Hiding it away on back pages, newspapers across the country tried to keep the nation from the latest bad news about education, news that should have been on front pages everywhere. Both local newpapers, such as The Lawrence Journal-World, and national newspapers, such as U.S.A. Today, barely mentioned the results of  recent national reading tests by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Based on the testing of 270,000 students, the results showed that only one third of students in the three grades tested, fourth, eighth and 12th, were up to profiency standards in reading. Among high school seniors, 36% were proficient, down from 40% in 1998. One third of the students in fourth, eighth and 12th grades can not show even a basic understanding of civics at their grade level. Three out of four fourth graders could not name which part of government passes laws. Half of all 12th graders asked to pick an ally in World War II picked Italy, Germany, or Japan.

“I spent 30 years in the Philadelphia public schools teaching high school. When I began in 1965 the school was integrated and the students in my French class read Victor Hugo and Molière. When I escaped in 1995 there wasn’t a shred of knowledge, decency or honesty left in anyone’s heart, soul or brain, be it administrator, teacher or student. As you well know, 1968 was the cut-off point, like B.C. and A.D. (Before Counter-Culture and After Devastation). You went to bed one night with one set of values in place and you woke up in a strange new world. It was exactly like “The Invasion of the Body Snatcher.” Human beings had mutated over night into apostles of socialized education—the concept that education was a right, free from any attendant responsiblities. This meant caving in to every demand, no matter how outrageous, emanating from the most infantile and hate-filled kids one could possibly imagine. By 1972 the school was entirely Black and firmly entrenched in an irreversible policy of passing the greatest number even if they had no skills. This was presumably some sort of reparation for the past cruelties to Blacks and some sort of redemption for “ racist America who was waging a racist war in Vietnam.” In the classroom, we all began fighting for our survival in the same way—by pandering to the kids, appeasing them and diluting difficult subject matter on their behalf. The behavior in the classroom was out of control. Many teachers knew this was wrong but they put their heads in the sand and never came up for air. Many left the system—there was a mass exodus out of teaching back in the seventies. Sometimes a voice would be raised but the iron curtain of political correctness stifled all attempts to establish honest discourse among “professionals.” It was no longer a profession but a type of dull ritual devoid of meaning. My school was typical of the many once excellent city schools that fell into depravity over the 30 year period.”

“For forty years, leading educators and intellectuals have been saying and writing and teaching that the United States was no better and might even be worse than its enemies, that Western civilization was a mask under which one crime after another has been visited upon the poorer nations of the world, and that good and evil themselves are a matter of perspective, if not mere opinion. Some of the noblest ideas ever framed by the mind of man, including democracy, patriotism, honor, and freedom, have been systematically drained of meaning.”

Recently an acquaintance dropped this site link in an email with a note that it is a progressive group near a military base which got my attention. The Progressive Student Alliance (Pensacola) is active in the area but the fact that the location is encased in brackets means they are either spread out state-wide or across state lines.  This group may be very active in this area which is mostly military (Naval Air Station Pensacola) and a potential pool of members just waiting to be baited. Perhaps my take on these groups is somewhat hard but consider the fact that young minds are just as easily influenced whether they’re civilian or military. Sometimes being away from home is enough to encourage unhealthy alliances with people who appear to be mentors of a good cause but are hard core communists.

A look at this site quickly shows its purpose as the group is not exactly secretive about it; they just present their group not what they’re about but that was hidden in the site links they posted. I loved the pictures of the Israeli Anarchists Against the wall party goers (any guesses on what they’re about?) who look like the bathtub time machine malfunctioned and made them into a cross between 60’s hippie subversives (pardon the redundancy) and Tuareg tribesmen (no offense to the tribesmen).  Frankly if I were to see one of my junior personnel in the company of these people off base I would have to take some notice as the site does not give a physical address. However some of the links the site offers range from progressive supplies (hippie gear) to schools which were even more interesting. One link to a forum discussion is named School of the Americas but required member registration (may have to join soon) to view. Their videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8xTOadn1n0&feature=player_embedded#) are about social justice which can be misrepresented with catchy beats and a good picture collage; a very powerful recruitment tool indeed.

If this group does not seem to be a looming threat to the academic influence in these areas look at some of their supporters.  Links to Z-Magazine and South End Press websites will lead you to some of the most radical masters of leftist revolution such as Lydia Sargent and Michael Albert who were best buds with the late uber-evil historian Howard Zinn. Given the kind of radicals mentoring this group base commanders may want to monitor further and prepare for the potential influences of their brand of  ’education’ in relation to operational readiness of personnel.

For years Nebraska has been one of the top teams in college football. So it is no surprise when Nebraska Assistant Coach Ron Brown was recruited by Stanford Univ. in California to be interviewed for the head coach position. He didn’t get very far. He was not discriminated against because he is black. Not at liberal Stanford. Brown’s problem at Stanford is that he is a Christian, apparently with rather firm beliefs on matters such as homosexuality and abortion. Said Alan Glenn, Assistant Athletic Director at Stanford, “Brown’s religion was definitely something that had to be considered. We have a very diverse community with a diverse alumni. Anything that would stand out that much is something that has to be looked at.”

Stanford prides itself in being in the vanguard of institutions which value “diversity” and “inclusion” .In fact it helped crystallize the movement to emphasize these ideas when on Jan. 15 , 1987, everyone, in a massive protest , started chanting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Culture has got to go”, thereby launching the movement known as “multiculturalism.”

The Western canon, the generally accepted list of the greatest books of the West were now attacked as having been written by biased “dead white males” These books are generally based on universalism, the belief that there are universal truths that are potentially available to everybody. What Stanford now embraced was particularism, which says that what one may know is determined by the circumstances of one’s birth. Race, gender, and class became more important than ideas.

From this beginning there flowed out throughout the universities of America a whole new plague of totalitarian horrors, like “diversity”, “sensitivity training”, “political correctness”, “speech codes”, “dormitory re-education,” “deconstructionism”, and “gender feminism,” all under the general umbrella of “multiculturalism.”

That was 15 years ago. Lets take a look at a how it has all has turned out. Offhand, it looks like Stanford better hire every Christian it can find.

The brief comments that begin each section below are from “The Diversity Myth”, an almost definitive critique of multiculturalism by David Sacks and Peter Thiel, two former graduate students at Stanford University. (Independent Institute, $24.95) The book is especially recommended to students who wish to protect themselves from brainwashing by multiculturalists. Included are some other quotes, notably by Robert Bork, former Supreme Court nominee, along with comments by Mr. Magruder in parentheses, prefaced by LM.

(Sections of this article are reprinted with permission from the book , “The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance on Campus, by David Sacks and Peter Thiel. Copyright 1998. The Independent Institute , 100 Swan Way , Oakland , CA. 94621-1428;info@independent.org; )

Trustees, congressional representatives, alumni, and the general public have begun to perceive that the great multicultural experiment has brought the very opposite of higher learning. It has brought speech restrictions, a new kind of intolerance known as “political correctness” a hysterically anti-Western curriculum, the increasing politicization of student life, and campus polarization along racial and ethnic lines.

“It is impossible to imagine that academic inquiry flourishes where thought police abound. Indeed, the intellectual apparatus of the 60’s radicals now dominating the universities is built for intellectual oppression, not for inquiry” -Robert Bork

“Of the 55 top-ranked universities in the nation, not a single one requires a course in American history, and only 3 require a course in Western Civilization”-The American Council of Trustees and Alumni

Underneath a glossy veneer of open-ended and utopian rhetoric, multiculturalism depends upon very specific values to operate, and at Stanford the values that inform this process happen to be the radical values of the 60’s. Most of the multicultural faculty and administrators were student activists in the late l960’s.

( LM- Professors who were campus radicals in the 60’s love to begin the semester by bragging to students how idealistic they were in their betrayal of the 40 million people of Southeast Asia. The truth is, although they cloaked themselves in an aura of great moral purpose, the war protestors gave aid and comfort to the enemy, marched under the flag of the Viet Cong, allowed Hanoi to dictate their agenda, and turned their backs on the American soldier when they returned. Now they run the universities, teaching students how to betray the West, and to cover up their earlier betrayal they write history books riddled with lies about the Vietnam War and their role in it.).)

When a stray look can lead to a charge of sexual harassment or an ill-timed joke to a charge of a racial slur, careers and lives are needlessly destroyed. Hapless innocents get thrown out of housing, lose their jobs because of “insensitivity.” or spend years fighting frivolous lawsuits. The multiculturalist hunt for nonexistent “oppressors” who can be held responsible for all of America’s ills leads to the vilification of innocents .

“Said Brown University “sensitivity” consultant Donald Kae, “If you are feeling comfortable or normal then you are probably oppressing someone, whether that person is a woman, or a gay or whatever. We probably won’t rid our society of racism until everyone strives to be abnormal.” (LM- What horse—- !).

The speech code never had to be enforced because it had not really been needed, at least not for the stated reason of combating an epidemic of fighting words and similar abuse. In March 1995, the Santa Clara County Superior Court agreed with the students and found Stanford’s speech code unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, Stanford students can now speak as freely as the residents of neighboring Palo Alto.

(LM- Judge returns basic American freedoms to student victims of multiculturalist tyranny. What a hoot ! Free Students Now from Multiculturalist Oppression! Turn on to Truth! Tune out the lies! Drop Out of Multiculturalism !)

In a widely discussed editorial in “The Stanford Daily,” columnist Andrea Park described the ritual clitorectomies performed in some African cultures but stopped short of condemning the barbaric practice. As a feminist Park wished to condemn the custom; but after much “soul-searching”, Park wrote that she realized she could not judge other cultures by her own standards. “Is it relevant that I, an outsider, may find the practice cruel ? As hard as it is for me to admit, the answer is no. To treat the issue as a matter for feminist outrage would be to assume that one society, namely mine, has a privileged position from which to judge the practices of another.”

(LM- How does one live with such hypocrisy ? This is a perfect example of the moral coma brought about by the cultural relativism embraced by multiculturalists.)

“Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the 60’s, it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of intellectual barbarism…women’s studies programs and courses are abysmal swamps of irrational dogma and hatred.” Bork

It is worth noting that all of these efforts have not had a positive impact on the level of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions at Stanford, relative to American society at large. More than 100 Stanford women still have unwanted pregnancies each year, of which about 90 percent end in abortion. The resulting abortion rate at Stanford is about twice the national average. And as for AIDS, the rate of death at Stanford is perhaps four to five times that of the relatively “uneducated” society at large .One university residence now even has coed group showers.

(LM- What an inspiring example for American society multiculturalism is setting!)

“It is remarkable how vigorously the modern intellectual defends the descent of popular culture not merely into vulgarity but into obscenity… multiculturalism is barbarism, and it is bringing us to a barbarous epoch.”-Bork

In recent years race relations on campuses have taken a turn for the worse. King’s dream is rarely mentioned and the races remain divided There are even separate commencement ceremonies for Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and African Americans. It is not inconceivable that a minority student, if so inclined, could spend all four years at Stanford without ever eating, living, speaking, or graduating with someone from a different race.

“Multiculturalists have turned Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream into a nightmare. He asked that his children “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” But multiculturalists say, “Judge me by the color of my skin for therein lies my identity and my place in the world.” -Bork

“The result of multiculturalism can only be the fragmentation , resegregation, and tribalization of American life.”- the noted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

The Western religious tradition seeks to redeem all of humanity, not just select subgroups. The multiculturalists, by contrast, are interested in the rehabilitation only of those of a particular race, gender, class, or sexual preference who happen to share their ideological commitments. Religious Studies 8 , “Religions in America”, devotes whole lectures to Shamanism, the Peyote Cult, and the Kodiak sect, but not one to the Catholic Church.

(LM- Multiculturalism is a massive assault on the Judeo-Christian values of the West at the very time that discoveries in physics and molecular biology are lending new support to natural theology and theism. Leftist academic thugs, however, continue to carry on the spirit of the 60’s by beating up dissenting guest speakers to keep students ignorant of the issues)

“The American university has become a culture of forbidden questions.” Leon Botstein – President of Bard College.

Despite its well-earned reputation as a school with perhaps the most competitive admissions process in the country, classwork at Stanford in many ways no longer demands the intellectual equivalent of sweat. Of all letter grades granted to students, about half are A’s, 39 % are B’s, only 10% are C’s and about 1% are D’s.

(LM- Pay-offs for buying into the multiculturalist agenda. As a college professor on three campuses over l5 years I’d say the true average grade of American students is a C minus. The juxtaposition of inflated grades with declining S.A.T. scores clearly exposes how educators, steeped in the values of the 60’s, are lying to both students and parents.)

“All have won and all must have prizes.” The Dodo Bird in “Alice in Wonderland”.

Western civilization and classical liberal arts education truly are dead, killed off in the same multicultural epidemic that expunged “dead white males” from the reading lists. To be certain, the buildings are well maintained, the lawns are well watered, the football team plays for cheering throngs of fans, the faculty and the staff are well paid, and the students attend classes and receive diplomas. The institution can keep going for a while on autopilot. But the heart of the university’s humanities program – involving the quest for universal truth – has decayed into dust.

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and
Everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

Did we think it only rhetoric when Yeats asked us; “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?” In multiculturalism we approach the logical outcome of the campus values of the 60’s- fascism.

Art after Art goes out, and all is Night
See skulking Truth to her old Cavern fled
Mountains of Casuistry heap’d o’er her head!
Philosophy, that lean’d on Heav’n before
Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more
Lo! Thy dread Empire, Chaos ! is restored
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And Universal Darkness buries all. “Duncaid” -Alexander Pope

My high school history teacher used to say: “You think I am conservative; I am really an old-fashioned liberal.” We thought he was just making a joke, but the fact is, he was right on target. This article was written in 1955…before most of you ever had a chance to be liberal.

Liberalism

By Milton Friedman

Liberalism, as it developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and flowered in the nineteenth, puts major emphasis on the freedom of individuals to control their own destinies. Individualism is its creed; collectivism and tyranny its enemy. The state exists to protect individuals from coercion by other individuals or groups and to widen the range within which individuals can exercise their freedom; it is purely instrumental and has no significance in and of itself. Society is a collection of individuals and the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate values are the values of the individuals who form the society; there are no super-individual values or ends. Nations may be convenient administrative units; nationalism is an alien creed.

In politics, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against authoritarian regimes. Liberals favored limiting the rights of hereditary rulers, establishing democratic parliamentary institutions, extending the franchise, and guaranteeing civil rights. They favored such measures both for their own sake, as a direct expression of essential political freedoms, and as a means of facilitating the adoption of liberal economic measures.

In economic policy, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against government intervention in economic affairs. Liberals favored free competition at home and free trade among nations. They regarded the organization of economic activity through free private enterprise operating in a competitive market as a direct expression of essential economic freedoms and as important also in facilitating the preservation of political liberty. They regarded free trade among nations as a means of eliminating conflicts that might otherwise produce war. Just as within a country, individuals following their own interests under the pressures of competition indirectly promote the interests of the whole; so, between countries, individuals following their own interests under conditions of free trade, indirectly promote the interests of the world as a whole. By providing free access to goods, services, and resources on the same terms to all, free trade would knit the world into a single economic community.

‘Liberalism’ has taken on a very different meaning in the twentieth century and particularly in the United States. This difference is least in the concrete political forms favored: both the nineteenth century liberal and the twentieth century liberal favor or profess to favor parliamentary forms, nearly universal adult franchise, and the protection of civil rights. But even in politics there are some not unimportant differences: in any issue involving a choice between centralization or decentralization of political responsibility, the nineteenth century liberal will resolve any doubt in favor of strengthening the importance of local governments at the expense of the central government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the defenses against arbitrary government and to protect individual freedom as much as possible; the twentieth century liberal will resolve the same doubt in favor of increasing the power of the central government at the expense of local government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the power of the government to do ‘good’ ‘for’ the people.

The difference is much sharper in economic policy where ‘liberalism’ now stands for almost the opposite of its earlier meaning. Nineteenth century liberalism favors private enterprise and a minimum of government intervention. Twentieth century liberalism distrusts the market in all its manifestations and favors widespread government intervention in and control over, economic activity. Nineteenth century liberalism favors individualist means to foster its individualist objectives. Twentieth century liberalism favors collectivist means while professing individualist objectives. And its objectives are individualist in a different sense; its keynote is welfare, not freedom. As [Austrian-American economist Joseph] Schumpeter remarks, ‘as a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.’ The rest of this article is devoted entirely to ‘liberalism’ in its original meaning; and the term will be used throughout in that sense.

Political liberalism and economic liberalism derive from a single philosophy. Yet they have frequently led independent lives in application, which suggests that their relation to one another deserves examination in the realm of ideas as well. During the nineteenth century, many countries adopted large elements of economic liberalism, yet maintained political forms that were neither liberal nor developing at any rapid pace in a liberal direction. Russia and Japan are perhaps the outstanding examples. During the twentieth century, countries that have achieved and maintained most of the concrete elements of the liberal political program have been moving away from liberal and toward collectivist economic policies. Great Britain is the most striking example; certainly for the first half of this century, the general drift of British economic policies has been toward greater direct intervention and control by the state; this drift has been checked in the past few years but whether the check is more than transitory remains to be seen. Norway, Sweden, and, with a lag of several decades, the United States, exhibit much the same tendencies.

As already noted, liberal thinkers and writers in the nineteenth century regarded political reforms as in large part a means of achieving economic liberalism. The earlier political forms concentrated political power in the hands of groups whose special interests were opposed to such measures of economic liberalism as free trade. Let all the people have a vote, and there would be, so liberals like [British economist] James Mill argued, no special interest. And since the general interest was simply the interest of all the individuals composing the society, and these in turn would be furthered most effectively by economic liberalism, democracy could be expected to rid itself of the dead hand of government and to give maximum scope to the invisible hand of self-interest.

In the twentieth century, a group of liberal thinkers, especially [American economist] Henry Simons, [Austrian-born economist] Ludwig von Mises, and [Austrian-born economist] Friedrich von Hayek, have emphasized that this relation also runs in reverse: that economic liberalism is a means of achieving political freedom. Economic liberalism alone does not guarantee political freedom—witness the examples of Russia and Japan cited earlier. But economic liberalism is, it is argued, an indispensable prerequisite for political freedom. Historically, there are no countries that enjoyed any substantial measure of political freedom that did not also practice a substantial measure of economic liberalism. Analytically, the preservation of political freedom requires protection against the concentration of power; it requires the existence of largely independent loci of power. Political power by its nature tends to be concentrated; economic power can be highly deconcentrated if it is organized by means of an impersonal market; economic power can thus be an independent offset to political power. Let both economic and political power be in the same hands and the only protection of political freedom is the good will of those in power—a frail recourse particularly in view of the corrupting influence of power and the talents that make for political survival.

A few examples may clarify the asserted relation between economic and political freedom, though they cannot of course demonstrate it. A characteristic of a politically free society is that proponents of radical reform in the structure of the society are permitted to express their views and to seek to persuade their fellows. It is a testimonial to the freedom of the United States that socialist and communist magazines and papers are published. Suppose a change to a collectivist economic society with government control of the bulk of economic activity. How could the proponents of a return to capitalism secure the resources with which to publish a magazine urging their point of view? Through a government fund for dissidents? Through the collection of small sums from millions of government employees? If they had the resources in the form of funds, what guarantee could they have that the government would sell them paper on the same terms as it does to others? In an economically liberal society, it is possible to get the general resources with which to spread dissenting views either by subsidies from a small number of individuals or by selling a magazine or other publication to many; and if there is a reasonable chance that enough people will want to buy a magazine expressing the minority view to make it profitable, even people who disagree fundamentally with the view will in their own self-interest provide the resources to make its establishment possible. In effect, there are thousands or millions of independent loci of power to decide whether an idea is worth trying to promote, rather than the few or one in a political structure. And given the general resources, there is no further obstacle: in a thoroughly free market, the sellers of paper do not know whether the paper is going to the Daily Worker or the Foundation for Economic Education. Perhaps some similar impersonal and effective guarantees of freedom to promote dissenting views could be contrived for a collectivist society; certainly no proponents of such a society have yet suggested any or even faced this problem squarely.

As another example, consider those individuals who have lost or resigned government jobs in the United States in recent years because they were or were accused of being Communists. Government employment in our society is not a right and it is entirely appropriate that at least certain governmental positions should not be open to actual or suspected Communists. It is easy also to see how strong public feeling can lead to a closing of all government posts to Communists. Yet, the maintenance of political freedom surely requires that people be free not only to believe in but also to advocate Communism; those of us who abhor Communism do so in part precisely because we know it would not grant us freedom to express contrary views; our defense against Communism is to persuade our fellow citizens of its evil, not to suppress its advocates. But if government employment were the only employment, nominal freedom to express extreme views would be a mockery. The exercise of this freedom would be at a prohibitive price—namely, giving up the possibility of earning a living. By contrast, in the existing society, those who have left government employment have had a wide variety of other opportunities. The way a private market economy protects these opportunities is revealed most clearly by considering an individual who goes into farming and produces, say, wheat. The purchasers of the wheat do not know whether it has been produced by a Communist or a Fascist, a white man or a Negro; they could hardly discriminate if they wanted to. The competitive market in this way separates economic activity from intellectual or political activity and the more competitive the market, the more sharply it does so. It is a paradox that minorities who have in this way the most to gain from a competitive society have contributed unduly large numbers to the ranks of its opponents.

Many writers who emphasize the importance of economic liberalism as a prerequisite for political freedom have interpreted tendencies toward collectivism in recent decades as betokening a trend toward political ’serfdom.’ They may yet be proved right. So far, however, the relation they stress has manifested itself mostly in a very different way: namely, the collectivist tendencies have been checked because they tended to interfere with civil and political freedom; when the conflict has been reasonably clear, the collectivist policy has frequently given way. Perhaps the most striking example is British experience with the compulsory allocation of labor. Socialist economic thinking in the postwar period called for compulsory allocation of labor to achieve ’social priorities’; though some compulsory powers were provided by law, they were never widely used; the powers themselves were permitted to lapse; and the whole character of attempted economic policy changed because compulsory allocation of labor so clearly interfered with widely and deeply cherished civil rights.

We turn now to a more detailed examination of the content of liberalism, particularly economic liberalism, and of the role it assigns to the state. This examination deals primarily with the principles that liberalism provides for judging social action. Any set of concrete proposals that these principles lead liberals to favor will vary with the particular circumstances of time and place, and consequently are less fundamental and invariant than the principles themselves. There is some possibility of being reasonably comprehensive with respect to principles; none, with respect to concrete proposals.

Principles for social action must be based on both ultimate values and a conception of the nature of man and the world. Liberalism takes freedom of the individual—really, of the family—as its ultimate value. It conceives of man as a responsible individual who is egocentric, in the sense not of being selfish or self-centered but rather of placing greater reliance on his own values than on those of his neighbors. It takes as the major problem of modern society the achievement of liberty and individual responsibility in a world that requires the co-ordination of many millions of people in production to make full use of modern knowledge and technology. The challenge is to reconcile individual freedom with widespread interdependence.

The liberal answer derives from the elementary—yet even today little understood—proposition that both sides to an economic transaction can benefit from it; that a gain to a purchaser need not be at the expense of a loss to the seller. If the transaction is voluntary and informed, both sides benefit; the buyer gets something he values more than whatever he gives up, and so does the seller. In consequence, voluntary exchange is a way to get cooperation among individuals without coercion. The reliance on voluntary exchange, which means on a free market mechanism, is thus central to the liberal creed.

The working model which embodies this vision of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy. The elementary social unit—the family or household—is generally too small for efficient use of modern productive techniques. Accordingly, the productive unit takes the form of an enterprise which purchases productive services—labor, the use of capital, and so on—from households and other enterprises and sells the goods or services it produces to households and other enterprises. The introduction of such enterprises does not change the strictly voluntary and individual character of the cooperation, provided two conditions are satisfied: first, the enterprises are private, which means that the ultimate locus of authority and responsibility is an individual or a group of individuals; second, individuals are free to sell or not sell their services or to buy or not buy products from particular enterprises, which means, also, that they are free to establish new enterprises.

The final point deserves special emphasis in view of widespread misunderstanding of it. ‘Free’ in the liberal conception of free enterprise means freedom to establish enterprises, not freedom of established enterprises to do whatever they want. This is one of those familiar cases in which absolute freedom is impossible because the freedom of some limits the freedom of others: the freedom of existing enterprises to do whatever they want, including combining to keep new entrants out or to fix prices and divide markets, may limit the freedom of others to establish new enterprises or to make the best bargain they can. When such a conflict arises, the liberal tradition regards freedom of entry and of competition as basic; it therefore justifies state action to preserve competition and to make selling a product of higher quality or at a lower price the only means whereby existing enterprises can prevent new enterprises from being established. The most difficult practical problem in this area and one on which liberals have spoken with many tongues is combinations among laborers—the trade union problem.

In the free enterprise exchange economy envisaged by liberalism, the primary role of government is to preserve the rules of the game by enforcing contracts, preventing coercion, providing a stable monetary framework, and, as just noted, keeping markets free. Beyond this there are only three major grounds on which government intervention is justified: (1) ‘natural monopoly’ or similar market imperfections; (2) the existence of substantial ‘neighborhood effects’; (3) protection of children and other irresponsible individuals.

An exchange is ‘voluntary’ only when essentially equivalent alternatives exist; when an individual can choose whether to buy from one enterprise or another, to work for one enterprise or another. Monopoly means the absence of alternatives and thus is incompatible with strictly voluntary exchange. Monopoly may arise from combinations among enterprises in circumstances where competition is entirely feasible, and, as already noted, liberal tradition justifies state intervention to preserve competition in such cases. But monopoly may also be ‘natural,’ as in the textbook examples of a single spring providing drinking water, or of a product subject to such large economies of scale that the most efficient productive unit is large enough to serve the whole market. The only available alternatives are then all bad: government regulation, government ownership, or private monopoly, and the problem is to choose the least of these evils. As might be expected, liberals have no clear-cut answer. Henry Simons, after observing in the United States the consequences of government regulation of such alleged natural monopolies as the railroads, concluded that government ownership was the least of the evils when monopoly was inevitable. [German economist] Walter Eucken, after observing in Germany the consequences of government ownership, concluded that government control was the least of the evils. And some have argued that in a dynamic world private monopoly may well be, citing the case of the regulation of transportation in the United States as their prime example. The Interstate Commerce Commission was established to protect the public against the railroads when railroads probably did have a large element of natural monopoly. The development of highway and air transport has largely eliminated any natural monopoly element in railroads, yet instead of the abolition of the Interstate Commerce Commission, government control has been extended to these other transportation media. The ICC has become a means of protecting the railroads from the competition of trucks instead of the public from the absence of competition. Fortunately for the possibility of a liberal society, the area within which natural monopoly is a serious problem is exceedingly limited, so that no large amount of government intervention is called for on this score. In practice, the claim of natural monopoly is more often an excuse for intervention desired on other grounds than a valid justification for intervention.

A different kind of threat to strictly voluntary exchange arises from the so-called ‘neighborhood effect.’ This occurs when the action of one individual imposes significant costs on other individuals for which it is not feasible to make him compensate them or yields significant gains to other individuals for which it is not feasible to make them compensate him. A simple example is that of an individual polluting a stream. He has in effect forced other individuals further down the stream to exchange good water for bad; they clearly would have been willing to do so for a price; but it is not feasible to make this exchange the subject of voluntary agreement. Another, rather different example, is education. The education of a child is regarded as benefiting not only the child and his parents but also other members of society, since some minimum level of education is a prerequisite for a stable and democratic society. Yet it is not feasible to identify the particular individuals benefited by the education of any particular child, much less the money value of the benefit, and so to charge for the services rendered. In consequence there is justification on liberal grounds for the state requiring some minimum amount of education for all children, even though this is above the amount parents would otherwise provide, and for meeting some of the cost of education from taxes imposed on all members of society.

Of course, all actions of an individual involve some ‘unborne costs’ and ‘inappropriable benefits’ to third parties. It is always a question of judgment whether these are sufficiently great in any particular case to justify state intervention: the state too will be plagued by the difficulties of identifying costs and benefits that prevent voluntary exchange and there are other costs of state action. The liberal philosophy thus gives no hard and fast line separating appropriate from inappropriate state action in this area. But it does emphasize that, in deciding any particular case, one general cost of state action—one general neighborhood effect, as it were—must always be taken into account; namely, that the extension of state action involves an encroachment on individual freedom. The liberal regards this as a count against any proposal for state action, though by no means a fatal obstacle to it, and hence requires a clear net balance of gains over other costs before regarding the state action as justified.

The third ground on which liberalism justifies state intervention derives from an ambiguity in the ultimate objective rather than from the difficulty of achieving fully voluntary exchange. The belief in freedom is for ‘responsible’ individuals; and children and insane people cannot be regarded as ‘responsible.’ In general, this problem is avoided for children by treating the family as the basic unit of society and so regarding the parents as responsible for their children. In considerable measure, however, this procedure rests on expediency rather than principle. The problem of drawing a reasonable line between action justified on these paternalistic grounds and action that conflicts with the freedom of responsible individuals is clearly one to which no fully satisfactory—and certainly no simple—answer can be given.

A few additional examples may clarify the bearing of these principles in judging particular acts of social policy. Consider first a group of measures that clearly conflict with liberal principles: tariffs, direct controls of imports and exports, exchange control, general price controls. None of these can be justified on any of the grounds for state intervention that we have listed. Each represents an interference with the freedom of individuals to engage in any transactions that they want to, which do not have substantial effects on third parties, and thus involve a direct interference with essential freedoms. An extreme case which brings out this feature strikingly is the ‘tourist allowance’ incorporated in the exchange control regulations of a number of countries; as the Economist puts it, ‘it sets a limit on the length of time that even the most economical British resident can choose to spend abroad without asking the permission of some bureaucrat.’ Finally, most of these measures prevent the market from operating effectively and thus threaten the heart of the liberal system. For example, if a legal maximum price is established below the level that would otherwise prevail, a ’shortage’ will inevitably follow (as in housing under rent control); some method other than the free market will have to be used to ‘ration’ the available amount; and further government intervention replacing the market is set in train.

A second rather different example is medicine. As already noted, significant neighborhood effects justify substantial ‘public health’ activities: maintaining the purity of water, assuring proper sewage disposal, controlling contagious diseases. There is little or no justification on these grounds for state intervention into private medicine—the care and treatment of individuals. Under liberal principles, this is a function the market can and should perform. To the argument of the proponent of socialized medicine that there is great uncertainty about possible medical bills, the liberal will reply that the market is perfectly capable of providing private insurance; if people don’t want to pay the premium, that is their free choice. To the argument that people don’t get as much medical service as is ‘good’ for them, the liberal will reply that each man should judge for himself—not that he is necessarily the best judge but that he should make his own mistakes; insofar as we think he is making the wrong decision, there is no objection to telling him what we think and trying to persuade him, but there is no justification for making his decision.

A third example is public housing. It may be that certain types of housing, e.g., dense slum districts, impose higher costs of police and fire protection on the community. This literal ‘neighborhood effect,’ since its source can be identified, would justify higher taxes on such property than on others to meet these extra costs; it hardly justifies subsidies to housing. The main argument for public subsidy to housing is surely paternalistic: people ‘need’ or ‘deserve’ better housing, and it is appropriate to use public funds to provide housing. The liberal will object on two different levels. Given that some people are to be subsidized, why not give them the subsidy in general purchasing power and let them spend it as they will? Why say to them, we will give you a gift if you take it in the form of housing but not otherwise? Does this not involve an unnecessary restriction on their freedom? Second, he will question the redistribution of income itself that is involved in such a program—and, indeed, one advantage of making the subsidy explicit is that it would make clear what groups are being subsidized. Government relief of poverty, the liberal will support and welcome, primarily on the explicitly paternalistic ground of taking care of the irresponsible. But the more or less indiscriminate transfer of income involved in large scale public housing schemes, he will regard as undermining individual responsibility. The way to reduce inequality, he will urge, is not by the misleading palliative of sharing the wealth, but by improving the workings of the market, strengthening competition, and widening opportunities for individuals to make the most of their own qualities.

These two final examples illustrate how the central virtue of a liberal society is at the same time a major source of the objections to it: a liberal society gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want or thinks is ‘good’ for them; it makes it equally difficult for the benevolent and the malevolent to shape other people in their own image. At bottom of most arguments against the market is lack of belief in freedom—at least for other people—as an end.

[British philosopher] Adam Smith provides an excellent summary of the preceding discussion of the role of the state in a liberal society: ‘Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society. According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understanding: first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.’

Since the sixties, Noam Chomsky has been calling the United States an imperialist nation and continues to do so, now saying U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are imperialist. The purpose of Mr. Chomsky’s’ philosophy is to destroy the legitimacy of any and all acts of force by an ethical, lawful state. In essence, Mr. Chomsky asserts that such a state is identical to barbarians who use force for self-interest, i.e. dictators and fascists. By doing this, Mr. Chomsky is willing to put heroes such as policemen and soldiers on the same level as villains such as murderers and terrorists.

According to Mr. Chomsky’s twisted reasoning, “…torture has been routine practice from the early days of the conquest of the national territory, and then beyond, as the imperial ventures of the “infant empire” — as George Washington called the new Republic” (The Torture Memos, Chomsky, May 24, 2009). He believes that George Bush was simply following some “secret” mandate from Washington to expand the empire through the use of torture. To buttress his case, he cites the Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis, “Adams as the grand strategist who laid the foundations for the Bush Doctrine: the doctrine that ‘expansion is the path to security’” (The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism, Chomsky, December 3, 2009). Yes, John Adams (1735 – 1826) is responsible for the War on Terror, not the 19 terrorists who orchestrated the takeover of four commercial planes on September 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people. You can learn a lot at college.

Mr. Chomsky slanders Washington as a vile Machiavellian: “A prince that acquires new territories and removes the natives to give his people room will be remembered as the father of the nation (Machiavelli).’ And George Washington agreed. He wanted to be the father of the nation. His view was that ‘the gradual extension of our settlement will as certainly cause the savage as the wolf to retire, both being beasts of prey, though they differ in shape.” (Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond, Chomsky, Boston University, April 24, 2008)

Mr. Chomsky bases this statement from Letter to James Duane dated September 7, 1783.  In his letter, Washington was appealing for a non-violent resolution with the Indians and to find peaceful means of living with them on a common land, not advocating war. “As the Country, is large enough to contain us all; and as we are disposed to be kind to them and to partake of their Trade…draw a veil over what is past and establish a boundary line between them and us beyond which we will endeavor to restrain our People from Hunting or Settling.” Washington’s intent to Duane was clear: peaceful means of coexistence.

His thought that directly precedes Mr. Chomsky lifted quote is this, “I am clear in my opinion, … of being upon good terms with the Indians, and the propriety of purchasing their Lands in preference to attempting to drive them by force of arms out of their Country; which as we have already experienced is like driving the Wild Beasts of the Forest…”  In other words, if you make war with the Indians, they will scatter in the country side and return to hunt you down, as they are to be respected as is the wolf.

Mr. Chomsky lacks credibility because he has to rely on fabrication of events in order to support his opinions. Fabrication is part of the leftist anti-War movement which is really the leftist/socialist “Make America Surrender” movement.

The second part is asserting that equal actions (war and terrorism) are equal in ethics.  Everyone agrees that murder is evil, and murder is caused by killing. However, not all killing is evil—certainly, accidents and self-defense stand out as two exceptions.  Chomsky must assert, for his reasoning to be sound, all value judgments can be based on actions alone and not on intentions; he confuses actions and intentions. In contrast, Western ethics are quite clear in saying that a person can commit the very same action with more than one intent. Every child knows that you can step on someone’s toes with or without harmful intent, yet the action is the same.

Here is perfect example of his inability to separate actions and ethics: “…the most elementary principle of just war theory, universality. Those who cannot accept this principle should have the decency to keep silent about matters of right and wrong, or just war”(Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, 2003, pg 202). He follows this assertion with the question, “Have Cuba and Nicaragua been entitled to set off bombs in Washington, New York, and Miami in self-defense against ongoing terrorist attack?”  His point is that any and all states have equal right to the use of force or no one has it, “universality.” This is a complete failure on his part to differentiate between fascist dictators and communist death-squads from those who have no other self-interested motive other than justice.

The greatest danger of Mr. Chomsky’s anti-war ethics and lies is that it fuels the anti-war movement. Moreover, it paves the way for the college student to believe that power exists without justice as a limiting factor. Thus, making it moral to quest for power for power’s own sake, which is foundational to Marxist thought. But all power must be subservient to justice and the law, especially when American national security is at stake.

Share

by Victor Padilla

The diversity of academic scholarship ensures the diversity of a student body. Scholarships for sports excellence, community service and academic merit allow for a rich pool of talent. While these endowments are meant to level out the playing for all, minority, female and hardship-facing students have access to many scholarships that reap higher dollar amounts in exchange for lower (or no) grade point averages .

Such racial coddling and rewarding of hardships only serve as a detriment to women and minorities. By showing students that less is more, we’re encouraging sub-par academic performances among ethnic groups and perpetuating a culture of victim-hood.

The gap between hard work, pay off and its correlation to race is evident in the scholarships offered by my college. The awards allotted to minorities and women under the “special criteria” category substantially out pay the “general academic merit” awards that require higher GPAs.

One example is the scholarship endowed by the National Coalition of 100 Black Women. The scholarship awards $500 to a minority female student with a 2.5 GPA. Coincidently (or not), the Grant Campus Longevity scholarship awards only $100 to any students bearing a 3.6 GPA. Less is more.

Another example is that of the Mena Ramirez Memorial scholarship which awards $1,000 to a Latina woman (double whammy here) and requires no minimum grade point average. Conversely, the Vincent O’Leary Scholarship awards a comparatively low-ball $350 to any student carrying a 3.7 GPA. Less is much, much more.

Single mothers are also lauded for low performances. The Jeannette Weiner Memorial shells out $500 to a “single, divorced or legally separated, female parent with dependent child/children” with a 2.8 GPA. There are no scholarships bestowed specifically to well-to-do, non-deadbeat, child support-paying fathers. Less, less.

Then there are scholarships that clearly reward victim-hood over heroism. The Liz Bowlay scholarship gives $500 to a cancer survivor with no GPA required. In stark contrast, the John Vigiano Memorial scholarship awards $200 to FDNY firefighters EMTs, police officers and combat veterans – who still have to maintain a respectable 3.25 GPA. Cancer survivors deserve support and compassion, but does illness really rank over serving and protecting our communities?

Although I believe that everyone innately means well, we’re actually imposing a detriment to social progress. By coddling to minorities, women and those with hardships, we’re suspending them in perceptions and mentalities of victim-hood. We’re saying, “What poor little blacks and broads. Have ye pity on them”. In this way, the effort to stop victimization overcompensates itself repeatedly and ends up victimizing them even more.

Understandably, the amounts of these awards are totally up to the donors’ discretion. More responsibility must be taken, however, in making sure that the award amounts are relative to the sizes and merits of other scholarships. This will encourage all students to do better, reduce perceptions of racial coddling, and help break the cycle of victim-hood.

While the scholarships offered at my school don’t represent what happens at every school (and surely there are scholarships for minorities and women that are more academically competitive), they’re definitely indicative of what goes on in our culture.

By not holding minority and female students to the same standards, we’re telling them that it’s OK to underachieve. By setting such a low bar, we’re insulting and telling them that we don’t expect them to do better. We’re perpetuating scholastic lagging and paying them more for it. We’re teaching them that less is more.

Share

[Because of the extraordinary response to Maj. Jim Gant's paper, One Tribe At A Time, I've decided to leave it up all week in the "Number One Slot."  My ongoing interview with Chief Ajmal Khan Zazai will pick again next Friday; the Chief has been in Kabul all week, meeting with U.S. and British commanders, and we haven't had time to speak. So all's well that ends well!]

The downloadable and open-able .pdf of One Tribe is here, on the right. On a personal note, let me say again that I consider it a privilege to offer this document in full, not only because of my great respect for Maj. Jim Gant, who has lived and breathed this Tribal Engagement idea for years, but for the piece itself and for the influence it is already having within the U.S. military and policymaking community.

One Tribe At A Time (84) Major Jim Gant’s “One Tribe At A Time” to your computer

One Tribe At A Time is by no means a super-pro Beltway think tank piece. What it is, in my opinion, is an idea whose time has come, put forward by an officer who has lived it in the field with his Special Forces team members–and proved it can be done. And an officer, by the way, who is ready this instant to climb aboard a helicopter to go back to Afghanistan and do it again.

Questions and comments

At the moment, Maj. Gant is at Fort Polk, Louisiana, getting ready to deploy to Iraq, where he will lead an Iraqi commando battalion. He’ll be available in the meantime, however (depending of course upon time demands), to answer questions or take criticisms. Just respond in the comments section below. And I myself have further thoughts I’d like to offer on this subject in the coming weeks.

Here’s a quick one:

The most common response I anticipate to the Tribal Engagement concept (and it’s a valid criticism, shared by Maj. Gant) will go something like this: “Yeah, this is a great idea–but where are we going to find the men to implement it?”

Men for the job

Tribal Engagement Team members, should this concept be adopted, would be called upon to commit for multiple tours under the loneliest, harshest and most hazardous conditions imaginable. To succeed with the tribe they are assigned to, they would have to demonstrate impeccable combat credentials and, even rarer, possess the “people skills” to establish and maintain rapport across a cultural chasm—Western to Tribal Afghan—that has defeated every outside entity from Alexander the Great to the British and the Soviets. The task would be extraordinarily difficult, dirty and dangerous, and in the end would almost certainly be rewarded neither by career advancement (because the enterprise would be unprecedented and outside the normal channels of military promotion) nor by recognition from the public at large, who in all probability will rarely hear of it and wouldn’t understand or appreciate it if they did.

How can we identify and attract such men?

Do you remember this tiny, three-line ad from the London Times, December 29, 1913?

Men wanted for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honour and recognition in case of success.

5000 volunteers queued up in response to this advertisement, posted by Ernest Shackleton seeking crewmen for his Antarctic expedition.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think our young American warriors would respond with any less enthusiasm than their British cousins did a century ago to a similar call. Do you?

Again, many thanks to Maj. Jim Gant for writing One Tribe At A Time, to Printer Bowler for designing and editing the .pdf and to Callie Oettinger for managing the outreach. I’m proud to put this document in circulation with as much reach as this modest blog can offer. We all hope it proves of interest and of use.

By Franke Schein

AMERICAN PATRIOT; a name that inherently denotes a love for America, it’s Constitution, and a deep understand of the things that set America apart from the rest of the world. There are far too many people that call themselves American Patriots, yet they are anything but a patriot. If they are anything at all, it would be Un-American, Anti-American, and/or a Racist American.

For example, I get hate mail from readers that call themselves patriots, when in fact they are members of a White Power group, or ascribe to the Jew hatred prevalent in that segment of society that lives on the shadowy fringes of America. The kind of people that proudly wave “Ol’ Glory” while calling for the extermination of Jews, Immigrants, Blacks, and white people that don’t agree with their foulness.

The kind of Americans[sic] that would murder minor children while they sleep, slit the throats of African-Americans, and create a climate of terror and anarchy that would put Hitler’s vermin to shame.

These groups blame everyone and everything but themselves for America’s problem. They preach a dialog of hatred, murder, mayhem, and feel that theirs is the Master Race-and that Jesus will raise them to heavenly highs-where they will rule the world for generations to come.

Huh?

Hitler said the same thing-and he’s surely rotting in Hell at this very moment, as are all of the Gestapo and Nazi’s that supported him. There’s a special hot-seat on the lake of fire with every Nazi’s name on it.

Americans went to war with the Nazis. Americans went to war with Imperial Japan. American’s went to war with communist North Koreans, and American’s went to war with fascist communist nations that have tried to conquer the rest of humanity with their aspirations of world conquest and the enslavement of humanity. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

As I mentioned in other articles [ HERE ] the root of the hatred occurred thousands of years ago. The replies to this article by a few caustic people were predictable. Even other articles found these same foul Nazis leaving disparaging comments-and the article had nothing to do with Nazis.

These people are obsessed with hate. They surround themselves with hatred, so much that the very air is made foul. Most are cowards that can’t do their dirty deeds unless there are many of them. They like to prey on the people less able to defend themselves, and always outnumber their victim. ( Pitiful cowards! )

I know Patriots from all over the USA. Most are ex-military veterans that have served their time in hell. They are the ones that have spilled their blood for America, and remain as The True Patriots of America. Not these unclean loathing cockroaches that wave the Swastika around and toss “Sieg Heil” to elderly Jewish ladies. ( What real man terrorizes old ladies like that? )

Then there is another kind of false Patriot-the socialist that champions the cause of every terrorist group and blames it on America. This kind of patriot is just as bad as the White Power Trash because most of them have received advance degrees in something or another. They preach their foul un-American style hatred onto hapless school and university students.

Campus Watch is one of the many organizations that keep a close eye on academia. It’s great to have these groups countering the claims of these overtly socialists and communist that indoctrinate Americas children with their twisted ideologies. [ http://www.campus-watch.org/ ]

• American University
• Arizona State University
• Brandeis University
• Brown University
• Central Connecticut State University
• City University of New York
• Colorado College
• Columbia University
• Concordia University
• Connecticut College
• DePaul University
• Duke University
• Florida Atlantic University (FAU)
• Georgetown University
• Harvard University
• Khalil Gibran International Academy
• New York University
• Northeastern University
• Princeton University
• Rice University
• Rutgers University
• San Francisco State University
• Sarah Lawrence College
• Stanford University
• State University of New York, Binghamton
• State University of New York, New Paltz
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Irvine
• University of California, Los Angeles
• University of California, Santa Barbara
• University of California, Santa Cruz
• University of Chicago
• University of Hawaii
• University of Maryland
• University of Michigan
• University of Minnesota
• University of Missouri
• University of North Carolina
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Oklahoma
• University of Oregon
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of South Florida
• University of Texas
• University of Toronto
• University of Victoria
• University Wisconsin – Madison
• Yale University
• York University

If you know of a school teacher, university professor, or other educational based candidate, and know that they are racists, socialist, communist, anti-Israeli, or anti-Jewish-then contact campus watch [HERE] or Veterans for Academic Freedom.org [HERE] None of these people should be allowed to stand in front of our children. None of them should be allowed to stand at the head of a classroom or lecture hall.

American universities a breeding ground for socialists, communists, and terrorists

By Frank Schein, Anchorage Conservative Examiner

The ascension for higher education is a fundamental characteristic in our society. To provide a better education for our children so that they may prosper within our society, becoming the leaders for future generations-represents the central role of a parent. However; while attending these very expensive centers of higher learning, our children are being indoctrinated with leftists, socials, communist, Marxists, and terrorist ideologies.

Der Stürmer as Instructional Material in School Lessons (c. 1935) Courtesy of © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz

For example, a group calling itself “The Socialism Conference” that described themselves as “A new left for a new era” recently held a conference in Chicago and San Francisco.  [HERE The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas” ] Some of the key speakers that were featured include one particular anti-american radical John Pilger, whose clearly hostile idioms have been floating around the septic tank of cyberspace through various articles posted at The New Statesmen, a socialist newspaper that describes itself as”

Join these speakers at Socialism 2009:

John Pilger

John Pilger is a world-renowned journalist, author and documentary filmmaker, who began his career in 1958 in his homeland, Australia, before moving to London in the 1960s. His first film, The Quiet Mutiny, is credited with disclosing to a worldwide audience the internal disintegration of the US army in Vietnam.
Thirty-six years and some 60 documentaries later, he is still making challenging films for ITV. His films have won Academy Awards in Britain and the United States. He has been a freelance writer since 1986, with his work appearing in newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The South China Morning Post, the Mail & Guardian (South Africa), the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Australia), Aftonbladet (Sweden), Morgenbladet (Norway) and Il Manifesto (Italy) and Socialist Worker (US)

“Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favorite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbor. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.”

“The suppression of the suffering of Britain’s and America’s colonial victims is an article of media faith, a tradition so ingrained that it requires no instructions.”

“The most obvious example is the bombing atrocities in London on 7 July 2005; no one in the British intelligence mandarinate doubts these were a gift from Blair. And yet “terrorism” describes only the few acts of individuals and groups, not the constant, industrial violence of great powers.”

Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/john_pilger/page/3

“no one in the British intelligence mandarinate doubts these were a gift from Blair.” What Mr. Pilger is trying to convince everyone is that the people of London that were slaughtered in a terrorist act by radical islamists-were killed because they asked for it by simply being British.

In another quote from one of his articles: “As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic.” Pilger once again shows his contempt for Israel, and fails to mention the ever increasing terrorist attacks at the hands of Palestinian terrorist, and makes ideological assumptions that Iran’s Islamic Regime has the right to acquire nuclear weapons.

I applaud the fact that Mr. Pilger has the strength and impudence to stand up for what he believes in, but the fact that he is a socialist that espouses a totalitarian communist manifesto, and a person that denounced every action, every administration, and every foreign policy in America-while condemning Israel and their right to self defense, puts him in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and other criminal against humanity.

Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/john_pilger/page/3

Dr. Jess Ghannam

Dr. Jess Ghannam, the son of Palestinians forced to flee their homes when Israel was established in 1948, is a member of the international executive committee of Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition and the Free Palestine Alliance. A clinical professor of Psychiatry and Global Health Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State University, he has also helped establish medical clinics across the Gaza Strip.

The list of Anti-American speakers goes on and on. All of these socialist speakers share the same sentiment-they hate Israelis, and denounce Americanism-calling for the elimination of American democracy over the communist manifesto, which they so reverently worship. The dictatorial leader of China Hu Jintao would be proud of these people.

Bill Fletcher:

Bill Fletcher is a Republican politician from the U.S. state of North Carolina. Fletcher was the Republican nominee for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction in the North Carolina Council of State election, 2004.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Fletcher
Bill Fletcher’s Iran Commentary [ Pay close attention to the very last statement where this Israeli hating American sums up his racist opinion : "And this administration is not gonna let the Israelis do their dirty work for them..”

When one looks closer at this “alleged educator”; the blatant racism and hate mongering is most evident with artwork being displayed on their website: [ HERE ] and again [ HERE ]
Source: http://www.resistanceart.com/2010_USA_Canada_BC.htm

The In many of Fletcher’s article he speaks out against racism and intolerance; yet when viewed from the abstract-his blatant hostilities against Israelis and Judaism are most evident. Perhaps his form of tolerance for other religions and races doesn’t include Israel. This is a signatory of American educational system?

American educators are indoctrinating our children with their racists attitudes at an alarming rate. College professors that should be teaching our kids educational courses, are intermixing their own twisted socialist ideologies into the lesson plan.  The answer is to monitor every teacher in American Universities. Identifying those that stray from the lesson plan and include their Anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments in front of our children. Radical Islamist that set up shop in our schools need to be booted onto the street with utter disgust. Their Jihadist propaganda and empathy for Palestinian terrorist groups is a slap into the face of every freedom that real Americans enjoy.

The American educational system is under attack from within. At stake are the fresh and impressionable minds of our children. The consequence of inaction might well results in another Nazi party emerging to slaughter yet another 8-Million people, and the radicalization of American Muslims that want to destroy the US Constitution and replace it with Islamic Sharia law.

by Leonard Magruder

Following in the footsteps of Rep. Joe Wilson  who is now famous for his “You Lie!” outburst during Pres. Obama’s speech.  The universities and media are still promoting the same Leftist views about the current War on Terror, as they did, and continue to do on the War in Vietnam.  Let’s review their record on Vietnam to see if they can be trusted now.

We have in our archives a rare book, although some libraries have it, containing 118 of the most important pieces of literature handed out by the antiwar movement between the years 1964 and 1974. Mutiny Does Not Happen Lightly: the Literature of the American Resistance to the Vietnam War. Edited by G. Louis Heath, a professor of sociology at Illinois State University, it was published in 1976 in a limited edition, “selected so as to present an accurate cross-section of the American resistance to the Vietnam War during 1964-1974.”

Containing mostly information on Who, What, Where of the various demonstrations and marches, we, however, are interested in the Why. We carefully went through all 597 pages of this book for all material that focused on the reasons for the anti-war protests. Here are all the statements of that type that we found. The essence of what the anti-war movement told others as to what the war was all about, is found here.

FROM THE LITERATURE OF THE WAR PROTESTS OF THE 60’S (0ur comments added):

“The May 2nd movement is launching an anti-induction campaign on the campuses. …based on the refusal to fight against the people of Vietnam. Some chapters of May 2 plan to campaign to donate blood and other medical aid to the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Viet Cong) to concretely show our support for national liberation struggles. Receiving blood from U.S. college students will be a terrific morale booster for the Vietnamese people.”

May 2nd Movement- Sept. 8, 1965

(comment: a little aid and comfort from a U.S. branch of the Viet Cong)

“The game of the rich has caught up to Pig America. The Vietnamese have kicked ass out of U.S. occupational troops. More and more G.I.’s will no longer listen to Pig Nixon’s orders and are turning their guns around on the real enemy. The Provisional Revolutionary Government in Vietnam (Viet Cong) has led the Vietnamese people to complete victory.”

Roxboro School SDS- Cleveland Heights – June 4, 1972

(comment: by 1972 the Americans had won all five major offensives at a KIA (killed in action) ratio of 15 to 1, and South Vietnam was 95% pacified. After the Americans fought the enemy to a peace treaty and left, South Vietnam defended itself for two years until bitter anti-war Democrats in Congress betrayed them by cutting off their ammunition. These are the kinds of elementary facts that students never seem to know.)

“Recently many articles have appeared in the movement press expounding the virtues of deserting and going AWOL. ‘Come to Canada and be a man.’ ‘Soldiers are pigs.’ ‘To remain in the imperialist U.S. Army rather than leaving is comparable to being a Nazi.’ Last year there were, by Pentagon counts, 250,000 AWOL’s and over 53,000 deserters. This has not made much of a dent in the fighting strength of the U.S.Army. That dent has clearly come from the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people under the leadership of the NLF and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”

New York Regional SDS distributed at Boston University – Feb. 22, 1969

(comment: you really had to be gullible to join the anti-war movement)

Letter from Ho Chi Minh to a radical activist in Youth Against War and Fascism, Free University of New York:

“My Dear ——-

I have received your letter. You and the progressive American people, especially the youth, feel indignant at the barbarous crimes perpetrated in Vietnam by the U.S. imperialists who have thus besmeared the honor of the American people and the noble traditions of the United States. I am glad to learn that you and many other young Americans are actively endeavoring under varied forms to help push forward the movement against the war of aggression in Vietnam and in support of the Vietnamese people. With affectionate greetings, Signed, Uncle Ho”

June 18, Nov. 25, 1965

(comment: congratulations on your treason from Uncle Ho)

“The U.S. government is planning shortly to order the bombing of Haipong, an industrial city of half a million people, which is Hanoi’s seaport, and of Hanoi itself. The U.S. also plans to bomb the system of dikes in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam which keeps the North Vietnamese from drowning and starving. Just as the U.S. is attempting to drown in blood the liberation struggle of the South Vietnamese people because it is the model for liberation struggles everywhere, so North Vietnam is being bombed to bits because it shows all colonial and former colonial countries, by living example, that Socialism can solve their problems.”

Youth Against War and Fascism, Free University of New York – Aug. 27, 1966

(comment: no one bombed any dikes. Leftist editor Harrison Salisbury started this myth.)

“As far as the Vietnamese are concerned , we are fighting on the side of Hitlerism, and they hope we lose. Most people support the NLF. Why? The war in Vietnam is not being fought according to the rules. Prisoners are tortured. Our planes drop incendiary bombs on civilian villages. Our soldiers shoot at women and children. Your officers will tell you that it is all necessary, that we couldn’t win the war any other way. We believe that the atrocities which are necessary to win this war against the people of Vietnam are inexcusable.”

Vietnam Day Committee, San Francisco – Aug. 2, 1966.

(comment: spreading atrocity lies was a specialty.)

“It is important for us to tell people why the demands of the NFL and the PRG represent the only hope for peace, independence and unity in Vietnam. To anyone who knows the political-military situation in Vietnam, to declare for immediate withdrawal is to support the NLF without saying it. What is important…is to show that Vietnam is only a place where U.S. policies of neocolonialism have met with active resistance.”

Stanford University – November 15, 1969

(comment: hypocrisy was another specialty)

“Just when Westmoreland was boasting that there were only small guerrilla groups left, he was hit in October 1967 with a division-sized unit. While he was explaining that this was a desperate last fling, he was hit by another division- sized unit. The U.S. forces never recovered from this. Westmoreland started panic measures. Forced to disperse, he opened the way for the NLF’s mighty Tet offensive in late January that sealed the fate of the ‘limited war’ because from then on Westmoreland, and General Abrams after him were forced onto the strategic and tactical defensive.”

Radical Student Union – Univ. of California- Berkeley- Dec. 11, 1969

(comment: in the “mighty” Tet Offensive the enemy lost 40,000 dead, half his forces, and the Viet Cong was decimated, never again a credible force. The allies lost 1,231. This is what CBS’s Walter Cronkite called a “stalemate.”)

“I want Spiro Agnew to know that I bring this assembly a message of greetings and solidarity with the American people from the Viet Cong. I want Agnew to know that this generation is establishing its own diplomatic relations, because we are not at war with the people of Vietnam. Our war is with the Pentagon, Wall Street, and Spiro T. Agnew. Nixon plans to win…by withdrawing enough troops to deflate antiwar sentiments at home , while fortifying major cities like Hue and Saigon and from this position of fortification carry out the raging air war against the countryside that most students of Vietnam now understand is controlled by some 80% of the National Liberation Front.”

Speech by Rennie Davis, San Francisco Peace Rally – Nov. 15, 1969

(comment: 80% !! ole’ Rennie in solidarity with Viet Cong lies. Could subversion be more obvious? Student leaders just made up things and everybody, like sheep, believed them.)

“The resistance of the people of South Vietnam is an indigenous movement of politically and religiously diverse groups and individuals which was organized in response to years of oppression and illegal action by the U.S. government and its various ‘puppet’ regimes in Saigon. In order to counter the U.S. government’s propaganda –which falsely teaches the public that the ‘enemy’ is an outside, ‘communist’ aggressor – we will continue to make use of various educational means. The U.S. government is trying to stifle, at tremendous cost and risk, a liberation struggle which is setting the example for all oppressed peoples.”

The U.S. Committee to aid the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Viet Cong) New York City,- May 10, 1966

(comment: apparently professors forgot to tell them there was an “outside enemy,” called the Communist North)

By the simple device of charging American soldiers with aggression against the “freedom fighters” of the Viet Cong, legions of students, using this excuse to justify their “moral outrage” (and avoid the draft), engineered a movement that spread to the gullible throughout the nation, helping to defeat a noble cause to bring freedom to others. Not a single one of these attacks on the war mentions that America was helping South Vietnam to fight Communist aggression.

As Jamie Glazov, noted historian, once pointed out on FrontPageMag:

“The most putrid lie of the Left – was the assumption that the U.S. was somehow fighting the people of South Vietnam, when it in fact was actually fighting the Communists who were seeking to imprison them.”

And today they are crawling back in bed with those same old toothless hags of the 60’s—“aggression,” “immoral,” “imperialism”—and re-cycling the same old lies.

As late as the thirtieth anniversary of the Vietnam War, Stephen Young could write, “Our national recollection of the war matches that of the New Left.” Because that is what is preserved and taught in our universities. For thirty years, for example, they have continued to use Karnow’s, “Vietnam: A History”, a work so biased that when presented as a PBS series people who had been there rioted in Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, Houston, and Paris.

The election of 2004 was a massive repudiation by Vietnam vets of the New Left version of the war. The new Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation says they lied. The above article makes it very clear that they lied.

So how can they be trusted to tell the truth now? In the end we do not want your views on war: “You Lie!”

magruder44 <@> aol  com