Tag Archives: Franklin Roosevelt

Yes, the true story of Pearl Harbor and our entry into World War II is a disgraceful story of governmental manipulation and treachery.  Why would Franklin Delano Roosevelt have wanted to expand two separate wars in Europe and Asia into a World War?  Was it for the purpose of hiding the abysmal failure of the New Deal?  Or was it for the purpose of instigating a New World Order based on World Government and abolition of national sovereignty and the autonomous integrity of the people of Europe, North America, and other “caucasian isolates” around the world?  Why would the American President have done such a thing?  Was World War II a just war or a monstrosity of lies?  Did we really have a quarrel with the Japanese over the ownership of Hawaii?  If so, why do the Japanese and Filipino peoples now pretty much “rule” Hawaii with Anglo-Americans living here as a weak minority? (I’m writing this at the end of a two week stay on Maui, so I’m really thinking about Hawaii a lot…and what a better day to be in Hawaii that Pearl Harbor Day 2012, 71 years after the infamous day when—what, our government arranged to have us attacked?

My dad, born June 6, 1923, was exactly 18 and a half years old and had been in Hawaii just over a week on the original Pearl Harbor day, having completed six months training in Long Beach, California….).  He stayed in the Navy through the war then went to college and graduate school on the G.I. Bill, as did so many.

But was War just a prelude to the expansion of the welfare state?  My grandparents taught me that World War II had five major effects: (1) it finally ended the depression where the New Deal had not, (2) it finally ended black slavery and white serfdom and sharecropping in the Old South, (3) it ended the British Empire, (4) it launched the United States and Soviet Empires into the Cold War, (5) the terrible destruction of Europe and in particular of Germany and the advent of the atom bomb caused the greatest confusion as to ethics, morality, and political values that had ever taken place in the worldwide history of mankind.

http://mises.org/daily/6312/How-US-Economic-Warfare-Provoked-Japans-Attack-on-Pearl-Harbor

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

Mises Daily: Friday, December 07, 2012 by 

The attack on Pearl Harbor

[This talk was the Arthur M. Krolman Lecture at the 30th Anniversary Supporters Summit of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, on October 26, 2012. Click here to watch the video of this talk.]

Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example, that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941. In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before making these declarations. Its war making took a variety of forms. For example, the U.S. navy conducted “shoot [Germans] on sight” convoys – convoys that might include British ships — in the North Atlantic along the greater part the shipping route from the United States to Great Britain, even though German U-boats had orders to refrain (and did refrain) from initiating attacks on U.S. shipping. The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the British then attacked. The U.S. government undertook in countless ways to provide military and other supplies and assistance to the British, the French, and the Soviets, who were fighting the Germans. The U.S. government also provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and pilots, to the Chinese, who were at war with Japan.[1] The U.S. military actively engaged in planning with the British, the British Commonwealth countries, and the Dutch East Indies for future combined combat operations against Japan. Most important, the U.S. government engaged in a series of increasingly stringent economic warfare measures that pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region in a quest to secure essential raw materials that the Americans, British, and Dutch (government in exile) had embargoed. [2]

Consider these summary statements by George Victor, by no means a Roosevelt basher, in his well documented book The Pearl Harbor Myth.

Roosevelt had already led the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941—into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan’s attack on December 7 enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration. Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell. . . . In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisers, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States—a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment. . . . Roosevelt told his ambassador to France, William Bullitt, that U.S. entry into war against Germany was certain but must wait for an “incident,” which he was “confident that the Germans would give us.” . . . Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt’s tactics. . . . He seems [eventually] to have concluded—correctly as it turned out—that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the Unites States than Germany would be. [3]

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was . . . typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. . . . Expecting to lose a war with the United States—and lose it disastrously—Japan’s leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians have long agreed. Meanwhile, evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. . . . Japan . . . offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. . . . It was after learning of Japan’s decision to go to war with the United States if the talks “break down” that Roosevelt decided to break them off. . . . According to Attorney General Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an “incident” in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war.[4]

These facts and numerous others that point in the same direction are for the most part anything but new; many of them have been available to the public since the 1940s. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930s and early 1940s, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, that showed the numerous ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country’s eventual engagement in World War II—showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily along various avenues to ensure that, sooner or later, it would get in, preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor’s unprovoked attack.[5] As Secretary of War Henry Stimson testified after the war, “we needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.” [6]

At present, however, seventy years after these events, probably not one American in 1,000—nay, not one in 10,000—has an inkling of any of this history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American, pro-World War II faction that in this country it has utterly dominated teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement in the “Good War.”

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of its burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in Southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and East Asia, including Korea and northern China, much as the United States used its growing industrial might to equip armed forces that projected U.S. power into the Caribbean, Latin America, and even as far away as the Philippine Islands.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese because, some writers have speculated, Roosevelt’s ancestors had made money in the China trade.[7] Roosevelt also disliked the Germans in general and Adolf Hitler in particular, and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs. He did not pay much attention to foreign policy, however, until his New Deal began to peter out in 1937. Thereafter he relied heavily on foreign policy to fulfill his political ambitions, including his desire for reelection to an unprecedented third term.

When Germany began to rearm and to seek Lebensraumaggressively in the late 1930s, the Roosevelt administration cooperated closely with the British and the French in measures to oppose German expansion. After World War II commenced in 1939, this U.S. assistance grew ever greater and included such measures as the so-called destroyer deal and the deceptively named Lend-Lease program. In anticipation of U.S. entry into the war, British and U.S. military staffs secretly formulated plans for joint operations. U.S. forces sought to create a war-justifying incident by cooperating with the British navy in attacks on German U-boats in the northern Atlantic, but Hitler refused to take the bait, thus denying Roosevelt the pretext he craved for making the United States a full-fledged, declared belligerent—a belligerence that the great majority of Americans opposed.

In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under William Howard Taft and secretary of state under Herbert Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.

The Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, accordingly imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939, the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.” [8] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in Southeast Asia.

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the American leaders knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[9]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington also knew that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[10] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the War Cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief . . . that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.”[11]

Comment on this article.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. He is the 2007 recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Cause of Liberty. Send him mail. See Robert Higgs’s article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Robert Higgs via this RSS feed.

Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

Notes

[1] See “Flying Tigers,” Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers.

[2] Robert Higgs, “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor,” The Freeman 56 (May 2006): 36-37.

[3] George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007), pp. 179-80, 184, 185, emphasis added.

[4] Ibid ., pp. 15, 202, 240.

[5] See Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Id.: Caxton Printers, 1953).

[6] Stimson as quoted in Victor, Pearl Harbor Myth, p. 105.

[7] Harry Elmer Barnes, “Summary and Conclusions,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1953), 682-83.

[8] All quotations in this paragraph are from George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 322-23, 327-28.

[9] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 329.

[10] Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Free Press, 2000).

[11] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 343, 384.

“A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people better. And I do not hold to that.” Eugenics and Bioengineering as forms of State Sponsored Welfare DO NOT make people better…..a debate with Bob Hurt of Clearwater, Florida….

Von: Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
An: Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>; Lawsters <lawsters@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: 14:06 Samstag, 19.Mai 2012
Betreff: Re: [Lawmen 4733] Eugenics is NOT A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
Charles:Thank you for responding.  That was the first intelligen comment I have received on the topic, so I appreciate it.
Bob, like I said—I respect you a great deal, we’ve done some great things/seminars together and I hope we’ll do more in the future—I consider you a friend, if terribly blind on this point….

First, I don’t believe you understand IQ tests, for you you did, you would know that in the past 100 years they have evolved to become absolutely the best predictor of the ability to evaluate relative importances, solve problems, and achieve academic excellence.  
What I see and understand about IQ tests is that they are a circular argument, a Catch-22, a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Certain specialists designed IQ Tests, persuaded other specialists to rely on them, and since these specialists rely on them, the USE them, and discriminate among people according to such tests.  ALL Standardized tests work EXACTLY the same way: SAT, MCAT, GRE, LSAT, etc.—yes, even the Multistate Bar Exam and the Multistate Ethics exam—CLASSICAL EDUCATION IN THE US HAS BEEN REPLACED BY TEACHING TEST-TAKING SKILLS.  I think it is disgraceful, and that all standardized tests need to be thrown in the garbage—“the rubbish pit of history” to use one K. Marx’ catchy phrase….
You seem loathe to admit that, but for the protection and support of government and society, the stupid would perish or become slaves, as they have down through the millennia, not because of race, but because of cognitive ability.
No, I am NOT “loathe to admit” anything—but I read the record differently: GOVERNMENT and SOCIETY decide who is stupid, and for those who really can’t adapt—natural selection works MUCH more fairly than “Government Protection and Support.”  In fact–what I LOATHE is that very phrase: “Government Protection and Support.”  I don’t know whether you’ve seen the movie “The Hunger Games” yet—but if not you (and everybody else) really should.  
“The Hunger Games” is a story set in and about the aftermath of a revolution in North America of the future in which “the people rose up against the Government that fed them, loved them, protected them….” and were punished severely as a result.  LOOK AT THE WAY Southerners have been degraded and caricatured as stupid ignorant oafs since 1865.  The Post-War Southerners did JUST FINE for many years without government Protection and Support—in fact, they did fine IN THE FACE OF government oppression and intentional discrimination—arguably, they did better than they’ve done WITH such protection and support.  Likewise, all of Latin America and Africa were “undeveloped” by U.S. and European Colonialism which sought to protect these “poor pathetic people” from themselves—i.e. since they couldn’t organize multi-national companies and international banks on their own.  The people of District 12 grew strong through quiet resistance and isolation within Panem (the name of the “North American Union” in the “Hunger Games” were “protected and supported” by a totalitarian regime which existed by squeezing everything they could out of the people and leaving them with nothing).  
Third, you seemed to have missed the point that we of competence have become slaves to the incompetent, through welfare, minimum wages, crime, and associated infrastructure costs which we must pay.  That has happened largely because of flaws in the constitutions, gnawing guilt and political correctness, and suffrage for the stupid, incompetent, and irresponsible.
BOB—YOU seem to miss the point that it is precisely a paternalistic attitude like yours—whereby some people THINK they are stronger or better than others, that breeds this kind of stupidity in Welfare—we have to stop thinking that WE KNOW better or can make OTHER people better—we have to learn to live by the adage “Let it be.”  NO ONE has the right to make decisions for anyone else, except by agreement.  We do not have the right to classify people in LEGAL terms, deprive them of rights, based on our OPINIONS of them.  We have the right to live our own lives and not be bothered with anyone else UNLESS WE WISH TO BE—and this, I think is the biggest single reason I feel I have to argue for you.  You are SO much like Madison Grant and the “Progressives” of Theodore Roosevelt’s Age—like Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Supreme Court writing in favor of sterilization of imbeciles in the 1920s—THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE RISE TO THE CURRENT WELFARE STATE—even though the “gnawing guilt and political correctness” elements are basically a 1960s Herbert Marcuse—Frankfurt School of Social Though addition which the Elite Find EVEN more useful—precisely because it gives them the right to call people who are NOT politically correct or do not feel the guilt “stupid, inferior.”  Southern Whites are stupid hicks but racists everywhere have lower IQs than non-racists, didn’t you know that?  Patriotic Constitutionalists are the stupidest people of all because they just don’t understand the Marxist progression of history which will PROTECT AND SUPPORT all people everywhere…. Can’t you see that?  Christians are stupid compared with Atheists, Conservative Republicans have less education than Liberal Democrats—all of this is part of the competitive instinct of humans, inherited through evolutionary competition, as E.O. Wilson has described so well in “The Social Conquest of Earth”
Fourth, you have erred in your assessment of slavery in ancient times.  The foreign survivors of successful wars always became slaves for life, although laws provided ways to win freedom, typically by demonstrations of deserving freedom.
I have certainly NOT erred in my assessment of slavery in ancient times—I said it was not based on inherited characteristics, so that Angles enslaved in one war did not give rise to any presumption that “Angles” would be slaves forever.
Fifth, you seem not to grok the outcome of a system such as what I propose.  
I do not “grok” it because I would BLOCK it with every bone in my body, every fibre in my muscles, every neuron in my brain.

  • And, we can refer to masters/slaves by different terms to mollify the leftist liberals seeking political correctness in place of substance.  We could call it the Ward system and the participants caregivers/wards.  How’s that?
    You forget that I perfectly see the system of involuntary servitude you propose because I OPPOSE THE VERY NOTION OF WELFARE and that ANY person should ever be WARD to another as a matter of birth, “intelligence” or class.  If our parents develop alzheimers WE should take care of them—they should not become “Wards of the State”—our children are helpless at birth but even LESS should we allow THEM to become WARDS OF THE STATE—but ultimately, your system (based on early 20th Century Eugenic Theories) LEADS INEXORABLY to the wardship of all children and RIGHT BACK TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD.  This has NOTHING to do with Political Correctness—it has EVERYTHING to do with restoring MEANINGFUL FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL—and protecting MY Second Amendment Right to Shoot anyone in the head who thinks they are smarter than me if that means they think they can take me for a WARD….by the way…
  • Government or private parties could encourage the stupid to undergo voluntary permanent sterilization, just by offering money.  The ranks of the stupid would diminish dramatically from that clever negotiation, repeated in communities all over the nation.  And from the viewpoint of the economy, it would dramatically reduce the burden on taxpayers.  That bit of eugenics does not hurt anyone. 
  • Again, Bob—this is just beyond repugnant to me—it is Progressivism and New Deal/Great Society Socialism run amok—that is why it is, in essence NAZIISM at its worst….. Taxes like the Income Tax ONLY exist because people are WILLING to have OTHERS make socially important decisions for them—I say, to HELL WITH THAT—Everyone makes their own decisions and lives or dies by them…. that’s freedom….
  • Government should outlaw procreation of the stupid because such procreation is such a tort against the innocent baby that it becomes a crime against the person and society as the child grows into adulthood and resorts to crime and welfare abuse to subsist.  This really is a legal matter and a matter of right.  A baby has a right to grow into a well-functioning adult, and parents have the responsibility to make that possible.
  • If this is really what you want—I will have to fight you if you ever come to power—which I guess means we’ll never have to fight—but “outlaw the procreation of the stupid?”  This is EXACTLY what Oliver Wendell Holmes was advocating, along with Madison Grant and others, in the first 3rd of the 20th century—YOU have no right to say who should procreate and neither do I, and neither did Oliver Wendell Holmes or Madison Grant or either of the Presidents Roosevelt.  I think this is just loathsome—and I wonder about it–because I think of your niece—I can’t remember her name—in your own family there are examples of what can be called less than brilliant breeding, are there not?  You would not begrudge your own flesh and blood the right to procreate as she sees fit, would you?
  • Families of means, including middle class families, could typically afford to house, feed, and clothe the stupid, so long as those stupid did not procreate children the caregivers did not want.  Many if not most homes have extra bedrooms to accommodate live-in Wards who could become loved, respected members of the family, perform services for the family, and submit to the discipline of the head of the household.  Most so-called slaves prior to the 1860’s were really NOT slaves in the sense of wearing chains, getting horsewhipped and served only gruel to eat, and suffering untreated diseases and illnesses. Nor would modern Wards suffer such abuse.  The spirit of love would blossom in most families with one or more live-in Wards.  This alone would keep many Wards out of crime, malnutrition, prison, drug abuse, and general dereliction.
  • You are saying something very different in this paragraph and I have no wish to disagree that “charity is our first obligation” and civilized people and as Christians, and that such charity, if enshrined as a real cultural norm, would go a long way towards solving all these problems. 

Churches could start playing a big role in the administration of the Ward system, which they should have all along.

Again, this is something I have no intention of arguing about—but it is irrelevant to your contentions regarding the 13th Amendment….or “the belief that they can make people better…AND I DO NOT HOLD TO THAT.”  

As for eugenics, it is nothing more than family planning on a larger scale, and it is perfectly ethical.  In fact NOT to engage in eugenics plans and programs is the height of hyocrisy and disrespect toward the members of future civilizations.  If you want me to explain it to you in detail, let me know.  Meanwhile, ponder the adage “It takes seven generations to create a gentleman.”  It does not happen by accident.
You seem determined to prove Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the Good Ship Serenity correct when he said:

So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. 'Cause as sure as I know anything I know this: They will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.

Bob

 

On 05/18/2012 10:49 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:

My Dear Bob Hurt:
Your recidivism in your support of Eugenics is just appalling.   You know I feel that way.  Why do you keep coming back to this topic?
Eugenics is the most outrageous of all infringements on the fundamental rights of humanity, whether we believe that those rights originate from the State of Nature or God’s Endowment.  The Ancient Latin Legal classification of slavery was a contractual arrangement both socially approved and lawful but contra natura.
It is particularly appalling that you frame it (with a great deal of intellectual honesty and analytical integrity—for which at least you deserve due credit) in terms of a repeal of the 13th Amendment, and that you start off with a comparison to seat belts.  You may recall—my war against Seatbelt laws and the police abuse such laws invite is at the root of everything that made me into a FORMERLY licensed lawyer, as well as a FORMER Republican (President of Tulane College Republicans 1976-78).  
I believe in freedom and liberty and I wouldn’t trust ANY HUMAN BEING to determine my fitness or yours to live and breathe.  I think I am basically as conservative as anyone could possibly be, but I do not consider Naziism genuinely conservative, even though I can admire and sympathize with some of the traditionalist, historical identity and heritage aspects of the Fascist movements in 20th Century Europe and Latin America.  
To me, the ideology of the Founders in 1770-1792 (Boston Massacre of 1770 through Washington’s First Term as President under the Constitution of 1787 and the adoption of the Bill of Rights) and of John Randolph of Roanoke, Andrew Jackson, Roger Taney, John Caldwell Calhoun, John C. Breckenridge, Jefferson Davis, Judah P. Benjamin, and the all Founders of the Confederate States of America represent real, genuine, honest and truly American “Classical Liberal” conservatism.  AND NONE of them would ever have tolerated Eugenics—because it is an interference with the fundamental rights of individuals and families.
And that brings up an interesting point—you are advocating REPEAL or REVISION of the 13th Amendment in order to implement Eugenics?
Now, I just said I deeply admire and support the memory of the founders of the Confederate States of America, and the Southern Partisans who preceded them, but Slavery and Freedom are, by definition, incompatible lifestyles.  The 13th Amendment was adopted without the popular support of the 40% of the Nation who had no real vote in 1865, and yet today it is one of the least controversial provisions of the Constitution, and I think it needs to stay that way, and be enforced for every person.
I agree that the citizenship questions created by emancipation and left unresolved as of today are a threat to a homogeneous society in which freedom can flourish, but I totally disagree that slavery on any pretext, including the criminal laws of the United States, or Eugenics through anything as totally malleable and manipulable as IQ scores, could or should be allowed to exist.  In my opinion, segregation of the races might be a better path to restoration of true freedom and dignity for all, as well as a more natural path to foster divergent evolutionary paths which could, in the long run, compete my old Harvard neighbor and Museum of Comparative Zoology Professor E.O. Wilson has recently described the sociobiological origins of racial separation and competition (http://www.vdare.com/articles/e-o-wilson-nationalist, review of “The Social Conquest of the Earth.”)
Black Slavery was, in so many ways, America’s “original sin”—every student of the Bible knows that “original sin” is that in which we all share, as human beings, from which none of us can ever completely escape except through Salvation.  Original Sin is “sin” because it embodies and reflects everything that we need, everything that we want, naturally, and yet it is wrong.  People WANT to live free of care, fear, labor and all kinds of responsibility, which they would like to dump on someone else’s broader shoulders.  The Africans were naturally strong and by selective breeding in slavery they were made stronger.  Was this a good or desirable result for the White People?  For the White Race as a whole?  As an evolutionary experiment?  No, it was not. It was in fact a disaster—a continuing disaster.
But Bob—what you are suggesting is that we use IQ tests, one of the results of the “Original Sin” of Slavery having been to artificially import and then depress the intelligence of the Africans and other groups by educational intent, and then solidify that back into history by restoring IQ as a substitute for skin color in the restoration of slavery.
This is, I think, wrong in every possible way.  I do not believe that miscegenation is the road to happiness or a cure for the original sin of slavery, because I think that race-mixing destroys the natural diversity of the species—which I think is a GOOD and POSITIVE thing—even if it results in some people SEEMING dumber, less intelligent, or attractive to us than others.  We need to MAINTAIN the diversity of the world AND the freedom of each individual by securing individual and family autonomy, not slavery.
In the Ancient World (Rome & Greece), Slavery was almost always a temporary thing, by contract (arising from debt), and there were no permanent slave classes.  Slaves were often extraordinarily talented artists, cooks, musicians, actors/dancers, or even poets, and Slaves often tutored their masters’ children.  Even when Rome brought in captive armies or whole communities as slaves, these communities did not stay enslaved forever, from generation to generation. (I think of the comment about the Angles [Ancestors of the English] whose appearance was so beautiful on the Streets of Rome that Pope Gregory the I said, “non Angli see Angeli” and promptly dispatched as missionary the future Saint Augustine of Canterbury to preach to the Kentish Angles as well as the South and Eastern Saxons of Sussex and Essex—the point being that there was no pretense that the Angles would be a hereditary class of slaves forever).
But worst of all, I think your criteria for selecting a “slave” vs. a “free” class are more subject, and hence more unfair than even the Nazis could devise.  It is normally fairly clear, after all, who is Black or White, who is Jewish or Christian by birth or heritage.  
But in what I can only call an adoration of pseudo-science, you equate IQ and wealth with class and entitlement.  This, too, is appalling.  All IQ tests have been shown to be matters of learned behavior—“nurture not nature”, and so education would be the solution for that, except that compulsory education is itself a form of governmental interference with the absolute freedom into which all living beings and creatures are born.
I believe that people have to be free to make choices, good and bad, just like genetic mutations, some of which are beneficial, some of which are not, but most of which are simply neutral.
NO GROUP OF HUMANS has the God-like capacity or the God-like right to try to guide evolution or the “re-creation” of the human species.
I don’t know whether you ever saw the movie Serenity directed and produced by Joss Whedon (whose latest creation is the new Avengers), but Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the “Good ShipSerenity” (a “Firefly” Class Spaceship) engages in the following key monologue, after the discovery of what had really happened to the people of Miranda—who were poisoned by Government experiments in “behavioral improvement” based on similar pseudo-science:
This report is maybe twelve years
          old. Parliament buried it, and it
          stayed buried til River dug it up.
          This is what they feared she knew.
          And they were right to fear,
          'cause there's a universe of folk
          that are gonna know it too.
          (touches the cylinder)
          They're gonna see it. Somebody
          has to speak for these people.
          (everybody waits)
 (CONTINUING)           You all got on this boat for
          different reasons, but you all
          V0 come to the same place. So now
          I'm asking more of you than I have
          before. Maybe all. 'Cause as
          sure as I know anything I know
          this: They will try again. Maybe
          on another world, maybe on this
          very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

Telephone: 512-968-2500
In case of emergency call Peyton Yates Freiman (Texas)
at 512-968-2666 or e-mail freimanthird@gmail.com


Matthew 10:34-39
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .  

Von: Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
An: Lawsters <lawsters@googlegroups.com>; Lawmen <lawmen@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: 13:21 Freitag, 18.Mai 2012
Betreff: [Lawmen: 4733] A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment

I welcome discussion of the questions and issues raised below, but please keep hateful or insulting rejoinders to yourself.
A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
Copyright © by Bob Hurt 18 May 2012. All rights reserved

Pesky Questions About Bozos

Does a society have the right to enact laws that effectively prevent members of the society from
  • becoming a financial burden on the rest of society?
  • endangering others in society?
  • infecting innocent babies with a condition of lifelong obtuseness, brutishness, torpidity, and lack of intelligence?
How and why has the USA changed in average intelligence since its beginning?
Does any right of a society or civilization justify limiting the lower boundary of intelligence for parenting, such as through eugenics programs?
This commentary addresses those questions and might provide insights for the sincere truth-seeker.

Law and Likelihood of Harming Others

Consider the legislative enactments regulating business practices, highway traffic, and human relations. Take for example seatbelt laws. Government requires people to buckle themselves in because:
  • People often cause car crashes through negligence, incompetence, judgment error, or equipment failure;
  • The violence of car crashes often maim or kill people in and out of the car;
  • Such terrible loss causes families to suffer from reduced of earning power and enjoyment of life, and becoming a burden on society;
Thus, modern civilizations prohibit human actions likely to endanger selves. others, and society.

Qualities and Uses of Intelligence in Civilization

According to Wikipedia’s IQ article, IQ has high heritability, intgelligence highly correlates to SAT scores, and people with IQ of 70 to 90 will likely engage in criminal behavior. Lynn and Vanhanen’s books on IQ show the high correlation of national average IQ to gross national product. Therefore, means exist for society to determine the intelligence (g factor) and IQ of its members, and their corresponding value to society in terms of productivity, academic achievement, likely crimnality, burden on society, and the likelihood of low-intelligence parents procreating low-intelligence children.
One must have an IQ of at least 85 to graduate from high school. US IQ distributions from actual tests reveal that at least 75 million of its people have IQ below 85 and even more cannot graduate from high school because of behavior and health problems associated with low intelligence.
In the past 150 years the US has moved away from circumstances requiring massive numbers of low-intelligence people in its military and work forces. The military leaders of today desperately want recruits to have high school diplomas, and many manual labor jobs have moved to 3rd world countries as mechanization has modernized farms and factories. America needs people who can think, arrive at correct evaluations, and make correct decisions.

Hypocrisy of Ignoring the Gene Pool

Wouldn’t it make sense to reduce the need for protective laws, prisons, and welfare infrastructures legislating to elevate the quality of the gene pool?
I see the refusal to take such action as rank hypocrisy:
  • We demand laws regulating seatbelt usage, road, motor vehicle, and building construction, highway speed, driver licenses, professions like plumbing, dentistry, medicine, and lawyering, and many other areas of life, on the basis of likelihood of resultant injury. But,
  • We ignore the far higher likelihood of injury resulting from procreation by people of low intelligence.
How much sense does that make?
Hypocrisy aside, does it not seem unintelligent to refuse to discuss the reasons and means for reducing the percentage of grossly unintelligent people in future populations? Does it not seem even more stupid to refuse out of political correctness – the notion of feeling embarrassed that the topic might offend those of grossly low intelligence?
How about taking a poll of the stupid and ask them whether they enjoy feeling confused, frustrated, victimized, in trouble, and unable to learn, to figure things out, or to make prudent decisions? We might discover that they think they figure things out just fine, or that they hate the condition and would become smart if they could.
Well, aside from that, it could go without saying that the highly intelligent would find some tasks boring that the lowly intelligent would find gratifying. Likewise, tasks that would challenge and gratify the intelligent would frustrate and anger the unintelligent.
Many jobs exist that would suit the unintelligent. Thus, society’s needs for the unintelligent still exist, such as domestic servitude, and simple tasks for which employers cannot afford machines. But such tasks have an economic value nonetheless, and it makes no economic sense to force an employer to pay more than the value of them.

Intelligence Strata (Classes) in America

The existence of 75 million relatively unintelligent people in America and the lack of available jobs for such people poses a serious problem that has resulted in America’s prisons bursting at the seams.
America has entered an age where it handles unintelligent people as follows:
  • Puts them into the welfare system (they burden taxpayers); and
  • Suffers crimes at their hands (they burden their victims and then the criminal justice system).
Meanwhile, the very smart have advertised the American Dream’s cornucopia of goods and services which the unwealthy obtain through debt. The unwealthy, unlike the unintelligent, do have intelligence, but either don’t use it sufficiently to become wealthy, or actually don’t have quite enough intelligence to become wealthy. That is, wealth does not generally happen by accident except when inherited by someone who very likely has high intelligence, the offspring of someone intelligent enough to garner wealth.
So we have three major strata:
  • The highly intelligent wealthy (high class)
  • The somewhat intelligent or lazy unwealthy (middle class)
  • The unintelligent poor (low class)
In practice:
  • The high class has managed to make the middle class into voluntary servants through glitzy ads and debt.
  • Many of the high and middle class employ the low class for domestic servants.
  • Some, but not that many, of the middle and high classes provide the low class with food, clothing, and shelter as part of the domestic servitude arrangement.
  • The existence of many if not most of the low class have made the high and middle classes into their involuntary servants through crime, and taxation that pays for welfare abuse, health care, social workers, failed education efforts, and prisons.
  • Even though taxes on the high class do pay for the upkeep of the low class, the high class never notices it as a burden because of other tax benefits and shelters, but those taxes impose a severe burden on the middle class.

The 13th Amendment and Reverse Slavery

This makes it apparent that the 13th Amendment did not actually abolish involuntary servitude. In reality, it appears that Americans, through their misguided sense of fairness, justice, and altruism, have destroyed the effectiveness of community charity programs for the feckless, handing those to government, and converted the middle class into slaves of the low class AND the high class.
The upshot of this weird dilemma: Americans have upset the Law of the Survival of the Fittest with a system of legislated slavery of the middle class to the high class through usurious debt and to the low class through taxation. Victims of this system can only imagine that the high class engineered it intentionally. It does seem pretty slick when one ponders it. And that explanation clarifies the reason Government refuses to patrol the borders or impose some kind of check on the presently unrestrained procreation of children by unintelligent parents.
This dilemma and its causes constitute a wholly immoral, unethical perversion of civilization’s ideals. A society ought to engineer civilization for evolution toward some age of light and life, so to speak, where no crime, poverty, or war exists, and people can prosecute their ambitions without unduly burdening their fellows. That can never happen in an increasingly mechanized society in which 25% of the people haven’t the cognitive ability to graduate from high school, and will certainly resort largely to crime or welfare abuse to get by.
People of low intelligence make sense in a free society so long as others don’t become systematic slaves to them. The unintelligent must have a means of becoming gainfully, self-sufficiently, and happily employed, or the wards of those willing to care for and obtain economic benefits from them. The unintelligent simply cannot become and remain wards of the state without an economic justification. Liberty, after all, comes at the expense of commensurate responsibility.

Reverse Slavery Justifies 13th Amendment Revision

The foregoing discussion sheds new light on the 13th Amendment. That Amendment should stand, but ONLY for people with sufficient IQ and ambition to operate self-sufficiently. So, Congress ought to modify it a bit to that end.
Though many might feel loathe to admit it, involuntary servitude gave many benefits to many people, in spite of members of master and slave classes abusing one another.

Potential Benefits of 13th Amendment Revision

It provided sustenance, employment, and regulation for the servants and labor and other economic and personal benefits for the masters. Both sides benefited and to a large extent enjoyed the arrangement. And most of the servants, though slaves, escaped far worse conditions in their homelands.
But, involuntary servitude had serious deficiencies:
  • Incorrigible and violent slaves endangered the master and other slaves, and belonged in prison, not in a family or commercial enterprise.
  • Abusive or negligent masters hurt or deprived their slaves.
  • Many people became slaves who had the intelligence and raw ability become good, self-sufficient citizens, and should not have become involuntary servants.
Today we have a reverse-slavery system where the high and middle classes, who can care for themselves and become good citizens, have become involuntary servants to the low class who cannot care for themselves or become good citizens.
Society must reverse this situation while dramatically reducing the low class to a size that society actually needs for a smoothly functioning economy. That constitutes the supreme reason to outlaw production of bozos in America. Within 3 generations the averate intelligence of the nation will rise significantly, welfare will diminish so that neighborhoods can handle it without government interference, crime will drop dramatically, inner city ghettos will disappear, prison industries will shrink, and America will become monumentally more productive, more competitive than ever in the world economy.
And, Americans with good sense should demand a change to the 13th Amendment to impose a system of involuntary servitude on able-bodied people who, by their nature, cannot or will not care for themselves without hurting or burdening others.
Americans of good sense will otherwise remain slaves to the unintelligent of the land. And that just doesn’t make much sense, does it?
# # #
Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, FL 33763-1925
(727) 669-5511   http://bobhurt.com


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Lawmen” group.
To post to this group, send email to lawmen@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen?hl=en.

Bob Hurt

2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, FL 33763-1925
(727) 669-5511   http://bobhurt.com