How the Ruling Class Views Free Speech

What’s the Ruling Class’ position on free speech? Privately, if not publicly, they’re against it. Some evidence in support of that conclusion leaked out this week when a live microphone caught two leading members of the Ruling Class in an unguarded moment.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over incendiary posts on the social network, Bloomberg reported on Sunday, amid complaints from her government about anti-immigrant posts in the midst of Europe’s refugee crisis.

On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.

The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.

Maybe instead of trying to suppress the free speech of free-born citizens, Merkel should redirect her energies to determining which of the hundreds of thousands of “refugees” she’s letting into Europe are moochers, rapists, or terrorists.

Francis the Clueless

Kyle Smith, writing in the New York Post:

[T]he pope hinted that capitalism is a force that shackles and immiserates, when the exact opposite is true: Even partial market reforms have, in China and India, lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and into relative comfort. This is not a miracle, but it is a blessing, and one that the pope seemingly opposes when he talks about “the millions of people living under a system which has overlooked them.”

In an earlier speech, in Bolivia last July, the pope said, “an unfettered pursuit of money rules” and called it “the dung of the devil,” adding that “once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society.”

No one is arguing that capital should become an idol, but free markets produce wealth that puts food in people’s mouths and clothes on their backs. The Church has a historic commitment to battling poverty, and yet its earthly leader is profoundly ignorant of how history tells us to accomplish this. He shouldn’t flaunt his lack of understanding.

We almost wonder if the Church doesn’t want people to remain poor and oppressed so they will turn to religion for relief, like Poland under communism. After all, the Church is growing rapidly in the poorest parts of the world like Africa, while in the richest parts like Western Europe, the churches are empty. Does the Catholic Church view prosperity as bad for its business model? We recognize the question is a profoundly cynical one. As the old saying goes, we try to become more cynical every day, but lately we just can’t keep up.


Krugman Wrong, an Endless Series

Paul Krugman, the house economist to the Liberal Establishment, argues that we need government regulation to protect us from evil, greedy businesses. Maybe the Establishment should rethink how much they’re paying him, because his arguments aren’t very good.

He starts, inauspiciously, with a straw-man fallacy.

There are, it turns out, people in the corporate world who will do whatever it takes, including fraud that kills people, in order to make a buck. And we need effective regulation to police that kind of bad behavior, not least so that ethical businesspeople aren’t at a disadvantage when competing with less scrupulous types. But we knew that, right?

Well, we used to know it, thanks to the muckrakers and reformers of the Progressive Era. But Ronald Reagan insisted that government is always the problem, never the solution, and this has become dogma on the right.

As a result, an important part of America’s political class has declared war on even the most obviously necessary regulations. Too many important players now argue, in effect, that business can do no wrong and that government has no role to play in limiting misbehavior.

We notice that Krugman didn’t name any prominent libertarians or conservatives who advocate letting business get away with “fraud that kills people.” Nor did Krugman name anybody who believes that “business can do no wrong” or that “government has no role to play in limiting misbehavior.” That’s because they don’t exist.

We live in a strange world, surprising in many ways. For instance, one would never suspect that a Nobel Laureate in Economics could be stupid enough or unscrupulous enough to traffick in pathetic straw-man arguments. But there it is.

The fact is that one can support legislation, duly passed and enforced by elected officials, covering fraud and product liability, without supporting the abomination of our overweening regulatory state consisting of tens of thousands of pages of regulations. Laws against fraud are one thing. But thousands of new regulations written every year by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats as part of a semi-opaque, special-interest conspiracy against the public are quite another thing.

Krugman later reveals what he means by “obviously necessary regulations” that “the right” wants to get rid of.

Carbon regulation must go, of course, because doing nothing about climate change has become an essential part of the Republican identity. So must Obamacare.

Ah, carbon regulation and Obamacare, two solutions in search of a problem. But these policies are attractive to statists like Krugman because they promise to expand the power and scope of government. Carbon regulation and Obamacare aren’t “obviously necessary” to any objective except giving the political class more power over the people.

Next, Krugman wants the government to take some sort of action against the for-profit education industry.

Then there’s for-profit education, an industry wracked by fraud — because it’s very hard for students to assess what they’re getting — that leaves all too many young Americans with heavy debt burdens and no real prospect of better jobs.

But surely Krugman knows that the for-profit education industry that he deplores exists almost entirely due to the availability of subsidized student loans made available by government. It’s almost as if Ronald Reagan was right when he said that government is the problem.

Furthermore, why single out for-profit education? The non-profit education industry where Krugman is employed also “leaves all too many young Americans with heavy debt burdens and no real prospect of better jobs,” and does so on a far grander scale.

Krugman also likes the thousands of pages known as Dodd-Frank banking laws.

Last but not least, Mr. Bush calls for a rollback of financial regulation, repeating the thoroughly debunked claim that the Dodd-Frank law actually encourages banks to become too big to fail. (Markets disagree: Judging by their borrowing costs, big banks have lost, not gained, since Dodd-Frank went into effect.) Because why should we think that letting banks run wild poses any risks?

So if you oppose Dodd-Frank, it means you’re in favor of “letting banks run wild.” Straw-man much?

Maybe Krugman’s pabulum-puking readership at the New York Times is sufficiently ingenuous to believe that Dodd-Frank was intended to rein in the big banks. But those of us with a modicum of worldly knowledge remember that it was the big banks themselves who wrote the bill. When U.S. Treasury bureaucrats sent an early draft of the bill over to Congress, they forgot to delete from the document the watermark of the law firm used by the big banks.

Is this the best that Krugman can come up with? Maybe he needs a break, because at this point he’s just mailing it in.


Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Great Socialists in History: No Such Thing

Dorothy who??

[Socialist] Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders lauded Pope Francis for highlighting Dorothy Day — a Catholic socialist — and for calling for action on climate change and poverty in his speech to Congress on Thursday.
In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Day “spent her life fighting for the poor and fighting for justice”…

“She was a very, very progressive … socialist who organized working people and the poor to stand up to the wealthy and the powerful and to fight for social justice,” Sanders said.

But who did more for working people, socialist Dorothy Day, or capitalist Thomas Edison? Socialist Dorothy Day, or capitalist Henry Ford?

Hint: Before Henry Ford revolutionized the auto industry, a car cost more than a house.

Sometimes people who do great things, like Norman Borlaug, get unfairly overlooked by history. But in the case of Dorothy Day, there are good reasons why almost nobody has heard of her.

An old saying is that the shortest book ever written is Great Moderates in History. Actually, an even shorter book would be Great Socialists in History. The fact is that there exists no person known to history for his or her socialism who could be considered a great person worthy of adulation. At worst, history’s socialists are mass murderers like Stalin, Mao, and Che Guevara. In The Lost Literature of Socialism, historian George G. Watson asserted that every writer during the century 1840-1940 who advocated genocide or ethnic cleansing was a socialist.

At best, history’s socialists are losers and nobodies like Dorothy Day.

And the very obvious reason that history records no successful socialists is that socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

The fact that socialists like Sanders and Pope Francis laud a socialist nobody like Dorothy Day, rather than successful capitalists like the Wright Brothers or Walt Disney or Steve Jobs, tells you everything you need to know about them.



Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Actual NYT Headline: US Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys

This is another one of those current events that makes us think there’s not a lot of sand left in Western Civilization’s hourglass.

In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

“It’s their culture.” Meet our new, educated and enlightened military leadership. They have apparently learned the lessons of their cultural Marxist professors who have spent decades telling their students that all cultures are equal. Except of course Western culture, which is worse than the rest, because slavery. And racism.

“It’s their culture.” Is there no crime too heinous for that excuse? Cannibalism: It’s their culture. Head shrinking: It’s their culture. Is there no place to draw the line? There was a time of course, before cultural Marxism, when the West had the cultural confidence to draw that line.

Consider the famous story of Captain Charles Napier. In the 19th century, the British in India banned the ancient practice of suttee, whereby a widow had to join her dead husband on his funeral pyre. When certain Hindu priests complained about the ban, arguing that suttee was their “custom,” Napier replied as follows.

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

But when American officers in Afghanistan acted according to their national customs by going after the child rapists, they were punished by the military authorities.

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it…

Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain… beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave…

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

Four years later, the Army is also trying to forcibly retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in beating up the commander.

Quinn and Martland should just argue that it’s part of their culture to beat up pederasts.

The NYT article cites further examples of the authorities punishing the whistle blowers.

Lance Corporal Buckley and two other Marines were killed in 2012 by one of a large entourage of boys living at their base with an Afghan police commander named Sarwar Jan.

Mr. Jan had long had a bad reputation; in 2010, two Marine officers managed to persuade the Afghan authorities to arrest him following a litany of abuses, including corruption, support for the Taliban and child abduction. But just two years later, the police commander was back with a different unit, working at Lance Corporal Buckley’s post, Forward Operating Base Delhi, in Helmand Province.

Lance Corporal Buckley had noticed that a large entourage of “tea boys” — domestic servants who are sometimes pressed into sexual slavery — had arrived with Mr. Jan and moved into the same barracks, one floor below the Marines. He told his father about it during his final call home.

Word of Mr. Jan’s new position also reached the Marine officers who had gotten him arrested in 2010. One of them, Maj. Jason Brezler, dashed out an email to Marine officers at F.O.B. Delhi, warning them about Mr. Jan and attaching a dossier about him.

The warning was never heeded. About two weeks later, one of the older boys with Mr. Jan — around 17 years old — grabbed a rifle and killed Lance Corporal Buckley and the other Marines.

Lance Corporal Buckley’s father still agonizes about whether the killing occurred because of the sexual abuse by an American ally. “As far as the young boys are concerned, the Marines are allowing it to happen and so they’re guilty by association,” Mr. Buckley said. “They don’t know our Marines are sick to their stomachs.”

The one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.

All of this is just utterly corrupt and corrupting. If we don’t have the cultural confidence to go full Napier on these creeps, then we should just pull out entirely and let them stew in their own cultural juices.

afghanMeanwhile, how many of these pederasts would Chancellor Merkel welcome into Germany if only they call themselves “refugees?”

The sand in the glass is indeed running low.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

White House Snookered by Clock Kid?

Maybe before dishing out invitations the White House should wait to let the facts catch up to the narrative.

School officials in Texas are standing by their decision to detain Ahmed Mohamed for bringing a homemade clock to school, but the 14-year-old old has found some incredibly high-profile supporters, including the US president and the chief executive of Facebook.

Ahmed, from Irving, Texas, left school in handcuffs on Monday after his English teacher told him and the school’s principal that his homemade clock looked like a bomb.

In the days since the incident, Ahmed – who was not charged but was suspended for three days – has become an overnight internet celebrity, attracting the attention of Barack Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the rest of the internet community.


Bernie Sanders vs. Abraham Lincoln

Candidate Bernie Sanders, in an appearance last week at Liberty University, declared that the United States was founded upon racist principles.

And I will also say, that as a nation — the truth is a nation that in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.

Well. It so happens that the principles on which the nation was founded are expressed in the Declaration.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Since the rights belong to “all men,” this principle is not racist; in fact, it is the antithesis of racism. Now, it is true that back in the 19th century some defenders of slavery like Stephen Douglas and Roger Taney tried desperately to argue that “all men” did not really mean all, but just white men or even just Englishmen. This pathetic attempt to argue that “all” doesn’t really mean all was blown out of the water by Abraham Lincoln.

Here’s what Lincoln said in his 1857 speech on the Dred Scott decision.

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites….And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men…They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal-equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere…

Now let us hear Judge Douglas’ view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech….

“They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!” Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s inferior races. I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that having kicked off the King and Lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a King and Lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely “was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.” Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now-mere rubbish-old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won.

Does Bernie Sanders disagree with Lincoln about the Declaration? Does he agree instead with the racist Taney that the plain language referring to “all men” does not really refer to all men? Does he agree with Stephen Douglas that the purpose of the Declaration was merely to effect separation from Britain, and that the Declaration therefore did not contemplate “the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere?”

Bernie Sanders is entitled to his opinion, but personally, we’re sticking with Lincoln.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Notable and Quotable

Camille Paglia on universities adjudicating rape in kangaroo courts.

Well, in my point of view, no college administration should be taking any interest whatever in the social lives of the students. None! If a crime’s committed on campus, it should always be reported to the police. I absolutely do not agree with any committees investigating any charge of sexual assault. Either it’s a real crime, or it’s not a real crime. Get the hell out. So you get this expansion of the campus bureaucracy with this Stalinist oversight. But the students have been raised with helicopter parents. They want it.

And the inimitable Iowahawk sums up our last two posts.


It’s Come to This: Student Suspended for Twirling a Pencil

This story came out over a year ago, but it just recently came to our attention.

The father of the child is outraged, but our question to him would be: Why are you abusing your son by sending him to a public school?

Don’t miss the audio excerpt of the superintendent, who sounds like a total lunatic.

This basket case country we used to know as “America” actually devoted resources to subjecting this boy to “a five hour physical and psychological evaluation.”

We’d like to see a psychological evaluation of the school administrators.

File under: We Don’t Recognize This Country Anymore.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone