Category: Uncategorized

“The first panacea for a mismanaged country is monetary inflation, the second one is war.” Ernest Hemingway

In a recent news conference, President Biden lashed out at reporters who questioned his huge spending policies as being inflationary. In a furious fit he said “I’m sick of this stuff!” and then proceeded to lecture them, and apparently all Americans, for thinking that way, saying that such policies actually reduce inflation. Now if such drivel came from some low level bureaucratic hack it would not have gone viral, but coming from the President and also the Speaker of the House it did; it came off as moronic, perhaps even delusional, but certainly a political blunder.

I’m no fan of the Republican Party as they have done their own share of harm through this insidious practice of inflation, but we can understand why they will make the most of this ignorance, or delusion, or perhaps both. Hard to understand in any case as even the darling of economic interventionists, John Maynard Keynes, observed that “By a continuous process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” Thanks to information technology we are witnesses to actual testimony by the Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, so not “secretly and unobserved” any longer.

Powell no longer parrots the transitory narrative, but now sees the risk of “persistently higher inflation”. The flip/flop followed his confirmation as Biden’s choice for the next four year term; timing is important when you’re “data driven” so Powell morphed from inflation denier to inflation fighter. So too did Janet Yellen have to eat crow as she was worked over by congressional committees for not only supporting the transitory narrative, but seeing inflation as a benefit. What this did is expose the Biden administration to its untenable fiscal justifications, supported by monetary expansion and accommodation, for the massive spending for the green and social spending plans. As interests rates will inevitably rise, some seven hikes of at least 25BP each currently predicted, the already occult like calculus supporting such largess just doesn’t compute, even to the party faithful. With his support so undercut by reality, Biden’s frustration resolved to mindless fury.

Although an alcoholic, Hemingway curiously didn’t drink while working, maintaining that he couldn’t deal with both pleasures simultaneously. He was known for a keen insight, both in how to make a good martini and how people behaved, except of course as it involved himself. Keeping with Papa Hemingway’s observation, the second panacea of a mismanaged country is war, and we have had an awful lot of such mismanagement in our history. We are now faced with another managerial crisis with Ukraine.

I have written before about how I feel about the US getting involved with another adventure in interventionism, but the new question is will Biden be the last president to do so? I say last because if there is to be the big number three, oblivion will make Biden the last in the pantheon of fools to finally bring the end to all wars, and with it the human race.  In the past it was Europe who brought America into their endless fights, but despite Biden’s rhetoric about unity with our allies, Europe wants no part of a Ukraine in NATO, the EU, or as a contributor to their already bloated immigration populations. They support neither a no-fly zone nor an energy sanction; the former requires their participation in military enforcement, the later their economic suicide.

While I abhor inflation and war, I would rather deal with ignorance than delusion; at least with ignorance we can hope for enlightenment, but with delusion irrational thoughts and beliefs become so fixed that nothing, including evidence to the contrary, can convince people that what they think or feel is not true. I sincerely hope that the current administration is more ignorant than delusional.

“History doesn’t repeat itself, it just rhymes.”  Mark Twain

As we all learned in school the event that started WWII was Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. What was seldom mentioned is that a few weeks later Russia also invaded Poland. Russia said it had to come to the aid of its Ukrainian and Byelorussian countrymen at risk in lands illegally occupied by Poland; propaganda that is still used today.

Throughout the early 1950’s, various Eastern European countries were in political turmoil bordering on revolt against Russian hegemony in the region, Poland and Hungry chief amongst them. With Stalin’s death in 1953, Russia undertook a patriarchal posture toward its socialist allies in the region, leading to the formation of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.

However, the people in Hungry wanted more than patronizing good will from the Bear on their border. In the Hungarian Peoples Republic the situation became an outright insurrection against the Russian backed government, known as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Russia repeatedly stated that it had no intention of invading Hungry, which of course is exactly what it did and within a few weeks the revolution was over, and a Russian backed government back in control.

Then we have Czechoslovakia in 1968 with the reformist movements known as the Prague Spring. Again, promising that it had no intentions of taking military actions to bring the wayward child back in the fold, Russia held military exercises for the Warsaw Pact nations, which of course became the invading force that ended the Prague Spring.

Then there was the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. This was off script, not part of the series as it was not a country that Russia had as part of the Soviet Empire with a puppet government in place. Its reason was to support a fellow socialist country during an insurrection, i.e. an ideological intervention; this should sound familiar to America, we’ve made that mistake plenty of times. After ten years of fighting in a tribal region with no one really ever representing a government to control, Russia left with thousands of its soldiers buried there; lessons learned, don’t go off script.

Another failure was with the Solidarity movement that started in 1980 in Poland. While not an outright invasion, Russia controlled and led the Polish government in a decades’ long repression which, thanks to the shrewd manipulations of both the Reagan administration and the Vatican, ultimately failed, and was one of the main factors in the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991. Russia did not follow their own script again and that episode flopped badly.

So back on script we have the 1994 invasion of Chechnya and the 2008 invasion of Georgia, all with the same old propaganda, but these sequels played a little stale internationally by that point. The West believed it had won the Cold War and was preoccupied with the Near East with its own troublesome invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today we have another sequel back on script to this movie series in Ukraine; with similar players from central casting in Moscow, we have the Putin episode. Here we had even more warning signs from 2014 in Crimea, the years’ long infiltrations of the Donbas, the massing of 150k Russian troops along the borders, yet still, as before, the West expresses surprise, dismay and outrage that Russia did what it has always done. You can change the name, the flag, the leadership and the times, but the Bear has not changed its nature.

In 1945 we have the UN, and in 1949 we have NATO; none of these organizations has had much success with the Bear, so why do we now hear the leaders of the West clamoring for ever more sanctions, which will not only do nothing to change Russian aggression, but economically hurts its own citizens at a time when they can least afford it? Do we really think that hitting the pocketbooks of the oligarchs will incite them against Putin? We need to understand that it was Putin who created the oligarchs, not the other way around.

US politicians express disgust with Russia’s wanton acts killing Ukrainian civilians, but where was their outrage with the US doing the same in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention our support and supply of weapons for the Saudi genocide in Yemen?  These same virtue signaling leaders think that sending arms to Ukraine will change the outcome; sadly it will not and the military leaders in NATO know that. In fact, it provides Putin reasons to show the Russian people how much the West is their enemy, i.e. the friend of our enemy is our enemy. Those in Russia who think otherwise get the gulag, or worse.

We all should have a deep respect and admiration for the Ukrainian leaders and people who have resisted an overwhelming force so valiantly. However, we must understand that their future lies in the future as the present will have the inevitable but hopefully temporary outcome, unless of course Putin changes his mind and decides the price is too high; doubtful, but anything can happen.

In the meantime, the one thing that must not happen is for the NATO to go out of its own treaty and decide to escalate to a direct confrontation; that will lead to everyone losing because the Bear will go nuclear, and on that we can be sure. Ultimately, Putin will fail, but not due to anything that the West has done. It will come from the Russian people, the vast majority of whom are desperately poor thanks to the greed of the Putin regime and his oligarchs who have plundered their own nation. We must hope that having nothing to lose, they will seek to have everything to gain and rid themselves, not only of Putin, but an historical script of failed tyranny that needs to come to an end.

“When you get into trouble five thousand miles from home you’ve got to have been looking for it.” Will Rogers

Will Rogers is one of America’s most iconic figures; what he did most famously was simply to observe and comment, without rancor, but with perception and an uncanny wit. He spoke out against America ever getting involved again in conflicts like the Great War, cautioning us to avoid entanglements in foreign interventions.

It is clear that Russia will invade Ukraine; it’s not a question of if but when. It is also clear that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress favor some kind of action against Russia should they invade. As previously discussed, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, nor are there any treaties extant that involve the US in anything having to do with Ukraine. Even if Ukraine were a member of NATO, the US excluded from its signing of the NATO Treaty any military action without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war; unfortunately that has not stopped some presidents from violating that, and we can only hope this is not another occasion.

There exists no territorial or security threat to the US should Russia invade Ukraine. Please note that in my 12/10/21 post “Meddler”, I wrote “….Ukraine, which has been a part of Russia for nearly 200 years, from 1793 to 1991.” Thankfully a reader advised me that this was incorrect as first we have the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav, the 1667 Treaty of Andrusovo and then the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686, all of which involved the end of conflicts over Ukraine between Poland and Russia. While there are many complications and subsequent conflicts with those treaties, the essence is that Ukraine has been a part of Russia for more than 300 years, longer than the US has even existed.

This is not said as a justification for Russian aggression as clearly Putin’s intentions are to have Ukraine back as part of Russia by any means necessary; it is said against American intervention of any kind as this is not our fight, and any action on our part is a violation of our principles against intervention in the affairs of other nations. If we were to intervene in what is solely a European affair, it would be yet another example of hypocrisy, and Biden would be added to the list of presidents that acted unconstitutionally in regards to intervention.

However, that is exactly what he and his administration appear to be doing.  We had about 70K troops in all of Europe prior to the recent Russian buildup along the Ukrainian border.  Late last year we put about 8.5K troops on alert for deployment to eastern NATO areas, and just yesterday another 2K. Do we really think that this is a deterrent to Russia’s plans to take over Ukraine? The Joint Chiefs of Staff have estimated that Russia has about 130K troops along Ukraine’s border; putting so few of our soldiers in that area is like putting canaries in a coal mine. You do not play chicken with a gambler that has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. Militarily, if you want a deterrent you ante up, but understand that if Putin calls your hand you will have the US in another European war.

So assume that the deterrent doesn’t work and Russia takes back Ukraine. Unless you want war with Russia, which hopefully is not Biden’s play, you are left with the threatened sanctions. How lame to threaten the Tsar with something that means nothing to him. All Putin has to do is put his hand on the gas valves that Europe lives on and NATO blinks, and you stand alone; add this to the administration’s embarrassing missteps.

While we have countless conferences between the EU, US and Russia, all we get is diplomatic jargon, threats, accusations, and heightened tensions among all parties. Will Rogers once observed that “Every war has been preceded by a peace conference. That’s what always starts the next war.” The best thing for the US to do is simply say to our European allies that this is their sphere of security and concern; they need to decide what is in their best interests and act accordingly. It’s long past a reasonable time for the US to have a military presence in Europe so they need to provide for their own security. If Ukraine represents their line in the sand, they need to divorce their reliance on Russian energy to avoid territorial blackmail. Alternatively, they need to live with what Russia wants back and move on.  

What can Americans do in order to avoid involvement in another Great War, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? Newsweek reported today that only 15.3% of Americans would support US military intervention in Ukraine, and only 31.1% would even support military aid. Benjamin Franklin famously described that “War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is.  Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.” Perhaps there’s hope as the latest poll shows a revolution among Americans away from such disastrous policies. 

“What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

In a recent Biden press conference he spoke about his choice for a nomination of a justice to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer, and that his choice would be limited to a black woman. In making the criteria for selecting a candidate based on both race and gender, the President of the United States acted so contrary to the principles he is supposed to uphold that all his pompous words about his respect for the constitution rang hollow compared to his actions.

While it was expected that Biden would nominate someone aligned with his party, it is unacceptable for anyone to construct such exclusionary criteria that is both sexist and racist. Add to this that although Stephen Breyer had made clear over the last year that, despite the Democratic establishment’s inappropriate pressure for him to retire, he had no intention of doing so.  Yet they persisted on the partisan reasoning that given his age there was the possibility of his retirement or passing while a Republican was president, Biden needed to make his mark on the court; apparently that pressure became irresistible and as it was based on Breyer’s age, also discriminatory. Further, consider Biden’s and his party’s threats to pack the court because it was out-of-touch with where society needed it to be, despite the principle of the separation of powers isolating the Supreme Court from any such consideration save constitutional jurisprudence.

There are many definitions given to hypocrisy depending on how many dictionaries you have, but essentially what they all come down to is the act of claiming to have moral standards to which one’s actions do not conform. With all the virtue signaling that we are constantly bombarded with in mass and social media, the contradictions are the one consistency we can find. Biden’s extraordinary action to exclude all others who do not meet a racial or gender qualification is not the only example of hypocrisy we can find in the polity of American society today, but it is one of the most egregious given his position as our president and his professed belief in our civil rights. However, there is a consistency in his hypocrisy when you recall his statement during a campaign interview on radio when he said “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Racism is not limited as a partisan trait, and neither is hypocrisy.

“It’s funny. All you have to do is say something nobody understands and they’ll do practically anything you want them to.” J.D. Salinger

The media coverage of the recent memorialization of the January 6^th riots at the Capitol provided a lot of commentary, much of which was a very confused collection of terms and interpretations. The main issue that I found was the lack of differentiation between a riot and an insurrection. Regardless of the political partisanship of the various commentators, all seemed to have one thing in common, and that was to say things nobody could understand in order to get their particular group to believe whatever that was; amazingly, and sadly tragic, that really does seem to work.

A look at American history and simple word definitions can help clear up some of that gibberish, together with listening to what was said on the day this horrible event occurred.  Let’s start with what President Trump said to the crowd at the rally that led to the violence. Now keep in mind that his supporters have used such ridiculous descriptions of what followed his speech as an “unscheduled tour” or a “peaceful protest”; we shouldn’t dismiss such obviously absurd statements without understanding similar stuff from those that criticize Trump and his followers deeming that riot as an insurrection, an attack on democracy, or an existential threat to our constitution; none of these factually or accurately define this event.

Trump’s speech was inciting to riot, a fact that your ears could tell you just listening to it. The fact that he called upon the crowd to go to the Capitol to prevent the constitutional process of electoral confirmation is clearly an attempt to cause a riot by urging other people to commit acts of violence; the results showed he was successful as regards the riot, unsuccessful in preventing the electoral confirmation. The question arises as to whether or not his actions also constituted sedition, and even further, insurrection.

An element involving both sedition and insurrection is conspiracy. It is obvious given the recent Congressional committee’s subpoenas that they are looking for evidence of conspiracy; while many documents have been obtained, such evidence has so far eluded them. Those that they have subpoenaed for testimony have either refused or agreed to do so but only under the protection of executive privilege. This later condition has been challenged as only applying to the President, but countered with the argument that it would be impossible for it not to extend to those that the President confides in or there would be no point in it; resolution to be determined, likely in time by the Supreme Court.

According to the statutory definition of sedition “It is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States to take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.” There’s that conspiracy thing that the committee would so want to have proof of. What becomes a little vague then is when does sedition become an insurrection, or is there a difference at all? Apparently there’s no hard and fast rule for that; we can consider both Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, both of which were technically insurrections, or if you wish “rebellions”, and both of which actually achieved their goals against debtor prosecutions and taxes, leading to the constitutional convention due to the former, and the founding of the original Republican Party with the later.

Then of course we have the ultimate insurrection of American history which we call the Civil War. As this blog has discussed before, technically and as recorded during the Convention, the Constitution by design has no prohibition against secession. What we know is that contrary to Lincoln’s actual statements regarding slavery, the Confederate States seceded on the premise that he would end it. If they simply stopped at that point, Lincoln would have been left with no legal basis for war against secession; however, in declaring themselves a sovereign nation, the Confederacy committed an act of war by attacking Fort Sumter.  

From its inception, insurrection is an integral part of American history and its political DNA. However, in all three of the above examples we have the element of “conspiracy” in that two or more people planned and executed an organized armed rebellion against established governments to achieve a specific goal. So in addition to conspiracy, we find a plan to organize and execute armed rebellion. In the case of January 6^th, should evidence be found that further to sedition, we have an organized armed rebellion, the goal was already stated at the rally where Trump incited the riot, i.e. prevent the Congressional confirmation of the electoral process.

Now if we look at all the video footage of that day, we can’t say that we see anything approaching a planned and organized armed rebellion. What we have is a bunch of crazed rioters breaking windows and doors, trespassing, vandalizing, assaulting guards, and in general acting moronically at the behest of a narcissistic loser. Since then, we have various reports of his family, friends and staff urging him to ask his crazed followers to desist, which he only did some three hours later, and at no time called in help for the police and guards to remove the rioters.

While we to this day still have to wait to see if any evidence can be found that supports sedition and insurrection, the House elected on January 13, 2021 Articles of Impeachment, charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection”. That’s a very confusing charge, something akin to the cart before the horse. Predictably given the lack of votes in the Senate, there was no conviction on that charge; however, putting aside the obvious partisan outcome, the charge actually provided cover for acquittal. I am left wondering why he was not charged for inciting to riot, which alone would constitute a felony charge and, by his own words, evidence of guilt and eliminate him from ever running for elected office again. Why such a repeated bungling like Trump’s first impeachment when in fact the House is mostly composed of representatives who are lawyers is confusing.

What the country really needs is to close the book on Trump, but apparently neither political party has an interest in that. The GOP shamefully continues his leadership while the Democrats bungle their attempts to convict him. It almost seems like both parties find him a useful foil to use in the upcoming mid-term elections; this will not serve the interests of the Republic, its constitution and the liberty of the people, but only the power lust of our two major political parties. Is that confusing? Yes, it is, but then again you’re only confused if you’re paying attention.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Mark Twain

We can all remember those times in school when we would get distracted, not really paying attention. Paying attention is a vital part of learning and in understanding what is actually going on. It doesn’t always mean what you are being told is true, or in the case of the media even accurate. The most important thing that defines a good education is that you learned how to think for yourself, the skill of critical thinking; if you have that you are capable of arriving at concepts empirically without some robotic acceptance of someone else’s theories; in life, one needs to be a good detective to find what is true, and just as important, what is not.

Having that skill will enable you to come to your own conclusions and having the means to change them when additional facts provide you better information. However, having that skill will not insulate you from those that don’t. When presented with statements that you find wrong and question them, but receive arguments that are irrational or factually wrong, you can still have a civil discourse provided the other party is acting in good faith.  However, if the arguments are based on a claim of expertise, greater good, superior education, virtue or vision, or otherwise dismissive, then the other party is not acting in good faith; it’s not about the merits of their position, but their egos. What you learn from people like that is that they’re narcissistic and can only listen to their own voice, a trait honed by years of experience.

The attitude that the public in general is way too stupid or uneducated to understand what is best for them usually means you’re dealing with partisanship, an elitist attitude, or as often is the case, a politician. When it involves politicians, it is easier to understand the pattern of crises we have had, especially ever since the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, with wars and economic chaos, much of it self-inflicted wounds; as Congressman Ron Paul once observed “It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” Throughout history, such leaders are attracted to war as the ultimate ego trip; they all wanted to be a wartime President. There is much truth in Isaac Asimov’s observation that “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

War is expensive, and financing it through taxation would cause opposition; the easier way is to monetize debt, but to do so would require the tools of central banking. Please see my post entitled “Remember Hyde” of 09/25/20 regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve. This same process that supports the “Warfare State” also serves well for the “Welfare State”. Over the last century we can see the evolution of the US from a nation of production to what Murray Rothbard described: “The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively ‘peaceful’ the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.” Taken together, as is historically the case, the synergy between the “Warfare State” and the “Welfare State” will eventually impoverish a nation with a voracious appetite for its wealth.

Biden ran for President on the proposition that he would heal the polarizing divisiveness and end the chaos that Trump created. He promised to bring bipartisanship back to Congress, but instead has had to manage the divisiveness within his own party created by the personalities and agendas as conflicting as that in the Republican Party. We have Sanders and Manchin as clear examples of the enormous divide among the Democrats as we have Trump and Romney in the Republican Party. This political pandemonium may well result in the fracturing of both major parties, and maybe that’s a good thing given that the Biden administration set out a series of policies requiring the most expansive programs in US history, and at a time when we’re recovering from a pandemic and bringing our economy out of a devastating lockdown; coupled with a crushing debt already exceeding $29T, such policies seemed like the rantings of fools. To be told that this would all be paid for without raising taxes, except of course on those evil rich people, had Americans wondering why they were being treated like idiots; we’ve seen this movie before.

At the same time, the Fed proceeds with a QE so expansive that the one from the Financial Crisis of 2008 appears hawkish by comparison; add to that the UST expanding the currency by 348%, and you have the witches brew for serious inflation. Contrarily, the administration downplays inflation as transitory, a phrase recently abandoned even by the sycophants at the Fed. Senator Warren tells us that inflation is merely businesses price gauging. The President’s staff attempts to set up Senator Manchin as having agreed to the grotesque socialism of the “Build Back Better” plan, which he has repeatedly and publicly stated he doesn’t support. Secretary Buttigieg of Transportation holds a press conference to explain how drastic government spending will result in greater production and not add to an already crushing debt.  Chairman Powell reverses course on monetary accommodation but continues to delay tapering or raising interest rates. President Biden continues rattling sabers in Putin’s and Xi’s face over issues that are neither a territorial nor security concern of the US. Illegal immigration has reached the highest level in US history. The President issues mandates like a king would edicts, ignoring the very constitution he is sworn to uphold; if he really had a good idea, he wouldn’t need a mandate to begin with.

Biden’s approval rating over the last year has declined dramatically, and continues to do so as inflation erodes real wage growth, now down 1.9% from 2020, and inflation 8%, contrary to what the administration predicted, and this despite all the “free” stuff government provided. Any intelligent person knows that there is no such thing as free; someone’s got to pay, and that someone, in some way, shape or form, is the US taxpayer. While we await a new tax bill, where does all that free stuff come from? It comes from the most insidious tax there is, known as inflation. Surprisingly it is a few members of Biden’s own party that thankfully stand in the way of making matters even worse with the passage of “BBB”, but for how long?

The administration’s accounting gimmicks to make the programs appear less costly are so obviously deceptive that even politicians find it hard to disguise or ignore. Regardless, it’s likely that the administration will take a phased approach in the coming years by including various elements of BBB as part of other legislations, a political sleight of hand meant to deflect attention.  This seems to work well as it has been shown that most in Congress fail to even read a bill’s text. Many say that trick has a time limit as the November 2022 midterm elections are likely to cost the Democrats control of the House or Senate, maybe both. Of course, that assumes that Republicans will be better caretakers of our tax money than Democrats; don’t bet on it.

Both parties when in office have shown the ability to use a crisis as an excuse to expand and retain power through financial gimmicks and economic manipulations, and ended up with a nation the poorer for it. While the public responds to polls on approval ratings, including how the president is “managing the economy”, it ignores the essential question as to why we assume that government should be doing so to begin with, especially given the horrific results of that over the last century. The same holds true with foreign policy, which has devolved from a congressional to a presidential power, more often resulting in violence than diplomacy, and usually against the wrong parties, squandering the lives of many and the resources of our nation.

We now have an administration in a similar chaos as before, and at a most dangerous time. The planners have changed, but the plans remain the same, just wrapped in different language in order to deflect or even conceal the truth, what we should call propaganda. What Americans need now more than ever is critical thinking.  We need to understand that due to these failed policies over such a long period of time, the Fed and the UST have painted themselves into a corner; if they end “accommodation” with currency reduction, tapering and/or raising interest rates, we will have a recession, but if they don’t we will have extreme inflation, which will cause a recession. We need to face the reality that there will be pain that we will have to endure due to the policies of those that we have put in positions of power. Before we put them in that position again, think twice – critically.

“Now if there is one thing that we do worse than any other nation, it is try and manage somebody else’s affairs.”  Will Rogers

There are two international hot spots on the current administration’s radar that urgently need reassessment, Ukraine and Taiwan.  Neither represents US territorial interest or spheres of influence, neither are existential security issues for the US, and both are best left to the protagonists to sort out without the US doing its usual crises baiting to get their allies or their citizens concerned about. In other words, we don’t need another Afghanistan or Iraq adventure that not only represents no benefit to Americans, but more misery and a loss of resources we are better off employing for ourselves.

Take first the Ukraine, which has been a part of Russia for nearly 200 years, from 1793 to 1991. Much of the population is ethnically Russian, few even speak Ukrainian, and the majority of the people have no interest in a bloody conflict to decide which authoritarian heel will be on their necks. The EU has no interest in confronting their major source of energy so Putin can shut off the gas valves, and the trade value between the EU and Russia is far more important to Europeans that the US going on another crusade to make the world safe for democracy while creating a refugee crisis on their eastern borders. Given the US track record of incompetence in such interventionist escapades, we should not be surprised. Even if US actions against Russia are limited to just more sanctions, the destabilizing effect on some teetering European economies is unwise, and likely to have little impact on Putin. We should heed the words of retired Congressman Ron Paul who said “Sanctions are not diplomacy. They’re a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade.”

Except for a fifty year period of occupation by the Empire of Japan, Taiwan was ruled by China from the Qing Dynasty of the 17^thC until 1949 when the Republic of China withdrew from the mainland after losing the Civil War to the Communists. In 1973 the US recognized the PRC’s claim to Taiwan under the One China Policy. Here we have a country that has become a world power, second largest economy, ever growing military, that not only has a legitimate claim on that territory, but one that the US formally recognized. So why then has the Biden administration made moves to divorce us from the One China Policy? What business is it of ours to dictate to China contrary to what we have already acknowledged? Consider how Americans would feel if Mexico disputed Texas as a part of the US despite the treaty that ceded its claims. 

Eisenhower warned us about this plague that has haunted and infected us for generations, what he called the Military Industrial Complex. It is a narcissistic phenomenon of blood for money, a pathological condition of thinking we are the answer to the world’s problems when we can’t even manage our own. This hubris will be our ruin as a warfare state, and domestically the same as a welfare state; the two seem tied at the hip in a dance that we keep tripping our feet over.

The US really has to move on and recognize that we as a people are not obligated to provide our youth and resources as the world’s police, and ethically should avoid doing so. To meddle in the affairs of other countries is not an honorable policy, deserves no glory, usually results in the opposite outcome than intended, and leads to more conflict than peace.

“True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others.” Jonathan Sacks

A few months ago I listened to a news program, I believe on BBC, about Jonathan Sacks who died last year. The program spoke about his influence on British political thought, and about his career as a former member of the House of Lords, a British Orthodox Rabbi, philosopher, theologian, and a well know public figure in the UK. At first it had no resonance with me as I knew little about him, but when they discussed his statement above that was particularly relevant to the current discursive discussion of race in the West, that resonated.

When compared to the mind numbing and perverse theories of White Supremacy, Critical Race Theory, and other collectivist and tribal theses, the Sacks’ quote makes the connection of concepts with systems and rights with such clarity, and yet so succinctly. I would have loved to have seen him as a guest speaker in American Universities and our Congress; likely he would have been shouted down and canceled in our current culture of misguided lock-step beliefs that are saturated with both obvious and subtle racism and classism. This is so regarding advocates of racial theories from all political groups, as if equality is a zero sum game, with rights that need to be rationed on the basis of race, and who is the perceived oppressor or oppressed.

I always found the biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden being expelled because they ate the Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge providing two metaphorical messages; one that knowledge is a sin, and two that this sin can be transmitted genealogically. While original sin is religious dogma, there are equivalent ones held by the perpetrators of White Supremacy and Critical Race Theory; in both cases belief in defective racial characteristics informs their theses and inspires their political activism.  

While many people today do not subscribe to the belief in original sin as they see it as a moronic and vile concept, unfortunately many also fail to see the absurdity of ascribing to a human being an inherent inferiority based on their race. I am not making this criticism as a justification for some of the perverse concepts of equality; empirically no one can be equal to anyone else, and in fact the same person is not even equal to themselves at different times. While all should be equal under the law as Saks notes, it is absurd to think that any two human beings can be equal to each other; that would destroy the very concept of an individual, of actually being human.

Therefore it follows that each and every human being should be respected as an individual, each with their own characteristics and abilities, but all with the same rights under the rule of law and justice, and at no time can any human being be deprived of those rights in order to provide advantage to another. While this fundamental concept of liberty is imbedded in the founding principles of our nation, and in our very constitution, it has been violated through much of our history. It is this disease of racism that is the cause of the internal strife in American society, yet unfortunately we actually perpetuate it and often with ideas that we profess are meant to cure it.

As an example we have the case of the Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1. The District provided students’ parents the option to apply to any high school of their choice but also used racial quotas to maintain the diversity of the district. The Parents sued the District and the case went through the process of circuit courts, finding its way to SCOTUS in 2007. While there were the usual precedential arguments as this was not the first time for such a case, SCOTUS found that the District’s use of racial quotas violated the Equal Protect Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As Chief Justice Roberts stated, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” While SCOTUS’s ruling seems common sensible for such an obvious case of racism, it has not always ruled consistently on the issue. There were cases before and after this where SCOTUS ruled in confused and equivocating fashion regarding Affirmative Action, such as in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, and other instances where racial quotas were employed; but the Parents v. District case did provide a precedential basis on which the law and justice are served.

For those who think that the cause for White Supremacy is fading, don’t be misled as the Klan is still very much alive, and in fact is reinvented with the rise of other such groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. For those that think that racism is limited to those groups, again don’t be misled as we have Antifa and DSA that embrace CRT. What is common to all these groups is the primitively collectivist thesis of race as a determinant of rights.

Inherent in all racism is this primitive tribalism corrosive to any civil society, whether that’s between whites and blacks, Han and Uyghur, Arab and Jew, the list goes on and unfortunately is plagued by seemingly intractable misconceptions of humanity manifested in both advocacy for and against racism. The concept of Aryan superiority is so obviously moronic that it does not require a high level of intelligence to reject its premise. However, while the same should be true of CRT, it’s apparent that it is making progress in infesting not only political activism in America, but in our educational institutions.  There are actually k-12 school districts mandating its inclusion in curricula. Like all forms of racism it basically rejects the natural laws of humanity, particularly those of the Enlightenment and the rise of Classical Liberalism as institutions based on Western Civilization inherently structured to oppress those who are not white, and that this whiteness is an unavoidable characteristic of all white people. Yes, the theme of original sin lives on, and in this obvious form of racism now being taught to children.

Contrary to what most Americans think, CRT is not new.  It has its roots in early post WWII America, and has informed many political activists since that time. The movement for Reparations is based on CRT concepts. The definition of reparation is making amends for a wrong one has done, most often by paying money or some form of help to those one has wronged. Since nearly none if any slave owners or slaves are alive today, the only logical basis for such reparations has to be racial. When I consider that this is proposed by many politicians today, I wonder how stupid they think Americans are when they tell us to end such racial divisions which they themselves have promoted for years.

Unfortunately what we have in America today is a widening gap on racial issues providing an opportunity for unethical politicians to manipulate to their advantage, and that is clearly the case in both main political parties, making tribalism that which informs much of the race discussion; as Thomas Sowell so eloquently put it, “Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?”

Unfortunately as absurd as Sowell may find our current condition, it is difficult to maintain an optimistic view regarding racism in America’s future. That said, and being an optimist by nature, I am heartened to read articles about parents groups taking action against the educational institutions that seek to include doctrinaire curricula such as CRT and racial quotas in our schools. The hope is that we love our children enough not to burden them with the psychological damage inherent in all racism.