Tag Archives: Theodore Roosevelt

What does renaming Mount McKinley in Alaska have in Common with renaming Lee Circle & Jefferson Davis Parkway in New Orleans?? It is all part of the purge of everything Traditionally White in the USA.

The ownership of history defines a people and their nation. I am a Southern heir of the Confederacy and the Old South. I will never allow any modern politician to take my grandparents’ love for me or their love for their grandparents’ cause. I spent my elementary school years with a Confederate Flag hanging in my room, and related pictures all over my grandparents’ home and several aunts’ & uncles’ homes. To purge this heritage would mean to purge myself, and, I’m sorry folks, but I just don’t want to be purged.

 I took my son Charlie to Beauvoir (and Confederate Memorial Hall) many times when he was living here with me, when he was little.  I hope that there are enough people who feel as I do to make sure that my great-great grandchildren will still remember and honor the Lees, the Jacksons (Andrew & Stonewall), Davis, Beauregard, Forrest, the Polks (James K. & Leonidas), and all the other Confederate heroes of the war of 1861-65.

There is a Federal Law of Cultural Resource Management built into the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (“NEPA”). In my opinion, the removal of the Four Major Monuments and any other alterations would have a major negative impact on the cultural environment and resources of New Orleans.

It would disturb the management and preservation of all other features of the city to remove these centrally placed and important “monumental” focal points of attention. For all these reasons, removal of the monuments would violate Federal Law and must be opposed in Court if the City Council votes in favor. Oh, and we should campaign vigorously to recall the mayor and all members of the City Council and demand a special election. I, for one, think this is worth fighting for on every front, until the monuments can be secured “for ourselves and our posterity.”

I have to admit, I have NO such similar feelings about President William McKinley. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/08/31/if-not-for-a-mountain-what-is-president-mckinleys-legacy/?wprss=rss_business  As the Washington Post article indicates, his only real legacy is the Spanish-American War of 1898, engendered and possibly engineered by the first major “False Flag” event in US History—the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor. 

In that rather inglorious imperialist episode, we conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands and Guam from Spain.  Of these, we only have Puerto Rico and Guam to show for our efforts now.   The Annexation of Hawaii in the same year, 1898, had almost nothing to do with the Spanish-American War, but what the heck, so long as we were out there collecting Tropical Islands generally and Pacific Islands in particular, right? 

The Annexation of Hawaii was among the most utterly illegal acts ever committed in the name of the United States of America.  Hawaii had been recognized as a sovereign and independent nation, first as the self-governing indigenous Kingdom of Hawaii founded by King Kamehameha, for over 100 years, and then as an Anglo-Saxon Republic after the overthrow of the native Kingship, by all the major powers of the world, including the United States. 

In short, the Annexation of Hawaii was as absolutely and totally illegal as Cousin Abe’s war to suppress his own and his wife’s Southern cousins into submission, abject submission, although the Yankee Imperialist Conquest of Hawaii was bloodless and therefore “benign,” right?  Still, Hawaii has solid grounds for secession and nullification of its relations with the United States.  And I hope that Hawaii will lead the way in the dissolution of the Union.  That way the first shot of the next War of Secession doesn’t have to be fired here in the South this time.

(Oh, and that will resolve all questions regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship, although I, for one, am fairly convinced he was born in Kenya.  But since Hawaii was illegally annexed, it’s not part of the United States either, so “two birds with one stone.”)(yes, I am grinning as I write this last parenthetical).

But Why is Barack Obama involved in the renaming of Mount McKinley?  Is it because he is bitter about the annexation of his “native” Hawaii?  Well, if so, and as noted, I am too.

But I believe, really and truly, that Obama’s purpose in renaming Mount McKinley is part of a broader purpose and policy which stands as the cornerstone of his administration:  ALL OF WHITE AMERICA MUST BE SUPPRESSED AND DIE.   And McKinley, even if he was a nasty Republican Imperialist just like Abraham Lincoln before him and Theodore Roosevelt after him, was white.   And THAT, my friends, is what I would consider to be the real connexion between the renaming of Mount McKinley and the renaming of Lee Circle and Jefferson Davis Parkway…… One less “Monument” to a Dead White Male on the American map.

Obama claims that his purpose in renaming Mount Denali was to honor the Alaskan Athabaskans (Tinneh or Na Diné), who number approximately 6,400 in Alaska today, according to Wikipedia.   The total population of Alaska in 2013 was 737,259, and Hispanics outnumber Native Americans almost 3 to 1 as a percentage of the population.  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

I have no idea how many of these enrolled tribal members actually speak an Athabaskan language, but I am sure it is less than the 6,400 total, and so it is much less than the generation of millions of Elementary School Students who had to learn their American geography and history together. 

Wipe McKinley off the map?  I would be dishonest and hypocritical to say it were “no great loss”, even though I cannot and do not particularly admire the man or his “legacy.”  Because if traditional historical names can be changed for the benefit of tiny minorities…. well, then the 25,000 of us who have signed petitions to save Lee Circle and the Lee and Jefferson Davis Monuments in this city are indeed in a hopeless position.

Ferguson Riots Highlight Inequality in America (again): A Modest Proposal

Race has become a cover for all kinds of perversity in America. Rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, are taking steps to secure the suspension of the Constitution and the abolition of due process of law because the Grand Jury’s decision to render “No Bill” in regard to Officer Darren Wilson shows that “it is OK to shoot black men in America” as more than one incendiary commentator has written.

The problem is that the police shoot EVERY color of man, woman, and child in America (and quite a few animals).  The problem is that American police are all armed to the teeth and many seem to believe they have the right to shoot absolutely everybody, anytime. The problem is that the police are armed and American citizens (typically) are not.  This must end.  The word “Police” has a very different etymological origin and history from the French “Gendarmes”—but the French word (etymologically “gens d’armes” replacing earlier “hommes d’armes” ) encapsulates the concept of “armed people” against “unarmed people.”  The English word “Police” most likely came to England with the Spanish Inquisitorial advisers and counselors brought into the Tudor Realm with Catherine of Aragon, mother of “Bloody Mary.”  “Policia” is the Spanish word, related to German “Politzei” which traces to the reign of Charles V, King of Spain and Hapsburg Emperor or Germany who succeeded King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

I am writing to propose to you that the shooting in Ferguson is indeed all about inequality.  But the inequality that I perceive is political and functional, not racial.  Black Americans, Hispanics, and (at least some) Whites are all being deceived into the notion that power is based on race in America.  Power is based on control over weapons, and the legitimate use of the same.

And the solution is really quite simple: we must abolish, now and forever, both the concept and the function of a specialized branch of government called “the Police.”  So this is my modest proposal: ARM THE PEOPLE, ABOLISH ALL POLICE FORCES, or at least disarm them and deprive them of any special authority over life, liberty, and property. “Police” units should be limited

The modern American and (really worldwide) concept of the “Police” embody and reflect the Anthropological and Cultural Evolutionary formulary notion that “The State” comes into existence only when there is a “monopoly of legitimate violence”. [“States” in the Anthropological, Cultural Evolutionary {i.e. “Prehistoric”} Scheme of things replaced tribes, chiefdoms {= Post-Mosaic, Biblical “Judges”}, and all other “pre-state” political forms of less elaborately evolved, less severe socio-functional integration].

The modern English word “Police” does not predate the reign of Henry VIII in England and Wales.  Etymologically, the concept of “the Police” equates with Latin “Polis” (= city) and “Policy” (lower level law, norms with official sanction slightly more formal than mere customs or practices, but not nearly so formalized as statutes).  

To abolish Inequality in America, as I wrote above: we must absolutely, positively, now and forever abolish the police.  People, to be free, must be “self-policing”.  The question here is: can the state exist without Police?  Or will we sink into the anarchy of the Scottish Clans and the Vikings without police forces?  (OK, were Scottish Clans and Viking tribes really “lawless?”  Were the pre-Colombian Indian Tribes of the Americas really “lawless”?  Were the Israelites “Lawless” when ruled by “Judges” before the appointment of Kings under Saul, Samuel, David, and Solomon).

OR, can (popularly administered, i.e. “community based”, egalitarian) LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW ALONE determine what violence is legitimate or not?  Are people capable of self-government in a complex society?  I think they are, although certain “old-fashioned” norms should perhaps be restored.

The police are increasingly an unqualified abomination all over America because they are militarized, and show increasing disregard for human (and animal) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The structural apex of the modern United States as a “Police Nation” (as the late great South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond decried, denounced and predicted in his “Dixiecrat” Southern Democratic breakaway platform in 1948) took shape (appropriately enough) formed by the hands and minds of rulers with truly Royal Blood. The seeds of the transformation to a police society planted under Abraham Lincoln and they sprouted over the next decades.  But the apical hierarchy of a “Police Nation” was only set, in 1908, when the Republican “Progressive” President, Theodore Roosevelt’s, Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte created the FBI.  

The creation of the FBI, destined to be ruled by a despotic monarch of sorts, J.Edgar Hoover, for 48 years from 1924-1972, was a truly royal event because Attorney General Charles Joseph was the grandson of Jerome Bonaparte, who in turn was the youngest brother of Napoleon the Great, Emperor of the French.  Jerome Bonaparte’s title was King of Westphalia, 1807-1814, a German “puppet State” under the Bonapartist transformation of Europe following the French Revolution.  “Gens d’Armes” were a key element of the Bonapartist bureaucracy, who far exceeded the number and power of any such royal agents who had ever existed among the “oppressive” Bourbon monarchs of the previous millenium since Charlemagne.  

Twenty five years later, at the “accession” of the (at that time) most unconstitutional and anti-Democratic American “King” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the police state already had widespread public acceptance.  The “police” everywhere became a major instrument of governmental “welfare”, with the creation of hundred or more different Federal “Policy Enforcement” (i.e. “Policing”) agencies which coordinated with state and local “Police” in the regulation of the economy and every day life, which most Americans now accept as “normal” and take for granted.

As much as I dislike the “Progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt or the “New Deal” Socialism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it cannot be said that people lack the power to “will themselves into socialism” through democratic process, or that socialism and constitutional government are entirely, wholly, incompatible—although socialist restrictions on the rights to contract freely and own property “in fee simple absolute” inevitably conflict with the American Constitution of 1787, as amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791 and even by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.  

I cannot say the same of Police Power.  Putting guns in the hands of a few people against the many is absolutely, positively inimical to the American way of life.  

Let us think for a moment about other privileges which have defined politically and social powerful classes: such as the right to ride horses.  First Latin Equites, then French Chevaliers and Spanish Caballeros all designate and refer to this special technology or mode of transportation which for nearly 4000 years defined the military elite of society (Georges Dumézil’s “Second Function”—physical force, which in the United States Constitution found expression in Article II, the Executive Branch).  

Among the Spanish Colonial Elites in the New World, from California and New Mexico to Southernmost Chile and Patagonia, the rights to ride a horse and carry firearms were limited to the Hidalgos of the Criollos (“Creole”) or Peninsular (Spanish born) aristocracy.  Indians, in the 18th Century, were required to apply for special permission to acquire either “elite” technology (horses or guns).  Such applications for permission were “badges and incidents” of subservient status as conquered people.  

Similarly, in the modern US, armored motor vehicles and automatic weapons are restricted by law to the police.  

“We the people” are now the subservient status and conquered people in our own nation.  

So we should all support the Ferguson Rioters, insofar as their complaints can be construed as an objection to police power, but we must eschew and ignore the racial rhetoric, and focus on the real problem, which is the State’s Monopoly of Legitimate Violence. Our position must be that ALL forms of monopoly are inimical to Constitutional Government.

For Remembrance Sunday/Veterans Day—who was our foe and what was our quarrel? Did our enemies actually threaten our freedom, or were the wars of the 20th century all ploys for the destruction of freedom? At this time we should remember what they died for, and the price they paid for peace, even more than the individuals who died—we should remember our heritage, and Samuel J. Tilden….

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow 
Between the crosses row on row, 
That mark our place; and in the sky 
The larks, still bravely singing, fly 
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago 
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, 
Loved and were loved, and now we lie 
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe: 
To you from failing hands we throw 
The torch; be yours to hold it high. 
If ye break faith with us who die 
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow 
In Flanders fields.

Who was exactly the foe?  What was our quarrel with the foe?  What major issues of freedom or democracy really separated Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany from King George V’s England?  Why should the United States and Canada have fought for the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?  It seems that all of the major nations involved in World War I (except POSSIBLY Tsarist Russia) were already headed (prior to World War I) towards one closely related formulations of “Social Democracy” in which “public welfare” outweighs “Freedom” and “Constitutional Government” and preponderant values.

Yes, it’s Remembrance Day/Remembrance Sunday again, as it always is just one week after Bonfire Day when we “Remember, Remember the Fifth of November” and that’s just three days after the Day of the Dead, All Souls and All Saints Day.  It’s not for nothing that a now retired (and free) house-elf of mine named Antonio Rodriguez said that November was the saddest month of the year, “cuando se nota que se alargan las noches es el mes más repleno de mis memorias….el día se acaba muy rapido, cuando recordamos que así de repente pasa la vida“¹.

This November, the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama has inexplicably saddened me, depressed me so much more than I expected.   Because I fully expected Obama to be re-elected, and I had no enthusiasm for Romney at all—zero, zip, zilch.  But it somehow feels that night has really fallen now.  Nobiscum semel occidit brevis lux, dormienda est una nocte perpetua, said Catullus², as if presaging Antonio’s autumnal depression by 2000+ years.

So for this November, I am going to suggest that we sing dirges in the dark for the day that Freedom Died.   I am not at all sure which day we should call the final death of American Freedom, it has been such a long, slow process.  And after all, truthfully, I write this memorandum with the full (and not even terribly uncertain) expectation that I will not be arrested for writing this piece, not today Saturday November 10, nor Sunday November 11, nor even on Monday November 12…..

But as sure as 6079 Winston Smith knew he would receive that final bullet to the head in 1984, I feel certain that, eventually, another good Judge appointed by some de facto President with the advice and consent of an unthinking senate will summon me formally or informally and “want to talk to me” again, about my writings, or about my protests. It will happen under color of law, just as it did when those wonderful Southern District of Texas Judges Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack “wanted to talk to me” in 2006-2008.   I left Texas because I really didn’t want to talk to them anymore, and they’ve left me alone since.  But I know that with the passage of time they or their successors will deprive me of my liberty without due process of law, for having written this, or some other challenge to the eviction or enclosure of the free from their land, or death of the brave in their homes….

So right now, let’s remember the Declaration of Independence that American men have been fighting and dying for since 1776, and let us remember that the government of the United States, since at least 1933, and possibly a long time before that, has become so oppressive and intrusive into our everyday lives as to render laughably trivial all of the oppressions and intrusions complained of in that remarkable text penned by Thomas Jefferson and the Committee of Five….(John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman were the other four).  

Let us then think of the limited, Democratic-Republican, form of government framed in the summer of 1787, and how that was revered as a “new covenant” between the people and a “more perfect union” than had ever been created before.   Americans started dying for the Constitution in the War of 1812 for the first time, but well over half a million died in 1861-1865, and one third of the United States were laid to ruin and waste, over constitutional disagreements.

From that time on, from the reconstruction which began during that War Between the States and Continued until Samuel J. Tilden gave up the Presidency he had fairly won in 1876 to Rutherford B. Hayes.  Tilden gave up the Presidency to which he had been elected to avoid a second Civil War, but in his “concession speech” delivered eight months after the election, on June 13, 1877, in the City of New York which had elected him, and to which he had given both the greatest Public Library and Public Park and most honest government of any City in the world, he foresaw America’s future of bought and bartered elections.

As reported in the New York Herald on page 3, in column 2:

Everybody knows that, after the recent election, the men who were elected by the people President and Vice President of the United States were “counted out,” and men who were not elected were “counted in” and seated .

NO PERSONAL WRONG.
I disclaim any thought of the personal wrong involved in this transaction. Not by any act or word of mine shall that be dwarfed or degraded into a personal grievance, which is, in truth, the greatest wrong that has stained our national annals. To every man of the four and a quarter millions who were defrauded of the fruits of their elective franchise it is as great a wrong as it is to me. And no less to every man of the minority will the ultimate consequences extend. Evils in government grow by success and by impunity. They do not arrest their own progress. They can never be limited except by external forces.

MUST NOT BE CONDONED.
If the men in possession of the government can, in one instance, maintain themselves in power against an adverse decision at the elections, such an example will be imitated. Temptation exists always. Devices to give the color of law, and false pretences on which to found fraudulent decisions, will not be wanting. The wrong will grow into a practice, if condoned-if once condoned.

In the world’s history changes in the succession of governments have usually been the result of fraud or force. It has been our faith and our pride that we had established a mode of peaceful change to be worked out by the agency of the ballot box. The question now is whether our elective system, in its substance as well as its form, is to be maintained.

THE QUESTION OF QUESTIONS.
This is the question of questions. Until it is finally settled there can be no politics founded on interior questions of administrative policy. It involves the fundamental right of the people. It involves the elective principle. It involves the whole system of popular government. The people must signally condemn the great wrong which has been done to them. They must strip the example of everything that can attract imitators. They must refuse a prosperous immunity to crime. This is not all. The people will not be able to trust the authors or beneficiaries of the wrong to devise remedies. But when those who condemn the wrong shall have the power they must devise the measure which shall render a repetition of the wrong forever impossible.

Should we remember and mourn Samuel Tilden’s concession as the day that Freedom Died in America?  I know that my great-grandparents were only children or teenagers on that day, and they still believe in American Freedom, even living in the South which had been conquered (but which was at least partially freed by the “Compromise of 1877” which led to Samuel Tilden’s giving up the Presidency).

For the next 50 years, American Freedoms slipped away slowly but surely in the name of “beneficial” governmental regulation, starting with vast grants of undeveloped Western Lands to the railroad companies in the 1860s-1870s.   During the War of 1861-1865, many strange things unrelated to the wars happened, including the creation of the Department of Agriculture in 1862, the first branch of government lacking any roots in the original constitutional conception of the Federal Government.  

The power of the Union, and the fall of the Confederacy, were both related to the relative development of the railroads in the North and South³.  But it was after the war, during the Reconstruction Presidencies of Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant, that these “Imperial” railroads became so great as basically to be threats to the supremacy of the United States government.  And the railroads spun off subsidiary “support” industries such as steel and coal, and eventually oil, which themselves threatened to consume the United States Government, and in fact, did so.

The great railroads grew and acquired astronomical powers in the years 1865-1900 in both the U.S. and Canada as a result of the vast giveaway of public land to the private sector (the earliest form of “corporate welfare”).   Another political compromise resulted from the tensions created by the increase in the power of the railroads:  ten years after Samuel J. Tilden’s concession speech, the first post-War Democrat to be elected, Grover Cleveland, a New York successor of Tilden, approved the governmental regulation of the railroad industry by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, which was the first “Independent Commission” created outside the constitution (and was dissolved only in 1996 under the Presidency of another Democrat, William J. “Bill” Clinton).  That same year, Congress voted to elevate Lincoln’s non-cabinet level “Department of Agriculture” to the full cabinet, and Grover Cleveland signed this bill in 1889.  By several extensions including the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, the Federal Government, by and through the Department of Agriculture, extended both regulatory and educational functions to every county in the United States of America.  

Few people today even blink at the idea that Federal power over our everyday lives should have begun in the Department of Agriculture, but on Remembrance Day, I think these are things to be remembered….and up to a point, they are things to be regretted and mourned.   NOTHING in the Original Constitution (never mind the Declaration of Independence) would have allowed for the Federal Government moving into the fields of agricultural production and education but this was the path that “social democracy” took in the United States—slow but steady step-by-step infiltration.

Regulation and the destruction of the original constitutional form of government continued with the Antitrust Acts of  the 1890s which, again, were designed to restrain the major industries which the Federal Government had brought into being in the USA during and after the war between the states.  And finally, the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax capped the merger of Federal and Inter-state Corporate business during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson (although both policies were formulated by Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft).

During this same half century (1865-1915), other innovations were taking place in America that destroyed the original framework of limited government, in particular, concerns for “public health” became paramount.  Starting with the creation of a Department of Chemistry inside the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and culminating Theodore Roosevelt’s “Biologics Act of 1902” and “Food and Drug Act of 1906” the government somehow found itself always wiser and more capable of judging what made the public healthy than any private choice or consumer (market-based) decision-making….and this trend towards “consumer protection” culminated with the Constitutional Amendment permitting Federal Prohibition in 1919.

As is well-known, the “Prohibition Era” led to the first ever “crime wave” in U.S. History, and evasion of government regulation has become the chief “non-violent” form of crime ever since (with major “violent” episodes during Prohibition and the “War on Drugs” of course leading to ever greater suppression of human rights in the name of public safety.”

Today, we cannot turn on or off the electric lights or water in our homes without being directly or indirectly subject to massive Federal regulation, supplemented and implemented by the States.

So did American Freedom die on the day that the Food & Drug Act was implemented in June of 1906?  If so, it died a very quiet death.  Or did American Freedom die the day that Prohibition was repealed under the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt which decided that Constitutional Amendments were no longer going to be necessary to regulate commerce, because it was going to be so easy just to appoint Judges to the Supreme and Circuit Courts who could discover new and previously unrecognized powers to regulate in the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution.

And to think that, if only Roosevelt had been around to threaten to “pack” the Courts in the 1850s, slavery could have been abolished by Congress without a Civil War, without a Constitutional Amendment, just by KNOWING that the Interstate Commerce Clause permits the regulation of how many chickens a farmer raises for his own and his family’s consumption without ever putting those chickens or their eggs into the stream of interstate commerce….

In fact, in the era of Obama, slavery probably could have been abolished by executive decree without any input from Congress at all…. what a shame that the 19th century was filled with such antiquated notions as “genuine democratic-republican decision-making” limited by the “express powers granted to the Federal government in the constitution.”

So let’s see now—what was our quarrel with Germany during World War I again that led to November 11 being called first “Armistice Day,” then “Remembrance Day”?   Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had all taken major steps towards “Social Democracy” ahead of the United States, and the United States was basically 20-30 years behind on this particular curve…..

In a strange but true way, the last war that was fought anywhere in the world over real constitutional disagreements was the American War Between the States, and in that war, and in reconstruction culminating in the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877 after the Election of 1876, Freedom and Constitutionally Limited Government suffered a permanent defeat from which they have never recovered.

 So Constitutional government died a slow but painful death.  And somehow, the greatest pain is NOW upon us, as we face another four years under Barack Hussein Obama.

¹ “By the time you can notice that they nights are getting longer, that is the month most filled with memories….the day ends quickly, and this forces us to remember that so quickly does life itself pass.”

² “When for us the brief light has past, we must sleep in eternal night.”

³ A great popular song, “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” sung by Joan Baez and Johnny Cash among others, sentimentally commemorates the role of train travel in the War Between the States—but the South’s inability to expand its railroad infrastructure during the war was without doubt one of the key infrastructural reasons for the failure of the Confederate States of America in the first ever Marxist-shaped and envisioned war of “Dialectically Conflicting Modes of Production”:

Virgil Caine is the name and I served on the Danville train ‘Til Stoneman’s cavalry came and tore up the tracks again.

In the winter of ’65, we were hungry, just barely alive. By May the tenth, Richmond had fell; it’s a time I remember, oh so well.

The night they drove old Dixie down: And the bells were ringing. the night they drove old Dixie down.  And the people were singing, they went, “La, la, la”.

Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she called to me “Virgil, quick, come see, there go the Robert E. Lee”. 

Now I don’t mind choppin’ wood, and I don’t care if the money’s no good, Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest. But they should never have taken the very best.

The night they drove old Dixie down: And the bells were ringing, the night they drove old Dixie down; And all the people were singing: they went, “La, la, la”.

Like my father before me, I will work the land.  And like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand.

He was just eighteen, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his graveI swear by the mud below my feet. You can’t raise a Caine back up when he’s in defeat.

The night they drove old Dixie down—And the bells were ringingThe night they drove old Dixie down; And all the people were singing.  They went, “Na, na, na”.

The night they drove old Dixie down: And all the bells were ringing, the night they drove old Dixie down; And the people were singingThey went, “Na, na, na”

“A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people better. And I do not hold to that.” Eugenics and Bioengineering as forms of State Sponsored Welfare DO NOT make people better…..a debate with Bob Hurt of Clearwater, Florida….

Von: Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
An: Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>; Lawsters <lawsters@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: 14:06 Samstag, 19.Mai 2012
Betreff: Re: [Lawmen 4733] Eugenics is NOT A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
Charles:Thank you for responding.  That was the first intelligen comment I have received on the topic, so I appreciate it.
Bob, like I said—I respect you a great deal, we’ve done some great things/seminars together and I hope we’ll do more in the future—I consider you a friend, if terribly blind on this point….

First, I don’t believe you understand IQ tests, for you you did, you would know that in the past 100 years they have evolved to become absolutely the best predictor of the ability to evaluate relative importances, solve problems, and achieve academic excellence.  
What I see and understand about IQ tests is that they are a circular argument, a Catch-22, a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Certain specialists designed IQ Tests, persuaded other specialists to rely on them, and since these specialists rely on them, the USE them, and discriminate among people according to such tests.  ALL Standardized tests work EXACTLY the same way: SAT, MCAT, GRE, LSAT, etc.—yes, even the Multistate Bar Exam and the Multistate Ethics exam—CLASSICAL EDUCATION IN THE US HAS BEEN REPLACED BY TEACHING TEST-TAKING SKILLS.  I think it is disgraceful, and that all standardized tests need to be thrown in the garbage—“the rubbish pit of history” to use one K. Marx’ catchy phrase….
You seem loathe to admit that, but for the protection and support of government and society, the stupid would perish or become slaves, as they have down through the millennia, not because of race, but because of cognitive ability.
No, I am NOT “loathe to admit” anything—but I read the record differently: GOVERNMENT and SOCIETY decide who is stupid, and for those who really can’t adapt—natural selection works MUCH more fairly than “Government Protection and Support.”  In fact–what I LOATHE is that very phrase: “Government Protection and Support.”  I don’t know whether you’ve seen the movie “The Hunger Games” yet—but if not you (and everybody else) really should.  
“The Hunger Games” is a story set in and about the aftermath of a revolution in North America of the future in which “the people rose up against the Government that fed them, loved them, protected them….” and were punished severely as a result.  LOOK AT THE WAY Southerners have been degraded and caricatured as stupid ignorant oafs since 1865.  The Post-War Southerners did JUST FINE for many years without government Protection and Support—in fact, they did fine IN THE FACE OF government oppression and intentional discrimination—arguably, they did better than they’ve done WITH such protection and support.  Likewise, all of Latin America and Africa were “undeveloped” by U.S. and European Colonialism which sought to protect these “poor pathetic people” from themselves—i.e. since they couldn’t organize multi-national companies and international banks on their own.  The people of District 12 grew strong through quiet resistance and isolation within Panem (the name of the “North American Union” in the “Hunger Games” were “protected and supported” by a totalitarian regime which existed by squeezing everything they could out of the people and leaving them with nothing).  
Third, you seemed to have missed the point that we of competence have become slaves to the incompetent, through welfare, minimum wages, crime, and associated infrastructure costs which we must pay.  That has happened largely because of flaws in the constitutions, gnawing guilt and political correctness, and suffrage for the stupid, incompetent, and irresponsible.
BOB—YOU seem to miss the point that it is precisely a paternalistic attitude like yours—whereby some people THINK they are stronger or better than others, that breeds this kind of stupidity in Welfare—we have to stop thinking that WE KNOW better or can make OTHER people better—we have to learn to live by the adage “Let it be.”  NO ONE has the right to make decisions for anyone else, except by agreement.  We do not have the right to classify people in LEGAL terms, deprive them of rights, based on our OPINIONS of them.  We have the right to live our own lives and not be bothered with anyone else UNLESS WE WISH TO BE—and this, I think is the biggest single reason I feel I have to argue for you.  You are SO much like Madison Grant and the “Progressives” of Theodore Roosevelt’s Age—like Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Supreme Court writing in favor of sterilization of imbeciles in the 1920s—THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE RISE TO THE CURRENT WELFARE STATE—even though the “gnawing guilt and political correctness” elements are basically a 1960s Herbert Marcuse—Frankfurt School of Social Though addition which the Elite Find EVEN more useful—precisely because it gives them the right to call people who are NOT politically correct or do not feel the guilt “stupid, inferior.”  Southern Whites are stupid hicks but racists everywhere have lower IQs than non-racists, didn’t you know that?  Patriotic Constitutionalists are the stupidest people of all because they just don’t understand the Marxist progression of history which will PROTECT AND SUPPORT all people everywhere…. Can’t you see that?  Christians are stupid compared with Atheists, Conservative Republicans have less education than Liberal Democrats—all of this is part of the competitive instinct of humans, inherited through evolutionary competition, as E.O. Wilson has described so well in “The Social Conquest of Earth”
Fourth, you have erred in your assessment of slavery in ancient times.  The foreign survivors of successful wars always became slaves for life, although laws provided ways to win freedom, typically by demonstrations of deserving freedom.
I have certainly NOT erred in my assessment of slavery in ancient times—I said it was not based on inherited characteristics, so that Angles enslaved in one war did not give rise to any presumption that “Angles” would be slaves forever.
Fifth, you seem not to grok the outcome of a system such as what I propose.  
I do not “grok” it because I would BLOCK it with every bone in my body, every fibre in my muscles, every neuron in my brain.

  • And, we can refer to masters/slaves by different terms to mollify the leftist liberals seeking political correctness in place of substance.  We could call it the Ward system and the participants caregivers/wards.  How’s that?
    You forget that I perfectly see the system of involuntary servitude you propose because I OPPOSE THE VERY NOTION OF WELFARE and that ANY person should ever be WARD to another as a matter of birth, “intelligence” or class.  If our parents develop alzheimers WE should take care of them—they should not become “Wards of the State”—our children are helpless at birth but even LESS should we allow THEM to become WARDS OF THE STATE—but ultimately, your system (based on early 20th Century Eugenic Theories) LEADS INEXORABLY to the wardship of all children and RIGHT BACK TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD.  This has NOTHING to do with Political Correctness—it has EVERYTHING to do with restoring MEANINGFUL FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL—and protecting MY Second Amendment Right to Shoot anyone in the head who thinks they are smarter than me if that means they think they can take me for a WARD….by the way…
  • Government or private parties could encourage the stupid to undergo voluntary permanent sterilization, just by offering money.  The ranks of the stupid would diminish dramatically from that clever negotiation, repeated in communities all over the nation.  And from the viewpoint of the economy, it would dramatically reduce the burden on taxpayers.  That bit of eugenics does not hurt anyone. 
  • Again, Bob—this is just beyond repugnant to me—it is Progressivism and New Deal/Great Society Socialism run amok—that is why it is, in essence NAZIISM at its worst….. Taxes like the Income Tax ONLY exist because people are WILLING to have OTHERS make socially important decisions for them—I say, to HELL WITH THAT—Everyone makes their own decisions and lives or dies by them…. that’s freedom….
  • Government should outlaw procreation of the stupid because such procreation is such a tort against the innocent baby that it becomes a crime against the person and society as the child grows into adulthood and resorts to crime and welfare abuse to subsist.  This really is a legal matter and a matter of right.  A baby has a right to grow into a well-functioning adult, and parents have the responsibility to make that possible.
  • If this is really what you want—I will have to fight you if you ever come to power—which I guess means we’ll never have to fight—but “outlaw the procreation of the stupid?”  This is EXACTLY what Oliver Wendell Holmes was advocating, along with Madison Grant and others, in the first 3rd of the 20th century—YOU have no right to say who should procreate and neither do I, and neither did Oliver Wendell Holmes or Madison Grant or either of the Presidents Roosevelt.  I think this is just loathsome—and I wonder about it–because I think of your niece—I can’t remember her name—in your own family there are examples of what can be called less than brilliant breeding, are there not?  You would not begrudge your own flesh and blood the right to procreate as she sees fit, would you?
  • Families of means, including middle class families, could typically afford to house, feed, and clothe the stupid, so long as those stupid did not procreate children the caregivers did not want.  Many if not most homes have extra bedrooms to accommodate live-in Wards who could become loved, respected members of the family, perform services for the family, and submit to the discipline of the head of the household.  Most so-called slaves prior to the 1860’s were really NOT slaves in the sense of wearing chains, getting horsewhipped and served only gruel to eat, and suffering untreated diseases and illnesses. Nor would modern Wards suffer such abuse.  The spirit of love would blossom in most families with one or more live-in Wards.  This alone would keep many Wards out of crime, malnutrition, prison, drug abuse, and general dereliction.
  • You are saying something very different in this paragraph and I have no wish to disagree that “charity is our first obligation” and civilized people and as Christians, and that such charity, if enshrined as a real cultural norm, would go a long way towards solving all these problems. 

Churches could start playing a big role in the administration of the Ward system, which they should have all along.

Again, this is something I have no intention of arguing about—but it is irrelevant to your contentions regarding the 13th Amendment….or “the belief that they can make people better…AND I DO NOT HOLD TO THAT.”  

As for eugenics, it is nothing more than family planning on a larger scale, and it is perfectly ethical.  In fact NOT to engage in eugenics plans and programs is the height of hyocrisy and disrespect toward the members of future civilizations.  If you want me to explain it to you in detail, let me know.  Meanwhile, ponder the adage “It takes seven generations to create a gentleman.”  It does not happen by accident.
You seem determined to prove Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the Good Ship Serenity correct when he said:

So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. 'Cause as sure as I know anything I know this: They will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.

Bob

 

On 05/18/2012 10:49 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:

My Dear Bob Hurt:
Your recidivism in your support of Eugenics is just appalling.   You know I feel that way.  Why do you keep coming back to this topic?
Eugenics is the most outrageous of all infringements on the fundamental rights of humanity, whether we believe that those rights originate from the State of Nature or God’s Endowment.  The Ancient Latin Legal classification of slavery was a contractual arrangement both socially approved and lawful but contra natura.
It is particularly appalling that you frame it (with a great deal of intellectual honesty and analytical integrity—for which at least you deserve due credit) in terms of a repeal of the 13th Amendment, and that you start off with a comparison to seat belts.  You may recall—my war against Seatbelt laws and the police abuse such laws invite is at the root of everything that made me into a FORMERLY licensed lawyer, as well as a FORMER Republican (President of Tulane College Republicans 1976-78).  
I believe in freedom and liberty and I wouldn’t trust ANY HUMAN BEING to determine my fitness or yours to live and breathe.  I think I am basically as conservative as anyone could possibly be, but I do not consider Naziism genuinely conservative, even though I can admire and sympathize with some of the traditionalist, historical identity and heritage aspects of the Fascist movements in 20th Century Europe and Latin America.  
To me, the ideology of the Founders in 1770-1792 (Boston Massacre of 1770 through Washington’s First Term as President under the Constitution of 1787 and the adoption of the Bill of Rights) and of John Randolph of Roanoke, Andrew Jackson, Roger Taney, John Caldwell Calhoun, John C. Breckenridge, Jefferson Davis, Judah P. Benjamin, and the all Founders of the Confederate States of America represent real, genuine, honest and truly American “Classical Liberal” conservatism.  AND NONE of them would ever have tolerated Eugenics—because it is an interference with the fundamental rights of individuals and families.
And that brings up an interesting point—you are advocating REPEAL or REVISION of the 13th Amendment in order to implement Eugenics?
Now, I just said I deeply admire and support the memory of the founders of the Confederate States of America, and the Southern Partisans who preceded them, but Slavery and Freedom are, by definition, incompatible lifestyles.  The 13th Amendment was adopted without the popular support of the 40% of the Nation who had no real vote in 1865, and yet today it is one of the least controversial provisions of the Constitution, and I think it needs to stay that way, and be enforced for every person.
I agree that the citizenship questions created by emancipation and left unresolved as of today are a threat to a homogeneous society in which freedom can flourish, but I totally disagree that slavery on any pretext, including the criminal laws of the United States, or Eugenics through anything as totally malleable and manipulable as IQ scores, could or should be allowed to exist.  In my opinion, segregation of the races might be a better path to restoration of true freedom and dignity for all, as well as a more natural path to foster divergent evolutionary paths which could, in the long run, compete my old Harvard neighbor and Museum of Comparative Zoology Professor E.O. Wilson has recently described the sociobiological origins of racial separation and competition (http://www.vdare.com/articles/e-o-wilson-nationalist, review of “The Social Conquest of the Earth.”)
Black Slavery was, in so many ways, America’s “original sin”—every student of the Bible knows that “original sin” is that in which we all share, as human beings, from which none of us can ever completely escape except through Salvation.  Original Sin is “sin” because it embodies and reflects everything that we need, everything that we want, naturally, and yet it is wrong.  People WANT to live free of care, fear, labor and all kinds of responsibility, which they would like to dump on someone else’s broader shoulders.  The Africans were naturally strong and by selective breeding in slavery they were made stronger.  Was this a good or desirable result for the White People?  For the White Race as a whole?  As an evolutionary experiment?  No, it was not. It was in fact a disaster—a continuing disaster.
But Bob—what you are suggesting is that we use IQ tests, one of the results of the “Original Sin” of Slavery having been to artificially import and then depress the intelligence of the Africans and other groups by educational intent, and then solidify that back into history by restoring IQ as a substitute for skin color in the restoration of slavery.
This is, I think, wrong in every possible way.  I do not believe that miscegenation is the road to happiness or a cure for the original sin of slavery, because I think that race-mixing destroys the natural diversity of the species—which I think is a GOOD and POSITIVE thing—even if it results in some people SEEMING dumber, less intelligent, or attractive to us than others.  We need to MAINTAIN the diversity of the world AND the freedom of each individual by securing individual and family autonomy, not slavery.
In the Ancient World (Rome & Greece), Slavery was almost always a temporary thing, by contract (arising from debt), and there were no permanent slave classes.  Slaves were often extraordinarily talented artists, cooks, musicians, actors/dancers, or even poets, and Slaves often tutored their masters’ children.  Even when Rome brought in captive armies or whole communities as slaves, these communities did not stay enslaved forever, from generation to generation. (I think of the comment about the Angles [Ancestors of the English] whose appearance was so beautiful on the Streets of Rome that Pope Gregory the I said, “non Angli see Angeli” and promptly dispatched as missionary the future Saint Augustine of Canterbury to preach to the Kentish Angles as well as the South and Eastern Saxons of Sussex and Essex—the point being that there was no pretense that the Angles would be a hereditary class of slaves forever).
But worst of all, I think your criteria for selecting a “slave” vs. a “free” class are more subject, and hence more unfair than even the Nazis could devise.  It is normally fairly clear, after all, who is Black or White, who is Jewish or Christian by birth or heritage.  
But in what I can only call an adoration of pseudo-science, you equate IQ and wealth with class and entitlement.  This, too, is appalling.  All IQ tests have been shown to be matters of learned behavior—“nurture not nature”, and so education would be the solution for that, except that compulsory education is itself a form of governmental interference with the absolute freedom into which all living beings and creatures are born.
I believe that people have to be free to make choices, good and bad, just like genetic mutations, some of which are beneficial, some of which are not, but most of which are simply neutral.
NO GROUP OF HUMANS has the God-like capacity or the God-like right to try to guide evolution or the “re-creation” of the human species.
I don’t know whether you ever saw the movie Serenity directed and produced by Joss Whedon (whose latest creation is the new Avengers), but Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the “Good ShipSerenity” (a “Firefly” Class Spaceship) engages in the following key monologue, after the discovery of what had really happened to the people of Miranda—who were poisoned by Government experiments in “behavioral improvement” based on similar pseudo-science:
This report is maybe twelve years
          old. Parliament buried it, and it
          stayed buried til River dug it up.
          This is what they feared she knew.
          And they were right to fear,
          'cause there's a universe of folk
          that are gonna know it too.
          (touches the cylinder)
          They're gonna see it. Somebody
          has to speak for these people.
          (everybody waits)
 (CONTINUING)           You all got on this boat for
          different reasons, but you all
          V0 come to the same place. So now
          I'm asking more of you than I have
          before. Maybe all. 'Cause as
          sure as I know anything I know
          this: They will try again. Maybe
          on another world, maybe on this
          very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

Telephone: 512-968-2500
In case of emergency call Peyton Yates Freiman (Texas)
at 512-968-2666 or e-mail freimanthird@gmail.com


Matthew 10:34-39
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .  

Von: Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
An: Lawsters <lawsters@googlegroups.com>; Lawmen <lawmen@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: 13:21 Freitag, 18.Mai 2012
Betreff: [Lawmen: 4733] A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment

I welcome discussion of the questions and issues raised below, but please keep hateful or insulting rejoinders to yourself.
A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
Copyright © by Bob Hurt 18 May 2012. All rights reserved

Pesky Questions About Bozos

Does a society have the right to enact laws that effectively prevent members of the society from
  • becoming a financial burden on the rest of society?
  • endangering others in society?
  • infecting innocent babies with a condition of lifelong obtuseness, brutishness, torpidity, and lack of intelligence?
How and why has the USA changed in average intelligence since its beginning?
Does any right of a society or civilization justify limiting the lower boundary of intelligence for parenting, such as through eugenics programs?
This commentary addresses those questions and might provide insights for the sincere truth-seeker.

Law and Likelihood of Harming Others

Consider the legislative enactments regulating business practices, highway traffic, and human relations. Take for example seatbelt laws. Government requires people to buckle themselves in because:
  • People often cause car crashes through negligence, incompetence, judgment error, or equipment failure;
  • The violence of car crashes often maim or kill people in and out of the car;
  • Such terrible loss causes families to suffer from reduced of earning power and enjoyment of life, and becoming a burden on society;
Thus, modern civilizations prohibit human actions likely to endanger selves. others, and society.

Qualities and Uses of Intelligence in Civilization

According to Wikipedia’s IQ article, IQ has high heritability, intgelligence highly correlates to SAT scores, and people with IQ of 70 to 90 will likely engage in criminal behavior. Lynn and Vanhanen’s books on IQ show the high correlation of national average IQ to gross national product. Therefore, means exist for society to determine the intelligence (g factor) and IQ of its members, and their corresponding value to society in terms of productivity, academic achievement, likely crimnality, burden on society, and the likelihood of low-intelligence parents procreating low-intelligence children.
One must have an IQ of at least 85 to graduate from high school. US IQ distributions from actual tests reveal that at least 75 million of its people have IQ below 85 and even more cannot graduate from high school because of behavior and health problems associated with low intelligence.
In the past 150 years the US has moved away from circumstances requiring massive numbers of low-intelligence people in its military and work forces. The military leaders of today desperately want recruits to have high school diplomas, and many manual labor jobs have moved to 3rd world countries as mechanization has modernized farms and factories. America needs people who can think, arrive at correct evaluations, and make correct decisions.

Hypocrisy of Ignoring the Gene Pool

Wouldn’t it make sense to reduce the need for protective laws, prisons, and welfare infrastructures legislating to elevate the quality of the gene pool?
I see the refusal to take such action as rank hypocrisy:
  • We demand laws regulating seatbelt usage, road, motor vehicle, and building construction, highway speed, driver licenses, professions like plumbing, dentistry, medicine, and lawyering, and many other areas of life, on the basis of likelihood of resultant injury. But,
  • We ignore the far higher likelihood of injury resulting from procreation by people of low intelligence.
How much sense does that make?
Hypocrisy aside, does it not seem unintelligent to refuse to discuss the reasons and means for reducing the percentage of grossly unintelligent people in future populations? Does it not seem even more stupid to refuse out of political correctness – the notion of feeling embarrassed that the topic might offend those of grossly low intelligence?
How about taking a poll of the stupid and ask them whether they enjoy feeling confused, frustrated, victimized, in trouble, and unable to learn, to figure things out, or to make prudent decisions? We might discover that they think they figure things out just fine, or that they hate the condition and would become smart if they could.
Well, aside from that, it could go without saying that the highly intelligent would find some tasks boring that the lowly intelligent would find gratifying. Likewise, tasks that would challenge and gratify the intelligent would frustrate and anger the unintelligent.
Many jobs exist that would suit the unintelligent. Thus, society’s needs for the unintelligent still exist, such as domestic servitude, and simple tasks for which employers cannot afford machines. But such tasks have an economic value nonetheless, and it makes no economic sense to force an employer to pay more than the value of them.

Intelligence Strata (Classes) in America

The existence of 75 million relatively unintelligent people in America and the lack of available jobs for such people poses a serious problem that has resulted in America’s prisons bursting at the seams.
America has entered an age where it handles unintelligent people as follows:
  • Puts them into the welfare system (they burden taxpayers); and
  • Suffers crimes at their hands (they burden their victims and then the criminal justice system).
Meanwhile, the very smart have advertised the American Dream’s cornucopia of goods and services which the unwealthy obtain through debt. The unwealthy, unlike the unintelligent, do have intelligence, but either don’t use it sufficiently to become wealthy, or actually don’t have quite enough intelligence to become wealthy. That is, wealth does not generally happen by accident except when inherited by someone who very likely has high intelligence, the offspring of someone intelligent enough to garner wealth.
So we have three major strata:
  • The highly intelligent wealthy (high class)
  • The somewhat intelligent or lazy unwealthy (middle class)
  • The unintelligent poor (low class)
In practice:
  • The high class has managed to make the middle class into voluntary servants through glitzy ads and debt.
  • Many of the high and middle class employ the low class for domestic servants.
  • Some, but not that many, of the middle and high classes provide the low class with food, clothing, and shelter as part of the domestic servitude arrangement.
  • The existence of many if not most of the low class have made the high and middle classes into their involuntary servants through crime, and taxation that pays for welfare abuse, health care, social workers, failed education efforts, and prisons.
  • Even though taxes on the high class do pay for the upkeep of the low class, the high class never notices it as a burden because of other tax benefits and shelters, but those taxes impose a severe burden on the middle class.

The 13th Amendment and Reverse Slavery

This makes it apparent that the 13th Amendment did not actually abolish involuntary servitude. In reality, it appears that Americans, through their misguided sense of fairness, justice, and altruism, have destroyed the effectiveness of community charity programs for the feckless, handing those to government, and converted the middle class into slaves of the low class AND the high class.
The upshot of this weird dilemma: Americans have upset the Law of the Survival of the Fittest with a system of legislated slavery of the middle class to the high class through usurious debt and to the low class through taxation. Victims of this system can only imagine that the high class engineered it intentionally. It does seem pretty slick when one ponders it. And that explanation clarifies the reason Government refuses to patrol the borders or impose some kind of check on the presently unrestrained procreation of children by unintelligent parents.
This dilemma and its causes constitute a wholly immoral, unethical perversion of civilization’s ideals. A society ought to engineer civilization for evolution toward some age of light and life, so to speak, where no crime, poverty, or war exists, and people can prosecute their ambitions without unduly burdening their fellows. That can never happen in an increasingly mechanized society in which 25% of the people haven’t the cognitive ability to graduate from high school, and will certainly resort largely to crime or welfare abuse to get by.
People of low intelligence make sense in a free society so long as others don’t become systematic slaves to them. The unintelligent must have a means of becoming gainfully, self-sufficiently, and happily employed, or the wards of those willing to care for and obtain economic benefits from them. The unintelligent simply cannot become and remain wards of the state without an economic justification. Liberty, after all, comes at the expense of commensurate responsibility.

Reverse Slavery Justifies 13th Amendment Revision

The foregoing discussion sheds new light on the 13th Amendment. That Amendment should stand, but ONLY for people with sufficient IQ and ambition to operate self-sufficiently. So, Congress ought to modify it a bit to that end.
Though many might feel loathe to admit it, involuntary servitude gave many benefits to many people, in spite of members of master and slave classes abusing one another.

Potential Benefits of 13th Amendment Revision

It provided sustenance, employment, and regulation for the servants and labor and other economic and personal benefits for the masters. Both sides benefited and to a large extent enjoyed the arrangement. And most of the servants, though slaves, escaped far worse conditions in their homelands.
But, involuntary servitude had serious deficiencies:
  • Incorrigible and violent slaves endangered the master and other slaves, and belonged in prison, not in a family or commercial enterprise.
  • Abusive or negligent masters hurt or deprived their slaves.
  • Many people became slaves who had the intelligence and raw ability become good, self-sufficient citizens, and should not have become involuntary servants.
Today we have a reverse-slavery system where the high and middle classes, who can care for themselves and become good citizens, have become involuntary servants to the low class who cannot care for themselves or become good citizens.
Society must reverse this situation while dramatically reducing the low class to a size that society actually needs for a smoothly functioning economy. That constitutes the supreme reason to outlaw production of bozos in America. Within 3 generations the averate intelligence of the nation will rise significantly, welfare will diminish so that neighborhoods can handle it without government interference, crime will drop dramatically, inner city ghettos will disappear, prison industries will shrink, and America will become monumentally more productive, more competitive than ever in the world economy.
And, Americans with good sense should demand a change to the 13th Amendment to impose a system of involuntary servitude on able-bodied people who, by their nature, cannot or will not care for themselves without hurting or burdening others.
Americans of good sense will otherwise remain slaves to the unintelligent of the land. And that just doesn’t make much sense, does it?
# # #
Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, FL 33763-1925
(727) 669-5511   http://bobhurt.com


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Lawmen” group.
To post to this group, send email to lawmen@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen?hl=en.

Bob Hurt

2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, FL 33763-1925
(727) 669-5511   http://bobhurt.com