Henry Clay presents his 1850 compromise to the Senate. Presiding in the background is future President Millard Fillmore. John C. Calhoun is to the right of Fillmore, and Daniel Webster, with head in hand, to the left of Clay. Drawing by Peter Rothermel, image courtesy of Political Science Dept, College of New Jersey.

American opinion has never before been so tangled, confused, and self-contradictory. Today's leaders routinely advocate policies that are the exact opposite of the principles of America's Founding Fathers on many timeless issues.

One very basic issue is your ability to learn the truth and your freedom to choose things that are healthy for you and aid your long term survival and prosperity.

The view of reality fostered by national media today for "the masses" is far more artificial than the high-sugar, high-fat, overly refined, heavily labeled, and sometimes even very mildly carcinogenic packaged junk food that fills most grocery store shelves.

It gets even worse when we look beyond food markets at other markets such as human labor markets and capital markets, where government intervention, subsidy, and regulation in favor of specially privileged crony interests force you to buy or involve yourself with questionable things and prevent you from discriminating against the moral equivalent of mildly poisonous junk food. In many subtle and not so subtle ways government does far more to damage you than protect you in the long run.

I have developed an approach that explains the contradictions and highlights the omissions based on dualities found in scientific disciplines. A number of people have told me that this approach has really helped them sort things out and see through national media disinformation. This approach also helps to explain the book selections in our catalog, and how they fit together like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle to provide a coherent worldview.

First, before describing my model, I would like to address some examples of current ideological confusion and make a provocative point.

An overview of some contemporary contradictions and paradoxes — and a punch line

Throughout history virtually all peoples naturally tend to favor the survival of their own ethno-racial groups. They believe that they have a legitimate, honorable, and even non-negotiable duty to defend their own people against cultural identity obliteration and genocide.

In this era of political correctness, it is perfectly acceptable for a Jewish person, Indian, Mestizo, or other nonwhite to openly stand up for their own group survival, but across America whites have been programmed to routinely denounce fellow whites as "racists" for taking a similar position. They are vilified as "bigots" for advocating anything other than passively accepting the massive illegal third world immigration which has physically replaced over thirty million white Americans in the last two decades.

"Illegal" normally means something bad, and "replacement" normally means genocide, but whites are expected to accept these things as positives in the name of "diversity." Interestingly, Americans were never asked to vote for "diversity," and the alleged benefits of increasing racial fragmentation in America have hardly been proven. In fact, quite the opposite, as I will discuss when I get to the environmental vs. genetic duality later in this article.

When we dig deeper, we find a similar contradictions and a decoupling from reality across a broad spectrum of political and economic issues in America today. Take for example the issue of having a central bank.

The French philosopher Voltaire once observed that fiat money, that is, paper money unsecured by any hard asset and that is simply willed as legal tender by the government that creates it, has always been abused by politicians and bankers, and has always returned to its intrinsic value — which is zero. In the early 19th century, American leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson stated that while it may be a necessary evil to inflate with fiat money in wartime as a last ditch means to finance national defense, it is dangerously irresponsible to tolerate a central bank that creates inflationary fiat currency in peacetime. They strenuously fought against the existence of central banks throughout their public careers.

Not only is debauchment of the currency a form of destruction of public property, but central bank inflation, which is typically authorized behind closed doors, destroys purchasing power just as if people were being taxed. Since America's privately owned central bank — The Federal Reserve Banking System — makes its decisions behind closed doors about changes to the money supply and bank credit, this is in actuality a form of secretive, non-elected government by decree. This is taxation without representation. This is also a totalitarian repudiation of the free market principles that once set interest rates in the 19th century.

America has been saddled with a central bank since 1913. The Federal Reserve Banking System has succeeded in destroying well over 95% of the value of the dollar through inflation. Not only has the Fed fulfilled all the worst fears of such early American leaders as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, but it now threatens to go into hyperinflation (please note the out of control government spending and debt growth curves in the Grandfather Economic Report charts provided in the Critical Issues section). Despite all of this, no major media financial writers dare to publicly challenge the underlying philosophical basis of the Fed, but instead limit the bounds of their discussions to the relative merits of "heavy" and "lite" approaches by the Fed in regard to manipulating interest rates and aggregate money supply figures.

As a third example, let us consider that the U.S. Government was founded as a secular limited republic. It had a clear separation between church and state. Part of this separation was inspired by the rationalist influence of the Enlightenment compared to bad historical experiences the English had suffered with both Catholic absolutists and fundamentalist Puritans. In addition, there is no explicitly stated Constitutional authority whatsoever to provide foreign aid, engage in permanent foreign entanglements, or to provide domestic public charity. Let us also consider that under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not explicitly grants to the U.S. Government are reserved for the states.

In its foreign policy, America has continually inflamed the Arab world by providing permanent aid to the chauvinistic, belligerent, exclusively Jewish state of Israel for over fifty years. This substantially theocratic, questionably democratic, highly socialistic, routinely deceptive, and largely Mossad-run foreign state now receives aid approaching ten billion dollars a year, "balanced" by billions of extra dollars America pays to Egypt as a bribe to make peace with Israel, not to mention bribes routinely paid to placate other Arab governments.

According to an article that appeared in the American Free Press, in cumulative total the direct aid, back-door bribery to Arab states, and indirect costs related to Israel have amounted to over four trillion dollars since the Jewish state became independent in 1948. The four trillion estimate includes the indirect costs of oil shocks in the 1970's created by Arab furor over American support for Israel during the Yom Kipper War, as well as costs related to America's clear support for Israel while it has invaded and occupied Iraq at the longstanding behest of Jewish neo-conservatives in Washington on the pretext of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (cf. The High Priests of War by Michael Collins Piper; also the report released in March 2006 by Harvard University and University of Chicago which came to a similar conclusion that America's policy was motivated principally by Israel's Jewish Lobby in America).

In regard to public charity, Congressman Davy Crockett once defeated a Congressional bill to provide a pension supplement to the widow of a military hero with his famous "Sockdolager" speech. He explained that it was a breach of the government's contract with the people to engage in any form of public charity. Back in those days, Americans engaged in massive charity on a private level in their local communities. They felt that private charities did a vastly better job of performing charitable work than government bureaucracy. Why should the state, with all of its ominous police power to tax, to use deadly force, to play political favorites, and to engage in bureaucratic self-dealing and inefficiency, be allowed to squeeze out the private sector in providing charitable assistance?

Since the mid-1960's the U.S. Government has doled out trillions of dollars in welfare programs to both American citizens and illegal aliens alike. The government escalates its largesse despite the fact that all these programs are bankrupting the country. The government has already destroyed the credibility of America's social security program for baby boomers. Worse yet, America has a far bigger underclass, more real unemployment, and less general productivity today than when these programs started.

If any major media commentators today publicly dared to question the underlying legitimacy of America's aid to Israel, its welfare largesse, the existence of the Fed, or the right of white people in America to avoid their own ethnic cleansing, they would be immediately smeared as bigots or lunatics and thrown out of their jobs. No wonder we live in an extremely distorted society on the hell bound train to social and economic ruin.

And now the punch line

In the long run, a multi-racial, multi-cultural society that puts the interests of aliens ahead of its nuclear population and traditional core values, and which steadily expands a leftist government and an inflationary central bank regime in order to keep this whole game going — will eventually collapse. Eventually it will fall behind other countries in industrial competitiveness. It will debauch its currency and will suffer massive social dysfunction.

All of this is should become very evident to a rational, well educated, well-rounded, free thinking person. So much so, in fact, that consistently pursuing what became the centerpiece of America policy in the 20th century takes on the odor of sheer crookedness.

In the 20th century, America's destiny was guided by some very powerful special interests who were certainly intelligent enough to understand all of this. Many of them attended America's best universities. They were better financed than anyone else to command the best intellectual resources on this planet, if in fact, finding and openly acting on truth had been their primary objective. Despite all of this, they went ahead and gambled America's future prosperity with their extremely dysfunctional and self-destructive long term policies anyway in order to suit their own shorter term, narrow, selfish interests. And we are now entering a dark period in American history where the general public will have hell to pay for all this.

Tragically, so many Americans have been so deeply indoctrinated with a leftist, top down viewpoint for several generations — to the exclusion of other viewpoints — that they simply cannot comprehend all of this. They cannot begin to take adequate self-protective measures even on an individualized or local community level. They are so entirely ignorant regarding the genetic viewpoint, that I cover in some depth elsewhere, that they cannot make many meaningful intellectual connections between leftist, authoritarian social policies and eventual cultural, economic, and political failures.

Creating a model to balance, broaden, and reconcile political and economic debates

Scientists and engineers routinely try to identify trade-off variables. For example, when a mechanical engineer adds weight to a car frame to make it safer in a crash, he reduces gas mileage. As I explain again later in my section that covers republican theory, there are no free lunches in political science or economics either. Every time a policy moves in a certain direction, we usually sacrifice something important somewhere else.

If scientists can identify two dualities that apply to a common phenomenon, they can then create a "matrix" to that helps them understand how the variables trade off against each other. If they can find a third trade-off duality, they can even compare them with a "cube" graph, which I will create in this paper.

As a first step, we need to find a way to take terms such as "left, "right," "autocratic," "freedom," "patriotism" and "corruption" frequently found in political literature in fit them into opposing parameters.

Next, we need to find scientific terms for our parameters. It helps our analytical abilities to take out the emotion and achieve a good "socket fit" with solid academic research.

"Left" and "right" seem to correspond best with the "environmental" vs. "genetics" debate in psychology. "Autocratic" and "freedom" seem to fit in with the "top down" vs. "bottom up" duality in the management sciences. "Patriotism" and "corruption" seem to fit in with the "altruism/mutualism" vs "predator/parasite" duality in sociobiology, which I simplify to "mutualism" vs. "parasitism."

Next, we construct our matrix, which I have created below. Please note that I have chosen to assign "environmental vs. genetic" to our "x" axis, "top down vs. bottom up" to our "y" axis, and "mutualism vs. parasitism" lies on our "z" axis.

How all of the perspectives relate to each other

This conceptualization depicted above is intended to be an interactive paradigm. Its real value comes when it helps someone see how all components relate to each other as moving parts in an overall system. The following are some key properties:

a) Every one of the matrix boxes depicted above reflects a valid aspect of human nature and hence must be seriously weighed and addressed in formulating sane political and economic policy.

b) There is no such thing as a perfect ideological perspective that can remain on autopilot and do nothing but good things for a society. Each viewpoint carries with it both strengths and vulnerabilities. Under certain social situations, each perspective can become twisted and even turned on its head. In addition, societies may need to change their ideological posture back and forth between different perspectives to react to different forms of social stress.

As one obvious example, when countries come under military attack, they usually feel that they need to become more top down or authoritarian to quickly and decisively respond. They also tend to shift to the environmental or leftist viewpoint when they are forced to find as many allies as possible in limited time, or when quantity becomes more important than quality. Conversely, they shift to the genetic or rightist viewpoint when their time preference horizon stretches out, and they require quality over quantity.

A dramatic example took place during World War II on the Eastern Front, where Hitler's Waffen S.S. shifted to the ideological left as it started running low on replacements. Paradoxically, Stalin's Red Army shifted to the ideological right as it kept collapsing before Hitler's blitzkrieg.

At the onset of the war, the Waffen S. S. required proof of German ancestry for membership. As Germany began to experience catastrophic losses on the Eastern Front, the Waffen S. S. opened itself up to different ethnicities and nationalities, to include Muslim units. Dr. Josef Goebbels broadened his propaganda focus from defending "Germandom" to a broader crusade to shield Europe and Western Civilization against Bolshevism. A famous example of a foreign unit was the Waffen S.S. Charlemagne Division made up almost entirely of Frenchmen. It fought stubbornly against the Red Army despite extreme casualties.

The magnificent statue "Mother Russia Calls For!" at the Stalingrad Battlefield site suggests an ideological transition in addition to a commemoration of heroism

Paradoxically, Stalin's Red Army moved towards the ideological right while Hitler's armies moved towards the left. As Hitler's panzers closed in Moscow, Wilmot Robertson writes in The Dispossessed Majority about how Stalin tore up the Marxist-Lennist rule book. He reopened the churches, restored officer rank privileges, and redefined the war as a Germanic-Slavic race war instead of a global class struggle. He maintained units by race, ethnicity, and region of origin on the belief that these things significantly boost unit cohesion and resolve. He even made a racist speech at the end of the war citing a disproportionate role of the Great Russian white people in achieving victory. Ironically, when President Harry Truman initiated racial integration of U.S. military units in the late 1940's, he moved further to the left on military racial issues than Stalin's Red Army.

c) Rather than go to extremes in one particular perspective, a prosperous society usually needs to achieve some kind of ideological balance between each of the primary four perspectives (environmental top down, genetic top down, genetic bottom up, and environmental bottom up) while simultaneous keeping its guard up against the "third dimension," which is criminal infiltration (the "parasite" side of the "mutualism" vs "parasitism" duality).

d) True statesmanship is difficult, because as we cross diagonally from one primary perspective to another, (such as from genetic bottom up to environmental top down, which has in fact been the main trend of American politics in the last two hundred years), the political and economic policies that make sense are almost the exact opposite of each other. Similarly, the policies that make sense from a genetic top down viewpoint are often the opposite of the environmental bottom up viewpoint.

As an example, genetic top down nationalists often favor relatively high protectionist tariffs, controlled borders, and highly restrictive immigration, whereas environmental bottom up anarcho-libertarians typically favor free trade with zero tariffs and wide open borders. The top down nationalists generally want to fund a larger government, protect more industries, and sustain a larger military, therefore it makes sense to have higher tariffs and more border control. Environmental bottom up anarcho-libertarians want to have very little government to fund and do not care so much about changes in demographics or covert political control, and therefore desire virtually no tariffs, no border control, and no business ownership restrictions..

Addressing the other diagonal relationship, the genetic bottom up libertarian racial nationalists want limited government and maximum entrepreneurship, implying some free trade and limited tariffs, but not so little border control that they lose control of the ethno-racial-cultural demographic base inside their country. Therefore, their tariff policies would be certainly lower than the "genetic top down" nationalists, but not so low as the utopian policies desired by the "environmental bottom up" anarcho libertarians.

Diagonally across from the libertarian racial nationalists, the "environmental top down" liberal fascists (ie. the kinds of people who control the U.S. Government today) need to support a big government to carry out their neo-Jacobin, welfare-warfare policies. This includes supporting social-reengineering schemes that favor Jewish and other minority interests at home, while simultaneously favoring massive overseas military interventions that aid Israel and big crony oil companies overseas.

"Environmental top down" liberal fascists require generally higher taxes to fund their big government programs. However, the high taxation policies are usually filled with big loopholes for crony capitalists and other political favorites. One example involves tarrif policies. Although tarrifs are at root simply one more form of taxation, namely an excise on international trade, liberal fascists in America today have low tarrifs in place that enable internationalist business cronies to outsource jobs overseas to score quick profits. They also neglect border control and quietly encourage an influx of low cost Third World immigrant to provide cheap labor for crony domestic industries. However, one can count on the liberal fascists to keep de facto forms of high taxation in place in most other areas, such as by debauching the currency to pay for goverment programs through quiet inflation, or by finding more ingenious ways to soak the dwindling white middle class through progressive income, property, and excise taxes.

e) As the real opinions of politicians move increasingly to the right, they often try harder to disguise them in their public commentary. This is because the genetic viewpoint tends to arouse stronger personal emotions in the general public than the environmental/leftist viewpoint, making it harder to avoid alienating people. This is particularly true in multi-racial, multicultural societies. One reason is that while people can change what they have learned, they cannot change the genes they are born with. Therefore political ideas that go against their genetic interests appear more threatening.

Interestingly enough, there was even some soft-peddling of certain genetic issues by Adolf Hitler in the Third Reich in the name of political expediency. While aggressively promoting pan-German tribalism and denouncing Jews, Hitler was careful to play down differences between the Nordic and Alpine branches of the Caucasoid race, and even allowed German citizenship rights to Germans who were one quarter Jewish. In Germany the Alpines, who predominate in southern regions and who tend to be somewhat more authoritarian, significantly outnumber pure Nordics, who are clustered closer to the Baltic and North Sea and who tend to be more instinctively libertarian. This reconciliative policy carried over to religion, where Hitler understated differences between German Catholics, who have historically tended to be more Alpine, and German Protestants, who have tended to be more Nordic. Lastly, in an effort to reduce internal class strife, Hitler used leftist rhetoric designed to unite Germany's working classes with the aristocratic class. He ruthlessly purged socialist leaders of his S.A. in 1933 who had threatened aristocratic interests. Nazi newsreels even showed factory owners sitting at tables and breaking bread with workers during cultural and political events.

f) Certain societies may tend to be overweight in one particular ideological perspective compared to another over the long run, based upon such factors as their particular cultural traditions and their peculiar distributions of innate temperamental characteristics within their gene pool (both of which are highly interrelated). As two examples, Chinese leadership has been marked by autocracy and xenophobia through long periods of history, suggesting a genetic top down approach as its natural orientation. In contrast, among all the branches of Caucasoid peoples, the Nordic peoples, closely followed by their Celtic cousins, have tended to be more instinctively libertarian and hence more genetic bottom up as a long term baseline orientation.

Examples of Nordic libertarianism include Anglo-Saxon-descended parliamentarians and republicans in England, America, Australia, and New Zealand. They also include Dutch-descended Boers in South Africa and founders of the Dutch Republic, founders of Scandinavian parliamentary bodies, and the founders of early Roman and ancient Grecian Republics.

Almost all areas of Europe that experienced invasions by Nordic tribes after the downfall of the Western Roman Empire in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, such as Germany, Spain, France, and northern Italy, saw changes towards more decentralization and even parliamentary institutions. The Novgorod Feudal Republic of western Russia had a strong Nordic influence, in fact the word "Rus," from which we drive "Russia," came from Swedish Vikings. We also see a Nordic influence the medieval "Cortes" or parliamentary systems founded by Visigoths (a Nordic people) in Spain. (The term "blue blood" for "aristocrat" came from Visigoths whose skin was so light that one could see blue veins). The Visigoths also swept through North Africa, and many of their blond-haired and light-eyed descendents would later become Caliphs and help organize and energize the Islamic high culture of the Middle Ages. (There were also prior residuals of prior migrations; for example the Berbers of North Africa show many distinctly Indo-European or "Nordic" characteristics relative to Arabs). The Lombards were a Nordic/Germanic people who settled heavily in Northern Italy falling the collapse of Rome, and their descendents, along with other descendents of earlier Nordic and Celtic migrations (for example the Sabine and Oscian tribes whose descendents helped found the Roman Republic originated in Germany) later became overly represented in leading the Italian city states and Renaissance.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, almost all areas of Europe that had a majority Nordic population, regardless of differences in language and nationality, went Protestant and experienced dramatic changes towards more decentralized church government. The rest of Europe remained Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Central to the "protest" part of the "Protestant" idea was the concept that individuals should have some freedom to study and interpret the Bible on their own without being held captive to highly centralized church dogma and traditions. An Icelandic writer once referred to his fellow nationals as "an aristocratic people with egalitarian tendencies," which goes a long way towards summarizing the "genetic bottom up" perspective.

Incidentally, I use the term "Nordic" quite a lot in this article series. One reason is that I have an axe to grind regarding most contemporary anarcho-libertarians who completely ignore the role of race and ethnicity in the history of libertarianism. However, please be aware that I use the term "Nordic" very loosely. The Celts are very closely related to Nordics in terms of their institutions, physical type, and their close geographic proximity to Nordics throughout history. In a number of places where I talk about "Nordic" the historical reality may have been closer to something like 60% Nordic and 40% Celtic, or perhaps even majority Celtic in other instances. For the purposes of this paper, it is not particularly important to split hairs over what was exactly "Nordic" or "Celtic" at certain moments and places in history.

As another important aside, I once had a phone conversation with a prominent American racial nationalist activist who read the last few paragraphs above and was very unhappy with them. My frequent use of the word "Nordic" really irritated him. He was adamant that there are quite a few whites from Spain, Italy, and elsewhere in southern Europe who are "just as good" as whites from Northern Europe. (I don't disagree with him on that point). He believes that white America is suffering an extreme demographic crisis and that all whites from different areas of Europe, north and south and east and west, must all pull together if we are to survive. (I don't disagree with him on that point, either). He was very concerned that my discussion of distinctions within the white racial family (Nordics, Celts, Alpines, Mediterraneans, etc) may unnecessarily alienate certain whites or foster divisiveness when we desperately need to be united.

My own response is that I am agnostic about what approach to white activisim is going to work. Maybe a pan-white appeal is the best way to go. Or maybe that sounds nice in theory but is too abstract for most whites in practice.

Maybe most whites need to focus on more specific ancestral and cultural roots to find the necessary motivation for effective action. Maybe Nordic and Celtic Americans need to start heading for the exit doors to light a fire under the rear ends of the rest of white America. (Somewhat analogous to the way the Protestant Revolution in Northern Europe stimulated reform within the Catholic Church everywhere else in Europe).

To add fuel this fire, many Mestizo activists are already talking about incorporating various southwestern U.S. states into a new country called Azatlan. We have already experienced de facto secession to the extent that many parts of New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. are virtual extensions of Israel. It is also worth noting that all the repressive measures currently being instituted by the U.S. Government to hold everything together at all costs are actually adding fuel to this fire by making our chains more uncomfortable.

Perhaps it is a combination of the pan-white appeal and an appeal to specific European ancestry that comprises the best approach. My best guess is that this is the best way to go, but in truth I do not know for sure what the right answer is. Then again, maybe there are so many wild cards and variables at work in America today that the "answer" will change as our society undergoes major upheavals in the years ahead.

I would prefer to simply describe reality as best I understand it and let the reader decide how he or she wants to use this knowledge. I would also observe that the Anglo-Saxon Puritans who founded New England and other hardshell Nordics in American history have had some peculiar ideological characteristics that have worked at cross purposes with other rightists in America at various times in history, and we need to get this out in the open and analyze it if we are going to come to grips with it. In fact, I hope to eventually offer some books by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, and other famous American racialist writers that dealt with these issues.

Besides, this web site is meant to be more generally "analytical" in nature rather than directly "activistic" in favor of a political group, although obviously I cannot help but express many of my own feelings at times. I feel strongly that survival of my own people is nonnegotiable, and we must not allow ourselves to be bullied out of exercising our basic human rights, to include our right to popular soverignty and self-determination. I also believe that the reader has a right to form his or her own views on this issue without being coerced or indoctrinated by the U.S. Government, national media, or other special interest pressure groups.

g ) As previously mentioned, I have construed the "mutualism" vs "parasitism" duality from sociobiology. This "z" axis loosely corresponds with such popular jargon as "honest producers" on the one hand and "deceitful and exploitive criminals" on the other.

This area also warrants some additional explanation.

The humorist Mark Twain once quipped that the U.S. Congress is America's only distinctly native criminal class. Certainly we need to also show on our diagram how ideology can become a mere play toy for a significant number political, financial, and media leaders in Washington and New York. They seem to only be selfishly interested in power and money without regard to their destructiveness to society --or for that matter the entire world.

In my opinion, "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial nationalist leaders are generally the least likely to be totally criminal. Conversely, "environment top down" liberal fascist leaders have historically tended to be the most dangerous and criminal of all groups.

An excellent contemporary example of the latter dangerous group includes Jewish neo-conservatives such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Crystal, Feith, Abrams, and Libby who dragged America into the Iraq invasion and occupation based upon a "clean break" policy document created by Israeli-dual citizens in the 1990's. They trumpeted the phony pretext of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. All of this is documented in Michael Collins Piper's The High Priests of War. Mr. Piper shows how many neo-cons are former Trotskyite wolves parading about in sheep's clothing with "conservative" rhetoric. The Jewish Lobby's pernicious influence is also denounced in the Mearsheimer and Walt Harvard/Chicago study described in my "Critical Issues" section.

"Environmental top down" leaders such as Mao Tse Tung (over 70 million), Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, "King Lincoln," and Robespierre have produced vastly greater body counts as a group than "genetic top down" leaders such as Adolf Hitler and post Nazi-pact Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco.

All of these "top down" governments have killed far more people on average by several exponential orders of magnitude than any "genetic bottom up" classical liberals who believed in limited government such as President Thomas Jefferson and British Prime Minister William Gladstone.

In regard to the first group of "environmental top down" leaders, apparently it becomes much easier to go on a mass killing spree if one views human beings as mere interchangeable programmable units with no significant ancestral or cultural ties who have to be controlled by fear. I explain all this in more detail later when I discuss the moral high ground of the "genetic bottom up" 19th century classical liberal political plank that characterized early America. Unfortunately our government has since gravitated away from that area and into neo-Jacobinism, which is of course one of the most dangerous ideological perspectives of all.

Needless to say, I think that someone like Cambodia's Pol Pot, who butchered about a third of his own population, fits inside the "environmental top down parasitism" cube in our 3-D schemata. In contrast, President Thomas Jefferson seems to fit inside the "genetic bottom up mutualist" (or "producer") cube. Once again, let us hope that we can pull our current national leaders back from their criminal activities before they destroy more than the hundreds of thousands of people who have already been ruined by depleted uranium, unjustified wars of aggression, and other outrages.


Part Two: .........Centralized vs. Decentralized

Part Three: ....Environmental vs. Genetic

Part Four : ....Mutualism vs. Parasitism
Section 1: Overview; Mutualism
Section 2: Parasitism

 

Update References:

ontheissues.org This is another web site that utilizes a somewhat similar paradigm is, except they put decentralization at the top rather bottom of the scale, and associate "populism" with "authoritarianism (which I do not). I developed the paradigm on this page completely independent of this web site.

 

 

Short URL for this web page: http://tinyurl.com/5stgv6

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.