Guy DeWhitney on Government by Heretics Crusaders

My ideal of government:
Un-self-consciously, individual humans that are raised to feel a profound duty to protect all aspects of seldom/individuality that neither “picks someone’s pocket nor breaks someone’s leg” and a profound respect for the notion that we are all one and what goes around not only comes around, it DIRECTLY affects us; i.e. “successful” assholery damages a psyche’s ability to make ‘good’ choices in the future.Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person


Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.


Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Economics 001 a Remedial Course for Modern Monetary Morons

Economics is more than just money

Today there seem to be few people, let alone economists, who actually seem to grasp the basic  ideas of monetary theory upon which they build their roads to whatever fantasy land their prejudices predispose them to believe in. Economists pronounce, politicians spout and pundits pund but, how many of them really grasp, and apply, a basic understanding of what money is; how many have a clue how far everyone has strayed from reality?

Come Virginia, let us begin at the beginning; what is the difference between coinage historically (which is not like coinage in the modern world) and paper “monies“, and just what money really is.

I will be analyzing monetary theory without being bound by any politically oriented school of “economics“, instead I will attempt to put money in the same light that Newton put moving objects; money follows laws that do not respect any political need or opinion and I hope to merely describe what it is and what it is not irrespective of what anyone wants it to be.

Let’s start with coinage, a concept that still holds its place at the head of the parade despite vanishing as a concept by the 1970’s.

Historically, coins were what people now mostly think “money” should be, a portable piece of actual wealth, something “worth” just what its face declares. Don’t forget though that all value is relative, if no-one wants gold, it is “worth” little, if they crave it, it is worth a lot.
Cash monies on the gold standard promised payment in hard coin with value of its own.

At first glance this seems a good system, though it does carry hidden “costs.” If the gold or silver or copper in a coin is “worth” exactly its face value the person or group who minted that coin will lose the amount of “value” (manpower and resources) represented by the minting of the coin from bullion.  No matter how cheaply a chunk of bullion quality metal is turned into coinage that amount of value will be lost to the minter if they receive the “face” value in goods or services in return for their shiny, new coins.

This does not change with banknotes; printing costs plus the cost of the raw materials simply replaces the minting costs; remember, the raw material of a coin is the value of the coin.

For a long time banknotes represented actual bullion in a vault, or somewhere in the control of the issuer of the note, while coins represented actual wealth themselves. But, the ability of coiners to debase the metals they used producing coins “worth” less than their face value, and the fact that not all promissory notes represented an honest promise of actual coinage made the system far from perfect.

Enter “fiat” money. Bitterly fought, this is what “money” is supposed to be, though the transition is far from over globally and nationally.

A “currency” based on the exchange of gold and silver etc. is not in fact a real monetary system, it is barely one step up from barter. In barter or specie based economies not only must a person, or society, have the wealth and productivity to fill their own basic needs, they need to accumulate extra goods (coinage) simply to be able to participate in the system that provides those basic needs and services. Then they must accumulate even more if they wish to enjoy a level of “comfort” far below what is consonant with their current efforts to add productivity and wealth to their communities.

Barter ecomonies belong to an uncivilized past. Coinage was a simple, brute force answer to the problem of trusting someone when you have no way of enforcing that trust. Cash on the barrelhead as they said. Hopefully we have grown a bit beyond that, at least in the Western (civilized, modern) world.

Here is the bombshell Virginia, it is so simple that the “intelligentsia” just can’t get it: In a civilized society the function of money is to serve as counters in the games of economics, nothing more, nothing less. Money is not a commodity as it has no value of its own. Money is supposed to represent the wealth and productivity of the issuer only, not to be “worth” anything at all on its own!

Ideally, if a government wanted a bridge built and had the spare raw materials and manpower to build it, all the gov needs to do is print the right amount of money, and pay for a new road.

They do not make anything appear by doing so, they do not cause “inflation”, they just tossed counters in the game that were needed to let the players turn raw materials and idle bodies into a bridge thus creating wealth, not diminishing it! Or not creating as such, but acknowledging, since keeping the money level in balance with the national productivity is the whole goal.

Ideally, within a nation, it should be practical to pay each citizen with new, non-inflated money in tune with any growth in GDP, just like dividends to stockholders in a corporation. Infrastructure improvements (bridges, roads, universities and research facilities, etc.) would only be “unaffordable” if they used so many resources or manpower that they caused a significant rise in prices and wages in the private sector; wouldn’t that be so terrible, we couldn’t build a road one year because there was no unemployment and people were selling what they made as fast as they could make it!

Practically, especially with the current rats nest of insanity that we call economics worldwide, that kind of system would be almost impossible to implement; more the shame on us for letting things get so messed up.

Simply put, we should not be borrowing the money the government has the sole right to print/mint and regulate!!! The amount of dollars in circulation is supposed to be enough, theoretically, to buy all the goods and services produced this year, instead we treat money as though it is coinage and create a pre-broken system that invites inflation, deflation and puts everyone at the mercy of molehill booms and mountains busts.

Marx was an overeducated fool

(HH: This wonderful analysis of the prime flaw of socialism and communism is anonymous from the internet.)
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class.

This particular class had insisted that socialism really worked: no one would be poor and no one would be rich, everything would be equal and ‘fair’. The professor then said “Okay, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. Instead of money, we’ll use your grades.”

All grades were to be averaged and thus would be “fair”. This meant that everyone would receive the same grade, which meant that no one would fail. It also meant, of course, that no one would receive an A…
– – – – – – – – –
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who had studied hard were upset, but the students who had goofed off were quite happy with the outcome.

As the second test rolled around, the slackers studied even less now – they knew they’d get a good grade anyhow. Those who’d studied hard in the beginning now decided they wanted a free ride too. Thus, going against their own inclinations, they copied the slackers’ habits. As a result, the second test average was a D.

No one was happy.

By the time the third test had been graded, the average was an F.

The scores never increased but bickering, blame, and name calling began to be the environment in which this class operated. It had been their own quest for “fairness” which had led to this unintended result of hard feelings and grievances. In the end, no one was willing to study just for the benefit of everyone else. Therefore, all the students failed…to their great surprise.

The professor explained that their experiment with socialism failed because it was based on the least effort by all. Laziness and resentment were the outcome. There would always be failure in the situation they’d agreed to in the beginning.

“When the reward is great”, he said, “the effort to succeed is great, at least for some. But when government takes all the reward away by taking from some without their consent and giving to others without their effort, then failure is inevitable”.

Nazism was a leftist ideology

by Henrik Ræder Clausen

With some annoyance, I recently noticed my local newspaper, Aarhus Stiftstidende, full of articles about Nazism, an ideology I thought we had seen the last of on the 5th of May 1945, when Denmark was liberated after 5 years of German occupation. But it seems we’re not that lucky.

A Nazi group exists in Denmark again, and leftwing extremists like Antifa contribute by putting up swastikas in the streets of Aarhus. While the craft was nicely done, it was swastikas nonetheless, a symbol I do not want in my city under any circumstances.

Then, there seems to be some confusion as to where Nazism belongs in the political spectrum. That is understandable, for probably no political group in Denmark (save the youth branch of Venstre, who recently held a meeting with them) would tolerate their company.

For this reason, it’s important to make clear that Nazism (the full name of the political party was “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, which translates to “National Socialist German Workers Party”), also according to their own understanding, is an extreme leftist ideology. They consider themselves to belong to the tradition of the Jacobins in France, and taking into account the Reign of Terror instigated by them, this is not an unreasonable characterization.
– – – – – – – – –
If one looks at the Nazi political program, and it’s implementation during the 1930’s (before the war), it was distinctly leftist, and radically so. Quoting Bruce Walker in American Thinker:

Vera Micheles Dean in her 1939 book, Europe in Retreat, written before the Second World War began, said that the Nazis had introduced into Germany a form of graduated Bolshevism, focusing first upon Jewish bankers, industrialists and businessmen, but then upon other businesses, noting that the Nazi goal, from which it had not deviated, was to establish an egalitarian society in which everyone is equal and subordinate to the state.

The main Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, made it clear from the outset that nothing was more despicable to the Nazis than the Bourgeoisie, the Capitalists and Christianity. Any confusion to the contrary may be due to the fact that the German Conservatives, in a vain attempt to ‘influence’ Hitler, decided to eventually work with him once he rose to power. This granted him the legitimacy he so desperately wanted, the power he needed to fulfill his plans, while the utterly frustrated Germans lived to see him wreck total havoc in Germany and Europe at large.

For obvious propagandistic reasons, Stalin and his allies fiercely insisted on using the ‘right-wing’ label on the Nazis. It would certainly not look good to expose the fact that Communism of the Soviet Union seen from an economic point of view (anti-Semitism is a different matter), was merely a more radical variant of the system implemented by Nazi Germany.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, an exhibition in Moscow compared Hitler and Stalin to great effect demonstrated just how similar Communism and Nazism are in their totalitarian insanity. Many an old Russian, who through decades persistently had admired Stalin, left the exhibition in tears, after it had become clear just how similar Communism was to the Nazism it had defeated.

As for Nazism as such, it is a confused and foolish ideology that doesn’t deserve life on earth. It is better to discuss issues of actual relevance.

Ask and you shall receive an answer

I have been asked why I include so many articles critical of Islamist thought and action in this blog. Basically it comes down to a focus on nations and ideologies that I see having actual potential to disrupt lives here and around the world.

I am not a big fan of totalitarian thought and will never apologize for highlighting it when I see it. I will and HAVE argued toe to toe vehemently standing up for someone to have the right to say things I thought were stupid and even what I would call evil. That is words. Actions are something different.

I have also always felt that to deny someone else’s rights is rude and simply wrong. To me, any organization or group or religion or whatever that tries to force it’s opinions on people is, by default, wrong. I do not believe that ANY philosophy that includes a need for “thought police” can find many VALID conclusions in its search for “truth” with a capital T.

Whether we are looking at a group of Biblical Literalists or a sect of hyper-conservative Jews or Wahabi Islam branch we are looking at a Neo-Platonic mindset that is simply not compatible with the Post Reformation, Post Enlightenment Western way of life and thought. The world we live in is not the world that matters to these people. What matters is an idealized “other place” where all things are perfect and from which all things of this world are IMPERFECTLY reflected. This perfect plane (heaven if you will) contains the “perfect being” that in incomprehensible to this world. Human reason in this vision of reality is incapable of finding ANY great truths at all. Imperfection is built into everything and no amount of time or study will bring a person closer to real “truth”. To even try is to commit a crime against the “State” or “God”.

This is a world of revelation not inspiration. a world of doctrine, not one of discussion or debate. The “least imperfect” elite must absolutely control the masses to channel them into “proper” behavior against their imperfect tendencies and inherent nature to do things wrongly. The Radicalizing Imams, the Militant Rabbis and the Christian Identity Preachers all hold the concepts and ideals of Plato’s Republic close to heart whether they admit it (as the Marxists and Nazis did) or not.

In the West the religious attachment to these ideas has faded before the glare of the Enlightenment, a rebirth and vindication of the Aristotelian mindset that has its roots solidly in the idea that reason is useful and the world does have an order of it’s own that can be seen and understood with time.

The very idea that revelation is the only proper source of “morality” is easily refuted simply by noting that even when using wholly secular logic and psychology the non-platonic moralist arrives at the same, almost universal, concept of Do Unto Others etc. that is shared by most religions.

It should be noted that the only notable examples of philosophies and religions (i.e. Soviet Communist, Fascism, Radical Rightist Christian and Jewish groups and Wahabi and Taliban style Muslims) that do NOT accept the basic Humanity and worth of non-members are all Neoplatonic in philosophy using their “revelations” to dominate and control the “unenlightened” masses.

In the end what I disseminate and comment upon depends on how influential I think a group or movement is at the time. In the 80’s and 90’s It was radically political Christians (which is funny as the way I read the Bible Jesus was EXPLICIT in telling his followers to NOT get involved in politics lest they compromise their relationship with God) that worried me the most domestically and abroad it was the Soviets and the White Power movements abroad that troubled me most.

Today the only major threat to world peace and stability seems to be the persistence of an extreme, neoplatonic ideal in the Islamic world. Debate is not allowed. Questioning of authority is not just bad it is immoral. All reform is seen as heresy and any dissent is a crime against God rendering the perpetrator less than Human not just in the eyes of the law but in the eyes of GOD!

Whatever neoplatonic foolishness that has existed in Christianity (Mostly perpetrated by the Greek influenced Paul) has, in the West, has faded before the Aristotelian philosophy of the Reformation and Enlightenment yielding a new dawn of ideas, inventions and political evolution.

With the beginning of what looks to the beginning of depolitization of American Christianity and the disappearance of the U.S.S.R. and it’s style of Communism hardline orthodox Islam is the last one standing that seems to be a real threat to civilization in general.

Jews and Christians abound who posses a devout love of God. Yet they do not feel they are required to blindly embrace every barbaric tribal injunction that resides in their Scriptures. They follow the words of Jesus and Hillel and temper The Law they feel God wants them to obey with a recognition that ANY application of “God’s Law” that does not reflect the LOVE of God and the LOVE by God FOR Man is misguided and legalistic and should be thrown out.

There is an instructive story in in a man who was seen by his Rabbi to break the Sabbath in a small way to help a neighbor in trouble. The Rabbi told the man that if he did not realize what he had done the man’s own Rabbi should admonish him for violating the Sabbath. But, he said that if the man DID understand what he had done he deserved his Rabbi’s PRAISE! To express the Love of God in the form of love for your neighbor is seen here as being more in tune with “God’s Law” than a literal letter by letter adherence to that same law!!

Contrast this tale to any of the neoplatonic philosophies I have mentioned. Imagine a Communist or a Nazi or a Saudi Muslim telling their authorities that their breaking of the letter of the Law was actually a truer expression of the ruling philosophy.

Deviations and reinterpretations can be accepted but ONLY if they come from the top of the hierarchy. A groundswell of feeling from the masses is only seen as an evil deviance to be extinguished, never inspiration to be seriously considered. This is also why these organizations tend to rarely have peaceful transitions of power. In the political arena Total Control is sought after and ruthlessly maintained until wrested away by another faction who begins the game again. Anything less than total authority is seen as horrible compromise with evil that can only be tolerated for short times and specific goals.

As for me, I will take the Aristotelian Western view over the Platonic worldview now and forever. One works, the other only works evil. All modern sciences from the physical to the political are based in Aristotle’s ideas, why? Because they work!

Plato’s theories are today mostly confined to the remnants of two political religions , Communism and National Socialism, and the conservative sects of one major religion, Islam. Each one degrades the human worth below that of the “state” (or “God given law”) and each has resulted in a steady worsening of the general Human condition in areas they have controlled.

It can be argued that the only reason that the Nazis did not experience a serious loss of scientific advancement was that they did not have power long enough for their thought police to fully harden into place. Despite this lack of time studies of the intellectual changes in Germany over the Nazi period itself do show the stifling effect of a Platonic authoritarian system.

Another theme possessed by all of the Neoplatonic schools of thought: Exclusion of outside thought. The Communists and Nazis were great book burners. They both felt it a duty to root out and destroy any dissenting thoughts and ideas. So too the radical Christian and Jews as well as the Orthodoxy of Islam forbid their followers from even seeing certain ideas.

In a thousand years fewer books have been translated into Arabic than the number translated into Spanish in ONE YEAR. If one group (The West) can allow competing thoughts to freely enter and still retain it’s identity what does that say about the validity of another society that claims it’s only hope of survival is the exclusion of any idea that is in any way non-orthodox? One of the biggest social issues in Europe now a immigrants that come to Europe but refuse to participate in European culture OR allow it in their enclaves. Competition is stifled.

Are human reason and progress evil fantasies propagated by deluded agents of darkness? Are we all doomed unless we enslave our God-given minds and hearts to a rigid adherence to an unforgiving code that can only be interpreted by authorized agents? Are we to take it on faith that once the mind enslavers have total control of us all THEN peace and harmony will prevail? I for one know where I stand and I will continue to make that stance known.