THE NECESSITY OF MUSLIM EXPULSION

    It is now a matter of indisputable record that in western countries hardly a week goes by without some extraordinary act of barbarism committed by jihadists.  The inevitable solution to this crisis is the expulsion of all Muslims from all western countries.  It will become increasingly apparent that this is the only viable solution to the problem and the way forward to the restoration of civil society in the west.   There will be great opposition to this idea at the outset which will eventually yield to reality.    The only question which remains is this: how many must die before such a policy is implemented....5 million, 10 million, 50 million, or 100 million?   At some point ideology will yield to demonstrable facts and all Muslims, without exception, will be expelled from all western societies.   It must be remembered that Muslims were first expelled from France in 742 by Charles the Hammer Martel, and that solution worked for a very long time.

AMERICA: A VASSALAGE OF TUTELARY FASCISM

   The shape of America in which we now find ourselves at last must be reviewed in the stark and uncomfortable light of the facts as they are. One might attempt to enumerate and consider the wide variety of interferences and regulations which have been heaped upon our hapless and beleaguered citizens. The task is not simply daunting, but impossible. There is no corner of the universe of human action which has escaped their notice.

  The federal government has already begun or will soon undertake all of the following:
they regulate wages, bonuses, voter registration rules, prices, air in tires, auto tail lights, air bags, truck safety, truck driver hours, water in toilets, toilet paper, gasoline mileage standards, cooking oils, appliance efficiency, tobacco, electrical standards, alcohol, air quality, non-prescription drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, the levels at which thermostats are set, government schools, school curriculum, retirement plans, chemical plants, oil and gas exploration, coal mining, highway construction, water quality standards, transportation safety, air traffic control, railroads, customs, prisons, automobile colors, college and university grants and admissions, firearms and ammunition, farm production, ports, securities, insurance, mortgages, banks, security firms, power plants, nuclear plants, fissile material, carbon dioxide emissions, endangered species, forestry, racetracks, abortion on demand, euthanasia as required, eugenics for all, and rationed health care for the survivors.

   Of course, this is not a complete list and can only barely be described as a representative list with a big stretch. In short, the government of the United States has either a fist or a boot in
just about everything. They have a plan to control, manage, supervise, and punish with impunity every aspect of the life of the common man. They have both figuratively and literally shot for the moon. Apologies are offered to those whose favorite source of irritation has inadvertently been omitted.

   The perceptive observer will note that with so much activity they nevertheless seem unable to secure the borders, one the few responsibilities which the Federal government is assigned by the Constitution. Still, how may this form of governance be described? What words are adequate and accurate to convey the idea behind this governance?

   Marxism was international socialism in an extreme form, an entire absence of private property universally imposed. It was a Kingdom of God without God. The state was God and required absolute obedience. The state owns everyone and everything which they do. In this sense there is no actual redistribution in Marxism. There is only distribution, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need. All production is owned by the state which distributes the benefits equally. This is the vision of its realized eschatology which has never actually been achieved.

   Socialism conveyed an idea not quite so extreme, and still the bulk of all means of production, or at least mass production was under state control. Socialism seems to focus more on the redistribution of benefits than on the actual state ownership of property as it is more willing to accept state control in lieu of state ownership. Socialism is about redistribution. Whatever remnants there remain of a free market are thought of as inequitably distributing benefits which the state must redistribute, because it is the ‘fair’ thing to do. Socialists eventually become dissatisfied with the uneven results of redistribution and become attracted to the simple distribution of Marxism.

   Fascism was national socialism and it embraced national industrial policy (e.g. nationalized auto companies) and national commercial policy (e.g. nationalized financial sector) with huge component of state ownership of properties of heavy industry (e.g. steel mills, power generation, defense contracting, etc.) within the confines of national borders. It carried the additional twist of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism, presumably not as an absolutely necessary component, but as a catalyst to achieve the rest.

   Both Marxism and Fascism share a lack of respect for international borders and follow expansionist foreign policy as the extension of their ideology. What drives their missionary zeal is a mystery, but no deeper than the mystery embedded in every empire. It is driven by hubris.

   The vision of governance embraced by the last Bush might be classified as near fascist. He introduced in a major way changes which would ultimately lead to a national commercial and national industrial policy. His successor has carried on with these policies, expanded them, and brought further forward the already incipient component of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism. This kind of bigotry has now become popular around the world. The President of Brazil once lamented that the world financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by white people with blue eyes. For some time anti-religious sentiment has permeated the federal government.

  The financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by every member of Congress who took campaign cash and turned a blind eye to the abuses at Fannie and Freddie. The fact that this took place
as the culmination of forty years of unwarranted monetary and credit expansion is what led to the collapse. These were all adjunct policies to support a vision of globalism, which suggested that Americans could borrow and consume indefinitely while the rest of the world could manufacture, produce, and invest indefinitely.

   It is this vision which suggested that the American consumer and taxpayer could bring prosperity and growth to everyone in the world who lived in a cave and wore a loincloth. The imposition of individual and corporate income taxes contributed mightily to this vision as the net effect of such taxes is the exportation of a nations entire productive base. As American disposable income came under increasing pressure this model of globalism failed, because there were not enough customers with enough money in their pockets to support the productive capacity of the world. All of the failure associated with collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and so forth came about as the result of trying to keep the cheap or free credit flowing, by whatever mechanism could be invented.

   The framers constructed a representative republic which bears almost no resemblance to what we now suffer. The state which they constructed began with a fundamental epistemological assumption: the existence of Natural Law emanating from Nature’s God. From this assumption they drew what they believed to be the knowledge of good and evil. Some things were good and others were evil. They made the claim of self-evident truth. It is a religious claim, a statement of faith. They believed that the universe, its laws, and its God were knowable.

   They believed in a concept of original sin. They saw the universe as broken and flawed, and man in a state of imperfect stewardship and capable of great evil. This religious understanding was the foundational thought of the framers of the Constitution. Without a concept of Natural Law there can be no universal human rights. Without the radical evil of original sin man is perfectible and there is no need for a separation of powers.

   In modern times few want to consider the idea of original sin, because it suggests a transcendental moral law to which they do not measure up. Nevertheless, it is the idea of original sin which made the framers anti-utopian. The modern atheist or agnostic may suffer some discomfort at this point, but may overcome it by thinking of the demonstrable propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. It is this propensity which the religious attribute to original sin.

   The framers had no illusions about creating the perfect state. They did not envision the establishment of a realized eschatology. For them, the world and man was broken and the task was to choose as best one could between manifest evils in an imperfect universe . The task was to protect the inalienable rights of man from the predations of others, whether individuals or government. Evil was that which violated the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. The affirmation of slavery in the Constitution for some must have been a bitter pill indeed. Their error was trading away the rights of man in slavery to achieve a less noble end: unity.

  The passage of two centuries have brought many changes, and we no longer have a representative republic. We no longer have even a democratic representative republic. We have
something entirely different. Alexis De Tocqueville attempted at the end of his work Democracy in America to envision what sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear. He struggled with this question:

"I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it."

  The term suggested by the economist Robert Higgs is ‘participatory fascism.’ It is a good term. It is descriptive of some aspects of what America faces in the twenty first century. However, the term has a serious deficiency. ‘Participation’ is appropriate only in the sense that the ubiquitous Federal Government recruits millions of the common man as accessories to its crimes. For the vast numbers of victims it is not participatory. It places them in a state of suffocating vassalage.

   The student of these matters is drawn to De Tocqueville and his near prophetic vision of modern man in his isolation and self absorption:

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest, his children and private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."
  The totally self absorbed condition of man is necessary to this new kind of despotism to exist. It is a widespread intellectual, spiritual, and social lethargy. It may be said to have reached a zenith in the United States during the decade of the 1960s, except that it has never retreated from its zenith. Indeed it seems as though the popular desire for the empty and the vacuous grows with each passing decade, and into this vacuum steps government.

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided that they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?....Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

   De Tocqueville takes the view that those who over such a lengthy period of time have become dependent on the supervision of the central power gradually lose the ability to think, feel, and act for themselves, and finally fall below the level of humanity. The end of such a state is that:

"The vices of the rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master."
    It is certainly true that America of the early twenty first century is burdened by the vices of rulers and the ineptitude of its people. The financial situation of this period certainly looks like the beginning of ruin. But could America create freer institutions?

   The modern model of American government is not a democratic representative republic.
It has morphed into a vassalage of tutelary fascism. Clearly, it is more vassalage than it is participatory. It is democratic only in the sense that the people, or a percentage of the people, periodically arise from their stupor to vote, and then only to assure their role as accessories to the crimes of the government. This vassalage has been created by the willing subservience of the people to what is presented and envisioned as an utopia. A concept of an utopia is only possible in the absence of an understanding of original sin or of the propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. The moral laws of Nature and Nature’s God and the idea of original sin made possible the American nation at its outset. The recovery of those ideas which are anti-utopian is essential or its people will stretch themselves at the feet of a single master.

RISING UP FROM BENDED KNEE: OVERCOMING TUTELARY FASCISM

             

    Man is an enigmatic being. He is unlike the creatures of the forest, the desert, or the sea.
Those creatures move as automatons from one conquest to the next.   They never contemplate the misery or the death they impose on one another.  They never record their wisdom for future generations. They never struggle with the place which they occupy in the food chain.
  
    Man is quite different.  He is self aware.   He has the capacity to know himself and others.  He has the capacity to know whence he came and where he is going. Man has language and history.   The record which he has compiled stretches over five thousand years. For all of this time man has repeatedly insisted upon the existence of a Supreme Being who establishes a moral order.  The record has been laid down like layers of sedimentary rock.  It provides demonstrable proof of the past.

    The signers of the Declaration of Independence were mostly Christian and Theist.   They agreed on several notions of theology.   They agreed that there was a Supreme Being.  They agreed that He created the universe.  They agreed that he infused that universe with moral order.  They made three appeals to God in the Declaration of Independence.  They appealed to God as Creator and Supreme Legislator who is the author of the natures law.  They appealed to God as the Supreme Judge of the Universe for the rectitude of their intentions.   They appealed to God in His executive function of Providence upholding the laws of nature. 

    The founders saw in God three separate but equal functions:  God as Legislator, God as Judge, and God as Executive.  When these functions are combined in a transcendent Being they pose no threat to the life, liberty, or property of men.  When these functions are combined in any form of statism, the state acts in loco Deus, in place of God.    That any state should presume to act in place of God is more than troubling.   It is dangerous.  States which act in loco Deus are Punitive States.  They are ideological theocracies.

    In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Empire the world is no longer organized in a bi-polar way.   What has emerged in its place is the wide spread rise of the Punitive State.  The Punitive state is a tutelary fascist state.  It is characterized everywhere it has arisen by a rationalist epistemology and ignorance.   It is uniformly permeated with incompetence and stupidity.  The advocates of the Punitive tutelary fascist State bear a striking resemblance to Eric Hoffer’s description of the True Believer.  (See Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 1951).

    The nature of these belief systems is such that the fascists  reject in practice any true utilization of the scientific method.  When properly applied science advances from theory to knowledge by eliminating all alternative explanations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Fascists do not follow these procedures.  The failure to follow procedures of true science is demonstrable in the unreasoning adherence to theories of global warming.   The problems with this ideology are almost too numerous to mention.  Here are a few of the major identifiable problems which are studiously ignored.
 
     First, there is significant doubt that any global warming is taking place beyond the normal variation of climate of the earth over the past 4.567 billion years.  That climate has been variously so hot and cold that the surface has at different times been both molten and frozen.
 
    Secondly, there is significant doubt that any recent warming which might be established is in fact anthropogenic.

    Third, there is no accounting of the fact that the earth has regularly been sequestering massive quantities of carbon by natural processes.
 
  
    Fourth, the carbon sequestered by the earth in fossil fuels is a very small fraction of the total amount of carbon sequestered.  The majority of carbon has been sequestered by the earth in magma and solid rock.  Additional carbon has been sequestered for millennia in permafrost methane. Still more carbon has been sequestered on  the ocean floor in methane hydrates.
                              
    Fifth, while the amount of carbon released by man is easily calculated, no accounting has been taken of the common practices of man which naturally sequester carbon.
   
     Sixth, there is no accounting for solar cycles, cycles of precession, or cycles of the passage of the solar system through the plane of the galaxy.  There is no accounting for the ever increasing energy output of the sun as it ages.  There is no accounting for cycles of glaciation, volcanism, water vapor in the atmosphere, or oceanic currents.  There is no accounting for a host of anomalous data sets from places such as Antarctica.  Moreover,  there is clear evidence even in historic times of both significantly cooler and warmer climate than is currently the case. There is no explanation of previous periods of either cooling or warming.

    Seventh, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere  has been at times both significantly higher and significantly lower than it is currently. Moreover, many have asserted that rises in temperature appear at times to precede rather than follow rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A number of works debunking global warming are available.
(See Michaels, Patrick J. and Balling Jr., Robert C., Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, Cato Institute, Washington D.C.,  2009).

    It is clear that the devotion of the advocates of the Punitive State is such that demonstrable facts cannot be cited in opposition to their ideology.     The Punitive State arises out of a rationalist epistemology and is focused on alleging authority rather than observing it.  In this manner it is composed of a lethal combination of ignorance, incompetence, and stupidity.


    The advocates of the Punitive State further demonstrate their lack of education by elevating diversity to the level of a moral value.   Diversity is an ideological value not a moral value. It is only when one accepts the dubious notion of moral relativism or moral equivalence that diversity becomes a moral value.  The absurdity of moral equivalence is apparent by simply considering a few examples.  The society of head hunting cannibals is not morally equivalent to any modern western society.  In Tribalistic society the murder of non-believers or non-members is an act of piety (such as is the case with Islam).  Such societies are not morally equivalent to any society which embraces universal human rights.  This is an indisputable fact which render Islamic and all other non-Islamic societies entirely incompatible.

    For both the scientist and the religious believer faith is a satisfaction in the sufficiency of the evidence.   The main difference is that the scientist demands an elimination of alternative explanations.  Authority resides in the observable facts of the universe.   The true scientist is a sceptic waiting to be shown that all of the imagined alternatives have been eliminated.  This level of patience and humility is not present in any fascist.  The authoritarian of the Punitive Tutelary Fascist State is interested in the unfolding of history.  The scientist is interested in the unfolding of the universe.  The difference between these two approaches could not be more stark.

   What has been described here as ‘tutelary fascism’ is identified elsewhere as ‘moral narcissism’.   See, Simon, Roger L., I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already, 2016.

    The Punitive Tutelary Fascist State represents an emergence of the administrative state along the lines of the racist Woodrow Wilson’s favorite novel, Philip Dru, Administrator.  In the book Philip Dru is a benevolent dictator who imposes  corporate income taxes and abolishes tariffs!  The Administrative State embraces the end of due process, and the end of the rule of law.  The importance of the rule of law in human governance is most succinctly explained in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense:   either the law is King or the King is law.  One must select which of these two types of societies in which one wishes to live.

    The Enlightenment and Reformation which took place in Europe centuries ago were two sides of a single coin.   They represented a repudiation of alleged authority, and placed confidence in observed authority. Authority in science resided in the observable facts.   Authority in faith and practice resided in the text of the Bible (sola scriptura).  This was one of the central propositions of the Protestant Reformation.


    There are two distinct views of man.    In the paradigm of natural law which is described in the Declaration of Independence man is a creature of nature.  All are created equal.  None is endowed with a right to dominion and none are endowed with an obligation of servitude.  In the paradigm of tribalism (as in Islam) man is a creature of his tribe.  His tribe is endowed with a right to dominion and all others are endowed with an obligation of servitude.   Non-members are not even regarded as fully human, just as was the case with slavery in the new world and subsequently in the antebellum United States.



    The historic importance of John Locke cannot be overemphasized.  In his First Treatise on Civil Government he repudiated conventional European thought.  It was commonly believed that kings owed their right to dominion by virtue of descent from Adam (as in the work of Filmer).  (See Robert Filmer, Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings, 1680).
Locke showed that this idea was absurd.  In The Second Treatise on Civil Government  he showed that none are endowed with a right to dominion and none are endowed with an obligation of servitude.   He showed that the only foundation for the just powers of government is the consent of the governed.  It is on this point that Jefferson virtually plagiarizes Locke.

    The natural question arises for Locke:  if all are created equal what are the duties which all men owe to each other?  On this point Locke quotes Hooker, that great Anglican theologian of the Enlightenment.  It reads like a philosophical presentation of a New Testament text.  All men according to Hooker are required by natural law to love others no less than themselves.

 (Richard Hooker, Eight Books of Ecclesiastical Polity, published beginning in 1594 and some volumes published posthumously. See
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hooker-the-works-of-that-learned-and-judicious-divine-mr-richard-hooker).

    It is in this manner that it comes to be that self government requires a moral center.  This is not a deep theological or philosophical notion of no ultimate consequence.  It is at the very center of the notion of liberty.   If this moral center is absent, slavery is inevitable.  One is reminded of the New Testament text: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”.
The modern abandonment of a moral center is at the collapse of the rule of law and a collapse of the separations of power.  How can so many surrender their liberties and so easily accept the dictates of a fascist?   It comes about when large numbers of persons are controlled by considerations of immediate self interest.  It comes about as a matter of expediency.

 (See  Etienne de la Boétie,  The Politics of Obedience: A Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, 1553.  https://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude).

    There are contradictions of individualism,  a strong executive, and an expansive administrative state in the west.    These contradictions are noted in the work of de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.  He concludes that such a state is unstable and must in the end either create freer institutions or ‘stretch itself at the feet of a single master’.

    The hubris of empire arises in the death throes of the Punitive Tutelary Fascist State.  The single greatest observer of this was Rudyard Kipling.   He was considered the ‘Prophet of Empire’ by no less than George Orwell of 1984 fame.   His powerful critique of the United States involvement in the Phillippines entitled The White Man’s Burden contains burning sarcasm.  It is one of the early critiques of nation building, and it was well within the intellectual reach of the common man. It must be remembered that empire is the penultimate state of fascism.  What comes next is total dissolution.

    What are our probable futures in the twenty first century?  It is the nature of these things that liberty yields as statism expands.   The immediate self interest of large numbers of persons is that ever more barbarians be accepted in the bosom of western civilization. The values of those barbarians will be imposed and traditional western values will be scorned and repudiated. After all, it will be said, all of these value systems are morally equivalent.   Government will increasingly punish its enemies and reward its friends as it seeks to impose an ever heavier burden of conformity, silence, and submission.  

    The future of the west may be seen in the portrayal of the Borg in televised science fiction.  ‘You must submit, you must comply, resistence is futile’.    The instability of this state of affairs requires scapegoats to explain its multitude of failures.   Jews, Christians, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, heterosexuals, insurance companies, the self employed, small business owners, white men....all will have a turn at the Tutelary Fascist whipping post.  There is no telling exactly who will have the flesh cut from their bodies by their brown shirted and goose stepping betters.

    It is not clear that this trajectory into hell on earth can be avoided, but it can be resisted. One of the reasons that Tutelary Fascists inevitably destroy an economy is because dollars are more powerful than votes.  For power to be concentrated it is imperative that upward mobility must be destroyed.  As this process proceeds it is important that those who wish to be free spend their ever scarcer resources on everything that offends the forces of tutelary fascism.    Buy a sport utility vehicle. Drink whatever soft drinks you desire.  Question anthropogenic global warming.   Refuse to participate in government health care. Use up your remaining incandescent light bulbs. Create a new holiday: The Government Day of Shame.  Attend a local city council meeting or county commission meeting at least once so as to express your views of their most recent deep disgrace.   Celebrate with pork and beer festivals.  Don’t wear a seat belt in your vehicle unless you wish it.  Require your sons and daughters to learn self defense techniques.  Home school all of your children or send them to private schools.   Attend politically incorrect events such as beauty pageants and women’s sporting events. Read a Koran. Carry it in your left hand. Throw it away when you are finished. Carry a concealed weapon and learn how to use it efficiently.   Avoid invasive body searches at airports.  Call for the expulsion of all invaders.  Do not enter gun free zones.  Use the internet to study the Bible and the classics of western civilization which have largely been purged from all formal educational programs.

  The maladroit tutelary fascists believe they are the betters of ordinary people.  For this reason they cannot tolerate being ignored, ridiculed or criticized.  Identify them as you would Barak Obama, as a petulant ignoramus.