Archive for September, 2017

Fascism, Trump, and FDR

Sunday, September 24th, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

Fascism is hard to define. I tried in my video on Fascism. I looked at fascism as a secular-religion challenge to democracy. Like communism it was attractive to many people in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Jane and I grew up in that depression as children.  Neither of us suffered that much. Neither of us paid much attention to politics either.

We both had barely heard of Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany but didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to dictators in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Later, of course, in WW2 we did pay attention.

In my reading much later I learned that FDR, our president at the time whom most of our families supported, was something of a Mussolini fan. In fact he promoted versions of fascist thinking in his own anti-depression programs: specifically the NRA, the CCC, and his failed unconstitutional attempts to pack and bypass the Supreme Court.

The current antifascist movement, Antifa, focus their fire on Donald Trump although they seem to be against Jews and white supremacists as well. Antifa protestors often use violence in opposition to Trump’s policies, especially his alleged racism, sexism, arrogance, nationalism, and immigration wall. In this they are cahoots with the media today but all seem to be unaware of that same clergy’s fascist leanings in the past. The question becomes today who is the real fascist and who supports democracy and freedom?

I continue to believe the left-liberal clergy are the source of most semi-fascist thought. Professors especially tend to favor leftist thought and oppose any smidgeon of conservative (from Ann Coulter to Benjamin Netanyahu) or libertarian free speech (see protests against Charles Murray at Middlebury College and bitter opposition of all academic clergy to “bell curve” science.

It was similar in tee past. Democratic liberal President Woodrow Wilson was an open racist, eugenic fan, and WW1 supporter, as was the otherwise very liberal Margaret Sanger, feminist founder of Planned Parenthood. As I pointed out before, President Roosevelt in the Great Depression has a better chance than Donald Trump to be called our first openly racist and fascist president. It was Roosevelt after all who slammed the immigration door on Jewish refugees when Jews were in such grave danger in Germany and all of Europe. Wilson came from the Ivy League (President of Princeton), was an open racist, and supported WW1. This was a war fought on Agricultural meme issues (wealth was land and resources) and finally settled with a Versailles Treaty that reinforced Agricultural Age memes with a vengeance and brought us WW2.

Wilson also ended up hating progressive Republican Fighting Bob Lafollette because he so vigorously opposed WW1. Lafollette incidentally was a republican progressive then and is a democratic Progressive hero now.

Roosevelt outdid Trump in his fears of immigration terror. The Jewish Brandeis Center claims, “The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually-–but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would be immigrants. For example, as of 1941, merely having a close relative in Europe was enough disqualify an applicant–-because of the Roosevelt administration’s absurd belief that the immigrant would become a spy for Hitler so that his relative in Europe would not be harmed by the Nazis.“

FDR also sponsored the NRA (National Recovery Act) that set prices, profits, and wages for workers. This was an ultimately failed attempt (the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional) lto fix one of the pillars of freedom and democracy, free market capitalism.

FDR was elected four times, was crippled with polio, and died early in his fourth term at the then advanced age of 63. His New Deal is still a model for Democrats. He was alternately lauded and cursed for his CCC and WPA (also known to us depression folk as, We Poke Along). Both were programs that gave jobs to unemployed youth and older folk (and got more votes for FDR). They were copies of similar programs in Germany, Spain, Japan, and Italy that Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, and Military Generals in Japan launched to combat the worldwide Depression—and increase local support for their versions of fascism.

None of this program of popular support is necessarily true of Trump. He relies instead on blue-collar workers, giant pep rallies, rich businessmen, and middle-class resentment of the left’s Politically Correct clergy. He doesn’t seem to think much of secular religions and he avoids talking about religion except to support freedom of belief.

True, Trump is undoubtedly arrogant, ignorant of many things including language, is frequently a blowhard, and is certainly a fervent supporter of nationalism. But he doesn’t come close to the charisma, venom, power, or the many programs for the youth jobs (and votes) that Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Roosevelt, or the Military in Japan had in spades.

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P. S. For any who want to know more details on my life-long journey through the idea swamp from devout Catholic to left-liberal clergy to conservative libertarian, I suggest you buy and read one of my recent books (they are cheap)—Twilight or Dawn? A Traveler’s Guide to Free-Market Liberal Democracy, East Gilman Street, or Bill’s Blogs. Or view some ideas on science and society, streamed free on YouTube.

Climate Change and Hurricanes

Sunday, September 17th, 2017

Sept. 18, 2017

The Hurricanes and Tropical Storms recently devastating Texas and Florida are not small potatoes. My heart goes out to families who have lost loved ones or seen their homes under water. It may be scant consolation to families with their homes destroyed to take solace in history! But it has been worse! I, a long-time denier of climate change propaganda, am also shocked and saddened that so many are trying to blame climate change for the devastation.

It’s true that Jose, and Katia are waiting in the wings to do their damage but none of the current storms can compare with the hurricanes of the past that caused trillions of dollars in damage and took thousands, not hundreds, of lives. There hasn’t been a major hurricane in Florida for 11 years! The historical record of Hurricanes and Tropical Storms in the Atlantic and Caribbean, not to mention around the world, makes for depressing reading. There were so many, so much damage, and so many people lost their lives!

I know I have gone over this before but it seems time to repeat my case against man-made climate change.

First of all, I do admit climates change. Our own state of Wisconsin was mostly covered in ice 10,000 years ago. The Arctic region was tropical a few millennia before that. The question is what caused it to change? Not carbon dioxide that’s for sure. We interviewed a UW climatologist a few years ago who was an expert on ice core evidence. He told us that increases in the past carbon dioxide always followed the warming! As he pointed out, causes should come before effects, not follow them.

Do we have to worry about any of these changes happening in our or our children or grandchildren’s, or even our great great grandchildren’s lifetimes? I doubt it.

Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish scientist and statistician expert wrote in the WSJ, “Using the figures calculated by the UN Paris Accord environmental experts, if all nations kept their promises on fossil fuel reductions it would lower average world temperatures only .023 of a degree Fahrenheit.

“If we generously assume that the promised cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees.

“President Obama has made grander promises of future carbon cuts, beyond the plan’s sweeping restrictions on the power industry, but these are only vaguely outlined now. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees.”

  • And to add insult to injury, all of these futile proposed cuts in fossil fuels would cost nations he world trillions of dollars for a 0.057 degrees reduction in temperature! Trillions that could be used worldwide to fight AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, river blindness, or to do research cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s.

My Bill’s Law number one (see Bill’s Blogs, pp. 8, 67) says bad ideas in science have a half-life of about ten years. Climate Change became popular about ten years ago. By my reckoning, it should be beginning to show its age. It is. War, population bombs, scarcity of resources, racism, sexism, sterilization, and eugenics had their years-in the-sun popularity. Liberals like President Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, were convinced in the WW1 era that all of the above were good sound science ideas. The science ideas are all defunct today. Trump and his EPA head don’t think much of the climate change idea. It’s true they are heavily mocked by the liberal clergy, and they may get a Hail-Mary assist from hurricane damage.

The same scientist I quoted before, Bjorn Lomborg, headed a scientific meeting a few years ago—The Copenhagen Consensus. They asked nine prominent economists, including four Nobel Laureates, how they would spend 50 billion dollars for the maximum benefit of all humankind. They presented them with 15 choices, among them was Global Warming, and were asked to rank them. To the chagrin of liberal activists, climate change (global warming) came out last, fifteenth. It would get the least money.

In their opinion, more than half should go to AIDS research and prevention. The number two priority would be to provide micronutrients such as iron, iodine and Vitamin A to the billions of people who suffer from stunted growth, lower IQ or blindness because they are not getting them. Number three would be free trade. (This choice, they said, would be of most benefit to most people.) After that malaria protection, clean water supplies, new agricultural techniques, etc. All these would be of greater potential benefit to more people than wealth spent now to prevent possible global climate change in the distant future.

I’m kindof weary of this issue. As I’m sure many of you are of reading my dissenting views. I know they don’t jibe with the popular will. That’s okay. I’m used to being in the minority. But I do admit to some uneasiness about this subject. It is so popular now and so ludicrously wrong.

Fossil fuels are great! In large measure, they are responsible for the comfort and prosperity of the Modern Age and carbon pollution is the least of our worries.   Cutting back or abolishing fossil fuels now for a ragtag mixture of socialist nonsense would truly be a catastrophe!

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P. S. For any who want to know more details on my life-long journey through the idea swamp from devout Catholic to left-liberal clergy to conservative libertarian, I suggest you buy and read one of my recent books (they are cheap)—Twilight or Dawn? A Traveler’s Guide to Free-Market Liberal Democracy, East Gilman Street, or Bill’s Blogs. Or view some of my ideas on science and society, streamed free on YouTube.

Cuba and Views of History

Sunday, September 10th, 2017

Sept. 11, 2017

Jane and I like to stream movies after supper. Recently we chose a documentary series, Cuba Libre, from Netflix that tells the story of Cuba from early Hunting/Gathering days to today’s communist state. The theme, often repeated, is the lust for freedom of the Cuban people. You could also call the series the standard Progressive view of history, except for the anticlimax (you knew this was coming!). In the Cuban case, the final result is not a free society but a totalitarian jungle! Jane and I visited Cuba a few years ago and can attest to that harsh judgment.

My view of history is more real and cheerful than the Progressive. Let’s compare.

Their view takes no notice for instance of the astonishing leap of population numbers, life spans, resource availability, and the lifestyle changes that happened with the leaps: tribal Hunting/Gathering to Agricultural cities and civilizations; Agricultural to Modern. Progressives recognize these leaps but ascribe it vaguely to progress, assuming it doesn’t matter much, and continue to search for hints of progress in past cultures.

For instance, the popular Green author, Jared Diamond, claims humankind made a big mistake10,000 years ago when it left the Hunting/Gathering Age and took up farming life. (He ignores the thousand fold increase in numbers—many being our own ancestors (!). And the large gains in life spans). Other history buffs and progressive scholars claim to find hints of progress in pagan Greece and Rome, Muslim Bagdad and Arabia, or primitive African kingdoms.

What the world needs now is my view of history to replace the all too common progressive view.

If that sentence sounds arrogant and unlikely, so be it. Let’s compare.

I see history divided into three distinct Ages—Hunting/Gathering, Agricultural, and Modern. The Hunting/Gathering Age lasted 100,000 years and saw the final evolution of Homo sapiens; the Agricultural Age lasted 10,000 years, saw the birth of cities and civilization and is still alive in the world today. All modern countries and cultures have genes and memes inherited from past Ages! The Modern Age began just over 200 hundred years in the founding of a new country, the USA.

Progressives say the world is moving inevitably in the direction of socialist democracy.

I don’t believe a word of it. Let’s compare.

They see capitalism as ”trickle down” economics and don’t like it; see fossil fuels as evil energy sources certain to lead us into Climate Change catastrophe; military might as suspect; see all countries as “exceptional”; want us tear down all Confederate monuments; abolish guns; rage against “America First,” and despise  Christopher Columbus and Donald Trump.

My view calls all these “bad” things as positive.

Progressives respect Western Civilization and Christianity as examples but don’t see them as in any way superior.

My view does see them as superior. Especially to Islamic, socialist, and primitive tribal cultures.

Progressives see illegal immigrants and refugees as possible citizens (and voters).

My view sees them serious problems. Do we really want to trade our outdated Christian memes for outdated Muslim or medieval Catholic memes?

Progressives approve of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press; women’s rights; minority rights; LGBTQ rights; civil liberties; social justice and social welfare programs; fighting prejudice; universal health care; and tolerance for other lifestyles.

So do I. My view also sees them as good things worth preserving and fighting for, but only too often spat upon and betrayed by both far-left and far-right street activists and in some cases by the media itself.

My view also supports differences in talents and wealth, differences that account for all nation’s prosperity.

As for relatively minor stuff, the Progressives see things like tattoos, body jewelry, monotheistic religions, vulgar language, arts and music, abortion, marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, and psychedelics, and TV shows like SNL, Cuba libre, and Game of Thrones, as fine and dandy.

My view is amused tolerance and points out, smugly I admit, that most actors are blissfully unaware they are acting out memes from Ages thousands of years past.

Progressives also think we should spend more money on education, health, and the environment and less on the military and weapons and we should raise taxes on the rich to do so.

My view says we should reduce taxes on everyone. Instead of just giving social security only to the elderly and the handicapped, we should give a cash subsidy to every citizen. To pay for this radical expansion we should dramatically cut back on all current welfare charity programs.

For the sake of some largely fictitious and theoretical Climate Change, that might or might not happen in the next century, the Green/Progressive view proposes a major cut in things needed today for our prosperity, comfort, and pleasure. Specifically, they propose phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them with a mixture of socialism, renewable energy, cutbacks in living standards and populations, restrictions on freedom and private property, heavier taxing and control of business profits, organic home gardens, do-it-yourself technologies, and recycling or conserving of resources.

My view or the progressive view? What will your choice do in everyday practice?

My view will make us less apologetic, more confident, perhaps more arrogant but certainly more prosperous. Actually, it might make us more patient and humble. Rome wasn’t built in a day. The agricultural memes had 10,000 years to cement. Memes from the Hunting/ Gathering had a 100,000 head start. All are active in the only 200-year reign of science, freedom, and trickle down free-market economies!

And a last sting, remember my three Bill’s Laws: (1) a bad idea in science has a half-life of 10 years; (2) in politics 100 years and (3) a bad idea in religion has a thousand year half-life. All three laws have proved valid: science ideas like overpopulation, resource scarcity, sexism, racism, sterilization, and eugenics are now all but extinct; political ideas like socialism and monarchy are nearly so after abject failures of communism in China, Korea and Russia. And religious ideas, like Islam, are struggling currently on their final radically violent legs.

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P. S. For any who want to know more details on my life-long journey through the idea swamp from devout Catholic to left-liberal clergy to conservative libertarian, I suggest you buy and read one of my recent books (they are all cheap from Amazon)—Twilight or Dawn? A Traveler’s Guide to Free-Market Liberal Democracy, East Gilman Street, or Bill’s Blogs. Or view my ideas on science and society, streamed free on YouTube.

Both Sides Now

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Next week I am going to celebrate my 91st birthday. In all those years I never imagined I could be called a racist. But alas I may qualify now—if you call a supporter of Bell Curve science that nasty term.

I hate to say it but I think Donald Trump was right to condemn violence on both sides in the recent riots in Charlottesville, Virginia. I write this despite the near universal moral condemnation of Trump by the left-liberal clergy as well as many solid Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

In my (and Trump’s) defense, what in the world would you call Reverend Jeremiah Wright? He was a supporter and for over 30 years guru pastor of Barack and Michelle Obama. Wright proudly, loudly, and publicly called on God to damn the US? I would call him a racist and a violent black supremacy leader. Or how about the pop celebrity Madonna who proudly admits she “dreams to blow up the White House?” Or popular actor Johnny Depp who provokingly if jokingly asked, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”

Yes,  Hitler was a hateful racist as no doubt are many in the White Supremacy, pro-Nazi, or the KKK. But many blacks are also hateful racists. What about leaders of Black (Supremacy?) groups like Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan as well as white and black supporters of Black Lives Matter, Black is Beautiful, The Nation of Islam, and Black Panthers? For me, they qualify as violent racists.

I’m going to ruffle some feathers here but someone has got to at last spell out specifics.

Hitler had a point that Jews were powerful. He carried it to hateful and horrible extremes in the Holocaust. But in fact Jews are indeed powerful leaders. In Europe and America Jews have excelled in intellectual, economic, literary, scientific, and political ways. Jews, for instance, have won 30% of Nobel Prizes even though they make up only 0.2% of the world’s population!

Let’s face facts, not feel-good theories.

Testing results in bell curves that show convincingly that Jews in the US average IQs are 30 or more points higher than Blacks (who average only 85); Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and other Orientals also have mean scores significantly higher than Whites (who average just 100) but lower than the Jews; Hispanic means are higher than Blacks but lower than Whites.

These are brute unpleasant facts to many but for the most part are not really debatable. What to make of these facts is indeed very debatable.

I don’t claim, as did Hitler, that Jews are in any kind of conspiracy. But Jewish men and women do lead and mostly control much of the intellectual life of the most media and entertainment world of the US. I hasten to add it’s also true that conservative and libertarian Jews make up a significant portion of the opposition.

So no, I am not by any stretch an anti-Semite. I simply envy Jews for their intelligence and capability and am calling your attention to facts. Of course, according to Bell Curves, there are also many below-average-IQ stupid Jews just as there are millions of brilliant high-IQ blacks and Hispanics. Of minor interest, many prominent “Blacks” are actually half-white. Like Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Jews and Blacks have always also been prominent leaders in social justice fights and, truth be told, in communist theory and revolutions. Jews and Blacks history of fighting prejudice is understandable given their sad long history of persecution and the horrors of slavery.

So what are we to make of these not-always-faced facts?

I don’t claim these facts prove that Jews are superior or the converse that Blacks and Hispanics are inferior races. I stick by the Declaration of Independence that said all people are equal under the law and Rev. Martin Luther King’s moral rule—we should always judge individuals by their character and not by the skin color! Better yet is the wisdom of  dancer Martha Graham, “There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening, that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique and if you block it, it will never exist in any other medium. The world will not have it.”

Bell Curves don’t only fit human beings but apply to all living things, plant,  animal, and mineral. Bell Curves also say nothing about causality. Immigrant Jews 100 years ago scored shockingly low on IQ tests. Blacks score low today but may win Nobel Prizes tomorrow. Is it environment or genes? No one can be sure in individual cases. The mean scores are silent too.

But bell curves do have something to say about current issues.

It does mean that profiling people by the police are bad ideas, so Trump’s recent pardon of the Arizona sheriff on a profiling conviction is another bad idea.

Equality under the law is a good idea as it always was. So Civil Rights legislation is a good idea too. Every citizen deserves to have a vote in America and to eat, travel, shop, and sleep in any public business they choose.

But pretending blacks on average are equal in talents and wealth, or that they live up to middle-class standards is faulty logic and a bad idea. So the current drive in advertising and Hollywood stories which show typical blacks in typical middle-class worlds—or the popular Hollywood stories that rely on sex, drugs, and violence to entertain—may please some authors and public. (Both ads and stories are for the most part written, produced, directed, acted, and designed by elite left-leaning and rich Jews in NYC or LA agencies and studios.) They all may backfire because they are basically dishonest—the great majority of the inner city, rural, low-IQ Blacks and Hispanics don’t really identify with that kind of setting.

To add to the mischief many middle-class and upper-class whites are now copying lower-class life styles now and dumbing down with tattoos, body jewelry, vulgar language and culture, deadly drugs, crude art, prison clothing, taking welfare, and favoring out-of-wedlock babies.

A few million talented black people with superior IQ’s have been greatly helped by needed Civil Rights laws. But the great number of low IQ Blacks and Hispanics on welfare rollls may loot in riots but don’t eat at expensive restaurants, shop at chic malls, don’t sleep in expensive hotels, don’t shop at chic malls, don’t wait in security lines at airports and rental car desks, and don’t go to classy resorts.  So they have not gained much at all.

Unfortunately, there are few jobs and opportunities in the Modern Age for low-IQ citizens. More jobs as Trump proposes are not a good solution. Personally, I suggest some version of guaranteed minimum income. If properly done it would automatically make low IQ citizens economic middle-class instead of relying on dependency-creating charity. It may well be the only solution with a slim chance of working. At least it is better than the sterilization eugenics favored by liberal President Woodrow Wilson and feminist hero Margaret Sanger a few decades ago. Like it or not, we don’t have the luxury of waiting for education to fix it.

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P.S. This blog is longer I know. I hope you stayed with it until the end. My lame excuse for the length is a corny limerick…

There once was a poet in Japan

Whose poems never would scan

When told it was so

He said, yes I know

But I always try to get as many words in the last line as ever I possibly can.