Over the course of my lifetime America has become an infantile
country.
When I was born America was a
nation. Today it is a diversity country in which various segments divided by
race, gender, and sexual preference, preach hate toward other segments.
Currently white heterosexual males are losing in the hate game, but once hate
is unleashed it can turn on any and every one. Working class white males
understand that they are the new underclass in a diversity country in which
everyone has privileges except them. Many of the university educated group of
heterosexual white males are too brainwashed to understand what is happening to
them. Indeed, some of them are so successfully brainwashed that they think it
is their just punishment as a white male to be downrodden.
Donald Trump’s presidency has
been wrecked by hate groups, i.e., the liberal/progressive/left who hate the
“racist, misognynist, homophobic, gun nut working class” that elected Trump
(see Eric Draitser, “Why He Won,” in CounterPunch, vol. 23, No. 1, 2017). For
the liberal/progressive/left Trump is an illegitimate president because he was
elected by illegitimate voters.
Today the American left hates the working class with such intensity that the left is comfortable with the left’s alliance with the One Percent and the military/security complex against Trump.
Today the American left hates the working class with such intensity that the left is comfortable with the left’s alliance with the One Percent and the military/security complex against Trump.
America, the melting pot that
produced a nation was destroyed by Identity Politics. Identity Politics divides
a population into hate groups. This group hates that one and so on. In the US
the most hated group is a southern white heterosexual male.
To rule America Identity
Politics is competing with a more powerful group—the military/security complex
supported by the neoconservative ideology of American world hegemony.
Currently,
Identity Politics and the military/security complex are working hand-in-hand to
destroy President Trump. Trump is hated by the powerful military/security
complex because Trump wanted to “normalize relations with Russia,” that is,
remove the “Russian threat” that is essential to the power and budget of the
military/security complex. Trump is hated by Identity Politics because the
imbeciles think no one voted for him but racist, misogynists, homophobic
gun-nuts. The Neoconservative Th...Best
Price: $14.85Buy New $18.97(as of 09:16 EDT - Details)
The fact that Trump intended
to unwind the dangerous tensions that the Obama regime has created with Russia
became his hangman’s noose. Designated as “Putin’s agent,” President Trump is
possibly in the process of being framed by a Special Prosecutor, none other
than member of the Shadow Government and former FBI director Robert Mueller.
Mueller knows that whatever lie he tells will be accepted by the media
presstitutes as the Holy Truth. However, as Trump, seeking self-preservation,
moves into the war camp, it might not be necessary for the shadow government to
eliminate him.
So the Great American
Democracy, The Morally Pure Country, is actually a cover for the profits and
power of the military/security complex. What is exceptional about America is
the size of the corruption and evil in the government and in the private
interest groups that control the government.
It wasn’t always this way. In
1958 at the height of the Cold War a young Texan, Van Cliburn, 23 years of age,
ventured to show up at the International Tchaikovsky Piano Competition in
Moscow. Given the rivalry between the military powers, what chance did an American
have of walking away with the prize? The cold warriors of the time would, if
asked, had said none.
But Van Cliburn electrified
the audience, the Moscow Symphony, and the famous conductor. His reception by
the Soviet audience was extraordinary. The judges went to Khrushchev and asked,
“Can we give the prize to the American?” Khrushchev asked, “Was he the best.”
The answer, “Yes.” “Well, then give him the prize.”
The Cold War should have
ended right there, but the military/security complex would not allow it.
You
can watch the performance here.
In other words, the Soviet
Union, unlike America today, did not need to prevail over the truth. The
Soviets gave what has perhaps become the most famous of all prizes of musical
competition to an American. The Soviets were able to see and recognize truth,
something few Americans any longer can do.
The supporters of this
website are supporters because, unlike their brainwashed fellows who are
tightly locked within The Matrix, they can tell the difference between truth
and propaganda. The supporters of this website comprise the few who, if it is
possible, will save America and the world from the evil that prevails in
Washington.
Van Cliburn came home to America
a hero. He went on to a grand concert career. If Van Cliburn had been judged in
his day, as Donald Trump is today for wanting to defuse the dangerously high
level of tensions with Russia, Van Cliburn would have been greeted on his
return with a Soviet prize as a traitor. The New York Times, the Washington
Post, CNN, NPR and the rest of the presstitutes would have denounced him up one
street and down another. How dare Van Cliburn legitimize the Soviet Union by
participating in a music competition and accepting a Soviet prize!
Did you know that Van
Cliburn, after his talented mother had provided all the music instruction she
could, studied under a RUSSIAN woman? What more proof do you need that Van
Cliburn was a traitor to America? Imagine, he studied under a RUSSIAN! I mean,
really! Isn’t this a RUSSIAN connection?!
How can we avoid the fact
that all those music critics at the New York Times and Washington Post were
also RUSSIAN agents. I mean, gosh, they actually praised Van Cliburn for
playing RUSSIAN music in MOSCOW so well.
Makes a person wonder if
Ronald Reagan wasn’t also a RUSSIAN agent. Reagan actually convinced Van
Cliburn to come out of retirement and to play in the White House for Soviet
leader Gorbachev, with whom Reagan was trying to end the Cold War.
I am
making fun of what passes for reasoning today. Reason has been displaced by denunciation. If
someone, anyone, says something, that can be misconstrued and denounced, it
will be, the meaning of what was said notwithstanding. Consider the recent
statement by the Deputy Prime Minister of Japan, Taro Aso, in an address to
members of his ruling political party. He said: “I don’t question your motives
to be a politician. But the results are important. Hitler, who killed millions
of people, was no good, even if his motives were right.”
To
anyone capable of reason, it is perfectly clear that Aso is saying that the ends don’t justify the
means. “Even if” is conditional. Aso is saying that even if
Hitler acted in behalf of a just cause, his means were impermissible.
Aso, a man of principle, is
instructing his party’s politicians to be moral beings and not to sacrifice
morality to a cause, much less an American cause of Japanese rearmament so as
to amplify Washington’s aggression toward China.
The response to a simple and
straightforward statement that not even in politics do the ends justify the
means was an instant denunciation of the Deputy Prime Minister for “shameful”
and “dangerous” remarks suggesting that Hitler “had the right motives.”
Arrgh! screamed the Simon
Wiesenthal Center which saw a new holocaust in the making. Reuters reported
that Aso had put his foot in his mouth by making remarks that “could be
interpreted as a defense of Adolf Hitler’s motive for genocide during World War
Two.” Even RT, to which we normally look for real as opposed to fake news,
joined in the misreporting. The chairman of the Japanese opposition party
joined in, terming Aso’s statement that the ends don’t justify the means “a
serious gaffe.”
Of course, the South Koreans
and the Chinese, who have WWII resentments against Japan, could not let the
opportunity pass that the Western media created, and also unloaded on Japan,
condemning the Deputy Prime Minister as a modern advocate of Hitlerism. The
Chinese and South Koreans were too busy settling old scores to realize that by
jumping on Aso they were undermining the Japanese opposition to the
re-militarization of Japan, which will be at their expense.
Aso is astonished by the
misrepresentation of his words. He said, “I used Hitler as an example of a bad
politician. It is regrettable that my comment was misinterpreted and caused misunderstanding.”
It seems that hardly anyone
was capable of comprehending what Aso said. He clearly denounced Hitler,
declaring Hitler “no good,” but no one cared. He used the word, “Hitler,” which
was sufficient to set off the explosion of denunciation. Aso responded by
withdrawing Hitler as his example of a “bad politician.” And this is a victory?
The
media, even RT alas, was quick to point out that Aso was already suspect. In
2013 Aso opposed the overturning of Japan’s pacifist constitution that Washington
was pushing in order to recruit Japan in a new war front against China. Aso, in
the indirect way that the Japanese approach descent, said “Germany’s Weimar
Constitution was changed [by the Nazis] before anyone knew. It was changed
before anyone else noticed. Why don’t we learn from the technique?” Aso’s
remarks were instantly misrepresented as his endorsement of surreptitiously
changing Japan’s constitution, which was Washington’s aim, whereas Aso was
defending its pacifist constraint, pointing out that Japan’s pacificist
Constitution was being changed without voters’ consent. How America Was Lost: ...Best
Price: $21.55Buy New $19.18(as of 09:16 EDT - Details)
An explanation of Aso’s
words, something that never would have needed doing prior to our illiterate
times, has its own risks. Many Americans confuse an explanation with a defense.
Thus, an explanation can bring denunciation for “defending a Japanese nazi.”
Considering the number of intellectually-challenged Americans, I expect to read
many such denunciations.
This
is the problem with being a truthful writer in these times. More people want
someone to denounce than want truth. Truth-tellers are persona non grata to
the ruling establishment and to proponents of Identity Politics. It is unclear
how much longer truth will be permitted to be expressed. Already it is much
safer and more remunerative to tell the official lies than to tell the truth.
More people want their
inculcated biases and beliefs affirmed by what they read than want to
reconsider what they think, expecially if changing their view puts them at odds
with their peers. Most people believe what is convenient for them and what they
want to believe. Facts are not important to them. Indeed, Americans deny the
facts before their eyes each and every day. How can America be a superpower
when the population for the most part is completely ignorant and brainwashed?
When truth-tellers are no
more, it is unlikely they will be missed. No one will even know that they are
gone. Already, gobs of people are unable to follow a reasoned argument based on
undisputed facts.
Take something simple and
clear, such as the conflict over several decades between North and South
leading to the breakup of the union. The conflict was economic. It was over
tariffs. The North wanted them in order to protect northern industry from lower-priced
British manufactures. Without tariffs, northern industry was hemmed in by
British goods and could not develop.
The South did not want the
tariffs because it meant higher prices for the South and likely retaliation
against the South’s export of cotton. The South saw the conflict in terms of
lower income forced on southerners so that northern manufacturers could have
higher incomes. The argument over the division of new states carved from former
Indian territories was about keeping the voting balance equal in Congress so
that a stiff tariff could not be passed. It is what the debates show. So many
historians have written about these documented facts.
Slavery was not the issue,
because as Lincoln said in his inaugural address, he had no inclination and no
power to abolish slavery. Slavery was a states rights issue reserved to the
states by the US Constitution.
The issue, Lincoln said in
his inaugural address, was the collection of the tariff. There was no need, he
said, for invasion or bloodshed. The South just needed to permit the federal
government to collect the duties on imports. The northern states actually
passed an amendment to the Constitution that prohibited slavery from ever being
abolished by the federal government, and Lincoln gave his support.
For the South the problem was
not slavery. The legality of slavery was clear and accepted by Lincoln in his
inaugural address as a states right. However, a tariff was one of the powers
given by the Constitution to the federal government. Under the Constitution the
South was required to accept a tariff if it passed Congress and was signed by
the President. A tariff had passed two days prior to Lincoln’s inauguration.
The
South couldn’t point at the real reason it was leaving the union—the tariff—if the South wanted to blame
the north for its secession. In order to blame the North for
the breakup of the union (the British are leaving the European Union without a
war), the South turned to the nullification by some northern states of the
federal law and US Constitutional provision (Article 4, Section 2) that
required the return of runaway slaves. South Carolina’s secession document said
that some Northern states by not returning slaves had broken the contract on
which the union was formed. South Carolina’s argument became the basis for the
secession documents of other states.
In other words, slavery
became an issue in the secession because some Northern states—but not the
federal government—refused to comply with the constitutional obligation to
return the property as required by the US Constitution.
South Carolina was correct,
but the northern states were acting as individual states, not as the federal
government. It wasn’t Lincoln who nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, and states
were not allowed to nulify constitutional provisions or federal law within the
powers assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. Lincoln upheld
the Fugative Slave Act. In effect, what the South did was to nullify the power
that the Constitution gives to the federal government to levy a tariff.
Apologists for the South ignore this fact. The South had no more power under
the Constitution to nullify a tariff than northern states had to nullify the
Fugative Slave Act.
Slavery was not, under the
Constitution, a federal issue, but the tariff was. It was the South’s refusal
of the tariff that caused Lincoln to invade the Confederacy.
You need to understand that
in those days people thought of themselves as citizens of the individual
states, not as citizens of the United States, just as today people in Europe
think of themselves as citizens of France, Germany, Italy, etc., and not as
citizens of the European Union. In was in the states that most government power
resided. Robert E. Lee refused the offer of the command of the Union Army on
the grounds that it would be treasonous for him to attack his own country of
Virginia.
Having explained history as it was understood
prior to its rewrite by Identity Politics, which has thrown history down the
Orwellian Memory Hole, I was accused of “lying about the motivations of the
South” by a reason-impaired reader.
In this reader, we see not
only the uninformed modern American but also the rudness of the uninformed
modern American. I could understand a reader writing that perhaps I had
misunderstood the secession documents, but “lying about the motivations of the
South”? It is extraordinary to be called a liar by a reader incapable of
understanding the issues. President Lincoln and the northern states gave the
South complete and unequivable assurances about slavery, but not about tariffs.
The reader sees a defense of
slavery in the secession documents but is unable to grasp the wider picture
that the South is making a states rights argument that some northern states, in
the words of the South Carolina secession document, “have denied the rights of
property . . . recognized by the Constitution.” The reader saw that the
documents mentioned slavery but not tariffs, and concluded that slavery was the
reason that the South seceded.
It did not occur to the
reason-impaired reader to wonder why the South would secede over slavery when
the federal government was not threatening slavery. In his inaugural address
Lincoln said that he had neither the power nor the inclination to forbid
slavery. The North gave the South more assurances about slavery by passing the
Corwin Amendment that added to the existing constitutional protection of
slavery by putting in a special constitutional amendment upholding slavery. As
slavery was under no threat, why would the South secede over slavery?
The tariff was a threat, and
it was a tariff, not a bill outlawing slavery, that had just passed. Unlike
slavery, which the Constitution left to the discretion of individual states,
tariffs were a federal issue. Under the Constitution states had no rights to
nullify tariffs. Therefore, the South wanted out.
It also does not occur to the
reason-impaired reader that if the war was over slavery why have historians,
even court historians, been unable to find evidence of that in the letters and
diaries of the soldiers on both sides?
In
other words, we have a very full context here, and none of it supports that the
war was fought over slavery. But the reader sees some words about slavery in
the secession documents and his reasoning ability cannot get beyond those
words. The Tyranny of Good In...Best
Price: $3.65Buy New $10.55(as of 04:28 EDT - Details)
This is the same absence of
reasoning ability that led to the false conclusion that the Deputy Prime
Minister of Japan was an admirer of Hitler.
Now
for an example of an emotionally-impaired reader, one so emotional that he is
unable to comprehend the meaning of his own words. This reader read Thomas DiLorenzo’s article and my article as an “absolution of the
South” and as “whitewashing of the South.” Of what he doesn’t say. Slavery?
Secession? All that I and DiLorenzo offer are explanations. DiLorenzo is a
Pennsylvanian. I grew up in the South but lived my life outside it. Neither of
us are trying to resurrect the Confederacy. As I understand DiLorenzo, his main
point is that the so- called “civil war” destroyed the original US Constitution
and centralized power in Washington in the interest of Empire. I am pointing
out that ignorance has spawned a false history that is causing a lot of
orchestrated hate. Neither of us thinks that the country needs the hate and the
division hate causes. We need to be united against the centralized power in
Washington that is turning on the people.
Carried away by emotion, the
reader dashed off an article to refute us. My interest is not to ridicule the
reader but to use him as an example of the emotionally-impaired American.
Therefore, I am protecting him from personal ridicule by not naming him or linking
to his nonsensical article. My only interest is to illustrate how for too many
Americans emotion precludes reason.
First, the reader in his
article calls DiLorenzo and I names and then projects his sin upon us, accusing
us of “name-calling,” which he says is “a poor substitute for proving points.”
Here is his second mistake.
DiLorenzo and I are not “proving points.” We are stating long established known
facts and asking how a new history has been created that is removed from the
known facts.
So how does the
emotionally-disturbed reader refute us in his article? He doesn’t. He proves
our point.
First he acknowledges “what
American history textbooks for decades have acknowledged: The North did not go
to War to stop slavery. Lincoln went to war to save the Union.”
How does he get rid of the
Corwin Amendment. He doesn’t. He says everyone, even “the most ardent
Lincoln-worshipping court historian,” knows that the North and Lincoln gave the
South assurances that the federal government would not involve itself in the
slavery issue.
In other words, the reader
says that there is nothing original in my article or DiLorenzo’s and that it is
just the standard history, so why is he taking exception to it?
The answer seems to be that
after agreeing with us that Lincoln did not go to war over slavery and gave the
South no reason to go to war over slavery, the reader says that the South did
go to war over slavery. He says that the war was fought over the issue of
expanding slavery into new states created from Indian territories.
This is an extremely
problematic claim for two indisputable reasons.
First, the South went to war because
Lincoln invaded the South.
Second, the South had seceded and no
longer had any interest in the status of new territories.
As I reported in my article,
it is established historical record that the conflict over the expansion of
slavery as new states were added to the Union was a fight over the tariff vote
in Congress. The South was trying to keep enough representation to block the
passage of a tariff, and the North was trying to gain enough representation to
enact protectionism over the free trade South.
It is
so emotionally important to the reader that the war was over slavery that he
alleges that the reason the South was not seduced by the Corwin Amendment is
that it did not guarantee the expansion of slavery into new states, but only
protected slavery in those states in which it existed. In other words, the
reader asserts that the South fought for a hegemonic ideology of slavery in the
Union. But the South had
left the Union, so clearly it wasn’t fighting to expand slavery
outside its borders. Moreover, the North gave the South no assurances over the
South’s real concern—its economic exploitation by the North. The same day the
North passed the Corwin Amendment the North passed the tariff. Clearly, it was
not assurances over slavery that mattered to the South. Slavery was protected
by states rights. It was the tariff that was important to the South.
Whereas
the tariff was the issue that brought the conflict to a head, correspondence between Lord Acton and Robert E. Lee shows
that the deeper issue was liberty and its protection from centralized power. On
November 4, 1866, Lord Acton wrote to Robert E. Lee: “I saw in State Rights the
only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession
filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy.”
Acton saw in the US Constitution defects that could lead to the rise of
despotism. Acton regarded the Confederate Constitution as “expressly and wisely
calculated to remedy” the defects in the US Constitution. The Confederate
Constitution, Acton said, was a “great Reform [that] would have blessed all the
races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and
disorders of Republics.”
Lee replied: “I yet believe
that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to
the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general
system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider
it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the
consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive
abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which
has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”
A present-day American
unfamiliar with the 18th and 19th-century efforts to create a government that
could not degenerate into despotism will see hypocrisy in this correspondence
and misread it. How, the present day American will ask, could Acton and Lee be
talking about establishing true freedom when slavery existed? The answer is
that Acton and Lee, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, understood
that there were more ways of being enslaved than being bought and sold. If the
battle is lost over the character of government and power becomes centralized,
then all are enslaved.
Lee’s prediction of a
government “aggressive abroad and despotic at home” has come true. What is
despotism if not indefinite detention on suspicion alone without evidence or
conviction, if not execution on suspicion alone without due process of law, if
not universal spying and searches without warrants?
What I find extraordinary
about today’s concern with slavery in the 1800s is the lack of concern with our
enslavement today. It is amazing that Americans do not realize that they were
enslaved by the passage of the income tax in 1913. Consider the definition of a
slave. It is a person who does not own his own labor or the products of his own
labor. Of course, if the slave is to live to work another day some of his labor
must go to his subsistance. How much depended on the technology and labor
productivity. On 19th century southern plantations, the slave tax seems to have
been limited short of the 50% rate.
When I entered the US
Treasury as Assistant Secretary, the top tax rate on personal income was 50%.
During the medieval era, serfs did not own all of their own labor. At the time
I studied the era, the top tax rate on serfs was believed to have been limited
to one-third of the serf’s working time. Given labor productivity in those
days, any higher tax would have prevented the reproduction of the labor force.
So what explains the concern
about wage slavery in 1860 but not in 2017?
The answer seems to be Diversity Politics. In 1860 blacks had the burden of wage slavery. In 2017 all have the burden except for the rich whose income is in the form of capital gains and those among the poor who don’t work. Identity Politics cannot present today’s wage slavery as the unique burder of a “preferred minority.” Today those most subjected to wage slavery are the white professionals in the upper middle class. That is where the tax burden is highest. Americans living at public expense are exempted from wage slavery by lack of taxable income. Consequently, the liberal/progressive/left only objects to 19th-century wage slavery. 20th Century wage slavery is perfectly acceptable to the liberal/progressive/left. Indeed, they want more of it.
The answer seems to be Diversity Politics. In 1860 blacks had the burden of wage slavery. In 2017 all have the burden except for the rich whose income is in the form of capital gains and those among the poor who don’t work. Identity Politics cannot present today’s wage slavery as the unique burder of a “preferred minority.” Today those most subjected to wage slavery are the white professionals in the upper middle class. That is where the tax burden is highest. Americans living at public expense are exempted from wage slavery by lack of taxable income. Consequently, the liberal/progressive/left only objects to 19th-century wage slavery. 20th Century wage slavery is perfectly acceptable to the liberal/progressive/left. Indeed, they want more of it.
People can no longer think or
reason. There seems to be no rational component in their brain, just emotion
set into action by fuse-lighting words.
Here is an example hot off the press. This month in Cobb County, Georgia, a car was pulled over for driving under the influence of alcohol. The white police lieutenant requested the ID of a white woman. She replied that she is afraid to reach into her purse for her license, because she has read many stories of people being shot because police officers conclude that they are reaching for a gun. Instead of tasering the woman for non-compliance, yanking her out of the car, and body slamming her, the lieutenant diffused the situation by making light of her concern. “We only shoot black people, you know.” This is what a person would conclude from the news, because seldom is a big stink made when the police shoot a white person.
Here is an example hot off the press. This month in Cobb County, Georgia, a car was pulled over for driving under the influence of alcohol. The white police lieutenant requested the ID of a white woman. She replied that she is afraid to reach into her purse for her license, because she has read many stories of people being shot because police officers conclude that they are reaching for a gun. Instead of tasering the woman for non-compliance, yanking her out of the car, and body slamming her, the lieutenant diffused the situation by making light of her concern. “We only shoot black people, you know.” This is what a person would conclude from the news, because seldom is a big stink made when the police shoot a white person.
The upshot of the story is
that the lieutenant’s words were recorded on his recorder and when they were
entered as part of the incident report, the chief of police announced that the
lieutenant was guilty of “racial insensitivity” and would be fired for the
offense.
Now think about this. A
little reasoning is necessary. How are the words racially insensitive when no
black persons were present? How are the words racially insensitive when the
lieutenant said exactly what blacks themselves say? And now the clincher: Which
is the real insensitivity, saying “we only shoot black people” or actually
shooting black people? How is it possible that the officer who uses “racially
insensitive” words to diffuse a situation is more worthy of punishment that an
officer who actually shoots a black person? Seldom is an officer who has shot a
black, white, hispanic, Asian, child, grandmother, cripple, or the family dog
ever fired. The usual “investigation” clears the officer on the grounds that he
had grounds to fear his life was in danger—precisely the reason the woman
didn’t want to reach into her purse.
For
a person who tries to tell the truth, writing is a frustrating and discouraging
experience. What is the point of writing for people who cannot read, who cannot
follow a logical argument because their limited mental capabilities are
entirely based in emotion, who have no idea of the consequence of a population
imbued with hate that destroys a nation in divisiveness?
I ask myself this question
everytime I write a column.
Indeed, given the policies of
Google and PayPal it seems more or less certain that before much longer anyone
who speaks outside The Matrix will be shut down.
Free speech is only allowed
for propagandists. Megyn Kelly has free speech as long as her free speech lies
for the ruling establishment. Her lies are proteced by an entire media network
backed by the Shadow Goverment and the Deep State.
Paul Craig Roberts, a
former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the
Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse
for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of
Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented
account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by
Random House. Visit his website.
Copyright © 2017 Paul Craig Roberts