Category Archives: Republicans

Update II: The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave

Communism, Democrats, Economy, Political Economy, Republicans, Socialism

The excerpt is from my new WND column, “The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave“:

“Republicans are as devout about Keynes as are [Democrats] Reich and Krugman. Nixon famously declared, ‘We are all Keynesians now.’ But my comment is redundant; Bush has bested the most committed Keynesian. ‘Nixon’s Keynesian conversion … looks positively quaint compared with the fiscal and monetary stimulus’ Bush has initiated, quipped Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post.”

“How much to hand out; who to hand it to; which handout makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”

“So who was this man, John Maynard Keynes, who controls the economy from the grave?”

“Keynes was a Fabian socialist strongly opposed to private enterprise. … Fabians departed from communists on the use of force. Whereas the communists believed in ‘attaining power by violence,’ Fabians perfected a form of the Islamic takiya—lying to spread the faith, in their case, state-socialism.”

Read “The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave.” You need to know who Comrade Keynes was!

Update I (Dec. 5): Speaking of Republikeynsians, I heard Tony Blankley, editor of the Washington Times, tell the Obama Headquarters@Hardball, care of Chris Matthews, that the government must spend inordinate amounts of money. Demand has fallen. When consumers stop spending (at last!), urged Blankley, the government must step in and fill the gap; in other words spend like the consumer would have spent had he had the money, but since he can’t spend what he doesn’t have, the government must step in and spend what it doesn’t have.

This glut; this orgy of idiocy, reminds me of a Fellini film, I think it was, where the heroes decide to get together and eat themselves to death. Anyone old enough to remember its name?

This won’t keep the nausea at bay, but I recommend reading “Keynes and the Reds” by historian Ralph Raico. More examples of takiya à la socialism–the myths Keynes’s acolytes have spun around him. His theories ought to have been sufficient to discredit him.

Update II (Dec. 9): In case readers have disobeyed me and failed to read Raico’s “Keynes and the Reds, here is an excerpt:

“…it is commonly held, Keynes was a sincere, indeed, exemplary, believer in the free society. If he differed from the classical liberals in some obvious and important ways, it was simply because he tried to update the essential liberal idea to suit the economic conditions of a new age.”

“But if Keynes was such a model champion of the free society, how can we account for his peculiar comments, in 1933, endorsing, though with reservations, the social “experiments” that were going on at the time in Italy, Germany, and Russia? And what about his strange introduction to the 1936 German translation of the General Theory, where he writes that his approach to economic policy is much better suited to a totalitarian state such as that run by the Nazis than, for instance, to Britain?” …

“A notable feature of Keynes’s praise of the Soviet system is its total lack of any economic analysis. Keynes appears blithely unaware that there might exist a problem of rational economic calculation under socialism, as outlined a year earlier in a volume edited by F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning, which featured the seminal 1920 essay by Ludwig von Mises, ‘Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.'”

“Economists had been debating this question for years. Yet all that concerns Keynes is the excitement of the great experiment, the awe-inspiring scope of the social changes occurring in Soviet Russia under the direction of those ‘disinterested administrators.'”

“This brings to mind Karl Brunner’s comment on Keynes’s notions of social reform: ‘One would hardly guess from the material of the essays that a social scientist, even economist, had written [them]. Any social dreamer of the intelligentsia could have produced them. Crucial questions are never faced or explored.'”

Read the complete essay “Keynes and the Reds, and report back.

Updated: GOP, RIP?

Elections 2008, Ilana On Radio & TV, IMMIGRATION, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans

The excerpt is from my latest WorldNetDaily column, “GOP, RIP?“:

“At bottom, what does David Brooks, the ‘Reformer,’ mean when he instructs ‘Conservatives … to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters'”?

‘Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods,’ wrote H.L. Menken. ‘If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.’

‘Appealing to,’ or ‘reaching out,’ is political prattle for promising stuff. Republicans – ‘Reformed’ and Unreformed – have taken away from their defeat that they should be flogging more stolen goods in communities where such stuff is especially coveted.

These ‘Reformers’ want to ensure that the unreformed voter knows what’s on the menu next time around.

Time magazine would agree: “Thou Shalt not Covet” is so passé. (Or “so yesterday,” as the hip would say.)”

The complete column is here.

Update (Nov. 16): I will be chatting to Jerry Hughes of the Accent Radio Network, on his show, Conceived in Liberty. The topic: my column “GOP, RIP?” The time: 11:30 until 12:00 PM, Pacific.

Updated: Pawlenty Or Ponnuru; It’s All The Same

Conservatism, Economy, Elections 2008, Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Republicans

The Republican Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has declared:

“‘Drill baby, drill’ by itself is not an energy policy. It’s not enough. We’re going to need wind and solar and bio mass.”

What Pawlenty is saying is that arguing with global warming politics is not viable. Therefore, the logic of drilling must be substituted with the illogic of expensive, and hence dirtier, sources of energy. As I wrote in “The Goods on Gas“:

“The more efficient the source of energy, the less waste and pollution are involved in its conversion into energy. Think of the totality of the production process! The fewer resources expended in bringing a fuel to market, the cleaner and cheaper is the process.”

So, Mr. Pawlenty, drilling is so an energy policy—especially if one hasn’t drilled in decades, and if oil is one of most viable sources of energy. Most Republicans have simply lost the ability to make a case, any case.

Update (Nov. 20): It’s my theory that the quest for power, among the punditocracy and the pols alike, creates a convergence toward opinions most acceptable to power brokers and voters.

To wit, in “Rebooting the Right,” Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of National Review, ladles out the same lukewarm, happy, middle-grounds we’ve heard from most GOPers–and I surveyed in “GOP, RIP?“:

“At the GOP governors’ meeting this month, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota argued that Republicans need to stay conservative but also modernize. A revitalized conservatism would push for tax reform with an eye on middle-class families, not hedge-fund operators. It would seek solutions to global warming rather than deny that it exists. It would place a higher priority on making health care affordable than on slashing pork programs. It would promote the assimilation of Hispanics rather than regard them as a menace or a source of cheap labor.”

Updated: Pawlenty Or Ponnuru; It's All The Same

Conservatism, Elections 2008, Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Republicans

The Republican Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has declared:

“‘Drill baby, drill’ by itself is not an energy policy. It’s not enough. We’re going to need wind and solar and bio mass.”

What Pawlenty is saying is that arguing with global warming politics is not viable. Therefore, the logic of drilling must be substituted with the illogic of expensive, and hence dirtier, sources of energy. As I wrote in “The Goods on Gas“:

“The more efficient the source of energy, the less waste and pollution are involved in its conversion into energy. Think of the totality of the production process! The fewer resources expended in bringing a fuel to market, the cleaner and cheaper is the process.”

So, Mr. Pawlenty, drilling is so an energy policy—especially if one hasn’t drilled in decades, and if oil is one of most viable sources of energy. Most Republicans have simply lost the ability to make a case, any case.

Update (Nov. 20): It’s my theory that the quest for power, among the punditocracy and the pols alike, creates a convergence toward opinions most acceptable to power brokers and voters.

To wit, in “Rebooting the Right,” Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of National Review, ladles out the same lukewarm, happy, middle-grounds we’ve heard from most GOPers–and I surveyed in “GOP, RIP?“:

“At the GOP governors’ meeting this month, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota argued that Republicans need to stay conservative but also modernize. A revitalized conservatism would push for tax reform with an eye on middle-class families, not hedge-fund operators. It would seek solutions to global warming rather than deny that it exists. It would place a higher priority on making health care affordable than on slashing pork programs. It would promote the assimilation of Hispanics rather than regard them as a menace or a source of cheap labor.”