The American republic ended under Donald Trump’s watch, but it wasn’t his fault. We created too big and powerful a government, and that government finally took our republic away. Our freedom and prosperity will be next to go, and we’re watching them evaporate right now, with shocking speed.
Soon, this man will seem like a distant memory, and many of you will miss him.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
It’s the things we DON’T talk about that reveal the savage dishonesty of our times. We DON’T talk about why public schools have these horrific shootings, and private schools do not. We DON’T talk about why so many students who attend these schools FEEL like doing horrific things. Graduates of private schools — Catholic, Jewish, Christian, Montessori, secular — rarely, if ever, want to do these things; yet on a regular, reliable basis, students at government-run schools do. What are the differences between government-run schools and other types of education which could explain this? Isn’t it worth investigating? Isn’t it worth researching? Or at least thinking and talking about? We do NONE of these things. And I’m not only talking about the politicians. I’m talking about the parents, who stupidly and dangerously think that you can keep doing the same thing over and over again — sending your innocent children into these dangerous settings — and expecting different results.
We’re only allowed to consider and discuss one hypothesis: Because guns are legal, these shootings happen. If guns were no longer legal, and if the government confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens only (since criminals will not comply), then the shootings will stop.
It’s not only treated as a hypothesis. It’s treated as a self-evident fact. Suggesting or even implying that other explanations or factors — aside from guns being legal — are in play is tantamount to suggesting or implying, “There is no sun in the sky”; or “The earth is flat”; or “The vaccine hasn’t been properly tested yet.” All are greeted with the same ferocious hurling of insults, threats, and intimidation.
The media will only discuss one thing: WHEN will guns be outlawed? What will it take? Can Joe just send Beto out into the country, and take care of the gun problem? HOW to end gun violence is equated with HOW to confiscate everyone’s guns. No other explanation for school violence is considered, or even permitted. That’s the definition of propaganda: The conclusion is taken as self-evident, and no mention of a debate is even recognized. Bias is different. Bias is when the media says things like, “Some people say outlawing guns will not solve the problem, while others say it’s essential; it seems that gun control is now essential.” Propaganda is when ONLY one point-of-view is articulated, and it’s taken as self-evident. We used to have media bias; today, we have intellectually destructive propaganda.
You have to wonder, since these shootings never used to happen at all in the past, and they happen with regularity in the past two or three decades. What has happened to public schools in the past two or three decades? Why didn’t any public school students do this kind of thing before, say, 1980 or 1990? And why do ONLY public school students become so despairing, and so depraved, that they feel compelled to do such a thing? The family? The teachers? The content of what students are taught? What their celebrities in the media are telling them about life, people and reality? Are those factors AT ALL? Or can it ONLY be guns?
If making a blue collar “redneck” give up his gun makes you feel good because you see it as humiliating him, then you should just admit that THIS is your primary motive. Because, you leftists out there, we know this is your primary motive. You do not care about children, and you do not care about stopping violence. If you did, you would let us have a discussion about what’s REALLY going on here.
Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
Ideology is political religion, said the conservative sage Russell Kirk.
And what is the defining dogma of the political religion, or ideology, of America in 2022?
Is it not that, “All men are created equal”?
Yet, as with every religion, a basic question needs first to be asked and answered about this defining dogma of liberal ideology.
Is it true? Are all men truly created equal? Are all races and ethnic groups equal? Are men and women equal? Are all religions equal? Or do we simply agree to accept that as true — and treat them all equally?
All Americans, we agree, have the same God-given rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the same constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights, and the same civil rights, enshrined in federal law.
But where is the historic, scientific or empirical proof of the defining dogma of American democracy that “all men are created equal”?
Thomas Jefferson, the statesman who immortalized the words, did not believe in equality, let alone equity. How he lived his life testifies to this disbelief.
When he wrote the Declaration of Independence that contained the famous words, Jefferson was a slave owner. In that document, he speaks of the British as “brethren” connected to us by “ties of our common kindred,” ties of blood.
But not all of those fighting against us were the equals of the British.
There were, Jefferson wrote, those “merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
In an 1815 letter to John Adams, Jefferson celebrated “a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents … The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.”
Jefferson was an aristocrat, not a democrat.
Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery but did not believe in racial or social equality. Though he cited Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” at Gettysburg, he had conceded in an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas that, “We cannot, then, make them equals,” adding that the white race in America should retain the superior position.
With the Brown v. Board of Education decision desegregating public schools in 1954, and the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968, a national effort was undertaken to bring about the social and political equality that Jefferson’s words of 1776 seemed to promise but failed to deliver.
At Howard University in 1965, Lyndon Johnson took the next step, declaring: “Freedom is not enough … We seek … not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.”
Yet, over half a century after the civil rights revolution, incomes and wealth are not equal. Nor is there equal representation in professions like law, medicine and higher education.
President Joe Biden’s people have pledged to Black America that they will mandate and deliver that equality of results. If equity does not now exist, the Biden administration will impose it.
And why not?
If all men (and women) are created equal, the most reasonable explanation for a consistent inequality of riches and rewards between men and women, and black and white, is that the game has been rigged. An inequality of riches and rewards exists because “systematic racism” coexists in American society alongside “white privilege.”
The remedy is also clear. As Ibram X. Kendi, author of “How to Be an Antiracist,” told The New York Times’ Ezra Klein: “Racist policies are defined as any policy that leads to racial inequity … intent of the policymaker doesn’t matter. It’s all about the fundamental outcome.”
Thus, a policy that ensures an equal place at the starting line but consistently fails to deliver an equal place at the finish line is, de facto, racist.
If Asian and black kids start kindergarten in the same class, and Asian kids in 12th grade are studying calculus while most black kids are still trying to master algebra, racism alone, by Kendi’s rule, can explain such a regular result.
The solution to persistent inequality?
Mandate equity; mandate equality of results; mandate equal rewards for black and white. Compel the government to produce policies that deliver an equality of results.
But what if inequalities have another explanation?
What if Asian Americans are naturally superior in mathematics?
What if an inequity of rewards in society is predominantly a result of an inequality of talents and abilities?
What if it is more true to say that, based on human experience, no two men were ever created equal, than to say all men are created equal?
As Kirk said, ideology is political religion.
What we witness today is the refusal of true believers in egalitarian ideology to accept that their core doctrine may not only not be true, but may be demonstrably false.
What we are witnessing in America is how true believers behave when they realize the church at which they worship has been erected on a bright shining lie and reality must inevitably bring it crashing down.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”
Memorial Day observances are replete with references of the fighting men and women who made “the ultimate sacrifice.” But Ayn Rand invited us to think of this loss in a deeper, and more ennobling way still when she observed, “If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave…”
Ayn Rand hated war which she viewed as antithetical to rational self-interest and the ultimate denouement of collectivism, which destroys the productive capacities of its subjects, and therefore “cannot exist for long without looting some freer, more productive country.”
But despite her distaste for war, she admired the military men who waged war in defense of human liberty, an admiration underscored by her addresses to military audiences, including her 1972 talk at the U. S. Naval Academy, and her 1974 speech to cadets at West Point Military Academy (which later became the title essay of Philosophy: Who Needs It.
On a personal note, in my family, Memorial Day means more than an excuse to barbecue. Both of my parents and sister are veterans, my brother is an active duty airman, and my cousin is an Embassy guardsman in Oman. For them, serving in the military is more than a job, but a calling to defend our country and its founding ideal: individual rights.
While I didn’t directly follow in their footsteps by donning the uniform, I feel that I’m doing my patriotic part by waging the philosophical battle for reason, individualism, and capitalism, along with my sisters and brothers-in-arms here at The Atlas Society. We do this by creatively crafting an arsenal of heat-seeking, light-bearing content that takes direct aim at the deadly ideas that threaten freedom at home—and abroad.
Some of the most effective weapons in that arsenal are our Draw My Life videos, including:
In the months ahead, we’ll be releasing several NEW Draw My Life videos, including
We can’t all defend America’s founding ideals by serving in the military—or by working full time to advance Objectivist ideas. But you can fight for your own values by supporting the work of those of us who are fighting, day in and day out, on your behalf.
On this Memorial Day, I encourage you to consider even a small gift to help us arm the next generation with the ideas of Ayn Rand, as an act of rational self-interest, benevolent generosity, and in tribute to those who paid the highest price for our freedom.
Thank you in advance for supporting The Atlas Society, Friend. Our organization would not be here today if not for your investment!
In liberty,
Ana
Alex Epstein’s book, Fossil Future, is a brilliant antidote to the assault on fossil fuels. Its theme is that fossil fuels are one of the greatest benefits to human civilization ever and that there is, for now, no viable substitute.
I am a scientist (psychology), so I know how science works even though I am not a climatologist. But for many decades I have read widely in many fields including the physical sciences. I have read about twenty books and scores of articles on climate issues. For many years I suspected that something seemed wrong. There were so many contradictions. Everyone seemed to report findings, using selected data, which supported their side but not findings that contradicted it. It seemed that a political agenda was constantly mixed in with a science agenda.
Soon one view became dominant: that fossil fuels were destroying the earth, maybe even in the next ten years, and needed to be abandoned to prevent a worldwide catastrophe. People who disagreed with this could be harassed, mocked, and even risked job loss. Scientific findings could only be published in some journals if they came out with the “right” results. Organizations were pressured to sell their oil stocks. Reporters for many leading newspapers learned quickly that only certain types of articles were acceptable. Opposing oil became a moral crusade, a virtual dogma. Eminent catastrophizers included: Paul Erlich, Al Gore, James Hansen, Paul Krugman, Bill McKibben, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
There have been many distortions of scientific data. But since our Constitution says we have a right to freedom of speech, all critics of the anti-oil crusade could not be silenced. Some catastrophizers openly advocate being dishonest in order to further their agenda. Epstein refutes all the critics. He presents a list of recommendations for evaluating climate claims.
Epstein’s book is a brilliant antidote to the assault on fossil fuels. Its theme is that fossil fuels are one of the greatest benefits to human civilization ever and that there is, for now, no viable substitute. Epstein covers all the relevant issues from every angle, so I will only give a brief summary here.
I consider this book to be, by far, the best—most honest, most accurate– statement of the fossil fuel issue written so far. But each reader will have to decide what to believe by using their own rational judgment.
Explore Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas–Not Less.
Authoritarian politicians wasted no time using the recent shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, to justify new infringements on liberty. Just days after the Buffalo shooting, the US House of Representatives passed a law creating new domestic terrorism offices in the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.
This is a step toward achieving the longstanding goal of many progressives of focusing the national security state on “domestic terrorists” and “right-wing extremists.” Supporters of these efforts have used the Buffalo shooter’s mention of “replacement theory” in his “manifesto” to attack prominent conservative commentators, most notably Tucker Carlson. Carlson and others are accused of spreading the replacement conspiracy theory because they have pointed out that the Left has for years celebrated the coming “replacement” of the white majority population. The goal is to stigmatize, intimidate, and even criminalize those expressing views or facts that contradict the cultural Marxists or the Democrat party establishment.
Painting the Buffalo shooter as a conservative requires ignoring his self-description as an environmental-fascist and his disdain for “Fox News conservatism.” The mainstream media also ignores the shooter’s use of the same neo-Nazi symbol used by the Ukrainian Azov brigade. This may be because they do not want the American people to realize their tax dollars are supporting actual Nazis in Ukraine.
The push to use the police state against “right-wing extremists” is supported by many progressives who (correctly) oppose the national security state’s civil liberties abuses of Muslim and other minorities. Conversely, many conservatives who have defended all infringements on liberty done in the name of the “global war on terror,” (correctly) oppose federal crackdown on “right wing extremists.”
Both sides fail to realize that a violation of any individual’s liberty is a threat to everyone’s liberty.
The massacre of 19 school children and two teachers in Uvalde Texas was followed by calls for expanded gun controls from President Biden and other prominent politicians. Among the proposals floated are a renewed push for federal Red Flag laws. Red Flag laws allow law enforcement to take someone’s guns without due process based on a mere allegation that an individual poses a risk of violent behavior. Despite being unconstitutional, easily abused, and ineffective at stopping violent crime, Red Flag laws enjoy broad bipartisan support. For example, former President Donald Trump endorsed a policy of “take the gun first, worry about due process later.”
If Congress was serious about protecting liberty and security, they would pass Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie’s legislation repealing the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.” This poorly worded law leaves children defenseless against mass shooters who are not dissuaded from their evil intentions by “Gun-Free Zone” signs. Video showing the Uvalde police not only standing around outside the school, but tasering parents who were trying to protect their children reinforces the importance of allowing school personnel to protect themselves and their students by carrying firearms.
Expanding the police state to “monitor” right-wing extremism and giving the government new powers to deny law-abiding individuals access to firearms make us less safe and less free. Instead of allowing politicians to use mass shootings as an excuse to further expand their powers, we must insist they repeal all federal laws that trade real liberty for phony security starting with the USA FREEDOM Acts (previously known as the USA PATRIOT Act) and the so-called Safe and Gun Free Schools Act.
Ron Paul
The greatest soldiers of American history knew that freedom was sacred; no price paid on its behalf was a sacrifice.
First published in 2005 this op-ed is still relevant today.
Memorial Day is a solemn and sad occasion honoring the American soldiers who gave their lives in war. But it is also a hallowed day — because the values those men fought to defend form the essence of our country: freedom and the rights of the individual.
The United States has never fought a war of conquest. The Revolutionary War was waged to gain freedom from the tyranny of King George. The Civil War was fought to end slavery in this country. The Americans defended liberty in World War II against the murderous collectivism of the Nazis. Even the Spanish-American War was fought against the brutal colonialism of the Spanish Empire.
The greatest soldiers of American history knew that freedom was sacred; no price paid on its behalf was a sacrifice. George Washington, as commander of the Continental Army, led the way. Despite his years of struggle and the hardships endured, Washington refused pay for his service. He used his own fortune to help finance the war effort, and, when the Revolution was won, took no money from Congress to help with the much-needed rebuilding of his Mount Vernon estate.
Gen. Washington recognized that freedom from tyranny was its own reward. His stirring words to Joseph Reed make clear his (and his compatriots’) reasons for waging the Revolutionary War: “The spirit of freedom beat too high in us to submit to slavery.”
Douglas MacArthur — another great leader — as military commander of occupied Japan, made it his highest priority to establish the post-war Japanese government and economy on the principle of political/economic freedom. The relative liberty and prosperity of Japan’s newly semi-capitalist system owes much to MacArthur’s wisdom and efforts.
Observing the fruits of his labor, he stated before Congress that America’s former enemies had “from the ashes left in war’s wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the primacy of individual liberty, freedom of economic enterprise and social justice.”
Gen. MacArthur recognized that part of America’s real victory in the Pacific was Japan’s vastly increased freedom.
Regular American soldiers have fought and died for freedom around the globe. South Korea today is free, not a part of North Korea’s murderous dictatorship, because U.S. soldiers helped defeat Communist aggression in the Korean War. Similarly, as long as American soldiers fought in Vietnam, the Communists were held at bay, unable to achieve their goal of conquest. Only after American politicians pulled all U.S. military personnel out of Vietnam in 1975 did the country fall, and the Communists, then unrestrained, enslaved the Vietnamese.
To appreciate fully the virtue of our soldiers we must remember what freedom means. It means we can choose our own fields of study, our own careers, our own spouses, the size of our families and our places of residence. It means we can speak out without fear regarding any issue — including governmental policy — choose our values, without interference from the state.
Freedom is based on the inalienable right of each individual to pursue his own goals and his own personal happiness. During America’s Revolutionary Period, one New Hampshire state document summed up the thinking of our Founding Fathers regarding an individual’s rights, “among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.”
This is the principle — and the spirit — that our soldiers defend.
The meaning of Memorial Day is particularly pressing today when the United States is engaged in a war against fanatics who represent the extreme of intellectual, religious and political suppression. Freedom is unknown and utterly alien in the countries that support terrorists. They feel threatened by our most cherished principles and institutions, and so they seek to destroy us.
What protects us is our moral courage and our military might. If the President has the moral conviction to permit our soldiers to wage war fully against our enemies, they will prevail, as they have so many times in the past. Once again, their blood and their lives, spilled and lost in defense of freedom, will not have been given in vain. On Memorial Day we solemnly and properly honor those heroes who have fought and died in defense of America’s freedom.
Copyright 2005 Ayn Rand Institute. All rights reserved. That the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has granted permission to Capitalism Magazine to republish this article, does not mean ARI necessarily endorses or agrees with the other content on this website.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 