Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times


by William B. Fox

Mutualism vs. Parasitism

Section One

(Forward to Section Two: Parasitism)



top down)

"x" axis



(Third dimensional "z" axis entailing "mutualism" vs. "parasitism"
not drawn, see discussion below)

The diagram includes a "z" axis sloping backwards as in a perspective drawing to create a cube effect, entailing the "altruist/symbiotist" vs "predator/parasite" (or "mutualism" vs. "parasitism" for short) duality of sociobiology.
A recapitulation of my definition of "mutualism vs. parasitism" from the Introduction section:
I have derived the "z" axis third dimension from the altruist/symbiotist vs. predator/parasite duality in sociobiology. For the sake of convenience, I call this the "mutualism" vs. "parasitism" duality.

"Mutualism" is a scientific term usually applied to animal and plant populations who live in close association and benefit each other, so obviously when we try to apply it to human affairs with popular terminology we are unlikely to find exact language. I think that it is roughly similar to our concept of a human "producer." However, there are many ways that humans can benefit each other, whether it involves exchanging things of real value with each other in an open and fair way, or by unselfishly defending and nurturing each other, or by remaining respectful of each other's lives, property, and other interests. It implies a style of leadership where the powerful and less powerful can growth together, rather than the powerful monopolizing and squeezing out their competition or abusing their subordinates. Therefore I can also relate the "mutualism" concept to many different popular terms, such as "altruist," "open," "honest," "unselfish," "benefactor," "brotherhood," "balance of power," "limited powers," "guaranteed rights," "principled," "self-restrained," "republican," "patriot," "martyr," "hero," "chivalry," "sportsmanship," "honor," "protector," "shared genetic interests," "supporting genetic fitness," and "eugenic." (If the latter three terms seem strange to the reader, I cover them in more detail in my environmental vs. genetics discussion).

The word "parasitism" usually applies to animal and plant populations who live in close association where one species lives as the expense of the other. I think that a good approximation in human affairs is the term "criminal." Other words that have varying levels of similarity or association include "selfish," "deceptive," "enemy," "thievery," "untrustworthy," "exploitive," "greedy," "unscrupulous," "lawbreaker," "sponger," "deadbeat," "wise-guy," "corrupt," "traitor," "tyrant," "working against your interests,""unrestrained," "totalitarian,""monopolist" (implying viciously selfish and destructive competition),"dysgenic," and "undermining genetic interests and genetic fitness."

Speaking of genetics, this concept should not be confused with a child who lives at the expense of his parents. The child offers the chance of long term genetic survival to his parents, whereas the parasite undermines the long term genetic interests of its host and may even drive it into extinction.


On his Republic Broadcasting Network radio show, Michael Collins Piper commented that when he first came to Washington, D.C. a few decades ago as an investigative journalist, he originally thought that politics was all about a battle between left vs. right. Now he has come to the conclusion that if you look under the hood in Washington long enough, the biggest issue really involves criminality vs. honest government. "Left" vs. "right" are relatively minor issues by comparison.

One of Piper's colleagues at the American Free Press, Christopher Bollyn, echoed Piper's sentiments on his program by labeling Washington, D.C. more of a "crimeocracy" than a "democracy." John Stadtmiller, head of the Republic Broadcasting Network, added that American politics has ultimately become an issue of not "left vs. right," but rather "right vs. wrong."

Craig S. Lerner's Nov 2004 University of Illinois Law Review paper: "Legislators as the `American Criminal Class'" expanded on this "crimeocracy" theme:
...whether members of Congress are naturally more disposed to criminality than the rest of us, or whether the astonishing perks of their office create temptations that few of us confront and virtually none of us could resist, the fact is that members of Congress are, as Twain long ago noted, the American criminal class.

America is on track for massive hyperinflation. Most of the middle class will get wiped out perhaps worse than Argentina in 2001-2002. All social security and other retirement-related promises will evaporate. Many of our multi-racial cities will probably go up in flames much Los Angeles in 1992. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will get maimed in Middle Eastern war or suffer permanent genetic impairment from depleted uranium as a consequence of America's "Israel-uber alles" policies. Various parts of America will likely become repressive police states. Torture is already being used in our prisons, which currently hold the highest per capita prisoner population in the world.

When it finally registers with America's dwindling white population that it has been knowingly misled into a Third World hell hole by its leadership, then the term "criminal class" will definitely mean something stronger than tongue-in-cheek political satire.

As I have discussed earlier in my environmental vs. genetics section, none of this should be a surprise to genetic theorists, since as a very long term historical rule of thumb, the greater the genetic distance between factions within a society, the greater the odds that the relationship between them will periodically swing towards becoming predatory or parasitic (criminal) as opposed to altruist and mutualist. The history of America since the 1840's has been one of steadily accelerating genetic distance both within its overall population and between its ruling elites relative to its original WASP core population. Genetic theory predicts rising levels of corruption and internal conflict through all levels of society.

We also see charges of criminality frequently appear on an international level. For example, "Silent Coup" by Justin Cowgill describes how Russia's free market reforms of the 1990's got high-jacked by Jewish kleptocrats. These ultra-high level criminals with strong Mossad and other Israeli connections made a joke out of the free economic market theory touted by major American economists for Russia.

Ironically, we also see American national media condemnations when certain political leaders are not criminal enough. For example, "Putin the Patriot" by Justin Raimondo describes how Russian President Vladimir Putin has been unfairly condemned by America's controlled media for prosecuting malefactors and putting Russia's interests first. As another example, Pat Buchanan got plastered on the cover of Time with the label "Hell Raiser" for openly wrestling with illegal immigration issues.

In this case, we see criminality at the highest levels of America's national media — as evidenced by cover-ups of the Mossad assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Israeli assault on the U.S.S. Liberty, and Israeli intelligence complicity in 9-11. America's corrupt national media has covered up for the vicious Russia Jewish mafia and has even supported it against a relatively more honest and patriotic national leader. It also routinely smears patriotic American leaders.

The power of criminality

Sometimes when political commentators use the word "criminal," it is meant almost tongue-in-check to convey "extreme conflict of interest." Other times, we discover that criminal activity is vastly more widespread and serious than it has been either reported or joked about to the public by our self-styled national media watchdogs.

"Criminality" is the "plug factor" that helps to explain how a country such as America, rich in natural resources, human resources, and defended by two big oceans, could transform itself from being what was once the most prosperous, powerful, society in the world in 1900 - with a 90% white population -- to a bankrupt, Zionist-dominated, minority-ridden, Third World country a little over a century later. White Americans are dwindling at a below ZPG rate. Whites around the world lose on average about 20% of their total population each generation and at this rate can now contemplate the extinction of Caucasian people and Western Civilization with a couple of hundred years.

"Criminality" greatly accelerates the social decline process addressed in Dr. Elmer Pendell's classic work Why Civilizations Self-Destruct, and the national tragedy described by Patrick Buchanan in Death of the West.

Criminality at the highest levels of society blocks the flow of honest information. It turns vital feedback systems on their heads. It completely distorts incentive systems away from reality-based productive behavior. It prevents men of good will from successfully managing messy social situations. Instead, it leads society towards mass tragedies.

Professional criminals think differently

In my discussion of dualities so far, that is, the top down vs. bottom up and environmental vs. genetic perspectives, I have presumed rational motivation for policy decisions. The aforementioned dualities lend themselves to academic research and scientific tests of facts and logic.

In contrast to all of this, criminals tend to think "kinky." They usually mock the rational models created by academics. In fact, their ability to be maliciously destructive, deceitful, and unpredictable beyond the comprehension of the average man is an important part of their short term competitive advantage.

For starters, criminals tend to have fractured personalities. They tend to perceive reality and integrate their values differently compared to normal citizens. By definition a criminal must practice a dual value system. As I will explain later, high level criminals frequently demand extreme adherence to honest standards from other citizens while demanding free reign for their own personal greed.

While it is true that many of the low-level criminals who engage in muggings and stabbings are nasty, impulsive, brutish, primitive people who are fairly easy to spot, it is usually the other way around when we talk about sophisticated criminals who engage in high level financial, political, and economic fraud. They tend to be such good actors that in the short run they often appear to be more charming and down to earth than the average citizen.

Greatly complicating the study of criminality is scientific evidence that it can have a genetic basis on both an individualized and broader tribal level.

On an evolutionary level all that matters in the long run is that an animal pass on it genes. We see many instances in nature where animals do extremely bizarre things, simply because somehow they can continue with this behavior and still pass on their genes. One of my favorite weird examples involves the Chinese Mantid, a species of grasshopper where the female literally bites off the head of the male after he copulates with her.

In the short run, criminal behavior can be very rewarding. This can be true on both a Darwinian genetic level and as well as from a financial perspective. However, in the long run, criminal behavior is always by definition a disaster for society. This is why criminality is vastly more sinister and difficult to solve than our national media portrays it based upon its purely environmental models. This is also why I prefer the sociobiological term "parasitism" to really help us intellectually get our arms around this phenomenon.

Criminals vs. nonconformists

"Criminality" has to be a much broader concept than simply describing people who seriously violate lists of "dos" and "don'ts" set down by society. The reason is that the leaders of society who create the lists of "dos" and "don'ts" in government or set the moral tone of the national media might themselves be criminals or incompetent people.

Free thinkers, political dissidents, and innovators are crucial to provide checks and balances and fresh ideas for a healthy, prosperous, and adaptive society. In my "Critical Issues" section I provide the example of David Irving and other historical revisionists who have been unjustly "criminalized" and imprisoned for daring to exercise rights of free speech and free inquiry. In his case, the state is disinterested in logic, facts, and historical truth, and is instead serves as the handmaiden of powerful Jewish interests who seek to ruthlessly suppress any information that threatens their special privileges. Truth is no defense.

We might recollect how Soviet leaders once smeared political dissidents as "criminals" or as "insane" in order to suppress dissent. In such instances, the Soviets capriciously used laws as politically motivated snares. In this case, the "criminalizers" at the top of the Stalinist police state were the real "criminals," and many "criminals" within the Gulag were genuinely honest, productive, and patriotic individuals.

As another complication in defining criminality, on a state level "criminality" often encompasses institutions as well as individuals. As an example, I view state-sponsored espionage organizations such as the CIA and Mossad as highly "criminal-at-risk."

While it is true that the CIA may have within it honorable Americans with patriotic motivations, the basic modus operandi of espionage is virtually indistinguishable from the stealth methods used by organized crime. This stands to reason, since espionage is defined as stealing secrets. Therefore, the CIA's activities are extremely illegal within every host nation where it proactively recruits human intelligence.

It is a cold fact that the U.S. Armed Forces are also "criminal-at-risk." (Not a pleasant thing for me to admit as a former USMC officer). In our age of total war, it gets very hard at times to distinguish between "military necessity" and cold-blooded mass murder and wanton destruction of property. This can create a perfect environment for psychopathic, serial killers to do their thing.

In the libertarian section of Part One of this series, I describe how "ponzi government" is also highly "criminal at risk." This includes the spendthrift trend of "social democracy," so brilliantly analyzed by Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe's in his book Democracy: The God That Failed.

We can also see shades of criminality in so-called "well-intentioned" Federal affirmative action and "hate crime" laws. In my "environmental vs. genetics" section, I explain a dark side interpretation. These laws steal from white Americans their right to meritocracy, free expression, and racial nationalist economic self-determination.

Scientific definitions

The glossary of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Dr. Edward Wilson provides us with the following definitions:

Mutualism: Symbiosis in which both species benefit from the association. (Contrast with commensualism and parasitism).

Commensualism: Symbiosis in which members of one species are benefited while those of the other species are neither benefited nor harmed.

Parasitism: Symbiosis in which members of one species exist at the expense of members of another species, usually without going so far as to cause their deaths.

Since we looking at trade-offs between the extreme opposing ends of a spectrum, this paper focuses on mutualism and parasitism rather than the mid-ground of commensualism.

Before describing the dark world of human parasitism, I think that first we need to better understand "mutualist" models of healthy political and economic behavior. As a logic check, our mutualist models should reflect mirror image opposites of our parasite models.


In my Critical Issues section I describe how our economy is heading towards disaster. I also describe how both the government and paranoid (mostly Jewish) special interest groups are viciously constraining our civil liberties. Therefore, I think it is really important to understand how the free enterprise system and republican government are supposed to be forms of mutualism.


Why chivalrous free enterprise is supposed to be a form of mutualism

Unbridled greed for money, and money alone, has definitely increased in our society over the last few decades. In American Values Decline (page 261; offered by America First Books), Dr. William M. Fox (my father) reports some disturbing indicators regarding America's top executive leadership:
Arianna Huffington asks: "How can there be talk of a shared destiny in a nation where, between 1990 and 2000, average CEO pay rose 571 percent while average worker pay rose 37 percent? . . . Where, since 1980, real income for the bottom fifth of families fell by $800 while for the top fifth, it rose $56,800?” ["Capital Crimes, Capitol Cronies," U.S. News and World Report, January 20, 2003, page 30]

And this wasn't the last increase. According to a pay survey by the Corporate Library in 2004, the median compensation for CEOs of S&P 500 companies rose 11.4 percent in 2002, and another 27 percent in 2003. In 1982, the typical CEO made 42 times what the typical employee got — by 2004, it had increased to 301 times! [Reported by Daren Fonda and Daniel Kadlec, "The Rumble Over Executive Pay," Time, May 31, 2004.]
American Values Decline points out egregious instances where CEO's have awarded themselves increasing pay, perks, and stock options as the performance of their companies has steadily deteriorated. In plain English, they are knowingly gouging shareholders for all they can get. They are issuing fraudulent corporate progress reports to keep their stock prices pumped and to avoid getting thrown out of office as they loot their companies.

This is not funny, especially when their selfish wastage of economic resources destroys the capacity of the American economy to create productive jobs. Their selfishness leaves average Americans with more under-employment, more unemployment, and adds to the general decline in their real standard of living. Arguably these CEO's are shamelessly exploiting their position in American society far worse than all the worst accusation ever made about the French aristocratic class at the time of Louis XVI.

Low rot as well as top rot

Unfortunately, we also see plenty of evidence of rot at lower levels as well. On page 54, American Values Decline mentions the example of the American Seed Company of Lancaster Pennsylvania, which had to drop its long-standing program for young people in 1981:
For more than 60 years, American Seed had profitably distributed garden seeds to enterprising youngsters to sell in their neighborhoods. Then, between 1975 and 1981, some 400,000 young business people sent for the seeds — but pocketed all of the proceeds — rather than deduct their commission and remit the rest, claiming they had been "mugged." [Dividends, "Youth Gone To Seed," Time, October 12, 1981, page 86.]

In the past decades, as Americans have read establishment business magazines such as Fortune, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal, they have been taught how to rationalize expedient off-shoring of jobs wherever it makes a quick buck. They have also been taught that America's declining manufacturing base means some kind inevitable trend of advanced industrial societies towards service economies. (Later I explain how this is a fallacy). They are taught ways to feel "comfortably uncomfortable" about more obvious ills such as exploding debt, chronic balance of trade deficits, and sagging productivity described in my "Critical Issues" section.

However, when we put all of this together with the negative demographic and values decline trends, we see an overall pattern of serious decadence that threatens our very national existence.

"Serious decadence" means that a society has become so greedy for immediate gratification that it literally eats its own seed corn. It has become incapable of maintaining the long term investment horizons and the level of honest social cooperation required for long term prosperity. It may also have so many criminal people embedded at the highest level of leadership that nothing short of revolution is likely to root them out.

Henry Ford as an anti-decadence role model

America's decadence today stands in sharp contrast to the values espoused by Henry Ford in My Life and Work (offered by America First Books). As I point out in my preface to this classic work, I think that Henry Ford was genuinely motivated by his concept of "service" for America. I believe that he placed "service" as his first priority before making money, although in the end his superior "service" had its own reward. It made him one of the richest men in America.

"Service" to Ford was a broad concept, very different from what we mean today when we talk about a "service business" in a "service economy." To Ford, "service" meant the total benefits that his car production provided to workers, consumers, and society as a whole in addition to entrepreneurs and owners such as himself.

I think that Ford's "service" concept was close to what entrepreneurial literature today calls "the value proposition." This is the concept that to be competitive in the long run, one must provide products with a better ratio of quality to price than the competition. At the same time, one must make a profit or at least break-even to stay in business. To stay competitive, one usually needs to keep reinvesting in ones own business automation and in new technologies in order to provide increasing quality at steadily lower prices.

In a decadent society, people stop reinvesting in business infrastructure and technology here in America. Worse yet, they give away hard-earned technology and business advantages to aliens before taking care of their own first. They blow their savings by buying consumer play toys and status symbols that make them feel good but add nothing to productivity or real output. They also give away American "social capital" through multi-racialism and multiculturalism, setting themselves up for the permanent social strife and dislocation brilliantly described in Thomas Chittum's Civil War II.

That unique European characteristic called chivalry as a key success factor

Henry Ford's concept of service contained in important element of chivalrous social behavior. While he believed in competition, he was not out to ruthlessly drive his competitors out of business or squeeze his worker's wages to the bone. Instead, he saw free enterprise capitalism as a way for people to find a place in society where their talents could find the highest use, rather than as something that destroys people and their lives. Chivalrous business competition enables companies to find their best niche for their particular mix of talent and resources. However, it does not ruin the environment or unfairly drive all competitors out of business.

This is a very different moral attitude, incidentally, than that of Jewish-dominated speculative finance which sets the moral tone for American society today. I discuss speculative finance in some detail in my paper about Federal Reserve manipulation. Among other things, ever since America got off the international gold standard in 1971, unregulated derivatives have grown to well over 20 times the size of the U.S. economy and threaten to melt down our financial system. The substitution of speculative finance for productive industry has also played a key role in hollowing out our industrial base. This in turn has led to our chronic balance of trade deficits and declining dollar.

Admittedly, not all forms of speculation are bad, since risk-taking is a necessary part of entrepreneurial business development. However, financial speculation goes off the deep end, because it is completely unconcerned with any underlying business fundamentals or any negative long term impact on society. It focuses exclusively on exploiting market psychology, insider knowledge, and financial manipulation. It is the complete opposite of any form of "value" investing that takes into consideration the underlying quality of a company, its management, and its products.

Henry Ford steadily increased the quality level of goods while steadily reducing prices. He did this by steadily improving engineering design and manufacturing efficiency. He steadily reinvested in better automation equipment and manufacturing facilities.

Henry Ford ultimately created a win-win situation for everyone in America. This included not only himself as a manufacturer, but also workers and consumers. There was nothing particularly secretive about his methods, in fact he was more than happy to educate the public about science and technology. His approach could build upon itself indefinitely, generating ever-increasing wealth across America. The more people adhere to Henry Ford's values, the more prosperous America can become on a permanent, sustainable basis.

In contrast, in speculative finance there is typically a conflict of interest between "owner" and "customer." The financial speculator acquires a position of uncertain value and hopes it runs to a level where he can make a profit by offloading the position on a greater fool. High level financial speculators such as convicted Jewish stock swindlers Mike Milkin and Ivan Boesky typically withhold their best information. They even seek to deceive their greater fool customers through their Jewish allies with national media, the central bank, and government.

Speculative finance cannot go on for ever. In fact, its growth as a share of total national economic activity sews the seeds for its own demise.

The more people and money that engage in purely financial-speculative activity, the more volatile markets become. With increased volatility (risk), the mathematical expected value of average returns for everyone goes into decline. In addition, hot money flows create market bubbles that distort the efficient functioning of honest free market economies. Once market bubbles implode, they typically hurt many innocent people.

Speculative finance swaps paper rather than creating better quality goods and services at lower prices. It enriches those who are "first in" investment positions. However, the devil takes the hindmost for those who come in on the back end.

Speculative finance is not open or chivalrous. It is secretive and vicious. It is usually impersonal, highly short term and transactional in nature, and socially irresponsible. It spreads social cynicism while enriching only a few.

Henry Ford and social responsibility

It is very clear from Henry Ford's work that he was very much concerned about how his enterprise impacted society as a whole. As a prime example, he voluntarily paid his non-union workers twice the auto industry average. He also tried to steadily increase their wages.

All of this was for several important reasons. He wanted to reduce turnover and attract better talent to not only efficiently run his assembly lines, but also suggest ways to innovate automation processes. Ford also felt strongly that as a matter of principle men should be able to buy the things that they produce. He knew that the wages he paid American workers would be recycled towards buying American goods and helping the overall American economy.

Unfortunately today most of America's largest corporations have capital structures that resemble hedge funds. Chrysler is in foreign hands, General Motors is heading towards bankruptcy, and Ford has a sick balance sheet. Americans today are fed propaganda that justifies speculative finance and devalues manufacturing. They are often left confused about why blind faith in "free trade" with China, Mexico, and other countries has not created some kind of international anarcho-libertarian economic nirvana. As America continues its decline, where is that free market "invisible hand" of Adam Smith which is supposed to turn things around?

Eumon Fingleton's work In Praise of Hard Industries provides some deeper answers. In the long run, only the continual automation revolution has the ability to continually drive down prices and scale up productivity and quality output. Manufacturing infrastructure is better at creating long term sustainable pay raises and a wide variety of well-paying jobs than the service sector. Wages are typically only a small fraction of the investment required in plant and equipment. In the long run manufacturers need to attract and retain satisfied workers who help them continually innovate and get the best out of their machines. Manufacturers are in a better position to continually raise wages among a broad group of people than any other economic sector.

It bears emphasizing that manufacturing is at the core of productivity gains that create real wealth to begin with. The creation of real products and tradable goods comprises a vital support base that props up the rest of the economy. Several decades ago, when manufacturing comprised about one third of America's economy, the rest of the economy had vastly better support than it does today with manufacturing at only around 14% of GDP.

The Japanese have known this for a long time, and keep their manufacturing base at more than one third of GDP. Ireland acted on this concept in the early 1970's and lured in major industries with major tax breaks. This has created tremendous strength and sustained growth within the Irish economy. China caught on a couple of decades ago, and its success has become even more legendary.

Manufacturing entails more than simply setting up and running plant and equipment. Automation innovation is also about continual tinkering with machinery. Obviously it becomes harder to continually upgrade plant and equipment once sent overseas and placed it in the hands of foreigners. In addition, manufacturing requires the proximity of a whole infrastructure of supporting industries, ranging from parts suppliers to logistical handlers. It usually also requires an infrastructure of entrepreneurs who create spin off businesses and provide innovative solutions, as well as supporting groups of technicians, scientists, engineers, and academics who understand the technology and ways to improve it.

Manufacturing also requires managers who can foster a climate of trust so that people can work together on a long term basis. Last, but not least, although no doubt there are patents and trade secrets that need to be protected, on the whole manufacturing encourages the open diffusion of technological and scientific knowledge throughout society. It is mutually supported by universities and other research institutions that openly advance knowledge for everyone.

On the penalty side, when a country loses manufacturing infrastructure in a strategic industry, it may take a long time to rebuild it. In fact, if a country that has lost its manufacturing infrastructure gets embroiled in war, there may be too little time to rebuild infrastructure required to produce vital military equipment and win the conflict.

Eamonn Fingleton makes the important point that global manufacturing is not a zero sum game. If another country such as China gains in manufacturing infrastructure, that does not necessarily imply that some other country must necessarily give up an equivalent amount of manufacturing capacity. In fact, Fingleton argues that all countries should strive to maintain manufacturing at about one third GDP in order to mutually prosper on a long term, sustainable basis.

Once you accept the premise that maintaining competitive manufacturing at about one third of GDP is vital for long term prosperity, your whole thought process regarding economic issues becomes profoundly different than that of the unconditional free trade anarcho libertarians.

Now, all of a sudden, it is important to live in a society that encourages long term investment. That implies low taxes and protection of private property. It means a focus on real innovation, which implies meritocracy rather than social reengineering programs such as affirmative action. It means a focus on continual reinvestment in research and development and upgrading plant and equipment, which in turn means shareholders need to discipline executives who exploit their position to squeeze company cash reserves to line their own pockets. It means both workers and management must remain highly focused on reinvestment and raising the quality of products while reducing prices in a globally competitive way first before helping themselves to rewards such as stock options and pay raises.

A big problem in America, as mentioned earlier, is that we see a strong "help yourself first" attitude everywhere you look, on all levels of American society.

We see "help yourself first" on the part of government, which taxes the public through inflation, direct taxes, and indirect taxes well ahead of any real economic growth. The government also helps itself first to psychological brownie points, thinking that is nobly promoting "equality." In actuality, it is fueling ever more multi-racial and multi-cultural strife that could bring us Civil War II.

We see "help yourself first" among many unions. Even in periods of low inflation, many unions have focused on steadily squeezing companies with pay raises and benefits, regardless of the lack of productivity gains of their union members or the threat of lower cost competition elsewhere.

We also see "help yourself first" among American managers. Rather than make investments that will pay off over the long term, they make expedient moves such as outsourcing that achieve immediate gains to their earnings while sacrificing long term investment in domestic manufacturing infrastructure. At the same time they give up manufacturing control and ownership of infrastructure over the long run. Meanwhile, they cannot wait to award themselves ever more stock options and higher salaries despite the declining real performance of their companies. This is especially true after we subtract out all the false corporate reporting and financial engineering games they employ to make themselves look good in the short run.

Back to the caretakership issue

In his book Democracy: The God That Failed, Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe, is on target to highlight the importance of a deeply felt long term sense of caretakership.

Most American CEO's obviously lack a sense of long term caretakership, not only an economic level, but also a cultural and genetic level. They could care less if the WASP society that America was founded upon in the early 1800's gets totally obliterated and shanghaied by the Jewish lobby.

Conversely the Japanese, who live in a homogeneous society, have a vastly longer term economic time horizon. That is why their industrial and technological base keeps getting stronger and stronger.

It is interesting how economics, culture, and genetics inter-relate to each other and tend to rise and fall together.

...the good and the bad...

Despite all the baleful influences, there are some American companies that have managed to reinvest in themselves on home ground and are prospering. One example appears to be the Caterpillar corporation. It has increased manufacturing infrastructure at home while improving its global competitiveness.

Therefore, I do not mean to imply that all American CEO's are rotten, greedy, unpatriotic individuals. There may be enough decent individuals left somewhere to accomplish a turnaround.

We are seeing a new phase of the mobile robotics revolution kick into gear that I describe in my article "I, Robot Entrepreneur" (this title is supposed to be a take-off on Asimov's story "I., Robot"). If Americans can embrace automation again as they once did in the 19th century, we can see an exciting future ahead in terms of productivity gains and general prosperity. Many high school school science programs and introductory engineering courses at major universities now require students to undertake mobile robot projects. This is because robots integrate so many important disciplines ranging from computers to mechanical engineering.

We might ask what might happen if some foreign country that has a million robots with human-level intelligence, that are producing millions more, which in turn are producing millions more, and we have nothing to compare with this? If America does not get destroyed from a hyperinflationary economic implosion and excessive damage from civil war, or get dragged into a Middle Eastern Armageddon by Israel, then our failure to remain competitive in automation will finish us off for sure.

Summary regarding industrial policy

Obviously the pure free trade position of certain anarcho-libertarians, who insist that industry must always feel free to gravitate to wherever it can achieve the most immediate profits anywhere in the world, is a cop-out on issues related to the necessity of maintaining strategic industries at home and encouraging reinvestment in domestic technology, logistical infrastructure, wages, and industrial capacity.

Conversely, anarcho-libertarians are correct in that high, permanent tariffs can encourage laziness, featherbedding, a lack of innovation, and corruption on the part of certain protected industries.

In order for a tariff policy to work, industries that benefit from protectionism must show the discipline to adequately reinvest in themselves and reconfigure themselves into efficient high quality, low cost, self-sufficient globally-competitive producers.

Andrew Carnegie, one of America's most successful industrialists, once stated that protective tariffs should be phased out over time after they have accomplished their purpose to help get vital industries up and running. He also felt that the country must not only make a conscious effort to continually bolster and improve is manufacturing, but should also try to continually raise wages ahead of other countries. However, American managers and workers must first earn their increased pay through solid productivity gains. They must also continually reinvest in manufacturing infrastructure.

By the late 1800's, American workers were already getting paid twice the average wage of many European countries. Men like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford wanted to keep pushing up real wages for average Americans indefinitely. And without question, men like Ford and Carnegie took real pride in creating jobs for American workers. This was truly an amazing attitude compared to the utterly degenerate, greedy, treasonous, quality of industrial leadership we have to suffer today among CEO's in America.

The mutualist behavior we want to maximize is characterized by a very long term time preference. It aligns the interests of owners, workers, and the general public. It encourages a strong sense of caretakership among everyone involved. It not only increases wealth for the entrepreneur, but for society as well. This echoes themes stated by Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Democracy: The God That Failed, which I discussed in my "top down vs. bottom up" section.

...if this is"good," how might we address the opposite of all of this?

I cannot leave this economic discussion without at least touching on how we might treat the exact opposite behavior — economic criminal parasitism.

There is an important principle in law that property acquired through fraud or theft is not the legal property of the malefactor who acquired it, but can be rightfully confiscated and returned to original owners. If liquidated, part of the proceeds can go to law enforcement officials or private citizens who act in a law enforcement capacity.

We might ask on a more abstract level if the parties who are currently responsible for the economic destruction of America on a macro level that I describe in my Critical Issues section should be liable to retaliatory treatment.

You betcha. And you just wait until America goes into hyperinflationary economic collapse. The public mood might change to the point that hanging malefactors from the lamp posts might almost be too kind a punishment for them.

There are some interesting libertarian solutions to the problem of criminal economic parasitism that are little explored in contemporary political literature. In fact, they reflect some grand American traditions that stretch back to the early colonial era. They include bounty hunting, privateering, and even the issuance of letters of Marque and Reprisal described in the original U.S. Constitution.

Given that more normal means of redress such as class action suits and damage claims have failed miserably in our current corrupt and largely federalized legal justice system, these more extreme measures may eventually become necessary to take care of vile men who control of strategic bases of our economy.

Let me provide some historical examples of the privateer approach.

A good starting point is Merry Olde England. When Sir Francis Drake seized the Spanish Manila Galleon near Mexico in the 16th century, the loot significantly re-capitalized Queen Elizabeth's treasury.

During the American Revolution, privateering played a major role in the harassment of British shipping.

During the War Between the States, Confederate shipping was open season for Union sailors. The U.S. Navy gave commissions to its sailors whenever they seized Confederate blockade runners, which dramatically improved their effectiveness in seizing cargo. Paradoxically, this policy also made them more reluctant to fire on ships.

On land, both Union and Confederate raiders robbed each other's supply depots and banks. This stretched to extracurricular partisan activity by the James Gang after the war during the so-called Reconstruction period. They specialized in robbing trains and banks.

If the scenario envisioned by Thomas Chittum in Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America comes to pass, we might imagine one or more white revolutionary governments in North America issuing bounty proclamations against special interests who have criminally defrauded America of its prosperity inside its borders. Letters of Marque and Reprisal would apply to malefaction outside our borders, in which case our bounty-hunter heroes would probably need to share part of the take with foreign nationals for their cooperation.

Soldiers, sailors, FBI agents, policemen, and any private citizens who want to get in on the act would be entitled to a privateer's commission for their assistance in apprehending malefactors, bringing them before a revolutionary court. Once the suspects are convicted, they would be stripped of their assets and subject to other forms of revolutionary justice.

Fair game would include corrupt central bankers around the world. It would also include corrupt CEO's, corrupt hedge fund managers, corrupt heads of major investment banks, and corrupt national media chiefs who have covered up assassinations and other crimes.

There is a very long list of very evil yet very wealthy people around the world with staggering amounts of ill-gotten assets who are just waiting to get their just desserts. Their ill-gotten loot just cries out to have it stripped away from them.

This includes the fat cat military industrial complex leaders who are genociding American military personnel with aerosolized depleted uranium munitions in the Middle East to make a few extra bucks. It also includes corrupt oil company executives and Jewish neo-cons who lied America into a war to line their own pockets or serve anti-American interests.

Now that the billionaire Jewish real estate mogul Larry Silverstein has admitted on video that he was involved in orders to "pull" World Trade Center Building Center Seven, I am still waiting for law enforcement personnel to haul Larry and his associates before a grand jury to achieve some clarification.

And I am still waiting...and waiting...and waiting...

Perhaps it best not to hold ones breath, or at least under the current regime. Maybe some day in America we will see a major change in the social order, and we might finally get a real investigation into not only 9-11, but also the JFK assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and dozens of other unresolved intrigues described in Mike Piper's Final Judgment.

Stripping malefactors of their wealth has nothing to do with "communism." It has a lot to do with some grand old American and English traditions. I would like to see Army soldiers, Marines, FBI agents, policemen , private citizen bounty hunters, and other security personnel earn nice big chunks of the wealth the plutocrats who have been driving America into the dirt once they bring them to justice. More power to them if they help de-fang the really bad actors in our society who are normally too rich and powerful to be brought to justice.


Why republican government is supposed to be a form of mutualism

According to William Everdell's End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans, the word "republic" comes from the Latin res publica, which means "for the public." The direct 17th century English translation was "commonwealth" or "for the common wealth and prosperity of the general citizenry." Hence, "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts" meant "The Republic of Massachusetts."

To be really explicit, what "common wealth" or "republic" really meant during the very early colonial era was: "A government for the general benefit of Anglo Saxon members of the Puritan Church in the Colony of Massachusetts."

Early concepts of republicanism had absolutely nothing to do with contemporary notions of "racial equality," socialist wealth redistribution, class warfare, welfare programs, universal suffrage (voting), or achieving some kind of global "brotherhood of man" through open borders.

In 17th century America, Negroes need not apply for citizenship in the Puritan Commonwealth, since they were generally viewed as a primitive and backward race who enslaved each other and were often fit to be slaves. Many American Indian tribes (with some exceptions) were viewed as savages, as explicitly noted later in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

In New Amsterdam (today New York City), founder Peter Stuyvesant found the deceitful business methods of the small Jewish presence to be so odious that he tried to expel every last one of them, only to be thwarted by Jewish stockholders in his company back in the Netherlands and also Jewish bankers embedded at the top of the Dutch power structure.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was created by Puritan republican ideologists during the Cromwellian era. Since the Puritans of eastern England provided the bulwark of Cromwell's Parliamentary supporters during the English Civil War, "republicanism" back then meant rebellion against royalist absolutism under Charles I. Since Puritans were hard-line Protestants, it also meant rebellion against centralized leadership of Christendom under the Pope and his Vatican bureaucracy.

It is ultimately about preventing tyranny

William Everdell points out that "resistance to tyranny" is a consistent theme in the history of republican government going back to ancient Greece and Rome. This includes later historical periods in Europe, to include the medieval Swiss and Icelandic republics, the 16th and 17th century Dutch Republic, Italian city states of the Renaissance, and 17th century England.

From a contractual viewpoint, "republicanism" means allowing the common citizen some kind of stable negotiation position vis a vis his rulers. It means being able to hold public officials accountable who fail to live up to their. agreements. It means having a public defense against leaders who think they can violate their oaths of office and can arbitrarily change the rules and expropriate ones wealth and beat one up or kill common citizens any time they please. In other word, "republicanism" means both the right and the ability of the citizen to function as an adult in a society where he can freely contract on his own behalf rather than being treated like a dependent child or slave.

Developing a set of consistent principles in order to find truth and to achieve rational, stable government is a very different form of "equality" than modern liberal assumptions about biological equality between individuals and races, which does not in fact exist.

Why tyranny seems to fit the concept of "parasitism"

The tyrant is an individual who is happy to break his word with common citizens whenever it suits his purposes. He is happy to run roughshod over other people's rights and confiscate their property whenever it suits his arbitrary, selfish purposes. The damage that he does to the moral and contractual fabric of society can be extraordinary.

From a contractual viewpoint, the tyrant is like the bad operator described in Robert Ringer's classic work Winning Through Intimidation. After you have negotiated a business deal and produced some rewards, he is out to cut your hands off while you are reaching for your chips on the table, even though you won them fair and square.

On a macro political level, the tyrant is endlessly greedy for power and authority. He is out to benefit himself regardless of how maliciously destructive he may be to the general welfare of society.

Left unchecked, the tyrant can run a society into the ground. He can slaughter millions of your best people in Gulags. He can run national debt to the sky and inflate your currency into oblivion. He can spread malicious lies through his control of national media to invert basic moral values and undermine unity of your own people. He can get your country involved in wars that totally ruin it.

A really effective tyrant can be an evil plague on society.

Republicanism as an anti-parasite defense tool

Since republicanism is meant to prevent the evil plague of tyranny, and benefit the general welfare of society, I connect it to the sociobiological "mutualism" concept. Hence, the duality of "republicanism vs. tyranny" seems to closely parallel the concept of "mutualism vs parasitism."

Republican government involves the use of various political strategies to prevent tyranny, which in turn implies forms of decentralization, checks and balances, representation, and respect for private property rights.

Republicanism has a connection with chivalrous free enterprise capitalism described earlier in this article. The creation of real and sustainable prosperity in society is heavily dependent upon successful entrepreneurial calculation. Small businesses provide most of the innovation and real new jobs in America. Since no rational individual wants to start a business anywhere if his investment can be arbitrarily confiscated away from him or his business plan can be capriciously smothered with regulation, successful entrepreneurship requires decentralization, stable private property rights, rational government, and the avoidance of tyranny.

Unfortunately there exists no perfect form of "republicanism"

The tricky part involves getting our arms around what constitutes viable and authentic forms of republicanism.

It is possible to have very sinister forms of republicanism just as it is possible to pervert enlightened chivalrous free enterprise into evil predatory monopolistic capitalism.

George Orwell's Animal Farm contains the famous phrase "All men are created equal — but some are more equal than others."

Similarly around the world, while republican governments claim they defend against tyranny, some groups of citizens are more entitled to this defense than others. Worse yet, since republics claim to serve "the people," they have a tendency to wage total war in the name of one people fighting another. Self-styled republican leaders can themselves become the tyrants when waging war against those they deem unfit to have protection from tyranny.

This gets back to the basic principal I describe at the beginning of this series. Whenever a society moves in a particular policy direction, it usually sacrifices something valuable for everything valuable it gains, much like the way changes in an engineering design solution usually always involves trade-offs.

Two famous historical examples of dangerous perversions of "republicanism" involve the advent "Jacobinism" during the French Revolution, and the plague of "Neo-Jacobinism" in America during the Abraham Lincoln dictatorship and the so-called Reconstruction era in the South (1865-1876).

In the case of the French Revolutionary Reign of Terror, "republicanism" no longer meant a defense of the people from plunder of their rights by their rulers. Instead, it meant the right of rulers to ruthlessly plunder the French aristocracy, middle class, and other perceived "enemies of the republic" in order to benefit itself and some abstract concept of the "common citizenry."

According to Nesta Webster in her classic work The French Revolution, things got really crazy once conspiratorial gangsters usurped the revolutionary leadership of well-intentioned reformists. Members of the middle class in Paris started wearing shabby clothes to avoid getting guillotined. Robespierre talked about wiping out over a quarter of France before fellow revolutionary leaders turned on him. In the Vendee region of western France, over 300,000 people were genocided. In Brittany, small populations of men, women, and children were gunned down in village squares or put aboard ships that were deliberately sunk.

During much of the American Reconstruction era from 1865 to 1876, Southern whites were not allowed to vote. Their legislatures were run by illiterate blacks, Jewish carpet baggers (cf. Michael Collins Piper Barnes Review article about the utterly corrupt regime run by Gov. Franklin J Moses of South Carolina), and other exploiters. Here, "republicanism" meant plunder of white rights in order to benefit Negroes, Jews, Northern industrialists, and other special interests.

Contemporary libertarians like to use the term "Neo-Jacobinism" to explain the ideological virus that caused the horrors of the Reconstruction era — a virus which is still very much alive in America today. The title of Dr. Jeffrey Hummel's book about the tragic Civil War and Reconstruction era, namely Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, sums it up well.

A spin-off example of neo-Jacobin activist government today is "Taxachusetts" (also ridiculed as the "Commiewealth" of "Marxachusetts") a euphemism for the home state of leftist political freaks such as Teddy Kennedy (major sponsor of the 1965 Hart Celler immigration "reform" act that led to the Third World deluge) and Michael Dukakis (of Willie Horton prison furlough fame). This state has become a spendthrift people's democratic republic that soaks the taxpayer to accomplish social re-engineering schemes. This "republic" has virtually nothing in common with the complete refuge from government taxation and regulation envisioned by its Puritan founders in their early republican vision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Appearances are deceiving

I believe that Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is correct in Democracy: The God That Failed that we need to look underneath the hood at the underlying realities behind any self-styled republican systems.

Ironies and paradoxes exist everywhere. Dr. Hoppe observes that it is possible to have forms of constitutional monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy that are vastly more libertarian and republican in substance than many officially republican social democracies.

In my "top down vs. bottom up" libertarian discussion, I discuss Dr. Hoppe's point about how a monarchy that does not increase laws, taxes, and regulations, keeps government at less than 5% of GDP, and where the monarch is content to leave everything alone and merely keep his face on sardine cans and cheese spreads — this is in reality a de facto libertarian society that practices a noninstitutionalized form of restraint against tyranny.

In contrast, self-styled republican "social democracies" where self-serving politicians continually raise taxes, increase government spending, raise national borrowing, steadily boost inflation (hidden taxation), and draft men to fight foreign crusades, is in reality a de facto tyranny that brutally invades the property rights and freedoms of its citizens, even though it continually beats its own chest and claims it is protecting their interests in true republican fashion.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato once observed: "This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

True republicans owe absolutely nothing to the United States Government

I think that Everdell's End of Kings remains important and timely for many reasons. First this book underscores the fact that Europeans have experienced various forms of republicanism going back to ancient times,. This demystifies any notion that either the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Government constitute some form of Divine Revelation. Secondly, it provides historical case studies that help us understand what social behaviors republican systems are trying to maximize, and conversely what types of dysfunction they are designed to prevent.

Let us start with the point that America's Founding Fathers did not invent republican or democratic government. Well-recorded, full blown, fully self-conscious and ideologically well-defined republican and democratic governments stretch back to ancient Greece and Rome.

Actually they stretch back further into the prehistoric traditions of Northern European peoples; however, ancient Greece and Rome comprise the first instances where full blown democratic and republican theory was thoroughly documented in scholarly literature. According to Roger Pearson's Early Civilizations of the Nordic Peoples, ancient Greece was settled by Ionians and Dorians, a Nordic people who migrated southwards from northwestern Asia. The patrician class of the Roman Republic was descended from Sabine and Oscian tribes, a Nordic people that had migrated southward from central Germany. (As mentioned in my introduction to this series, I use the term "Nordic" very loosely, with the understanding that actual historic populations may have had high percentages of Celts and other closely related whites).

Authentic "republicanism" owes nothing to "Judeo-Christianity"

The Indo-Europeans who created the Grecian and Roman Republics in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. were pagans. Ancient pagan Greeks of the 6th and 5th century B.C. also developed a full-blown methodology of science, mathematics, and geometry.

In my "top down vs. bottom up" libertarian discussion, I talk about why I connect republicanism with scientific thinking. I view republicanism as an effort to adapt elements of the scientific method to government, to include logical analysis (the republican analog is parliamentary debate), open dissemination of knowledge (government accountability), and field research (grass roots representation).

In contrast, there is no systematic theory of science, republicanism, or democracy espoused anywhere in such Jewish works as either the Old or New Testaments or Talmud or Kabala. Instead, this Jewish literature promotes blind belief, religious dogma, authoritarianism, and clever manipulation and perversion of rules and regulations.

The model for good ruler behavior in the Old Testament has to do with maximizing piety and adherence to religious strictures and dogma, not promoting open analysis of public policy and checks and balances on a public level against ruler misrule. The mind-set of the Old Testament fits the absolutist mentality of totalitarian societies ranging from ancient Polynesia to Bolshevik Russia, where the "goodness" of the leader comes from the vigor and sternness with which he stays true to a particular religious or secular dogma while viciously destroying all real or imagined opposition.

Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, by the eminent Israeli dissident writer, Israel Shahak, states in the chapter "Political Consequences," that “It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form, is totalitarian in nature.”

It is wrong to state that Americans owe their Constitution, form of government, and "freedom" to some kind of "Judeo-Christian heritage." Republicanism flourished in various areas of Europe ranging from Iceland to ancient Greece and Rome well before the advent of Christianity.

Sir Edward Gibbons' The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire claims that Christianity accelerated the decay of Rome. Salvian the Priest found greater virtue among pagan Germanic barbarians than fellow Christian Romans. Nicolo Machiavelli claimed that that pagan Romans of the early Roman Republican era held greater Republican virtue than the Christian Romans of the later Imperial era. Many scholars believe that the advent of Christianity did more to put Europe into a mystical slumber than awaken it to the light of science.

17th century England provides an excellent example where fundamentalist Christianity wrecked Britain's greatest experiment with republican government. After Parliament decapitated Charles I, Oliver Cromwell made himself so unpopular by enforcing Puritanical interpretations of Old Testament laws that Englishmen began to yearn for a restoration of the monarchy.

One might argue that various forms of republicanism in history have succeeded more despite rather than because of hard-line Christian doctrines.

In fact, after one examines the ancient tribal traditions of Northern Europe, and then reviews the history of republican governments in recorded European history, it becomes very clear that there was nothing particularly new on a conceptual level about the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Articles of Confederation, or the U.S. Constitution.

When it comes to finding inspiration to preserve liberty, white Americans owe everything to their ancient European heritage. They owe almost nothing to the United States Government, particularly the corrupt excuse for a government that we are saddled with today under George W. Bush. The U.S. Constitution only has real meaning once it is interpreted within the context of a long perspective of European racial, cultural, and political history.

Interestingly enough, the libertarian writer Dr. Murray N. Rothbard acknowledged the libertarian structure of ancient Germanic and Celtic tribes in Chapter Three "The State" of his book For A New Liberty:

With decentralized power, with a Church separate from the State, with flourishing towns and cities able to develop outside the feudal power structure, and with freedom in society, the economy was able to develop in Western Europe in a way that transcended all previous civilizations. Furthermore, the Germanic — and particularly the Celtic — tribal structure which succeeded the disintegrating Roman Empire had strong libertarian elements. Instead of a mighty State apparatus exerting a monopoly of violence, disputes were solved by contending tribesmen consulting the elders of the tribe on the nature and application of the tribe's customary and common law. The "chief" was generally merely a war leader who was only called into his warrior role whenever war with other tribes was under way. There was no permanent war or military bureaucracy in the tribes. In Western Europe, as in many other civilizations, the typical model of the origin of the State was not via a voluntary "social contract" but by the conquest of one tribe by another. The original liberty of the tribe or the peasantry thus falls victim to the conquerors. At first, the conquering tribe killed and looted the victims and rode on. But at some time the conquerors decided that it would be more profitable to settle down among the conquered peasantry and rule and loot them on a permanent and systematic basis. The periodic tribute exacted from the conquered subjects eventually came to be called "taxation." And, with equal generality, the conquering chieftains parceled out the land of the peasantry to the various warlords, who were then able to settle down and collect feudal "rent" from the peasantry. The peasants were often enslaved, or rather enserfed, to the land itself to provide a continuing source of exploited labor for the feudal lords.[footnote 18]

We may note a few prominent instances of the birth of a modern State through conquest. One was the military conquest of the Indian peasantry in Latin America by the Spaniards. The conquering Spanish not only established a new State over the Indians, but the land of the peasantry was parceled out among the conquering warlords, who were ever after to collect rent from the tillers of the land. Another instance was the new political form imposed upon the Saxons of England after their conquest by the Normans in 1066. The land of England was parceled out among the Norman warrior lords, who thereby formed a State and feudal-land apparatus of rule over the subject population. For the libertarian, the most interesting and certainly the most poignant example of the creation of a State through conquest was the destruction of the libertarian society of ancient Ireland by England in the seventeenth century, a conquest which established an imperial State and ejected numerous Irish from their cherished land. The libertarian society of Ireland, which lasted for a thousand years — and which will be described further below — was able to resist English conquest for hundreds of years because of the absence of a State which could be conquered easily and then used by the conquerors to rule over the native population.

Transferring republican concepts to alien peoples around the globe

The concept of "spreading democracy" around the world is a tricky topic because there are some very limited ways that "republicanism" and "democracy" might be inferred from the indigenous practices of various exotic peoples around the planet.

Around the globe, people tend to form villages. In these villages, it is common for the most powerful people to periodically meet with each other. When they gather somewhere, they are able to talk to each other face to face and informally share ideas.

To some folks, to include the extreme leftists who dominate so many of our universities, this level of face to face sharing of ideas is "democracy."

The fact that everyone knows each other in a small, primitive, tribal setting and can gossip behind each other's backs implies some kind of diffusion of power and restraint on a would-be tyrant.

To some folks, this is "republicanism."

If one bends over backwards further than a pretzel, one can even find some faint glimmerings of "republicanism" in the Old Testament. In the tract Common Sense by Thomas Paine, he made a big deal over the fact that a Jewish tribal advisor named Samuel (as recorded in the book by his name in the Old Testament) wanted to keep Jewish tribal leadership on an informal tribal chieftainship level, rather than ape other larger societies by trying to support a "king." Samuel's main reason for arguing against a king is that monarchs tend to cost too much to maintain. They tend to like expensive palaces, gilded ornaments, large retinues, beautifully kept concubines, and such.

Although Thomas Paine himself was somewhere between an agnostic and atheist in his views towards Scripture, he used this argument to try to de-legitimize King George III in his efforts to bring American Christians over to the Revolutionary cause. Unfortunately for Paine this was the closest thing to "republicanism" he could find anywhere in ancient Jewish literature, which is actually very totalitarian in nature.

Nice try, but not good enough

Small-time settings are not where the tire rubber hits the road when it comes to genuine republican and democratic systems.

Everywhere we go around the world the acid test comes when we deal with increasingly larger and more impersonal social organizations. Once human societies rise beyond the hunting band or village level to groups of cities or regional populations, a very familiar pattern takes place. The larger the society grows, the more pyramidal the leadership structure becomes. Furthermore, as societies grow larger, the people on top of the pyramid gets increasingly ruthless, vicious, and secretive in their tactics to fend off rivals. People at the lower levels become increasingly careful about not even giving the slightest appearance of crossing the leader to stay alive. Even within their scientific and technical communities, subordinates tend to get nervous about advocating any theories that contradict their superiors.

On a broad conceptual level, this is no different than alpha male baboons who must dominate their primate troupes at all costs. Nor is it really different from gorillas who hog the best females for themselves and marginalize weaker males to the periphery of their tribal bands.

Most human societies around the world govern themselves on on a basic primate level, with a tendency towards hierarchy, authoritarianism, and vicious in-fighting. This is particularly true of Third World peoples with evolutionary histories in temperate zones which tend to select for "reactive" behaviors. Contrary to this, peoples with long evolutionary histories under highly dispersed conditions in frost zones show higher levels of individualized, technologically adaptive, rational behavior.

Europeans are unique relative to Third World peoples and primates given their pronounced tendency towards decentralization and the amount of effort they invest towards formalizing and preserving republican strategies as their societies have grown in size.

Those European "X-Men"

Europeans have also been unique in terms of preserving a relatively large middle class of free, armed, self-sufficient citizens with strong property rights. Relative to most other societies around the planet in any era, their de facto ruling elites and underclasses have been fairly small. Conversely, their middle class of free citizens has always been relatively large. This same pattern has occurred spontaneously in many different places and eras throughout history.

Dr. Ralph Raico has observed in his libertarian lectures that for many long historical periods in many Asian countries, it has been customary for merchants to do everything possible to hide their wealth for fear that it would get confiscated by rulers. In his book The New World of Islam, Dr. Lothrop Stoddard commented upon the phenomenon of "Asiatic despotism," in which people spontaneously accepted cruel dominance-submission roles.

All of this greatly inhibited entrepreneurship in Asian societies until later periods when under pressure of Western imperialism many Asians societies began to successfully borrow certain aspects of Western free enterprise culture to become more competitive.

Europeans are so different compared to the rest of the world in terms of their attitudes towards authority, individual rights, and personal freedom that sometimes I wonder if we are nothing but a bunch of "X-men" mutants compared to the rest of the world.

Indigenous Nordics are not Nazis. White people in general are not automatic fascists

Zionist-controlled Hollywood frequently shows highly misleading imagery of angry white power groups led by blond rednecks who sport black leather jackets with ancient Germanic symbols.

In juxtaposition against these unsavory images we see well-crafted imagery of highly intelligent, compassionate Jews and humane, articulate nonwhites who provide wisdom and "diversity" to misguided, violence-prone whites. We are left with the subliminal impression that were it not for efforts to integrate nonwhites at all levels of society, white people would have nothing better to do than march in jackboot unison and gun each other down in the streets.

Actually "Nordic" is a lot closer to "libertarian" than to "Nazi." Dr. Lothrop Stoddard observed in Racial Realities in Europe that Germany became increasingly centralized and authoritarian when it transitioned from a majority Nordic to a majority Alpine country following the Thirty Year's War in the early 1600's, which wiped out about half the population. The Alpine peoples tend to be more conventional and relatively less free-spirited and libertarian. Wilmot Robertson points out in The Dispossessed Majority that the Protestant Reformation, which at root was about decentralization, occurred virtually everywhere in Europe with a majority Nordic population. Also, my 1957 Encyclopedia Britannica points out that in the 1930's, the Northern European countries tended to be much more resistant to fascism than the southern European countries.

While there may be some differences in libertarian tendencies within the sub-components of the Caucasian race, it would be wrong for me to overlook heroic struggles for liberty waged by whites in southern and eastern Europe as well as in northern and western Europe. Throughout Europe in the 19th century, when European countries experienced relatively long periods of prosperity and stability, the trend was clearly towards classical liberalism. Everywhere in Europe from Spain to France to Germany to Italy to Greece and to Russia, parliamentary bodies increased in influence to offset monarchical and aristocratic privileges. That period also witness trends towards increasing suffrage and other forms of political representation.

The 19th century European trend was emphatically not towards fascism. I agree with Mises Institute lecturers in their special symposium on "The Economics of Fascism" that the fascist movements which emerged in the 20th century may be characterized as a reaction to the devastation created by World War I. Fascism was also a reaction to the very real threat posed by communist agitation within European countries. Lastly, the late 19th century saw a trend towards urbanization and large industrial complexes that shifted media and political power towards big cities and their controllers.

A point avoided by the Mises Institute lecturers, but which I will make here, is that communist subversion was often funded and directed by Jewish Communists in Moscow who maintained a strange relationship with international Jewish allies in control of European and American central banks and national media.

Therefore it is wrong to suggest that white people have natural fascistic tendencies, and that they are incapable of controlling them without the alleged salubrious effects of Jewish Hollywood propaganda, forced race mixing, and liberal Federal government interventionism.

Instead, we need to turn the Hollywood camera lens around at the Jewish elite and see what they are really all about. America First Books is proud to carry titles by Michael Collins Piper and Col Donn de Grand Pre that cover this important topic of Jewish subversion in great depth, to include the cozy historic tribal relationship between Jewish predatory monopoly capitalists, Jewish organized crime leaders, and Jewish communists.

Without going into too much detail here, I can provide an excellent example of highly problematic international Jewish leadership with Sir Winston Churchill's famous essay "Zionism vs. Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People." Here, Sir Churchill started out complementing various Jewish leaders, and then switched gears with a vengeance:

...The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Cooperative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews.

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus- Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and an the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution: by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.
Winston Churchill was not stupid. However, his article barely scratches the surface of a terrible global evil. I will return to the topic of highly problematic Jewish leadership again later in this article when I address Jewish criminal totalitarian psychopathology in the "parasitism" section.

Meanwhile, our own house is on fire...

Rather than being led away from fascism by America's media elite, white American's have been dumbed down to accept big Federal government and massive government interventionism in all areas of American society. In his article "Constitutional Illiteracy and Attention Deficit Democracy" James Bovard notes that:
Many Americans have long been constitutional Know Nothings. A 1979 Gallup poll found that 70 percent of respondents did not know what the First Amendment was or what it dealt with. A 1991 American Bar Association poll found that only 33 percent of Americans surveyed knew what the Bill of Rights was. A 1987 survey found that 45 percent of adult respondents believed that Karl Marx’s communist principle “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” was in the U.S. Constitution.

The recent poll found that 36 percent of Americans believe the right to a public education is guaranteed by the First Amendment. This widespread notion vivifies the failure of public schools. More years in government schools have done little or nothing to help citizens understand the limits on government power codified by the Founding Fathers. Politically controlled education cannot be trusted to enlighten people on the perils of political power.

The McCormick Foundation warned, “The less Americans know about freedoms, the more they are likely to erode without our notice.” But it is not a question of freedoms’ eroding; it is a question of their being plowed under at a high rate of speed.

From the proliferation of free speech zones (quarantining anyone who protests against the president’s policies), to the assertion by Justice Department lawyers that the president is above the law (regarding interrogation methods), to the nullification of limits on government searches (the warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps), individual rights are becoming an endangered species. But few Americans recognize the rising danger.

The conventional wisdom is that, though Americans may not know the Constitution or the laws, they still imbibe sufficient political wisdom merely from living in the United States. But there is no reason to assume that most Americans know enough to prevent politicians from trampling their rights. If a citizen is unaware of his rights, then, for all practical purposes, in disputes with government officials he does not have them.
Defining the real nature of republican government

According to William Everdell in The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans (page 6), " [John] Adams, a republic was `a government whose sovereignty is vested in more than one man.' He got this from Doctor Johnson, who, in his Dictionary of 1755, called it, more concisely, `government of more than one.'"

Republicanism has a dual nature. On the one hand, it comprises a set of power brokerage strategies. On the other hand, it constitutes a cultural-racial phenomenon.

Republicanism as a social phenomenon

I think that the old Roman term "republican virtue" captures the social dimension. Viable republicanism requires a certain level of innate competency, honesty, self-restraint, and courage on a grass roots level among its constituents. I talk about "republican virtue" in greater depth in my "Inspiration" article.

"Republican virtue" entails a thought process where people seek open and honest and government that reasonably balances individual and group needs. While republicanism can decentralize political power, this power can only be retained by people with the will and ability to wisely exercise it on a decentralized level.

Republican government does not make stupid or ignorant people wise. It does not make lazy people productive. Nor does it make crooked people honest. It is simply reflects a set of power brokerage and decision-making strategies that can help honest and intelligent people improve the level of rationality of their decision making and the quality of their representation. Thomas Jefferson summed it up well when he said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Republican governments in Europe tended to originate among proud and fiercely independent tribal bands. They had long traditions of settling violent conflict on a decentralized level rather than by taking orders from a highly centralized and despotic state. Clan feuds, dueling, and rebellions were common.

Republican government became an alternative to violent methods for replacing abusive and incompetent leaders. However, it is worth emphasizing that with their independent minds and proud spirit, Europeans were fully prepared to replace bad leaders anyway in the absence of formalized republican systems.

An example where a strong will and independent intellect worked together, the Roman Republic started when the first Brutus (Lucius Junius Brutus) deposed Rome's last King, Tarquinius Superbus in 510 B.C. He was prepared to use whatever level of violence was necessary.

Both violent and peaceful approaches to the circulation of elites were always more common in Western society than in more autocratic and collectivistic Asian societies. All of this gets back to genetic interpretations of natural law and the relationship between political institutions and innate traits of particular populations. The traits of Europeans include chivalry, personal territoriality, and the capacity for rational decision-making in addition to greater rebelliousness and independence of thought.

Republicanism as a power brokerage strategy

Many libertarian commentators emphasize the point that the Constitution does not give Americans any rights. Americans did not need to be given any rights because they already had their natural rights before they formed their government. Instead, the Constitution merely defines and circumscribes the powers that are granted to government by the people. Even the Bill of Rights does not give any rights to the people. Instead, it details what rights the government cannot take away.

Americans had liberty and their rights as Englishmen long before either the Constitution or Articles of Confederation were created. In fact, it is worth repeating the point that I make many times in this series that the anti-Federalists, who demanded the Bill of Rights, felt the Constitution was actually a step backwards in preserving liberty compared to the Articles of Confederation. I happen to agree with them. (More on this in my history reinterpreted discussion of libertarian racial nationalism).

Once you reject the idea of vesting all power in a single man who rules for life (the definition of a king, monarch, or dictator), and you decide to figure out a peaceful way to replace a bad ruler without feeling his hot blood drip off your dagger blade, this begins an interesting thought process.

As a set of power brokerage strategies, republicanism entails a long menu of approaches that can be used towards the end of defining, limiting, and redistributing power away from the one man rule of the would-be tyrant.

Republican power brokerage strategies

Limiting powers of government by written contract: This is called Constitutionalism. Another approach is to rely on custom or legal precedent, which tends to work only in a racially homogeneous population with a long cultural and historical memory.

Paradoxically, Constitutionalism can become dangerous if tempts the ruling class to throw away the homogeneity and ancient traditions of their society on the false belief that Constitutionalism alone can serve as a crutch to somehow "remold" aliens, criminals, and unintelligent people into viable citizens.

Limiting terms in office: One of the purposes of term limits is to create a circulation of elites, whereby fresh talent and ideas can continually circulate in high places. This also reduces the ability of individuals to develop monopoly power.

The downside is that shortened terms can also reduce a sense of caretakership, and hence more irresponsible towards fulfilling their duties towards the general citizenry. This strategy can consist of many different approaches, such as a) limiting each term by a certain period, such as for two, four, or six years and b) limiting the number of terms someone can serve or c) limiting ones term through a vote of no confidence or impeachment.

Compartmentalizing top government functions: Also known as "checks and balances," the idea is to spread out power under enough different department heads so that a chief executive has to shoot the moon to consolidate enough power under his arbitrary personal authority to exercise tyranny.

In America we have the division between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. We also have protocols that separate various other powers. As an example, military personnel who are banned from wearing their uniforms while engaged in partisan political activity.

An important vulnerability of this approach consists of the fact that there may be no checks and balances to prevent particular individuals or alien tribal groups from monopolizing national media, a central bank, or various sources of wealth, all of which can be far more powerful over the long run than any official parts of government. One has to consider all the power bases of society, to include those that are technically outside the realm of "government."

Another important drawback is the possibility that as government becomes more compartmentalized, government officials may lose their sense of caretakership. They may also become more inclined to pass the buck and hence slower at making timely decisions.

Preserving the right of exit: This is similar to the notion that it is much easier for an employee to avoid being exploited by an employer if he can easily find a good job elsewhere than if he faces lengthy unemployment if fired. Similarly a wife is less likely to be abused by her husband if she can independently support herself and find a better spouse. On a political level, it means that states are more likely to retain decentralized power in the face of a centralizing federal government if they can make a credible threat to secede. Conversely, where individuals or provinces lack the right of exit, power tends to gravitate to a higher, central level.

Dr. Ralph Raico emphasized the "right of exit" in his Mises Institute lecture on the Rise of the West. He believes that in Europe of the Middle Ages, where countries such as Germany and Italy were each divided into dozens of principalities, that the relative ease with which people could move from one state to another helped deter rulers from becoming too oppressive with taxes for fear that they would lose their most productive people. Interestingly enough, William Shirer notes in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that during its period of decentralization in the 16th century, Germany was actually ahead of Elizabethan England in human rights.

The "right of exit" does not necessarily imply "all or nothing" action. It can be exercised in degrees. It can include selective acts of disobedience to directives without necessarily leaving a political union. As one example, Thomas Jefferson advocated the right of states to nullify certain Federal directives that they felt exceed Constitutionally-mandated authority in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 that he wrote in response to the Alien and Sedition laws. As another example, the doctrine of jury nullification provides an "exit" option within the legal system.

Formalizing rational decision-making procedures: Usually this means adapting political debate to the scientific method as much as possible. This means using representatives to gather inputs and evidence. It means trying to debate policies in a manner similar to a scientific debate. This includes allowing both sides of a debate to have the floor, protecting contrary opinions, observing established voting procedures, and maintaining public records of proceedings. One well known approach is Parliamentary procedure. The book Effective Group Problem Solving (carried by America First Books) describes methods developed through management science research to optimize group results.

Adjusting the quality and quantity of decision-making bodies: The original Constitution restricted voting to males who owned property. Extending the right of voting to new categories of people is called suffrage. This can create more parties who can provide vigilance and opposition to tyranny. On the dark side, unwise extension of the right of voting to uneducated people can also dumb down the quality of the electorate and increase participation by parasitic special interests.

The limitations of republican strategies

There is no one republican strategy that works in all situations. In fact, all of them can be misapplied and seriously backfire, such as extending suffrage to criminals, aliens, and imbeciles. When we add or change a republican strategy, we need to keep our eye on the ball. Our original purpose is to have a system that allows us a peaceful means to replace leaders who turn out to be incompetent or rotten, and to have some reasonable level of rationality in government and representation of our interests. Beyond a certain point, it is more a case that is the men who make the system, rather than the system that makes the men, and simply piling on more republican strategies is not going to help — in fact it can backfire.

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out that there are no free lunches in pursuing any particular republican strategy. As we spread out or limit power, we also reduce the sense of long term caretakership. This can lead to the creation of a spendthrift, perpetually self-aggrandizing social democratic (or "neo-Jacobin") government run by pork politicians. I would add that the lack of a strong sense of caretakership can also create security holes and power gaps for infiltration and takeover by alien financiers, as documented in Edwin Griffin's landmark work The Creature from Jekyll Island.

One can argue that when a society starts mindlessly piling republican strategies on top of each other as an end in itself, that this is a bad sign. Republicanism has now become an authoritarian secular religion with its own dogma, rather than a set of strategies to deter tyranny or a representative system that arises organically out of the ethos of a people.

There are no "free lunches" in regular science as well as political science

We see this "no free lunch" concept in such scientific disciplines as physics and engineering. In physics, we see "no free lunch" in the principle that total matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed on either side of an equation, or in the concept of the preservation of angular momentum.

In creating design solutions in mechanical engineering, every time you add a design feature to a machine, you sacrifice something important somewhere else. As an example, when you add weight to a car frame to make it safer in a crash, you simultaneously reduce gas mileage. Earlier in this series, I suggested the exact same principle applies on a broad ideological level, namely that when one moves from, say genetic bottom up to environmental top down, one makes sacrifices and trade-offs.

The scientific discipline used by engineers for analyzing trade-offs is called constraint analysis. In computer science, it is called "linear programming." Three important principles of constraint analysis are a) the need to prioritize constraint variables and free up the most critical variables first; b) the need to minimize diminishing returns, and c) the need to recognize that in imbalanced systems, un-constraining uncritical variables does not accomplish anything, and in fact can mean lost resources, wastage, or can even backfire and work destructively against ones system.

Questions of balance and diminishing returns

Two very important corollaries of the no free lunches concept in political science are the ideas that one experiences diminishing returns as one adds on more and more republican strategies, and that furthermore adding republican strategies can backfire or be wasteful if one fails to use a balanced approach.

In regard to piling more and more republican strategies on top of each other, not only does one dilute the sense of caretakership that Dr. Hoppe talks about, but one also increases "security holes" and other vulnerabilities in ones political system. Among other things, as authority and responsibility become more atomized, it becomes easier for alien mafia groups to buy off portions of the government in piecemeal and incrementally infiltrate and take it over. This illustrates the principle of the need to avoiding diminishing returns.

Another negative that comes from piling on more republican strategies is that they tend to slow the system down and make it more cumbersome, which can imply more bureaucracy and reduced flexibility in reacting to and handling crises.

In regard to our need to balance our strategies, one can easily see the absurdity of destroying one of the most important republican strategies of all — the right of exit — while expanding one of the least important republican strategies — extending suffrage. This is precisely what happens when one reduces the right of exit by crushing states rights and confiscating privately held firearms on the one hand, while extending suffrage to increasing populations of criminal, alien, or unintelligent people. This has in fact been the trend of American political history since 1861. Dr. Jeffrey Rogers Hummel wrote an excellent book that explains this foolishness, whose title tells it all: Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. (Hummel's viewpoint is actually more anarcho-libertarian rather than racial nationalist). The right of exit is the most critical variable that needs to be unconstrained. Extending suffrage to criminal, alien, or unintelligent people is the least critical variable that creates wastage, or even worse, creates security holes in ones social system that the worst parasites in the world can enter (more on this later in my section on Jewish criminal totalitarian psychopathology). .

There is no "divine right" for republicanism or democracy either

During the Enlightenment, one commonly found republican theorists scoff at the "Divine Right" justifications for monarchy, namely the idea that God provided a special blessing to legitimize the rule of a king. A major purpose of Common Sense by Tom Paine that helped ignite the American Revolution was to debunk this concept.

However, it also works the other way around. There are no particular republican strategies which are "blessed" either. To the contrary, as mentioned earlier, there are no free lunches anywhere in economics or political science, just like there are none in engineering and physics. Any republican or democratic strategy can be misapplied and fall flat on its face.

Libertarian racial nationalists believe that a long term, a viable republican system requires a racially conscious, racially homogeneous population with a long term cultural, historical, and racial memory, who in turn only allow people to control the strategic bases of their society such as banking, media, and government who share their racial background and cultural loyalty. To bolster heritage loyalty, it helps to have a significant portion of the population practice an indigenous, folkish natural religion rather than a universalistic religion that might dignify alien parasites looking for ways to infiltrate and take over their society.

The ultimate "right of exit" to deter tyranny is the right to associate with members of ones own race and ethnicity rather than being forcefully integrated into a multi-racial, multi-cultural collective. All of this is essential to preserve a sense of long term caretakership at the top as the society tries to implement various republican strategies that limit power.

Republicanism as an imperfect adaptation of the scientific method

As mentioned previously, republicanism is first and foremost supposed to be a defense against one type of particularly dangerous social parasite called the tyrant.

Secondly, when intelligently designed and executed, republican government is supposed to provide more rational decision-making than one man rule, especially to the extent that it can incorporate the scientific method in its deliberative processes. Better government should in turn help to bolster the anti-parasite defenses of a people, much like boosting the immune system of someone's body can increase their natural defense against viral infection.

However, there is a dark side to many forms of republicanism. When pursued in an unintelligent, imbalanced, or corrupt way, or by a corrupt people, republican government can actually become an invitation to parasite infiltration and takeover. In this case, republicanism can be worse than useless. It can become a mask, giving a pretense to better government than what the people really have, which has in reality become a parasite-friendly entity.

This bring us back to a paradox suggested by Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (and also by Nicolo Machiavelli and other republican theorists before him), namely that a Constitutional monarchy that shares power with a limited parliamentary advisory body, and which preserves a sense of long term caretakership, may in the long run be a better and more viable de facto republican and libertarian system than a social democratic system which has allowed itself to degenerate into a greedy, parasitic, corrupt, self-aggrandizing and ultimately self-destructive bloat-bag. Incidentally, I am not saying this because I seek to install constitutional monarchy and a limited parliamentary advisory bodies in America; to the contrary I do not think that would have a good fit with American traditions and core values, however, I do believe strongly that we need to overhaul our Federal and state governments in ways that make them vastly leaner and more responsible.

This also suggests another paradox. Since maintaining a sense of caretakership is so important, an intelligently-interpreted religion can play an important role in preserving all of this, as well as maintaining racial and heritage consciousness. So for example while an Islamic republic may lose some elements of rational process by moving away from secularism, at the same time it may gain even more in terms of overall system integrity by making its leaders more conscious of their people's heritage, ancient customs, and ancient ethno-racial loyalties. For similar reasons, I think that activists who want to revitalize Asatru in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, or Native Americans who are revitalizing their indigenous Native American religions on their tribal reservations are on to something.

All of this underscores another final point. As an American, I have absolutely no idea what particular mix or application of republican strategies is appropriate for various foreign countries. I can not intelligently make recommendations for France, Russia, Greece, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, China, Japan, or any other foreign country if I have not lived in that country, do not speak the language, and am not intimately familiar with the culture, history, and the people. And it is more ridiculous to think that Americans such as myself who have not lived in foreign countries are doing their citizens a favor if we should apply heavy-handed economic coercion or military conquest to impose our institutions upon them. Yet this is exactly what the neo-cons are advocating at web sites such as

Willis Carto and the staff of the former Spotlight (now American Free Press) wrote an excellent book titled Populism vs. Plutocracy: The Eternal Struggle (formerly titled Profiles in Populism) that provides examples of authentic American leadership. By "populism," Mr. Carto means 19th century American populism, a very different animal than the sickly and perverse forms of "populism" that emerged in the late 20th century. In my chart at the beginning of this series, I place 19th century populism in the "genetic bottom up" category and call it libertarian racial nationalism.


Forward to: Part Two: Parasitism
Back to Part One:   Overview
Back to Part Two:   Centralization vs. Decentralization
Back to Part Three:   Environmental vs. Genetic

Short URL for this web page:

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.