Saturday, December 29, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
I read Antony Sutton’s history of Skull and Bones*(America’s Secret Establishment) last summer. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but Progressivism fits the Hegelian model that Sutton describes as Skull and Bones's ideology; moreover, the Hegelian model seems to have guided the direction of American politics for the past century. The concept of gradual socialization leading to a socialist America was characteristic of many Progressives, particularly Walter Weyl in his New Democracy. Sutton says something more: the American political process has been an orchestrated dialectic between two apparently competing factions, but the end result of the dialectic will be a synthesis that benefits the elite of both factions. As America becomes increasingly oligarchic there seems to be some meat on Sutton's discussion of Skull and Bones.
Sutton's history of Skull and Bones says more about American conservatism's being a form of Progressivism than it does about the left-wing Progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin. Everyone already knows that left-wing Progressives favor socialism. There is more confusion about American conservatism, which claims to favor traditional American values. There is, though, a socialist tradition in America that arches from Hamilton to the Whigs to the Progressives. The Whig ideology was necessarily couched in individualist rhetoric just as Hamilton claimed to favor states' rights in The Federalist Papers. In other words, Whig liberalism was baloney, just as today's Republican Party's claims of being for small government is baloney.
The Whigs didn't picture themselves as more conservative or more radical than the Democrats, only more in favor of public works, centralized control, the public good, central banking, and subsidies to business. Both American conservatism and American progressivism in their current forms are descended from the Whigs' and Progressives' ideologies, but there was no Federalist, Whig, or Republican conservatism until 1912. Since then, both American conservatism and American "liberalism" have been Progressive, and have had little regard for Jacksonian or Jeffersonian republicanism except in apologia. Warren G. Harding ran on a platform of normalcy, as did Calvin Coolidge. Normalcy or consolidation has been part of Republican Progressivism pattern ever since. Reagan claimed that "government is the problem," but he consolidated government. He did not reduce it. In order to attract Americans who continue to believe in 19th century liberalism, the Republican Party has continued to lie and claim that it favors small government.
Skull and Bones was present at the founding of both major political factions. Much later, the Kennedy administration appointed Skull and Bones members (McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, and Averell Harriman, along with a range of cronies.** Kennedy had asked Skull and Bonesman Robert Lovett to join his cabinet, but Lovett refused, recommending the Bundys instead. ) As well, Skull and Bonesmen have dominated American conservatism: William F. Buckley, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush were members. There is little of Jefferson or Jackson in American conservatism, which is pro-bank, pro-banker, pro-big business, and pro-elite.
Sutton's history of Skull and Bones says more about American conservatism's being a form of Progressivism than it does about the left-wing Progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin. Everyone already knows that left-wing Progressives favor socialism. There is more confusion about American conservatism, which claims to favor traditional American values. There is, though, a socialist tradition in America that arches from Hamilton to the Whigs to the Progressives. The Whig ideology was necessarily couched in individualist rhetoric just as Hamilton claimed to favor states' rights in The Federalist Papers. In other words, Whig liberalism was baloney, just as today's Republican Party's claims of being for small government is baloney.
The Whigs didn't picture themselves as more conservative or more radical than the Democrats, only more in favor of public works, centralized control, the public good, central banking, and subsidies to business. Both American conservatism and American progressivism in their current forms are descended from the Whigs' and Progressives' ideologies, but there was no Federalist, Whig, or Republican conservatism until 1912. Since then, both American conservatism and American "liberalism" have been Progressive, and have had little regard for Jacksonian or Jeffersonian republicanism except in apologia. Warren G. Harding ran on a platform of normalcy, as did Calvin Coolidge. Normalcy or consolidation has been part of Republican Progressivism pattern ever since. Reagan claimed that "government is the problem," but he consolidated government. He did not reduce it. In order to attract Americans who continue to believe in 19th century liberalism, the Republican Party has continued to lie and claim that it favors small government.
Skull and Bones was present at the founding of both major political factions. Much later, the Kennedy administration appointed Skull and Bones members (McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, and Averell Harriman, along with a range of cronies.** Kennedy had asked Skull and Bonesman Robert Lovett to join his cabinet, but Lovett refused, recommending the Bundys instead. ) As well, Skull and Bonesmen have dominated American conservatism: William F. Buckley, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush were members. There is little of Jefferson or Jackson in American conservatism, which is pro-bank, pro-banker, pro-big business, and pro-elite.
Before I had heard of Skull and Bones or knew of his membership in the Skull and Bones order, I had concluded that William Howard Taft was the founder of American conservatism; it turns out that his father, Alphonse Taft, was the founder of Skull and Bones, and William F. Buckley, who adapted Taft conservatism to the post-war era, was also a member. Recall that Buckley did his best to destroy Ayn Rand, in particular through a review of Atlas Shrugged by Whitaker Chambers.
Thesis: left-wing Progressivism (Roosevelt, Perkins, Rockefeller, Morgan),
Antithesis: conservative Progressivism (Taft, Buckley, Bush)
Synthesis: American oligarchy and crony capitalism
Since 1912 American politics has been a Hegelian battle between two versions of Progressivism; the ideas of the founding fathers are recognized rhetorically, especially in the conservative version, but are ignored in operation by both factions. The outcome is a mix of fascism and socialism, an oligarchy based on money printing and finance.
* http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-Establishment-Introduction-Order/dp/0972020748/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356154884&sr=8-1&keywords=sutton+skull+and+bones
**Domhoff credited Lovett, Harvey Bundy and John McCloy with having a close working relationship; and credited John F. Kennedy as accepting Lovett's advice to appoint Dean Ruskas Secretary of State, Robert McNamara as Defense Secretary, and C. Douglas Dillon for the Treasury.
***Thus, TR became president, and the Order of Skull & Bones for the first time moved into the White House. Roosevelt surrounded himself with Bonesmen. His successor in 1908, William Howard Taft, was himself a second generation member of Skull & Bones.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
December 19, 2012
Larry Mone
Manhattan Institute
52 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Mone:
Thank you for your fundraising letter of December 4. I think highly of much of what the Manhattan Institute has done. Examples are Brian Anderson's book on political theory, which I reviewed for the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, and Theodore Dalrymple's essays. Since 2008, when I last contributed to the Manhattan Institute, I have concluded that the United States is in worse shape than I had thought. The days of a republican United States will not return, nor will the American tendency toward an oligarchic, dictatorial system reverse.
I hold the Manhattan Institute's perspective partially responsible for America's decline into oligarchy. American conservatism is rooted in Republican federalism whereby the federal government exercises hegemony over the states, monetary policy, constitutional interpretation, and economic regulation. From the nation's beginning, Hamilton urged an increasing degree of centralization and federal power; your organization's approach is in the Hamiltonian conservative tradition.
Oligarchy, centralization, and increased government authority result from the interaction of the brokerage of special interests and Federal Reserve Bank counterfeit:
Brokerage of Special Interests x Federal Reserve Counterfeit = Oligrachy, Tyranny
We are past the point where the size and power of the federal government can be explained as a natural outgrowth of federalism, technology, or economies of scale. Rather, we live in an oligarchy of financial interests cartelized through the Federal Reserve Bank. The Hamiltonian vision that you advocate depends on criminality: the banking system's stealing from the public. The eventual result has been (not will be) the dissolution of the American republic into an authoritarian, criminal organization. The dissolution has already occurred; the government of the United States is an irretrievable abomination--a pig state. Please take my name off your mailing list.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
King Barack sheds a tear for the children murdered in Connecticut, but he sheds no tears for the 168 children he and his colleague George Bush have murdered in Pakistan (h/t Mike Marnell). In Vietnam Lyndon Baynes Johnson and the United States government murdered several hundred thousand Vietnamese children. Now, cheered on by America's backward media, Washington's serial killers aim to ruthlessly capitalize on a tragedy to illegally prevent you from defending yourself from them.
From The Telegraph:
In an extensive analysis of open-source documents, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 2,292 people had been killed by US missiles, including as many as 775 civilians.
"This is a military campaign run by a secret service which raised problems of accountability, transparency and you have a situation where neither the Pakistanis nor Americans are clear about any agreements in place and where the reporting is difficult," he said.
From The Telegraph:
In an extensive analysis of open-source documents, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 2,292 people had been killed by US missiles, including as many as 775 civilians.
The strikes, which began under President George W Bush but have since accelerated during the presidency of Barack Obama, are hated in Pakistan, where families live in fear of the bright specks that appear to hover in the sky overhead.
In just a single attack on a madrassah in 2006 up to 69 children lost their lives.
Chris Woods, who led the research, said the detailed database of deaths would send shockwaves through Pakistan, where political and military leaders repeatedly denounce the strikes in public, while privately allowing the US to continue.
"This is a military campaign run by a secret service which raised problems of accountability, transparency and you have a situation where neither the Pakistanis nor Americans are clear about any agreements in place and where the reporting is difficult," he said.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Kenneth Christian Matteson posted this on Facebook Events. He proposes October 13, 2013 to be Burn the UN Flag Day. Every day should be Burn the UN Flag Day. Protestors should bring a few of these to the Kingston, NY planning board and burn them on the days when they discuss their plan.
I recently mailed this idea to the president of a leading retirement and healthcare real estate investment trust here in the U.S. The idea is to develop planned communities for Americans in lower cost countries that have more freedom than the United States. Chile and Uruguay are prime candidates, but as America becomes increasingly unstable and socialistic, places like Nicaragua, Panama, and Nevis are also candidates. The proposal is as follows:
I'm a college professor in New York who is a former Sunrise shareholder and has recently bought 100 shares of HCN. I'm also a former employee-benefit-plan administrator in industry and have published on pension-and-ERISA issues and healthcare reform. I have an idea for you, and I am happy to discuss it further. The idea is to transfer what you're doing here to Latin America and the Caribbean (e.g., Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, and Nevis).
The model I'm suggesting is this: A host country-based healthcare facility surrounded by a high-end retirement community. The idea includes three or four elements:
1. There will be increasing instability in the United States due to monetary-and-fiscal policy. This will make a second, foreign residence attractive to affluent retirees who may be interested in basing part or all of their retirement portfolios in another market-based economy as well as in alternative citizenship and residence that will diversify citizenship risk.
2. Healthcare costs are on the rise. Healthcare tourism is a way to sidestep the American system's costs. An American-managed, community-based healthcare system will take the perceived risk out of healthcare tourism. As well as providing a foundation for a large-scale community, the community's hospital could provide healthcare tourism services to Americans who want an American-managed healthcare facility.
3. The cost of living in Latin American countries like Costa Rica is advantageous and can draw Americans threatened by inflationary monetary policies and a declining social security system. This may open large new markets for your organization.
4. Many Americans might be interested in relocation as a way to economize and enjoy life in a new environment, but they are deterred by the uncertainty, bureaucracy, and language barriers of relocation. A systematic approach that would provide turnkey relocation support and services to Americans who wish to relocate but lack the initiative could open new markets. In effect, an organized approach can replace the transactions costs of individuals' dealing with visas and the like with an organized approach. These services could extend to citizenship applications, opening bank accounts, assisting with relocation, and language instruction.
I'm a college professor in New York who is a former Sunrise shareholder and has recently bought 100 shares of HCN. I'm also a former employee-benefit-plan administrator in industry and have published on pension-and-ERISA issues and healthcare reform. I have an idea for you, and I am happy to discuss it further. The idea is to transfer what you're doing here to Latin America and the Caribbean (e.g., Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, and Nevis).
The model I'm suggesting is this: A host country-based healthcare facility surrounded by a high-end retirement community. The idea includes three or four elements:
1. There will be increasing instability in the United States due to monetary-and-fiscal policy. This will make a second, foreign residence attractive to affluent retirees who may be interested in basing part or all of their retirement portfolios in another market-based economy as well as in alternative citizenship and residence that will diversify citizenship risk.
2. Healthcare costs are on the rise. Healthcare tourism is a way to sidestep the American system's costs. An American-managed, community-based healthcare system will take the perceived risk out of healthcare tourism. As well as providing a foundation for a large-scale community, the community's hospital could provide healthcare tourism services to Americans who want an American-managed healthcare facility.
3. The cost of living in Latin American countries like Costa Rica is advantageous and can draw Americans threatened by inflationary monetary policies and a declining social security system. This may open large new markets for your organization.
4. Many Americans might be interested in relocation as a way to economize and enjoy life in a new environment, but they are deterred by the uncertainty, bureaucracy, and language barriers of relocation. A systematic approach that would provide turnkey relocation support and services to Americans who wish to relocate but lack the initiative could open new markets. In effect, an organized approach can replace the transactions costs of individuals' dealing with visas and the like with an organized approach. These services could extend to citizenship applications, opening bank accounts, assisting with relocation, and language instruction.
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
December 7, 2012
Mr. J.P. Fowler
National Review
215 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Dear Mr. Fowler:
I am in receipt of your fundraising letter of November 30. I did contribute to National Review once or twice, but I have since concluded that the Buckley brand of conservatism has contributed to the nation's ongoing decline. I have two chief reasons for reaching this conclusion.
First, the lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy creates a Hegelian dynamic whereby a left-wing thesis confronts a conservative antithesis. The conservative antithesis is an argument for no change, while the left-wing thesis is an argument for socialist change. The outcome is an incremental socialist (Democratic Party) or fascist (Republican Party) trend, and your lesser-of-two-evils voting philosophy has contributed to it. American conservatism is unique because of William Howard Taft Progressivism, but it still leads to fascism. Instead, there needs to be a pro-freedom thesis, or better yet, an elimination of the Hegelian model altogether because it is superstitious. At this point in history, only a radicalism alien to your Taft conservatism will be successful in reversing the totalitarian trend.
Second, your brand of conservatism does not aim to reduce or even to limit government, despite your and the GOP's protestations. The expansion of government is an outcome of two interactive factors: the brokerage of coalitions of special interests and the unending availability of Federal Reserve Bank counterfeit. The brokerage of coalitions inexorably pushes elected officials to expand government, and the Fed's unlimited monetary expansion power makes expansion possible. You favor the Fed's unfettered monetary creation power, and you do not offer an alternative to democracy's brokerage of special interests, a brokerage recognized and heralded by Herbert Hoover, as William Appleman Williams describes in his Contours of American History.
I have concluded that I have as little common ground with your publication, William Howard Taft Progressivism , the GOP, and neoconservative fascism as I do with the Democratic Party and their more thuggish version of socialism.
Please remove me from your mailing list.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
