Broward Tea Party

Broward Tea Party News and Views

Which Bathroom Should I use? By Branehart, Esq., blogger, and lifelong men’s room user

Which Bathroom Should I use?

By Branehart, Esq., blogger, and lifelong men’s room user


There’s a law in Charlotte, NC that says people can use the restroom for the gender they “identify with”, regardless of whether they were born that way or actually have “the junk”, so to speak, of that particular gender.  Then the State of North Carolina moved to pass a bill blocking local governments from enacting laws like this one – and, as expected, the Democrats went nuts calling the State homophobic and bigoted, and a bunch of celebrities including Bruce The Boss and companies like PayPal decided to boycott the State.  Hey, I always thought Springsteen was and is a darn good songwriter but he couldn’t tell the difference between Julianne Phillips and Patty Scialfa, I mean I know they look alike but… that wasn’t too bright.  And PayPal – don’t they do business in countries where homosexuals are brutally killed by law for being gay?  PayPal’s just a bunch of liberal America bashers.  Maybe some university in love with Immanuel Kant’s anti-thinking ideas is paying them to be; anyway, it is hypocritical to the max.

I’m not gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that – a little Jerry Seinfeld lingo there), but it does cause a problem for me in analyzing this issue.  Lots of African Americans tell whites that whites can’t know the “black experience”.  Well, I as a life-long heterosexual feel I don’t know the “gay experience” – more specifically, exactly what homosexuality really is. Is it voluntary?  Or involuntary?  Genetic?  Or a result of environmental factors after birth?  No way for me to know directly. I don’t want to “discriminate” – okay, let’s use a more precise term, be unjust – to someone who is the way he is through no fault of his own, so I’ll reserve judgment on homosexuality for the moment.

However, I think I have a real problem with this “transgendered” stuff. I’m not sure what that is either but, I get a bad feeling about it.  What it sounds like to me is: I’m one gender but I want to be, or “identify with”, another – so I’m going to say I’m the other even though I’m the one.

This gives me trouble because as the Rolling Stones – good liberals they are! Once sang, “you can’t always get what you want”.  As I (very seriously) said in my blog “So What are Values, Anyway?” (August 2015), values have to be real – and they have to be real because reality is always there, always setting the terms of our lives whether we like it or not.  To go with reality, therefore, is to exercise proper humility in accordance with the requirements of our survival. To love life means to respect reality. Of course you can change reality, but only by acknowledging it first. Or, as Ayn Rand once said, “reality to be commanded, must be obeyed”.

The “transgendered” folks, however, and correct me if I’m wrong on this, don’t like that reality is an absolute.  They want to control reality and spit in the face of it –if they feel like it.  And, they want to go along with it – if they feel like it.  Either way, it’s their feelings, not the facts, that are supreme (just as they are with the jerks in or a bunch of namby-pamby cupcake nation Ivy League or University of Missouri students on the lookout to rail against the next micro-aggression from someone with white privilege).

What’s wrong with this, aside from everything?  To live, we must achieve values that will allow us to do so – and to achieve them, as I said in my post “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process” (October 2015), we have to think to get them.  Not feel, but think.  And as I went on to say in that post, the thinking process begins with observing and acknowledging not our feelings but the facts of reality.  Start with your feelings rather than the facts and you’re not thinking; you’re speculating or fantasizing, which leads to disaster.  See the discussion of Plotinus’ philosophy regarding emotions in my post “The History of Thinking in Western History” (November 2015).

I went on to say, in my post “Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS (and what to do about them)” (November 2015), that people often don’t learn how to think because they don’t learn how to handle abstract concepts properly.  When they don’t learn how to handle abstractions, they feel cut off from values that can only be achieved by understanding abstractions, and from the happiness that results from achieving these values.  They therefore turn against values and happiness and become the monsters they are.  Rather than restate what I said about the need to reduce abstract concepts to concrete ones, I’ll just let the reader check out those three posts.  What I want to say here, however, is that, and like I said I don’t really know what “transgender” is so maybe I’m wrong, it seems “transgenderism” is really hatred of thinking, values and happiness by people who don’t know how to think, disguised as some kind of uncontrollable physical condition like possibly homosexuality.

If I’m right about transgenderism then no, I don’t want people using any bathroom open to the public based on what gender they want to be; I want them using the bathroom for the gender they really are.

So what gender are you and which bathroom should you use?  Here’s a simple guide:

  1. If you have testicles and a penis, regardless of whether you look like Caitlin Jenner or one of the band members of Poison, it’s the men’s room for you.
  2. If you do not have a penis and testicles, and have a vagina, either from birth or from reconstructive sex change surgery, I don’t care if you look like Hulk Hogan or Barney Frank or anyone or anything else, go to the ladies room.

And, speaking of Caitlin Jenner, I have a theory.  There is something called a sexual fetish, which is a sexual arousal that results from observing some object that someone associates with sex.  Fetishes are probably genetic as they are much more common in men than women.  Some common fetishes include the shape of a woman’s legs; woman’s high boots; certain women’s hairstyles; blonde hair; lingerie; shiny satin fabric; the shape of women’s lips; high heeled pumps; etc. There was a movie, The Man who Loved Women starring Burt Reynolds, about a man who had a fetish with women’s legs.

I think Caitlin Jenner is an example of an extreme fetish.  Fetishes are normally very powerful, as Burt Reynolds demonstrates (spoiler alert) when he gets himself killed running after a pair of great legs, but nowhere near as powerful in the average person who has one as they were for Bruce Jenner.  He had to have the things he associated with sex – which, based on what he has done to his appearance, include just about every physical feature of a woman – or he’d go nuts.  (Note he didn’t want to actually be a woman, so genital sex change surgery wasn’t an issue; and he certainly isn’t gay.)

I’m not a therapist so I don’t know the proper way to treat a fetish.  But I would imagine that the Caitlin Jenner route isn’t the right one.  I believe that reality is real, one’s feelings are also real, but what gives rise to those feelings may not be correct.  It seems to be that, if someone always wants to observe things that get him or her sexually aroused, he should acknowledge that that’s not a proper way to go through life.  What is a proper way to go through life is to do that some of the time, but most of the time realize that you have to engage in thinking and productive activity and otherwise do what you have to-to achieve your values.

Now, if you have achieved your values (as I’m sure Bruce Jenner has – he’s one of the best athletes ever and probably has more money than God though not as much as Rush Limbaugh) and you can afford to parade around looking like Kim Kardashian, you should be free to – but don’t allow yourself to be used by crazed liberal anti-thinking Kantian professors who want you to start spouting that unthinking, emotionalistic hedonism is an okay way for everyone to live or be a poster child for the idea that reality is an unknowable chaos and that thinking is therefore useless. Oh, and uh Caitlin, you still have to use the men’s room.  Don’t worry if my kids (I know I don’t have any but if I did, hypothetically speaking) see you; I’ll explain it to them.

PayPal shame on you, and Bruce, as Laura Ingraham once said, just shut up and sing.

The Pit and the Purpose: A Blog by Branehart

The Pit and the Purpose

 By Branehart

I have talked at length in previous blog posts about how thinking is the most important value people have because it gives us all of our other values. The second most important value, having a purpose in life, is also vitally important and deserves its own post, so here I go.

A purpose is an overriding reason for choosing the values one pursues. As I said in my previous post “So What are Values, Anyway?” (August 2015), having a purpose is vital because it determines, out of a huge number of potential choices, which values someone should pursue. Unlike lower animals, we as humans do not act automatically in response to what we perceive so, unlike lower animals we actually have a choice as to how to act and what to go after. This gives us the benefit of being able to control our lives and achieve happiness in ways that are unattainable to other animals. The flip side of this though, is that unlike lower animals we have the chore of consciously figuring out what to go after because if we don’t we stagnate and die.

That’s where a purpose comes in. People need to choose a purpose because we have to plan which values we’ll pursue over the course of our entire lives; there is no point where we become like lower animals and start automatically regarding some things as values, the way a grizzly automatically goes after a salmon. For most people their purpose is their career with their career choice determining what is of value to them. If you want to be a doctor, for example, you have to have as values going to medical school and doing a residency. If you want to be a lawyer you have to go to law school, etc. Some people who are independently wealthy can make a hobby their purpose; either way, whether it’s a career or a hobby, everyone still needs a purpose. If someone doesn’t organize his values according to an overarching purpose, he drifts from one thing to another like a playboy who never really becomes very good at anything, never produces anything of significant value that he can make a decent living selling to anyone, and probably ends up poor and miserable.

A purpose has to be something that is in demand (e.g., you can be an automotive engineer, not a buggy whip engineer), something that you like enough to be all-in for and something you actually have an ability to do. For example, I think I can remember actually playing basketball once in my entire life and sucking at it. For me to want to be a professional basketball player in the NBA would therefore be ridiculous not only because of the infinitesimal odds of anyone actually making it on to a team, but also because I don’t play well to begin with. However, I had very good grades in high school and college and a strong interest in philosophy, political science and law. So becoming a lawyer or a writer might be a rational choice.

A major problem today is that young people are not taught how to choose a purpose. I’m reminded of Dr. Phil’s story on The Kelly File about Chris, a forty year old man who wanted to be a ‘rock star’ and went through the motions of being a musician while failing miserably, living in his parents’ house and causing them to squander their retirement savings taking care of him. Not only do I wonder if he has any real talent to be a musician, I also wonder if he knows whether he has any real talent to do it. He doesn’t seem to, but if he does, again I wonder if he is all-in enough for doing what it takes to actualize a career doing it. Again, it doesn’t seem like it. What it seems like is that he never knew how to take seriously the need to select a purpose, and with his back to the wall, is now just playing games.

Many young people today seem like Chris, maybe not as extreme but still drifting through life trying one thing or another until they ‘fall into something’ or ‘something clicks’, and never really happy with what happens to them. This is what happens to the Leonardo DiCaprio character in the movie Revolutionary Road, for whom the last thing he wanted was to spend his life working at Knox Machines the way his father did. Guess what? He ended up spending his life working at Knox Machines the way his father did.

Of the requirements for a fulfilling purpose, it seems the one that causes the most trouble for people is that it be something that someone likes enough to be all-in for. That may be because people are told to suppress their desires and ‘serve other people’. Again a movie comes to mind, this time Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life. At the end of the segment on middle age, a waiter in his 50’s tells the viewers to come with him on a ridiculously long walk from inner London out into the countryside to the house where he grew up. Once there, he tells the viewers that the thing that stuck with him when growing up was his parents telling him to “make other people happy”; he says on the basis of this, he became a waiter. He then says that he knows it’s not much, but…and then suddenly he becomes upset and angry, telling the viewers, who followed him all the way out there, to just go away and get lost as he walks away towards the house disgusted.

This is actually a very sad and troubling scene in the movie because it exposes an erroneous conflation that has been ruining good people’s lives for perhaps millennia: that if you do what you want, you become a crazed hedonistic lunatic who will hurt other people and only by suppressing your desires will you be fit to live with and trade with other people.

The truth is the opposite: only by doing what you like enough to be all-in for will you be good enough at it to be successful at trading value for value with other people. It’s a non sequitur to say that just because you like doing something, it will be useless to or a danger to other people and producing value for others can only be done by doing something you don’t like. As I said in my post “So What are Values, Anyway?” there are very few limitations on what can be a value and what can’t. One of these is that something is not a value if it is obtained by force or fraud; so therefore, as far as selecting a purpose goes, you can’t be a criminal or a manipulator, or you can be a banker but not a bank robber. But as long as you’re not driven to be a criminal of some kind, feel free to choose what you like; or as INXS once sang in their song “Hear That Sound”: “So your time has come/children watch the fools/don’t let anyone tell you/what you must do/do you like what you see/or does it make you cry/use your imagination/to start a fire.”

Enough about failures to find a purpose, it is time for a story about someone successfully finding one and living happily ever after.

One day in a park, in a wooded mountainous area on the edge of a city, a little girl about seven years old was walking on a trail with her parents. They lived in a subdivision on a mountain just outside the park’s boundaries. The girl became giddy and silly so she started running away from her parents as a joke. She ran down the trail so far they lost sight of each other and she began to get nervous she would get lost, so she started running what she thought was back the way she came. What she really was doing, however, was continuing to run away from her parents and where she previously was… deeper into the woods.

She kept running deeper and deeper into the woods until alongside the trail up ahead she saw a pile of rocks and a fence. Her anxiety changed to curiosity and she decided she’d see what was there. When she got there, however, she screamed at what she saw behind the rocks and fence; a vertical cave shaft so deep she could not see the bottom. She became horrified and traumatized because she knew what would happen to her if she were ever to fall down it. She ran screaming and crying back down the trail to her parents. She had nightmares about the horrible pit for several days afterward.



But then, a couple of weeks later, an interesting thing happened; her terror was replaced by curiosity.  In her mind, several questions started coming up over and over again. Why was that pit there?  Was it natural or manmade?  Where does it go?  Did anyone ever fall down it?  Can people go down it safely and what’s at the bottom?  Are there other such pits in other places?

She remembered the location of the pit in the park and knew where the park was in relation to her house and school, so one day she decided on her way home after school to see the pit.  She went there and noticed the colors, shapes, striations and fractures in the rocks.  She looked over the edge from as close as she could safely get to it and saw the bottom far down with what looked like a pile of debris in it.  She saw birds and bats flying out of it, and lizards, snakes, chipmunks and squirrels at the top by the edge.  All of this made her even more curious, so every so often on her way home from school, she would visit the pit.  On one visit, as so often happens in that part of the country, a violent thunderstorm started.  Although soaking wet she was fascinated when she saw the rainwater cascading down the abyss. She wondered where the water went.  She saw the rocks over which the water fell seemed smooth and wondered if the water had something to do with forming the pit.

Then one day on one of her visits she became extremely lucky.  As she approached the pit she saw ropes tied around trees near the edge and people going down into and coming up out of the pit!  She ran over to talk to them.  “Don’t play here, little girl, it is dangerous!” they told her.  But she started to pepper them with the questions that had been on her mind for several months now.  They started to laugh a little nervously at her intelligence and intense curiosity, and wondered what was really going on.  Some of them started to give her satisfactory answers but they seemed too busy with other things to spend much time with her.  Then suddenly, an old man with gray hair, big muscles, and leathery skin wearing gloves and a tank top came up a rope over the top of the pit.  He seemed friendly, knowledgeable and older than the other people in the group and was obviously, the group’s leader.

He started telling her about how this was a cave that formed in a kind of rock called limestone, and it was vertical because water erodes limestone and when there’s a vertical crack between two large blocks of limestone, water will over a long period of time erode out a vertical space like this one.  He explained that the water goes down the pit to something called the water table, which is the level of groundwater underground, and that people sometimes drill wells to get their drinking water from the water table.  “But what if the rainwater’s polluted?” She asked him.  “Well that could be a serious problem,” he replied.  “If you’re this interested in caves, you should study geology.  It’s the science of rocks,” he told her as the group packed up and left.

All this conversation with the cavers made her even more curious.  She was stoked about following up on all the information she received!  She saw the equipment they used, learned about limestone, groundwater, and geology.  She became nuts about these things. When she went to high school she became part of a caving club and eventually rappelled down into the pit.  She also developed a fascination with science, particularly chemistry, acing the class with perfect grades. She went to college to study geology and learned all about all kinds of rocks: sedimentary (which included limestone), igneous and metamorphic.  She did extremely well in college, received her Bachelor’s degree in geology and went on to get her PhD in Sinkhole Mitigation in areas of karst topography.  She eventually married a man who was a civil engineer whose firm she worked for as a geological consultant.  She and her husband eventually moved to Orlando where they opened an office. She later became one of the best structural design consultants in Florida.  Finally, when she died at a very old age she left her family a decent-sized fortune from the family business.

All of this success because when she was seven, she was lost in the woods.  Now, that’s what a life with a purpose looks like.


The Democratic Party is the Party of the Mindless: Blog by Branehart

The Democratic Party is the Party of the Mindless

By Branehart




The media incessantly try to portray the Democratic Party as something it isn’t.  It has been described as the party of “compassion”, the party of “the poor”, or of “the working man” or “the little guy”.  It is thought of as the party that “cares about others”, that wants to “save the planet”, that believes in “other than just trying to make a profit”, that is “for the children”, that wants us to be “citizens of the world”, that wants “sustainability”, etc.  It is none of these things; in fact, these are just rationalizations to hide what it really is.  What it really is, is the party of the unthinking, or the party of the mindless.

I said in my post “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process” (October 2015) that thinking is how we live because it is how we get the values we need to live. Thinking, however, is not automatic. Much of thinking is self-evident for concrete concepts that can be understood perceptually like cars, food, clothes, etc.; consequently almost everyone can figure out how to take care of relatively simple matters such as what to wear or have for dinner. For understanding abstract concepts, however, like morality, individual rights, romantic love, or financial solvency, thinking is not self-evident and the technique of reducing abstractions to concretes must be learned. If it isn’t, people will not be able to understand abstract concepts correctly or be able to use them properly to achieve values that require an understanding of abstractions, like romantic love or successfully managing a business.

Non-thinkers are people who haven’t learned how to understand and use abstract concepts correctly, and thus are unable to achieve values that require an understanding of abstract concepts.  The inability of non-thinkers to think and achieve certain values leads them to have contempt for human nature overall. I mean, what kind of animal must we humans be when our means of survival isn’t learned automatically or self-evidently? (This is why they love lower animals so much and give them “rights”; according to non-thinkers lower animals, because they learn what they need to automatically to live, have it made compared with us humans.) They also end up in a constant terror of a reality they can’t understand, relate to or be productive in, in which they believe if left on their own they’ll starve to death. (This is why they holler about masses of “people dying in the streets” every time someone wants to cut some government welfare program.) They respond by wanting coercive control over people who do know how to think, to be able to seize and “redistribute” what the thinkers produce to themselves so they won’t starve.

The Democratic Party caters to (or should I say, panders to?) this constituency, exploiting it to augment its power. The Democrats’ platform consistently consists of measures to take control over productive people: higher taxes on people with greater incomes, and always more regulations on businesses. If you want a tax break or relief or an exemption from the myriad of rules they place in people’s way, you have to make a deal with them – in which you have to give them what they want.

But the Democrats don’t act with control as their only aim; they act out of contempt towards everyone…  even their own constituents.  The Democrats’ modus operandi is as follows: they use high taxes and regulations to extort wealth from those who can think well enough to produce it, and then use this booty to buy the votes of gullible, ignorant, poorly educated or just dumb constituents.  Then, once in power they screw their constituents. When the constituents complain the Democrats blame the constituents’ condition on the actions of the Democrats’ political opponents, projecting onto them the Democrats’ own contemptible characteristics.

The Democrats’ treatment of African Americans is an excellent example. Democrats tell them that America is too racist for them to succeed without the Democrats’ largess, which includes welfare payments from the proceeds of taxes ‘on the rich’, and a ‘leveling of the playing field’ with regulations that are allegedly in their favor.  So African Americans vote for Democrats in dizzying percentages.  The Democrats then implement policies that since 1932 have been destroying the African American community.

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has been a major destroyer of black neighborhoods nationwide. Created by FDR in 1934 as part of the New Deal allegedly for the purpose of kick-starting housing construction during the Great Depression, the FHA insured private lenders’ mortgages on homes that met its underwriting criteria.  Part of the FHA’s criteria was that a home could not be in a neighborhood that had any black residents; it kept this policy for over thirty years until the mid 1960’s. The FHA would draw a red line around any neighborhood with one or more black residents, creating the dreaded practice “redlining”. This caused banks to stop making mortgages there because, without free FHA mortgage insurance, banks absorbed the risk of the borrower defaulting, while they could lend risk-free in all-white neighborhoods. [1]

The consequence of redlining was that, if people wanted to buy a house in a neighborhood that had any black residents, they couldn’t get a mortgage; they had to buy for all cash or with a very high down payment. This made homes in these neighborhoods virtually unmarketable and caused their owners, to avoid getting stuck with a worthless house on their hands, to flee to suburbs where restrictive covenants (which the FHA encouraged the use of) kept blacks from buying property (so-called “white flight”). Businesses followed and neighborhoods became ghettos, creating the rift between blacks and whites existing in the culture today.

Yet when blacks complain about the condition their neighborhoods are in, the Democrats don’t accept responsibility for creating the FHA or causing redlining; instead, they blame private banks – who may have hated redlining but still had to follow the FHA or bear an unnecessary risk of their borrowers defaulting – for discriminating against them. (And, if anyone dares to expose the real truth and explain it to anyone, according to Dr. Ben Carson they get smeared as an “Uncle Tom” sellout.)

The FHA is far from an isolated case.  Democrats have told blacks their neighborhoods will receive all sorts of new economic activity from Urban Renewal – which did nothing except tear down people’s homes and businesses, leaving them with nothing but vacant lots.  They told blacks they’ll receive good housing with public housing, which left them with housing that was often worse than that they left.  They slated black neighborhoods for interstate highways which displaced even more people.  And they left black neighborhoods with public school systems that are so awful at teaching children anything they would be an act of war had they been imposed by a foreign country.  And for these results Democrats have blamed real estate developers, Republicans, car companies, oil companies, ‘the rich’ – anyone other than the Democratic Party which supported all these measures. (And yet, despite this track record, if you try to address African Americans – by making a speech to a group such as the NAACP or at a black church – and you dare to criticize the Democratic Party, the conversation’s over.)

The Democratic Party has equivalents in other countries.  Often they are called the Labor Party, the Worker’s Union Party, the Socialist Worker’s Party, the People’s Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party or virtually anything else with a “power to the people” theme to it.  And these power to the people parties have the same modus operandi as our Democrats.

The “People’s” parties of communist countries like China, Cuba, the Soviet Union and East Germany are  excellent examples of other countries’ Democrats.  These parties all told the ignorant, gullible or poorly educated the same thing: with Communism, “the people” will own everything, not just rich businessmen, leaving the implication in their minds that “everybody” would own everything.  What the ignorant, gullible or poorly educated didn’t understand: that “the people” meant only the government as a “representative” of “everybody”, and not actually “everybody” – and that everyone, except a small party elite would have nothing, at least as far as any kind of indicia of ownership is concerned.  And when under Communism these countries’ governments became tyrannical and their economies collapsed, their governments were quick to blame who – the “rich”, the “bourgeoisie”,  the United States, etc. – everyone but the responsible party, the Communists.

So, in this 2016 election season, are you planning to vote Democratic?  If so, are you mindless??

[1] David Wilens, Bight Ideas: How Statism is Destroying America’s Cities (Oakland, Oregon: Elderberry Press, 2006), pp. 159-64.  Mark I. Gelfand, A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America 1933-1965 (New York: Oxford University Press 1975), pp. 215-220.  Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (First Edition) (New York: Oxford University Press 1985), pp. 197-238.

How Washington Turns Conservatives into Liberals: By making Them “Bring Home the Bacon”: Branehart Blog

How Washington Turns Conservatives into Liberals: By making Them “Bring Home the Bacon”

By Branehart


In politics anger is now the word of the day.  Disillusioned conservative voters are furious at the so-called Republican establishment, which since Reagan has nominated a string of RINOs – H.W. Bush, Dole, W. Bush, McCain and Romney.  All of them lost the popular vote for President at least once (though W. Bush won the Electoral College thanks to the genius of Bill Clinton costing Al Gore Florida by deporting Elian Gonzalez to Cuba the summer before the 2000 election).  In response voters turned Congress overwhelmingly Republican in 2010 and 2014 and now are backing so-called non-establishment candidates for President, with little (in the case of Ted Cruz) or no political experience (like Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Donald Trump) in Washington.  And conservative activists forced Republican House Speaker John Boehner to resign because he wasn’t delivering the results they wanted.

As to why this is happening, Rush Limbaugh has said repeatedly that voters want conservatism but chronically aren’t being given what they’re asking for.  They’re repeatedly voting for Republicans who say they want to shrink the size of the government and cut spending and regulations, and then once they get to Washington… it doesn’t happen.  For years majorities of voters have screamed that they hate Obamacare and have been told by candidates that they will try to “repeal and replace” it, yet it never happens; health care continues to become less and less available while insurance premiums continue to skyrocket, and horribly people even die needlessly waiting for care (e.g., Linda Rolain of Las Vegas).  And voters want the deficit spending to end, but Republicans keep caving in to President Obama and approving budgets that spend ever greater amounts of money.

Clearly Washington D.C. is being insubordinate to its bosses, the taxpayers.  Yet why is this happening?  Why does our federal government, on both sides of the aisle and despite all the popular opposition, continue to govern against the will of those it governs?  Because once those elected get to D.C., they are taught that what they need to do to stay in power is to bring home the bacon.

Bringing home the bacon means doing what the elected officials’ largest political donors (known derisively as “special interests”, as opposed to the general interest of the public) want done, whether it’s passing regulations that will help them and/or hurt their competition, or securing funding for programs they want.  The money these donors provide is essential to the officials’ reelection efforts, so these donors always have their ear.  For example Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, regularly ‘brings home the bacon’ for the casino industry there, making sure that the regulations the casinos want get passed and ones they don’t want don’t get passed.  Many legislators in West Virginia and Kentucky have similar relationships with the coal industry and many in Michigan have them with the auto industry.  The petroleum industry donates heavily to officials in Texas, Alaska, Louisiana and Oklahoma.  Etc.

To some extent this is unavoidable because political campaigns cost money.  And it’s also true that, when Washington doles out money, it’s our money it’s doling out – and we want it back.  So to get it back, as many of us as can afford to lobby Washington do so to get it back.  But when it comes back, it does so with the strings Washington wants attached to it.  To make sure we like those strings, we lobby for the strings also.  This leads to a war of anyone against everyone else to get control of the coercive power of the federal government to feather their own nests.

Bringing home the bacon for a particular elected official’s biggest donors very often involves deal-making with other elected officials, often with opposing agendas, to get them to vote for what he wants in exchange for voting for what they want.  Because of this, for both liberals and conservatives to ‘bring home the bacon’, their agendas get watered down as they go on record periodically supporting things that go against their beliefs and which are opposed vehemently by a large number of their constituents.

None of this is really new or troublesome in and of itself.  In fact, this is the way government has run the country virtually forever, and we’ve still survived and thrived as a nation.  What is extremely troublesome, though, is how in recent decades the process of ‘bringing home the bacon’ has been  commandeered by liberal intellectuals, who act covertly by calling themselves “consultants”.

The “consultants” are people in Washington who act as advisors to elected officials, particularly newly elected ones who don’t know yet how to obtain the support they need to get legislation passed.  Although they claim to be “non-partisan” and work for both parties, the “consultants” are actually overwhelmingly on the side of liberals.  Many of them are university professors and their cronies who hate America and want to see our freedom, prosperity and exceptionalism destroyed.  In my post “The History of Thinking in Western History” (November 2015) I explain how American academia is currently in a non-thinking trend following the anti-thinking philosophical ideas of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and hates countries and cultures, including the United States, which are based on thinking.

According to Douglas Brunt, author of the political novel The Means, the partisan divide among Americans is strong outside of Washington but not in it. Inside the Beltway consultants on opposing sides regularly meet to plan strategies, compare notes – and talk out of two sides of their mouths.  A consultant can tell Democrats to stand firm and never back down, and to go on the offensive against Republicans who won’t support them in bringing their legislation up for a vote for being “divisive”, “extremist” and “obstructionist”.  The same consultant, can then turn around and tell Republicans to “compromise” and “work with the other side”, etc.  If the Republicans fail to do so, the consultants warn, they will not be able to get enough support –either from their own side or the Democrats- to pass their ‘bring home the bacon’ legislation. With no intellectual voices in Washington to listen to in opposition to this line of reasoning, Republicans become scared – and mentally feel they have no choice but to back down and cave in.

Lately the situation has become far worse.  Consultants regularly tell Republicans that they will bring home no bacon if they try to force President Obama to veto a bill repealing Obamacare, which is basically bacon brought home for the health insurance industry.  They tell them they will be called racists in their home states and districts – and that their donors might even be exposed and smeared – if they don’t agree to the President’s spending plans.

How do we fight back against this?

Term limits are a start; not a cure, but a start.  What term limits can do is stop officials from becoming entrenched in Washington as hired guns for special interests, the way Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi (for San Francisco food producers) and Jim Wright (for Texas automakers) have.  Term limits have helped keep presidents since FDR from becoming long-term imperial dictators; for members of Congress they may be able to do the same.

But more is needed… Conservatives need their own intellectual ‘consultant’ class who will counter the liberals’ control over the agenda.  Instead of allowing the Democrats to get away with saying to Republicans “you get nothing if you oppose Obamacare”, for example, we need Republicans to be able to tell Democrats that they get nothing if they don’t oppose it.  Or they get nothing if they don’t want to cut spending or lower taxes.

Yet, even this is not the ultimate goal.  The goal for the Republicans needs to be a new attitude towards bringing home the bacon.  That attitude must be that laws should be enforceable but regulations should not be.

In my post, “But Don’t Businesses Need to be “Regulated?” (May 2015), I explain the difference between proper laws, which are binding rules designed to protect individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; and regulations, which are rules that have nothing to do with the protection of rights but rather are lobbied for by special interests to turn governments into their own hired guns to reward themselves and/or punish their competition.  Rules against theft, kidnapping, homicide and fraud – both civil and criminal – are proper laws that protect rights and that should be enforceable.  In contrast, rules compelling people or businesses to buy health insurance or auto insurance or contribute to funds for employee’s benefits, or pay a minimum wage or prohibiting breeding orcas in captivity or requiring the catering of a gay wedding or the hiring of a certain percentage of black or Hispanic or liberal employees in the name of ‘diversity’, or any other rule in the sickening myriad of regulations that burden everyone, are not proper laws.  (For the nature of individual rights and the proper role of government in protecting them, see my post “The Long Lost Doctrine of Individual Rights” (September 2015)).

Regulations are as problematic as they are because governments go on fishing expeditions to enforce them, using even the slightest violation as leverage for a rights-violating shakedown.  You don’t cater a gay wedding?  You’re fined $130,000 and are forced out of business.  Toilet paper in the restaurant’s restrooms a quarter-of-an-inch wider than regulations allow?  $500 fine per day the violation persists and up to five years’ imprisonment upon conviction… and on and on.

My solution to this: regulations should be unenforceable.  Refuse to cater a gay wedding and someone doesn’t like it?  They can complain all they like but they can’t prosecute, since no violations of rights have occurred… and the government can’t prosecute on its own, either.  If a business kills or kidnaps someone, steals his property or defrauds him, that’s one thing – but if it simply refuses to associate with him such as by refusing to cater his wedding, that’s definitely another. Refuse to buy health insurance?  The IRS should have no ability to do anything to you. Etc.

Of course, if someone could show that a particular regulation does protect rights to life, liberty, or property and he has suffered a violation of such a right, by all means he should be able to sue or press charges.  But this is not what is done with regulations; rather, they are for the aforementioned purpose of providing leverage to a government for shaking down politically incorrect individuals and businesses regardless of whether an actual violation of rights has occurred.

Making regulations unenforceable would take away the incentive of special interests to turn the officials they donate to into their own hired guns to force their will on everyone.  Elected officials would be free to do their proper job; pass laws that protect individual rights, then they won’t get sidetracked into ‘bringing home the bacon’.



“Hillary Rodham Clinton Acted Mindlessly”?: blog by Branehart

“Hillary Rodham Clinton Acted Mindlessly”?

By Branehart


Recently while talking about the “banning the box” issue regarding past criminal history on job applications, Hillary Clinton made the comment that “former presidents won’t have to declare their criminal history at the very start of the hiring process.”  She then continued as if she hadn’t made a mistake.

Her supporters were quick to point out that she meant former prisoners will no longer have to declare their criminal history at the very start of the hiring process.  The truth is, though, she didn’t.  And she didn’t mean presidents, either.  She meant nothing.  She meant nothing because Hillary is mindless.  She does not think about any issue that is any more abstract than what is patently self-evident.

I always find it a little inappropriate when a commentator – particularly a centrist/rightward leaning one like Bill O’Reilly – says something to the effect of “well Mrs. Clinton wants such and such” or “Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq War”, or “Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish on foreign policy than other Democrats”, etc. It’s inappropriate because Hillary doesn’t want anything or believe anything, except her own arbitrary, disintegrated, la-la land emotional drivel of the moment. With this kind of mentality, the fact that she voted a certain way on a specific issue or publicly took a certain stand in and of itself means nothing.

A common criticism of Hillary is that she sounds “scripted”.  There’s a good reason for this: it’s because she is scripted.  She is constantly being told what to say by advisors and has little if any understanding of the substance of what she’s saying.

The media tell us constantly how smart Hillary Clinton is, yet this is probably done to hide the truth that she is an idiot.  She never seems to make intelligent comments.  She did fail the Washington, D.C. Bar Exam (though she passed the Arkansas exam).  She does not answer reporters’ questions clearly.  Dick Morris and George Stephanopoulos – hardly anyone’s idea of a vast right wing conspiracy – have both been critical of her abilities.  After law school she received no job offers according to Morris, only getting an offer from The Rose Law Firm in Little Rock after Bill Clinton became the Arkansas Attorney General.  Her “achievements” in the United States Senate consisted almost entirely of meaningless legislation such as renaming courthouses and the like.

Not only is she mindless, though.  She is also unpatriotic.

As I said in my post “Why Liberals are such JERKS (and what to do about them)” (November 2015), mindless people do not exactly care for societies, like the United States, that are based on or value thinking.  In the United States it doesn’t matter what your race or ethnicity or parentage or gender is; if you think, work hard and end up productive, you can become successful.  This is how the vast majority of people in our country became prosperous, making it into the middle class if not higher.  It is the American way.

But it isn’t Hillary’s way.  She doesn’t get her wealth by thinking and producing values for exchange like a legitimate businessman.  Rather, she seeks out and teams up with politically powerful people so she can be a power broker, using leverage to trade favors for kickbacks.  This is why she married Bill, attaching herself, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, to a guy who was going places.

Because Hillary’s way isn’t the American way, she has contempt for America and the people who defend it.  That’s why it should come as no surprise that while in law school she interned for a communist or was a devotee of Saul Alinsky.

Nor should it be a surprise that she not only failed to protect four U.S. diplomats from being murdered in Benghazi, Libya when the U.S. consulate there was under siege in a planned, coordinated terrorist attack.  She also had the gall, as insult to injury, to lie about the circumstances of the attack to absolve herself from blame.  Because the attack was planned and coordinated, as Secretary of State she either knew or should have known about it from intelligence and therefore had a duty to do what she could to protect American interests.  She acknowledged it was a planned attack, as evidenced by her telling the President of Libya, the Prime Minister of Egypt, and her daughter that it was, yet she did nothing to get extra protection for the consulate. She then told the American people – including the relatives of the slain diplomats at their funerals – that it was not a planned attack at all, but rather a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video made by an American that she could not have known about in advance and therefore could do nothing about.

Nor should it come as a surprise that as Secretary of State she had a secret, unsecure server at her home on which she saved thousands of State Department emails containing highly classified information. This server was probably hacked into by enemies of the United States including the Russian and Chinese governments, giving them access to this information and putting the country’s security at risk.  Nor should it be a surprise that she lied profusely when asked about it and arrogantly continues to do so.

Her mindlessness and contempt for America make her mean, cold and “hard” – too “hard” to be likeable enough to win a presidential election – so she is constantly trying to “soften her image”.  What version of image softening are we on by now, is it, um, Hillary Clinton 32.0 maybe?

What would be in store for America if this phony, malicious monstrosity of a homo sapiens were to win the 2016 presidential election?  First of all, because of her mindlessness she wouldn’t be ruling the country; rather her advisers would be.  These advisers are basically professors from academia who hate thinking and hate America – and have it in for us.  As I said in my post “The History of Thinking in Western History” (November 2015), our intellectuals are currently in an anti-thinking trend, in love with Kant and not with America.  As bad as things have become under Barack Obama, who by no means is an America lover, under Hillary Clinton’s cadre things will probably become far worse. This is not farfetched, particularly with Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons.  Rome burned while Nero fiddled.  America could burn – while Hillary cackles.

How do we Republicans prevent this?  Remember our ABC – Anyone But Clinton.  No matter how much you dislike Rubio or Bush or Kasich or Christie or Fiorina or Trump or Cruz or whoever the heck else is running on the Republican side, remember this: any of them would be far better than Hillary Clinton.  While it is true that the more liberal RINO types like Bush and Kasich could screw up and leave the door open for Democratic presidents in the future the way Bush’s father and brother did for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (see my post “Democrats Only Win the White House When Republicans Blunder”, October 2015), all is certainly not lost if heaven forbid one of them ends up the nominee.  All it means is that we activists will have to work a little harder in the meantime to prevent the White House from changing hands back to the Democrats than we would if someone who is more of a Constitutional Conservative were to be the nominee. But even if you don’t like the nominee, remember ABC – and DSH (Don’t Stay Home) on Election Day.



Why There Is So Much Islamic Terrorism: A History of Thinking in Islamic History

Why There Is So Much Islamic Terrorism: A History of Thinking in Islamic History

By Branehart

Today’s talk of the town in much of the world is Islamic terrorism.  Atrocities in countries all over the world by a multitude of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, The Islamic Brotherhood, ISIS, and Hamas have almost everyone wondering, regardless of where they are, whether they will end up the next victim in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Yet as prevalent as Islamic terrorism has become, very few people understand why it is happening – and consequently, the proper response to stop it.

Many liberals including American Democrats and university professors love to state that “terrorism” is no different than street crime, or even socially acceptable behavior under moral standards that can never be fully objective, i.e., that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.  But I disagree with that.  As Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu stated in his book Terrorism: How the West can Win, there is a real, objective difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.  Real freedom fighters, e.g., the American Founding Fathers, and the Sons of Liberty of Boston Tea Party fame in 1773 – want freedom, limited government and individual rights.  Terrorists, in contrast, want the opposite: tyranny- either by anarchy or dictatorship.

It should be no surprise, then, that the Moslem world produces so much terrorism.  So much terrorism comes from the Moslem world because there is so much dictatorship and anarchy there.  Some countries like Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, Oman, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are milder dictatorships while others like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and of course Iran are more brutal.  There are also a lot of anarchies which were once dictatorships, like Somalia, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yemen is a country that seems to be perpetually teetering on the brink between dictatorship and anarchy.

Now, the question: why is tyranny – either dictatorship or anarchy – so prevalent in the Moslem world today?  The answer: because the Moslem world is currently in an anti-thinking trend that is comparable to the European Dark Ages – and dictatorship and anarchy are what result when people don’t know how to think.

In my blog “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process” (October 2015), I explain that thinking is what enables people to achieve those things that are valuable for living their lives.  I also go on to say that thinking is not automatic and needs to be learned –and many people do not learn it. In my blog “Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS (and what to do about them)” (November 2015), I explain that people who do not learn how to think end up hostile toward thinking, and have radically different ethical and political beliefs than those held by pro-thinking people. If people learn to think properly, they will feel competent to produce values and live by their own efforts. They will view their own happiness as a proper ethical goal, without any desire to coercively control other people.  Consequently they will regard the initiation of force or fraud against other people as immoral, and will have no problem with capitalism, individual rights and limited government.

People who don’t learn to think, however, will feel threatened by capitalism, individual rights and limited government and will want a dictatorship or anarchy of some kind.  Because values are necessary to live and nonthinkers are unproductive at producing values, to survive they must seize others’ values. If the rightful owners of the desired values refuse to let the nonthinkers do this, then the nonthinkers feel they should be allowed to take them by initiating force or fraud if necessary. So, central to liberals’ ethical beliefs is coercive control over other people, particularly anyone productive enough to produce what the liberals feel they need to survive. They therefore rewrite ethics to make control over, and initiation of force and fraud against, thinkers by nonthinkers moral.

And they rewrite politics to make this control central to the systems they prefer and proffer. What are these systems?  Either dictatorships or anarchies that have a mafia-type entity in place of the government: Both give the nonthinkers the coercive control over other people they want.  Remember Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto: from the (thinking) Bourgeoisie according to ability to the (unthinking) Proletariat according to need.

With the prevalence of terrorism and tyranny in the Moslem world today it’s easy to forget that it wasn’t always this way.  Islam was truly a good system gone wrong. It was a good system because it was supportive of thinking. At one time – in particular, from the eight through thirteenth centuries – the Islamic world was extremely pro-thinking and consequently at the forefront of the arts, science and commerce.  It went bad by banishing thinking in favor of mindless behavior as a matter of religious and legal doctrine, for the most part starting in the year 1501. In my blog post “The History of Thinking in Western History” (November 2015), I show how the history of the Western (i.e., European) World’s view of thinking correlated with its golden ages and dark ages.  To see what happened in the Moslem world it would be useful to do the same analysis for it also.

Not surprisingly, Islamic history begins with Islam’s founder, Mohammed.  He has been called many things: a murderer, monster, statesman, prodigy, genius, bigamist, child molester, gangster, mentor and, of course, prophet. Much of the negative was probably the result of him living in the sixth and seventh centuries, where people married very young (because by today’s standards they didn’t live all that long to begin with) and men often had many wives at the same time.  It was also before the advent of individual rights, when people often had no means to resolve disputes other than by openly using force.  The facts about Mohammed actually make him appear to be a Renaissance man before there was a Renaissance.  During his life he was a salesman, an intellectual, a warrior, and a statesman. From the record he seemed to do all of these fairly well.

Born in 570 AD in Mecca, Mohammed was an orphan raised by his uncle.  During his early adulthood he worked in Mecca as a businessman.  He became disgusted at the polytheistic tribal society there. Rulers would change the law they would use in warfare, court trials, regulating commerce, or other acts of governing basically because they simply felt like it, using a different God to morally rationalize their behavior with each change; This created massive injustices, such as innocent people being killed, fined, enslaved or imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, in large part because of who they were or what tribe they were a member of rather than for what they actually did.

Mohammed realized that this system was ultimately geared towards keeping the aristocracy with wealth and power in a position of power, regardless of merit. He also noticed that people with great ability but without aristocratic connections had little opportunity to advance in their careers, and the wealth they could possibly create for themselves and society as a whole was not being realized.  The ultimate result was a poorer and much more miserable state of affairs than, according to Mohammed, it should’ve been.

Then, in the year 610, while praying in a cave outside Mecca, the angel Gabriel allegedly came to Mohammed and gave him the first of the many revelations he claimed to have received during his life.  The content of his revelations included the idea that all people are basically the same before God, and therefore should only have one set of laws coming from the word of only one God, to govern them; that all people – from the poor to the aristocrats – have a duty to submit to and obey this set of laws if they are to live in the company of other people; and if they refuse, they can be forced to do so or, if they persist, can be killed.  In response Mohammed developed the system of Islam, meaning submission to the order of God.

As developed by Mohammed and consistent with his revelations, Islam included one God whose word is one consistent set of laws, promulgated by Islamic intellectuals, or clerics, and written down in a holy book called the Quran to give everyone notice so they would have a chance to follow them.  Courts would be established where judges were to determine if someone obeyed or violated the Quran and would hand down judgments and carry out sentences accordingly, without regard to one’s stature or tribal affiliation or anything else that was irrelevant.  Taxes would be levied by a bureaucracy to provide a rainy-day fund (similar to the modern western welfare state) for Muslims who faced hard times through no fault of their own, to finance the bureaucratic infrastructure, and pay for a military that would defend places that converted to Islam against hostile infidel forces.

Mohammed started to preach about his system in Mecca publicly in 613, angering the city’s rulers. To protect himself he and a small group of followers fled to Medina, where he had the opportunity to try out Islam for the first time.  He drafted a constitution governing Medina that made peace between the tribes that ruled the city and created a bureaucracy to run it.  As a consequence of Mohammed’s reforms Medina’s economy exploded, resulting in tremendous prosperity.

With his success in Medina as his resume Mohammed set out to spread his system to all the polytheistic towns of Arabia with his warrior hat full-on, threatening to mercilessly kill everyone – man, woman, or child – who failed to submit to Islamic rule.  Then, once Mohammed did conquer a town, he took his warrior hat off, so to speak, and put his salesman’s hat on.  Follow the Quran, he would tell people, and you will achieve a lasting peace and prosperity like you’ve never known.  Then, upon submission by the people to his rule, Mohammed would take off the salesman’s hat and put on his statesman one, establishing the mosques, courts, military and administrative bureaucracy.

Mohammed delivered the goods.  In town after town across the Arabian Peninsula Islamic rule allowed for peace, prosperity and cultural and scientific advances that in less than two centuries enabled people to advance from a largely nomadic, near-barbaric lifestyle under tyrannical polytheistic governments to a golden age.  Word of mouth spreading Islam’s virtues enabled the Islamic empire to become the largest the world had ever seen by that time in a matter of decades.

Mohammed died in Medina in 632 AD, leaving behind a successful empire that covered much of the Arabian Peninsula with its capital in Medina.  His legacy included not only the religion of Islam, with its estimated 1.6 billion followers today, but also two other relevant things. One was the four caliphates, or Islamic states, in order the Rashidun (632- 661 AD), the Umayyad (661 – 750), the Abbasid (750-1517), and the Ottoman (1299-1922).  The other was the split of Islam into its two main sects, Sunni and Shia.

Regarding the Sunni Shia split, upon Mohammed’s death the vast majority of his followers wanted to continue to interpret the Quran (and notes Mohammed made that were outside the Quran)[1] according to his wishes, including regarding the leadership of his empire. One of the most important of Mohammed’s desires- from his business experience in Mecca- was that the empire be governed as a meritocracy, with resumes, job postings and interviews of the objectively most qualified candidates to run it. Muslims who supported Mohammed’s views on these matters became the Sunnis (with “Sunni” meaning “teachings” in Arabic, referring to the teachings of Mohammed and Islam).

After Mohammed’s death, however, a small group of Islamic converts wanted the empire to be governed not as a meritocracy but rather as a monarchy of sorts, with the leaders of the empire chosen by lineage from Mohammed’s son in law. Those who wanted to follow this path became the Shia Muslims or Shiites (with “Shia” meaning “partisan” in Arabic). [2]

Much of the reason for Islam’s turn against thinking and consequent downfall is attributable to the philosophy of Shia Islam.  In contrast with Sunni Muslims, who feel bound by the laws of Mohammed, Shia Muslims feel they have free license to speak on Mohammed’s behalf and create Islamic law however they feel like as they go along.  They see no conflict in this because, as partisans of the Prophet, they are the heirs to his authority.  As Mohammed’s heirs Shia leaders can implement whatever measures they want, including those favored by non thinkers that would create tyrannical rule and terrorism.[3]

Throughout Islamic history the Sunnis have been the overwhelming majority, constituting about 85% of the worldwide Muslim population today.  For much of  that history until the sixteenth century they were also intellectually dominant, and in high positions in the private sector in large Moslem cities like Baghdad, Tabriz, Isfahan, Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Alexandria and Cairo. They were also the leaders of Islam’s four caliphates.

The first of the four caliphates after Mohammed’s death, the Rashidun, had four caliphs or rulers, in order Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. All were chosen for their positions on the basis of merit rather than lineage (and consequently were never recognized as legitimate leaders of the Caliphate by Shia Muslims). The capital of the Caliphate was Medina. During its short rule the Rashidun leaders continued to militarily spread Islam, from Arabia into northeastern Africa and Persia.  The economic prosperity that resulted from the stability Islam provided in Arabia over tribal polytheism spread into these areas as well after conquest.

The second of the caliphates, the Umayyad, succeeded the Rashidun after the First Muslim Civil War.  Its leaders moved the capital to Damascus and installed as caliphs the Umayyad dynasty. They were descendants of the Rashidun Caliph Uthman.  The Umayyad caliphs continued to spread Islam, this time into what is now Turkey and all across northern Africa into what is now Spain and Portugal, creating the largest empire in history up until that time.  The Umayyad Caliphate, however, lasted less than ninety years because its leaders handled administrative issues poorly.  For example they gave tax exemptions to Jews and Christians who converted to Islam, but lifelong Muslims received no such benefits.  The Umayyads were also very Arab-centric and discriminated against Muslims who were not ethnic Arabs, in particular the Persians.

Anger and frustration at the Umayyad’s rule opened the door to their defeat by the Abbasi family of Persia, who became the caliphs of the Abbasid Caliphate. Lasting longer than any of the other caliphates at over 760 years, the Abbasid Caliphate was not only Islam’s Golden Age but the undisputed “main event” of Islamic history. It was essentially a loose confederacy, with its capital in Baghdad and a lot of control retained by local leaders and non-religious clerics throughout the empire.  Much of western Africa and Spain remained in Umayyad hands and were never even under Abbasid control. Likewise later in the Caliphate’s history Persia was controlled by the Mongols. Despite not being under Abbasid political control, however, these areas remained allied with the Abbasid Caliphate culturally.

What made the Abbasid Caliphate the Muslims’ Golden Age was the pro-thinking writings of Plato and Aristotle, which were translated into Arabic not long after the beginning of the Caliphate and accepted and promoted as central to Islamic culture. Abbasid rulers and the Islamic public developed a respect for the thinking process, including identifying things by their essential characteristics and using logic to check the validity of abstract ideas. Typical of the pro-thinking views that were dominant during the Abbasid Caliphate were those of the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), who lived in Spain, Morocco and Egypt. According to Maimonides the use of logic is the correct way to validate ideas, and there can be no contradiction between the truth as revealed by God and the truth resulting from thinking.

In my post “The History of Thinking in Western History” I noted that the pro-thinking ideas of Aquinas and the Enlightenment philosophers led to scientific advances, most importantly those of Isaac Newton.  As it was true in Europe so it was in the Moslem world, with tremendous advances during the Abbasid Caliphate. Muslim scientists improved the scientific method of analysis and designed much of the laboratory equipment used today.  In astronomy they discovered the actual length of the solar year and made important observations of the movements of celestial bodies, laying the groundwork for European scientists like Galileo centuries later.  In chemistry they discovered calcification, evaporation and the medicinal effects of different herbs and chemicals, many of which became the ingredients of now widely used medicines. They discovered and used the first disinfectants.  In medicine they discovered the nature of the respiratory and circulatory systems. Muslims were also the first to develop hospitals and the principles of the patient-physician relationship.

Of course, the most significant Islamic achievement was the Arabic base ten numbering system with the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.  Unlike the archaic Roman numeral system, where the values of numbers was not self-evident because people often to had to add or subtract to figure out the correct value of a given number, the Arabic system made the value of any number self-evident.  This made possible arithmetic, algebra, and accounting, all of which were also Muslim inventions, which in turn made structural design and business management tremendously easier.

The Abbasid Caliphate began to decline in 1258 when Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu Khan, a Mongol leader in Persia and grandson of Gengis Khan.  He burned the city to the ground, murdered the Caliph (by horse trampling) and killed tens of thousands of people. Most importantly, however, the viciously anti-intellectual Hulagu destroyed Baghdad’s libraries, throwing their documents – which contained many of the Abbasid Caliphate’s scientific and technological innovations – into the Tigris River. The brutality of the attack took the Caliphate by surprise because, even though the Mongols had ruled Persia to the east of Baghdad for some time, many Mongols were sympathetic to Islam and actually helped spread it throughout central Asia. And in fact Hulagu’s cousin Burke Khan opposed the sack of Baghdad so much he helped the Abbasids to keep Hulagu from marching to Egypt and taking over the entire territory of the Caliphate, enabling the Abbasids to establish their new capital in Cairo.

But while the Abbasid Caliphate won the battle against Hulagu, it ultimately lost the war.  Because even though the Caliphate would continue until 1517, when it finally merged into the Ottoman Caliphate, its leaders were looking for ways to indefinitely extend their power and were secretly becoming Shia Muslims to justify ruling however they wanted.  These rulers quietly encouraged clerics to forget about thinking and Aristotelian rationality.  Corruption increased, the Caliphate’s economy slowed as a consequence, and the Islamic Golden Age slowly came to an end.

The Ottoman Caliphate was of little help in turning things around. Not only did Ottoman scholars contribute very little to Islamic philosophy and culture.  By the time the Ottoman Caliphate achieved any real power Europe was on the ascendancy, in the midst of the Renaissance and on its way to a golden age of its own with the Enlightenment. Consequently European merchants were sailing all over the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, trading with Africa, India and China the way Muslims once had. With European trade so lucrative, many merchants in the Ottoman Caliphate became content to in essence work as laborers and middle managers for European bosses.

With its culture declining, its economy slowing and its rulers increasingly power hungry and corrupt, the Moslem world was by the sixteenth century vulnerable to a cultural and political descent into hell.  That descent happened in 1501.

In that year the radically Shia Muslim Safavid dynasty (1501-1736) invaded Persia from what is now Azerbaijan. The first Safavid ruler and first Shah, Ismail I, took power at the age of 13(!) and ruthlessly set out to turn Persia into a Shia Muslim state.  Ismail demanded conversion of all Sunnis and killed anyone who did not comply, often massacring entire towns to show he meant business.  Realizing the importance of intellectual leaders in shaping the dominant ideas of a country’s culture, Ismail especially wanted a corps of Shiite clerics who would guide Persia away from Sunni Islam toward Shia Islam.  When he found virtually none in Persia (which was over 70% Sunni Muslim in 1501), he had them imported from Shia strongholds such as Bahrain and southern Lebanon. Meanwhile Sunni clerics were given the same choice all Sunnis were: convert or die.

With the takeover of Persia by Ismail I, thinking was out of the picture in the Moslem world.  It had been replaced by mindless hedonism on the part of rulers who claimed some partisanship through lineage with Mohammed, which gave them the authority of the Prophet and imprimatur to rule however they wanted to; and by mindless obedience on the part of these rulers’ subjects.  Most importantly, because of Ismail I’s emphasis on loyalty to Shia Islam on the part of Moslem clerics, he changed the dominant philosophy of Islam’s scholars and, with them, the entire Muslim culture from pro-thinking to anti-thinking – as it remains to this day.

Subsequent Safavid rulers of Persia, including Shah Tahmasp I and Shah Abbas I, publicly tried to appear more lenient than Ismail I, allowing the economy to operate more freely.  The result was a minor cultural renaissance in Persia, though nothing like the Islamic Golden Age under the Abbasid Caliphate.  Behind the scenes, however, Safavid rulers continued to push for total Shia dominiation of Persia and, eventually, the entire Moslem world by establishing Madrasahs, or academies, to train clerics, and by encouraging clerics to become more involved in Persian politics.[4]

Outside Persia Safavid rulers (and their successors after the end of Safavid rule in 1736) succeeded in turning parts of Azerbaijan and southern Iraq into Shiite strongholds.  They failed to spread Shia Islam anywhere else overtly. They spread it covertly, however, by requiring Muslim clerics to become Shiites, thereby making Shiite ideas dominant in universities across the entire Moslem world.[5] The result was many Sunnis who would, never in a million years openly declare themselves Shiites unwittingly accepting Shiite ideas. The intellectual spread of Shia ideas to Sunnis in other countries is evidenced by the anti-thinking, pro-totalitarian thought of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia (which is basically Shiite principles flavored with a little pro-Sunni, pro-Rashidun propaganda thrown in to make Shia Islam palatable to unsuspecting Sunnis) and the existence of Sunni Jihadist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS. Today Shia ideas are ubiquitous and all-dominant in the liberal arts departments in universities throughout the Muslim world.

The rise of Shia Islam had a profound and negative effect on the Persian people. The British, who during the 1600’s were very interested in trade with India, frequently stopped in Persia on the way there.  French-English author John Chardin, who spent many years in Persia, commented on the character of Persians.  He noted that while on the surface they were polite, pious and charming people, deep down they were lazy, emotional, hedonistic, hypocritical and dishonest.[6]  And later, in 1935, Persia renamed itself Iran to honor Adolph Hitler, the newly elected Chancellor of Germany (“Iran” means Aryan in Persian).

The anti-thinking attitude of Iranians has thwarted efforts to turn the country into a modern western society.  For example the last Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (who ruled from 1941 until 1979) tried to free the Iranian economy from oppressive regulations and created close economic ties with Israel, the United States and several Western European countries. He was hostile to the Soviet Union and radical Shiite clerics (including Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) whom he often spied on with SAVAK, the Iranian secret police.  The vast majority of the Iranian public in 1979, however, regarded the Shah as an illegitimate leader with policies they did not like, so they supported his overthrow and the rule of Khomeini in the Iranian Revolution.

Today Iran is a fully statist dictatorship as committed to Shia Islam as it probably ever has been and is the world’s largest sponsor of international terrorism.  But even more importantly, it is the intellectual center of the Moslem world, spreading its hate-filled, anti-thinking ideas to universities everywhere.  The country lowers its profile by working through surrogates, especially ones across the Sunni-Shia divide to hide its tracks like Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS, to whom it gives intellectual support.  No doubt, though, that philosophically today Iran is truly the heart of anti-thinking darkness, as it has been since 1501.

So where does this leave us today?  Iran and its terrorist progeny want a new caliphate? Let’s give ‘em one!

They can have the Abbasid Caliphate, only new and improved – to accommodate the new ethical and political advances made by the Europeans during our most recent golden age. The Caliphate would have to respect social compact theory, limited government and the individual rights of everyone, including women.  Hey, the fact that these ideas are European shouldn’t be a problem. I mean come on now, Plato and Aristotle were loved by the Abbasids and they were European!  Why shouldn’t the ideas of more recent Europeans like Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith (and Ayn Rand) be accepted also?

I guarantee you the caliphate they want is nothing like the old ones, particularly the Abbasid.[7] The cold water of the Abbasids’ Aristotelian rationality would have the ayatollahs melting like the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz. No, they may say they want a caliphate, but what they really want is the Third Reich.


[1] Mohammed’s notes became supplemental texts interpreting the Quran called the Haditha, with the Haditha of Gabriel – named for the angel that gave Mohammed his revelations – being the most important.

[2] Shia Islam is also called Twelve-er Shia Islam, to honor a little boy who supposedly drowned in a well and will return to the earth in the future as the twelfth Imam, a messianic figure, as part of Shia Islam’s folklore.

[3] Not surprisingly, Shia Islam in time had its own interpretations of the Quran and drafted its own Hadithas, often causing heated and violent conflicts with Sunnis.

[4] In addition to political involvement, Persian Shiite clerics additionally had immense power because Persian landowners, to secure their holdings, would donate an interest in their properties to particular clerics to protect these properties against seizure by overly avaricious rulers. This ultimately made many clerics immensely wealthy landowners who could wield incredible political and economic clout in making Shia Islam the only religion viewed as legitimate by the vast majority of the Persian population.

[5] The only intellectual opposition to clerics adopting Shia ideas was from the Ottoman Caliphate’s clerics, who were Sunnis but did not know how to out-argue the Shiites and consequently lost influence.

[6] R.W. Ferrier, A journey to Persia: Jean Chardin’s portrait of a seventeenth-century empire, pp. 110-11.

[7] I’ve read that some “moderate” Muslims want to go back to the Umayyad Caliphate.  But nobody ever says today they want the Abbasid one; I wonder how many pieces they’d be cut up into if they did.





How Children Should – and Should Not be Educated: By Branehart

How Children should – and should not – be Educated

By Branehart


We’ve heard about the problems in American schools: incompetent teachers; ridiculous punishments under “zero tolerance” rules; bullying and assaults, sexual and otherwise, between teachers and students; unbelievable amounts of homework, cutting into families’ private lives; and worst of all, the dumbing down of kids who graduate not having learned anything. Because parents and other Americans have been intellectually disarmed to the point they are unable to figure out why any of this is happening, however, they have become helpless to stop it. So they have no choice but to accept the standard lines given like “it’s from the breakdown of the family” or “insufficient funding” or (my favorite) “parents aren’t involved enough in their children’s educations”, etc.

The real cause of all of these problems and their deleterious effects on American society is not, however, from the “breakdown of the family” or the children’s parents or a lack of “funding”. It is Progressive Education, which has been ubiquitous since the 1920’s in not only American public schools but also many private ones. The purpose of Progressive Education is to deliberately dumb down American children so they become intellectually unable to mount effective opposition to liberalism. As I said in my blog post “Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS (and what to do about them)” (November 2015), to keep their racket of looting their victims going liberals have to intellectually disarm them so they don’t understand what’s happening and are unable to mount any kind of effective philosophical opposition to it. Intellectual disarmament means the inability to validate or invalidate abstract ideas or facts.  If people are bombarded by ideas or facts that they can’t validate or invalidate, they are helpless to effectively oppose them and eventually end up accepting them by default and the liberals’ racket rolls on unopposed.

Progressive Education is the brainchild of the American philosopher John Dewey, who formulated its basic principles during the 1910’s and 1920’s. As I noted in my previous post, “The History of Thinking in Western History” (November 2015) he has been the most influential American philosopher since the end of the Enlightenment, largely because of the influence Progressive Education has had on American society.

Born in Vermont in 1859 Dewey was a Progressive Era liberal Democrat, a professor at University of Chicago and Columbia University, and a founder of the ACLU along with Roger Nash Baldwin. Most importantly he believed in the anti-thinking ideas of Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel, softening Hegel’s political language to cater to (and hoodwink) a more freedom-loving American audience. For example in Hegel’s native Germany people accepted the idea that the authority they were to blindly obey was the state. However in the United States Americans were leery of big government, so according to Dewey people were to obey the dictates of “society” (with, of course, the state as “society’s de facto spokesman).

There is a correct way to teach children so they learn how to think properly. For this to happen though, a child can’t be given a lecture on the thinking process like the one in my previous blog post “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process” (October 2015); the language is too abstract for him, he lacks the context to understand it, and thus cannot yet make sense of it. Instead the child learns thinking from his teachers, who demonstrate the process by presenting material in a logical hierarchy with new material integrated with that previously learned. New material must always be integrated with that previously learned from which it builds off of, so that nothing is left “floating” in the students’ minds, irrelevant to anything else. In this way the student develops a mental context into which he can integrate and understand any new information he comes into contact with throughout his life, and consequently becomes able to properly understand reality and achieve his values.

The process of educating children begins in nursery school where they are taught simple, concrete perceptual-level concepts like simple entities the child is familiar with, such as dogs, cats, people, boys, girls, cars, buildings, trees, mountains, birds, fish, chairs, shirts, pants, coats, tables, plants, clouds, stars, insects, water, etc.  The child is also taught perceptual-level attributes of these concretes, including temperatures (e.g., hot, cold, warm, etc.), textures (rough, smooth, hard, soft, etc.), colors, sounds (high, low, loud, soft), shapes, sizes, tastes (salt, sweet, bitter, sour), and quantities (more than, less than, equal to), with this last being the basis for some very simple counting up to ten. This base of concrete concepts serves as the foundation onto which students will be able to integrate new information.[1]

Elementary school picks up where nursery school leaves off, teaching the “three R’s” of reading, writing and arithmetic. The proper way to teach reading, phonics, teaches children the alphabet first, presenting each letter as a distinct concept with a certain shape, specific sounds, and grammatical rules associated with it. Children memorize the letters by practicing writing them and saying the different sounds they make. From this understanding children can then learn words, which identify the concretes they know and are strings of the letters they just learned, and sentences, which are strings of the words they learned.  Once they learn words and sentences they can recognize and articulate concepts and facts, and meaningfully engage in the thinking process.

A vital advantage of phonics is by memorizing the alphabet children can then easily recognize and read any of thousands of words in a particular language by simply sounding out the letters in them. If a child ever comes across a word he is unfamiliar with, he can still sufficiently figure it out in this way to identify it and look up its meaning, making its usage intelligible to him. In this way he becomes fully literate. [2]  Children also use the understanding of quantities and counting they learned in nursery school as the base for learning arithmetic including addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, exponents and roots.

Elementary school knowledge is in turn the base for the more abstract material presented in high school, which includes mathematics, history, literature and science.

Mathematics is the science of measurement and builds on arithmetic. It includes algebra, which adds to arithmetic the concept of a variable, a number that could exist in any quantity; geometry, the measurement of shapes; trigonometry, a geometry-algebra integration; and calculus, the mathematics of rate changes based on trigonometry. History gives students factual information about the social world and is primarily concerned with political history, because the organization of political systems is the most perceptually graspable aspect of societies and is a result of the dominant ideas of those societies. Literature, which builds off of reading and writing, uses fictional archetypes to present valuable conceptual information regarding the pursuit of values. Science provides factual information about the physical world and generally includes biology, the study of life; chemistry, the study of matter; and physics, the study of energy.

Throughout, the teacher always demonstrates the thinking process by integrating material within each subject into its proper context, using simpler concepts from earlier lessons as a base for more complex topics to come. An excellent example I’ve used in other blog posts to illustrate this is in arithmetic where a student first learns 6+4=10; then in algebra, a variable is added to the rules of arithmetic and the student learns 6x+4x=10x. In literature, fairly easy archetypes are introduced first, like the Gods in Greek mythology; then more complex archetypes, such as Shakespearean characters, are presented; then, complex ideas with the nineteenth century Romanticists like Hugo, Zola, Tolstoy, etc. The presentation of history is fairly straightforward, with events presented chronologically and later events shown as being caused by earlier ones. For example, in American history certain taxes and trade restrictions imposed by King George III of England caused the Boston Tea Party rebellion, which in turn caused the closing of Boston Harbor and the Intolerable Acts, which in turn caused the colonists to hold the First Continental Congress, raise an army and declare the American Revolution, a formal war on England.

The high school subjects of mathematics, history, literature and science are a necessary base for college courses that prepare students for their eventual careers. High school math and science courses are the base for courses in science, engineering, medicine, and architectural design at the college level, and high school history and literature courses are the base for college humanities courses in subjects such as philosophy, economics, psychology, political science, journalism and law. It is therefore vital that students get an adequate grounding in these four subjects.

As the student progresses, he must be tested and graded in some objective way to allow him to realize how well he is progressing. High grades mean he is learning the material well and should keep on doing what he’s been doing.  Low grades in contrast mean he is learning poorly and something needs to be done to improve the situation.

            None of this is characteristic of Progressive Education. Because it is designed to dumb down children rather than educate them, Dewey’s Progressive Education does the opposite of proper education: it presents material out of its logical hierarchy and out of context, so that it cannot be integrated but rather ends up an incomprehensible hash of floating, disconnected facts the student thinks has nothing to do with anything.

Dewey rationalized for this by claiming that a hierarchical, contextual presentation is “artificial” because information is not organized this way naturally “in experience”. Instead Dewey supported a random presentation of material that is “free” from “artificial constraints”, that will “be as it is confronted in experience”, and “… not externally imposed, because it is in accord with the growth of experience itself… the educator cannot start with knowledge already organized and proceed to ladle it out in doses”.[3] He believed in the passive role of the teacher as a catalyst (“…all that the educator can do is modify stimuli…”).[4] Dewey was hostile towards teaching important subjects and learning (“The notion that the “essentials” of elementary education are the three R’s mechanically treated, is based upon ignorance of the essentials needed for realization of democratic ideals.”).[5]  He formulated “class projects” where children “learn” out-of-context snippets rather than information organized hierarchically and placed in its proper context.[6]  He had an antipathy towards grading and tests (“Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child’s fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of the most service …”).[7]  He was even hostile towards the pursuit of affluence.[8]

Two ways in which Progressive Education has been used to present material in a random hash to dumb students down in the past include “whole language” (also known as “look-say”) reading, which causes functional illiteracy, and “new math”, which prevents children from learning math.

Whole language reading teaches a child to read words before teaching letters. With whole language reading students ‘read’ by memorizing not the shapes of a few letters but of thousands of words, putting an enormous and unnecessary mental strain on the child. Because many English words with vastly different meanings look alike, like ‘peruse’ and ‘pursue’, whole language reading-educated students often confuse them, making the meaning of what they read unintelligible. Also, in contrast with phonics where a student can recognize any word in a language by simply learning the alphabet, whole language reading makes a student illiterate regarding any words he hasn’t learned yet.

New Math was a technique used in schools in the 1950’s whereby teachers went through the motions of appearing to teach math while actually talking gibberish. For example, 2 wasn’t presented as 1+1, but rather

“the equivalence class of ordered pairs of natural numbers… an ordered pair of natural numbers is the pair (7,5). This, intuitively, means 7-5.  However, (6,4), (4,2) … and millions of other pairs represent the same [number]. Two such ordered pairs (a,b) and (c,d) are called equivalent if a+d = b+c… Hence… 2 is the class of all ordered pairs equivalent to, say, (7,5). The “merit” of this definition is that one can, using only natural numbers, introduce the ordered pair…”. [9]

It should be obvious, no child can learn math from this garbage.

Something else schools do to dumb kids down under Progressive Education: scrambling up material in the aforementioned “class projects”.  For example, students may be told as a project to develop a solution to global warming and in doing so are allegedly expected to learn out-of-context snippets of biology, chemistry, political science, history, algebra, etc. in the process of doing it. This is ineffective because students get precisely that: out-of-context snippets of information, without any integration to anything the student already knows. When material is presented this way it is impossible for students to retain and learn anything.

Related to scrambling up material is teaching subjects without a proper predicate. In many elementary schools students are taught “current events” (with an emphasis on political events) before they have had the proper grounding with history and literature courses to enable them to understand in context the significance of these events.  The goal is to teach children that politics is an arbitrary bull session and the decision regarding whom to vote for can be based on mere whim. The students end up with no way of evaluating anything political. This is in part why, even several years after the fact, people believed the economic malaise of the late 1930s was still the fault of President Hoover rather than FDR, and believe the economic malaise today is still the fault of President George W. Bush rather than Barack Obama.

Sometimes schools teach literally nothing. With the advent of standardized testing, schools have become sensitive to their students’ scores.  So some schools have started ‘teaching to the test’, meaning passing out old exams and having students memorize the answers to questions that will be recycled and reused on upcoming exams. The students don’t actually learn anything, though their scores look good.

Schools also terrorize students, making them afraid to act on their judgment. One wrong move, no matter how slight, and your future is ruined. Dare to say ‘bang,  bang’ or point at someone with your fingers in the shape of a gun, or even bite into a pop tart the wrong way, or accidentally have a steak knife on the seat of your car while moving your belongings, and under so-called ‘zero tolerance’ policies you could be suspended, expelled or even prosecuted.

The deception continues on the college level, where bad ideas are taught to intellectually disarmed students. In addition to bad philosophies like Kant’s, professors proffer economic fallacies like those of John Maynard Keynes, who taught that it is government, rather than the private sector, that is the source of wealth; and that an economy is driven not by production of wealth, but rather by “consumer spending”.[10]

The ruse goes on today, with Progressive Education based scams like American history courses that don’t teach American history, and “outcome-based” education and the “common core” curriculum.

Although it is rarely this obvious, an excellent example of academia using Progressive Education to dumb down American schoolchildren occurred at Celebration, Florida in the late 1990’s. The Disney Company developed Celebration, a new town, with a public school in Osceola County near Walt Disney World. Disney wanted a state-of-art public school for the Celebration Development, so Disney put professors of education from prestigious universities in charge of designing the school’s curriculum and teaching practices.[11]

The school was marketed to parents as a place where new pedagogical techniques would turn their children into geniuses. A promotional film was made showing high school age students, after allegedly being educated with these techniques, reviewing complicated commercial contracts written in French as part of their class assignments (!).

But when the Celebration school actually opened parents found the truth was the exact opposite once they started sending their children there. The ensuing fraud and disaster could only be called Dewey does Disney.

According to the academicians’ plans kids of widely divergent age groups were grouped together in classrooms called “neighborhoods”, and were generally expected to teach themselves with teachers having a nominal role as “catalysts” rather than instructors.[12] There were no set times for teaching subjects, nor were there lectures where material was presented by subject and in its natural hierarchy, so that students would understand it in context. Instead, students were told to select “class projects”.[13] Also students didn’t have tests or receive grades, just vague evaluations such as “not yet”, “extending”, “in progress”, etc.[14]  There were no textbooks; instead, students were to use the internet, newspapers, and other sources that were not only potentially untrustworthy but also inappropriate for their knowledge level.[15] Instead of transcripts, students were told to develop “portfolios” of their work which they would submit to colleges.[16]  Students were also encouraged to be less ambitious about learning.[17]

Children raced around unsupervised in the “neighborhoods”, wasting time.[18] Many teachers were indifferent to the students.[19] Children learned nothing from their “class project” assignments. Students had trouble getting into college – even into the colleges that had designed the school’s curriculum(!) because they had portfolios, rather than transcripts with grade point averages.[20] When pressured by parents to give grades instead of evaluations, teachers gave students grades for courses they never took.[21]

Many families moved away from Celebration because of the school; when they did so, they were told by Disney not to tell anyone their reason for leaving.[22] When outraged parents complained to Disney, professors and school administrators, the Celebration Company secretly paid consultants to support the school and publicly smear and launch personal attacks against the complaining parents.[23] Furious parents organized a town meeting to demand that students be given textbooks, assignments, tests, grades, plus specific times for lectures in mathematics, history, literature and science.[24] The parents succeeded in getting the changes while the Celebration School principal, Dot Davis, openly insisted such changes, which initially had been militantly resisted by the academicians who designed the school’s curriculum, nevertheless had been “in the works” anyway.[25]

What happened in Celebration wasn’t because of misunderstandings, mistakes, or incompetence. It was John Dewey’s Progressive Education to the letter, chapter and verse from the man himself – and it is deliberately being spread by teachers’ colleges to potentially any school in the United States.  And although it may be an extreme case, there are thousands of more mild cases of Celebration-itis in schools all over the country.

What has been the cost to America from Progressive Education?  Economically it probably has meant perhaps hundreds of millions of American adults who are less educated and, as a consequence, less productive than they should be, working in businesses that are less productive and innovative than they should be. This causes there to be less economic activity and opportunity than there should be, and ultimately a slowdown in the increase in our standard of living. The loss in monetary terms of unrealized potential wealth is probably in the quadrillions (the number beyond trillions) of dollars (!). Culturally it has meant increased resentment, hatred and envy toward those who can think and be productive and a more destructive, nihilistic attitude among a large part of the population, leading to a coarsening of our culture. (For the explicit mechanics of this, read my post “Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS (and what to do about them)”, November 2015.) Rather than go into any more specifics it suffices to say that if Progressive Education is not eventually stopped, America will end up full of Americans who will no longer, by the traditional definition of ‘American’, be Americans – and who will allow what makes America the greatest country in the world to vanish.

So Progressive Education must be stopped; now, about how to do it.

I really don’t see any way other than to eventually privatize all education, even on the university level, as an ultimate policy goal of conservatives. While some private schools use Progressive Education, ultimately government control over the lion’s share of educational establishments spreads it.  Governments implement policies that promote Progressive Education because, as said earlier, Progressive Education dumbs people down, making effective opposition to big government extremely difficult.  So while parents and advocacy groups might win individual battles like they did at Celebration, the public nature of the educational establishment will simply allow all the evils to be re-instituted at a later time and all the battles to be in vain.  Meanwhile, because private schools will be in competition with each other to do the best job at educating students, they will be forced by the marketplace to adopt the best pedagogical theories and make Progressive Education a thing of the past.

However, there is one aspect of children’s education where there must be government involvement: the issue of whether to educate a child or not.  Just as a child’s guardian has a legal obligation to keep a child fed and healthy, there must be a legal obligation to effectively educate him also.  This means to the age of majority, around 18 or so, which in turn means: the material of nursery school – elementary school – high school. As stated previously, that includes perceptual level concepts; the three ‘R’s, and mathematics, science, history and literature.  After that, on the college level the obligation stops and the child is on his own.  And the education has to be effective, with for example the guardian having phonics taught, not whole language reading. (The effectiveness requirement of course must, to comply with due process of law, accommodate children whose abilities are more limited, e.g., autistic children, etc.; guardians can’t be legally responsible for doing what through no fault of their own cannot physically be done). And, as an aside, if a child is not taught to read and write in the dominant language of the country he resides in, that should raise questions as to the fitness of the guardian.  The guardian needs to have a choice as to how to educate the child, e.g., whether to send the child to a school or home school him, but he still needs to be educated. A failure to properly educate a child should be considered child abuse, just as failing to feed him or treat him when he is hurt or sick.

And now, as I’ve done on previous posts, I want to close with some good news.  There is a school in California called the VanDamme Academy which teaches correctly and has had amazing success, with students ready for college at age 16. Also in California is the Falling Apple Science Institute, which was founded in part by the founder of the VanDamme Academy, to teach science more effectively than has been done in the past. With Falling Apple science is taught in context, starting from Astronomy (the first science in human history) and progressing forward, explaining how each discovery led to new discoveries and developments in physics, chemistry and biology.  I bought and read the first of Falling Apple’s books and now can tell time by looking at the position of the moon (and on the night after I write this I can tell you it’s going to be a waxing half that will rise around noon and set at about midnight); also encouraging: the continued popularity throughout the country of the Montessori Method, a very effective way of teaching nursery school students. (Full disclosure: I have no interest in the VanDamme Academy, Falling Apple Science Institute or the Montessori Method. I just like what they do.)

It is true Kant’s protégés are waging a war against our kids.  But it’s a war that can be won, if people know the answers and how to do it.  As I said at the end of my last post, Western civilization is still vulnerable. But the answers are out there.


[1] See Maria Montessori, The Montessori Method, passim.

[2] Dr. John Rehyner, “Reading Wars: Phonics versus Whole Language”, Northern Arizona University, Rev. December 13, 2008, passim.

[3] John Dewey, “The Progressive Organization of Subject Matter”, from Experience and Education (Kappa Delta Pi, 1938), in Reginald Archambault, Ed., John Dewey on Education (Random House, 1964), pp. 373-86.

[4]John Dewey, “The Nature of Subject Matter”, from Democracy and Education (Feather Trail Press, 1916, 2009), in Reginald Archambault, Ed., pp. 359-60.

[5] John Dewey, “The Nature of Subject Matter”, in Reginald Archambault, Ed., pp. 371-72.

[6] Ibid. John Dewey, “The Progressive Organization of Subject Matter”, in Reginald Archambault, Ed., pp. 373, 380-81.

[7] John Dewey, “My Pedagogic Creed”, pamphlet, E.L. Kellogg and Co., 1897, in Reginald Archambault, Ed., p. 432.

[8] John Dewey, “The Nature of Subject Matter”, in Reginald Archambault, Ed., p. 372.

[9] From Morris Kline, Why Johnny Can’t Add: The Failure of the New Math.

[10] To cure bad economic teaching, see Henry Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson.

[11] Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, Celebration U.S.A.: Living in Disney’s Brave New Town (Henry Holt and Co., 1999), pp. 125-30.

[12] Ibid, pp. 127, 142, 145, 252.

[13] Ibid, pp. 128, 249.

[14] Ibid, pp. 128, 134.

[15] Ibid, pp. 143, 249.

[16] Ibid, p. 128.

[17] Ibid, pp. 248, 250.

[18] Ibid, p. 252.

[19] Ibid, p. 250.

[20] Ibid, pp. 253-54.

[21] Ibid, pp. 292-93.

[22] Ibid, p. 135.

[23] Ibid, pp. 136-37.

[24] Ibid, pp. 287-99.

[25] Ibid, pp. 297-98.

The History of Thinking in Western History

The History of Thinking in Western History

By Branehart


While interviewing former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill in September of 2014,  Megyn Kelly confronted him with the question “do you think there’s anything good about America?”. His snarky answer: “Well I’m sure you can find 50 things that are good about it, Megyn.”

Ward Churchill was the one who became famous for calling the white collar professionals killed in the 9/11 attacks “little Eichmanns”, likening them to the savage Nazi Adolf Eichmann. The proper premise Megyn Kelly seemed to be operating from was, because there is so much that is evidently great about the United States, e.g., its freedom, stability, opportunities and standard of living, how could anyone like Ward Churchill be so against it?

But, as bizarre at it is, like Ward Churchill most of our professors today are. They’re against it because the United States is a country founded on the idea that people live by thinking, and American academia has contempt for thinking – and thus for America.

In my previous blog post “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process”, October 2015, I said that thinking is ultimately how we get the things that are valuable for our survival. Given how important it is, how can anyone be against it?

Yet, as strange as it may seem, people can be against thinking. As I explained in my prior post “Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS (and what to do about them)”, November 2015, thinking is not automatic, and people who do not learn how to do it properly can turn against it and end up hating it, along with all of its products such as technology, as well as against people who do it well and cultures, countries and philosophies that support it. This is, as I said, why liberals are such, uh, jerks.

Things get scary in a country when its intellectuals in academia, who are the most important people for the future of any country, turn against thinking – the way Ward Churchill and the majority of his colleagues have.

Academia’s importance for any society cannot be overstated.  It is widely believed that elected officials determine social trends and professors are eccentric fuddyduddies who say crazy things nobody listens to. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything it’s the opposite: intellectuals are the source of the ideas that cause social trends and politicians merely implement them. Intellectuals have the influence they do because of their research, what they teach students and the consulting services they provide outside the classroom to businesses and government officials. From them culture-shaping ideas are created and spread, giving academia a position of the highest importance in influencing our culture and the future.

Academia has been using its immense influence to cause havoc all over the country for decades. Academicians advise officials to violate the will of those who elect them, as the statements of MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jon Gruber indicate. Their ideas are causing widespread economic stagnation, financial hardship, increased unemployment and underemployment, coarsening of our culture, a reduction in our military strength and disrespect for our national sovereignty from our enemies worldwide. Journalism schools are training future reporters to propagandize, law schools are teaching future attorneys to ignore individual rights and shred the Constitution, and colleges of education are training future teachers to dumb down students. The United States will not survive if this goes on indefinitely.

So now, the question remains: why are American intellectuals today against thinking?  The answer is, philosophically since the 1780’s the Western world – basically Europe and North America – has been in a non-thinking trend.

Since its beginning in ancient Greece, Western history has alternated between pro-thinking and anti-thinking periods as a result of the dominant philosophical ideas taught by academicians. In ancient Greece western thought was generally pro-thinking, particularly in Athens.

Philosophy is the science that determines the path a culture takes, either towards a golden age or a dark age.  Philosophy does this because it is the science that relates the facts of reality to the requirements of human survival. As the following shows, when the dominant philosophy in the West has been pro-thinking, the result has been successful countries and empires and prosperity.  But when the dominant philosophy has been anti-thinking, the result has been corruption, economic stagnation and depression, and cultural and even total societal collapse.

In Athens Plato (who lived approximately from 425 to 350 BC) basically created the science of philosophy, recognizing its proper structure and branches. The most important branch of philosophy is epistemology (a word a lot of Americans don’t know but need to learn!!!!), which relates to how people know what they know.  The next branch, ethics, a word Americans know but have only a vague idea of the meaning of, relates to how people should act based on their epistemology, i.e., based on how you know what you know. The next branch, politics, a word Americans not only know but also have a pretty good idea about the meaning of, relates to how people should organize a social system based on their ethics, i.e., based on how you should act.

Plato’s student Aristotle (384 to 322 BC) filled in much of the details of epistemology, basically discovering the rudiments of the thinking process. He developed conceptualization with logical, non-contradictory definitions for words and is known in particular for coming up with the terms for many different natural phenomena, including plants and animals. When Greek soldiers conquered other places they took specimens of plants and captured animals, which they brought back to Athens for Aristotle to identify. Aristotle is credited with creating the world’s first zoo in Athens with captured animals for people to view. He also filled in a lot of ethics, discovering that the moral goal of one’s life is achieving values and happiness.

Throughout history Aristotle has been recognized as a brilliant, sophisticated and passionate thinker who loved life and values, and a powerful force for enabling Western civilization to ultimately become as affluent and healthy as it did. In the shorter term Aristotle’s ideas contributed to the tremendous expansion of the Greek empire during the Hellenistic era as a result of the conquests made by his student Alexander the Great, and ultimately the formation of the Roman Empire.

Unfortunately, the dominant philosophy of the Roman Empire (50 BC – 476 AD), in contrast with that of Greece, was primarily anti-thinking. Plotinus (204 -270 AD), the most prominent Roman philosopher, believed that thinking was useless for resolving the most important issues faced by people. Instead, according to Plotinus ultimately people should live by mindlessly following their emotions.

The problem with Plotinus’ advice is that emotion, unlike thinking, does not give someone information about reality, which is necessary to achieve values. Understanding reality is essential for achieving values because reality is ever-present and always setting the terms of our lives, so it consequently determines the possible values that are available and the ways in which they can be achieved. This is why understanding the facts-of-reality is necessary to figuring out how to achieve any particular value.

Instead of information about reality all emotions give someone is what he thinks about reality, which of course can be erroneous.  For example, you walk out of your office and in the street see a large, mean looking man punch a woman, and suddenly are overwhelmed with disgust towards him. But what you didn’t see was that immediately prior to the punch the woman tried to rob him by grabbing and attempting to run off with his wallet, making her the one in the wrong. By going on emotion alone without introspecting to see whether the ideas behind your emotions are right or not (which requires thinking), you can’t determine who is right and who is wrong. This is true of all values: without thinking and knowing reality, values become unattainable (except by dumb luck every now and then).

The result of Plotinus’ ideas was widespread confusion, misery, incompetently run businesses, economic stagnation, and the extreme corruption of political leaders the Roman Empire was notorious for. These leaders allowed the empire to be overrun by barbarians who hated thinking and further turned Roman culture against it, leading ultimately to Rome’s collapse in 476 AD.

Consequently people in the late Roman Empire began to believe that thinking was worthless and values and happiness were unattainable.  They turned against them, regarding them as immoral. The views of Augustine (354-430 AD), the first significant Christian philosopher, reflected this attitude. According to Augustine thinking, values and worldly happiness were an illusion and a farce, leading to nothing but frustration. Instead, the moral path was for people to forgo values and happiness during their lives and instead passively abide the misery of life to get into heaven and eternal salvation after death.

The result of Augustine’s influence was the Dark Ages, an anarchy in Western Europe lasting from 476  to approximately 1000 AD. During this time very little in terms of values was available. The oceans were full of marauding pirates and bandits were everywhere on land. There was virtually no law and order and everyone was at risk of being robbed, raped, tortured or murdered by potentially anyone else he met. A mere cold could cause someone to die of pneumonia if another person didn’t kill him first; Rome, which previously had between half a million and a million residents, had become a nearly abandoned city with a population of about 20,000. Throughout the former Western Roman Empire the average age of death dropped to about 20(!). Understandably, during this time people regarded their lives as a brief period of severe but unimportant misery on the way hopefully to eternal salvation beyond the grave.

After 1000 AD the Christian Church as ruler of Western Europe had created enough stability so that civilization slowly started making a comeback. A priority of the Church was access to Christian holy sites in the Middle East by European pilgrims, so the Church sponsored military invasions of the area. During these invasions Aristotle’s writings were rediscovered in what is now Syria and brought back to Rome for analysis. The Christian philosopher who incorporated Aristotle’s ideas into Christianity was Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

Aquinas basically rewrote Christianity, making it the diametric opposite of the gloom and doom religion it was during the Dark Ages. His ideas were in essence a combination of Aristotelianism and Christianity: if you think and pursue values and happiness during your life you will go to heaven and achieve salvation after you die. Once Aquinas’ ideas (known as Thomism) became accepted as church doctrine, thinking was back in the picture in Western Europe. The result was an explosion in scientific discoveries, commerce, business, manufacturing, the arts and culture and an enormous increase in the standard of living known as the Renaissance (1300-1600).

European philosophers after the Renaissance picked up where the Greeks left off, discovering the ethical and political implications of a pro-thinking epistemology. This era was called the Enlightenment (1650-1781).  Some of the prominent philosophers during the Enlightenment include Rene Descartes in France (1596-1650), Gottfried Leibniz in Germany (1646-1716), and Baruch Spinoza in Spain (1632-1677).

The most important and influential Enlightenment philosophers, however, were, not surprisingly, in England. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first philosopher who put together ideas on epistemology, ethics and politics to come up with a complete system that closely resembles how people live in the developed world today.

According to Hobbes thinking is the only way people learn anything about reality, which is necessary for achieving values. People should be free to choose the values they want, but in doing so they must not be allowed to initiate force against other people. The purpose of government according to Hobbes is not to tell people what to do, but to tell them what not to do. When people live together in any way they need to make what he called a “social compact” between themselves not to initiate force, and it is the job of a government to enforce the compact with whatever force is necessary to do so. Only with a government enforcing a social compact, according to Hobbes, could the best in people come out and not be snuffed out by the worst in people.

Hobbes is commonly thought of incorrectly as wanting an all-powerful dictatorship along the lines of Hitler or Stalin. Mark Levin, for example, characterized Hobbes as wanting to force people into an arbitrary utopia where the government could choose their values for them without their say so. This was actually not true because Hobbes never supported tyranny but rather was a proponent of absolute monarchy (as was Thomas Aquinas).

Although named “absolute”, an absolute monarchy was actually not totally absolute. While the king had absolute power over the police and the military, over moral matters the king’s power was held in check by the church and, increasingly, intellectuals in universities (which were usually created by churches). Before the founding of the United States’ representative democracy, absolute monarchy – with the stability provided by a powerful army and the check on power provided by the church – was actually as close to political freedom as people knew how to come.

Where Hobbes got his reputation as a political tough guy was in his reaction to the English Civil War, which broke out in 1642 in response to widespread dissatisfaction with King Charles I. Throughout Europe, there were anarchists who wanted to return to the Dark Ages. When the king was overthrown every Tom, Dick and Harry in favor of anarchy came out of the woodwork to proclaim the monarchy a failure and have Parliament, which was basically too weak to govern because it was beholden to special interests, become the ruling body. Hobbes was dead set against this. In his treatise Leviathan Hobbes stressed the need for a strong government when he famously and correctly called anarchy the “state of nature” where there is a “war of all against all” and “life is …brutish and short”.

Hobbes’ ideas regarding thinking, values, and a social compact between people were in essence followed by his fellow countryman John Locke (1632-1704), who in turn elaborated on and improved on them, in particular Hobbes’ political ideas in his treatise Two Treatises of Government. In Two Treatises Locke further limited the power of the government by stating that the social compact’s purpose is to protect the natural, individual rights of people to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness – which are man’s natural rights because they are necessary for people to achieve their values and live. (See my blog post “The Long Lost Doctrine of Individual Rights”, September 2015.)  According to Locke the government is a party to the social compact, without the ability to violate the rights of those it governs. The government’s role as protector of rights according to Locke is as an unbiased arbiter who determines whether a violation of rights has occurred and, if so, how the perpetrator should be held accountable.

The ideas of Hobbes and Locke were the basis for the creation of the United States, whose founders conceived it as a country where people would live by thinking and pursuing the values they want free from coercion from others. The purpose of the American government would not be to tell people what their values are, but rather to prevent them from violating the individual rights of others.

The pro-thinking, pro-freedom ideas of the Enlightenment led to the greatest expansion of scientific and economic activity in human history, because of the discoveries of English scientist Isaac Newton (1642-1726) and the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840).

Isaac Newton was the greatest scientist in history. Among his many achievements is the discovery of much of modern physics, in particular the laws of mechanics. He is also along with Enlightenment philosopher Gottfried Leibniz the co-inventor of calculus, the mathematics of rate changes which is indispensible in modern engineering and design.

The Industrial Revolution was the change in manufacturing from predominantly small, mom-and pop type shops producing a small number of goods to enormous factories producing thousands of items of many different types. It occurred because the explicit respect for property rights under the Lockean theory of government allowed businessmen to keep their profits rather than have them confiscated by the government. This allowed them to accumulate enough capital to grow their business so large they could take advantage of economies of scale to the point that manufactured goods became affordable to almost anyone for the first time.  As a consequence standards of living and life expectancy skyrocketed and wealth replaced poverty as the norm of human life in North America and Western Europe.

Unfortunately, while the Enlightenment philosophers were proficient at understanding the ethical and political implications of a pro-thinking epistemology, they had a poor understanding of that epistemology itself. In particular they knew little about the nature of concepts.  For example, how do you determine the bounds of what’s subsumed by a concept, i.e., does “love” include “lust” and “infatuation”? And what is included in the “definition” of a concept?  Also, does newly discovered information make a concept invalid?  Can concepts be updated or changed, or are they ironclad?  These and other vitally important questions regarding the thinking process were open issues at the end of the Enlightenment.


By the 1780’s these open epistemological issues left the anti-thinking intellectuals the biggest opportunity to reassert themselves since the Dark Ages, allowing them to take control of academia and sending Western civilization into another anti-thinking period that has lasted to the present.

The first and most important philosopher of this anti-thinking trend was Immanuel Kant of Germany (1724 –1804).  In the first part of his epistemological treatise, The Critique of Pure Reason (called the “Transcendental Aesthetic”), Kant attacked thinking right at the first step, claiming sensory perception to be invalid. According to Kant whenever we see, touch, taste, smell or hear something, we aren’t observing it as it really is; rather, our brains change everything we observe by adding time and space to it.  Things as they really are, outside of “time and space”, according to Kant, are unknowable by thinking. And since our perceptions are invalid, the rest of the thinking process that follows from it is as well: all concepts are arbitrary, all facts induced from them are invalid, principles are worthless generalizations, and understanding any kind of context is pointless.

Because thinking is useless, according to Kant we are unable to choose our values ourselves and pursue our happiness; if we did there would be havoc. Instead, according to his ethical treatise The Critique of the Metaphysic of Morals, an authority must choose them for us and we have an unconditional duty to obey the authority’s dictates whatever they may be, no matter how oppressive they are or what we might want personally.

Another German philosopher, Georg Hegel (1770–1831), figured out the political implications of Kant’s ideas in epistemology and ethics, claiming that the authority we are to obey is the state. Yet another German Kantian, Karl Marx (1818–1883), came up with the political theory of Communism, whereby the anti-thinking proletariat controls the thinking bourgeoisie by having all property owned by the state.

Just as the pro-thinking Enlightenment resulted in great things including Isaac Newton, the Industrial Revolution and the United States, the anti-thinking trend of Kant, Hegel, Marx and their ideological allies including Arthur Schopenhauer, Soren Kierkegaard, Ludwig Wittgenstein, William James, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche, C.S. Pierce, Jean Paul Sartre, John Stewart Mill and John Maynard Keynes among others has resulted in unspeakable disaster: the Nazis, the Soviets, the Maoist Chinese, bloodthirsty dictatorships worldwide and piles of corpses from Phnom Penh to Poland.

In the United States the most influential philosopher since the end of the Enlightenment was John Dewey (1859-1951).  A Kantian, liberal Democrat, and a founder of the ACLU along with Roger Nash Baldwin, Dewey softened Hegel’s political language to cater to a more freedom-loving audience. According to Dewey people have no existence by themselves and must obey the dictates of “society” (with, of course, the state as “society’s” spokesman). A professor at University of Chicago and Columbia, Dewey is best known for his pedagogical theory, Progressive Education, which dumbs down and intellectually disarms American children.

To teach children to grow up into productive thinkers who can choose their own values and live happily by their own efforts, their teachers need to present material in a logical hierarchy with the most basic material presented first and then new material that builds on it presented next and integrated with that previously learned. For example, in arithmetic a student learns 6+4=10; then later in algebra, the concept of a variable is added to the rules of arithmetic and the student learns 6x+4x=10x.

But this is not how liberals want to ‘educate’ children. Instead in public schools John Dewey and his followers have for a century now pushed scams like Progressive Education and its more modern variants, including “whole language” reading, the “new math”, “outcome based education”, and the current scourge of “common core”. In all of these, material is presented out of its logical hierarchy and out of context, so that it cannot be integrated and properly understood but rather ends up an incomprehensible hash of floating, disconnected facts the student thinks has nothing to do with anything. This is why when these kids grow up and Jesse Watters interviews them on television they hardly know anything.

If the dumbing down of Americans that is Dewey’s legacy is not reversed, the United States will suffer a similar fate to other societies during anti-thinking eras.  The specifics of what exactly will happen are not knowable at this point but what is certain is that this country is still very vulnerable.

And now, in the midst of all this gloom and doom, some VERY GOOD NEWS: Kant’s anti-thinking era may be about to be replaced with a pro-thinking one, with a golden age to come soon.

Russian author and philosopher Alisa Rosenbaum (1905–1982) was an influential Aristotelian intellectual with a strong following.  Her work is generally opposed by academia but interest in it there is growing.  Using the pen name Ayn Rand, she was the author of the novel Atlas Shrugged which was about the collapse of the United States after the intellectual community became totally anti-thinking.  In Atlas Shrugged she presented her philosophy, which she called Objectivism because of its objective, reality-based orientation.  Rand believed in the individual rights-based political system of John Locke and an ethics based on individual freedom to choose those values that make one happy.

After the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957 until her death Ayn Rand authored several nonfiction philosophy books which were basically compendiums of articles she wrote during the 1960’s elaborating on her ideas. The more significant of these include The Virtue of Selfishness (1965), on ethics; Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967) and The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971), on politics; and The Romantic Manifesto (1971), on aesthetics (another branch of philosophy I haven’t discussed, relating to art).

Her most important work, however, was Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1979), which answered a lot of questions left open at the end of the Enlightenment regarding concepts.  After her death her work on epistemology was continued by two close associates of hers, Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger, both of whom are professional philosophers.

The epistemological works of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger are precisely what Western civilization’s doctor ordered. In the meantime, though, there is something that anyone who has read and understands this post can do to help coax our rotten universities to change their ways, as suggested by Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University: snap shut those checkbooks!  No alumni donations.

There may be even more that can be done.  For example, any professor who teaches as if Kant’s ideas are correct and the university that employs him could be exposed as frauds who are committing malpractice with the minds of our children. This is because at the root of Kant’s philosophy is a fallacy that invalidates his entire system.

There is nothing in the nature of space and time that changes what we observe in any way. Space is just existing volume, and time is simply movement across it. People get confused defining time because they package-deal its essence with its significance as a planning tool, and end up giving it some mystical nature in their minds. When movement across space is at a constant speed and synchronized for everyone like the hands on a clock or the shadow on a sundial it does become useful as a planning tool, but it is still just at root movement across space, nothing more.

To end the anti-thinking trend of Kant and return us to a golden age, the true nature of space and time and the phony, hateful rationalization of Kantianism should be explained to anyone able to understand and willing to listen. At the same time any professors and universities that support Kant’s mental excrement should all be exposed for what they are: envy-ridden killers who want to destroy civilization for no good reason, but ‘just because’- and the tuition or consulting fees paid by students and clients to these cranks should be refunded.

But, you may be asking, what about “academic freedom”?  Don’t academicians have the right to preach and teach whatever they want? The answer is: no, they do not – any more than a surgeon responsible for performing a sophisticated procedure suddenly has “medical freedom” to decide he’ll use medieval alchemy, Santeria and black magic instead of proven and accepted modern practices to save his patient; or an American lawyer has “legal freedom” to argue the merits of his client’s case on the basis of Sharia law rather than sound legal precedent. “Academic freedom” is no justification for being a fraud and committing philosophical malpractice.

Let’s be clear what I’m talking about regarding malpractice: there is no crime in teaching Kant or any other philosopher.  There is no problem, for example, in a philosophy course saying “This is Immanuel Kant. He lived in Prussia. He believed that …”. The problem is in teaching or consulting from the premise, unbeknownst to students or clients, that Kant’s ideas, being false, are valid. That’s where the malpractice is.

To summarize where we are in late 2015; yes, Western civilization is still vulnerable. But, the answers are out there.
































Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS (and what to do about them): Blog by Branehart

Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS (and what to do about them)

By Branehart

  1. Introduction

If you’re alive in the United States now you know liberals.  They’re mean, nasty and destructive.  They’re manipulative, controlling, scheming and intimidating….and miserable – so, so miserable. Miserable seemingly all the time and nothing ever really makes them happy.  And everything they touch ends up ruined: wars, economies, black neighborhoods in cities, the media, along with anything else they control. They could and should be ignored except for the fact that they’re everywhere, running our country and culture.

But surprisingly, as ubiquitous and awful as liberals are, the reason why they are the way they are – and the proper reaction to them – is virtually unknown.  An episode of the popular 1990’s TV show Beverly Hills 90210 took a stab at it. On this episode the girls meet a nasty girl with the temperament of many liberals. Later in the episode they find out she’s so bitchy only because of the diet pills she was taking; without the meds she was actually a fairly nice girl.

  1. Why Liberals are such, uh, JERKS

If it were only so simple, Liberals aren’t as nasty and miserable as they are because they use diet pills.  Liberals are as adversarial as they are because they do not think properly. Because they do not think properly, liberals are unable to achieve the values they want and live happily, hence their miserable disposition.

As I wrote in my post “So What are Values, Anyway?”, August 2015, values, properly defined, are the things, both concrete and abstract, that are valuable to living creatures of all kinds including humans for a purpose, with that purpose ultimately being to further their survival. For humans values include both necessities for living as well as things that may not be necessary but make life more enjoyable. Food, clothing, housing, employment, education, camaraderie, appreciation from others for the good one does, good health, financial security, leisure, romantic love, children, consumer goods, a good credit rating and lots of other things are all human values.

Liberals don’t think properly because they don’t reduce abstractions to concretes. As I said in my blog post “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process”, October 2015, there are two kinds of concepts: concrete ones and abstract ones. Concrete concepts are concepts that can be understood merely by sensory observation (i.e., cars, food, houses, money, etc.). Abstract concepts, on the other hand, like financial solvency, virtue, friendship, etc., are concepts that cannot be understood merely by sensory perception; more understanding is needed.

This understanding comes only when abstract concepts are reduced to the concrete concepts to which they are related. In “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process”, I illustrate reduction of an abstract concept, “bank account”, which is a tally for money belonging to a certain person or legal entity placed with a bank for safe keeping, by reducing it to the concrete concepts it is derived from: tallies, money, people, and banks. All valid abstract concepts, no matter how abstract, can be reduced to concrete concepts in this way.

I said in “How we get our Values: The Thinking Process” that thinking is the way we get our values. Thinking, however, is not automatic. While sensory perception, the first step of the thinking process, is automatic, the rest of the process is not. Much of thinking is self-evident for concrete concepts; consequently almost everyone can figure out how to achieve low-level values involving concrete concepts to take care of relatively simple matters such as what to wear or have for dinner.

For understanding abstract concepts, however, thinking is not self-evident. Reduction is a technique that must be learned and if it isn’t, people will not be able to understand abstract concepts correctly or use them properly to achieve values that require an understanding of abstractions. Understanding abstractions is essential for living and achieving many values because we live not only in a world of concretes like cars, food, houses, and money, but also in a world of abstractions including contract rights, moral principles, values, decedents’ estates and financial solvency. Many higher values, like romantic love and financial success and security, require a correct understanding and usage of abstractions.

There are two main ways by which people, including liberals, incorrectly use abstractions: they either mimic how large numbers of other people commonly use them, or use them to refer to perceptual –level concretes commonly associated with them.

An example of mimicking other people using abstractions is how people sometimes use the concept “literally”.  “Literally” means by the actual, exact meaning of the words used. But sometimes people will use it to mean figuratively, which means symbolically or metaphorically.  For example, some Debbie Wasserman-Schultz type in frustration says that Sean Hannity is literally a turkey. He’s not literally a turkey; he is literally a man. What someone probably intended to say is that Sean Hannity is figuratively a turkey, meaning he’s literally a dud or a failure (which “turkey” is used to mean figuratively), not the bird. But if enough people surrounding a particular liberal use “literally” to mean figuratively the liberal will start to use the word that way too.

An example of using abstractions as if they referred to the concretes commonly associated with them is how liberals commonly use the abstract concept “friend”.  A “friend” is someone who is supportive of someone else’s values.  Because he is supportive of someone else’s values a friend is often, though not always, openly pleasant, polite or amiable to those whose values he supports. But a liberal often defines a “friend” as anyone who is openly pleasant, polite or amiable, even if this person is a threat to his values, i.e., a manipulator, schemer or criminal who would stab him in the back or steal his life savings or even kill him.

The inability to use abstractions correctly creates problems for liberals because it makes it very difficult if not impossible for them to achieve values that require an understanding of abstractions. Values whose contexts require an understanding of abstract concepts include romantic love, without a doubt among the highest of all values. Romantic love is an emotion someone feels for someone else whose most important values are the same as one’s own.  In my blog post “So what are Values, Anyway?” I explained that the two most important values for a person are thinking and purpose.  So for someone to feel true romantic love for another person, the two people must have the same attitude towards thinking, and purposes in life that are similar enough so that each has a strong interest in the things the other cares about.

But liberals very often use the term “love” they way they use “friend”: to mean the concretes they associate with it, most commonly the intense affection for another person that goes along with it. Then they claim to “love” anyone they feel an intense affection for, regardless of the cause. They conflate love, where the intense affection comes from having common values regarding thinking and purpose, with lust or infatuation, where the intense affection comes from either a reaction to someone’s physical appearance or a projection onto someone of desirable characteristics that person may not even have. The result is people dating and marrying other people for the wrong reasons, leading to failed relationships, unhappy marriages and broken families.

Another extremely important value that requires an understanding of abstract concepts is operation of a successful business. Business management is full of situations where someone is confronted with huge amounts of data, numbers, levels of activity, etc. The significance of these things for the health of a business is not self evident and requires a high level of abstract thinking to be understood correctly to keep the business operating. For example, a company starts a new ad campaign that results in an increase in sales, but a certain group of people finds the ads in poor taste or offensive and complains. Should the ads be pulled or should the complainers be ignored? Or, a company that makes winter clothes sees sales dropping at a certain time of year.  Is the decline in sales because of a natural drop in demand or is it because competitors are simply making better clothes? Without understanding abstract concepts there is no way to figure out the significance of these events for a business and how to react properly.  The result is liberals operating failing businesses or running to their lobbyists or the taxpayers to keep them operating, with government bailouts or favorable laws to give them a legal advantage over their competition.

What should be of particular concern to everyone is the trouble liberals have with moral concepts like right, wrong, good, evil, virtues, vices, etc. These vitally important concepts are abstractions, liberals consequently don’t understand them, and therefore get into trouble with them.

Consider the virtue of honesty. What honesty means is never faking or evading reality.  Honesty is a virtue, with “virtue” being itself an abstraction meaning a character trait that helps, as opposed to hinders, one’s ability to get his values.  Honesty helps people get their values because, as said earlier, for people to get their values they must understand reality.  By being honest and not declaring any aspect of reality off-limits, a person has the best chance of understanding reality and consequently figuring out how to get what he wants in life.

But this is not how many liberals view honesty.  Liberals define honesty the way they do “friend” and “love”: by a concrete they associate with honestly – namely, a blind duty to “always tell the truth”.  To show how this view of honesty is a problem, consider the following.  You meet a stranger who is creepy looking.  He asks where your dad is.  If you think it is “honest” to “always tell the truth” and feel you must be “honest” to be moral, you tell him – and then find your dad murdered.  According to the real meaning of honesty, however, you do not have to tell him where your dad is because he is a stranger and you have no duty to do so.  Moreover, a fact of reality is that this person looks creepy, indicating he might be dangerous.  So, to protect your values – in this case, your relationship with your father – the truly honest thing to do is say you don’t know where your father is, even though it may be untrue.  You aren’t being immoral because, since you have no duty to give the stranger the information he wants, you aren’t depriving him of anything that is rightfully his. In fact, it would be dishonest to give him the information he wants because by doing so you’d be trusting him when you know he looks creepy and you therefore shouldn’t be.

Liberals have similar problems with all such moral concepts. They consequently end up believing that morality has no legitimacy and is some sort of a subjective scam to help protect the interests of particularly wealthy, clever or politically powerful people at the expense of others. They lose respect for it and for the rule of law, which is derived from it. And they end up fearing and hating people who have confidence in their ideas about morality.

Don’t confuse liberals’ inability to think properly with intelligence. Despite their problems with the thinking process liberals can still be extremely smart (many professors, elected officials and conmen[1], for example).  Intelligence is the physical, God-given ability to handle abstract concepts and facts if one were to learn how to think, whereas the inability to think results from the failure to learn how.

Not only can liberals be intelligent, they can even reduce abstractions to concrete concepts and understand them properly– when a particular abstract concept is at issue in their minds and they are exposed to the concretes necessary for them to do so. Nobody can convince me, for example, that Senators Dick Durbin or Charles Schumer do not understand the abstraction of home equity.  I’m sure they have this one figured out because they probably wanted to know when they made their last mortgage payments what their homes were worth, how much of their mortgages had been paid down, and consequently how much wealth they had in their homes. The numbers and their significance were probably right there on the mortgage statement.  What liberals like Schumer and Durbin can’t do is figure out the concretes relevant to the abstraction of home equity on their own, when the issue isn’t confronting them.

Since liberals have trouble thinking they turn against it, claiming it’s worthless. For example, liberals are obsessed with renewable energy because they don’t believe thinking can come up with a replacement for fossil fuels once they run out. So they prattle on and on about unprofitable and unproductive energy sources like wind and solar power. They also believe thinking will be useless in creating solutions for overflowing sanitation landfills in the future, so they overemphasize recycling.

Since thinking is necessary for understanding reality, liberals can’t understand reality – and thus claim that reality can’t be understood. To them reality becomes an unknowable chaos that foils even the best laid plans.  This is the basis for so-called “chaos theory” and is illustrated in the first Jurassic Park movie, which came out in 1992. In it Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern play scientists who visit a zoo featuring cloned dinosaurs. While on the way there Goldblum starts hitting on Dern by waxing philosophically, stating that “reality is a chaos”.  This scene is important because, despite the best intentions of the zoo’s designer to prevent it, the dinosaurs get loose anyway and start eating everybody later during their visit. As evidence that reality is a chaos liberals point to the existence of homosexuality and transgenderism, which appear to be at odds with the way most people would expect things to be in an un-chaotic world.

But liberals go beyond merely claiming reality to be incomprehensible; they hate it because, since it is ever present, always setting the terms of everyone’s lives and to them incomprehensible, they feel trapped and terrified by it. They turn against it and try to evade it whenever it makes them emotionally uncomfortable. This is why so many liberals want to evade their fear by getting high or drunk.  And it is why, no surprise, so many liberals support legalization of drugs.  It is ultimately this fear of reality that is currently making liberal student demonstrators at Yale and University of Missouri want “a safe place” on their campuses.

Since understanding reality is necessary for achieving values and liberals can’t understand reality, they feel, as mentioned earlier, cut off from and unable to achieve many values, including the ability to be productive at producing commercial values for exchange like goods and services.  As a rationalization for this inability they claim that achieving values is really just the result of luck and random chance, rather than from purposefully directed action and hard work. For example, in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged metallurgist Hank Rearden, after years of research, invents an incredibly light yet strong alloy he calls Rearden Metal.  A bureaucrat then blackmails him into turning over the formula for Rearden Metal to the government and renames it “Miracle Metal” as if its discovery was  the result of a causeless, inexplicable miracle. A real life example is the repeated comments of the very liberal former Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt that successful people are “winners of life’s lottery”.

As a consequence of regarding thinking as worthless liberals also turn against the products of thinking, in particular technology and real estate development. They claim technology is destructive, smearing the scientists who invent it as “mad” and the businessmen who market it as charlatans. They openly in-your-face deny its perceptually obvious benefits, championing a line of anti-technology artworks from Frankenstein to the aforementioned Jurassic Park. Their anti-technology tirades include endless terror stories about global warming, overpopulation, coming ice ages, the dangers of the internet, vaccines, processed foods, fossil fuels, fast food, dangerous manufactured products, and of course how everything ever created by technology causes cancer. They claim many technological innovations are “unsustainable”, meaning they will make the earth unlivable by humans if they are used indefinitely into the future. Regarding real estate development liberals conclude any deliberate manmade alteration of the earth would be destructive even without any supporting evidence. They use the environmental movement and the EPA to put onerous restrictions on commercial development, oil drilling, mining and other productive uses of private property. President Obama’s unwavering opposition to the Keystone Pipeline is an example.

Liberals also turn against people who are thinkers, often feeling brutal envy toward and contempt for them. Although not an American liberal, Hitler (like many liberals a notorious nonthinker) felt he had to torture and murder Jews (who are generally good thinkers). Liberals hate productive businessmen who earn a good living by thinking, dubbing them “robber barons” to equate them with criminals. Professor Ward Churchill smeared the victims of 9/11 who were white collar businessmen – who use their minds to think for a living, dealing with complex abstract issues – as Nazis when he called them Little Eichmanns. He did not, however, smear blue collar workers (whose jobs require thinking on mostly the concrete level, i.e., police, firemen, etc.) who died in the attacks as Nazis, because he doesn’t feel the same contempt for them.

Liberals’ feeling that values are unattainable causes them to turn against and hate values, particularly financial security. Liberals hate wealth earned by thinking and want to “redistribute” it to those who didn’t earn it. They try to morally justify such “redistribution” with rationalizations like those of liberal philosopher John Rawls, who said that people who are good thinkers shouldn’t have a right to their wealth because “nobody earned his brain”, and liberal philosopher John Dewey, who believed that all knowledge is “collective” and publicly owned by “society”.

Liberals try to prevent people from achieving financial security with confiscatory taxes and ever-higher rates. Liberals try to get leverage over successful businesses by proposing so many regulations that nobody could follow all of them to the letter, and then deliberately try to stifle economic activity by letting agencies like the EPA, FCC, FTC, FDA, SEC or EEOC run wild shaking them down for even the slightest violations. They also stifle economic activity by raising interest rates at the Federal Reserve Bank (which is really not a bank at all, but a government agency that doesn’t even need to charge interest rates) to make it more expensive for businesses to borrow operating capital. Liberals favor banning insider trading (except, of course, for themselves) because insider trading is a quick way for a management-level employee of a publicly traded company to amass wealth resulting from the good work he did for the company[2]. Liberals regularly put production of values and wealth in a bad light, such as when they say that wealth leads to obese kids and the like. (Interestingly liberals have no problem with wealth not earned by thinking, i.e., through inheritance, royalty, organized crime, political kickbacks, etc.)

Since liberals end up cut off from values and values are necessary for a happy life, they turn against happiness. They regard happiness as alien and offensive and don’t pursue it. This is why, as Rush Limbaugh points out, liberals are never happy no matter how much they get of what they want. Although not American liberals, the clerics who rule Iran are like American liberals in that they do not like thinking. They actually convicted several young Iranians of a crime for making a happy dance video and gave them suspended sentences involving torture. Liberals go on tirades against smoking because of the great feeling it creates without getting high or evading reality in any way, and use the risk of cancer from smoking too much as an excuse to force people to stop.

Since liberals hate values and values are necessary to live, liberals turn against life itself. For example, observe the horrid views many liberals hold towards human fetuses and the things they do: partial birth abortions, organ harvesting, etc. Although they use the rights of pregnant women as an excuse for keeping abortion legal, the real reason why most liberals want abortion to remain legal is because it is as close to murdering other people as anyone can come without courting outright moral bankruptcy. In fact, liberal intellectuals like Princeton University professor Peter Singer advocate “aborting” babies that have already been born (!!).

The liberals’ Affordable Care Act, or ACA or Obamacare, is an attack on life because it gives government agencies the ability to arbitrarily determine who lives and dies. Under the ACA Linda Rolain, a 64 year old cancer patient in Las Vegas, was essentially murdered when her insurance coverage was cancelled arbitrarily. Although her brain tumor was operable at the time of the cancellation, it became inoperable while she was trying to have her coverage restored and she died as a result. President Obama himself said that, under the ACA, if the so-called “death panel” decides against covering the cost of someone’s treatment because they are over a certain age, they should just “uh, take a pain pill”.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pooh-poohed the deaths of four American diplomats in Libya that occurred because despite being fully aware of the danger they were in from a planned and coordinated terrorist attack she didn’t respond to their repeated requests for additional security, stating “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

The ultimate result of this anti-life attitude is mass murder, which nonthinkers like Adolph Hitler and the Iranian government, and American liberals like Ted “The Unabomber” Kaczynski, sometimes commit. Liberals essentially committed mass murder when they successfully banned the pesticide DDT worldwide, which was a smashing success at controlling the spread of malaria, resulting in millions of avoidable deaths in India and Africa.

Being against thinking liberals turn against cultures, religions and institutions that support thinking. Many liberals (even many Christian ones) despise modern (post Aquinas) Christianity, the religion of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment eras, where thinking and reason were favored over the mindless anarchy of the Dark Ages; Hence, their attacks on Christian religious displays and holidays and support for persecution of Christians worldwide. Liberals (even many Jewish ones) also turn against Jews who, as self-styled “people of the book”, have throughout history championed thinking. They despise Christopher Columbus for bringing the pro-thinking philosophy of the Renaissance to the primitive savagery of the Americas and want to ban Columbus Day. They hate the American Founding Fathers and the traditions of the United States, whose founding principles are based on people living by thinking and came from the Enlightenment.

While liberals despise cultures, religions and institutions that support thinking, they support those that are against it. They support the Palestinians as opposed to the Israelis and are deferential to modern Islam, refusing to call its murderous activists the terrorists they are. A liberal architect initially designed the memorial to United Flight 50 which was hijacked on 9/11 as a red crescent to honor the Moslem hijackers (though it was later redesigned after a protest)(!). And they portray the pre-Columbian Americans, who lived in a primitive savagery unimaginable to anyone today who has not seen the movie A Man Called Horse as loving, caring, innocent victims of the monstrous pro-thinking Europeans of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. They portray European colonizers of Africa, under whom Africans were actually on the whole making real progress, as evil racist oppressors while they are indifferent to the incorrigibly corrupt basket case of modern Africa. They regularly praise primitive cultures today as “sustainable”, as virtually any issue of National Geographic magazine shows.

  1. Liberals’ Ethics (I know I know: what Ethics?)

Liberals’ hostility toward thinking leads them to radically different ethical beliefs than those held by people who are pro-thinking. If people learn to think properly they will feel competent to produce values and live by their own efforts. They will view their own happiness as a proper ethical goal, without any desire to coercively control other people.  Consequently they will regard the initiation of force or fraud against other people as immoral.

All of this is different for people who don’t learn to think.  Because values are necessary to live and nonthinkers are unproductive at producing values, to survive they must do so by taking others’ values. If the rightful owners of the desired values refuse to let the nonthinkers do this, then the nonthinkers feel they should be allowed to take them by initiating force or fraud if necessary. So, central to liberals’ ethical beliefs is coercive control over other people, particularly anyone productive enough to produce what the liberals feel they need to survive. They therefore rewrite ethics to make control over, and initiation of force and fraud against, thinkers by nonthinkers moral.          An exact blueprint of this is Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, where he supports the idea of “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

And if those the liberals seek to control try to defend themselves against such force or fraud, according to the liberals’ moral code they are immoral. As examples, observe the portrayal as immoral monsters by the liberal media of Bernard Goetz for defending himself against an attempted mugging on a New York City subway, and George Zimmerman for killing Trevon Martin in self defense outside Orlando while being assaulted by him.

Liberals also regard anger directed at them as immoral.  Anger is an emotion people feel towards other people who treat them unjustly.  It is unjust to initiate force and fraud against others to steal their values, as liberals do. So liberals are deserving of, and consequently afraid of, others’ wrath. They rationalize for this fear and guilt by de-legitimizing their victims’ feelings, declaring these sentiments unjustified.  They suggest their victims try anger management. The best summary of liberals’ ethical beliefs is the following line from the Pink Floyd song “Dogs of War”: “…they will take/and you will give/and you must die/so that they may live.”

  1. Liberals’ Politics

Like anyone else, liberals’ political beliefs are derived from their ethical beliefs. They want to create a social system where people who can’t think straight and aren’t productive can legally initiate force against productive thinkers. This explains why they like Communism as proposed by Karl Marx, where the non-thinking, relatively unproductive proletariat controls the thinking and productive bourgeoisie. Liberals like socialist dictatorships, where ”society” controls the individuals in it (with the government as “society‘s” de facto spokesman), in both their communist mode where the government owns all property, and the fascist one, where the government controls use of all property while leaving private citizens with nominal paper ownership of it.

Surprisingly, though, while thought of as being pro-big government liberals also like anarchies, which are political systems where there is no organized government. In anarchies private mafia-type organizations fill the vacuum left by the absence of a government, with the ability to do anything they like and make whatever laws they want with no due process obligations or other accountability to anyone. Liberals try to get control over these mafias so they can rule however they want to. Liberals who favor anarchy include Occupy Wall Street, WTO protesters and to a great degree the Black Lives Matter Movement, as evidenced by their attacks on police and protests against law and order.

Also surprising is liberals’ deference towards theocratic dictatorships like Iran or ISIS. While thought of as atheistic and Godless, liberals actually do believe in God – when, of course, they get to play God and can justify what they want in the name of God.

Other political systems liberals like: slavery, because it creates legal rights to coercively control and live off of other people against their will. After all, remember that the Democrats were the political party of the Confederacy.  It’s no coincidence that the party of the Confederacy is also the party of the liberals.

They also like welfare states, like the modern United States or Weimar Germany, for two main reasons: first, the welfare state protects mindless nonthinkers from the consequences of their inability to think.  Screw up on the job at work because you’re unproductive and get fired? No problem; the welfare state’s got your back with a myriad of benefits including welfare, AFDC, SNAP, unemployment, Medicaid, etc. The second aspect of the welfare state liberals like is the strings attached to these programs, which can potentially be used as leverage to compel aid recipients to support liberals’ aims. Want to keep getting food stamps?  How about continuing to have Medicaid pay for your cancer meds?  No more Facebook posts or internet tweets about how you like the Tea Party Patriots or the Rush Limbaugh show.

Liberals like government coining of money and central banking because it allows them to inflate a country’s currency and use it to reward their political allies. In my blog post “How to End Deficit Spending: with Private Bank Notes”, October 2015, I explain how inflation is a form of theft which allows liberals and their cronies to steal under color of law the values they feel they need but can’t produce.

Liberals are deferential to countries and organizations that have the types of political systems they favor: North Korea, Cuba, the former Soviet Union, China, the former fascist dictatorships of Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, and Peronist Argentina; Salvador Allende’s Chile; Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela; Ferdinand Marcos’ Philippines; and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. They are even supportive of Nazi Germany though they are discrete about it, to avoid alienating Jews. They support the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and other Islamic terror groups.

Whatever political systems liberals favor, there is one attribute none of them have: respect for individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Liberals hate individual rights because, as I explain in my blog post “The Long Lost Doctrine of Individual Rights”, September 2015, rights are a limitation on their ability to initiate physical force or fraud against other people to steal the things they want.  Because capitalism is a political system that respects individual rights and bans the initiation of force and fraud liberals hate it, view it as a threat to their lives and oppose it vehemently. Any candidates for office who propose, as did John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, to fight systems like communism and take the country in a more capitalist direction are opposed by liberals to the point of physical assassination.

Because they view individual rights as a mortal threat, liberals try to keep people from protecting their rights. They favor gun control, for example, to keep their victims from fighting back.  While they want to deprive humans of their rights they support animal ‘rights’ which, as I explain in my blog post “The Long Lost Doctrine of Individual Rights”, September 2015, are not only nonsensical but are actually designed to prevent people from defending themselves against animals that might do them harm.

Because liberals hate capitalism, they also hate any institutions and countries that support and fight for capitalism. They hate the United States and desire to “fundamentally transform” it, as Barack Obama says. American public schools regularly use Cinco de Mayo – a relatively unimportant Mexican holiday – as an opportunity to bash the United States in front of impressionable young students. They hate forces that defend individual rights and capitalism, including local police as evidenced by their reactions to incidents in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri. They hate the CIA and the United States military, as evidenced by the actions and statements of Jane Fonda and John Kerry, and impose on it onerous rules of engagement to keep it from defending the country; then they zealously prosecute any soldiers for even the slightest infractions or even alleged infractions (i.e., Ilario Pantano, Abu Graib)[3]. They make deals like the recent agreement with Iran which in essence allows it to develop nuclear weapons in the future, or the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (SALT) where the United States agreed to limit its nuclear arms arsenal with the former Soviet Union. They mistreat veterans as evidenced by the actions of the VA. They hate the Constitution, claiming it is a “living” document that should be re-written the way they want it through judicial activism. They hate Israel.

Regarding immigration liberals want to fill the United States with people who hate capitalism, individual rights and limited government and keep out the people who like these things.  For example, they want America-loving Cubans who dislike and are fleeing the communist Castro dictatorship to essentially drown in the Florida Straits or rot in prison back in Cuba and will use any excuse or tortured legal interpretation to make this happen. For example, when six year old Elian Gonzalez made it to the United States President Bill Clinton and University of Miami law professor David Abraham used the fact that Elian’s father was still alive in Cuba as an excuse to deport him, when under American law Elian was actually entitled to American citizenship (the relevant test is the best interests of the child, rather than the domicile of the father, and there was ample evidence that it was in Elian’s best interests to remain in Miami).

Yet liberals have an enormous problem with building a wall along the Mexican border to keep out gangsters, drug cartel members, child smugglers, and even terrorists who might establish sleeper cells in the United States. And they support so-called “sanctuary cities” that harbor illegal immigrants who commit crimes against Americans, like the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

To keep their racket of looting their victims going, liberals have to intellectually disarm their victims so that they don’t understand what’s happening and are unable to mount any kind of philosophical opposition to it. Intellectual disarmament means the inability to validate or invalidate abstract ideas or facts.  If people are bombarded by ideas or facts that they can’t validate or invalidate, they are helpless to effectively oppose them and eventually end up accepting them by default.  And the liberals’ racket rolls on unopposed.

In addition to respect for individual rights, in any of the liberals’ political systems something else is always missing: freedom of speech. To keep everyone intellectually disarmed and unable to philosophically fight back, liberals need censorship to control what information people can disseminate about them – and severely punish anyone saying anything they find threatening.  As Rush Limbaugh says, if there’s one thing liberals don’t want, it’s to be found out.

To intellectually disarm people liberals use a number of techniques. One is dishonest rationalizations supporting their desires called propaganda. The Nazis and Communists were infamous for using it. “But your old health care plan was garbage” is a modern example of propaganda used to justify terminating many people’s insurance under Obamacare. “The economy is overheating” is also propaganda used to justify economically destructive measures, such as raising interest rates at the Fed. (The truth of the matter is an economy can never “overheat” in a pejorative sense because lots of economic activity – so long as there really is demand for it – is never a bad thing.)  “Consumer spending drives the economy” is propaganda used to justify liberals printing money and giving it to political allies. “Deflation causes an economic death spiral” is propaganda used to scare people away from economic prosperity and towards inflation.

A major part of liberals’ propaganda is projection of the characteristics of liberals and liberal political systems onto capitalists and capitalism, and vice versa. Liberals project their personal characteristics onto their enemies and vice versa. Liberals call their enemies “dumb hayseeds” who are “uncaring, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic” and “intolerant” while they label themselves smart, caring, compassionate, big hearted, open minded and, perhaps most ironically, tolerant.  They say they are justified in stealing people’s values from them and ordering them around because they are better people who know what is good for everyone else.

The truth is 180 degrees off from this. Liberals are the true dummies who are bigoted, uncaring and racist. While I don’t know much about homophobia, I suspect that at root liberals really don’t care for homosexuals any more on the whole than conservatives do (and probably a whole lot less). What liberals do is pander to homosexuals, like they do to women and Jews, and try to scare them away from voting for conservatives. As for intelligence liberals don’t impress me with their filibustering, interrupting, intimidating, rationalizing, beating around the bush, changing the topic and arguing from intimidation by not answering the questions they are asked but rather the ones they wish they were asked. None of this is intelligence but rather just a veneer of it to fool the gullible. Also I am told, as is everyone in the universe, how smart Hillary Clinton is. But I’m just told that; I’ve never seen any evidence of it. I’ve never heard her say something intelligent though I’ve heard a multitude of stupid things, like presidents not having to give their criminal history as she uttered recently. As for being caring, it’s usually Republicans who give more to charity.

And it’s actually liberals who are racists, not conservatives. Because they can’t mentally handle abstractions, liberals are the ones who are probably dumb enough to regard someone as less moral or intelligent because of their skin color, ethnicity or other physical attributes (and again, I don’t think they like African Americans as much as they just pander to them). The membership of the KKK over the years, having been almost all Democratic (the late Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, was a Grand Kleagle), bears this out.

Yet their projection is most grotesque regarding open mindedness and tolerance. As said earlier, liberals are not beyond physically torturing and mass murdering – let alone firing, defaming, and destroying the life of – anyone they regard as a threat, demonstrating a zero tolerance for any dissent they don’t like. Examples of liberal intolerance aren’t hard to find, particularly on college campuses with political correctness, speech codes and witch hunts for the slightest violations.

Liberals regularly project onto capitalist societies what the liberals’ favored, non-capitalist societies actually are: racist, socially unjust and tyrannical. They accuse capitalism of being a system that starves people while virtually nobody starves in capitalist countries and millions starve in their politically correct anarchies and dictatorships like North Korea. They regularly smear the United States as racist – and point to slavery under the Confederacy as evidence – when in fact the United States, which elected Barack Obama twice when he wasn’t even all that great a president, is probably less racist than almost any other country.  Liberals accuse the United States of torture and point to waterboarding as evidence while the countries they favor torture so brutally Colonel Oliver North had to carry a poison pill with him on a spy mission into Iran. He needed the pill because if he were ever caught the torture would be so brutal he’d end up broken and divulging information to the Iranians.

Another technique liberals use to intellectually disarm people is by toying with the meanings of abstract concepts. For thinking to be useful, the meanings of the concepts we use must be clear, precise and logically correct. This isn’t often a problem for concrete concepts, because their meanings are perceptually self-evident. It is, however, an enormous problem regarding abstract concepts. If a concept is clear and precise but not logically correct, you’ll induce incorrect facts from it; if it’s not clear and precise, you won’t be able to induce anything worthwhile from it. And you won’t be able to get any further in the thinking process than that either.  In particular you won’t be able to get a nice, integrated context against which you can figure out whether anything makes sense or not.

One way liberals toy with the meanings of abstractions is to sloppily define them, without enough of a context. As said earlier, there are two ways liberals use abstract concepts incorrectly: by using them the way large numbers of other people do, whether the meaning actually makes any sense or not (i.e., the word “literally”), and by using them to mean perceptual level concretes associated with them.  To toy with abstractions’ meanings, liberals simply make an erroneous definition from either of these ways the definition.  For example, as mentioned previously, “love” is an emotion resulting from seeing one’s most important values in another person.  But liberals define it as “a deep affection for another person”. The problem with this definition has been discussed previously. Also consider the concept “explain”.  What it means is to relate something to what you already know. But the way liberals define it is “to make clear”.  Oh that’s a big help. Make clear how??!

One concept the misunderstanding of which has been particularly tragic is the aforementioned “values”.  “Values” qualifies as an abstraction because, while some values are concretes (i.e., food), others are abstract (i.e., romantic love).  The meaning of “values” has devolved from those things that are valuable for a happy life to a vague, mentally crippling mishmash of a combination of values and virtues, with no clear distinction between the two.  As said earlier, virtues are not synonymous with values; rather, they are character traits that get people their values, like rationality, honesty, integrity, justice, independence, productiveness and pride (real pride, not foolish pride). The consequence of blurring the line between values and virtues has made the all-important concept of “values” so amorphous that, when anyone today uses the word, virtually nobody listening knows what he is talking about.

This is a disaster for everyone because understanding the correct meaning of values is necessary for people to achieve values and live a happy life. Values are a necessity for life and every voluntary act anyone takes during his life should be done in furtherance of some value or another. When the word “values” becomes essentially a meaningless wildcard in people’s minds, they literally don’t know what they are living for. They end up lost, not knowing that life is about pursuing and achieving values, and ultimately not knowing how to live.  They end up looking for guidance from anyone who is willing to tell them what to do to live – and, given their desire to control other people, the liberals are only too happy to do so.

Liberal intellectuals have further muddied the meanings of certain philosophically important abstract concepts by taking advantage of the ignorance by large numbers of people of their meanings, simply declaring them undefinable. Such ‘undefinable’ concepts include: time (which actually means movement across space), art (which means concretization of abstract philosophical ideas, through sculpture, painting, literature, drama, music and dance), and humor (which is a logically consistent but contextually absurd application of logic, like a dog so small you can kill it with a can of Raid).

Another technique liberals use to intellectually disarm people: pseudo-concepts with secret meanings, also called anti-concepts.  An anti-concept has two meanings: an alleged one and a real one.  The alleged one is designed to sound benign and fool people into thinking it’s a legitimate idea, while the real one is to attack something the liberal doesn’t like (usually happiness in the ethical context, and capitalism in the political and economic contexts). For example, “bipartisanship” is an anti-concept. Its alleged meaning is cooperation between the two main political parties.  Its real meaning, however, is the Republicans, the more capitalistic of the two parties, even though they are the party in power, caving in to the liberal Democrats. (As proof, notice “bipartisanship” is never used by the liberal media against Democrats to order them to “work with” Republicans.) Other anti-concepts include “extremism”, “isolationism”, “anti-government”, “commercialism”, “divisiveness”, “reform”, etc.  (Naïve Republicans fall for anti-concepts all the time and look like idiots when they use them.)

Perhaps the cruelest intellectual disarmament is what liberals do to dumb down children.  To educate children to grow up into productive thinkers who can choose their own values and live happily by their own efforts, their teachers need to present material in a logical hierarchy with the most basic material presented first and then new material that builds on it presented next and integrated with that previously learned. For example, in arithmetic a student learns 6+4=10; then later in algebra, the concept of a variable is added to the rules of arithmetic and the student learns 6x+4x=10x.

But this is not how liberals want to ‘educate’ children. Instead in public schools liberal education professors, like the aforementioned philosopher John Dewey and his followers, push scams like so-called Progressive Education and its more modern variants, including “whole language” reading, the “new math”, “outcome based education”, and the current scourge of “common core”. In all of these, material is presented out of its logical hierarchy and out of context, so that it can not be integrated and properly understood but rather ends up an incomprehensible hash of floating, disconnected facts the student thinks has nothing to do with anything. This is why when these kids grow up and Jesse Watters interviews them they hardly know anything. (Watch for an upcoming blog post on proper and improper education of children.)

  1. …and what to do about them

So that my friends, is the sordid nature of liberals; Now, what to do about them.

First, what not to do about them:  The line immediately before the one I quoted previously from the Pink Floyd song “Dogs of War” goes like this: “The dogs of war don’t negotiate/The dogs of war won’t capitulate.”  Negotiating is worthless with liberals because they never give up on their quests to destroy values.

And quests to destroy values, is a totally accurate description of what they do. The mistake conservatives make in assessing liberals’ desires is concluding that liberals, like conservatives, are really ultimately after values – maybe different values than conservatives want, but they still want values for a happy life.  Will someone tell me what values liberals were pursuing when they murdered Linda Rolain and four American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya?  When FDR sent the MS St. Louis, a ship full of Jewish refugees, back to Europe during World War II (causing over 25% of the passengers to be murdered by the Nazis)?  When FDR and Barack Obama deliberately exacerbated the Great Depression and the Great Recession?  When Bill Clinton deported Elian Gonzalez? When they killed the Keystone Pipeline project? When they ‘teach’ school children math under common core in such a convoluted way their parents can’t even understand it?  When they expel fifth graders for biting into pop tarts the wrong way?  When they allow the country to be invaded by gangs and drug cartels?  When Bill Clinton did worse than nothing (by bombing an empty aspirin factory in Sudan) against the terrorists who bombed the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, and the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, giving Al Qaeda the green light for 9/11 – and then the liberal professors blamed the United States for the attack? When the liberal VA bureaucrats murdered veterans in a VA hospital in Phoenix?  When Jimmy Carter allowed 15% inflation and Iran to seize our embassy and hold over 50 Americans hostage for over a year? When they tortured and murdered African Americans for trying to vote? When they turned black neighborhoods into economically stagnant, dangerous ghettos with redlining under the FHA and then blamed private banks? When they let communists in Southeast Asia murder tens of millions of innocent people after the end of the Vietnam War? When they used eminent domain and Urban Renewal to destroy people’s homes, allegedly for new projects that were to help the economy but which were never built?  When they threw millions of people out of their homes for the Interstate Highway system and paid them 15 cents on the dollar for the value of the property they took? When they used the FDA and the environmental movement to murder millions of people needlessly from curable diseases?

Oh, in every one of these SNAFUs (Situation Normal All Fouled Up) everyone says these were the “unintended consequences of good intentions”… my ass. Good intentions mean intending to pursue values of some kind.  Liberals, as I’ve said, don’t pursue values.  For reasons discussed previously, they are against values and are out to annihilate them – as this litany of disaster proves.

Because they do not value, you don’t negotiate with them.  You don’t compromise with them. You don’t meet them halfway or cut deals with them.  Because when you do, you don’t help them to achieve their values. You help them to destroy everyone’s values, make everyone miserable, and ultimately take down American (and possibly worldwide?) civilization. This is not over-exaggerated hyperbole; it’s the truth. Look at what the barbarians did to the Roman Empire and the Mongols did to the Abbasid Caliphate, Islam’s golden age.  (Watch for upcoming blog posts on thinking in Western and Moslem history.)  We’re next.

Because the cause of their nihilism is their ignorance regarding how to reduce abstractions to concretes, liberals will not become ‘nicer’ when Republicans compromise or otherwise give them what they want.  This is not only destructive, but also ineffective because the root cause of the liberals’ problem will remain unaddressed.

So what should the good guys do to fight the bad guys?

Stand on principle. Thanks to the aforementioned liberals’ toying with the language this sounds like a worthless mindless cliché.  And it would be, without any knowledge of the principles one should stand on.

But nowadays we’re beyond that and have some idea of the principles to stand on. The first principle to stand on is that government force is to be used to protect individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, not to violate them. So legislation needs to be analyzed to determine whether it will protect rights or violate them. If legislation is found to violate individual rights, it needs to be opposed. Anyone in Congress regardless of party who supports such legislation need to be notified and, if they do not back down in their support, their names need to be taken down and they need to be opposed in the next election. Organizations like The Heritage Foundation have a good infrastructure for doing this. Meanwhile, term limits would be useful for preventing the creation of a political class that puts the desires of wealthy special interest donors above the protection of individual rights, so term limits should be fought for vehemently.

As for opposition to individual rights from the media, again, taking down names of reporters who support liberalism and smear individual rights is a good idea. These reporters need to be publicly confronted with the meaning and consequences of the stands they take by people like James O’Keefe, Jesse Watters or Kat Timpf.

Also, businesses that use their immense revenues to support liberalism must be confronted. In Ayn Rand’s novels Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead and Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged were successful businessmen who supported liberal causes, not fully understanding the destructiveness of what they were doing. In real life there are many Wynand’s and Rearden’s, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who support liberal causes by promoting common core or giving huge donations to liberal bastions like Harvard University. These people and their companies are in one sense the guiltiest people of all, because without their support liberals would lose much of their funding and would become far less destructive. Happily, such people can be confronted and even turned, as Sean Hannity showed with former Shell Oil CEO John Huffmeister.

Notwithstanding all of this, however, the most important principle to stand on is that thinking is how we live. Without thinking all there is is death. So liberals, no matter who they are, need to be confronted with the fact that they don’t think properly.  As a model for how to do this, I remember the scene in Top Gun where “Ice Man” Kazansky (Val Kilmer) very seriously and adamantly tells Peter “Maverick” Mitchell (Tom Cruise) that he doesn’t like him because his lack of self esteem and confidence makes him too dangerous to fly practice missions with.

Kudos to Val Kilmer for showing the Republicans the right way to do it. The issue of whether people should live by thinking is far too important to be treated lightly.  Republicans in Washington need to tell Democrats in no uncertain terms that they do not like them because they are too dangerous to govern with – and they are too dangerous because they don’t think properly. Republicans need to learn that all valid concepts, no matter how abstract, can be reduced to concretes.  They then need to lead and live by example, not using terms they don’t know the meanings of and making clear that government force is for protecting individual rights.  When Democrats start to act out or want to bring to the floor bad legislation, they need to be confronted – publicly if necessary – with the essence of what they are supporting and the implications of what they are doing, and denied any help in doing it.

I want to close with some facts about what the near future really holds. Liberals love to say that conservatives cannot win elections without giving up conservative principles (ultimately meaning, living by thinking) and attracting some non-thinking “moderates” or “centrists” or “independents” to their side.  This is not only hogwash, it’s yet again an example of liberals projecting. In truth, when scouring Real Clear Politics for approximate amounts conservatives are about 47% of the American public, liberals are about 34%, and those who do not consider themselves either or don’t know are about 19%. So it’s the liberals who really need the 19% in the middle far more than the conservatives do.

Yet the Republicans act as if they represent the 34% rather than the 47%. For example, ironically while running for President Mitt Romney said that, since “47%” of Americans receive government benefits, they must be against him. Romney’s error was in assuming that if someone receives government benefits, he is automatically an unthinking liberal in favor of the welfare state. But how many such people would love to stop receiving these benefits in exchange for a job?  Or voluntary charity, if they need it?  With no government strings attached that take away their liberty? Today, both Democrats and Republicans are pessimistic about the 2016 election – Republicans because they feel they have no chance against Hillary Clinton, and Democrats because they know (barring something cataclysmic) they have no chance with Hillary Clinton. As evidence read H.A. Goodman’s blog in The Huffington Post posted on October 26, 2015 about what people in battleground states think of Hillary’s honesty and trustworthiness, and polling data from Minnesota and Pennsylvania from Real Clear Politics showing how she’s doing.

Republicans feel the way they do certainly not because the American people are against them, but because America’s intellectuals in our universities are – and they set the tone for the media through the journalism schools, and the culture.  This is ultimately our biggest problem: the hostility of academia to thinking, as evidenced by what’s currently happening at the University of Missouri and other colleges nationwide. Its’ part of a trend that has been going on since the 1780’s and is the subject of my next blog post – if I’m not assassinated by the liberals for writing this one, of course.

[1] Thinking is not con games and other fraudulent schemes.  Thinking means observing and acknowledging reality so you can achieve values. Values cannot still be values if obtained fraudulently, as I wrote in “So what are Values, Anyway?”.  Fraud involves not acknowledging reality consistently but rather evading some aspect of it, usually the fact that the individual rights of the victim (often regarding property) are being violated by the scammer. Fraud involves exploiting some ignorance in a victim to get something from him he would not give up knowingly.

[2] Insider trading should not even be illegal because there is no violation of rights associated with it; buyers and sellers of publicly traded securities do not have a right to a favorable outcome when they make their trades.

[3] For why the civilian side of the Federal Government mistreats the military, see my blog post “Why our Government Mistreats our Troops”, July 2015.

Democrats Only Win the White House When Republicans Blunder

Democrats Only Win the White House When Republicans Blunder
By Branehart
With their socialist policies the three most recent Democratic presidents have caused gargantuan suffering and destruction. There’s the national embarrassment of the Iran hostage crisis coupled with the stagflation of the late 1970’s, with both low economic growth and 14% inflation, courtesy of Jimmy Carter; the inhuman injustice of the Elian Gonzalez deportation and the disasters of the 9/11 attacks and the subprime mortgage meltdown, all of which were ultimately attributable to the policies of Bill Clinton; and the seemingly never-ending malaise of the Great Recession, brought to you by the “never let a good crisis go to waste” philosophy of Barack Obama.
With this track record it’s mind blowing that any Democrat could be elected President at all. Yet it keeps on happening.
As to why, the Democrats and their allies in academia and the media want people to believe that at root Americans elect Democrats because they really do want the statism and big government welfare state the Democrats offer.
If this is true, then how come Americans consistently want lower taxes and keep turning over the Congress, governorships and state legislatures (even in some very liberal states) to Republicans?
The truth is Democrats win the presidency not because Americans like Democrats, but because Republican presidents screw up – and in so doing create an opportunity for Democrats to take over.
Consider the earliest of the three most recent Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter, who served from 1977 to 1981.  He won because his predecessor, Republican Gerald Ford, pardoned President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal even though there existed “smoking gun”-quality evidence that Nixon was guilty.  This was a blunder by President Ford because, if it is true he had a role in the break-in, President Nixon should’ve faced the music for what he did rather than be exonerated.
And then there’s Bill Clinton, the beneficiary of six little words: George Bush’s quote “read my lips: no new taxes”.  The blunder was obvious: President Bush reneged on this promise and raised taxes, causing the economy to sour.
Finally there’s Barack Obama, who strode into the White House because of the economic collapse in 2008 brought about by the subprime mortgage crisis.
The subprime crisis has its roots in the policies of Bill Clinton, who during his presidency instructed HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to require banks to essentially give home mortgages to borrowers who really couldn’t afford them.  To lessen the risk to and sweeten the deal for banks Cuomo ordered Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to buy these mortgages, bloating them with risky loans and making them dangerously insolvent.
When George W. Bush took office he blundered by continuing Clinton’s subprime policy, turning the condition of Fannie and Freddie into a time bomb.  The bomb was detonated by the Democrats after they took over the House of Representatives in 2007, by refusing to help President Bush save Fannie and Freddie.  Fannie and Freddie had to stop buying mortgages, leaving banks with the risk of massive subprime mortgage defaults and financial collapse.
In all three cases the Democrats were able to project on to the Republicans what they themselves were: big government-loving political insiders who gave special favors to allies and  could care less about the common folk. They were also able to get away with portraying themselves in contrast as Washington outsiders – a strategy that led them all to victory.
And what happens when a Republican President does not screw up?  The president has coattails and the party keeps the White House, as happened in 1989.That year Ronald Reagan, after two successful terms with no major blunders, turned power over to another Republican, George Bush.

So, to all the Republican presidential candidates out there for the 2016 go round, do you want credit for enabling your party to keep the White House long term?  Don’t screw up.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,170 other followers

%d bloggers like this: