The Liberal Media’s Donald Sterling Race-baiting

Never let a racial crisis go to waste is, I suppose, the credo of the Machiavellian mainstream media. Since the release of the Don Sterling audio, liberals haven’t missed a chance to play the race card for all its worth. One of the worst offenders is a New York Daily News columnist named Harry Siegel, who — in a piece of pablum bearing a picture of NBA owners portrayed as Klansmen — bemoans the lack of Diversity™ in league ownership and management. Unfortunately for Siegy, his points, which start with the Klan hoods, only get worse from there.

A man with a conscience (malformed though it is), Siegel laments that the NBA is “a league where three-quarters of the players are black, but fewer than half the coaches and not even a fifth of the league office staff are black, as of October, 2013, and every majority team owner except Michael Jordan is white.” But there’s an easy remedy.

Institute a quota ensuring that whites, and other races, get proportionate representation among NBA players.

This would make the league approximately 63 percent white, 17 percent Hispanic, 13 percent black and 6 percent Asian. The remaining one percent can be represented by Clint Eastwood’s empty chair on the sidelines, and we can throw in a primordial dwarf if it makes the Diversity™ didacts feel better.

And why not? Why should proportionality go only one way? The bias here lies in self-righteously bloviating about Diversity™ when whites dominate an area while acting as if you don’t even notice it when blacks do.

Of course, liberals would say that the players have earned their positions. But how do we know the owners haven’t? After all, some individuals definitely seem to have a gift for building financial empires. This isn’t to say that every rich person makes his fortune through respectable means. Heck, some people even make millions dribbling a ball around.

But it seems that liberals, prejudiced to the core, only have a problem with it when the “wrong” groups succeed. With the contraception con spent, Barack Obama (PBUH) has used his Teleprompter recently to rail against the male/female wage gap — and he wasn’t talking about the one where young urban women earn 8 percent more than their male peers (because they’re 50 percent more likely to graduate college; I don’t think ol’ Barry mentions this gap, either). Libs could also cite how NBA owners are inordinately Jewish, but that narrative won’t work yet. And the highest-earning religious group in the nation is Hindus, but, last I heard, colleges weren’t schooling mush-head kids in “Hindu privilege.”

But talking about those things might be “publicly toxic”; you know, in the sense that Siegel said he’s sure that Sterling is “not the only owner whose private thoughts are publicly toxic.” No doubt. And I’m certain this is limited to rich white NBA owners, or at least white people in general. It also occurs to me, however, that people can develop a tolerance for certain toxins, such as when black ex-basketball players suggest all-black leagues or black civil-rights hustlers call a city “Hymietown.” And, in keeping with the toxicological principle “The dose makes the poison,” tolerance for toxins disgorged by whites stands at about .010 parts per million.

Then there are the millions, of dollars, that Siegel laments the NBA players are not getting, writing that theirs is a “league where the 360 or so athletes who, in fact, make the game, split its proceeds about 50-50 with ownership.” Note that he also dismissed the owners, who allegedly believe they make the game, as “[w]ealthy men…[who] think highly of their own contributions.”

Now, some might say that the fans make the game; after all, you earn zilch without a market. But what is Siegel’s point? Wouldn’t the proceeds split be much the same in the virtually all-white NHL? And how is that different from any corporation or successful business? A person doesn’t invest his heart and soul and risk capital in a venture without the carrot of a possibly handsome return; not even liberals such as Little Big Gulp (a.k.a. Michael Bloomberg), Warren Buffet and Donald Sterling do that.

So it sounds as if Siegel is lamenting economic freedom, as if he’d prefer a Marxist model (this certainly would have the upside of not enriching men who dribble balls and pundits who dribble ideas). Of course, nothing is stopping the players from pooling their resources and trying to buy into their team.

But perhaps most telling about Siegel’s article is what could be akin to a Freudian slip. A recurrent theme of his is that “we” can feel good about ourselves for taking the principled stand against Sterling, but there is much work yet to do. He writes, “We can all take a moment and pat ourselves on the back for not being as horrible as this appalling old man,” and later, “Once we’re done feeling good about not being Sterling…,” it’s time to beat the Diversity™ drum. But he also self-righteously states that Sterling’s “obscene behavior…has been well documented” and asks, “how could this have gone on for so long?”

What this gets at is the phoniness of the left. Let’s be clear on something: the “we” here isn’t me. It’s not most of you readers, the Heritage Foundation, Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention.

It is the left.

Notoriously liberal Mark Cuban, who now calls Sterling “abhorrent,” said in 2009, “I like Donald. He plays by his own rules.” (Translation: a lib who becomes a liability to the cause is “abhorrent.” A lib who is getting away with it “plays by his own rules.”) Black actor Leon Isaac Kennedy called Sterling “a prince among men.” The NAACP gave him an award and was set to bestow another. And ex-NBA commissioner David Stern, who some libs now criticize for not only tolerating the owner but even rewarding him, is, like Sterling, a Democrat donor.

The “we,” libs, is you.

It’s not conservatives. It’s not white people. It’s you.

You anointed yourselves arbiters and overseers of acceptable racial commentary; “racism” is your hang-up, your defined One Deadly Sin, your great litmus test. Don’t blame “society” — upholding your principles is your responsibility.

So most of the lib outrage over “racism” is, when not downright phony, motivated by selectively triggered emotion. It’s a ploy used to tear down tradition and traditionalists on specious grounds and win the culture war. It’s not for lib-enablers, such as late Senator Robert Byrd, who’d been in the KKK; blacks such a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton; Bill Clinton with his Obama-coffee remark; or fat cats who make big donations — until it’s time to throw them under the bus.

As for Siegel, if he’s so concerned about Diversity™, perhaps he could turn his columnist slot over to a minority. After all, the vast majority of columnists are white, Siegy, and you wouldn’t want some future writer to have to lament, “how could this have gone on for so long?”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Racism, Sexism, Hate-Speech: Let’s level the playing field

What is this world coming to?

While presenting a monologue on HBO in 2012, comedian Bill Maher called former republican governor Sarah Palin a “cunt “and “dumb twat”on national television. (excuse the graphic reference, it was necessary, for effect)

What were Maher’s consequences? Laughs.

No walk-out from women’s groups. No protests from feminists. No demand for resignation from anyone. No response from the FCC.

Maher is still working as an unfunny comedian, drawing audiences in theaters and on television, while the left-leaning media refer to his critics as right wing nuts or republican extremists. Instead of banishing, HBO signs him to more multi-million dollar contracts, some proceeds of which is proudly filtered to democratic campaigns, including Barack Obama.

The double-standard is nauseating.

There is no term more disgusting or vile to call any female, be it in private, or more so, for millions to hear – ON PURPOSE. It is far more vile than calling a black person the “N” word. The “N” word is prolifically acceptable in many venues, particularly by blacks themselves, including rap music, black theater, black on black in sports and entertainment, and in the streets in general. The “N” word is used far more often by blacks than by whites. Yet, whites are dumbed down, excoriated as racists should they use that same term.

If a prominent white person makes negative reference to blacks in any manner, he/she will be expelled, disbarred, disengaged, fired, castigated and hated in the media. Follow the path of banished food icon, Paula Deen, who admits that she used the “N” word sometimes in her early life. Twelve years a success on television; She’s out!

The “N” became the focus on the O.J. Simpson trial, as referred to in former detective Mark Fuhrman’s history. It had virtually NOTHING to do with the evidence of murdering two people by Simpson, yet it clouded the entire trial. The defense infuriated the mostly black jury using emotion, not evidence, as proof of innocence.

In 2007, Donald Imus lost his MSNBC talk show when he referred to the Rutgers basketball team as “nappy-headed hoes,” a term taken from within the black community and in rap music where it was often uttered. Imus was banished. Out.

But it’s okay to call a female politician a “cunt.” That’s not worth losing a job. It’s worth laughs and big contracts. Truth is, people like Maher think they’re immune from decorum and decency because they have a political constituency on their side.

Can anyone imagine that from a Johnny Carson or Jay Leno?

The “Racist” term is bandied about so much these days that it has lost it’s true meaning. People (including black politicians and journalists) who expose Barack Obama’s failings as a president, are ultimately deemed “racist.” When the president’s integrity is questioned, the convenient response is the “R” word. Cloud it up. I’ve been critical of Obama’s policies, and sure enough, I’ve been subjected to accusations of “racism.”

A 2013 Rasmussen poll found that, between blacks, whites and Hispanics, blacks are the most racist – even according to blacks.

The nation’s most prominent racist has been promoted to a commentator on MSNBC. Al Sharpton’s racist reputation came to the forefront in the now-famous Tawana Brawley case where he went after white men for raping a black girl, who lied. She wasn’t raped at all. Yet, when one black girl accuses whites of raping her, Al Sharpton is out of the woodwork. Never mind, that interracial rapes are committed far more often by blacks on whites than whites on blacks. And considering the population ratios, the odds show that white females will be a hundred times more likely to be raped by blacks, than a black females will be raped by whites. But leave it up to the famous reverend to inject “Racism” as the key adjective in anything he pursues. He was also famous for encounters with Jewish shopkeepers, using the term “white interlopers” in New York City 25 years ago. The target of that verbal assault had his shop burned down. Thank you Reverend Sharpton.

Sharpton has used the “N” word as much as any white bigot, including those directed at former black Mayor David Dinkins. Just recently, Sharpton has been exposed in video tapes from his earlier period as an FBI informant for alleged favors, an “N-word” spouting activist with no more interest in helping the black community other than raising all the support and money he can to espouse his political agenda. Sharpton, nevertheless, is admired by the president and by Attorney General Eric Holder. In other words, if you’re black, it’s ok. “If you’re white, we’ll get you.”

George Zimmerman committed no act of racism when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in the tragic incident in Sanford, Florida in 2012. None whatsoever! Zimmerman’s entire life had been infused with multiculturalism, tolerance and friendships with blacks, including mentoring black kids. But no sooner than the “preliminary” reports came out that a white man shot a black teenage kid, the hordes of Sharptonites came out of the woodwork, demonstrating in the streets – aided by the Holder Justice Department – condemning Zimmerman, trying and convicting him in the press and then lashing him and his family with death threats. All this based on the premise that Zuimmerman was a racist, when in fact, he was not…as proven in his trial.

That was the same justice department, incidentally, that dropped the charges against the new Black Panthers in 2009 for wearing fatigues and intimidating white voters with night sticks at a precinct in Philadelphia, a clear-cut federal crime. But if you’re black, it’s ok. If that was the KKK, the culprits would still be in prison today.

It’s time for change all right. It’s time the race baiters face their own condemnation and charges of incitement.

I agree, that there is no room for racism in America. But it is just as wrong for a black to be a racist, than it is for a white.

L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was surreptitiously recorded on a phone line that was taped, without his knowledge or approval. That’s a crime in many states, including California. When I speak to any person on a phone, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If that is violated, no matter my opinions of anything, (excepting threats to national security) someone should be charged and prosecuted.

The words of Mr. Sterling were prejudiced, racist and vile. But they were not boldly aired, they were intended as private. Nevertheless, now that they are public, team players are understandably outraged and consequences are undoubtedly forthcoming. But we must also remember that Donald Sterling is an American, just like you and me, who enjoys the rights provided by the First Amendment. He has a right to be prejudiced, he has a right to be a racist, he has a right to hate anyone he wants, he has a right to all his opinions so long as his views do not injure or deprive others of their due rights and entitlements.

And if we’re going to be so indignant, perhaps we should write MSNBC a letter expressing outrage they have employed a racist as a journalist, which destroys the credibility of that cable news station.

Demonizing is a two-way street. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

If Sterling must go, Bill Maher must go.

RELATED STORIES:

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin A ‘Dumb [Vagina]‘ | NewsBusters

Rev. Al Sharpton worked as FBI informant, taping conversations with mob

What About Donald Sterling’s Right To Privacy? – NPR

Sterling, Media and the Race Card — a Confederacy of Dunces – Larry Elder Page 1

FrontPage Magazine – The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo was taken in 1989 by Cliff Wildes. It is of Cliff Wildes NBA sponsor with Donald Sterling owner of LA Clippers (center).  This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

“Mayday” fits Christ’s 7-Fold Warning for Huge Geopolitical Events in Mid-May

A CIA expert has damning evidence of impeachable crimes by Obama, Clinton and others that are expected to precipitate a man-made calamity and martial law to maintain control warning of impending loss if we aren’t ready for a crisis and chaos in America.  The CIA expert interview on TruNews.com is linked below.

Christ’s 7-fold warning of sudden events that come as a thief appear to fit what could be reality, reminding us also of “sudden destruction” coming as a thief in 1 Thessalonians 5:3. Christ even said He would come as a thief if we don’t watch. Rev 3:3.

This is an invisible coming in judgment as clued by His seven examples prior to His visible return in Matthew 25:31. The cost of being prepared is not large; failure on these points could mean huge loss.

  1. We could be hungry when the fig tree withers (Matthew 24:32), even as Christ was hungry when He looked for food, Matt 21:19. His warning included “when summer is nigh”–summer is nigh in May. The fig tree parable was about the Jewish nation then, but it applies to the “Christian” nation now that aborts its unborn, and approves perverted marriages “as in the days of Lot [Sodom],” Luke 17:28.
  2. We could lose family or friends in the sudden destruction (1Thess 5:1-6), even “as in the days of Noah….[when] the Flood came and took them all away,” Matthew 24:37. The ark was big enough for all who wanted to enter. After the animals came in pairs to enter, many may have wanted to go in, but fear of being laughed at or looking stupid stopped them. Crazy may be ok!
  3. We could lose our freedom when “one shall be taken [to a FEMA camp?], and the other left,” Matt 24:40. An “Emergency Police State” can come easily with a man-made disaster like the earthquakes that destroyed Fukushima and Haita. If you don’t understand how those were man-made, type “HAARP, Ventura” into YouTube.
  4. We could have our house broken by the thief’s coming, (Matt 24:43) because we don’t know when to “watch” (or what it means); similar reference by the apostle Paul in 1Thessalonians 5.
  5. We could lose our comfort as “the evil servant begins to smite his fellow servants.” Matt 24:48. Islam teaches eradication of infidels to be ready for the Madi. Revelation 9:7,8 describes “faces like men (beards) and hair like women (long hair). This may seem remote, but there are many areas in the U.S. where Sharia Law is making headway.
  6. We could lose our destiny as the foolish women who weren’t ready in Matt 25:6. Using the Rule of 1st Use [where a word or phrase is 1st found in the Bible, it often has a meaning or context to consider for end-times because Christ is he Word…”the First and the Last,” Rev 1:11 so the cry at midnight in Matt 25:6 is understood from the midnight cry in Egypt at Passover, Exod 12:29. If we doubt the history of the Exodus, we can type “chariot wheels, Red Sea” into YouTube.
  7. We could lose our money as the slothful servant who wasn’t prepared for his lord’s return in Matt 25:26. Many warn us of impending bank failures. There is low risk to taking our money out of the bank when we might lose it if something huge happens.

Each of the above examples fit with the execution of judgment on a deserving nation or persons, but we forget the biblical time to execute judgment was Passover, Exodus 12:12. Several of the clues point to 2nd Passover, a provision in the biblical law for Passover in May, Numbers 9:10,11.

Examples 6 and 7 above are punctuated by Christ’s saying again, “Watch…for the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country.” Matt 25:14.  After winter, Israelites traveled in the spring, but if they couldn’t get back for Passover, the law [in effect till heaven and earth passes Matt 5:18] specified  Passover the 2nd spring month (May) as a time.

be awake smallPassover was a time when animal sacrifices were fulfilled by Christ, proclaimed as “the Lamb of God” by a Jewish prophet, John 1:29. But while Passover is no longer a time for animal sacrifices that prefigure judgment, it is still a time to “watch and pray” that God will pass over us in judgment.

Watch is translated from the Greek word, gregoreo, meaning to be awake. We can’t be awake every night, but Passover was the only time it was commanded of all, Exodus 12:10, Matt 26:38-41.

Wednesday evening, May 14/15 is the night that most churches have a prayer meeting. It would be wonderful if churches world-wide would understand the issues, to watch (be awake) and pray that God will pass over them as they seek biblical answers to what is impending.

I believe readers should hear the interview by TruNews’ Chuck Wiles of the CIA expert to understand that America as we’ve known it, is gone, and civil war may be impending.

So What if Cliven Bundy is a “Racist”?

For the record, I don’t believe Cliven Bundy is a “racist.”

For the record, I don’t even care.

Such indifference to that damnable failing, that thing we all know is the worst thing one can be, must make me a damnable man. But I am flexible. I just want equality. I’m perfectly willing to demonize “racists,” provided we give other sinners equal time.

I just want to hear, for example, “Forget the facts of the matter! The man is lustful!” or “Don’t listen to that miscreant. He’s guilty of sloth!” Or let’s say a fellow posits an opinion on, oh, taxation. Our very intellectual response could be, “Hey, didn’t I hear you talkin’ to your girlfriend about how you scarfed down four cheeseburgers at the barbecue and binged on ice cream in your easy chair? Look, everyone, he’s a glutton!”

This isn’t to say that being a bigot — the word “racist” is in quotation marks because it’s an invention of leftist language manipulators — is a good thing. Not at all. But neither is being lustful, slothful or gluttonous. Yet people who couldn’t name three of the Seven Deadly Sins and are thoroughly guilty of at least six, will claim they can disqualify a person, and his point of view, from debate based on their assessment of his moral state. What blindness — and hubris.

Bigotry is simply a sub-category of wrath, one part of one-seventh, not the moral end-all and be-all. And even if Bundy did have racial hang-ups, would it follow that he was wrong about his case or on federal power in general? Can a man be flawed, and even sinful, but yet right on a matter? Can he still have virtues? Albert Einstein could be lewd and lascivious, Galileo an irascible jerk, Ernest Hemingway was a drunkard.

This isn’t to say, as certain people with poor character once averred, that character doesn’t matter. It’s not to say a person’s vices can’t speak to motivations; it’s valid to point it out if a judge who rules that pornography has First Amendment protections habitually views porn himself. But it’s not valid to fixate on the allegedly “racist” tendencies of a judge who rules that racial commentary enjoys such protections (at least not within the context of analyzing the ruling). The difference is that since the former is wrong, there’s good reason to believe that his personal inclinations corrupted his judgment on the matter; with the latter judge, however, dwelling on the supposed flaw in question would only serve to discredit a legitimate ruling.

The point is that we all have flaws, yet all can be correct about a whole host of things. I wouldn’t have wanted Einstein to care for a teenage daughter or be president, but I wouldn’t deny that E=mc2.

Of course, it really is true that some flaws are more unequal than others — there is a hierarchy of sin — but moderns’ sense of proportion is highly askew. G.K. Chesterton said that a “Puritan is a person who pours righteous indignation into the wrong things.” Today we have Impuritans, complete reprobates worshipping at hedonism’s altar, who pour their indignation onto others in a vain attempt to wash their own souls clean of sin. But there is much more to being a “good” person than simply not being bigoted.

To further illustrate this askew sense of proportion, consider again the gluttony example. Gluttony is a sin, no doubt. But now let’s say that our society considered it the ultimate disqualifier. Let’s say we might scrutinize a person, asking “What are his food bills?” “Do cookbooks figure too prominently in his library?” “Does he wile away excessive time watching Emeril Live?” “Is he the one who cleared the buffet table like a hurdler?” And imagine we visited pariah status on the person after deeming him guilty.

Would you think this society’s greater fault was gluttony — or being hung-up about it? I’d think it exhibited a gluttonous zeal for eradicating gluttony.

The problem is that man always swings from one extreme to another. The early to mid 20th century saw the embrace of eugenics and racial-superiority dogma, which was then discredited by the loathsome Nazis. But now we just as zealously impose a dogma denying the reality of group differences and mandating equality of outcome among races.

This tendency toward true extremism — meaning, extreme deviation from Truth — brings to mind C.S. Lewis’ observation that evil always tries to persuade us to exaggerate our flaws, telling the militant he’s too pacifistic and the pacifist that he’s too militant. As an example, today we have Impuritans who, awash in the Great Sexual Heresy, will still lament how “Puritan” America is so sexually “repressed.” Evil tells the pervert he’s too prudish, just as it tells self-hating whites that they’re too anti-black.

But what we should be is anti-“racism.” I don’t mean what you think. We need to oppose both the word and the concept — at least how the latter is often conceptualized.

Bigotry is bad by definition, and that definition is commonly agreed upon. But “racism” often has a different meaning, one whose influence is readily apparent in the reaction to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s much reported comments. Al Sharpton, who once used the term “white interlopers” and once said, “White folks was in caves while we were building empires…,” called for a boycott of the NBA. Former hoop star Larry Johnson reacted to a man who didn’t want blacks around by saying he didn’t want whites around, as he suggested creating an all-black basketball league. Spike Lee told CNN he wished that white NBA players would speak out against Sterling, which is a bit like John Gotti having wished that someone would speak out against racketeering. And Barack Obama took time away from destroying our world standing, healthcare system, social policy and economy to say that “comments reportedly made by Sterling are ‘incredibly offensive racist statements,’ before casting them as part of a continuing legacy of slavery and segregation that Americans must confront,” wrote CBS DC. He then opined, “When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t really have to do anything; you just let them talk” (you don’t have to do anything except, I suppose, “confront” a “legacy of slavery and segregation”). But, okay, I’ll just let Obama talk.

Now, opportunism is often a factor in such hypocrisy, but there is something else: a striking sense of entitlement. This is why many black people will condemn a white person for making a bigoted comment with an equally bigoted comment without batting an eye; when whites are bigoted, it’s “racist”; when blacks are, it’s something else. And, in fact, this idea is encapsulated in the definition of “racism” I alluded to earlier. It’s one you’ve probably heard:

Only whites can be “racist” because a prerequisite for “racism” is not only bigoted intent, but the power to act upon it.

And, actually, they’ll get no argument from me. As I’ve said before, the left originated the word “racism,” so they may define it. They may have it.

And if they ask, I’ll tell them where they can stick it.

The problem is that conservatives, being conservative — meaning, conserving yesterday’s liberals’ social victories — parrot the word. It’s another example of how, forgetting that the side defining the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate, conservatives slavishly use the Lexicon of the Left.

Of course, eventually this will all be left in the dustbin of history. Movements, peoples and civilizations come and go, and we’ll get over our fixation with one part of one-seventh of the Deadly Sins. And then man will swing to another extreme, as he goes on to the next great mistake.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED STORIES:

BLM Land-Grabbing 140 Acres From the Boy Scouts, No Tortoises Here
Democrat Mayoral Candidate Caught on Tape in Racist Tirade and the Crickets Chirping are Just Amazing

Racist Offsets now accepted by NAACP

The LA chapter of the NAACP is refunding Donald Sterling’s contributions, for now at least. In a public statement Monday afternoon Chapter President Leon Jenkins said he was open to the idea of talking with Mr. Sterling, to negotiate a price for Racist Offsets no doubt.

“God teaches us to forgive, and the way I look at it, after a sustained period of proof to the African American community that those words don’t reflect his heart, I think there’s room for forgiveness. I wouldn’t be a Christian if I said there wasn’t.”

Most glorious compassion indeed. Mr. Jenkins continued…

“We are negotiating with him about giving more moneys to African American students at UCLA, and so we are in preliminary discussions.”

You read it right, comrades… “negotiations”. Mr. Sterling, with an undoubtedly generous “Racist Offsets” donation will be forgiven for his misdeeds. Let no racist rant go unfunded, comrades. 

“Mr. Sterling has given out a tremendous amount of scholarships, he has invited numerous African American kids to summer camps, and his donations are bigger than other sports franchises… “

As long as the Racist Offsets continue to roll in, Mr. Sterling’s rants will be forgiven by the NAACP. As they should be.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/47WR-FrNYew[/youtube]

President Obama: Request you prepare the USA for Dangerous Cold Climate

The Orlando, FL based Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) delivered a letter to the White House this morning for President Obama, in which it warned of the dangers expected from the ongoing climate change to decades of record cold weather.

This predicted historic event is caused by a rare, yet repeating 206-year cycle of the Sun which the SSRC calls a “solar hibernation.” During these hibernations, the Sun dramatically reduces the energy by which it keeps the Earth warm.  In past occurrences of these solar hibernations, the Earth was struck by two of the worst cold climate periods ever recorded, each of which witnessed global crop devastation, civil and political strife, and warfare.

One historian classified the last hibernation from 1793 to 1830, as the world’s “last great subsistence crisis.” That period was also called the Dalton Minimum, because of the scientist who kept track of temperatures then and the reduced energy output of the Sun as measured by a low number of sunspots during that period. The previous hibernation from 1615 to 1745 was called the Maunder Minimum and was far worse than the last hibernation both in terms of the depth, and extent of the cold epoch but also in the global crop devastation. Russian scientists are saying we are heading into another Maunder class solar hibernation starting this year.

John Casey

John Casey, President, Space and Science Research Corporation.

The letter to President Obama coincides with the seventh anniversary of discovery of the 206-year cycle that led to the formulation of the ‘Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity,’ or the ‘RC Theory.’ The RC Theory creator and SSRC President Mr. John Casey, has since been leading the effort in the United States to alert the US government, the media, and US citizens about the dangers associated with this regular, albeit ominous cycle of the Sun. The SSRC record of major climate predictions using the RC Theory has been recognized as one of, if not the best public record of climate prediction in the US. That includes a successful record of predictions better than NASA, and NOAA, and by far exceeds that of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC).

According to Mr. Casey, “There is overwhelming evidence that global warming no longer exists and that the use of CO2 and the greenhouse gas theory by the UN and our own government represents what I and other scientists believe is the greatest scientific fraud in history. Sadly, even though the Earth is now cooling rapidly, we still see the current US administration and other countries trying to force-feed this bad science on their citizens. The record winter of 2013-2014 along with others in the past six years is but one example of how this recently started solar hibernation will continue to make the Earth much colder. The SSRC’s Global Climate Status Report, now shows that of twenty-four global climate parameters that we monitor, eighteen are showing a cooling trend is in place.

“I am also particularly concerned how the President’s climate policies will hit African Americans, other minorities and the poor the hardest, in terms of higher energy bills they will be paying and that they will be totally unprepared for the cold climate ahead. That matter is also addressed in the letter the White House received today.”

Read the full letter to President Obama by going here.

ABOUT THE SPACE AND SCIENCE RESEARCH CORPORATION

Headquartered in Orlando, Florida, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) is a leading independent US climate research company. It is the foremost institution in the United States dedicated to the analysis and planning for the next climate change – forecast to be one of decades of record cold weather.

The SSRC maintains active communication channels with some of the world’s best experts in the field of solar physics and climate research pertaining to the matter of the next climate change. In addition it has a dedicated list of “Supporting Researchers” who have committed their name and assistance to the mission of the SSRC. The SSRC also updates key US government leaders of the status of climate change activity centered on its area of expertise.

The SSRC possesses the capability to conduct planning and research on how best to prepare individuals, businesses, and governments at all levels for the next climate change to a period of long lasting and potentially dangerous colder weather.

Trailer: Dinesh D’Souza’s “America”

Having made the second-highest-grossing political documentary of all time, the team behind 2016: Obama’s America is now, as promised, following up with America. Sending up some fireworks of his own to rival the ones 2016 generated, producer-writer Dinesh D’Souza says of his new documentary, “We answer the central moral challenge of America’s critics, which is that America’s greatness is based on theft, plunder and oppression.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/6de9J8_YJF4[/youtube]

Federal judge: Let Florida voters be damned! Recognize gay marriages!

hinkle

Judge Robert L. Hinkle

MIAMI – On Friday, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, a Clinton appointee who has been assigned the two federal lawsuits seeking to overthrow Florida’s constitutional respect for marriage as one man, one woman, denied a motion to intervene filed by Florida Family Action Committee.  “No FFA member seeks to enter a same-sex-marriage or will be directly affected if others enter same-sex marriages,” Hinkle ruled.

Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF), issued the following statement:

“Judge Hinkle is sworn to uphold the U.S. and Florida Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to equal protection and due process. However, Hinkle has violated his oath of office by deciding he does not want to hear from Florida Family Action Committee and the eight million Florida voters who cast their ballot on the Florida marriage amendment. This preliminary ruling violates the equal protection and due process rights of ALL Florida voters. Therefore, his claim that no FFA member seeks to enter a same-sex-marriage or will be directly affected if others enter same-sex marriages is false. What is true is that no Floridian will be directly or indirectly affected if U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle is impeached.”

Read more here: ACLU: Immediately order Florida to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages performed out of state

CFCnewlogo(2)ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY COALITION

The Christian Family Coalition (CFC) is a widely acclaimed human rights and social justice advocacy organization serving Florida’s children and families for over 10 years. Through its daily community outreach, political education programs, and voter registration, CFC effectively mobilizes thousands of fair-minded voters across the state and actively works with municipal, county, state, and federal elected officials to advance common sense, family-friendly, non-discriminatory values and public policies. The CFC is highly respected for its sought-after, educational voter guides consulted by thousands of houses of worship and their voters all across Florida.

same sex marriage map

Battle to free Justina Pelletier continues in Massachusetts!

The battle to free 15-year-old Justina Pelletier from her custody — many have called it captivity — by the Massachusetts Department of Families and Children (DCF) bureaucracy has become even more heated over the past week. And it has continued to make news internationally and be documented across the Internet.

There were a lot of signs like this outside the State House on Tuesday.
[Photos by MassResistance]

Shocking deaths of children force sudden resignation of DCF head

On Tuesday the Commissioner of DCF, Olga Roche, was forced to resign after three young children in DCF’s care were recently found dead through apparentnegligence by the department. The deaths of these children have shocked the region, and have taken some of the public’s attention off of the Justina Pelletier DCF case.

Governor continues to refuse to act

The Governor has continued to shamefully defend the process and claim that he can do nothing to stop it:

Last week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick stated that the decision to remove Justina from her parents was made “based on a detailed record of the history of neglect in the home.” That was blatantly false, and the local press wasted no time excoriating the Governor for this unwarranted attack on the family.

But also last week, Governor told a family representative that he wanted to get Justina home and that his administration has “appeared in court to have her sent home to Connecticut” but that“the court has jurisdiction in this matter, not us.”

On Thursday, the Governor’s Health and Human Services Secretary John Polanowicz wrote an email to the Connecticut media, where Justina’s family lives, saying that Massachusetts would like to release Justina, but “DCF does not have the authority to determine when and if custody should be returned to Justina’s parents” because of the judge’s ruling “that it is in the best interest of Justina to remain in DCF custody for now. “

Can the Governor free Justina? Given that she is a citizen of Connecticut, and given the other enormous irregularities of this case, and given that he controls DCF, it’s hard to believe that an executive order in that regard would not be possible. But if not, the Legislature can.

Bill to free Justina being temporarily blocked in Mass. House

The bill in the Massachusetts Legislature which would overrule the judge and free Justina immediately, HD 4212, written by MassResistance and filed on April 4, continues to be blocked by the Democratic leadership in the House, despite national outrage and a flood of calls and emails from across the country. (More about the bill can be found on our Free Justina Action Page.)

On Friday, the national conservative magazine Human Events reported on the bill,its blockage in the Legislature, and the controversy over whether the Governor has the power to free her himself:

“If Justina Pelletier dies in the state’s care, that’s on the hands of Gov. Deval L. Patrick,” said Brian Camenker, founder and executor director of Mass Resistance, a Waltham-based pro-family action center, who filed H.D. 4212 with the state House in early April. If signed into law, the measure would release 15-year-old Justina to her parents Linda and Lou Pelletier who reside in West Hartford, Conn.”

Members of the family describe Justina, who was an athlete and competitive skater in declining health and in a wheel chair, he said. “I don’t have the medical evidence but some say she could die.”

Protest at State House in support of bill to free Justina


The demonstration for Justina outside of the State House.

On Tuesday, about two dozen people demonstrated outside of the Massachusetts State House to support Justina and demand the Legislature pass the bill to free her. They filled the outside steps with stuffed animals for Justina. Four Republican State Representatives who have been vocal on Justina’s behalf briefly came out and joined them in solidarity with their push to get the bill passed.


Over a hundred stuffed animals for Justina on the steps of the State House!

Republican State Reps (from left) Marc Lombardo, Jim Lyons, Shaunna O’Connell, and Geoff Diehl came out from the budget debates to show their support.

Justina’s sister talked about how Justina doesn’t even know that one of her pets has died because the State of Massachusetts’ DCF bureaucrats won’t allow the family to discuss anything with her that’s not approved by them.

Administration’s claim to media shows why the Legislature must act!

The email sent by Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary John Polanowicz to the Connecticut media includes a number of disputed claims about Justina’s health and well-being while in DCF custody. However, it reflects the Governor’s position that no matter how he says he “feels” about the situation, he intends to let the Juvenile Court decision stand.

Thus, barring a successful court action by the family’s attorneys, such as the recent habeas corpus filing, Justina is at the mercy of the Juvenile Court judge, and by extension the DCF bureaucracy. But this is no “normal” case by any measure. The judge’s actions in this case have been excoriated even by liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Besides a successful legal challenge there is only one other option: The Legislature can act to free Justina. But the Democratic leadership is bottling it up.

Continue pounding on the legislators to get this bill passed!

This week is being taken up by the budget deliberations in the Mass. House. But we’re not letting that stop us. Go to our Free Justina Action Page and keep the pressure up! (And to those in Massachusetts: If you are willing to go and lobby at the State House, let us know!)

Black Media Need Ownership—And Control

With the continued consolidation going on within the media (radio, TV, newspapers), there is never-ending debate over the issue of ownership and diversity. But how do you define ownership? Is ownership the issue or editorial control or both?

As members of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) like to remind me, Black media is by definition Black-owned and operated. The NNPA is composed of approximately 200 Black newspapers in the United States and the Virgin Islands. They have a combined readership of nearly 20 million and the organization also has a digital presence in BlackPressUSA.com, which enables newspapers to provide real time news and information to its national constituency.

There is no question that these newspapers are wholly owned and operated by Blacks, unlike media outlets such as The Grio, The Root, Essence magazine or Black Entertainment Television (BET). These outlets are merely White media masquerading as Black-owned media. The Grio is owned by NBC, The Root is owned by the Washington Post, Essence is owned by Time, Inc., and BET is owned by Viacom.

Each of these outlets is run by Black people who serve as the public face of their White-owned companies. Each of these outlet’s owners are all liberal and that seems to carry over into the work they produce.

So, with these corporate owners and their designated staffers from these Black outlets all being politically liberal, there seems to be no thought or interest in diversity of views. For the most part, Blacks crave to inclusion and then turn around and excluded those who do not agree with them politically.

The Black operators have effectively created a false narrative that they represent the views of the Black community. Nothing could be further from the truth. They represent the views of some of the Black community.

If you the Republican National Committee (RNC), it makes more sense to cultivate strong relationships and spend money with Black newspapers instead of those sickened by an identity crisis. The reason is quite simple.

Black newspapers are not beholden to white, corporate masters. Black newspaper owners are a better reflection of the true thinking within the Black community and their newspapers better reflect the full range of thinking within the Black community. Do you really think it is a coincidence that these Black outlets that are owned by white corporations are aggressively pushing a homosexual agenda or amnesty for illegals? This is in keeping with the agendas of these corporations.

You do not see these issues pushed within Black newspapers. Some individual owners may support these issues on a personal level, but it is rarely reflected in their newspapers. These corporations have invested in Black media outlets not to promote issues of relevance to the Black community, but to push an ideology and promote a cause, i.e., liberalism, homosexuality, amnesty.

Why is diversity of thoughts beneficial? Is diversity of ownership within media necessary?

What can we extrapolate from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) report that stated, “As of 2011, whites owned 69.4% of the nation’s 1,348 television stations? That’s up from 63.4% in 2009, when there were 1,187 stations.” The report continued, “While white ownership increased, most minority ownership decreased. Blacks went from owning 1% of all commercial TV stations in 2009 to just 0.7% in 2011. Asian ownership slipped from 0.8% in 2009 to 0.5% last year. Latino ownership increased slightly from 2.5% to 2.9.” “Females owned 6.8% of all commercial TV stations in 2011, compared to 5.6% in 2009.

The same report indicated that Whites own almost 80 percent of all AM and FM radio stations, with more than 70 percent owned by men.

So, I think ownership and diversity are Siamese twins; you can’t separate one from the other. Only when Blacks own their own media outlets can they control the message that comes out of their outlets. When Whites are masquerading as Black media, their goal is to push an agenda; and in the vast majority of cases, it is antithetical to the thinking in the real Black community. Black newspapers provide a variety of issues within the Black community, liberal and conservative. The philosophical diversity of their ownership is more diverse with Black newspapers than in all the other media combined (radio, TV).

So, if the RNC is trying to establish a dialogue and a relationship with the Black community and they are trying to maximize the effort; there is no question that Black newspapers, including their websites, provide the most bang – and authenticity – for the buck.

Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous Order in Culture by Troy Camplin

Literary Theory: An Anthology (ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan) is one of the foremost anthologies of literary theory. Among its sections is one titled “Political Criticism: From Marxism to Cultural Materialism.” With the exception of Hegel, all the authors are Marxists. This is the entirety of economic analysis in literature: Marxism. At least, it was.

Now there is Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous Order in Culture, which introduces Austrian economics to literary criticism. This anthology’s stated purpose—to “explore the possibility that forms of economic thinking sympathetic to capitalism may be able to illuminate our understanding of literature in new ways”—is not entirely without precedent, but Cantor and Cox’s book is distinct in its focus on one tradition of economic thought: Austrian economics.

In a pursuit as individualistic as writing, it may seem surprising that this is the first attempt to apply Austrian economics, with its methodological individualism, to literary production, while such anti-individualistic worldviews as Marxism have dominated. But if we understand that socialism is a top-down approach to economic organization, perhaps this is not so surprising. Authors engage in top-down organization whenever they write—so the application of this process to social processes seems, to many of them, logical. Even many experts in sociology or economics do not make the proper distinctions between top-down organizations and bottom-up orders, so why expect writers to do so?

The anthology authors’ use of methodological individualism does not mean they view the artist as an isolated genius. Their approach rather places writers in their historical-cultural contexts. Writers are influenced by the world they live in. There is feedback, which informs the writer and influences future works. The Austrian approach to economics views the individual as a social being, and so too the artist. It emphasizes the subjectivity of value, which Cantor observes should make it more attractive than the objective theory of Marxism, since literature is particularly focused on subjective experiences. Spontaneous-order theory helps us develop a better idea of how literary artists create works of art. From it we can develop a sociology of artistic production superior to what is possible through Marxist-informed theories.

Cantor devotes his introductory essay to “showing how . . . Hayek’s idea of spontaneous order can help to resolve one of the central dilemmas of literary theory, the conflict between the New Criticism and Deconstruction.” According to Cantor, New Criticism, one of the earliest literary theories developed in the twentieth century, argues that everything the author puts in his work is intentional and that the finished work is therefore “perfect.” In opposition to New Criticism, Cantor tells us, Deconstruction insists on the incoherence of literature and points out where authors have failed, left gaps, and conformed to their culture in various ways. That idea led to the corollary of the “death of the author,” that there was no such thing as an author who created exactly what he intended. With spontaneous-order theory, we can reject the idea of the author as being in perfect control of his work while also rejecting the death of the author and the lack of authorial intention to coordinate a large organization to achieve the goals he has set for it, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing.

While this book brings to light the way literature is produced by viewing literary production as a spontaneous order, it also provides a different approach to understanding the ways economics and economies are portrayed in literature. It investigates the economic views of authors such as Shelley, Wells, and Dickens. Marxist approaches have emphasized how authors have criticized the market economy; celebrations of it are ignored. In one chapter Cantor analyzes Percy Bysshe Shelley’s essay A Philosophical View of Reform, in which he discusses the problems with national debt—which Cantor uses to support the argument that Shelley was, contrary to previous literary scholarship, not a socialist.

In Cantor’s chapter on Thomas Mann’s short story “Disorder and Early Sorrow,” he discusses the problems of Weimar German hyperinflation and how it resulted in a degradation of all values. The Austrian understanding of the effects of monetary policy and the emphasis on subjective-value theory allow us to better understand this story.

Classical liberalism is not just a belief in a certain kind of political economy; it has implications for all of society, including culture, literature, and the fine arts. Literary analysis has been dominated by leftist scholars, but this insightful book gives libertarian scholars, particularly those influenced by Austrian economics, a foot in the door.

ABOUT TROY CAMPLIN

Troy Camplin is an independent scholar and the author of Diaphysics.

EDITORS NOTE: The features photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

To Read Well, a Noble Exercise: In Defense of Thoreau and Walden by Sarah Skwire

Gary North’s recent column on Thoreau’s Walden argues that Thoreau is a “literary scam artist” and that the book itself is a “masterpiece of fraud” that has been inflicted on countless students because of its political agenda. Perhaps in solidarity with those students, North’s column consists in large part of quotations from the Wikipedia page on Walden, followed by North’s responses. Throughout, North asserts that the Wikipedia page is a product of the “academic con-job known as literary criticism” and that it is “high-flying literary analysis.”

It would be, in other words, somewhat surprising if I (literary critic and frequent perpetrator of high-flying literary analysis) liked the piece. I don’t. I think North misreads Thoreau in almost every way possible.

North’s major arguments are as follows:

  1. Walden is anti-capitalist and pro-Green.
  2. Walden is a big fake.
  3. Walden is a badly written book that only has its reputation because it fits into the anti-capitalist/pro-Green agenda.

And all of these arguments are wrong.

But North is correct about one thing. He insists that he wants his readers to “read critically. Decide for yourself.” So, let us consider North’s arguments against Thoreau, read Thoreau critically, and then decide for ourselves. After all, Thoreau would want us to do the same.

To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will tax the reader more than any exercise which the customs of the day esteem. It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object. Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written.

Did Thoreau Hate Markets and Love Greens?

That Google gives me almost three million hits for a search on the terms “Thoreau” and “hipster” suggests, perhaps, some of what prompts North’s vitriol about what he sees as Walden’s anti-capitalist and pro-Green agenda. Thoreau’s image and writings have been used by the anti-market, anti-capitalist, and pro-Green crowd for generations. But Adam Smith’s writings have also been used to argue against markets. Hayek’s work has been accused of supporting fascism. The way that a writer’s work is used is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the work’s contents. For an accurate reflection, we need to, as Thoreau suggests, “read deliberately.”

We can begin, I think, by noting that Thoreau possesses a clear understanding of how markets work. Early on in Walden he recounts the story of a basket-seller he had observed in Concord.

Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. “Do you wish to buy any baskets?” he asked. “No, we do not want any,” was the reply. “What!” exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, “do you mean to starve us?” Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off—that the lawyer had only to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and standing followed—he had said to himself: I will go into business; I will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would be the white man’s to buy them. He had not discovered that it was necessary for him to make it worth the other’s while to buy them, or at least make him think that it was so, or to make something else which it would be worth his while to buy.

This is right out of any introductory economics or business textbook. It is not enough to have a product or a skill to sell. Someone must also want to buy it. Thoreau treats his writing the same way, and when he finds that he is not selling enough books to support himself in town through his writing, he moves out to the woods to weave his philosophical baskets and “avoid the necessity of selling them.” There is nothing wrong with the market here, and nothing wrong with being in business. But if you aren’t making a great success of yourself while pursuing your passion, you may need to choose between your passion and material success.

Indeed, much of Walden reminds an attentive reader of the classics of economics that are so important to friends of free markets. For example, there are echoes of Adam Smith’s concerns about possible problems with the division of labor in Thoreau’s question, “Where is this division of labor to end? and what object does it finally serve? No doubt another may also think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so to the exclusion of my thinking for myself.” And we can hear Adam Smith again, but also Addison and Steele’s Spectator, and Leonard Read’s I, Pencil, in Thoreau’s vision of peaceful commerce and the wonders of worldwide trade.

Commerce is unexpectedly confident and serene, alert, adventurous, and unwearied. It is very natural in its methods withal, far more so than many fantastic enterprises and sentimental experiments, and hence its singular success. I am refreshed and expanded when the freight train rattles past me, and I smell the stores which go dispensing their odors all the way from Long Wharf to Lake Champlain, reminding me of foreign parts, of coral reefs, and Indian oceans, and tropical climes, and the extent of the globe. I feel more like a citizen of the world at the sight of the palm-leaf which will cover so many flaxen New England heads the next summer, the Manilla hemp and cocoanut husks, the old junk, gunny bags, scrap iron, and rusty nails.

And with his praise of the bravery and stalwartness of the men who operate the railroads, Thoreau gives us as good a summation of McCloskey’s bourgeois virtues as one could hope to find.

What recommends commerce to me is its enterprise and bravery. It does not clasp its hands and pray to Jupiter. I see these men every day go about their business with more or less courage and content, doing more even than they suspect, and perchance better employed than they could have consciously devised . . . On this morning of the Great Snow, perchance, which is still raging and chilling men’s blood, I hear the muffled tone of their engine bell from out the fog bank of their chilled breath, which announces that the cars are coming, without long delay, notwithstanding the veto of a New England northeast snow-storm.

If this is anti-capitalism, let us have more of it.

As for the accusation that Walden is “pro-Green,” it is worth keeping in mind Thoreau’s enormous distrust and detestation of government and of political parties. This is, after all, the man who began his most famous essay by saying, “That government is best which governs not at all,” and who notes that government “does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” That he is used as a shill for a 21st-century political party would have horrified Thoreau, who said of similar co-optings, “If I had known how to name them, I should have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find a complete list.”

But, perhaps without appreciating their political action, Thoreau’s convictions about nature and humanity align with Green objectives? Perhaps not. Thoreau loves and respects the natural world, and is a precise and detailed observer of it. That much is certainly true. And he probably does like most animals and trees more than he likes most humans. But while Greens tend to view human society as a carbuncle on the face of nature, Thoreau sees humans and their activities as an integrated part of the natural world that is equally worthy of observation. “As I walked in the woods to see the birds and squirrels, so I walked in the village to see the men and boys.”

And, as Thoreau’s fondness for railroads—honorably limited by his concerns for the poor working conditions of those who construct them—suggests, he is no despiser of modern technology. Indeed, in thinking about building his house, he points out,

Though we are not so degenerate but that we might possibly live in a cave or a wigwam or wear skins today, it certainly is better to accept the advantages, though so dearly bought, which the invention and industry of mankind offer. In such a neighborhood as this, boards and shingles, lime and bricks, are cheaper and more easily obtained than suitable caves, or whole logs, or bark in sufficient quantities, or even well-tempered clay or flat stones. I speak understandingly on this subject, for I have made myself acquainted with it both theoretically and practically. With a little more wit we might use these materials so as to become richer than the richest now are, and make our civilization a blessing.

If this is the Green agenda, I am in favor of it.

Is Walden a Fake?

Having disposed of—or at least brought up some serious challenges to—the notion that Walden is anti-capitalist and pro-Green, it becomes fairly easy to ignore the claim that, because of Thoreau’s personal history, the anti-capitalist and pro-Green message of Walden make it a big fake. As the book has no such message, it cannot be a fake. But spending a little time thinking about Thoreau’s character might not be a bad idea in the face of such accusations.

Everyone knows that Thoreau made pencils. It’s a coincidence that North makes much of, that Leonard Read’s great work in praise of the market, I Pencil, is an examination of precisely that industry. Thoreau, in fact, saved his family’s pencil-making business through a variety of innovative engineering solutions that made “Thoreau pencils” a hotly demanded item that won two awards from the Mechanic Association. Is it a betrayal of that market success that Thoreau, assured of his family’s financial stability, then used the financial freedom gained from his success in the market to go and live as he liked? I cannot think that it is.

Had Thoreau engaged in anti-market propaganda, it might have been. But we have seen that he did not. Had Thoreau encouraged all the other young men in Concord, or New England, or America, to walk away from commerce, it might have been. But Thoreau is explicitly uninterested in telling others how to live.

I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account; for, beside that before he has fairly learned it I may have found out another for myself, I desire that there may be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father’s or his mother’s or his neighbor’s instead. The youth may build or plant or sail, only let him not be hindered from doing that which he tells me he would like to do.

Thoreau’s desire is to live as he likes, not to tell others that they must live as he likes.

So why, then, with his capacity for engineering and for business, does Thoreau head for the woods? First of all, he does it because he likes it. Second of all, he does it because he has a philosophical project in mind.

It would be some advantage to live a primitive and frontier life, even in the midst of an outward civilization, if only to learn what are the gross necessaries of life and what methods have been taken to obtain them; or even to look over the old day-books of the merchants, to see what it was that men most commonly bought at the stores, what they stored, that is, what are the grossest groceries. For the improvements of the ages have had but little influence on the essential laws of man’s existence: as our skeletons, probably, are not to be distinguished from those of our ancestors.

Thoreau wants to find out what the most basic requirements of human life are and to discover what humans are like when they strip away extraneous things. He also wants to write about it. And he wants to devote as much time to writing and thinking, and as little time to everything else, as he possibly can. So he heads to the woods.

Thoreau’s desire to focus on his writing goes a long way to explain his complicated feelings about solitude. Those who want to poke holes in Thoreau love to point out that his great experiment with solitude involved living only two miles from home, one mile from his nearest neighbor, and rather a lot of company. Thoreau doesn’t try to conceal any of that in Walden. Indeed, his chapter “Solitude” discusses all of these things, as well as his proximity to the railroad. But it’s not physical distance and solitude he is seeking. It is the ability “to be alone the greater part of the time” because “a man thinking or working is always alone, let him be where he is.” He wants to use solitude as an opportunity to focus his thinking and to work on his writing, but also as a tool to enhance his appreciation for company when he has it. “Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other.” Thoreau had three chairs in his cabin at Walden for the express purpose of having company. He never intended to be an hermit. Those who fault him because he wasn’t one misunderstand his project.

It is worth noting, as well, that one of the reasons Thoreau wanted to select his own society, then shut the door, is a moral one. He abhorred living in a society that tolerated slavery.

One afternoon, near the end of the first summer, when I went to the village to get a shoe from the cobbler’s, I was seized and put into jail, because, as I have elsewhere related, I did not pay a tax to, or recognize the authority of, the State which buys and sells men, women, and children, like cattle, at the door of its senate-house. I had gone down to the woods for other purposes. But, wherever a man goes, men will pursue and paw him with their dirty institutions, and, if they can, constrain him to belong to their desperate odd-fellow society.

The last moral accusation leveled by those who claim that Walden is a fake and Thoreau is a fraud is that Thoreau left Walden Pond and returned to Concord after a mere 26 months. Again, Thoreau makes no attempt to hide this fact. He mentions the length of his stay at Walden Pond in the first paragraph ofWalden. And he explains in the book’s conclusion that his departure is purposeful. “I left the wood for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one.” His project was done. He had finished writing A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers, drafted Walden, and was ready to move on to other things. This is not a failed project. It is a completed one.

If this is fakery, we can no longer recognize truth.

Is Walden a Badly Written Book That Only Has Its Reputation Because of Its Politics?

I have quoted extensively from Walden already and am confident that those quotations will serve as a rebuttal to accusations that Thoreau is a bad writer. Literary tastes can vary, and even the greatest of Thoreau’s admirers will agree that sometimes his transcendental raptures can be a bit hard to take. I think Thoreau is a brilliant writer. Not everyone agrees. That’s art for you.

More importantly, though, I think that we must consider the possibility that Walden has its reputation because many who teach it choose to ignore its politics, which are strongly libertarian and even anarchist. Consider, for example, Thoreau’s insistence that “a simple and independent mind does not toil at the bidding of any prince.” There is also his distrust of the “do-gooder busy-body:”

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me—some of its virus mingled with my blood. No—in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way.

and his distrust of the efficacy of aid in general:

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. It is the pious slave-breeder devoting the proceeds of every tenth slave to buy a Sunday’s liberty for the rest.

and his support of practical wisdom and financial responsibility:

Even the poor student studies and is taught only political economy, while that economy of living which is synonymous with philosophy is not even sincerely professed in our colleges. The consequence is, that while he is reading Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Say, he runs his father in debt irretrievably.

and his respect for the individual:

Individuals, like nations, must have suitable broad and natural boundaries, even a considerable neutral ground, between them.

If this is the politics that will give a book a lifespan of 160 years, with no sign of flagging yet, we should be celebrating. If Walden is being so badly taught, both by those who don’t like its politics and by those who should, that no one realizes how important it should be for lovers of liberty, then let us acknowledge that our problem is not Thoreau. It is us.

20121127_sarahskwireABOUT SARAH SKWIRE

Sarah Skwire is a fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Florida: ACLU & Mosque President advocate Revolution via Child Indoctrination in Public Schools

Controversy in Volusia County over Islamic bias in the textbook “History Alive” sparked a lively debate at ACLU of FL Volusia/Flagler Chapter where ACT for America – Jacksonville Chapter captured ACLU advocating Sharia Finance, Child Indoctrination and the local Mosque president advocating a BLOODLESS REVOLUTION via public school indoctrination, as well as stating the US Law was based on Islamic Law as Thomas Jefferson used the Quran as his basis for the pursuit of happiness… or drafting the Constitution in essence.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/gkZcOpgb7mQ[/youtube]

 

RELATED STORIES: 

HS Students Say Pledge In Arabic: ‘One Nation Under Allah’
UK: Leader of Muslim school takeover plot wrote detailed blueprint for Islamization of secular schools

Pope Francis orders Catholics to violate the Tenth Commandment?

On April 28, 2014 Pope Francis Tweeted: “Inequality is the root of social evil.” It appears Pope Francis is asking all Catholics to “covet the money” of those who have it in the name of “equality.” Is Pope Francis re-stating, in his Tweet, what Karl Marx wrote – “From each according to his ability to each according to his need?”

On November 24th, 2013 Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium : Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World wrote:

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule. [Emphasis added]

Gary M. Galles in his column For the Love of Money writes, “To do things for money is nothing more than to advance what we care about. In markets, we do for others as an indirect way of doing for ourselves.” Perhaps Pope Francis has forgotten the Tenth Commandment (cf Ex 20: 2-17):

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house;
you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,
or his manservant, or his maidservant,
or his ox, or his ass,
or anything that is your neighbor’s.

Julian Adorney writes, “In A Dynamic Analysis of Economic Freedom and Income Inequality in the 50 States: Empirical Evidence of a Parabolic Relationship, Daniel L. Bennett and Richard K. Vedder argue that, past a certain point, economic freedom decreases inequality. Increasing economic freedom benefits the poor and middle class more than it helps the wealthy.”

Adorney notes:

The Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) Annual Report, published by the Fraser Institute, analyzes around 150 countries in terms of factors like their economic freedom, closeness to a laissez-faire state, poverty levels, and per capita income. The results are a striking indictment of the idea that more government intervention in the economy can help the poor.

As EFW points out, the shares of a country’s GDP going to the bottom 10 percent are pretty consistent regardless of how free the country is. From communist states to progressive countries to almost laissez-faire societies, the poorest 10 percent of citizens receive about 2.5 percent of the country’s wealth. No amount of progressive policies has changed that number. But for the poor, life is still much better in an economically free country than in one with more government. More economically free countries have more wealth than less free ones, meaning the poorest 10 percent can end up with thousands of dollars more per year. The poorest citizens of the 25 percent most-free countries earn an average of $10,556 per year. The poorest citizens in the middle 50 percent of countries earn less than a third of that.

Max Borders, Editor of the Freeman writes:

When we hear people fretting about inequality, we should ask ourselves: Are they genuinely concerned for the poor or are they indignant about the rich? Here’s how to tell the difference: Whenever someone grumbles about “the gap,” ask her if she’d be willing for the rich to be even richer if it meant improved conditions for the absolute poorest among us. If she says “no,” she’s admitting that her concern is really with what the wealthy have, not what the poor lack. If her answer is “yes,” then the so-called “gap” is irrelevant. You can then go on to talk about legitimate concerns, like how best to improve the conditions of the poor without paying them to be wards of the State. In other words, the meaningful conversation we should be having is about absolute poverty, not relative poverty.

In so many of the discussions about income inequality, there is a basic emotional dynamic at work. Someone sees they have less than another, and they feel envious. Perhaps they see they have more than another, and they feel guilty. Or they see that someone has more than someone else, and they feel indignation. Envy, guilt, and indignation. Are these the kinds of emotions that should drive social policy? When we begin to understand the origins of wealth—honest entrepreneurs and stewards of capital in an inherently unequal ecosystem—we can learn to leave our more primitive emotions behind.

Is Pope Francis succumbing to envy? Is the Pontiff showing an emotional dynamic? Is Francis asking all Catholics to violate the Tenth Commandment? Is Francis confusing money with economic freedom?

Holocaust Memorial Day and the Pathetic Palestinians

AA - Palestinians

Children waving PLO banner.

“The demands, conditions, stipulations, and decisions pouring out of Mahmoud Abbas’s office in the last month or so have persuaded everyone concerned that the Palestinian’s mind is in a total muddle,” opined an April 24 Israeli-based news-wire Debka File. It reported that Israel’s Prime Minister, Binjamin Netanyahu, had broken off peace talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA), also known as Fatah, after Abbas, its leader, had announced Fatah would unite with Hamas, another Palestinian group with which it had been at odds since 2007.

Confusing? You’re not alone. As Debka File put it, “No one in Jerusalem or Washington can figure out what he wants. And even his closest aides believe that he doesn’t know his own mind and are afraid of what he may dream up next.”

As Israel commemorates Holocaust Remembrance Day which began at sundown on Sunday, Abbas grabbed international headlines by declaring that the Holocaust was the “most heinous” modern crime, but seemed to equate what happened to Europe’s Jews during World War II with Palestinians today who, he said, “suffer from injustice, oppression, and are denied freedom and peace…” The fact that they and the Arab League have refused for over six decades to accept Israel’s right to exist went unmentioned. Now that’s chutzpah!

“In Gaza City, meanwhile,” reported Debka File, “his Fatah and the rival Hamas celebrated their umpteenth unity pack in nine years, although not a single clause of any of the foregoing documents was ever implemented.”

If the Palestinians as a whole and the two organizations that self-identify as representing them seem unable to function in a rational fashion, that is a fair conclusion.

This is what the Israelis have been dealing with before and ever since Yasser Arafat created the Palestinian Authority in 1959 directing it until his death in 2004. Its original purpose was the destruction of Israel, but Arafat modified that on occasion to give the impression of legitimacy and to seek ways to return Israel to its original borders in 1948 and later 1964. In 1987 he launched a prolonged Palestinian uprising known as the Intifada, killing many Israelis. And you wonder why Israel has built high walls and fences in some areas?

Hamas is closer to Arafat’s original goal, having been openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel since its formation in 1987 during the Intifada. It is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and has controlled Gaza since June 2007, having forcibly driven out Fatah representatives. It has been deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. since 1997, as does the European Union, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, but not by Iran, Turkey, and China. In 2005 Israel turned over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians as a gesture of peace which has been rewarded by constant rocketing launched from there ever since.

Sarah Stern, the founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) said on April 25 that “Since September 13, 1993, the Palestinian Authority has been playing a double, duplicitous and highly dangerous game of ‘good cop/bad cop.’ While the Palestinian Authority ended their diplomatic isolation in the community of nations by signings Oslo, Wye, the Roadmap for Middle East Peace, and all subsequent agreements, they have used their enhanced diplomatic status to wage a nonphysical war against Israel through systematic campaigns of distortion and dehumanization of Israel and the Jew in the international court of public opinion.”

EMET condemned the Palestinian Authority for supporting terrorism against Israel “regularly applauding suicide bombers and calling on children to become martyrs…it is time to stop giving American’s taxpayer dollars, to the tune of more than $600 million a year, to the PA.”

One has to ask why Secretary of State John Kerry has wasted months trying to secure peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel when the former has never demonstrated any real effort to engage in peace beyond the formalities of treaties it has routinely ignored. The announcement that it would join with Hamas is testimony to its dedication to destroying Israel in its quest to declare control of the disputed area. Since 1948, Israel has been a sovereign state. All previous efforts by the U.S. have ended in failure.

Lately, the PA, designated a United Nations “observer”, has been applying for membership to 15 UN bodies. The UN has demonstrated its support for the PA for years, even annually celebrating a day devoted to the Palestinian “refugees”, the oldest such “refugee” group in history, due in large part by the refusal of Arab nations to extend citizenship to them. The UN has maintained UNRWA, its Relief and Works Agency, since 1948 when Israel was attacked and defeated its neighbors. In subsequent wars it expanded its borders to include the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

If the Fatah-Hamas unity effort is successful, it will further isolate the Palestinians who have few, if any, friends left in the Middle East and it renders the United Nations, presumably devoted to peace, as pathetic as the Palestinians.

The restraint that the Israelis have demonstrated over the past 66 years has been quite extraordinary. They are not, however, going to accept several generations of Palestinians to “return” into their nation where many have never lived since 1948.

The Palestinians have not given Israel any reason to have any confidence in what they say publicly for world consumption and the latest “unity” announcement at least confirms their bad intentions. In addition to Hamas, the Iranian pawn, Hezbollah, composed largely of Palestinians, gives Israel even less reason to regard them as anything than enemies.

And while this goes on, the Israelis must make plans to respond to the failure of the U.S. effort to get Iran to stop enriching uranium to make their own nuclear weapons. When it is declared dead, they will have no other option than to attack Iranian facilities.

© Alan Caruba, 2014