Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Yes, Ideas Do Matter, as One Couple Found Out—Tragically, the Hard Way

You may have heard of the American couple who biked around the world a couple of years ago, only to be murdered by ISIS terrorists. The couple believed that 'Evil Is a make-believe concept', and set out to prove it. But as they travelled through territory near Afghan border, ISIS members stabbed them to death.


I’ve been thinking about this episode. I actually agree with their sentiment that most people are decent human beings. That doesn’t mean evil doesn’t exist. But what is the source of evil? 


Let’s define our terms. What is the standard by which good and evil is determined? There is only one legitimate standard--human life and the requirements of human flourishing, qua human being. Simply put, human life is fundamentally individual, and each individual possesses a rational faculty and free will all his own. However much value we get out of social interaction with others, in the end each of us is a complete independent entity--an end in ourselves. The only way for the individual to flourish is to be free to use his rational faculty and free will--to live by the judgement of his own mind--in pursuit of his own values. So the right thing--the good--is to leave others free from physically coercive interference.


But not everybody believes individual freedom is right; i.e., moral. These ISIS murderers truly believe they are doing right--by doing God’s work. Likewise, Nazi or Communist regimes were and are driven by a moral vision they believe is “right”--a collective moral vision that subordinates the individual to the collective, or group. Because both collectivism and theocracy subordinate the individual to a “higher authority,” they are contrary to the individualist requirements of human life, and thus can both be objectively defined as evil. 


Yes, evil exists--and it is driven by inhuman ideologies. The lesson: Evil is certainly not “make-believe”. Ideas are the engine of history and of human action. The source of evil is the ideas that lie behind it. If this couple had taken the time to understand the ideas behind ISIS, they would still be alive today. It’s not like the threat is not well known. Even the 911 Commission recognized “the ideology underlying jihadist terrorism." 


It may seem distasteful to point this out, given the tragic deaths of this idealistic couple. But certainly, no disrespect is intended. It is their misplaced idealism that got them killed. This must be recognized to head off other couples meeting the same fate. Ideas matter.


Related Reading:


Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand (from the book of the same title.)


The War Between Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make


Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam—Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard


The Evil of Whitewashing Islam—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard


A Welcome Recognition of the Islamist Threat from a ‘Mainstream’ Source


Saturday, September 26, 2020

QUORA: ‘Should we amend the US Constitution to allow one US Senator to be selected by the state government and one US Senator to be selected by the residents of the state?’

 QUORA *: ‘Should we amend the US Constitution to allow one US Senator to be selected by the state government and one US Senator to be selected by the residents of the state?


I posted this answer:


No. 


The checks and balances built into the Constitution by the Framers included tempering the tyranny of direct democracy. Senators were originally appointed by the elected legislators of the states, each legislator representing a small popular constituency from his sending district. Keep in mind that direct democracy, or populism, is the purpose of the House of Representatives, with whom the Senate must collaborate with.


The Congressional structure balances the two forms of democracy. Note that both senators and representatives derive from voters, but in different ways. Populism has its voice in the House, while state legislatures have their voice in the Senate. The first is direct democracy, the second indirect. This setup has the added function of giving states a check on federal power. The Senate not only counter-balances the power of the popular vote. It balances the power between the state and federal governments.


The 17th Amendment was a mistake. The Amendment suggested above would be a step in the right direction. But it still waters down the power of the Senate. We should simply repeal the 17th Amendment.


Related Reading:


QUORA *: ‘What do you think of the fact that California has 2 senators to represent 40 million citizens while 23 smaller states have 46 senators to represent 40 million citizens?’


Federalist # 10, 47,  51, 63--James Madison

 

James Madison and the Dilemmas of Democracy--Myron Magnet for City journal

 

Even under free, popularly elected governments, man’s God-given rights remain off-limits to state interference. Yes, the “will of the majority” ultimately rules, “but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority,” and such a trespass on fundamental rights is as illegitimate as the arbitrary will of an absolute monarch. Any rulers who “overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people”—even popularly elected rulers carrying out the will of the majority—“exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants,” differing from “the Inquisition . . . only in degree.” A democratic tyranny may seem a contradiction in terms, but it can be all too real.

 

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

 

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty by Timothy Sandefur



* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:


Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]


You can also reply to other users’ answers.]


Wednesday, September 23, 2020

The Criminal Socialist Agenda Behind the ‘Anti-Racism’ Movement

If you oppose a single payer health care scheme, you are a racist. So Doctor Toby Terwilliger strongly implies in his New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column There’s no racial justice without health justice.


Like “climate crises” and the history re-writing 1619 Project, so-called “racial justice” is not what it implies. Just as the climate crisis is not about climate and the 1619 Project is not about slavery, so racial justice is not about color-blind law. It is about advancing a criminal--that is, state-imposed--socialism on all Americans. 


And what justification does Terwilliger offer? Statistics, the last refuge of damned liars. Terwilliger trots out stats showing “disparities” in healthcare outcomes between racial groups. Statistics tell you nothing about individuals that make up the groups, of course. But of course collectivists don’t care about actual individual human beings.


It’s true that some people can’t afford the best healthcare, or even adequate healthcare. Like any other good or service, stuff costs money. But not being able to afford something does not give you the right to steal from others. Burglars do that. A just person does not. Nor does a just person expect the government to steal on his behalf. Al Capones use proxies, or hired guns. That is not a just government. 


Plenty can be done to reduce the massive government interference that makes healthcare so expensive, such as health insurance mandates and restrictions on competition like licensing restrictions and Certificates-of-Need imposed on providers. Terwilliger cites one big problem, caused by the government, “the marriage of insurance with employment,” that is easily rectified by reducing, not increasing, government interference in healthcare. Why do you need to outlaw private health insurance to end that? Just eliminate the tax preferences that effectively prevent health insurance from being portable, like homeowners, life, and auto insurance. 


Plenty can be done to increase health insurance affordability. But affordability is not the single payer’s goal. The motive is much more sinister--egalitarianism. Economic inequality, including healthcare outcome inequality, is a fact of life and natural consequence of individual liberty. Any attempt to equalize health outcomes between groups--eliminating “disparities in health outcomes,” as Terwilliger puts it--necessarily means cutting away healthcare from everyone who has good coverage, in order to cut everyone down to equally mediocre healthcare. Hence, take away the best health insurance in America, private health insurance. If you’ve achieved something good, you are necessarily unequal to those who haven’t. You must be punished. This, I submit, is the essence of injustice. Equality in any aspect other than equality of individual rights before the law, including rights to property and trade, is unjust.


About 180 million Americans have private health insurance, albeit heavily regulated insurance. As Terwilliger points out, 80% of black Americans are insured. Many, no doubt, are among those with private health insurance--the very insurance single payer would outlaw. Do they have a choice? Not all black lives, it seems, matter to Black Lives Matter.


Don’t think socialized medicine is the only goal of the “anti-racists.” Terwilliger writes:


The May 25th murder of George Floyd, have forced a national reckoning with our history of racism and injustice. The Black Lives Matter movement has dramatically shifted public opinion and has awakened a renewed sense of urgency to confront racism head-on. The movement has rightfully been indignant of police brutality and a broken criminal justice system. But the fight for racial justice cannot stop there. Black lives must be seen to matter in education, housing, the workplace, and all other facets of life if we can ever hope to achieve racial justice.


[My emphasis]


If racial justice matters in education, the workplace, housing, and all other facets of life in the same way as it should matter in healthcare, the result will be totalitarian socialism. America will become one huge slave plantation. The Confederate intellectual George Fitzhugh called slavery “the best form of socialism”. Marxism simply expanded the concept to the entire society, replacing the plantation master with the state as the owner of the slave (page 20-22). The slave never has to “choose between putting food on the table or paying for their child’s medications.” No more job worries. No more mundane need to make budgeting decisions. The state takes care of it all. 


Under single payer healthcare, the state calls the shots. The medical profession is enslaved. If the single payer concept is extended to “all other facets of life,” in the name of racial justice, where does that leave America? The “national reckoning with our history of racism and injustice” that so many Americans are blindly falling all over themselves to show support for is a criminal socialist Trojan Horse. The re-mainstreaming of race and racism is geared to guilting Americans into accepting full-blown socialism. Nothing more. Nothing less.


Related Reading:


The Only Obamacare Fix Is For Obama To Legalize Real Health Insurance by Paul Hsieh


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’


Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh for The Objective Standard

Sunday, September 20, 2020

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: NJ Governor Murphy’s Strange and Discriminatory ‘Baby Bonds’ Scheme

In his latest budget proposal, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy is proposing a “baby bonds” plan to provide taxpayer-funded savings bonds to children born in 2021 that will be cashable on their 18th birthday. 


Here’s how the baby bonds plan would work:


Under the plan, New Jersey would provide a one-time investment of $1,000 for every 2021 baby whose family’s income is no more than five times the federal poverty level. For a family of four, the income cutoff would be $131,000, Murphy said Tuesday during his budget address at Rutgers University’s football stadium in Piscataway.


Murphy said the plan would benefit three out of every four children born in New Jersey, calling it the first statewide program of its kind. The governor did not say whether the plan would continue in future years.


“As this child grows, so, too, will the value of this bond — to help pay for college, to help make a down payment on a home, or to help start a small business,” the Democratic governor said.


On the face of it, this is just another entitlement. But this new entitlement is no ordinary welfare program.


Think about this. A run-of-the-mill welfare entitlement is geared toward the economic status of the recipient


Not so with Murphy’s scheme.


Every child comes into this world having never earned a single dollar. Every child is born broke. So fairness would dictate that every single child get the baby bond. After all, a newborn child has no control over his parents’ earning power, no claim on his parents’ income or wealth once he reaches the age of 18, no guarantee he will be given anything by his parents, and no capacity to launch a remunerative career. Yet this child will be handed a nest egg, or not, based on something he has no control over--his parents’ economic status


Being judged by something beyond one’s control. Sound familiar?


Now consider this:


[Patrick] Murray, the Monmouth [University] pollster, said Murphy was shrewd to add the “baby bonds” proposal to the budget and cast tax hikes as “measures of racial equality after the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum in recent months.


The governor said during his speech that “too many families of color pay a greater share of their hard-earned income in taxes than millionaires, who are overwhelmingly not people of color.”


“Ensuring fairness and justice in taxation is just as important as ensuring fairness and justice in society,” Murray said. “In fact, it is an essential step in eliminating the structural racism in our society.”


“Structural racism” disappeared from our laws with the end of the Jim Crow era. Here, Murphy’s structural racism refers to statistical disparities in income and wealth, not of individuals, but of families. How do statistical disparities indicate structural racism today? They don’t. There is little doubt that economic disparities are lingering effects, in part, of racist laws from the last century. That was genuine structural racism. But that’s gone. It’s history. The lingering statistical disparities of today prove nothing about racism today. So innocent children born in 2021 are to be cheated because of wrongs perpetrated long ago, if their parents belong to a group that is statistically “overwhelmingly not people of color”--families earning more than $131,000 per year! Statistics prove nothing, but they are useful as a last refuge for damned liars.


The baby bonds program is not overtly racist: All New Jersey children below five times the federal family poverty level will get the bonds. But in that Murphy has a racial motive, the bond program is covertly racist.


Imagine two children born in 2021. One gets a $1000 bond. The other doesn’t. Eighteen years later, one child gets a pile of money from the state, the other gets nothing. Why the unequal treatment of the law? Not because of money the child earns--neither child has ever had any substantiation income--but because of someone else’s income. 


Is this fair? What can possibly justify this disparate treatment by one’s own government? Note the focus on families. Enter mankind’s darkest evil--collectivism. Note the income threshold is not based on any particular individual’s doing. The threshold is “family” income. The child is judged not as an individual but as part of a collective--the family.


The baby bonds program is actually the intersection of two collectivist evils--racism and egalitarian criminal socialism. A child has no control over his parents’ economic status any more than he has control over his skin color. Yet he is to be judged not on his own attributes by the attributes of the family he is born into--their color and their economic status. This is economic and racial bigotry. 


Racism is re-invading American law at the expense of objectivity *, and that is a bad sign. Murphy’s approach to the baby bonds, though it stops just short of explicitly employing race as a criteria for inclusion, is part of a much wider threat to America--the repudiation of individualism and the deliberate regression to tribalism, with the associated “market for victimhood” and “cycle of revenge” that infests tribal societies both today and throughout history. Murphy says “Ensuring fairness and justice in taxation is just as important as ensuring fairness and justice in society.” 


But collectivism is actually the obliteration of fairness and justice because only individuals, not groups, exist in reality. And in reality fairness and justice applies only to individuals. Protecting individual rights, not group “rights”, equally and at all times, is the only foundation for valid law. Anyone who forgets that principle cannot claim ensuring justice as a motive.


* [As philosopher Harry Binswanger explains in What is Objective Law?, “As the law must be objective in its source, so it must be objective in its form: objective laws are clearly defined, consistent, unambiguous, stable, and as straightforward and simple as possible. They are also impartial and universal, in the sense of applying to all individuals as individuals rather than as members of any race, creed, class or other collective.”] {my emphasis}

Related Reading:


NJ Turns its Back on the 14th Amendment – and History


Martin Luther King Jr. and the Fundamental Principle of America


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’


The Racism of the 'Anti-Racists': 'This New America' - Apartheid?


Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle


Related Viewing:


 Ayaan Hirsi Ali: The Market for Victimhood [a critically important and timely half-hour talk followed by a one hour Q&A]


“It has been said that education opens the mind, while indoctrination closes it. A good education permits one to think critically, and to consider multiple viewpoints." Ayaan Hirsi Ali joins those who have been sounding the alarm on the closing of the American mind.


Thursday, September 17, 2020

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

 233 years ago, on September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention ended and the Constitution of the United States of America was signed. This day is officially known as Constitution Day.

 

It was also an occasion for one columnist to declare that the US Constitution is "broken." The New Jersey Star-Ledger's Tom Moran wrote five years ago:

 

Kids in America are taught to venerate the Constitution, almost as if it were the word of God.


And that’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared. He believed it was flawed, that experience would teach each generation new lessons and that it should be redone every 19 years.


But Jefferson lost the argument. And so the Founders signed a Constitution  225 [230] years ago tomorrow that is an impregnable fortress, firmly set against the forces of change that Jefferson welcomed and almost impossible to amend.


Does that make sense? Haven’t we learned valuable lessons over the past few centuries about how democracies thrive, and how they stagnate? In a day when our federal government is so dysfunctional, shouldn't we at least consider fundamental changes?


University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson is advocating a series of such fundamental changes to the US Constitution, which Moran discusses in his column. Levinson's proposals include instituting a direct popular vote for president and measures to greatly weaken the checks and balances that limit the power of any one branch of government. In essence, Levinson's purpose, according to Moran, is to expand the power of majority rule and break Washington's political "gridlock," which has made our federal government "dysfunctional."


Moran approvingly cites Thomas Jefferson who, as Moran strongly implies, would welcome these constitutional changes, or any changes suited to any generation.


Before we discuss ways to expand the power of electoral majority rule so as to enable the government to get more "done", we need to have a conversation about what the government's proper job it is to do.


The American constitution's basic function is to limit the government's power to the protection of individual rights. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the philosophical blueprint for the constitution. Any discussion about the constitution has to begin with the Declaration--which, incidentally, was written by Thomas Jefferson:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .

 

In its essentials, this 55 word statement of proper government says:

 

  • Rights are held equally and at all times by all people.

  • Rights belong inextricably to the individual by virtue of his nature as a human being.

  • Rights are guarantees to freedom of action; to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness guaranteed by the labor or wealth of others.

  • Rights precede government.

  • Government is created exclusively to “secure”—i.e., protect—rights, not to grant them by legislative decree.

  • Government’s “just powers” being authorized by the people, through a popular vote.

  • “Just powers” being those powers, and only those powers, required for the government to fulfill the purpose for which it was created to begin with—to legally protect the people’s unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.


First come rights. Then comes government. Then comes the right to vote. Of course, this is not the "Word of God," to be accepted uncritically. Each of these points requires extensive philosophical backup. None of these "truths" are in fact "self-evident." They must be learned and validated scientifically; i.e., morally and philosophically, as determined by the observable facts of reality concerning man and his requirements for survival and flourishing. And they were—by the Founding revolutionaries. But these are the essentials, as I see it.


The Founders did not intend to create a democracy, despite Moran's devious attempt to smuggle in that premise. They created a constitutionally limited republic protective of the liberty and rights of the individual, under which the constitution "carefully limits the power of the majority by drawing a legal boundary around it" (P. 113)—a boundary that stops majority and elected officials' power where individual rights begin. The Founders understood that the government presupposes individual rights. So the constitutional discussion must begin with the questions: What are rights, and what is the proper function of government?


As the Declaration states, every individual is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Since productive work is the only means of sustaining one's life and achieving happiness, it's obvious that the Founders understood--including in Jefferson's own words--that property rights are among those rights. The Declaration then states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Rights—which in fact are not endowments by either nature or God but moral principles derived from observations and facts about human nature—are sanctions to freedom of action in a social context, not a claim on the lives and property of others or a government guarantee of material well-being and happiness. Notice that the constitution does not authorize the government to redistribute private wealth.


Moran is wrong. America hasn't stagnated. It has "progressed" from what was a largely free country a century ago to a burgeoning regulatory welfare state—a dangerous regressionary trend unsupported by constitutional authority. Why? Because the fundamental principles upon which the constitution rests have been largely abandoned, opening the door to the piecemeal progression toward unlimited majoritarian rule, a manifestation of totalitarianism. Consequently, our best short-term protection against further encroachments on individual rights--and it's a weak protection--is political gridlock. I can't think of anything more dangerous to America's future than to begin tampering with the basics of the constitution in today's cultural environment. Before we consider unshackling majority rule, we must rediscover our Founding principles, roll back the regulatory welfare state, and provide ironclad guarantees that no one's rights be alienated by majority vote; i.e., respect the original intent of the constitution.


The Founders did not intend to replace absolute monarchy with absolute majority rule unconstrained by the principle of individual rights. As Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) asked during a debate over the propriety of the Revolutionary War in the movie "The Patriot", "Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."


The answer: We shouldn't. As Jefferson said, "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." The Founders were not primarily concerned with giving the people the right to vote. They intended to liberate the people from predatory government, whether monarchistic, theocratic, socialist, or democratic.


There are those who would invert the original concept of Americanism—that the individual is sovereign and his life belongs to him—and replace it with the idea that the collective—i.e., the state—is sovereign over the individual. It is an attempted transition from republican constitutionalism to democracy; from individualism to collectivism. We cannot let the counter-revolutionary reactionaries succeed. The fight to defeat the reactionaries and restore and renew Americanism can start with this: As we celebrate Constitution Day, remember what I call the Constitution’s philosophic blueprint, or what has also been called the Conscience of the Constitution—the Declaration of Independence.


Related Reading:


America the Undemocratic


On a Revisionist's Proposal to Upend the Declaration of Independence


Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence—Onkar Ghate

 

The Declaration of Independence


The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur


Constitutional Ignorance Led to a Tyranny of the Majority—Gary M. Galles

Monday, September 14, 2020

Biden Cancels America

It’s no surprise. Joe Biden has incorporated the “1619” Big Lie into his campaign. The Associated Press reports:


Joe Biden told residents of Kenosha, Wisconsin, that recent turmoil following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, could help Americans confront centuries of systemic racism, drawing a vivid contrast with President Trump amid a reckoning that has galvanized millions across America.


We’re finally now getting to the point where we’re going to be addressing the original sin of this country, 400 years old … slavery and all the vestiges of it,” Biden said at Grace Lutheran Church, where he met with community leaders after a private session with Blake and his family. Bill Barrow, Will Weissert and Scott Bauer report.


[emphasis added]


The so-called “1619 Project'' is a New York Times initiative that holds that America’s true founding was when the first African slaves were brought to Jamestown in 1619. It holds that slavery, not individual freedom, defines America. Obliterated—“canceled” in today’s fashionable terminology—is America’s actual Founding, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence from Britain was signed and adopted as the first Law of the new American nation. Gone, then, is the philosophical bulwark that stands against all forms of tyranny of man over man; the moral sovereignty and of every individual, and his liberation from any master. America, according to 1619, is no longer the nation that embodied the promise of the Enlightenment, a promise that stands opposed to slavery, and led to its end in the west. The American Revolution was to protect slavery, claims the 1619 project, not to liberate the individual.


Ignored are the Enlightenment ideals of individualism, political and legal equality, and inalienable individual rights that spawned America, brought to us by philosophers and intellectuals most of whom weren’t even born until after the arrival of slaves to the shores of North America in 1619. John Locke, the most influential of these thinkers, was born in 1632. Ignored is the fact that Jamestown was a British colony. America wasn’t even a gleam in anyone’s eye in 1619. Ignored is the fact that the 18th Century gave rise to the first ever meaningful opposition to slavery, which had infected humanity for thousands of years, leading to the Abolitionist Movement. Abolitionism was not just about the Confederacy. It was integral to and an established force at the American Founding in 1776. Ignored is the fact of the success of the movement to abolish slavery. Abolitionism was an established force in 1776, which is why slavery began to be extinguished in the new American nation shortly after the signing of the Declaration. Every state in 1776 was a slave state. With the Declaration of Independence at their backs, state after state began to abolish slavery; first in Vermont in 1777, followed by Pennsylvania in 1780. Across all of the Northern States, slavery was abolished by 1804. Further victories for the anti-slave movement included the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which ensured “that the modern day states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana entered the Union as free states.” (Page 43) Thanks to the Declaration of Independence, slavery was on its way out during the Founding period.


Until Abolition stalled in its tracks as the Southern States reacted. They defended their slavocracy by repudiating America’s Founding principles. How is it that the states that honored the Founding ideals outlawed slavery, and those that didn’t repudiated those ideals? Unlike the New York Times, the Southern slavocracy understood that slavery is incompatable with America’s true Founding in 1776, and to save slavery it had to do exactly what the 1619 Project intends, repudiate 1776—that is, cancel America. 


1619 doesn’t just acknowledge that slavery is evil. It doesn’t just acknowledge that America’s Founding was incomplete, allowing slavery to linger in parts of America through the early decades of the new nation. Borrowing from religion one of the most vicious frauds ever foisted on humanity, 1619 declares slavery to be America’s Original Sin, thus tainting America and Americans with unrearned guilt in perpetuity (Thank you Christianity.) 


The words of the Declaration of Independence, that All Men are Created Equal in their inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—words that gay rights movement hero Harvey Milk believed “can never be erased”— get erased as if trivial and historically unimportant; tainted, like everything else American, by the “Original Sin of Slavery”. Just as all humanity is irredeemably tainted according the Christianity, so ““In this worldview,” observes Columbia University Professor John McWhorter of the 1619 Project, “redemption for the [American] founding seems impossible.”


Even on its own terms, there was nothing “original” about slavery in 1619. Slavery had existed throughout the world, including in Africa, for thousands of years. Even the Transatlantic African slave trade wasn’t original to 1619 Jamestown. It began in the 16th, not the 17th, Century. 


1619 is, of course, sheer folly. But as Ayn Rand put it


There’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly--ask yourself only what it accomplishes.


What does the 1619 Project nonsense accomplish? Just as the Confederacy understood that the Founding Principles of America are an insurmoutable barrier to slavery, so the political Left in America understands that the Founding Principles of America are an insurmoutable barrier to socialism. Overlain with the Original gambit, assuming enough Americans are dumb enough to be duped in unearned guilt, the cancellation of 1776 paves the road for a criminal socialist agenda. After all, what socialist program can not be rationalized as penance for America’s Original Sin? Just as Christians must atone for their Original Sin by submitting to obedience to God (or Jesus), as determined by His representatives on Earth, the Christian clergy, so Americans must atone for their Original Sin by submitting to the American Collective’s representative, the socialist state, under the guise of “racial justice”, “social justice”, “environmental justice”, “anti-racism”, or whatever collectivist rationalization the Cancel Left can come up with. (Once again, thank you Christianity.)


The Left is attempting to revive slavery as a current issue for political purposes. But slavery is history. There are no “vestiges” of slavery in America today. We are not “finally now getting to the point where we’re going to be addressing the . . . sin” of slavery.” “Getting to the point” now? Slavery was addressed in 1776 and the ensuing Revolutionary War, the decades that followed, the Abolitionist Movement, the Civil War and its 620,000 casualties, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th “Civil War” Amendments. Slavery polarized America like nothing before or since, ultimately leading to the nation’s breakup as the Southern states seceded and formed the Confederacy. A nation that went through a wrenching decades-long soul-seaching, secession, and bloody Civil war has certainly addressed its sin of slavery. To say America hasn’t addressed slavery is a flat out lie.


So why revive slavery now, ignoring history? For crass political opportunism. Original Sin is a monstrous injustice in all of its forms—and un-American. Americanism holds that no person can be guilty of or judged by wrongs he did not commit, including crimes committed before he is born. By attaching Original Sin to slavery, Biden is declaring that no attonement imposed on innocent current and future Americans, especially white Americans, will ever be enough to “cancel” the unearned guilt. The “original sin of slavery” is a political ploy that, if accepted, will keep on giving to the collectivist, socialist, egalitarian, statist, racist American Left, since any resistance to the Leftist agenda will be met with a play on the unearned guilt of America’s “Original Sin of Slavery”.


As 1776 Unites agrees, America was born in 1776, not 1619. America was born amidst two overlapping historical trends—slavery, which was in its dying stage, and universal freedom based on individual rights, the revolutionary new concept born of The Enlightenment. America was created to establish a free country, not to protect slavery. It is the New York times and the Democratic Party that is determined to protect slavery and undermine freedom. Any lingering injustices against blacks in America can only be dealt with by consulting 1776 and the true Founders of America, not rewriting American history. 


And in rewriting American history, the Times is not original. They are following in the footsteps of the defenders of slavery. Yes, the Confederacy! As historian Timothy Sandefur explains:


The myth that America was premised on slavery took off in the 1830s, not the 1770s. That was when John C. Calhoun, Alexander Stephens, George Fitzhugh, and others offered a new vision of America—one that either disregarded the facts of history to portray the founders as white supremacists, or denounced them for not being so. Relatively moderate figures such as Illinois Sen. Stephen Douglas twisted the language of the Declaration to say that the phrase “all men are created equal” actually meant only white men. Abraham Lincoln effectively refuted that in his debates with Douglas. Calhoun was, in a sense, more honest about his abhorrent views; he scorned the Declaration precisely because it made no color distinctions. “There is not a word of truth in it,” wrote Calhoun. People are “in no sense…either free or equal.” Indiana Sen. John Pettit was even more succinct. The Declaration, he said, was “a self‐​evident lie.”


It was these men—the generation after the founding—who manufactured the myth of American white supremacy.


[My Emphasis]


The Left is living in the tribal past. It is aligned with the reactionary defenders of slavery. The future belongs to Americanism. By repudiating the philosophical underpinnings of 1776, Biden is cancelling America. It’s just one more reason to despise Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, and the entire Leftist philosophy. It is philosophic treason. The 1619 Project is premised on a Hitlerian style Big Lie, and Biden has bought into it. Biden, the 1619 Project, and the Democratic Party should be morally condemned and defeated in the 2020 presidential election, even at the price of a second Trump term.


Related:


1776 Unites: A counterpoint to the 1619 Project


The ‘1619 Project’ Fraud Begins its Poisonous Infiltration into American Politics


Obama's Collectivist Manifesto-Part 1...the "Original Sin" gambit


Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle


A New Textbook of Americanism — edited by Jonathan Hoenig


The Collectivist Left Appropriates an Inhumane Christian Doctrine to Obliterate Americanism


The 'New American Socialists' Dilemma: The Declaration is as much anti-Socialist as anti-Slavery


Thomas Sowell on slavery -- quotes from The Thomas Sowell Reader by Mark J. Perry for the American Enterprise Institute


Frederick Douglass, The Columbian Orator, and the 1619 Project by Joseph R. Fornieri