Red Decade; Eugene Lyons; youth groups as cannon fodder.

Eugene Lyons 1941 book, Red Decade, described how totalitarians of the 1930's used "youth movements" as pawns much like the demagogues of today. Young people have become cannon fodder in political wars, much like other minority or pressure groups. They are reduced to pawns in the game of conquest played by the MSM/DNC:

The glorification of Youth is a modern development. It puts a premium on lack of experience, mental fuzziness and intuition as against intelligence and maturity. I watched both Italian Fascism and German Nazism at close range in their formative stages. It is not generally appreciated to what a large extent they were bothy Youth movements. Demagogues who knew what they wanted used the energies and emotional drives of young people who had not the remotest notion what they really wanted. In both these countries, Youth was deliberately mobilized to beat civilization into a pulp.

Watching the Youth movements in this country against the memory of Italy and Germany, I have been struck by the similarity of the procedures. American Youth was no longer descriptive of an age group passing through adolescence - its organized and regimented minority had become a sloganeering political lobby, a bigger and louder pressure group, competing with elders for handouts and privileges as though it were a permanent class rather than a period of biological transition. The more articulate and capable were making professions and careers as Youth leaders. Partly through sentiment and largely for political advantage, politicians flattered the Youth lobbies and catered to their pretentious self-importance. It was inevitable that the most rigidly organized, disciplined and purposeful minority would take over this Youth racket and use it for its own purposes - and for a long time the elders, from the President of the United States down, were content to applaud the antics instead of exposing the influences and motives behind the whole show.

Those who should guide young people are content to follow, leaving that function to crackpot "champions of Youth" or political demagogues aiming to capture the campus and the youth. A lopsided liberalism has led teachers to believe that Youth must be given complete independence, that its preferences are inviolable. The result is that young people are set adrift just when they need and crave steering; the first group with a plausible and exciting program takes them over.

[p. 205, 1971 edition]

Lyons has touched on many issues in this brief segment. Various youth groups (so long as they support leftists causes) are treated as oracles of wisdom instead of those with much to learn. They are accumulated as parts of "coalitions" in league with minorities, unions and others whose only value is their votes and their ability to intimidate political opponents .

It is the youth, themselves, that suffer the most. Generations have been lost as political ideology has captured and exploited youth for decades in schools and through television and popular culture.

Long ago someone should have pointed out that young people have much to learn and do not necessarily possess the wisdom that we traditionally ascribe to ethnic pressure groups. In fact, Eugene Lyons did point this out 68 years ago. We simply have to rediscover his words.

The cult of Obama worship; The Red Decade; Eugene Lyons

In 1941, Eugene Lyons wrote The Red Decade, a description of American liberal Soviet worship during the 1930's. American leftists would travel to Russia, ignore the mass oppression and starvation that appeared plainly before their eyes and report back to the U.S. in glowing terms about conditions in Stalin's Russia. The Soviet government could do no wrong in their eyes:

I do not believe I am exaggerating the element of self-delusion in the process. I lived in Russia, close to its grim realities, precisely in the years when the strange Russia-worship overcame so many Americans. At the height of the tourist invasion, in the early 'thirties, as many as 85 per cent of the foreign hordes were from the United States. I watched literally thousands of my countrymen prostate themselves at the shrines of their new inspiration.

. . . . I heard them exclaim in hushed wonder over marvels that existed only in their quivering imaginations. I saw them stiffen in desperate resistance at the first contact with doubt. I watched them move like somnambulists among the food queues and horrors of a throttled and policed population, clapping their hands in glee over the lovely "sacrifices."

The Red Decade, p. 93 [1971 printing]

If this sounds familiar, it should. There is little difference between the dupes of the 1930's and today's "journalists," in whose eyes Obama can do no wrong.

Cult of Personality, Obama, Animal Farm, George Orwell, Napolean

The cult of personality that has emerged around Barack Obama can be better understood with reference to the events depicted in George Orwell's classic work, Animal Farm. Animal Farm tells the story of a farm in which the animals seize power and attempt to establish a utopia for themselves without human control. After the animals kick out the humans, the leading pig, Napolean, establishes control for himself over the other animals. The story is a thinly disguised depiction of events in Soviet Russia from the time of the Bolshevik revolution through World War II. Napolean is a thinly disguised caricature of Stalin.

Animal Farm




















The following passage takes place shortly after Napolean's seizure of power:

It had become usual to give Napolean the credit for every succesful achievement and every stroke of good fortune. You would often hear one hen remark to another, "Under the guidance of our Leader, Comrade Napolean, I have laid five eggs in six days"; or two cows, enjoying a drink at the pool, would exclaim, "Thanks to the leadership of Comrade Napolean, how excellent this water tastes!"

[page 90, Signet paperback edition]

It has been almost 20 years since I read this book, but I think of this passage as I hear the "news" personalities gush over Obama.

Classics of Conservatism - Part XXIV - America's Great Depression

This month's Classic of Conservatism is Murray Rothbard's 1963 work, "America's Great Depression."



25 years have elapsed since I read this book, but I will never forget its main lesson (and that of the other Austrian economics books I read at that time). The Depression of the 1930's was caused by the alternating periods of expansion and contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Benjamin Strong (Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) began a long credit expansion in 1922. This expansion continued until the summer of 1929, when the FED reversed course and began contracting the money supply. Several months later, the stock market crashed. The stock market crash is typically considered the beginning of the Great Depression. In fact the Depression had its roots at the beginning the 1920's. (I am somewhat fuzzy on the dates due to the time elapsed since I read the book.)

MSM/DNC mythmakers usually assign the crash of October 1929 as the beginning and attempt to address stock trading practices as the cause. They have convinced generations of students that the activities of a few stock traders somehow caused the collapse of the entire economy. The "historians" ignore the role of centralized credit expansion on the entire economy over a period of years. The term "fractional reserve banking" never appears in print in today's "newspapers."

Instead of focusing on the period from 1922 through 1929, the establishment mouthpieces have caused the average reader to focus on the activities of a few stock brokers at the very end of the great credit expansion. Even conservatives who try to explain the issue in terms of FED policy blame the FED for contracting in the summer of 1929 instead of blaming the FED for creating the bubble over the course of a decade.

If fractional reserve banking did not exist, the economy would not grow nearly as fast as it has during the various bubbles of the 20th (and 21st) century, but the inevitable collapses would not have occurred either. Growth would be slow, steady and safe. We need not fear the crises that have plagued our economy on a regular basis since 1913 (and the inevitable and predictable crisis that now threatens to destroy the economy completely).

Rothbard is one of the few writers to explain the Depression in terms of the 1920's credit expansion instead of the non-issues that the most writers and teachers focus on. In Rothbard's book, you will not read first hand accounts of bread lines and soup kitchens. Nor will you see a rehash of such events as the "bonus army" or the creation of the WPA. These events were the results of the policies that created the Depression. Most writers focus only on these results and teach nothing about the causes.

Rothbard explains the business cycle theory and its application to the credit expansion of the 1920's.

We all acknowledge that today's crisis results from bankers making bad loans to unqualified individuals. But very few have bothered to ask why so many lenders made these mistakes at the same time. This is the question that Rothbard asks in America's Great Depression. Like anyone else, businessmen will make mistakes (and usually pay the consequences). But the business cycle over the past century features all businesses making the same mistakes at the same time. Whether these mistakes include risky lending, overproduction, investment in unprofitable lines, overspending, etc., the mistakes are coordinated throughout the economy and are not limited to one region or one city or one sector. Rothbard shows that this phenomenon occurred even in the 1920's - well before today's "global economy" existed. The one factor that tied all of these errors together was Federal Reserve policy. And Federal Reserve policy has served this function in every recessionary cycle since the FED was created in 1913.

If you are not sure of the extent of misinformation that relates to the Depression, ask a friend if he knows when the Federal Reserve Board was created. Far too many people will say that the FED was created by FDR as one of his many reforms following the stock market crash. Only when one realizes that the FED existed 16 years before the stock market crash will one see an example of how common beliefs about the Depression and economic conditions have become so muddled.

Rothbard provides detail and documentation to demonstrate where the blame truly belongs. After reading America's Great Depression, you will realize that today's crisis was inevitable decades ago and that modern policies and "solutions" will only make the problem worse.

For further reading on the business cycle and the role of a central bank, see Ludwig von Mises' "Theory of Money and Credit." For more history of the Depression and how it related to credit policies following the creation of the FED, see Garet Garrett's "Bubble that Broke the World."

Garet Garrett - The Driver

Take a moment from the idiocy that is about to descend upon us in the form the DNC convention this week and read about a novel published in 1922 with implications for Ayn Rand's later novels as well as the business cycle that plagued the American economy throughout the 20th (and into the 21st) century.

Scott McClellan; George Soros; Dick Morris; Clint Murchison; Barr McClellan; Peter Osnos; JFK; LBJ; assassination plot

Scott McClellan's new book "What Happened" is not worth writing about, but the story of its creation and the MSM/DNC efforts to foist yet more white noise on the American people is noteworthy.

First of all, there is nothing noteworthy in the book, as Dick Morris has pointed out. (I will not bother to read the book, but Morris' analysis is logical.) McClellan's anti-Bush conclusions are supported by nothing that would be unique to any insider. There is no bombshell factual revelation.

It has become clear that as McClellan began writing the book, the book was bland with no reason for the MSM/DNC to provide any coverage. At some point, the publisher exerted some degree of influence, and the project "evolved" (as the Washington Post has acknowledged. The Post tries to downplay the influence of the publisher. The Post quotes publisher Peter Osnos (a former Post editor) as part of the effort to downplay the influence of Osnos' publishing company. The Post refers to Osnos' publishing company "PublicAffairs" as a "small company," but never acknowledges that PublicAffairs and Osnos are part of the George Soros empire that owns the Democratic Party.

Flopping Aces writes more on the evolution of the book from a drab say-nothing book to a drab anti-Bush book (and the publisher's role in said evolution).

But even more interesting is the history of McClellan's father, Barr McClellan. You see, Barr McClellan is an author also. He became a partner in the Austin law firm of Clark, Thomas and Winters in 1972. At that point, "he was told about the illegal activities of the firm. . . " including the assassination of President John Kennedy. As a result of this inside information, he quit the firm five years later to start his own firm. I guess when you are gen-u-ine insiders like the McClellan's, it takes time to figure out that you don't like what you see on the inside.

Dad's belated crazy book
















But I digress. Barr McClellan decided to write a tell-all book in which he revealed the assassination plot - a plot so extensive it included Dallas Cowboy owner Clint Murchison, Lyndon Johnson, oilman Haroldson Hunt and others.

JFK assassin Clint Murchison (rear left) talking with Tom Landry and other Dallas Cowboy officials.
















The book is entitled Blood Money and Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K. I am not sure how the law firm was involved, but it sounds like a more interesting story than Scott McClellan's book.


An attractive attorney at Clark Thomas and Winters - [I wonder if she knows that she is working for assassins. Maybe Scott should let her and the other employees in on the secret. Come to think of it, maybe Scott should have mentioned this whole JFK assassination thing to the President while he was working at the White House - unless, of course, Bush was in on it too. I guess that is the subject of his next book.]




In any event, the MSM/DNC's (1) failure to mention that Goerge Soros is the publisher of Scott McClellan's book (2) attempts to depict the publisher as "small" (3) failure to mention that Scott McClellan's father is a first class nut who published more interesting crap than his son ever could and (4) other stuff that we are not yet aware of - is all standard operating procedure to which we have become accustomed.

I wonder, in the entire McClellan book (Scott's - not Barr's) is there even one lie depicted that comes close to the Washington Post description of Scott's publisher as "small"?

What is more interesting is that George W. Bush hired this man in the first place. Memo to future moderate Republican presidents: Don't hire the insane or their children. George W. Bush is lucky that "war propoganda" is all that he was accused of. I can't wait to see what kind of crazies are lining up to work in the McCain administration.

=================================
visit counter added on January 25, 2009.

Classics of Conservatism - Part XXIII - The Secret of the League

Click here for previous Classics of Conservatism.

This month's classic is The Secret of the League, by Earnest Bramah. Secret celebrated its 100 year anniversary in 2007.

1907 (1995 edition)








Secret of the League is one of three old novels that I refer to as "Ayn Rand relics." Together with The Driver (1922) and Calumet K (1904), Secret provides clues as to the origins of Ayn Rand's later novels.


Secret of the League takes place between 1915 and 1918. Being written in 1907, the book has nothing to do with World War I. Instead, Bramah writes of the takeover of the English parliament by socialists, who immediately pass extreme socialist legislation.

(click to enlarge)















Secret dramatizes the creative solution adopted by Salt, the main character, and his friends. The solution is unique and is not beyond the reach of ordinary individuals.

I first read this book in 2004 just before I began blogging (the main character's name and the year of publication inspired my screen name). I describe Secret here because it begins to appear that we may need some unique alternative (and I don't mean a third party candidate) as a result of this year's election. The candidates for President in 2008 appear poised to expand the already unsustainable entitlement programs, increase taxes and choose judges that have no inclination to recognize the government's true constitutional limitations. Our thinking will have to be creative as we face a long era of darkness at the hands of an increasingly socialist government.



The book is far more than a "how to" manual. Secret provides a humorous look at socialist government, pandering politicians, union political pressure and other such plagues. We read with amusement as leftist government officials find themselves helpless as their spending programs leave their government destitute and powerless.

Regardless of whether we implement Salt's ideas, the fate of the government in Secret may well be the fate of our own government. Our own government may collapse under the weight of unsustainable entitlement programs. The only question is "when?" In Secret of the League, Salt and his allies merely found a way to make sure that a large faction of the country was ready to pick up the pieces when the collapse arrived and to remove from office those who were responsible for the debacle. If we do nothing, we will be helpless when social security, medicare, (reparations ??) et cetera drive government and the financial markets to ruin.

I do not reveal specifics of Salt's actions so as not to spoil the plot. For those that have read Atlas Shrugged, Salt took a different course than Galt. Salt's plan required less technology, less cooperation from powerful individuals and less disruption of the lives of his allies. But Salt's plan clearly foreshadowed Ayn Rand's theme in Atlas. Ayn Rand made the plot better and more comprehensive, added her own ideas and provided more thorough philosophical justification for the actions of the heroes [although Bramah provides a fair amount of philosophical justification as well]. There is no dialogue or language from Secret that was repeated in Atlas. Salt's plot in Secret is enjoyable in its own right and also because the reader will recognize the seed of Ayn Rand's story from a half century later.

The few technological aspects of the book provide for additional enjoyment, as the reader will recognize a crude precursor to modern day faxes and e-mails. Bramah also anticipates the ease and availability of modern air travel, but in a different form. Air travel was in its infancy when Bramah wrote Secret of the League.

If nothing else, Secret of the League will help the reader understand that socialism is not inevitable, invincible or irreversible. The book will further reinforce other writers that have opposed socialism and modern politicians that warn of the conseqences for ourselves if we allow the government to continue on its present course.

William F. Buckley, 1925-2008

National Review founder William Buckley died today.

Buckley was a throwback to the era when the MSM/DNC enjoyed a virtual monopoly on information. I first discovered Buckley in the early 1980's. At that time, I was treated to an almost non-stop barrage of twisted news presentations, distorted facts, repeats of Democrat talking points, etc. from the nightly news and the pages of newspapers. Once a week, William Buckley (and a very few others) would have one chance to rebut the entire MSM/DNC in the confined space of an opinion column on the editorial page of some newspapers. Even though it was hardly a fair fight, Buckley's (and others') few inches of weekly space was more than a match for the daily rants of the NYT, AP, WaPo, John Chancellor, Walter Cronkite, etc. Buckley kept the conservative light glowing until the New Media could begin fanning the flames at the end of the 1980's.

Conservatives born after 1975 cannot fully appreciate what it was like to live in the era before the New Media existed. Buckley was one voice that helped make that era bearable.
















Ann Coulter posts some anecdotes and quotes here, including Buckley's references to Gore Vidal as a "queer" and a "fag."

Michelle Malkin posts more detail.

Joe Sobran shared his memories in May, 2006, when Buckley's emphysema was announced:

Over the years I came to know another side of Bill. When I had serious troubles, he was a generous friend who did everything he could to help me without being asked. And I wasn’t the only one. I gradually learned of many others he’d quietly rescued from adversity. He’d supported a once-noted libertarian in his destitute old age, when others had forgotten him. He’d helped two pals of mine out of financial difficulties. And on and on. Everyone seemed to have a story of Bill’s solicitude. When you told your own story to a friend, you’d hear one from him. It was as if we were all Bill Buckley’s children.

It went far beyond sharing his money. One of Bill’s best friends was Hugh Kenner, the great critic who died two years ago. Hugh was hard of hearing, and once, after a 1964 dinner with Hugh and Charlie Chaplin, Bill scolded Hugh for being too stubborn to use a hearing aid. Here were the greatest comedian of the age and the greatest student of comedy, and Hugh had missed much of the conversation! Later Hugh’s wife told me how grateful Hugh had been for that scolding. Nobody else would have dared speak to her husband that way. Only a true friend would. If Bill saw you needed a little hard truth, he’d tell you, even if it pained him to say it.

I once spent a long evening with one of Bill’s old friends from Yale, whose name I won’t mention. He told me movingly how Bill stayed with him to comfort him when his little girl died of brain cancer. If Bill was your friend, he’d share your suffering when others just couldn’t bear to. What a great heart — eager to spread joy, and ready to share grief!

In another recent column, Sobran compared the careers of Buckley and Ayn Rand (and even Garet Garrett). While I disagree with much of what Sobran has written in recent years (especially about the war), his comparison in that article is interesting to every student of the history of the conservative and libertarian movements:

When Soviet Communism finally collapsed in 1991,
NATIONAL REVIEW felt that its mission was accomplished.
It didn't notice that the America it had set out to save
from Communism no longer existed. Say what you will about
Ayn Rand, I can't imagine her making such a mistake.

This Sobran column contains more details on Buckleys disputes with other conservatives in later years.

I have read several Buckley books over the years, the following of which I endorse:



Ann Coulter has written that this book "proved that normal people didn't have to wait for the Venona Papers to be declassified to see that the Democratic Party was collaborating with fascists. The book -- and the left's reaction thereto -- demonstrated that liberals could tolerate a communist sympathizer, but never a Joe McCarthy sympathizer."



I read "God and Man at Yale" while in college, before I could run to the New Media as a refuge from campus leftism. This book probably provided generations of pre-New Media students with the reinforcement they needed to withstand the barrage of leftism from their college professors.



Many conservatives await a new Reagan to rescue the Republican party from the moderates that now ignore and do not understand capitalism, history, freedom, the rule of law, etc. Before a new Reagan can emerge, I believe we will need a new Buckley - one who will be willing to maintain conservative principles in the absence of access to power and who can energize a new generation of intellectuals to resist the pressure of the modern leftward movement in all major institutions.

The William Buckley that wrote books and published NR in the wilderness in the years before the election of Ronald Reagan provided empowerment is the example that I fear modern conservatives will have to follow in the coming decades.

Classics of Conservatism - Part XXII - Phyllis Schlafly - A Choice Not an Echo

Previous classics of conservatism.


1964




One disadvantage from which conservatives have suffered for many years has been the need to re-learn recent history over and over again. This problem exists because young conservatives have no way of learning about the past due to the liberal bias of modern education. Modern schools teach that conservatism has no history or core philosophy other than a legacy of racism, oppression and war. Students have no idea that there is a philosophical basis and historical context for such ideas as free markets, lower taxes, national sovereignty, etc.

Students and recent graduates, if they are interested in politics at all, will tend to think only in terms of the headline-of-the-moment instead of the broader context into which an election fits. Younger voters think they are discussing "the issues" if they debate how much government interference in health care is best, how to address "global warming," or what to do about high gas prices.

At the same time, younger conservatives who cannot remember the 70's, 80's or 90's are susceptible to many ideas that would be contradicted by a little memory of recent history. One such idea is that "moderate" Republicans are somehow more electable than conservative Republicans. We are supposed to believe that "independents" will spring out of the woodwork to support a moderate Republican instead of the Democrats' liberal nominee. And this is where we must reinvent the wheel. If new conservatives could remember Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, George Bush I, Ronald Reagan, etc., they would not fall prey to this kind of propaganda. Prior to the new media, there was no way for conservatives to educate each other or pass on the lessons of the recent past. We had to rely on a conservative newspaper columnist whose column appeared once a week or an old book or some other rare source of conservatism to provide an irregular trickle of information that wasn't filtered through the MSM/DNC.

Today, we can transmit facts, history and perspective much more quickly through the new media, especially if such facts include some of the old material that the MSM/DNC used to be able to suppress.

One such treasure trove of facts is found in Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 paperback, "A Choice Not an Echo." In Choice, Schlafly breaks down each Republican primary battle from 1936 through 1960 and shows how establishment Republicans (those with ties to the publishing and banking world) had undermined the choice of the rank-and-file Republicans with false charges (spread through an obliging MSM) of "extremism" and "unelectability."

Among my favorite chapters is Chapter 6, in which she discusses polls - "Pollsters and Hoaxsters" (1944):

The New York Kingmakers realized they could not capture the 1944 Republican nomination either with Wilkie or with the same type of last-minute blitz they had used in 1940. This time they went into action earlier. They discovered and developed a new political weapon: the Gallup Poll. Dr. George Gallup began asking a lot of questions of a very few people, and - funny thing - he usually came up with answers that pleased the New York kingmakers.
The Gallup Poll has been used repeatedly as a subtle propaganda machine to sell the Republicans on the false propositions that the GOP cannot win unless it (1) continues the New Deal foreign policy (Soviet appeasement - Salt) and (2) names candidates who will appeal to the left-leaning Democrats and liberals.

p. 45

A Choice Not an Echo sold millions of copies and was instrumental in wresting control of the GOP back to the grassroots. Even though Barry Goldwater lost by a wide margin that year, the Goldwater coalition was born that year that eventually swept Ronald Reagan into office. As a result of the grassroots organizing efforts and the distribution of various short books such as Choice in 1964, a movement was born. Richard Nixon, despite his faults, was elected in the next two elections by the same coalition. Niether Nixon nor Reagan won by appealing to moderates. [Nixon didn't sell out conservatives until after he was elected.]

Schlafly identifies the people she refers to as "kingmakers." They have a lot in common with the Republican "moderate" kingmakers of today.

In 2002, Ann Coulter wrote about Phyllis Schlafly and Choice:

About the time a young Hillary Rodham was serving as inspiration for the perfect little girl in the Hollywood thriller "The Bad Seed," Schlafly was remaking the Republican Party.

In 1964, Schlafly wrote "A Choice, Not An Echo," widely credited with winning Barry Goldwater the Republican nomination for president. The book sold an astounding 3 million copies. (The average nonfiction book sells 5,000 copies.) Goldwater lost badly in the general election, but the Republican Party would never be the same.

Goldwater's nomination began the retreat of sellout, Northeastern Rockefeller Republicans who hoped to wreck the country with slightly less alacrity than the Democrats. Without Schlafly, without that book, it is very possible that Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president.

For the record, I read my copy of A Choice Not an Echo years before I had heard of Ann Coulter, but many years after the book was published. Original editions of the book were still floating around in the 1980's just as they are today. I promote the book now because it is an election year and Republicans face a choice regarding who to nominate. The cries of "electability" ring throughout the land, as we are told to support John McCain by the MSM/DNC.

Moderates bring the GOP to defeat. The Independents or "undecided" voters are nothing but liberals who are too embarrassed by the Clintons, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore et al. to call themselves Democrats. Such voters did not abandon the Democrats to elect Gerald Ford or Bob Dole and they will not help John McCain in 2008. Instead, they will give us Barack Obama, especially if we provide nothing more than an echo.



------------------------------------
update - January 30, 2007 - See Michelle Malkin today for a preview of how this fall's election will turn out like so many of those discussed in A Choice Not An Echo.

Bobby Fischer; Ayn Rand; An Open Letter to Boris Spassky

The world noted the death of Bobby Fischer two days ago. As you may remember, Fischer was the mercurial chess champion that defeated the Russian champion, Boris Spassky, in the match of the century in 1972.




















I cannot think of Bobby Fischer without thinking of an article Ayn Rand wrote shortly after the match. She titled her article "An Open Letter to Boris Spassky." The article barely mentioned Fischer, but for me the article and all that implies about collectivism, individualism, freedom and the future of the western world far outweighs anything else related to Spassky, Fischer or the famous chess match.

Fischer and Spassky in 1972














The article first appeared in Ayn Rand's newsletter and was later republished in Rand's book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It." In this article, Rand applied the basic principles of communism/collectivism/socialism to chess. She asked Spassky if he could play the game if he had to play by the collectivist rules. In fact, these simple questions point out the error in much of the assumptions that underlie not only communism, but the entire altruistic, egalitarian unspoken creed that dominates our life in today's leftist west.

Judge for yourself:

· Would you be able to play if, at a crucial moment – when, after hours of brain-wrenching effort, you had succeeded in cornering your opponent – an unknown, arbitrary power suddenly changed the rules of the game in his favor, allowing, say, his bishops to move like queens? You would not be able to continue? Yet out in the living world, this is the law of your country – and this is the condition in which your countrymen are expected, not to play, but to live.

· Would you be able to play if the rules of chess were updated to conform to a dialectic reality, in which opposites merge - so that, at a crucial moment, your queen turns suddenly from White to Black, becoming the queen of your opponent, and then turned Gray, belonging to both of you? You would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the view of reality your countrymen are taught to accept, to absorb, and to live by.

· Would you be able to play if you had to play by teamwork – i.e., if you were forbidden to think or act alone and had to play not with a group of advisers, but with a team that determined your every move by vote? Since, as champion, you would be the best mind among them, how much time and effort would you have to spend persuading the team that your strategy is the best? Would you be likely to succeed? And what would you do if some pragmatist, range-of-the-moment mentalities voted to grab an opponent’s knight at the price of a checkmate to you three moves later? You would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the theoretical idea of your country, and this is the method by which it proposes to deal (someday) with scientific research, industrial production, and every other kind of activity required for man’s survival.

· Would you be able to play if the cumbersome mechanism of teamwork were streamlined, and your moves were dictated simply by a man standing behind you, with a gun pressed to your back – a man who would not explain or argue, his gun being his only argument and sole qualification? You would not be able to start, let alone continue, playing? Yet in the living world, this is the practical policy under which men live - and die - in your country.

· Would you be able to play – or to enjoy the professional understanding, interest and acclaim of an international chess federation – if the rules of the game were splintered, and you played by “proletarian” rules while your opponent played by “bourgeois” rules? Would you say that such “polyrulism” is more preposterous than polylogism? Yet in the living world, your country professes to seek global harmony and understanding, while proclaiming that she follows “proletarian” logic and that others follow “bourgeois” logic or “Aryan” logic, or “third-world” logic, etc.

· Would you be able to play if the rules of the game remained as they are at present, with one exception: that the pawns were declared to be the most valuable and nonexpendable pieces (since they may symbolize the masses) which had to be protected at the price of sacrificing the more efficacious pieces (the individuals)? You might claim a draw on the answer to the this one – since it is not only your country, but the whole living world that accepts this sort of rule in morality.

· Would you care to play, if the rules of the game remained unchanged, but the distribution of rewards were altered in accordance with egalitarian principles: if the prizes, the honors, the fame were given not to the winner, but to the loser – if winning were regarded as a symptom of selfishness, and the winner were penalized for the crime of possessing a superior intelligence, the penalty consisting in suspension for a year, in order to give others a chance? And would you and your opponent try playing not to win, but to lose? What would this do to your mind?

You do not have to answer me, Comrade. You are not free to speak or even to think of such questions – and I know the answers. No, you would not be able to play under any of the conditions listed above. It is to escape this category of phenomena that you fled into the world of chess.

From Chapter 6 of "Philosophy: Who Needs It."

The myopic reader would conclude only that we shouldn't run chess according to the rules of communism - but would miss the bigger picture. We see the folly of undercutting individual effort, reward, achievement, strategy, etc. when it comes to chess or other games, but we fail to see that the same lesson applies to everything else. At the same time we honor chess champions like Fischer and Spassky, we allow politicians to tell us how they are going to apply Ayn Rand's invented nightmare scenarios to health care and other major components of the economy. While Rand's questions might seem ridiculous, we will find ourselves, more and more, answering her questions with regard to our own medical choices, employment decisions, business matters, etc.

Rand's little philosophy book has enjoyed numerous editions over the years:

Garet Garrett; Blue Wound;

In August, I commented that I was beginning a discussion of Garet Garrett's "Blue Wound" at my other blog. I finished most of that discussion in September and completed my last post last week.

The discussion now includes everything from (1) how I found my copy of that rare book to (2) where it can be found online to (3) a chapter-by-chapter journey through the book's contents (without revealing plot spoilers) to (4) the strange predictions Garrett made in 1921 for the remainder of the 20th century (including which ones are only now coming true).


1921

Classics of Conservatism - part XXI - Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

Click here for a previous "Classic of Conservatism."

According to the New York Times, today is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged.

Written by Ayn Rand, the novel explores the philosophies of objectivism and liberty. It has been twenty years since I read my copy, but I remember what attracted me to it. Rand did not defend capitalism on the same grounds as modern day conservatives. She did not claim that capitalism was better for the poor or less evil than its critics claimed or acceptable only if properly regulated. Instead, Rand advocated man's happiness and success as values and virtues in and of themselves. Rand was among the first to say that profit is a virtue, while altruism is harmful and wrong. She correctly identified the totalitarian movements of the 20th century, at home and abroad, with the altruistic side of the philosophical ledger. Altruism is the philosophy that one's life is at the disposal and service of others. She draws the logical conclusion between altruism, theft and slavery.

The attack on altruism may shock and offend the average reader at first, but it stands to reason that there must be more to the story about this word [altruism] that we have taken for granted for so long and have repeated without comprehension so many times. Those who want to think will enjoy Rand's books, including Atlas Shrugged, for this reason alone.








Atlas Shrugged is the climax of the Randian novels. In previous years, she had written several novels, plays, short stories, etc. Atlas Shrugged was her masterpiece. The book contains the story of a railroad executive who struggles against the philosophy of not only altruism, but government enforced altruism. But the plot is about more than politics or business. The plot is also a great mystery story, as the reader gradually learns who is responsible for turning out the lights of world.

Paperback (Signet) edition from the 1980's





The story is broad in scope, as it takes the reader from one end of the country to other over the course of three years (with numerous flashbacks to the previous decade and beyond).

Ayn Rand always believed that "plot" was the most important element in any story. The plot of Atlas Shrugged was relatively complex and undoubtedly took much editing [and many years] to make it complete, consistent and integrated. The basic story involved a conflict between the main characters, all of whom are the "good guys." This theme of "good vs. good" was a recurring feature of Randian fiction, as she believed that evil was impotent to do harm in this world unless aided by the good. So she focused on the good and the way that good unknowingly helps evil. Another benefit of this plot style is that the end is much less predictable.

The basic story in this novel can be traced back through numerous novels of Ayn Rand, all the way to a short story named "Red Pawn" in the early 1930's. In the previous works, the plot may be almost unrecognizable as a precursor to Atlas Shrugged, but the similarity exists once the reader understands the "good vs. good" technique and how to match the characters in the early works with those in Atlas Shrugged.







The Times article focuses on the long term influence of Atlas Shrugged:

One of the most influential business books ever written is a 1,200-page novel published 50 years ago, on Oct. 12, 1957. It is still drawing readers; it ranks 388th on Amazon.com’s best-seller list.

. . . . .

But the book attracted a coterie of fans, some of them top corporate executives, who dared not speak of its impact except in private. When they read the book, often as college students, they now say, it gave form and substance to their inchoate thoughts, showing there is no conflict between private ambition and public benefit.

“I know from talking to a lot of Fortune 500 C.E.O.’s that ‘Atlas Shrugged’ has had a significant effect on their business decisions, even if they don’t agree with all of Ayn Rand’s ideas,” said John A. Allison, the chief executive of BB&T, one of the largest banks in the United States.

“It offers something other books don’t: the principles that apply to business and to life in general. I would call it complete,” he said.

The following that the book has attracted is often watered down with such references as "public benefit" etc.

I have often lamented that Rand did not write more books. But my reading has lead me to an author whose writings in the 1920's often foreshadowed the Randian works in haunting ways. Garet Garrett's novels have sufficient similarity with some of the storylines in Atlas Shrugged to make those novels almost equally enjoyable. Rand not only has left a great impression on future generations, but enjoys deep roots in prior literature.



Previous - Philosophy: Who Needs It

Garet Garrett - Blue Wound

After months of idleness, I have begun contributing again to my other blog - The Garet Garrett Blog. I am reviewing Garrett's first novel - The Blue Wound.

Quote of the day - Garet Garrett - Blue Wound

A city is like a giant hanging by the umbilical cord. Its belly is outside of itself, at a distance, in the keeping of others. Cut it off from its belly and it surrenders or dies. As the first city was so the last one is. No city endures.

Garet Garrett - The Blue Wound.

B. Hussein Obama wants to meet with North Korea, Iran, Hugo Chavez, etc.; Salvador de Madariaga

B. Hussein Obama's "debate" comment that he would be willing to conduct direct one-on-one talks with various rogue states has created a firestorm of criticism and created an opportunity for Hillary! to highlight her own "experience." She proved that even a stopped clock is right twice a day when she said “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”

What that answer hinted at was the massive propaganda benefits for dictators that result from meetings with American leaders. Opposition exists within Iran, Syria, Venezuela and even North Korea. The dictators of those countries seek to demonstrate to the opposition that their cause is hopeless. Should an American president make a personal appearance with Ahmedinejad or Kim Jong-Il (even a silly, ineffective president such as B. Hussein Obama or Hillary!), such appearance would signal to the internal opposition that the United States will not help them and that resistance is hopeless. Kim Jong-Il, Chavez and Ahmedinejad need the American leadership to give them legitimacy internally. We should not play into their hands.

This is especially true where we know that those dictators are committed to world revolution in any case.

Salvador de Madariaga

As I do in many cases, I find it useful to cite an old book. In 1960, Salvador de Madariaga wrote "The Blowing Up of the Parthenon." In this book, which focused on the cold war, the author warned of the dangers of American-Soviet summit meetings, as they tended to demoralize the internal opposition within Russia.

1960

[It is ironic that a book dedicated to helping the West fight the cold war would bear a title related to the destruction of the Parthenon due to Islamic storage of munitions.] If I thought that a little history would make a difference to the Democrats, I would recommend that they read Madariaga's book. At least it might help the rest of us keep the issues straight as the Democrats give the appearance of fighting with each other.



Barry Goldwater echoed these thoughts when he wrote that "the only summit meeting that can succeed is one that does not take place." Why Not Victory? (1962), p. 65. Goldwater wrote that the communists do not attend a summit unless they believe they hold the upper hand or can use the meeting for propaganda purposes:

They come to the conference table with two things in mind - possible real or propaganda advantage to them. And when we come to that table seriously seeking agreements in areas of contention, we automatically conceed them the advantage because they don't care about agreeemnts.

[Leftists stopped reading this post the moment they saw the word "Victory."]

It took decades to win the cold war. This victory was won despite Democrat and leftist obstruction. Today, it is apparent that most of the left has forgotten the lessons of the cold war, while some on the left will do no more than hint at those lessons solely to gain temporary political advantage.

Classics of Conservatism - Part XX - Boomsday

Click here for a previous Classic of Conservatism.

We have been told for generations that social security is insolvent or will soon be insolvent and/or will run out of money someday. We have watched as one Republican president after another has proposed some solution, only to see that solution quickly shot down in a hail of demagoguery. We watch every election cycle as the MSM/DNC tries to frighten seniors into believing that the Republican candidate has a secret plan to cut/deny SS benefits. The social security system started as an illegal ponzi scheme. The political process has turned the system into a parody of itself.

Most of us have known these things for years (unless you trust the government to take care of you in your old age). But now we have something else to keep the social security issue in perspective - a new novel and a new word. "Boomsday" is the name of both the novel and a deadline. Boomsday is the day when baby boomers begin retiring with full benefits to be paid by the next generation. While it is not clear that the disaster will begin immediately upon the retirement of the first boomers, it IS clear (from the novel and from our own knowledge of economics and common sense) that the fuse will be lit on that day and will quickly burn to its inevitable conclusion.

more than just a novel








Boomsday the novel is set against the backdrop of the financial consequences for the United States government and the economy. The novel describes the actions of one principled person with a catchy name who fights back using her even more appropriately named blog.



The reader is treated to stories of riots on golf courses in protest against the boomers' easy retirement lifestyle at the expense of later generations. The reader is further presented with the main character's unique and imaginitive proposals for rescue of the SS system. We share her dismay as her main proposal is compromised away, despite retaining the same name and form.

"Boomsday" is not simply a dry novel filled with statistics and grim warnings. The book is filled with wit and humor and even some fast paced action. As the characters race toward the climax, the reader detects a hint of a John Grisham story.

Boomsday is about more than simply the collapse of social security. Boomsday is about Presidential and legislative politics. The politics and the humor take the story a little far afield of its original mission. The author's antipathy to the "Christian Right" is also misleading and distracting. The book is filled with salty language, probably in an attempt to attract younger readers to find out about their impending fate.

The book is to be celebrated for reminding us of the war in Bosnia, which still occupies American forces and serves as a symbol for so much of what is wrong with our government and its policies.

















[The above images do not actually appear in the book (there are no illustrations), but they demonstrate some of the major plot points that guide the story.]


But the most important function of the book is to jump start the discussion of the disaster that awaits us when SS can no longer survive in its current form. The book, much like the main character, seems to want only to begin a "dialogue", during which presumably more Americans will realize the grave danger with which we are faced. The book fulfills that role.

Coining a term that will serve to remind the audience of the impending SS crisis is crucial. With the use of the term "Boomsday", we now have a word that will shorthand the concept and aid our discussion. For too long, the MSM/DNC monopoly not only provided misinformation on key issues, it also prevented any discussion of key issues by refusing to discuss or even identify key ideas or problems. The imminent collapse of SS is one of those concepts. The one word identifier - "Boomsday" - now allows us to warn of the impending Boomsday just as the word "9-11" allows us to warn of future terrorism in our cities.

I recommend the book, but, more importantly, I recommend the word.

---------------------
update - I have updated the photos above.

Coming soon . . . . . Boomsday