So much for Socialism being 'humane'...

What is the main criticism people level at us, the good old capitalists? Well, for starters, we are supposedly just purely bad people. We selfishly want to exploit others in this dog-eat-dog world of ours. The weak who are not useful to us should perish - they are unnecessary and only a burden. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what characterizes capitalist society. Selfish motives might very well propel most of the relationships involved, after all, as Adam Smith described, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". But people prosper under this system. The amount of labor allotted to each individual over the years has fallen dramatically. We are living in a richer, more healthy society. Charity has always blossomed under such conditions. It is no accident that the largest average per capita amount given to charity was present in the hay day of the capital of capitalism - 18th Century United States. Today, however, it is the socialists and social-democrats ('liberals' in the US) who claim to be representatives of the good. Capitalism is evil and must be replaced by mixed economy (a type of economic fascism) or outright socialism. Their policies lead the the exact opposite effects that capitalist ones do. Charitable contributions plunge (after all welfare and such things are now entitlements). Productivity is lowered which means, ceteris paribus, the amount of hours people work is increased. In fact socialism is the system which claims to give people the opportunity to improve and grow, not just work all the time. The exact opposite is true. People in a real socialist society are forced to work. Most theorists of modern socialism have repeatedly stated that those who are useless and do not work must be eliminated. I thought that was the criticism these people's successors are levelling at capitalism? The greatest inspiration for today's many powerful socialists and economic fascists was probably Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (a.k.a. Comrade Lenin), a mass murderer and revolutionary. The Democratic Party of the United States in many ways resembles in structure and policy the old Leninist ideals of centralization and unlimited powers of the democratic majority. Let me just remind these deluded individuals that the motto of their great hero was "He who does not work, neither shall he eat". And what is the incentive to work in a country with 100% tax rates? If not a carrot, then a stick must be used. Work or die. That is the socialist creed. I still fail to see the difference between this system and simple slavery.

Speaking of socialism and evil men, I have to mention George Bernard Shaw. He once said: "I, who said forty years ago that we should have had Socialism already but for the Socialists, am quite willing to drop the name if dropping it will help me to get the thing." From this we might learn that 'they' are out there and 'they' have many names. They are men with no virtue and no honor, only a lust for power. Maybe dear old Mr.McCarthy wasn't wrong back in the 1950's? Who can blame a man for being paranoid when he is surrounded by evil men who here call themselves socialists, there democrats, elsewhere liberals, or social-democrats, or greens, or nationalists, or internationalists, or even (what nerve they have!) conservatives.

Modern Marxism in Disguise

Everyone knows that the most basic premise of Marxist theory is the assumption that class struggle exists and two groups of people emerge from it: the exploiters and the exploited. In classical Marxist dogma these were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat - striving against one another. In modern times this has already been recognized as pure idiocy (yes, this is the technical term for Marx's theories) by anyone who has a functional brain. The evil Marxists, however, have not given up yet. They know the theories of their idol (whom Yuri Maltsev aptly called 'a genius of evil') don't hold water, so they have to apply them to all sort of different phenomena and hope they stick somewhere. Usually this is done when at least two groups are said to 'antagonize' each other. The two most common applications of Marxist theory today are the theory of racial struggle and gender struggle. Apparently the races hate each other and so do the genders. Believe it or not, most people in the neo-liberal movement in America today (what is called the social-democratic movement in Europe) have more in common with Robert Mugabe than they do with the old idealist of liberty such as the American Founding Fathers. There is an easy litmus test by which we can tell socialists (Marxists) from normal members of society. Socialists will always emphasize some sort of struggle or threat and where non exists, they will just make one up. This has not changed from the time of Marx and Engels, through Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, to today's inheritors of this Marxist legacy. It is only the focus that has changed. Isn't it curious how the liberals are always the ones to point out racial, economic, or gender disparities within groups? Race, socioeconomic status, or gender questions are not something Classical liberals or today's libertarians concern themselves with. Talking about race issues is actually a way to perpetuate them because it causes people to notice the most minute and silly details in such relations. There can be no doubt there is less racism today than there was one hundred years ago, but if we listened to 'them' we would think today's world is inhabited by racists and poor discriminated groups. I do not buy into such rhetoric because I consider myself as having progressed beyond them. Let primitives discuss what they will, but us, the natural aristocrats, should keep at an arm's length at least. Propaganda will always be propaganda and Newspeak will always be Newspeak, but giving these people power will only let them implement their sick schemes into society. Marxist will always be racists and let's let them be so, as long as they stay out of our hair.

Let's ignore them, stand up for ourselves, and say as loudly and proudly as John Randolph once said: "I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."

Books Everyone Must Read, Part 1

Everyone who knows me knows most of the great works that influenced my thoughts throughout the years. When I look back, I think it all started with J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. It is difficult to list all the books I've read since then! There are some, however, which few people have even heard of. The first of these I would like to mention is George Santayana's The Life of Reason. It is probably impossible to do justice to this monumental treatise here, so I just recommend that everyone read it for themselves. Santayana is one of the most insightful men I have ever encountered in philosophy and ethics. I particularly admire his aim of showing that an objective form of morality (though more on a philosophical than practical level) exists. Through well supported theory of ethics he comes to some very good conclusions about the falsehood of democracy and danger of overly patriotic societies. In this regard reading Santayana was almost like reading Mises or Rothbard, though the man certainly attacked the issues from a different perspective and did not spend as much time on pure theory. Nonetheless Santayana's great work, as its title suggests, is extremely logical and therefore somewhat of a 'must read' for people who admire reason as the greatest virtue. It is not merely about society and government either - that is only a subset of the entire philosophy. Other topics discussed are love, family, morals, and the essence of 'the good' and of humanity itself. It is rather difficult to find such a comprehensive treatise on morality anywhere else.
And, above all else, The Life of Reason is simply a great read. I have seen few books written so beautifully and with such eloquence. Sufficient to say many of our modern cliche terms such as "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" come from Santayana's writing.

The most powerful, though less know, quote which I can mention here is "Happiness is the only sanction of life; where happiness fails, existence remains a mad and lamentable experiment." This is why, after reading The Life of Reason, I became deeply interested in more radical forms or individualism and Epicureanism.

Women Engineers? Really?

The university I attend has a great engineering school, one of the best in the country. A lot of the student there happen to be women. I found this very strange (not even for the reasons which I highlighted in my first ever blog post - here). Why would a woman want to be an engineer? It is a career totally and utterly unsuited for her. This does not mean she is unsuited for becoming an engineer, it simply means that a career in engineering or other technical professions does not fit well into an average woman's life. The average woman has children. Raising children takes time. This means that taking off a few years might be necessary for mothers. Now in technical professions such as engineering or computer science this is impossible to execute. Sometimes even a few months are all that's necessary to fall behind. Incredible advances are made daily in these disciplines. Therefore it is clearly impossible to take a couple years off to raise a child under such circumstances. Women who study engineering are either making a choice not to have a child, to doom their child to childcare, or to have a really pointless education which they will never use once they start having kids. However I noticed most women don't even realize this is true - they simply never think of it. So how can someone who can't even anticipate such simple problems be intelligent enough to become an engineer? This makes no sense... Wouldn't it be more natural for a woman to take on a job in one of the more 'family-friendly' professions? Why do women do most teaching and administrative jobs? It is not only because they are more suited for them in terms of personality, but also because these jobs suit an average woman's lifestyle. A primary school teacher can take 2-3 years off for raising her own child and then go back to teaching kids their ABC's or basic math.
I in no way intend to make this a condemnation of women who study engineering. However, I want to say that it is not always good to follow the feminist/socialist agenda of saying that women are identical to men. They are not. Comparing men to women is like comparing apples to oranges. They might both be round fruits, but which is better? It is impossible to say! One can be better for something while the other better for something else. It is the same with men and women. The basic economic law of Division of Labor applies to the sexes as much as it applies to individual people who have different faculties or resources.

To discribe my observations it is best to use this quotation from Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband: "Women have a wonderful instinct about things. They can discover everything except the obvious." A society of women engineers? Really? Isn't there something obviously strange about this?

Can Man Ultimately Evolve Into "The Good"?

The key to understanding Social Darwinism has always been grasping the concept of the interrelation between social and biological evolution. I base my understanding of such matters on Herbert Spencer's vision (although such a vision would more properly be called Social Lamarckism). Social Darwinism is not a moral system per se; it cannot tell us what exactly to do under certain circumstances and how we should act. Rather, it i a concept which describes a process inherent in all living things. Namely: That which is in use (being necessary) will grow and enlarge while that which is not in use (being unnecessary) will decline and disappear. Thus, for instance, in a biological sense, humans do not have gills. When our ancestors left their aquatic environment they used these organs less and less until they vanished completely. The same process takes place with regard to societal functions of man. Aggression is a necessary impulse in primitive human societies because it was required for survival in a primal sense. Aggressive individuals were more likely to be able to take what they need and eliminate opponents. They were the ones that produced the most offspring. The 'might makes right' standard of the primitive state of nature required humans to live this way. However, according to Spencer, society and cooperation are based on the lack of aggression. Therefore to be well suited for society humans must curb their aggressive impulses. Overly-aggressive individuals will not be welcome and will die childless - excluded from society. Non-aggression will therefore be favored in a moral sense as well as in a biological sense (the non-aggressive people will now have the upper hand and be able to pass on their superior genetic material). The final product of this process will be the "perfect man".
Now here is where I differ from the great Mr.Spencer:
Firstly - I do not believe we can ever determine what the perfect man will be like. Will he be a non-aggressive altruist for whom causing pain brings pain and doing good bring pleasure as Spencer claims? I am afraid that sounds overly Utopian and, may I say, Marxist!
Secondly, Mr.Spencer bases his claims on that sad and evil beast UTILITARIANISM. This strange and terrible concept has devoured many great minds and twisted them into thinking that which is right is that which 'brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number'. I can never subscribe to such views.
On the whole, however, Spencer is right! Social Evolution is a process whether we like it or not! I do not disagree with Spencer about his conclusions either (I am simply not sure it is possible to prove the 'perfect man' claim). Every Christian bone in my body believes his conclusions are right. But this is, again, just a belief - not rooted in fact or empirically provable. Logic (of which Spencer is a great champion) may, however, point us in the right direction. Maybe man can become good, maybe man can end up existing "in God's image"? We'll never know...

And regarding my last post - the Clintons seem to have a very peculiarly tight relationship with Kosovo. Why else would the citizens of that 'state' erect a statue of the most pathetic US President of the 20th Century?

The USA has NO international legitimacy

Recently Mrs.Hillary Rodham Clinton has been on a visit to the Republic of Serbia, where she tried the persuade the locals to let Kosovo secede. Now I am not so sure about recognizing the independence of Kosovo. Secession lies at the core of my belief system and I think should always be possible, but democratic secession seems somewhat off the mark. What about all the Serbs in Kosovo who would gladly remain part of Serbia? This subject, however, is nearly impossible to resolve therefore I will not address it. I will just point out an important observation - usually the smaller the state the less oppressive the government and the bigger the economic growth. The key issue here is American involvement. What is Mrs.Clinton doing in Serbia? Why is she lobbying for something which is clearly against her own values? America is an empire which prides itself in creating client states all over the world, such as the two most recent ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they cannot themselves stop expansion, how can they have the nerve to ask others to do the opposite of expansion - divide their country? Secession is, of course, a supreme American ideal. The United States were created by a number of secessionists known collectively as 'The Founding Fathers'. The Declaration of Independence is, in essence, a declaration of secession from the British Empire. By now though, the tables are turned. It is America that is the empire. The attitude of the Americans changed after the Civil War (the name given by Union propagandists to the War of Southern Secession). So how can a country which itself violently suppressed secessionists and which now attacks foreign countries in aggressive wars have any legitimacy in advising in situations such as Kosovo? To illustrate this change of attitudes from peaceful secessionist to violent statist nationalism let me show two quotes from American history. Both are considered hugely important and influential in American thought and their validity cannot be denied.
Firstly something American children are forced to blindly recite in public schools everyday: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Does 'indivisible' imply a positive attitude toward secession as a principle and right?

The second quote is as self-explanatory as the first, by arguably America's greatest Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin: "Where liberty dwells, there is my country."

Most people just don't understand...

Since 2008 the world has faced a massive depression which is going to have dramatic consequences in the future. Due to US Federal Government and Federal Reserve policy the US will most likely forfeit its status as the world's greatest power and its currency, the US Dollar, is likely to collapse completely. When I talk to most people, however, they do not realize the consequences of the Fed's current actions. Often this is because they have been brainwashed into trusting 'intellectuals'. The US Fed, leading universities, and government administration are made up of intellectuals. The current President of the USA is considered an intellectual. Most people, however, do not see the processes clearly because they do not know the facts. So here is a clear summary of the events which have led up to the crisis and the events which follow on now due to government policy:

Pre-2008 Era:
1. Government wants people to own homes ("American Dream" gone wrong).
2. They decrease lending standards by threatening banks as well as backing their loans with federal money (Standard "Carrot and Stick" technique).
3. Since loans are easy to obtain a lot more buyers (very reckless buyers) appear on the market.
4. Ergo, demand for houses rises.
5. Increased demand and stable supply means that all real estate prices rise (Law of Supply and Demand ABC's)
6. Prices rise steadily leading to over-investment in the housing industry, more lax lending standards, and massive indebtedness of the entire society as a whole (AKA the "Housing Bubble")

Post-2008 Era:
1. People can no longer receive cheap and wild loans.
2. Demand for real estate falls as people can no longer afford the inflated houses without equally inflated easy credit.
3. House prices start to fall and some people have to foreclose their mortgages.
4. More properties come on the market - banks try to recover assets by selling foreclosed properties.
5. Supply is up, demand is down - prices fall dramatically.
6. The banks themselves now go under due to their lax lending practices during the pre-crisis era.
7. The US government intervenes by pumping money into the reserves of the banks in order to keep them afloat - this is financed by the Fed inflating the money supply.

Today we are in a limbo which will be explained in my next blog post. This limbo is the result of the government now pursuing two mutually exclusive policies:
a) Keeping real estate prices high above factual market levels.
b) Keeping the Dollar from going into an inflationary collapse due to debt monetization or return to previous lending standards.
These two aims are incompatible with one another, and thus cannot be achieved.

"Might Makes Right"

A lot of people equate certain concepts I stand for with the slogan 'might makes right'. This is a common misconception about libertarianism, anarchism, any aristocratic system of a natural elite, capitalism, private law, or - mainly - social Darwinism. Entire volumes could be written about ethics of power, but for me the main theme that 'might makes right' value systems share is the right of the 'mighty' individual or group to use force against weaker opponents in order to eliminate them. This is not true in any of the aforementioned systems. I find it especially distasteful when people confuse Social Darwinism (I understand this term in a strictly Spencerist way - the survival of the fittest within a system of social cooperation) with the natural theory of Darwinism among animals and other primitive organisms. No direct aggressive force is ever used within the framework of a anarcho-libertarian society, which evolves through the social Darwinist process by means of capitalism and creates a world where the natural elite (aristocracy) has the best conditions for survival while eliminating non-social components. 'Non-social' components are not necessarily those too weak to survive. Rather, they are those unsuited for life within a system of social cooperation - for example thieves, murderers, and other criminals. Until someone can prove to me that in libertarian society aggression is present (despite the non-aggression axiom being one of the two pillars of libertarianism) I will find all such views mistaken or plainly fraudulent. It saddens me that even geniuses in the field of the economic sciences like Ludwig von Mises were pulled into this fallacy. In Human Action Mises treats Social Darwinism with bitter contempt, but only because he defines it wrongly. To be precise, he defines it as most people define it - by making a comparison with the animal world. I would like this perception to change because it creates an aura of immorality (use of force or something such) around the social Darwinist agenda. And this agenda is supreme justice.

Dow Jones and pro-Fed Propaganda - Will it ever end?

Today I had a bit of a strange moment - I actually spent time looking through news on the economy coming out of the main-stream media. Among the piles of useless rabble I found somewhat of a trend. This past September was being totally hyped up as a great economic success and miracle (see here for Wall Street Journal article). Apparently the Dow Jones index last month beat a 71-year record high (since 1939) and rose by 7.7%! I didn't find this very surprising; the Dow has been on the rise for a while now due to inflationary policies of the US government. How do I know that? Well, there are two possible options for the 7.7% Dow Jones growth. Either, as the media claims, the stocks gained value, or, as I claim, the US Dollar actually lost value (due to simple rules of supply and demand). If either of those processes occurred the result would be the same, but could be mistakenly interpreted as the other. Now how could I verify my claim? I didn't want to point out the rise in price of gold and silver (and other precious metals and mining stocks) because main-stream economists are for some reason labeling this price growth as a 'bubble'. So I thought, why not try to prove my point by looking into price changes in other commodities? There cannot be a bubble in every single item on earth, like food, clothing, or furniture! And surely enough my findings were quite conclusive and in my favour. I checked common goods and non-precious metals with the following results (can also be found here):

Commodity - Percentage Value Rise in September 2010
Copper - 10%
Rice - 10%
Cotton - 17%

The Dow Jones was also outperformed by such mighty forces as orange juice and beans! From this data we can clearly deduce that it was not in fact the Dow which gained value, but the Dollar that lost value. In fact, the Dow gained less that these other commodities showing that the stock market is much weaker than the market in virtually any actual commodity. I expect this means that the US Dollar actually lost up to 10% of its entire net value in September alone (although not being an economist I don't want to be quoted on that figure)! Now that's what I call inflation! Of course it will take a while for all this to filter through into actual prices on shelves, but it will eventually hit. And who will be blamed for it? The businessmen and their greedy overpricing and profiteering...