On my mind is another of Glenn Beck’s frequently made errors. Whenever Beck sends out a free copy of his newsletter, he declares “provocatively” that “Glenn has succumbed to socialism.” Avail yourself of the product of Glenn’s momentary insanity, he will exhort (referring to himself in the third person), and sign up for this free, socialistic service. This is a good opportunity to clarify what socialism really is, for unless you understand that there can be no socialism without state coercion, why, then, you comprehend very little about the dread socialism—as little as conservatives and Republicans do.
Indeed too many people conflate the voluntary provision of a free service with socialism. Voluntary cooperation, even absent remuneration, is never socialism. Glenn Beck seems to think that anything free is socialism. Not so. A Kibbutz—Israeli communal living—is a voluntary socialistic arrangement, which, if you prize freedom, is as good as any arrangement people want to enter that is coercion free. Kibbutzim are often economically viable arrangements. Perhaps this is because people are there by choice and by belief.
Thus, an open source software project, worked on voluntarily by scores of developers across the globe, is not socialism. Although volumes have been written on the pros and cons of open source versus proprietary software, the proof is in the pudding: Although free, open source is often as good as software that costs serious money.
I do not want to veer into the copyright debate. However, I still stand by my writing on the topic. “KAZAA,” for example, was engaged in voluntary exchange; “THE COPYRIGHT CARTEL” was the fascistic attempt to infringe on this voluntary exchange—and on tangible property not its own. But let’s leave this debate right now.
“Everything human and divine sacrificed to the idol of public credit,” is how the Brilliant Edmund Burke, supporter of the American colonists, described the illiberal, irreligious, intolerant French Revolution. In return, the punk Thomas Paine spat worthless venom at Burke for his devastating critique of that blood-drenched Revolution. Like contemporary Americans, Paine’s fealty was to the Jacobins, who, for his troubles, almost had him guillotined. The Rights of Man, in particular, is intended as a refutation of Edmund Burke’s critique. Naturally, it does nothing of the sort.
There is no affinity between the French and American founding ideas. And Paine’s proto-socialism—he advocated welfare financed by taxes—is quintessentially unAmerican. Yet Paine is beloved of Americans; of Burke I seldom hear. I intend to change that here on BAB.
Let me begin with an excerpt from Reflections on the Revolution in France, where Burke speaks about the proliferation of fiat money (“fictitious representation”). He does so a great deal in this magnificent tract. Burke hammering on about “current circulating credit,” “defiance of economical principles,” and “bankruptcy” could not be more germane in fin de siècle America:
“At present the state of their treasury sinks every day more and more in cash, and swells more and more in fictitious representation. When so little within or without is now found but paper, the representative not of opulence but of want, the creature not of credit but of power, they imagine that our flourishing state in England is owing to that bank-paper, and not the bank-paper to the flourishing condition of our commerce, to the solidity of our credit, and to the total exclusion of all idea of power from any part of the transaction. They forget that, in England, not one shilling of paper money of any description is received but of choice; that the whole has had its origin in cash actually deposited; and that it is convertible at pleasure, in an instant and without the smallest loss, into cash again. Our paper is of value in commerce, because in law it is of none. It is powerful on ‘Change, because in Westminster Hall it is impotent. In payment of a debt of twenty shillings, a creditor may refuse all the paper of the Bank of England. Nor is there amongst us a single public security, of any quality or nature whatsoever, that is enforced by authority. In fact, it might be easily shown that our paper wealth, instead of lessening the real coin, has a tendency to increase it; instead of being a substitute for money, it only facilitates its entry, its exit, and its circulation; that it is the symbol of prosperity, and not the badge of distress. Never was a scarcity of cash and an exuberance of paper a subject of complaint in this nation.”
[SNIP]
Readers: search the online volume, posted on Bartleby.com, and post comments excerpting your favorite tracts.
Update I (August 26): Prof. Dennis O’keeffe is the author of Burke, due out in October of this year.
Update II: Russell Kirk on Burke:
“Written at white heat, the “Reflections” burns with all the wrath and anguish of a prophet who saw the traditions of Christendom and the fabric of civil society dissolving before his eyes. Yet his words are suffused with a keenness of observation, the mark of a practical statesman. This book is polemic at its most magnificent, and one of the most influential political treatises in the history of the world.” (The Essential Russel Kirk, 2007, p. 144)
Reid Buckley on teaching a writing course to the functionally illiterate students in a run-of-the-mill American university:
“…These young people had not been taught to edit. They had not been taught self-criticism. They had been reared in an environment of self-esteem, even when this went unexamined and was unearned. And when they returned a week later with the fruits of their labors, I was appalled. I took the papers home and spent two afternoons and two evenings past midnight editing them.”
“I had to contend with an illiterate heaping of multisyllabic social-studies mush whose meaning was either obscured or contradicted by other heapings of academic mush, as indecipherable as they were ungrammatical. Illicit inferences lurked under false premises like salamanders under rocks. Logical connections did not exist. Non sequiturs were thick as chiggers. Do not mention grace or style. Of the 28 papers I labored through, only in two did I detect talent buried in the rubble. I had never seen anything so hopeless.”
“When I proceeded to go over the essay of another young man, his voice caught in his throat and he broke down. I was taken aback. We hadn’t proceeded beyond the first page. His wasn’t the worst effort, either. But he wasn’t protesting my criticisms. To the contrary. ‘You’re right,’ he kept repeating, tears flowing, ‘It’s awful. I can’t write my thoughts down. They come out a mess, I know!’ And then he related a scandal. Not in four years of high school and three years of college had a single teacher expressed concern about his writing or offered to edit it. When he said this, other students spoke out to confirm cognate experiences. ‘What can I do now?’ this young man asked me despairingly. ‘I graduate in two months!'”
“The dimensions of his doom and that of these other young people hit me with full force. Not once in their educational lives had they been taught to impose order on chaos, that being contrary to the central dogma of liberal-arts education in our country today. There is no such thing as choosing, as distinguishing between the false and the real, discriminating between good and bad. The cost of this heresy to our nation is beyond calculating: for two generations our businesses, professions, universities, and politics have been populated by moral illiterates who reject reason.”
“The art of writing is the soul of reason, from which all civilization has spun. If one cannot give expression to one’s thoughts, one is reduced to grunts. These young men and women were to be graduated in two months’ time. Yet they were functionally illiterate, as the saying goes—a hideous euphemism for being thrust into the adult world intellectually crippled. Several other students who crowded around me now claimed that never had they had their written work reviewed. I was incredulous. “Never?” “Not once!” came their reply…”
[SNIP]
Do read “The Write Stuff.” It’s a tad overwritten, in my opinion. Reid, moreover, fails to distinguish between the problem of functional illiteracy and the blight of postmodern writing. The two are distinct, with some overlap. In all, the extent of the horror of the betrayal of generations of students by pedagogues cannot be repeated often enough. Kids don’t deserve this.
Update (August 26): Edmund Burke: “Learning will be cast into the mire and trodden down under the hoofs of a swinish multitude.” (From “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”Vol. iii. p. 335.)
Kim Karsashian appeared on Sean Hannity’s ostensible news hour, and was praised by the anchor as a role model for “young girls” (read: budding sluts). With reference to this not unfamiliar sight on FoxNews, Richard Spencer, editor of Taki’s Magazine, Writes: “After this, Sean might wanna make some personnel changes in his Research department.” I think not. Has any one seen “the succession of vacuous, narcissistic, pig-ignorant panelists paraded on Sean Hannity’s ‘Great American Panel‘”? The cheap and nasty looking Kim Karsashian belongs on FoxNews, alongside that cable channel’s anchor ladies, and its chosen bimbo commentators who dress and behave a little like Karsashian.
For example, Geraldo is especially attached to a psychologist—a buxom, surgically altered, grotesque blond, who was once a playmate pinup. O’Reilly makes a mockery of the already ridiculous culture-warrior concept by dragging onto the set a very eager, slutty, East-European Internet exhibitionist to impart her “knowledge” of the English language, no less.
The girl on the screen could have been a Fox News anchorwoman, although she was by far prettier and less vulgar looking than the coarse loudmouths, whose lipstick-dripping mouths deliver, in fog-horn decibels, slogans like: “We Report, You Decide” and “Fair and Balanced.”
Appearing on “Your World” with Neil Cavuto, porn star Sunrise Adams attempted, rather touchingly, to play down her cheap hooker looks and sorry syntax with a pair of nerdy spectacles. But while she used the standard, dizzy, woman’s magazine self-realization routine to describe her occupation—“this is a pastime for me. This is just something for me to do and enjoy and to grow with”—it was her host, Cavuto, who was responsible for rolling out the welcoming waterbed for the porn star and her pimp, Steve Hirsch, co-founder of Vivid Entertainment.
But Fox is “sexing up” more than just news. It’s customary to see the skanky Jamison as a commentator on the E! Networks programs, but the news cable networks, with Fox in the lead, are not far behind. These faux-conservatives are certainly helping to mainstream society’s more dubious members. The class act that is Martha Stewart, for instance, is routinely derided on Fox. Their choice of ‘Lifestyle Guru’? The rotting flesh that is Gene Simmons of the band ‘Kiss.'”
FoxNews is full of big, mediocre egos who feel good around pea-brained, Jenna-Jamison lookalikes.
Update (August 24): Conservatives never tire of touting Miley Cyrus as another example of wholesomeness. They were furious with me for suggesting, in “Bomb Them With Bimbos,” that Miley Cyrus be exported to China:
What an excellent preemptive strike that would be. You just know that before long we’re going to be forced to partake in the awakening of yet another vacuous narcissist who flaunts her character flaws, and other folds, before millions of video voyeurs. A Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan in the making.
Admittedly, I know very little about “Hannah Montana” and her handlers. What I’ve seen of the overbearing, extremely precocious, brassy, and not very bright Miley Cyrus doesn’t conjure the “wholesome” descriptive. When I think of “wholesome,” I think of, say, Martina McBride. Miley in various states of undress, nestled in the arms of father Billy Ray Cyrus, gazing at him seductively—this may be cringe-making, but not surprising.
As for the whole blame Dad and Disney thing: Adopted by left and right alike, the paternalistic depiction of women as passive agents, demeaned by male-driven appetites, is feminist fiction. Miley Cyrus may be 15, but she’s a single-minded exhibitionist, propelled by the fame thing. She’s been raised like that. In all likelihood, Miley originated the idea of posing for Vanity Fair and would not stop pestering pappy until he relented. The typical American parent treats his teenager like a Delphic oracle. Any parent who has such a demigod under construction knows I’m right.
Those who persist in the he-done-me-wrong routine don’t have teenagers. Or are oblivious to the reversal in parent-child roles that has come to typify the dynamics in the American family.
In any event, as Lou Dobbs often exhorts, it’s time to get tough on China. I say let’s get dirty. Export Miley to China. What better way to addle the young minds of the competition?”
CHECK OUT this soft porn, suggestive, father-daughter tease. Tender, isn’t it? (NOT: this is twisted):
