»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Monday, September 22, 2014 ::

Productive vs. Parasitical Societies 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 8:00 PM


Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, penned an excellent and perceptive essay, “The Rationing Society.” My chief problem with the essay is in the choice of the terms “production society” and “rationing society,” which misdirect attention from the fundamental issues. Mr. Greenfield’s focus in the essay is the mechanics of wealth distribution in a “rationing society,” at least of such wealth would remain in an economy crippled by controls. I have selected a few of Greenfield’s statements to throw some light on their validity.

 The best literary depiction of a dystopian or “rationing society” or polity is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Regardless of the value of Orwell’s perceptive insights into the means and ends of totalitarianism – and they are many and spot-on – his basic conception of a functioning totalitarian regime was flawed.  A “production society” means free minds, minds free to innovate and sustain a technological or industrial civilization, free to act, and free to trade and to move about and assemble with others or not. A “rationing society” depends on the very attribute in men it wishes to leash or exterminate: free minds free to act.

Orwell’s other famous novel, the parable Animal Farm, was merely an attack by a “democratic socialist” on Stalin’s regime. Stalin and Soviet Russia lost many supporters in the West on the occasion of the Non-Aggression Pact signed by Stalin and Hitler in 1939. But when Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Russia, its Western supporters hurried back into the fold.  

A rationing or authoritarian society seeks to freeze things in a state of stagnation, the better to control things and everyone, but even a technologically stagnant society still needs minds that can sustain it. This is an implicit confession that the state is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. A rationing society will put a premium on the competence to even repair a telescreen or a “Floating Fortress” or weaponry or manufacture razor blades. A free, independent mind is such a society’s primary enemy. The result of leashing or punishing it is  the impoverishment of nearly everyone but the entrenched political class – and then collapse. 

Until the collapse occurs, competent minds able to prop up dwindling products such as shoes and razor blades and food which must now be rationed, until the assembly lines halt, raw materials become scare, and the stockpiles are depleted. The minds that could have replaced them will have been snuffed out, or, as happens in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, those minds will finally have gone on strike and disappeared. Rand noted in For The New Intellectual:

“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”

Greenfield wrote: "A socialist monopoly however is insurmountable because it carries with it the full weight of the authorities and the ideology that is inculcated into every man, woman and child in the country."

In a capitalist society, force is banned from human relationships, including trade. This is why monopolies in a capitalist society can be overcome. Innovators have a chance to rise and prosper. In a socialist, rationing, or authoritarian society, force is not banned and becomes the primary arbiter and determining factor, or the “economic tool” of first choice by statists. Innovators are discouraged by the threat of force or directly by force. The force can take the form of literal policing with clubs and guns and with the seizure of property and persons, or with punishing fines,  taxes,  draconian regulations, or a combination of all forms.

Among other inevitable consequences is the involuntary transfer of wealth to the state and its patronized special interest groups.

For example, New York has the highest taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products in the nation, compelling smokers to cross state lines to purchase them, order them online, or rely on cigarette smugglers (many of whom, today, are Muslim gangs). The taxes, imposed by the federal government, by states, and by municipalities, are intended to discourage smoking, but these same governments nonetheless depend on the tax revenue. Taxes are imposed on gasoline purchases to discourage an increase of carbon emissions, yet these same governments depend on that revenue, as well.

Another instance of an authoritarian grip on another commodity is education. At the moment, “Common Core,” an educational system calculated and guaranteed to dumb down any child forced to attend a "public school," is being mandated across the country, with private schools in many states compelled to adopt it, as well.  With what penalty if a private school does not adopt it? A raid by a SWAT team? Financial penalties? Loss of accreditation? Jail for the school’s governing board and teachers? The sequestering of the school children? Big Brotherish monitors assigned to all classrooms? Your guess is as good as mine.

Why is Bill Gates’s Gates Foundation a “special interest”? It is because his “charity’s” educational goals mesh with the federal government’s, to turn American school children into “responsible” and proactive ciphers to advance what the state says is the “common good.”

Another instance of a rationing society is Obamacare. I don’t think I need elaborate on the federal government’s mandating Americans to purchase of health insurance.

Still another instance of a “rationing society” is the nullification of the right to move one’s property out of harm’s way – that is, out of reach of government taxation, regulations, and controls. See this story about our Authoritarian-in-Chief’s rules for moving corporate headquarters out of the U.S. to friendlier foreign shores, and then moving profits and earnings back into the U.S.  The Washington Post quoted Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew, who chortled:

But the rules would not block the practice, known as tax “inversion,” and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew again called on Congress to enact more far-reaching reforms.

“These first, targeted steps make substantial progress in constraining the creative techniques used to avoid U.S. taxes, both in terms of meaningfully reducing the economic benefits of inversions after the fact, and when possible, stopping them altogether,” Lew said in a written statement.

The Authoritarian-in-Chief himself waxed sanctimoniously, according to the New York Times:

“While there’s no substitute for congressional action, my administration will act wherever we can to protect the progress the American people have worked so hard to bring about,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the regulations on so-called corporate inversions were announced.

Barack Obama and Jack Lew and all the other Progressives and leftists in and out of office want to imprison private property to better slice it down to a “fairer” size – and also to pay off a national debt that can never be paid, not even in six generations of slave labor.

Lenin saw the consequences of Soviet Russia’s full implementation of Communist rationing policies and devised his New Economic Policy (NEP) to stave off starvation and possibly a revolt of the “proletariat” against the “Revolution.” It allowed a modicum of freedom of trade.  He “saved” the Revolution by adulterating Communism – for a while. It was rife with corruption that reached the highest levels of the multitude of bureaucracies. Instituted in 1921, it ended in 1929.

Stalin succeeded Lenin and atavistically reverted to full Communism, kicking off the starvation of millions, a vast expansion of the Gulag, and the infamous purge trials. However, Soviet Russia could not have survived for as long as it did except for what it could steal, cajole, or wheedle from the West. As long as there were semi-free nations willing to grant it bank credits and send it grain and build its factories, it could stumble along as a gasping dependent, counting on the very “economic” forces it wished to eradicate in Russia and around the world. As long as there were semi-free “production societies,” it survived, but just barely and by force. The same thing happened in Mao’s China, but after Mao’s passing the Communist regime there saved itself by opting out for “free market” fascism. However, it’s not really “free enterprise” when the ruling political class insists on having a hand and role in any enterprise.

Greenfield wrote: “Paradoxically, the rationing infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the falloff of production as lower production requires even greater rationing.” 

It isn’t actually a paradox. Under authoritarianism, dwindling production is a function of the number and severity of controls imposed to ensure everyone’s “fair share” or ephemeral “social justice” or some other state-designated end. It’s an absolute corollary of basic economics, a matter of fundamental cause-and-effect.

Laissez-Faire capitalism is the ideal “production society.”

:: Permalink | 0 Comments ::

 

:: Friday, September 19, 2014 ::

Muslims and Self-Sacrifice 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 2:03 AM


Last March I discussed the Muslim state of mind in “The Pathological Roots of Islam.” This time around I explore the reason that drives ordinary Muslims to want to immigrate to Western nations, when it means having to deal with infidels “lower than pigs and apes.”

On the occasion of the Australian raids on homes after discovery of a plot to behead a random Australian, that is, a non-Muslim, playing the Muslim-persecution-race-religion card, a Muslim whined that:

When asked why police had targeted his brother [Kawa], he said he had no idea.

"I dunno, I got a lot of anger. It's a war on Islam just because we grow our beards. They want to label us as a terrorist, or supporters of IS, whatever, that's up to you." he said.

He later said he believed Kawa may have been targeted because he hung around with "hot heads".

Another Muslim complained and warned, in the Daily Telegraph:

A MUSLIM leader chose the hallowed steps of Lakemba’s War Memorial to preach outrage and condemnation over the anti-terror raids across Sydney.
In front of 300 angry protesters, controversial Hizt ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar warned of a growing anger within the Islamic ­community and said it was time to stop the victimization. “We are tired of being made scapegoats. The government is the terrorist,” he declared to the gathering, many waving anti-government placards.

One must ask oneself this question: If Muslims regard non-Muslims as filthy kaffirs and the lowest of all creatures they'd really rather not be anywhere near, why do they wish to surround themselves with them by immigrating to – or rather, by invading and colonizing, too often by a nation’s invitation – a  country full of them, where they must deal with them daily and not in a beheading way (at first), either? Is it the higher standard of living? Is it the welfare? Is it for jobs? A “better life”?  I think those are just flash card reasons.

What exactly is a kaffir? Islam Stack Exchange, a website for enquiring Muslims, provides an authoritative answer:

My understanding of the term kafir is that it refers to a person who literally rejects God's authority.

So while even the most blatant polytheist would still be mushrik, he would not (necessarily) be kafir.

It's not until the message has been relayed to him and he refuses to accept it that he would be labelled kafir.

However, it seems the common use of the word kafir, at least nowadays, is to refer to anybody who is non-Muslim, regardless of whether or not they're familiar with God's message and His commands.

What is the actual meaning of this term in the primary sources? As in, when the Qur'an and the hadiths refer to the kuffar (or ayuhal kafireen) which interpretation is more correct?

I think the real reason why Muslims want to rub shoulders with us is that Islam inculcates a psychosis in Muslims that allows them to endure the "detested ones" while putting down roots for "the cause," which is basically to subjugate and/or kill kaffirs. They don't even need to think about it, not clearly, it's just a fuzzy state of mind that will in many eventually blossom into action.  Their remaining silent about the atrocities their brethren are committing across town or across an ocean, or denying that ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other Islamic gangs have nothing to do with Islam, nonetheless still makes them culpable.

Of course, this is just a natural query looking for a logical causal-connection in Muslim behavior, but in a tentative answer one will not find any logic, just as one won't find clean, rational logic in Sharia law or in the Koran. I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood master-plan types even care how their lower-ranking Muslims think or behave, as long as tothey go to the West to plant seeds and play victim or minority or loud-mouthed advocate -- in short, to act as a spreading, slow-acting poison in Western culture, which has weakened itself with multiculturalism and political correctness and moral relativism. These maladies didn't exist in, say, 19th Britain, so such a "master plan" wouldn't have worked there or even in France.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s “master-plan,” or “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group,” written May 22nd, 1991, per the Gates of Vienna and numerous other blog sites, cites:

One of the primary documents [pdf] used in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 was the “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group”. It was written on May 22, 1991 by Mohamed Akram, and gave a brief description of the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is…
But in the 20th and 21st centuries, such a "master plan" is feasible, and a goodly measure of that feasibility is enabled by the Western refusal to acknowledge the nature, methods and ends of Islam. That “General Strategy” is well-advanced in Europe, not so much in America in spite of our political leadership’s evasion of the issue. And Islam has millions of faith-lobotomized followers to perform those tasks and the footwork. All they need do is "be there" in Dearborn, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, London, Sydney, Amsterdam, and even in tiny Reykjavik, Iceland, to “be fruitful and multiply,” without even joining a noisy demonstration or carrying signs saying "Behead those who defame Islam."  If Islam is spreading, it is largely the West’s fault; it refuses to recognize Islam as the pestilence it is.

Islam is evil, but evil, as a rule, derives any strength or potency it might claim from a refusal of its victims to recognize that it is anti-life, anti-self, and, in this instance, fundamentally anti-man. Islam requires that men consciously repudiate and discard one’s self-interest. Only self-sacrifice is permitted. It requires that one submit without reservation or question to the arbitrary, capricious, irrational whims of an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient ghost.

Muslim mothers have boasted of being “proud” that their sons successfully exploded suicide vests and killed themselves and others. This is the kind of sacrifice which Western mothers, while they adhere to the Judeo-Christian notion that sacrifices are necessary to preserve a value, are not familiar with. One of the most repulsive and psychotic instances of sacrificing values among Muslims is the “honor killing” of wayward mothers and daughters by their own parents and other relatives.

So, I think that for the average Muslim, there's an intractable altruist psychosis in his mind that draws him to Western cultures and nations, not for jobs or a higher, healthier standard of living, but because, down deep, he knows there is a good there and it must be despoiled or destroyed because Allah commands it. So, he will endure being engulfed in a sea of filthy kaffirs. The demands of selflessness and unquestioning submission inherent in Islam make it easy for a Muslim to “suffer” so.  A Muslim can be content to safely participate in the “insurgency” against the West by being a passive cipher and welfare king (or queen), or engage in mere criminal acts against random Westerners in the Westerners’ own countries (rapes, beheadings, no-go vigilantes, attacking Jews, etc.).

This, in Western parlance, is self-sacrifice, not for a “noble end,” or even to preserve values – but instead to destroy values, by being a negative presence among the good. However, before they commit the final, ultimate self-sacrifice, Muslims first want to sacrifice you. It is a sought-after self-sacrifice which easily metastases into pure nihilism.

:: Permalink | 8 Comments ::

 

:: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 ::

Frightened Turtles II 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 12:50 PM



The debate over immigration and open borders or open immigration continues.

A British correspondent argued with a reader of Andrew Bernstein’s “Immigration and the Welfare State” about the pros and cons of open borders or open immigration, vis-à-vis Muslims and Mexicans.

The reader’s  position on the matter is confusing, as he seems to want it both ways: a total ban on all Muslim immigration into Western countries, and a selective or discriminating ban on Muslims who advocate violence to impose Islam on others or a whole country (in conformance with the official Ayn Rand Institute position).

So he isn't clear on his own position at all. He also contradicts himself when he says that Islam is both a criminal organization and a religion. But a genuine criminal organization, such as the Mafia or a drug cartel, is not moved by an ideology of any kind; these organizations are merely opportunistic gangs taking advantage of irrational laws. Islam, however, is a totalitarian ideology moved by the agenda of supremacy over all other religions and political systems, even though it has little ideational content, and little such content in its “jurisprudence,” Sharia law, other than the “prophet’s” say-so or the pretzel-like logic of its judges.

The only thing he's right about is that the Koran is a prescription for conquest and committing criminal acts, criminal per Western concepts of individual and civil rights, which Islamic spokesmen deny the validity of, because Islam doesn't recognize individual rights or the civil liberties of Western nations.  However, Muslims do avail themselves of them to advance Islam; they have adopted Lenin’s assertion that capitalists will hang themselves with the rope they sell to the Reds; it's much the same thing.

Frankly, I think the open borders "faction" on this issue is guilty of a severe dropping of context. This is not the early 20th century when hundreds of thousands of Jews and Italians and other ethnic/religious groups immigrated to this country. The overwhelming majority of them were not trying to impose Judaism or Catholicism or the Mafia on everyone else. Their personal religious convictions were not a threat to anyone else. True, some Jews and Italians who came here were gangsters, or became gangsters. In many instances, when they were identified and apprehended, they were either deported or imprisoned after a trial for their crimes.

But Islam isn't the same thing. Jews and Italians did not pose a peril to everyone else, native-born or not. Whether or not your average Friday-go-to-prayers Muslim is active in propagating or proselytizing Islamic doctrine or engages in criminal actions based on Islamic scripture, such as terrorism, they're still culpable and indirectly responsible for the actions of their more consistent brethren, who engage in violence per the diktats of the Koran. On that point, I agree with Leonard Peikoff 100%. My policy would be: Either repudiate Islam altogether, or leave for and/or return to a country where your ideology is implemented, but you're not implementing it here.

I dismiss the assertions of those Muslims who claim that Islam can be reformed in the same way Catholicism and Protestantism were reformed, that is, by removing religion from a country's politics. As I've written many times before, Islam can't be reformed without killing it; Islam is based on the initiation of force and once that imperative is removed from the religion (or the violent verses in the Koran “reinterpreted” beyond recognition), there's not much left to it except perhaps a Masonic-like ritual or something resembling a fraternity of the Knights of Pythias.  (Or Ralph Kramden’s Bensonhurst chapter of the International Brotherhood of the Loyal Raccoons.)

All in all, one is still left in puzzlement over Writeby's and the Brook faction's position on not banning or not removing Muslims from the U.S. (or from Britain). And the context being dropped by them and Writeby is that we are all living in countries that are far more statist than they were in the early 20th century.

Moreover, I think it's somewhat futile to be arguing over immigration rights when we're losing or have lost rights wholesale in terms of personal income and consumer products and behavioral policies imposed by the government and other non-immigration issues. Others deny it, such as Bernstein, but our welfare state is a draw to Mexicans and Muslims (as is Britain's). When the Jews and Italians and other European groups came here in the early 20th century, there was no welfare state. When Cubans risked their lives coming to this country, they weren't drawn to the welfare state which by then actually existed, but by the chance to live their lives independently of the state (Communist or not). One can't say that now about Muslim or Mexican (or Central American) immigrants.

As for the Mexicans and other Latinos, I think most of them come here for semi-ideological motives; our welfare state is more generous and more efficient than the ones they left behind. They will naturally vote Democratic out of gratitude or compulsion or manipulation (if they vote at all), and, as I noted in my original column, help to perpetuate the death grip the Democrats and other statists have on this country.

Granting that large numbers of Mexicans may come here for employment; where, in an economy deliberately tanked by Barack Obama, are they going to find it? In landscaping?

 One correspondent wondered whether or not there is a political correctness angle to all this. As in not wanting to address the issue that the people who are causing all the problems with immigration in the US and UK are those with brown skins coming into a country with mainly white skins. Mr. Brook and other ARI spokesmen don't usually pull their punches in regards to racial issues, like affirmative action, reparations etc.  But immigration itself is a different matter; it's controversial. So our enemies could have fine old time, if ARI argued for immigration controls, painting it as white men wanting to keep out "darkies."

But even if this were the case, there should be no capitulation to political correctness at all. As I remarked elsewhere, we're in this mess because people have played our enemies game by being cowards and not addressing issues for fear of being seen as "racist" or “Islamophobic.” And the end result of this spinelessness is, say, Rotherham and the Pakistani rape gangs in Britain, and, over here, honor killings of girls and women, beheadings, “lone Muslim wolf” shootings at Jews and other infidels, the Boston Marathon bombing, and “workplace violence” committed by the likes of Major Nidal Hasan.  

So if the unrestricted immigration by Mexicans or “Chicanos” and Muslims is not going to be in the national interest and is downright dangerous, then it needs to be acknowledged and said. And the Objectivist credentials of anyone who is deliberately pulling back on the issue or obfuscates it are at the very least questionable.

Further, none of the open immigration advocates regard the Muslim and Mexican settlement in the U.S. or in the UK or the Continent as an invasion and conquest by demographics; for the Muslims, this is prescribed by the Muslim Brotherhood. There isn’t a European country whose Muslim population is less than ten percent of the overall population. But I doubt that any of them have bothered to read the Brotherhood memorandum, dated 1991, which I've often cited or linked in my past columns, or bother to read the manifestos of the Mexican supremacists’ La Raza or the Aztlán movement.  

They seem to treat these phenomena as just loopy outfits on the fringe the political spectrum. The Mexicans here in the U.S. (or their spokesmen) are also on a "reconquest" effort, wanting to "take back" all of California and much of the Southwest. The racist element in the effort is pretty blatant, as strong and as virulent as it is in Islam. As the ISIS jihadists want to erase the blue-eyed Yazidis as a race (by raping their women), Mexican nationalists want to subjugate blue-eyed gringos. But these facts are never addressed by Brook et al.  They have their magic wands, you see.

My British correspondent noted:

Objectivism is NOT some mystical, utopianist cure-all where there will be no evil or wrong-doing in the world. Objectivism is not the magic wand of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, which, waved over an issue, solves it automatically, irrespective of context.

The open borders advocates seem to think: Well,  there's Objectivism, which runs along the lines of Adam Smith, that there is an "invisible hand" of Objectivism that will somehow make Islam not the murderous religion that it is when its adherents move to foreign countries. They obviously know how murderous Islam is because the very same people who are arguing for open borders and also arguing for a total war, and possible nuclear war, with Islam! So why are they contradicting themselves?

This is why I won't engage the advocates of open borders or open immigration in argument. Their terms are so vague and their public positions so untenable with regard to their professed fealty to Objectivism it isn't worth my time to engage them. They keep flip-flopping or just won't come out and say what they really mean. There is a unfortunate strain of evasion in their positions. I don't think any of them, including their legions of open borders supporters, have delved into Islam, the Mexican issue, and Europe as deeply as I think they should. They seem to think that Objectivism is that magic wand, which, once it's waved over the issue, presto! There’s the answer!  

 John Stossel’s article, “Immigration is American,” like some open border arguments, dwells on some important points and also on irrelevancies. He does, however, point out the chief culprit in the issue: the time it takes for prospective immigrants to be granted the right to apply for citizenship, political asylum, and also for work visas and residency, which is arbitrarily daunting and onerous. The requirements imposed on prospective immigrants were once a product of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established in 1933 (another FDR legacy), and governed by two things: politics, and the convenience of the INS bureaucracy.

The functions of the INS, after 9/11, came under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security and its functions were divided between three new bureaucracies: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Further, while restrictions on Chinese immigration have lapsed, for example, the INS and its successor bureaucracies have instituted other racial and ethnic quotas.

Stossel argues for less restrictive and less onerous legal applications for citizenship and residency, and that’s fine. But, again, he argues from the standpoint of ideal circumstances, in which we lived in an ideally free country and not in the trough of statist controls and in a continuous state of crisis, situations created by political pragmatism and multiculturalism. As with other open border positions, this is surely another argument of gossamer. To ignore these aspects is to indulge in wishful thinking.

 Americans must first extricate themselves from the claws of statism before they can begin to credibly address peripheral issues such as immigration. Otherwise, it’s a matter of the dog chasing its own tail.

:: Permalink | 5 Comments ::

 

 

» Recent Posts

» Productive vs. Parasitical Societies
» Muslims and Self-Sacrifice
» Frightened Turtles II
» Frightened Turtles
» The Steady Abrogation of Freedom
» Thumbs Down on Voltaire Press
» The Self vs. the Group
» The Origins of Modern Black Collectivism
» Police Blame Media for Race Riots
» Our Descent into Madness

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!

 


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
»
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
Thrutch
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


SPONSORED LINKS


 

Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster