Politics

 

Monarchy, feudalism, oligarchy, and theocracy have been almost entirely defeated. Communism and fascism have been defeated too – sort of. At the least, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European communist satellites no longer exist, just as Nazi Germany and its Japanese, Italian, and Spanish fascist allies no longer exist.

So now the enemies of the West and the world are the Moslems and the (post-2015) Monster Leftists. These two are the current champions of evil and destroyers of the planet.

But they’re both still pretty communist in economics and fascist in sociology. Both the muzzies and the multicultis hate economic and social liberty. Both the throat-cutters and the minority supremacists want the Holy Individual enslaved and/or brainwashed out of existence.

According to the sharia-ists and diversitarians, all people must serve god or government. And individuals must be servants and slaves to their fellow man and the collective. The Sacred Self must be sacrificed to religion, the state, and the masses.

Unfortunately for all of us, evil enemy nations – and communist and fascist hellholes – like China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and more, have a lot of troops and bombs to make this happen.

The Moslems of the East and the Monster Leftists of the West are true allies. They’re working hard and well to make worldwide tyranny a reality.

Low-quality blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, and trannies have a position of high privilege in Western society. But not nearly enough to satisfy themselves or the Monster Leftists. So they fight on, devastating Western Civilization, and securing ever-more “rights”, “entitlements”, and privileges as our New Elite – the great Minority Supremacists.

Their only serious opponents, if any, are the right-wing conservatives. Plus the tiny straight-wing liberals.

But in this battle for survival, the Religious Right lacks the intellectual knowledge, moral certainty, social self-confidence, and personal will to defeat the monkey Moslems and mutant Monster Leftists. This is because the conservatives, fundamentally, are highly irrational and altruistic. They’re very similar to their supposed enemies. The conservatives are just about as religious and collectivist as the head-choppers and rioter-looter-arsonists.

So all these irrational, illiberal, depraved, barbaric, self-hating, self-destroying groups give us virtually no hope. The communists, fascists, Moslems, Monster Leftists, and Religious Rightists all have profoundly false and evil philosophies. These five loathsome groups, in fact, need to be annihilated.

The liberals need to replace them all.

Liberalism

 

Liberalism generates human magnificence. It fundamentally enhances and uplifts you. It makes you smart, good, and strong. And it yields pleasure, excitement, exhilaration, ecstasy, and joy.

Liberalism lets and makes you live your richest, fullest, best life. Your most meaningful and purposeful one. Your greatest and happiest one. Consistently following liberal philosophy builds and creates a wonderful, marvelous, awesome, stunning person and existence.

Liberalism produces a great society too. It generates the richest culture and highest level of civilization. The philosophy of liberalism results in immense social harmony and cooperation, as well as pervasive cohesion and unity.

Liberalism focuses overwhelmingly on the Individual. This lets and makes every member of society thrive, prosper, maximize his potential, and fulfill his destiny.

Domination

 

Columbus Day should be renamed Western Domination Day. It should celebrate when our magnificent and glorious Western Civilization began to dominate, control, and uplift the inferior peoples and cultures of the world. This submission to Western greatness and leadership especially includes the tribalists of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas; the Moslems of the Middle East; and the tyrannical monarchies of India and China.

After the wonderful and superior white people of Europe discovered America in 1492, it wasn’t long before these fantastic, light-skinned nations began to rule over and better their mostly dark-skinned inferiors. These noble and heroic white leaders – especially the Anglo-Saxons – brought their superior Greco-Roman and Renaissance-Enlightenment philosophy and culture to the backward world.

The marvels of European colonialism, imperialism, and hegemony uplifted the planet, resulting in tremendous progress for all. When the advanced and highly civilized nations of the West brought their philosophy of reason, individualism, capitalism, beauty, and transcendence to the world, wealth, health, liberty, justice, cultural riches, and personal happiness surged everywhere. What a social benefactor and moral giant Western Civilization is!

Western Domination Day should be honored and wildly celebrated by Westerners and non-Westerners alike!

Government Theft

 

Spending is theft. When the welfare state spends on welfare statist programs, it’s engaging in theft. The government has no right to expend citizenry money on food, housing, health, education, transportation, utilities, roads, parks, infrastructure, charity, and so on. This constitutes fascism, socialism, and tyranny. It’s also theft.

Government exists to protect individual rights. It exists to ensure justice and liberty for all. It’s sole purpose is to defend people and property. That’s it.

So when the state spends public funds on other activities, it’s engaging in theft.

The government may only properly spend money on the police, military, courts, prisons, and administrative bureaucracy. If it spends outside of that, it’s robbing the people.

A welfare state isn’t a moral state or a free state. It’s a criminal and tyrannical state.

By its nature, a welfare state steals from the public. It violates the Natural Law prohibition against theft. A welfare state robs the nation in order to fund its illegitimate and authoritarian activities. Welfare statist spending is theft.

By their nature, the funds of a moral and free government are acquired thru voluntary and contractual fees from the citizenry. These funds are used to pay for the equipment and salaries of the police, military, court, prison, and administrative workers. Such payments in a libertarian and capitalist society are not theft.

A just and free state may not steal from the voluntary, contractual, government fees in order to fund various welfare statist endeavors such as providing naturally low-quality, high-cost food, housing, health care, education, transportation, utilities, roads, parks, infrastructure, charity, etc. to its citizens. Such government activities involve robbery, criminality, and tyranny. Such spending is theft.

Liberal Philosophy

 

Greatness and happiness for the individual and society is best achieved thru the philosophy – and subsequent social culture, personal lifestyle, and intellectual attitude – of pure liberalism. This essentially means thru the epistemology of reason and science, the metaphysics of naturalism and objectivity, the ethics of individualism and self-interest, the esthetics of beauty and heroism, and the spirituality of transcendence and triumph.

Liberalism was invented by the scientific and philosophic Greeks. It was extended and improved by the Romans, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Ayn Rand. The relatively noble and powerful nations of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, America, and others need to work hard and smart to extend and improve liberalism still further.

The philosophies of religious conservatism and collectivist progressivism are highly illiberal, omni-destructive, and evil. Thye harm the One and the group.  Conservatism today is maybe 40% liberal at best, while current, post-2015, woke progressivism is perhaps only 25% liberal.

The Holy Individual – the cynosure of the universe – must never heed Rightism, Leftism, or some combination. He must never serve or sacrifice himself to the “god” of conservatives or the “collective” of the progressives. There’s no evidence that any deity or semi-deity even exists. Nor is there any reason to think that humanity as a whole enjoys any kind of life or existence separate from, or somehow superior to, its individual members.

Rightist and Leftist illiberalism – with all their irrationality, self-sacrifice, and self-destruction – need to be crushed. The philosophy, culture, lifestyle, and attitude of liberalism needs to ascend and triumph.

Kant on Education

 

How evil a man and philosopher is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)? Let us consider his views on childhood education -- via strong duty, obedience, and punishment -- for naturally evil man:

 * "One often hears it said that we should put everything before children in such a way that they shall do it from inclination. In some cases, it is true, this is all very well, but there is much besides which we must place before them as duty. . . . For in the paying of rates and taxes, in the work of the office, and in many other cases, we must be led, not by inclination, but by duty. Even though a child should not be able to see the reason of a duty, it is nevertheless better that certain things should be prescribed to him in this way." --On Education, chapter. 4 section 82, (1776)

* "the history of freedom begins with badness, for it is man’s work." --"Speculative Beginning of Human History" in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, p. 54 (1795)

* "Above all things, obedience is an essential feature in the character of a child, especially of a school boy or girl." --On Education, sec. 80 (1776)

* "a certain plan, and certain rules, in everything, and these must be strictly adhered to. For instance, they must have set times for sleep, for work, and for pleasure, and these times must be neither shortened nor lengthened." --On Education, sec. 83 (1776)

* "Every transgression in a child is a want of obedience, and this brings punishment with it." --On Education, sec. 83 (1776)

The Foreign Policy of Enslavement

 

America is a scumbag, moron, pro-slavery nation. Or, at least, it is when it comes to many elements of foreign policy. Firstly, even tho it’s morally depraved and practically disastrous, America has diplomatic, economic, and social relations with almost every hideous dictatorship and loathsome, murderous enemy on earth, including China, Russia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, and Saudia Arabia. What a strategic blunder and ethical monstrosity!

Secondly, the United States props up many Third World savage tyrannies which merely pretend to be America’s friend and ally. Thirdly, even when the United States has massive influence over a weak foreign nation, it consistently tends to support authoritarianism there. The logic is: “In the name of majority-rule and self-rule, it’s okay to back and praise traditional dictatorship, since the locals don’t know any better, and seem to accept or even favor massive enslavement.” What a joke!

It wasn’t always thus. After World War Two, America dominated and ruled over Germany and Japan. These two nations had a long history of fascism and tyranny. But the United States said NO. America properly rejected the political ideals of democracy and autonomy for Germany and Japan.

Instead, it set up a free nation for both. America did so by rewriting their constitutions, engaging in “nation-building” (actually, liberty-teaching) for ten years or more, and essentially forcing political freedom down their throats.

Supposedly this can’t be done. But it was. And America essentially hasn’t had a single problem with Germany and Japan since.

Due to war, the United States also dominated South Vietnam in the early 1970s, Kuwait in 1990, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. Unfortunately, America supported the evil political ideals of majority-rule and self-rule there. The United States rejected individual rights and universal freedom. It stomped on liberty and justice in the social, personal, economic, and political realms of society.

So when the United States' military left, the local people soon rejected their foreign hegemon and enemy, America. They then embraced tyranny and enslavement on their own. Hence, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq are slave nations, and enormously hostile to America, to this this day. Who can blame them?

It easily could have been otherwise. But America is a scumbag, moron, pro-slavery nation. It generally subscribes to the false and evil political ideals of democracy and autonomy. America rejects liberty and justice for all. When it comes to foreign policy, America today is mostly intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Quotes by Ayn Rand on Politics, Society, and the Nature of Government

 

* A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment – a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature – in not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule.

* Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

* If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights.

* Man’s rights can only be violated by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

* The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships – thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only be means of reason: by discussion, persuasion, and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

* In a civilized society, force may only be used in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.* Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted. This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws, and not men.”

* Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection.

* Such, in essence, is the proper purpose of a government: to make social existence possible to men, by protecting the benefits and combatting the evils which men can cause to one another.

* The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issue of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals – the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders – the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.

--from Ayn Rand’s essay The Nature of Government (December 1963)

The War

 

Life is an on-going battle between liberalism and illiberalism. This has been so for 2600 years, ever since the Greeks discovered and invented reason. This contest is true for every individual and society which is decently aware of Western liberalism. The philosophy, culture, lifestyle, and attitude of liberalism wages a pivotal and never-ending war against its right-wing and left-wing opposites.

"Conservatives" are really reactionaries against liberalism. "Progressives" are really regressives against liberalism. The old ideas and institutions which the Right seeks to hold onto aren’t worth conserving, and are inferior to the liberal alternatives. The new ideas and institutions which the Left seeks to move towards don’t constitute progress, and are inferior to the liberal alternatives. Both conservatism and progressivism are irrational and immoral.

Both the right-wing conservatives and the left-wing progressives are fatuous and depraved enemies which seek to replace and destroy the philosophy, culture, lifestyle, and attitude of liberalism, along with its dynamic, heroic, healthy, and happy practitioners and civilizations. But decently educated liberal individuals and societies have a formidable amount of tools and power with which to defeat their Rightist and Leftist enemies.

Quotes from Ayn Rand on Politics and Group "Rights"

 

• Just as the notion that “Anything I do is right because I choose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality – so the notion that “Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,” is not a moral principle but a negation of moral principles...”

• Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.

• A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights he does possess.

• Any group that does not recognize this principle [of individual rights] is not an association, but a gang or a mob. Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching.

• [T]his doctrine [of collective rights] rests on mysticism...on the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

• A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens.

• Just as an individual’s right of free action does not include the right to commit crimes (that is, to violate the rights of others), so the right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men to others). There is no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

• Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

--from the essay Collectivized “Rights” (June 1963), by Ayn Rand

Quotes from Ayn Rand on Politics and Individual Rights

 

• If one wishes to advocate a free society – that is, capitalism – one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them.

• [T]here is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men...”

• The United States [when it began] held that man’s life is his by right, (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

• The concept of a “right” pertains only to action – specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

• [Thus] the right to property is a right to action...it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning the object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.

• The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day… [S]ome men assert that rights are a gift of God – others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

• Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.

• The [American] Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.

• A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships – in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

• Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

• Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness – not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.

• Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

• There is no such thing as “a right to a job” – there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it.

• There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, or the old, of the young, or the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man – rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

• [R]ights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men.

• Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedoms. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal – and men have legal protection against him.

• A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights... When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is man’s deadliest enemy.

• [T]here are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights.” The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

--from the essay Man’s Rights (April 1963), by Ayn Rand

Your Job

 

No matter how poor the philosophy, culture, and society is which surrounds you, you still have the sacred moral duty to yourself to maximize your potential, to be as great as you can be, to live as joyfully and happily as possible, and to fulfill your destiny. This is true even if you’re hopelessly trapped inside a planetary, criminal insane asylum.

However bad it is, you never know: You may find a way out if you work really long, hard, smart, and slick. Or one of your friends or allies may show you the way. Or superior space aliens may even rescue you. Or you may live a life well worth living despite being stuck inside Hell.

But no matter what, you need to be ready. And you need to be worthy.

Meanwhile, regardless of the rottenness of your circumstances, you have a special obligation to yourself to do your best. You can’t ask, or realistically expect, any more than that. But you shouldn’t ask any less either. Hang in there, be strong and tough, and when it comes to the challenge and death-struggle of reality, life, self, and people, try like hell to triumph.

Real Racism

 

Almost all racism today consists of false accusations of racism. Almost all racists today in America are black and Hispanic. They fraudulently, hatefully, unendingly accuse whites of racist acts, beliefs, and attitudes about them. These baseless claims are usually wanton and malicious, but also lazy and self-indulgent, with little regard for truth.

These are not innocent errors. Blacks and Hispanics almost always know their charges are false -- or else they easily could know it. They rarely seek justice or truth. Mostly they just make sloppy, malevolent accusations while pretty much lying thru their teeth.

And the deliberate evil of American blacks and Hispanics doesn’t stop there. Almost always the whites being attacked are good people in general and non-bigots in particular. The black and Hispanic accusers, in turn, are generally scumbags in general and bigots in particular.

Moreover, American blacks and Hispanics don’t limit their abuse and depravity to racism. They are also sexist to a very high degree. As well as homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and more. These race-baiters and race-haters are pretty much as rotten a collection of human beings as you can find. And yet they never stop whining, weeping, and screaming about how whites are treating them!

The brazenness of their wickedness is amazing. There’s no words to describe the injustice and heinousness of their charges. And yet these false accusations just keep on a-comin’! This American societal nightmare has been on-going for 55 years now.

Of course, it doesn’t help that a large, loud, strange, inbred minority of white Americans also accuse their fellow whites of racist beliefs, words, and deeds. These self-congratulatory, virtue-signaling, echo-chamber charges are as false as they are odd.

And yet...this horror and depravity gets even worse. Because it’s not just a case of the pot calling the porcelain black. It’s not just a case of the guilty shamelessly accusing the innocent.

In very large part, American blacks and Hispanics are a species of monsters. They devastate the country. And it’s not just by being racist lowlifes who love to lie a lot and scapegoat the blameless.

Blacks and Hispanics in America also commit crime at a stunningly high level. And they demand Welfare and charity the same. Blacks and Hispanics are also wildly irrational and self-destructive in their general behavior. They hurt themselves, yes; but they also degrade the culture and pollute the society to a large degree. And they support and vote for fascist and socialist tyranny almost non-stop.

The evil of American blacks and Hispanics seems almost beyond belief. 85 to 95% of them should probably be stripped of their citizenship and deported immediately. 90 to 98% of the would-be new immigrants should be denied. Irrational, illiberal, self-destructive, socially-decimating, lowlife, tyrannical, mendicant, criminal, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic demons who hate America, and maniacally seek to destroy her, should not be allowed inside.

That would be lunacy. And yet most American whites are loons. They’ve been effectively brain-washed. They’re now filled with self-hatred and self-destructiveness. They mostly support evil, enemy blacks and Hispanics invading, overwhelming, and annihilating the country. They mostly agree with the philosophy of their destroyers: “Blame whitey, hate white, kill whitey!”

And so the destruction of America at the hands of these subhuman monsters and racist baboons looms.

The 'Communist Manifesto' on Individualism, Individual Liberty, and Economic Liberty

 

Capitalism is extremely friendly to individual happiness and societal wealth. Both rose significantly as the Industrial Revolution and capitalism changed the world radically in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Individual fulfillment, personal greatness, cultural richness, and social harmony also surged. Such was life under social and economic liberty.

Far fewer country farmers lived in isolation, desperation, poverty, and misery. Businesses blossomed in size and profitability, with former peasants eager for factory and assembly-line work. Whole armies of previously poor people moved to the city to get better jobs and live the good life. Karl Marx (1818-83), Friedrich Engels (1820-95), and many others noticed this – along with certain flaws in the new system – and tried to understand it all.

The 1689 English, 1776 American, and 1789 French Revolutions created an immense increase in individual rights or human liberty. This included political, personal, social, and economic freedom. Marx and Engels’ 1848 Communist Manifesto focused on examining the new economic liberty and emerging Big Businesses, especially as they impacted average workers in large companies. But their treatise smeared economic liberty, and confused the concept, with the term “capitalism”.

And yet the Communist Manifesto did fairly observe that the new capitalist era allowed the individual to dedicate himself far more to his own needs and wants – his own pleasures and delights. Such was the inevitable result of the breaking of human shackles and the rise in overall individual liberty.

Marx and Engels also observed that the new capitalist era created business enterprise, energy, ambition, creativity, variety, productivity, efficiency, change, progress, and wealth previously unknown in human history. But at best they considered these two new revolutions in human life – the dramatic surge in personal happiness and collective wealth – a mixed blessing.

In ironic language, the Communist Manifesto notes that the radical growth in the protection of the rights of man and the freedom of business activity “has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relations”. This new liberty “has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism”. The capitalist era “has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked upon with reverential awe”. Finally, the expansion of the government defense of individual liberty has even “torn away from the family its sentimental veil”. Marx and Engels are certainly right about one thing: the rise of political liberalism in the late 1700s and early 1800s changed overall human life, and individual lifestyles, a great deal.

According to the Communist Manifesto, the ascent of political, social, and economic liberalism “left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’”. It plunged all of human life into “the icy waters of egotistical calculation”. The political pamphlet vaguely but ominously charged that the new liberty “has resolved personal worth into exchange value”. Marx and Engels even obscurely defend “the numberless, indefeasible, chartered freedoms” of traditional, pre-capitalist life. These, it seems, are far superior to what liberalism has substituted: “that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade”.

Why do Marx and Engels hate liberalism so much? Because it has reduced all of human life to “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation”. Economic liberation “has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage-laborers”. Economic capitalism has even “reduced the family relation to a mere money relation”.

* * *

But is any of this really true? Is liberty really such a terrible thing? Is its impact upon the individual, society, and business really so dreadful? Is political, social, and economic liberalism such a horror story, and so universally destructive to man, that one can only wish for its immediate and absolute termination?

Marx and Engels don’t seem to understand the nature of freedom. They don’t seem to realize its positive effects upon all aspects of life. They don’t comprehend how it enhances life, rationality, morality, thinking, feelings, ambition, hope, dreams, visions, health, wealth, work, play, family, friends, marriage, love, sex, philosophy, science, art, entertainment, recreation, conversation, vacation, relaxation, meditation, and more. There seems to be not a single area of human life which individual liberty doesn’t improve and uplift.

The idea that a free person and free society is reduced to caring only about economic activity and money is absurd. Under political, social, and economic liberalism, there’s more to life than just business.

Marx and Engels’ idea that free enterprise and free trade necessarily entails “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” is part of their crude, anti-capitalist bias, but this claim is baseless. Free enterprise enriches culture and productivity for every member of society. Free trade benefits both parties involved and exploits neither. There’s not a hint of oppression or brutality involved in either activity.

Marx and Engels’ claim that free trade is “unconscionable” is bizarre. Human beings have been finding, making, swapping, and bartering goods since time immemorial. They willingly, happily engage in such behaviors because because they tend to benefit and profit everyone involved.

Ultimately, Marx and Engels make many errors in their freedom-hating, freedom-destroying manifesto. But their attacks upon “self-interest” and “egoism” are especially monstrous. A proper man, and noble soul, lives for his own sake. The Enlightenment teaches us that every man is an end in himself – not a means to some other end. He and his life are sacred, priceless jewels not to be exchanged or sacrificed for anything or anyone. To say that individualism, self-interest, and egoism are morally wrong, as the Communist Manifesto claims, is a gigantic, intellectual error. Attacks upon the Holy Individual and his irreplaceable life are destructive to every person on earth and constitute evil incarnate.

The Communist Manifesto

 

The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels says: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." But in fact it’s the history of liberty struggles. More broadly, it’s the history of freedom vs. slavery, civilization vs. savagery, and liberalism vs. illiberalism.

The Communist Manifesto states that in human history: "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight…" But the fact is that thruout the 5300-year history of government, some people believed in a version of freedom, and wanted to live freely; while others believed in a version of tyranny, and wanted to enslave their brothers. Marx and Engels are the latter.

Their radical treatise argues that: "The modern bourgeois society" – by which Marx and Engels mean the economically free and large business-ownership society – "...has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones." This is actually true. Feudalism has died out. The failed, evil welfare state and crony capitalism has emerged. Wealthy individuals and groups today, often including Big Business owners, pressure and bribe government leaders to coerce their business competitors and the masses, to the unjust advantage of the rich. The business rivals and the consumers suffer. This is because this new type of regulation, like all regulation, is a form of tyranny.

The welfare state, or corporatist state, or crony capitalist government, is a type of slave state or authoritarianism. It’s plutocracy or oligarchy or fascism – not real economic liberty or capitalism. The more the welfare state regulates or coerces, the more it reduces everyone to slavery. The more it "helps" and "benefits" people, and the more it promotes and advances "the public interest" and "the common good", the more it destroys everyone and everything. Collectivism harms everybody. The simple truth is that the coercive welfare state – which violates rights and dictates to all – is hell on earth.

This phony and crony "capitalist" government attacks, damages, and destroys people and property. Personal happiness and social cooperation are mostly terminated. In a just and free society, such government regulation and coercion doesn’t exist.

But Marx and Engels don’t understand this. They think economic liberty – with its concomitant social and personal liberty – yields "oppression", "exploitation", and even "enslavement". To combat this horror, they actually advocate expanding the welfare state. Marx and Engels misunderstand, fear, and hate Big Business owners and propose to coercively eliminate them. They even propose to eliminate private property – which is the foundation of civilization and human liberty.

Max and Engels oddly label economic freedom "capitalism". They denominate business owners "the bourgeoisie" and business employees "the proletariat". Unfortunately, Western Civilization has accepted these misleading and hostile terms. Economic, social, personal, and political freedom has suffered badly because of it.

Marx and Engels claim that the capitalist world is divided up into these two permanently antagonistic groups or "classes". They say that the business owners, "bourgeoisie", "exploiters", and "oppressors" are naturally and inherently at the throats of the business employees, "proletariat", "exploited", and "oppressed". They say the employers are "dictators" and "parasites" while the employees are "slaves" and the only true "workers". The Communist Manifesto argues that no peace is possible between these "two great hostile camps" and that’s it’s vital for "the poor and working class" to win this war.

The absurdity and malevolence of these claims is hard to overstate.

In fact, under capitalism, company owners and employees naturally cooperate with each other, and live in great harmony. They’re business partners who easily work together to immense mutual benefit, profit, pleasure, and happiness. These two allegedly antagonistic "classes" also frequently switch sides or belong to both groups at once. Practically the only thing that prevents the "bourgeoisie" and the "proletarians" from living and working together in perfect peace and bliss is the welfare state and our crony capitalist society. Incredibly, this is what Marx and Engels seek to radically expand.

In the end, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have a great deal of difficulty understanding "giant, Modern Industry". The Scientific and Industrial Revolutions of the 1600s and 1700s leave them baffled. They see the tremendous and unprecedented size, organization, and wealth of the new commercial enterprises and foolishly conclude that the "industrial millionaires" which run them are "slave-masters" to the whole world.

But the truth is, in a free society – in a civilized society and government based upon economic, social, personal, and political liberty – no-one seriously exploits or oppresses another, and no-one is a master or a slave. Ultimately, Marx and Engel’s proposed "dictatorship of the proletariat" means tyranny, poverty, and misery for all.

Shoot to Kill

 

"Shoot to kill!" That’s the morally correct policy. That's the civilized response. Go after the wild animals, violent attackers, and subhuman monsters by shooting to kill.

In any decent or civilized society, social and political "protesters" aren’t allowed to become criminals. They aren’t allowed to turn into thugs, physical aggressors, and felonious assailants. Social and political "activists" – however passionate they are about their "cause" – aren’t allowed to rage out of control and engage in mayhem and murder. They can’t morally or legally riot, vandalize, loot, commit arson, commit assault, or slaughter innocents. But if they do – you blow them away.

The only proper societal, governmental, and police response to the problem is: Nip it in the bud. Stop it before it starts. End it for all time everywhere. If the "protesters" turn into rampaging thugs and murderous monsters, you blow them to Kingdom Come.

Proper societies and police forces do not negotiate with rioters. They do not tolerate their rapacious street crime or mob violence. The police must never "stand down". The bestial would-be protesters are never "allowed to vent". If these enemies of order and civilization insist upon having their Day of Rage, and physically expressing their apoplexy, then they should be given a few moments to riot and rampage – in order to show their nature – and then they should be terminated.

If these evil clowns feel some (usually pretend) horror over some (usually innocuous) social situation or political event – probably based upon their cockamamie, depraved ideology – then these lowlife bozos need to "write their congressman".

Ha-ha-ha! Got 'em good. But seriously: They need to speak or write to their family, friends, or local representatives, you might say. Or write a letter to the editor. These passionate crusaders can also protest and march and carry furious signs and listen to fiery speeches. But they may not riot.

They also can’t "occupy" property. Or block traffic. Or pose a danger to public safety and order. Or physically threaten social or political opponents. And especially they may not resist or attack the police.

But if they do, society should fall on them like a ton of bricks. The police should beat the living hell out of them.

And these cops should never wear "riot gear". This shouldn’t even exist. The police should never use water hoses, tear gas, or rubber bullets. If a rampaging mob forms, and the fiends inside it defiantly threaten to explode in fury and run wild – or even to become significantly disorderly and unruly – then the police need to call upon their two best buddies: Smith and Wesson.

At most the cops should use their bullhorns to order the dangerous criminals to cease and desist. Then they should fire a few warning shots over their heads. But if the criminal demons don’t immediately halt their riot, cease their attack, stop threatening people and property, run away, and go home, then – shoot to kill! The police need to do their job and deal with this situation properly.

In this way, probably 99% of physical assaults and property destruction will be prevented. So too 90% of "protester" injuries and deaths. And almost all law enforcement officials and police officers will be saved. When it comes time to riot, the authorities and cops shouldn’t mess around.

One key to public order and safety is for the police to never respond "proportionately". They need to always "overreact". All these "mostly peaceful" protesters need to be shut down instantly.

Or at least something close to this. There’s little room for "compromise" or even "reason" on this. The scam protesters and rampaging rioters who seek ownership of the streets must not be allowed to triumph and successfully damage tranquility and peace. Civilization needs to be fiercely protected. No rioting allowed.

As for any non-criminals, true protesters, free speech practitioners, decent human beings, and the like: They need to take care to never participate in a rally, march, or demonstration which "turns violent" or degenerates into a riot. If the "protesters" and "mostly peaceful" multitude becomes a rampaging mob, then all good and law-abiding citizens need to urge their friends, and all responsible citizens, to quit the scene. They need to quickly differentiate themselves from the law-breaking crowd and exit the riot immediately. They also need to think hard, learn a lesson, and figure out how they ended up in a vandalizing, looting, burning, assaulting, maniacal, murderous, monstrous mob to begin with.

Because prudence, decency, morality, and justice demand that all rampaging mobs engaged in rioting, vandalizing, looting, arson, and killing – or which threaten to do so or seem like they might – need to be shot on sight.

The world needs to nip this horror in the bud. It needs to stop this nightmare from ever starting. The legal authorities and police need to be morally good and socially civilized here. In order to protect people and property – which is their sacred duty – they need to shoot to kill all the rioters, feral beasts, and mutant, murderous monsters.

The Philosophy of Noam Chomsky

 

Noam Chomsky is possibly the most intellectually powerful enemy of economic capitalism and political liberty since Vladimir Lenin. His opposition to free enterprise, free trade, laissez-faire, and post-1960s neoliberalism is notorious. He seems to leave such Big Brother advocates as John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Thomas Piketty, and Paul Krugman in the dust.

Chomsky is a formidable advocate of anarchism, socialism, and collectively-owned, democratically-run businesses – however odd, contradictory, and foolish that may seem. He’s also a close ally of the current woke fascism and bigotry, as well as a profound proponent of what I call post-2016, post-Bernie Sanders, Monster Leftism.

No-one is more intelligent than Noam Chomsky. His IQ is probably off the charts. And no-one is better educated. He attended an Ivy League university at 16 and eventually earned a Ph.D.

As a speaker and writer, Chomsky is remarkably erudite, scholarly, honest, brave, direct, comprehensible, low-key, and beguiling. As a person, he is a charmingly avuncular figure. In a whole variety of ways, Chomsky is a pedagogic and philosophical delight.

That said, no-one on the planet is more intellectually fatuous and depraved. No-one has more asinine and heinous political views. An especially good example of this is found in his current book Consequences of Capitalism (2021). Here are most of his central ideas on capitalist workers, as well as many of his foundational philosophical and political beliefs:

• "[T]he great majority of the population is governed for most of their waking lives by private governments, more accurately, private tyrannies." (p. 86)

• "When you rent yourself to some concentration of capital in the private sector – that’s what taking a job is – you’re giving your life over to a dictatorship, in fact, an extreme form of a dictatorship that reaches far beyond political dictatorships. The tyranny to which you are handing yourself over to has almost total control over you. It controls every minute of your working day: what you wear and are allowed to say, when you’re allowed to get a bathroom break, how your hands and legs move, whether you smoke cigarettes at home. Just about everything in your life is controlled by this extreme dictatorship, which goes far beyond any totalitarian dictatorship in the degree of control it exercises." (p. 86)

• Chomsky rejects the notion that the capitalist "socioeconomic system is legitimate if it subjects people to extreme forms of tyranny for most of their lives". He similarly rejects the notion that the capitalist "wage labor contract is itself legitimate". (p. 86) Chomsky repeatedly calls such workers "wage slaves". (p. 62) He says by itself "wage labor [is] a violation of inalienable rights". (p. 87)

• Chomsky mocks those who deny this, claiming that "The argument in favor of legitimacy is that the contract is freely undertaken – in the sense of Anatole France’s remark that the rich and poor are equally free to sleep under the bridge at night. In the real world, the contract is accepted under duress. You accept it or you starve". (p. 86)

• Chomsky rejects the capitalist system overall because "people have to rent themselves to dictatorships to survive". Moreover, capitalism violates the "inalienable rights of human beings, like the right not to be a slave, for example, or the right not to be property". (p. 86-87)

(from Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance, by Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone, 2021)

Reading thru this rubbish one can’t help but wonder: Is Chomsky serious? Isn’t this all just some kind of joke? But, evidently, it isn’t.

Nothing is more strange than Chomsky’s claim that working for a big company means "giving your life over to a dictatorship, in fact, an extreme form of a dictatorship that reaches far beyond political dictatorships." What is he even talking about? Is he arguing that if you deliver packages for FedEx, or sell cosmetics in Macy’s, or ring up groceries at A & P, that this is worse than living under Hitler, Stalin, or Mao? Has Chomsky ever actually worked at such a job in his life?

The answer is no. Noam Chomsky went directly from attending college to teaching at one. He’s never done an honest day’s work in his life. If he had, he likely wouldn’t make such outrageous remarks. Altho’ Chomsky has read a lot about "the workers" and "factory labor", his whole deluded existence has been inside the warped and diseased Groves of Academe.

And Chomsky has never lived inside a political dictatorship either. Based on what he says and writes, he seems to have never even visited. If he had, probably he wouldn’t spout such tripe as the above.

One common Chomsky theme, which probably appears in his talks and writings hundreds of times, is the off-kilter idea that someone taking a job with someone else is thusly engaged in the horrific act of “renting himself”. But how in the name of Zeus is this voluntary and contractual behavior a bad thing? You’re doing it willingly. While working, you still wholely own yourself. You still control your behavior completely. Even as a loyal and obedient employee, you’re still 100% your own man and entirely free. You can stay at, or quit, your job at will. Ultimately, you’re answerable to no-one other than yourself. So how is this voluntary, chosen, temporary, compensated self-renting any sort of "servitude"?

Moreover, aren’t you also "renting yourself" every time you freely decide to expend time, effort, money, mind, and soul at the rewarding activities of being with your family and friends? In the Game of Life, in which you have to do something with yourself and your time, how is "renting yourself" something to be avoided? Even if you’re entirely self-sufficient, and live completely alone, any activity you engage in, commit to, and invest in, can accurately be thought of as Chomsky-style self-rental.

I think Chomsky got this absurdity from the Communist Manifesto (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Near the end of section One, they complain about capitalist "laborers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, [and] are a commodity, like every other article of commerce". Chomsky consistently says "rent" instead of "sell" in his writing and speaking, but the idea is exactly the same.       

And despite what Chomsky seems to think, people who own their own, small, independent farm (like most Westerners in the pre-capitalist 1700s), or who run their own mom ‘n’ pop store, or who even work at some Chomsky-style “cooperative” or kibbutz-type business, still have to surrender some large part of their life, mind, spirit, time, and effort in some extremely rent-like fashion. Small, collectively-owned, democratically-run businesses where you have a prominent place in the management still demand that you “rent out” your bodily labor and efforts to it.

And, yes, you still have to do the job, or make the product, or run the service, while expending time and toil, as you significantly cater to the customer, and willingly engage in some popularly-demanded productive activity, in some hugely rent-like behavior. But how in hell is this demeaning, humiliating, and awful? Is every effort in life thus? How in the name of Adam Smith is this a form of “enslavement”? Chomsky’s reasoning here seems like a farce.

Ultimately, Noam Chomsky seems very similar in his thought to such coercive collectivists as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Vladimir Lenin. They all observed something new, strange, and marvelous emerge in the early 1800s in the West: giant, well-run factories and impossibly-complex, big businesses. They ran with great harmony and made everybody rich.

But a certain class of intellectuals freaked out at this. They gaped at the wondrous, new phenomenon and couldn’t make heads or tails out of it. So they created an intricate, convoluted, contradictory, intellectual system to explain it all. And they set to work solving a problem which, in fact, only lightly and briefly existed: abuse of low-level workers.

But Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky had no real idea what caused worker abuse, and so couldn’t figure out how to end it. The truth is abuse of low-level employees in giant companies only existed where the welfare state, corporate state, and crony capitalism were allowed to flourish. Only where the new, large companies were allowed to bribe the legislatures and create government-enforced, coercive monopolies.

But even this mistreatment radically faded over time. And even at the very beginning of the early-1800s, Big Business era, the humblest employee was free to not leave the farm, or to work for a better company, or to work in a different industry, or to take a job in a different city. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the “workers” of the 1800s were little “exploited” or “oppressed”. And even if they were, the solution to the problem, then and now, was more capitalism and economic freedom – not less, as Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky believed.

The fact is, under true social libertarianism and real economic laissez-faire, even the poorest workers are massively in control of their lives and fate. This includes their giant corporation work life.

Under political liberty, unskilled workers of the lowest variety can still seek or avoid any job they want for any reason they want. No-one can stop them. They can freely pick and choose their job, industry, company, neighborhood, city, region, and everything else. If the offered salary and work conditions are not to their liking, they can quickly and easily find a different job.

Altho’ it isn’t well known, and Chomsky doesn’t know it at all, under true capitalism, the unemployment rate is always zero. There’s always a labor shortage. Business owners are in a constant hunt and panic for new workers, which they inevitably seek to lure in with high wages and good working conditions.

And as even Chomsky knows, worker salary and conditions improved radically thruout the 1800s and 1900s. The rise only slowed when the Chomsky-style, 1930s New Deal and the 1960s Great Society finally did too much to replace economic liberty and capitalism with government-regulated welfare statism.

Chomsky’s claim that working for Big Business means you are “property” and a “slave” is surreal. One is tempted to ask: Just what planet does this intellectual clown live on? Only full-scale, Chomsky-style socialism turns workers into property-like and slave-like persons.

But this strange idea also seems to come from the Communist Manifesto. Also near the end of section One, Marx and Engels claim: "Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are...slaves of the bourgeois class, and the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself."

But if one wanted to tweak poor Professor Chomsky even more, one could point out that under true capitalism – not the grossly-flawed welfare statism and crony capitalism of the 1800s and today – the poor are not “free to sleep under the bridges at night”. Bridges and roads are privately owned under capitalism and thus the bedraggled, poor people desperately seeking rest would be trespassing and thus thrown out. Yes, capitalism is so cold, cruel, and evil that it won’t even let pathetic, homeless bums sleep on the filthy, hard dirt under the drafty, nasty bridge!

Of course, in real life, poverty declines radically under laissez-faire capitalism, as homes surge in luxury, and prices drop like a rock. Charitable giving also rises radically.

One bizarre but common theme of intellectual failures like Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky is their evidently sincere belief that under capitalism the workers are “wage slaves”. Business owners are something like slave masters.

But the exact opposite is true. In the unending but impossible attempt by owners to find and keep enough workers, the “big bosses” have to cater to the whims of even the worst of their employees. Business owners and managers are virtually forced to submit and conform to the many, irrational needs and wants of their workers and effective business partners. The reality is, Big Business owners practically face coercion under the stress of economic liberty and competition.

Thus the workers are actually “wage masters” or “wage kings”. The company owners and managers, in turn, are “pay slaves”. On this issue, Marx, Lenin, and Chomsky couldn’t be more stupid if they tried.

One reason rich business owners are so accommodating and servile to their low-level workers is that, unlike the hired help, they can’t easily quit and move on. They have tremendous resources committed to their business, factory, land, and equipment. It isn’t a simple matter to sell these specialized, expensive things, and then move on to some new industry or city. Nor is it easy for them to hire new, skilled managers; or find a fresh, competent, experienced, labor team; or create a new, manufacturing system; or come up with a new, ingenious, business idea to make money.

So they’re trapped. They’re pay slaves. The workers rule. Owners and managers have to kiss the ass of their employees – or else.

Economic liberty and competition demands this. Capitalism creates nothing less than a Workers’ Paradise.