Feminist Business School Seeks to Eradicate Individualism, Merit and Competition

The concept has been tried several times throughout recorded history. Each and every time, it has been an abysmal failure. I’m talking, of course, about socialism. It has been marketed and packaged under different names. But the objective remains the same—trash and condemn liberty and individualism as a tool of “white privilege and racial oppression. Trash and comdemn free-market capitalism as an socioeconomic system designed to exploit minorities in order to maintain the status quo.

Warning:  Evergreen State is among the most radical marxist colleges and universities in the United States.  The school is truly an offspring of the Frankfurt School of Critical Thought.  They are fully dedicated to the eradication of Western Civilization, free-market capitalism, natural rights, and individualism.


Why Our Founders Feared Democracy

The word Republic has all but disappeared from our political lexicon.  It has erroneously been replaced by Democracy.  The Founders must be turning over in their graves.  They had nothing but contempt for democracy.  They sought to, and did, create a constitutional republic, but not before doing their homework.

Unlike today’s politicians, talking heads, and academics, the Founders had an acute, in-depth, and nuanced understanding of history and political systems.  Prior to the 1787 constitutional convention, James Madison undertook a comprehensive study of every known republic in recorded history to ensure that the Founders didn’t repeat their mistakes.  The Founders as a group were also well studied in democracies.  They knew that every democracy in recorded history disintegrated in a pyre of chaos, tyranny, and mob violence.

The word democracy does not appear in any of the Founding documents: the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution.  For good reason: the Founders had no intention of creating a democracy.  They wanted to fashion a mixed republic of constitutionally infused checks and balances which incorporated elements monarchy, aristocracy, and popular consent.  Monarchy would manifest itself in the Office of President, aristocracy the senate, and popular consent, the House of Representatives.  The checks and balances are both vertical and horizontal.  The division of the government into the executive, legislative, and judicial constitutes one form of checks and balances.  The “division of labor” among the federal, state, and local levels of government constitutes the other.  This division of labor was made law in Article 1, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Founders drew much of their inspiration and thought from Baron Montesquieu’s “Spirit of the Laws.” Montesquieu (1689-1755), a Frenchman, was a political philosopher and man of letters. He is one of the central figures of the Enlightenment.

Published in 1748, the Spirit of the Laws is a comparative study of three types of government: republic, monarchy, and despotism. Montesquieu held that government powers should be separated and balanced to guarantee individual rights and freedom.  It is considered one of the most influential political studies of all time.  The Founders would agree, and some 40 years later, would incorporate much of Montesquieu’s masterpiece in the founding of our Republic.

I’ll bet very few Americans can cite the differences between a republic and a democracy, or care for that matter.  But even high-level politicians and prime-time political commentators continue to refer to “our democracy” rather than “our republic.” Spread the good word—we don’t live in a democracy; it’s a republic, thank you.

The article below, by O.R. Adams, goes into great detail about this issue.

Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

By O. R. Adams Jr.

© O. R. Adams Jr., 2008

Our Founders very much feared creating a government that had too many aspects of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in trying to make everyone equal, and in the process taking away property, rights of property, and with it our basic freedoms which they considered “God given Freedoms.” They very much feared the development of the Robin Hood mentality we are seeing today – soak the rich and give to the poor. It is a democratic drift toward socialism. Such a program as the proposed “Universal Healthcare” is a prime example.

The fear had good basis. Our Founders were all knowledgeable people, and all knew and discussed how all prior democracies ended in disastrous failures – one of the most well known being that of Athens, Greece. As stated by Paul Gagnon:

American history reaches way back—to the texts of Judaism and Christianity, to the glory and failure of democracy in Athens, to Rome, Feudal times, and more. To explain our values, history classes need to reach back, too. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/

There has been a historical writing floating around for a number of years on principles that were well known to our founders, which is:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: “From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” (Emphasis added) http://www.democrats.com/node/807

The above, in the reference shown, is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish born British lawyer and writer (1747-1813). However, there is some doubt about the original author, although the quotation has been often repeated by knowledgeable people. (See: http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) Certainly, the principle was well known to our Founders, and to informed writers of that period.

One of the greatest of all writers about our American government, and the dangers it faced, was the French writer and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville. He toured all of America in the early 1800s, and after some years wrote the great two volume book, Democracy in America. The University of Virginia has done the great service to America of making this complete two volume works available online at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

A good part of Volume II of Democracy in America was on the dangers of a democracy, which was along the same line as the above quoted information. He very much hoped that our Republic form of government could escape those dangers. Some excerpts from the book, in that regard, are:

It frequently happens that the members of the community promote the influence of the central power without intending to. Democratic eras are periods of experiment, innovation, and adventure. There is always a multitude of men engaged in difficult or novel undertakings, which they follow by themselves without shackling themselves to their fellows. Such persons will admit, as a general principle, that the public authority ought not to interfere in private concerns; but, by an exception to that rule, each of them craves its assistance in the particular concern on which he is engaged and seeks to draw upon the influence of the government for his own benefit, although he would restrict it on all other occasions. If a large number of men applies this particular exception to a great variety of different purposes, the sphere of the central power extends itself imperceptibly in all directions, although everyone wishes it to be circumscribed. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter III, That the Sentiments of Democratic Nations Accord with Their Opinions in Leading Them to Concentrate Political Power [in] America)

… These powers accumulate there with astonishing rapidity, and the state instantly attains the utmost limits of its strength, while private persons allow themselves to sink as suddenly to the lowest degree of weakness. …

Hence the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase among democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same proportion as their ignorance. … (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter IV, Of Certain Peculiar and Accidental Causes Which Either Lead a People to Complete the Centralization of Government or Divert Them From It)

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter VI, What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear.)

These things we are seeing in America, today; and worse is proposed. As we get our government benefits, we resist less while it takes away our rights and controls our lives. Even our local governments are getting into the act. They even tell us how to flush our toilets. How long will it be before they regulate how we wipe our behinds?

Well knowing the reasons for the demise of past democracies, our Founders, by our Constitution, created a Republic in an effort to avoid those pitfalls.

In an article, Are We a Republic or a Democracy, Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University, explains how our Founders strove to create a Republic instead of a Democracy, and why. The following are some excerpts:

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10:

In a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “… that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

In the article, Professor Williams also reflects on the sad situation we have in America today, in that it appears that today Americans seem to want the same kind of tyranny that our Founders tried to guard against.  http://reliableanswers.com/patriot/2005/01/are-we-republic-or-democracy.asp

When our Constitution was adopted the people of our country, against tremendous odds, had just fought and won the revolutionary war against Britain, and had a real sense of freedom and individual responsibility. They also feared the centralized government that a democracy could bring about, and by which their individual freedoms, which they had just gained by blood and sacrifice, could be lost. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison gave a comprehensive dissertation on how a Republic would guard against such losses of freedom, in an effort to get our proposed Constitution ratified by the people and their states. The following are excerpts from Madison’s paper:

… When a majority is included in the faction, the form of popular government … enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. …

… Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. …

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

Yale University has made available to the public the entire Federalist Papers at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm

Our founders gave us a republic, with a representative form of government, and I believe that, under our Constitution, we have the best form of government that there has ever been. But an irresponsible people, electing irresponsible representatives, can ruin any government. We are today experiencing that very danger.

We have had so much prosperity and so much ease of living, that we have lost our belief in personal responsibility. With it we have grown to believe in the ability of the government to take care of us, and we have lost our individualism and more importantly, our Faith in God. Instead of considering the good of the country as a whole, candidates promise the people to take care of their every need, including their medical care. And the people, relying on their promises of milk and honey, and equality for everyone, vote for those candidates. They have forgotten about the long term good of the country, the rights and responsibilities of individuals to run their own lives, and are fast making our country a socialized welfare state.

We elect people who want to take away our right to bear arms. This will make it more difficult to ever overthrow our yoke of oppression. This is a necessity to socialist and communist countries.

We elect people that teach us that perversion is commendable, and who want to remove our rights to say otherwise, or to write otherwise. They want to remove the right of those who disagree with them to be on radio or television.

They have no real respect for human life, and particularly the lives of the unborn.

While they remove our rights to significant freedom of speech and freedom of press, they teach us that pornography, obscenity, and perversion are constitutional rights.

The freedom of religion allowed is to the extent that it is only within the walls of the church, and not offensive in any way to the atheists and nonbelievers. Practicing our religion in living our lives, and in conducting our schools and our businesses, is not allowed.

Contrary to the wishes of parents, their children are taught false anti-American history in public schools, and are taught that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are commendable.

These are the great principles of the Democratic Party of today.

Today, all of the leading Democratic candidates are preying on the desires of the people for healthcare and other benefits. The idea of President John F. Kennedy, “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” has now been completely reversed. Apparently the Democratic candidates of today think that the person who can get elected is the person who can promise the most government benefits to the people. This is the exact thing that our Founders feared. It leads to a socialized welfare state, the loss of individual freedom and of individual initiative. It will lead to the demise of America as the great bastion of freedom, and to the end of its status as a world power. It will eventually destroy our form of government, as it has in all past democratic experiments.






What Leftists Don’t Understand About Economics–a Reflection

My comments are in response to an article which appeared yesterday entitled, What Leftists Don’t Understand about Economics, by Daniel Carter, of Investment Watch.


Where do you want me to start?  Liberals and their philosophical/political brethren understand little if anything about economics, and even less about the principles of Natural Law and Natural Rights which underscore free-market capitalism.  Volumes have been written about Natural Rights beginning with Thales of Miletus in the 6th century B.C.  He and the Seven Sages of Miletus (a rather raucous group I’m told), rather than the later Greeks Plato and Aristotle, are credited with giving philosophical birth to the Western Tradition.  There is a straight philosophical line from Thales and his Sages, to Aristotle, to Cicero, Polybius, significantly to Aquinas who bridged Christian thought with Aristotelianism, to the Enlightenment philosophes and Founding Fathers, and finally the Objectivism of Ayn Rand.  Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, has been rightly called Aristotle’s Eudaemonics (or flourishing) in novel form.  Having read both several times, I can confirm this comparison.  That’s pretty much what it is.

Reduced to its essence, Natural Rights includes freedom of life, liberty, and property.  In the Declaration, the pursuit of happiness was substituted for property.  The pursuit of happiness, or flourishing, is the subject of Aristotle’s Eudaemonics.  The closest English word for “eudaemonia” is “flourishing.” All agree that flourishing is pre-supposed by ordered liberty.  Man cannot rise to the occasion, or find meaning in his life, shoot for the stars, or soar on the wings of eagles without liberty, not anarchy, but ordered liberty.  The state exists for one purpose–to protect one’s life and property—not your right to hold a claim check to someone else’s money.

Also, the Ten Commandments have much to say about the primacy of Natural Rights and its place in our Judeo-Christian ethic.  Natural Rights were codified by the Ten Commandments.  Mosaic Law and Natural Law have much in common.  The Fifth Commandment (“Thou Shalt not Kill”) couldn’t make the right to life any clearer.  Likewise, The Seventh Commandment (“Thou Shalt not Steal”) could not have come down more firmly on behalf of private property rights.

Unfortunately, Natural Rights philosophy is no longer taught, or only in the darkened corner of the candlelit sanctuary of a hermit.  It is ignored or considered hate speech.  It was long ago thrown under the bus by the Progressive Movement of Marx and Woodrow Wilson and the Frankfurt School of Irrational Thought.

If you aren’t schooled or steeped in liberty or the principles of Natural Law, you can neither appreciate nor understand nor defend the offspring of Natural Rights—the free market.


Home Schooling Is Not a Crime – Michelle Malkin–Commentary

Done right, home schooling is a very low-cost, personalized educational option, conducted in a safe, non-violent environment—your home. Statistics consistently indicate that home-schooled students excel in higher education and go on to lead functional, productive lives.

There are, of course, a number of life’s little inconveniences and impediments that operate against successful home-schooling. First, the parent-child chemistry has to be there. Many parents have told me that it simply would not work for their Matthew or Emily. Home-schooling my own son would have been the ultimate test of my patience. Both parties have to be committed and emotionally in-sync with the program. 

Secondly, you all but have to have one fulltime stay-at-home parent. In today’s world, two-income households are pretty much the norm. A work-at-home parent with a flexible schedule or a parent who works in the evenings could also make home schooling a viable option.  A private tutor is also an option, but only if you’re Paul McCartney.

Bear in mind, if you home-school your child through the elementary-school years, and decide to send her to a standard high school, be prepared for “culture shock.” It may take a while, if ever, for the child to acclimate to an institutional setting. Fixed class schedules, lunches, etc., may not sit well with a child used to the more flexible home setting; not to mention the teasing, the bullying, guns, knives, and drugs, if you opt for public high school.  It’s all part of the complete government education package.  Students are shocked to learn that pleasing your mother is a lot easier than pleasing your peers. 

But if you are looking for a way to get your child out of the toxic, dumbed-down, PC, Common Core learning environment, home schooling may be something to consider. Home schooling isn’t for everybody, but public school isn’t for anybody.

Please enjoy this article by Michelle Malkin.



Why We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy


Few Americans are aware of the fact that we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. And fewer Americans could cite the differences between them. The Founders were, among other things, historians. They understood the dangers of majority rule and built numerous checks and balances into our Constitution to thwart the tyranny of the majority. The word “democracy” does not appear in any of our founding documents. To a man the founders believed this anonymous quote: “Better a king than a mob.”

Please read the article below by Professor Walter Williams.



Today, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, admitted that reforming the Democratic Party was going to be far more difficult than he had imagined.

I was so excited. I immediately and naively assumed that his idea of reforming the Democrat Party was purging the party of all the marxist kooks, hardcore violent leftists like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, anti-Free Speech college professors and administrators, disavowing the whole hateful “white privilege” mindset and condemning everyone who professes it on campuses and elsewhere, the Islamists, and embracing free-market capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing machine in the history of mankind.

I thought he meant purging the Obamas, the Clintons, Pelosi, Chucky Schumer, Dicky Durbin, George Soros, Rahm Emanuel, Pocahontas, Bory Cooker, the Cuomos, Jerry Brown, Donna Brazile, and all their parasitic suck-ups in the media—-CNN, PMSNBC, and CBS.

I thought Perez meant seriously draining The Swamp. No, instead, he just talked about a bunch of meaningless, trivial bulls**t like building up the grassroots, coordinating our efforts even more to bleed the indigent, increasing our community organizing to predatory levels, putting more people than ever on public assistance, destroying the private economy so that more people suffer and become dependent on the government, forcing transgenderism on every child, making sure every caucasian is encouraged to commit suicide because of the crimes of his forebears, and allowing every deadbeat from every s**thole country free admission to the country with free education, free groceries, free rent, free electricity, free toilet paper, and on and on.

This is Democrat Party Tom Perez wants, in order to assume absolute power over a hapless, woefully disarmed and ignorant citizenry. Remember Perez–the Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the Blood of Tyrants and Patriots.—-Thomas Jefferson. One should never underestimate the power of liberty to inspire the aggrieved to take up arms.

The Shot Heard Round the World

President Trump is very much at the top of his game.  He took The Swamp to the cleaners on immigration with swift and stunning aplomb.

Two days ago, the President announced that he would sign any immigration reform bill that The Swamp could put together.  His supporters were utterly despondent, convinced that once again they had been been betrayed.  Talk-show hosts and pro-Trump commentators went on a day-long rampage, heaping scorn on the President who ran and won on his hard-nosed stance against illegal immigration.
Instead, President Trump lured them into an humiliating, bipartisan trap.  Assuming the president at his word, The Swamp proceeded to quickly write an immigration bill that could have been written by Jorge Ramos and his fellow thugs at La Raza.  That following morning, The Swamp gleefully announced that a deal had been reached.  The lame-stream media joyfully followed suit, prematurely heralding the deal and giddy over President Trump’s apparent eye-popping cave.
Yesterday afternoon, President Trump sat down with The Swamp, refused to sign the bill in no uncertain terms, and uttered those now-infamous words that many of his supporters will consider his greatest moment.  Importantly, he also exposed the Swamp’s true intentions–complete amnesty and open borders.  There would be no compromising.
It was the shot heard round the world.  Never had a president stuffed such a generous helping of dung into the stunned faces of The Swamp who had spent a year thwarting his agenda while mercilessly sneering at him and his “glaring lack of political acumen.”  Well, the joke’s on them.  Immediately, the Swamp and the cheap-labor express media went into an apoplectic meltdown, ranting and raving on air while desperately scheduling back-to-back therapy appointments.  The air in Washington reeked of smelling salts.
I don’t know how this will all play out.  But I believe Mr. Trump would be well-advised to consider taking the issue all the way to the mid-terms, giving every GOP candidate an issue that resonates well with the American people.

Red Robin will offset minimum wage hikes by canning busboys | New York Post

The Red Robin article is a lesson in fundamental economics which the average politician nearly always fails to comprehend. If the cost of labor goes up due to a government-mandated increase in the minimum wage, one or two outcomes are certainties. One, employees will be laid off or fewer will be hired, as in the case of Red Robin. Hours are cut back on kitchen and counter staff and the manager removes the “Now Hiring” sign from the entrance door. Two, companies may have to raise prices for goods and services, or in the case of Red Robin raise prices and/or cut back on their portions. The once classic half-pound burger is reduced to seven ounces, maybe six . The once-mighty side of fries, enough to slake the appetite of a high-school linebacker, is discernably smaller. Or Red Robin decides to start buying a lower grade of ground beef. Or all of the above.

The average consumer, or citizen, or voter, thinks increases in the minimum wage are good, especially for low-income, low-skilled workers.  Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

The signing ceremony makes the headlines and the evening news. The politicians who sponsored the increase are hailed by the media and talking heads as champions of the disadvantaged, having triumphed over the tight-fisted, mean-spirited opposition financed by evil Big Business. Unfortunately, the consequences mentioned above never make the headlines. If Red Robin raises its prices, lays off employees, imposes a hiring freeze, or cuts back on their portion sizes in response to the minimum-wage increases, will the media hop right on it? Not bloody likely. Will the company hold a news conference explaining that the lay-offs, price increases, and smaller portions are directly attributable to the state-mandated increase in the minimum wage? Again, not bloody likely.

The political establishment and their dutiful, fawning media just want you to hear the fun stuff.  Then they box it up, put a bow on it, and attach a cutesy jingle to it like “America’s Getting a Raise !!”  Then it’s repeated ad nauseum till the woefully ignorant electorate unconsciously swallows it hook, line, and sinker.   

The laws of economics are universal, transcendent, and immutable.  They always have the last word.  Unfortunately, they are seldom heard.  





President Trump is quick to tout his intelligence, his wealth, and his accomplishments. Today, he called himself a “very stable genius.” At least half of America thinks he’s an obnoxious blowhard, even crazy. I think there is a method to his madness.

Millions of American kids have been brainwashed by the public education system and modern culture to believe that their intelligence and accomplishments, like those of their parents, are a function of “privilege.” Something to be ashamed of or feel guilty about.  Diligence and motivation have nothing at all to do with success. Students are now being tested across the country to determine their “privilege awareness.”

President Trump is taking on Political Correctness in subtle ways most social justice warriors are too blinded by hatred to consider. By openly and vocally expressing his pride in his own self-driven merits, President Trump is trying to send a strong message to today’s youth—Don’t be ashamed of your virtues. Virtue is the fruit of rational thought. Diligence and motivation are virtues. Do we want our kids to fail because some of their peers are failures? Are they to be ashamed of their accomplishments because others have none? Are they supposed to go through life with half their brains tied behind their backs because others are intellectually challenged?

Where would mankind be if it weren’t for the productive—the brain-i-acs, the hard-working, the creative, the entrepreneurs, the competent, who seek only an honest return for their efforts and the freedom to pursue their goals? In today’s America and elsewhere, competence is an unforgiveable offense subject to merciless derision by cultural marxists in our public schools, colleges and universities, and the media. If it weren’t for the competent, we’d all be hunter/gatherers living in stone-cold, fetid hovels.

There is work to be done, things to be invented, medical and scientific breakthroughs to be made. Are we to entrust our future to those who won’t get out of bed, crack a book, or fill out a job application? To be sure, there are millions of poor and destitute, through no fault of their own, deserving of our help and compassion. We must find a way to differentiate between those who cannot work and those who will not work. Our current welfare system has failed to do this.

That said, we must never criticize or subject to systemic condemnation the hardworking, the ambitious, and the intellectually gifted. After all, our future is in their hands. They must be encouraged to reach for the stars and play every game like it’s the seventh game of the World Series. Indeed, all of our children must be inspired to succeed to the extent of their abilities, and taught that failure is only a step away from their fondest dreams.

President Trump is right to take on this toxic mindset and warped value-system.