Non-Fiction

Lawrence B. Lindsey — Conspiracies of The Ruling Class: How To Break Their Grip Forever — Videos

Posted on August 11, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Crisis, Documentary, Economics, Elections, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Investments, IRS, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, media, Mobile Phones, Monetary Policy, Money, Newspapers, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Resources, Speech, State, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Television, Television, Terrorism, The Pronk Pops Show, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source image

Image result for lawrence lindsey conpiracies of the ruling classSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

FOX News: Trump Mocks Elites At Ohio Rally

Donald Trump Calls Out The Global Elite: Must See

What are the Conspiracies of the Ruling Class?

Conspiracies of the Ruling Class

Malzberg | Lawrence B. Lindsey discusses his book

Larry Lindsey: CBO is ‘part of the swamp

T. Boone Pickens talks with Economic Advisor Larry Lindsey

Tucker Carlson: D.C. Ruling Class Reason Trump Won

The Rise of the Oligarchs | Empire

If You Want to Know Who Rules the World: The Ruling Elite – Finance, Wealth, Power (2008)

The U.S. Is Run by a Financial Oligarchy: The Ruling Elite, Money & the Illusion of Progress (1993)

 

Lawrence B. Lindsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Lawrence B. Lindsey
Governor Lawrence B Lindsey 140501.jpg
4th Director of the National Economic Council
In office
January 20, 2001 – December 12, 2002
President George W. Bush
Preceded by Gene Sperling
Succeeded by Steve Friedman
Personal details
Born July 18, 1954 (age 64)
PeekskillNew YorkU.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Susan Lindsey (Divorced 2013)
Children 3
Residence Clifton, Virginia
Education Bowdoin College (BA)
Harvard University (MAPhD)

Lawrence B. “Larry” Lindsey (born July 18, 1954) is an American economist. He was director of the National Economic Council (2001–2002), and the assistant to the president on economic policy for the U.S. President George W. Bush. He played a leading role in formulating President Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut plan, convincing candidate Bush that he needed an “insurance policy” against an economic turndown. He left the White House in December 2002 and was replaced by Stephen Friedman after a dispute over the projected cost of the Iraq War. Lindsey estimated the cost of the Iraq War could reach $200 billion, while Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld estimated that it would cost less than $50 billion.[1]

 

Biography and achievements

Lindsey was born on July 18, 1954 in Peekskill, New York. He graduated from Lakeland Senior High School in Shrub Oak, New York in 1972. An alumnus of Alpha Rho Upsilon fraternity at Bowdoin College, he received his A.B. magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Bowdoin and his A.M. and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.

He is the author of The Growth Experiment: How the New Tax Policy is Transforming the U.S. Economy (Basic Books, New York, 1990, ISBN 978-0465050703), Economic Puppetmasters: Lessons from the Halls of Power (AEI Press, Washington, D.C., 1999, ISBN 978-0844740812), What A President Should Know …but most learn too late: An Insiders View On How To Succeed In The Oval Office (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Maryland, 2008, ISBN 978-0742562226), and Conspiracies of the Ruling Class: How to Break Their Grip Forever (Simon & Schuster, 2016, ISBN 978-1501144233). Also he has contributed numerous articles to professional publications. His honors and awards include the Distinguished Public Service Award of the Boston Bar Association, 1994; an honorary degree from Bowdoin College, 1993; selection as a Citicorp/Wriston Fellow for Economic Research, 1988; and the Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award from the National Tax Association, 1985.

During the Reagan Administration, he served three years on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers as Senior Staff Economist for Tax Policy. He then served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Development during the first Bush administration

Lindsey served as a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for five years from November 1991 to February 1997. Additionally, Lindsey was Chairman of the Board of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, a national public/private community redevelopment organization, from 1993 until his departure from the Federal Reserve.

From 1997 to January 2001, Lindsey was a Resident Scholar and holder of the Arthur F. Burns Chair in Economics at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. He was also Managing Director of Economic Strategies, an economic advisory service based in New York City. During 1999 and throughout 2000 he served as then-Governor George W. Bush’s chief economic advisor for his presidential campaign. He is a former associate professor of Economics at Harvard University.

Lindsey is Chief Executive Officer of the Lindsey Group,[2] which he runs with a former colleague from the National Economic Council and writes for The Wall Street JournalWeekly Standardand other publications. He was a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Controversies

Lindsey is famous for spotting the emergence of the late 1990s U.S. stock market bubble back in 1996 while a Governor of the Federal Reserve. According to the meeting transcripts for September of that year, Lindsey challenged the expectation that corporate earnings would grow 11½ percent a year continually. He said, “Readers of this transcript five years from now can check this fearless prediction: profits will fall short of this expectation.” According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, corporate profits as a share of national income eroded from 1997 until 2001. Stock prices eventually collapsed, starting their decline in March 2000, though the S&P500 remained above its 1996 level, casting doubt on the assertion that there was a stock market bubble in 1996.

In contrast to Chairman Greenspan, Lindsey argued that the Federal Reserve had an obligation to prevent the stock market bubble from growing out of control. He argued that “the long term costs of a bubble to the economy and society are potentially great…. As in the United States in the late 1920s and Japan in the late 1980s, the case for a central bank ultimately to burst that bubble becomes overwhelming. I think it is far better that we do so while the bubble still resembles surface froth and before the bubble carries the economy to stratospheric heights.” During the 2000 Presidential campaign, Governor Bush was criticized for picking an economic advisor who had sold all of his stock in 1998.[citation needed]

According to the Washington Post,[3] Lindsey was on an advisory board to Enron along with Paul Krugman before joining the White House. Lindsey and his colleagues warned Enron that the economic environment was riskier than they perceived.

Cost of the Iraq War

On September 15, 2002, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Lindsey estimated the high limit on the cost of the Bush administration’s plan in 2002 of invasion and regime change in Iraq to be 1–2% of GNP, or about $100–$200 billion.[4][5] Mitch DanielsDirector of the Office of Management and Budget, discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated that the costs would be under $50 billion.[1] Rumsfeld called Lindsey’s estimate “baloney”.[6]

As of 2007 the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq exceeded $400 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office in August 2007 estimated that appropriations would eventually reach $1 trillion or more.[7]

In October 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that by 2017, the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could reach $2.4 trillion. In response, Democratic RepresentativeAllen Boyd criticized the administration for firing Lindsey, saying “They found him a job outside the administration.”[8]

Presidential Campaign Leadership

Lindsey has been a senior advisor to several Republican campaigns. He led the economic team for then Governor George W. Bush’s successful presidential campaign in 2000, earning the trust of the future President who said at the time “I am very fond of Larry Lindsey and I value his advice”. [9] During the 2008 Presidential election, Lindsey served as Fred Thompson’s Senior Economic Advisor. [10] In 2012, Lindsey predicted on election day that Republican Mitt Romney would defeat President Obama. [11] In April 2016, Lindsey supported Ted Cruz over his only remaining opponent, current President Trump, explaining that Cruz was the best candidate because he had an economic program deserving of the “top grade”. [12]

References

  1. Jump up to:ab Wolk, Martin (2006-05-17). “Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion”. MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-03-10Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey’s view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate “very, very high.” Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with “a number that’s something under $50 billion.” He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.
  2. Jump up^ http://www.thelindseygroup.com/bios/
  3. Jump up^ Once a Friend and Ally, Now a Distant MemoryWashington Post
  4. Jump up^ Davis, Bob (September 16, 2002). “Bush Economic Aide Says the Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion”The Wall Street Journal. Reprinted in Congressional Record, vol. 148, issue 117, 107th Congress, pp. S8643-S8644.[dead link]
  5. Jump up^ Engel, Matthew (September 17, 2002). “Cost of war put at $200bn, but that’s nothing, says US adviser”The Guardian. Retrieved July 23, 2011.
  6. Jump up^ Bryne, John (2008-03-18). “Price of Iraq war now outpaces Vietnam”. The Raw Story. Archived from the original on 2008-03-21. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
  7. Jump up^ Bender, Bryan (2007-08-01). “Analysis says war could cost $1 trillion”The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
  8. Jump up^ “Congress told of war costs up to $2.4 trillion by 2017”The Register-Guard. October 25, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-25.[dead link]
  9. Jump up^ Gosselin, Peter “Bush’s Economic Advisor Lindsey Is Man of Contradictions”LA Times, 02 January 2000.
  10. Jump up^ “Larry Lindsey Named as Fred Thompson’s Senior Economic Advisor”, 17 September 2007.
  11. Jump up^ “Larry Lindsey Changes Election Prediction”,CNBC, 6 November 2012.
  12. Jump up^ “Grading the candidates: Larry Lindsey”,CNBC, 18 April 2016.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey

Lawrence B. Lindsey

Back to scholar list

  • Tax policy
  • Monetary policy
  • Fiscal policy
  • International economic development
Lawrence B. Lindsey has held leading positions in government, academia, and business. He has been assistant to the president and director of the National Economic Council at the White House. He also served as a governor of the Federal Reserve System, special assistant to the president for domestic economic policy, and senior staff economist for tax policy at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mr. Lindsey taught economics at Harvard University and is currently president and CEO of the Lindsey Group. He is the author of Economic Puppet Masters (AEI Press, 1999) and The Growth Experiment (Basic Books, 1990).

Experience

  • President and CEO, Lindsey Group, 2003-present
  • Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, White House, 2001-2002
  • Chief Economic Adviser, George W. Bush Campaign, 1999-2000
  • Arthur F. Burns Scholar in Economics, AEI, 1997-2001
  • Managing Director, Economic Strategies, 1997-2001
  • Chairman, Board of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 1993-97
  • Governor, Federal Reserve System, 1991-97
  • Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Economic Policy, White House, 1989-91
  • Associate Professor, Harvard University, 1984-89
  • Citicorp/Wriston Fellow for Economic Research, 1988
  • Senior Staff Economist for Tax Policy, President’s Council of Economic Advisers, 1981-84

Education

Ph.D., M.A., economics, Harvard University
A.B., Bowdoin College

Close

Filter by:

SHAREMark as favorite

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is attempting an aggressive reform program in order to revitalize the Japanese economy. Can he succeed? We believe he can, but only if he aims his “third arrow” of structural reform at the right target.

SHAREMark as favorite

Mr. Abe’s “Three Arrows” program consists of renewed fiscal stimulus, aggressive monetary easing and significant structural reform. We believe he will succeed—if he aims his “third arrow,” structural reform, at Japan’s capital allocation and corporate governance practices.

SHAREMark as favorite

Losing money is embarrassing. And an embarrassed Jamie Dimon publicly admitted that J.P. Morgan Chase goofed. Three senior executives lost their jobs as a result. But politicians and regulators in Washington are rushing to leverage the bank’s misfortune for their own gain.

SHAREMark as favorite

There can be an appropriate place for government subsidies to influence the choice of vehicle fuel technology. But such choices should be subject to rigorous cost benefit analysis with a high threshold for approval.

SHAREMark as favorite

Quantitative easing won’t solve our deeper problem of slow growth and will probably be part of Fed policy for quite some time.

SHAREMark as favorite

The fiscal stimulus was both so expensive and so badly flawed that it was rendered ineffective; a recent paper that vindicates the plan fails to measure the number of people who found work and the effectiveness with which the Obama stimulus created jobs.

SHAREMark as favorite

Option B defines a problem as being too serious to ignore and thereby requiring resources, yet commits fewer resources than would guarantee success.

SHAREMark as favorite

Both America and Britain are going to have to change the way they provide health care–but through evolution, not sudden or drastic reform.

SHAREMark as favorite

The maze of tax credits that are typically available to low-income individuals under the tax code needs simplifying.

SHAREMark as favorite

Replacing all of the seven different tax credits allowed under the current tax code with a simple policy holds significant promise.

SHAREMark as favorite

At this AEI event, Representative Tom Petri (R-Wisc.) will discuss the combined impact of low-income tax credits on work incentives.

SHAREMark as favorite

SHAREMark as favorite

The Pickens Plan to convert the nation’s truck fleet to natural gas contains a clear justification for government involvement–standard setting that the private market cannot do by itself.

SHAREMark as favorite

Lack of a plan is only one of the problems with President Obama’s economic strategy.

SHAREMark as favorite

For a similar amount of money to the $800 stimulus package billion being discussed, we could give every worker $1,500.

SHAREMark as favorite

SHAREMark as favorite

SHAREMark as favorite

The best stimulus plan is a cut in the payroll tax.

SHAREMark as favorite

Business ethics can help get the economy back on track.

SHAREMark as favorite

Barack Obama faces the most difficult job transition anyone will ever face: moving from campaigning to governing as president of the United States.

SHAREMark as favorite

The government-bailout plan will receive little support until the public finds the benefits in it for them.

SHAREMark as favorite

The FDIC provides a function that conservatives should embrace.

SHAREMark as favorite

Are we headed for a depression?

SHAREMark as favorite

Last Thursday night Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that a consensus had emerged that drastic action was needed to save our financial system–what happened?

SHAREMark as favorite

If we are headed for a depression, it will not be like the memories or pictures from history books we have of the 1930s.

SHAREMark as favorite

Accounting standards need to be rethought.

SHAREMark as favorite

The poll numbers show a modestly positive initial response to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

SHAREMark as favorite

A Newsweek business roundtable looks at the two faces of globalization and whether the United States can stay ahead.

SHAREMark as favorite

The world would dump the currency of any other country that announced an open-ended bank bailout.

SHAREMark as favorite

The government’s backing of Freddie Macand Fannie Maeputs them in a box.

SHAREMark as favorite

As president, Senator Barack Obama would make Social Security a welfare program.

SHAREMark as favorite

Everything you always wanted to know about the housing crash, but were afraid to ask.

SHAREMark as favorite

Both John McCain and Barack Obama need to lay the groundwork for governing during their campaigns.

SHAREMark as favorite

Financial regulators need to remember KISS–Keep It Simple, Stupid–in order to resolve the current financial crisis.

SHAREMark as favorite

The contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is a game of numbers that will rely on the results of Florida and Michigan’s primaries, if they decide to count the votes.

SHAREMark as favorite

The collapse of the home mortgage market and its effect on real estate values and the overall economy is one of the most important problems facing the United States.

SHAREMark as favorite

Hillary Clinton may have lost a few votes in Nevada because of union intimidation, but the Clintons should keep in mind that workers have a lot more to lose from a bill she is supporting.

SHAREMark as favorite

We need an economic stimulus focused on the long run, not Keynesian short-term political spending.

SHAREMark as favorite

Lindsey and Sumerlin offer a series of memos to get the next president up to speed before Inauguration Day.

SHAREMark as favorite

Presidential candidates’ character traits are more important than the issue papers or debate sound bites that get so much attention in the primaries.

SHAREMark as favorite

Presidential candidates’ character traits are more important than the issue papers or debate sound bites that get so much attention in the primaries.

SHAREMark as favorite

SenatorSchumer wants to loose the trial lawyers and the regulators on the mortgage market. That’s the surest way to turn our housing weakness to bust.

SHAREMark as favorite

The shortcomings of the Employee Free Choice Act; is Congress eliminating workers’ right to vote?

SHAREMark as favorite

SHAREMark as favorite

Tax policies punishing entrepreneurship may be dangerous.

SHAREMark as favorite

There are three parts to solving our immigration problems: security, economic participation, and civic integration.

SHAREMark as favorite

It has been five years since the first of the Bush tax cuts, so it is a natural time to look back and evaluate their economic and budgetary effectiveness.

SHAREMark as favorite

If Washington fails to provide a comprehensive system that actually engenders respect for the rules, the rule of law will be damaged to such an extent that it may not recover.

SHAREMark as favorite

By resisting revaluation, Mr. Hu is making China poorer in order to maintain the principle of communist control of the economy and so understands that leaders often must act on principle.

SHAREMark as favorite

How does the rest of the world view the dissolution of the Dubai Ports deal?

SHAREMark as favorite

In 1980, the ideas the Friedmans advocated were considered radical. Today they are in the mainstream of the conservative agenda and many on the left have taken ownership of them.

SHAREMark as favorite

SHAREMark as favorite

The Chinese government’s recent decision to change its currency regime left markets and government officials scratching their heads.

SHAREMark as favorite

One vital position waiting to be filled is assistant attorney general for antitrust–a position exceedingly important for the economic competitiveness of a variety of American industries.

SHAREMark as favorite

The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation offers at least as great a short-term challenge as Social Security. Both are in urgent need of fixing. Delay only makes matters worse.

SHAREMark as favorite

Given the critical importance of saving to our nation’s economic future, it is important to make the most of theopportunity to promote national saving offered by Social Security reform.

SHAREMark as favorite

SHAREMark as favorite

Whoever is chosen to succeed Alan Greenspan will inherit an independent Federal Reserve thanks to Greenspan’s navigation of turbulent economic waters over the last two decades.

SHAREMark as favorite

Antitrust policy is one area in which European motives are becoming increasingly hard to defend, even for committed Atlanticists

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Sidney Powell — License to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice — Videos

Posted on August 4, 2018. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Faith, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, Radio, Tax Policy | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for Sidney Powell -- License to LieImage result for Sidney Powell AttorneySee the source image

 

LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice

‘Licensed to Lie’: Book Event with Sidney Powell

GRPC 2017 Licensed to Lie

Let’s Talk With: Sidney Powell, author of “Licensed to Lie”

Corruption in the U S Legal System | Hannity | November 27, 2017

Former Federal Prosecutor Sidney Powell on the F B I & D O J

Is Loretta Lynch a good choice for Attorney General – Sidney Powell – theDove.us

Out of distrust and disdain, former FBI Director James Comey memorialized his conversations with President Donald Trump from Day1 in FBI memos to his FBI colleagues. Along with his coconspirators James Clapper, John Brennan and others, he planned to set up the incoming president.

Comey had already signed the bogus application for a FISA warrant on Carter Page in October 2016, and after his meeting with President-elect Trump on January 6, 2017, Comeyreported to Clapper. They deliberately placed the incoming president under a cloud of suspicion with leaks of an “investigation” of his connections with the Russians. For months, then, Comey refused to confirm what he repeatedly told the president privately—that Trump was not the subject of the investigation.

Meanwhile, at the request of Democrats in Congress, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice was investigating Comey and his FBI for their conduct of the Clintonemail “matter” for which both sides of the aisle wanted Comey fired.

President Trump fired Comey, finally, on May 9, 2017.

Within a week, on May 16, The New York Times reported that Comey had memos documenting that the president wanted him to shut down the investigation into General Michael Flynn, who had already resigned.

It wasn’t until June we would learn that Comey leaked the memos deliberately to “prompt” the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the whole “Trump-Russia collusion” story. Lacking the integrity even to do it himself, he used his friend and now lawyer Daniel Richman to contact the NY Times for him. Indeed, Comey shared the memos within the FBI and several “close associates.”

Astonishingly, the incomparable Comey immediately got what he wanted. Within 24 hoursof The New York Times story, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed none other than Comey’s longtime friend and colleague Robert Mueller to be that special counsel which Comey wanted. What a coincidence!

Comey quickly consulted and coordinated with the FBI and Mueller upon his appointment as special counsel—if not before. Within five days, by May 22, 2017, The Hill was reporting that Mueller had been “briefed” on the memos. An unidentified Comey friend said that Mueller would not be surprised by Comey’s testimony before Congress.

Comey then gave that testimony, dropping the bombshell that he had deliberately leaked the memos through his friend at Columbia—precisely “to prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

Of course, Comey neglected to mention when he testified before Congress that his friend Richman was also serving as a super-secret special employee of the FBI, with special access to the director, since sometime in 2015. Surely, it’s pure happenstance, this is also the time that abuses of the FISA intel escalated dramatically, and by the way, Donald Trump announced his campaign for president.

Appointment of a special counsel is not the kind of thing done overnight—especially when that particular special counsel would be leaving clients at a big law firm, and by the way, had just interviewed for the job of director of the FBI with the primary target of the special investigation. There was a plan.

Was the appointment of Mueller part of Comey’s plan?

How far back Comey’s communications with Mueller go on these issues? Comey recently admitted giving his memos to Mueller early in the process. Exactly how early was that?

Did he call buddy Bob after his first meeting with the president-elect where he set up Trump by informing him only of the “salacious and unverified” “Steele dossier” then ran to his car to begin his “diary” and reported to Clapper that he had completed that mission—causing CNN to run with the explosive story that the president-elect had been briefed on the “investigation”?

Did he call buddy Bob after his meeting with President Trump in which the president told him Flynn was “a good guy”?

We only recently learned from Comey’s illustrious book tour that he also leaked the memos to Patrick Fitzgerald—longtime friend, confidant, God-father to one of his daughters—and the special counsel who wrongfully convicted Scooter Libby. How handy is that? Patrick Fitzgerald is also mentioned in the Strzok-Page text messages as a possible special counsel if needed for Hillary.

Was buddy Bob one of the people like Richman and Fitzgerald to whom Comey “leaked” the FBI memos while he was still director of the FBI?

Comey’s admitted “leak” of the memos, his set-up of President Trump, his role in the FISA abuses and bogus application, and his whitewash of Clinton’s crimes implicate any number of federal criminal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §1001(false statements to Congress) and 18 U.S.C. §1503, 1505, or 1512 (varieties of obstruction of justice).

Comey knows the Inspector General of the Department of Justice is working on a mammoth report that will address what the FISA Court has already found to be serious abuses of the law by Comey’s FBI, Fourth Amendment violations against Americans, and violations of FISA by providing raw intel to two private contractors. The Inspector General’s investigation has already caused the replacement of the entire upper echelon of the FBI, including Deputy Director McCabe’s termination and criminal referral.

Yet, remarkably, the incomparable Comey does not seem to have a care in the world as he appears on every friendly platform available to him, preaches his “Higher Loyalty,” and says whatever he wants to say—including contradicting his statements to Congress and asserting now that House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes effort to find the truth is “a danger” to the country.

Is James Comey so narcissistic that he thinks he is invulnerable? Or, has buddy Bob Mueller given him immunity like Comey and the Obama Department of Justice did for the Clinton cabal?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Sidney Powell, former federal prosecutor and veteran of 500 federal appeals, is the author of “LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She is a Senior Fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and senior policy adviser for America First.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/15/has-mueller-given-comey-immunity/

MEET THE VERY SHADY PROSECUTOR ROBERT MUELLER HAS HIRED FOR THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

Sidney Powell | Former federal prosecutor

Long before Donald Trump ran for president or most people had heard of Paul Manafort, fabled Judge Alex Kozinski proclaimed a veritable epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct. The Wall Street JournalThe Los Angeles Times and even The New York Times joined the Kozinski chorus. Abuses of power by prosecutors have changed the balance of power in the United States Senate and sent countless innocent people to prison.

Prosecutors have unbridled discretion. With the stroke of a pen, they can indict and ruin anyone, while they enjoy immunity from suit and are rarely even rebuked.

Now, those close to the president have crossed the scope of a squad of prosecutors highly trained and experienced in abuses of that power — especially Andrew Weissmann, who just indicted Manafort and Richard Gates.

Mr. Weissmann has been portrayed recently as having “unimpeachable ethics” and as “the prosecutor you would want” if your family member was innocent. He was extolled for having “a hunch” that a former treasurer of Enron was “willing to say more” and would “cooperate.”

But what do the cases and indisputable facts show?

Let’s start with Mr. Weissmann’s “hunch” that young Enron treasurer Ben Glisan was ready to “cooperate.” Mr. Glisan was about 30 years old when Enron CFO Andrew Fastow — then a cover-boy for CFO Magazine — conned Glisan into one of Fastow’s fraudulent get-rich-quick schemes.

Mr. Glisan was an easy squeeze for prosecutors like Mr. Weissmann who honed for their own uses the tactics of organized crime bosses they convicted. Ben Glisan had made a fast million dollars, had a young family, and he was guilty. Weissmann charged him quickly with an onerous 26 counts. Mr. Glisan pleaded guilty to a five-year count and just wanted to do his time. The problem was he refused to “cooperate” with Mr. Weissmann.

Federal authorities took Mr. Glisan to prison. He was placed straight into solitary confinement — a hole of a cell with a slit for light and barely enough room to stand. Men far tougher than Ben Glisan will tell you that 24 hours in solitary confinement can drive a man insane.

Mr. Weissmann and his Enron Task Force left Mr. Glisan in solitary for almost two weeks. The broken Ben Glisan then faced hardened criminals in the daily prison population. That is how Mr. Weissmann got that “hunch.”

As for “the prosecutor you would want if you were innocent,” four former Merrill Lynch executives beg to differ. Mr. Weissmann ran the grand jury interrogating many of the witnesses and at least one of the defendants. He then sat in the courtroom with his arm around Houston Chronicle reporter Mary Flood and oversaw every aspect of the prosecution. The prosecutors obtained convictions against Merrill Lynch employee Bill Fuhs and three superiors.

Mr. Fuhs, like Ben Glisan, was about 30 years old with a young family. He had steadfastly maintained his innocence and merely handled the paperwork for a transaction which had been taken through all the steps within Merrill Lynch by Merrill’s own in-house counsel.

Weissmann’s team vehemently argued against allowing the defendants bail pending their appeals. They sent Bill Fuhs to a maximum security federal transfer facility with the worst federal prisoners imaginable — hundreds of miles from his little children.

Eight months later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals completely exonerated Mr. Fuhs and ordered his release from prison within three weeks of the oral argument — before the court even issued its decision.

Mr. Fuhs will not speak of what he endured.

The Fifth Circuit held that the conduct of the Merrill defendants was not criminal as charged — and the indictment was “flawed.”

Mr. Weissmann had made up a crime.

The Merrill executives suffered up to a year of wrongful imprisonment.  They were allreleased.

As for Mr. Weissmann’s ethics, the ethical rules to which prosecutors are supposed to be held require the prosecutor to disclose all evidence that may be helpful to a defendant. Mr. Weissmann and his team did the opposite.

They yellow-highlighted the statements of witnesses most helpful to the defense long before the trial. They threatened those witnesses with indictments which kept them from talking with the defense, and they gave the defendants incomplete and affirmatively misleading “summaries” of what those witnesses would say.

The Fifth Circuit held the prosecutors “plainly suppressed” evidence favorable to the defense — enough for an ethics violation but not for reversal of the only two convictions that survived the first appeal while the evidence was still hidden.

One of the country’s leading legal ethics experts, Bill Hodes, filed a substantial grievancewith hundreds of pages of exhibits against Mr. Weissmann with the New York Bar. (I co-signed.)

At the time, Mr. Mueller had already brought Mr. Weissmann under his wing at the FBI, so the Department of Justice was defending Mr. Weissmann against the grievance for which he could have been disbarred.

What happened to that grievance?  The New York Bar kept it for several months.

Unexpectedly, we received a declination letter from the “Office of Professional Responsibility” for the Department of Justice. With no notice, the New York Bar had slipped the grievance to the Department of Justice to decide a serious complaint that the Department of Justice was defending.

The federal swamp is deep, dense, and deceiving. It is infested with a corrupt cabal that protects its own, and it can’t be drained fast enough.

Sidney Powell (@SidneyPowell1) was a federal prosecutor in three districts under nine U.S. attorneys from both political parties, then in private practice now for more than 20 years. She is a past president of the Bar Association of the 5th Federal Circuit and of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. A veteran of 500 federal appeals, she published “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She consulted with Arthur Andersen on appeal and represented one of the Merrill Executives.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/20/meet-the-very-shady-prosecutor-robert-mueller-has-hired-for-the-russia-investigation/

A calculated corruptor of justice

Eric Holder leaves a hideous scar on the face of justic

Illustration on Holder's contempt for justice while attorney general by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
Illustration on Holder’s contempt for justice while attorney general by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times more >
– – Thursday, April 23, 2015

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The first attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress has demonstrated shocking contempt for the law, and the ability to abuse and corrupt it for the political and social agenda of this president. He has assaulted freedom of speech and press at every turn, stonewalled all investigations into widespread corruption within the administration, undermined and obstructed the work of the agencies’ own inspectors general, and targeted individuals who dared challenge any of it. He has tirelessly protected and promoted corrupt prosecutors and scattered ticking time bombs.

Ironically, it was April 1, 2009, when newly sworn Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed he was dismissing the indictment against former United States Sen. Ted Stevens. He claimed that he did so “in the interest of justice,” and that he would “clean up” the Department of Justice, whose wrongful prosecution of the senator was corrupted by the misconduct of the prosecutors themselves.

Judge Emmet Sullivan, who had presided over the senator’s trial, dismissed the indictment. The prosecutors had engaged in “the most egregious misconduct” he had seen in 25 years on the bench. Judge Sullivan appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the department and its ironically named Public Integrity Section. That investigation uncovered “systematic and intentional concealment of evidence” by the prosecutors.

Of course, Eric Holder immediately fired the prosecutors who had fabricated evidence, suborned perjury, hidden evidence that proved Stevens’ defense, and cost him his seat in the United States Senate. And of course, Mr. Holderconfessed error in the cases of other Alaskans whose convictions the same team of prosecutors had corrupted by using the same witnesses and hiding the same evidence.

Well … actually, no.

Mr. Holder’s prosecutors claimed that the government’s misconduct, deceit and likely obstruction of justice didn’t matter — it wasn’t “material” in the cases of Alaskans Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. That produced two reversals by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and two scathing separate opinions by Judge Betty Fletcher, who would have dismissed the indictments because of “the reprehensible nature of [the department‘s] acts and omissions.”

As for the Stevens prosecutors who were found to have committed intentional misconduct (tantamount to obstruction of justice or subornation of perjury), one served a one-day suspension before the paltry sanctions were reversed on a technical failure of the department itself. Three still work in the department; four moved on to lucrative positions elsewhere.

Eric Holder leaves the department littered with corrupted prosecutions and prosecutors, his own contempt of Congress, numerous Supreme Court reversals and scathing rebukes from federal judges.

The Project on Government Oversight has identified hundreds of instances of intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct in the last decade, and Mr. Holder refused to release so much as the names of the prosecutors. Mr. Holder has politicized the department beyond recognition and weaponized every federal agency under it. “Instead of enforcing the rule of law and following legal precedent, he has ignored and twisted the law to suit his president.”

Forty-seven inspectors general of the various agencies wrote an unprecedented letter to Congress to reveal this administration’s obstruction of their investigations.

Of course, there is the Fast and Furious cover-up, in which Mr. Holder asserts executive privilege for emails purportedly to his wife and his mother. Let’s not forget the Internal Revenue Service scandal and the absence of any real investigation of likely criminal conduct by Lois Lerner, others and perhaps the White House. Then there’s the fact that he’s prosecuted more reporters under the Espionage Act than all prior attorneys general put together.

To carry on his legacy of the calculated corruption of justice, he recently installed former Enron Task Force “terror” of a prosecutor Leslie Caldwell as head of the “world’s largest criminal conviction machine.” They have ensconced Andrew Weissmann as head of the powerful fraud section. Ms. Caldwell and Mr. Weissmann sharpened their fangs long ago prosecuting gangsters with none other than incoming Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the notorious Eastern District of New York, where the rules don’t apply to the prosecutors. Ms. Caldwell and Mr. Weissmann destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and 85,000 jobs only to be reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Mr. Holder leaves a tragic and hideous scar on the face of justice and a corrupt cabal of comrades in his place to perpetuate his Department of (Obstructing and Corrupting) Justice.

• Sidney Powell served for 10 years in the Department of Justice in three federal districts under nine U.S. attorneys from both political parties. Counsel in more than 500 federal appeals, she is the author of “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice” (Brown Books, 2014).

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/23/sindey-powell-eric-holder-corrupter-of-justice/

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn — Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse — Liberty and Equality: The Challenge of Our Times — Videos

Posted on June 23, 2018. Filed under: Agriculture, Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Diet, Economics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Environment, Ethic Cleansing, Exercise, Faith, Family, Farming, Fiscal Policy, Friends, government spending, Health, Non-Fiction, Reviews, Science, Sociology, Spying, State, Strategy, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Tutorials, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source image

See the source imageImage result for leftism book eric von

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

The Mises and Hayek Critiques of the Modern Political State | Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn – Liberty or Equality Ch. 01-02

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn – Liberty or Equality Ch. 03-04

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn – Liberty or Equality Ch. 05-08

Political Ideology: Crash Course Government and Politics #35

The History of Classical Liberalism – Learn Liberty

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty

Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) – Learn Liberty

Brexit, Immigration, and Identity Politics (Steve Davies Part 1)

The Difference Between Classical Liberals and Libertarians (Steve Davies Part 2)

Kuehnelt-Leddihn and American Conservatism

Let us begin with what is most excellent and lasting in the work of the late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn—his profound understanding of, and unyielding opposition to, the Left.  According to the Austrian-born polymath, the Left has its roots planted firmly in democracy.  In its modern form, that object of near worship owed its birth to the French Revolution, but once loosed upon the world it soon transformed itself into socialism—international and national.  Contrary to received opinion, that is, Kuehnelt-Leddihn regarded communism, fascism, and nazism as rivals rather than enemies, brothers under the skin; like their progenitor, democracy, they were all ideologies of the Left.  That is why the Hitler-Stalin Pact should have occasioned no surprise.

The Left, then, comprises a number of ideologies, all of them, in Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s view, toxic.  But although he insisted that the French Revolution was a primal act of rebellion not only against monarchical order, but against God, he failed to draw the logical conclusion—that ideologies are substitute (or secular) religions.  Man, Edmund Burke wrote, “is a religious animal,” and he warned that if Christianity be suppressed or rejected “some uncouth, pernicious, and degrading superstition might take place of it.”

In contemporary America, the reigning superstition goes by the name of Political Correctness (PC).  This ideology possesses neither the intellectual sophistication nor the internal order one finds in at least some varieties of Marxism.  It is a coalition of mini-ideologies that often appear to be contradictory:  feminism, “gay rights,” “civil rights” (preferential treatment of Black Americans), unrestricted abortion, open immigration for those from south of the border, and environmentalism.  It shows sympathy for Islam and a relentless hostility to Christianity.  It combines secularism (sometimes extending to atheism) with egalitarianism.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn died in 1999 and therefore did not live to witness the full flowering, if that is the word, of the PC ideology.  We know, however, that he would have fought against it.  He was, he insisted, a “man of the Right,” “conservative” being too foggy a label.  In fact, he styled himself a “liberal” in the tradition of Tocqueville, Montalembert, and Lord Acton.  Born in 1909 in what was then the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, he maintained a lifelong preference for monarchical, Catholic, and multi-ethnic societies.  (He himself spoke eight languages fluently and had a reading knowledge of 11 others.)  Never could he forgive Woodrow Wilson for the pivotal role the American president played in the Great War victors’ decision to break up the Habsburg Monarchy.

What political form a postwar European Right should take he did not, for some time, specify in detail, though he always insisted that it should base itself on an ideology that could mount a challenge to leftist ideologies.  That “ideology” was a misleading choice of words becomes obvious when one considers his definition of it:  “It is a coherent set of ideas about God, Man and the world without inner contradictions and well-rooted in eternal principles.”  This is a Weltanschauung, not an ideology.

Whether or not political parties should base themselves upon a Weltanschauungdepends largely upon circumstances.  One thing is certain however: Rightist governments are never of the masses.  They are elitist and authoritarian, but notideological (in the sense of a secular religion) or tyrannical.  “All free nations,” Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote, “are by definition ‘authoritarian’ in their political as well as in their social and even in their family life.  We obey out of love, out of respect (for the greater knowledge and wisdom of those to whom we owe obedience), or because we realize that obedience is in the interest of the Common Good, which…includes our own interest.”

Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s mind was European through and through, and as a result he criticized what he called the Anglo-American mind because of its belief that “a genuine conservative contemplates nature, favors age-old traditions, time-honored institutions, the wisdom of his forbearers, and so on.”  The trouble with Burke was that he stood for common sense, which “creates no dynamism whatsoever,” and that he eschewed political ideologies.  Did he not, in his classic Reflections on the Revolution in France,write that he reprobated “no form of government merely upon abstract principles?”

No one would deny that, their common hostility to the French Revolution notwithstanding, there is an immediately recognizable difference between the Anglo-Irish Burke and, say, the French-Savoyard Joseph de Maistre.  American conservatism, however, is not Burkean, Russell Kirk being a somewhat isolated figure.  Nevertheless, Kuehnelt-Leddihn believed that America was in dire need of an ideology if it were to have any chance of winning the struggle for men’s minds.  In a 1990 letter to me (in Hungarian, one of the languages he mastered), he wrote that “among my writings the Portland Declaration is very important.”  That declaration constituted his proposal for an American “ideology.”

The Portland Declaration (1981) grew out of a conference held in Portland, Oregon, and sponsored by the Western Humanities Institute.  Kuehnelt-Leddihn “compiled” the 26 principles it proclaimed, and they breathe his spirit.  The final paragraph of his brief introduction to the published text of the proposal is worthy of note.  “We must have before us a guiding vision of what our state and society could be like, to prevent us from becoming victims of false gods.  The answer to false gods is not godlessness but the Living God.  Hence our ideology must be based on the Living God, but it should appeal also to men of good will who, while not believers, derive their concepts of a well-ordered life, whether they realize it or not, ultimately from the same sources we do.”

Among other things, the Portland Declaration took its stand on diversity (the Left had not yet hijacked the word) rather than uniformity, the spiritual equality (but distinct social roles) of men and women, opposition to the centralization of power, minimal government of the highest quality, an independent supreme court, the teaching of religion in schools, and patriotism rather than nationalism.

Whether or not these principles, taken together, constitute an ideology may be doubted.  And so may Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s belief that the Portland Declaration is a “utopia,” a possible definition of which, he argued, was a state/society “that can reasonably be established by sober reflection and honest effort.”  This was another choice of words that muddied the waters of understanding.  “Utopia” (“no place”) is rightly understood to be some idea of a perfect society, but one that the less starry-eyed know to be unrealizable, and probably undesirable.  To be sure, Karl Mannheim, in his influential Ideologie und Utopie (1929), maintained that utopias, even if unrealizable, are necessary because they give direction to historical change.  Kuehnelt-Leddihn knew Mannheim’s book well and was undoubtedly influenced by it.  He once maintained that “a cure for cancer” was a “utopian” directive, even though it is neither unrealizable in principle nor a re-imagination of an entire society.

As Kuehnelt-Leddihn recognized, his notion of an ideology—if not as a “utopia”—would be welcomed by America’s neoconservatives.  In the excerpt from Leftism Revisited here presented, he pointed out that Irving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservatism, had once stated “that the Right needed an ideology if it hoped to win the battle against the Left.”  In that spirit, neoconservatives have insisted that America is a “propositional,” or “creedal,” nation.  That, they claim, is what makes the country “exceptional”—that, and the assumption “that the United   States is somehow exempt from the past and present fate, as well as from many of the necessities, of other nations.  Ours is a special creation, endowed with special immunities” (Richard M. Weaver).

Very well, but what is the proposition or creed?  The answer seems to be that which is proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  To Kuehnelt-Leddihn these “truths” were anything but “self evident.”  He did not believe that all men were equal—not even, as he once told me, before God.  “We are all granted sufficient grace,” he said, “but remember, Christ Himself had a favorite disciple.”  Nor would he have accepted the notion of God-given rights, as opposed to responsibilities.  As for the “pursuit of Happiness,” only an American could imagine this to be an “unalienable right.”

The so-called paleoconservatives reject the notion of an ideological nation.  For the best of them, America is, or once was, bound together not by a “proposition,” but by “the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, blood and soil” (Patrick J. Buchanan).  On the other hand, they share Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s aversion to reckless foreign interventions—unlike neoconservatives, they oppose crusades for “global democracy.”  We know that the Austrian admired George F. Kennan, the political “realist” who warned against an interventionist foreign policy and identified himself as a “European conservative,” one who was to the right of the paleoconservatives.   For his part, Kennan regarded Kuehnelt-Leddihn as “a kindred spirit in political philosophy.”

While most paleoconservatives are “realists” in their approach to foreign policy, they are not all traditionalists with respect to domestic affairs; some, especially the young, sympathize with libertarianism—a sympathy that Kuehnelt-Leddihn sometimes seemed to share, witness his insistence that he was a rightist and an anarchist.  The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s “numerous books are,” he wrote in Leftism Revisited, “full of notions and ideas that any true lover of liberty or any true conservative could underwrite, concepts that are part and parcel of the ‘arsenal’ of rightist thought.”

It is true that Proudhon detested democracy, but the doctrine of anarchism must ignore man’s fallen nature and assume that we are capable of living together without an authority outside of ourselves.  To be sure, libertarianism is not quite anarchism, but neither is it the disciplined liberty defended by Tocqueville.  John Stuart Mill’s libertarianism, as set forth in On Liberty, would, as James Fitzjames Stephen pointed out, undermine the world’s great moral traditions, all of which expect far more of men than that they not harm another.

Perhaps, after all, Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s writings could have its most salutary influence on contemporary cultural, rather than political, thought.  As the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci argued persuasively, the real war between Left and Right is waged at the level of culture.  Those who establish “cultural hegemony” will ultimately control political life because they are able to form public opinion.  That is precisely what PC propagandists have succeeded in doing, thanks to their takeover of the media, universities, popular culture, and many churches.  It is in the realm of culture, too, that Weltanschauung matters most.  Not all rightists are Christians or believing Jews, but if they do not look to the Judeo-Christian moral tradition for guidance, one wonders where they will find it.  That tradition and the culture it informed have been dealt what appear to be mortal blows in recent years.  If the culture war has indeed been lost, America will never again be the land some still remember.

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/kuehnelt-leddihn-and-american-conservatism

 

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

WORKS PUBLISHED INThe Journal of Libertarian Studies

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-1999) was an Austrian nobleman and socio-political theorist who described himself as and enemy of all forms of totalitarianism and as an “extreme conservative arch-liberal” or “liberal of the extreme right.” Described as “A Walking Book of Knowledge”, Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others.

ALL WORKS

Monarchy and War

War and Foreign PolicyWorld HistoryPolitical Theory

05/10/2018THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES
It is important to understand the relationship between monarchy and war, and between monarchy and warfare.

FORMATS

PDF 

READ MORE

The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises — New Formats Available

Austrian Economics OverviewHistory of the Austrian School of Economics

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s timeless essay “The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises” is now easier to read.

READ MORE

The Mises and Hayek Critiques of Modern Political State

BiographiesPolitical Theory

02/02/2005AUDIO/VIDEO
Presented as part of the Austrian Workshop seminar series. Recorded on 17 November 1997.

READ MORE

The Cultural Background of Ludwig von Mises

BiographiesWar and Foreign PolicyWorld HistoryHistory of the Austrian School of Economics

04/05/1997ESSAYS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
Writing about the cultural background of Ludwig von Mises, an eminent former compatriot of mine, poses some difficulties: how to present you with a world radically different from yours, a world far away, which in many ways no longer exists.

FORMATS

Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse

World HistoryPolitical Theory

07/15/1974BOOKS
A comprehensive study of the major trends in leftist thought from the era of the French Revolution.
FORMATS

Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time

World HistoryPolitical Theory

03/02/1952BOOKS
In this treatise, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn argues that “democratic equality” is not based upon liberty — as is commonly believed — but the total state.

FORMATS

PDF 

READ MORE

The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large

Legal SystemWorld HistoryPolitical Theory

06/15/1943BOOKS
A relentless attack on the idea of mass government based on the egalitarian ethic, and its tendency toward the total state of Stalin and Hitler.

https://mises.org/profile/erik-von-kuehnelt-leddihn

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.jpg

Photo portrait of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Born July 31, 1909
Tobelbad (now Haselsdorf-Tobelbad), Austria-Hungary
Died May 26, 1999 (aged 89)
Lans, Austria

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (born July 31, 1909 in TobelbadStyriaAustria-Hungary; died May 26, 1999, in LansTyrol) was an Austrian political scientist and journalist. Describing himself as an “extreme conservative arch-liberal” or “liberal of the extreme right”, Kuehnelt-Leddihn often argued that majority rule in democracies is a threat to individual liberties, and declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism, although he also supported what he defined as “non-democratic republics,” such as Switzerland and the United States.[1][not in citation given]

Described as “A Walking Book of Knowledge”, Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others.[2] His early books The Menace of the Herd and Liberty or Equality were influential within the American conservative movement. An associate of William F. Buckley Jr., his best-known writings appeared in National Review, where he was a columnist for 35 years.

Life

At 16, he became the Vienna correspondent of The Spectator. From then on, he wrote for the rest of his life. He studied civil and canon law at the University of Vienna at 18. Then, he went to the University of Budapest, from which he received an M.A. in economicsand his doctorate in political science. Moving back to Vienna, he took up studies in theology. In 1935, Kuehnelt-Leddihn travelled to England to become a schoolmaster at Beaumont College, a Jesuit public school. Subsequently, he moved to the United States, where he taught at Georgetown University (1937–1938), Saint Peter’s College, New Jersey (head of the History and Sociology Department, 1938–1943), Fordham University (Japanese, 1942–1943), and Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia (1943–1947).

In a 1939 letter to the editor of The New York Times, Kuehnelt-Leddihn critiqued the design of every American coin then in circulation except for the Washington quarter, which he allowed was “so far the most satisfactory coin” and judged the Mercury dime to be “the most deplorable.”[3]

After publishing books like Jesuiten, Spießer und Bolschewiken in 1933 (published in German by Pustet, Salzburg) and The Menace of the Herd in 1943, in which he criticised the National Socialists as well as the Socialists directly OE indirectly, as he could not return to the Austria that had been incorporated into the Third Reich.

After the Second World War, he resettled in Lans, where he lived until his death.[4] He was an avid traveler: he had visited the Soviet Union in 1930–1931, and he eventually visited each of the United States.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote for a variety of publications, including ChroniclesThought, the Rothbard-Rockwell ReportCatholic World, and the Norwegian business magazine Farmand. He also worked with the Acton Institute, which declared him after his death “a great friend and supporter.”[5] He was an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.[6] For much of his life, Kuehnelt was also a painter; he illustrated some of his own books.

According to his friend William F. Buckley, Dr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn was “the world’s most fascinating man.”[7]

Work

His socio-political writings dealt with the origins and the philosophical and cultural currents that formed Nazism. He endeavored to explain the intricacies of monarchist concepts and the systems of Europe, cultural movements such as Hussitism and Protestantism, and the disastrous effects of an American policy derived from antimonarchical feelings and ignorance of European culture and history.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn directed some of his most significant critiques towards Wilsonian foreign policy activism. Traces of Wilsonianism could be detected in the foreign policies of Franklin Roosevelt; specifically, the assumption that democracy is the ideal political system in any context. Kuehnelt-Leddihn believed that Americans misunderstood much of Central European culture such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire,[8] which Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed as one of the contributing factors to the rise of Nazism. He also highlighted characteristics of the German society and culture (especially the influences of both Protestant and Catholic mentalities) and attempted to explain the sociological undercurrents of Nazism. Thus, he concludes that sound Catholicism, sound Protestantism, or even, probably, sound popular sovereignty (German-Austrian unification in 1919) all three would have prevented National Socialism although Kuehnelt-Leddihn rather dislikes the latter two.

Contrary to the prevailing view that the Nazi Party was a radical right-wing movement with only superficial and minimal leftist elements, Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted that Nazism (National Socialism) was a strongly leftist, democratic movement ultimately rooted in the French Revolution that unleashed forces of egalitarianismconformitymaterialism and centralization.[9] He argued that Nazismfascismradical-liberalism, and communismwere essentially democratic movements, based upon inciting the masses to revolution and intent upon destroying the old forms of society. Furthermore, Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed that all democracy is basically totalitarianand that all democracies eventually degenerate into dictatorships. He said that it was not the case for “republics” (the word, for Kuehnelt-Leddihn, has the meaning of what Aristotle calls πολιτεία), such as Switzerland, or the United States as it was originally intended in its constitution. However, he considered the United States to have been to a certain extent subject to a silent democratic revolution in the late 1820s.

In Liberty or Equality, his magnum opus, Kuehnelt-Leddihn contrasted monarchy with democracy and presented his arguments for the superiority of monarchy: diversity is upheld better in monarchical countries than in democracies. Monarchism is not based on party rule and “fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of Christian society.” After insisting that the demand for liberty is about how to govern and by no means by whom to govern a given country, he draws arguments for his view that monarchical government is genuinely more liberal in this sense, but democracy naturally advocates for equality, even by enforcement, and thus becomes anti-liberal.[10] As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita (the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives) and the Scienda (the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions) are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings.

In February 1969, Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote an article arguing against seeking a peace deal to end the Vietnam War.[11] Instead, he argued that the two options proposed, a reunification scheme and the creation of a coalition Vietnamese government, were unacceptable concessions to the Marxist North Vietnam.[11] Kuehnelt-Leddihn urged the US to continue the war.[11] until the Marxists were defeated.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn also denounced the US Bishops’ 1982 pastoral The Challenge of Peace[12] “The Bishops’ letter breathes idealism… moral imperialism, the attempt to inject theology into politics, ought to be avoided except in extreme cases, of which abolition and slavery are examples.”[12]

Writings

Novels[edit]

  • The Gates of Hell: An Historical Novel of the Present Day. London: Sheed & Ward, 1933.
  • Night Over the East. London: Sheed & Ward, 1936.
  • Moscow 1979. London: Sheed & Ward, 1940 (with Christiane von Kuehnelt-Leddihn).
  • Black Banners. Aldington, Kent: Forty-Five Press & Hand and Flower Press, 1952.

Socio-political works

  • The Menace of the Herd. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1943 (under the pseudonym of “Francis S. Campell” to protect relatives in wartime Austria).
  • Liberty or Equality. Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1952; 1993.
  • The Timeless Christian. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969.
  • Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974.[13]
  • The Intelligent American’s Guide to Europe. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1979.
  • Leftism Revisited, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990.[14]

Collaborations

  • “Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.” In: F.J. Sheed (Ed.), Born Catholics. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1954, pp. 220–238.
  • “Pollyanna Catholicism.” In: Dan Herr & Clem Lane (Ed.), Realities. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1958, pp. 1–12.
  • “The Age of the Guillotine.” In: Stephen Tonsor (Ed.), Reflections on the French Revolution: A Hillsdale Symposium. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990.

Articles

Notes and references

  1. Jump up^ Campbell, William F. “Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: A Remembrance,”First Principles, September 2008.
  2. Jump up^ William F. Buckley, Jr. (1985-12-31). “A Walking Book of Knowledge”. National Review. p. 104.
  3. Jump up^ Erik v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Letter to the Editor, “Our Coins Criticized: Visitor Finds Artistic Faults in All Except the Quarter”, The New York Times, Nov. 26, 1939, p. 75.
  4. Jump up^ Rutler, George W. “Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,”Crisis Magazine, November 19, 2007.
  5. Jump up^ “Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909–1999)”Acton Institute. Archived from the original on 2009-06-26. Retrieved 2009-04-16.
  6. Jump up^ Rockwell, Lew. “Remembering Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn“. LewRockwell.com Blog, July 31, 2008.
  7. Jump up^ “Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddih (1909–1999),”Archived2013-07-02 at the Wayback MachineReligion & Liberty9 (5), 1999, p. 3.
  8. Jump up^ Baltzersen, Jorn K. “The Last Knight of the Habsburg Empire,”Lew Rockwell, July 31, 2009.
  9. Jump up^ Congdon, Lee. “Kuehnelt-Leddihn and American Conservatism,”Crisis Magazine, March 26, 2012.
  10. Jump up^ Lukacs, John. “Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: A Memoir,”The Intercollegiate Review35 (1), Fall 1999.
  11. Jump up to:abc Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn “No Quick Peace In Vietnam”, National Review, February 11, 1969.
  12. Jump up to:ab Camilla J. Kari, Public Witness: The Pastoral Letters of the American Catholic Bishops: Liturgical Press, 2004. ISBN0814658334 (p. 86).
  13. Jump up^ Brownfeld, Allan C. “Leftism, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,”The Freeman, July 1974.
  14. Jump up^ Chamberlain, John. “Leftism Revisited,”The Freeman41(7), July 1991.

Regarding personal names: Ritter is a title, translated approximately as Sir (denoting a Knight), not a first or middle name. There is no equivalent female form.

See also

Further reading

  • Nash, George H. (2006). The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945. ISI Books ISBN 9781933859125
  • Frohnen, Bruce; Jeremy Beer & Jeffrey O. Nelson (2006). American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia. ISI Books ISBN 9781932236439

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Classical liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste SayThomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism[6] and progress.[7] The term “classical liberalism” was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[8]

Evolution of core beliefs

Core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas—which departed from both the older conservative idea of society as a family and from the later sociological concept of society as complex set of social networks. Classical liberals believe that individuals are “egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic”[9] and that society is no more than the sum of its individual members.[10]

Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from each other and that the purpose of government should be to minimize conflict between individuals that would otherwise arise in a state of nature. These beliefs were complemented by a belief that laborers could be best motivated by financial incentive. This belief led to the passage of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance, based on the idea that markets are the mechanism that most efficiently leads to wealth. Adopting Thomas Robert Malthus‘s population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, they believed population growth would outstrip food production and they regarded that consequence desirable because starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[11]

Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. They were critical of what would come to be the idea of the welfare state as interfering in a free market.[12]Despite Smith’s resolute recognition of the importance and value of labor and of laborers, they selectively criticized labour’s group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights[13] while accepting corporations’ rights, which led to inequality of bargaining power.[14][15][16]

Classical liberals argued that individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.[17]

Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:

  • A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market.
  • A common national defense to provide protection against foreign invaders.[18]
  • Laws to provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts and common law.
  • Building and maintaining public institutions.
  • Public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications and postal services.[18]

They asserted that rights are of a negative nature, which require other individuals (and governments) to refrain from interfering with the free market, opposing social liberals who assert that individuals have positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care and the right to a living wage. For society to guarantee positive rights, it requires taxation over and above the minimum needed to enforce negative rights.[19][20]

Core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include democracy or government by a majority vote by citizens because “there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law”.[21]For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that in a pure democracy a “common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole…and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party”.[22]

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated Social Darwinism.[23]Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[23]

Friedrich Hayek’s typology of beliefs

Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the “British tradition” and the “French tradition”. Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard MandevilleDavid HumeAdam SmithAdam FergusonJosiah Tucker and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Jean-Jacques RousseauMarquis de Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen MontesquieuBenjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville as belonging to the “British tradition” and the British Thomas HobbesJoseph PriestleyRichard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the “French tradition”.[24][25] Hayek also rejected the label laissez-faireas originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume and Smith.

Guido De Ruggiero also identified differences between “Montesquieu and Rousseau, the English and the democratic types of liberalism”[26] and argued that there was a “profound contrast between the two Liberal systems”.[27] He claimed that the spirit of “authentic English Liberalism” had “built up its work piece by piece without ever destroying what had once been built, but basing upon it every new departure”. This liberalism had “insensibly adapted ancient institutions to modern needs” and “instinctively recoiled from all abstract proclamations of principles and rights”.[27] Ruggiero claimed that this liberalism was challenged by what he called the “new Liberalism of France” that was characterised by egalitarianism and a “rationalistic consciousness”.[28]

In 1848, Francis Lieber distinguished between what he called “Anglican and Gallican Liberty”. Lieber asserted that “independence in the highest degree, compatible with safety and broad national guarantees of liberty, is the great aim of Anglican liberty, and self-reliance is the chief source from which it draws its strength”.[29] On the other hand, Gallican liberty “is sought in government…the French look for the highest degree of political civilization in organizational, that is, in the highest degree of interference by public power”.[30]

History

Great Britain

Classical liberalism in Britain developed from Whiggery and radicalism, was also heavily influenced by French physiocracy and represented a new political ideology. Whiggery had become a dominant ideology following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and was associated with the defence of the British Parliament, upholding the rule of law and defending landed property. The origins of rights were seen as being in an ancient constitution, which had existed from time immemorial. These rights, which some Whigs considered to include freedom of the press and freedom of speech, were justified by custom rather than by natural rights. They believed that the power of the executive had to be constrained. While they supported limited suffrage, they saw voting as a privilege rather than as a right. However, there was no consistency in Whig ideology and diverse writers including John LockeDavid HumeAdam Smith and Edmund Burke were all influential among Whigs, although none of them was universally accepted.[31]

From the 1790s to the 1820s, British radicals concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasising natural rights and popular sovereignty. Richard Price and Joseph Priestley adapted the language of Locke to the ideology of radicalism.[31] The radicals saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.[32]

There was greater unity to classical liberalism ideology than there had been with Whiggery. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. They believed that required a free economy with minimal government interference. Writers such as John Bright and Richard Cobden opposed both aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to the development of a class of yeoman farmers. Some elements of Whiggery opposed this new thinking and were uncomfortable with the commercial nature of classical liberalism. These elements became associated with conservatism.[33]

A meeting of the Anti-Corn Law League in Exeter Hall in 1846

Classical liberalism was the dominant political theory in Britain from the early 19th century until the First World War. Its notable victories were the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, the Reform Act of 1832 and the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The Anti-Corn Law League brought together a coalition of liberal and radical groups in support of free trade under the leadership of Richard Cobden and John Bright, who opposed militarism and public expenditure. Their policies of low public expenditure and low taxation were adopted by William Ewart Gladstone when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer and later Prime Minister. Classical liberalism was often associated with religious dissent and nonconformism.[34]

Although classical liberals aspired to a minimum of state activity, they accepted the principle of government intervention in the economy from the early 19th century with passage of the Factory Acts. From around 1840 to 1860, laissez-faire advocates of the Manchester School and writers in The Economist were confident that their early victories would lead to a period of expanding economic and personal liberty and world peace, but would face reversals as government intervention and activity continued to expand from the 1850s. Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, although advocates of laissez-faire, non-intervention in foreign affairs and individual liberty, believed that social institutions could be rationally redesigned through the principles of utilitarianism. The Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli rejected classical liberalism altogether and advocated Tory democracy. By the 1870s, Herbert Spencer and other classical liberals concluded that historical development was turning against them.[35] By the First World War, the Liberal Party had largely abandoned classical liberal principles.[36]

The changing economic and social conditions of the 19th century led to a division between neo-classical and social (or welfare) liberals, who while agreeing on the importance of individual liberty differed on the role of the state. Neo-classical liberals, who called themselves “true liberals”, saw Locke’s Second Treatise as the best guide and emphasised “limited government” while social liberals supported government regulation and the welfare state. Herbert Spencer in Britain and William Graham Sumner were the leading neo-classical liberal theorists of the 19th century.[37] Neo-classical liberalism has continued into the contemporary era, with writers such as John Rawls.[38] The evolution from classical to social/welfare liberalism is for example reflected in Britain in the evolution of the thought of John Maynard Keynes.[39]

United States

In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary or feudal interests such as the nobility, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, the established church and the aristocratic army officers.[40]

Thomas Jefferson adopted many of the ideals of liberalism, but in the Declaration of Independence changed Locke’s “life, liberty and property” to the more socially liberal “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness“.[4] As the United States grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and during the term of its first populist PresidentAndrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism.[41] Freedom was maximised when the government took a “hands off” attitude toward the economy.[42]

Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues:

[A]t the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea of laissez-faire. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean no government intervention at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention in behalf of consumers.[43]

Leading magazine The Nation espoused liberalism every week starting in 1865 under the influential editor Edwin Lawrence. Godkin (1831–1902).[44]

The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, “You shall not crucify the American farmer on a cross of gold“. Classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.[45]

The Great Depression of the 1930s saw a sea change in liberalism, with priority shifting from the producers to consumers. Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s New Deal represented the dominance of modern liberalism in politics for decades. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:[46]

When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state. […] There emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labour, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.

Alan Wolfe summarizes the viewpoint that there is a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes:[47]

The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy… When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. […] For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.

The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared.[48] James KurthRobert E. LernerJohn MicklethwaitAdrian Wooldridge and several other political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of American conservatism.[49] According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism—through American conservatives—continue to be a significant political force.[50]

Intellectual sources

John Locke[edit]

Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke‘s Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, which had been written as a defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for Britain’s new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the American Revolution.[51] However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke’s writings or scarcely mentioned and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. For example, there is little mention of constitutionalism, the separation of powers and limited government.[52]

James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke’s writing: individualism, consent, the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property and religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above. This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.[53]

As a trustee, government was expected to serve the interests of the people, not the rulers; and rulers were expected to follow the laws enacted by legislatures. Locke also held that the main purpose of men uniting into commonwealths and governments was for the preservation of their property. Despite the ambiguity of Locke’s definition of property, which limited property to “as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of”, this principle held great appeal to individuals possessed of great wealth.[54]

Locke held that the individual had the right to follow his own religious beliefs and that the state should not impose a religion against Dissenters, but there were limitations. No tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.[55]

Adam Smith

Adam Smith‘s The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication of John Stuart Mill‘s Principles of Political Economy in 1848.[56] Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth.[57]

Smith wrote that as long as supply, demand, prices and competition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, would maximise the wealth of a society[58] through profit-driven production of goods and services. An “invisible hand” directed individuals and firms to work toward the public good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximise their own gain. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed by some as sinful.[57]

He assumed that workers could be paid wages as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus into the “iron law of wages“.[59] His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production.[60] He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies and employers’ organisations and trade unions.[61] Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income.[62]

Smith’s economics was carried into practice in the nineteenth century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.[63]

Classical economics

In addition to Smith’s legacy, Say’s lawThomas Robert Malthus‘ theories of population and David Ricardo‘s iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics. The pessimistic nature of these theories provided a basis for criticism of capitalism by its opponents and helped perpetuate the tradition of calling economics the “dismal science“.[64]

Jean-Baptiste Say was a French economist who introduced Smith’s economic theories into France and whose commentaries on Smith were read in both France and Britain.[63] Say challenged Smith’s labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. His most important contribution to economic thinking was Say’s law, which was interpreted by classical economists that there could be no overproduction in a market and that there would always be a balance between supply and demand.[65] This general belief influenced government policies until the 1930s. Following this law, since the economic cycle was seen as self-correcting, government did not intervene during periods of economic hardship because it was seen as futile.[66]

Malthus wrote two books, An Essay on the Principle of Population (published in 1798) and Principles of Political Economy (published in 1820). The second book which was a rebuttal of Say’s law had little influence on contemporary economists.[67] However, his first book became a major influence on classical liberalism. In that book, Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were in fact responsible for their own problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.[68]

Ricardo, who was an admirer of Smith, covered many of the same topics, but while Smith drew conclusions from broadly empirical observations he used deduction, drawing conclusions by reasoning from basic assumptions [69] While Ricardo accepted Smith’s labour theory of value, he acknowledged that utility could influence the price of some rare items. Rents on agricultural land were seen as the production that was surplus to the subsistence required by the tenants. Wages were seen as the amount required for workers’ subsistence and to maintain current population levels.[70] According to his iron law of wages, wages could never rise beyond subsistence levels. Ricardo explained profits as a return on capital, which itself was the product of labour, but a conclusion many drew from his theory was that profit was a surplus appropriated by capitalists to which they were not entitled.[71]

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism provided the political justification for implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill‘s later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire.[72]

The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that public policy should seek to provide “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.[64]

Political economy

Classical liberals saw utility as the foundation for public policies. This broke both with conservative “tradition” and Lockean “natural rights”, which were seen as irrational. Utility, which emphasises the happiness of individuals, became the central ethical value of all liberalism.[73] Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it became primarily a justification for laissez-faire economics. However, classical liberals rejected Smith’s belief that the “invisible hand” would lead to general benefits and embraced Malthus’ view that population expansion would prevent any general benefit and Ricardo’s view of the inevitability of class conflict. Laissez-faire was seen as the only possible economic approach and any government intervention was seen as useless and harmful. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on “scientific or economic principles” while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.[74]

However, commitment to laissez-faire was not uniform and some economists advocated state support of public works and education. Classical liberals were also divided on free trade as Ricardo expressed doubt that the removal of grain tariffs advocated by Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League would have any general benefits. Most classical liberals also supported legislation to regulate the number of hours that children were allowed to work and usually did not oppose factory reform legislation.[74]

Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau.[74] The strongest defender of laissez-faire was The Economist founded by James Wilson in 1843. The Economist criticised Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. The Economist took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water and granting of patents and copyrights.[75]

The Economist also campaigned against the Corn Laws that protected landlords in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less expensive foreign imports of cereal products. A rigid belief in laissez-faire guided the government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died. The minister responsible for economic and financial affairs, Charles Wood, expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.[75] The Corn Laws were finally repealed in 1846 by the removal of tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high,[76] but it came too late to stop the Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years.[77][78]

Free trade and world peace

Several liberals, including Smith and Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations could lead to world peace. Erik Gartzke states: “Scholars like Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Richard Cobden, Norman Angell, and Richard Rosecrance have long speculated that free markets have the potential to free states from the looming prospect of recurrent warfare”.[79] American political scientists John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett, well known for their work on the democratic peace theory, state:[80]

The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically and to abolish royal charters, monopolies, and the protectionist policies of mercantilism so as to encourage entrepreneurship and increase productive efficiency. They also expected democracy and laissez-faire economics to diminish the frequency of war.

In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that as societies progressed from hunter gatherers to industrial societies the spoils of war would rise, but that the costs of war would rise further and thus making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations:[81]

[T]he honours, the fame, the emoluments of war, belong not to [the middle and industrial classes]; the battle-plain is the harvest field of the aristocracy, watered with the blood of the people…Whilst our trade rested upon our foreign dependencies, as was the case in the middle of the last century…force and violence, were necessary to command our customers for our manufacturers…But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth; and, should hostilities be continued for a series of years, each successive war-loan will be felt in our commercial and manufacturing districts with an augmented pressure

[B]y virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war, for the concept of concept of cosmopolitan right does not protect them from it. The spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers (or means) that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace (though not from moral motives); and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose.

Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the welfare of the state and benefited a small, but concentrated elite minority, summing up British imperialism, which he believed was the result of the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets. The belief that free trade would promote peace was widely shared by English liberals of the 19th and early 20th century, leading the economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946), who was a classical liberal in his early life, to say that this was a doctrine on which he was “brought up” and which he held unquestioned only until the 1920s.[84] In his review of a book on Keynes, Michael S. Lawlor argues that it may be in large part due to Keynes’ contributions in economics and politics, as in the implementation of the Marshall Plan and the way economies have been managed since his work, “that we have the luxury of not facing his unpalatable choice between free trade and full employment”.[85] A related manifestation of this idea was the argument of Norman Angell (1872–1967), most famously before World War I in The Great Illusion (1909), that the interdependence of the economies of the major powers was now so great that war between them was futile and irrational; and therefore unlikely.

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Angelo Codevilla — The Ruling Class vs. Country Class — Videos

Posted on June 16, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Cult, Culture, Data, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Documentary, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Entertainment, Essays, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Heroes, history, History of Economic Thought, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Mastery, media, Movies, Movies, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Newspapers, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Radio, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Security, Speech, Spying, State, Strategy, Success, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Television, Television, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , |

See the source imageImage result for angelo codevilla the ruling classSee the source imageSee the source image

Charles Kesler Introduces Angelo Codevilla

1. America’s Ruling Class

3. What’s Wrong with the CIA?

The Revolution of America’s Regime

Angelo Codevilla – Does America Have a Ruling Class?

456. The Iron Fist of the Ruling Class | Angelo Codevilla

The Role of Intelligence in American National Security

Conservatism in the Trump Era: American Statecraft

See the source image

 

  • ANGELO M. CODEVILLA

July 16, 2010, 10:09 am

After the Republic

September 27, 2016

In today’s America, a network of executive, judicial, bureaucratic, and social kinship channels bypasses the sovereignty of citizens. Our imperial regime, already in force, works on a simple principle: the president and the cronies who populate these channels may do whatever they like so long as the bureaucracy obeys and one third plus one of the Senate protects him from impeachment. If you are on the right side of that network, you can make up the rules as you go along, ignore or violate any number of laws, obfuscate or commit perjury about what you are doing (in the unlikely case they put you under oath), and be certain of your peers’ support. These cronies’ shared social and intellectual identity stems from the uniform education they have received in the universities. Because disdain for ordinary Americans is this ruling class’s chief feature, its members can be equally certain that all will join in celebrating each, and in demonizing their respective opponents.

And, because the ruling class blurs the distinction between public and private business, connection to that class has become the principal way of getting rich in America. Not so long ago, the way to make it here was to start a business that satisfied customers’ needs better than before. Nowadays, more businesses die each year than are started. In this century, all net additions in employment have come from the country’s 1,500 largest corporations. Rent-seeking through influence on regulations is the path to wealth. In the professions, competitive exams were the key to entry and advancement not so long ago. Now, you have to make yourself acceptable to your superiors. More important, judicial decisions and administrative practice have divided Americans into “protected classes”—possessed of special privileges and immunities—and everybody else. Equality before the law and equality of opportunity are memories. Co-option is the path to power. Ever wonder why the quality of our leaders has been declining with each successive generation?

Moreover, since the Kennedy reform of 1965, and with greater speed since 2009, the ruling class’s immigration policy has changed the regime by introducing some 60 million people—roughly a fifth of our population—from countries and traditions different from, if not hostile, to ours. Whereas earlier immigrants earned their way to prosperity, a disproportionate percentage of post-1965 arrivals have been encouraged to become dependents of the state. Equally important, the ruling class chose to reverse America’s historic practice of assimilating immigrants, emphasizing instead what divides them from other Americans. Whereas Lincoln spoke of binding immigrants by “the electric cord” of the founders’ principles, our ruling class treats these principles as hypocrisy. All this without votes or law; just power.

Foul is Fair and Fair is Foul

In short, precisely as the classics defined regime change, people and practices that had been at society’s margins have been brought to its center, while people and ideas that had been central have been marginalized.

Fifty years ago, prayer in the schools was near universal, but no one was punished for not praying. Nowadays, countless people are arrested or fired for praying on school property. West Point’s commanding general reprimanded the football coach for his team’s thanksgiving prayer. Fifty years ago, bringing sexually explicit stuff into schools was treated as a crime, as was “procuring abortion.” Nowadays, schools contract with Planned Parenthood to teach sex, and will not tell parents when they take girls to PP facilities for abortions. Back then, many schools worked with the National Rifle Association to teach gun handling and marksmanship. Now students are arrested and expelled merely for pointing their finger and saying “bang.” In those benighted times, boys who ventured into the girls’ bathroom were expelled as perverts. Now, girls are suspended for objecting to boys coming into the girls’ room under pretense of transgenderism. The mainstreaming of pornography, the invention of abortion as the most inalienable of human rights and, most recently, the designation of opposition to homosexual marriage as a culpable psychosis—none of which is dictated by law enacted by elected officials—is enforced as if it had been. No surprise that America has experienced a drastic drop in the formation of families, with the rise of rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites equal to the rates among blacks that was recognized as disastrous a half-century ago, the near-disappearance of two-parent families among blacks, and the social dislocations attendant to all that.

Ever since the middle of the 20th century our ruling class, pursuing hazy concepts of world order without declarations of war, has sacrificed American lives first in Korea, then in Vietnam, and now throughout the Muslim world. By denigrating Americans who call for peace, or for wars unto victory over America’s enemies; by excusing or glorifying those who take our enemies’ side or who disrespect the American flag; our rulers have drawn down the American regime’s credit and eroded the people’s patriotism.

As the ruling class destroyed its own authority, it wrecked the republic’s as well. This is no longer the “land where our fathers died,” nor even the country that won World War II. It would be surprising if any society, its identity altered and its most fundamental institutions diminished, had continued to function as before. Ours sure does not, and it is difficult to imagine how it can do so ever again. We can be sure only that the revolution underway among us, like all others, will run its unpredictable course.

All we know is the choice that faces us at this stage: either America continues in the same direction, but faster and without restraint, or there’s the hazy possibility of something else.

Imperial Alternatives

The consequences of empowering today’s Democratic Party are crystal clear. The Democratic Party—regardless of its standard bearer—would use its victory to drive the transformations that it has already wrought on America to quantitative and qualitative levels that not even its members can imagine. We can be sure of that because what it has done and is doing is rooted in a logic that has animated the ruling class for a century, and because that logic has shaped the minds and hearts of millions of this class’s members, supporters, and wannabes.

That logic’s essence, expressed variously by Herbert Croly and Woodrow Wilson, FDR’s brains trust, intellectuals of both the old and the new Left, choked back and blurted out by progressive politicians, is this: America’s constitutional republic had given the American people too much latitude to be who they are, that is: religiously and socially reactionary, ignorant, even pathological, barriers to Progress. Thankfully, an enlightened minority exists with the expertise and the duty to disperse the religious obscurantism, the hypocritical talk of piety, freedom, and equality, which excuses Americans’ racism, sexism, greed, and rape of the environment. As we progressives take up our proper responsibilities, Americans will no longer live politically according to their prejudices; they will be ruled administratively according to scientific knowledge.

Progressivism’s programs have changed over time. But its disdain for how other Americans live and think has remained fundamental. More than any commitment to principles, programs, or way of life, this is its paramount feature. The media reacted to Hillary Clinton’s remark that “half of Trump’s supporters could be put into a ‘basket of deplorables’” as if these sentiments were novel and peculiar to her. In fact, these are unremarkable restatements of our ruling class’s perennial creed.

The pseudo-intellectual argument for why these “deplorables” have no right to their opinions is that giving equal consideration to people and positions that stand in the way of Progress is “false equivalence,” as President Obama has put it. But the same idea has been expressed most recently and fully by New York TimesCEO Mark Thompson, as well as Times columnists Jim Rutenberg, Timothy Egan, and William Davies. In short, devotion to truth means not reporting on Donald Trump and people like him as if they or anything they say might be of value.

If trying to persuade irredeemable socio-political inferiors is no more appropriate than arguing with animals, why not just write them off by sticking dismissive names on them? Doing so is less challenging, and makes you feel superior. Why wrestle with the statistical questions implicit in Darwin when you can just dismiss Christians as Bible-thumpers? Why bother arguing for Progressivism’s superiority when you can construct “scientific” studies like Theodor Adorno’s, proving that your opponents suffer from degrees of “fascism” and other pathologies? This is a well-trod path. Why, to take an older example, should General Omar Bradley have bothered trying to refute Douglas MacArthur’s statement that in war there is no substitute for victory when calling MacArthur and his supporters “primitives” did the trick? Why wrestle with our climate’s complexities when you can make up your own “models,” being sure that your class will treat them as truth?

What priorities will the ruling class’s notion of scientific truth dictate to the next Democratic administration? Because rejecting that true and false, right and wrong are objectively ascertainable is part of this class’s DNA, no corpus of fact or canon of reason restrains it or defines its end-point. Its definition of “science” is neither more nor less than what “scientists say” at any given time. In practice, that means “Science R-Us,” now and always, exclusively. Thus has come to pass what President Dwight Eisenhower warned against in his 1960 Farewell address: “A steadily increasing share [of science] is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.… [T]he free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution…a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” Hence, said Ike, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.” The result has been that academics rise through government grants while the government exercises power by claiming to act on science’s behalf. If you don’t bow to the authority of the power that says what is and is not so, you are an obscurantist or worse.

Under our ruling class, “truth” has morphed from the reflection of objective reality to whatever has “normative pull”—i.e., to what furthers the ruling class’s agenda, whatever that might be at any given time. That is the meaning of the term “political correctness,” as opposed to factual correctness.

It’s the Contempt, Stupid!

Who, a generation ago, could have guessed that careers and social standing could be ruined by stating the fact that the paramount influence on the earth’s climate is the sun, that its output of energy varies and with it the climate? Who, a decade ago, could have predicted that stating that marriage is the union of a man and a woman would be treated as a culpable sociopathy, or just yesterday that refusing to let certifiably biological men into women’s bathrooms would disqualify you from mainstream society? Or that saying that the lives of white people “matter” as much as those of blacks is evidence of racism? These strictures came about quite simply because some sectors of the ruling class felt like inflicting them on the rest of America. Insulting presumed inferiors proved to be even more important to the ruling class than the inflictions’ substance.

How far will our rulers go? Because their network is mutually supporting, they will go as far as they want. Already, there is pressure from ruling class constituencies, as well as academic arguments, for morphing the concept of “hate crime” into the criminalization of “hate speech”—which means whatever these loving folks hate. Of course this is contrary to the First Amendment, and a wholesale negation of freedom. But it is no more so than the negation of freedom of association that is already eclipsing religious freedom in the name of anti-discrimination. It is difficult to imagine a Democratic president, Congress, and Supreme Court standing in the way.

Above all, these inflictions, as well as the ruling class’s acceptance of its own members’ misbehavior, came about because millions of its supporters were happy, or happy enough, to support them in the interest of maintaining their own status in a ruling coalition while discomfiting their socio-political opponents. Consider, for example, how republic-killing an event was the ruling class’s support of President Bill Clinton in the wake of his nationally televised perjury. Subsequently, as constituencies of supporters have effectively condoned officials’ abusive, self-serving, and even outright illegal behavior, they have encouraged more and more of it while inuring themselves to it. That is how republics turn into empires from the roots up.

But it is also true, as Mao Tse-Tung used to say, “a fish begins to rot at the head.” If you want to understand why any and all future Democratic Party administrations can only be empires dedicated to injuring and insulting their subjects, look first at their intellectual leaders’ rejection of the American republic’s most fundamental principles.

The Declaration of Independence says that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” among which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights—codified in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights—are not civil rights that governments may define. The free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and assembly, keeping and bearing arms, freedom from warrantless searches, protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, trial by jury of one’s peers, etc., are natural rights that pertain to human beings as such. Securing them for Americans is what the United States is all about. But today’s U.S. Civil Rights Commission advocates truncating the foremost of these rights because, as it stated in a recent report, “Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon those civil rights.” The report explains why the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights should not be permissible: “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy, or any form of intolerance.”

Hillary Clinton’s attack on Trump supporters merely matched the ruling class’s current common sense. Why should government workers and all who wield the administrative state’s unaccountable powers not follow their leaders’ judgment, backed by the prestige press, about who are to be treated as citizens and who is to be handled as deplorable refuse? Hillary Clinton underlined once again how the ruling class regards us, and about what it has in store for us.

Electing Donald Trump would result in an administration far less predictable than any Democratic one. In fact, what Trump would or would not do, could or could not do, pales into insignificance next to the certainty of what any Democrat would do. That is what might elect Trump.

The character of an eventual Trump Administration is unpredictable because speculating about Trump’s mind is futile. It is equally futile to guess how he might react to the mixture of flattery and threats sure to be leveled against him. The entire ruling class—Democrats and Republicans, the bulk of the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and the press—would do everything possible to thwart him; and the constituencies that chose him as their candidate, and that might elect him, are surely not united and are by no means clear about the demands they would press. Moreover, it is anyone’s guess whom he would appoint and how he would balance his constituencies’ pressures against those of the ruling class.

Never before has such a large percentage of Americans expressed alienation from their leaders, resentment, even fear. Some two-thirds of Americans believe that elected and appointed officials—plus the courts, the justice system, business leaders, educators—are leading the country in the wrong direction: that they are corrupt, do more harm than good, make us poorer, get us into wars and lose them. Because this majority sees no one in the political mainstream who shares their concerns, because it lacks confidence that the system can be fixed, it is eager to empower whoever might flush the system and its denizens with something like an ungentle enema.

Yet the persons who express such revolutionary sentiments are not a majority ready to support a coherent imperial program to reverse the course of America’s past half-century. Temperamentally conservative, these constituencies had been most attached to the Constitution and been counted as the bedrock of stability. They are not yet wholly convinced that there is little left to conserve. What they want, beyond an end to the ruling class’s outrages, has never been clear. This is not surprising, given that the candidates who appeal to their concerns do so with mere sound bites. Hence they chose as the presidential candidate of the nominal opposition party the man who combined the most provocative anti-establishment sounds with reassurance that it won’t take much to bring back good old America: Donald Trump. But bringing back good old America would take an awful lot. What could he do to satisfy them?

Trump’s propensity for treating pronouncements on policy as flags to be run up and down the flagpole as he measures the volume of the applause does not deprive them of all significance—especially the ones that confirm his anti-establishment bona fides. These few policy items happen to be the ones by which he gained his anti-establishment reputation in the first place: 1) opposition to illegal immigration, especially the importation of Muslims whom Americans reasonably perceive as hostile to us; 2) law and order: stop excusing rioters and coddling criminals; 3) build a wall, throw out the illegals, let in only people who are vetted and certified as supporters of our way of life (that’s the way it was when I got my immigrant visa in 1955), and keep out anybody we can’t be sure isn’t a terrorist. Trump’s tentative, partial retreat from a bit of the latter nearly caused his political standing to implode, prompting the observation that doing something similar regarding abortion would end his political career. That is noteworthy because, although Trump’s support of the pro-life cause is lukewarm at best, it is the defining commitment for much of his constituency. The point here is that, regardless of his own sentiments, Trump cannot wholly discount his constituencies’ demands for a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction.

Trump’s slogan—“make America great again”—is the broadest, most unspecific, common denominator of non-ruling-class Americans’ diverse dissatisfaction with what has happened to the country. He talks about reasserting America’s identity, at least by controlling the borders; governing in America’s own interest rather than in pursuit of objectives of which the American people have not approved; stopping the export of jobs and removing barriers to business; and banishing political correctness’s insults and injuries. But all that together does not amount to making America great again. Nor does Trump begin to explain what it was that had made this country great to millions who have known only an America much diminished.

In fact, the United States of America was great because of a whole bunch of things that now are gone. Yes, the ruling class led the way in personal corruption, cheating on tests, lowering of professional standards, abandoning churches and synagogues for the Playboy Philosophy and lifestyle, disregarding law, basing economic life on gaming the administrative state, basing politics on conflicting identities, and much more. But much of the rest of the country followed. What would it take to make America great again—or indeed to make any of the changes that Trump’s voters demand? Replacing the current ruling class would be only the beginning.

Because it is difficult to imagine a Trump presidency even thinking about something so monumental as replacing an entire ruling elite, much less leading his constituency to accomplishing it, electing Trump is unlikely to result in a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction. Continuing pretty much on the current trajectory under the same class will further fuel revolutionary sentiments in the land all by itself. Inevitable disappointment with Trump is sure to add to them.

We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/after-the-republic/

Senior Executive Service (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Senior Executive Service
SES Emblem.svg

Seal of the U.S. Senior Executive Service
Flag of the United States Senior Executive Service.svg

Flag of the U.S. Senior Executive Service

The Senior Executive Service (SES) is a position classification in the civil service of the United States federal government, somewhat analogous to general officer or flag officer ranks in the U.S. Armed Forces. It was created in 1979 when the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 went into effect under President Jimmy Carter.

Origin and attributes

According to the Office of Personnel Management, the SES was designed to be a corps of executives selected for their leadership qualifications, serving in key positions just below the top Presidential appointees as a link between them and the rest of the Federal (civil service) workforce. SES positions are considered to be above the GS-15 level of the General Schedule, and below Level III of the Executive Schedule. Career members of the SES ranks are eligible for the Presidential Rank Awards program.

Up to 10% of SES positions can be filled as political appointments rather than by career employees.[1] About half of the SES is designated “Career Reserved”, which can only be filled by career employees. The other half is designated “General”, which can be filled by either career employees or political appointments as desired by the administration. Due to the 10% limitation, most General positions are still filled by career appointees.[2]

Senior level employees of several agencies are exempt from the SES but have their own senior executive positions; these include the Federal Bureau of InvestigationCentral Intelligence AgencyDefense Intelligence AgencyNational Security AgencyTransportation Security AdministrationFederal Aviation AdministrationGovernment Accountability OfficeMembers of the Foreign Service, and government corporations.

Pay rates

(Effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2015)[3]
Minimum Maximum
Agencies with a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System $121,956 $183,300
Agencies without a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System $121,956 $168,700

Unlike the General Schedule (GS) grades, SES pay is determined at agency discretion within certain parameters, and there is no locality pay adjustment.

The minimum pay level for the SES is set at 120 percent of the basic pay for GS-15 Step 1 employees ($121,956 for 2015). The maximum pay level depends on whether or not the employing agency has a “certified” SES performance appraisal system:[4]

  • If the agency has a certified system, the maximum pay is set at Level II of the Executive Schedule ($183,300 for 2015).
  • If the agency does not have a certified system, the maximum pay is set at Level III of the Executive Schedule ($168,700 for 2015).

Total aggregate pay is limited to the salary of the Vice President of the United States ($230,700 for 2015).

Prior to 2004, the SES used a six-level system. It was replaced with the current open band system on January 1, 2014.[5]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Piaker, Zach (2016-03-16). “Help Wanted: 4,000 Presidential Appointees”Partnership for Public Service Center for Presidential Transition. Retrieved 2016-11-16.
  2. Jump up^ “United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (The Plum Book)” (PDF). U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2012-12-01. p. 201. Retrieved 2016-11-16.
  3. Jump up^ Obama, Barack (2014-12-19). “ADJUSTMENTS OF CERTAIN RATES OF PAY” (PDF). EXECUTIVE ORDER 13686. The White House. Retrieved 2015-09-18.
  4. Jump up^ “Performance & Compensation – Salary”U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved 2011-09-24.
  5. Jump up^ “Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance Awards”U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2004. Retrieved 2018-03-31.

External links

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Jordan B. Peterson — Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief — Book and Lectures — Videos

Posted on June 9, 2018. Filed under: Articles, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Culture, Education, Environment, Essays, Faith, Family, government, history, Literacy, Literature, Love, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Plays, Political Correctness, Politics, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source imageSee the source imageImage result for jordanpeterson 2016 lectures maps ofSee the source imageSee the source imageImage result for jordan b. peterson harvard lecturesSee the source image

2016 Lecture 01 Maps of Meaning: Introduction and Overview

2016 Lecture 02 Maps of Meaning: Playable and non-playable games

2016 Lecture 03 Maps of Meaning: Part I: The basic story and its transformations

2016 Lecture 03 Maps of Meaning: Part II: The basic story — and its transformations

2016 Lecture 04 Maps of Meaning: Anomaly

2016 Lecture 05: Maps of Meaning: Part I: Anomaly and the brain

2016 Lecture 06 Maps of Meaning: Part I: The primordial narrative

2016 Lecture 06 Maps of Meaning: Part II: The Primordial Narrative continued

2016 Lecture 07 Maps of Meaning: Part I: Osiris, Set, Isis and Horus

2016 Lecture 07 Maps of Meaning: Part II: Osiris, Set, Isis and Horus

2016 Lecture 08 Maps of Meaning: Part I: Hierarchies and chaos

2016 Lecture 09 Maps of Meaning: Genesis

2016 Lecture 10 Maps of Meaning: Gautama Buddha, Adam and Eve

2016 Maps of Meaning Final

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 1 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 2 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 3 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 4 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 5 (Harvard Lectures) [Edited]

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 6 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 7 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 8 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 9 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 10 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 11 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 12 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning 13 (Harvard Lectures)

Jordan Peterson on The Necessity of Virtue

The Architecture of Belief | Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux

Jordan B Peterson | *Spring 2017* | full-length interview

Jordan Peterson Full Interview Section With Steven Pinker

Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech

Jordan Peterson – Full Harvard Talk

2017/05/17: Senate hearing on Bill C16

Jordan Peterson Was RIGHT About BILL C16 | Discussion with Dr. Haskell and Dr. McNall

Teaching assistant reacts after Wilfrid Laurier University president promises change

Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepherd Finally Meet on Louder with Crowder

017/01/22: Pt 2: Freedom Of Speech/Political Correctness: Dr. Jordan B Peterson

Jordan Peterson’s Masterclass on Demolishing Identity Politics

White privilege isn’t real – Jordan Peterson

One Big Reason Trump Won – Jordan peterson, Jon Haidt

Jordan Peterson “I’d Vote Donald Trump and Here’s Why”

NBC’s Hit Piece On Jordan Peterson Is Backfiring Big Time

Jordan Peterson: The Left’s new public enemy No. 1

Jordan Peterson vs 60 Minutes

The New McCarthyism: Dr. Jordan Peterson Attacked by Crazed Transloon Pronoun Nazis

Jordan Peterson; The Left Will Destroy Itself ! Full Appearance On The Greg Gutfeld Show

Jordan B. Peterson | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

Jordan Peterson LIVE: 12 Rules for Life – An Antidote to Chaos

Jordan Peterson- His Finest Moment

 

Jordan Peterson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Jordan Peterson
Peterson Lecture (33522701146).png

Peterson at the University of Toronto
March 2017
Born Jordan Bernt Peterson
June 12, 1962 (age 55)
EdmontonAlberta, Canada
Residence TorontoOntario, Canada
Nationality Canadian
Education Political science (B.A., 1982)
Psychology (B.A., 1984)
Clinical psychology (Ph.D., 1991)
Alma mater
Spouse(s) Tammy Roberts (m. 1989)
Children 2
Scientific career
Fields Psychology
Institutions
Thesis Potential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism (1991)
Doctoral advisor Robert O. Pihl
Influences JungFreudPiagetNietzscheDostoevskySolzhenitsyn
Website jordanbpeterson.com
Signature
Jordan Peterson Signature.svg

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormalsocial, and personality psychology,[1]with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief,[2] and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.[3]

Peterson studied at the University of Alberta and McGill University. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow from 1991 to 1993 before moving to Harvard University, where he was an assistant and then associate professor in the psychology department.[4][5] In 1998, he moved back to Canada, as a faculty member in the psychology department at the University of Toronto, where he is currently a full professor.

Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, was published in 1999, a work which examined several academic fields to describe the structure of systems of beliefs and myths, their role in the regulation of emotion, creation of meaning, and motivation for genocide.[6][7][8] His second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, was released in January 2018.[9][4][10]

In 2016, Peterson released a series of videos on his YouTube channel in which he criticized political correctness and the Canadian government’s Bill C-16. He subsequently received significant media coverage.[9][4][10]

Early life

Peterson was born on June 12, 1962, and grew up in FairviewAlberta, a small town northwest of his birthplace Edmonton, in Canada. He was the eldest of three children born to Beverley, a librarian at the Fairview campus of Grande Prairie Regional College, and Walter Peterson, a schoolteacher.[11][12] His middle name is Bernt (/ˈbɛərənt/ BAIR-ənt), after his Norwegian great-grandfather.[13][14]

When he was 13, he was introduced to the writings of George OrwellAldous HuxleyAleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Ayn Rand by his school librarian Sandy Notley – mother of Rachel Notley, leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and 17th Premier of Alberta.[15] He also worked for the New Democratic Party (NDP) throughout his teenage years, but grew disenchanted with the party due to what Orwell diagnosed in The Road to Wigan Pier as a preponderance of “the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist” who “didn’t like the poor; they just hated the rich”.[11][16] He left the NDP at age 18.[17]

Education

After graduating from Fairview High School in 1979, Peterson entered the Grande Prairie Regional College to study political science and English literature.[2] He later transferred to the University of Alberta, where he completed his B.A. in 1982.[17] Afterwards, he took a year off to visit Europe. There he developed an interest in the psychological origins of the Cold War, particularly 20th century European totalitarianism,[2][18] and was plagued by apocalyptic nightmares about the escalation of the nuclear arms race. As a result, he became concerned about humanity’s capacity for evil and destruction, and delved into the works of Carl JungFriedrich NietzscheAleksandr Solzhenitsyn,[11] and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.[18] He then returned to the University of Alberta and received a B.A. in psychology in 1984.[19] In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University. He earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl in 1991, and remained as a post-doctoral fellow at McGill’s Douglas Hospital until June 1993, working with Pihl and Maurice Dongier.[2][20]

Career

From July 1993 to June 1998,[1] Peterson lived in Arlington, Massachusetts, while teaching and conducting research at Harvard University as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department. During his time at Harvard, he studied aggressionarising from drug and alcohol abuse and supervised a number of unconventional thesis proposals.[17] Two former Ph.D. students, Shelley Carson, a psychologist and teacher from Harvard, and author Gregg Hurwitz recalled that Peterson’s lectures were already highly admired by the students.[4] In July 1998, he returned to Canada and took up a post as a full professor at the University of Toronto.[1][19]

Peterson’s areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacologyabnormalneuroclinicalpersonalitysocialindustrial and organizational,[1] religiousideological,[2] political, and creativity psychology.[3] Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers.[21] Peterson has over 20 years of clinical practice, seeing 20 people a week, but in 2017, he decided to put the practice on hold because of new projects.[9]

In 2004, a 13-part TV series based on Peterson’s book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief aired on TVOntario.[11][19][22] He has also appeared on that network on shows such as Big Ideas, and as a frequent guest and essayist on The Agenda with Steve Paikin since 2008.[23][24] Since 2018, he has also appeared on BBC Radio 5 LiveFox & Friends and Tucker Carlson Tonight,[25][26] ABC‘s 7.30,[27] Sky News Australia‘s Outsiders,[28] and HBO‘s Real Time with Bill Maher among others.[29]

Works

Books

Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief

Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure of culture is disrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything – anything – to defend ourselves against that return.

— Jordan Peterson, 1998 (Descensus ad Inferos)[5]

In 1999 Routledge published Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. The book, which took Peterson 13 years to complete, describes a comprehensive theory about how people construct meaningbeliefs and make narratives using ideas from various fields including mythologyreligionliteraturephilosophy and psychology in accordance to the modern scientific understanding of how the brain functions.[17][5][30]

According to Peterson, his main goal was to examine why both individuals and groups participate in social conflict, explore the reasoning and motivation individuals take to support their belief systems (i.e. ideological identification[17]) that eventually results in killing and pathological atrocities like the Gulag, the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Rwandan genocide.[17][5][30] He considers that an “analysis of the world’s religious ideas might allow us to describe our essential morality and eventually develop a universal system of morality”.[30] Jungian archetypes play an important role in the book.[4]

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

In January 2018, Penguin Random House published Peterson’s second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The work contains abstract ethical principles about life, in a more accessible style than Maps of Meaning.[9][4][10] To promote the book, Peterson went on a world tour.[31][32][33] As part of the tour, Peterson was interviewed by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News which generated considerable attention, as well popularity for the book.[34][35][36][37] The book was ranked the number one bestselling book on Amazon in the United States and Canada and number four in the United Kingdom.[38][39] It also topped bestselling lists in Canada, US and the United Kingdom.[40][41]

YouTube channel and podcasts

In 2013, Peterson began recording his lectures (“Personality and Its Transformations”, “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief”[42]) and uploading them to YouTube. His YouTube channel has gathered more than 1 million subscribers and his videos have received more than 50 million views as of April 2018.[43][44] In January 2017, he hired a production team to film his psychology lectures at the University of Toronto. He used funds received via the crowdfunding website Patreon after he became embroiled in the Bill C-16 controversy in September 2016. His funding through Patreon has increased from $1,000 per month in August 2016 to $14,000 by January 2017, and then to more than $50,000 by July 2017.[15][43][45]

Peterson has appeared on The Joe Rogan ExperienceThe Gavin McInnes ShowSteven Crowder‘s Louder with CrowderDave Rubin‘s The Rubin ReportStefan Molyneux‘s Freedomain Radioh3h3Productions‘s H3 PodcastSam Harris‘s Waking UpRussell Brand‘s podcast, Gad Saad‘s The Saad Truth and John Anderson conversational series, as well other online shows.[44][46] In December 2016, Peterson started his own podcast, The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, which has 45 episodes as of April 26, 2018, including academic guests such as Camille PagliaMartin Daly, and James W. Pennebaker,[47] while on his channel he has also interviewed Stephen HicksRichard J. Haier, and Jonathan Haidt among others. Peterson supported engineer James Damore in his action against Google.[10]

In May 2017, Peterson began The psychological significance of the Biblical stories,[48] a series of live theatre lectures, also published as podcasts, in which he analyzes archetypal narratives in Genesis as patterns of behavior ostensibly vital for personal, social and cultural stability.[10][49]

Self Authoring Suite

Peterson and his colleagues Robert O. Pihl, Daniel Higgins, and Michaela Schippers[50] produced a writing therapy program with series of online writing exercises, titled the Self Authoring Suite.[51] It includes the Past Authoring Program, a guided autobiography; two Present Authoring Programs, which allow the participant to analyze their personality faults and virtues in terms of the Big Five personality model; and the Future Authoring Program, which guides participants through the process of planning their desired futures. The latter program was used with McGill University undergraduates on academic probation to improve their grades, as well since 2011 at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.[52][53] The Self Authoring Programs were developed partially from research by James W. Pennebaker at the University of Texas at Austin and Gary Latham at the Rotman School of Management of the University of Toronto. Pennebaker demonstrated that writing about traumatic or uncertain events and situations improved mental and physical health, while Latham demonstrated that personal planning exercises help make people more productive.[53] According to Peterson, more than 10,000 students have used the program as of January 2017, with drop-out rates decreasing by 25% and GPAs rising by 20%.[11]

Critiques of political correctness

Peterson’s critiques of political correctness range over issues such as postmodernismpostmodern feminismwhite privilegecultural appropriation, and environmentalism.[46][54][55] Writing in the National Post, Chris Selley said Peterson’s opponents had “underestimated the fury being inspired by modern preoccupations like white privilege and cultural appropriation, and by the marginalization, shouting down or outright cancellation of other viewpoints in polite society’s institutions”,[56] while in The SpectatorTim Lottstated Peterson became “an outspoken critic of mainstream academia”.[18] Peterson’s social media presence has magnified the impact of these views; Simona Chiose of The Globe and Mail noted: “few University of Toronto professors in the humanities and social sciences have enjoyed the global name recognition Prof. Peterson has won”.[57]

According to his study – conducted with one of his students, Christine Brophy – of the relationship between political belief and personality, political correctness exists in two types: PC-egalitarianism and PC-authoritarianism, which is a manifestation of “offense sensitivity”.[58] The first type is represented by a group of classical liberals, while the latter by the group known as “social justice warriors[11] who “weaponize compassion“.[2] The study also found an overlap between PC-authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians.[58]

Peterson considers that the universities should be held as among the most responsible for the wave of political correctness which appeared in North America and Europe.[57] He watched the rise of political correctness on campuses since the early 1990s,[59] and considers that the humanities have become corrupt, less reliant on science, and instead of “intelligent conversation, we are having an ideological conversation”. From his own experience as a university professor, he states that the students who are coming to his classes are uneducated and unaware about the mass exterminations and crimes by Stalinism and Maoism, which were not given the same attention as fascism and Nazism. He also says that “instead of being ennobled or inculcated into the proper culture, the last vestiges of structure are stripped from [the students] by post-modernism and neo-Marxism, which defines everything in terms of relativism and power“.[18][60][61]

Postmodernism and identity politics

And so since the 1970s, under the guise of postmodernism, we’ve seen the rapid expansion of identity politics throughout the universities, it’s come to dominate all of the humanities – which are dead as far as I can tell – and a huge proportion of the social sciences … We’ve been publicly funding extremely radical, postmodern leftist thinkers who are hellbent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization. And that’s no paranoid delusion. That’s their self-admitted goal … Jacques Derrida … most trenchantly formulated the anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left.

— Peterson, 2017[60]

Peterson states that postmodern philosophers and sociologists since the 1960s,[54] while typically claiming to reject Marxism and communism, have actually built upon and extended their core tenets. He says that it is difficult to understand contemporary society without considering the influence of postmodernism which initially spread from France to the United States through the English department at Yale University. He argues that they “started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name […] The people who hold this doctrine – this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount – they’ve got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well”.[60][21]

He emphasizes that the state should halt funding to faculties and courses he describes as neo-Marxist, and advises students to avoid disciplines like women’s studiesethnic studies and racial studies, as well other fields of study he believes are “corrupted” by the ideology such as sociologyanthropology and English literature.[62][63] He states that these fields, under the pretense of academic inquiry, propagate unscientific methods, fraudulent peer-review processes for academic journals, publications that garner zero citations,[64] cult-like behaviour,[62] safe-spaces,[65] and radical left-wing political activism for students.[54] Peterson has proposed launching a website which uses artificial intelligence to identify and showcase the amount of ideologization in specific courses. He announced in November 2017 that he had temporarily postponed the project as “it might add excessively to current polarization”.[66][67]

Peterson has criticized the use of the term “white privilege“, stating that “being called out on their white privilege, identified with a particular racial group and then made to suffer the consequences of the existence of that racial group and its hypothetical crimes, and that sort of thing has to come to a stop. … [It’s] racist in its extreme”.[54] In regard to identity politics, while “left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let’s say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride” he considers them “equally dangerous” and that instead should be emphasized individualism and individual responsibility.[68] He has also been prominent in the debate about cultural appropriation, stating it promotes self-censorship in society and journalism.[69]

Bill C-16

On September 27, 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled “Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law”.[15][70] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty as part of compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government‘s Bill C-16, which proposed to add “gender identity or expression” as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the Criminal Code.[70][71]

He stated that his objection to the bill was based on potential free speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, as he claimed he could then be prosecuted under provincial human rights laws if he refuses to call a transsexual student or faculty member by the individual’s preferred pronoun.[72] Furthermore, he argued that the new amendments paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed “directly or indirectly” as offensive, “whether intentionally or unintentionally”.[73] Other academics challenged Peterson’s interpretation of C-16,[72] while some scholars such as Robert P. George supported Peterson’s initiative.[15]

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty and labour unions, and critics accused Peterson of “helping to foster a climate for hate to thrive”.[15] Protests erupted on campus, some including violence, and the controversy attracted international media attention.[74][75][76] When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said “it would depend on how they asked me […] If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no […] If I could have a conversation like the one we’re having now, I could probably meet them on an equal level”.[76] Two months later, the National Post published an op-ed by Peterson in which he elaborated on his opposition to the bill and explained why he publicly made a stand against it:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.[77]

In response to the controversy, academic administrators at the University of Toronto sent Peterson two letters of warning, one noting that free speech had to be made in accordance with human rights legislation and the other adding that his refusal to use the preferred personal pronouns of students and faculty upon request could constitute discrimination. Peterson speculated that these warning letters were leading up to formal disciplinary action against him, but in December the university assured him that he would retain his professorship, and in January 2017 he returned to teach his psychology class at the University of Toronto.[78][15]

In February 2017, Maxime Bernier, candidate for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, stated that he shifted his position on Bill C-16, from support to opposition, after meeting with Peterson and discussing it.[79] Peterson’s analysis of the bill was also frequently cited by senators who were opposed to its passage.[80]

In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[81] A media relations adviser for SSHRC said “[c]ommittees assess only the information contained in the application”.[82] In response, The Rebel Media launched an Indiegogo campaign on Peterson’s behalf.[83] The campaign raised C$195,000 by its end on May 6, equivalent to over two years of research funding.[84]

In May 2017, Peterson spoke against Bill C-16 at a Canadian Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs hearing. He was one of 24 witnesses who were invited to speak on the bill.[80]

In August 2017, an announced event at Ryerson University titled “The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses”, organized by former social worker Sarina Singh with panelists Peterson, Gad Saad, Oren Amitay, and Faith Goldy was shut down because of pressure on the university administration from the group “No Fascists in Our City”.[85] However, another version of the panel (without Goldy) was held on November 11 at Canada Christian College with an audience of 1,500.[86][87]

In November 2017, a teaching assistant (TA) at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) was censured by her professors and WLU’s Manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16, during a classroom discussion.[88][89][90] The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a “toxic climate”, being compared to a “speech by Hitler“,[16] and being itself in violation of Bill C-16.[91] The case was criticized by several newspaper editorial boards[92][93][94] and national newspaper columnists[95][96][97][98] as an example of the suppression of free speech on university campuses. WLU announced a third-party investigation.[99] After the release of the audio recording of the meeting in which the TA was censured,[100] WLU President Deborah MacLatchy and the TA’s supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana published letters of formal apology.[101][102][103] According to the investigation no students had complained about the lesson, there was no informal concern related to Laurier policy, and according to MacLatchy the meeting “never should have happened at all”.[104][105]

Personal life

Peterson married Tammy Roberts in 1989.[15] They have one daughter and one son.[11][15]

Politically, Peterson has described himself as a classic British liberal,[106][18] and has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right wing.[44] He is a philosophical pragmatist.[49] In a 2017 interview, Peterson identified as a Christian,[107] but in 2018 he did not.[108] He emphasized his conceptualization of Christianity is probably not what it is generally understood, stating that the ethical responsibility of a Christian is to imitate Christ, for him meaning “something like you need to take responsibility for the evil in the world as if you were responsible for it … to understand that you determine the direction of the world, whether it’s toward heaven or hell”.[108] When asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: “I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist”.[9] Writing for The SpectatorTim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from Jung’s philosophy of religion, and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Lott also said Peterson has respect for Taoism, as it views nature as a struggle between order and chaos, and posits that life would be meaningless without this duality.[18]

In 2016, Peterson became an honorary member of the extended family of Charles Joseph, a Kwakwaka’wakw artist, and was given the name Alestalagie (“Great Seeker”).[16][109] Peterson collected more than 300 Soviet-era paintings as a reminder of the relationship between totalitarian propaganda and art.[16]

Bibliography

Books

Journal articles

Top 15 most cited academic papers from Google Scholar and ResearchGate:

References

  1. Jump up to:a b c d e “Profile”ResearchGate. Retrieved November 11,2017.
  2. Jump up to:a b c d e f Tucker, Jason; VandenBeukel, Jason (December 1, 2016). “‘We’re teaching university students lies’ – An interview with Dr Jordan Peterson”C2C Journal.
  3. Jump up to:a b “Meaning Conference”International Network on Personal Meaning. July 2016.
  4. Jump up to:a b c d e f Bartlett, Tom (January 17, 2018). “What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?”The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 19, 2018.
  5. Jump up to:a b c d Lambert, Craig (September 1998). “Chaos, Culture, Curiosity”Harvard Magazine.
  6. Jump up^ McCord, Joan (2004). Beyond Empiricism: Institutions and Intentions in the Study of Crime. Transaction Publishers. p. 178. ISBN 978-1-4128-1806-3.
  7. Jump up^ Ellens, J. Harold (2004). The Destructive Power of Religion: Models and cases of violence in religionPraeger. p. 346. ISBN 978-0-275-97974-4.
  8. Jump up^ Gregory, Erik M.; Rutledge, Pamela B. (2016). Exploring Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Well-BeingABC-CLIO. p. 154. ISBN 978-1-61069-940-2.
  9. Jump up to:a b c d e Blatchford, Christie (January 19, 2018). “Christie Blatchford sits down with “warrior for common sense” Jordan Peterson”National Post. Retrieved January 19, 2018.
  10. Jump up to:a b c d e Lott, Tim (January 21, 2018). “Jordan Peterson: ‘The pursuit of happiness is a pointless goal'”The Observer. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
  11. Jump up to:a b c d e f g McBride, Jason (January 25, 2017). “The Pronoun Warrior”Toronto Life.
  12. Jump up^ Menon, Vinay (16 March 2018). “Jordan Peterson is trying to make sense of the world — including his own strange journey”Toronto Star. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  13. Jump up^ Peterson, Jordan B. (March 23, 2017). “I am Dr Jordan B Peterson, U of T Professor, clinical psychologist, author of Maps of Meaning and creator of The SelfAuthoring Suite. Ask me anything!”RedditBernt. Pronounced Bear-ent. It’s Norwegian, after my great grandfather.
  14. Jump up^ Brown, Louise (April 17, 2007). “Schools a soft target for revenge-seekers”Toronto StarJordan Bernt Peterson of the University of Toronto.
  15. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Winsa, Patty (January 15, 2017). “He says freedom, they say hate. The pronoun fight is back”Toronto Star.
  16. Jump up to:a b c d Brown, Mick (31 March 2018). “How did controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson become an international phenomenon?”The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  17. Jump up to:a b c d e f Krendl, Anne C. (April 26, 1995). “Jordan Peterson: Linking Mythology to Psychology”The Harvard Crimson.
  18. Jump up to:a b c d e f Lott, Tim (September 20, 2017). “Jordan Peterson and the transgender wars”The Spectator. Retrieved November 11, 2017.
  19. Jump up to:a b c Staff writer(s) (January 27, 2004). “Former Fairviewite gets TV miniseries”Fairview Post.
  20. Jump up^ Staff writer(s) (August 14, 2016). “Biography: Jordan Peterson”. University of Toronto.
  21. Jump up to:a b McCamon, Brent (March 28, 2017). “Wherefore Art Thou Peterson?”Convivium.
  22. Jump up^ “Archive: Maps of Meaning”TVOntario.
  23. Jump up^ “Is Faith Inevitable”Internet Archive. TVO The Agenda with Steve Paikin. March 27, 2008.
  24. Jump up^ “Jordan Peterson”IMDb.
  25. Jump up^ Sanneh, Kelefa (March 5, 2018). “Jordan Peterson’s Gospel of Masculinity”The New Yorker. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  26. Jump up^ “Professor on Trudeau’s ‘Mankind’ Objection: Canada Will ‘Pay’ for This Leftist Ideology”Fox News. February 6, 2018. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  27. Jump up^ Frank Chung (March 14, 2018). “Jordan Peterson says hate speech will be policed by ‘last people in the world you would want to'”news.com.au. Retrieved April 21, 2018.
  28. Jump up^ “Governments should not ‘mandate’ gender speech”Sky News Australia. Retrieved April 21, 2018.
  29. Jump up^ “Jordan Peterson Clashes w/ Maher Panel About Political Divide: ‘You Need To Have Respect’ For Trump Voters”Mediaite. April 21, 2018. Retrieved April 21, 2018.
  30. Jump up to:a b c Jordan Peterson (August 2015), “Summary and Guide to Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief”Scribd, pp. 2–3, retrieved March 3, 2018
  31. Jump up^ Law, Katie (January 20, 2018). “Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson: the ‘anti-snowflake’ crusader speaks out”London Evening Standard. Retrieved January 20, 2018.
  32. Jump up^ Murray, Douglas (January 20, 2018). “The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson”The Spectator. Retrieved January 20,2018.
  33. Jump up^ Heidenreich, Phil (January 20, 2018). “Edmonton’s Citadel Theatre apologizes over how it handled Jordan Peterson event”Global News. Retrieved January 20, 2018.
  34. Jump up^ Doward, Jamie (January 21, 2018). “‘Back off’, controversial professor urges critics of C4 interviewer”The Observer. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
  35. Jump up^ Brooks, David (January 25, 2018). “The Jordan Peterson Moment”The New York Times. Retrieved January 31, 2018.
  36. Jump up^ Lynskey, Dorian (February 7, 2018). “How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who ‘hit a hornets’ nest’?”The Guardian. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  37. Jump up^ Albrechtsen, Janet (February 24, 2018). “Jordan Peterson: six reasons that explain his rise”The Australian. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  38. Jump up^ Staples, David (January 18, 2018). “David Staples: Dark day as Citadel Theatre snubs controversial author”Edmonton Journal. Retrieved January 22, 2018.
  39. Jump up^ “Amazon Best Sellers in Books”. January 31, 2018. Archived from the original on January 31, 2018. Retrieved January 31, 2018.
  40. Jump up^ Dundas, Deborah (February 9, 2018). “Jordan Peterson’s book is a bestseller – except where it matters most”Toronto Star. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  41. Jump up^ Reyna, Xavier Austin (February 23, 2018). “Why Jordan Peterson Is Such a Crucial Figure for the Community”EStudy Breaks. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  42. Jump up^ Psychology Students’ Association (PDF), Arts & Science Student Union Anti-Calendar, June 2010, pp. 189, 193, retrieved November 14, 2017
  43. Jump up to:a b Chiose, Simona (June 3, 2017). “Jordan Peterson and the trolls in the ivory tower”The Globe and Mail.
  44. Jump up to:a b c Callagahan, Greg (19 April 2018). “Right-winger? Not me, says alt-right darling Jordan Peterson”The Sunday Morning Herald. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  45. Jump up^ McKeen, Alex (July 4, 2017). “Controversial U of T professor making nearly $50,000 a month through crowdfunding”The Star.
  46. Jump up to:a b Ziai, Reza (September 17, 2017). “The Curious Case of Jordan Peterson”Areo Magazine.
  47. Jump up^ Peterson, Jordan B. (April 26, 2018). “The Jordan B Peterson Podcast”JordanBPeterson.com.
  48. Jump up^ “The psychological significance of the Biblical stories”ResearchGate. Retrieved November 13, 2017.
  49. Jump up to:a b Sixsmith, Ben (November 12, 2017). “Why Are Non-Believers Turning to Their Bibles?”Quillette.
  50. Jump up^ “Self Authoring – Who Are We?”selfauthoring.com. Retrieved November 13, 2017.
  51. Jump up^ Redmark, Nick (July 17, 2017). “The Self Authoring Suite”Medium. Retrieved November 13, 2017.
  52. Jump up^ Kamenetz, Anya (December 2013). “Can a Writing Assignment Make You Happier, Healthier and Less Stressed?”O, The Oprah Magazine.
  53. Jump up to:a b Kamenetz, Anya (July 10, 2015). “The Writing Assignment That Changes Lives”NPR.
  54. Jump up to:a b c d Bandler, Aaron (November 4, 2016). “Q&A with Prof. Jordan Peterson on Genderless Pronouns and the Left’s ‘PC Game'”The Daily Wire.
  55. Jump up^ “Jordan Peterson on political correctness”. FutureThinkers.org. April 3, 2017.
  56. Jump up^ Selley, Chris (June 3, 2017). “Chris Selley: Jordan Peterson, hero of the anti-PC crowd, just keeps winning”National Post.
  57. Jump up to:a b Chiose, Simona (June 2, 2017). “Jordan Peterson and the trolls in the ivory tower”The Globe and Mail.
  58. Jump up to:a b Kaufman, Scott Barry (November 20, 2016). “The Personality of Political Correctness”Scientific American.
  59. Jump up^ Spears, Tom (March 10, 2017). “How controversial U of T prof Jordan Peterson became a lightning rod”Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved November 13, 2017.
  60. Jump up to:a b c Philipp, Joshua (June 21, 2017). “Jordan Peterson Exposes the Postmodernist Agenda”Epoch Times.
  61. Jump up^ Kraychik, Robert (September 4, 2017). “Jordan Peterson Explains Leftism’s Core”The Daily Wire. Retrieved November 13, 2017.
  62. Jump up to:a b Off, CarolDouglas, Jeff (November 11, 2017). “U of T profs alarmed by Jordan Peterson’s plan to target classes he calls ‘indoctrination cults'”CBC.
  63. Jump up^ Levy, Sue-Ann (June 29, 2017). “Jordan Peterson: Certain university disciplines ‘corrupted'”Toronto Sun.
  64. Jump up^ Kraychik, Robert (May 28, 2017). “Dissident Professor Explains Neo-Marxism; “Women’s Studies Should Be Defunded””The Daily Wire.
  65. Jump up^ Bishai, Graham W. (April 11, 2017). “Drawing Criticism, Jordan Peterson Lectures at ‘Free Speech’ Initiative”The Harvard Crimson.
  66. Jump up^ Doherty, Brennan (November 14, 2017). “Jordan Peterson says website plan on hold”Toronto Star. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  67. Jump up^ Gould, Jens Erik; Mottishaw, Leah; Mottishaw, Shane (November 14, 2017). “Jordan Peterson and the media: How one-sided reporting can limit critical thinking”Huffington Post. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  68. Jump up^ Luscombe, Belinda (March 7, 2018). “Jordan Peterson Talks Gun Control, Angry Men and Why So Few Women Lead Companies”Time. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  69. Jump up^ Artuso, Antonella (May 23, 2017). “Prof. Jordan Peterson responds to CBC cultural appropriation fallout”Toronto Sun.
  70. Jump up to:a b DiManno, Rosie (November 19, 2016). “New words trigger an abstract clash on campus”Toronto Star.
  71. Jump up^ Craig, Sean (September 28, 2016). “U of T professor attacks political correctness, says he refuses to use genderless pronouns”National Post.
  72. Jump up to:a b Chiose, Simona (November 19, 2016). “University of Toronto professor defends right to use gender-specific pronouns”The Globe and Mail.
  73. Jump up^ Morabito, Stella (October 17, 2016). “Professor Ignites Protests By Refusing To Use Transgender Pronouns”The Federalist.
  74. Jump up^ Murphy, Jessica (November 4, 2016). “Toronto professor Jordan Peterson takes on gender-neutral pronouns”BBC News.
  75. Jump up^ Denton, Jack O. (October 12, 2016). “Free speech rally devolves into conflict, outbursts of violence”The Varsity.
  76. Jump up to:a b Kivanc, Jake (September 29, 2016). “A Canadian University Professor Is Under Fire For Rant on Political Correctness”Vice.
  77. Jump up^ Peterson, Jordan B. (November 21, 2016). “The right to be politically incorrect”National Post.
  78. Jump up^ Yang, Wesley; Stangel, Jake. “The Passion of Jordan Peterson”Esquire. Hearst Communications. Retrieved 17 May 2018.
  79. Jump up^ Burke, Brendan (Feb 14, 2017). “Conservative leadership candidate Maxime Bernier reverses support for transgender rights bill”. CBC News.
  80. Jump up to:a b Chiose, Simona (May 17, 2017). “U of T professor opposes transgender bill at Senate committee hearing”The Globe and Mail.
  81. Jump up^ Blatchford, Christie (April 3, 2017). “‘An opportunity to make their displeasure known’: Pronoun professor denied government grant”National Post.
  82. Jump up^ “Jordan Peterson’s federal funding denied, Rebel Media picks up the tab”The Varsity. May 1, 2017.
  83. Jump up^ Savva, Sophia (May 1, 2017). “Jordan Peterson’s federal funding denied, Rebel Media picks up the tab”The Varsity.
  84. Jump up^ Artuso, Antonella (May 12, 2017). “Supporters fund U of T professor Jordan Peterson’s research”Toronto Sun.
  85. Jump up^ Hauen, Jack (August 16, 2017). “Facing pushback, Ryerson University cancels panel discussion on campus free speech”National Post. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
  86. Jump up^ Hunter, Brad (November 11, 2017). “Jordan Peterson fans pack free speech discussion”Toronto Sun. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
  87. Jump up^ Soh, Debra (November 13, 2017). “How to win the war on free speech”The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  88. Jump up^ Blatchford, Christie (November 10, 2017). “Christie Blatchford: Thought police strike again as Wilfrid Laurier grad student is chastised for showing Jordan Peterson video”National Post. Retrieved November 20, 2017.
  89. Jump up^ D’Amato, Luisa (November 14, 2017). “WLU censures grad student for lesson that used TVO clip”Waterloo Region Record. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  90. Jump up^ McQuigge, Michelle (November 17, 2017). “Wilfrid Laurier University TA claims censure over video clip on gender pronouns”The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 18,2017.
  91. Jump up^ Platt, Brian (November 20, 2017). “What the Wilfrid Laurier professors got wrong about Bill C-16 and gender identity discrimination”National Post. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  92. Jump up^ “Globe editorial: Why are we killing critical thinking on campus?”The Globe and Mail. November 16, 2017. Archived from the original on November 20, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2017.
  93. Jump up^ “Editorial: Wilfrid Laurier University insults our liberty”Toronto Sun. Postmedia Network. November 15, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2017.
  94. Jump up^ “NP View: Laurier’s apology and a petition won’t fix the cancer on campus”National Post. November 24, 2017. Retrieved November 25, 2017.
  95. Jump up^ Wente, Margaret (November 14, 2017). “What’s so scary about free speech on campus?”The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  96. Jump up^ Bonokoski, Mark (November 15, 2017). “Bonokoski: Odious censuring of grad student worsened by Hitler reference”Toronto Sun. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  97. Jump up^ Haskell, David Millard (November 15, 2017). “Suppressing TVO video, stifling free speech, is making Wilfrid Laurier unsafe”Toronto Star. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  98. Jump up^ Murphy, Rex (November 17, 2017). “Rex Murphy: University bullies student who dares to play Peterson clip from The Agenda”National Post. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  99. Jump up^ McQuigge, Michelle (November 16, 2017). “Laurier launches third-party investigation after TA plays clip of gender debate”Global News. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
  100. Jump up^ Hopper, Tristin (November 20, 2017). “Here’s the full recording of Wilfrid Laurier reprimanding Lindsay Shepherd for showing a Jordan Peterson video”National Post. Retrieved November 25, 2017.
  101. Jump up^ “Full Text: Apology from Wilfrid Laurier officials over handling of free speech controversy”Global News. November 21, 2017. Retrieved November 25, 2017.
  102. Jump up^ “Breaking: President of Laurier issues apology regarding Lindsey Shepherd”The Cord. November 21, 2017. Retrieved November 25, 2017.
  103. Jump up^ Platt, Brian (November 21, 2017). “Wilfrid Laurier University’s president apologizes to Lindsay Shepherd for dressing-down over Jordan Peterson clip”National Post.
  104. Jump up^ Blatchford, Christie (December 18, 2017). “Christie Blatchford: Investigator’s report into Wilfrid Laurier University vindicates Lindsay Shepherd”National Post. Retrieved December 28, 2017.
  105. Jump up^ Jeffords, Shawn (December 18, 2017). “Lindsay Shepherd Controversy: Students Never Complained About TA, Laurier Finds”HuffPost. Retrieved December 28, 2017.
  106. Jump up^ Kovach, Steve (August 12, 2017). “Silicon Valley’s liberal bubble has burst, and the culture war has arrived”Business Insider. Retrieved November 11, 2017classic British liberal Jordan B. Peterson
  107. Jump up^ “Am I Christian? – Timothy Lott and Jordan B Peterson”Jordan B Peterson clips. YouTube. August 1, 2017. Interviewer: Quick question, are you a Christian? Peterson: I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes, although I think it’s… it’s… let’s leave it at “yes”.
  108. Jump up to:a b Kelman, Andrew (January 31, 2018). “Walking the Tightrope Between Chaos and Order—An Interview with Jordan B Peterson”Quillette. Retrieved January 31, 2018.
  109. Jump up^ Jago, Robert (22 March 2018). “The Story Behind Jordan Peterson’s Indigenous Identity”The Walrus. Retrieved 22 May 2018.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Albert Jay Nock — Isaiah’s Job — The Remnant — Video

Posted on June 8, 2018. Filed under: Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Culture, Economics, Education, Essays, Faith, Family, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, Health, Heroes, history, Journalism, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religious, Reviews, Speech, State, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Wisdom, Work | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Isaiah’s Job | by Albert Jay Nock

Liberty Classics — Isaiah’s Job

See the source image

Our Enemy, The State (Part 1) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 2) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 3) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 4) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 5) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 6) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State, The Video -Albert Jay Nock

The Man versus The State (Introduction) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy the State!

See the source image

Jeffrey Tucker — Liberty Classics: Memoirs of a Superfluous Man

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -1/4- mass, democratic education

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -2/4- economism, views on politics

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -3/4- writing, religion

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -4/4- war, human servility

The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Thinkers Who Challenged the State | David Gordon

Against the State | Lew Rockwell

Freedom Doesn’t Come From Government | Ron Paul

Society Without the State | Speaker Panel

How is War Profitable? – Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker

Albert Jay Nock and the Libertarian Tradition | by Jeff Riggenbach

The American State was a Predatory Gang of Robbers

State of the Alt-Right | Jordan Peterson & Stefan Molyneux

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Bill Buckley and Firing Line Get Roasted

What Individualism Is Not by Frank Chodorov

Rothbard on Strategy

Albert Jay Nock

See the source image

 

“You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.”

from — Isaiah’s Job by Albert Jay Nock
You are lied to, propagandized, and manipulated largely through fear, even more than you have thought!
To continue awakening SPEND AN HOUR OR MORE HERE

http://www.bigeye.com/remnant.htm

 

 

Albert Jay Nock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Albert Jay Nock
Nock.jpg
Born October 13, 1870
Scranton, Pennsylvania
Died August 19, 1945 (aged 74)
Wakefield, Rhode Island
Resting place Riverside Cemetery
South Kingstown, Rhode Island
Occupation Writer and social theorist
Nationality American
Alma mater St. Stephen’s College
(now known as Bard College)
Subject Libertarianism

Albert Jay Nock (October 13, 1870 – August 19, 1945) was an American libertarian author, editor first of The Freeman and then The Nationeducational theorist, Georgist, and social critic of the early and middle 20th century. He was an outspoken opponent of the New Deal, and served as a fundamental inspiration for the modern libertarian and Conservative movements, cited as an influence by William F. Buckley, Jr.[1] He was one of the first Americans to self-identify as “libertarian”. His best-known books are Memoirs of a Superfluous Man and Our Enemy, the State.

Life and work

Throughout his life, Nock was a deeply private man who shared few of the details of his personal life with his working partners. He was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania (U.S.), the son of Emma Sheldon (Jay) and Joseph Albert Nock, who was both a steelworker and an Episcopal priest. He was raised in Brooklyn, New York.[2] Nock attended St. Stephen’s College (now known as Bard College) from 1884 to 1888,[3] where he joined Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity.

After graduation he had a brief career playing minor league baseball, and then attended a theological seminary and was ordained as an Episcopal priest in 1897. Nock married Agnes Grumbine in 1900 and the couple had two children, Francis and Samuel (both of whom became college professors). In 1909, Nock left the ministry as well as his wife and children, and became a journalist.[4][5]

In 1914, Nock joined the staff of The Nation magazine, which was at the time supportive of liberal capitalism. Nock was an acquaintance of the influential politician and orator William Jennings Bryan, and in 1915 traveled to Europe on a special assignment for Bryan, who was then Secretary of State. Nock also maintained friendships with many of the leading proponents of the Georgist movement, one of whom had been his bishop in the Episcopal Church.

However, while Nock was a lifelong admirer of Henry George, he was frequently at odds with other Georgists in the left-leaning movement. Further, Nock was influenced by the anti-collectivist writings of the Germansociologist Franz Oppenheimer,[6] whose most famous work, Der Staat, was published in English translation in 1915. In his own writings, Nock would later build on Oppenheimer’s claim that the pursuit of human ends can be divided into two forms: the productive or economic means, and the parasitic, political means.

Between 1920 and 1924, Nock was the co-editor of The FreemanThe Freeman was initially conceived as a vehicle for the single tax movement. It was financed by the wealthy wife of the magazine’s other editor, Francis Neilson,[7] although neither Nock nor Neilson was a dedicated single taxer. Contributors to The Freeman included: Charles A. BeardWilliam Henry ChamberlinThomas MannLewis MumfordBertrand RussellLincoln SteffensLouis UntermeyerThorstein Veblen and Suzanne La Follette, the more libertarian[8] cousin of Senator Robert La Follette. Critic H.L. Mencken wrote:

His editorials during the three brief years of the Freeman set a mark that no other man of his trade has ever quite managed to reach. They were well-informed and sometimes even learned, but there was never the slightest trace of pedantry in them.[9]

When the unprofitable The Freeman ceased publication in 1924, Nock became a freelance journalist in New York City and Brussels, Belgium.

“The Myth of a Guilty Nation,”[10] which came out in 1922, was Albert Jay Nock’s first anti-war book, a cause he backed his entire life as an essential component of a libertarian outlook. The burden of the book is to prove American war propaganda to be false. The purpose of World War I, according to Nock, was not to liberate Europe and the world from German imperialism and threats. If there was a conspiracy, it was by the allied powers to broadcast a public message that was completely contradicted by its own diplomatic cables. Along with that came war propaganda designed to make Germany into a devil nation.

In the mid-1920s, a small group of wealthy American admirers funded Nock’s literary and historical work to enable him to follow his own interests. Shortly thereafter, he published his biography of Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson was published in 1928, Mencken praised it as “the work of a subtle and highly dexterous craftsman” which cleared “off the vast mountain of doctrinaire rubbish that has risen above Jefferson’s bones and also provides a clear and comprehensive account of the Jeffersonian system,” and the “essence of it is that Jefferson divided all mankind into two classes, the producers and the exploiters, and he was for the former first, last and all the time.” Mencken also thought the book to be accurate, shrewd, well-ordered and charming.[9]

In his two 1932 books, On the Disadvantages of Being Educated and Other Essays and Theory of Education in the United States, Nock launched a scathing critique of modern government-run education.

In his 1936 article “Isaiah’s Job”,[11] which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly and was reprinted in pamphlet form in July 1962 by The Foundation for Economic Education, Nock expressed his complete disillusionment with the idea of reforming the current system. Believing that it would be impossible to persuade any large portion of the general population of the correct course and opposing any suggestion of a violent revolution, Nock instead argued that libertarians should focus on nurturing what he called “the Remnant“.

The Remnant, according to Nock, consisted of a small minority who understood the nature of the state and society, and who would become influential only after the current dangerous course had become thoroughly and obviously untenable, a situation which might not occur until far into the future.[12] Nock’s philosophy of the Remnant was influenced by the deep pessimism and elitism that social critic Ralph Adams Cram expressed in a 1932 essay, “Why We Do Not Behave Like Human Beings”.[13] In his Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, Nock makes no secret that his educators:

did not pretend to believe that everyone is educable, for they knew, on the contrary, that very few are educable, very few indeed. They saw this as a fact of nature, like the fact that few are six feet tall. […] They accepted the fact that there are practicable ranges of intellectual and spiritual experience which nature has opened to some and closed to others.

In 1941, Nock published a two-part essay in The Atlantic Monthly titled “The Jewish Problem in America”.[14] The article was part of a multi-author series, assembled by the editors in response to recent anti-Semitic unrest in Brooklyn and elsewhere “in the hope that a free and forthright debate will reduce the pressure, now dangerously high, and leave us with a healthier understanding of the human elements involved.”

Nock’s argument was that the Jews were an Oriental people, acceptable to the “intelligent Occidental” yet forever strangers to “the Occidental mass-man.”[15] Furthermore, the mass-man “is inclined to be more resentful of the Oriental as a competitor than of another Occidental;” the American masses are “the great rope and lamppost artists of the world;” and in studying Jewish history, “one is struck with the fact that persecutions never have originated in an upper class movement”. This innate hostility of the masses, he concluded, might be exploited by a scapegoating state to distract from “any shocks of an economic dislocation that may occur in the years ahead.” He concluded, “If I keep up my family’s record of longevity, I think it is not impossible that I shall live to see the Nuremberg lawsreenacted in this country and enforced with vigor” and affirmed that the consequences of such a pogrom “would be as appalling in their extent and magnitude as anything seen since the Middle Ages.”

The article was itself declared by some to be anti-Semitic, and Nock was never asked to write another article, effectively ending his career as a social critic. Against charges of anti-Semitism, Nock answered, “Someone asked me years ago if it were true that I disliked Jews, and I replied that it was certainly true, not at all because they are Jews but because they are folks, and I don’t like folks.”[16]

In 1943, two years before his death, Nock published his autobiography, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, the title of which expressed the degree of Nock’s disillusionment and alienation from current social trends. After the publication of this autobiography, Nock became the sometime guest of oilman William F. Buckley, Sr.,[17] whose son, William F. Buckley, Jr., would later become an influential author and speaker.

Nock died of leukemia in 1945, at the Wakefield, Rhode Island home of his longtime friend, Ruth Robinson, the illustrator of his 1934 book, “A Journey into Rabelais’ France”. He is buried in Riverside Cemetery, in Wakefield.

Thought

Describing himself as a philosophical anarchist,[18] Nock called for a radical vision of society free from the influence of the political state. He described the state as that which “claims and exercises the monopoly of crime”. He opposed centralization, regulation, the income tax, and mandatory education, along with what he saw as the degradation of society. He denounced in equal terms all forms of totalitarianism, including “Bolshevism… FascismHitlerismMarxism, [and] Communism” but also harshly criticized democracy. Instead, Nock argued, “The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed. Everything else has been tried, world without end. Going dead against reason and experience, we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of.”[19]

During the 1930s, Nock was one of the most consistent critics of Franklin Roosevelt‘s New Deal programs. In Our Enemy, the State, Nock argued that the New Deal was merely a pretext for the federal government to increase its control over society. He was dismayed that the president had gathered unprecedented power in his own hands and called this development an out-and-out coup d’état. Nock criticized those who believed that the new regimentation of the economy was temporary, arguing that it would prove a permanent shift. He believed that the inflationary monetary policy of the Republican administrations of the 1920s was responsible for the onset of the Great Depression and that the New Deal was responsible for perpetuating it.

Nock was also a passionate opponent of war, and what he considered the US government’s aggressive foreign policy. He believed that war could bring out only the worst in society and argued that it led inevitably to collectivization and militarization and “fortified a universal faith in violence; it set in motion endless adventures in imperialism, endless nationalist ambitions,” while, at the same time, costing countless human lives. During the First World War, Nock wrote for The Nation, which was censored by the Wilsonadministration for opposing the war.

Despite his distaste for communism, Nock harshly criticized the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War following the parliamentary revolution and Bolshevik coup in that country. Before the Second World War, Nock wrote a series of articles deploring what he saw as Roosevelt’s gamesmanship and interventionism leading inevitably to US involvement. Nock was one of the few who maintained a principled opposition to the war throughout its course.

Despite becoming considerably more obscure in death than he had been in life, Nock was an important influence on the next generation of laissez-faire capitalist American thinkers, including libertarians such as Murray RothbardFrank Chodorov,[20] and Leonard Read, and conservatives such as William F. Buckley, Jr.. Nock’s conservative view of society would help inspire the paleoconservative movement in response to the development of neoconservatism during the Cold War. In insisting on the state itself as the root problem, Nock’s thought was one of the main precursors to anarcho-capitalism.

Anti-Semitism and disillusionment with democracy

When Albert Jay Nock started The Freeman magazine in 1920, The Nation offered its congratulations to a new voice in liberal journalism. Nock rebuffed the gesture in a letter to the magazine’s owner, Oswald Villard, in which he wrote, “I hate to seem ungrateful, but we haint liberal. We loathes liberalism and loathes it hard.”[21][22] Nock professed allegiance to a detached philosophical objectivity, expressed in his Platonist credo of “seeing things as they are”.[23][24] He had decried anti-Semitism in his earlier writings, but in his sixties he began giving vent to increasingly anti-Semitic and anti-democratic sentiments,[25] leading Robert Sherrill, writing years later in The Nation, to call him “virulently anti-Semitic” and “anti-democratic”.[26]

The historian and biographer, Michael Wreszin,[27] compared Nock’s disillusionment with democracy and his attacks on the Jewish people to similar feelings held by Henry Adams.[28] Before he died, Nock destroyed all his notes and papers, except a few letters and an autobiographical manuscript published posthumously as Journal of Forgotten Days (Nock was so secretive about the details of his personal life that Who’s Who could not find out his birthdate).[29]

In Journal of Forgotten Days, Nock wrote these passages about the Jews of New York City:

31 August—Leaving for New York today, in great dissatisfaction, to be tied to the public libraries, which are infested with Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics, such as orthodox members of the Church of England are supposed to pray for in the Good Friday collect.[30]

20 September—The Jewish holiday Yom Kippur yesterday closed New York up as tight as a white-oak knot. One would say there was not a hundred dollars’ worth of business done in all the town. It sets one’s mind back on Hitler’s policy. The question is not what one thinks of it as an American, but what one would think of it if one were a German in Germany, where the control of cultural agencies is so largely in the hands of Jews—the press, drama, music, education, etc.—and where there is, or was, a superb native culture essentially antithetical. Is one’s own culture worth fighting for? I think so. I think I would fight for it.[31]

Nock took a jaundiced view of American politics and American democracy itself,[32] and asserted that in all his life he voted in only one presidential election, in which he cast a write-in vote for Jefferson Davis[33][34][35] In an article he wrote for the American Mercury Magazine in 1933, What the American Votes For, Nock claimed, “My first and only presidential vote was cast many, many years ago. It was dictated by pure instinct.”[36]

In Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943), Nock had this to say about mass democracy in America:

I could see how “democracy” might do very well in a society of saints and sages led by an Alfred or an Antoninus Pius. Short of that, I was unable to see how it could come to anything but an ochlocracy of mass-men led by a sagacious knave. The collective capacity for bringing forth any other outcome seemed simply not there.”[37]

The author Clifton Fadiman, reviewing Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, wrote: “I have not since the days of the early Mencken read a more eloquently written blast against democracy or enjoyed more fully a display of crusted prejudice. Mr. Nock is a highly civilized man who does not like our civilization and will have no part of it.”[38] Nock’s biographer Michael Wreszin wrote concerning Nock’s reaction to the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932: “Sailing to Brussels in February 1933, before Roosevelt’s inauguration in March, he repeated in a journal his appreciation of Catherine Wilson’s observation that the skyline of New York was the finest sight in America when viewed from the deck of an outbound steamer.”[39]

In popular culture

In the fictional The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith, as part of the North American Confederacy Series, in which the United States becomes a Libertarian state after a successful Whiskey Rebellion and the overthrow and execution of George Washington by firing squad for treason in 1794, Albert Jay Nock serves as the 18th President of the North American Confederacy from 1912 to 1928.

Works

  • The Myth of a Guilty Nation.[1] New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1922. [2]
  • The Freeman Book.[3] B.W. Huebsch, 1924.
  • Jefferson.[4] New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1926 (also known as Mr. Jefferson).
  • On Doing the Right Thing, and Other Essays.[5] New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928.
  • Francis Rabelais: The Man and His Work. Harper and Brothers, 1929.
  • The Book of Journeyman: Essays from the New Freeman.[6] New Freeman, 1930.
  • The Theory of Education in the United States.[7] New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1932.
  • A Journey Into Rabelais’s France[8] William Morrow & Company, 1934.
  • A Journal of These Days: June 1932–December 1933. William Morrow & Company, 1934.
  • Our Enemy, the State.[9] ePub MP3 HTML William Morrow & Company, 1935.
  • Free Speech and Plain Language. William Morrow & Company, 1937.
  • Henry George: An Essay. William Morrow & Company, 1939.
  • Memoirs of a Superfluous Man.[10] New York: Harper and Brothers, 1943.

Miscellany

  • World Scouts,[11] World Peace Foundation, 1912.
  • “Officialism and Lawlessness.” [12] In College Readings on Today and its Problems, Oxford University Press, 1933.
  • Meditations in Wall Street, with an introduction by Albert Jay Nock,[13] W. Morrow & Company, 1940.

Published posthumously:

  • A Journal of Forgotten Days: May 1934–October 1935[14] Henry Regnery Company, 1948.
  • Letters from Albert Jay Nock, 1924–1945, to Edmund C. Evans, Mrs. Edmund C. Evans, and Ellen Winsor. The Caxton Printers, 1949.
  • Snoring as a Fine Art and Twelve Other Essays.[15] Richard R. Smith, 1958.
  • Selected Letters of Albert Jay Nock. The Caxton Printers, 1962.
  • Cogitations from Albert Jay Nock.[16] The Nockian Society, 1970, revised edition, 1985.
  • The State of the Union: Essays in Social Criticism. Liberty Press, 1991.
  • The Disadvantages of Being Educated and Other Essays. Hallberg Publishing Corporation, 1996.

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Carl T. Bogus, Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011.
  2. Jump up^http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/stylish-elegance-biography-albert-jay-nock
  3. Jump up^ Wreszin, Michael (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock, Brown University Press, p. 11.
  4. Jump up^ Jim Powell (March 1, 1997). “Albert Jay Nock: A Gifted Pen for Radical Individualism”The FreemanFoundation for Economic Education. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  5. Jump up^ Mark C. Carnes (September 2003). Invisible Giants: Fifty Americans Who Shaped the Nation But Missed the History Books. Oxford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-19-516883-9This early, quiet career as a minister ended abruptly in 1909, when Nock left the ministry, his wife, and his children to take up journalism.
  6. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, The Caxton Printers, 1950, p. 59.
  7. Jump up^ Neilson, Francis (1946). “The Story of ‘The Freeman'”. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology6(1): 3–53.
  8. Jump up^ Presley, Sharon (1981). “Suzanne La Follette: The Freewoman,” Libertarian Review (Cato Institute).
  9. Jump up to:a b Mencken, H.L. (1926). “The Immortal Democrat”American Mercury9 (33): 123.
  10. Jump up^ Originally published in 1922 by B. W. Huebsch, Inc. Published in 2011 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  11. Jump up^ Nock, Albert Jay (1956). “Isaiah’s Job”The Freeman6 (12): 31–37.
  12. Jump up^ Harris, Michael R. (1970). Five Counterrevolutionists in Higher Education: Irving Babbitt, Albert Jay Nock, Abraham Flexner, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Alexander Meiklejohn, Oregon State University Press, p. 97.
  13. Jump up^ Cram, Ralph Adams (1932). “Why We Do Not Behave Like Human Beings”The American Mercury27(105): 41–48.
  14. Jump up^ Nock, Albert Jay (1941). “The Jewish Problem in America,” The Atlantic Monthly, June 1, pp. 699–705.
  15. Jump up^ Crunden, Robert Morse (1964). The Mind and Art of Albert Jay Nock, Henry Regnery Company, pp. 183–84.
  16. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock (May 16, 1998). “Autobiographical Sketch (unpublished piece written for Paul Palmer, editor of the American Mercury Magazine, c. 1936)”alumnus.caltech.edu. California Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on June 29, 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  17. Jump up^ Buckley, Jr., William F. (2008). Let Us Talk of Many Things: The Collected Speeches, Basic Books, p. 430.
  18. Jump up^ Wreszin, Michael (1969). “Albert Jay Nock and the Anarchist Elitist Tradition in America,” American Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, Part 1, pp. 165–89.
  19. Jump up^ Nock, Albert Jay (1924). “On Doing the Right Thing”American Mercury3 (11): 257–62.
  20. Jump up^ Nitsche, Charles G. (1981). Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov: Case Studies in Recent American Individualist and Anti-statist Thought, (Ph.D. Dissertation), University of Maryland.
  21. Jump up^ Christopher Lasch (1972). The American Liberals and the Russian Revolution. McGraw-Hill. p. 143.
  22. Jump up^ Douglas Charles Rossinow (2008). Visions of Progress: The Left-liberal Tradition in America. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 98. ISBN 0-8122-4049-9.
  23. Jump up^ Francis Neilson, Albert Jay Nock, eds. (1921). The Freeman3. Freeman Incorporated. p. 391.
  24. Jump up^ The Thomist. Thomist Press. 1951. p. 302.
  25. Jump up^ Louis Filler (1 January 1993). American Anxieties: A Collective Portrait of The 1930s. Transaction Publishers. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-1-4128-1687-8.
  26. Jump up^ Robert Sherrill (June 11, 1988). “William F. Buckley Lived Off Evil As Mold Lives Off Garbage”The Nation. The Nation Company. Archived from the original on February 20, 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2017One of Will Sr.’s favorite authors, Albert Jay Nock, became a personal friend and was often in the Buckley household when Bill was growing up. Along with being anti-democratic, Nock was, at least in his later years, “virulently anti-Semitic.” Young Buckley fell under Nock’s spell and never quit quoting him. Another of Will Sr.’s friends, Merwin K. Hart, was one of America’s most notorious anti-Semites for three decades.
  27. Jump up^ Paul Vitello (15 September 2012). “Michael Wreszin, Biographer of American Radicals, Dies at 85”The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Archived from the originalon March 1, 2017. Retrieved 23 July2017.
  28. Jump up^ Michael Wreszin (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock. Brown University Press. p. 143. Jewish had been for [Henry] Adams what Finkman became for Nock, a synonym for avarice and materialism. When Nock lamented the presence of Jews and other undesirables in what he seemed to consider his private study, the New York Public Library, he echoed the fierce resentment of the elderly Adams against the presence of Jews in places that he loved, and on boats and trains.
  29. Jump up^ Stanley Kunitz (1955). Twentieth Century Authors: A Biographical Dictionary of Modern Literature. Supplement. H. W. Wilson. p. 721.
  30. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock. Journal of Forgotten Days, May 1934–October 1935. Hinsdale, Illinois: H. Gegnery Company. p. 47.
  31. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock. Journal of Forgotten Days, May 1934–October 1935. Hinsdale, Illinois: H. Gegnery Company. p. 56.
  32. Jump up^ William F. Buckley Jr. (28 October 2008). Let Us Talk of Many Things: The Collected Speeches. Basic Books. p. 467. ISBN 978-0-465-00334-1A year later, in conversation with Mr. Nock, my father disclosed that he had voted for Willkie, thus departing from a near-lifelong resolution, beginning in his thirties, never to vote for any political candidate. He now affirmed, with Mr. Nock’s hearty approval, his determination to renew his vows of abstinence, Willkie having been revealed—I remember the term he used—as a “mountebank.” “They are all mountebanks,” Mr. Nock said.
  33. Jump up^ Michael Wreszin (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock. Brown University Press. p. 128. Nock didn’t vote in 1932; in fact, he couldn’t remember when he had last voted. He couldn’t even remember the candidates, but he had, he claimed, weighed the issues carefully before casting a write-in vote for Jefferson Davis.
  34. Jump up^ Gregory L. Schneider (1999). Cadres for Conservatism: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of the Contemporary Right. NYU Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8147-8108-1.
  35. Jump up^ Garry Wills (28 May 2013). A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. Simon and Schuster. p. 272. ISBN 978-1-4391-2879-4His attitude toward voting (and toward Jefferson Davis) is given in this passage: I once voted at a presidential election. There being no real issue at stake, and neither candidate commanding any respect whatever, I cast my vote for Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. I knew Jeff was dead, but I voted on Artemus Ward’s principle that if we can’t have a live man who amounts to anything, by all means let’s have a first-rate corpse.
  36. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock (1933). “What the American Votes For“. In Henry Louis Mencken, George Jean Nathan. The American Mercury28. Knopf. p. 176.
  37. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock (1964). Memoirs of a Superfluous Man. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-61016-392-7.
  38. Jump up^ Claude Moore Fuess, Emory Shelvy Basford, eds. (1947). Unseen Harvests: A Treasury of Teaching. Macmillan. p. 610.
  39. Jump up^ Michael Wreszin (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock. Brown University Press. p. 143.

Further reading

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Jay_Nock

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

March 12, 2018, Story 1: President Trump Unloads on Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Keep America Great! — Videos — Story 2: Case Closed: Absolutely No Evidence of Collusion of Trump or Cinton Campaign With Russians — Obama and Clinton Democratic Conspiracy and Destruction of Democratic Party — Video

Posted on March 12, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Congress, conservatives, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Documentary, Economics, Education, Elections, Essays, Faith, Family, Farming, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Islam, Journalism, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Missiles, Money, Natural Gas, Newspapers, Non-Fiction, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religious, Resources, Rifles, Speech, Spying, Strategy, Success, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Video, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, World War II, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

Story 1: President Trump Unloads on Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Videos —

Trump calls Chuck Todd ‘sleeping son of a bitch’

Trump veers off script with insults about Democrats

Full video: Trump rallies for Saccone in final days before Pennsylvania special election

After the Show Show: Keep America Great!

Tariffs and North Korea agreement: A good week for Trump?

Flashback: Donald Trump Says He’d ‘Negotiate Like Crazy’ With North Korea | NBC News

What Trump said about North Korean nukes in 1999

2000s: ‘Apprentice’ Helps Donald Trump Finally Launch A White House Bid | NBC News

1990s: After Bankruptcies, Donald Trump Goes From Building To Branding | NBC News

1980s: How Donald Trump Created Donald Trump | NBC News

Donald Trump on Late Night, 1986-87

Weekend Update on Kim Jong-un Meeting with Donald Trump – SNL

Understanding Donald Trump

Victor D Hanson; Explains Perfectly how Trump pulled off the biggest Upset in Presidential History

Victor Davis Hanson on grand strategy, immigration, and the 2016 presidential election

Victor D. Hanson: The Media Hysteria over Trump | and the Reality

Victor Davis Hanson – The Wind Behind Trump

Victor Davis Hanson – Revolt of the Forgotten Masses

Victor Davis Hanson’s brilliant analysis of never-Trump

 

Story 2: Absolutely No Evidence of Collusion of Trump or Cinton Campaign With Russians — Obama and Clinton Democratic Conspiracy and Destruction of Democratic Party — Video

House Intelligence Committee ends Russia probe interviews

The Situation Room w/ Wolf Blitzer 03/12/18| House GOP ending Russia probe, says no collusion found

Adam Schiff Used Debunked ‘Dirty Dossier’ to LEAK Fake News to Media

Tucker: Russian collusion proof points to Dems, not Trump

Tucker Carlson Tonight (Mar 12, 2018) – Fox News

Clinton Foundation is a criminal enterprise: Judge Napolitano

Victor D Hanson Explains The Complete Corruption of the Obama Administration helped Sabotage Hillary

Victor Davis Hanson: the “Great” Lie about Trump’s Connection with Russia

Victor Davis Hanson: The Hypocrisy of the Left over Equality

How the Obama Precedent Empowered Trump

Historian Victor Davis Hanson: Obama’s Incompetence To Blame For Putin’s Aggression

Victor Davis Hanson on Obama and the current administartion

House Republicans say probe found no evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – House Intelligence Committee Republicans said on Monday the panel had finished conducting interviews in its investigation of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, and found no collusion between President Donald Trump’s associates and Moscow’s efforts to influence the campaign.

“We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” committee Republicans said as they released an overview of their probe.

Representative Mike Conaway, who has led the panel’s investigation, said the panel had finished the interview phase of its probe.

“You never know what you never know, but we found no reason to think that there’s something we’re missing in this regard. We’ve talked to everybody we think we need to talk to,” Conaway said in an interview on Fox News Channel.

Committee Democrats had no immediate response to the announcement, which was expected. Panel Republicans have been saying for weeks they were near the end of the interview phase of the probe.

Reflecting a deep partisan divide on the House of Representatives panel, Democrats have been arguing that the probe is far from over. Representative Adam Schiff, the panel’s ranking Democrat, said last week that there were dozens more witnesses who should be called before the panel, and many more documents that should be subpoenaed.

Democrats have accused Republicans on the committee of shirking the investigation in order to protect Trump and his associates, some of whom have pleaded guilty to charges including lying to investigators and conspiring against the United States.

Trump has repeatedly denied collusion between his associates and Russia.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Marvin Minsky — Society of The Mind

Posted on March 10, 2018. Filed under: Articles, Blogroll, Books, Computers, Non-Fiction, Systems | Tags: , , , , , |

See the source image

See the source imageImage result for marvin minsky books society ofSee the source image

Marvin Minsky – Why the “Society of Mind” is crucial for understanding intelligence (92/151)

Marvin Minsky – Seymour Papert’s theory of constructivism (142/151)

Marvin Minsky – The Society of Mind theory developed from teaching (143/151)

Marvin Minsky

Marvin Minsky – Artificial Intelligence

Kurzweil Interviews Minsky: Is Singularity Near?

Dr. Marvin Minsky — Immortal minds are a matter of time

Marvin Minsky on Singularity 1 on 1: The Turing Test is a Joke!

Marvin Minsky – Unreliable childhood memories (2/151)

Marvin MInsky – Having intelligent friends (6/151)

Marvin Minsky – An early understanding of basic physics (11/151)

Marvin Minsky – Inventing new mathematics (17/151)

[youtubbe=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3OmPVlVQsY]

Marvin Minsky – The careers I didn’t choose (18/151)

Marvin Minsky – A short history of neural networks (21/151)

Marvin Minsky – John Nash solves my PhD problem (25/151)

Marvin Minsky – Why I changed from bottom-up to top-down thinking (26/151)

Marvin Minsky – The end of my PhD on learning machines (27/151)

Marvin Minsky – The frustration of teaching calculus at MIT (41/151)

Marvin Minsky – AI programs ‘devolving’ from calculus to geometry (62/151)

Marvin Minsky – How computers developed at MIT (65/151)

Marvin Minsky – What I think is wrong with modern research (67/151)

Marvin Minsky – Freeman Dyson proves what I couldn’t (71/151)

Marvin MInsky – The history of the laws of physics (80/151)

Marvin Minsky – Losing students to lucrative careers (84/151)

Marvin Minsky – Psychology should not be like physics (85/151)

Marvin Minsky – A theory of why evolution is a slow process (93/151)

Marvin Minsky – The philosophy of thinking in threes (111/151)

Marvin Minsky – Why I got on so well with Claude Shannon (125/151)

Marvin Minsky – The cleverest rat (133/151)

Marvin Minsky – My relationship with Richard Feynman (146/151)

1. Introduction

2. Falling In Love

3. Cognitive Architectures

4. Question and Answer Session 1

5. From Panic to Suffering

6. Layers of Mental Activities

7. Layered Knowledge Representations

8. Question and Answer Session 2

9. Common Sense

10. Question and Answer Session 3

11. Mind vs. Brain: Confessions of a Defector

12. Question and Answer Session 4

13. Closing Thoughts

Ray Kurzweil Remembers Marvin Minsky

 

Marvin Minsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marvin Minsky
Marvin Minsky at OLPCb.jpg

Minsky in 2008
Born Marvin Lee Minsky
August 9, 1927
New York CityNew York, U.S.
Died January 24, 2016 (aged 88)
BostonMassachusetts, U.S.
Nationality American
Alma mater Phillips Academy
Harvard University (B.A., 1950)
Princeton University (Ph.D., 1954)
Known for
Awards
Website web.media.mit.edu/~minsky
Scientific career
Fields
Institutions Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Thesis Theory of Neural-Analog Reinforcement Systems and Its Application to the Brain Model Problem (1954)
Doctoral advisor Albert W. Tucker[9][10]
Doctoral students
Influenced David Waltz[citation needed]

Marvin Lee Minsky (August 9, 1927 – January 24, 2016) was an American cognitive scientist concerned largely with research of artificial intelligence (AI), co-founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology‘s AI laboratory, and author of several texts concerning AI and philosophy.[12][13][14][15]

Biography

Marvin Lee Minsky was born in New York City, to an eye surgeon father, Henry, and to a mother, Fannie, who was an activist of Zionist affairs.[15][16] His family was Jewish. He attended the Ethical Culture Fieldston School and the Bronx High School of Science. He later attended Phillips Academy in AndoverMassachusetts. He then served in the US Navy from 1944 to 1945. He received a B.A. in mathematics from Harvard University (1950) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Princeton University (1954).[17][18]

He was on the MIT faculty from 1958 to his death. He joined the staff at MIT Lincoln Laboratory in 1958, and a year later he and John McCarthyinitiated what is known now as the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.[19][20] He was the Toshiba Professor of Media Artsand Sciences, and professor of electrical engineering and computer science.

Contributions in computer science

3D profile of a coin (partial) measured with a modern confocal white light microscope.

Minsky’s inventions include the first head-mounted graphical display (1963)[21] and the confocal microscope[2][22] (1957, a predecessor to today’s widely used confocal laser scanning microscope). He developed, with Seymour Papert, the first Logo “turtle“. Minsky also built, in 1951, the first randomly wired neural network learning machine, SNARC.

Minsky wrote the book Perceptrons (with Seymour Papert), which became the foundational work in the analysis of artificial neural networks. This book is the center of a controversy in the history of AI, as some claim it to have had great importance in discouraging research of neural networks in the 1970s, and contributing to the so-called “AI winter“.[23] He also founded several other famous AI models. His book A framework for representing knowledge created a new paradigm in programming. While his Perceptrons is now more a historical than practical book, the theory of frames is in wide use.[24] Minsky has also written on the possibility that extraterrestrial life may think like humans, permitting communication.[25]

In the early 1970s, at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, Minsky and Papert started developing what came to be known as the Society of Mind theory. The theory attempts to explain how what we call intelligence could be a product of the interaction of non-intelligent parts. Minsky says that the biggest source of ideas about the theory came from his work in trying to create a machine that uses a robotic arm, a video camera, and a computer to build with children’s blocks. In 1986, Minsky published The Society of Mind, a comprehensive book on the theory which, unlike most of his previously published work, was written for the general public.

In November 2006, Minsky published The Emotion Machine, a book that critiques many popular theories of how human minds work and suggests alternative theories, often replacing simple ideas with more complex ones. Recent drafts of the book are freely available from his webpage.[26]

Role in popular culture

Minsky was an adviser[27] on Stanley Kubrick‘s movie 2001: A Space Odyssey; one of the movie’s characters, Victor Kaminski, was named in Minsky’s honor[28]. Minsky himself is explicitly mentioned in Arthur C. Clarke‘s derivative novel of the same name, where he is portrayed as achieving a crucial break-through in artificial intelligence in the then-future 1980s, paving the way for HAL 9000 in the early 21st century:

In the 1980s, Minsky and Good had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically—self replicated—in accordance with any arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be grown by a process strikingly analogous to the development of a human brain. In any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human understanding.[29]

Personal life

The Minskytron or “Three Position Display” running on the Computer History Museum‘s PDP-1, 2007

In 1952, Minsky married pediatrician Gloria Rudisch; together they had three children.[30] Minsky was a talented improvisational pianist[31] who published musings on the relations between music and psychology.

Opinions

Minsky was an atheist[32] and a signatory to the Scientists’ Open Letter on Cryonics.[33] He was a critic of the Loebner Prize for conversational robots.[34][35]

Minsky believed that there is no fundamental difference between humans and machines, and that humans are machines whose “intelligence” emerges from the interplay of the many unintelligent but semi-autonomous agents that comprise the brain.[36] He has stated that “somewhere down the line, some computers will become more intelligent than most people,” but that it’s very hard to predict how fast progress will be.[37] He has cautioned that an artificial superintelligence designed to solve an innocuous mathematical problem might decide to assume control of Earth’s resources to build supercomputers to help achieve its goal,[38] but believed that such negative scenarios are “hard to take seriously” because he was confident AI would go through “a lot of testing” before being deployed.[39]

Death

Minsky died of a cerebral hemorrhage at the age of 88.[40] Minsky was a member of Alcor‘s Scientific Advisory Board,[41] and is believed to have been cryonically preserved by Alcor,[42] presumably as ‘Patient 144’, whose cooling procedures began on January 27, 2016.[43]

Bibliography (selected)

Awards and affiliations

Minsky won the Turing Award (the greatest distinction in computer science)[36] in 1969, the Japan Prize in 1990, the IJCAI Award for Research Excellence for 1991, and the Benjamin Franklin Medal from the Franklin Institute for 2001.[44] In 2006, he was inducted as a Fellow of the Computer History Museum “for co-founding the field of artificial intelligence, creating early neural networks and robots, and developing theories of human and machine cognition.”[45] In 2011, Minsky was inducted into IEEE Intelligent Systems‘ AI Hall of Fame for the “significant contributions to the field of AI and intelligent systems”.[46][47] In 2014, Minsky won the Dan David Prize for “Artificial Intelligence, the Digital Mind”.[48] He was also awarded with the 2013 BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the Information and Communication Technologies category.[49]

Minsky was affiliated with the following organizations:

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Paul Ekman — Telling Lies: Clues To Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage –Pamela Meyer — Lie Spotting — Stan B. Walters — The Truth About Lying: How to Spot a Lie and Protect Yourself from Deception –From Lie Spotting To Truth Seeking — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Videos

Posted on January 6, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Congress, conservatives, Corruption, Crisis, Culture, Education, Elections, Employment, Family, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, Heroes, history, Journalism, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Love, Mastery, Money, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Radio, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Paul Ekman — Telling Lies: Clues To Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage — Pamela Meyer — Lie Spotting — Stan B. Walters — The Truth About Lying: How to Spot a Lie and Protect Yourself from Deception –From Lie Spotting To Truth Seeking — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Videos

lying

How to Catch a Liar (Assuming We Want To)

Dr. Paul Ekman on Expression and Gesture and Their Role in Emotion and Deception – Part 1

Dr. Paul Ekman on Expression and Gesture and Their Role in Emotion and Deception – Part 2

Image result for the science of reading faces by paul erkman

Face to Face: The Science of Reading Faces – Part 1

Face to Face: The Science of Reading Faces – Part 2

Face to Face: The Science of Reading Faces – Part 3

Little Known Facts About Lying – Facts About Lying

How to spot a liar | Pamela Meyer

Detecting Deception and a New Path to Trust: Pam Meyer at TEDxMidwest

Pamela Meyer: Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception

4 Signs Someone Is Lying To You

Hillary’s Duper’s Delight

How to tell if someone is lying. Stan B. Walters – The Lie Guy® TV Reel Part 1

How to tell if someone is lying. Stan B. Walters “The Lie Guy® TV Reel Part 2

Stan Walters – Examining the 3rd Degree

Interviewing and Interrogation Training: Loss Prevention & Risk Mgmt

Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques & Training | Bizarre Class on Signs of Deception

Former CIA Officer Will Teach You How to Spot a Lie l Digiday

The Science of Lying

Comic Relief “John Lovitz” Stand Up Comedy

Jon Lovitz Appears as the Pathological Liar on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show

Jon Lovitz on Seinfeld

President Trump says Michael Wolff’s ‘Fire and Fury’ is ‘full of lies’

‘Fire And Fury’ Author Michael Wolff: ‘I Absolutely’ Spoke To President Donald Trump | TODAY

Michael Wolff: ‘Everyone in the liberal media is a Trump enemy’ – BBC Newsnight

Michael Wolff: Donald Trump Most Extraordinary Story Of Our Time | Power Lunch | CNBC

Published on Nov 21, 2016

Michael Wolff, The Man Who Owns The News: Inside the Secret World Of Rupert Murdoch author, discusses his interview with Trump’s campaign CEO, Steve Bannon. Wolff also discusses the problem of fake news.

Who is Michael Wolff?

Michael Wolff’s Trump tell-all ‘full of lies’: David Bossie

Learn to Love TRUMP in 12 Minutes or Less

Trump Inauguration Speech (FULL) | ABC News

Best of Trump – Speech to Congress

FULL RAW: President Trump delivering a speech at the United Nations

#DeepState #Swamp #MSM Push #Bannon #Treason to Ignore #FBI Investigating #ClintonFoundation #Crimes

The Ingraham Angle 1/5/18 With Laura Ingraham – The Ingraham Angle Fox News January 5, 2018

Trump Vs The Smart Set – Trump Outsmarts Them All – Ingraham Angle

Trump Vs The Elites – Trump Outsmarts Them All – Newt Gingrich – Ingraham Angle

Clinton Foundation, Hillary emails now under investigation

The Hill: FBI Launches New Clinton Foundation Investigation – Hannity

Congress Exposes TROUBLING New IRREGULARITIES In The Clinton Email Probe

DOJ reportedly reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation

YES!! Hillary clinton MAY NOT SLEEP WELL Tonight Because of this!

DOJ can’t ignore Clinton’s criminal enterprise: Chris Farrell

Sessions has to retire as a public servant: Dobbs

FBI INVESTIGATING CLINTON FOUNDATION PAY FOR PLAY DONATIONS | JANUARY 5TH, 2018

 

Paul Ekman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paul Ekman
Paulekman bio.jpg
Born February 15, 1934 (age 83)
Washington, D.C.
Residence United States
Known for MicroexpressionsLie to Me
Spouse(s) Mary Ann Mason, J.D., Ph.D.
Awards Named by the American Psychological Association as one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century based on publications, citations and awards (2001)
Honorary Degree, University of Fernando Pessoa, Portugal (2007)
Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Adelphi University (2008)
Honorary Degree, University of Geneva, Switzerland (2008)
Named of the 100 Most Influential People in the World by Time Magazine (2009)
Honorary Degree, Lund University, Sweden (2011)
Scientific career
Fields Psychology
Anthropology
Doctoral advisor John Amsden Starkweather
Influences Charles DarwinSilvan Tomkins

Paul Ekman (born February 15, 1934) is an American psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco who is a pioneer in the study of emotions and their relation to facial expressions. He has created an “atlas of emotions” with more than ten thousand facial expressions, and has gained a reputation as “the best human lie detector in the world”.[1]

He was ranked 59th out of the 100 most cited psychologists of the twentieth century.[2] Ekman conducted seminal research on the specific biological correlations of specific emotions, demonstrating the universality and discreteness of emotions in a Darwinian approach.[3][4]

Biography

External video
 Conversations with History: Paul Ekman on YouTubeUniversity of California Television, 58:00, April 2008

Childhood

Paul Ekman was born to Jewish parents[5] in 1934 in Washington, D.C., and grew up in New JerseyWashingtonOregon, and California. His father was a pediatrician and his mother was an attorney. His sister, Joyce Steingart, is a psychoanalytic psychologist who before her retirement practiced in New York City.[6]

Ekman originally wanted to be a psychotherapist, but when he was drafted into the army in 1958 he found that research could change army routines, making them more humane. This experience converted him from wanting to be a psychotherapist to wanting to be a researcher, in order to help as many people as possible.[7]

Education

At the age of 15, without graduating from high school, Paul Ekman enrolled at the University of Chicago where he completed three years of undergraduate study. During his time in Chicago he was fascinated by group therapysessions and understanding group dynamics. Notably, his classmates at Chicago included writer Susan Sontag, film director Mike Nichols, and actress Elaine May.[8]

He then studied two years at New York University (NYU), earning his BA in 1954.[4] The subject of his first research project, under the direction of his NYU professor, Margaret Tresselt, was an attempt to develop a test of how people would respond to group therapy.[9]

Next, Ekman was accepted into the Adelphi University graduate program for clinical psychology.[9] While working for his master’s degree, Ekman was awarded a predoctoral research fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1955.[9] His Master’s thesis was focused on facial expression and body movement he had begun to study in 1954.[9] Ekman eventually went on to receive his Ph.D. in clinical psychology at Adelphi University in 1958, after a one-year internship at the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute.[9][10]

Military service

Ekman was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1958 to serve 2 years as soon as his internship at Langley Porter was finished.[9] He served as first lieutenant-chief psychologist, at Fort Dix, New Jersey, where he did research on army stockades and psychological changes during infantry basic training.[9][11][12][13]

Career

Upon completion of military service in 1960, he accepted a position as a research associate with Leonard Krasner at the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital, working on a grant focused on the operant conditioning of verbal behavior in psychiatric patients. Ekman also met anthropologist Gregory Bateson in 1960 who was on the staff of the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital. Five years later, Gregory Bateson gave Paul Ekman motion picture films taken in Bali in the mid-1930s to help Ekman with cross-cultural studies of expression and gesture.[9]

From 1960 to 1963, Ekman was supported by a post doctoral fellowship from NIMH. He submitted his first research grant through San Francisco State College with himself as the principal investigator (PI) at the young age of 29.[14] He received this grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1963 to study nonverbal behaviour. This award would be continuously renewed for the next 40 years and would pay his salary until he was offered a professorship at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) in 1972.

Encouraged by his college friend and teacher Silvan S. Tomkins, Ekman shifted his focus from body movement to facial expressions. He wrote his most famous book, Telling Lies, and published it in 1985. The 4th edition is still in print. He retired in 2004 as professor of psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). From 1960 to 2004 he also worked at the Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute on a limited basis consulting on various clinical cases.

After retiring from the University of California, San Francisco, Paul Ekman founded the Paul Ekman Group (PEG) and Paul Ekman International.[15] The Paul Ekman Group, “develops and offers online emotional skills-building programs such as the Micro Expression Training Tool, offers workshops, supports researchers in our field, and builds online community around these topics.” They do not take individual cases.[16] Also, PEG offers a micro expression and subtle expression training tool for sale on their website.[17]

Media

In 2001, Ekman collaborated with John Cleese for the BBC documentary series The Human Face.[18]

His work is frequently referred to in the TV series Lie to Me.[19] Dr. Lightman is based on Paul Ekman, and Ekman served as a scientific adviser for the series; he read and edited the scripts and sent video clip-notes of facial expressions for the actors to imitate. While Ekman has written 15 books, the series Lie to Me has more effectively brought Ekman’s research into people’s homes.[19] Lie to Me has aired in more than 60 countries.[20]

He has also collaborated with Pixar‘s film director and animator Pete Docter in preparation of his 2015 film Inside Out.[21] Ekman also wrote a parent’s guide to using Inside Out to help parents talk with their children about emotion, which can be found on his personal website http://www.paulekman.com.

Influence

He was named one of the top Time 100 most influential people in the May 11, 2009 edition of Time magazine.[22] He was also ranked fifteenth among the most influential psychologists of the 21st century in 2014 by the journal Archives of Scientific Psychology.[23] He is currently on the Editorial Board of Greater Good magazine, published by the Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley. His contributions include the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships.[24]

Research work

Measuring nonverbal communication

Ekman’s interest in nonverbal communication led to his first publication in 1957, describing how difficult it was to develop ways of empirically measuring nonverbal behaviour.[25] He chose the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute, the psychiatry department of the University of California Medical School, for his clinical internship partly because Jurgen Ruesch and Weldon Kees had recently published a book called Nonverbal Communication (1956).[9][26][27]

Ekman then focused on developing techniques for measuring nonverbal communication. He found that facial muscular movements that created facial expressions could be reliably identified through empirical research. He also found that human beings are capable of making over 10,000 facial expressions; only 3,000 relevant to emotion.[28] Psychologist Silvan Tomkins convinced Ekman to extend his studies of nonverbal communication from body movement to the face, helping him design his classic cross-cultural emotion recognition studies.[29] Interestingly enough, Tomkins also supervised Carroll Izard at the same time, fostering a similar interest in emotion through cross-cultural research.

Emotions as universal categories

In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals published in 1872, Charles Darwin theorized that emotions were evolved traits universal to the human species. However, the prevalent belief during the 1950s, particularly among anthropologists, was that facial expressions and their meanings were determined through behavioural learning processes. A prominent advocate of the latter perspective was the anthropologist Margaret Mead who had travelled to different countries examining how cultures communicated using nonverbal behaviour.

Through a series of studies, Ekman found a high agreement across members of diverse Western and Eastern literate cultures on selecting emotional labels that fit facial expressions. Expressions he found to be universal included those indicating wrath, grossness, scaredness, joy, loneliness, and shock. Findings on contempt were less clear, though there is at least some preliminary evidence that this emotion and its expression are universally recognized.[30] Working with his long-time friend Wallace V. Friesen, Ekman demonstrated that the findings extended to preliterate Fore tribesmen in Papua New Guinea, whose members could not have learned the meaning of expressions from exposure to media depictions of emotion.[31] Ekman and Friesen then demonstrated that certain emotions were exhibited with very specific display rules, culture-specific prescriptions about who can show which emotions to whom and when. These display rules could explain how cultural differences may conceal the universal effect of expression.[32]

In the 1990s, Ekman proposed an expanded list of basic emotions, including a range of positive and negative emotions that are not all encoded in facial muscles.[33] The newly included emotions are: AmusementContemptContentmentEmbarrassmentExcitementGuiltPride in achievementReliefSatisfactionSensory pleasure, and Shame.[33]

Visual depictions of facial actions for studying emotion

Ekman’s famous test of emotion recognition was the Pictures of Facial Affect (POFA) stimulus set published in 1976. Consisting of 110 black and white images of Caucasian actors portraying the six universal emotions plus neutral expressions, the POFA has been used to study emotion recognition rates in normal and psychiatric populations around the world. Ekman used these stimuli in his original cross-cultural research. Many researchers favor the POFA because these photographs have been rated by large normative groups in different cultures. In response to critics, however, Ekman eventually released a more culturally diverse set of stimuli called the Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion (JACFEE).[34]

By 1978, Ekman and Friesen had finalized and developed the Facial Action Coding System (FACS)[35] to taxonomize every human facial expression. FACS is an anatomically based system for describing all observable facial movement for every emotion. Each observable component of facial movement is called an action unit or AU and all facial expressions can be decomposed into their constituent core AUs.[36] An update of this tool came in the early 2000s.

Other tools have been developed, including the MicroExpressions Training Tool (METT), which can help individuals identify more subtle emotional expressions that occur when people try to suppress their emotions. Application of this tool includes helping people with Asperger’s or autism to recognize emotional expressions in their everyday interactions. The Subtle Expression Training Tool (SETT) teaches recognition of very small, micro signs of emotion. These are very tiny expressions, sometimes registering in only part of the face, or when the expression is shown across the entire face, but is very small. Subtle expressions occur for many reasons, for example, the emotion experienced may be very slight or the emotion may be just beginning. METT and SETT have been shown to increase accuracy in evaluating truthfulness.

Detecting deception

Ekman has contributed to the study of social aspects of lying, why we lie,[37] and why we are often unconcerned with detecting lies.[38] He first became interested in detecting lies while completing his clinical work. As detailed in Ekman’s Telling Lies, a patient he was involved in treating denied that she was suicidal in order to leave the hospital. Ekman began to review videotaped interviews to study people’s facial expressions while lying. In a research project along with Maureen O’Sullivan, called the Wizards Project (previously named the Diogenes Project), Ekman reported on facial “microexpressions” which could be used to assist in lie detection. After testing a total of 20,000 people[39] from all walks of life, he found only 50 people who had the ability to spot deception without any formal training. These naturals are also known as “Truth Wizards”, or wizards of deception detection from demeanor.[40]

In his profession, he also uses oral signs of lying. When interviewed about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he mentioned that he could detect that former President Bill Clinton was lying because he used distancing language.[41]

Contributions to the world’s understanding of emotion

In his 1993 seminal paper in the psychology journal American Psychologist, Ekman describes nine direct contributions that his research on facial expression has made to the understanding of emotion.[42] Highlights include:

  • Consideration of both nature and nurture: Emotion is now viewed as a physiological phenomenon influenced by our cultural and learning experiences.
  • Emotion-specific physiology: Ekman led the way by trying to find discrete psychophysiological differences across emotions. A number of researchers continue to search for emotion-specific autonomic and central nervous system activations. With the advent of neuroimaging techniques, a topic of intense interest revolves around how specific emotions relate to physiological activations in certain brain areas. Ekman laid the groundwork for the future field of affective neuroscience.
  • An examination of events that precede emotions: Ekman’s finding that voluntarily making one of the universal facial expressions can generate the physiology and some of the subjective experience of emotion provided some difficulty for some of the earlier theoretical conceptualizations of experiencing emotions.
  • Considering emotions as families: Ekman & Friesen (1978) found not one expression for each emotion, but a variety of related but visually different expressions. For example, the authors reported 60 variations of the anger expression which share core configurational properties and distinguish themselves clearly from the families of fearful expressions, disgust expressions, and so on. Variations within a family likely reflect the intensity of the emotion, how the emotion is controlled, whether it is simulated or spontaneous, and the specifics of the event that provoked the emotion.

Criticisms

Most credibility-assessment researchers agree that people are unable to visually detect lies.[43] The application of part of Ekman’s work to airport security via the Transportation Security Administration‘s “Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques” (SPOT) program has been criticized for not having been put through controlled scientific tests.[43] A 2007 report on SPOT stated that “simply put, people (including professional lie-catchers with extensive experience of assessing veracity) would achieve similar hit rates if they flipped a coin”.[44] Since controlled scientific tests typically involve people playing the part of terrorists, Ekman says those people are unlikely to have the same emotions as actual terrorists.[43] The methodology used by Ekman and O’Sullivan in their recent work on Truth wizards has also received criticism on the basis of validation.[45]

Other criticisms of Ekman’s work are based on experimental and naturalistic studies by several other emotion psychologists that did not find evidence in support of Ekman’s proposed taxonomy of discrete emotions and discrete facial expression.[46]

Ekman received hostility from some anthropologists at meetings of the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association from 1967 to 1969. He recounted that, as he was reporting his findings on universality of expression, one anthropologist tried to stop him from finishing by shouting that his ideas were fascist. He compares this to another incident when he was accused of being racist by an activist for claiming that Black expressions are not different from White expressions. In 1975, Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, wrote against Ekman for doing “improper anthropology”, and for disagreeing with Ray Birdwhistell‘s claim opposing universality. Ekman wrote that, while many people agreed with Birdwhistell then, most came to accept his own findings over the next decade.[14] However, some anthropologists continued to suggest that emotions are not universal.[47] Ekman argued that there has been no quantitative data to support the claim that emotions are culture specific. In his 1993 discussion of the topic, Ekman states that there is no instance in which 70% or more of one cultural group select one of the six universal emotions while another culture group labels the same expression as another universal emotion.[42]

Ekman criticized the tendency of psychologists to base their conclusions on surveys of college students. Hank Campbell quotes Ekman saying at the Being Human conference, “We basically have a science of undergraduates.”[48]

The pioneer F-M Facial Action Coding System 2.0 (F-M FACS 2.0) [49] was created in 2017 by Dr. Freitas-Magalhães, and presents 2,000 segments in 4K, using 3D technology and automatic and real-time recognition.

Publications

  • Nonverbal messages: Cracking the Code ISBN 978-0-9915636-3-0
  • Emotional Awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and Compassion (Times Books, 2008) ISBN 0-8050-8712-5
  • Unmasking the Face ISBN 1-883536-36-7
  • Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life (Times Books, 2003) ISBN 0-8050-7516-X
  • Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (W. W. Norton & Company, 1985) ISBN 0-393-32188-6
  • What the Face Reveals (with Rosenberg, E. L., Oxford University Press, 1998) ISBN 0-19-510446-3
  • The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions (with R. Davidson, Oxford University Press, 1994) ISBN 0-19-508944-8
  • Darwin and Facial Expression: A Century of Research in Review ISBN 0-12-236750-2
  • Facial Action Coding System/Investigator’s ISBN 99936-26-61-9
  • Why Kids Lie: How Parents Can Encourage Truthfulness (Penguin, 1991) ISBN 0-14-014322-X
  • Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research ISBN 0-521-28072-9
  • Face of Man ISBN 0-8240-7130-1
  • Emotion in the Human Face ISBN 0-08-016643-1
  • Handbook of Cognition and Emotion (Sussex, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1999)

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman

FBI launches new Clinton Foundation investigation

 The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.

FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in the coming weeks.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.

The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.

The witness discussed his interview solely on the grounds of anonymity. He said the agents were from Little Rock and their questions focused on government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary Clinton led President Obama’s State Department.

The FBI office in Little Rock referred a reporter Thursday to Washington headquarters, where officials declined any official comment.

Clinton’s chief spokesman, Nick Merrill, on Friday morning excoriated the FBI for re-opening the case, calling the probe “disgraceful” and suggesting it was nothing more than a political distraction from President Trump‘s Russia controversies.

“Let’s call this what it is: a sham,” Merrill said. “This is a philanthropy that does life-changing work, which Republicans have tried to turn into a political football. It began with a now long-debunked project spearheaded by Steve Bannon during the presidential campaign. It continues with Jeff Sessions doing Trump’s bidding by heeding his calls to meddle with a department that is supposed to function independently.”

Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian took a more muted response, saying the new probe wouldn’t distract the charity from its daily work.
“Time after time, the Clinton Foundation has been subjected to politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been proven false. None of this has made us waver in our mission to help people,” Minassian said. “The Clinton Foundation has demonstrably improved the lives of millions of people across America and around the world while earning top ratings from charity watchdog groups in the process.”

The Wall Street Journal reported late last year that several FBI field offices, including the one in Little Rock, had been collecting information on the Clinton Foundation for more than a year. The report also said there had been pushback to the FBI from the Justice Department.

A renewed law enforcement focus follows a promise to Congress late last year from top Trump Justice Department officials that law enforcement would revisit some of the investigations and legal issues closed during the Obama years that conservatives felt were given short shrift. It also follows months of relentless criticism on Twitter from President Trump, who has repeatedly questioned why no criminal charges were ever filed against the “crooked” Clintons and their fundraising machine.

For years, news media from The New York Times to The Daily Caller have reported countless stories on donations to the Clinton Foundation or speech fees that closely fell around the time of favorable decisions by Clinton’s State Department. Conservative author Peter Schweizer chronicled the most famous of episodes in his book “Clinton Cash” that gave ammunition to conservatives, including Trump, to beat the drum for a renewed investigation.

Several GOP members of Congress have recently urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel to look at the myriad issues surrounding the Clintons. Justice officials sent a letter to Congress in November suggesting some of those issues were being re-examined, but Sessions later testified the appointment of a special prosecutor required a high legal bar that had not yet been met.

His decision was roundly criticized by Republicans, and recent revelations that his statement was watered down by edits and that he made the decision before all witness interviews were finished have led to renewed criticism.

A senior law enforcement official said the Justice Department was exploring whether any issues from that probe should be re-opened but cautioned the effort was not at the stage of a full investigation.

One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most federal felonies is five years, and Clinton left office in early 2013.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/367541-fbi-launches-new-clinton-foundation-investigation

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Breaking and Developing — Story 1: Rupert Murdoch and Michael Wolff Push President Trump’s Buttons and Trump Reacts As Predicted By Attacking Steven Bannon — White House of Con Games or Junk Journalism or Progressive Propaganda or Tabloid Trash? — Updated — Wolff Taped His Conversations With White House Employees — Trump Tries To Stop Publication of Book with Cease and Desist Letter Making Fire and Fury An Instant Best Seller! — Available Friday at 9 A.M. — Videos — Updated January 4 and 5, 2018

Posted on January 3, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, conservatives, Education, government, government spending, history, Journalism, Language, Law, liberty,