POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
by William B. Fox
Mutualism vs. Parasitism
(Forward to Section Two: Parasitism)
"z" axis entailing "mutualism" vs. "parasitism"
not drawn, see discussion below)
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
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
, 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
, 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:
as the `American Criminal Class'
" expanded on this "crimeocracy"
...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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
MUTUALISM AND AMERICAN BUSINESS
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
" (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
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
, which I discussed in my "top
down vs. bottom up
...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
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
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
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
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
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
MUTUALISM AND REPUBLICAN
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
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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
immigration "reform" act that led to the
Third World deluge) and Michael
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
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
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
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
, 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
claims that Christianity accelerated the decay
of Rome. Salvian the Priest found greater
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
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.
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
" 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
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
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
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
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
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
The 19th century European trend was emphatically not towards fascism.
I agree with Mises Institute lecturers in their special symposium
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
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.
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.
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
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
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), "...to
[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
"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
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
does not give
to the people. Instead, it details what rights the government cannot
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
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:
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
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
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
of 1798 that he wrote in response
to the Alien and Sedition laws. As another example, the doctrine
provides an "exit" option within the
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
methods developed through management science research to optimize
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
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
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
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
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 www.newamericancentury.org.
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.