TYT Doesn’t Get Libertarianism

 

 

Here are five examples of how TYT is wrong about libertarianism.

#1 The assertion that ‘small government’ is the core principle of libertarianism.

Libertariansim is first and foremost about individual liberty, not small government. A libertarian government would be small (relative to the one we have today) but only as an implication of libertarian principles. Libertarians reject education, medicine, and marriage as issues that require government involvement.

#2 In a libertarian society, there are no police.

This is simply a conflation of libertarianism with some type of anarchism. Libertarians are not anarchists.

#3 Free markets create wealth disparity…and that’s bad.

Wealth disparity is a fantastic indicator of economic progress.
To understand why this is true, think about where inequality comes from. Most people are poor, and then some of them get wealthier. That’s why India has such a “better” gini score than the United States. Everyone is equally poor! Marxists like to suggest that we live in a zero-sum world where it is only possible to get rich at the expense of others. Liberals know that this isn’t the case. Wealth can actually be created, not just redistributed!

#4 Employers could “force rules” in an unregulated economy

Not true. Libertarians object to the use of force in society. It violates our core principle; Liberty.

#5 Libertarianism is a rich man’s ideal

If this were true, it would be hard to explain why all the big banks are backing big-state political candidates. Unrestricted government that protects the interests of the highest bidder; that’s what they want.

A Rebuttal of Marxism 101: Part 2

The intellectually weak tricks continue with the suggestion that the appeal of an idea is somehow indicative of it’s merit. I first noticed this in the introduction, alongside a clip of some hip teens picketing for an issue they don’t understand. It’s done again at the 18 minute mark, in reference to the Bernie Sanders campaign. If we attempt to convert this into a logical argument, it’s easy to see the holes.

Premise 1: Idea X is popular.

Conclusion: Idea X will produce desired outcomes if implemented.

There is nothing about the popularity of an idea that guarantees it’s value. If anything, the approval of the reliably misguided masses should trigger doubt in our minds. As Mark Twain once said; “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

Eventually, Wolff acknowledges the criticism that the problems America is experiencing today are attributable to a perversion of capitalism. However, he quickly dismisses this view as driven by fear and a reluctance to accept the need for change. He says that, if we were to go back to ideal capitalism, history would repeat itself and we would wind up in this position once again. But what is this position that we find ourselves in? It’s socialism. This mess is the very system that Wolff and his ilk are advocating for. The United states has been on a centralized fiat currency for a century. This has lead to economic downturns and the squeezing of the working class. Enormous spending on social welfare has been the norm since the New Deal. The truth is; the history of America’s long decline is a socialist history. Furthermore, Wolff’s assertion that capitalists want to turn back time is a complete straw man. Sure, in  many respects capitalists see current policies as worse than some previous policies. This could be said of anyone’s position unless they are completely satisfied with the status quo. Complete straw man. Ridiculous.

Next, Wolff tells us that capitalism amounts to a tiny handful of bourgeois fat cats owning the means of production and therefore controlling society. It’s worth pointing out that productive enterprises do not have to be owned by a single person. Nike, for instance, is owned by countless millions of individuals through an innovative arrangement called sharing. In fact, Nike has more owners than laborers! Nike isn’t unique either. This arrangement is commonplace, with pricately held businesses like WaWa and New Balance being exceptional. However, for the sake of argument, lets imagine a factory which produces widgets and is entirely owned by a single individual. What power does that one man have over society?

Both laborers and employers must compete on a market. Laborers advertise their skills and effort to employers. Companies compete against one another with wages, working conditions, and other benefits. At the end of the day, a laborer goes to work only when the arrangement is fair.

A graphic from Wolff’s documentary misrepresents the relative gains between employer and employee. It would have you believe that businesses regularly pocket 90% of the wealth created by labor. In fact, the average US worker is paid closer to $25/hour and creates a mere $105 in wealth.But there is more to the equation. Businesses are also required to pay taxes, hire lawyers, obtain raw materials, cover energy costs, shipping, and more. At the end of the day, manufacturers like Nike have net profits of about 10%.

 

A Rebuttal of Marxism 101 : Part 1

 

This video is high quality propaganda. Its a wonderful example of how the left uses the media to frame issues and push their agenda. From the very introduction, they introduce Marxist ideology as something that is popular DESPITE efforts to squash it. The video suggests that Marxist ideas are simply so clever that they persist on merit. No mention is made of the billions of dollars spent promoting these ideas.

The video claims that Marx’s work helped shed light on matters of philosophy, biology, economics, etc. This touches on one of the major contradictions in Marxist thinking. Marx encourages us to recognize that what we believe, or what is held as a social norm in our society, is actually socially constructed and not objectively true. However, after tearing down traditional constructs (which often have great utility), they offer replacement constructs as if they were somehow more objectively grounded. If we accept that we are unable to directly perceive the world as it is (this is the first step to tearing down constructs) then how can they offer valid alternatives? A good example is class consciousness. Working men unite! Communists of Marx’s day favored the idea that class was what REALLY united men. They encouraged the abandonment of nationalist identification, asserting that it only made the common man into a tool of his respective oligarchs. The effects of this arguably include the destruction of the French nation. The same people who fought some of the bloodiest battles in history to defend themselves from Germany in WW1 basically invited the Germans to conquer them just decades later. This allowed for the rise of the Third Reich.

From this introduction, which casts Marxists as the heroic underdogs (surely enticing thousands of angsty young people), the video goes on to assert that America is thrashing to survive a capitalist crisis.  This is absurd. Even Noam Chomsky admits that the system we have today is nothing like capitalism. The United States has become increasingly socialist for the past hundred years and has declined steadily as a result. This dope Wolff immediately goes off on the assumption that our society today is capitalist and we can therefore attribute its shortcomings to that system.

Socialists like him prey on the naivety of young audiences by attributing things like homelessness to problems in the system. This characterization suggests that every aspect of our lives is part of some grand design and that any problems we experience are merely design failures. In fact, human planning is extremely limited. Capitalists humbly recognize the unfathomable complexity of the world and therefore dismiss the possibility for a totally controlled system. Instead, we focus on ways to empower and protect each individual.

Wolff spend several minutes posturing as if capitalists offer one particular design for the economy and, after careful consideration, he has identified irreconcilable flaws in that design. He alludes to these design flaws but takes his sweet time in identifying any of them, letting the impression of his expertise sink in. He’s a bullshit artist. In fact, advocates of capitalism do not have a design to propose. That’s because, in capitalist literature, the market is an organic system. Markets are capable of growing and adapting naturally.

Wolff finally spits out a weak criticism of the ‘capitalist system’ (whatever that is). Producers, he says, will always seek to reduce their dependence on labor. This makes their enterprise more profitable in the short term but also deprives labor of wages and therefore dries up the pool of consumers who can afford the goods being produced. Wolff does not provide any evidence for this claim, and fails to explain why laborers who cease to be employed in one endeavor would not then be able to take up another occupation. He does not account for law of supply and demand which would compel producers to lower prices if demand for a particular good were to decline.

Next, he jumps to the rapid increase in debt and credit card use in the 1970s. This all leads up to the 2008 collapse, he suggest. But, again, this wasn’t Capitalism! Americans were fed bad signals by government policy makers. Instead of allowing for a natural interest rate, the state run banking system decided that suppressing interests rates would be a good idea. All kinds of legal protections were set up to protect wealthy investors from risk and so they proceeded recklessly. In a capitalist society, the costs of investment include risk. In 2008, the price of failure was appropriated from middle class Americans and redistributed to banks. This is not a free market.

To get an idea of exactly how far we currently are from a laissez-faire world, consider the sheer volume of regulation that exists on business. This burden of regulation translates into a massive compliance work force. In 2014, Citigroup employed 30,000 people full time just to ensure compliance. That’s because putting a toe out of line could cost them billions. It’s hard to see how an enterprise in this position could be called free.

Wolf says that to fool yourself into believing that capitalism was working in the 1900s, you could look only at the developed nations like the US and Japan and ignore what was going on in the rest of the world. Then, he says, western capitalists got the bright idea of moving their factories to places where low labor costs were the product of their having been “savaged” by capitalism. Weird how he would characterize Mao’s Great Leap Forward as capitalist, considering that it was a centrally planned and mandatory effort aimed at a collectivist agricultural system. He’s right about one thing though; it was savage. Tens of millions died in the effort and it still managed to shrink the Chinese economy. That’s when the big bad capitalists showed up and ruthlessly exploited Chinese labor for 50 years. Poor China now has the world’s largest economy. Pretty heart wrenching tale.

The Dumbest Idea

I recently listened to a youtuber called Computing Forever read accounts of social justice madness which had been sent to him by his viewers. I have already written a few articles on my experience in what I call the State Church but hearing these accounts reminded me of another experience which I will detail here and invite Computing Forever to feature on his channel.

When I was in my second year at a public college, I was asked to become a tutor for the math department. The job was pretty strait forward; help explain concepts and methods to students who are struggling to complete their homework. I thought that it would be rewarding and I needed the extra income so I agreed.

I then found out that any person employed by the school to interact with students must attend a 3 session CRLA seminar. I was told that it would amount to ‘sensitivity training’. Two of the three training sessions focused on various approaches to teaching people based on their learning styles and were at worst a waste of time. It was the same stuff we have all heard about since grade school; someone who struggles to understand a verbal explanation might benefit more from text or pictures and vice versa. However, the third training was nothing short of disturbing, especially when you consider that this training was mandatory for every other tutor and teacher in the school system.

The official CRLA course guide asserts that embracing multiculturalism and cultural relativism can make a tutor more effective. To ensure that we’ve gotten the massage, the CRLA guide suggests that course facilitators administer some tests. Recommended means of assessment include:

• The Advanced Tutor writes a well-thought-out essay explaining the differences among the following ‘isms’: ethnocentrism, sexism, ageism, ableism, racism, classism, and anti-Semitism.
• The Advanced Tutor cites three specific examples of cultural norms from her/his own background that may influence tutoring (such as eye contact, specific clothing, mixed-gender tutoring pairs, and family expectations) and discusses how these examples may impact a tutoring relationship.
• The Advanced Tutor is observed using culturally-appropriate language that encourages the tutee to express culturally defined preferences and needs and allows for diverse viewpoints and practices in the tutoring session.

All of this seems  designed to inject political correctness into classrooms far removed from the gender studies hall. The desired effect, in my view, must be to encourage hypersensitivity. Why should I be concerning myself with anyone’s income level or whether or not they are semitic while trying to explain fractions? It’s beyond me.

If you’ve taken the time to have a glance at the document from which I excerpted those assessments, you might object “Cultural diversity and pluralism and all of those things are contained in just one of fourteen topics listed on the CRLA guide.” That would be a fair observation and it may be that in other instances of the training I received there is less emphasis on that topic. However, in this instance, it was given about three hours of our time. The course facilitator also took the liberty of going beyond what was talked about in the CRLA guide and introducing us to additional social justice theory.

I particularly remember one exercise where we were asked to make assumptions about hypothetical characters based on very little information. I was asked to tell what I could assume about a person who has a low income. I objected that this was very little information and I wouldn’t feel comfortable speculating about why a person may be receiving a low income. The facilitator suggested to me that inequality of outcome is an indicator of inequality of opportunity. Therefore, it was safe to assume that this person had not received the opportunities enjoyed by those at higher levels of income. I was also shown a hypothetical list of members in an office which was roughly 80% male. I was told it was safe to conclude that discrimination was responsible for this ratio. I thought my head might explode.

This is what Thomas Sowell refers to as ‘the most stupid idea’ and it’s being pushed down the throats of every teacher in the system. The notion that a meritocracy would, in the absence of foul play, produce perfectly representative groups of people in every office, every classroom, and every work site is absurd. I would go further and suggest that any divison of a population which is proportionally representative of the religious and ethnic demographics of the larger society should send up red flags. These strike me as the mostly likely places to find superficial qualities prioritized over merit. How else could such a thing be achieved?

I walked away from this training thinking “the indoctrination is real”. This was one of the first times, but certainly not the last time, that I witnessed regressive logic being aggressively pushed at my college. This is why I’ve adopted the term ‘State Church’ to describe it. This practice of using public funds to propagate an ideology is a clear violation of the freedom of conscience which protects itself by conflating science and religion.

Trump Does Not Create Good Profit

Donald Trump loves to tout his experience in the private sector and his campaign suggests that it will allow him to work miracles for the US economy. His supporters are impressed by the massive profits he reports. However, there are important distinctions to be made among types of profit. On the one hand, there are high returns on capital investments by any means necessary. On the other hand there is what Charles Koch refers to, in a book by the same name, as good profit. This distinction may mean that Trump lands closer to Hillary on economic matters than he would like you believe.

Perhaps the biggest accomplishment on Trump’s resume is the transformation of the bankrupt Commodore Hotel into a new business called the Grand Hyatt. But how did Trump manage such a feat? It helped that he received a little bit of favoritism from then-mayor Abraham Beame. It also didn’t hurt that he was able to exploit New York’s urban development system to leave taxpayers with hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses. What Trump certainly did not do was create superior value for customers, utilize efficient innovations, or conduct himself with integrity.

What’s more, Donald doesn’t fall far from the tree. Donald’s father, Fred Trump, scored his biggest development contracts thanks to government subsidies. Leaning on government institutions like the Federal Housing Administration allowed Trump to pass his risk on to taxpayers. Once again, great personal profits but not good profit.

Trump’s style isn’t a breathe of fresh air. It stinks of the same-old Washington kleptocracy. Consider the similarities between the deals that made the Trump family rich and the 2011 Solyndra scandal. Solyndra received over $500 million thanks to Obama’s administration for a start-up solar company. It was a risky allocation of taxpayer money and when the company failed, it was the taxpayers who got burned.

Our economy does not need more of the same. We need someone who believes that society can be made better by mutual benefit, not government picked winners and losers. We need to believe that, by working together, we can all be winners. When Americans go to the voting booth this time, they need to elect a candidate who doesn’t represent the oligarchy. No such candidate will come from either of the major parties. If there is to be any meaningful change in the US economic climate, it will have to come from a third party.

Thankfully, we have a libertarian candidate in the running. As the 29th Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson got government out of the way by utilizing his veto power in an unprecedented way. Within his first six months in office, Johnson blocked over 200 new pieces of legislation. The results speak for themselves. The unemployment rate declined throughout most of Johnson’s eight years in office. When he left, official unemployment was about one percentage point lower than when he took office and about on par with the national average. However, if you ask Johnson he’ll tell you that he didn’t create a single job while in office. That’s because he understands that people working together for mutual benefit create jobs, not government.

 

For more on this, check out these sources:

Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson: Corporate America’s Best Bet for President?

Johnson – Weld 2016

Trump and the Artifice of the Deal

Good Profit

Good Profit (Uncommon Knowledge Interview)

The Tort Solution to Transboundary Air Pollution

Since the middle of the 20^th century, states have been successfully negotiating bi-lateral treaties to address problems that result from the emission of airborne pollutants. These deals typically take place between states that are direct neighbors or else are located in close proximity to one another. The types of pollutants they address are ones that have direct adverse impacts on nature, infrastructure, or human health. Unfortunately, some pollutants have a less direct impact and are therefore cannot effectively be addressed bi-laterally. These pollutants are referred to as greenhouse gasses and scientists warn that their accumulation in the atmosphere will have long term adverse effects on a global level. Because these gasses are largely a bi-product of profitable industry, they have a clear positive function that incentivizes their emission. In addition, because the predicted consequences will be distributed globally, only a fraction of their negative function is an immediate concern to the industries that emit them. This results in a Tragedy of the Commons obstacle which multilateral approaches have so far failed to overcome. However, it is not for a lack of efforts. For decades, world leaders have been meeting, sharing information, and asserting their commitment to solving this problem. It might be time to recognize that this approach is not working. Precious time has already been lost and scientists are predicting major consequences before the end of this century if drastic steps are not taken. As an alternative to the failed multilateral approach, I believe that the United States should explore the possibility of a unilateral solution. The problems of transboundary air pollution boil down to a lack of accountability for polluters, the solution to which is tort justice. By leveraging its unique position as a global super-power, the United States may be in a position to do for the environment what no-one else can; enforce tort justice.

In the 1930s, the United Sates government formally complained to the government of Canada about the emission of sulfur dioxide which was causing destructive acid rain in Washington State. On April 15, 1935, the two governments reached an agreement at the Convention of Ottawa. The agreement included a payment of $350,000 to be made in compensation for “damages in respect of the wrong done the United States in violation of sovereignty”[1]. This decision is important because it reflects an understanding of cross-boundary effects of pollution as a violation of sovereignty and because it addresses the violation as a matter of tort. Tort being a wrongful act against some entity which leads to liability for those responsible.

The incentives for polluters to continue with business as usual are clear. By buying and burning fossil fuels, they are able to reap massive profits. One example of this is the Pacific Gas & Electric company which is the largest in the United States and reported a $1.4 billion net profit in 2014[2]. PG&E is actually among the industry leaders in moving towards renewable sources of energy but even by their own estimates they will still be 60% dependent on fossil fuels by 2021[3]. The result is that PG&E, along with the rest of the United States energy producers, contribute over 12% of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, 72% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the lucrative energy industry[4].

The consequences of accumulating carbon in the atmosphere, scientists tell us, include drought, heat waves, rising sea levels, and rising global temperatures[5]. The cost of damage caused by these emissions is difficult to quantify but estimates range from $37 in damage per ton of carbon emitted to $220 per ton[6]. According to the understanding of justice demonstrated at the Convention of Ottawa; the cost of emissions should rightfully be borne by those responsible. For the energy industry in the United States, this translates to somewhere between $2-12 trillion annually.

The primary obstacle to this course of action is the reluctance of states to impose penalties on their own industries and thereby create a relative disadvantage for themselves. This obstacle was a key factor in the failure of a multilateral carbon reduction effort known as the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement was designed to require different levels of commitment from states based on their level of carbon emission in the year 1990. For states like Russia and Germany, which have reduced their carbon emissions level already, this meant little action would need to be taken. In addition, the agreement precluded the quickly developing states like China and India from the same restrictions[7]. Today, China produces a greater amount of carbon than the United States. For the United States to have agreed to these terms would have been a major competitive disadvantage, so the deal failed[8].

In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment convened in Stockholm and agreed that protecting the environment was “the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all governments.[9]” Despite this rhetorical solidarity, no solution to regulate the atmosphere could be agreed upon (much less implemented) in the subsequent 44 years. I believe, given another four decades, the same multilateral approach will continue to fail. It will fail because, without an authority to demand compliance, each actor is compelled to pursue its own individual interests at the expense of the global community. If that happens, the consequences could be tremendous. The answer, therefore, is an authority which will hold each actor accountable for its offenses.

The concept of a global authority is not new. In the decades since the end of World War II, political scholars have credited the United States with providing an umbrella of security that enables the flourishing of democratic states, particularly in Europe and the Pacific[10]. This safe environment has been referred to as Pax Americana or the American Peace[11]. The idea is that, so long as states do not have existential worries, they can focus on productivity and cooperation.

Instead of framing the proposal of global accountability for the emission of transboundary air pollutants as something unprecedented, it should be understood as a consistent extension of the current order. America is currently committed to the defense of 69 states around the world[12]. The failure to fulfill those commitments should be recognized as negligence whether the aggression against U.S. partners be transboundary rockets, clouds of sulfur dioxide, or carbon induced flooding of coastal cities. Just as the United States conducted Operation Desert Storm in defense of Kuwait and the principle of national sovereignty[13], it should be willing to resort to military intervention to prevent aggression in the form of pollutant emissions.

Image by James Dietz

 

Of course, military action is never the ideal solution. As the Smelter Trail case illustrated, damage caused by air pollution can be rectified by simple monetary reimbursement. In the event of sulfur dioxide pollution; that reimbursement should go towards hospital expenses, auto body repair, or forest restoration services as needed. When the atmosphere is over-loaded with CO2, the most practical remedy is re-absorption by vegetation. The Amazon alone may be able to provide a carbon scrubbing service of 100 million tons annually[14]. However, Direct Air Capture methods are also being pioneered by various tech groups[15]. Whatever the method of repairing the atmosphere, these services should be available on a global market in the form of offset-credits which carbon-emitters must purchase in order to be allowed to continue polluting.

 

 

[1] “Trail Smelter Case (United States, Canada).” Reports of International Arbital Awards. Volume III. PP 1905-1982. UN.org. Web. 28 June 2016.

[2] Lifsher, Marc. “PG&E Reports Strong Yearly Profit Despite Unfolding PUC Scandal.” Los Angeles Times, 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 29 June 2016.

[3] “Get the Facts.” PGE.com. Web. 29 June 2016.

[4] “8 Interactive Graphics Answer Top Climate Change Questions.” World Resources Institute. Web. 29 June 2016.

[5] “Global Climate Change: Effects.” NASA.gov. Web. 29 June 2016.

[6] Than, Ker. “Estimated Social Cost of Climate Change Not Accurate, Stanford Scientists Say.” Stanford News. 12 Jan. 2015. Web.

[7] “Problems with the Protocol.” Harvard Magazine. 01 Nov. 2002. Web.

[8] Coon, Charli E. “Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol.” The Heritage Foundation. 11 May 2001. Web.

[9] “United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.” (1972): 3. United Nations, 5-16 June 1972. Web.

[10] Lohman, Walter. “Honoring America’s Superpower Responsibilities.” The Heritage Foundation. 8 Apr. 2013. Web.

[11] Steel, Ronald. Pax Americana. New York: Viking, 1967. Print.

[12] Taylor, Adam. “Map: The U.S. Is Bound by Treaties to Defend a Quarter of Humanity.” The Washington Post, 30 May 2015. Web.

[13] “The Situaton Between Iraq and Kuwait.” UN.org. 2 Aug. 1990. Web.

[14] Ibarra, Nicholas. “Amazon Rainforest Scrubbing Half as Much Carbon as It Used To, New Study Shows.” SierraClub.org. 20 Mar. 2015. Web.

[15] “Air Capture.” Carbon Engineering. Web. 04 July 2016.

A Collection of Comments (Part 2)

This article will be updated regularly with new comments.

#1 (In response to this blog)

MQTA:

What do you think about states’ rights and movements for succession? Malcom said that what blacks needed was their own nation, do you agree?

TNS:

Yes, yes I do. I hope to publish an essay on this in the future.

I think the idea of state’s rights in America has had demonic effect.

MQTA:

It seems to me like your two responses are contradictory. To me, the purpose of states’ rights is to provide greater autonomy and therefore greater self determination for distinct groups of people. The problem with one-size-fits-all government is that it is inevitably contrary to the preferences of minorities. Since every individual is a minority in some respect, it is inevitable contrary to the preferences of all people. This effect can be mitigated by restricting the scope of laws as much as possible. Since the system that works for the white majority will often not be ideal for a black minority, it makes sense that they should be able to tailor policies to their unique set of interests. This is why I am in favor of greater autonomy for distinct nations of people that exist within the United States. Can you explain to me how, in light of this, you see greater autonomy for, say, Georgians as “demonic” but for blacks as desirable? If it is not possible to give a concise answer, I don’t mind waiting on that essay you mentioned.

TNS:

Because the history of increased autonomy for Georgians has led to situations where a White mob could hang a Black woman who is 8 months pregnant up side down, use her for target practice, cut the fetus out stomp it to death then light her on fire. See: Mary Turner Or, take a Black man, skin his face, castrate him, light him on fire then sell pieces of his liver for tasting. See: Sam Hose I could list similar atrocities in every Southern state, atrocities which the federal government claimed to have no power to stop in the name of “states rights.” In every state, Blacks have either never been the majority, or, a minority of well armed incredibly violent Whites were able to impose minority rule while the national government did nothing. If we had a Black majority state now, things might be different, we’d probably still have to fight it out. But, the fact remains, history reveals there to be nothing contradictory whatsoever about by position.

MQTA:

I would argue that the examples you provided illustrate the need for recognition of a black nation since, as you said, blacks are everywhere the minority and therefore cannot hope to have their interests protected by a hostile white majority. Similarly, the people of any given state are a minority at the national level and therefore cannot hope to have their interest protected unless their interest happen to align with the majority, which is unlikely.

TNS:

The difference is that every state is guaranteed representation in proportion to its population in the national legislature, we have no such guarantee. Most states share enough interests with enough other states to be able to wield influence as a bloc. As a prelude to separation, I support creating a Back majority in five of the former confederate states.

MQTA:

If Malcom had gotten his black nation and it had been given proportional representation on the national level, it would still have had no recourse in the event that it’s interests were overridden by a white majority. Surely this is unjust? How do you propose to create a black majority in five states?

TNS:

The difference between Georgia and Black people is that that while Georgia can be overridden, there is still a sense of national unity among Whites. That’s why bringing White Southerners back into the fold was a bigger priority than making sure Black Southerners weren’t being butchered and re-enslaved. Yeah states can be overridden, but, I can’t imagine White New Jersey standing by as the people of White Georgia are being butchered, there’s a national identity which creates enough sympathy between the states to allows them to broadly protect the interests of all. Which is why I resist the analogy between us and states. Well, we’re moving back South already, in Mississippi and South Carolina we were the majority before the Great Migration, about 52% of us live in the South currently. In most deep Southern states we make up at least a quarter of the population. In Mississippi we make up 40%. If between 2 and 3 million of us move to NC, SC, GA, AL, LA and MS, we’ll constitute a bare majority, which we can build on.

MQTA:

It might surprise you to learn that the primarily white New Jersey not only stood by but contributed about 90,000 soldiers to slaughter white Georgians and their white Confederate allies. What’s more, the reason they gave was that they were protecting the interests of blacks.

TNS:

It might surprise you to learn that I am aware of the American Civil War, though I’m not sure why it would. And if New Jersey said they were protecting the interests of Blacks, they disagreed with president Lincoln who said he’d be willing to save the union without freeing a single slave and the Irish immigrants who rioted in New York and burnt down a Black orphanage because they didn’t want to serve for what many saw as a “nigger war.” In fact, it was so hard to get enough enthusiastic White recruits, that the federal government finally relented and allowed Black men to serve, 216,000 enthusiastically signed up, including 90,000 that had escaped slavery. As for the 116,000, keep in mind, that the free Black population when the war started was only about 400,000, which probably make these number remarkable in the history or warfare for a population which, unlike Whites, wasn’t liable to being drafted. But if I yet take you at your word, I struggle to figure out what happened in 1861 that suddenly made Northern Whites become rabidly consumed with concern for the rights of Black people, after 250 years of slavery, left them largely content to settle the matter slowly in the legislatures, if at all. I struggle further to figure out why this grand humanitarian impulse, born in 1861 apparently, would’ve been dead by 1877 when the federal government withdrew soldiers from the South leaving us open to butchery, rape, bombing and general dehumanization for almost a century. I further wonder, why, if these impulses didn’t die in 1877, they weren’t made manifest when Blacks fled North, seeking opportunity, and were subjected to ghettoization, exclusion from most of the labor market, predations by racist banks who profited by exploiting Black dreams of home ownership and mob violence. I wonder why an anti-lynching bill wasn’t passed as over 10,000 people (probably more, investigating these killings was a good way to be killed yourself so the numbers are sketchy) were butchered by mobs with the collusion of state governments, I wonder why after decades of Black activists, ministers and children being murdered in Mississippi, it took the death of two White northerners to get the country up in arms. The state divisions come far after and are deeply subordinate to the basic ontogeny of American Whiteness from which we have always been excluded. You grossly overestimate the relevance of identities based on state.

 

Trey Gowdy: A Short Bio

Today, the Benghazi Committee released it’s long awaited final report. For anyone wondering “Who is Trey Gowdy?”; here it is in a nutshell.

Life and Early Career

Harold ‘Trey’ Watson Gowdy III was born on August 22nd of 1964. He grew up in Spartanburg South Carolina and still lives there to this day. Trey says that he learned the value of work early. He delivered papers as a teenager and later worked at a grocery store. He Graduated from Spartanburg high school in 1982 and then went on to earn a Bachelor of Arts in History from Baylor University in 1986. In 1989, Trey earned his Doctorate in Law from the University of South Carolina.

Trey got his career started as a clerk in the South Carolina court of appeals and worked several other low profile jobs in his early years. His was first recognized for major achievement in 1999 when he was awarded the Chief Postal Inspector’s Award for his prosecution of Mark Jay Allen, a suspect of multiple armed robberies.

In 2000, Gowdy ran against, and defeated, incumbent candidate for 7th Circuit Solicitor Holman Gossett. Although both Gowdy and Gossett belonged to the Republican party, Gowdy was able to set himself apart with an online campaign which received considerable attention. Despite an impressive 33% violent crime decrease credited to Gosset’s “aggressive” prosecution record by a local paper, Gowdy won the position and kept it until 2010. The position of Solicitor in the South Carolina government is as a prosecutor for one of sixteen Circuit Courts. The Solicitor of the 7th Circuit represents the state in criminal cases filed in Spartanburg county and Cherokee county. During his time as Solicitor, Gowdy created a Violence Against Women Taskforce using a grant from the STOP Violence Against Women Act. As a Result, three prosecutors, a victim advocate, an investigator, and one secretary were committed to work specifically with domestic violence cases. Despite this, Gowdy was criticized for having a higher rate of domestic violence case dismissals in 2005 than in the previous four years. Gowdy responded to criticism by saying that that rate was a “meaningless barometer of success”. Gowdy was also responsible for launching a Worthless Check Program which is intended to provide restitution to victims of check fraud.

In 2010, Gowdy sought the nomination of the Republican party for the position of House Representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district. Before Gowdy, the seat had been held by another Republican, Bob Inglis, for three terms. However, Inglis became the recipient of a great deal of criticism from his constituents for being one of only 17 House Republicans to oppose the troop surge and for his support of efforts to combat global warming. Gowdy beat Inglis with a campaign platform centered around opposition to Democrats on issues such as the troop surge, the bailouts, and global warming. Gowdy presented himself as an outsider and promised not to be changed by Washington. In the general election, Gowdy was sure-to-win. Compared to his Democratic opponent, Paul Corden, Gowdy raised nearly forty times as much money for his campaign. Gowdy won the seat with 65% of the vote.

While serving in the 112th Congress, Gowdy sponsored legislation which allows state and local law enforcement agencies to seek assistance from the Attorney General in cases where violent crimes are being investigated. That bill, HR 2076, passed through the House with overwhelming bipartisan support and then through the Senate with unanimous approval. The bill became law in January of 2013.

Gowdy also introduced the Former Presidents Protection Act which grants secret service protection to former presidents for life and to their children until the age of 16. This bill was also well received and passed easily through both the house and senate before becoming law in January, 2013.

In addition to his introduction of legislation which was well received on both sides of the isle, Gowdy so-sponsored some Democrats’ bills, including HR6379 which was introduced by the House Representative from South Carolina’s sixth district; James Clyburn. This bill dedicated a post office to Curtis Inabinett, the first African-American mayor of Ravenel, SC and later a member of the Charleston County Council.

Towards the end of his first term, Gowdy was involved in an incident where a woman at his church was arrested for illegally carrying a firearm. The arrest came after Gowdy told police that she had threatened him with the gun. A spokesperson for Gowdy’s office denied that there was any prior relationship between the representative and the woman who threatened him.

In 2012, Representative Gowdy ran for re-election and received nearly 65% of the vote. Gowdy was not challenged as the Republican candidate but ran against two other parties in the general election; the Democratic Party and the Green Party. In the course of his campaign, Gowdy was able to raise much more money than his campaign spent, creating a ‘war chest’ fund which strengthened his incumbent position. The greatest contributions to Gowdy’s campaign came from health professionals, the insurance industry, and the entertainment industry.

To this day, Gowdy continues to serve as Representative for South Carolina’s 4th district. In addition to his duties as a congressman, Gowdy sits on the Ethics Committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and a Select Committee on Benghazi.

Benghazi Committee

On the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th World Trade Center attack, an armed group attacked the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, Libya. Four americans were killed, including one ambassador. The following morning, Secretary of State Clinton made a statement offering consolation to the families of victims, condemning the attack and promising to bring those responsible to justice. In order to determine what went wrong in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton established an Accountability Review Board consisting of four members appointed by the Secretary and one member from the intelligence community appointed by the Director of National Intelligence. This Board reviewed the events of September 11th and 12th and made twenty nine recommendations for policy improvement. All of the recommendations were accepted and Secretary Clinton ordered that they be implemented.

The Republican reaction was criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to security in Libya. Fox News was quick to suggest that the administration should have seen this threat coming and had ignored pleas from “our people in Libya”.Clinton’s response after the fact was regarded as ‘too little too late’.

By 2014, the issue had received enough attention for Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner to propose a special committee be formed to investigate all policy decisions which may have prompted the attacks or impeded the United States’ ability to respond effectively as well as other relevant information. The proposal was rejected by nearly all Democratic House Representatives but the Republicans were able to pass it anyways.  To chair the special committee committee, Boehner appointed Trey Gowdy, stating “This is a big job, but Representative Gowdy has the confidence of this conference, and I know his professionalism and grit will earn him the respect of the American people.”

On September 11th, just a few months after being appointed to the special committee, Gowdy made the following statement about his intention and the purpose of the committee;

“Today we honor the memories and lives of those we lost in New York, Washington, D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We also honor the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. It is for them that we must establish all of the facts of what happened in Benghazi, beyond any reasonable doubt. And it is for the American people, and those who serve our nation overseas—to restore their faith and confidence—that the Committee will establish the facts in a fair and impartial manner.”

 

A week after this declaration, Gowdy and his committee held their first hearing. The hearing began with an opening statement from Gowdy and then a series of questions from the ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings. Cummings’ first line of inquiry concerned the status of implementing the policy changes recommended by the ARB Report. The first witness, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr, confirmed that the number of security personnel in Benghazi had been increased, new training was implemented, and twenty two of the recommended changes had already been fully implemented while the remaining seven were under way.

One might think that the testimony heard in the Benghazi committee’s first session would be enough to show that the State Department had responded effectively and was taking measures to correct deficiencies. In fact, this is the position that was taken generally by Democrats and was parroted by at least one left wing propaganda outlet. However, in a letter to the ranking member, Gowdy expressed his intention to continue on with the investigation and asked for Cummings to continue cooperating in a bipartisan effort to uncover the truth, whatever that may be. Gowdy reminded Cummings that their select committee had already been granted authority to subpoena witnesses and pointed out that no objections from the minority would un-do that. However, in the spirit of cooperation, Gowdy promised to give Cummings and the other members of the committee ample opportunity to contest subpoenas before they were made public.

To this date, the investigation by Gowdy’s committee continues, making it the longest congressional investigation in history. It also continues to receive criticism from Democrats. As recently as April 5th of this year, Minority Leader Harry Reid declared on the floor of the senate that Gowdy’s committee is a “partisan committee masquerading as an independent body.” Democrats have complained that the committee has intentionally fueled controversy with its subpoena of Hillary Clinton and attempted to embarrass her before the next presidential election.

Gowdy and the Tea Party

As Americans become more impatient with their political system, many who see no hope in either of the major parties have taken to identifying as members of the Tea Party, in reference to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. In 2004, a website was launched to give a face to the organization and lists the fifteen non-negotiable beliefs of the movement which include the right to gun ownership, the illegality of un-approved immigrants, and the importance of balancing the federal budget. Some politicians have explicitly associated themselves with the movement but, despite being popular among Tea Party members, Gowdy has never declared any involvement in the movement and continues to identify as a Republican.

 

Gowdy vs Justice Department

Gowdy, along with several of his house colleagues, has been critical of the Department of Justice’s ‘Smart on Crime’ initiative. That’s because, in an effort to reduce sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders, the Attorney General’s office issued a memo instructing prosecutors not to charge suspects with possession of  an amount of an illegal substance which would require a mandatory minimum sentence unless the suspects are violent or part a criminal organization. According to Representative Gowdy, if the Department of Justice wanted to avoid jailing non-violent criminals, it should exercise prosecutorial discretion and simply not prosecute drug cases. However, by choosing to prosecute and not applying the law as defined in mandatory minimum legislation, the DOJ undermines congressional authority.

Seemingly in response to the DOJ’s behavior, Representative Gowdy introduced the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014. If this legislation had passed, it would have empowered either chamber of congress to initiate a civil case against the executive in the event that the executive issued orders which conflicted with the constitutional requirement that it executes the law. Unfortunately, after being passed through the House of Representatives, Gowdy’s bill died in the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary.

Gowdy’s Position on the 2016 Election

In December of 2015, Gowdy officially endorsed Marco Rubio for President. Gowdy said that he could trust Rubio with the presidency because he has been consistent and kept his campaign promises. Gowdy also praised Rubio’s fiscal conservative tendencies, citing the occasion when he received an old campaign tie, worth less that the paper it was wrapped in, as a christmas gift from the Senator.

GOP front runner Donald Trump has responded to Gowdy’s position with a predictable volley of insults. Trump accused Gowdy of mismanaging the Benghazi investigation, calling it a “total not-good”.

The end of the Road

After serving four terms in the house of representatives and having earned the respect of many on the right, Gowdy has decided not to seek re-election. After his current term ends, Gowdy plans to return to his family and to his beautiful home state of South Carolina.

American Red Cross: Witch!

The Church of Leftism is so hyper-intolerant of anyone who ventures outside of the politically correct circumscriptions they have established that they are now going after an organization which exists solely to provide lifesaving services to those in need. The Church’s inquisitors (who have come to be know as ‘Social Justice Warriors’) take it upon themselves to seek out and denounce violators of the social circumscriptions.

Last Monday, a social justice warrior managed to take offense to this poster;

A twitter account called John Sawyer complained;

Hey, @RedCross, send a new pool poster to @SalidaRec bc the current one they have w your name on it is super racist

This caused enough outrage that the American Red Cross has promised to replace the poster with new, more politically correct version. I understand that the Red Cross is just trying to save lives and is not out to make a stand for freedom of speech but what precedence does this set? It’s not enough that the poster includes a black life guard and represents at least three ethnic types? Black people are being persecuted if they can’t get one of their own labeled ‘cool’ on a childrens’ safety poster? Give me a break!

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

 

An Open Letter of Congratulations.

Well, you did it. You refused to bend a knee to Germany. You shrugged off the campaign of fear and asserted your sovereignty. Those of you who turned out to vote should be proud. If the referendum had failed, there would have been no second chance.

Although there is plenty of cause for celebration, there are sure to be challenges ahead on the road you have chosen. The European Union may try to get you back. Scotland may threaten to leave again and, this time, actually do it. Germany will try to punish you for pulling the rug out from under its feet. Keep heart, you have chosen the right path.

Tonight, I’ll share a toast to England. Next week, I may even refrain from cursing you for your behavior in the 18th century. Just this once 😉