Sunday, February 27, 2005
Today's Main Accomplishment ...
I'll need to take more seriously the role of the cogito in Descartes's overall project. I'll need to say more about how we move from the pure form of the principles of identity and noncontradiction to content (using self-referential relations and the action principle as the bridge?).
Another observation: there is no good way to get across Greenville to Furman University from home base here.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Quotes to Remember
They Spoke The Truth
About The Lapdog Media...
From Walter Burien
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding,and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world (think this might have carried through to other forms as communications expanded, such as TV etc? Hmmmm, could be ) and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.
These 12 men worked the problem ( Problem? What problem? Whose got a problem? JP Morgan and "interests"? Hmmmm ) out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only
necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interest of the ( ...citizens? Nope! The US? No, not even our country BUT the ) PURCHASERS. ( emphasis mine. Well, all for freedom of the press. Wonder why the founders thought that was so important anyway. But who cares about those guys, they are just a bunch of outdated old fogies anyway, right? )
This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for
the news columns of the daily press of the country."
--Congressional Record of 1917, page 2949.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history in America, as an independent press You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my' paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
--John Swinton, former chief of staff, The New York Times, in a 1953 speech before the New York Press Club
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries."
-- David Rockefeller, in an address given to Catherine Graham, publisher of The Washington Post and other media luminaries in attendance in Baden Baden, Germany at the June 1991 annual meeting of the world elite Bilderberg Group.
"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with."
-- Richard M. Cohen, former Senior Producer of CBS political news
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
-- Richard Salant, former President of CBS News
About The New World Order...
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
-- J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI
"Every child in American who enters school with an allegiance toward our elected officials, toward our founding fathers, toward our institutions, toward the preservation of this form of government. all of this proves the children are sick, because the truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those things and is what I would call the true international child of the future."
-- Chester M. Pierce, Harvard University psychiatrist, at a 1973 International Education Seminar, as quoted in "Educating For The New World Order" by B.K. Eakman
"The CFR [Council On Foreign Relations, New York City] is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national directives should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records... I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
--Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University Foreign Service School, Washington, D.C., author of the epic "Tragedy & Hope", advocate of one-world government and personal mentor of President William Clinton (who acknowledged Professor Quigley during his 1992 presidential inauguration speech)
"We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
--James Paul Warburg, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, 1921 - 1932, before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas."
-- Brock Chisolm, former Director of the World Health Organization
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of US. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government".
-- Chester Ward, Rear Admiral and former Navy Judge Advocate 1956 - 1960 and CFR member for 15 years
<http://www.taxtruth4u.com/cfr.htm>Who's Who in the CFR?!
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."
-- Felix Frankfurter, United States Supreme Court Justice
"We operate here under directives from the White House.. [to] use our grant making power to alter life in the US. so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union."
-- Rowan Gaither, former president of the Ford Foundation, in a 1954 statement to Norman Dodd regarding Congressional investigations of the un-American activities of tax-exempt foundations operating in the U.S.
"Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."
-- Mikhial Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, to the Politburo in November of 1987
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over past forty-nine years, they would move on Washington. It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States."
-- Senator George Malone of Nevada, speaking before Congress in 1957
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
-- Joseph Stalin, former dictator of the Soviet Union
About a Republic vs. a Democracy...
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands..."
-- United States Pledge of Allegiance
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
-- James Madison
"Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation."
-- Karl Marx, 1848 author of "The Communist Manifesto"
"Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."
-- Fisher Ames (1758 - 1808)
About Citizens, Politicians And Government...
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-- United States Supreme Court - American Communications Association v. Douds
"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself."
-- Louis D. Brandeis, former Supreme Court Justice
"It is inherent in government's right, if necessary, to lie... that seems to me basic - basic."
-- Arthur Sylvester, former Assistant Secretary of Defense
About liberty, Slavery, Truth, Rights And Courage...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
--Johann W. Von Goethe
"Fear can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the facts."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"He who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
--Samuel Clemens...author Mark Twain
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts... the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke
"The right to freedom being the gift of God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
-- Samuel Adams
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs ... we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country... we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."
-- John Danforth, Republican Senator from Missouri, in an interview in The Arizona Republic on April 22, 1992
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
-- John Adams
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
-- Abraham Lincoln
"Any truth is better than make-believe... rather than love, than money than fame, give me truth."
-- Henry David Thoreau
'Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened."
-- Winston Churchill
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is... legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay ....... If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system."
-- Frederic Bastiat, French author of "The Law" (1848)
Friday, February 25, 2005
Ludwig von Mises on Academic Freedom
Courtesy of Jeff Tucker:
February 14, 2005
Mises on Academic Freedom
In Recollections from the University of Vienna, given at New York University, 1962 (33:43), Mises says (my transcription):
"All universities in central Europe, continental Europe, are state universities. Even the idea that a university could be a private institution is foreign to most of these countries. And the universities are operated by the government, and of course they have -- there is a fundamental difference between these universities and the other governmental institutions, the difference is -- academic freedom.
"Academic freedom means that while all government employees and functionaries of the government are bound to obey in the exercise of their functions strictly what has been told to them by their -- ordered to them by their -- superiors, teachers at the universities -- all teachers at the universities -- and schools of the same rank (technological universities and today also commercial universities) are -- and government employees who have no superior -- they, nobody -- not even the cabinet member representing duties of the supreme manager of instruction -- has the right to interfere in any way with their teaching.
"This was/is of very great importance, of course, because there were in these countries again and again tendencies to influence the teaching of law and still more the teaching of economics and political science -- social sciences in general."
Recast with elipses:
"Academic freedom means that ... [regarding] teachers at the universities ... nobody ... has the right to interfere in any way with their teaching."
There are two points to note. Firstly, it is clear that Mises, in this lecture, is principally being descriptive, not prescriptive. However, it is also clear that Mises agrees that this ideal of academic freedom is the way that things should be. We can see this from his careful casting of the definition of academic freedom, which connotes a category of freedom defensible on principle.
Secondly, one cannot miss the fact that despite this official policy of academic freedom, the reality differed, and we know that Mises, for example, a proponent of what we today call the Austrian school, came to influence not as a professor, but as a privatdozent.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
"Southern Values" - A Backhanded Tribute
Rudolph Defense Claims Carolina Culture Linked To Years On Lam
Feb 22, 2005, 4:26 PM
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) – Eric Rudolph's lawyers have an explanation for his nearly 5½ years on the lam after an Alabama abortion clinic bombing: His culture made him do it.
The defense has asked a court to allow the testimony of a university professor who contends Rudolph's years as a fugitive are consistent with the culture of western North Carolina, where the serial bombing suspect spent much of his life.
The question of why Rudolph was a fugitive for so long is likely to be key to his upcoming death penalty trial since the government claims his years on the run are a sign of guilt.
In a document filed Friday, the defense said jurors in Rudolph's upcoming trial should be allowed to hear from Western Carolina University history professor Curtis W. Wood.
The professor would say that "Rudolph's retreat to the wilderness in the face of being sought by federal law enforcement is consistent with the cultural values, principles and lifestyles of some of those in the region," according to the defense.
The subculture of the area includes "strong community ties coupled with an independent spirit; living off the land; preservation of individual privacy and freedom; and a persistent mistrust and suspicion of government," according to an earlier defense document.
Prosecutors oppose testimony by Wood, arguing it lacks any scientific basis. A judge has said he would rule on the issue without a hearing.
Rudolph vanished after a man driving his pickup truck was seen in Birmingham near the scene of a deadly abortion clinic bombing in January 1998. He was captured in May 2003 in Murphy, N.C., and reportedly told authorities he spent the intervening years hiding in the mountains.
Preliminary jury selection is set to begin next month in Birmingham. Rudolph also is accused in the fatal bombing at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 and bombings in Atlanta in 1997.
By Jay Reeves - Associated Press
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Hans Hoppe's Victory Blog
Hans has been vindicated. The letter of reprimand has been removed from his file. But more must be done to ensure that we eventually win the war, and not just a single battle.
Dennis Cuddy has published Part VIII of his series on "Education, Mental Health and Social Control" it's at:
Links to earlier installments available there.
Finally, this link comes courtesy of reader V.N.; it features an interview with "economic hit man" turned writer John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, a book I am very tempted to read).
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Bush and the New World Order: More Confirmation
Bush picks another CFR NWO man for new intelligence "czar" post
Another step toward the New World Order ('Novus Ordo Seclorum' on the back of the U.S. One Dollar bill, part of the Great Seal of the United States, www.greatseal.com) referred to by George W. Bush is his Inaugural Speech as the founders' "new order of the ages"
Bush's January 20, 2005 Inaugural Speech: www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/10691575.htm
John Negroponte, prior to his recent post as the US ambassador to Iraq, was the US ambassador to the CFR's primary vehicle for establishing a one-world government: the United Nations. Not surprisingly, veteran diplomat Negroponte is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR*), and has now been picked by President George W. Bush (himself a Skull and Bones Luciferian secret society member), to be the nation's new intelligence director, further centralizing power** in the hands of fewer and fewer people in the national, socialist, central government of the United States.
* CFR: See a concise overview article about the CFR on the internet at:
** Lord Acton: "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
[this is why our founders divided up governmental power into three separate branches - the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary]
This should not come as a surprise, since FIVE OUT OF TEN members of the "bipartisan" [a meaningless, charade of a word] 9-11 Commission were members of the Council on Foreign Relations one-world government advocacy organization, including both "Republican" Thomas Kean (chairman of 9-11 Commission) and "Democrat" Lee Hamilton (vice-chairman of the 9-11 Commission) ! This is as good a picture as it gets of the masonic, Illuminati motto of "Ordo Ab Chao" [ORDER OUT OF CHAOS]. Just as Adolf Hitler brought about his desired result after the burning of the German Parliament Reichstag building with the persecution of his political opponents, so the Illuminati Establishment, working through Skull and Bones Illuminati frontman George W. Bush and
many others, like Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, is using the "Chaos" of the 9-11 tragedy (which Bush reportedly knew about beforehand), to bring about the "Order" that this power conspiracy has wished for since the founding of this nation (the Great Seal was designed in 1782), i.e., The New World Order.
This should not surprise us. George W. Bush has already packed his administration,
his Vice Presidential pick, his Cabinet, and the Department of State, and the
Department of Defense with many Council on Foreign Relations members:
- Vice President Dick Cheney (also pro-sodomite)
- (previous) Secretary of State Colin Powell (also pro-abort)
- (current) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (also pro-abort)
- new CIA Director Porter Goss
- Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld former CFR-member)
- Richard Perle, former chair of pro-Iraq War Pentagon advisory board
- Paul Bremer, former American administrator of Iraq
- Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor
- Christine Todd Whitman (rabid, pro-partial birth abortion pro-abort), former EPA
- Robert Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (under Condoleezza Rice)
- General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Here is what George Herbert Walker Bush said near the beginning of that disastrous decade, the 1990s:
State of the Union Address, given at the United States Capitol, on January 29, 1991:
"What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea, a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law." "The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance."
Monday, February 21, 2005
Could This Be What Homeschooling Parents Are In For???
Something ghastly has happened....that is an instant cause célèbre for anybody looking for some bureaurats to bust. The story you're about to read is merely the latest link in a long train of abuses by a police department drunk with power and apparently high on SPLC hate material. And the news may almost seem humdrum in a world rife with headlines about terror perpetrated by the fedgov, UN et al....but it's patently shocking. Our people would do well to publicize it and encourage homeschoolers, Constitutionalists, Christians and others nationwide to get after the department in question.
The event itself is freaky enough. But the lack of coverage and response is the scariest thing.
Simpsonville, S.C. is quiet old town full of storybook fram houses. It's rapidly growing in population and pretense along with most such areas in Greenville County. A railroad track runs through the downtown and gives the impression that trouble and strife rode out on it a long time ago. Walk one block away from this track in either direction and you are in the country. But Police State USA is quietly, rapidly gaining a foothold in all manner of unlikely locales, and this is one of them.
Last September I wrote up for the Nationalist Times website (anu.org) the story of Simpsonville resident Patrick A. Tyndall and his two confrontations with police in the town park over his and another man's campaigns for public office. We called it The Ten-Minute First-Amendment War. Send me SASE for free copy (29622-2368). At this time the fuzz have gone from trying to stomp the First Amendment to holocausting home-schooled youth and their moms.
As you read this story, ponder that it is (so far as we can tell) the only coverage there has been on this matter! At the huge Greenville News' website -- nothing. other TV stations sites -- nothing. In the church pulpits of the county Sunday -- nothing. You folks in this area, what are we going to do about it?
The New World Order (or Permanent Revolution): Questions and Answers
(1) How is the United States of America being gradually destroyed?
It is being destroyed slowly but deliberately by the leadership of a relatively small group that may be designated as "the Globalists" or "the Global Elite" (which includes the "Davos culture" and others), all in high places or very well positioned mostly behind the scenes, whose long range goal has been to bring about the New World Order--which Terry Hayfield calls the Permanent Revolution, the goal of which is the establishment of World Communism as originally conceived by Karl Marx. The phrase New World Order was of course used and made popular by President George H.W. Bush back in 1990 just before he launched the first Iraq War, though he neither invented the phrase nor introduced it into our political lexicon. Also in use is the phrase "Global Governance." This is all bad news for Americans, because it means replacing what used to be our free and sovereign Constitutional Republic with a socialist / Communist One World Dictatorship, pieces of which are already in place. Like the frog in hot water story, the pot has been heating up so slowly that few realize how far this process has progressed. Most remain in ignorance, courtesy of government schools and the controlled mainstream news media, whose familiar voices and talking heads are never allowed to expose what the Globalists are doing to us.
(2) Who are those that seek this, and why?
The problem is that in any human group, there is a minority that becomes addicted to a fascination with power. There is no reason to believe that this is exclusively a modern phenomenon. Go back over 4,000 years to the world of Genesis. Nimrod, the "mighty hunter before the Lord," built the Tower of Babel having already built the first known global Empire in an attempt to reach Heaven. Presumably, the builders of the Tower of Babel expected to prosper for their efforts to "do things their way." The Lord saw differently, of course, and dispersed them with a confusion of languages--"the earth divided." Now, in the newest land of Globalism, they have a new European Union Parliament building in Strasbourg, France, built to look like the original Tower of Babel! They are actually seeking for the one who will be their leader! The addiction to power, along with simple greed, is the common denominator; the struggle on the part of the few who are fascinated by power to control everyone else continues--and they have created a system being carried forward by its own momentum. They must extend their reach, or the system collapses from within. Radical Corporatist Capitalism (not to be confused with original, Laissez-Faire Capitalism) emphasizes the consolidation of wealth and power over the servicing of markets, and so merges naturally into Globalist Socialism, characterized by having fully collectivized every area of society. Once all vestiges of individualism, independence of thought, Christian belief, original laissez-faire capitalism and Constitutionally limited government have been eradicated, Socialism becomes Communism (in theory, of course). One of the results is that the Biblical concept of a just and loving God is replaced by a Godless tyranny, where the only human rights can come from the Omnipotent State. This process arguably began with the UN Charter and more recently, the European Union Charter. Neither acknowledges or recognizes God. Our Constitutional Republic was rooted in our concept of "One Nation, Under God." This is why it must be destroyed if the Permanent Revolution is to take place and the Communistic New World Order established.
(3) What is it that the Globalists really want?
Two things. (a) World Government--Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx. (b) A population that will accept living under World Government, either because they have been too dumbed down to have any idea what is going on, or are too distracted by entertainment and trivia to care what is going on, or because they are too "busy, busy, busy" in their low-paying service sector jobs to have time to care or to do anything to stop it. The first (a) envisions gradually controlling both governments and multinational corporations, merging the activities of the two through "public-private partnerships." The second (b) envisions a controlled population of mostly sheep, many of them fearful of losing whatever work they have, where dissidents will eventually simply not be allowed to exist. Most likely the latter will not be shot or imprisoned but simply find themselves unable to earn their livings legally, the goal being to indirectly coerce conformity and compliance.
(4) Who are the Prime Movers of the New World Order today?
They include the New York based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the London based Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA). They include the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. They include what Samuel Huntington calls the "Davos Culture." They include the Fabian Socialists, who go back to the 1880s. They may well include supersecret groups such as Skull and Bones. They surely include the movers and shakers in the UN, and the countless groups working to implement Agenda 21, the bible of the Sustainable Development movement. Doubtless there are other groups as well, including some naive souls who do not even know they are involved because they do not know who they are really working for, or what the final goal is. They operate on all three levels: locally, nationally, and internationally (think of that old '60s phrase, "think globally, act locally"). This includes the controlled White House. The CFR was founded in 1921 following the refusal of the U.S. Senate to support the League of Nations--the Globalists' first attempt to set up World Government. Focus just on the CFR. The man in the street barely knows of it, even though every President since Roosevelt has been surrounded by CFR members. Top leaders in every area of modern life, from banking and other large businesses or industries to military to education to media, are CFR members. This is kept very quiet. That is the way the Globalists want it. David Rockefeller Sr. is one of the supreme leaders of this movement. Allegedly he thanked leading members of the mainstream media at a Bilderburg meeting in Europe for their silence. The CFR has a membership list, updated annually as new recruits are invited on board. You do not apply to join; the CFR comes to you. Membership, that is, is by invitation only. To the extent the CFR is mentioned at all in the media, it is as just another respected think tank without any special power. To speak negatively of the CFR is unhealthy to one's job and career. It is to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and therefore a nut. The Rockefellers, meanwhile, clearly long ago became the most powerful family in the country. John D. Rockefellers Sr. and Jr. founded the General Education Board which began the very first phase of the National Dumb Down. They donated the land on which the UN building was built, and it was a committee from the CFR that wrote the UN Charter under the leadership of Communist Alger Hiss, starting in 1941. The present Republican White House is essentially a front for the Globalists (CFR, Bilderburg, Fabian Socialism), as was its predecessor, Bill Clinton's Democrat White House. Carroll Quigley, who was one of the Insiders in academe, wrote openly in Tragedy and Hope that the two dominant parties should be as much alike as possible, so that voters "could 'throw the rascals out' without leading to any profound changes in policy," meaning that the country continues in its course toward Globalism / World Communism regardless of which dominant party controls either the White House or Congress. Although the sheep go to the polls and vote every four years, for all practical purposes we have a One Party system, that of the "CFR / Bilderburg / Fabian Socialist Party."
(5) What is the FTAA?
This deal has been quietly cooking in Globalist circles since 1994 (the year the North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--went into effect). FTAA stands for Free Trade Area of the Americas. But like NAFTA and the European Union, the FTAA has little to do with genuine free trade, which has not existed in the industrialized world now in over 100 years. The FTAA is about merging the United States of America with all other 33 countries in the Western Hemisphere in a new centralized, bureaucratic monstrosity that will supervene over them all. It is expected to be called the American Union. (Are you thinking: akin to the old Soviet Union???) It sets up a new governing body to preside over the entire Western Hemisphere. A document entitled The Declaration of Quebec City, signed after a conference there in April of 2001, shows in Globalist / UN lingo that the FTAA will involve far more than trade. It will mean the complete end of our Constitutional Republic: courtesy of our controlled U.S. Congress and Senate who will "ratify" the document and our controlled White House whose inhabitant will sign into law a measure that will, in effect, render the U.S. Constitution as obsolete as the Magna Carta. Aside from Ron Paul (R-TX), very few of our Congresscritters can be expected to stand by the Constitution. The 60 or so members of the little-known Socialist Caucus will surely vote to end the reign of the Constitution.
The FTAA is scheduled for a vote sometime in 2005--by December of this year!
(6) How do we reconcile President Bush's talk of "freedom" in all this?
Read George Orwell. Black has become white. Freedom has become slavery. Talk of freedom sounds good, and is lapped up by a gullible, poorly-educated public most of whom graduated from our dumbed-down government schools. This isn't to be blamed on any one President such as George W. Bush or even his powerful father. Had he not indicated his willingness to cooperate, neither would have been allowed to advance to candidacy for the White House. So he can stand before the television cameras, take a solemn oath on the Bible to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America--all cosmetics, no substance. Of course, if this account really corresponds to the true state of affairs and if the God of the Bible really is alive, well, and watching, something will eventually give. The Old Testiment reveals that entire nations were punished because of bad kings and judges.
(7) Why plunge into enormous debt?
Much of today's debt is due to Globalists' having spent decades pursuing economic theories that do not work (Keynes being the primier example). But more specifically, much of today's skyrocketing debt is related to the so-called War On Terror. About $200 billion, so far. As a saying goes, whenever the Government declares war on anything, put your hands over your head and run for cover. (On second thought, keep one hand firmly lodged on your wallet!)
If we could profit through the deal the (private) Federal Reserve Banking System has as it collects the interest for shuffling Government paper through its offices, wouldn't life be wonderful?! Instead (since real wealth cannot be pulled out of thin air) we must pay for their sweetheart arrangement! They and their agents have played a powerful role in initiating and then bankrolling wars, where they first create and then destroy and then rebuild a nation like Iraq. But also, we believe the Globalists need an America brought to its knees by crippling debt, mass bankruptcy, fear and turmoil, so that in our dismay and fear for the future we will turn to them and receive the "salvation" of their Globalist schemes. This, of course, further explains the National Dumb Down. No free and properly educated citizen in his right mind would give up what we once had for today's Corporatist / Socialist looming disaster. Just to make sure that dissidents and disgruntled souls can be effectively taken care of, however, the Globalists now have their Department of Homeland Security (which you can be sure was in the planning stages well before the Sept 11 attacks), the USA Patriot Acts I and II, the federalization and militarization of police forces around the country, organizations such as FEMA, BATF, etc., to handle "rabblerousers." The Globalists and their minions are smart people. Dumb people do not get Rhodes Scholarships, for example, and are not appointed to high positions in Government or Big Business or in controlled police forces--or the CFR. The Globalists have thought of almost everything.
(8) What are our chances of halting and then reversing our march to the New World Order / World Communism?
Given both the consolidation of power that is the legacy of just the past ten years alone and the National Dumb Down, less than fifty-fifty. The Globalists have ensured themselves the legal authority to do as they please, most everywhere in the world. Appeals to the Constitution in open court guarantee nothing; federal judges, in fact, have thrown people in jail on contempt charges for citing chapter and verse of the U.S. Constitution in their own defense. The President could declare a State of Emergency that will turn our "terrorism threat level" to red instantly and keep it there, for however long it takes to repress an organized group of dissidents. Should we reach this point, it is unlikely that the Globalists will be stopped without open violence and bloodshed, and of course there are few guarantees of winning that way given the obvious firepower the Globalists' militarized police will have at their disposal. All we can do is attempt to educate the public, one person at a time, one group at a time, making as much haste as we can, so that things do not advance to that point! This means--above almost everything else!--supporting alternative forms of education such as homeschooling and private schools. We absolutely must build up a critical mass of educated citizens who can think logically and write effectively, whose knowledge of history is informed and accurate, whose knowledge of what liberty is and what the conditions are for maintaining it are unsurpassed, and whose grasp of economics is sufficiently effective that they could earn their livings operating in the "underground economy" for however long they deem it necessary. A critical mass of such citizens is a mass that would cause the Globalists to retreat, saying nervously, "We can't possibly throw every one of these people in jail!" Or shoot them. Or force them into conditions of starvation. It is useful to remember that the Globalists do fear exposure. This is why such effort is made to prevent the public airing of "conspiracy theories," which are available chiefly on the World Wide Web which has so far proven impossible to centralize and control. They have had close calls before (the rise of the George Wallace movement in the South back in the late 1960s and early 1970s was one). There are a lot more of us than there are of them. Turning back this tide is therefore not impossible, however unlikely it may seem.
(9) What about Bush's 9/11 Investigation Commission?
The first person picked was Henry Kissinger (CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc., etc.). Kissinger's record, viewed from the standpoint of U.S. interests, is an unmitigated disaster! He made himself "intelligence czar" under Nixon. He was in charge of all disarmament, and recommended that the U.S. seek the best deal with the Soviets to save our necks--undoubtedly a hoax, as was much of the "cold war" itself (with Globalist bankers behind both Communism Soviet Union style and Capitalism Corporatist style). His appointment to the Commission by Bush did it for me, as far as intent and integrity goes. Although Kissinger and George Mitchell resigned, the majority of the rest are all CFR, of course. And now Bush has appointed John Negroponte to be the latest "intelligence czar." Go here. It all adds up. The Commission developed the answers that fit the data they wanted released (and to say it clearly, an independent minded person need do less than a half-hour of research on the World Wide Web to realize that the Bush Regime not only knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks were coming but very possibly knew the exact date!).
(10) What Gimmick was used to start the Iraq War, and other places? What was the real goal of the Iraq War?
We pretty much remember the rubbish about "weapons of mass destruction," Saddam's "failure to conform to UN resolutions," etc., ad nauseam, that led up to March 2003. Lies and distortions, and America's soldiers have paid the price (over a thousand dead and thousands more wounded, with thousands of Iraqis dead or wounded). We also know, if we have studied history, that the pretext that led to the Vietnam War, the supposed Gulf of Tonkin incident, was a fabrication. It didn't happen! Roosevelt not only knew in advance that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming but actually helped plan it by having manuevered Japan into an impossible position. (And those on the front lines weren't even warned! It is characteristic of those who have wielded real power for the past 100 years to regard people's lives as expendable!)
Hitler used the same tactics, staging attacks by his thugs on German government facilities and then blaming "communists."
Lies are no less effective today!
But what was the real goal of the Iraq War? Oil? This was part of it, but not the whole story. Regime's like Saddam Hussein's (once an ally before his existence became inconvenient) are simply not compatible with the New World Order desired by the Globalists. They are too nationalistic. They prefer to go their own way, instead of adopting "Western" ways (materialism). The same is true--frighteningly enough--of Islamic regimes like the one in Iran, and probably the one in North Korea, which clearly does have "weapons of mass destruction" which is why the Globalists handle Kim Jong-Il with kid gloves. Islam and the New World Order are on collision course, no less than Christianity and the New World Order have long been on collision course. A "democracy" in Iraq, however maintained (and likely to be maintained at U.S. expense), will provide a foothold for the New World Order in the Middle East. Once one remembers that the Globalist goal is to bring as much of the world as possible under its direct control, so that not just oil but all of the world's resources may be controlled, the rest falls into place.
(11) What is needed for Americans to accept World Government?
To continue the National Dumb Down which has already produced mass illiteracy in every crucial subject area, not to mention public drunkenness on sports and other forms of mass entertainment. The National Dumb Down has kept the last three decades of college graduates from understanding the truth about their own Constitutional heritage. To be continually lied to by the controlled mainstream media and to believe the lies. To be continually kept in a state of fear, being bombarded daily by threats of terrorism on U.S. soil (possibly eventually including attacks that could be real or staged for the purpose)--as the Federal Government continues to keep our borders open so that bona fide terrorists may cross along with the thousands of illegal alients entering our country every day from Mexico. To be continually kept "busy, busy, busy" in low-paying "service sector" jobs that leave the average person with no time or space or mental energy or freedom to think, assuming that ability has not been "educated" out of him courtesy of his government school.
(12) So what is the answer?
Go back and read the response to question (8). Read everything written by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, John Taylor Gatto, Joan Veon, Beverly Eakman, Terry Hayfield, and of course myself--as well as the works of the enemy (beginning with understanding Marx's thought and going all the way up through UN documents such as Agenda 21). Recognize that the "collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union" was most likely a carefully orchestrated hoax, led by the Globalist Mikhail Gorbachev. Working closely behind the scenes with Ronald Reagan and bankrolled by Ford Foundation money, Soviet and American Globalists produced a "fusion" of American and Soviet educational systems--see Iserbyt's writings on this point. Communism is not dead! But as Terry Hayfield recently put it, "If Communism is dead, then no one will notice if it is being instituted in America." It is being instituted via the progressive collectivization of the workplace and of the population generally--ranging from the mind control of political correctness to the "enterprize zones" that control businesses and hence the job market. Recognize that if you are "too smart" you will not find a job that makes use of your real skills--but telephone-slave jobs (job openings for "customer service representatives") are everywhere!
Then accept the Christian theist view of the universe, which informs us that when all is said and done, this is still God's world. He will get the last laugh. Accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior, recognizing that He paid the price for man's (i.e., your) sins. Read your Bible, beginning with John's Gospel and then proceeding to Matthew's Gospel. "The Truth will set you free!"
Then recognize that given the trajectory our nation has followed; given how we have systematically turned from Him, removed Him from textbooks and classrooms, it may not be His will that this country survives the next generation intact. But given that none of us can know this, we may recall the relevant verses in Hebrews and move forward with our own agenda for the brand of independent education necessary to achieve that critical mass. It is important to remember that the New World Order / Permanent Revolution is all about control: mind control alongside financial control. The antidote is freedom for the mind and financial freedom! Let us waste no more time!
Friday, February 18, 2005
Evangelical Christians and the Bush War
In his latest article, Stephen W. Carson examines Christian arguments in defense of the Iraq War and of interventionist U.S. foreign policy generally, and obliterates them, one at a time. It would be nice if Evangelical Christians read this article and begin to come to their senses.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Today's Annoyances & a Recommended Reading
I also sent one to Bob Dill, who edits the Times Examiner based here in Greenville. He never replies, so I never know if the article is going to appear or not. The one I sent him last week did not. Nothing to do but wait and see if it appears next week (it was longer than usual, but for a good reason). To be sure, with my schedule I cannot take the time to write articles, short or long, without knowing if they will be used. If it never appears it may be my last submission there for a while. I cannot make the mistake of thinking I am a priority item with the Times Examiner, as if I was one of the insiders here. I've never been on the inside of anything in my life.
Recommended reading: speaking of Lew Rockwell, his article today--on how the so-called conservative Republican agenda and even that of evangelical Christians is being used by the government to expand state power. This, of course, is what the state does: expand its power.
Good news: email contact with Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt again.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Brave New Schools! Radio Frequency Identification Badges at California School
WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' BADGES
February 15, 2005
If this "Big Brother" story doesn't send a cold shiver down your American spine... you probably don't have one to begin with.
According to the Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_hi_te/tracking_students) a small grade school in the rural town of Sutter, California, "is requiring students to wear radio frequency identification badges that can track their every move. . . . The badges introduced at Brittan Elementary School on Jan. 18 rely on the same radio frequency and scanner technology that companies use to track livestock and product inventory."
Here's how the system works: "Each student is required to wear identification cards around their necks with their picture, name and grade and a wireless transmitter that beams their ID number to a teacher's handheld computer when the child passes under an antenna posted above a classroom door."
Just how bad is this? Well, even the ACLU has taken a break from attacking the Ten Commandments and the Boy Scouts to fight it! Yeah, it's THAT bad. Here's more from the AP story...
"The system was imposed, without parental input, by the school as a way to simplify attendance-taking and potentially reduce vandalism and improve student safety. Principal Earnie Graham hopes to eventually add bar codes to the existing ID's so that students can use them to pay for cafeteria meals and check out library books. But some parents see a system that can monitor their children's movements on campus as something straight out of Orwell."
"Some"? EVERY parent should be blowing a gasket over this. That "some" aren't is indicative of just how far liberty-loving Americanism has sunk thanks to our government indoctrination centers, otherwise known as the public schools.
At least other parents are rightfully protesting this decision in a way that would make John Hancock and Samuel Adams proud, telling their kids not to wear the stinkin' badges. But "Graham, who also serves as the superintendent of the single-school district, told the parents that their children could be disciplined for boycotting the badges - and that he doesn't understand what all their angst is about. 'Sometimes when you are on the cutting edge, you get caught,' Graham said, recounting the angry phone calls and notes he has received from parents."
What a shocker. A government school functionary doesn't understand why "some" parents might be outraged over the government pinning a tracking device on their kids and threatens to "discipline" anybody who dares challenge his authority. You go, King Graham!
OK, let's add some insult to injury here: "What's more, (Graham) says that it is within his power to set rules that promote a positive school environment: If he thinks ID badges will improve things, he says, then badges there will be. 'You know what it comes down to? I believe junior high students want to be stylish. This is not stylish,' he said."
Is this guy REAL? Tracking kids like a herd of cattle promotes a "positive school environment"? Where? North Korea? Cuba? Does this guy actually think opposition to the global positioning of kids is because it isn't "stylish"? What a 'shroom.
Wait, it gets worse. The company which developed the "cattle cards" is PAYING the school several thousand dollars to participate in the "experiment" and has promised a "royalty" (in another day and age we used to call it a "kick-back") for each sale the company makes to OTHER schools in the future.
Yes, plans are in the works to bring this tracking system to a school near YOU!
BRUSHFIRE ALERT: This is one HORRIBLE idea which needs to be nipped in the bud. This experiment doesn't just affect a tiny rural elementary school outside of Sacramento. It has implications for EVERY school in the nation. Worse yet, if this idea takes off on kids, how long do you think it will be before major employers attempt to use it on their workforce?
So please sign our online petition to Principal Graham demanded that he pull the plug on this outrageous experiment IMMEDIATELY. Just go to: http://www.chuckmuth.com/petition
In case they remove this information from their web site, here are the school's address and phone numbers:
2340 Pepper Street, Sutter, California 95982
phone (530) 822-5155
fax (530) 822-5143
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
The National ID Trojan Horse
Ron Paul, MD
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a national ID bill last week that masqueraded as “immigration reform.” The bill does nothing to address immigration policy, however, nor does it propose deporting a single illegal alien already in our country. It does nothing to address the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico, which is the fundamental problem. In reality, the bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to con a credulous Congress into sacrificing more of our constitutionally protected liberty.
Supporters claim the national ID scheme is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary, and the proponents of the national ID know that every state will have no choice but to comply. Federal legislation that nationalizes standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple.
It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Such domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.
This bill establishes a huge, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. The bill even provides for this sensitive information of American citizens to be shared with Canada and Mexico! Imagine a corrupt Mexican official selling thousands of identity files, including Social Security numbers, to criminals!
This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on drivers’ licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID means the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, could know where American citizens are at all times.
What will this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our drivers’ license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database. This will further degrade our precious privacy, which is the hallmark of a civilized society. As Ayn Rand said, the “Savage’s whole existence is public.”
A national ID card will have the same effect as gun control laws: criminals will ignore it, while law abiding people lose freedom. A national ID card offers us nothing more than a false sense of security, while moving us ever closer to a police state. The national ID proposal should die a well-deserved death in the Senate, and it should be denounced as authoritarian and anti-American.
February 15, 2005
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Does Scientific Evidence for Global Climate Change Really Exist?
"Show us the data: The audit trails and due diligence of the corporate world are lacking in the science that supports climate change"
Steve McIntyre, Financial Post, 1,428 words, 15 February 2005, National Post National, FP23
I have spent much of the past two years analyzing and reconstructing some of the basic studies used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in turn, to promote policies on climate change. It started as a hobby and it evolved into a full-time avocation, resulting to date in three peer-reviewed publications, which Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, the National Post and The Wall Street Journal have recently reported on.
Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. In a corporate world, there is simply no question about providing audit trails, and while they can take many different forms, they all serve the purpose of ensuring the validity of information used for investment decisions. In addition to familiar forms of financial audit trails, the splitting and retention of drill cores is a form of audit trail in the exploration business. In my opinion, the absence of drill core at the Bre-X exploration site, if publicly known, would have alarmed investors long prior to the final demise.
The 2001 IPCC report produced findings that have guided investment decisions, which vastly exceed the sums involved in even the largest financial scandals of recent years. Since the IPCC leaned heavily on a novel approach called a "multiproxy climate study" and in particular the "hockey stick graph" of Mann et al. that purported to show extraordinary climate change, this is where I've focused my attention. An audit trail in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the authors and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle, these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived.
Yet, none of the major multiproxy studies have anything remotely like a complete due diligence packages and most have none at all. The author of one of the most quoted studies [Crowley and Lowery, 2000] told me that he has "misplaced" his data. In the case of the Mann et al [1998, 1999] study, used for the IPCC's "hockey stick" graph, Mann was initially unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent with previously published material, etc. In addition to the lack of due diligence packages, authors typically refuse to make their source code and data available for verification, even with a specific request.
Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene. In the opinion of the latter, the code is Mann's personal commercial property. Mann recently told The Wall Street Journal that "giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people employ." My first request for source code was a very simple request and could in no way be construed as "intimidation." However, the issue neatly illustrates the disconnect.
IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been "peer reviewed." However, peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals such as Nature or Science, is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author. It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. There is nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications that is remotely like an audit. It's my view that this is all the more reason why source code and data should be archived.
There is a great deal of public misconception of the forms of due diligence actually carried out by the IPCC. Although the IPCC and similar agencies have many meetings and committees (usually in nice places), they do not carry out any audit or verification activities. While insiders have long known this, it was recently admitted in written answers by the author of the hockey stick study (Michael Mann) to the U.S. Senate in the fall of 2003. "It is distinctly against the mission of the IPCC to 'carry out independent programs,' " Mann wrote. Thus, if a paper has passed the cursory journal peer review process, there may not be any subsequent hurdles prior to adoption by the IPCC.
Through my own checking, I found that the calculations behind the most famous IPCC graph -- the 1,000-year climate hockey stick -- contained a serious calculation error that invalidates the results. In this case, the methodology had been inaccurately described in the journal publication. I also found there had been an influential but unreported alteration to a key data series, where the alteration had been disguised by a (perhaps unintentional) misrepresentation of the start date of the underlying data. The math involved is not particularly sophisticated: The errors would have been discovered long ago had there been even routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the thousands of people working full time on this issue just in Canada, it was nobody's job to check if the IPCC's main piece of evidence was right.
IPCC's inattentiveness to verification is exacerbated by the lack of independence between authors with strong vested interests in previously published intellectual positions and IPCC section authors. For example, Michael Mann had published an academic article announcing that the 1990s were the warmest decade in human history. He then became IPCC section author for the critical section surveying climate history of the last millennium, adopting the very graph used in his own paper on behalf of IPCC. For someone used to processes where prospectuses require qualifying reports from independent geologists, the lack of independence is simply breathtaking and a recipe for problems, regardless of the reasons initially prompting this strange arrangement.
It seems to me that prospectus-like disclosure must become the standard in climate science, certainly for documents like IPCC reports (which are like scientific prospectuses), but even for journals. In business, "full, true and plain disclosure" is a control on stock promoters. While it may not always be successful, it gives an enforcement mechanism. There is no such standard in climate science. In the Mann study there are important examples of pertinent adverse results, known to the authors, which were not reported. In fairness, the journals do not require authors to warrant full, true and plain disclosure and there is little guidance to such authors as to what is required reporting and what is not required.
I've found that scientists strongly resent any attempt to verify their results. One of the typical reactions is: Don't check our studies, do your own study. I don't think that businesses like being checked either, but one of the preconditions of being allowed to operate is that they are checked. Many of the most highly paid professionals in our society -- securities lawyers, auditors -- earn much of their income simply by verifying other people's results.
Businesses developed checks and balances because other peoples' money was involved, not because businessmen are more virtuous than academics. Back when paleoclimate research had little implication outside academic seminar rooms, the lack of any adequate control procedures probably didn't matter much. However, now that huge public policy decisions are based, at least in part, on such studies, sophisticated procedural controls need to be developed and imposed. Climate scientists cannot expect to be the beneficiaries of public money and to influence public policy without also accepting the responsibility of providing much more adequate disclosure and due diligence.
Steve McIntyre is a mineral exploration businessman and co-author, with Ross McKitrick, of Hockey Sticks, Principal Components And Spurious Significance. He will be commenting on related matters at www.climateaudit.org.
Black & White Photo: (Steve) McIntyre
Monday, February 14, 2005
Hans-Hermann Hoppe vs. UNLV, continued
February 14, 2005
Hoppe Interview: Complete Text
From and to the Chronicle of Higher Education for a published article:
Dear Professor Hoppe, here are some of the questions I'd like to pursue.
1) What do you think of the standard defined by the provost -- that you must "cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact in the educational environment"?
I am tempted to reply to the provost's suggestion with a simple quip: Is the alleged categorical distinction between fact and opinion itself a fact or an opinion? I'm certain the provost would be somewhat helpless in answering this question. To this day, there exist vigorous philosophical debates regarding the issue. Things are not as simple as they appear to a bureaucrat's mind.
In any case, most so-called facts in the social sciences are more or less corroborated hypotheses - and so are most opinions (insofar as they concern empirical rather than normative matters). I did not mischaracterize anything in my lecture. This is mere play with words in a desperate attempt on the part of the university to avoid any admission of guilt. They have already backpeddled quite a bit. But they do not dare say that they trampled on my right to free speech and academic freedom. I have received hundreds of letters from all over the world: no one sees this any differently - except UNLV's leadership.
2) But, just for the record: Is there solid empirical literature re: homosexuals and time preferences, or should the public instead regard your comments as reasonable speculation?
In class (as you can also gather from the audio I sent you), the statement was presented as an intuitively plausible hypothesis (if you typically do not have offspring, you typically provide for shorter time periods).
Though I did not speak in class in detail about the subject because it was not the subject of my lecture, there exist of course abundant 'indicators' (some of which are no doubt disputable - after all most propositions of the social sciences are hypotheses) such as lower life expectancy, riskier behavior (as documented by higher incidence of AIDS etc.), and instability of relationships.
3) Did Mr. Knight give you any warning that he was going to file a formal complaint about your comments?
He never spoke to me (and I didn't know who he was until several weeks after the alleged incident). He never warned me about an informal or a formal complaint. He also never asked me to clarify my statement during the lecture.
4) Who sat on the grievance committee that onsidered Mr. Knight's complaint?
The first gievance committee was made up of (3) administrators/bureaucrats: the affirmative action officer, the university code officer, and the student judicial code officer.
The second 'peer' review committee was made up of the dean of the college of natural sciences, a biology professor, the vice-dean of the hotel college and the president of the student government (a hotel school student). To the best of my knowledge no member of the "peer" committee had any qualifications in the area of economic theory.
Please note that only one of the seven committee members was a member of the teaching faculty.
5) What actions do you believe the university should take at this point? Do you anticipate taking formal legal action against the university?
The university should apologize. They must uphold academic freedom which permits and even obliges faculty to discuss controversial matters at variance with 'common wisdom' (and certainly doesn't require we speak only about matters that have passed the test of peer-reviewed wisdom, as the letter from the provost absurdly claims); otherwise, we would never be allowed to express 'original' thought or even speak about on-going research. There exist thousands of ideas that are peer-reviewed but stand in contradiction to and are incompatible with each other. Does the provost realize that science existed even before the printing press and peer-reviewed publications?
The university has acted in violation of my first amendment rights, due process, and its own bylaws. It has severely damaged my reputation as well as my health, and it owes me reasonable compensation for this. The ACLU Nevada, as my legal representative, is prepared to see this through in federal court.
6) The provost's letter says that "you were previously informed in writing regarding similar incidents by your Dean." Could you describe those earlier conflicts?
There has been one previous incident. It concerned an entirely different subject than the present one. The present investigating committees were only provided with the initial complaint, but were NOT informed that after an informal meeting with the then affirmative action officer, that complaint was completely dismissed. In fact, during the meeting, the affirmative action officer at one point suggested, before a witness, that I was a Nazi, upon which I ended the conversation and wrote a letter of complaint to the university president (currently one and the same), who did not even acknowledge receipt of my hand-delivered letter. The university would be
embarrassed if this whole matter were fully revealed. In telling a half-truth, however, UNLV has tried to smear me.
7) In a better world, how would a university manage conflicts like this one? If you were the president of a new university in an environment with no external government constraints, what would you tell students to do if they found a professor's arguments unpersuasive and/or obnoxious?
I would inform students that they have the right and duty to ask and challenge their professors. I would inform students about the nature of a university, the principle of and reasons for the institution of academic freedom, and the meaning of the word professor. Further, I would tell them that if they don't like what they hear they can always look for another professor more to their liking.
In any case, I would inform them that what is 'politically correct' cannot be the standard of truth at a serious university.
Posted by Mises.org Updates at February 14, 2005 12:15 PM
Here is what came out in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Monday, February 14, 2005
Professor Who Was Accused of Making Derogatory Remarks in Class
Wants UNLV to Clear His Record
By DAVID GLENN
A professor of economics at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas has demanded that administrators retract a "letter of instruction" that was placed in his personnel file last week. The letter -- which grew from a student's complaint that the professor's lectures had included derogatory comments about homosexuals -- declares that the professor had created a "hostile learning environment" and instructs him to "cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact."
The university "has severely damaged my reputation as well as my health," the professor, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, wrote on Saturday in an e-mail message to /The Chronicle./ "It owes me reasonable compensation for this. The ACLU Nevada, as my legal representative, is prepared to see this through in federal court."
The dispute began with a complaint filed in March 2004 by Michael Knight, an economics major who graduated from the university last year and now lives in the Seattle area. Mr. Knight objected to a line of argument given by Mr. Hoppe in two of his lectures that month. In those lectures Mr. Hoppe presented the concept of "time preferences"-- that is, people's varying degrees of willingness to defer the immediate consumption of goods in favor of saving and investment. Time preferences are an important notion in economics, and particularly in the Austrian-libertarian school to which Mr. Hoppe adheres.
In his lectures, Mr. Hoppe said that certain groups of people -- including small children, very old people, and homosexuals -- tend to prefer present-day consumption to long-term investment. Because homosexuals generally do not have children, Mr. Hoppe said, they feel less need to look toward the future. (In a recent talk at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Mr. Hoppe says was similar to his classroom lecture, he declared, "Homosexuals have higher time preferences, because life ends with them.")
Mr. Knight found that argument unwarranted and obnoxious, and he promptly filed a complaint with the university. In a telephone interview on Saturday, Mr. Knight said: "I was just shocked and appalled. I said to myself, Where the hell is he getting this information from? I was completely surprised, and that's why I went to the university about this."
According to both Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Knight, the university's formal grievance procedure hinged on the question of whether Mr. Hoppe could cite peer-reviewed academic literature to support the claim that homosexuals have high time preferences. The "letter of instruction," which was written on Wednesday by Raymond W. Alden III, the university's executive vice president and provost, tells Mr. Hoppe that his comments created "a hostile learning environment because they were not qualified as opinions, theories without experimental/statistical support, topics open to debate, or otherwise limited."
Mr. Knight said that he was grateful for the university's actions, and that he supported the fact-opinion distinction raised in Mr. Alden's letter. "If it's speculation and it's an opinion," he said, "then it should not be inside the lecture. I'm there to get an education, and I'm paying for the course. If the professor is bringing in his opinion or bringing in speculation, then that's not true facts. The information he brought to lecture was not peer-reviewed, and it's his academic responsibility as a professor to make sure that he's providing accurate information to his students."
Many scholars, however, have expressed alarm at the ground rules laid down by Mr. Alden. Several economists' Web logs have urged readers to contact UNLV administrators in Mr. Hoppe's defense.
In an e-mail message to /The Chronicle/ on Sunday, Lloyd R. Cohen, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote that "the provost's distinction between 'opinion' and 'fact' is empty, and can be -- and is -- only used for a deceitful and pernicious purpose."
If he taught at a university where Mr. Alden's rule was universally applied, Mr. Cohen continued, he would begin each course by handing students a formal disclaimer: "Each statement I make in this class for the remainder of the semester shall be understood to be my opinion and not as 'objective fact.' ... I will however endeavor to distinguish from time to time: (1) the strength of conviction with which I hold
particular opinions; (2) the degree to which my opinions are shared by others in the profession; and (3) the empirical evidence or theoretical arguments that support my opinion."
For his part, Mr. Hoppe said that he was "tempted to reply to the provost's suggestion with a simple quip: Is the alleged categorical distinction between fact and opinion itself a fact or an opinion?" Mr. Hoppe views Mr. Alden's fact-opinion proviso as "a mere play with words" that would be incoherent and unworkable if a university ever enforced it seriously.
Academic freedom, Mr. Hoppe said, "permits and even obliges faculty to discuss controversial matters at variance with 'common wisdom,' and certainly doesn't require that we speak only about matters that have passed the test of peer-reviewed wisdom, as the letter from the provost absurdly claims."
Mr. Hoppe was born in Germany in 1949, and has taught at UNLV since 1986. His best-known books, including /A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics/ (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), draw on the theories of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, who were extremely skeptical toward all forms of taxation and state power.
In his most recent book, /Democracy -- The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order/(Transaction, 2001), Mr. Hoppe cites the concept of time preferences to argue that monarchical systems had significant advantages over modern democracies. Democratically elected leaders, he said in one of his recent Mises Institute lectures, have incentives "to loot the country as fast as possible," whereas "kings, at least, by and large, had an interest in preserving the power of their dynastic property and passing on a valuable piece of property to future generations."
Mr. Hoppe hastens to add that, while he prefers monarchy to democracy, he is not a monarchist. His ideal, he wrote in a 1995 essay, is a quasi-anarchistic system in which society is led by a "voluntarily acknowledged 'natural' elite" comprised of "families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct."
In /Democracy -- The God That Failed,/ Mr. Hoppe explains that the citizens of his idealized libertarian community must be prepared to ostracize dissidents: "Naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They -- the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism -- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." (Mr. Knight says that Mr. Hoppe never made arguments of that nature in the classroom.)
/The Chronicle/ asked Mr. Hoppe whether such a policy of banishment should apply to college professors who promote social democracy, homosexuality, and so on. He answered on Sunday in an e-mail message, "In libertarian society you would see a great variety of (completely private) universities, subscribing to different fundamental philosophies. ... Contracts may stipulate different reasons for dismissal."
If he himself were president of a university, Mr. Hoppe continued, "if I concluded a contract with (let's say) an economics professor that he may not become an advocate of communism and he does become such an advocate, then I could and would fire him."
In any case, Mr. Hoppe emphasized, we are not now living within his preferred social order. "I did not break my contract with UNLV," he wrote. "UNLV broke its contract with me by interfering with my academic freedom, which it granted to me according to its own bylaws (and which constitute part of my contract)."
Earlier, Mr. Hoppe told /The Chronicle/ that he is especially angry that Mr. Knight never spoke directly to him before filing his complaint. If he were president of a university, Mr. Hoppe said, "I would inform students that they have a right and duty to ask questions and challenge their professors. ... Further, I would tell them that if they don't like what they hear, they can always look for a professor more to their liking."
Mr. Knight conceded on Saturday that he did not warn Mr. Hoppe before he filed his complaint, but added that he found Mr. Hoppe's demeanor so intimidating and off-putting that he believed that such a conversation would have been useless. He said that he finds it ironic that Mr. Hoppe has presented himself to the news media as a victim of the university's conduct. "I don't think that he's a victim in this at all," he said. "I feel that he led this whole this whole thing on. It was his choice."
The dispute has reached its current intensity, Mr. Knight said, only because Mr. Hoppe objected to his complaint at the initial stage, last March. If Mr. Hoppe had been more responsive, Mr. Knight said, "none of this would have gone into his personnel file at all. All he would have had to do is to facilitate a classroom discussion in regard to making sure that students didn't feel offended."
Late Friday afternoon, /The Chronicle/ attempted to contact Mr. Alden and several other UNLV professors and administrators; none of them replied over the weekend.
On Thursday, UNLV released a statement that read, in part: "It is unfair for the news media and others who may have read incomplete accounts of this situation to judge the university's intentions and values regarding this matter. ... UNLV is deeply committed to upholding the tenets of academic freedom, and equally committed to investigating reports of discrimination."
* * *
Several documents related to the dispute between UNLV and Mr. Hoppe are available on the Web site of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, including a facsimile of Mr. Alden's letter <http://www.mises.org/pdf/hoppeletter.pdf> to Mr. Hoppe and the text of a 1995 essay <http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_3.pdf> by Mr. Hoppe, "The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy, and the Idea of a Natural Order." (These documents can be viewed with Adobe Reader, <http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html> available free.) Audio files <http://www.mises.org/media/?action=category&ID=66> of Mr. Hoppe's lectures at the institute are also available on the site.
Mr. Knight has commented about the dispute on a personal Web log. <http://www.livejournal.com/users/aquariusguy702/>
Saturday, February 12, 2005
National ID - Recommended Readings
Ron Paul (R-Tx): "A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform." Our elites couldn't care less if uncontrolled immigration ruins the culture; their long-term goal is to make of America a third world nation. Unplug from the "Real Matrix" and read why Ron Paul opposes H.R. 418, the "Real ID Act."
I do not see how we can avoid eventually having to undertake acts of civil disobedience that will doubtlessly land some of us in jail--as political prisoners, people who have gone to prison because they acted on their beliefs which were contrary to those in power rather than because they committed real crimes (murder, theft, assault, and so on). Political prisoners can be found somewhere in any totalitarian regime, which is what America is becoming--however slowly, however unreported by our controlled media and however unnoticed by our masses, victims of the National Dumb Down for which government schools are responsible.
New Article: The Harsh Truth About Government Schools
Friday, February 11, 2005
"Real" National ID
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) | February 8, 2005
Are the terrorists winning? When al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, they made it clear they hate America and want to terrorize us into changing America.
If they could, the terrorists would destroy the unique American way of life. But they can't. Only we can do that.
Tragically, too much of the legislation enacted by Congress in a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 does al-Qaeda's job for them. The Patriot Act took the first, disastrous step toward fundamentally changing our way of life. Then came the homeland security bill, followed by the 9/11 intelligence reorganization bill. And now the Real ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) will be voted on Thursday, February 10th.
What's wrong with H.R. 418 -- a bill we are told will stem the flow of illegal aliens through our porous borders? For starters, it does NOTHING to stem the flow of illegal aliens. Instead, H.R. 418 will:
1. Establish a national ID card.
2. Establish a federally-coordinated database of personal information on American citizens with Canada and Mexico.
3. Use the new national ID to track American citizens when traveling outside the U.S. -- and within the U.S.
4. Re-define "terrorism" in broad new terms that could include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time.
5. Authorize the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally expand the information included in driver's licenses, including such biometric information as retina scans and DNA information -- and even radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking technology. Carry a driver's license with RFID and governmental officials will know your whereabouts 24/7.
Incredibly, H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation. H.R. 418 fails miserably on this most critical issue.
The Real ID Act or Real National ID Act will impose a Soviet-style internal passport on law-abiding American citizens. Proponents of H.R. 418 say we must "make sacrifices" like this to control our borders and fight illegal immigration. But H.R. 418 is a Trojan horse -- it pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: more of our constitutionally protected liberty. H.R. 418 does what al-Qaeda could never do without our help.
H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state. The terrorists will have won.
Urge your U.S. representative to vote "no" on H.R. 418. Go to http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=6938731&type=CO