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?”

“Yes!”

“And you'll obey any order I give?”

“Implicitly!”

“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 AlterNet.org 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 Amazon.com 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.

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 20^th 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 Amazon.com, 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.

Introduction

Whelp, I've finally done it. I've finally decided to start a blog. Why, you ask? Well, there are a lot of  things I've been struggling to understand lately ‒  namely politics and economics ‒  and I thought it would be a good idea to have a place to collect all my thoughts and reflect on various current events, as well as speculate on how those events relate to various social theories and conceptual models of society.

This blog will act as a sort of personal journal detailing my thoughts about ongoing current events and particular political groups and their impact on society. It's possible my opinions on certain issues may change over time as I learn new things and gather more information, but I'll try to remain as consistent as humanly possible. However, please keep in mind that life is (or at least I believe it should be) a process of continual learning and perpetual engagement, and there may be times where I might gain new information which refutes or contradicts something I previously believed or said. In these situations, I ask for your patience and understanding as I progress in my knowledge.

Anyway, a little about myself...

I was born in Santa Monica, California in June of 1986, though I've spent most of my life growing up in Utah. I'm a proud Ex-Mormon and a member of the LGBT community, and I strongly support LGBT rights.

Over the past few years I've been reading various self-help books regarding financial success, and this has led me to seek out knowledge regarding economic theory, which I'm currently in the process of studying.

Some of the self-help books I've read so far include Rich Dad Poor Dad, by Robert Kiyosaki (along with several other of Robert Kiyosaki's books), How to Win Friends & Influence People, by Dale Carnegie, The Law of Success, by Napoleon Hill, and Think and Grow Rich, also by Napoleon Hill. I'm also currently reading The Social Capitalist, by Josh Lannon and Lisa Lannon.

About a year ago I finished reading Ayn Rand's infamous novel "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time, and I highly enjoyed it. In fact, I became deeply interested in Ayn Rand for a few months, though the more I read and studied about her philosophy of Objectivism, the weaker her ideas seemed to become to me, until I reached a point where I had to dismiss them entirely. I'm still studying Ayn Rand's philosophy, as there are quite a few things here and there that I really like about it, but there are many things I don't like as well, and in the end it just seems too simplistic to be a viable solution to our current economic problems. I highly enjoy Ayn Rand's fiction, but the ideas expressed in her non-fiction work generally feel half-baked, impractical, and short sighted.

I've read a little bit of Stefan Molyneux's work regarding so-called practical anarchy, in which he advocates the idea that human beings don't need government. Molyneux presents some interesting arguments, but ultimately I consider his ideas to be even more deeply flawed than Ayn Rand's. At least Ayn Rand had the sense to acknowledge that we need SOME government, even if she did put unrealistic limitations on its scope of responsibilities.

A little over a year ago, I decided that I needed to understand socialism better, since it's a topic everyone seems to have strong feelings about, though no one seems to quite know exactly what it is. With this goal of understanding socialism in mind, I read "The Naked Socialist," by Paul B. Skousen, which I devoured in about two weeks and then internalized for a few months, but then ultimately rejected as mostly false. There were a few tidbits of good information, but a vast majority of the book amounted to little more than insubstantial conspiracy theories and right-wing propaganda and hate speech. It had not provided me with the deep understanding I had been looking for.

And so, because anti-socialist writers have failed to adequately explain socialism to my satisfaction, I've decided to go straight to the source: I'm reading Karl Marx.

Specifically, I'm reading volume one of Karl Marx's magnum opus, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. I've already read "The Communist Manifesto," which struck me as an incredibly illogical manuscript with terrible ideas, so I have my doubts as to whether "Das Kapital" will be much better. But my goal here is to understand socialism, even if it is an impractical and misguided philosophy.

Anyway, I think that's all for now. I hope I've provided a decent insight into what this blog will be exploring, and I look forward to writing more soon.

Maphesdus out.