Archive for the 'Traditionalism' Category

Auster on Categories and Traditionalism

December 1, 2007

Auster comments that changing the categories degrades their effectiveness. Categories are there to organize and make society work. Take away categories and you take away structure.

In programming languages, structures are used to organize
data and are in effect categories. Category theory in math
does the same thing. Categories provide structure in the
world of ideas and of thinking beings. Without categories
we can’t process.

Humans to program a computer need to use categories. They need the same to program a society and for the program to keep running. Traditionalism maintains the boundaries of the categories. This lets the categories do their job.

When the bounds of categories are worn down by exceptions, they lose their ability to do their job. The result is society collapses.

People then turn to Islam or fascism or communism for strict categories. Each of these offers strict categoriesand are popular in times of uncertainty and insecurity. They offer a respite from modernity. The war on traditionalism by liberalism leads to even more rigid category enforcement when the result is communism, fascism or Islam.

Liberalism has been at war with categories and the facts that are the walls of those categories. Liberalism has beaten down the categories and the result is that society doesn’t work as well. The labor force participation rates of white men and black men were 80 percent in 1965. Now white men are at 74 percent and black men at 66 percent.


Neocons and Anarchists

October 28, 2007

Are the neocons heirs to anarchism? The neocons are a leftist splinter group that moved to the right adopting some elements of economic conservatism along with anti-communism, but not adopting a belief in the self of the West identified with European peoples. The neocons are universalists, not Westerners in this sense.

The neocons as a splinter from leftism are descended from 19th century leftist movements. This includes the anarchist movement. Anarchists were, like neocons, a universalist, anti-nationalist movement.

Anarchism was difficult to identify on what it really stood for. It was easier to say what it was against. The neocons are the same. When the term neocon became known to the public, it was difficult for the public to know what it meant. In fact, that is still the case. The anarchists and neocons are both against the traditional West including its identity with European peoples.
The neocons supported Muslim immigration before 9-11 and after 9-11. Thus it was a neocon policy that led to the September 11, 2001 attacks from within the U.S. by Muslim immigrants. The neocons have continued to advocate and implement the same immigration after 9-11 thus taking ownership of 9-11.

Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist and born here in the U.S. to immigrants, shot President McKinley on September 6, 1901. The anarchists supported immigration before and after this attack. They too attacked those for immigration restriction as nativists and the rest.

The anarchist bombings and attacks didn’t stop on September 6, 1901. They continued on September 16, 1920 in the Wall Street bombings.

These were a continuation of other bombings and incidents from before the McKinley assassination. This included the attack on Frick.

On June 2, 1919, there were coordinated bombings by anarchist leftists. These included on the house of the Attorney General Palmer. The left only remembers the Palmer Raids, not the bombings.

The neocons have taken ownership of the immigration that led to 9-11 but also to the anarchist bombings. They link them together themselves by calling those for immigration restriction during the time of the anarchist attacks, nativists and bigots. They use the same terms for those against immigration now during the Muslim attack on the West. That includes multiple incidents in the U.S. and Europe. Let’s not forget the 1972 Munich Olympics, as Vanishing American reminds us in her article on Nationalists and Neocons. See the article before this one here for more on that article and the discussion thread at VA’s site.

If we look at the consequences of neocon policies, its always anarchy. Iraq is the great work of neoconism. So is Afghanistan. Both are in anarchy. The neocons have an indifference to reality and to the consequences of the people of a land of their policies.

This neocon indifference applies most of all at home in America. The neocons brought the 9-11 immigrants after the 1993 World Trade Center attack. They are the ones who took ownership of the 9-11 2001 attacks by continuing the same immigration after the 1993 attack and the 2001 attack.

It was Bush’s policy before 9-11-2001 to end profiling of Muslims and Arabs as Steve Sailer pointed out on 9-11. That was what led one security person to let Atta through. The person said if he wasn’t a terrorist who would be? But let him through. That was Bush policy to let Atta through.

The 9-11 2001 attack is the direct descendant of the 9-16-1920 Wall Street bombings and 9-16-1901 McKinley assassination. The neocons are the direct descendants of the anarchist leftist movements of the 19th century. They consider those who were for immigration restriction during the anarchist bombings to be nativists and bigots, and say the same of those for immigration restriction from the 1993 World Trade Center attack through today to be nativists and bigots.


The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported World War II, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman[citation needed]. A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA[citation needed]. In this way neoconservatives claim to be compassionate to the people they govern by serving them and looking out for their best interests.

Max Shachtman (September 10, 1904November 4, 1972) was an American Marxist theorist. During his lifetime, he evolved from being a Leninist associate of Leon Trotsky to an anti-Soviet social democrat.

Trotsky became involved in revolutionary activities in 1896 after moving to Nikolayev (now Mykolaiv). At first a narodnik (revolutionary populist), he was introduced to Marxism later that year and was originally opposed to it. But during periods of exile and imprisonment he gradually became a Marxist. Instead of pursuing a mathematics degree, Trotsky helped organize the South Russian Workers’ Union in Nikolayev in early 1897. Using the name ‘Lvov’ [3], he wrote and printed leaflets and proclamations, distributed revolutionary pamphlets and popularized socialist ideas among industrial workers and revolutionary students.

Emma Goldman (June 27, 1869May 14, 1940) known as ‘Red Emma’, was a Lithuanian-born anarchist known for her writings and speeches. She was lionized as an iconic “rebel woman” feminist by admirers, and derided as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution by her critics.[1]

Goldman played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in the United States and Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. In particular she incorporated gender politics into anarchism which, if at all, had only been hinted at by earlier anarchists. She immigrated to the United States at the age of seventeen and was later deported to Russia, where she witnessed the results of the Russian Revolution. She spent a number of years in England and in Southern France where she wrote her autobiography, Living My Life, and other works, before taking part in the Spanish Civil War in 1936 as the English language representative in London of the CNT-FAI.


In New York City, Goldman met and lived with Alexander Berkman, who was an important figure of the anarchist movement in the United States at the time. The two became lovers, and remained close friends until his death in 1936. With the influence of anarchist writers such as Johann Most, Berkman and Goldman became convinced that direct action, including the use of violence, was necessary to effect revolutionary change (see propaganda of the deed).

Goldman was widely believed by the authorities to have been involved in the planning stages of the Frick assassination attempt, but Berkman and the other conspirators refused to give evidence against her, and she was not charged in the indictment. Her defense of Berkman after the attempted assassination and her later attempts to win his early parole made her a marked woman and highly unpopular with the authorities who regularly disrupted her lectures. Berkman (or Sasha as she fondly referred to him) was released on parole after fourteen years in 1906.

In 1921, repression by the Red Army (under the direct leadership of Leon Trotsky) against the striking Kronstadt sailors left Goldman and other anarchists keenly disillusioned with the Bolsheviks.

===Hypothesis: Immigration always leads to anarchy.

We can make this hypothesis more explicit in the following form. Every large immigration movement leads to anarchy:

  1. The break down of social trust
  2. Failure of traditional institutions
  3. Violence
  4. Actual failure to perform duties of office or employment
  5. Actual failure to perform civic duties appropriately, such as jury duty.

There is a Pew poll that almost everyone in the world opposes immigration into their country because it disrupts their society and culture. People recognize the breakdown of their traditional society. They know its bad. It means they can’t rely on the promises made by society for civil order. Thus immigration leads to anarchy.

The things that anarchy is neocons make direct policy objectives. Neocons want the breakdown of tradition and of bonds between people based on ethnicity. These are targeted by neocons. Thus neocons are trying to create anarchy as their objective. That makes neocons anarchists.

World Publics Welcome Global Trade — But Not Immigration

Released: 10.04.07

In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed express the view that there should be greater restriction of immigration and tighter control of their country’s borders.

Thus neocons are against all people everywhere. Neocons are for global anarchy. They are against traditional society and all it brings for people everywhere. For themselves they can synthesize a traditional society using the wealth of the institutions they control. For neocons, traditionalism is something you have behind the closed doors of a think tank, investment bank, the top floor of a government office building, or the iron fence of an estate.

Loyalty and the Overlapping Generations Model

October 11, 2007

The overlapping generations model developed by Allais in 1947 and written about by Samuelson in 1958 is one of the key models in economics. Loyalty is a key assumption of the model that comes from outside the model, i.e. is assumed.  If we consider 3 generations, old, middle and young, the middle generation raises the young and supports the old.  The middle generation transmits tradition to the young as does the old in part. Loyalty binds these generations together.  Loyalty says that each generation matters and is important for its contribution.

Immigration says that  none of them matter.  Immigration and economism say that they are just interchangeable.   Loyalty is disowned by immigration policies.  It is the rich trying to get out of loyalty.

The overlapping generations model ignores this component of a rich class trying to convert the wealth and work of the others to their own use and willing to act with ruthless disloyalty to do it.  In fact, the rich have such greed that they can’t even see they are destroying the country in which their children or grandchildren will have to live.

Loyalty is fundamental to the overlapping generations model working.  When society disowns loyalty, it disowns all its promises at once.  This is the complete abandon of tradition.

This is in part a continuation of the discussion of Lawrence Auster’s traditionalism discussion and others commenting on it.   Loyalty is left out of philosophies of greed, which are the basis of immigration policy.
Tradition is what creates loyalty.   We need a new economics of loyalty.  That has been ignored from Marx onwards or is it backwards by economists.

Traditionalism Time Consistency Continued

October 11, 2007

This is in part a continuation of the discussion of Lawrence Auster’s traditionalism discussion by focusing on liberalism and its problems. See previous articles for links to others such as Vanishing American who has additional links. This picks up from the article Liberalism is Ponzi Schemes, which went on from Ponzi Schemes to time inconsistency as defined in operations research, mathematical economics, game theory, and behavioral economics.

In the context of behavioral economics, time inconsistency is related to how much each different self of a decision-maker cares about herself and all of the selves that will then follow her, relative to each other.

A traditional society is one that maintains sufficient continuity of self that promises it makes at one time, e.g. to the young who pay into social security, it will deliver at another time, e.g. to pay them social security. The overlapping generations model of Maurice Allais and Paul Samuelson is a linked list of overlapping generations that make promises to the young that are satisfied by the society when they are old.

If we consider 3 generations, old, middle, and infant, the middle generation is taking care of the infants and old generations. It is teaching the infant generation to follow the rules of its society. They expect that when they become old, the infants will follow the rules. This means supporting the older generation, but also not engaging in vandalism, mugging, indifference and brutality.

Immigration by different people interferes with the operation of the overlapping generations model. The traditions that the middle generation teach to the infants are not what the immigrants bring with them. Immigration disrupts the operation of the overlapping generations model.

Third world immigration brings in immigrants who whether old, middle or infant impose external costs. These exceed the benefit that employers gain. In addition, employers lower the wages of the middle generation when they need to support the old and infant. One result is that the middle generation can’t have children and so their fertility drops.

In a simple one time period for one generation model, this gives the middle generation no second chance. So those who miss out on having children from the disruption of immigration don’t get a second chance. Some may have children but not as many as they would have had, so they have one instead of 2 or 2 instead of 3. The result is that fertility drops like a rock. This is what happened.

The overlapping generations model was published by Samuelson in 1958. Allais published it earlier in France. Fertility peaked in 1957 in the U.S. It then fell like the rock predicted above and went from about 3.75 in 1957 to below 2 in the 1970’s, i.e. below replacement.

In addition, to the drop in fertility, the substitution of immigrants, in particular third world immigrants, meant that the traditions of the society being taught to infants was disrupted and curtailed. In addition, traditions had to be changed to deal with the influx. For example, airport security has to be much higher precisely because of the influx. Car commutes take much longer because of the influx. School security has deteriorated substantially and it also imposes costs and more time.

Schools and universities have stopped teaching the rising generation to respect their elders. They have instead taught them the opposite. So the traditions of the elder and middle generation and the society pre the new cohorts of immigration that arrived with the 1965 immigration act were being substituted for by the traditions of the new arrivals.

Traditionalism might be considered in several contexts, which might deserve separate names. First in economics or occupations. If the son follows the father’s occupation, we have a form of occupation traditionalism, although in practice, it can be more a form of stasis. Second in marriage and child rearing customs. In regulating community decision making. This includes how people think, not just a meeting of whoever happens to be there.

Technology and other reasons mean that there is disruption and change in production and markets. So its not possible for those to stay the same. However, there are other principles that can remain more stable. These include not stealing, making and honoring short and long term contracts, arbitrating disputes between merchants or customers and merchants, labor agreements and management labor relations, etc.

These were at a high state of development in the 1950’s in America, Australia, Canada, Europe, and New Zeeland. They were also rising in other places. However for the named countries, some at least of these conditions peaked and fell. The peaking of fertility in 1957 in the U.S. shows that peak.

Graph of fertility in the U.S. from 1800 to 1990:

Harold Meyerson at Washington Post

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.

The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo.

Meyerson points out the following numbers:

“From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent.”

“Since 1973 productivity gains have outpaced median family income by 3 to 1.”

The following is worth repeating here.

“In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.”

This was an America in which its middle generation had complete control to teach its traditions to its infant generation. It taught honoring contracts, non-violence, and allowing everyone to participate in a variety of ways. However, it then extended that to a wave of immigrants that in effect ended the teaching and the teaching environment of 1950’s America.

David Warsh has a column entitled, “The Generation of 1958.”

He looks at the impact of Sputnik in 1957 on America. However, this was an America that was different than now. A self-confident in control of itself America. As time-inconsistency and Auster’s attention to traditionalism over many years shows, America lost self-control because it lost the permanency of self. America can’t commit to promises because the self that would carry them out will be so different that we can’t know what it will do. America today and especially the America of 1957 is not transmitting its traditions, more than holidays, but ways of living and thinking to the next generations. Those generations are influx generations or the children of influx generations.

The following graph at Numbers USA shows some of the substitution from immigration. Its not intended to show the substitution of post 1965 immigration, but that substitution is substantial.

The article
Ronald F. Maxwell on Immigration
has some quotes and links that point up how the change in America is a risk. They particularly link to how we are taking a risk and don’t know the results. This is another way of saying that we can’t know if America will deliver on long term promises. These are not just social security but everything that goes into a society.

Liberalism and the economism propaganda of the Wall Street Journal and neocons and other beneficiaries has tried to make the claim that its the economy alone that transmits the traditions that make America. They try to claim that simply being here makes people part of the tradition of America. They claim their being here makes them act the same. They also claim that everyone acts the same as if there had been no immigration and the rising generation was the infant generation taught by the middle generation and to some extent the old generation.

We are now at a point, where the old generation has realized that the transmission of our tradition was disrupted substantially. We are to some extent the sole bearers of the tradition of America. Our transmission of it to the middle and young generations may not happen. We may be the last generation to have the traditions of 1950’s America.

We have very little time to act. There is no time to be afraid of being called bigot or racist. We have seen immigrant cohorts substituted under us in the chain of generations. We have also seen the schools engineered to teach foreign and alien traditions and not to respect or teach the one we were taught.

The schools make it sound like traditions are just holidays and food choices from a multicultural menu. Instead, its everything not included in economic models that makes them work. Tradition deals with everything that economism ignores. It deals with everything related to man as a physical, communal, and spiritual being. Without that, the core model of economics for generational analysis, the overlapping generations model stops working.

That is because society and culture stop working. That is what happen when tradition dies because its transmission belt between generations dies. That happens by substituting immigrants for births. That happens as a mathematical theorem from immigration. This is the Wright Island Model (academic references here) or the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem. It shows up on the graph of fertility. It takes place, in part, through lower wages. Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. See graph p60-233.pdf around page 16.


Brenda Walker has a good article at on how FDR would have taught our traditions if alive today and fighting the war on Islam instead of Islam’s traditions as Bush does by celebrating Ramadan.

Watching even the compromised Ken Burns’ WWII documentary was a moving reminder of the unified America that has been squandered by open borders and diversity immigration.

Franklin Roosevelt had the advantage of a national community that was already joined by culture, values and language. He could rally the American people with stirring words calling for sacrifice to win the war, and the positive response was predictable.

George Bush, America’s only MBA President, merely recommended that we continue to shop after being attacked. The opportunity to educate the people about the danger of fundamentalist Islam, let alone unassimilable immigration in general, has been largely lost.

==Vanishing American

VA reviews some material from Russell Kirk and adds some insights to the discussion on traditionalism Auster has sparked recently.

Liberalism is Ponzi Schemes

October 10, 2007

The liberal philosophy as its name suggests runs towards Ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes have as inherent components:

  1. Promising to create from nothing.
  2. A smaller number of followers at the start.
  3. A growth in followers that can be separated into generations or cohorts.
  4. Actual payoffs to some earlier generations.
  5. The inability to payoff later cohorts or generations.
  6. Fraud to start the Ponzi scheme.
  7. Coercion to maintain and extend the Ponzi scheme once its exposed.
  8. Eventual collapse of the extended Ponzi scheme.

Coercion in a private Ponzi scheme might be forcing some members to cough up more money to pay off earlier cohorts or generations.

Social security, welfare, government health care, ER mandates, schooling the third world, asylum, H-1B type immigration, family reunification immigration are all examples, at least in part of Ponzi schemes.

Lawrence Auster is an advocate of Traditionalism as a form of Conservatism. Traditionalism and Liberalism are not the same. One aspect in which they are presumably different is that Traditionalism doesn’t run to Ponzi schemes.

Another point of view is that Traditionalism is not based on time inconsistency, fraud, arbitrage, or magic of one form of another. Time inconsistency in a narrow sense is where preferences change or a promise made at one time won’t be performed at a later time.

In the context of behavioral economics, time inconsistency is related to how much each different self

Time inconsistency involves the change of the self as the Wiki article states. Immigration, changing generations, etc. are ways that the self changes. Liberalism makes promises on behalf of a society that is changing. The future society in one way or another defaults on those promises.

Liberalism is based on sets of promise that won’t be or can’t be performed over time. The response of the government at some point is a combination of fraud and coercion. This is followed by default or collapse.

Traditionalism is about maintaining the continuity of the self of society. This is necessary for society to make promises that it will actually deliver on if it is in a position to deliver on them. Society still has to limit itself to promises within its means.

Liberalism by immigration creates both time inconsistency of the self and a Ponzi scheme that can’t be delivered on. Immigration changes the self, and eventually changes it completely. Third World immigration is changing a society based on contract performance to one where contracts hardly exist.

The first world has developed faith in long term contracts and commitments. These are not part of third world reality, nor have they ever been. Immigration is the first world expecting to change itself into the third world and then expecting its new third world self to deliver on its old first world promises from the past. This is not going to happen.

Performance of long term contracts among strangers is not a common characteristic of human societies everywhere and always. It is instead, a rare situation. It is a first world concept and not a third world one. Large public corporations with many shareholders is not a third world creation is still not the norm in many parts of the third world. Even in some areas these companies are still beset with fraud problems.

Liberalism has joined together Ponzi schemes, that can never be performed, with time-inconsistency, the change of the self, that results in even promises that can be performed being defaulted on. Moreover, the immigration is from the third world where long term promises to strangers are not performed on and aren’t part of the culture.

Western society evolved or developed the public corporation with shares held by strangers and diluted. It has been difficult even here to maintain it. Western society has, however, in liberalism, made long term promises that it can’t perform. It has then turned to third world immigration to cure this, in part. But this has only made things worse.

Third world immigrants immediately impose high costs in the form of schools, welfare, ER, crowding, time mandates such as commuting, and the like. Third world immigrants are not loyal to first world people and are here to get what they can while the getting is good. They are not here to deliver on long term promises made by liberals.

This is in part a continuation of the discussion of Lawrence Auster’s traditionalism discussion by focusing on liberalism and its problems. Vanishing American also has some comments and links on this topic.

Neocons: Traditionalism for me, Globalism for you

Neocons: Traditionalism for me, Globalism for you

October 9, 2007

This is a continuation of the discussion of Lawrence Auster’s traditionalism discussion. See that post and linked ones for references to Auster or Vanishing American.

Neocons at AEI and elsewhere have set up a situation of all the benefits of traditionalism for themselves. They have tenure or strong bargaining power or both. They have extended networks of friends who can help them get jobs or money or resources on an ongoing basis. When they get together with their network it helps them advance in getting money.

This used to be true in traditional societies. You hunted or farmed or fought off invaders or marauders together. Your extended network and your livelihood and defense were all linked together. Every social occasion advanced your personal interests.

For professors, think tank dwellers, journalists, White House staffers or Senators or CEO’s this is still true. They have an extended network that helps them advance themselves. Social networking and business networking are linked. They get self defense from this network against marauders like a crusading assistant US attorney who needs to be reassigned or have their case reassigned.

For the rest of us, the neocons want to take away whatever bits of this are left and deny it to us. They want us globalized. They want our network to disappear. We have the social networking of losers not champions. We can’t help people in our network get jobs, because new jobs are at the level of H-1B wages down to illegal immigrant wages. Social networking with us doesn’t help anymore. There isn’t any need to know extended kin, because they don’t have good jobs to tell us about either.

The good jobs are locked up in the AEI network and aren’t available to the rest of us. So we can only network in fear and commiseration. We can tell each other when we lose our good job, but can’t help the person or give help to find another good job. Those are locked into the AEI network or similar out of reach networks.

The AEI Davos network spends its time taking away the good jobs from the rest of the people. So we are living in fear. Our social and family network can’t help us. They don’t have the resources to help us because the good jobs are disappearing. So they can’t help us find them.

Mitt Romney gained his fortune by working the Bain and Company side of that network. He helped corporate managements in small towns see the light, to ditch the people and get short term profits so they could cash out their options. The result is that traditional family and social networks in America can’t offer help, they are just line ups into the work and reeducation camps the neocons provide us, if that.

Meanwhile the neocons and professors and journalists are living rooted traditional lives. They have permanent jobs and places in their community. They have extended networks that can get them jobs or money or financial opportunities. They get regular opportunities to give papers, op-eds, present at networking gatherings that increase their security and opportunities.

They want traditionalism for them and globalization for us. Their institutions push that as hard as they can. For that they are well paid. Institutions which were supposed to put a break on this are co-opted. The Antitrust Division of the DOJ is effectively controlled by Deputy Assistant Attorney General econ or law profs who approve mergers and takeovers.

The investment banks and corporations doing the deals are then paying them as consultants or their expert witness firms and hiring their students to high paying jobs on Wall Street. That leads to higher salaries for these profs because this is what fuels high tuition, dream job opportunities that come from the former DAAG econ and law profs.

The takeovers and consolidation and approvals have been rubber stamped by a small group of econ prof DAAGs who are parts of the same types of networks discussed above. They have written books together, are on the same journals, are part of a small set of large expert witness firms, etc.

DOJ staff econ Ph.d.’s are the students of these profs. The profs write the letter of recommendation to the current prof who is in charge of the econ Ph.D.’s in DOJ. The prof at DOJ decides which Ph.D.’s to hire. They are then promoted by the prof at DOJ who runs that section. The Economic Analysis Group at DOJ is always run by a prof on loan from a university.

From the time a student enters grad school to the time they retire from DOJ as a Ph.D. economist staffer, their entire career is controlled by the same group of about 10 econ prof DAAGs. This is how its worked for a long time. DOJ doesn’t make it easy to datamine the statistics on this, but one can pull it together from searches.

DOJ Antitrust can’t do any action without an econ Ph.D. signing off on it. That means if the investment banks and management consulting firms can coopt the econ profs who control this system then they can get anything approved. Even the merger of Exxon and Mobil would be approved, and was.

The same system is working to offshore U.S. know-how. Russia, China, India, and other countries analyze this system and get in on it. They are taken care of. The result is that the globalization process happens faster and the rest of us lose out faster.

antitrust expert witness

Most DAAG econ profs are linked to the Handbook of Industrial Organization of Elsevier

Elsevier’s merger with Academic Press was approved in 1999 by DOJ. Daniel Rubinfeld, not DAAG then, later put up an analysis that this violated antitrust laws. That was later taken down.

Elsevier charges huge library subscription fees, unlike the case in the 1960’s. This huge inflation in rates charged libraries was the basis, in part, of Rubinfeld’s analysis.

Some of the analysis is still available:

search Daniel Rubinfeld Elsevier Academic Press

“economic analysis”

“economic analysis” “deputy assistant attorney general”

Wall Street hires the econ undergrad, grad students and law students of these profs. That lets the universities charge high tuition, in part, because dream jobs on Wall Street help fuel high tuition. But dream jobs on Wall Street are fueled by the DOJ Antitrust Division approving mergers and acquisitions. No M and A deal approvals, no M and A profits. M and A is a major driver of profits on Wall Street.

This cozy little world has all the advantages of traditionalism. Everyone knows everyone. Everyone has a permanent place. They have extended networks they have known for decades. Most have multiple jobs and affiliations and multiple pots of money. They have multiple secretaries and support people to smooth their lives. They spend their time in conferences and Davos and other resort meetings. The people who were supposed to be protected instead are losing their jobs.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. Graph page 16:

Income inequality is huge.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills:


Mitt Romney is the presidential candidate of this network.

After graduating from Harvard, Romney went to work for the The Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.[15] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a Bain & Company spin-off private equity investment firm called Bain Capital.[16] During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent,[17] making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.[18] He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino’s, Sealy Corporation and The Sports Authority.[19]

In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm’s employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.[17]

Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[20]

He and his wife have a net worth of between 190 and 250 million USD.[21]

Mitt Romney is a beneficiary of the cozy networks that made possible his fortune. Electing him is putting the fox in charge of the hiring of the DAAG econ profs and law profs who manage the technical work at DOJ.


From Vanishing American

Too often, children have no contact with older people, and the elders are isolated in ’senior communities’ or homes, rarely seeing their grandchildren or other relatives, who live far away.

So we are dwindling away, and fewer of the younger people bother to keep up the extended family ties that were so central to the older generations. Coming to the family reunions and to family holiday celebrations is not a priority with the younger generations.

This isn’t a problem for the elite networks.

William Kristol

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952 in New York City) is an American neoconservative pundit, analyst and strategist. He is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the founders of the neoconservative movement

William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Sunday and on the Fox News Channel.

Mr. Kristol recently co-authored The New York Times bestseller The War Over Iraq: America’s Mission and Saddam’s Tyranny.

This links to

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the first Bush Administration. From 1985 to 1988, he served as chief of staff and counselor to Secretary of Education William Bennett. Prior to coming to Washington, Mr. Kristol served on the faculty of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government (1983-1985) and the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania (1979-1983).,2933,2120,00.html

William Kristol is a political contributor for the FOX News Channel (FNC) and serves as a regular contributor to Special Report with Brit Hume, the highest rated political program on cable television.

Irving Kristol

The philisophy of neo-conservatism is two-faced. Its traditionalism for those inside it, and globalization for the rest.

Lawrence Auster discusses Kristol on immigration:

“KRISTOL: I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.”

“KRISTOL: And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. “

“What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years?”

“as well as his very lucrative speaking career, which by some reports nets him $100,000 to $200,000 per year.”

William Kristol serves on the board of trustees of the Manhattan Institute (paid?)
Bill Kristol, while editor of the Weekly Standard, was paid $100,000 for serving on an Enron advisory board over two years.
Kristol says he does “a fair amount” of speaking to corporate groups and doesn’t normally disclose it.

search William Kristol speaking fees

All those speaking fee gigs are arranged by secretaries at his magazine or at the company or institute. They often provide a private aircraft presumably for himself and whoever he wants to go with him. He may have a lavish suite at a 5 class hotel as part of it and a limo to take him around. He gets treated with caviar traditionalism to say how we should get globalization. He tells CEO’s, take the money, fire the employees. “Take it.” “Take the …” Be an uber-CEO straddling across history like a colossus. While we petty men and women get globalization.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

Traditionalism: Permanent People

October 9, 2007

This is a continuation of the discussion of Lawrence Auster’s traditionalism discussion. Its also a continuation of other discussions of what is conservatism by Auster or Vanishing American or others. It contrasts traditionalism with neo-conservatism.

Traditionalism or conservatism is the idea that the people are permanent. In neo-conservatism, the people are replaceable or changeable. In addition, in nationalism, there is one government for one people. In neo-conservatism there can be many peoples for one government. This is the same as imperialism. Imperialism is one entity providing government services to many peoples. Nationalism is the opposite, the idea of each nation or people that it will have its own government, created by it, in its image, for its purposes, and crafted by that single people for their own ends and benefit.

The Jeffersonian ideal in the Declaration of Independence is a declaration of modern nationalism and traditionalism. It says that the Americans are a single people and they choose their own government. The government is a creature of the people, not the people a creature of the government.

In imperialism, a government has many peoples. It can move them around if it wants, and it wants. Thus the Romans moved peoples around in its empire, until eventually they decided the empire didn’t suit them and there was no more empire.

Empires are multicultural as a means of preserving the empire. One government is offering government services to many peoples. So that government has to embrace diversity by definition. It is trying to craft its services to suit the needs of diverse peoples so as to partially satisfy them. Nationalism says the people aren’t satisfied enough and want their own government that is a creature of them alone.

In nationalism, there is a permanent people. The people have to be constantly vigilant lest the government usurp its position and turn the tables, making the people a servant and creature of the government. Governments gain stability by having multiple people. If one goes wrong, it still has the others.

Governments are natural bigamists. They want to gather as many different peoples into marriages as they can. Each people is a wife to the government. The government wants it to have its children and cater to the government. These children can then be used for taxes or war as the government sees fit.

Governments can grow to trust more in other governments than in their own people. They make deals to establish multilateral organizations of governments. These are in the business of lending aid to governments when their people are unruly. The states in the United States created such a multilateral entity, perhaps without realizing it.

Bush has acted the bigamist. He goes out and gets other peoples and then expects us to take them in and take care of them and their children. Bush gives their children precedence over ours. Bush brings back asylum refugees from Iraq and expects us to take them in.

The refugees get to choose where they want to live. Where they choose becomes their community, their land, their customs, and their place. The Americans there, as in Maine with Somali refugees, are expected to give up their place. The Hmong are another example of another president’s bigamist children. Presidents and neocons not only expect us to take in their other families, but to let their children kill our children. Americans have no place even in their own country.

Neo-conservatives use diversity and multiculturalism as a way to partially satisfy separate peoples at the same time. The goal is to accustom each people to be only one of many peoples. Neocons try to make this the norm everywhere. They seek multinational entities with many peoples for the single entity.

In this system, loyalty goes upwards. There is no concept of the government being loyal to the people in multiculturalism, because there is no people. There are many peoples and none of them matter that much. The government comes first. It creates the peoples it wants and moves them around. This is called asylum today but is really people engineering.

Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were government engineers. They tinkered with the Constitution to create a government to serve the ends of the single people. Neo-conservatives are people engineers. They tinker with the people over time to get multiple peoples who they can control and continue to mold or modify as they see fit.

Neo-conservatism fits with corporatism. Corporatism says employees are interchangeable and fungible. The traditional 1950’s corporation had tenure for employees. Employees had bargaining power because there was little immigration. Employees were also citizens. They as citizen soldiers had fought WWI and WWII. They were the basic entity in the land. Corporations, schools, and government all catered to the citizens.

Neo-corporatism is as rootless and divorced from workers as neo-conservatism is from people. In both cases, its been a switch from serving people to serving the entity. The neo-corporation has no loyalty to any people. The multinational corporation is the corporate version of neo-conservatism. It has no loyalty to any community or people.

The neo-university is the same thing. America’s original universities were founded to teach and minister to the people. They often were set up to train ministers in the local faith. Today these universities are explicitly international. They make it clear they have no specific loyalty to America and not to any object like the American people.

The bargaining power of colleges and universities has changed as well. The elite schools choose their students, where once students chose their college. The universities routinely say they could fill their classes with people from other countries and don’t need Americans at all. In graduate school, they almost do that.

Neo-conservatism spawns neoness in every institution or entity. Corporations and universities are recreated in the neocon image. This then flows back to government. During the 1990’s, Russia got billions of IMF loans funded partly from the U.S. Treasury as it learned to play the game. Actually, it helped invent it. Other countries have done and do the same.

China, India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are all inside members of neo-Washington. Each of these countries is almost at war with us in one way or another. But each of them are treated as allies by the neocon institutions.

They are fellow governments to the neocons. They act together. The only difference is that in America, they also get to engineer the people. This means engineering away the old American people and replacing them with a new set of peoples. This is sold as diversity and multiculturalism.

The leaders of neo-conversion are the well known neo-cons. This includes William Kristol as a media example of it. However, the entire society is already converted to this way of thinking. The RINO 4 Republican candidates are all neo-cons in this sense. Fred Thompson, Rudi Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all committed to the rule of government first and of many peoples for the one government. They all view each other as their extended network and not us.

George W. Bush’s administration has been purely neo-con in focus. He started by promising to end profiling of Arabs and Muslims at airports and did that before 9-11 as Steve Sailer pointed out in October 2000 and reminded us recently. He was for Mexican immigration and for the North American union. Clinton brought in Somali refugees as part of his “invade the world, invite the world” (Steve Sailer) program. We have also had at least one report of Bosnian Muslim violence in America from the Balkans epsiode. Bush has continued this.

Bush is set to bring in Iraqis in large numbers as part of “invade the world, invite the world”. In every case, their culture, needs and preferences come first. Even when their children kill ours, we are supposed to remain silent. If we speak up we are called bigots. A strange term for the neocons to use when they are the bigamists expecting us to take in their bigamist children. Yet we are the bigots.

==Reference on Lawrence Auster on tradionalism

tradition, accepts the arrangements that grow out of the attitudes, practices and beliefs that become authoritative over time in the life of a community.

Quote is actually from Jim Kalb as Lawrence Auster notes below.

For this to make sense there has to be a permanent or semi-permanent community. If the people change or the government changes the people at its whim, then tradition has nothing to be rooted in.

The Google search


==Vanishing American comments on Auster’s discussion

VA’s thread has many excellent links and quotes in the VA tradition of scholarship.

Also see the follow-up:

My comment posted there:

I have followed the discussion here and on Lawrence Auster’s blog. One principle discussed at the above link is the idea that in traditionalism the people are permanent and individuals have a permanent place in society. Although these can only be approximations, tradition speaks to these needs. A survey at Dan Stein’s webpage shows that people around the world in a poll oppose immigration because it threatens these values.

I also agree with you on the manifesto you decided not to sign. Its more a Declaration of Submission than of Independence.

==Dan Stein global poll against immigration

==Note on populism.

Populism is related to the idea of one people one government.

==US Constitution was one people many governments.

The U.S. Constitution actually had one people three governments. There was local, state and national government. So the relation there was even more favorable to the people than in neo-conservatism. As the neo-cons have re-engineered the people and brought in their bigamist children, they have taken over local and state government and made them to cater to their bigamist children’s needs and not ours.

Lawrence Auster Positive Program Traditionalism

October 8, 2007

How about the following:

Everyone feels like part of the same type of extended family as Fellows at AEI do.  They can get jobs if they lose them.  They have economic bargaining power. They feel part of a community.  They have life long attachments to the community and the community to them.  Their voice matters.  They matter.  They are not just discarded to meet a CEO’s need to improve his earnings.

For everyone to feel they had an extended family like AEI that could get them a job when they needed one would require immigration to stop for decades at least.  This is the bottom line of the American Enterprise Institute, to keep most Americans from having what they had in the 1950’s.

Why they call themselves ‘American’ is a mystery; why not call themselves the ‘Global Enterprise Institute’?

The positive program of traditionalism is for everyone to belong to their own AEI in their extended community, family and network.  Everyone would feel like they had a secure place in the community and that they mattered to the community.  This is what AEI is most desperate to keep middle and bottom America from having.  This is what distinguishes neo-conservatism from traditionalism.  Traditionalism is the feeling and reality of the rootedness and permanence of the people.

The neo-conservatism ideology is to take away from or keep from people feeling they have a rooted, permanent, tenured place in the community.   The 1965 Immigration Act is the defining legislation that neo-cons look to.  It obstructed permanence for everyone.  Traditionalism is tenure for everyone in the community.  Tenure in jobs because employers have to court the only workers in the country, the ones born there.  Tenure in schools because educators have to educate the people born in the country.  Tenure in voters, because the only people who vote are people born in the country.  Tenure in citizens, because the only citizens are those born here.

%d bloggers like this: