Our grand Founders created a mess

Our Founding Fathers would thunder ominously if they could peek momentarily from their resting places at our welfare/taxation/regulatory state. But the Founders need look no further than their tombstones for the blame. Those geniuses unwittingly started this mess because of their skepticism of human efficacy and rationality. This skepticism led to faulty expectations of government control and a “separation of power” instead of objective law-making as the restrictor plate of human action.

In the world’s long history of skeptics of human ability, our Founders are eminently notable for probably being the least skeptical politicians, but it doesn’t take much to create a fissure that becomes a gaping hole for tyrants to march through.

When I say “skepticism,” I mean the philosophy that humans are not capable of being totally rational and being morally responsible for their thinking and actions. The skeptic’s sentiment comes through most eloquently in Jefferson’s famous letter of November 1787 to William Smith, in which he states, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Jefferson (and the other Founders) believed that no objectively perfect (and unassailable) form of liberty could be created because humans were incapable of doing so – and abiding by it. He, therefore, thought that bloody rebellion must happily be a consequence of this state of matters.

The Founders talked of “natural rights” or rights endowed by a “creator,” but they never gave definitions for what rights are, as Ayn Rand did: “A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” And then the Founders didn’t define “freedom” (or “liberty”), as Rand did: “The absence of physical coercion” (by government or outlaws against private citizens). In a political context, this means government has absolutely no right to force (coerce) individuals to pay taxes, to be subject to regulations, to surrender their money to others (who allegedly “need” it), to proscribe abortions or drug-taking or pornography or road-building or drinking alcohol or discrimination or interstate commerce or delivering mail or emitting CO2s or smoking or walking around naked or starting controversial businesses or marrying someone of the same sex or cussing in public or “making too much money” or creating “monopolies” or eminent domain for the individual.

Without very specific, objective definitions, politicians and courts run amok over individuals in their “interpretations”. And so it was that without a proper definition of “liberty,” our Founders, unfortunately, relied upon a “sense” of what liberty was. Steeped in knowledge of history’s great governments, our they made a constitutional end-around to mitigate their error through a separation of government power into three branches – to prevent power grabs by a single individual (autocracy), by a group of individuals (oligarchy), or by a massive mob of people (ochlocracy). It was a pragmatic hodge-podge of transgression against the individual, for which we are paying to this day. The Founders did a pretty good job, as history goes, but our Constitution is flaked with vague terminology and coercive laws – some of which are named above, and some of which are suggested above and some have been exploited by “progressives” for 220 years.

To correct the errors (to create a perfect Constitution), America will need to look to the objective words and ideas of Rand, who herself said that she could probably not have created her philosophy of Objectivism without having first seen what private individuals and businessmen in our grand America were capable of doing when set mostly free – without her having seen the immense efficacy of human beings.

I can think of no greater compliment to our heroic Founders, who came gloriously close to perfect but who had not yet done the intellectual work to recognize the grandeur of the human mind and of individual rights.

Is Your Name Peter or Paul?

If you work for a living in America and are not a lazy SOB and addicted to "entitlements," then your name is Peter.
The ne'er-do-wells go by the name of Paul.
Are you getting robbed (taxed) to pay for Paul?
Then your name is Peter, and so is mine, and it's time we stood up and proclaimed that we Peters are tired of getting Robbed to pay Paul.

The suicide snickerers

A 52-year-old woman hanged herself with a nylon rope in a shed outside her mother's home in Tampa, FL, on May 1. She wasn't the usual suicidal victim who has ravaged his or her soul with bad philosophy and bad actions that finally lead to the inevitable. She owned her own business and had a vivacious personality, according to friends.
But it was her business that led to her death. More specifically, it's what the outside world in America thought about her business and her that led to her strangling herself all alone in a dark, damp place.
Her name was Deborah Jeane Palfrey. She was more widely known as the "D.C. Madame." She ran a "call-girl" ring, providing top-notch women to businessmen and prominent politicians -- a service that in a moral country would be perfectly moral and proper.
But not in this country, with its hideous religion and its two-faced puritanism. There are no doubt some of these hideous people who, at best, think Deborah got what she deserved, and others who, at worst, are quietly snickering over her fate.
Deborah was tried before a judge and jury and convicted on April 15. She faced five or six years in prison, according to sentencing guidelines.
But she wasn't having any of that.
She left suicide notes that police will not reveal publicly, but she said earlier that she "sure as heck" wasn't going to be going to federal prison.
She held true to her word, and America and its so-called justice system have no kind words for Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Government = Organized Crime

Can someone please tell me the difference between the Mafia and modern U.S. government?
The Mafia invades neighborhoods and demands money for "protection" and then doles out its leftover money to whoever it deems worthy of donations. The large part of the money is simply used to lead large Mafia lifestyles.
U.S. politicians rob us of our money, though they like to say that people vote for such atrocities, but those of us who realize it's a crime have no say against the tyranny of the majority (the eminence grise) and their tinpot chieftans. The government then doesn't protect us from terrorists. It doesn't protect us from itself when it comes to rob us or when it tells us what kind of business we can start and how to run it or when it demands that we be tagged with numbers (it calls them Social Security numbers) or when it demands that we register our cars and our guns or when it hands over our hard-earned dollars to whoever it deems worthy of OUR cash or when it tells us that we have to get permits to build our own homes or operate our boats or fly our airplanes or drive our cars or cut down our trees or have a parade or erect a sign or fish in a lake. Whatthefuckever!
Our Founding Fathers spent months studying Greek and Roman governments to prevent these very things from happening when the Fathers created the U.S. Constitution. They thought that a republic with a divided-powers government was the best vehicle for the protection of liberty. They were right, but they got one thing wrong: They didn't understand that liberty must be defined and that government should then be created to ensure that that definition is upheld. The definition of liberty is "the non-initiation of force in a society." This means that NOBODY, especially government, cannot initiate force against a citizen for any reason whatsoever. This kind of definition (and government obedience to it) would ensure that no such official organized crime would ever appear. The only way the government could survive would be by the voluntary giving of its citizens. Imagine how THAT would make the bastards toe the line -- if they knew they had to be objective and thoughtful about any decision they made to ensure that liberties were not violated so that they could get PAID! If we had objective government, I would gladly give it money to ensure that my liberties were safe-guarded, and I know that millions of other upright citizens would do the same.
The only way that U.S. citizens will ever understand, abide by and insist upon true liberty in America will be to understand objectively where individual rights come from, what morality means, what liberty really is and what the nature of the universe is (not mystical). And that means they'll need to read Ayn Rand ASAP for us to see anything resembling liberty in our lifetimes.
And so it goes ...

And Now We Can All Say "Papa"

Geneticists have recently discovered that early human populations declined to just 2,000 people around 70,000 years ago (scientists link it to drought), after an initial beginning and wide propagation 200,000 years ago. They did not mention if it was retroactive human spewing of industrialized CO2 that caused a drought, especially since we now know that the Earth cannot possibly warm without humans causing it.

Also, through Y-chromosome and genetic-marker analysis, geneticists have now pinpointed a single man (Adam?) 60,000 years ago from whom we are all (except for Bill Clinton, linked to early swine) descended from. That means we are all brothers and sisters and are, of course, incestuous. What fun!!!

Geneticists have also pinpointed a “FOXP2” gene which lead to the rise of the Fox News Network. Uh, no, I’m sorry, it is the gene that arose 50,000 years ago that gave humans a voice. I was just wondering what that must have been like for the other folks in the small band of humans who hadn’t yet gotten the gene. The others must’ve been silently thinking, “What the F—K?!!!” – especially when the guy/gal starting doing all the hand gestures while singing Madonna’s “Vogue.” I personally think it must’ve been a woman who got the talking gene first and men retained the “grunting gene” until, well, the present.

If I ever have another child, I think I’ll call her/him Double Helix. Just sounds cool.

The F-word (Faith)

It would seem that if the most hated word in the English language is to represent the most abominable things and expressions, then that word should not relate to the glorious sexual act (only the faith-riddled puritans of religion could've made "fuck" a synonym for all things bad). It should relate to the most abominable thing that humans can do -- which is blanking out their rational minds and accepting what they are told and believing things without a spec of evidence.
Yes, that word is "faith."
There is no F-word or any other word in any language that equals this atrocity. It represents the human mind's submission to mysticism, to primitive tradition, to nothingness built on a foundation of fantasy. It represents madness in method. It represents human submission to an authority outside their own mind's supremacy and judgment.
The refusal to bind one's life and judgments to facts is the solitary reason for ALL of mankind's problems, and the F-word (faith) is the most prominent and predominant of these. All crime, all dishonesty, all injustice, all laziness, all credulity, all oppression, all bad ideas are directly related to irrationality and refusing to take responsibility for one's thoughts and actions on a minute-by-minute basis and a day-by-day basis, by refusing to integrate one's own nature to reality in career, by refusing to fully judge another's actions to form a complete judgment of character, by refusing to honor other humans' right to be left completely alone in their pursuit of happiness, by insisting on a government nanny state because of an acceptance of a nanny-dictator ghost that allegedly rules over people's lives.
The capacity that separates us from the lower animals is our rational mind, and the "faith-based" throw their mind at the feet of their alleged messiahs. What better reason to give new definition to the F-word?
So, from now on, if someone truly pisses you off, may I suggest that you give them the finger and say firmly, "Faith You."

No Country for Hollywood

Sensing its grim message, I vowed not to see “No Country for Old Men.” But then, in a hotel in Chicago while on a training trip for my company in March, my curiosity got the best of me. I ordered the movie in my hotel room. I had to see what Hollywood had come to after many years of my refusing to see theatre grotesque.

I was prepared to be flabbergasted, but the kind of evil that paraded before my eyes stunned me into reflective silence one moment and fury the next. My blood ran cold at the “hero” assassin in the movie and what his type ominously meant about Hollywood and possibly much of America. The assassin was a calculating psychopath acting as Grim Reaper for allegedly imperfect people who, because of their personal failings, somehow deserved not only his fatal justice but, in many instances, a gallows comeuppance speech beforehand.

The filmmakers (the wretched Coen brothers) gave the assassin all the gravitas of a Greek hero. He had the confidence of James Bond, the canniness of a spy, the unhurried movements of a general who has had months to plan an operation. He effortlessly outwitted his good-guy opponents and disappeared into the night like a devilish apparition who cannot be caught because he is beyond good and evil. He is the devil’s executioner of regular guys with a guilty conscience, though his victims do not deserve such a fate.

The Coens have their good guys show existential dread and inner turmoil, as if reflecting the American psyche, while the assassin seems blithe, carefree and discerning.

As dreadful as the recent “There Will Be Blood” was, "No Country for Old Men" shows Hollywood’s liberal underbelly like no other in the history of filmmaking, to my knowledge. It is a pile of wretched, stinking, worm-ridden, Jackson Pollack manure on painted canvass. It is the antithesis of what art should be: the rapturous splendor of what humans can and should be under difficult circumstances. It is unadulterated evil in Technicolor. It is what Hollywood now adorns with its golden statues.

It is no country for Hollywood.

Pacifism is not Peaceful

“Give peace a chance.” “All we need is love.” “Make love, not war.” “Peace out, man.”

Blah blah blah.

You name it; we’ve heard it, from Jesus Christ to John Lennon to scores of other cliché-wielding pacifist sissies who pine for peace and think their little magical potion of nonjudgmentalism and a call to unarm will somehow, some way, some day show all those bad bad meanies the errors of their murderous ways and make the whole world kiss and cuddle.

As if this unctuous sentimentalism weren’t enough, these whiny-nabobs act like they’ve got a monopoly on cherishing peace – and as if “peace” were a world without the U.S. engaging in war, instead of peace being living without imminent and real threats. They toss out context in definition and vaporize facts with their gaseous sniveling. “Peace, peace, peace,” they shout while bands of lunatics and so-called nations plot the murder and destruction of American rights and happiness. “Imagine there’s no countries; it isn’t hard to do; nothing to kill or die for.” Um, we're not killing for "countries"; we're killing for "liberty." Countries are not the problem, John. It’s ideas. America is great because it was created and built upon the idea of individual rights, the idea that humans have a right to their own life and the pursuit of happiness in peace, unobstructed by government or criminal threats. Countries propped up by bad ideas and the sword should be wiped from Planet Earth to avoid U.S. casualties from their eventual exporting of their tyranny.

The peaceniks, of course, propagate their inanity from behind the battle lines of liberty-loving warriors, like naughty children shouting taunts at their betters while gripping their mother’s skirt. You see their self-righteous smirks as they pretend that only they sincerely desire peace. But, since criminals in a free society usually constitute only about 1% of its citizens, we can safely guess that the remaining 99% of us are generally peace-loving, which is to say that if no foreigners (countries or terrorist cells) are trying to kill us, then we’re all pretty good with not having wars. After all, we’ve got our new cars to clean. Not so, say the pacifist sissies. Anyone who seeks war is a warmonger, they shout. We should try to put on the shoes of the terrorists, they say, and walk around in them a bit and try to understand their feelings of anger toward the United States. We should try to feel their pain, the ninnies say, instead of blowing their brains out and ending the threat to free people’s lives. America should not presume to know what is best and right by itself, they say. We should ask ourselves why we are so belligerent. We should conduct a psychoanalysis of ourselves and the murderers to gain more insight into what-the-fuck-ever. But when a liberty-loving country is faced with real threats (subversive or overt), any attempt at rapprochement with murderers is perceived (rightly so) by the murderers as America lacking moral backbone, as weakness.

Indeed, there’s the rub. The murderers are right. We are weak. Pacifists (indeed, most people) don’t believe we humans can confidently call a spade a spade, a murderer a murderer. There are always extenuating circumstances, they demand. We are not capable of making a call, of making a judgment unilaterally about another person or country – because everything is relative and all ways of living are equally worthwhile and all gripes are equally valid. Who’s to say that we Americans could be right when we don’t know what the other person’s definition of “right” is? This moral skepticism is the sissy template. It is the belief that humans cannot understand morality and therefore certainly can't act with certainty about what is bad or good.

Let’s imagine something a little different. Imagine our great country’s Founders shouting “All we need is love!” Imagine them saying “Give peace a chance.” Imagine where we’d be if they were the 18^th century version of our modern peacefucks. The answer is simple, of course. There would be no America. There would be no liberty or Declaration of Independence. There would be no Greatest Country in the History of the World. Our Founders were the product of the Enlightenment, an unequalled time in the history of the world, in which the glory of man’s mind was widely praised, and the ingenuity of that mind created engines and constitutions of breathtaking scope. The men and women of late 18^th century America were rugged individualists. Had they been ill-mannered, they would have said, “Don’t Fuck With Me!” They would NOT have said, “Oh, please, let’s just give peace a chance, everybody.” Their common sense would have been quite uncommon in America today. They were not Christians. They did not turn the other cheek or render unto Caesar as the sashaying Jesus pleaded. They were proud, independent, strong and hot-blooded for liberty. They did not hold hands and pray for “peace” in pious prancing.

They demanded freedom. They understood that peace follows freedom. They knew that a free people is a peaceful people and that a free people will demand immediate destruction of anyone or any country who threatens that freedom. Now, THAT is peace. War is good when it kills freedom-haters.

But our Founders, great as they were, lacked a complete philosophical system to gird their belief in individual rights and liberty. They made mistakes, and those mistakes created irrational gaps in our vanguard Constitution, letting in the vermin peaceniks and altruists with their sacrificial philosophies.

The only way the ship can be fully righted is for millions of Americans to completely understand and live the rational philosophy of Ayn Rand. With that kind of intellectual arsenal and brotherhood of objectivity, the pale sissies will crawl back into their incestuous holes and meekly decry our unilateral destruction of our enemies. And how nice will that be – our enemies destroyed and the ninnies feasting in darkness upon their own rotten, vanquished souls.

The Proximity Police

As America has moved from agrarian to urban, people rub more elbows, observe more differences, become more exposed to a panoply of lifestyles and careers. This, unfortunately, has let loose the proximity police (PP) – those who obsess about disparities of wealth and business “power” after being in close quarters with all classes of urban society. There is, they say, the underclass and the uberclass. These “progressives” then insist on “redistributing” the wealth of the ubers and “regulating” the power of uber-businesses as a means to “leveling the playing field.” They are uber-wolves in hippie clothing. They disdain the rugged individual for the effete intellectual’s infatuation of the “helpless.”

They refuse to see that wealth in a free society is created by offering a product or service to other free citizens that is valuable and that the wealthy person truly earned his wealth without harming another. The PP can only see the poor, the crippled, the sick and the homeless. They have an emotional reaction that, when coupled with a lack of philosophical grounding in individual rights, causes them to self-righteously insist upon these “downtrodden” to be taken care of via the bank account of the wealthy person, who has done nothing wrong in the earning of his money and yet must endure this supercilious grand theft.

The same immoral principles of the PP apply to businesses that have grown large by developing superior products and services to their competitors. The PP views this as “power,” when the only true power in a free society rests with government, which has the proper privilege granted to it by its citizens of using force against those who coerce or attempt to coerce others and the improper capacity granted to it by its citizens in modern America of committing wholesale robbery of citizens for altruistic ends. A very big and wealthy business has absolutely no power over other citizens. The business can rightly refuse to sell its products or can change its products whenever it wishes or raise or lower its prices at whim, but the consumer always has the right to not use the product or use a competitor’s product. The business has no more power than the consumer.

The obvious irony in the above is that the PP elite say they are attempting to limit “power,” but they are in fact aggrandizing power via inflated government, making of it a monster who tramples the rights of free people – usually the most productive and creative people in America.

The PP’s latent fascism, of course, probably wouldn’t rear its ugly head as much in a simple agrarian society, where most everyone does the same work and capitalism’s glorious smorgasbord of opportunity has not allowed the best and brightest to rise to the top – where, like tall poppies, they become visible victims of the Proximity Police. The stumping proximity policeman could not emotionally point to the rich and famous in an agrarian society because the R&F would be few and not nearly as visible. Their demagoguery works best when they have many alleged victims to trot out for public display and many affluent “tyrants” to burn at the stake of “progressivism.” And so now we watch these unctuous larcenists smirk and grin in a megamaniacal self-righteousness unequalled this side of Jesus.

The real reason for the PP’s existence is philosophical, of course. 18^th century immoral philosophers began the tide against reason, and it was swallowed whole or in part by many “thinkers” for the last two centuries, and this has trickled down into academia, public officials and the public. The only antidote is Ayn Rand’s objective philosophy and a visceral understanding of morality and individual rights.

The fight between good and evil began with Rand’s publishing of great Atlas Shrugged, 51 years ago. We’ll see who wins this battle: the fascist PPs or great-souled Objectivists. My bet’s on the latter.

Letter with "Ayn Rand" published in Wall Street Journal

A letter of mine that mentioned Objectivism and Ayn Rand was published in the March 26, 2008 Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649438574664351.html

Here is the contents of that letter (To explain one reference (“Mamet-wording”), Mamet is so known for using the F-word that the columnist humorously referred to the F-word as “Mamet” in his column. Mamet recently renounced liberalism for free markets and other “conservative” ideas.)
__________
Dear Editor,

Daniel Henniger’s piece on David Mamet’s transition out of the socialist abyss of liberalism was (Mamet-wording) awesome. It instantly brought to this reader’s mind the memory of a friend who was devoutly liberal in college but who just two years out of college made the same startling transition after seeing not only the “theft” from her paycheck but also the real-world dregs who “profited” from that theft. I had never seen her so spirited in denunciation, and her words that spilled forth were sprinkled with “I” and “my”: “my life,” “my time,” “my money.”

Echoes of “I” and “my” came startlingly through in Henninger’s piece with its liberal (please excuse the expression) use of the word “autonomy.” This is a key word of enlightenment thought, a redirection toward the personal responsibility and happiness of the individual (the smallest minority).

The word also brought to mind another woman, whose name is synonymous with individual rights: Ayn Rand, whose fictional characters John Galt and Howard Roark are the archetypes of autonomy. If the younger generation is to have a fundamental grounding for its tendency toward self-directedness, it will need Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism as its guiding light.

If they do so, unctuous liberals like Kevin Spacey will not be able to deny or ignore all the falling trees in the forest.