Unknown's avatar

About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

To Promote Equality, California Wants to Ban Advanced Math

In the name of equality, the California Department of Education seeks to dumb down the brightest kids.

Dumbing Down of America Takes Another Leap Forward

A friend of mine emailed an article the likes of which always prompts me to say “really?”

Please consider the Reason article In the Name of Equity, California Will Discourage Students Who Are Gifted at Math.

Culturally Responsive Framework

I like to verify things myself and you can do so as well by reading the California Department of Education Mathematics Framework.

In its framework, the Department of Education seeks “Culturally responsive mathematics education.”

Introduction Highlights

  • Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities. Mathematics pathways must open mathematics to all students, eliminating option-limiting tracking. [i.e. no advance classes].
  • implementation of this framework and the standards, teachers must be mindful of other considerations that are a high priority for California’s education system including the Environmental Principles and Concepts (EP&Cs) which allow students to examine issues of environmental and social justice.

Teaching for Equity Highlights

  • The evolution of mathematics in educational settings has resulted in dramatic inequities for students of color, girls, and students from low income homes.
  • Teachers are encouraged to align instruction with the outcomes of the California ELD Standards, which state that linguistically and culturally diverse English learners receive instruction that values their home cultures.

Need to Broaden Perceptions of Mathematics

I did not go through all the chapters. Reason uncovered these gems.

  • The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12.
  • Middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes.
  • The push to calculus in grade twelve is itself misguided.
  • To encourage truly equitable and engaging mathematics classrooms we need to broaden perceptions of mathematics beyond methods and answers so that students come to view mathematics as a connected, multi-dimensional subject that is about sense making and reasoning, to which they can contribute and belong.

Sabotage the Best

Reason concludes, and I agree “If California adopts this framework, which is currently under public review, the state will end up sabotaging its brightest students. The government should let kids opt out of math if it’s not for them. Don’t let the false idea that there’s no such thing as a gifted student herald the end of advanced math entirely.”

Instead, and in the name of “equity”, the proposed framework aims to keep everyone learning at the same dumbed down level for as long as possible.

The intention is clear. The California Board of Education intends to sabotage the best and brightest, hoping to make everyone equal.

The public does not support these polices. Indeed, it is precisely this kind of talk that nearly got Trump reelected.

Biden should speak out against such nonsense, but he won’t. He is beholden to Teachers’ Unions and Boards of Education.

Care to complain? If so the California Department of Education posted these ways.

Phone Number and Address

Phone: 916-319-0598

Instructional Quality Commission
1430 N Street, Room 3207
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-319-0172

Social and Mathematical Justice Q&A

Q: Who is the arbiter of environmental, mathematic, and social justice?

A: The California board of Education. They intend to cram it down your child’s throat and dumb down gifted kids no matter what their parents believe or how vigorous the objections.

If you wish to protest these absurd policies, phone or write the board of education as posted above.

Better yet, get the hell out of California.

Mike Shedlock

How and Why the World Went Crazy

Society has gone insane because reason has been abandoned — first by philosophers, then by social scientists, and now by politicians, corporate heads and (increasingly) by actual scientists.

Ayn Rand [1905-1982, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”] had a beautiful, brilliant mind. She anticipated what ultimately came to pass a few decades ago when she wrote about the decline of reason in Western civilization:

Rand wrote: “If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle. He has been opposed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and—like an axiom—used by his enemies in the very act of denying him. Whatever intellectual progress men have achieved rests on his achievements.

Aristotle may be regarded as the cultural barometer of Western history. Whenever his influence dominated the scene, it paved the way for one of history’s brilliant eras; whenever it fell, so did mankind. The Aristotelian revival of the thirteenth century brought men to the Renaissance. The intellectual counter-revolution turned them back toward the cave of his antipode: Plato.

There is only one fundamental issue in philosophy: the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind. The conflict of Aristotle versus Plato is the conflict of reason versus mysticism. It was Plato who formulated most of philosophy’s basic questions—and doubts. It was Aristotle who laid the foundation for most of the answers. Thereafter, the record of their duel is the record of man’s long struggle to deny and surrender or to uphold and assert the validity of his particular mode of consciousness.” …

Rand continues: “Aristotle’s philosophy was the intellect’s Declaration of Independence. Aristotle, the father of logic, should be given the title of the world’s first intellectual, in the purest and noblest sense of that word. No matter what remnants of Platonism did exist in Aristotle’s system, his incomparable achievement lay in the fact that he defined the basic principles of a rational view of existence and of man’s consciousness: that there is only one reality, the one which man perceives—that it exists as an objective absolute (which means: independently of the consciousness, the wishes or the feelings of any perceiver)—that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive, not to create, reality—that abstractions are man’s method of integrating his sensory material—that man’s mind is his only tool of knowledge—that A is A.

If we consider the fact that to this day everything that makes us civilized beings, every rational value that we possess—including the birth of science, the industrial revolution, the creation of the United States, even the structure of our language—is the result of Aristotle’s influence, of the degree to which, explicitly or implicitly, men accepted his epistemological principles, we would have to say: never have so many owed so much to one man.”

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

In the Name of Equity, California Will Discourage Students Who Are Gifted at Math

California’s Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus.

The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don’t make it past basic algebra. The department’s solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

“The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12,” reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. “In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes.”

In fact, the framework concludes that calculus is overvalued, even for gifted students.

“The push to calculus in grade twelve is itself misguided,” says the framework.

As evidence for this claim, the framework cites the fact that many students who take calculus end up having to retake it in college anyway. Of course, de-prioritizing instruction in high school calculus would not really solve this problem—and in fact would likely make it worse—but the department does not seem overly worried. The framework’s overriding perspective is that teaching the tough stuff is college’s problem: The K-12 system should concern itself with making every kid fall in love with math.

Broadly speaking, this entails making math as easy and un-math-like as possible. Math is really about language and culture and social justice, and no one is naturally better at it than anyone else, according to the framework.

“All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents,” reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. “The belief that ‘I treat everyone the same’ is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities.”

The entire second chapter of the framework is about connecting math to social justice concepts like bias and racism: “Teachers can support discussions that center mathematical reasoning rather than issues of status and bias by intentionally defining what it means to do and learn mathematics together in ways that include and highlight the languages, identities, and practices of historically marginalized communities.” Teachers should also think creatively about what math even entails: “To encourage truly equitable and engaging mathematics classrooms we need to broaden perceptions of mathematics beyond methods and answers so that students come to view mathematics as a connected, multi-dimensional subject that is about sense making and reasoning, to which they can contribute and belong.”

This approach is very bad. Contrary to what this guidance seems to suggest, math is not the end-all and be-all—and it’s certainly not something that all kids are equally capable of learning and enjoying. Some young people clearly excel at math, even at very early ages. Many schools offer advanced mathematics to a select group of students well before the high school level so that they can take calculus by their junior or senior year. It’s done this way for a reason: The students who like math (usually a minority) should have the opportunity to move on as rapidly as possible.

For everyone else… well, advanced math just isn’t that important. It would be preferable for schools to offer students more choices, and offer them as early as possible. Teens who are eager readers should be able to study literature instead of math; young people who aren’t particularly adept at any academic discipline might pick up art, music, computers, or even trade skills. (Coding doesn’t need to be mandatory, but it could be an option.)

The essence of good schooling is choice. Individual kids benefit from a wide range of possible educational options. Permitting them to diversify, specialize, and chart their own paths—with helpful input from the adults in their lives—is the course of action that recognizes vast differences in interest and ability. Holding back kids who are gifted at math isn’t equitable: On the contrary, it’s extremely unfair to everyone.

Yet the framework seems to reject the notion that some kids are more gifted than others. “An important goal of this framework is to replace ideas of innate mathematics ‘talent’ and ‘giftedness’ with the recognition that every student is on a growth pathway,” it states. “There is no cutoff determining when one child is ‘gifted’ and another is not.” But cutoffs are exactly what testing and grading systems produce, and it’s absurdly naive to think there’s nothing innate about such outcomes, given that intelligence is at least partly an inherited trait.

If California adopts this framework, which is currently under public review, the state will end up sabotaging its brightest students. The government should let kids opt out of math if it’s not for them. Don’t let the false idea that there’s no such thing as a gifted student herald the end of advanced math entirely.

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

NOTE: These people are sooooo ill.

How Trillions in Newly-Printed Money Created a Labor Shortage

If you’re tired of binge-watching Netflix, there are likely a few restaurants in your neighborhood who would love to hire you. A job might help relieve the boredom.

On the other hand, why work when one can just be one of the more than 6 million former workers now collecting “pandemic unemployment insurance”? Those millions are in addition to the 3.6 million former workers collecting ordinary unemployment insurance. For many workers, these benefits now total $300 per week. In March, President Biden extended the program until September.

And then there are the many millions more who have recently received a piece of the third round of stimulus payments. All three bailouts combined to total around $460 billion in checks mailed out to Americans.

So, it shouldn’t be an enormous shock when we find out that many employers are having trouble finding workers. One McDonald’s restaurant is offering bonuses just for showing up for an interview. One eatery is offering a $400 sign-on bonus.

Nor is it just the service industry that can’t find workers. Construction employers are reporting shortages, as are trucking operations. The NBC affiliate out of Green Bay, Wisconsin, reports that the price of gas may increase because so few tank truck drivers can be found. The problem is “a lack of qualified drivers.”

Even government employers—who tend to offer more job security and a lot more vacation time than private firms—are offering extra cash to get more applicants in the door.

Millions of Workers Have Also Left the Labor Force..

An endless stream of unemployment checks isn’t the only thing fueling the worker shortage. Record numbers of Americans are leaving the labor force entirely.

In January 2020, 96 million American adults were outside the labor force. That shot up to 104 million in April of last year. But as businesses opened up and increased hours, there were still 100 million Americans not in the labor force. In other words, over the past year an additional 4 million workers exited the labor force. These people are not actively looking for work, are not on unemployment, and are not factored into the unemployment rate.

Of the 100 million adult Americans who are out of the labor force, 6.5 million say they “want a job now.” Yet, for whatever reason they’re not collecting any wages, even in a time when we’re being told anyone can walk into a restaurant and get immediately hired.

In other words: yes, millions of Americans are being paid to stay home, but that’s not the whole picture. Millions more have given up looking for work altogether.

The Illusion of GDP Growth..

This contrasts with the rosy picture of employment that the regime is now trying to paint. For example, we’re being told that the employment situation is excellent because the headline unemployment rate has fallen over the past year from 14.4 percent to 6.2 percent. That’s certainly a big improvement, but it also suggests that the number of unemployed job seekers remains high. An unemployment rate of 6.2 percent, after all, puts unemployment at a higher level than anything experienced between 1994 and 2008. It’s not exactly a “low” rate, and it’s nearly double the unemployment rate of April 2019 (3.3 percent). The narrative of an employment boom is so sketchy that even Fed personnel—i.e., Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari—admits the unemployment rate is more like 9.5 percent.

And then there’s the unconvincing overall narrative of economic growth. As noted last week by Daniel Lacalle, one should naturally expect big increases in GDP when massive amounts of monetary stimulus have been pumped into the economy. GDP is based largely on spending, and spending goes up as trillions of new dollars are printed..Lacalle writes:

There is an overly optimistic consensus view about the speed and strength of the United States’ recovery that is contradicted by facts. It is true that the United States recovery is stronger than the European or Japanese one, but the macrodata shows that the euphoric messages about aggregate GDP growth are wildly exaggerated.

Of course gross domestic product is going to rise fast, with estimates of 6 percent for 2021. It would be alarming if it did not after a massive chain of stimuli of more than 12 percent of GDP in fiscal spending and $7 trillion in Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion. This is a combined stimulus that is almost three times larger than the 2008 crisis one, according to McKinsey. The question is, What is the quality of this recovery?

The answer is: extremely poor. The United States real growth excluding the increase in debt will continue to be exceedingly small. No one can talk about a strong recovery when industry capacity utilization is at 74 percent, massively below the level of 80 percent at which it was before the pandemic. Furthermore, labor force participation rate stands at 61.5 percent, significantly below the precovid level and stalling after bouncing to 62 percent in September. Unemployment may be at 6 percent, but it is still almost twice as large as it was before the pandemic. Continuing jobless claims remain above 3.7 million in April. Weekly jobless claims remain above 500,000 and the total number of people claiming benefits in all programs—state and federal combined—for the week ending March 27 decreased by 1.2 million to 16.9 million.

These figures must be put in the context of the unprecedented spending spree and the monetary stimulus. Yes, the recovery is better than the eurozone’s thanks to a fast and efficient vaccination rollout and the dynamism of the United States business fabric, but the figures show that a relevant amount of the subsequent stimulus plans have simply perpetuated overcapacity, kept zombie firms that had financial issues before covid-19 alive, and bloated the government structural deficit and mandatory spending.

A Temporary Labor Bubble..

So why the labor shortage?

As with GDP overall, it’s helpful to look to money printing as a partial explanation—we should absolutely expect to see a surge in demand for employment as a result of the central bank printing up trillions of dollars. In our money printing–based economy, printed money is being substituted for production. Thus, millions of workers can stay home while demand remains steady, or even increases. Idle workers still have a lot of dollars to spend. Demand continues upward even as production falls.

Contrast this with how a labor market works in a normal economy. In a normal economy, the fact millions of workers are electing to stay home rather than produce anything should have a depressing or stabilizing effect on the demand for labor. That is, 10 million or so idle workers would mean workers have far fewer dollars to spend. This in turn would mean less demand for goods and services such as restaurant meals and retail sales. This would then tend to keep wages flat as well.

As Say’s law reminds us, production must precede demand in a functioning economy. It is the act of producing goods and services which produces the income necessary to increase demand.

So what are the prospects for this labor bubble? In the short term we can hazard some guesses about what happens. Demand is likely to continue to increase, as is price inflation. As Warren Buffet recently highlighted at a shareholder meeting, “We are seeing very substantial inflation…. We are raising prices. People are raising prices to us and it’s being accepted.”

In the medium and long term this will mean reduced purchasing power for those relying on unemployment checks. How the employment bubble will play out beyond this summer, however, will depend somewhat on whether the federal government again extends benefits and at what payment level. If benefits remain flat, then the real value of benefits will decline and at least some workers are likely to more enthusiastically seek work again.

In any case, we’re still in the early stages of a boom fueled by unprecedented amounts of money creation. Trillions have flowed into households via “stimulus” checks and unemployment checks. Yet although there are growing signs of price inflation, consumer prices in many cases are still adjusting to the new realities of money supply greatly outpacing production.

For those looking for a chance to build some job experience, now is the time to do it. This wage and employment bubble is unlikely to last.

Ryan McMaken, Mises Institute

Critical Race Theory: What it is and how to Fight it

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.

During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.

Christopher F. Rufo

Liberty Winning

Louis XIV had hundreds of servants who prepared him dinner. Today, my supermarket offers me a buffet Louis XIV couldn’t imagine. Thanks to trade and property rights and markets, each of us lives as if we had more servants than kings.

Do I live in an alternate universe?

The media tell me my side is winning.

Salon claims, “We all live in Kochland, the Koch brothers’ libertarian utopia.”

Tucker Carlson says, “Our leadership class remains resolutely libertarian.”

What? Who? Not President Biden.

Biden already spent $1.9 trillion on COVID-19 “recovery” mostly unrelated to COVID. Now, he wants trillions more for an “infrastructure” bill, even though most of the spending would not go to infrastructure. He’s eager to regulate more, too.

Maybe the pundits were talking about former President Trump. He tried to deregulate — a little.

But Trump vilified trade and raised military spending, increasing our debt by trillions.

We libertarians want to reduce debt and believe trade and immigration are good for America. Above all, we believe the best government governs least.

That’s not what I hear from most Democrats and Republicans.

So, how can pundits from both left and right say libertarian ideas are winning?

In a way, we are winning,” answers the Cato Institute’s David Boaz, author of “The Libertarian Mind,” in my latest video.

“Over the past couple of hundred years, we’ve moved from a world where very few people had rights and markets were not free — to a world mostly marked by religious freedom, personal freedom, freedom of speech, property rights markets, the rule of law.”

For most of history, no country had those things. As a result, says Boaz, “There was practically no economic growth, no increase in human rights and justice.”

Kings and tyrants ruled, enslaving people, stealing property and waging wars that lasted decades.

Then, in 1700 “suddenly, limited government and property rights and markets came into the world,” Boaz points out.

The result was a sudden increase in prosperity. Americans now are told that “the poor get poorer,” but it’s not true. Americans are 30 times richer than we were 200 years ago. When America began, rich people were poorer than poor people are today.

“In Colonial America,” says Boaz, “(if) you were traveling and you wanted a place to sleep, you’d go to an inn where everyone shared a bed.”

Benjamin Franklin and John Adams shared a bed on one of their diplomatic missions. They fought whether or not the window should be open.

John Jay, America’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court, complained about “sleeping with strangers and picking up bedbugs and lice,” says Boaz. “It’s not like that anymore because of the increase in wealth.”

Today, at motels all over America, middle-class and poor people have their own beds.

When markets are free and private property is protected, innovation happens in ways that allow ordinary people to live better. Over time, that innovation multiplies. It’s why, today, most of us live better than kings once did.

Louis XIV had hundreds of servants who prepared him dinner. Today, my supermarket offers me a buffet Louis XIV couldn’t imagine. Thanks to trade and property rights and markets, each of us lives as if we had more servants than kings.

We also live longer.

“President Calvin Coolidge’s teenage son was playing tennis on the White House tennis court,” says Boaz. “He got a blister on his foot and the blister got infected, and the health care available to the son of the president of the United States was not sufficient to keep him from dying.”

Few of us notice such steady progress.

The media give us bad news. “They tell us about cancer clusters and coups in Myanmar,” says Boaz. As a result: “We forget the big picture. It’s important to remember the big picture so that we don’t lose it.”

The big picture also includes progress in fairness and decency.

“We’ve moved from ‘some people have privileges that others don’t’ to ‘human rights belong to women and Black people and gay people,’” Boaz reminds us.

“The direction of history has been in the direction of markets, personal freedom, human rights, democratic governance, and that’s what libertarians advocate.”

John Stossel

The Communist Globalist Wants His Privacy

“We ask for space and privacy for our family as we begin to navigate this new life.”

— Bill Gates, commenting on his divorce from long-time wife

Don’t you just love it when Communist, globalist, totalitarian collectivists who seek to obliterate individual rights and private property ask for “space and privacy.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Reform vs. Freedom

When new libertarians join the libertarian movement, they are inevitably hit with a fork in the road, one that all of us libertarians have confronted after discovering libertarianism. That fork is this: Should I become a libertarian reformer or should I become an advocate of liberty? 

No matter how much the reform crowd might protest, reform is not freedom. That’s because reform leave infringements on liberty intact and simply tries to modify them. 

Freedom, on the other hand, necessarily involves the dismantling of infringements on liberty, not their reform. As each infringement is dismantled, the individual experiences the exhilaration of being a bit more free and ardently desires to dismantle the next one. The process continues until all infringements on liberty have been dismantled, in which case people experience what it’s like to live the lives of free men and women.

If all that we libertarians accomplish is reform of the welfare-warfare state way of life under which we live, at best we will have improved our lives as serfs but we will not have achieved our freedom.

The analogy I like to use is slavery. Suppose we were able to use a time machine to transport today’s reform-oriented libertarians back to Alabama in 1855. They would be calling for reforming slavery by enacting laws banning lashings, requiring shorter work hours, and providing for better food, housing, and healthcare.

Those would be improvements in the plight of the slaves, and they undoubtedly would be appreciative. But it would’t be freedom. Freedom would require the dismantling, not the reform, of the structure of slavery.

The reform-oriented libertarian would respond: “We have to be practical and pragmatic. We are not going to end slavery overnight. People would never accept that. If we call for the end of slavery, people will just tune us out. Newspaper editors won’t publish our perspectives. People won’t vote for us. We will end up with few supporters and be ineffective.”

All that might be true, but the fact remains that reform of slavery would not be freedom. To attract more people to the cause of freedom, it it necessary to continue making the case for freedom, even if it appears that no one is interested.

Moreover, there is no way to know how close we might be to arriving at a critical mass of people who could bring about a paradigm shift toward liberty in America. We might be a lot closer than we think. The only way to enlarge the number of people who want freedom is by making the case for freedom.

Suppose, for example, a libertarian is addressing an audience of 100 people who have never heard of libertarianism. The reform-oriented libertarian would say, “We need to go slow here. We need to stick with reform so that we don’t scare anyone off. Let’s just make the case for school vouchers and health-savings accounts rather than the case for separating school and state and healthcare and state.” 

Let’s assume that 25 people in the audience respond enthusiastically to the talk and become reform proponents. What difference does it make with respect to freedom? None! Because the public-schooling system and the public-healthcare system, which are both severe infringements on liberty, would still be left intact. Achieving freedom requires a separation of school and state and a separation of healthcare and state, the same way our ancestors separated church and state. That necessarily means making the case for ending all governmental involvement in education and healthcare, just as our ancestors did with religion.

Let’s assume that only 2 people in that audience are intrigued by the idea, decide to explore it, and become libertarians.That means we are that much closer to arriving at the critical mass of people needed to bring a societal paradigm shift to freedom.

In fact, imagine if our ancestors had not separated church and state. Today, we would be living in a religious mess that would be comparable to the mess we have in education and healthcare. And there would be libertarian reformers advocating reform of the public-church system. But those reforms would not be freedom. Freedom would entail ending all governmental involvement in religion.

Obviously, making the case for liberty is much more difficult than making the case for reform. Reform makes a person feel okay because his basic paradigm is not being shaken. Making the case for liberty makes a person think at a higher, more profound level, one that entails a dismantling of what he is accustomed to.

But there is no other way. To achieve freedom, we need to attract more people to our cause who understand freedom and who want it. To accomplish that entails exposing people to the case for freedom. If all that we do is make the case for reform, all we will do is attract reformers to our cause. That might make our serfdom more palatable. But it’s not freedom.

Jacob G. Hornberger, FFF

The Camp of Saints is Upon Us

The national disintegration of France is progressing precisely as Jean Raspail predicted in his novel. Those who see the disintegration and urge its halt are the ones punished exactly as in the novel. 

The situation in the United States is far more serious than in France. In the United States the authorities have brainwashed themselves with their belief in “American exceptionalism.” Consequently, warnings are not even acknowledged. I have been pointing out the ongoing American collapse for years, and it has never produced a debate.

It is too late for France and the US. If you read The Camp of the Saints, you will be brought face to face wth your own fate. The Democrats, the media, the woke “intellectuals,” the universities, and the public schools are hard at work preparing our doom. The United States are now the Disunited States. The blue states believe in white guilt, critical race theory, systemic racism, identity politics, and that all products of Western civilization, even mathematics, are symbols and devices of white supremacy. The red states do not have an understanding of the ideological assault that has been mounted against them. Their president was removed from office in a stolen election that was in every sense a coup, and the Red States accepted the removal of their president. The red states still believe in America even though America has ceased to exist. White people in general have been infused with a sense of guilt and are weakened in their own defense by self-doubt. Their monuments are removed, their history rewritten, their art and music denounced as racist, and their children turned against them in public schools and universities.

If you require more evidence of American collapse and the generalized collapse of Western civilization, read the last three chapters of Andrei Martyanov’s book, Disintegration: The Coming American Collapse ( https://www.claritypress.com/product/disintegration-indicators-of-the-coming-american-collapse/ ). Actually, the collapse has already arrived. We just haven’t yet recognized it.

Martyanov and I have reached the same conclusion: “The American belief system as it exists today is incapable of accepting empirical evidence, because evidence destroys American exceptionalism’s extreme confirmation bias and most modern American intellectuals on both the nominal left and the nominal right cannot deal with it.” US policymakers base their actions in emotions, not in rational thought. No sophistication of any kind any longer can be found in Washington’s foreign policy which rests on barbaric immaturity. Martyanov gives the example of Brookings Institution senior fellow Benjamin Wittes, who professes to be a martial artist like Putin and challenges Putin to a fight “in single combat in a location where he can’t have me arrested.” Wittes writes that former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, State Department policy planning chief Anne-Marie Slaughter, and big name US presstitutes agree that “Putin needs to man up” and meet Wittes in a fight.

This infantile challenge epitomizes the violent character of US “diplomacy.”

The Disunited States are a multicultural calamity. While white liberals create an anti-white system of caste privileges, Washington pursues conflict with Russia, China, and Iran. Are demonized white Americans going to fight for a country that is abusing them and turning them into second class citizens? As Judge Robert Bork warned 25 years ago, “American culture is Eurocentric, and it must remain Eurocentric or collapse into meaninglessness. Standards of European and American origins are the only possible standards that can hold our society together and keep us a competent nation. If the legitimacy of Eurocentric standards is denied, there is nothing else. . . . We are, then, entering a period of tribal hostilities. Some of what we may expect includes a rise in interethnic violence, a slowing of economic productivity, a vulgarization of scholarship (which is already well under way.)”

American students are not enculturated into their civilization and neither are Europeans. In place of education there is anti-white indoctrination. University reading lists consist of compilations of rants by ideologues describing the horrors of slavery, which is said to be unique to Western civilization. National consciousness is being stamped out along with scholarly and artistic standards. As Bork warned, the destruction of Western legitimacy means only interethnic violence remains. In Raspail’s novel, the guilt-ridden French never reach this conclusion and experience genocide. It remains unclear whether insouciant white Americans will understand before it is too late for them.

Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review

Logically, There’s no Way Blue States Can Lift Mask Mandates

There’s no way blue state and blue city governments can reverse mask mandates and other restrictions without admitting they were wrong, and that they lied, going back 14 months now. Cold and flu viruses will be with us forever — or until an outright cure is found. That wasn’t close to happening as of early 2020, and it still isn’t now. COVID death rates have simply replaced death rates for the flu. The vast majority of people who get COVID recover, just as the vast majority who got other viruses (H1N1, SARS, many other viruses too numerous to name) recovered. It’s nothing new. What changed in 2020 is that most of the world was shut down, and people were forced to wear masks; we had similar non- life-threatening viruses before, but never responded in this way.

The lie was pretending that COVID was something radically and fundamentally different, when it’s easy to see now that it wasn’t. So the blue states and cities are backed into a corner. In order to lift mask and other restrictions, they will have to concede that we CAN live with viruses and flus, just as we always did, without such restrictions. Or, if they don’t wish to make this concession, they will have to impose some form of mask mandates and closure “advisories”… well, forever. OR until medical science finds a way to eradicate ALL colds, flus and viruses completely. Whichever comes first.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason