprightness or morality” and
“virtuous.” The right hand always has been considered reliable and normal. And
the dictionary calls a ‘right-hand man’ an “indispensable or invaluable
assistant.”
Meanwhile, liberals and socialists are said to
be on the political ‘left.’ Left-handedness always has been associated with
clumsiness. The word that Americans have adopted for ineptness
– gauche – comes from the
French word for ‘left.’ The word ‘sinister’ comes from the Latin word meaning on
or toward the left side. The dictionary also defines the verb ‘left’ as “to be
left stranded” or “to miss an opportunity”. The expression ‘way out in left
field’ means lost, off course and adrift. Superstition says that the left side
of the body is unlucky. A bad dancer has ‘two left feet’.
Even Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s
Hardball political talk show and
one-time legislative assistant to the ultraliberal Speaker of the House Thomas
P. O’Neill of Massachusetts said bluntly: “The Republicans are in bed with big
business and Democrats are in bed with all the crazies.”
So which would you choose: The orderly way of
big business or the chaos of “the crazies”?
Never underestimate the real-world significance of the semantic connotations of
the words ‘left’ and ‘right’.
Conservatives and capitalists are ‘active’ and
‘manly’ people. They build power plants, drill oil wells, manufacture
automobiles and computers, construct subdivisions, mine coal, brew beer, grow
wheat, and on and on. The advanced technological, industrial and agricultural
innovations that power the world today were born and nurtured over the centuries
in Western capitalist societies. Dominated by European and American Christians,
these societies have drawn on the individual initiative of innovative, curious
men and their partners – strong, rational women.
Men and women are controlled by their rational
selves.
Men and confident women enjoy being self-reliant
and independent. They are even-tempered, optimistic and above all
realistic…
never idealistic.
When
men know things, they know them. It is not important for men to show off in
order to prove that they know things. And if a man is not formally educated, he
is capable of educating himself.
Men and women want to know what is true because truth is the most powerful
thing.
Men are brave and will defend their honor and
the honor of those they love.
Men are individualistic. They do not adhere well
to group or collectivist thinking.
Men are mechanically-minded builders. They love
to make things that work – not in theory but in reality – which requires a
rational mind. They like to solve real-world problems, which requires methodical
thinking.
Men and women know who they are. They have
strong identities, which is crucial to a fulfilled life. And their personal
courage and convictions spring from this self-knowledge.
Men
are generous and look outward. They are spiritually strong. Men are patient to
do what is right, not what is expedient.
Rational men and women are interested in things
that are authentic and that have ‘meaning.’ Throughout history, people have
struggled to find meaning in their lives, and thus a society that is built on
meaning is meaningful to all who care to do the hard work to appreciate it. For
men and women living in the United States, they know how meaningful it is to
live in freedom, a condition little known throughout history.
Men like change and progress; it stimulates them
to see both. Men are attracted to the unknown; they are explorers. Men like
competition; they like to win, and if they lose, they try again.
Men, along with strong women, are productive
people, and are peaceful inside because they know that they are contributing to
society. Thus they like themselves. Inner peace and calm are essential to a
healthy populace.
Men and women take responsibility for their
failures and correct them. They are not afraid to make or admit mistakes.
Men can enjoy being alone, and thinking for
themselves.
Confident men and women act as the leaders of
families who expect good behavior, discipline and self-reliance from their
children. Strong military men seek to protect their ‘family’ – the American
people.
Conservative men and strong women do not care
what other people think about them. They are confident in knowing when they are
‘right.’
Men and women are punctual.
Men and women make judgments and commitments,
and stick to them. Men and women are forgiving… when forgiveness is earned. Men
appreciate timeless things, and they disdain fashion. Men do not like to talk,
but prefer to act. Men, along with good women, are serious about living a good
life and rejecting frivolity. And once a good life finally is attained, they
know that they can enjoy its rewards and pleasures.
If men and women see the glass half-full, they
will work at making it full.
Men and women look at the ‘big picture’ rather
than dwelling on details. Men do
not succumb to peer pressure. Men persevere;
they do not give up easily because the challenge often is as satisfying as the
result. And if the expected result is not forthcoming, they will have learned
from the challenge itself.
Men
and women accept that someday they are going to die.
Men possess common sense, upon which all other knowledge is built.
The criticality of common
sense should never be underestimated as the key element in the supremacy of
conservative capitalism.
Strong, confident, innovative and independent men are the primary force in the
success of Western capitalism. But they also are the greatest obstacle to
socialist planning for an entire society. Thus the ideas, ideals and
institutions of strong men are under insistent attack from the political left.
Liberals, on the other hand – both male and
female – are controlled by their feminine, irrational and emotional selves. The
feminine spirit is self-absorbed and looks inward, often feeling sorry for
itself, dwelling on its problems and trying to ‘figure everything out.’ Thus
females and males suffer from vastly higher rates of emotional turmoil –
depression, fear, worry and anxiety – than men and women do.
People who are driven by their emotions are
susceptible to wild manic-depressive swings in those emotions.
Females and males are passive by nature. They
dislike competition.
Males and females are not interested in
‘meaning’ but primarily in feeling good. Their insecure nature blocks them from
ever feeling completely good, however (in attaining the ideal). So liberals
cater to and manipulate this feminine insecurity through suggestions of utopian
schemes (a ‘world without war’ for instance, or ‘stamping out poverty’) and use
them to subvert rational thinking and to erode the order built by confident men.
Females are idealistic, which is a recipe for
indignation, disappointment and anger – ruling emotions of socialist thought –
because the ideal is not possible.
Males and females want to be taken care of, and
do not want to have to worry about things, so they gravitate to ‘nanny state’
socialism without considering its true consequences.
Females are insecure, and are consumed with what
other people think about them, starting with the way they look. Thus they are
highly susceptible to suggestion. This is their profound weakness and all
other weaknesses stem from this. Feminine insecurity is bred through the
lack of a strong, manly identity.
Females suffer inordinately from envy and shame,
the two most powerful negative emotions.
Females are easily offended by what other people
think because they are insecure.
Females need constant attention and affection. Females and feminized males need
to think of themselves as important, but they can be absolutely absent faith in
this feeling, leading to anxiety and depression. Their feeling of worth comes
not from within, but from the outside. They lack the inner strength and core
convictions of strong men and women.
Females and males are susceptible to hysteria.
Females and males want instant gratification.
Females live in the emotional moment, and their
emotions can turn on a dime.
Females are anti-individualistic. They like
being in groups.
If females see the glass half-full, they may
turn anxious or enraged that it is not full.
Females love to stick their noses into other
peoples’ business as the American media do. Females – whether they are in the
body of a male or a female – feel that they are victims in life. They blame
others for their failures and don’t accept responsibility for their failings.
Females and males love to talk, and thus most of
the American and worldwide media – which rely on words and not actions –– are
feminine in nature. Talking makes the female feel good even when the things
she/he is saying are irrational. A November 2006 study said that females get
‘high’ just from talking. It is like a drug.
Females are gullible. They may believe a fallacy
by dint of the fact that they do not know about it. Even the highly-degreed
females who call themselves feminists know little about the real world compared
to the common-sense knowledge of men and women.
Females like to please people, and often use
false fronts – as actors do – so as not to rock the boat. This makes them
susceptible to social pressure and peer pressure.
Females can easily be pushed into the emotion of
guilt, which is a prime motivator of socialist thought (i.e., I have wealth, or
America has wealth, while others do not, and that makes me (us) bad.)
Females are apprehensive and negative in their
outlooks.
Females will say anything to get their way.
Females do not care about being punctual. They
take forever to ‘get ready’.
Females do not like change. They prefer the
status quo.
Females will not defend their honor because they
are afraid of guns. This fear extends to any type of military action. Thus the
feminine mind is subject to suggestions of idealist pacifism, which always leads
to suffering because the pacifist is unwilling to accept the challenge of
self-defense. France, perhaps the most feminine of all nations, surrendered in
1940 to Hitler in only 6 weeks without even putting up a fight. (Famous
classified advertisement for a French World War II Army rifle: “Never fired,
dropped once.”)
The feminine mind will dwell on an irrelevant
detail while losing sight of the ‘big picture.’
Females fear the unknown. They fear death. And since death is inevitable,
females live in a state of perpetual subconscious anxiety.
Thus the insecure feminine mind, whether it is in the head of a male or a
female, is the primary target of
socialist planners and political strategists. A mind that lives under any type
of emotional distress including anger, worry, depression, fear or doubt is much
more easily manipulated by utopian entreaties than one that is not.
Finally, the feminine mind must take positions
that are contrary to the rational man’s mind even though those positions are by
definition irrational.
For instance journalists, feminists and leftist academics do not know the first
thing about building houses and thus can never say that they personally have
helped to house America. This makes them feel bad; they are not giving
of themselves
and they know it. So they
gravitate to housing-for-all schemes involving government control of the funding
to assuage their feminine guilt and insecurity.
This is
one of the primary forces driving people to socialist thinking
– their inability to
personally contribute to society in tangible ways.
Yet when they do actually participate, they are attracted to charity projects which produce an infinitesimal number of, say, houses with volunteer labor. While private charity obviously should be encouraged as superior to government, some increasingly get their power through media, while genuine charity is quiet and acts humbly. Charity projects do not require any risk, or any knowledge about how to build a house. It is enough just to show up and go through the motions of pounding nails, taping sheetrock etc. which is wonderful as far as it goes.
The
house then is given away to a needy family in a highly-publicized
production. And while this
is only an emotional approach, it attracts awestruck media attention. But the
idea that people like former President Jimmy Carter is busy building housing for
the poor is bunk. He occasionally shows up at charity projects, pounds a few
nails and gets the fawning media coverage he wants and needs.
Most housing in America is produced by the capitalist, profit-making sector without any hoopla at all. This is why the United States has one of the highest rates of home-ownership in the world. When a man builds a house or houses, it is just his nature because men are builders. It even may be his business. And in building it, he knows that he has been productive. He does not need adulation or media coverage. Yet liberals like Carter incessantly criticize private housing developers as greedy and ruinous to the natural environment.
Socialism’s Origins in the
‘Hippie’ Culture
America’s current leftist culture was born and
nurtured in the ‘hippie’ movement of the 1960s which was urged on by radical
socialists, and has spawned thinking that has made its way to the pinnacle of
power today. The ‘hippies’ were anti-establishment so long as the establishment
was the social order, prosperity and high culture established by generations of
European and American men and women, the one durable, timeless order that is
recognized throughout the world today. And since socialist thinking always hews
to the opposite of that advocated by Western men, ‘hippies’ represented feminine
insecurity and vanity.
The
‘hippie’ movement was mediocre, superficial and extremely materialistic. It was
a philistine culture focusing on the lowest popular arts of rock music, beatnik
literature and cheap crafts. ‘Hippies’ were convinced that their low-culture
heroes like Jimi Hendrix were equivalent to Beethoven, that there is no
distinction to be made between greatness and mediocrity because socialism
is a culture of mediocrity. And this movement never was intended to encourage
young people simply to have a good time; it was an intentional and concerted
effort to undermine their very beings, to coax chaos to the surface.
‘Hippies’ proclaimed that America was a land of
dangerous complacency. But the capitalist United States in the 1950s and 1960s
in fact was the envy of the world. It was free and open. It had triumphed in
World War I, World War II and Korea, rescuing the world from tyranny. It was
advancing technologically. It was a nation of good jobs, cohesive families and
growing suburbs that were safe and free from urban crime and taxation. America
was the world center of new art and architecture, and was a military superpower.
But the ‘hippies’ saw only conformity and
complacency. Meanwhile the ‘hippie’ claim that sexual restraint and monogamy in
the 1950s was threatening to us all was quite the opposite of the truth. It
indeed is sexual permissiveness that persistently undermines the social
order.
America’s triumph enraged socialists the world
over. Capitalism was supposed to fail, they had theorized. It could never
provide abundant food, automobiles and housing for the common man, but was a
system of exploitation and deprivation, they wrote. But in fact capitalism
throughout history system has come much closer to socialists’ own ideals than
socialism itself ever has, and this infuriates socialists. When your ideas are
so publicly repudiated, you suffer shame, and leftists have been pushed past
shame. The Soviet Union’s unchallenged socialist system (communism) failed right
from its start. Famine, murder, material deprivation, technological backwardness
and tyranny were its hallmarks, and are the hallmarks of communism wherever it
is tried, contrary to the theoretical paradise predicted by the
Communist Manifesto.
So 1960s leftists – primarily academics in
American and European universities who clung to the discredited Soviet notion of
an atheist workers’ paradise – supported and encouraged the ‘hippie’ movement as
a means of undermining the capitalist system that produced successful America.
Their only recourse was to attempt to angrily destroy what had succeeded, just
as Islamic terrorists today seek to tear down America rather than build up their
own nations.
Naturally, the productive, hardworking citizens
of America disdained the ‘hippie’ culture because they were rational people who
understood what was happening.
Under the ‘hippie’ regime, young males and
females were targeted. It was the goal of the ‘hippie’ movement to undermine
them as thoroughly as possible, and to create uncertainty in their minds so that
they would see all of the institutions of their own culture – including
themselves – as unfair and oppressive.
Under
the ‘hippies’ the whole idea of commitment was debased. While real men and women
are unafraid to make hard judgments and to take decisive action by committing
themselves to timeless institutions like marriage, God, work and children, this
positive attribute was denigrated by the ‘hippie’ culture the way all positive
and manly traits are vilified by the political left. To start, ‘hippie’ males
often wore sloppy beards and hair as a disguise against their true identities
because having an identity of which you are proud is an essential requirement of
the meaningful life that leftists seek to suppress. Thus you became a ‘hippie’,
not an American. And it is important to remember that America in the 1960s was
the most individualist society ever in history.
At the
same time, another commitment was urged – to drug use, sloth, passivity and
ragged appearance, and promiscuous sex. These are instruments of ease and
pleasure, however, particularly decadent sexual liaison with multiple partners.
It is easier to induce people to seek pleasure and to be passive than to urge
them to be ‘active’ and to work hard. This degradation plants itself deep inside
the brain. The participants think they are having a good time, just as the
alcoholic does.
Sex is an animal instinct that is essential to
procreation. It is oh-so-powerful. Thus, as recreation, it has a magnetic draw,
and its pleasures are easily succumbed to. So the so-called sexual revolution
threw millions of young minds into chaos,
which is always below the
surface, and only needs to be coaxed into the open in order to degrade society.
Today’s astronomical divorce rate, and prevalence of abortion, broken families,
mixed-up families, promiscuity, sexually-transmitted diseases, adultery,
emotional instability and male/female anger all are a legacy of a generation
that was led to believe that human relations are conducted at the tip of a
penis.
Yet if
sex is so great, why do people in poor countries, where sex is available
anytime, risk their lives to get to America? The reason is that an orderly,
stable and economically growing society is infinitely more important to any
human being. Like all aspects of socialism, however, sex takes on an exaggerated
importance only to those seeking their own narcissistic pleasure, who do not
wish to do the hard work of thinking about or creating for themselves a
meaningful life.
Promiscuous sex is one of the superficial pleasures that socialists urge on
people who lack strong identities, principles, ideas and convictions. But once
pleasure is planted in the mind, the addiction grows. People with strong
identities and convictions are committed to a more meaningful life than sex or
other superficial pleasures ever can account for. Yet in the way that
socialists urge it, sex mutates on itself, becoming not pleasurable but dark and
forbidding including abortion, a cheapened self-identity, sexually-transmitted
diseases and emotional betrayal. A 2003 Heritage Foundation study adds to a
growing body of evidence that sexual activity among teenagers is linked to
depression and suicide.
But weak ‘hippie’ males and their descendants have traditionally made a practice
of conquering females sexually
in order to make themselves feel potent in light of their genuine impotence when
it comes to truly manly things like building houses, growing crops or welding
steel.
The reduction of human relations to sexual
contact corroded millions of minds slowly and thoroughly. With males viewing
females only sexually, millions of young people never develop the trust or
maturity to handle serious interactions with the opposite sex. This is why there
is so much divorce today (75% of all divorces are initiated by the emotional
female). And as these divorced or never-married people age, they realize that
the meaningful life attainable through patience and caring has slipped their
grasp.
With millions of
The ‘hippie’ movement portrayed itself as
non-conformist when in fact it was extremely conformist. The clothes, hair,
lingo, behaviors, prejudices and tastes were all uniform and cult-like. Anyone
who did not know about the latest music or drug was shunned as out-of-the-loop
and uncool. With socialist peer pressure hammering the weak ‘hippie’ mind,
socialist conformity was the rule. Meanwhile the 1960s mantra of “power to the
people” was completely false because in fact this movement represented the
destruction of individualist power and the advancement of conformity.
The feminized ‘hippie’ males were self-centered
and took little interest in big issues. Their long hair was an intentional
signal to appease females – actually to appear
feminine so that the narcissistic female would gravitate to it as one of its
own. In short, to appease the feminine spirit as is true in all socialism. The
males’ main goal became drug-induced bliss and sexual pleasure (instant
gratification) whenever and wherever possible, without ever considering the
long-term consequences. ‘Living for the moment’ is yet another cornerstone of
socialism, without regard for the ‘big picture’ or the long term, which is the
manly way. This is why liberals can become indignant, and do become
indignant about any perceived injustice at any given moment.
But it was a deal with the devil.
Sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) were spread at alarming rates, a trend that
is continuing today. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(www.cdc.gov) describes chillingly in its 2001 report
Tracking the Hidden Epidemics the
true scope of sexually-transmitted diseases today: Herpes (1 million new cases
per year, 45 million already infected); Hepatitis B (120,000 new cases per
year); Chlamydia (3 million new cases per year).
“Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant
death and disability in the United States… It is estimated that 30 to 40 percent
of excess preterm births and infant deaths are due to STDs and bacterial
vaginosis.”
“For the first time in nearly two decades,
gonorrhea is on the rise… Many STDs can be passed from an infected woman to
fetus… Newborns infected with syphilis and herpes may suffer severe consequences
including neurologic damage and death.... Up to 40 percent of women with
untreated Chlamydia will develop pelvic inflammatory disease… Chlamydia also can
cause prematurity, eye disease and pneumonia in infants.”
In 2003, syphilis, long thought conquered in
America, was reported exploding in all urban homosexual centers.
Visit the CDC
website and follow the links for STDs to read more.
Sex is serious business. That is why socialists
trivialize it and make it out to be only a joke and a frivolity, just as they
trivialize and marginalize all institutions (the church, marriage, the family,
private property, the arts, the universities) that are connected to a durable
Western culture. They are covering up the deeply negative effects of sex.
Inappropriate sex can traumatize people at any age. Meanwhile Hollywood exploits
sex for profit.
The American media will not tell you what you
need to know to protect your children. You must go to the Internet and find out
the truth. Sex should not be viewed lightly. There is much more to sex than
physical pleasure. Sex is a web of physical, intellectual, moral and emotional
exchanges. To debase sex therefore undermines the whole human system of
interpersonal relations. This is ideal for socialists who wish to degrade the
order of Western man.
This
is why liberals are intransigent in their opposition to teaching kids about
sexual abstinence, which would stop the epidemic of STDs. Obviously their
approach of sex education (really sexual advocacy) is having a devastating
effect. Once you are infected, of course, then you are part of their
crowd. And while liberals condone such behavior, the same people crusade against
cigarettes, which indeed can be very harmful to your health. Yet one must smoke
cigarettes for many years before health is adversely affected, while one single
sexual contact can convey a serious sexually-transmitted disease, including
AIDS, that a person will carry for life.
A huge proportion of the carriers of STDs are
female because their bodies are receptacles. Yet feminists are silent because
feminists are leftists who care not about women’s health when it is threatened
by leftist thinking. “By far women bear the greatest burden of STDs…” says the
CDC report. Thus the ‘sexual revolution’ has damaged females badly, both
emotionally and physically. (Readers: Warn your sons, and particularly your
daughters, now. Print out reports from the CDC website and tell your children to
read them.)
Sexual
promiscuity actually is just as bad as smoking cigarettes because bad sexual
behavior negatively affects a person not only physically but mentally as well,
corroding the moral fiber of individual people and the society in general. There
are many deeply negative ramifications to bad sexual behavior like the passing
of sickness and the consequent effects on physical and mental well-being; the
false attractions magnified by sex, and ensuing emotional chaos when things
break down; the personal betrayal and physical and mental torment involved in
abortion, adultery and promiscuity; family breakdown, which has left millions of
mothers and children in poverty; rape and child molestation, both heterosexual
and homosexual; and males exploiting females for sex then tossing them aside,
often pregnant, leading to depression, anger and chaos.
Promiscuous sex is closely tied to crime as well. Sex equals personal license
and crime too equals personal license. That is why so many criminals are found
to have persistent and repeated sexual crimes in their lives.
Self-respecting people do not engage in self-centered hedonism. They devote
themselves to making society better by example.
Liberals love to say over and over that capitalism is polluting the earth for
profit. Yet all of our technologies, from automobiles to home appliances to
powerplants, get cleaner every year. Diesel trucks manufactured in 2002 were
emitting only 12% of the pollutants of trucks made in 1987.
In the
meantime, sexually-transmitted diseases and sexual deviancy are getting worse;
pedophilia and pornography are spreading everywhere; while films and television
are plummeting in quality with sexual innuendo, violence and profanity
increasing every year. Liberals in the New York and Hollywood media are
making huge profits on polluting the human body and spirit and having no
qualms about it. This is merely an extension of the moral undermining that was
started in the 1960s. Then their false focus on environmental pollution is
intended to shift the spotlight from their own pollution of the moral
environment.
During the ‘hippie’ years, millions of males
were, and continue to be, mentally destabilized by the ‘sexual revolution’
wherein the feminine spirit is dominant, creeping inside the male and weakening
him. All anti-social behaviors from alcoholism to drug addiction to sloth, from
sexual addiction and perversion to criminality to pathological lying are part of
the weak human character that is anathema to the building of a meaningful and
durable culture. They typically are the result of a weak person seeking instant
gratification for his/her inner torment. That is why the political left defends
these behaviors tenaciously, explaining them away as a ‘disease’, a simple
behavioral quirk or an acceptable condition. Or even rewarding them.
Being excused, weak
people then are easily controlled. Many weak people prefer to remain weak
because being strong requires hard work whereas staying weak is part of the
passive character. Liberals start from the assumption that people are weak and
incompetent, and they base their policies on that assumption. Their theory of
evolution even claims that humans originated as mere animals, yet another
degradation of our spirit. The more anti-social behavior that is allowed, the
more will flourish, fraying the social fabric.
The same applies to
entitlement; the more government programs you give people, the more they expect
them and the weaker they become. As Benjamin Franklin warned:
“To relieve the misfortunes of our
fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but if we provide
encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting
against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery
as the proper punishment for, and cautions against, as well as necessary
consequences of, idleness and extravagance?”
And since these weak people are contravening the disciplined and ordered message
on which Christianity has built civilization, liberals say we simply should get
rid of God altogether, which they do at every turn.
Thus with the female controlling the sex, and
thus the mind of the desperate ‘hippie’ male, he became dependent like a drug
addict. At the same time, real drugs were polluting the ‘hippie’ mind while rock
music was fueling his mania. His only goal in life was to please himself.
Females were weakened and corrupted too. They were, and are, exploited by the
males, and most of them figure it out… usually after it is too late.
The feminist mantra that females have the right
to sexual pleasure, birth control and abortion is yet another step in degrading,
rather than elevating, the status of women because sexual promiscuity eventually
causes physical and emotional distress if is not within the confines of a
meaningful relationship. Expectedly, two-thirds of all females in a 2002 survey
said the best sex they ever had was with their loving husbands, while only 9%
said it was with some other partner, while a 2006 study said that married
Christians actually have the most satisfying sex of all. The reason for both
results is simple: People who are committed to one another are going to be
infinitely more satisfied in all of their relationships.
Then consider this: Promiscuous sex is immoral
and it makes you dumb and weak,
simply an animal act that anyone can partake of. But since socialists see no
‘right’ and ‘wrong’, they see nothing wrong with it. Remember one of the slogans
of the 1960s: “If it feels good, do it!” Does this sound like a profound way to
live your life?
Promiscuous people devote lots of time and
energy to their addiction that could go to making their lives – and the world –
better. A pervert culture has insinuated itself into modern American life with
the rise of ‘hippie’ immorality. The explosion in the sex-offender population
since the 1960s represents the legitimization of the ‘free love’ culture. The
lesser mind needs sex jokes, junk TV and dirty talk for stimulation, all of
which coarsen the entire society. It is said that the male is ruled by either
his penis
or his brain. And in the
end, promiscuity always will cause you woe because it is first illicit pleasure
(self-indulgence), and second it is much more complex than just physical
pleasure and thus it will come back to haunt you.
So socialists have used sexual license to dumb
people down and to weaken them through sexual addiction so that these people can
be persuaded to ignore the common good and seek out only pleasure for
themselves. By extension, they begin to accept all socialist philosophies, the
first of which is that you can have as much sex as you want and not be judged
for your behavior.
Drugs entered the ‘hippie’ culture – LSD,
heroin, marijuana, opium, peyote, hashish – and the mind was further degraded.
People who did not take drugs were considered uncool when in fact they were much
cooler than those who did. And while men with meaningful lives today are out
living them, all one need do is visit any bar or restaurant on a Saturday night
and watch graying, pot-bellied baby-boomer males cruising for chicks or dating
at age 60, acting in the adolescence they never outgrew.
Drugs and sex destroyed millions of minds
Many
of them are aging ‘hippies.’ Or they are a byproduct of that dissolute culture,
pining up blind alleys for their youthful pasts when everything was free. Or so
they thought. This situation has caused them a form of dementia which is to be
expected from the leftist mentality that created it. Today many of these males
are leaders. The fact of Bill Clinton chasing Monica Lewinsky around his desk
while terrorists were plotting to blow up the World
Females always have had great power over males through sex, temptation
and teasing. This is an old story that will never change. But it was trumped up
during the ‘hippie’ movement. Slutty leftist females from the 1960s forward knew
exactly what they were doing, but they did know one other thing – that they
never could have power over real men. The males they overpowered
are today primarily weak socialists – politicians, bureaucrats, college
professors, psychiatrists, trial lawyers and other cuppies (cowering urban
professionals), ‘artists’, environmentalists, actors, journalists, and rock
musicians. This is why feminists love
Of
course, liberals love to say that conservative men are ‘afraid of’ strong women.
But like all socialist thinking this is the mirror opposite of the truth. In
fact it is the weak socialist male who is afraid, the emasculated liberal who
immediately agrees with everything his feminist girlfriend or wife or even
mother says. Because he became dependent on females for pleasure and then, with
the rise of the feminist movement, for approval, and thus he still fears their
wrath.
Since
feminists spend their lives angry that they are not men, they surround
themselves with weak males whom they can dominate.
In the liberal relationship, the female rules. Liberal males
are utterly subservient to the feminine spirit. This subservience invites
hysteria and irrationality to invade the weakened male.
Or
liberals say that conservative men do not ‘respect’ women. Yet the abuse of
females by predators like Bill Clinton is the domain of the sexualized political
left. Leftists’ ongoing advocacy and acceptance of the sexual abuse of females
is a very serious issue, which leftists disdain as merely the concerns of
religious prudes. This abuse now extends to children – by both the heterosexual
and homosexual deviants that are encouraged and excused by socialism.
The witchy feminine spirit, or its seductive temptress twin, has invaded men all
over the globe, cowed them and stripped away their manhood. The modern feminist
movement, abetted by the international media, has accelerated the invasion,
spreading socialism worldwide.
Billions of men throughout history have been traumatized by this spirit, and
their manly will has been broken. Just look
at today’s average politically-correct metrosexual urban/academic American or
European male. He is gullible, materialistic, redistributionist, hypnotized by
the media, environmentalist, feminist, risk-averse, weak, anti-individualist and
conformist. He is deeply concerned about his looks and/or how others think of
him. He is more likely to be homosexual, divorced, promiscuous, unmarried and/or
childless. But like the feminine character he has become, he has an opinion
about everything while truly knowing little about how the world really works.
And oh yes, he is deathly afraid of girls.
Imagine any real man devoting time to wondering why the angry leftist female is
depressed, enraged, anxious or simply wrong.
Or wondering what is going through the mind of another feminized male. Or trying
to push aside the phony veil of
The
spread of this enraged spirit explains why there has been so much coordinated
international condemnation of the
Genuine men are neither cowed nor seduced by the feminine spirit.
Good men don’t take advantage of real women.
And good women, who are even-tempered, don’t lord over real men. They work
alongside each other to build society, not watch it degenerate.
There is a flip side to all this ‘hippie’ sexual
sycophancy, however. Like the weak spirits that reside within him, the socialist
male, who built his youth on appeasing the female and being subservient to her
sexually, also has a habit of abusing females (being their master) just as the
manic-depressive feminine persona gyrates wildly between one emotion and the
polar opposite. One day he is begging her for sex, the next day he is using her
for sex, and the next day he has tossed her aside and moved on. Think Bill
Clinton. This creates a cycle of anger between the sexes that has left millions
of males and females bereft.
Since the 1960s, the media have been saying that
love, marriage and respect are just cornball emotions. The relationship between
the sexes should be dirty and temporary, they say, based on momentary
gratification, because that is how ‘hip’ rock musicians and
These debased sexual habits, freely engaged in
and combined with drugs, degraded the ‘hippie’ mind, both male and female. It
gave them everything they thought they wanted to the point where they were
unable or unwilling to distinguish between aberrant behavior and constructive
behavior (being non-judgmental as liberals insist) or to appreciate their own
behavior as decadent.
Now as ‘non-judgmental’ adults and voters, some
continue to toe the liberal line and are tolerant of behaviors, even among their
own children, that right-minded people naturally would consider inappropriate.
This was an intentional outcome of the puppeteers of the ‘hippie’ movement: To
slowly but surely undermine the most successful and powerful nation in the world
through its youth.
1960s ‘hippies’ would have remained anonymous if
they had stayed home and worked hard, so their debauchery was given much
attention by the media. This was key. They were young and craved attention (a
feminine trait) and through constant media coverage they began to see themselves
as the most interesting people who ever lived when in fact they were simply the
wind-up toys of a leftist elite.
For instance ‘hippies’ still are
hyperventilating over the 1969
Yet when one million youths converged on
So by degrading themselves, the ‘hippies’ were being noticed, and this
encouraged their indulgences. Drugs were plentiful and acceptable and swallowed
in quantity, even if their origin was unknown. Nobody really knows how much of
today’s underachieving population in fact had its brains or wills destroyed by
drugs. The ‘hippies’ loved to say that drugs were just fun, but in fact they
degraded people thoroughly from the inside out. But any ‘hippie’ who danced like
a fool for the cameras and acted as if stupidity were wisdom, can only feel
extreme embarrassment and regret… if he or she has matured enough to recognize
how they were hoodwinked.
Self-doubt, leading to self-anger, is a
driving emotion of socialist thinking. The ‘hippie’ movement planted doubt in
the minds of millions about the validity of Western culture
The ‘hippies’ also represented cultural
degradation in the extreme. While American schoolchildren in the 1950s and 1960s
were well schooled in historic European/American literature, art and music,
‘hippie’ culture was one in which a beaded belt or a tie-dyed shirt was
considered equal to Rembrandt. In short, everyone was great because greatness
now was cheap and accessible to people of no talent whatsoever, and really was
only a matter of opinion. The idea that anybody can be an artist was, and is, an
intentional undermining and demeaning of the whole concept of art, which
historically has represented great meaning to all those who wish to appreciate
it. Thus the degradation of art has been an important element in the degradation
by socialism of all meaningful aspects of Western culture.
Jack Kerouac was deemed an insightful writer
when his work was narcissistic and juvenile. Alan Ginsburg wrote patently awful
beatnik ‘poetry’ while advocating pedophile relations between grown males and
young boys. Mick Jagger is viewed as gifted when his product is coarse and rude.
All are lowbrow to the extreme. Harvard’s Timothy Leary was lionized by the
media for introducing young people to LSD, an instrument of pure destruction.
Yet the caring media and concerned academics who fret about the well-being of
primitive people halfway around the world seemed oddly disconnected about the
state of American youth taking acid. In other words, they were part of the
problem. They were leftists then and they are leftists now.
No good parent today would encourage his or her
child to take LSD, engage in promiscuous sex, wander about the nation selling
trinkets at rock concerts, or indulge in the general retrograde dissolution of
the ‘hippie’ culture. Thus it is obvious that the ‘hippie’ movement despised
young people and undermined them in every way it could. It simply used them the
way leftists always use people to advocate political ends that in the final
analysis are bad for society. If a father loves his children, he will not give
them everything they want. He will give them what is good for them. He will set
standards and rules and codes of conduct.
People who personally recall the 1960s remember
how relentlessly the ‘hippie’ culture criticized anyone over 30 years old. Yet
today the same ‘hippies,’ many of whom have cut their hair and grown into
leadership positions in American society, are completely obsessed with
government-funded Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs for the
elderly. Why?
Three things have changed since the 1960s:
First, the older folks back then had conservative values. They had suffered
through depression and World War II. They were thankful for the prosperity and
stability that followed these great traumas. They believed in playing by the
rules. They wanted the best for their children and were strict in their outlook.
Religion was strong, the work ethic was observed and families were close-knit.
Anyone who grew up in the 1950s and 1960s recalls a time of happiness, calm and
prosperity. Few in the World War II generation turned out morose, confused,
angry, divorced and depressed – like so many of the ‘hippie’ generation have –
because they had timeless values.
Second, the elderly today easily are encouraged
to become part of, or already are part of the leftist, big-government coalition.
They’ve aged in the years of social permissiveness, liberal control of
information, and expanding government programs. Feminine socialism then tells
people that they must never die (because females are terrified of death) and
thus must explore every possible remedy, no matter how expensive. And while the
elderly of 2007 are the richest, most pampered elderly generation in all of
history, media scaremongers portray them as weak and impoverished, and frighten
them with horror stories about eating dog food and living in the streets while
adding promises of government economic security. This translates into Democrat
votes.
Socialism insistently cultivates elderly
voters because many of them come to think like liberals do
– never about the future, the common good, the ‘big picture’ or the long term,
but only about their own well-being, in the present moment.
Foremost, the ‘hippie’ generation soon will be
entering old age itself, and since, in their own minds, they are the most
important and interesting people who ever lived, they must be able to avail
themselves of every subsidy so that they can continue the myth that they should
have everything the world has to offer, the myth begun in the 1960s.
While the emotional mind is the target of
socialists, it must be cultivated from the start. One of the big liberal voting
blocs is single females. They are urged to exert authority and to be confident
in favor not of manly, rational goals but of irrational socialist ones. Today
young single females are swamped by rhetoric from feminist media, radical
academia and peer pressure because they must be propagandized before they know
what is hitting them, as the ‘hippies’ were. This is why control of the schools
and universities is crucial to leftist policy: Kids must be snatched before they
know the facts.
Thus young females are told that only urban and
academic elites care about them, that they must have a career so they don’t end
up under some man’s thumb, that abortion is just an everyday lifestyle choice.
This divides the sexes, which is the point. Then the indignant young female is
sent out into the world to intimidate anyone and everyone, most importantly the
young males she meets.
Imagine a group of college students sitting
around today and talking. If a brash feminist declares that the earth revolves
around the moon, she cannot be corrected. The males are silent because they have
been taught to be uncertain; or they may not even know anymore the facts; or
they believe that the real facts don’t matter because facts are only a matter of
opinion, a cornerstone of socialism that undermines the manly principle of
objective truth; or that facts really don’t matter relative to the result which
would be to anger or embarrass a feminist in correcting her.
Thus the female becomes arrogant even in her
ignorance, and this mushrooms. Perhaps she gets a good job, even selected only
on the basis of her sex or her feminist credentials. Her paycheck and position
make her picky about what males she will deign to associate with. The media
pound her with negativity, that men are scoundrels, that children are a bother.
A Time magazine cover story in 2001
was “Who Needs a Man?”
Successful TV females are portrayed as childless or unmarried. Or the media
drumbeat has driven apart any relationship she’s ever had by disorienting her
with a barrage of violence, adultery and depravity.
Perhaps she turns 35 and her arrogance has made
her unmarriageable – or simply unbearable. Feminism told her that being an
obnoxious know-it-all is natural and thus her emotions rage unchecked by any
manly presence. Feminism told her she had a ‘right to choose’ (notice they never
say ‘an abortion’) and so perhaps she aborted the only child she ever might have
had, and this haunts her. Or her barrenness haunts her. Soon she has reached the
exalted heights of being… a female bachelor.
All people need meaning and authenticity in
their lives. All people need an identity,
in a way moreso that even food, clothing and
shelter. A cohesive family structure gives identity to you. A life alone
is alienating. Millions of Americans have been driven away from meaningful
relationships by the divisive and angry politics of the left. This undermines
the nation’s stability. This snowball keeps rolling and keeps the sexes apart.
If you keep people apart, you break down the family. Break down the family and
society becomes ripe for humiliation and control by an urban/academic elite.
The
Young females are targeted like everyone else by
television, movies, books, magazines, rock music and other forms of culture,
popular and otherwise, that today are dominated by one theme:
conflict. Because social conflict and division (racial, sexual,
economic) are key tools that socialism uses to destabilize the order built by
European/American men.
In the
21st century media – controlled by leftists who produce no oil, timber, houses,
vacuum cleaners, food or other goods that we need everyday – the sexes are
portrayed as irreconcilably split; white men as weak, criminal or oppressive;
females as eternally wise; and blacks as either victims or brilliant problem
solvers, and never as perpetrators of crime. The overall tone is negative and
emotional.
Dramas on the three big TV networks center on
treachery, murder, violence, divorce and adultery. Families are portrayed as
clownish, insecure, incompetent and unnatural. Christians are portrayed as
fanatics.
60
Minutes focuses on people who have
been victimized by corporations, the police, the military, or some other arm of
orderly society... never by the taxing government or by union corruption or by
crooked Democrat politicians. Victimization is an omnipresent liberal obsession.
‘Magazine’ shows hash over incurable
diseases, betrayal, personal failure or dangerous products made by the American
capitalist system, even going so far as to produce completely fake stories like
NBC Dateline’s fabled ‘exploding
pickup truck’ segment.
Cable TV crime shows take you through the nuts
and bolts of forensics hour after hour, while lawyer-based shows focus on
mayhem, death, lying and people in serious trouble or under emotional stress.
Naturally, everyone is sleeping around. Typically some smart female solves
everything within the hour.
Here’s a test: Take a piece of paper and, in one
evening count the number of programs and promos that exhibit violence using
guns, fists or verbal abuse. Turn on ABC, NBC or CBS and watch. Count the number
of guns you see. Note the culture of abuse, violence and anger.
People do not invite violence and chaos into
their daily lives because they know that we are lucky to live in a stable
society. But through the media, they have been subverted subconsciously by
violence and depravity without knowing its full impact. The cumulative effect is
devastating. People are de-sensitized to violence and begin to accept it, as
each viewer is degraded bit by bit. Crime and violence are two elements deployed
in the struggle to destabilize our productive culture. That is why leftists
exploit media violence and defend criminals insistently.
Major urban newspapers and network news
broadcasts offer more of the same. Rarely is there an upbeat moment because
being positive is a manly trait.
That is why ‘cool’ people are so often ironic, cynical, glib, smart-ass,
sneering, negative or dark – it is part of their false front that is used to
intimidate others. Because people who need to act ‘cool’ (‘hippies’, rock
musicians,
Crime, discrimination, unemployment,
environmental degradation, rich vs. poor – these are the main story lines at
most major news outlets. Lawsuits against hospitals, pharmaceutical companies
and auto manufacturers predominate because lawsuits are one way in which
socialist trial lawyers weaken productive capitalism and appropriate its wealth.
From the media spin, you would think that every sick person in
What is the point of all this media negativity? First, the people who have come
to dominate most of the media are feminine – and thus negative – by nature.
Second, the increasingly feminized minds of many media consumers are
increasingly negative in nature, and are drawn in by, and manipulated by
negativity. Third, this negativity undermines people, shakes their confidence
and makes them doubtful so that they throw their hands up and say: “Maybe we are
better off with the government running things. Yes, this newspaper editorial
does sound like a better way. Now I can relax.” Passive and weak people, and
people under emotional distress, are targeted by this negativity. And each has
one vote.
One media favorite is the ‘wrong person jailed’
for a crime. This is part of the socialist strategy for slowly and surely
undermining the fairest criminal justice framework in the world. Of course this
happens because America is an imperfect society, but the media act as if ‘wrong
person jailed’ is the norm, and then go on to subtly and insistently urge a
softer and softer tone toward criminality, while pursuing ongoing exposes about
police corruption as if it too were the norm. This is part of the female’s
manic-depressive swing – from ‘good criminal’ all the way to ‘evil cop’. There
is no rational pursuit of the truth.
Yet the black urban poor, one of the core
constituencies of the political left, suffer most from crime. They live in
neighborhoods infested with crime, and their leaders tolerate it. Their lives
are immersed in a constant state of emotional agitation, and people like Jesse
Jackson use this to manipulate them and lead them in anger, with cooperation and
support from the media. No wonder there is no economic opportunity in these
neighborhoods. Crime, illegitimacy, violence, degrading rap music, bad schools
(a product of government domination of public education) all combine to keep
progress out.
But when the super-liberal
New York Times needed to build a new
printing and distribution facility, it did not locate it in a blighted
Other negative media spin:
The media unanimously proclaimed
beforehand that the 1991 Gulf War to expel
One of the big, ongoing stories
of the summer of 2001 (before the 9/11 terrorist attacks) detailed how the
airlines were mistreating their customers, forcing them to wait in long lines at
crowded airports. Yet facts show that the for-profit airline industry since
deregulation in 1978 has built a comprehensive transport system, available to
all income levels and covering a sprawling nation.
Since deregulation, however, hundreds of
millions of new airline travelers have flooded the nation’s airports. In other
words, deregulated capitalism has succeeded. But nationwide only one new airport
has been built, in
Yet who would spearhead protests against new
airport construction anyway except left-wing environmentalists and their media
allies?
And if the media cannot exploit real events,
they simply fabricate. Major media outlets in the summer of 1995 were carrying
front-page stories about an epidemic of arson at churches belonging to black
denominations, with the implication that white supremacy was on the march. Bill
Clinton fanned the flames on
By late 1996, however,
USA
Today and many other minor and major
periodicals including The Wall
Street Journal and the liberal/chic
New Yorker magazine published investigations of the so-called arson. They
found that the accusing groups were full of left-wing ideologues who faked the
statistics, labeling accidents as arson, for instance. Critically however they
revealed insurance industry statistics that showed that there was absolutely no
increase at all in black church burnings, that the entire story was false. The
media had concocted the whole crisis, and then never admitted to it. But it was
easy to do. After all, it’s only
words.
This fabrication appeared for one reason only –
to smear caucasian
These are not isolated examples. Distortion,
fabrication and outright lies are a way of life for the political left. You can
find examples daily in the mainstream press. Remember that 2004 Democrat
Presidential candidate Al Sharpton came to national prominence in 1986 by
falsely accusing a group of white men of raping a black female. And that
CBS used forged documents to falsify
President Bush’s National Guard record in an attempt to sway a free and fair
American election.
Judge
Judy and other courtroom TV shows
depict ordinary people in degrading and pathetic situations.
Unsolved Mysteries concerns itself
with disappearances, kidnappings and murder.
Dr. Phil and other ‘blather’ shows are aimed
at passive minds, and consist of one thing: Females and weak males whining and
crying about this decadence, that tragedy or some alternate stupidity, as if the
world is coming to an end. Oprah Winfrey has accumulated a billion-dollar
fortune with her daily Hour of Babble, proving that our wealthy capitalist
society can make even soothsayers and shamans filthy rich.
Daytime soap operas show people engaged in sex,
sex and more sex, while programs like
Jerry Springer portray humans as venal, stupid, crass, and animalistic.
Females are portrayed as normal when they maintain strings of sex partners.
Springer once served as Democrat mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio and he is a typical
liberal who has declared how much he “cares about” people while making his
living dispensing degrading TV trash (i.e., he is exhibiting emotional
extremes).
The media
sow confusion and emotional distress among viewers by insistently portraying
confusion and emotional distress
Endless strings of TV cop shows dramatize people who misbehave, lie, cheat, steal, sleep around and live in stress and chaos. Shouting, deceit and anger are ubiquitous.
Even comedies get in the act in their own ways.
Seinfeld is
a show about “nothing”. It is sometimes vaguely humorous, but it focuses on
people leading meaningless existences, living in perpetual adolescence in serial
romances, unmarried, childless and frequently unemployed which are states of
noncommitment that liberals favor so that they can tell you how to live.
Remember when guys like Bob Hope told jokes that
were simply amusing? (“Bob, where do you want to be buried?” He replies:
“Surprise me!”) No, today comedies are based heavily on sexual innuendo and
profanity because the writers have no imagination, but instead are cogs in a
leftist agenda of cultural degradation.
Rural Americans are portrayed as rubes and fools
(Andy Griffith Show) whereas the fact is that there are many more
incompetent, dependent, ignorant and disturbed people living in our cities, many
of them with advanced academic degrees.
There
are few TV shows that portray people triumphing, working hard and enjoying life
and family. In short, there is little that is positive in all the media, TV,
films, magazines and newspapers. Their goal is to leave viewers in a constant
state of negative emotional agitation.
On Sex
and the City, praised to the
heavens by the media, a bunch
of girls sleep around. Yet millions of females have learned the hard way that
that behavior is the road to sexually-transmitted diseases and emotional abuse.
Meanwhile, a cute, family-oriented show like Full House of the 1980s was
trashed ruthlessly by the media, and called sappy.
And it
is not mere coincidence that even kids’ cartoons on socialist public TV have on
more than one occasion used the anti-Christ number 666 repeatedly for simple
math lessons. Remember their plan: Leftists exploit every institution they can
to spread their message.
But if a sincere Christian minister tells people
the truth – that to live honest, faithful lives and to work hard and keep their
families together is the best way – he is portrayed by the atheist media as a
sexist, a bigot and a homophobe. The sex-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church
has been portrayed by the media as the Church itself being corrupt when in fact
it was first and foremost a child-rape scandal among 300 homosexual priests.
Those priests have received virtually no criticism in the media, however,
because the explosion in pedophilia is simply a natural outgrowth of 1960s
sexual license.
Lowering or
even eliminating the age of sexual consent is an ongoing goal of leftists
worldwide,
including the
American Civil Liberties Union here in the
Judge Edward
Cashman’s minimum 60-day sentence handed out in 2006 to a 34-year-old male in
ultra-liberal
Watch this
case and others like it across
And if you
think this is just an isolated example of leftist sex activism, consider this:
Less than one week after Robert Redford publicly bashed President Bush in
January 2007, a documentary film about bestiality (sex between people and
animals) was shown at
But wait.
There’s more. The same “festival” included a movie about a sexually promiscuous
12-year old girl(!) who was raped in one scene.
This is not a
coincidence or an error. This is intentional. Be warned. This is part of the
attempt by
And the
liberal judge will say, “Yes, you’re right…”
This will
happen incrementally, just as all socialism undermines us that way.
Since the 1960s, rock music has dedicated itself
to mindlessness. Drug abuse is encouraged, even sanctified; hatred, self-hatred
and violence are ongoing themes; females are degraded; and sexual decadence is
part of the hallowed lifestyle. Suicide is a common theme not only in the music
but in the lives of the musicians themselves. Kurt Cobain of the band Nirvana
blew his own head off after being declared a bona fide genius by the media. So
if a ‘genius’ kills himself, what message is this giving kids?
The Grateful Dead out of left-wing
These are the people who hate the Republican party, Ronald Reagan, George W.
Bush, the military, corporations, Christianity and the orderly nuclear family.
Most important, they hate themselves. It is a hard and fast rule: People who
hate themselves hate the
Rock musicians know deep inside that their product is junk. At the same time,
socialists are always telling us how much they “care about the children” while
their ideology is devoted to dumbing-down the public schools, promoting rock
music, pushing kids and families away from the church, and exonerating
promiscuous sex and abortion among teenagers. Perhaps environmentalists could
protest the 300,000 watts of power needed to stage a Rolling Stones concert. But
alas, the Rolling Stones are part of degenerate pop culture, and so they get a
pass.
Just look at rock musicians and you get the
point. They typically are haggard, sloppy, uncouth and dumb, and are
drug-addicted, alcoholic and promiscuous. Most are mentally ill. Early death is
more than common. Rock groups are notorious for discord. So if being a rock star
is so admirable, why are so many of them so unhappy? Then pop culture promotes
them as if they are heroes while at the same time condemning genuinely positive
human traits like patriotism, love of family and country, monogamy, discipline
and order.
Turn to the VH-1 rock-music cable TV channel and watch the documentaries on the
lives of rock bands. Most are stories of depravity, alcoholism, drug addiction,
suicide, sexual exploitation, depression and death. At the same time VH-1
incredibly sponsored a ‘Save the Music’ program to urge more funding of
public-school music programs, running pictures of nerdy kids playing the
clarinet in the junior-high band while declaring how evil budget-cutting
capitalists are robbing our schools of culture.
Perhaps VH-1 could use its media clout to expose
incompetence and corruption in public education that is sapping the vitality of
many schools and leaving kids without the most basic educational skills, never
mind musical instruments. That will never happen, though. VH-1 is part of the
entertainment industry, which is an arm of the Democrat party in
And
who promotes all this ‘sinister’ rock music? A hard-headed military guy? A
conservative Baptist minister from the South? An
No, the force behind this phenomenon always has
been and always will be leftists in Hollywood and New York who contribute their
profits exclusively to the Democrat party. They push it relentlessly in their
obsession with money. They will say “this is just entertainment.” Their politics
always have been and always will be on the chaotic left. And they will use these
same rock concerts to promote… World peace?! Farm aid?! Ending hunger?!
Yeah, right…
Leftists and rock stars forever are “raising awareness” about social problems,
but doing little else because they are not capable of doing more. Perhaps
rock-star Bono could invest some of his own personal millions into factories in
Africa to produce the goods that that continent needs, rather than visiting
Africa on publicity junkets and demanding that somebody, somewhere do the work.
Somebody else, that is. And as we know, the people who always end up
contributing most in these international aid situations are those in the world’s
prosperous capitalist nations that have aided mankind in myriad ways, while Bono
and his buddies in the entertainment industry all are card-carrying
anti-capitalist socialists...
Yet what do these rock stars declare about the
rest of America? They say: “Hey, man, aren’t you glad America is not just a
bunch of boring businessmen, that there’s people like us around, yeah, man, like
wow…” To which the rational mind can only reply: “Thank God for the ‘boring’
people who keep the nation running.”
A startlingly high proportion of Hollywood films
are based in one way or another on violence, including guns, guns and more guns.
Denzel Washington was praised to the heavens for his 2002 Academy Award for
Training Day. It was a violent film,
because liberals embrace violence and intolerance for their own ends:
Abortion,
third-trimester abortion (which literally is
killing a child instead of birthing him or her), euthanasia,
assisted
suicide, violent and nihilistic films and rock music, defense of criminals and
terrorists, union violence, organized crime, anger between the sexes, harassment
and intimidation of Republicans at universities, in cities and in other Democrat
strongholds like public schools and in the workplace, and on and on and on.
At the same time, the left-wing
Again,
this split personality is possible because the socialist mind suffers from
manic-depressive swings, saying one thing one day and the exact opposite the
next. And it will say anything at any time to do one thing: Contradict manly
rationality. These elites should exercise their peaceful desires through direct
professional restraint instead of political activism. But they never will. They
hide their love of violence behind their public personas in which their glibness
and their show-biz facade are used to convince gullible people that they are
peace-loving people.
Entertainment equals emotion. Those in Hollywood who make entertainment are weak people who
are driven by their emotions
Actor Danny Glover starred in violent
Lethal Weapon films then proclaimed
that because of racism, he, as a black male, could not get a cab in
Glover then went to communist Cuba in December
2002 to pay homage to dictator Castro and told audiences there that violent
films were being urged by President Bush’s administration to foment war in Iraq.
This is from a guy who made millions starring in violent movies himself. This is
classic dementia, delusion and denial from a true
Wes Craven’s
Scream films were directly linked to
three teen murders in
And it works from inside the brain out, just as
all leftist degradation corrupts from within to wear down and consume the
productive, positive souls who have made the world worth living in. At the same
time, of course, no
At the same time, wimpy feminized males (Alan
Alda, Sam Waterston etc.) are portrayed as heroes. That’s why real men don’t
watch this stuff.
Woody Harrelson is a radical tree-hugger who was
made famous by his role as a psychopath in
Natural Born Killers in which he
killed…well, humans. NBK was the film that inspired the 1999 Columbine High
massacre while Harrelson’s real-life biological father was sentenced to two life
terms in 1982 for the 1979 contract murder of federal judge John H. Wood who was
widely known for his tough stance against criminals. So… like demented father,
like demented son.
Study after
study has shown that media violence is the leading instigator of real-world
violence in
“People want this”
is what the entertainment industry says about its product. But if people are not
inclined to watch decent fare, why is there so much passion for, say,
competitive sports? Why do people struggle in their personal lives to distance
themselves from violence and depravity? Why do
Jeopardy, cooking shows,
home-decorating shows, The Travel
Channel, C-SPAN and
ESPN report ever-increasing viewership while the networks recede?
Because people are rejecting the violence and
stupidity of the mainstream entertainment industry which churns out endless
hours of nonsense limited not by what is rational or real, but only by what
their increasingly corrupted imaginations can contrive. It is not meaningful and
manly. It is emotional and banal. They put their state of mind first, and the
feelings in 21st century
Yet at the same time that this elite is
privately disdaining people that they consider to be the knuckleheads of
Heartland America, they are pandering to them not with anything enlightening but
with the lowest possible denominator of entertainment, which comes from writers,
producers and actors who themselves lack intelligence and enlightenment while
thinking of themselves as superior. This is a big lie that they tell themselves
to prop up their own tormented self-image. And while they are parading across
the red carpet giving each other endless awards, the Hollywood elite suffers
from an extreme insecurity. Just watch an actor ramble on about how endlessly
wonderful he or she is, with a suffocating dose of ‘
On the other hand, a real man need not explain
himself or act ‘cool’ because he already is ‘cool.’ He knows what he knows, and
he does not care what others think. Real men roll their eyes when
Entertainers know their lot in life. They know
it’s fluff. “I’m just an entertainer” is a common lament. Robert Mitchum fled
his first theatrical experience calling it “unmanly”.
By nature, actors have no strong personal
identity and thus they are highly susceptible to manipulation.
One of the central disciplines of acting is to ‘live in the moment’ which also
is a tenet of socialism – to think only about yourself, and only in the
emotional moment. An actor’s whole identity is based on what people think about
him, not on what strength and wisdom is inside him. The actor’s outward
appearance is crucial, as outward appearances always are crucial to the
socialist mind.
The nickname for
Anyone familiar with actor training knows that
it is a juvenile endeavor. The whole process of play-acting is juvenile – the
costumes, the fake accents, putting on airs, phony emotions. There’s an old
saying about actors: The dumber they are the better. Thus actors make perfect
socialists, with their shallow existences, yearning to be somebody, anybody. And
just as actors hide behind their professional masks, they also hide behind, and
cling tenaciously to, their socialist feel-good causes to garner authenticity.
Throughout history, the court jesters have been
locked in the basement and brought out only for the party. Anyone who has passed
through high school knows that the ‘theater people’ are flaky, frivolous and
superficial persons. But today the
Elizabeth Taylor – alcoholic, drug addict, seven
marriages. Michael Jackson – child molester, crackpot. Ozzy Osbourne – drunk,
drug addict. His son is an addict too. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin – dead from
drugs, alcohol. Chris Farley, John Belushi – dead from drug overdoses. Robert
DeNiro – violent mobster films are his specialty; he gets to act ‘cool’. Martin
Scorcese – makes the violent films that DeNiro stars in. (Scorcese’s
ultra-violent film Taxi Driver, starring DeNiro, inspired John Hinckley
Jr. to attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in March 1981.) Lindsay
Lohan, Drew Barrymore – teen alcoholics. Rosie O’Donnell – bully, angry lesbian,
‘sad clown’, always on the attack.
Alec
Baldwin – says
This is just a small slice of what we know. Just
imagine what we don’t!
This trend also can be seen in the increasing
legitimization by secularists of Halloween among adults. What is Halloween but
another opportunity to be drawn away from your true self into a child-like
fantasy world?
The leftists who control
What is crucial to the fulfilled life and to
the building of a durable culture is for people to feel self-confidence, inner
peace and strength from within, not from without.
One of the prime reasons Muslim extremists hate
Typically, the tiny minority of Hollywood actors who are Republicans are the
only ones who have been successful at moving on and taking elective office –
first and foremost President Ronald Reagan; then California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger; Fred Thompson (US Senator from Tennessee); Sonny Bono and Fred
Grandy (both US House of Representatives); 1930s song-and-dance man George L.
Murphy (US Senator from California (1965-71)); and Clint Eastwood (mayor of
Carmel, California). Why? Because only an authentic man can see acting for the
silly craft it is, and he is not consumed by it. And only Republicans have the
courage and convictions, personal confidence and inner security to leave acting
behind and tackle the world’s issues. The leftist activists who make up the bulk
of
When
you hear these Tinseltown Twinkies like George Cloo-less or Brad Pitt-iful say
they are “thinking about” running for office, it is just their actor persona
fantasizing about a script, and imagining a mature, significant life beyond
their false, child-like world. It is just another performance. They’ll never do
it. They will never risk their carefully crafted images to take on the world’s
real issues. They are too weak and fearful.
Along with everyone else, young, single females
are bombarded by this media and they absorb it. Media bombardment is aimed
primarily at passive and weak people who need to be entertained and informed
every minute for lack of any substantive and manly interest in the world’s
affairs. And each has a vote.
At the same time, these females may have fathers
who are weak and vacillating, unwilling to express any manly influence for fear
of being tagged a sexist. Or perhaps he is not even around, having run away from
his responsibilities in 1960s feelgood style. Or perhaps he has taken up with
yet another female far away, salving his hurt girlish soul. Perhaps he was a
‘hippie’ and cannot or will not recognize that life for what it was – an empty
pursuit of hedonism. Therefore he cannot tell his daughter how to behave because
he did not know himself. After all, “I did it.”
Or perhaps he has become a member in good
standing of the permissive ‘non-judgmental’ culture that has no opinion about
any action that liberal and permissive people may take. In other words he lives
in fear of ‘non-judgmental’ liberals’ judgment if he makes a judgment.
So indeed many single females begin to hold dear
socialist values and never question them. But these females will see the world
completely differently once they marry and produce children in a loving home. A
female truly becomes a woman when she outgrows her youthful self-absorption and
insecurity, usually under the guiding hands of good parents and a decent husband
who respects her and whom she respects, and through her children whom she loves
and who is loved by her children. This is why leftists seek to break down the
family – so that socialists can shower females with superficial adulation (a
job, for instance) that is tied to a political agenda.
The
act of procreation is the act of rebirth. One is born all over again with the
birth of one’s own children, and then grandchildren.
It is a life-sustaining act. The birth and nurturing of children represents the
most complete human transformation of all – spiritual, intellectual, emotional
and physical. It takes you away from your own adolescent self-importance. Thus
socialists have made out children to be a burden (encouraging childlessness,
abortion, birth control, divorce, day care) in an intentional effort to separate
people from the eternal life cycle and to dispirit them, to prepare them for
socialist schemes ‘to make the world a better place’.
At the other end of the manic-depressive spectrum, however, poor, single and
illegal females are encouraged to have as many children as they desire, so as to
create more dependency and increase socialist power through government.
But in a strong, “centered” relationship, a good
woman becomes a partner to a good man and he becomes a partner to her. The
family is by nature a conservative entity that watches out for itself. Like
individual building blocks, families interlock to make a strong society. If each
block is weak, the society is weak, which is why leftists try to undermine males
and females before they get to the family stage. Again: Since their leftist
ideology has failed, they are angry and need to target the things that have made
the West successful.
And
while feminists have been telling females that men and children will shackle
them, why do conservatives not tell strong men the same thing about having a
family? After all, why do men want children? Or a wife? Does not marriage
constrict men’s freedom to pursue the meaningful aspects of life?
The answer is that conservatives in fact
encourage men to get married and have families, to do what is ‘right,’ to lead
the way to a fruitful existence. The conservative creed urges men and women to
be productive and alive in every possible way; to do the responsible things
because they ultimately will give satisfaction and meaning to life; to be
self-reliant; to produce and protect a family and revel in its joys because this
is the most natural and enlightening state for a man and woman to enter; and
finally to savor his children as a connection to the world.
Humans
need the comfort of others to survive. Socialism has driven the sexes apart and
has created voids in the lives of millions
To commit to marriage and children is the opposite of the ‘hippie’
culture of pleasure and narcissism, and thus will provide the basis for a
righteous and meaningful life, as opposed to a superficial life that in the end
is a lie.
It is obvious to the rational mind that the
family is the ideal unit on which to build society and produces the kind of
inner peace and emotional stability that is needed to survive the buffeting
winds of the world. Married people are happier and healthier. Their children are
better adjusted. And even if you lose everything else, you’ve still got your
family.
The creation of a family is an act of love.
People who dislike themselves will not have children or will not savor them
because children represent an extension of oneself. Thus liberals, who suffer
extremes of doubt and/or self-anger, statistically have fewer children
(feminists, academics, environmentalists, homosexuals, lesbians, actors,
urbanites).
People who divorce suffer emotionally. Their
children suffer confusion. But media bombardment shows the sexes divided, and
divorce reigns. Many, many people on TV shows are divorced, apart, alone,
single, confused, weak, wondering or are sleeping around.
Even in the most basic financial sense, marriage
wins. The poverty rate among single
people is four times that of married people because being single is part of the
slothful persona that shuns responsibility in favor of the non-committal path.
Divorced people know the costs of being newly alone: Two rents, two electric
bills, two phone bills, two trips to the grocery store. Thus divorce in fact
makes people poorer and more likely to see the government as an important
economic support.
As well, the ‘single mother’ phenomenon
advocated by the socialist left is one of the most disastrous trends in history.
Single females, with or without children, statistically have a lower standard of
living, and even are six times more likely to be victims of crime than are
married women. Their lives are harder. There is more chaos as one person tries
to do the job of two, often on one income. Children of single mothers are more
likely to suffer emotional problems – their minds are disrupted by often not
even knowing who their fathers are. This robs them of a strong personal identity
which weakens them more than they will ever know. And the mothers are
more likely to suffer emotional insecurity, loneliness and fear, and to approach
old age with anxiety. They are more likely to come to rely on the government for
financial survival. All these factors make single mothers ripe for socialist
manipulation.
Socialism always excuses and exonerates
behaviors that rational, productive citizens oppose, like single motherhood.
Then when those behaviors cause major problems and cost society financially,
those same productive citizens are taxed to fix them.
So today millions of intelligent, capable single
females along with their male counterparts never will marry or have children,
and will live unfulfilled lives because they swallowed whole the unrelenting
anti-man, anti-family drumbeat of the ‘leftist’ (inept, awkward, sinister) media
and feminist dogma. They swallowed it when they were young and it got inside
their brains.
Eventually, however, most career females come to
realize what men have known for millennia, and they may feel really stupid for
not having known it: That work is actually work. Work is not fun. Work is toil.
It can be rewarding, but for the most part it is toil. Yet no feminist ever is
allowed to admit that work is unpleasant because this would crack the façade of
happy, toiling feminists, creating a better world. Meanwhile, increasing numbers
of women, and particularly mothers with young children, are quitting their jobs
whenever they can (for instance, if their husbands have good jobs) or deep
inside wish they could.
Now imagine a female forgoing the joy,
satisfaction and emotional security of family life just to go to
work. Her
paycheck is no solace
for a lonely heart and a lifeless home, while her work habits have made her
newly eligible for heart attacks, strokes and ever more depression. Sadly, many
of these new old maids keep up the feminist/socialist front to keep themselves
from the emotional abyss of acknowledging the emptiness of their lives. Or
simply to avoid facing their own gullibility.
And while there certainly have been childless
people throughout history who have lived good lives, childlessness has been
considered negative in most cultures. But this is further fodder for socialists
because childless people are less likely to be well-adjusted and are subject to
emotional manipulation. Just take a personal poll of how many morose people you
know and note how many of them are single or childless. It will not surprise
you.
The
At the same time conservatives are accused of
‘holding back’ women. Yet in 1896, the Republican Party was the first to
embrace women's suffrage. When suffrage was ratified as the 19th Amendment of
the Bill of Rights, it was with the support of 36 states, 26 of whose
legislatures were controlled by Republicans. Margaret Thatcher, a committed conservative, was the
first woman to be elected Prime Minister of Great Britain. Sandra Day O’Connor
was the first woman appointed to the US Supreme Court – by President Ronald
Reagan. Margaret Chase Smith of
American socialism is an offshoot of
international socialism, which is a system of thought that consistently
minimizes the historical achievements of European and American men and women in
creating what we know as civilization. It seeks to dominate nations with
socialist/political/environmental government bureaucracies that control people
through legislative action, while marginalizing or eliminating individual
initiative. Thus socialism will produce the opposite result of successful
American capitalism. Moslem, communist, black African and even many European
nations today are controlled by anti-Western elites, and they have abysmal
living standards and historical accomplishments to match. International
socialism is driven by envy of Western achievement, and has many adherents here
in the
International socialism is centered in several
groups:
Communist nations, all of which are
verifiably poor and oppressed, but always maintain the largest armies – while
socialists worldwide plead peace and tolerance. Communism is one of the ultimate
savageries in the world and it recognizes the
Communism always fails at its central mission,
however, not only because of its faulty means, but by its very premise. If a
communist says: “Follow me. I am going to make a perfect economic society,” the
strong, rational person immediately will run away. The foolish or gullible or
weak or desperate person will follow.
The
United Nations, which is a single
political body that seeks to exercise world government. A body that conducts
endless meetings, the UN has had virtually no success in influencing the world
because it produces nothing – not a barrel of oil or a yard of concrete or a
board-foot of timber. Its predecessor, the
The UN is full of bureaucratic people who do
nothing but bicker and debate, produce resolutions and demand action. It is a
blowhard organization where bureaucrats from many brutal and corrupt nations try
to tell the world how to act – as if all that the world needs is a know-nothing
leader from
Powerless since its inception after World War
II, the UN showed its real weakness throughout the 1990s by the time it had
become completely and unequivocally dominated by anti-American leftists, Moslems
and third-world despots. Following the Gulf War of 1991, it passed 16
resolutions demanding that
In 2002 congressional debates over whether to
invade
The massive Oil for Food scandal is another
typical blot on the UN: Payoff money for the United Nations while they look away
as Saddam Hussein murdered millions…
When the US House of Representatives voted in
October 2006 to authorize construction of a fence along the Mexican border,
There is one sentence that sums up the UN.
Member
The
international media are socialists
that are controlled by an anti-American axis. They oppose the progress of
Western capitalism because journalists themselves are merely writers who are
incapable of producing any of the wealth, art, literature or technology that has
made the West the world’s leader. It includes the mainstream American media. And
while many in the international media are caucasian, their anti-Western stance
comes out of guilt over American success, and irrational rage.
So they endlessly pursue one goal: To first
disseminate the idea, then to convince millions of people that the whole world
hates
Typically, a 2002 Boston University study called
Attitudes and Beliefs by Teenagers in 12
Countries showed that many of the negative opinions about America among
young people overseas are the direct result of…
get this… leftist
American media portrayals, disseminated all over the world through movies, rock
music and TV, of the United States as a violent, dishonest and depraved place.
So media lefties themselves are creating a negative view of
But international travelers and business people
know that most people overseas consider the real
If
capitalist
They welcome Americans into their lands and into
their homes. American technology is adapted wherever and whenever it can be.
Fifty million people in
The
international environmental movement
is yet another arm of international socialism. It only uses environmental issues
as a wedge issue against the capitalist West. It ignores ecological degradation
caused by its own policies; and ignores pollution in presently and formerly
communist nations, and in other anti-Western nations.
For
instance, ecologists have been claiming that their unproven theory of ‘global
warming’ is destroying the earth’s climate. Major contributors to so-called
global warming are coal-burning electricity-generating powerplants which emit
carbon dioxide, which is said to cause this ‘warming’. So the
Nuclear energy indeed is the ‘miracle’ power
source that the world needs. But American environmentalists are so psychotically
and irrationally terrified about radiation that for now, nuclear plants will not
be built and coal-burning power plants will continue to pour carbon dioxide and
other pollutants into the air. In other words, enviro policies are the
leading avoidable cause of so-called ‘global warming’!
But not to worry. Nuclear power will come back
into vogue because Americans have become aware of enviro fear tactics.
Clean
Air, Energy
Environmentalists have halted the construction
of nuclear power plants in the
The massive power shovels, long-wall miners,
conveyor belts and behemoth trucks used in mining this coal consume billions of
gallons of fuel every year, and pollute the air. The trains that transport the
coal are heavy and slow-moving, and their locomotives use more billions of
gallons of fuel per year, also causing air pollution. When this coal is burned
in power plants, hundreds of millions of tons annually of carbon dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, mercury etc. pour into the atmosphere, which environmentalists
insistently lament yet which their own policies have caused.
This environmental degradation is completely
unnecessary. All of these coal-burning power plants can and should be converted
to nuclear energy which produces no air pollution, only small amounts of
radioactive waste, and which requires thousands of times less environmental
displacement, energy use and air pollution than that which is associated with
mining and moving more than 1 billion tons of coal every year.
That 1 billion tons of coal then can be
converted into 2 billion barrels of gasoline,
providing 60% of our current annual gasoline demand, keeping energy dollars here
at home and increasing our energy independence dramatically, while eliminating
the consumption of billions of gallons of fuel needed to power tanker ships
bringing oil from afar.
Another advantage: If American railroads were to
clear their tracks of the 200 heavy, slow-moving coal trains that enter their
system every day, the railroads would operate much more efficiently, and would
be able to move other freight in such expeditious manner as to remove millions
of truck shipments from our highways every year.
See how environmentalism has caused a chain of
events that squanders our natural resources?
Natural Gas for Electricity: Another Bad Enviro Idea
Among all the bad
ideas that environmentalists have foisted on us, none is worse or more wasteful
than burning natural gas in huge quantities as a fuel source in “thermal” power
plants.
In order to prevent
the pollution caused by the coal-burning power plants that environmentalists
have forced us to deploy, they themselves have since required us to build plants
that burn natural gas as a “thermal” source for 20% of our electricity. Since
gas burns clean, they say we should use it to keep pollution low. This is yet
another terrible idea.
First, consider the
gift of natural gas. With very little refinement, natural gas is a versatile,
clean fuel that you can burn in an open flame in your kitchen without any ill
effect. (Try that with coal, charcoal, wood, gasoline, kerosene etc.) Millions
of homeowners use natural gas to cook, heat hot water and warm their houses.
Many industrial applications use natural gas because it is clean and efficient
and can be turned on and off instantaneously, and carefully modulated.
So as enviros urge
the construction of natural-gas-fired power plants, they are moving us to use a
highly-refined resource (natural gas) to create another more highly-refined
resource (electricity), when in fact we should be using nuclear reactions to
provide the heat source since nuclear reactions have few applications outside
the electrical generating field. So feeding precious natural gas into a power plant is
the equivalent of “feeding caviar to your horse”.
Thus we now are
annually diverting trillions of cubic feet of natural gas into power plants and
burning it up unnecessarily, requiring the construction of thousands of miles of
underground pipelines to connect the power plants to the gas sources (obviously
a major environmental disruption), and using huge amounts of electricity to pump
the gas (another wasteful use of energy). All this could be avoided by using
nuclear power.
Diverting large
amounts of gas into power plants also has the negative effect of raising prices
for other users of gas. It is a matter of supply and demand, because the power
plants are putting a huge and unnecessary demand on gas. So homeowners and
industries are paying more and more for gas, while the media wonder why the
price is going up. The answer is simple: Enviro policies are causing the price
to rise.
We must convert
these power plants over to nuclear energy to “conserve” natural gas and
stabilize prices for the people and industries that use it. Which begs the
question: Why do environmentalists resist “conservation” in cases when it really
makes sense, and where it works?
The “Efficiency Paradox”
Environmentalists
are forever sticking their noses into everything. And making things worse.
As socialists
always propose extremes of ideas that produce negative consequences, like giving
away trillions to “the poor” without question while ruthlessly taxing the
productive citizens of
Consider their
insistent calls for “energy efficiency” in cars, home appliances etc. “If SUVs
get higher gas mileage, the energy problem will be solved,” they say. But
efficiency is a paradox.
Here’s why: Imagine
if every automobile in
Then enviros go to
the other extreme of their regulatory zeal, using their political muscle to
restrict our energy supply in every way possible: No oil drilling in
Obviously, both
extremes of environmentalism produce the wrong results. We should simply allow
our economy, which always is improving itself naturally, to find energy and
produce cars and home appliances that serve the needs of the American people,
without interference from the intellectuals who run the ecology movement, the
people who produce nothing but words.
Environmentalist fear of nuclear radiation is
fiction. Consider this fact: On
“About a month after the A-bomb was
dropped, the city gradually returned to normalcy. People who escaped to the
suburbs began to come back one by one…”
“According to foreign news dispatches,
Since 1945
Now the same ecologists are telling us that
mankind will be destroyed if we build more nuclear power plants to generate
electricity. This is an outright lie. Nuclear power is the most efficient form
of electrical production in existence today. Yet these enviros have been trying
to block the completion of a nuclear waste disposal site at
So how has the city of
Because radiation is not even remotely as dangerous as it has been portrayed,
that is why. If you drink gasoline it will kill you too, but if you handle it
properly it is harmless. Petroleum is one of the most useful resources available
to mankind. That is why leftists denigrate petroleum production and anything
like it, including nuclear power. It is to condemn mankind’s progress and to
inflate their own deflated self-images, to coax fear and uncertainty to the
surface.
At the same time, it is an established fact that
many more Americans die every single year in house fires started by wood-burning
stoves than have died in the whole history of American nuclear power generation
(virtually zero deaths)!
This
nightmare scenario about radiation is part of the environmental movement’s
endless string of lies and misrepresentations that are intended to slow and even
halt
Nuclear power is safe. Spent radioactive
fuel rods even are submerged in simple tanks of water to store them
safely. It is environmentalists themselves who are dangerous to your health.
They play upon your fears and plant uncertainty in your mind. Emotional distress
can do great damage to the human body and spirit.
Meanwhile, 9,000 American homes are damaged or
destroyed annually in fires started by woodburning stoves, without a single peep
of indignation from ‘caring’ socialists and ecological leftists. So nuclear
power statistically is infinitely safer than woodburning stoves.
The
massive blackout of
The
international intellectual class
is yet another arm
of international socialism. Academia once represented an impartial study of the
world as we know it, but now has become dominated by atheist anti-Western
anti-capitalists and intellectual feminism.
The
international ‘peace’ movement,
which cares about ‘peace’ only selectively. It actually is a leftist/communist
political movement that uses ‘peace’ advocacy only as a tool against the
A
nonproductive international political class
also represents
socialism. It is dominated by career
politicians from all over the world, and particularly from backward third-world
nations who criticize
The upshot is that
“Anger is
cruel and destructive, but is nothing compared to jealousy.”
“A sound heart is the life of the flesh, but
envy the rottenness of the bones.”
You can experience socialist anti-American irrationality every day in the
worldwide and American media. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in 1989 ran
aground and spilled crude oil along the southern
However that same media never had noted that oil
companies had accomplished a technological masterwork in the first place by
finding and extracting oil in the extremely hostile arctic of northern Alaska;
had built an 800-mile pipeline to transport the oil to southern Alaska over
terrain that had been deemed virtually impossible to bridge; had efficiently
pumped billions of barrels of oil without incident, providing it at low cost to
make life easier for all Americans (In 2002, there were 3,739 oil rigs safely
pumping oil in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.); and had developed all of the
20th century technologies to produce cleaner energy. Yet these are
the same leftists whose animal-rights allies call it a miracle when a gorilla
kicks a beachball through a hoop.
Environmental organizations largely are based in cities and/or are largely
funded by urban and suburban contributors who choose to live in man-made
environments far from nature
As well, the media never have revealed that
these same oil companies once had sought to build a pipeline to carry oil from
southern
The
Exxon Valdez was an accident, but the media covered it as if it were
intentional. Yet in 1991
Why? Because Hussein was not associated with
Western capitalism, the target of international socialist ire. After all,
So it is simple to see that the so-called
environmental movement is not even necessarily concerned with the environment.
It is often simply an anti-capitalist political movement that uses ecological
issues as a tool to charge the
At the same time, there is little or no value in
all the innovations that environmentalists themselves have promised will make
the world better. Electricity-generating windmills would need to dot every
mountaintop in the nation to contribute significantly to the energy supply, and
have been opposed in many cases by enviros themselves. (Huge windmills proposed
for the ocean off
And the biggest enviro shibboleth of 2007 is the
idea that ethanol (alcohol) fuel made from fermented American corn is going to
save us. Because there is a huge debate about whether ethanol even makes energy
at all. Many energy analysts are saying that the energy produced by ethanol does
not even equal the amount of energy needed to produce it (needed to power
tractors and harvesters, to make fertilizer and to run the distilleries that
make ethanol)! Go ahead, look it up on the web. And the diversion of huge
amounts of Midwestern corn to alcohol production already is pushing up food
prices in the US because corn is a major feedstock for our cattle and hogs. And
is lowering corn exports to poor nations where people rely on corn and grains
for their basic diets, pushing up the cost for their survival.
That this debate over ethanol even exists is
like a roadside warning sign: IRRATIONAL PEOPLE AT WORK. And the very idea that
ethanol requires big government subsidies should be an alarm bell.
Building systems of energy production
that actually function economically takes time, money, patience, risk,
intelligence, common sense, concentration and effort. Criticism is easy. Talk is
cheap. Tearing things down is simple. Look at how easily ignorant third-world
terrorists brought down the World Trade Center, a structure they never could
have conceived or built even if they had 1,000 years to do it.
Socialism
Causes Poverty
If you are acquainted with a passionate liberal,
you know that their arguments are emotional and superficial. If they see a poor
person they say “help him” or “give her money.” There is no rational analysis
about why that person may be poor, or whether he or she has brought the
condition upon himself or herself. Liberals just want instant gratification (a
feminine trait) and they love to employ anecdotal evidence (details, another
feminine trait) to buttress their case, telling stories about this person and
that misfortune without regard for the ‘big picture’ (the manly way) of how we
should conduct ourselves in order to maintain a durable, growing culture.
The media and homeless advocates always demand
that we ‘care about’ those less fortunate. And we do;
This is why the poor and homeless have come to
exempt themselves from the healthy citizenship of caring about the common good
-- because their liberal allies have urged them do so. Thus it is obvious that
leftists and the media have torpedoed common sense. They would have us basing
our social policies on the needs, and even the whims of the nonproductive
classes rather than on the real needs of the productive ones.
Many people actually choose to be poor and we
should do nothing for them. Everyone knows somebody who simply refuses to shape
up or who wishes to remain poor rather than doing the hard work to improve
himself. There are millions of them in
Now look at the typical homeless population: A
large percentage of homeless people are mentally ill. They formerly were kept in
state institutions. Beginning in the late 1970s, however, liberals began to
demand that these people be set loose as part of the free-the-people poetry of
the wacky left. So in fact many homeless people simply are crazy and cannot care
for themselves.
Conservatives never believed these people should
have been set free. Common sense says that these people are not capable of
taking care of themselves. But soon after states began shutting down mental
institutions, the homeless of the early 1980s quickly became the ‘Ronald Reagan
homeless’, victims of a cruel capitalist plot, according to media spin.
Soon the leftist ‘homeless advocate’ was born,
with even more irrational ideas about how to deal with a crisis caused by other
socialists. This is part of the vicious cycle that the left creates and
propagates.
Socialists proclaim that you should judge a society by how it treats its poor.
But rational people know that you should judge a society by how it treats its
productive
citizens because they are the ones who determine
the society’s overall well-being
The remainder of the homeless population
consists of lazy bums; alcoholics and drug abusers; and people who genuinely
have fallen on hard times. The bums should be ignored. Those who have fallen on
hard times can be helped and usually are willing to cooperate, and we should
offer prudent aid, private and public. And while some alcoholics and drug
abusers truly seek to end their dependence, many are weak narcissists who care
only about their own pleasure and phobias. Thus they are cultivated and given
cover by socialists who describe their condition as a ‘disease’ rather than a
human weakness which must be overcome by personal inner strength. Even people
deemed mentally ill often use that as a cover simply to get what they want, and
to control other people. Strengthening the weak (nonproductive people) and
weakening the strong (productive people) is the bread-and-butter of socialism.
Many homeless people in fact are leading exactly
the life they want to lead. Their emotions swing wildly. They are obnoxious and
confrontational one moment, then, in the next they are momentarily thankful for
what you are giving them – for free. You cannot get them to work hard, follow a
schedule, go back to school or sacrifice their freedom of living on the street.
No, they want your help, maybe a free apartment, but not your good advice.
The media love to play up stories about homeless
misery and to use them like props. Then soup kitchens are established to help,
which is a good thing up to a point. But liberals go overboard, creating an
entire ‘soup-kitchen culture’ to make themselves feel good, where they can
volunteer and anoint themselves as superior. Then every Thanksgiving, on that
special day when families and friends gather to give thanks for a bountiful meal
that represents all that
(And what is Christmas but a season for more
negativity from Nagging Wife Socialists about every aspect of America:
Grim-faced liberal ‘consumer activists’ remind us repeatedly of all the
dangerous toys that will kill our children; atheists push any mention of the
Nativity out of the public square in a show of ruthless intimidation; endless
news accounts highlight every pathology and need of the poor and sorta poor;
Charles Dickens’ Christmas Carol prompts anew visions of evil George Bush
capitalism; while the left-wing media-driven Therapy Culture reminds us that
Christmas is not a time to savor our joy in our spiritual roots, but a period of
stress, overeating, financial ruin, social faux-pas, inappropriate gifts and an
extra dose of depression for those who lack the family structure that socialism
long ago deemed extraneous. Happy Holidays!)
Conservatives believe in one simple idea: That
we must not be drawn in by negativity, and that there should be some
help for some homeless and other poor people who actually wish to help
themselves, primarily through private charities and then through some small and
manageable government programs. And if this is not enough, then it is simply is
not enough. Period.
Conservatives believe in the fair and rational
idea that the deserving poor must meet you halfway, to prove their intentions.
Socialists, on the other hand, believe we must greet them, usher them into our
lives, and offer them food and beds and endless sympathy, no questions asked.
This is intended to entrench liberal government power over the poor. And the
taxpayer!
Alas, even leftist
Liberals’ ideas for helping poor people always
are rooted in the ideologies of the political left which first do not work, and
second hold that that poor person is not responsible for his or her condition.
Yet this latter proposition is true in a completely backhanded way that liberals
would find incredible if they bothered to analyze it. Because while they are
claiming that socialism solves poverty, in fact it is causing it. For instance
if you give people endless welfare payments, you make them lazy and you destroy
them. Destroy their incentive to improve themselves and they are gone.
Leftists have insisted for years that men are
not necessary to the family structure. So if females have children without
fathers, both mother and children statistically will end up in much higher rates
of poverty, the same poverty liberals insistently lament. Single motherhood,
encouraged by liberalism, is the primary source of preventable poverty in
Encourage kids to take drugs, and many will fail
as adults. Relentlessly tax productive citizens, as leftists always do, and
those citizens will lose their independence and optimism and will sink
economically. Put people in public housing and they will not care about it the
way they will care for their own private home. Excuse criminal activity and
neighborhoods will decline into chaos. Allow failed public schools unbridled
power over poor children and the kids will grow into failed adults.
In truth, the poor in a wealthy country like
Like Bill Clinton and Al Gore,
For a clear picture of the situation, all one
need do is compare the well-being of people under doctrinaire communism – in
which socialist economic policy is unchallenged, with the government controlling
all institutions including factories, banks, communications and the like –
versus life in capitalist nations. In fact, communist nations are always poor.
The people of the
But their economy collapsed and starvation set
in soon after the communists took power in 1917, and the nation never recovered.
Throughout the 20th century, Soviet citizens waited in lines for basics like
bread and soap, never mind meat. In the meantime, the West was sprouting
supermarkets full of every kind of fresh, safe, abundant and cheap food, all
provided through the private-enterprise system. The
Yet neighboring South Korea, with the same
people separated by only a border line, today is a free republican nation with
18 times the per-capita income of the North, a standard of living as high as
America’s, and factories that produce automobiles, electronics, ships and
machine tools that rival any produced anywhere in the world. Satellite images
taken at night show
Communist China has been corrupt, poor, backward
and oppressed, and only is being saved by adopting modern capitalism. Meanwhile
the free, republican, capitalist island nation of Taiwan – created by Chinese
fleeing communism when it was established in mainland China in 1949 – has a
living standard and open democratic institutions to match any nation in the
world today, and produces goods and technologies that rival the world’s finest.
(Note: Free
Communist nations use military force and even
build walls like the Berlin Wall to keep their people in. Capitalist
nations need to use border police to keep a flood of hungry immigrants out.
Open any authentic history book and read the
truth. Then you decide.
Rewriting
History
Leftists are not content with offering their
opinions on what is happening or what should happen. They even love to rewrite
history in their own image.
A telling story appeared on the liberal
But the
Lewis &
Clark were daring men. Liberals are risk-averse
This particular reporter minimized such a grand
achievement because leftists embrace a ‘culture of defeat’ that is embedded in
the uncertain, fearful psyche. It rules that the myriad achievements of
Euro/American Christian societies are dubious. Confident success, like the
triumph of Western capitalism, or a fulfilled life in the suburbs with family
and prosperity, are scorned, belittled and degraded by socialists because people
who fail to achieve success are jealous of those who do, so they criticize them
in every way.
Unhappy, defeatist people wish to drag down
those who are content and productive. After all, misery loves company. In the
same vein, weak people are envious of strong people; while mediocre people
despise excellence (actually they envy it, which is a form of hatred) and wish
to supplant excellence with mediocrity. This is why public education –
controlled by increasingly leftist teachers’ unions (another institution
socialism has utterly taken over) – today is moving toward mediocrity and away
from excellence. It is part of the socialist agenda and is well represented by
the bland, colorless government worker.
Thus liberals, who find it biologically
impossible to feel inner peace and joy, express uncontrolled rage toward
successful men and women, calling names and denigrating characters, while their
leaders repeatedly, day-after-day dangle various topics of anger in front of
their constituents on which those constituents can focus their cult-like anguish
(oil companies are stealing from you, Wal-Mart is evil etc.).
The mad-dog rage at President George Bush is yet
another example of the fomenting of irrational anger among weak and emotional
citizens by liberals like Jimmy Carter and John Kerry.
We all
know that soft college-professor eggheads and leftist media pontificators never
would undertake such a daring exploit as the Lewis & Clark expedition because
the female is by nature risk-averse. Liberals were not present to help open up
the American West. They came along a hundred years afterward when all the
comforts were ready for them. Liberals even trashed Christopher Columbus’
reputation following the 500-year anniversary of his bold and daring trip to
discover
Look at the way that early industrialists and
capitalists are portrayed in American ‘folklore’ (by the media and many
university historians).
The men who risked their wealth and personal
reputations to lay railroad tracks across the nation and open up the West are
deemed ‘robber barons’. Yet without them, the railroads would not have existed.
Industrialists like Andrew Carnegie are referred
to as oppressive, exploitative capitalists. Yet Carnegie’s steel mills and the
technologies incubated therein provided the basic materials for the economic
boom of the 19th century, and the 20th century industrial revolution which has
benefited billions of people worldwide. His company’s metallurgists perfected
the manufacture of steel rails which transformed railroading. And Carnegie used
his wealth to build 3,000 libraries, establish educational foundations, and to
build one of the world’s great cultural venues, Carnegie Hall in
Socialists portray the early factories in
At the same time, socialists built no factories,
laid no railroad tracks and developed no new technologies. They only criticized
the ones that existed.
Intellectual elites portray as ignorant and unsophisticated the free-spirited,
capitalist men who in fact do all the hard work of building the nation. Yet the
statistical fact is that Americans who vote Republican are better educated (not
to be confused with ‘possessing advanced academic degrees’), have more common
sense, are wealthier, more technologically adept, more motivated, have more
children, have stronger moral and spiritual values, and are happier about life
than the liberal cohort. Conversely it is a fact that uneducated people vote
Democrat by large margins. Again: When Democrats ‘win’ an election, it is with
the votes of millions of uneducated or undereducated people, many of them
dependent on the government. Without these votes, the Democrat party would cease
to exist.
The media are able to propagate a negative
stereotype about Republicans because a small coterie of intellectual elites are
unabashed liberals and they see themselves as omnipowerful, omnipresent and
superior to what they regard as the common people in the suburbs and in the
so-called ‘fly-over states’ between New York and California… you know, the place
where the products we use every day are actually manufactured. There’s an
old joke about George McGovern, the ultraliberal 1972 candidate for President
who was swamped by Republican Richard Nixon. Seeing themselves as the center of
the universe, liberals used to say: “I can’t believe McGovern lost. Everyone I
know voted for him!”
These intellectual elites are backed by a corps
of college professors and administrators. Academia historically has opened up
minds and infused wisdom, and there still is some excellent learning going on
today conducted by professors of integrity who are good at what they do. Their
role is very important. The life of the mind is a wonderful thing as long as it
kept in the context of ‘ordered reality’. Academia – and the very act of
thinking for its own sake – is part of any culture, a pondering of the culture
and its traditions if you will. And the study of history and mathematics and
philosophy and religion and literature and art is integral to Western culture,
as it has been for millennia.
Unfortunately, college campuses in
So now, a public health lesson becomes an attack
on private drug companies that make ‘obscene profits’. History is described as
the oppression of anybody and everybody by European men while ignoring conquest
by every race and nationality in every age. Literature has become a
multicultural mish-mash of anti-Americanism and radical socialism viewed through
the prism of hokey ‘artists’ from the third world. And since anything can be
made to work in theory, these contemporary academics see themselves as
infinitely capable. Ronald Reagan used to say that an economics professor is
someone who “sees something that works in practice and then tries to make it
work in theory.”
Where did all these leftists come from who today
control the universities, where conservative speakers are heckled off the stage,
where Republicans are rarely, if ever, invited as commencement speakers, and
where student newspapers on the ‘right’ side of the issues are sometimes stolen
and destroyed?
Most came out of the ‘hippie’ movement itself.
The self-indulgent ‘hippies’ were the breeding stock for the college professors
who try to dictate to the rest of the nation how, when, where and why people
should live their lives according to some utopian plan dreamed up in the
graduate schools of
The ‘hippie’ movement also produced many in the
journalist class which pontificates in the same way. Journalists are
self-anointed experts who criticize everything, but actually produce only words.
They are attracted to journalism because they do not wish to get their hands
dirty or take any risk. They come not out of industry or other productive
sectors of the American economy, but out of academia. And journalism once
represented neutral reporting, but now represents yet another institution that
has been hijacked by leftists for use as their own personal political tool.
Journalism schools today are controlled and
populated by leftists, and journalists are intellectuals. Increasingly, they are
female and feminist, and thus the worldwide media are becoming increasingly
socialistic, strident, irrational and hysterical. This is why The New York
Times has lost its former credibility; because it is controlled by
Thus journalists only can sit behind word
processors and purport to tell the world how it should conduct its business.
Journalists enter that profession in order to have a socialistic influence on
They demand better wages for all workers while
creating no wealth themselves. (The media do not create wealth. Neither do the
entertainment industry or the arts. They are services and adjuncts to the
economy that is created by capitalist growth.) They endlessly advocate tax
increases which equal wage cuts for productive workers. And they demonstrate
their manic-depressive tendencies by first painting a dark picture of society
(like the negativity in newspapers, television, movies, rock music, ‘global
warming’ etc.), then proposing utopian solutions that are merely words.
Journalists are writers, and anyone can be a
writer and say anything they want. Journalists are self-righteous people know
nothing about designing, manufacturing or fixing cars, but they write endless
critiques about every car made. They have infinite opinions about how the world
should be run because they do not have to run it. (How many journalists does it
take to run a convenience store? Ten, one to turn on the lights and nine to give
away the money in the cash register.)
The
New York Times produces zero barrels of oil, automobiles, houses,
computers, lamps, pillows, screwdrivers or doorknobs, but pontificates on all of
them. Remember the First Law of Socialism: Those who produce the least have the
strongest opinions, like the lazy ‘hippies’ who had opinions about everything.
Surveys repeatedly have shown that journalists vote more than 90% Democrat. The
reason: They are all talk, and no action.
Also,
while academics and journalists badger private companies to ‘diversify’ their
workforces by skin color and/or sex, college administrations and newsrooms
exhibit no genuine diversity at all. They are overwhelmingly leftist and liberal
right down the line. They keep real diversity at bay. Genuine diversity – where
real freedom of thought is encouraged – terrifies liberals, and they do
everything they can to kill it. They routinely revile the ‘diversity’ of thought
generated by a conservative media, in opposition to liberal media dogma.
So
imagine someone like a journalist exhibiting the socialist trait of loving to
talk while knowing nothing about building; coupled to a narcissistic self-image
as savior of the world; with access to ink and paper by the ton. This is a very
creepy combination.
There is a rising conservative voice in the
media, however, and things are changing.
By nature,
conservatives are not
passive media types. They have established a media presence for one reason only:
To counter the crises caused by relentless leftist media influence.
Conservatives find media easy to do – after all, it is just words – while
leftists never, ever could build factories and create real jobs making real
products. Thus ultraliberal females have come to dominate much of the talkative
side of American life – the media, the law, the universities, the arts and
politics – and this side has fallen into disrepute. Meanwhile, rational men
utterly dominate the productive side, where real products must actually function
in order to keep the world afloat.
College is very expensive, and with so many
professors of the socialist persuasion, you would think they would be offering
education at proletarian prices for the benefit of all the people as their
doctrine seems to say. Yet between 1977 and 2001 America’s cost of living
increased by a factor of 3 while the overall cost of a college education
increased by a factor of…
7 to 10! How can this be? Is it
not the evil pharmaceutical corporations and oil companies that gouge the public
as the professors tell us? (Fact:
American gasoline prices in 2003 were 25% cheaper than they were in 1953,
with inflation factored in.) Wouldn’t a year at Harvard in 2006 cost $15,000
instead of $50,000 if college costs rose at the same rate as products, like
gasoline, produced in the Evil Capitalist System?
Somebody’s being ripped off, are they not? So where, oh where is the media
outrage over these exorbitant college costs?
Answer: There is no outrage because the media and the universities are political
allies.
Academics say these false things about the oil
companies and capitalism in general because
it shifts the spotlight from their own greed. And it shows once again that
socialists are infinitely more obsessed with wealth than capitalists.
Are
colleges and universities the new ‘robber barons’ of
In January 2003,
Which is the opposite of the truth. Because
everything socialists claim for themselves is the opposite of the truth.
Oil
companies offer much better value to consumers than colleges do
The leftists who have commandeered our universities run them the same way
as their brethren who run the government bureaucracies. Rather than devote
resources to imparting wisdom, they charge tuition according to the maximum
income they can generate, much the way that government tries to raise as much
tax revenue as possible, then hires enough civil servants to consume it. It even
was revealed in the 1990s that elite Ivy League universities actually were
colluding on their exorbitant tuition charges. Are these not precisely
the illegal tactics that the leftists at Harvard are forever accusing
capitalists of? So it is plain to see that socialists themselves perpetrate
every wrong of which they accuse conservatives and capitalists, and they usually
do it worse and more often.
In academia today, the payroll increasingly includes so-called academic
support professionals – auditors, counselors, analysts, affirmative action
officers, grant writers and other busybodies who contribute zero to the
dissemination of wisdom, just as government agencies are padded with increasing
numbers of employees who are not involved in the actual work of those agencies.
Meanwhile, unionized clerks, janitors, food servers etc. are costing students
more and more.
From 1975 until 1985, college enrollments in
Thus college bureaucrats and professors, who in poll after poll also vote
more than 90% Democrat, work 8 months a year, often only a few hours a day, and
thus are out of touch with the people who build America every day. Pompous
academics spend their entire careers in a universe of perpetual adolescence and
among young people far outside the American mainstream. They even keep the same
schedule as school youth, and so many never subconsciously grow up.
This is key to understanding the socialism/academia connection, because
socialist thinking is pervasive when it is far away (in cities, on college
campuses, among ‘artists’ or the urban poor) from the productive entities of our
society (factories, mines, forests and farms). The farther you get from the
sources of wealth, the more you can distort the facts about wealth creation or
even deny the basics of economics. Fortunately college students today are
ignoring the propaganda. They increasingly are conservative and
Republican, and are part of the electoral shift among youth that is sweeping
Too, there is frustration just in being a
college professor, because as the old saying goes: Those who can, do; those who
can’t, teach. Some are not satisfied with their small classroom audiences so
they link up with a national and international political movement.
But these poor, overworked professors are so
worn out by their teaching schedule that they simply must have sabbaticals every
few years to relieve their stress – as if everyone couldn’t use more time off.
And through guilt over their easy lives, they have decided that everybody should
have more time off. Thus they advocate more unionism, holidays, sick pay, paid
leave and unemployment benefits.
Despite the seemingly ideal nature of their
lives, however, many academics are ruled by a pathological self-doubt and a type
of dementia because in academic theory anything is possible and thus nothing is
certain. Call it ‘disordered unreality’. This uncertainty is deep inside them
and it has a corrosive effect. Most do not even know it is there. And many
academics know the hard truth: That they are inauthentic and nonproductive
people who know nothing about the hard work that Americans do every day to keep
the nation running. So socialism appears to be the easy answer: Let the
government do it.
But “let the government do it” is code for
more socialist sloth; it relieves the
individual of the duty to make the world a better place through personal
commitment and hard work.
“Let the government do it” is the perfect
solution for the lazy college professor, the oh-so-enlightened ‘artist’, the
sanctimonious environmentalist, the actor, the do-nothing social activist etc.
or their political allies, the billionaire urban slackers who have become
pathologically liberal as they avoid getting their hands dirty at honest toil,
while their charitable contributions and call for more taxes are but a payoff to
relieve their own consciences for their decadent, materialistic lives.
“Let the government do it” is code for “let
someone else do it”, just as the indolent socialist mob sits on its hands
waiting for real productive people to build the houses, drill the oil wells and
generate the electricity, while the smarmy leftist sits back in judgment of
every little detail.
Yes, indeed, let the government do it…
Imagine living in a world where anybody is
allowed to do anything they want. There would be chaos.
And there is intellectual chaos in today’s academia, where anyone is
allowed to theorize and idealize anything they want, and where socialist
irrationality and intimidation are the enforced ideologies. This atmosphere
discourages good people from teaching, and encourages clannish socialists to
hold these institutions hostage.
Idealism is targeted at weak people, like many
of today’s academics and journalists. It gives them a false sense of
authenticity. Unfortunately, idealism is not the uplifting state that it would
appear to be but is quite the opposite because the idealist never is satisfied
and suffers from ongoing delusion and disappointment. It pushes him into an
irrational pursuit, and thus he becomes disoriented and he spreads this
disorientation. He lives in an agitated state of perpetual umbrage and
indignation. He needs to be perennially enraged at something, anything. Thus
provoking a liberal idealist is the equivalent of ‘waking a cranky baby’.
Conversely, conservative men and women are
realists who know that this ideal is unattainable so they do their best for
society by being self-reliant and optimistic rather than being morose and
advocating farfetched and convoluted utopian solutions to every problem.
Capitalism Reigns
Capitalism is the only natural economic system, and is aptly suited for
the ‘active’ world of growth, jobs and productivity. It has powered all of the
successful societies in history, creating dynamic and prosperous cultures
whenever intelligent and ambitious people were open to free trade and
technology. From Ancient Greece to
Wealth is
created in one way: Through production and productivity, by taking resources
from nature that have no intrinsic economic value (a lump of coal or iron ore,
or a tree), and using technology to convert those resources into something of
value that humans desire (cars, houses, furniture etc.) Nations that do this
well are rich; nations that don’t are poor.
And the wealth of our nation, the products we
use everyday, and the food we eat,
come from five fundamental activities – mining, oil drilling, timber-cutting,
manufacturing, and agriculture (MOTMA).
MOTMA takes
place in suburban, small-town and rural
Manufacturing worldwide is ruled by the forward-thinking ideas,
techniques, processes and patents developed over the centuries by patient
European and American men.
People involved in MOTMA possess common sense
and know what hard work is. They are rational and realistic. They know that coal
does not leap from the ground; that lumber production requires the cutting of
trees; and that factory work needs energy and toil. They are the core
constituency of productive capitalism. In
Liberal socialists, on the other hand, are
passive people who live in cities and on college campuses. For the most part,
products and their wealth no longer are created in cities: Cities only
concentrate and service existing wealth, while they import products from the
outside. Without capitalist production outside the cities, there would be no
furniture to sell; no computers to plug in; no stocks to invest in; and no steel
to build skyscrapers with. So urban liberals idealize everything by dint of
their insulated lives which they choose in order to avoid getting their hands
dirty in factories, mines, forests and fields.
Urban people
are soft and pampered – just hand them a hammer and see if they know which end
of it to use. They are usually weak and self-absorbed people, and to compensate,
they often act arrogant and strong and ‘caring’. They like to portray cities as
hard places to live, but throughout history the life of ease and comfort has
been found in the cities. Much of urban life is frivolous and self-indulgent.
Urban people are highly materialistic – a feminine trait – which is to be
expected since socialism marginalizes spirituality. They are notorious for their
lack of common sense.
And since cities and college campuses are ruled
primarily by words and not actions, socialism exerts its massive peer pressure
and intimidation at every step. One slip of the tongue, one
politically-incorrect syllable will bring on the thundering rage of the
intolerant urban/academic political left. Since females are susceptible to this
intimidation while men are not, there is complete acquiescence among the minds
of people living in cities and on college campuses, lest one be exposed and
shunned. Actually, it is a state of fear: This is why conservative ideas
do not permeate cities and universities.
Meanwhile, in
unison, urban and academic elites disdain the people they call ‘hicks’ and
‘rednecks’ in small-town and rural
But here is a
hypothetical that explains everything: If America were the only nation on earth,
and if its cities and colleges disappeared, the rest of the nation would
survive. Yet if the rest of
The laws of capitalist economics are inevitable,
like all laws of nature. So rather than go outside the natural system, as
Aristotle warned against 2,400 years ago, we must use it to create the strongest
economies with the maximum opportunities for citizens.
The law of supply and demand, for instance, is
immutable. It says that prices will rise when demand for a product is high, or
when its supply is cut. Conversely it says that prices will fall when demand for
a product is low, or when the supply increases. The law of supply and demand
cannot be conquered, never has been and never will be. Throughout history
governments have attempted to tinker with supply and demand, but to no avail.
When
A growing economy is dynamic, and tinkering with
it is like squeezing a balloon: The effect always will show up somewhere. So
allowing the free market to set prices according to supply and demand is the
most natural way because it is completely flexible, while government control is
inflexible. Flexible structures can withstand the powerful forces of nature.
Stiff, inflexible ones snap easily.
Another natural law is that economic activity is
produced by private enterprise coupled to low rates of taxation. The converse is
that economic growth is hampered by increasing taxation and by government
regulations. These laws have been true throughout all of recorded time. Open any
history book and read the truth.
The overwhelming majority of wealth creation in
Yet the heart of socialism is taxation. This is
the primary way liberals control people, because socialism is a system of
controlling the lives of productive people with plans dreamed up by
unproductive people (college
professors, journalists, bureaucrats, social workers, academic planners). They
take your money away and then set up programs to ‘help’ you. But common sense
asks: Why take the money in the first place?
Capitalists criticize socialists, while socialists criticize capitalists. The
difference is that capitalists produce the wealth of the nation while socialists
only analyze and criticize
Again: Socialism only is a system of governmental control that creates
zero wealth. Therefore the socialist must appropriate wealth from those who
create it. That is why socialism and taxation are inexorably linked, and why
liberals oppose tax cuts every time.
Since
the socialist is spending someone else’s money, it is obvious that the socialist
is going to care little about the amount of money he spends because first, it is
not his own money; second, it makes him feel emotionally fulfilled to spend it;
and third, it is done for his/her aggrandizement, political power and/or job
security. This is classic socialism, and explains why it spirals out of control.
It is based on selfish needs and emotions. Socialists are like females with
their husbands’ credit cards. The more they spend, the nuttier they become. And
their spending is a deep psychological addiction that is disconnected from
reality.
Imagine two shopping malls, one next door to the other, both selling the same
merchandise at the same prices. If one mall charges sales tax while the other
does not, common sense tells you which will see all the economic activity. So
obviously the theories of socialism run contrary to basic reality.
One of the forces that greatly exacerbated the
great depression of the 1930s was President Herbert Hoover bowing to public
pressure in the wake of the stock market crash of October 1929. When revenue to
the government fell as business slowed,
The main cause of the depression, however, was
public pressure to adopt high taxes (also known as tariffs) on imports through
the 1930 Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. This was intended to protect American jobs
from imports by making the imports more expensive. As a Republican,
Hawley-Smoot had support from a panicked public,
however, was signed into law, and began killing trade and American jobs, and
harming the economies of countries that sold goods into the
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt then
tried for eight years from 1933 to 1941 to stimulate
Tariffs and other protectionist measures are a
staple of socialist policy to protect jobs, when in fact their bigger result is
to reduce overall employment while protecting select groups of workers.
Socialist policies caused, entrenched and
prolonged the economic depression of the 1930s.
When President Ronald Reagan in 1981 cut the top
tax rate for rich people from 70% to 28%, it set off an economic boom that still
was going strong in 2007. It has not been even or perfect, but has continued
strong even though the top rate had risen to 39.6% under
Conversely, Americans have been told by the media that Bill Clinton produced a
booming economy, when in fact the reality is quite different. Indeed
He raised taxes on the middle class, raised
taxes on the wealthy by 25%, and even raised taxes on Social Security
recipients(!); tried (but fortunately failed) to institute a massive socialist
health-insurance program; tried (but fortunately failed) to institute a tax on
all energy use called the ‘BTU tax’; gutted military spending; imposed
government regulation like the Family Leave Act which is extremely costly to
small business, where most new growth takes place; and allowed the flourishing
of the entire anti-growth environmental agenda.
Clinton turned a blind eye to wild corporate
corruption (Global Crossing, Tyco, Enron, Adelphia and WorldCom all happened on
his watch, but were prosecuted under Bush); presided over massive expansion of
the sue-‘em-all trial-lawyer culture which stunts private economic growth (the
infamous ‘hot coffee’ lawsuit was 1995); and even sent his own Justice
Department after Microsoft, the flagship of the new American economic
enterprise. Then the
Liberals, meanwhile, only criticize President
Ronald Reagan, who inherited extremely serious economic problems and handed off
a strong economy by the time he left office.
When he took office in January 1981, Ronald
Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter’s economy of 10% unemployment, 11% inflation and
21% interest rates. Yet by November 1984 Reagan was re-elected in a 49-state
electoral landslide not because he gave radio speeches telling people that
everything was going to be OK, but because his tax-cutting policies were
successful.
Reagan did the opposite of FDR, produced
growth and jobs, and changed the direction of the economy from negative to
positive. And in his most striking
accomplishment, President Reagan stared down the tyrannical
Academics, rich urban elites and journalists
always favor increased taxation because they then can dictate government
programs.
Wealthy urban liberals do not acquire their riches through the hard production
of goods, however. They never get their hands dirty in mining and
timber-cutting, manufacturing and agriculture, but make their money through the
manipulation of ‘paper wealth’ like stocks, bonds, insurance, banking, currency
exchanges, real estate and trade; through media, tourism, retail, advertising,
fashion and entertainment; in law (the New York City telephone book
in 2000 listed 26 pages of lawyers single spaced.); as psychiatrists, therapists, chiropractors,
acupuncturists and other inauthentic ‘professions’; and through the arts, which
once represented integrity and transcendence but today are yet another channel
for leftist vocalization.
Wealth
is created by hard work outside the cities, in the mines, the factories, the
forests and the fields, but it concentrates in cities, where people have easy,
decadent and materialistic lives. This in itself is unjust, while urban liberals
always claim to be on the side of justice.
Why
should the wealth of the nation so concentrate itself in the hands of wealthy
urban socialists?
This is a question that the ultra-rich leftists in
So
rich urban liberals think that their intellectual guile entitles them to tell
the truly productive people in the suburbs, small towns and countryside how to
live. At the same time, they are confused and tormented that they are so rich
because of capitalism, which they claim they despise.
Liberals never can seem to separate themselves
from paper – in the paper wealth of the cities; in the paperwork government
bureaucracy; as journalists and lawyers; in the endless theories that university
leftists produce, all working perfectly on the paper that they are printed on.
Paper, paper everywhere, but never a barrel of oil or a lump of coal.
But the gap between rich and poor is most
pronounced in America’s liberal cities
(remember that socialism’s first allegiance is
to the elite) and thus there is much guilt
and pseudo-guilt about what is happening in urban liberals’ own back
yard, created by their own policies.
The reason for the gap is simple:
Liberals do not really care about the poor. They only use the poor as emotional
and political pawns to attain power and make themselves feel better. So
they shift the spotlight from their urban failures and proceed on the idea that
their policies will work if they just spread nationwide.
Yet the urban poor continue to vote for the
Democrat party and its ongoing push for higher taxes because they don’t pay much
in taxes compared to the benefits they get from government programs. Vote once
every year and collect the other 364 days. It is vote-buying pure and simple.
But this is another deal with the devil because
dependence on government handouts is a ticket to nowhere. It kills individual
initiative and ultimately makes poor people weaker. It is no different than
dependency on drugs or sexual pleasure. The relentless poverty and abhorrent
behavior of many of the urban poor are sterling examples of failure.
Second, even the poor end up getting sacked in
tax schemes. Go to any inner-city store and you will see essentials heavily
taxed. Sales taxes on clothing, furniture, school supplies, laundry soap,
hardware and everything else at rates of six, seven or eight percent are
detriments to the poor. Sky-high urban real estate taxes are passed on to poor
renters. Socialists love to run lottery programs to garner revenue, while these
lotteries are patronized to an alarming degree by lower-income people who hope
to dream their way out of poverty one dollar at a time. These lotteries are
nothing more than taxation, and yet another manifestation of liberals’ false
promise that wealth can be created without work.
Never-ending taxation also chases away
productive companies and jobs, thus reducing opportunity for all.
And while vocal opposition to President Bush’s
tax reduction of 2001 was publicly targeted at the drop in rates for the top
bracket by 12%, liberals were spooked by the 33% reduction in the rate for
taxpayers at the bottom income levels. Socialists want low-income people
thinking that only liberals and government programs are going to provide for
them. If poor people see tax cuts putting more money in their own pockets, it
gives them ideas and may make them feel independent.
Productive, disciplined people are paying more
and more in taxes and wouldn’t think of living off of the government – it is not
their way. In fact there is the usual inverse proposition going on: Those who
work hardest and pay the most taxes are least likely to live off government,
while those who are least productive are most dependent. So socialists encourage
unproductive people to live off the government in order to give themselves more
power.
The progressive nature of taxation insures that
the more productive you are, the more you will be taxed. In
Thus the Democrat party does not speak for the middle class.
Yet they talk
endlessly about how the government needs more money. But when they raise your
taxes they never mention that now you have to make do with less of the money
that you yourself earned!
It’s time
for a
real
revolution!
Power to
the
productive
people!
Families that once lived on a single income back
in the 1950s and 1960s now need two incomes to maintain the same standard of
living. The big difference is the steep increase in the rates of taxation, up to
four times the level of the 1950s. And today schools are worse; Social Security
takes much more and pays out much less; families are smaller by necessity
because taxation is taking so much income; and government programs are less
efficient and give much more money to many more unproductive people than they
did in the 1950s. In other words people are working much harder than they did 50
years ago just to feed the government.
How many elderly have been driven from their
homes not by Exxon/Mobil or Halliburton but through unyielding taxation by
‘caring’ Democrats? Millions. How many small businesses and farms have had to be
sold by families to pay steep estate taxes after the owner has died? More than
we can ever count.
The simplest, most direct way to help the middle
class is to reduce their taxes and to allow them to keep the money they already
have. But socialism will not allow this because it threatens socialist power.
Last but hardly least, military spending is only
about one-third of what it was in the 1950s so you can’t blame the military for
taxation as the left always does.
So why do productive people not protest?
It’s about time they do…
20th-century industrial capitalism created the
modern middle class. Left alone, the middle class is stable, and through hard
work and discipline is able to care for itself handily. Liberals do not like
this independence, however, because they have no power over it, so they insist
on taxing incrementally and insistently to accumulate power.
A heavily-taxed middle class starts feeling
poorer because in fact it is poorer.
Relentless Democrat taxation is the single most potent force that is
undermining the independence and economic viability of the middle class in
The American Revolution was fought in
order to throw off the yoke of excessive taxation!
At the same time, a media drumbeat reminds the
citizenry that it must pay taxes as its social obligation, or that taxes are the
price you pay to live in a civilized society (a socialist slogan), to help the
poor, provide services, bridge a budget shortfall and on and on. Liberals insist
that the government is going to “invest in” education and health care, when in
fact people indeed “invest in” these very same things on their own when they are
allowed to keep their own money, and always do it much more wisely.
Where
does the tax money go? Some of it goes to legitimately run the government.
Republicans have no quarrel with this. They favor first and foremost a strong
military; defending the nation is the central function of the federal
government. Then they believe in an efficient government that spends money
wisely on the public good. And finally they believe in a last-resort safety net
for the poor and disabled.
Unfortunately, under creeping socialism
increasing amounts of tax money simply are dispersed without debate to any poor
person who wants it. These programs have ballooned in size, are wasting hundreds
of billions of dollars annually, and have done nothing to alleviate poverty.
Most have worsened poverty. That is why the Founding Fathers were opposed to
leftist collectivism and redistribution, and believed in accountable and
responsible private and religious charity.
“The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution
of the wealth), and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of
production and distribution) are as visionary and impracticable as those which
vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in
our government, unconstitutional.”
Samuel Adams, theorist of the American
Revolution
“If we can prevent the government from wasting
the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must
become happy.”
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of
the
Simply put, government handouts to “help” the
poor are an example of ‘trickle down’ economics. As much as 80% of government
money intended for the poor goes to pay the salaries, benefits and pensions of
the government bureaucracy, and to waste, fraud and abuse. The last few dollars
trickle down to the poor. Thus poor people and taxpayers would both be
much better served and would be financially better off if these programs were
handled by accountable private and religious charities as the Founding Fathers
intended.
Some revenue simply goes to unnecessary
pork-barrel projects for the aggrandizement of politicians who get credit for
those projects. Some goes to state parks and national forests, which must be
kept to a minimum. It is important to remember why private property rights are
crucial to liberty: Because if the government owns the property, the
government can tell you how to act anywhere and everywhere.
Far
too much money goes to simple waste, fraud and abuse, or to overstaffed and
unaccountable programs that the government is charged with running, but never
runs well, including no-show jobs and padded payrolls. This serves to entrench
the socialist left’s own dedicated middle class – the government bureaucracy –
and is lost to the slothful ways of the civil servant. Never for a moment think
that this is just the harmless good-old-boy/girl network. This bureaucratic
class creates no wealth; it only consumes wealth. As its power grows, it
dissipates increasingly disproportionate amounts of wealth. This is why a
rich city like
So the
question is: Are government bureaucrats the new ‘robber barons’ of American
life?
The remainder of government spending goes to the
middle class for programs that the middle class does not need except that it has
been made poorer through taxation. So you should keep your money and take care
of yourself. But since tax increases are equal to wage cuts, why do liberals
support tax increases vociferously then complain that people don’t have enough
money to live on?
Answer: Because liberals are irrational people.
Imagine taxes as blood dripping from a wound.
The first few drops don’t matter, but after a while you weaken and you need help
just to survive. If the wound is treated, you can proceed under your own power.
Meanwhile socialists bleed you to near-death then propose a transfusion…
controlled by socialists themselves.
Then think what a burden it has become just to
fill out tax forms. Liberals never talk about how much work is required just to
comply with their demands. The American tax code is 42,000 pages long, and tax
compliance requires many hours of aggravation every year. The costs are
astronomical – lawyers, accountants, H&R Block. Yet leftists are always talking
about how much they “care”, and that it is capitalists who exploit people. They
do this in order to shift the spotlight from all the extra work that socialism
makes you do.
Once the heavily-taxed middle class makes a
fateful decision to go to the government for a college loan, health insurance or
some other essential family expense, even a job, they have been ‘tipped,’ made
to feel that the government, and not their own capabilities, is their salvation.
This is an important psychological barrier in the creeping quest for socialist
coercion. A scenario of equivalent absurdity would be to send your grocery money
to the government and wait for it to send you back food coupons.
Liberals even have conditioned Americans to see
tax reductions as negative. If a person gets an increasingly rare tax cut
(always at the behest of Republicans, never Democrats) of, say, $1,000 a year,
the media have conditioned that person to scowl: “Big deal. It’s only $20 a
week, while millionaires are getting such-and-such…” In other words, they
express indignation at the glass being half-empty, rather than manly gratitude
that it is half full. This is heaped on top of all other media negativity about
the church, the family, the military, private business. Yet when taxes go up
regularly, the same people are conditioned to go along without complaint as if
this is natural – which it is to socialism. It’s a subtle, ongoing undermining
of Americans’ self-reliant character, one dollar at a time. It literally turns
them against what is good for them, which is to be expected from a system based
on an essential paradox – it creates no wealth, but wishes to commandeer all
wealth.
In
Politicians on the political left always say
that high taxes in
Lower taxes equal higher wages
Repeat: Lower taxes equal higher wages
Then when something uplifting and life-affirming indeed can be
practically free such as belonging to a Christian church, leftists do everything
they can to squelch it.
European governments even intentionally tax
gasoline to the point where it is 2-3 times as expensive as it is here in the
As Europeans have adopted more and more
socialism, they have gutted their armed forces to divert spending to feed their
growing bureaucracies. Thus they have come to expect to be saved by the manly
What has happened to
Luckily,
And even the Nobel Prize Committee, which has
been taken over by leftists and gives its honors almost exclusively to
socialists, in 2006 granted the economics prize to Muhammad Yunus of Grameen
Bank, a Bangladeshi institution that gives “micro loans” to poor women to
start their own businesses.
Yikes! Capitalism!
“Lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large
population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty”, the Committee
said.
Amen….
As taxes increase and the productive classes
find themselves poorer, the government’s bureaucratic class (a solid Democrat
voting bloc) increases in size and power. The less productive, less creative and
less motivated “paper pushers” in any society historically have been attracted
to government work. Open any history book and read the truth. You know the old
saying, “Close enough for government work.”
Don’t
be misled. Somebody’s got to run the government (the fewer, the better), and
some government workers are good people who do a decent job, particularly in the
suburbs, small towns and rural areas (Republican areas) where they are closer to
the taxpayer. And increasingly, privatization is doing the job much better and
cheaper.
But
the bigger the city, and the more stridently Democrat the environment, the more
entrenched the bureaucracy becomes. And as years have passed since World War II,
the Democrats have entrenched themselves deeper in all of American life, racking
up more and more debt and taxes to feed their government workers.
Yet
when the few conservative parts of the government actually do a great job and
indeed care about the public good – like the police,
As the
average rubber-stamp bureaucrat is pampered with a good salary, job security,
steady pay increases, bonuses, benefits, and well-funded pension plans, however,
he produce less and less. This is why communist countries, which are heavily
bureaucratic, are always poor and static.
The
bureaucrat becomes addicted to his life of ease, and his addiction grows with
age. Early retirement is a costly staple to the taxpayer of government
employment.
But
when tax money runs short, the bureaucrats kick into high gear with the only
real energy they have, executing what is known as The Washington Monument Ploy,
a strategy in which the first action of a cash-strapped government is to, say,
close the Washington Monument or cut some other highly visible or critical
service (cops, firefighters, teachers, road maintenance) in order to scare the
public into coughing up more cash. This is done so that the bureaucrats won’t
have to balance budgets by terminating lazy, unproductive and unnecessary
workers like themselves who never could find work in the real world. Again,
their last priority is the public good.
Bureaucrats love to say that they are engaged in
‘public service’, which is more leftist nonsense. Any person who works at a
productive job is engaged in public service. Thus the government bureaucrat
actually qualifies less for the title
of public servant than private-sector employees who create the nation’s wealth.
Everyone knows the bureaucrat – those glassy-eyed people who can write
endless reports, stamp piles of documents, work half-speed and live through
hours of meetings. ‘Active’ people never would stand for it: They are not
genetically suited to passivity and inaction. Yet the bureaucrat is the foot
soldier of socialism. No wonder socialism fails…
Pension plans to provide for the lackluster bureaucrat class are
proportionately the fastest-growing burdens on taxpayers in every state. The
state of
It is a statistical fact that government
employees in 2006 had the most assured and solid pensions of all American
workers. So the taxes that are being paid to fund these retirements indeed are
draining the ‘savings accounts’ and the ‘pension funds’ of the wealth-producing
private-sector workforce, are they not? It is time to retrieve some of this
money and to give productive Americans the tax relief they deserve.
Governments must begin scaling back their
endless obligations (regular and overly-generous pay increases, munificent
benefits, silver-plated retirements) to bureaucrats. Remember the
Second Law of Socialism: Take the civil servant’s salary and double it. This is
the real cost to you the taxpayer of employing that civil servant, just as your
Social Security debit is twice what you think it is (see Social Security section
later in this book).
Is the government critical to our well-being?
Well, let’s go back to November-December 1995 when the entire federal government
was ‘shut down’ for an entire month. Did it produce some massive crisis that
everyone recalls today? Was the nation irrevocably harmed?
Answer: No. Nothing changed at all. There was no
ill effect. Most Americans could not even name the year it happened.
Now just imagine that the private-sector banking
system had shut down, for just a few days. Or the private-sector telephone
system. Or the private food-distribution system. The nation would have
collapsed, and the media would have demanded an immediate government takeover.
But don’t tell liberals that the private sector is crucial while the government
is peripheral. They think they are the center of the universe, when in fact that
is the opposite of the truth.
Note: The two counties with the highest median
family incomes in
At the same time, many advanced economies are
sinking due to high taxation. When you see that the world economy is in the
doldrums, you can never expect growth or productivity in highly-taxed
Meanwhile, the doctrinaire form of socialism called communism always destroys
any potential for those nations to contribute to global wealth or even to care
for their own people. Communist nations are like people on welfare. They are
poor and you have to give them food, fuel and everything else while their
leftist leaders live in luxury and dream up new utopian plans.
European unemployment rates are chronically high year-after-year without letup.
France (9-10%); West Germany (10-11%); East Germany whose industrial
infrastructure was totally destroyed in only 40 years by communism (17%);
Australia (8-10%); Italy (12%). And these are only the official numbers. Real
unemployment is said to be higher in all these nations. Millions of
competent, intelligent Europeans may go through life never being gainfully
employed. Type ‘European unemployment’ into your internet search engine to read
more.
Any
civil-service job easily can be performed by private companies at much reduced
cost. But no productive, private-sector function could be performed adequately
by the feckless civil servant
American unemployment usually
hovers around 4-5%. Rates of 5-8% in the
Growing capitalist economies are cyclical –
always have been and always will be – and they periodically experience slowdowns
(recessions), accompanied by rises in unemployment, in order to refresh and
readjust themselves for new growth, shedding older, less-useful jobs so that
they can create new ones. Compare it to a machine that needs periodic
maintenance. Or to a marathon runner who needs to rest in between races. He
cannot continue to run full speed all the time. But if he decides to run fewer
and fewer miles – as socialists urge us to be less productive, take more
vacations, retire younger and accept more government regulation – his vigor
ultimately will wither.
The
European nations even have much lower levels of
research-and-development than the United States because taxation has drained
away capital for investment into new ideas, while ‘nanny state’ socialism has
made people fearful of the risk associated with developing new products and
technologies.
Naturally, the prime driver of economic malaise
and unemployment in
Ironically – or rather typically, considering
the backward nature of socialism – another major cause of European unemployment
is legislation that is designed to protect workers. Leftist union-mandated laws
in
Europeans even have been led think that the
answer to economic malaise is to… work less! To combat chronic unemployment,
they devise one wacky socialist scheme after another including one in which
employed people would be asked to work fewer hours
in order to allow unemployed people to come in and work the remainder. This
is nonsensical thinking that sounds as if it was concocted by a bunch of
high-school students. Which it essentially was. Manly common sense tells you
that economic prosperity is increased by people working more, not less. Then
again, socialism produces the opposite result of capitalism, and holds opinions
contrary to the truth.
Thinking that they are taken care of, people in
Sloth is yet another negative human trait that is encouraged by socialism
in order to disagree with, and undermine, successful capitalism. And it produces
the opposite result. Remember how socialism works: The least productive and most
passive citizens (welfare recipients, environmentalists, journalists etc.)
always are encouraged to become, and do become, the most disproportionately
opinionated. Therefore socialism is a downward spiral.
It is not just long vacations and excessive
taxation that encourages economic decline, but a simple acquiescence to the
passive ethic of socialism. It spirals out of control. If you ever bothered to
notice, British rock stars often take up residence in the
This is the type of society produced by
socialists. Fewer people working produce less wealth and the spiral goes down.
Work stress was cited as a leading cause of
Despite their historically capitalist economies,
anyone who deals with contemporary European businesses knows that Europeans have
become incredibly lazy. More than 100 years ago, Thomas Edison was struck by the
“absolute laziness of everybody over here” in
As expected, though,
And while Europeans are famous for acting out in
public demonstrations against Evil America or ‘global warming’, Europeans do not
seem to be protesting the economic crisis being visited on them by socialist
policies. Their political, academic and media classes are keeping their clients
agitated about issues far away, which is a standard leftist tactic. Every
European knows precisely now many Americans lack health insurance. Conversely
you never see conservative capitalists holding big demonstrations in favor of
their causes because they are too busy working to keep their lives and their
economies going.
Friedrich August von Hayek wrote in his 1944
classic The Road to Serfdom that all tyrannies from nazism to communism
spring from government control of the economic means of production by a few
people at the top of any society, either linked closely to the government
(nazism), or as part of the government (communism). By denying an economic
ownership stake in the society to those outside the elite, the elites remain
unchallenged. Market capitalism coupled to freedom creates economic opportunity,
and decentralizes and distributes wealth and economic power throughout society,
while socialism/communism simply centralizes, consumes and dissipates wealth and
then goes on to make people weak through government control of their lives. Just
look at history. Then type ‘road to serfdom’ into your internet search engine to
read more.
What about rich people?
Said Abraham Lincoln: “Property is desirable, is
a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may
become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.”
First,
there are proportionately many fewer rich people in
Second, rich people are the engines of
prosperity. It is difficult to get rich. That’s why the whole world is not rich.
People who become wealthy are more disciplined, more intelligent, more focused,
take more risk, are more inventive and creative, invest more wisely, and work
harder than people who are poor.
Third, “good” wealthy people create more wealth,
like entrepreneurs and factory owners who create jobs and products that we all
need (houses, steel, gasoline etc.). They are on the political ‘right’ and are
allied with Republicanism.
Fourth, wealth is a good thing. “Good” wealthy
people create products and jobs for their fellow man and act as role models
for others to improve their economic status. Humans gravitate toward wealth,
and away from poverty. People from poor nations try to immigrate into rich
nations. Most people wish to move up to a better neighborhood. Conversely, a
sensible person does not go into a poor neighborhood to find out how to better
his life.
Ronald Reagan’s cuts in the level of taxation of
the rich are exactly what produced an economic boom because “good” rich people
do several things with their wealth: They spend it; they invest in their own
enterprises; they invest wisely in other enterprises; or they put it in the bank
or stock market. In all cases, it is productive wealth in the private economy.
If it is taxed away, it goes to the government and is redistributed. And it has
been proven throughout history that governments spend money unwisely after
absorbing a huge chunk in maintaining the stagnant bureaucracy.
If there
are no rich people, there is no economic growth. That is why even communist
Chinese leaders finally declared that “it is glorious to get rich” – after they
noticed that communism had failed
Who are the wealthy anyway? The American media
portray them as champagne-sipping Republicans who play polo all day. But the
fact is that many people in America who would be considered even marginally
wealthy are diligent, disciplined people who have worked steadily to build
wealth methodically over a long period of time by living in one place and
owning, say, a thriving medical practice, a small chain of hardware stores, a
construction company, a popular restaurant, or a successful plastics firm with
60 employees. Small-business people make up the economic heart of your town.
They do not have billions; they may only have a total net worth of a few million
or less. Liberals call them rich simply because they are not poor.
Naturally socialists are scarce when the
successful person is just starting out, just as college professors and
journalists were hiding under their desks when Lewis & Clark were looking for
volunteers to help do the daring and dangerous exploration of the American West.
You can’t find a liberal when you are seeking private investment capital; taking
out huge loans for medical school; paying out-of-pocket for a patent; risking
your savings account to develop an invention; or working day and night to build
a business from scratch.
Persistence is a manly trait, however, and
persistent people prosper.
Once success is achieved, though, you’d better
watch out because then the socialist comes out of nowhere and sets after you
like a hunter on his prey. Suddenly you are a target for taxation; they say you
exploit people; that your children are spoiled; that your factory pollutes; your
SUV is too big and burns too much gasoline; your neighborhood is snobby; you are
living too well; you take too many vacations; and you don’t devote enough time
to thinking about the poor. Worst of all, you have attained a level of inner
satisfaction and contentment that the leftist simply despises.
Thus
liberals always wish to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs out of
sheer spite, envy and a thirst for power. The cultivation of class envy is a
central tactic of socialism, while Aristotle said that envy is the one emotion
with no redeeming qualities.
Then liberals urge estate taxes so that the
wealthy person does not commit the cardinal sin of actually leaving his money to
his heirs. No, that money is best off re-distributed by people in
He’ll have to ask her first, though.
But contrary to the false image that Democrats
like to project as the workaday friend of the ‘little guy’, many, many “rich”
Americans – easily half, if not more - in fact are Democrats, and rather than
creating “good” wealth through production of goods as conservative capitalism
does, they are wealth “appropriators” or urban ‘paper tycoons’ like lefty George
Soros who is referred to as “the greatest speculator of all times” on one
internet entry.
People like Soros make their money the liberal
way – by living in cities, working in offices, sitting at computers and
shuffling paper around to appropriate wealth for themselves, not by making
anything like cars or houses or oil for the common good. Speculation itself is
an extreme form of paper-wealth accumulation. It is a selfish endeavor, taking
riches for yourself without producing anything, and without regard for the
damaging effect it has on others, which can be traumatic. Speculation led to the
stock market bubble and crash of 1929, among myriad economic debacles.
In January 2003 it was reported that 9 of the
10 richest men in the
Meanwhile, many of the most vocal socialists in
Then again, many of them are just spoiled brats
who indeed should feel bad.
And if you want to see people who do little in
proportion to the wealth they have generated, you need look no further than the
stars of ultraliberal Hollywood itself, where a mere actor
can make millions on just one film. This is why most successful
If a “good” wealthy person spends his money, he
buys something like a boat, a car, an addition to his house, or he goes on
vacation. This employs people like the boatmaker, the carpenter, the auto
production-line worker or the innkeeper. High-dollar items that rich people
purchase typically employ workers at higher rates of pay. Go to a wealthy town
and see how strong its economy is. Then next time you need work, look around a
poor neighborhood for a job and see what happens.
Rich people tip the doorman and waiter well.
They give money to charity. (Vice President Dick Cheney gave $8 million in
2001.) They patronize the arts. They establish foundations and give money to
education and research. They invest their money in themselves and in their own
ideas to produce more growth and jobs.
If the wealthy man saves his money in a bank, or
invests it in stocks, it is available for crucial ‘capital formation’ so that
others can borrow it to start businesses, fund plant expansions and buy homes.
The critical factor about allowing rich people to keep their money is this:
It keeps money away from the government and allows it to serve as a growth
engine in the private-sector economy. If loan money is scarce (if the
government taxes it away), the cost of borrowing money from a bank (interest
rates on loans) will rise according to the law of supply and demand, and
economic activity like homebuying and business expansion will slow. Thus
middle-class people looking to get good jobs, start businesses and buy homes are
better off with low taxes on the rich, low taxes on their own incomes, and low
interest rates.
When it is said that Bill Gates “is worth” $45
billion, he does not actually have it. That wealth is tied up in the stock of
his company, Microsoft. If Bill Gates never existed, his wealth would not exist.
If his wealth is taken away by taxation, people like Gates (or even a $45
million Gates, or a $4.5 million Gates) in the future will not bother to produce
Microsofts. They will say, “Why bother? The tax man will just take it.” This is
why soak-the-rich European nations have poor job creation, high unemployment and
increasing economic stagnation, and why communist nations – which forbid any
private wealth accumulation – are always uniformly poor.
Bill
Gates’ wealth is working to provide 50,000 jobs at Microsoft itself (25,000 jobs
around its headquarters in
One final question: Why don’t all liberals just
send more of their own money to the government, rather that demanding that taxes
be raised for all citizens by legislation? Answer: Because first, most liberals
live their lives as conservatives and don’t wish to be taxed excessively.
Second, liberals don’t lead by example. And third, they refuse to take personal
and individual responsibility for their beliefs, instead waiting for their
collectivist cues from the government, just as they want the United Nations
telling the
One of the most interesting economic theses of
the 20th century is the Laffer Curve which shows that ever-increasing taxation
in fact does not produce ever-increasing revenues to the government as
leftists wish to believe.
The Curve, which is like the upper half of a
circle, shows that up to a point, revenue to the government rises (vertical
axis) as tax rates rise from 0% (horizontal axis). But it also shows – and
history has proven – that once you pass a certain maximized flow of revenue to
the government at the top of the curve, that revenues to the government will
actually start falling as the government takes more and more percentage-wise in
taxes. The reason is simple human nature (which all socialist theories ignore)
that says that people will stop being productive after a certain level of
taxation because they see less of their money and will realize that it is not
worthwhile to be productive.
The
two ends of the Laffer Curve stand at zero. It states that 0% taxation (no
taxation) will produce the same revenue to the government – zero revenue – as
100% taxation. In other words, 100% taxation will produce zero revenues because
people taxed at 100% will refuse to work. In the real world, however, people
will not refuse to work, but rather they will develop an underground economy or
move their assets abroad.
This proves the conservative point of view (the
‘right’ point of view) that lower rates of taxation are better for society in
general, and actually produce more revenues to the government than high
rates of taxation, because people will be more productive and indeed are not
averse to paying taxes when taxes are reasonable. Meanwhile, socialists ignore
this Laffer reality because they are obsessed with economic envy and must do
everything they can to satisfy that anger with short-term responses. And so they
demand increased taxation at every turn, while it always ends up producing the
opposite result to the exalted ideals stated in leftist philosophy.
In
By the way, the
bottom 50% of American
taxpayers paid
only 5% of the federal income
taxes in 2001.
A third immutable law of capitalism, and of the
common sense that equates with capitalism, rules that the more expensive an item
becomes, the less of it will be sold. Production prices may rise because of
scarcities of raw materials either naturally or at the hands of
environmentalists who often restrict, say, logging or oil exploration. Many
other socialist forces can push up prices like union pay demands; government
regulation; or higher taxes that force businesses to divert more capital to
taxation, leaving less for plant modernization that would allow more efficient
production.
Socialist theoreticians and so-called consumer
advocates also repeat the myth that private enterprise will always push up
prices because capitalism will maximize profits. Again, they are completely
wrong (‘way out in left field’). The opposite is true: Capitalist competition
is the key factor in keeping prices down and making quality goods more
widely available. That is why the
price of manufactured goods falls when private-sector capitalist mass production
increases to meet demand. Just look at the miracle of computers: Units that once
occupied a whole room today are desk-sized and sell for $500. Or look at how
Henry Ford made the Model-T affordable to the general public because, he
believed, the automobile should be available to the common man in order to make
life better. And it made Ford rich too.
The converse truth is that the only ‘products’
made by socialists – government programs – only do one thing, and that thing is
exactly what they accuse capitalists of: These programs grow unaccountably as
time goes on, and their prices (cost to the taxpayers) indeed spiral upward
while their quality goes down.
Socialists also theorize that capitalists will
make shoddy products in order to maximize profits. But imagine you own a factory
that makes electric fans. You must make quality products. But why must the
quality be good? Does not capitalism maximize profits, meaning that quality is a
peripheral concern?
The answer is no. Imagine the fan operates
poorly. Your company does not want a lot of fans coming back. Buyers will begin
selecting other brands that meet the two criteria: competitive price and good
quality, two factors that socialists forever deny are associated with capitalist
production. So the capitalist system actually has a natural checking system (an
‘invisible hand’) built into it. Thus the so-called consumer advocates that you
see on TV are just socialist busybodies who create nothing but criticize
everything, and have little effect compared to the bigger natural check system
that is built into capitalism.
If you ever noticed, ‘workers’ paradise’ systems
are notorious for shabby products. Try naming one single product that was made
in the communist
Or how about the abysmal service provided by the
government train service Amtrak (only 21 million passengers annually), with 37%
of all its long-distance trains late in 2002 and some equipment dating from the
1960s! Yet these entities never go out of business no matter how bad the
service, nor are they criticized by the media. And if you wonder why Amtrak
service is so bad, go find out why only 50 cents of every dollar Congress
provides for Amtrak operations actually goes to running Amtrak. You’d be
surprised where the other 50 cents goes. (Hint: Socialists take it for their own
use (then complain that Amtrak is underfunded).)
At the same time, America’s private intercity
bus systems like Trailways and Greyhound (774 million passengers annually)
provide regular service to every major and minor city in the nation and many
hundreds of rural towns in between (7 times as many destinations as Amtrak),
operating clean, late-model buses with an excellent on-time record, and charging
much lower ticket prices than Amtrak, even including the government subsidy
($40) for every Amtrak ticket. Yet
academic theorists and the urban media elite ignore this efficient mass-transit
system because it is in the private sector; it uses no tax money and actually
makes a profit; and would never be used regularly by elite actors or publishers.
In other words it is patronized by, and serves very well, the "common people" whom
Ivy League socialists like John Kerry purport to speak for but privately
disdain.
American liberals’ yearning for a European-type
passenger train service is just feminine idealism. Liberals love to envision
fast, efficient trains in their minds. But for the most part, Americans drive
cars which are a superior and more direct way to travel, even moreso when
children and luggage are involved. The reason socialists do not see cars as
ideal is that they must disagree with the way rational men think. After all it
is Western man’s ingenuity that created the internal combustion engine.
In fact America already has created another
mass-transit system that is much more useful to our sprawling nation than
passenger trains – an airline system (660 million passengers annually) that does
not consume massive taxpayer subsidies as Europe’s trains do, but actually
creates wealth and jobs, and pays taxes. And while the September 11 terrorist
attacks hurt the airlines badly, they have reconstituted. Over the years, of
course, this extraordinary private-sector mass-transit system has been the
target of ongoing and withering media criticism (bumped passengers, lost luggage
etc.) while its incredible efficiencies have been ignored.
Consumers naturally gravitate to brand names
associated with big corporations like General Electric because they recognize
that the price paid for a brand-name product is worth it. Millions of homes
around
And next time your socialist neighbor tells you
that cruel American corporations are exporting jobs overseas, remind him/her
that in a free-trading globalized world, many foreign companies build factories
here in the
PS: There’s an old story about a communist labor
boss in the
When the communist comes to
Consider the effect of supply and demand on the
housing market. Modern-day environmentalists fight the cutting of trees anywhere
they can. Since they have been successful in restricting the number of trees
that are cut and thus the amount of lumber produced, lumber prices are higher
than they would be without environmentalist intervention. The reason is that the
supply is being restricted while the demand is rising. Thus the cost of building
a home today carries a hidden ‘enviro tax’ such that Americans need to work more
hours simply to afford a home. It’s just another tax from the socialist left.
The simplest and best solution would be to allow
as many trees as necessary to be cut to keep up with housing demand and to keep
lumber prices low. Because there are uncountable trillions of trees in the
world. And when you cut them, they grow back.
In the western
And whenever a logging company cuts a tree in
the
Many rank-and-file environmentalists have
good intentions, and this movement has pursued legitimate concerns. There was
some horrible pollution during the 20th century and technology
handily remedied it. But increasingly the modern-day ecology movement is being
taken over more and more by the loony political left, and caring only about two
things: First, putting ecology before humans, and using the movement to thwart
economic development in capitalist nations, primarily the
That is why urban-based environmental groups
work to restrict logging, and have destroyed timber-cutting jobs all over rural
The
Real Face of Environmentalism
The so-called environmental movement really is
not at all what it appears to be. While there certainly are nature lovers
everywhere, and while everyone obviously wants the environment to be clean, it is important to
remember why we have so much leisure time and disposable income to enjoy the
mountains and the forests, and to fret ourselves silly about every tree and
snowflake -- because we live in a wealthy society that consumes large amounts of
energy and other resources in order to insulate our everyday lives from the
ravages of nature.
The movement itself, however, has been taken
over by intellectual socialists and wealthy left-wing Democrats, both of whom
choose to live in man-made environments like college campuses, big cities and,
more and more often, the Republican suburbs. One of their primary goals is to
push humans off the land in rural areas and to return rural
Environmentalism is an elitist movement, an
assault by wealthy urban and suburban socialists on the hard-working people of
America whose rights to work their
own private property and to prosper by their own labors are being restricted and
undermined by the encroachment of politically-correct ecology into their
everyday lives.
And much of this movement is not even about “the
environment” at all, but is an anti-capitalist, socialist movement that simply
exploits feel-good ecology (the birds, the rivers) to do two things:
First to control through government
regulation the flow of resources to our growing economy. The enviro movement
today has absolute control over, and is restricting our entire domestic energy
supply, forcing us to “outsource” $800 million per day in energy production. No
new oil or gas wells can be drilled without federal or state approval. As you
control energy through socialism, you control the people.
And second, to give government more and more
control over the private property that has been the bedrock on which our
freedom and economic prosperity have been built. Said Founding Father John
Adams, 2nd President of the
Without private property, we will have no
freedom, and this is the goal of the radical socialists who have commandeered
the enviro movement: To restrict private property rights in every way possible,
from incremental regulation (local building and environmental permits) to total
control (eminent domain beyond that which is reasonable, or outright government
seizure for national parks, wildlife refuges etc.), and to turn control over to
the government.
This is the tyranny that
Enviros like to claim that ‘global warming’ is
occurring because of a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, although
rational people know that this is untrue. Certain so-called scientists have been
promoting ‘warming’ for more than a decade. They say that man is heating up the
environment by putting a blanket of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when
burning gasoline, heating oil, coal etc., and that this man-made warming is
going to lead to the death of planet earth.
Yet people have been predicting the end of the
world since the beginning of time. The only difference between this apocalyptic
‘warming’ story and the others is that this one is being presented as based in
science (when it is not), and it is actively being promoted by major entities
across the globe including thousands of politicians, the United Nations, the
global intellectual class and environmental movement, and the worldwide media,
all of whom are nonproductive people who have a big-government socialist agenda.
Why? To scare people into believing that their own energy use is killing the
earth so that government socialists then can dictate the central behavior in
people’s lives – energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people.
First the facts. The global climate has been
shifting throughout all of recorded history. We know, for instance, that the
Second, warm weather is good for mankind, and
shifts to cold weather hinder us. In frigid weather, we must devote much more in
resources and personal energy to stay warm. New Englanders always are happy when
the winter is mild, and for good reason. And
So just a few established facts show that there
is absolutely no scientific basis to describe any current ‘global warming’ (if
indeed it is happening) as anything but a natural cycle that has been coming and
going for centuries. If you are going to make a hypothesis like ‘global
warming’, you must prove it, not simply suggest it, arrange the facts around the
outcome you desire, then challenge others to disprove it. Enviros have not
proven it in any way, shape or form.
In fact, when ‘warming’ alarmists state, for
instance, that “Denver had its hottest day on record”, we can only say first
that most of the world has been keeping accurate temperature records for only a
short time, and second that Denver was uninhabited 200 years ago, so we have no
idea whether this “hottest day” is even anything outside a normal cycle, or
whether it is just yet another inconsistency in the weather.
Ironically, anyone who lived through the 1970s
knows that every major news outlet from Time magazine, to Newsweek,
to the New York Times to documentaries on public television, which all
today are predicting “warming”, unanimously were predicting another climate
catastrophe 30 years ago… a new ice age! Yes, a mere twenty years before these
same media and their “global warming” friends started beating the drums of their
heating theory in the 1990s, they were pushing disaster of the frozen kind. And
now Newsweek even has apologized for its bogus prediction!
From ‘a coming ice age’ to ‘global warming’ in
only 20 years, another example of environmentalists’ extreme emotional swings.
How can
all this happen? Simple. Because the ones who promote these theories are shallow
people who simply look at climate trends and then hop on board to gain the
greatest emotional impact for their causes. For instance, much of the United
States in the 1960s had cold, snowy winters, so they took what was happening,
extrapolated it into the future, and voila, Ice Age. In the 1990s, there were
several warm winters, so the tide shifted 180 degrees among the worrywarts, and
the public was simply smothered in the “new” bad news and urged to forget about
the old apocalypse. There is one goal to all this disaster-mongering: It is to
raise money and gain political power for environmental groups and their friends
in the universities and in government who wish to tell everyone how to live
their lives.
The Golden Rule of Socialism: Always follow
the cash! Since they don’t create
wealth, you can always find socialists obsessing over wealth and trying to get
as much money as possible, by any means possible.
The same disaster-mongering has happened in
every field. After two active hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005, the doomsayers
virtually guaranteed calamity in 2006. It didn’t happen. And when gasoline
prices spiked to $3 a gallon in the spring and summer of 2006, socialists and
environmentalists immediately were all over the media predicting the worst, that
it would go to $4 and $5 a gallon, the most extreme possible outcome. By
mid-September, prices in the
And what about other possible ‘global warming’
explanations like these: ‘Global warming’ indeed is man-made and is a good thing
because it is preventing the ice age that was being predicted only 30 years ago.
Or: ‘Global warming’ is being produced by environmentalism. Thirty years ago,
the doomsday crowd said the ice age would be caused by air pollution bouncing
the sun’s heat back into space. Thus a cleaner environment would seem to be
causing ‘warming’. Or: ‘Global warming’ is caused by a growing human population
exhaling carbon dioxide.
Or: Increases in carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere should be causing food crops to grow faster and trees to grow higher
because trees and plants “breathe in” carbon dioxide just as we humans breathe
oxygen, while trees and plants grow by converting the carbon in the carbon
dioxide into their ‘food’. So why are we not seeing an explosion of growth all
over the world?
So obviously the enviro movement is based on a
lot of ever-changing emotional and apocalyptic conjecture all geared to one
conclusion: Getting more power and money for environmentalists and their friends
by setting themselves up as saviors of the planet. Anyone who lived through the
1970s knows that in its formative years, the movement began hurling an endless
barrage of false scare stories to frighten people, a barrage that continues
today. They said all the topsoil in the
Or how about that hole in the ozone layer from
the 1990s? Whatever happened to that thing? Or to the deadly threat of radon gas
that enviros claimed lurked in every basement in
Contemporary ecologists work on fear and
anxiety, and they time their campaigns for maximum effect, almost like
But recall that meteorologists in the winter of
2001 predicted the “Storm of the Century” and their prediction fell flat only 5
days later. So common sense tell you
we cannot trust anyone to tell us what the global temperature is going to be in
100 years, which is the basis on which the ‘global warming’ crowd tries to
intimidate us.
And there are huge holes in the ‘warming’
theory. When Al Gore gave a January speech in
But they have fallen into a trap, as do all
people who try to adjust reality to their own agenda. Because when record
cold temperatures have been recorded all over the globe during times of
‘warming’, they have to constantly scramble for an explanation. So they now
declare that ‘global warming’ really is causing ‘climate shifts’ which can
include frigid weather and any other anomaly that may occur. Anything, in fact.
Every base is covered, every eventuality accounted for. You can’t lose. You’re
always right.
In other words, anything can happen because
there is no pattern in the global climate, which is what rational people have
known all along.
Isn’t it interesting to see these enviro
theories always coming around to the bigger truths that we know exist?
The reason is simple: You cannot escape the
truth… although liberals try really
hard every day.
This apocalyptic enviro fantasy world is an offshoot of the dark
Hollywood/TV/rock-music fantasy world. It is driven by the same minds with the
same emotions. That is why
Like their allies in academia who publish study
after study saying that coffee or wine or salt or meat or fried food is good for
your health one day and dangerous the next, leftists are all over the map all
the time, drawing attention to themselves (like actors, because of their
insecurity) in any way possible, with no regard for the manly truth. After all
they are only dealing in words.
Naturally, environmentalism flourishes in cities and in college towns, which
gives insight into the sanctimonious liberal mind. Living their
hermetically-sealed lives, these enviros say: “I do not produce any pollution! I
work in a health-food store! I work in a publisher’s office! I am a student! I
sell backpacking equipment! I am a history professor! We must stop pollution by
all those evil factories and powerplants!”
Many environmentalists are pathological harassers, which is an eternal trait of
all socialists (all females). Leftists
are insecure people who must forever challenge, criticize and complain about
anything and everything because that is the only way they know how to act. They
certainly don’t actually build anything or make anything like cars or
houses, no that is for the evil capitalists who then can be endlessly
criticized.
So they talk and complain and harass. Everyone
knows somebody who is a pathological harasser. Like the proverbial ‘nagging
wife’, the leftist media are a constant source of criticism and nitpicking, day
in and day out. Nagging is part of the harasser’s persona and is encouraged and
cultivated by socialism, like the small-town ‘environmentalist’ who protests
every facet of growth and change. The pathological harasser seeks out – or
seeks to instigate – conflict, which is a key behavior of the socialist mind.
Think Rosie O’Donnell. Why did she say that “Radical Christianity is just as
threatening as radical Islam”? She did it for two reasons: To instigate
conflict, and to draw attention to her sorry, hurt self.
Harasser socialists always will insult you
conservatives right to your face without hesitation. Ever notice? Then if the
harasser even perceives the slightest hint of an insult directed
at him/her, he/she flies into a catatonic rage. This is the emotional pendulum
swinging from one extreme to the other.
Or when a right-thinking person reacts with
disdain, annoyance or anger to their harassment, the harasser retorts
reflexively that you are intolerant and demands redress. Or he/she bursts forth
in indignation, inciting a cycle of emotion that the harasser lives for because
it attracts attention to the harasser. That is why enviros will tell any lie –
to attract attention and spark debate.
Environmentalists have focused on ‘global
warming’ for their attacks on the growing capitalist world – even though tens of
thousands of scientists worldwide have signed petitions saying it is not
happening – because enviros hope that enough people would believe it so that
enviros themselves could dictate how the whole world should be run. Because it
is a comprehensive, all-inclusive attack, not limited to one nation or region.
After years of scare stories of every stripe, enviros have decided to speak with
one voice worldwide.
Many scientists promote ‘global warming’ out of
sheer fear. Because those who do not sign on to the ‘warming’ agenda face
retribution, as do all people who oppose the leftist platform. They are cut
off from university tenure, publication in academic journals, media coverage,
and government and academic research grants because these perks are controlled
by the socialists who promote ‘global warming’. Because it is socialism itself
that will be empowered and enriched by the ‘warming’ agenda. Follow the cash!
Yet how do we know that the ‘warming’ that might
possibly be occurring in certain parts of the globe is not just a regional
phenomenon, or a cycle that has been coming and going for centuries? Or that it
is not just a continuation of a warming trend that scientists claim has been
ongoing for thousands of years since the last real Ice Age? Or how it might be
tied to carbon dioxide? Conversely, other parts of the globe are experiencing
very cold temperatures. The
Thus ‘global warming’ makes a perfect foil for
the perpetual doomsday fantasies of ecologists and of Hollywood activists who
need to feel they are saving the world because otherwise they are “just
entertainers.” It also is ideal for people who produce nothing but words – to be
able to tell the whole world how, when and where it should consume the energy
and other resources that these same ecologists had no role in developing.
‘Global warming’ is nothing more than another
apocalyptic socialist theory that promises to
make the world better through its ‘solutions’, every one of which begins with
the four magic words of socialism, “If everyone would just…” do this or that
(i.e, when the government tells everyone to do this or that). But it will
produce the opposite. Its final result will be to thwart the well-being
of the capitalist world, particularly the
‘Global warming’ is classic emotional
manipulation through negativity, frightening gullible and weak people about our
final demise through the death of planet earth.
And one final question: If ‘global warming’
indeed is going to cause all the world’s ice to melt and the sea level to rise,
as doomsdayers claim, why are not the ultraliberal environmentalist citizens of
Answer: They do not really believe this stuff.
It is only a political position for them.
Many environmental activists suffer from varying
degrees of narcissism, confusion and anger (in this case, anger at human
activities), and hysteria and delusion like the frowning Prius-driving feminist
who fancies herself savior of the world. Their emotions make them ripe for
manipulation, and spur them to manipulate others. This is why they are so
strident. They have weak personal identities, so they anoint themselves with the
strongest identity of all – mankind’s rescuer. This is socialist narcissism to
the extreme: Saving the world by producing nothing.
Ecology activists believe the end-of-the-world
nonsense that their leaders put out. They devote their lives to fantasizing
about a time when the world was wilderness, and yearn hopelessly for a return to
it. Every subdivision and shopping mall is a direct affront to their well-being.
They think everything man does is out to destroy them. So who wouldn’t go nuts?
Then when they propose utopian solutions (“Let’s all put a solar collector on
our house!”) this is the manic phase of their manic-depression kicking in.
Environmentalism is a primitivist, philistine
culture that ignores all the progress of Western civilization.
Environmentalism is a religion. It is a modern version of
nature-worshipping paganism that is being forced on students in public
schools in violation of ‘separation of church and state’. So should parents
begin protesting for allowing this ‘religion’ to be taught in the schools?
Enviros are emotional people, and many are
physically weak people. They project their weakness onto the larger public,
declaring that we all are going to die from the slightest hint of pollution,
radiation or chemicals. Ever seen the pasty-faced weaklings who patronize
so-called health-food stores? It’s the same crowd. They use their histrionics to
attract financial contributions to the enviro agenda in order to keep themselves
employed – fighting tenaciously to produce zero. And the people who give this
cash often are themselves distressed and need to feel good. Writing a check does
it. After all, nobody can argue with saving the planet.
Much of the environmental agenda is promoted the
way the whole leftist agenda gets heard: Through distortions and outright lies
broadcast by a shrill minority and amplified in the media; and through emotional
intimidation that says that if you do not believe in our cause, you are opposed
to the very survival of mankind.
The enviro movement recruits innocent young
people like grade schoolers, high schoolers and college students, or angry
radicals like childless eco-terrorists whose lives are empty of any connection
to the world. Few of these people are engaged in the day-to-day support of a
cohesive family and thus they see no connection to the future through their
children. They see the world coming to an end. They are energized by
save-the-planet rhetoric, and are easily dragooned into a traumatized emotional
state without even knowing it. This softens them up to preach the ecology gospel
without ever thinking about what they are saying.
And like all good socialists, enviros have
adopted bureaucrat tactics in order to delay and exhaust all productive
enterprise, challenging with endless lawsuits, and dragging local planning
boards and conservation commissions through bottomless minutiae about stream
flows, wildlife habitats and the like. Remember that the feminine persona is
frightened by change, and opposes it, while men embrace change and are vitalized
by it. This is why the rise of environmentalism has coincided with the rise of
socialism/feminism.
So their delaying tactics empower the anemic
socialist busybody and pathological harasser at the expense of productive
citizens; deprive landowners of basic private-property rights; and increasingly
are destroying economic opportunity in small-town and rural
If you ever have studied environmental impact
statements (EIS), you would understand how much power the government is taking
away from people. One EIS for a 115-foot cell-phone pole near
Environmentalists and their endlessly
invasive laws have not cleaned up the ecology. Modern technology has.
Capitalist technology is the real source
of our environmentalism! Just think about the railroads that abandoned their
polluting steam locomotives not at the nagging of environmentalists, but as
free-market technological advances perfected the much more efficient
internal-combustion diesel locomotive. All the laws in the world wouldn’t have
achieved this transformation.
Meanwhile, enviro-obstructionists in every
American town, many of them from urban
America’s real environmentalists are not
crackpots like John Muir but rational men who believe that we should live within
nature, preserve it well and exploit it wisely too – hunters, fishermen and
outdoorsmen. (Hunting statistically produces stronger wildlife
populations, because it prevents overcrowding of habitats.) These men never have
viewed nature as something to be hermetically sealed off for the enjoyment of a
few elite backpackers. They see wilderness as a place that we can both enjoy and
utilize to make life better for all people. The establishment of the whole
national park system was actively promoted by the same railroad ‘robber barons’
who risked their wealth to open up the American West.
And while environmentalism has been telling us
that the world is running out of everything (another reason to be frightened),
there are massive amounts of resources within the earth’s crust – petroleum,
magnesium, uranium, iron ore, lime, titanium, coal, copper, nickel, phosphorous
and on and on and on. Man barely has scratched the surface.
No, the world is not “running out of oil”. This
prediction is yet another doomsday tactic used by enviro organizations to… get
more contributions for enviro organizations! And it is part of the litany of
doom that ecologists have been promoting since the first Earth Day, April 22,
1970, which just so happened to have been the 100th anniversary, to
the day, of the birth of Soviet communist tyrant and mass murderer Vladimir
Lenin (hmmmm…)
And while ecologists sternly warn us that the
future is doomed to scarcity, oil companies keep discovering more and more
petroleum. One single well drilled in the
In the
Go to your internet search engine and type in
‘oil seeping’ or ‘oil migration’ to read more. And don’t believe the doomsayers.
When the first oil well was drilled in 1859, they never, ever would have
predicted that oil would be pumped from the ground the way it is today, by the
tens of millions of barrels a day.
An orchard-keeper thins out the apples in his
trees early in the growing season so that the trees will focus on producing,
say, one thousand hearty apples per tree, instead of five thousand scrawny ones.
So now imagine a whole forest that lays idle and is never cut or thinned out, as
enviros desire. What happens to this forest?
First the forest gets old. It becomes static
like an apartment building full of elderly people. The old trees cut sunlight to
small, young trees and crowd their growing space. Walk through any aging New
England forest, untouched for 100 years, and you will see not robust trees – as
enviros would have your believe – but many scrawny trees, along with many that
are dying along with some that are healthy. As trees get old and begin to die,
they are less efficient at consuming carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. So as
aging forests are protected by environmentalists, there is going to be more
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributing to so-called ‘global warming’.
Then when old trees die, they drop and they decay. Thus they are not producing
oxygen anymore. And when they decay, they emit… carbon dioxide. So aging
forests become factories of carbon dioxide at the behest of environmentalists!
The
healthiest, most robust forests in
As well, old forests, like old people, are more
susceptible to disease. Millions of acres of aging American forests are dying
due to tree diseases. Their wood becomes worthless. And when they die, well you
know… But the environmentalist cares little about this: His only goal is to keep
the forests out of the hands of man. The bark beetle has killed 15 million acres
of trees across the South and West of the
Aging forests also are tinderboxes of dying and
dead trees, fueling devastating fires like the historic
(Note:
The largest
Expectedly, leftist animal-rights activists
never criticize these fires, and the roasting of animals and the destruction of
their habitats, because they don’t care a whit when animals are harmed by the
policies of their environmentalist allies. Imagine the outcry if one single
animal herd were burned by the policies of Exxon/Mobil…
Yet when caribou populations actually
increased around the
Every
modern technology from oil exploration, extraction and refinement, to the
development of the internal combustion engine was accomplished by European and
American men in open, capitalist societies. Every newer and more
environmentally-sound technology from cleaner fuels to more modern extraction
techniques to more efficient automobile and truck engines to more productive
power plants was developed by the same men. Environmentalists developed none of
it and criticize all of it.
Ecologists, like all liberal socialists, live in
a state of perpetual indignation that stems from their own inability to
contribute to society in tangible ways. So when they look at a peaceful suburb
where families live happily, they see land-gobbling houses with oil burners
consuming all the earth’s resources. When they look at a modern, efficient
automobile they are horrified at the highways and parking lots that must be
built to accommodate it. But their own leftist policies, like those of the
forest, are beyond reproach and are not given a second thought when they harm
the environment.
Note: Productive citizens have fled to the
land-gobbling, car-loving suburbs to escape the taxation, the incompetent
bureaucracy and corruption, and the criminality of the cities, all of which are
controlled without challenge by environmentalists’ socialist allies.
So capitalist exploitation of the forest through
intelligent and natural management techniques is much better for homeowners and
for the environment too. Farmers, ranchers and timber companies have been
managing forests for centuries. More logging would maintain rural jobs that
employed urban liberals are cavalier about eliminating. Clear-cutting,
spot-cutting and replanting trees will produce the healthiest, most robust
forests and the cheapest lumber supply for housing.
Now take this forest example and extrapolate it
to any and every issue environmentalists propose. You will find that manly
common sense, coupled to rational harvesting of natural resources, is the best
route for all humans involved, and for the environment too.
It is patently silly to watch grown people
re-using tattered paper bags over and over again because they have been led to
believe that if you use more than one paper bag, you are contributing to the
death of planet earth. But environmentalism works on emotion, primarily guilt
and fear.
Conservation International reported in December
2002 that 46% of the world’s land mass still is pure wilderness, while many
other areas are very sparsely populated. Look at population maps and you will
see huge blank spaces all over