Judge Rules Against Obama Amnesty!!

Good News for America and Americans!!

Judge Hagan has ruled that Obama cannot grant Illegal invader settlers, in any shape, size, or age group, protection from deportation in any form. He gave orders to cease, stop, and not grant protection to any and all immigrants in the U.S. through commission of the illegal act of crossing our Southern border without proper legal permissions necessary for legal entry into our country, the U.S.

Judge Napolitano, Fox News contributor, said that one judge ruling against a president is rarely done. In fact, you could count the number of times it has been done using your fingers and still have some left. Judge Napolitano also said that an appeal to an appellate court would likely take more than two years. Obama’s term would be over by then. (Note: I am concerned that he may not leave office when his service is legally ended.)

Here is the link so you can go and read the article. The article includes a link to the judge’s actual decision papers.

I can’t wait to hear what the White House has to say about this. More so, what Obama is going to do about this. I am afraid that Judge Hagan’s life may be in danger because of his acting against Obama which is totally unacceptable. Obama has had laws passed permitting him to detain people without charges and/or trial for an indefinite period of time, like FOREVER. FEMA detention centers are ready for those that speak and act against Obama. I am guessing and giving my opinion here, but, I think that personal threats against Democrat members of Congress and their families are causing them to act 180 out from the way elected members of Congress are supposed to act. I also assume that there are some Republicans who have suffered the same kinds of intimidation. There is some reason why the behaviors of those we have elected to serve us have changed so radically since Obama got into office.

Adherence to the Constitution and the Rule of Law by elected officials has been on the decline since before Jimmy Carter was elected but with Carter’s election the angle of decline has intensified and gotten worse with each administration up until the present time. There is a very powerful force behind Obama and all that is happening. In fact, two powerful forces.

The first, in my opinion, are the big, big banks of the World and the rich and powerful elite progressives that own/run them. People such as the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, etc. have so much wealth and power the World over that they can exact controls over countries under the threat of destroying a nation’s economy. Groups to which they belong, such as the Bilderberg Group and the Counsel on Foreign Relations are groups working to gain these powerful people control of the World and its populations for their own purposes, whatever they may be.

They have powerful voices to aid their causes such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski who are supporters of population control measures that some would label as inhuman and absurd. Such things as spreading deadly diseases in Third World countries aimed at decimating entire populations. Ebola could very well have been one such attempt. The presence of increasingly virulent new stains of old diseases and the appearance of new ones must be watched carefully and origins ascertained.

Its bankers, super big businesses that make obscene profits, and those that run them that are causing our economy to decline. We must support Rand Paul and help him have the Federal Reserve (a privately held bank) audited to expose any wrong doings, if there are any. We must also demand that our gold reserves at Fort Know be inventoried. I have read that the billions in bullion that were there have become the property of the Federal Reserve as collateral for U.S. indebtedness to them. That the Federal Reserve can do what it pleases with the gold. That the rumors of billions in gold being sent to China may well be true.

One fact that you may want to consider concerning the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centers. Billions in gold was stored under those buildings and the search of the ruins of those buildings only found a few $Millions and that was in the back of two van type trucks. Where did the rest go? What was the real reason those buildings were destroyed by explosive charges (with airplanes as camouflage) to cover up clandestine activities of the global elite bankers and businesses at the expense of the thousands of lives taken in the process. Food for thought!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Obama Amnesty May Be a Federal Crime!

This just in from “JUDICIAL WATCH – WEEKLY UPDATE for February 13, 2015!”

I hope Judicial Watch acts on this quickly! The sooner Obama is removed from power the better off we could be. I say could because we cannot be sure who would take his place. Joe Biden would under normal situations, but, in this case gross offenses concerning the possible expenditure of taxpayer monies prior to their being appropriated for that purpose by Congress.

I would think that Biden and many other people are complicit in these crimes, and if proven to be crimes, these people should each, and all, be found guilty of the same offenses attributed to Obama. In other words, Obama gave orders and people blindly obeyed them without resisting and without notifying someone that illegal acts were being planned and the time that the acts would take place.

Please read, and share the following information. Its time we all did our duty to expose the truth and rally as many people as possible to speak out about the truth. The more instances we can inspire that cause thousands of people to call their Congressional representatives and voice their concerns the better. That is the only thing that will get them to act, burying them in complaints and demands.

Obama Amnesty May Be a Federal Crime

So, just how much money is being spent in response to executive actions taken to house and accommodate illegal aliens? Your Judicial Watch is calling on members of Congress to take a hard look at the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the Deferred Action to Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program. These programs are two key parts of Obama’s illegal amnesty effort and involve violations of law that carry civil and criminal penalties. Yesterday, as Obama’s Democrat allies (with silent support, I’m sure, from more than a few Republican colleagues) mounted a filibuster in the United State Senate to prevent funding of the Department of Homeland Security in order to enable Obama’s continued lawlessness, we urgently put out an action item for your elected representatives:

“Judicial Watch calls upon Congress, its committees, or its members to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigate, analyze, and opine on the following issues:

“Whether Congress has specifically appropriated the funds or has specifically authorized the assessment of fees necessary for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to implement the plans to extend Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA) and establish Deferred Action to Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA);

“To the extent no funds have been specifically appropriated, whether USCIS is using funds appropriated, including any monies raised by fees assessed by USCIS, for a different, designated purpose to fund the implementation the plans to extend DACA and establish DAPA;

“To the extent any funds, including any monies raised by fees assessed by USCIS, are being used to implement the plans to extend DACA and establish DAPA, whether the use of such funds is unauthorized or prohibited.

“Whether USCIS is using property or employees designated for a specific purpose to implement the plans to extend DACA and establish DAPA, regardless of such designation.

“The legal issues involving the improper use of taxpayer dollars are urgent given that the USCIS may have already entered into or imminently will enter into contracts and/or do so. This unauthorized spending may be a direct violation of the Antideficiency Act, which makes it a violation of law, with potential civil and criminal penalties, for government officials to spend monies that have not been appropriated by Congress. President Obama’s nullification of immigration law is broad and involves numerous policies in multiple federal agencies, but the center of the storm is in USCIS, where monies are being misspent in ways contrary to the fundamental purpose of that law enforcement agency.”

Our legal team reports that the Antideficiency Act generally prohibits an officer or employee of the U.S. government from:

[M]aking or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law; involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose, unless otherwise allowed by law; accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property; making obligations or expenditures in excess of an apportionment or reapportionment, or in excess of the amount permitted by agency regulations.

To the extent an officer or employee may be in violation of the Antideficiency Act, Congress mandates that the Comptroller General, the head of GAO, conduct an investigation of the matter. The Obama gang was most recently found to have violated this law by the GAO in the scandalous release of terrorists in the Bergdahl swap scandal.

The GAO warns that violators of the Antideficiency Act:

“[S]hall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.”

In addition, an officer or employee who “knowingly and willfully” violates [the law] “shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.”

Some in the U.S. Senate seem to understand the legal stakes. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) joined with Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI.) to write a letteraddressed to Joseph Moore, Chief Financial Officer for the USCIS, that asks for highly pertinent financial information. The letter correctly points out that Obama’s directives “will redirect scarce resources away” from the USCIS’s “core mission” for activities Congress never approved. And, it makes the following, very pointed, request:

To assist us in our constitutional oversight responsibilities, we are asking you, as Chief Financial Officer, to provide a detailed accounting of all expenditures by USCIS to date and a projection of all temporary and permanent expenditures for these executive actions, including the source of the funds to be used and the specific accounts in which the funds are located, in dollar amounts. Please also indicate the amount USCIS is projected to spend on these programs from FY2015 through FY2025 on a monthly and annual basis.

Instead of doing the public’s business to enforce immigration law, the USCIS has been hijacked by President Obama and his appointees to aid, abet, and harbor illegal aliens – in absolute violation of the law. Obviously, Congress never appropriated money for the lawlessness. The strict enforcement of the Antideficiency Act against this egregious misappropriation of government monies (your tax dollars) is one more “rule of law” tool that may help to bring the administration’s illicit actions to a halt.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ADV: Spread the word: House DHS bill removes threat to Homeland Security

Do you want the 5 Million illegal aliens and their families to benefit from Obama’s illegal executive action to grant them rights and privileges that are only for American citizens and those immigrants here legally? NO?

Here is the chance and the time for you to take action. DO NOT WAIT TO ACT or you will be supporting 5 Million government dependents with your hard earned dollars, and, you may have to do without benefits that you have worked to provide for yourself and your family because the funding for them has dried up or is being utilized to support these criminals.

Do not think of these people on the terms of moms, dads, little children, teenagers in school, etc. The first and only thing that they represent is criminal abuses of our system of laws by their crossing out borders illegally and then having the guts to demand that we take care of them. A large part of that demand is Obama’s fault. He invited them here in direct violation of one of the only responsibilities he has as President – enforce our laws!

WE must not allow his illegal edicts concerning allowing 5 Million illegals to remain in our country (since there have been proven to be members of those groups that have avowed to kill us in our own country coming with people from 22 countries, all coming here from Mexico) to stay here without the People’s permission. DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR PERMISSION TO STAY!

Read the following email I have forwarded for your action. Thank you, Joe Hollinger, God Bless America!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PLEASE READ AND SEE WHY THE U.S. MUST NEVER ALLOW U.N. CONTROL OF ANYTHING UNITED STATES.

PLEASE READ THIS AND REACT AS YOU ARE INCLINED TO DO (something)!

http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/get-us-out

I have read about how terrible United Nations troops are when they go into countries and use unimaginable force and commit heinous crimes against the peoples of those countries but I have never seen a compilation of them in one place such as is provided when you follow this link.
( http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/19992-un-troops-in-mali-slaughter-civilian-protesters?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=04f4eb8250-The_Editors_Top_Picks_3_12_143_12_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8ca494f2d2-04f4eb8250-289781429)

The link at the top of this page and at the banner take you to the John Birch Society webpage where they are working hard to protect U.S. citizens from the atrocities we will experience if the U.N. ever gets control of anything within the United States.

Obama, Kerry, and many of the hard left members of Congress and other organizations, government and private, are working to give the U.N. control over U.S. citizens. If they get control the U.S. Constitution will be destroyed as will all of the rights and freedoms that the Framers and those of the generations that followed the signing of the Declaration of Independence, fought and died defending so that we continue to enjoy them.

We, the People, must mount a unified campaign to force those that we have elected to represent us to act to remove U.N. headquarters from New York and to cease providing funds to the U.N. for any purpose. We cannot afford to risk the U.N. becoming the headquarters for a One World Government, the New World Order (NWO).

Please share this information with everyone that you can. Then, you and they must contact your respective representatives in Congress and in your State governments, on a repetitive basis, until we all make believers of them about no-one wanting the U.S. to have anything to do with anything related to the United Nations.

John Birch Society

JoinRenewJBS.png

Login

Login to JBS

User name

Password

Remember me

| JBS Blog
Follow the John Birch Society

Join the John Birch Society

Issues

Get US Out!

Get US OutGet US Out!

Get US Out!
Get US out!of the United Nations has been the signature campaign of The John Birch Society for over 50 years. The global power elites view the UN as their main vehicle for establishing, step by step, a socialistic global government controlled by themselves. Now, more than ever, we need to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

Learn More

Tell Others

Take Action

Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

770 N. Westhill Blvd. Appleton, Wisconsin 54914 | 920-749-3780

Act Now

Agenda 21

Stop ObamaCare

No Con-Con

Support Your Local Police

Legislative Action Alerts

Legislative Email Alerts

Follow Us

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube

RSS

JBS Blog

Quick Links

Act Now

Give Now

Connect

Shop

Issues

character_first.png

JBS Affiliates

The New American

Liberty News Network

American Opinion Foundation

FreedomProject

FreedomProject Education

Website by
Milwaukee Joomla Developer

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TTIP and TTP treaties will destroy U.S. sovereignty and our Bill of Rights

PLEASE READ THIS!

There are two treaties in the works that, if ratified, will change our entire world and empower big businesses to control every aspect of our lives. How, you might ask? They both give businesses the power to sue governments whose rules, regulations, laws, etc. interfere with their conduct of business. In this politically correct World we live in governments will give in the businesses’ demands rather than be accused of doing otherwise, and, because the process of litigation is time consuming, expensive, and interferes with other business of governments.

The two treaties are: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP). Obama is pushing both and asked Congress to give him permission to proceed during his State of the Union Address yesterday.

Both treaties are secretly being negotiated and only the negotiators know their entire contents. Their is no way that we can permit anything else being done in the dark of the night and shoved down our throats by a week-kneed Congress that refuses to actively and aggressively challenge Obama on anything he does. No guts no glory and we need glory!

Make sure you demand that both of your Senators and your Congressman know that you want to know what is in these treaties and that you want time to read and question the contents before any further action is taken towards ratification.

Also, remind them that if anything in either of these treaties weakens the sovereignty of the United States and/or eventually weakens or destroys the Constitution empowering control by big businesses, that you expect immediate imprisonment of Obama and all of those that have supported his making the U.S. party to these treaties whose intent is clearly focused on taking control of the World by destroying proprietary rights and allowing businesses to sue governments who enact, or attempt to enact legislation that interferes with their business.

The following is an email that I sent to my Representative in the House. Feel free to use it as an example for what you say in your communications. Emails are not a powerful tool so be sure to back your email up with faxes and phone calls. Call/fax and keep doing so every day, several times a day, several times a week until the message is received.

Ratification of these treaties could give Obama a permanent key to the White House and destroy our Bill of Rights.

If you choose not to pay attention and act you have no-one to blame but yourself if our country goes South.

Joe Hollinger
God Bless America!

The following information has been submitted: (To Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler)

Name:Joseph Hollinger

Address:17635 Kansas Road,
Eldridge, MO 65463 9111

Email:joe_hollinger@missouricom.com
Telephone:(417) 426-5028 Voice

Issue:TRD

Message Subject:TTIP and TTP “Free Trade Agreements”
Message Text:
Dear Mrs. Hartzler,

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP)are falsely labeled as free trade agreements (FTAs). They do include some things related to trade such as lowering tariffs, but, please be aware that they are really about asserting corporate control over every aspect of our lives, through intellectual property rights and investor-state arrangements (ISDS), in which basically the sovereign rights of states are curtailed by the ability of corporations to sue them.

These agreements will destroy small farms in America and allow globalization of food production by multinational agribusinesses. Both the TTIP and TTP are secret documents whose full content is known to negotiators only. U.S. citizens can not afford another bout with agreements made secretly in the dark of night which Congress is ordered to ratify first and see what’s inside later.

President Obama has been secretly working these agreements. He asked for Congress to permit him to go forward with trade agreements in his State of the Union address. DO NOT GIVE HIM PERMISSION UNTIL THE FULL CONTENT (IN ITS FINAL FORM) OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC AND SUFFICIENT TIME IS ALLOWED FOR ANALYSIS AND COMMENT BY CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC AND BOTH ARE IN AGREEMENT AS TO YEAH OR NAY. STOP RATIFICATION EFFORTS! Please!

Please act on this information and have your staff do research to verify that what I say is indeed true. These treaties appear aimed at implementing a New World Order in one fell swoop. If successful government as we know it will not be possible. Big businesses will control the World. The Constitution does not allow for arrangements with other countries that will denigrate its authority and take away its control. America is a sovereign nation and we want it to stay that way.

Say NO to both of these agreements and YES to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Just as you swore to God you would do when you took your oath of office.

I expect your reply and your immediate action to expose these secret agreements for what they really are.

I hope you will use the Freedom of Information Act to learn as much as you can about these treaties and provide transparency to all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Places…NOT to go

Notice, too, that every country above Russia (10.2) is populated by predominantly Hispanics or Blacks. From that you can draw the conclusion that murder is a way of life within their cultures. Therefore, do not be so surprised when the prison populations in the US are predominantly Hispanic and Black. It’s common sense analysis…not racial prejudice!! Those who do the crimes go do jail…regardless of race, color, or creed.

Places…NOT to go! This is FASCINATING !! WORLD MURDER STATISTICS

From the World Health Organization
The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
Murders per 100,000 citizens per year.

Honduras 91.6 (WOW!!)
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d’lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2
And ………
The United States 4.2 !!!!!

ALL (109) of the countries above America, HAVE100% gun bans.

It might be of interest to note that SWITZERLANDis not shown on this list, because it has…NO MURDER OCCURRENCE! However, SWITZERLAND’S law requires that EVERYONE:
1. Own a gun.
2. Maintain Marksman qualifications … regularly .

Did you learn anything from this??

In God We Trust !!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Murray N. Rothbard, Mises.org, has possibly exposed the Obama agenda. Please read and see where Common Core appears to fit into the plan.

I recommend to those of you that will, do read the following article. Pay attention
closely to what is said and not necessarily what is written. You will find many mental associations to events
you have seen unfold due to actions taken by the Obama Administration and those entities that support its agenda.

I certainly think that you will be enlightened by what you read. Hopefully to the extent that you can see where the Obama Administrations is taking America and the rest of the World. Hopefully you will light fires under friends, family and associates and have them become aware of the direction we, and our country are being taken.

We have all heard shouts and claims that Obama has an Socialist/Communist agenda but none have put up proof of where our country is headed. I hope you will agree that this article opens the gates to the library of proof. Now that we have an idea concerning the direction we must take in our quest for facts that could very well prove the end point of the agenda. In fact, living examples of that end point are North Korea, China, Cuba, and Venezuela, in my opinion, that is. One big difference being that in our case reality will be more severe than in those living examples.

Obama and those pulling his strings (look at his czars and his appointees) are not in a hurry. They have years and years to gradually, but steadily advance their agenda. It takes a long time to take away freedom and society from a country with a large diverse population. During that time there can be no mistakes because if the people should become aware of what is happening and stand up and make a huge fuss the plan will have to be restudied and restarted. Have no fear, though, they will not give up. Unless people from all around the World wake up to what is happening and start making the huge fusses that will be necessary to bring this agenda to light and to its end.

There are two very important initiatives underway at this moment in which Obama is deeply involved. They are the Transatlantic Trade Initiative Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacifice Partnership (TTP). Both are touted by supporters as being “free trade” agreements that will bring benefits to everyone. Those that are reading between the lines and doing research are finding that they will not bring benefits to anyone but the rich and powerful bringing hardships and despotism to the majority of us. The initiatives are easily located by searching the Internet.

Please read and study the following article until you see what it really is saying. The author uses an unfamiliar way of writing that to some may prove hard to read and understand. You can get it if you try.

The following is from:
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

By Murray N. Rothbard

Mises.org

December 20, 2014

[This article is excerpted from the title essay and the
introduction to the first edition of Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
and Other Essays
.]

This essay was delivered at a conference on human differentiation held by the Institute for Humane Studies at Gstaad, Switzerland, in the summer of 1972. A fundamental reason and grounding for liberty are the ineluctable facts of human biology; in particular, the fact that each individual is a unique person, in many ways different from all others. If individual diversity were not the universal rule, then the argument for liberty would be weak indeed. For if individuals were as interchangeable as ants, why should anyone worry about maximizing the opportunity for every person to develop his mind and his faculties and his personality to the fullest extent possible? The essay locates the prime horror of socialism as the egalitarian attempt to stamp out diversity among individuals and groups. In short, it reflects the grounding of libertarianism in individualism and individual diversity.”

Murray N. Rothbard 1974

The following are two paragraphs from the article that may open your eyes a bit.

“Another widening rebellion against biological sex norms, as well as against natural diversity, has been the recently growing call for bisexuality by Left intellectuals. The avoidance of “rigid, stereotyped” heterosexuality and the adoption of indiscriminate bisexuality is supposed to expand consciousness, to eliminate “artificial” distinctions between the sexes and to make all persons simply and unisexually “human.”

“absurd fantasies are at the root of the Marxian utopia of communism. Freed from the supposed confines of specialization and the division of labor (the heart of any production above the most primitive level and hence of any civilized society), each person in the communist utopia would fully develop all of his powers in every direction.[17] As Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring, communism would give “each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions.”[18] And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the “abolition of the division of labor among people … the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it.” (HELLO COMMON CORE!)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Murray N Rothbard, Mises.org, has possibly exposed the Obama agenda, Common Core appears to fit into the plan.

I recommend to those of you that will, do read the following article. Pay attention
closely to what is said and not necessarily what is written. You will find many mental associations to events
you have seen unfold due to actions taken by the Obama Administration and those entities that support its agenda.

I certainly think that you will be enlightened by what you read. Hopefully to the extent that you can see where the Obama Administrations is taking America and the rest of the World. Hopefully you will light fires under friends, family and associates and have them become aware of the direction we, and our country are being taken.

We have all heard shouts and claims that Obama has an Socialist/Communist agenda but none have put up proof of where our country is headed. I hope you will agree that this article opens the gates to the library of proof. Now that we have an idea concerning the direction we must take in our quest for facts that could very well prove the end point of the agenda. In fact, living examples of that end point are North Korea, China, Cuba, and Venezuela, in my opinion, that is. One big difference being that in our case reality will be more severe than in those living examples.

Obama and those pulling his strings (look at his czars and his appointees) are not in a hurry. They have years and years to gradually, but steadily advance their agenda. It takes a long time to take away freedom and society from a country with a large diverse population. During that time there can be no mistakes because if the people should become aware of what is happening and stand up and make a huge fuss the plan will have to be restudied and restarted. Have no fear, though, they will not give up. Unless people from all around the World wake up to what is happening and start making the huge fusses that will be necessary to bring this agenda to light and to its end.

There are two very important initiatives underway at this moment in which Obama is deeply involved. They are the Transatlantic Trade Initiative Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacifice Partnership (TTP). Both are touted by supporters as being “free trade” agreements that will bring benefits to everyone. Those that are reading between the lines and doing research are finding that they will not bring benefits to anyone but the rich and powerful bringing hardships and despotism to the majority of us. The initiatives are easily located by searching the Internet.

Please read and study the following article until you see what it really is saying. The author uses an unfamiliar way of writing that to some may prove hard to read and understand. You can get it if you try.

The following is from:
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

By Murray N. Rothbard

Mises.org

December 20, 2014

[This article is excerpted from the title essay and the
introduction to the first edition of Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
and Other Essays
.]

This essay was delivered at a conference on human differentiation held by the Institute for Humane Studies at Gstaad, Switzerland, in the summer of 1972. A fundamental reason and grounding for liberty are the ineluctable facts of human biology; in particular, the fact that each individual is a unique person, in many ways different from all others. If individual diversity were not the universal rule, then the argument for liberty would be weak indeed. For if individuals were as interchangeable as ants, why should anyone worry about maximizing the opportunity for every person to develop his mind and his faculties and his personality to the fullest extent possible? The essay locates the prime horror of socialism as the egalitarian attempt to stamp out diversity among individuals and groups. In short, it reflects the grounding of libertarianism in individualism and individual diversity.”

Murray N. Rothbard 1974

The following are two paragraphs from the article that may open your eyes a bit.

“Another widening rebellion against biological sex norms, as well as against natural diversity, has been the recently growing call for bisexuality by Left intellectuals. The avoidance of “rigid, stereotyped” heterosexuality and the adoption of indiscriminate bisexuality is supposed to expand consciousness, to eliminate “artificial” distinctions between the sexes and to make all persons simply and unisexually “human.”

“absurd fantasies are at the root of the Marxian utopia of communism. Freed from the supposed confines of specialization and the division of labor (the heart of any production above the most primitive level and hence of any civilized society), each person in the communist utopia would fully develop all of his powers in every direction.[17] As Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring, communism would give “each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions.”[18] And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the “abolition of the division of labor among people … the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it.” (HELLO COMMON CORE!)
Show Menu

LewRockwell.com ANTI-STATEANTI-WARPRO-MARKET

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

By Murray N. Rothbard

Mises.org

December 20, 2014

Email Print FacebookTwitterShare

[This article is excerpted from the title essay and the introduction to the first edition of Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays.]

This essay was delivered at a conference on human differentiation held by the Institute for Humane Studies at Gstaad, Switzerland, in the summer of 1972. A fundamental reason and grounding for liberty are the ineluctable facts of human biology; in particular, the fact that each individual is a unique person, in many ways different from all others. If individual diversity were not the universal rule, then the argument for liberty would be weak indeed. For if individuals were as interchangeable as ants, why should anyone worry about maximizing the opportunity for every person to develop his mind and his faculties and his personality to the fullest extent possible? The essay locates the prime horror of socialism as the egalitarian attempt to stamp out diversity among individuals and groups. In short, it reflects the grounding of libertarianism in individualism and individual diversity.

Murray N. Rothbard 1974

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on its side; the conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the “impracticality” of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory,” but that it cannot “work” in practical life. What the conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the “ideal” to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the “ideal” from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of “impracticality” becomes less and less directly relevant. The conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the “practical” (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as thestatus quo moves further in the left direction. The fact that the unreconstructed Stalinists are universally considered to be the “conservatives” in the Soviet Union is a happy logical joke upon conservatism; for in Russia the unrepentant statists are indeed the repositories of at least a superficial “practicality” and of a clinging to the existing status quo.

Never has the virus of “practicality” been more widespread than in the United States, for Americans consider themselves a “practical” people, and hence, the opposition to the Left, while originally stronger than elsewhere, has been perhaps the least firm at its foundation. It is now the advocates of the free market and the free society who have to meet the common charge of “impracticality.”

In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal. So committed is everyone to this ideal that “impracticality” — that is, the weakening of economic incentives — has been virtually the only criticism against even the most bizarre egalitarian programs. The inexorable march of egalitarianism is indication enough of the impossibility of avoiding ethical commitments; the fiercely “practical” Americans, in attempting to avoid ethical doctrines, cannot help setting forth such doctrines, but they can now only do so in unconscious, ad hoc, and unsystematic fashion. Keynes’s famous insight that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist” — is true all the more of ethical judgments and ethical theory.[1]

The unquestioned ethical status of “equality” may be seen in the common practice of economists. Economists are often caught in a value-judgment bind — eager to make political pronouncements. How can they do so while remaining “scientific” and value free? In the area of egalitarianism, they have been able to make a flat value judgment on behalf of equality with remarkable impunity. Sometimes this judgment has been frankly personal; at other times, the economist has pretended to be the surrogate of “society” in the course of making its value judgment. The result, however, is the same. Consider, for example, the late Henry C. Simons. After properly criticizing various “scientific” arguments for progressive taxation, he came out flatly for progression as follows:

The case for drastic progression in taxation must be rested on the case against inequality — on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing distribution of wealth and income reveals a degree (and/or kind) of inequality which is distinctly evil or unlovely.[2]

Another typical tactic may be culled from a standard text on public finance. According to Professor John F. Due,

The strongest argument for progression is the fact that the consensus of opinion in society today regards progression as necessary for equity. This is, in turn, based on the principle that the pattern of income distribution, before taxes, involves excessive inequality.

The latter “can be condemned on the basis of inherent unfairness in terms of the standards accepted by society.”[3]

Whether the economist boldly advances his own value judgments or whether he presumes to reflect the values of “society,” his immunity from criticism has been remarkable nonetheless. While candor in proclaiming one’s values may be admirable, it is surely not enough; in the quest for truth it is scarcely sufficient to proclaim one’s value judgments as if they must be accepted as tablets from above that are not themselves subject to intellectual criticism and evaluation. Is there no requirement that these value judgments be in some sense valid, meaningful, cogent, true?

“It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal.”

To raise such considerations, of course, is to flout the modern canons of pure wertfreiheit in social science from Max Weber onward, as well as the still older philosophic tradition of the stern separation of “fact and value,” but perhaps it is high time to raise such fundamental questions. Suppose, for example, that Professor Simons’s ethical or aesthetic judgment was not on behalf of equality but of a very different social ideal.

Suppose, for example, he had been in favor of the murder of all short people, of all adults under five feet, six inches in height. And suppose he had then written, “The case for the liquidation of all short people must be rested on the case against the existence of short people — on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing number of short adults is distinctly evil or unlovely.” One wonders if the reception accorded to Professor Simons’s remarks by his fellow economists or social scientists would have been quite the same.

Or, we can ponder Professor Due writing similarly on behalf of the “opinion of society today” in the Germany of the 1930s with regard to the social treatment of Jews. The point is that in all these cases the logical status of Simons’s or Due’s remarks would have been precisely the same, even though their reception by the American intellectual community would have been strikingly different.

My point so far has been twofold:

  1. that it is not enough for an intellectual or social scientist to proclaim his value judgments — that these judgments must be rationally defensible and must be demonstrable to be valid, cogent, and correct: in short, that they must no longer be treated as above intellectual criticism; and
  2. that the goal of equality has for too long been treated uncritically and axiomatically as the ethical ideal.

Thus, economists in favor of egalitarian programs have typically counterbalanced their uncriticized “ideal” against possible disincentive effects on economic productivity; but rarely has the ideal itself been questioned.[4]

Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself — should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

“The goal of equality has for too long been treated uncritically and axiomatically as the ethical ideal.”

Suppose, for example, that it has come to be adopted as a universal ethical goal that all men be able to fly by flapping their arms. Let us assume that “proflappers” have been generally conceded the beauty and goodness of their goal, but have been criticized as “impractical.” But the result is unending social misery as society tries continually to move in the direction of arm flying, and the preachers of arm flapping make everyone’s lives miserable for being either lax or sinful enough not to live up to the common ideal. The proper critique here is to challenge the “ideal” goal itself; to point out that the goal itself is impossible in view of the physical nature of man and the universe; and, therefore, to free mankind from its enslavement to an inherently impossible and, hence, evil goal.

But this liberation could never occur so long as the anti-arm-fliers continued to be solely in the realm of the “practical” and to concede ethics and “idealism” to the high priests of arm flying. The challenge must take place at the core — at the presumed ethical superiority of a nonsensical goal. The same, I hold, is true of the egalitarian ideal, except that its social consequences are far more pernicious than an endless quest for man’s flying unaided. For the condition of equality would wreak far more damage upon mankind.

What, in fact, is “equality”? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are “equal” if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be “equal” in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are “equal,” etc. There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be “equal” in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men — the egalitarian ideal — can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction — a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.

Indeed, it is precisely in horror fiction where the logical implications of an egalitarian world have been fully drawn. Professor Schoeck has resurrected for us the depiction of such a world in the British anti-utopian novelFacial Justice, by L.P. Hartley, in which envy is institutionalized by the State’s making sure that all girls’ faces are equally pretty, with medical operations being performed on both beautiful and ugly girls to bring all of their faces up or down to the general common denominator.[5]

A short story by Kurt Vonnegut provides an even more comprehensive description of a fully egalitarian society. Thus, Vonnegut begins his story, “Harrison Bergeron”:

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

The “handicapping” worked partly as follows:

Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.[6]

The horror we all instinctively feel at these stories is the intuitive recognition that men are not uniform, that the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation — in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of an egalitarian society is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.

“If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory.”

The great fact of individual difference and variability (that is, inequality) is evident from the long record of human experience; hence, the general recognition of the antihuman nature of a world of coerced uniformity. Socially and economically, this variability manifests itself in the universal division of labor, and in the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” — the insight that, in every organization or activity, a few (generally the most able and/or the most interested) will end up as leaders, with the mass of the membership filling the ranks of the followers. In both cases, the same phenomenon is at work — outstanding success or leadership in any given activity is attained by what Jefferson called a “natural aristocracy” — those who are best attuned to that activity.

The age-old record of inequality seems to indicate that this variability and diversity is rooted in the biological nature of man. But it is precisely such a conclusion about biology and human nature that is the most galling of all possible irritants to our egalitarians. Even egalitarians would be hard put to deny the historical record, but their answer is that “culture” has been to blame; and since they obviously hold that culture is a pure act of the will, then the goal of changing the culture and inculcating society with equality seems to be attainable. In this area, the egalitarians slough off any pretense to scientific caution; they are scarcely content with acknowledging biology and culture as mutually interacting influences. Biology must be read out of court quickly and totally.

Let us ponder an example that is deliberately semifrivolous. Suppose that we observe our culture and find a common dictum to be, ”Redheads are excitable.” Here is a judgment of inequality, a conclusion that redheads as a group tend to differ from the nonredhead population. Suppose, then, that egalitarian sociologists investigate the problem, and they find that redheads do, indeed, tend to be more excitable than nonredheads by a statistically significant amount. Instead of admitting the possibility of some sort of biological difference, the egalitarian will quickly add that the “culture” is responsible for the phenomenon: the generally accepted “stereotype” that redheads are excitable had been instilled into every redheaded child from an early age, and he or she has simply been internalizing these judgments and acting in the way society was expecting him to act. Redheads, in brief, had been “brainwashed” by the predominant nonredhead culture.

While we are not denying the possibility of such a process occurring, this common complaint seems decidedly unlikely on rational analysis. For the egalitarian culture bugaboo implicitly assumes that the “culture” arrives and accumulates haphazardly, with no reference to social facts. The idea that “redheads are excitable” did not originate out of the thin air or as a divine commandment; how, then, did the idea come into being and gain general currency?

One favorite egalitarian device is to attribute all such group-identifying statements to obscure psychological drives. The public had a psychological need to accuse some social group of excitability, and redheads were fastened on as scapegoats. But why were redheads singled out? Why not blonds or brunettes? The horrible suspicion begins to loom that perhaps redheads were singled out because they were and are indeed more excitable and that, therefore, society’s “stereotype” is simply a general insight into the facts of reality. Certainly this explanation accounts for more of the data and the processes at work and is a much simpler explanation besides.

“The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction — a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.”

Regarded objectively, it seems to be a far more sensible explanation than the idea of the culture as an arbitrary and ad hoc bogeyman. If so, then we might conclude that redheads are biologically more excitable and that propaganda beamed at redheads by egalitarians urging them to be less excitable is an attempt to induce redheads to violate their nature; therefore, it is this latter propaganda that may more accurately be called “brainwashing.”

This is not to say, of course, that society can never make a mistake and that its judgments of group identity are always rooted in fact. But it seems to me that the burden of proof is far more on the egalitarians than on their supposedly “unenlightened” opponents.

Since egalitarians begin with the a priori axiom that all people, and hence all groups of peoples, are uniform and equal, it then follows for them that any and all group differences in status, prestige, or authority in societymust be the result of unjust “oppression” and irrational “discrimination.” Statistical proof of the “oppression” of redheads would proceed in a manner all too familiar in American political life; it might be shown, for example, that the median redhead income is lower than nonredheaded income, and further that the proportion of redheaded business executives, university professors, or congressmen is below their quotal representation in the population.

The most recent and conspicuous manifestation of this sort of quotal thinking was in the McGovern movement at the 1972 Democratic Convention. A few groups are singled out as having been “oppressed” by virtue of delegates to previous conventions falling below their quotal proportion of the population as a whole. In particular, women, youth, blacks, Chicanos (or the so-called Third World) were designated as having been oppressed; as a result, the Democratic Party, under the guidance of egalitarian-quota thinking, overrode the choices of the voters in order to compel their due quotal representation of these particular groups.

In some cases, the badge of “oppression” was an almost ludicrous construction. That youths of 18 to 25 years of age had been “underrepresented” could easily have been placed in proper perspective by a reductio ad absurdum, surely some impassioned McGovernite reformer could have risen to point out the grievous “underrepresentation” of five-year-olds at the convention and to urge that the five-year-old bloc receive its immediate due. It is only commonsense biological and social insight to realize that youths win their way into society through a process of apprenticeship; youths know less and have less experience than mature adults, and so it should be clear why they tend to have less status and authority than their elders. But to accept this would be to cast the egalitarian creed into some substantial doubt; further, it would fly in the face of the youth worship that has long been a grave problem of American culture. And so young people have been duly designated as an “oppressed class,” and the coercing of their population quota is conceived as only just reparation for their previously exploited condition.[7]

“Being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.”

Women are another recently discovered “oppressed class,” and the fact that political delegates have habitually been far more than 50 percent male is now held to be an evident sign of their oppression. Delegates to political conventions come from the ranks of party activists, and since women have not been nearly as politically active as men, their numbers have understandably been low. But, faced with this argument, the widening forces of “women’s liberation” in America again revert to the talismanic argument about “brainwashing” by our “culture.” For the women’s liberationists can hardly deny the fact that every culture and civilization in history, from the simplest to the most complex, has been dominated by males. (In desperation, the liberationists have lately been countering with fantasies about the mighty Amazonian empire.) Their reply, once again, is that from time immemorial a male-dominated culture has brainwashed oppressed females to confine themselves to nurture, home, and the domestic hearth. The task of the liberationists is to effect a revolution in the female condition by sheer will, by the “raising of consciousness.” If most women continue to cleave to domestic concerns, this only reveals the “false consciousness” that must be extirpated.

Of course, one neglected reply is that if, indeed, men have succeeded in dominating every culture, then this in itself is a demonstration of male “superiority”; for if all genders are equal, how is it that male domination emerged in every case? But apart from this question, biology itself is being angrily denied and cast aside. The cry is that there are no, can be no, must be no biological differences between the sexes; all historical or current differences must be due to cultural brainwashing.

In his brilliant refutation of the women’s liberationist Kate Millett, Irving Howe outlines several important biological differences between the sexes, differences important enough to have lasting social effects. They are

  1. “the distinctive female experience of maternity” including what the anthropologist Malinowski calls an “intimate and integral connection with the child … associated with physiological effects and strong emotions”;
  2. “the hormonic components of our bodies as these vary not only between the sexes but at different ages within the sexes”;
  3. “the varying possibilities for work created by varying amounts of musculature and physical controls”; and
  4. “the psychological consequences of different sexual postures and possibilities,” in particular the “fundamental distinction between the active and passive sexual roles” as biologically determined in men and women respectively.[8]

Howe goes on to cite the admission by Dr. Eleanor Maccoby in her study of female intelligence that

it is quite possible that there are genetic factors that differentiate the two sexes and bear upon their intellectual performance…. For example, there is good reason to believe that boys are innately more aggressive than girls — and I mean aggressive in the broader sense, not just as it implies fighting, but as it implies dominance and initiative as well — and if this quality is one which underlies the later growth of analytic thinking, then boys have an advantage which girls … will find difficult to overcome.

Dr. Maccoby adds that “if you try to divide child training among males and females, we might find out that females need to do it and males don’t.”[9]

The sociologist Arnold W. Green points to the repeated emergence of what the egalitarians denounce as “stereotyped sex roles” even in communities originally dedicated to absolute equality. Thus, he cites the record of the Israeli kibbutzim:

The phenomenon is worldwide: women are concentrated in fields which require, singly or in combination, housewifely skills, patience and routine, manual dexterity, sex appeal, contact with children. The generalization holds for the Israeli kibbutz, with its established ideal of sexual equality. A “regression” to a separation of “women’s work” from “men’s work” occurred in the division of labor, to a state of affairs which parallels that elsewhere. The kibbutz is dominated by males and traditional male attitudes, on balance to the content of both sexes.[10]

Irving Howe unerringly perceives that at the root of the women’s liberation movement is resentment against the very existence of women as a distinctive entity:

For what seems to trouble Miss Millett isn’t merely the injustices women have suffered or the discriminations to which they continue to be subject. What troubles her most of all … is the sheer existence of women. Miss Millett dislikes the psychobiological distinctiveness of women, and she will go no further than to recognize — what choice is there, alas? — the inescapable differences of anatomy. She hates the perverse refusal of most women to recognize the magnitude of their humiliation, the shameful dependence they show in regard to (not very independent) men, the maddening pleasures they even take in cooking dinners for the “master group” and wiping the noses of their snotty brats. Raging against the notion that such roles and attitudes are biologically determined, since the very thought of the biological seems to her a way of forever reducing women to subordinate status, she nevertheless attributes to “culture” so staggering a range of customs, outrages, and evils that this culture comes to seem a force more immovable and ominous than biology itself.[11]

In a perceptive critique of the women’s liberation movement, Joan Didion perceives its root to be a rebellion not only against biology but also against the “very organization of nature” itself:

If the necessity for conventional reproduction of the species seemed unfair to women, then let us transcend, via technology, “the very organization of nature,” the oppression, as Shulamith Firestone saw it, “that goes back through recorded history to the animal kingdom itself.” I accept the Universe, Margaret Fuller had finally allowed: Shulamith Firestone did not.[12]

To which one is tempted to paraphrase Carlyle’s admonition: “Egad, madam, you’d better.”

Another widening rebellion against biological sex norms, as well as against natural diversity, has been the recently growing call for bisexuality by Left intellectuals. The avoidance of “rigid, stereotyped” heterosexuality and the adoption of indiscriminate bisexuality is supposed to expand consciousness, to eliminate “artificial” distinctions between the sexes and to make all persons simply and unisexually “human.”

Once again, brainwashing by a dominant culture (in this case, heterosexual) has supposedly oppressed a homosexual minority and blocked off the uniformity and equality inherent in bisexuality. For then every individual could reach his or her fullest “humanity” in the “polymorphous perversity” so dear to the hearts of such leading New Left social philosophers as Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse.

That biology stands like a rock in the face of egalitarian fantasies has been made increasingly clear in recent years. The researches of biochemist Roger J. Williams have repeatedly emphasized the great range of individual diversity throughout the entire human organism. Thus

Individuals differ from each other even in the minutest details of anatomy and body chemistry and physics; finger and toe prints; microscopic texture of hair; hair pattern on the body, ridges and “moons” on the finger and toenails; thickness of skin, its color, its tendency to blister; distribution of nerve endings on the surface of the body; size and shape of ears, of ear canals, or semi-circular canals; length of fingers; character of brain waves (tiny electrical impulses given off by the brain); exact number of muscles in the body; heart action; strength of blood vessels; blood groups; rate of clotting of blood — and so on almost ad infinitum.

We now know a great deal about how inheritance works and how it is not only possible but certain that every human being possesses by inheritance an exceedingly complex mosaic, composed of thousands of items, which is distinctive for him alone.[13]

The genetic basis for inequality of intelligence has also become increasingly evident, despite the emotional abuse heaped upon such studies by fellow scientists as well as the lay public. Studies of identical twins raised in contrasting environments have been among the ways that this conclusion has been reached; and Professor Richard Herrnstein has recently estimated that 80 percent of the variability in human intelligence is genetic in origin. Herrnstein concludes that any political attempts to provide environmental equality for all citizens will only intensify the degree of socioeconomic differences caused by genetic variability.[14]

“At the heart of the egalitarian Left is the pathological belief that the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will.”

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian Left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. Surely this sort of infantile thinking is at the heart of Herbert Marcuse’s passionate call for the comprehensive negation of the existing structure of reality and for its transformation into what he divines to be its true potential.

Nowhere is the left-wing attack on ontological reality more apparent than in the utopian dreams of what the future socialist society will look like. In the socialist future of Charles Fourier, according to Ludwig von Mises,

all harmful beasts will have disappeared, and in their places will be animals which will assist man in his labors — or even do his work for him. An antibeaver will see to the fishing; an antiwhale will move sailing ships in a calm; an antihippopotamus will tow the river boats. Instead of the lion there will be an antilion, a steed of wonderful swiftness, upon whose back the rider will sit as comfortably as in a well-sprung carriage. “It will be a pleasure to live in a world with such servants.”[15]

Furthermore, according to Fourier, the very oceans would contain lemonade rather than salt water.[16]

Similarly absurd fantasies are at the root of the Marxian utopia of communism. Freed from the supposed confines of specialization and the division of labor (the heart of any production above the most primitive level and hence of any civilized society), each person in the communist utopia would fully develop all of his powers in every direction.[17] As Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring, communism would give “each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions.”[18] And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the “abolition of the division of labor among people … the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it.”[19]

In his trenchant critique of the communist vision, Alexander Gray charges

That each individual should have the opportunity of developing all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions, is a dream which will cheer the vision only of the simpleminded, oblivious of the restrictions imposed by the narrow limits of human life. For life is a series of acts of choice, and each choice is at the same time a renunciation.

Even the inhabitant of Engels’s future fairyland will have to decide sooner or later whether he wishes to be Archbishop of Canterbury or First Sea Lord, whether he should seek to excel as a violinist or as a pugilist, whether he should elect to know all about Chinese literature or about the hidden pages in the life of a mackerel.[20]

Of course one way to try to resolve this dilemma is to fantasize that the New Communist Man of the future will be a superman, superhuman in his abilities to transcend nature. William Godwin thought that, once private property was abolished, man would become immortal. The Marxist theoretician Karl Kautsky asserted that in the future communist society, “a new type of man will arise … a superman … an exalted man.” And Leon Trotsky prophesied that under communism

man will become incomparably stronger, wiser, finer. His body more harmonious, his movements more rhythmical, his voice more musical…. The human average will rise to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, a Marx. Above these other heights new peaks will arise.[21]

We began by considering the common view that the egalitarians, despite a modicum of impracticality, have ethics and moral idealism on their side. We end with the conclusion that egalitarians, however intelligent as individuals, deny the very basis of human intelligence and of human reason: the identification of the ontological structure of reality, of the laws of human nature, and the universe. In so doing, the egalitarians are acting as terribly spoiled children, denying the structure of reality on behalf of the rapid materialization of their own absurd fantasies. Not only spoiled but also highly dangerous; for the power of ideas is such that the egalitarians have a fair chance of destroying the very universe that they wish to deny and transcend, and to bring that universe crashing around all of our ears. Since their methodology and their goals deny the very structure of humanity and of the universe, the egalitarians are profoundly antihuman; and, therefore, their ideology and their activities may be set down as profoundly evil as well. Egalitarians do not have ethics on their side unless one can maintain that the destruction of civilization, and even of the human race itself, may be crowned with the laurel wreath of a high and laudable morality.

Notes

[1] John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1936), p. 383.

[2] Henry C. Simons, Personal Income Taxation (1938), pp. 18–19, quoted in Walter J. Blum and Harry Kalven, Jr.,The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 72.

[3] John F. Due, Government Finance (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1954), pp. 128–29.

[4] Thus:

A third line of objection to progression, and undoubtedly the one which has received the most attention, is that it lessens the economic productivity of the society. Virtually everyone who has advocated progression in an income tax has recognized this as a counterbalancing consideration. (Blum and Kalven, The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation, p. 21)

The “ideal” vs. the “practical” once again!

[5] Helmut Schoeck, Envy (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1970), pp. 149–55.

[6] Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., “Harrison Bergeron,” in Welcome to the Monkey House (New York: Dell, 1970), p. 7.

[7] Egalitarians have, among their other activities, been busily at work “correcting” the English language. The use of the word “girl,” for example, is now held to grievously demean and degrade female youth and to imply their natural subservience to adults. As a result, left egalitarians now refer to girls of virtually any age as “women,” and we may confidently look forward to reading about the activities of “a five-year-old woman.”

[8] Irving Howe, “The Middle-Class Mind of Kate Millett,” Harper’s (December, 1970): 125–26.

[9] Ibid., p. 126.

[10] Arnold W. Green, Sociology (6th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), p. 305. Green cites the study by A.I. Rabin, “The Sexes: Ideology and Reality in the Israeli Kibbutz,” in G.H. Seward and R.G. Williamson, eds., Sex Roles in Changing Society (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 285–307.

[11] Howe, “The Middle-Class Mind of Kate Millett,” p. 124.

[12] Joan Didion, “The Women’s Movement,” New York Times Review of Books (July 30, 1972), p. 1.

[13] Roger J. Williams, Free and Unequal (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1953), pp. 17, 23. See also by Williams Biochemical Individuality (New York: John Wiley, 1963) and You are Extraordinary (New York: Random House, 1967).

[14] Richard Herrnstein, “IQ,” Atlantic Monthly (September, 1971).

[15] Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1951), pp. 163–64.

[16] Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1949), p. 71. Mises cites the first and fourth volumes of Fourier’s Oeuvres Complètes.

[17] For more on the communist utopia and the division of labor, see Murray N. Rothbard, Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor (chap. 16, present volume).

[18] Quoted in Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition (London: Long-mans, Green, 1947), p. 328.

[19] Italics are Lenin’s. V.I. Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (New York: International Publishers, 1940), p. 34.

[20] Gray, The Socialist Tradition, p. 328.

[21] Quoted in Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, p. 164.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The Best of Murray N. Rothbard

Email Print FacebookTwitterShare

Tags:

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School, founder of modern libertarianism, and academic vice president of the Mises Institute. He was also editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and appointed Lew as his literary executor. See his books.

Creative Commons Licence

Previous article by Murray N. Rothbard: We Can Have a Just Legal System

No Need for ImmigrationPutin Is Right

Burt’s Gold Price Page Advertise on LewRockwell.com

LRC Blog

LRC Podcasts

creativecommons.org

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Amazing, and a bit scary.

The Stranger

A few years after I was born, my Dad met a stranger
who was new to our small town. From the beginning,
Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer
and soon invited him to live with our family. The
stranger was quickly accepted and was around
from then on.

As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my
family. In my young mind, he had a special niche.
My parents were complementary instructors: Mom
taught me good from evil, and Dad taught me to obey.
But the stranger… he was our storyteller. He would
keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures,
mysteries and comedies.

If I wanted to know anything about politics, history
or science, he always knew the answers about the past,
understood the present and even seemed able to predict
the future! He took my family to the first major league
ball game. He made me laugh, and he made me cry. The
stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn’t seem
to mind.

Sometimes, Mom would get up quietly while the rest of
us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to
say, and she would go to the kitchen for peace and quiet.
(I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.)

Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions,
but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them.
Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home – not
from us, our friends or any visitors. Our long time visitor,

however, got away with four-letter words that burned my
ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush.

My Dad didn’t permit the liberal use of alcohol but the
stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis. He made

cigarettes look cool, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished.

He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex. His comments
were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally
embarrassing.

I now know that my early concepts about relationships were

influenced strongly by the stranger. Time after time, he
opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked

… And NEVER asked to leave.

More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved
in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly
as fascinating as he was at first.Still, if you could walk into
my parents’ den today, you would still find him sitting over
in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and
watch him draw his pictures.

His name?….

We just call him ‘TV.’

(Note: This should be required
reading for every household!)

He has a wife now….we call her ‘Computer.’

Their first child is “Cell Phone”.

Second child “I Pod “

And LATEST BORN WERE Grandchild:

IPAD & IPHONE

OH MY—-HOW TRUE THIS IS!!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Happy Thanksgiving to all and to all a great weekend

Happpy

Thanksgiving to you and everyone at your house!

Nancy and I wish you all the very best for a wonderful family weekend during which you share love, friendship, prayers, and some really good food.

Somehow the food we eat on Thanksgiving seems to taste much better than the same food tastes at other times during the year. The reason could be that we are conscious of how lucky we are to have the foods we eat and the company we share.

We are also conscious of the fact that many fellow human beings in many parts of the World, including right here at home, haven’t got the resources to have a great meal with family members for a special occasion. Please keep these folks in mind as you give thanks. They need all the help they can get in the form of encouragement and education in the ways towards better times. They do not need gifts from a government that takes their souls in exchange for handouts to keep them going.

Ben Franklin supposedly said: “A person that is willing to surrender a little liberty for a little security deserves neither liberty or security.”

Enough preaching. Have a super great weekend and stay safe!

Joe and Nancy Hollinger
God Bless America

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment