Maybe Economists can be "Racist" Too

Prof. Walter Block has recently got himself into some trouble over some "offensive" remarks he made at Loyola College in Maryland. Prof. Block dared to claim that women and blacks earn lower wages because they tend, on average, to have a lower marginal productivity.

This is the same explanation put forth by our very own Taylor Somers in the last issue of The Observer. And, of course, Prof. Block got the same treatment as Mr. Somers. It is not politically correct to assert that these groups do not face systematic discrimination, but could really just be less productive. As Prof. Block says: "After all, if black people had the same productivity as white people on average, but were paid less, then there would be profit opportunities available to all those who hired blacks and fired whites, and such a situation could never last." The same holds true for women.

How are we supposed to address these problems - if that is even desirable - when politically incorrect explanations are rejected without discussion? Alas, we seem to be haunted by this ill-defined specter we call "inequality" or "discrimination." No one can see it, but it is still there. If you reject its existence, then you are a racist or bigot or some other epithet. Until we redefine the acceptable parameters of debate, I suppose we will never truly address these issues.

Who hopes for what he already has?

The Sermon Lesson at church yesterday was a passage from Romans chapter 8. Specifically, verses 23-25 stuck out in my mind:

Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Hearing the word "hope" instantly turned my mind to Barack Obama. This word, along with "change," is unsheathed by his campaign continuously. "But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?" Indeed, America has already become a social democracy. Not on the grand scale of our European contemporaries, but we are following hard and fast. Progressive taxation, government centralization, and rampant multiculturalism are already upon us. What kind of hope is this? Hope that we can put this nation on a quicker path to self-destruction?

I believe it is still within my right to hope. I will await patiently the day when property rights and traditional values are respected. I will hold some hope that, while the rest of society is imploding, there will be a few left who are prepared to put it back on track. But Barack Obama's hope is no hope at all. His plans are just the same-old government tricks disguised as something new.

"Racism" and TKO

Here is my letter on the "racism" controversy that the Collegian refused to print.

For the sake of argument let us assume that the worst is true, and that the wording of Taylor Somers’ Observer article does unambiguously suggest that women and minorities are less productive than white males.

People who think the Observer printed something offensive, by the way, are entitled, and I have no wish to see them prevented from expressing their judgment. Nor did I suggest as much when I came to Somers’ and the Observer’s defense in my email to the community.

Even if we assume that the article says what some allege, where do we go from there? How do we react as individuals, and what course does the community take?

Granville reacted poorly and dangerously. He did not merely express his anger. Having interpreted the article as he did, he apparently did not hesitate to assume the worst of Somers’ imaginable motives, and to construe him and the Observer as agents of pure and deliberate bigotry. In several allstus, and in personal emails, he vented open rage against Somers’ alleged racism, and that of the Observer. His most dramatic smear, in an email to me, was to state that the Observer promotes “racist ideology,” and his public comments took an identical tone. In two word clusters that must be read several times to be believed, Granville adopts something like the language of Uncle Remus, calling Somers “massah.” In case anyone needs this insanity spelled out for them, Granville has suggested that Somers may be supportive of white supremacy or ante-bellum slavery.

Granville’s frank and unmistakable intent was to dehumanize Somers and his defenders as completely as possible, and to cause them as much injury as he might through public attacks. He has mocked anyone who sees grey area and attempts to stake out a neutral point of view. He has openly gloated that he can call whom he wants “racist” and get away with it because of free speech.

It is hard for me to understand that claim. The exercise of free speech doesn’t mean the absence of responsibility and accountability, and it is not the same as license to attack person by whom one feels slighted.

But even if Granville is correct, the practical issue of how to handle the matter needs still to be addressed so that the rest of the college can function normally. To accuse someone of racism is to say that he is a standing social and perhaps physical threat, unfit for regular society, and unworthy of regard or respect. Life in a community does not just go on after such a charge is made. If one churchgoer openly denounces another as a heretic, no one would be naïve enough to think that the congregation is unaffected, that the accuser and accused will simply sort the matter out between themselves, or that afterward the church will function regularly. Regardless of one’s love or loathing for the Observer, necessity requires some sort of public settlement.

When that happens the Observer likely will have to share a measure of accountability. Whether I or the current staff agree that Somers’ article was so deeply offensive, the Observer would do well to reconsider its boundaries and the tenor of its articles, out of both respect for the community and instinct for self-preservation.

But if the Observer needs to correct itself and apologize, it could have been asked or directed to do so without casting it and its associates totally outside the boundaries of civilized society with such venom and hatred. By their nature Granville’s menacing attacks have affected not only the Observer but the stability of the setting in which the rest of Kenyon people work and live. Granville will have to be held accountable as well, particularly since he arrogantly boasts otherwise.

Collective common sense obviously is lacking, and so it will fall to school administrators to somehow restore order. But people at Kenyon should not require such authoritative direction to avoid this sort of spectacular collapse in civility. It would be shameful if that were in fact the case.

What Election?

Observers,

I am sure most of you have joined the herd that is being guided to the voting booths by our civic-minded shepherds. But for those of you who, like me, made a conscientious decision not to vote, please join this event on Facebook: What Election? It is about time more people learned that democracy is a sham. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voice your opinion by not voting.

Liberal Tyranny

Dear observers,

An essay from a few years back by Donald Livingston makes a point I always have in mind very nicely:

From 1900 until today, nearly four times as many people have been killed by their own governments as have been killed in all wars, foreign and domestic. This destruction would not have been possible without the unprecedented concentration of power available to modern states. Had Hitler and Stalin been 18th century monarchs, they could not have murdered millions because they would not have had the authority to mobilize the necessary resources. They would have been hedged in by powerful independent social authorities (the Church, the nobility, and provincial powers) whose authority, in their sphere, was as good as the monarchs' and who could be expected to resist. The czar, for example, from 1825 to 1905 executed an average of only 17 people a year. With the collapse of the monarchy and all independent social authorities, large-scale corporate resistance vanished, and Lenin and Stalin could murder millions.

The French Revolution gave birth to the first truly modern state. The storming of the Bastille revealed only 7 inmates, none of whom were political prisoners. The king, who was willing to become a constitutional monarch and refused to use force, was executed; the nobility, clergy, provincial authorities, and an independent judiciary were eliminated. The French republic, in the name of the ‘rights of man,' seized half a million political prisoners. Of these, 17,000 were executed with trial; 12,000 without trial; and many died in prison. The republic, for the first time in Europe, ordered universal male conscription. The armies of the great monarchies had hovered around 190,000; the French republic, overnight, placed a million men in the field. By the end of Napoleon's reign, the republic had conscripted 3 million. Other European states followed suit. As a result of European imperialism, world wars, and global capitalism, most of the world was hammered into the form of the modern state.

Universalist liberalism views the destruction carried out in the 20th century as the result of illiberal forms of government. What is overlooked is that liberalism itself first legitimated the destruction of independent social authorities, and concentrating power to the centre. The French republic was the first modern state, the first government legitimated by liberal ideology, and the first totalitarian regime.

Another essay, by Jim Kalb, helps frame the current status of liberal tyranny:

A man who arbitrarily imprisons me or confiscates my property is a tyrant. Ruling elites that destroy the social institutions and relationships that make me what I am, that attack the family and abolish gender distinctions, ethnic ties, and traditional moral standards, that drive religion out of public life and tell private associations what members to choose and why, are also tyrannical.

Best,

Evan

What about Biden?

Dear observers,

While the rest of the world works up a good froth about what a horrible disaster Sarah Palin supposedly is, I'm noticing that Biden apparently has had some moments to be humble about as well:

San Diego Union-Tribune blogger Chris Reed recalls Biden's 1988 response in Claremont, New Hampshire to a question about his law school record from a man identified only as ''Frank.'' Biden looked at his questioner and said: ''I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.''

Biden of course couldn't leave it at that. He is not known for his concision or care with the facts. He added that he ''went to law school on a full academic scholarship -- the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.'' He also said that he ''ended up in the top half'' of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. Biden still wasn't done. In college, Biden said, he was ''the outstanding student in the political science department'' and ''graduated with three degrees from college.''

Reed then turns to Biden's subsequent statement on this exchange. At Syracuse College of Law, Biden graduated 76th in a class of 85. He acknowledged: ''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.'' Just a slip of memory.

As for receiving three degrees, Biden conceded: ''I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors -- I said 'three' and should have said 'two.''' His arithmetic was off.

As for his undergraduate preeminence in the political science department -- well, that was somebody else. But one of his professors thought he fit the bill. ''With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,'' the statement went on, "my name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.'' Professor Ingersoll had it right!

As for his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ''My recollection is -- and I'd have to confirm this -- but I don't recall paying any money to go to law school.'' Reed cites a Newsweek report that Biden had gone to Syracuse ''on half scholarship based on financial need.'' About that moot court competition, however, Biden may have nailed it. Biden said he had won such a competition, with a partner, in Kingston, Ontario, on Dec. 12, 1967. So there.

And so on.

So why is liberal scorn reserved exclusively for Palin?

Best,

Evan

Art Laffer Owes Peter Schiff A Penny, or, Why I Get Angry Sometimes

The DOC blogs on Peter Schiff, who was predicting this crisis at least as early as 2006, and in great detail.

"Hahaha!" the YouTube clips capture all the analysts saying. "What planet are you on, poor Peter? Debt isn't a problem! If you keep saying such dumb things, you'll never get invited on our informative shows again."

Oh . . . did you see this? It's the Wikipedia entry on Peter Schiff. It mentions this place called the Ludwig von Mises Institute, this thing called the Austrian School of economics, and this guy named Ron Paul. I'd wonder what that's all about, but the people with expertise and credentials (who are doing such a bang-up job running things!) don't talk about them, so I guess they're not important.

LOLRON says:

A Debate About Nothing

Richard Spencer is dead on.

The Last Days of Disco

The next time someone throws a disco party at Kenyon, they need to include this video in their allstus:

Is this merely a ploy on my part to get people noticing the films of Whit Stillman? Is it, a deeper level, part of a ploy on my part to get people to enjoy art that is subversively right-wing in its sensibility? No comment.

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin

Ron Paul has announced that he will support Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in the presidential election. I personally like Baldwin. He's a principled conservative (not of the 'neo' variety). He supports ending our immoral War on Iraq. He believes in securing our borders. He recognizes that all life is sacred. And now he is supported by Ron Paul, the man I worked for in the New Hampshire Primary.

What's not to like? I can't think of much, but I am still undecided as to the candidate I will support. It will most definitely not be John McCain or Barack Obama. However, this whole process has left me disillusioned and questioning what the future holds. The government by its very nature is built on violence, theft, and coercion. How can we add legitimacy to that system by voting for its leaders? Is there really any room for candidates who respect the rule of law, private property, and free markets?

At this time I plan on not voting for the office of President. Hell, I may not vote at all. However, I still have a little over a month to decide. And there's always the chance I could relapse.

In liberty,
Tyler

And Syria?

"The destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor last year was the result of an intelligence collaboration that included a 'foreign partner' who first identified the facility's purpose, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said on Tuesday." Hayden followed by saying, "We were able last year to spoil a big secret, a project that could have provided Syria with plutonium for nuclear weapons."

This has simply gone too far. What authority, legal or moral, does the CIA have to "collaborate" in the breach of a nation's sovereignty and subsequent destruction of its property? The CIA has also been sending unmanned drones into Pakistan to bomb targets. Last I checked, the United States Congress has a monopoly on the power to declare war. But who will enforce that clause? The men with the guns and bombs, of course! Oh, wait...

In liberty and peace,
Tyler

First Afghanistan, Then Iraq, and Now Pakistan

The New York Times has reported that President Bush approved ground raids into Pakistan beginning a few months ago. The raids by Special Operations soldiers were executed despite not having permission from the Pakistani government.

Pakistan's top Army official declared that foreign operatives would not be welcome in his country and that they would defend Pakistan's sovereignty "at all costs." In addition, Major General Athar Abbas of the Pakistani military has said that the Pakistan Army has been ordered to retaliate against any foreign forces within the borders of their country.

I for one thought Iran would be our next major conflict. This incident could prove me wrong. How many more sovereign nations must we conquer for this madness to finally end? With hundreds of thousands of lives lost or ruined, do we still really think it was worth it? I say no; war, the unnecessary destruction of lives and property, is anti-human and will never bring us anything good. Only peace and free association in the market place can bring us true freedom and prosperity.

In liberty and peace,
Tyler

Frum gets it right

Dear observers,

I'm surprised to be quoting the execrable David Frum, but his remark here is well phrased:

It’s widely understood that abundant low-skilled immigration hurts lower America by reducing wages. As the National Research Council noted in its comprehensive 1997 report: “If the wage of domestic unskilled workers did not fall, no domestic worker (unskilled or skilled) would gain or lose, and there would be no net domestic gain from immigration.” In other words, immigration is good for America as a whole only because — and only to the extent that — it is bad for the poorest Americans. Conversely, low-skilled immigration enriches upper America, lowering the price of personal services like landscaping and restaurant meals. And by holding down wages, immigration makes the business investments of upper America more profitable.

If liberals are so upset over the plight of the working class, why aren't they sounding the alarm over immigration? Call it the Lou Dobbs question.

Best,

Evan

Reading Steve Sailer

Dear observers,

Steve Sailer points out . . .

. . . that the Republicans (you know--the evil racists we're always hearing about) didn't mention Reverend Wright at all during their convention.

. . . that Obama's time as a community organizer has certain nuances to it that no one discusses.

. . . that the Democrats' "feeding frenzy of scandal-mongering" over Palin carries more than a whiff of hypocrisy.

Please don't mistake me for a Republican booster. I hope the pose I strike doesn't matter, but in case it does, I'm opposed to both the candidates.

Best,

Evan

Some links

Dear observers,

* Tom Woods delivered my very favorite speech at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic. Videos of it from YouTube are here and here. (For some reason I can't get the videos to embed in this blog post. Yet again, technology buoys up my expectations with promises it fails to fulfill.)

Dr. Wood's explanation of American politics as the province of the Stupid and Evil parties originated with Sam Francis, of course, who functions as sort of a litmus test for men and women of the Right. As in, if you automatically reject Dr. Francis as beyond the pale, you aren't on the Right at all.

* Speaking of un-PC reading, I happened upon some when I read a semi-recent post by Michael Blowhard. It's about F. Roger Devlin, who appears to be the most dug-in anti-feminist intellectual type in existence. Personally I'm getting alot out of Devlin's articles on feminism, marriage, and sexual life. But his material isn't for the faint of head and heart. Michael Blowhard included the following disclaimer in his post:

Oh, and "Un-PC"? Well, the essay's scathing view of feminism is part of that. But the tender of soul and the noble of nature deserve a warning too: F. Roger Devlin has published pieces in the notorious Occidental Quarterly, which is often described as a White Nationalist site.

What are Devlin's views on racial matters? Beats me. Is Devlin a noxious and despicable person? Perhaps he is, and perhaps all he really deserves is shunning. But the three essays of his that I've read on the state of affairs between the sexes have been awfully smart and provocative. Download 'em all here. For what appear to be a couple of recent pieces, read "Home Economics" parts one and two. Why doesn't Devlin maintain his own website?

I trust, by the way, that visitors to 2Blowhards have the subtlety to understand that linking is not endorsing, and to notice that I've nowhere indicated that I agree with all or even most of Devlin's points. I am happy to say, though, that I found the three Devlin essays that I've read daring and even enlightening, and that I've enjoyed thinking them over.

Where do you think Devlin makes a decent point? Where in your opinion does he go awry?

And how do you feel / what do you think about the idea of reading a piece by someone who has written for The Occidental Quarterly? Am I an irresponsible blogger for having linked to the likes of Devlin? Or are those who won't take a flyer on some far-out reading the real fools?

What I'm really curious about, though, is people's reactions to Devlin's ideas about feminism and the sexes. Still: If you want to raise objections to my linking to Devlin in the first place, go right ahead. But don't just hold your nose. Supply some reasons.

Maybe I too am taking a risk by linking to Devlin. Oh, well.

* This article by the recently-retired Charley Reese gets a little utopian for my tastes, but it contains some necessary doses of reality:

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

That's all for tonight.

Best,

Evan

Some links

Dear observers,

* Richard Spencer is upset about the MSM's coverage of the crisis in mortgage lending. How can "experts" get away with discussing the problem as a failure of the free market?

* Helen Rittelmeyer reads Burke, who reminds us that "Love approaches much nearer to contempt than is commonly imagined."

Best,

Evan

Articles Due September 19th for First Issue

Observers,

Articles for the first issue of the 2008-09 school year will be due September 19th. Send us your musings on anything from Presidential Politics to Kenyon Culture. If it's well written and well thought out, then we will accept it.

Help make this, our 20th Anniversary, a beautiful year. And let us have another 20 years fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom. Just send your 1000-2000 word piece to tko@kenyon.edu and we will do the rest.

In liberty,
Tyler Stearns
Editor, The Kenyon Observer

Some links

Dear observers,

William, via the wonderfully Catholic Helen Rittelmeyer, tells us what to do before we get tattoos. (For the record, I've seen only one tattoo that I actually have appreciated. And my verdict may change.)

Clyde Wilson watches critical war documentaries by leftists and finds them seriously wanting.

The wrangling over Palin continues at numerous traditionalist and paleo blogs, including TakiMag.

Also, when the videos of the speeches from today's Rally for the Republic go up on YouTube, I'll link to the ones given by Bill Kaufmann and Tom Woods.

Best,

Evan

Obama's Kind of Town (Chicago Is)

Dear observers,

Barack Obama's background is considerably more gritty and complex than anyone officially "in the know" knows. But Steve Sailer hasn't missed a beat so far. His latest of many articles on Obama is more helpful than all the Republican defamation and Democratic bleating combined in understanding the Chicago setting out of which the nominee emerged.

Best,

Evan

I'll take the Palin, hold the excitement

Dear observers,

Like others, I have a great deal of reading to do on Sarah Palin, McCain's surprising running mate selection. I'm noticing, though, that paleo-oriented conservative sources are already buzzing a little.

After The Nation rediscovered Palin's interest in Pat Buchanan (here), people to the right had a moment of alertness. Ross Douthat (here) said, "Hmmm - could McCain-Palin be the neocon-paleocon fusion ticket we've all been waiting for?" My friend Richard Spencer called Palin's support for Buchanan "very good news" (here) and said Buchanan had talked about Palin's membership in the Buchanan Brigades on Hardball.

I’m surprised at Richard--is he seeing something that I’m missing? Does he have a source for optimism that I haven’t tapped into? He might--I admit I’m much his junior when it comes to knowledge and analytical strength. But to me this looks like a moment of excitement that we’ll later be trying to play down if it goes on too long, like a high-pitched college romance or a fascination with war games.

Unless we move into a hitherto-unimagined historical phase, there will never be such thing as Douthat’s “paleocon-neocon ticket.” There is only one exception to this rule that I can imagine at present. If the term “paleoconservative” were vandalized as completely as the term “conservative” was decades ago, perhaps people calling themselves paleos would then join neocons in Republican power grabs. It’s hard to imagine why this would happen, though. Conservatives had money, resources, and standing as debating partners for the left, and this made their movement as attractive a prize to Zionist social democrats as ancient Rome was to barbarian armies. Paleoconservatives, by contrast, have nothing worth stealing. Maybe, though, it’s helpful for establishment conservatives to let float the idea that reconciliation between neos and paleos is possible and potentially significant, and that there are people pining for this to occur. There would be only one way to understand this narrative--not as a move to give greater voice to paleos, but as a tidying-up process, in which neocons and their helpmates further disenfranchise opponents on their right by pretending to band up with them. Perhaps, though, I’m being too cynical and derivative.

One also must consider that Palin’s gender is potentially as significant in the present race as her politics. Whatever the nature of her conservative stances, Palin is being asked to help McCain make the case that he, too, is on the good side of history. As the manager of a family seafood restaurant remarked to me this evening as he took in CNN’s political coverage, “No matter who wins--a black president or a woman vice president--we’re making progress.” McCain wants Palin to service his progressive narrative, and so far she appears happy to play her role. While this doesn’t automatically disqualify her from some measure of right-minded approval, to me it is a fact of nature more palpable than Palin’s past support for Buchanan.

And of course, not all of the sweepstakes are over. The short list of possible Republican vice presidents hasn’t been discarded. No doubt McCain is making pledges to keep channels of cooperation open. The idea of McCain choosing Lieberman as his Secretary of State became intuitively obvious to me the moment I read it in Tom Woods’ Facebook status.

On the other hand, I might be attempting too much political calculus in my head. Maybe it is that simple: McCain felt he had to make a gesture to what’s left of the Right, by placing someone in his camp to whom conservatives can relate. What this might mean in real terms, though, isn’t easy for me to figure.

Best,

Evan

Update: Richard Spencer, Paul Gottfried, and I all follow up at Taki's Magazine. Steve Sailer (here and here), VDARE.com (here and here), and View from the Right (here, here, and in a fiew other posts) are other people and outlets of the non-neocon Right that have been carrying on worthwhile discussions of McCain's new VP pick.

Why the TKO Blog?

Dear observers,

Could we really use one of these? I think we could. TKO will hold its reputation as the school's finest political and cultural magazine with or without a blog, but a blog has its own function. It will give our little band of dissident-minded and right-wing-oriented observers the opportunity to comment with more freedom and immediacy on a variety of relevant matters, including those that pertain specifically to life in Gambier. It will allow Kenyon students to see how intelligent people of the Right think about the world in the day-to-day, and how they tend to process and discuss Bigger Issues. I imagine that the truly open-minded will welcome this and perhaps even benefit from it, assuming we are able to keep our writings lucid, relevant, engaging, and stylish.

Those are ways that other people might gain from our blog. Personally, I'm simply looking forward to discussing things with the rest of you. We have an intelligent and clear-minded group, I think, and I'm glad be able to blog with you.

Best,

Evan

Update: By way of introduction, I'm Evan McLaren, a graduated member of Kenyon's class of 2008 and former TKO editor. I'm out in the world now but not entirely rooted yet. I'm at home in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, looking for long-term work while I enjoy my most worthwhile responsibility currently--writing for Taki's Magazine, an up-and-coming outlet of the anti-neocon Right. (Taki's own explanation of his magazine is very much worth a glance.)