Wednesday, July 1, 2015

The Meaning and Definition of “Private Property”

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”
Thus wrote Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto. But what does this phrase actually mean? The definition of the term “private property” has been a source of immense confusion for many people, primarily among the capitalist opponents of communism, who somehow always manage to misinterpret, twist, and generally misrepresent communist ideas and rhetoric. One of the most common tactics used by capitalists when arguing against communism is to widen the scope of communist terminology, thereby imposing upon those terms a much broader meaning than communists themselves ever actually intended.

This capitalist distortion of communist terminology is nowhere more evident than in the case of the term “private property,” the definition of which capitalists have stretched so far and so wide as to include in it any and all material items that a given individual might possess. But this was never the meaning which communists themselves intended, and for capitalists to present this as the communist position is both misleading and disingenuous.

To the communist, the term “private property” has never meant anything more or less than private capital utilized as a means of production. The term does not include individual possessions or personal effects. Yet for some reason, capitalist critics cannot seem to wrap their heads around this simple concept, and continue to use the term as a label for anything and everything under the sun. So great is their misrepresentation, that one cannot help but wonder whether they are simply ignorant and pompous fools, or masterfully cunning manipulators and deceivers.

“Watch out!” warns the capitalist, as he misleads the public with his lies. “The communists want to take all of your property, all of your personal possessions, everything you own, and redistribute it evenly among your neighbors, your friends, your colleagues, and everybody else! You don't want that, do you!?” Naturally, the great masses of the general public inevitably respond to this question in the negative. After all, nobody wants to have their personal possessions — items for which most of them have likely worked very hard to obtain — to be ripped away from them and given to another who did not work for those items. And so the capitalist succeeds in turning the opinion of general public against the communists, and the people then subsequently proceed to drive the communists out of town. There's just one problem: the communists never had any intention of doing what the capitalist charlatan claimed they would do. All the communists ever wanted was for the society's means of production to be collectively owned and controlled by the people as a whole, and for the goods produced thereby to be shared amongst everyone, so that none would be left wanting, and everyone would have enough. Seizing and redistributing everyone's personal possessions was never on the agenda. But the truth of what the communists actually intended was never of any importance to the capitalist. All that mattered to him was maintaining his monopolistic hold on the society's means of production, so that he might hoard its vast wealth for himself.

So often have communists encountered confusion and hostility over this linguistic problem, that the term “personal property” had to be coined by modern communists to clarify their position. Those who actually read genuine communist theory, rather than indulging exclusively in vulgar capitalist refutations of communist theory (refutations which usually only ever refute the capitalists' own shallow misunderstandings and misrepresentations of communism) have long since understood that the term “private property” has a much narrower and much more specific meaning for the communist than the overly broad and all encompassing definition typically used by capitalists. For the communist, “private property” has only ever meant the productive facilities and social institutions of society, and even then, only in the context that “production” refers to industrial production on a mass scale. In short, the term “private property,” when used by communists, refers exclusively to the private sector of a large scale industrial economy, and not to any and all material possessions that can possibly be owned. When communists declare that all private property should be abolished, they do not mean that every citizen should relinquish individual ownership over his or her own personal possessions. Rather, they mean that society, as a collective whole, should abolish private ownership and control over social institutions, facilities, landed estates, means of production, transportation, communication, and so forth. Personal effects should still rightfully belong to each individual. The sense in which ownership of property is to be abolished is the private, not the personal — the macro, not the micro — the general, not the particular.

To abolish private property, therefore, means simply to abolish the private sector of the economy, and redirect all production through the public sector. It does not mean that communists are going to come and take away your television, your clothes, your computer, your iPad, your guitar, your teddy bear, or any of your other personal items that you happen to own. These things are all personal property, and communists have no intention of abolishing individual ownership of personal property. The idea that communists are going to take everything you own nothing is but a boldface lie perpetuated by greedy capitalists who will say or do anything to retain their class privilege and make you fight against communism and your own class interest.

In the real world, the people who actually take away your personal property are the capitalists themselves when they send repo men to your home to repossess your personal effects after you inevitably default on your loans because you can't make the exorbitant interest payments they demand. In an ironic twist, it is the capitalists who become guilty of depriving you of your personal possessions, thereby committing the self same crime which they condemned the communists for supposedly wanting to commit. But the truth is that the communists never wanted to take your property away. What they have always wanted is to take back the property which the capitalists stole from the people, and to return that property to its rightful owners. The hypocritical capitalists who believe they have a right to steal from the people will undoubtedly call the communist redistribution of wealth an act of theft, but in reality it is a reversal of theft, for it was the people who possessed the rightful claim to the property all along.

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Ayn Rand's Objectivism vs. Noam Chomsky's Anarchism

There is a debate in Objectivist and Libertarian circles as to whether or not Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism leads logically to Anarchism. In the book "On Anarchism," self-proclaimed anarchist Noam Chomsky takes a stab at Ayn Rand's theories, pointing out how her ideas are essentially just a distorted version of classical European Libertarianism, but twisted around to make them right-wing (Libertarianism was originally an anarchistic, left-wing ideology, and still is in Europe).

Most of the Objectivists and American Libertarians that I've encountered don't particularly like Noam Chomsky. When I ask them why, the response I typically get is something along the line of, He's a liberal, all liberals are Socialists, and Socialism is evil. Objectivists, like most Conservatives and right-wing thinkers, have a very simplified definition of Socialism.

I once spoke with Kaila Halling, co-author of "Pendulum of Justice," and she gave me a slightly deeper answer. She told me she believes Noam Chomsky's ideas are detestable for two primary reasons: first, because he thinks that language shapes the world rather than describing the world, and second, because he's an Anarchist. Both of these are ideological positions which Objectivism completely rejects at least, Objectivists claim to reject Anarchism. But as I will demonstrate, this is actually not the case. Regardless of how much Ayn Rand claimed to have detested Anarchist philosophy, her own philosophy nevertheless logically leads straight to Anarchy, because it is built almost entirely on the Non-Aggression Principle. But I'll address that point in a minute. First, let's deal with the argument about language.

The epistemological debate as to whether language shapes the world or describes the world originated in the 19th century with the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, whose philosophical ideas touched, at least briefly, on virtually every subject known to man. In one of his most prominent works, "The Phenomenology of Spirit" (sometimes alternatively translated as "The Phenomenology of Mind"), published in 1807 in Bamberg, Germany, Hegel argued that how we think as individuals is largely determined by the thoughts of other people through the language we speak, the traditions and mores of our society, and the cultural and religious institutions of which we are a part. In other words, Hegel believed that language, among other things, controls our understanding of the world, and therefore determines how we perceive and interact with reality, thus subtlety guiding the way in which human society develops. In short, language shapes the world, at least according to Hegel. This argument, however, has not gone without criticism. In fact, the two most prominent philosophers who disagreed with Hegel on this point were Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.

Marx argued that Hegel had it exactly backwards (or upside down). That is, Marx claimed that our language does not shape the world, but rather that our language and mode of thinking are determined by the material and social conditions of the society in which we happen to live. According to Marx, as human society develops and progresses, our language will develop and progress along with it, guided by material and technological advancement.

Ayn Rand, by contrast, made the rather simplistic argument that language describes the world as it actually is an intellectually shallow position, and one which inhibits the advancement of knowledge because it rules out the possibility that established language could be describing things incorrectly or incompletely. This is just one example (among many) of how Ayn Rand's philosophy was not actually designed to advance human knowledge, but rather merely to provide a justification for the status quo.

Personally, I believe there is validity in the arguments of both Marx and Hegel. Ayn Rand's argument, however, is childish. Language attempts to describe the world as it actually is, certainly, but only the ignorant and intellectually dense would try to argue that language is always successful in this endeavor.

Yes, language describes the world, but it also shapes the way we think, and therefore shapes the way we interpret the world. Our interpretations of the events around us will always be filtered through the lens of our ideology, whatever that may be. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would say it's unavoidable. We simply cannot help but judge things against the background of our own experience and knowledge. There is no such thing as a truly non-partisan position. Everyone is partisan. The only question is to whom. Once we recognize our own internal cognitive biases, we can begin to change out our ideological lenses and see how the world appears to us when we view things from a different perspective. None of the lenses are perfect, and they all create some level of distortion, but they are the only means by which we can view anything. Therefore, if we want to obtain the highest degree of accuracy possible, we must have multiple lenses in our toolkit, and be willing to change them out with each other to obtain multiple perspectives. Insisting on using just one lens only blinds us to the bigger picture.
"Our brain is mapping the world. Often that map is distorted, but it's a map with constant immediate sensory input."
— E. O. Wilson
"A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measure’s sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish’s picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?"
— Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, "The Grand Design," p.?
"In the history of science we have discovered a sequence of better and better theories or models, from Plato to the classical theory of Newton to modern quantum theories. It is natural to ask: Will this sequence eventually reach an end point, an ultimate theory of the universe, that will include all forces and predict every observation we can make, or will we continue forever finding better theories, but never one that cannot be improved upon? We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question..."
— Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, "The Grand Design," p.8
Do we perceive real things, or just our representations of them?

TIME: Stephen Hawking Asks, What Is Reality?

Ayn Rand may have rejected Anarchism on an emotional level, but her ideology is nevertheless built on the same logical foundation as Anarchism: the idea that it is possible for men and women to unite, without coercion, under a binding legal order for peaceful cooperation. They both reject coercive social organizations, and repudiate coercion as a social technique. Ayn Rand said some very nasty things about Anarchism, but she never specified how her ideal utopia (Galt's Gulch) was any different from the ideal utopia of an Anarchist society. In fact, her descriptions of Galt's Gulch which she provides in her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged cannot be called anything else except the descriptions of an Anarchist society. Ayn Rand may have vehemently repudiated Anarchism, but her own ideology points in the same direction. And ultimately it is direction, not intention, that determines destination.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Did Ayn Rand reject science?

Many people often accuse Ayn Rand of denying science, or at least being an opponent of many basic scientific principles. But is this true? Well, let's look at the evidence. Ayn Rand did seem to have very big objections to quantum physics, as the entire field does call into question Aristotle's famous Law of Identity (A = A), which states that "the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect." Ayn Rand was very fond of this principle, and those familiar with her writings know that it forms one of the central pillars of her ideology. Unfortunately for Ayn Rand, Aristotle's axiom — like the equations of Issac Newton — was only correct within the physical scale of normal, everyday human experience. It utterly failed to accurately describe the physics and behavior of things that are very, very small (atoms and quarks), and also things that are very, very large (planets, solar systems, and galaxies).

When people accuse Ayn Rand of denying science, what they mean is that she clung desperately to classical Newtonian mechanics, completely rejecting quantum mechanics. Now of course Newtonian mechanics is obviously a legitimate field of science, which is why Objectivsts are technically correct in their claim that Ayn Rand did not reject science. However, to continually hold on to the old theories and the old equations, even when they can no longer accurately describe the observed phenomena of the atomic universe, well, that's not the path to scientific progress. In fact, it's the exact opposite of progress. It's the path to intellectual damnation. It's closing the door on new knowledge.

Back in April of 2008, Bloomberg Businessweek published an online article by Matthew Keenan titled, "CEOs Pushing Ayn Rand Studies Use Money to Overcome Resistance," which touched on this problem briefly:
"Rand believed American universities had been taken over in the 20th century by thinkers who rejected her notion that many of life's questions have one right answer," said Judith Wilt, an English professor at Boston College.

"Universities as places for discourse and argument and a kind of searching tend to be more interested in what Rand would call vagueness,'' said Wilt, 66, who is teaching a seminar on Rand and contemporaries such as John Steinbeck and Arthur Miller. "Universities tend to be interested not in closing the argument, but in keeping it open.''
In the world of business, quickly reaching a definitive conclusion is often necessary, as business leaders frequently have to take action and make firm decisions which will push their companies forward and turn a profit. Even if the decision is not the best, in today's fast-paced technological world, no CEO can afford to sit around endlessly pontificating over all the philosophical implications and ramifications of their every move. They have to act.

Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking definitive action even when we might not have complete information. In fact, we must do this if we want to actually get anything done in life. The problem with Ayn Rand's ideology, however, is that she tries to apply this concept not just to business, but to philosophy and science in general. This approach is problematic because it assumes that there is always an absolute and clear-cut solution to every single problem in the entire universe. Unfortunately for Ayn Rand, that simply isn't the case. The more scientists actually discover about the universe, the more we start to realize just how much we don't know, and there are very sharp disagreements about many issues, even among the most elite scientists in the world. For example, since the 1970s, there has been an ongoing debate surrounding Stephen Hawking's new black hole theory regarding whether or not black holes cause matter and information to be lost. To this day, the issue has yet to be resolved.

The advancement of human knowledge requires that we not reach definite conclusions — that we keep debates open indefinitely. In the interrelated realms of philosophy and science, any attempt to establish absolute certainties can only result in dogma, which shuts the door to new knowledge. After all, we only ever pursue new knowledge if we believe we do not yet have a definitive answer. Once we believe we have found the answer, we stop seeking. Thus, continual advancement demands that we continually recognize our own ignorance. A cup which is already full cannot be filled again. This is especially apparent in the field of quantum physics, which suggests that the universe is full of contradictions and innumerable gray areas.

There's an excellent book by Howard Bloom that deals with (among other things) quantum physics, philosophy, and the history and evolution of mathematics among various cultures. The book is titled, "The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates." And yes, Howard Bloom does specifically mention Ayn Rand in his book, and directly addresses some of her key theories. Because of that, I believe Bloom's book should be read by everyone who calls themselves an Objectivist or a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy. One of the reasons I say that is because Bloom devotes an entire section to the debate between the competing schools of Aristotle and Heraclitus, pointing out that Ayn Rand simply sided with the school of Aristotle, which was opposed to the school of Heraclitus. Therefore, if we can prove that Heraclitus actually had a legitimate argument, and that Aristotle's own ideas were not the whole truth, then Ayn Rand is at least partially wrong by default, because she sided with Aristotle, and Aristotle was himself partially wrong (or at least not entirely correct).

I won't go into full detail about the debate between Aristotle and Heraclitus, but to sum it up, Aristotle believed that everything in the universe was solid, knowable, exact, and clearly defined. Heraclitus, by contrast, believed that all things were in a state of fluid motion and perpetual change, and is known for coining the famous philosophical axiom that "You can't step in the same river twice." This debate is encapsulated in the song "Just Around the River Bend" from the animated Disney film Pocahontas.

Though it should be noted that although Ayn Rand considered herself an advocate of Aristotle, she appears to have at least somewhat misunderstood Aristotle's position, as A is A was only part of Aristotle's argument, and he never said that A could not also equal B, or some other variable. Quite the contrary, Aristotle went beyond A is A, and said that if A is B, and B is C, then A must also be C. For example:

Socrates is Socrates. Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
(A = A, A = B, B = C, A = C; or A = A = B = C = A)

This is a process known as deductive reasoning, one of the three main types of reasoning (the other two being inductive and abductive), which together form one of the major keystones of all scientific, philosophical, and mathematical thought. Without them, virtually all logical thinking would be impossible. There have been times where I've tried to engage in debate with Objectivists, only to have them vehemently insist that A cannot ever equal B, because A is A, and A cannot ever equal anything except A. Objectivists repeat this slogan like a dogmatic mantra, praising themselves for their own moral and logical consistency, blissfully unaware that they are simply revealing their own ignorance about the actual nature of genuine logical reasoning.

In addition to simply reiterating a mangled version of the ideas advocated by Aristotle (while failing to give any acknowledgement whatsoever to the competing theories of Heraclitus), Ayn Rand also opposed government funding of scientific research, believing that if such research were supported with government funds, it would progress at a slower rate than if it were privately funded. This view is reiterated by her followers, as evidenced in the following quote by Malini Kochhar from The Atlas Society:
"The problem of government-funded research is not only moral; it also affects the long-term prosperity of society, which is based on the advancement of science. The nature of science is such that government financing tends to crowd out the investment made by private industry. Clearly, if people pay higher taxes, they would be less willing to spend additional money on private research investment or donations to research foundations. The danger is that as science becomes dependent on government, the rate of scientific development will slow. And unless we reverse this trend, we will retard the progress of our civilization, both morally and materially."
— Malini Kochhar, "Government Funding Vs. The Progress Of Science," The Atlas Society
Not only does Kochhar's reasoning above (which was derived from the ideas of Ayn Rand) not make any logical sense, it doesn't even have any evidence to support it. It's nothing but pure dogma. In truth, all historical evidence points to the exact opposite of what Kochhar claims: that the biggest scientific advancements and technological breakthroughs have almost always come out of either government-owned or government-funded laboratories and research projects. In October 2011, CNN published an article listing just a few examples:
  1. The Accelerometer — Measures changes in speed. Originally developed by the U.S. military to help guide weapons, accelerometers are now used in all kinds of motion sensing technology, including the Nintendo Wii.
  2. The Microchip — One of the basic building blocks of modern technology. With the advent of supersonic weapons following World War II, the U.S. military was seeking a tiny device that could quickly do the complicated mathematical equations necessary for precise missile targeting. Several companies, including Fairchild Semiconductor and Texas Instruments, were working on just such a device. With funding from the Pentagon, the microchip's rate of development increased dramatically.
  3. Global Positioning System (GPS) — Also used for improving weapons targeting systems, GPS satellites were launched by the U.S. military years before GPS technology became available to the general public in the 1990s.
  4. The Internet — During the height of the Cold War, the U.S. military became enamored with the idea of creating a decentralized communications system that did not rely on a central interchange, as a centralized hub could potentially be vulnerable to attack. In 1969, with money from the Department of Defense, the first node of this network was installed on the campus of UCLA. The ARPANET, as it was called, was a precursor to the modern internet.
  5. Fire-Resistant Clothing — Spurred by the Apollo I launch pad fire in 1967, NASA (and its big, tax-funded budget) soon embarked on finding better protection for its employees. The result was a material called Polybenzimidazole fiber, or PBI. Lightweight and resistant to extreme heat, the material, or one that was derived from it, is now in use by fire departments worldwide.
  6. The Aerodynamic Semi-Truck — In the early 1970s, President Nixon asked all federal agencies to help find solutions to the nation's energy crisis. Daniel Lockney, a NASA engineer, with the president's blessing, took his entire aerodynamics team to Edwards Air Force base in the California desert to develop a better design for semi-trucks, so that they could travel faster. They then gave the results to the trucking industry. NASA has developed so many products with civilian uses that Lockney's actual title is Technology Transfer Program Executive.
  7. The Bar Code — First introduced in the 1970s, the technology behind bar codes advanced quickly when the government-backed National Science Foundation (NSF) helped fund research into improving the devices that scanned bar codes.
In 2010, for its 60th anniversary, the National Science Foundation highlighted 60 programs it helped fund. The list included everything from clean water research to an early Google prototype created by Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

CNN: 7 great government-backed inventions
And let's not forget that in 1957, the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, became the first nation to launch a satellite (Sputnik 1) into orbit. If there was any truth to Ayn Rand's belief that Communist/Socialist systems slowed scientific progress, the Soviet Union should have been the last nation to successfully launch a satellite into orbit, not the first. Whether or not the Soviet Union was actually following the principles of Communism is an issue which has recently come under debate, but the fact cannot be denied that government funding and government research are things which advance scientific knowledge, not inhibit it. One may try to argue that although the Soviet Union was the first nation to launch a satellite into orbit, the United States was the first nation to put a man on the moon. While this is true, it must be remembered that although the U.S. is a capitalist nation, NASA is a government institution, and is funded with money from taxes. The space programs of all nations, whether Capitalist or Communist, have always been products of government funding, rather than the free market. Therefore, Ayn Rand's theory that government funding is always inferior to private free market funding breaks down as a conceptual model because it fails to predict actual outcomes, and thus cannot be considered scientifically valid.

Yet in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Ayn Rand continued to vehemently insist that government funding of scientific research was a bad idea. For example, consider the following excerpt from her (in)famous epic novel, Atlas Shrugged:
"I’ll tell you, if you wish. It’s the truth that you want, isn’t it? Dr. Ferris cannot help it, if the morons who vote the funds for this Institute insist on what they call results. They are incapable of conceiving of such a thing as abstract science. They can judge it only in terms of the latest gadget it has produced for them. [...] People have been criticizing the Institute, because, they say, we have not produced enough. The public has been demanding economy. In times like these, when their fat little comforts are threatened, you may be sure that science is the first thing man will sacrifice. There are practically no private research foundations any longer. [...]
If you consider that for thirteen years this Institute has had a department of metallurgical research, which has cost over twenty million dollars and has produced nothing but a new silver polish and a new anti-corrosive preparation which, I believe, is not so good as the old ones – you can imagine what the public reaction will be if some private individual comes out with a product that revolutionizes the entire science of metallurgy and proves to be sensationally successful!"
— Dr. Robert Stadler, "Atlas Shrugged," part I, chapter VII, p.180
Now compare that excerpt against the statements of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an actual scientist:
"Also in that decade [the 1920s], quantum mechanics, quantum physics, was discovered. That is the science of the small. The science of electrons, protons, neutrons, particles, nuclei. At the time you'd say, 'This is just physicists burning tax money. Cuz' who cares about the atom? I got my horse to feed. I got kids. I got...' you know, you got issues in society. Yet it's quantum mechanics that is the entire foundation of our technological revolution. There would be no computers, there would be no... there would be none of what you take for granted, your iPod, your iPhone, cell phones, the space program, without our understanding of the laws of physics as they operate on that atomic, molecular, and nuclear level. And so the chemist has no understanding of the periodic table of elements without quantum mechanics. To them it's just a list of elements. Quantum mechanics tells you why this column is there, and that's there, why this mates with that, and why that makes a molecule with that. That's quantum mechanics, and it's unheralded. You ask me if there's any discovery that has changed how we live, it is quantum mechanics. And I make... I make this point, because I'm ready to... [stomps foot]. Today you hear people say 'Why are we spending money up there when we've got problems on Earth?' And people don't connect the time delay between the frontier of scientific research and how that's gonna transform your life later down the line. All they want is a quarterly report that shows a product that comes out of it. That is so short sighted, that that's the beginning of the end of your culture."
— Neil DeGrasse Tyson, interview with Stephen Colbert at Montclair Kimberley Academy, Jan. 29, 2010 [Watch interview on YouTube]
Given all the historical evidence, as well statements from actual scientists, I think it's safe to say that Ayn Rand's ideology is indeed hostile to science and scientific advancement. Though unlike certain sects of Christian fundamentalism, Objectivism's hostility towards science was purely unintentional. In fact, Ayn Rand tried to advocate and endorse science. But at the same time, she also condemned the type of non-linear, abstract thinking that is necessary to conceive of new ideas, and thus advance scientific thinking, as well as irrationally opposing all government funding, which is one of the key components in scientific and technological advancement. So while Ayn Rand may not have intentionally opposed science, her lack of understanding about science (during her university studies, she majored in history and minored in philosophy) caused her to create an ideology under which scientific advancement would be dramatically reduced, if not rendered totally impossible.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Piketty's Capital, the Tea Party, and Overcoming Ignorance

There's a fresh new economics book on the scene, and it's ruffling more than just a few feathers. Written by French economist Thomas Piketty, the book is Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” and it presents a radical new proposal for wealth redistribution, asking us to reconsider how we think about the profits, income, and the wealth of corporations. Piketty was interviewed on The Colbert Report last month, which was a pretty hilarious interview in my opinion. The book is extremely progressive by American standards. Piketty argues in favor of a massive wealth redistribution and high taxes on the rich. I personally tend to lean more in the Classical Liberal or Anarcho-Capitalist direction (at least economically – socially I tend to be pretty progressive), so the kind of proposals Piketty advocates are something I have sincere doubts about, but I do try to give all sides a fair shot to present their argument. The book is actually brand new, just released this year (the English version, anyway – the original French version came out last year), and it's really upsetting a lot of Conservatives, especially among the far-right members of the Tea Party, which made me want to read the book all the more, as I'm really not a particularly huge fan of the Tea Party.

Now some people may ask why I dislike the Tea Party if I believe in free market capitalism. Well, that's kind of a long story. A few years ago, I made a decision that I wanted to understand Socialism. And I didn't want to have just a passing and shallow understanding, but a deep, thorough, and complete understanding. I wanted to understand Socialism in its entirety. I had to know absolutely everything, in totality.

Back in 2011 I didn't even have any conception about what the word “Socialist” even meant, except that nearly everyone in conservative media was saying Obama was one, and they all seemed to agree that it was a bad thing. Though given the wide variety of government policies to which the word was being applied, it seemed to me that the word “Socialist” had literally no meaning whatsoever, and was just a negative byword that people could use as an empty vessel to describe any and all political policies they disliked. But to me, that attitude just created more confusion than clarity, and served only to shut down discussion, rather than to build a constructive conversation about the proper role of government in society.

This is one of the major issues I have with the Tea Party, and is why I don't support them, even though they do have a legitimate concern about certain things, such as the economy and national debt. Among the members of the Tea Party, the word “Socialist” simply seems to mean “Non-Republican,” which isn't helpful. The economic crisis is certainly a very big problem, but calling every single Democrat a Socialist only splits the country in half and turns the people against each other, which just creates and exacerbates problems, rather than solving them. Besides, such an approach is also a gross oversimplification not only of Socialist theory, but of political theory in general. If we were to define “Communism” as simply any and all government involvement and interference in the economy, then we would find that there has never been a Non-Communist government in the entire history of human civilization. So clearly a more narrow definition is needed. But the Tea Party doesn't seem to want to engage in that sort of complex and intricate exploration of socioeconomic political theory, and instead just wants to beat down their opponents with an ideological club and plaster the label of “Socialist” across anyone who dares disagree with them. Is that the path to freedom? I think not. Quite the contrary, it seems more to echo a warning contained in Proverbs:
“How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?”
— Proverbs 1:22
On top of that, another disturbing trend I've noticed among the Tea Party is that they almost universally oppose Civil Rights, especially equal rights for the LGBT community, which is something I'm a big supporter of. I have even seen some Tea Party candidates go so far as to openly proclaim that they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying that business owners should have the right to discriminate against their customers and employees, which makes me question whether any of them secretly have ties to white supremacist groups, like the two police officers in Florida who recently lost their jobs when it was discovered that they were secretly members of the Ku Klux Klan. Now I'm not saying saying that the Tea Party is a front group for white supremacy, but the extreme opposition to Civil Rights which is exhibited by large swaths of the party is enough to make me nervous. Apparently they believe that property rights take precedence over human rights. They value brick and mortar above flesh and blood. Maybe not all the individual members of the Tea Party feel that way, but the leadership sure seems to, and ultimately it would be the leadership that would determine what sort of policies got implemented if they ever gained political power. The Tea Party claims to be supporters of freedom, but their particular brand of freedom isn't my cup of tea.

As for Piketty, I'm only into the second chapter of the book so far, and he spends most of the first chapter simply defining his terminology (I find it fascinating that a book can present ideas so complex that an entire chapter is needed just to explain the terminology). Basically the main premise of his argument is what he calls the disparity between labor and capital. Called by Piketty the Fundamental Force for Divergence, and represented by the equation r > g, the question asked by the book is when a company or corporation turns a profit, how much of the profit should be paid as wages to the employees, and how much of it should be paid as a return on investment to the investor(s) who took the personal risk and made the initial investment in the company? In short, what is the most fair way to divide profits between employees and investors? That is the question which lies at the heart of Piketty's book.

Many conservatives are upset by Piketty's book, since to many people it almost feels like a revival of Marxism (a perception which is not helped by Piketty's choice of title). Piketty does also grapple with the Labor Theory of Value, which today is most commonly associated with Communist and Socialist economics. But it must be remembered that although Marxist theory does indeed use the Labor Theory of Value as its foundation, Karl Marx did not invent the theory, and it actually has its origins much earlier in the writings of Adam Smith, who is considered the father of Capitalism.
“The value of any commodity, ... to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.”
— Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations,” Book 1, chapter V
It seems to me as though we've entered an age where it is not possible to have any serious intellectual discussion about political or economic theory without wandering into realms which some would perceive as “Marxist. Personally, I believe this is simply the lingering effect of Cold War paranoia which is still entrenched in the minds of the older generation. Unfortunately, given the incredible girth of material that was written by Marx over the course of his lifetime, there is scarcely any economic territory left where he has not set foot and given at least a cursory opinion. As a result, a situation has been created in which literally every and any economist and politician could potentially be labeled a Marxist simply for having an opinion which coincided with something Marx had said at one point or another. But by that standard, even Adam Smith could be labeled a Marxist, which is obviously ridiculous. A few months back, a video began circulating on right-wing forums in which some politicians from Oregon were debating the issue of gun control in what looked like a courtroom, and a man in the audience, who claimed to be a refuge from Cuba, got emotional and shouted “This is Marxism!” The video became extremely popular among conservative circles, getting wide distribution and circulating widely. But there's just one problem. Karl Marx actually opposed gun control.
“The workers must be armed and organized…under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
— Karl Marx
Now I don't mean any disrespect to the Cuban refuge in the above video, as I'm sure he went through quite an enormous ordeal in fleeing Cuba. However, I think it's important to make a clear distinction between the policies of Communist dictators like Fidel Castro and the actual writings and theories of Karl Marx. This is the sort of ignorance that I intend to overcome, at least on a personal level. I want to know what Marxism actually is, not what the Tea Party says it is. I will not allow myself to be deceived by propaganda, nor by the misconceptions of the uninformed, however passionate they may be.

As I said above, it has become nearly impossible to seriously debate political and economic theory without wandering into territory which some people might, whether correctly or not, perceive as Marxist. Yet if we are to discover the true nature of economics, and lift ourselves up out of the darkness of ignorance, we must wander into these territories. We might not come out clean, but we'll come out with the truth, and our understanding will be enhanced. In the words of Oscar Wilde, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

I don't know about you, but I intend to find the truth.

My Brush with Objectivism

It's difficult to say for certain when and where I was first introduced to Ayn Rand. For the longest time, it had always been one of those famous literary works, like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Catcher in the Rye,” which I knew were considered classics, but which I had never read and didn't know much about. Atlas Shrugged was among these, and it just sort floated around in my subconscious, just below the level of awareness, existing, but in a state which was incorporeal and insubstantial.

One day, I was watching an episode of South Park titled Chickenlover,” in which the character Officer Barbrady reveals that he is illiterate, but subsequently learns to read, and then reads Atlas Shrugged and decides never to read again because of it. This little cameo nudged Atlas Shrugged into my consciousness a bit more, and made me decide that perhaps maybe I wanted to possibly read it someday. I didn't know what the story was even about, but if it was getting made fun of on South Park, it had to be kind of a big deal, right? So I made a mental goal to eventually read Atlas Shrugged at some unspecified point in the indeterminate future. Then I went about my regular life as usual and soon forgot about it.

In 2009, I took a summer-sales job selling home security systems door-to-door. The company was sending sales-reps out of state, so I got to visit a part of the country I had never been to before. On the way there, during a layover between flights (tickets paid for by the company), I decided to browse the used book store at the airport. On one shelf there happened to be an old hardcover copy of Atlas Shurgged. I eagerly picked it up and read the brief synopsis on the back cover, which gave me a glimpse into a world on the brink of economic collapse. It sounded intriguing, and so I began flipping through the pages. Being somewhat impatient, I flipped towards the back of the book to see what state the world would end up in. Had the characters in the book solved the economic problems of their society? Had things fallen apart completely? What did their world look like? By pure chance, I happened to land on what turned out to be one of the most memorable exchanges of dialogue in the entire book:
“Okay, I'll tell you. You want me to be Economic Dictator?”
“And you'll obey any order I give?”
“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”
“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn't do that! That's . . . that's not the field of production. That's the field of distribution. How would we pay government employees?"
“Fire your government employees.”
“Oh, no! That's politics! That's not economics! You can't interfere with politics! You can't have everything!”
So... this was a novel about politics and economics? I smiled. This was in May of 2009, and the country was still feeling the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, so the story felt absolutely relevant to the current times. Unfortunately, I was flat broke, and didn't want to spend what little cash I had on a book, even if it did look like it would be a really good one. Looking at my watch, I realized my next plane was going to be departing soon, and I had only about ten minutes or so to get to the terminal. So I put Atlas Shrugged back on the shelf and walked out of the bookstore. It would be another three years before I finally picked it up again.

I spent that summer involved in what I had initially thought was going to be just another job to pay the bills, but which, looking back, I now realize taught me some very important life lessons. It was the first sales job I had ever had, and it gave me a totally new perspective on salesmen, business, and money. I admit I didn't do particularly well at the job, as I've always been an extremely shy and introverted person, and had a bit of a habit of being a bit submissive (when you're a salesman, these are not good personality traits to have).

Of course I wasn't the only one who was struggling. Many of the other sales reps also found they had significant difficulty in persuading people to buy our product. Taking note of our struggles, our team leader (who had done extremely well with sales in summers past) introduced us to a book which he said would help us overcome our weaknesses. That book was called The Psychology of Selling,” by Brian Tracy. I didn't know it yet, but this book was going to have a profound impact on my life and my perspective on business and money. It was the first time in my life that I had ever read any self-help book, or any book that dealt directly with the issues of money, sales, and business. It was amazing. Although I admit my skills as a salesman didn't improve much, Brian Tracy's book started me on a journey of financial discovery, a quest to discover the inner workings of business, finance, and eventually, economics.

Following that summer, I started to develop a keen interest in money matters, and I began to actively seek out other self-help books on the subject. Over the next couple of years, I delved into various books like Rich Dad, Poor Dad,” by Robert Kiyosaki, Super Rich,” by Russell Simmons, Think and Grow Rich,” and The Law of Success,” both by Napoleon Hill, and How to Win Friends & Influence People,” by Dale Carnegie, along with several others. Combined, these books taught me to think about business and money in a totally new light. They taught me that rather than slaving away for a paycheck at some mindless dead-end job where I would have little control over my own life, I could choose a different path I could choose freedom. These books taught me that personal success, economic prosperity, and true financial independence were simply a matter of having the proper mindset, of understanding how to create and build real value. I had not yet read Atlas Shrugged, but these other books had established in me a value system based on the principles of independence, personal responsibility, humility, productivity, and financial freedom.

Some time later, I read an online article by Mark Ames on titled ATLAS SHRIEKED: Ayn Rand’s First Love and Mentor Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls,” in which Ames accused Ayn Rand of worshiping the 1920s serial killer William Hickman. I still hadn't read Atlas Shrugged at this point, and I confess, the article did color my view of the book and Ayn Rand for several months, the positive notions I had felt back in the bookstore three years prior totally overwritten with Ames' graphic depictions of the gruesome homicide committed by Hickman. In fact, it wasn't until the second Atlas Shrugged movie was already in theaters that I finally decided to see for myself what the book was really about. Still under the influence of Ames' article, however, I was unsure if I wanted to give any of my money to the people behind such a work. But I also wanted to see for myself what it was actually about. After all, although I admit I may be influenced by other people from time to time, I'm not one to base my opinion of anything solely on what someone else thinks. So I torrented the first movie over the internet and watched it on my computer. Before I was even halfway through the film, my prejudice against it had evaporated completely. Screw Mark Ames and his stupid article! Who the hell cared what Ayn Rand thought about William Hickman? This movie was amazing!

Though after the film ended, I was struck with the sensation that it espoused the value system of a small businessman rather than a large one, a distinction which I was able to make thanks to reading the works of Robert Kiyosaki. But that was a relatively inconsequential matter, and not worth trifling over. The film was still incredible. I can't recall ever seeing any other movie that actually made big business owners into the heroes (even if it did give them the mentalities small business owners). To see the values of entrepreneurship and business so boldly celebrated in a film was a totally unique experience, as such values were mysteriously absent from other major Hollywood productions.

Since the second film was, as I said, already in theaters, I went to see it just a few days later. Any previous qualms I had about giving money to the producers behind it were totally gone. Soon afterwords, I bought an audiobook version of Atlas Shrugged and listened to the whole thing. I also went online to the Official Atlas Shrugged Store and purchased the BluRay version of the first movie and pre-ordered the BluRay version of the second. While browsing the online store, I also noticed the special edition DVD for We The Living,” so I bought that as well. Later I also shared the movies with my mother, who loved them, and my sister, who claimed she didn't understand them and that they were too political for her. Around that same time I also went online to and purchased a copy of the movie version of The Fountainhead,” as well as Barbara Brandon's The Passion of Ayn Rand (both the movie and the biography).

I went through a period of about six months where I got really into Ayn Rand's philosophy, and where I almost became an Objectivist. But then I found out about her opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that stopped me. I could forgive or overlook worshiping a serial killer, but political opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a deal breaker for me. I am a very big supporter and advocate of civil rights, and I strongly believe in what our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, saying,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
 Something I've noticed is that a lot of people in Objectivist and Libertarian circles (though to a lesser degree in the latter) seem to think that equality is automatically bad for no other reason than because it's a concept which is part of Communist/Socialist philosophy. But equality is part of Democracy as well, and Democracy was very much a part of our nation's foundational principles, and something that really worries me is people becoming so obsessed with destroying Communism that they end up destroying the values of our founding fathers as well. Because of this, I think we ought to be very careful that when we attack Communism and Socialism, we do not inadvertently attack Democracy in the process. A clear and careful distinction needs to be made, and we should proceed with reasoned caution, without letting our emotions drive us to illogical and harmful actions.

After I found out about Ayn Rand's opposition to the Civil Rights Act, I began to seek out other authors who could potentially refute her arguments. This lead me to two very important books, the first one being Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System,” by John W. Robbins, which was praised by 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul, who said that John Robbins' book should be read by “everyone who wants to advocate freedom with arguments that cannot be refuted.” The second book I read refuting Objectivist ideology was Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature,” by Greg S. Nyquist. These two books essentially obliterated Ayn Rand's philosophy in my mind, as they did an incredibly thorough job of pointing out all the logical contradictions, inconsistencies, and simple absurdities of Ayn Rand's arguments. Like Jerry Andrus' Impossible Box, what had initially appeared to be a beautiful philosophical construct of perfect logical consistency was revealed to be nothing more than an illusion a total sham.

So I dismissed Ayn Rand's philosophy, and reverted back to the more practical and reasonable positions advocated by the actual business gurus I had read previously. I'll always view Ayn Rand as an excellent storyteller, but I prefer to get my financial, political, economic, and business advice from other sources.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Exposing The Naked Socialist - Critique 01

Back in September of 2012, in what was my first attempt to understand Socialism, I read a horribly inaccurate and flawed book titled "The Naked Socialist," by Paul B. Skousen. The reason I say the book is inaccurate and flawed is not because it presents Socialism as evil and tyrannical (a position which I essentially agree with), but rather because it does not provide the reader with a truthful and genuine understanding of what Socialism actually is.

According to the author, Paul Skousen, Socialism is any and every form of tyranny or government control, regulation, or enslavement. Under this definition, there is no distinction whatsoever between Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or any other type of totalitarianism. According to Skousen, they are all one and the same. This view (which I've noticed is extremely common among American Conservatives) is dangerous because it destroys an individual's ability to correctly and accurately recognize Socialism, causing them to think that it's impossible for tyrants to promote capitalism, and that capitalism, in and of itself, is sufficient for establishing a free society. Unfortunately for them, they are sorely mistaken. Tyranny can still manifest itself even in a society that operates on a capitalist economy. To quote Milton Friedman, "Capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom, but not a sufficient condition." For proof of this, simply observe the modern People's Republic of China, a nation which completely abandoned Socialism in 1979 and replaced it with capitalism, but which still maintains a tyrannical and authoritarian government under which the people have few rights or liberties.

In light of this discrepancy, distinguishing between Socialism and other forms of tyranny is extremely important, which is why I've taken it upon myself to point out the atrocious and abhorrent errors in Paul Skousen's line of reasoning. To begin, here is an excerpt from the book, page 128:

As you can plainly see (at least I hope it's plain), Skousen's understanding of Socialism is incredibly sketchy and convoluted. It's as though he had only a cursory understanding of the topic before deciding to write his book.

1984: The movie adaptation of 1984 (which was ironically released in the year 1984) was based on the 1949 novel of the same name by George Orwell, and nothing written by George Orwell can be considered anti-Socialist because George Orwell was a Socialist! Many people are surprised when they learn this fact, considering the heavy anti-totalitarian themes of Orwell's novels. However, when we recognize that George Orwell (whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair, by the way) was a proponent of Trotskyism, a specific sect of Socialism which was annihilated by Joseph Stalin because he viewed Leon Trotsky as a political rival, then the reason for George Orwell's anti-totalitarian themes become more clear – he was a victim of Stalinist oppression. His earlier book, Animal Farm (published in 1945), presents a satirical fairy tale about the political clash between Stalin and Trotsky, who are depicted as farm pigs named Napoleon and Snowball. I'm not promoting Socialism here (I personally oppose all forms of Socialism), but those who try to say that any of George Orwell's stories are anti-Socialist are demonstrating gross ignorance about George Orwell's personal political beliefs.

Fahrenheit 451: I haven't seen this movie nor read the book, so I can't comment on it.

THX 1138: Released in 1971, this was George Lucas' first professional film (though he had previously made a student version in school), and marked his directorial debut. Much of the visual imagery from the film feels very reminiscent of the original Star Wars trilogy, and this is also where George Lucas got the name for his famous THX sound system. I personally found it to be an incredibly boring movie, but that's beside the point. The point is that this movie has about as much to do with Socialism as the Star Wars movies do. That is, nothing at all. This is a film about totalitarianism, certainly, but there is no trace of Socialism anywhere in it. Regarding the final chase scene at the end of the movie, the hero gets away for no other reason than because the robot police simply stop chasing him due to the cost of his capture exceeding the allotted budget set by the fictional government in the film. However, this cannot be called "true socialist fashion" because Socialism is an economic theory in which money does not even exist. (Also, the hero already had a mate, and he never demands a new one at any point in the movie.) Honestly, it's as if Paul Skousen has no understanding of this subject at all.

V for Vendetta: Directed by James McTeigu, this 2005 film has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. It's about Facism versus Anarchy. On top of that, Alan Moore and David Lloyd (the writer and the artist of the original comic book, respectively) are both liberals, and created V for Vendetta as a warning about what could potentially happen if the political-right in England were to completely take over the government of that country. The Wachoiskis (directors of The Matrix) wrote the script for the film adaptation, and they're extremely liberal as well (one of the Wachoiskis – Lanna – is even a male-to-female transsexual). Plus there's also the fact that V for Vendetta blatantly and openly promotes gay rights, so Paul Skousen's endorsement of the film seems rather curious, considering his own obviously homophobic comments in "The Naked Socialist" where he states that homosexuality and transsexuality are degenerate, unnatural, abnormal, and unhealthy (page 486). V for Vendetta is certainly a story about government tyranny and totalitarianism, but Socialism has no part in it. Socialism is always tyranny, but tyranny is not always Socialism. This is a critical and fundamental distinction which is completely lost on Skousen.

The Village: M. Night Shyamalan's 2004 horror film is not about Socialism – it's about religious oppression. Never, at any point in the entire movie, is the subject of economics ever brought up. There is no mention of either Socialism or Capitalism in the film, nor any other economic system. The people who live outside of the village are never referred to as Capitalists, nor are the people in the village ever referred to as Socialists. This movie is about how religious dogma can prey on people's natural superstitions in order to blind them to rational thinking and keep them under control. It's an important message, but Socialism has nothing to do with it.

The Matrix: Paul Skousen's description of the Wachowskis' 1999 blockbuster hit is especially absurd. Once again, he demonstrates his inability to distinguish between Socialism and other forms of tyranny and servitude. The Matrix has nothing to do with Socialism, but rather is about being a slave to the system and then escaping that system. Skousen apparently thinks that the only type of system one can be a slave to is Socialism, but in truth, an individual can be a slave under just about any system, even Capitalism. If we were to draw analogies from The Matrix to the real world, the slave system that the movie most obviously seems to depict is not Socialism at all, but rather corporate America at the end of the 20th century. How Skousen could get such a fundamental point of the movie so horribly wrong is absolutely mind-boggling.

The Cleansing of America - A Critical Review

I recently finished reading "The Cleansing of America," by W. Cleon Skousen. This is a repost of my review from, which you can read here.

The Cleansing of America

by W. Cleon Skousen

An awful, unconstitutional endorsement of genocide and theocracy


My god, what a terrible book. I've never seen so many historical inaccuracies, distortions, and outright lies before in my life. The author claims that he wants to restore America to its Constitutional roots, but then the book focuses on how the United States is essentially unsalvageable at this point and will inevitably collapse in a coming apocalypse, and he lays out a vague plan for establishing what is essentially a communist theocracy afterwards, and has the gall to label it as "Constitutional."

Throughout the entire book, Skousen frequently endorses the idea of combining church and state, creating a theocratic government based on "God's Law," even though the U.S. Constitution is specifically intended to guarantee the separation of church and state, due to the fact that many European settlers fled to America to escape the religious persecution of European kings (the inevitable result of combining religion with government). Skousen also contradicts himself on whether or not there will be freedom of religion in this new, post-apocalyptic government. At one point he says that the society will be open and welcoming only to people who bend the knee and confess that Jesus is the Christ, and then later saying that the society will be open to people of all faiths (no mention of atheists), but that the Mormon church will still act as the head of government, reigning supreme over everyone and controlling how people are permitted to interpret "God's Law." This directly contradicts Mormon doctrine in D&C 134:9, which states "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government [...]." But apparently Skousen only believes in following the teachings of his church if it fits with his agenda...

Skousen is also guilty of perpetuating the lie that Adolf Hitler was an atheist, when all documented and verifiable evidence clearly indicates that Hitler was Roman Catholic.

In addition to encouraging ideas which violate the Constitution (and labeling those ideas as "Constitutional"), Skousen also makes several assertions which are scientifically and demonstrably wrong, such as saying that AIDS is a highly contagious disease and can be transmitted via saliva (neither of which are true), and also condemning homosexuality and implying that AIDS is God's punishment for immorality, and that everyone with HIV should be quarantined. Never mind the fact that imposing a quarantine on such a large segment of the population would be impractical, it's also unnecessary because AIDS does not qualify as a highly contagious disease according to the official scientific definition of the term. The HIV virus can only be transmitted through blood, semen, breast milk, and vaginal secretions; it cannot be transmitted through saliva. In order for any disease to be officially and scientifically classified as highly contagious, that disease must be transmittable simply by close proximity to or casual contact with an infected person. HIV, which requires the exchange of bodily fluids, does not meet that qualification, and therefore cannot be classified as highly contagious. But scientific truth and accuracy don't seem to be among Skousen's strong points.

Skousen also goes on to say that because AIDS is God's punishment for the wicked, we should never look into trying to find a cure for it or provide treatment for anyone who is infected, and that we should refuse to support or vote for any politicians who endorse medical research into HIV as part of their political platform. Seriously. Skousen actually said we should not conduct medical research into HIV. What kind of backwater lunatic actually suggests something so horrible? Apparently Skousen not only hates scientific progress, but he also hates healing the sick. Christ would be ashamed.

But the atrocities don't end there. Skousen also makes subtle hints towards endorsing genocide by saying that there is a constant need to "cleanse" society of transgressors. At the end there is even a so called prophecy (based on nothing more than some random person's dream) where an angel pours a bottle of poison into an ocean, killing everything in it. And we're supposed to believe that this sort of thing is the will of God? Apparently Skousen would have us believe that God is a genocidal maniac...

Skousen also proposes a few bizarre theories, the first being that not only are the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel still around and intact as a single group, but that they're actually living under the ice in the Arctic Circle. Either that or they're in outer space somewhere, and will come down to Earth via a bridge in the Arctic Circle. Skousen isn't entirely clear on this point, but either way it's a completely ridiculous theory.

Another pet theory that Skousen purports (one that shows up in several of his books, including his most popular title, "The 5,000 Year Leap") is that the U.S. Constitution and the organization of the U.S. Government are supposedly based on the government of the Anglo-Saxons, and that there is some kind of mysterious connection between the Anglo-Saxons and ancient Israel, who Skousen claims had almost identical systems of government. Although it is true that Thomas Jefferson did have an incredible fascination with the Anglo-Saxons, it's important to remember that the Constitution was written mostly by James Madison, so it's highly unlikely that the Founding Fathers drew much, if any, inspiration from the Anglo-Saxons. And the connection between the Anglo-Saxons and ancient Israel is even more tenuous, given that the only thing the two societies actually had in common was that they both organized society by dividing people into a pyramid-like social structure, with leaders at the top, subordinates beneath them, and smaller, more manageable groups beneath them. Of course the fact that almost EVERY society is divided into such a pyramid-like structure seems to escape Skousen, but that doesn't stop him from insisting that there's some kind of connection, even though there is no legitimate evidence to support such a theory.

Skousen also spends a great deal of time explaining the structure of the Law of Consecration, or as I like to call it, the Mormon Communism. Now Skousen openly acknowledges that there are some striking similarities (almost perfect parallels, in fact) between Communism and the Law of Consecration, and he also admits that both have failed whenever they have been attempted. But Skousen insists that the Law of Consecration is good, and that it only failed because people just aren't good enough to live by it (which is the exact same excuse that Communists make, by the way).

One especially disturbing point about Skousen's hypothetical New World Order is that he blatantly encourages the violation of the Sixth Amendment by stating that the right to a trial by a jury should be abolished, and persons accused of crimes would no longer be permitted to have lawyers to defend them in court. Instead, a single judge holds all the power and authority of the entire court by himself, and gets to decide the fate of the accused without regard to anything or anyone else. That sure doesn't sound like a fair court system to me, and it's certainly not Constitutional. Yet this is precisely what Skousen has proposed. The image of the Constitution on the book's cover apparently serves as nothing more than a mockery to the document, as almost none of the ideas in this book can rightly be called Constitutional in the slightest.

On top of that, Skousen even claimed that because immorality supposedly thrives in large cities, government should enact measures to spread the population out over a wider area and force everyone to live in smaller, more manageable towns. That's right – W. Cleon Skousen, the famed Mormon writer and would-be historian who supposedly hated Communism... was an advocate of central planning.

Apparently the destruction of personal freedom and individual liberty are only bad things when they're done by Communists...

As a side note, any reader (especially those who are members of the LDS church) should be aware that not only has Brigham Young University (where Skousen taught as a professor) asked Skousen to recant certain parts of his writings, so has the leadership of the LDS church. So if you're a Mormon who believes in the leadership of the church, just keep in mind that said leadership has told Skousen he's wrong and that he should recant.

If you're not a member of the Mormon church, then you should know that virtually none of Skousen's theories or prophecies are based on the Bible, but rather come almost entirely from the writings of Mormon leaders and Mormon scriptures, with "The Doctrine and Covenants" being used as the dominating source of information. If you're a Christian looking for genuine Biblical prophecy, you will find none here.

Back in January 2011, Christopher Hitchens wrote a wonderful article for Vanity Fair titled "Tea'd Off," in which he goes into detail about the repulsive and virulent racism and bigotry which Skousen's works are injecting back into society, resulting in the radical, openly hostile and often violent Tea Party movement. I highly recommend reading it.

Read "Tea'd Off," by Christopher Hitchens

Ultimately, "The Cleansing of America" is a destructive, genocidal, racist, homophobic, scientifically false piece of quasi-Communist Mormon propaganda, and society would be better off if this abominable work were buried and forgotten. I give this book one star, but only because that's the minimum Amazon reviews will allow. In all honesty, it doesn't deserve any.