The Dangers of Groupthink

    Do you consider yourself an individual or a member of a group? "I'm an individual, of course," you answer. Well, it might surprise you to find out that according to most social scientists, as well as many policymakers in positions of great power, you're a member of a group first and an individual a distant second. This is not only a wrong-headed way of looking at people, but it is extremely dangerous; it produces horrific outcomes, and has resulted in the deaths of untold millions of human beings.

    Let's get one piece of tedious terminology out of the way right off the bat. It's a great nine-dollar term that you can throw around with your friends next time you're have a few beers with them. It is methodological individualism. It means that in any discussion of people—of societies, cultures, nations—the individual human being is the proper unit of analysis, not the group.

    Recent history is full of examples of what we could call "group-think": considering groups to be the proper unit of analysis rather than individuals. Adolf Hitler practiced group-think. He thought of Aryans as the Master Race, not as individuals but as a group. And he thought of Jews as another group. He never thought of them as individual human beings, but as a sub-human group fit only for liquidation.

    Joseph Stalin felt the same way about the Kulaks, the small land holders of the southern Soviet Union. They were a group, or to use Marxist analysis, a class, that stood in the way of achieving the Communist paradise that Stalin wanted. He wiped them out, perhaps as many as fifty million of them according to the figures that Russian historians are turning up in their archives.

    No one seems to know how many millions Mao Zedong murdered in his quest to remove undesirable "groups" from Chinese society during his Cultural Revolution.

    There are plenty of lesser, but no less horrible, examples. In Rwanda in 1994, the Hutus slaughtered eight hundred thousand Tutsis not as individuals, but as a group. Serbs killed Bosnians as a group during their ethnic cleansing. Pol Pot of Kampuchia reputedly murdered anyone who wore glasses because they were members of a group of intellectuals rather than being workers. Women in the Islamic world suffer all sorts of injustices because they are members of a group. We could go on and on.

    Then there is the question of racism. The United States is not immune to group-think. Since the first slave was imported into this country, and continuing to this very day to some extent at least, black Americans—individual human beings—have been treated as an inferior group, first to be literally owned as property, and later to be discriminated against.

    Linguists, anthropologists, sociologists, economists, political scientists—you name it—all keep stacks of books in their ivory towers that are full of technobabble supposedly justifying a "group" vision of the human race. Watch out for them. They are teaching this dangerous junk to your children. Especially watch out for politicians who want to make you a member of a group rather than to consider you as an individual. They are either stupid or malicious. If elected, the policies they produce will either be failures or worse, they will threaten your individual liberty.

Talk Radio and the Culture War

    Conservative talk radio has fundamentally changed the political dialog in the United States very much for the better. It advocates limited government, low taxes and the maximization of individual liberty. At least one host of note demonstrates a profound knowledge of the Constitution and is a strong advocate of its principles and of the original intent of its framers. This is most admirable. The Federal Recluse sincerely hopes that everyone listens to this man, learns from him, and demands that the principles he espouses be engraved in stone and embodied in every law of this land forever. But we are not sanguine about the prospect of this happening. It is our perception that a number of these hosts operate under the assumption that a majority, if not a vast majority, of the American people agree with them. If only the word could be gotten out, they seem to believe, the Constitution would once again be respected, liberty would be restored, and all would be well. We doubt that this is the case.

    It is often said that we are currently engaged in a culture war pitting the advocates of limited government and individual liberty against those who advocate paternalistic collectivism. Such a war is certainly ongoing. It is our opinion, and we arrived at it reluctantly and sadly, that the forces of collectivism are winning. "Conservative" talk radio is staving off that victory by energizing the remaining individualists in this country. Through the popularity of their programs, they are creating the illusion that individualists are still in the overwhelming majority. But the political culture of individualism has been waning, becoming more and more diluted, for a very long time. Make no mistake, there are still millions upon millions of individualists left, the Federal Recluse being one of them. But at this writing, and for some years past, it has become our opinion that we are being overwhelmed by a massive tidal wave of paternalists who espouse collectivism and its political concomitant, statism.

    Those talk show hosts never site their data when they assert that the majority of Americans share their opinions. There is little to cite. Perhaps the best we can do is to look at electoral results since the culture of paternalism first began to assert itself in American politics at approximately the turn of the Twentieth Century. The trend is quite clear. In election after election, the country drifted—and occasionally lurched—in the direction of collectivism and statism. There were exceptions, of course. But these were just holding periods during which statism was briefly held at bay. Any serious attempts to reverse this collectivist drift were soundly rejected by a plurality of the American people. There was, for example, the disastrous candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964. When he promised to undo Roosevelt's New Deal sufficient paternalists were appalled that he suffered a devastating defeat. No major party candidate since has been so bold in his opposition to paternalism and statism in this country. Ronald Reagan was the last true individualist to run for and serve as president. Those were a wonderful and refreshing eight years, but frustrating as well. An opposition congress rendered most of his efforts to re-impose individualism in this country fruitless. Newt Gingrich, with his ten-point Contract for America, quickly discovered the immense power of paternalism as he hit the political wall at great speed. Universally pilloried in the press, and castigated by virtually everyone in a position to do so publicly, Speaker Gingrich was virtually ridden out of Washington on a rail. Subsequent politicians learned these lessons well. The Republican Party, which once produced torchbearers of individual liberty like Goldwater and Reagan, now produce national candidates who hardly dare mention individual liberty, much less a reduction in the size and scope of the state. It has reached the point in American politics where such a discussion is no longer considered acceptable political discourse. The Republican Party's current presidential candidate, Senator McCain, is not exactly a paragon of individual liberty. His track record in the Senate speaks otherwise. His opponent, Senator Obama, by all the evidence appears to be a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, and he is currently leading in the polls. The pendulum has swung that far in just a century.

    The future of individualism does not look bright, at least for the immediate future. As has been pointed out in previous entries here, the United States is being inundated by immense waves of immigrants the vast majority of whom possess the paternalistic political culture and are strong advocates of statism. These people now seem to have achieved critical mass, and no candidate with national aspirations dares to challenge their philosophy. On the contrary, pandering is rampant. Add to these the vast numbers of native-born Americans who advocate these same positions, and the magnitude of the problem becomes apparent.

    However, all is not be lost. Limited government, individual self-reliance and liberty work. Statism and parasitic paternalism do not. We are, after all, dealing with the real universe, with real immutable laws, and we are not free to concoct any hair-brained political philosophy that makes us feel good. The individualists are right, and the statists are wrong. It is as simple as that. Ultimately, human nature with its entirely selfish desire to be free and to enjoy the product of one's own labor, will reassert itself. The leviathan state under which we all labor will crumble of its own dead weight. So, you individualists, take heart; there are millions of us left and we will win in the end. It is inevitable. Reality is on our side, and it is the ultimate weapon. Continue to listen to talk radio, learn what you can, read voraciously, and above all—keep your powder dry.

    We've already largely dealt with why people are slaughtering each other because their nations are divided into two or more states or countries in Part One of this two part series. Before we leave that particular topic, there is one more massive example that requires attention: Nazi Germany and the origin of World War II in Europe. This was a slaughter of monumental proportions, and it all began with the problems arising from the concept of nations, states and countries.

    Adolf Hitler was very fond of using the same expression over and over in his speeches and writings: "One people, one empire, one leader." Most have heard these words, but few are aware of their significance. Hitler meant by this that it was his intention to unify the German nation into one country or state. In other words, he wanted to create a German nation-state. One by one he invaded his neighbors in that effort. First the Rhineland of France in 1936, then the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in 1938, then Austria with its heavily Germanic population, also in 1938, and finally Poland in 1939, the event that finally triggered a declaration of war. Certainly Hitler's ambitions were not limited to the unification of the German people, as his invasions of other, non-Germanic countries in Europe, including the Soviet Union, demonstrated. But national unification was a prime concern of his, perhaps the principal motivation for all of his actions.

    So far we have dealt with two of the four possible permutations involved in the concept of nations, states and countries. Nation-states—a situation in which national and state boundaries coincide—present the fewest problems, with a minimum of violence and instability. One nation divided into two or more states can lead to all sorts of unpleasantries, including world wars. The third possibility is for one state to contain two or more nations. The world is full of these, and there is no end to the mischief they cause.

    Rwanda is an excellent and recent example. That country contained two nations of people, one of which decided to establish its own nation-state by simply slaughtering the members of the other nation. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result.

    An ongoing example is Sudan, with its Arabic north and its Black-African south. The horrors there continue at this writing, with no end in sight.

    French Quebec threatens to secede from English-speaking Canada. What will become of Canada should that happen is anyone's guess. The Atlantic Provinces would be separated from the rest of English-speaking Canada by an enormous geographic gulf. Countries divided in such a way do not have a good track record.

    Yugoslavia is a prime example of a state plagued by the problem of multi-nationalism. Strong man Tito was able to suppress the forces of nationalism in that country. But at his death, the place came apart at the seams. The various nations within Yugoslavia asserted themselves. Incredible violence was the result. The most heinous of it involved the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Serbs against the Bosnians. This was more than just a simple slaughter. What is not often recognized is that that ethnic cleansing was an attempt by the Serbs to recapture what they perceived to be Serbian national territory in an attempt to create their own nation-state. To them, the Bosnians were occupying what had historically been Serbian territory, and the Serbs wanted it back so that national and state boundaries would coincide.

    The situation in Russia must be keeping that country's leaders awake at night. With the disintegration of central power in Moscow, the non-Russian nationalities on the perimeter of the former Soviet Union peeled away to form their own nation-states. But that is not the end of the story. In what is left of Russia, there are scores of non-Russian nationalities. Should these too decide to seek nation-state status, Russia may find itself reduced to something resembling the original Duchy of Muscovy, a tiny Russian enclave on the Volga, a rump state of little significance.

    No discussion of this problem would be complete without considering the current state of affairs in the United States. The question that will determine the entire future of this country is this: is the United States developing into a bi-national country? If it is, we can expect the most serious problems imaginable. These may even include the eventual breakup of the country into two states. The United States of America would be a part of history, to be read about but not experienced by future generations. Across our incredibly porous two-thousand-mile border with Mexico, an endless flood of people enter this country. These are members of an entirely distinct nation, and, in all likelihood, members of an entirely distinct civilization. Should they fail to enculturate, as anthropologists would say, or should they fail to socialize, as political scientists would put it, the future of the United States as we have known it would be in grave jeopardy. If these millions upon millions of newcomers fail to become part of mainstream American culture, if they fail to join the American nation, we face the prospect of a breakup. At this writing, it is unclear as to whether this process of socialization is taking place. But the evidence does not bode well. Los Angeles is now considered, by at least one British newspaper of note, to be a third-world, Spanish-speaking city. The country is effectively becoming bilingual, as is evidenced by the proliferation of Spanish language radio and television stations everywhere. Each time we pick up the telephone and are prompted to choose between Spanish and English, this evolving bi-nationalism is evident. There seems to be little to impede this process. In this era of multiculturalism and diversity the preservation of an American nation appears to be unfashionable, even frowned upon. If you love this country, enjoy it while you can. And hope that you don't live to see what it will become.

    Lastly, there is the possibility of a nation of people with no country or state. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Jewish nation was stateless for nearly nineteen hundred years, until the modern-day establishment of the state of Israel. But this created another problem: what to do with the Palestinians? They claim to be a nation of people, but those claims notwithstanding, their true nationality is in doubt. Yasir Arafat, after all, was born in Egypt. Be that as it may, they claim national status, and it has only been very recently that they have come into possession of something resembling a state. Violence there is relentless. Watch almost any evening news broadcast and you will see it for yourself.

    There is one more mysterious example of a stateless nation that comes to mind. These are the Gypsies. They have wandered the world throughout recorded history. Evidently, even the Romans did not know their origins. They seem satisfied with their stateless condition, a rare if not unique circumstance.

    So there you have it, a major source of conflict in the world: nations, states and countries. Once you grasp the concepts in this two-part series, the world will make a great deal more sense to you.

HURRAH FOR THE REPUBLIC!

    HURRAH FOR THE REPUBLIC! If there is any flesh left on the bones of Thomas Jefferson, his desiccated lips must be curled into a smile at this moment! The Federal Recluse has been waiting with bated breath for the decision just rendered by the Supreme Court regarding the nature of the Second Amendment. As you probably know, the question before the Court was whether that amendment recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, or whether that right was reserved only for state militias, i.e. National Guard units. Five Justices at least have sufficient regard for individual liberty to have voted for the individual rights interpretation.

    No other decision could have been rendered without leaving the Constitution little more than a shredded piece of tissue to be discarded completely. Your individual right to keep and bear arms is the keystone of all your other liberties. In all likelihood, without it, those other liberties recognized—not conferred—by the Bill of Rights would not last long. There are monsters in this world, would-be tyrants who would enslave you it they could. The world is full of examples of people who have first been disarmed by those monsters, and then enslaved—or murdered—by them. But arms keep those monsters at bay. Monsters are terrified by guns. They are horrified by a free, armed populace. It is said that Joseph Stalin was so afraid of being assassinated by some rogue gun owner that he kept numerous lookalike doubles scattered all over the Soviet Union. Virtually no one ever knew where Stalin really was because, even in a country over which he had an iron grip and whose citizens he had largely disarmed, he was afraid that somewhere out there some liberty-loving person would end his reign of terror.

    Arms are the ultimate guarantor of liberty. The Framers intended that you should have the ability, should all peaceful means fail, of violently overthrowing tyrannical government. Certainly they considered the benefits of an individual's ability to keep arms for the defense of life, home and property. But from a political standpoint, which was a major concern, it was the overthrow of tyrannical government that was at the heart of the matter. You must have that ability, or you will find yourself a subject and not a citizen. Your liberty, your very life, will be at the mercy—at the whim—of any tyrant who happens to receive a plurality of the popular vote.

    In the immediate aftermath of this decision, it is clear that its detractors continue to cling to the belief that the "well regulated militia" clause of the amendment limits the right to keep and bear arms only to state militias, usually interpreted to mean National Guard units. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reading the words of the Framers, during and after the Founding Era, it is crystal clear that among their greatest fears was a standing army. Thousands of years of history, as well as their own experiences under the heel of the British during the colonial period, taught them that a permanent, professional standing army represented a great danger to a free people. The very last thing they would have done in writing the Bill of Rights would have been to restrict access to arms to such an organization. Further, such an interpretation flies in the face of the very intent of the Bill of Rights itself. Its whole purpose was to place limits on government, and certainly not to grant that government a monopoly on the use of force. In the context of the entire Bill of Rights, the National Guard interpretation of the Second Amendment is, quite literally, ridiculous.

    So what did the authors of the Second Amendment mean when they used the phrase "a well regulated militia" if not a standing army? Centuries of Anglo-American law and tradition answer that question. The militia to which they were referring, in 1791 and to this very day, is the unorganized militia of the United States, which consists of all able bodied men. The idea was that if all men were armed, the United States could not be conquered by any foreign power. An invader would have to take the country house by house. If anyone thinks that such a concept is outdated, they must consider the fact that after the attack on Pearl Harbor, not so long ago, the Japanese considered an invasion of the west coast of the United States but abandoned the notion after study revealed the almost universal ownership of firearms among the American population. They realized that the Japanese Imperial Army was inadequate to the task. The thought of millions of armed citizens sniping at them from behind every rock, tree and building convinced them of the futility of such an endeavor.

    There will be a great deal more concerning the right to keep and bear arms in future entries. The Federal Recluse is among its staunchest supporters. This entry is celebratory: we have taken a giant step in the direction of individual liberty. Those who oppose that freedom, and there are many of them, have this day assumed the role of ankle-biters in the American body politic. They will continue to try to gnaw away, like the rats that they are, at your liberty as just confirmed by the Court. But their legs have been knocked out from under them. There is a great deal of work to be done at the state and local level to drive these rats back into their holes. But at last there is a glimmer of light on the horizon. A brilliant sun will rise over a country that is freer today than it was yesterday, and the rats will scurry from the blazing light. Break open the champagne and toast American liberty! Mr. Jefferson would.

Nations, States and Countries: Part 1

    Have you ever wondered why people are slaughtering each other all over the world? What produces the death, the suffering, the artificial famine? What follows does not pretend to explain all of it, but it does explain a great deal of it. Surely there are other factors involved than those you are about to be exposed to. But there are none more important in explaining the woes of this world.

    There is one aspect of international relations of which the vast majority of people are almost totally ignorant. This is through no fault of their own. It just isn't taught. But it is absolutely critical for an understanding of violence in the world. It produces genocide, ethnic cleansing, insurrection and wars of every conceivable variety, including world wars. It is responsible for a great deal of the misery and death on this planet. And it does have a powerful bearing on the future of the United States, as you will see. It involves the distinction among three terms which are often used interchangeably, but which are most definitely not the same. They are country, state and nation.

    First some definitions: the terms country and state are synonymous. In international relations, a country or a state is what can best be described as a sovereign geopolitical entity. That is, a country or a state is a political unit that occupies territory and is capable, in the current world system, of making decisions for itself without fear of contradiction by some higher authority. The United States, France, Japan, etc., are all countries or states.

    A nation is something very different. A nation is a group of people who identify with each other in one or more ways. Those may be ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious, historic, or by any other common denominator.

    There are four possible combinations of countries or states on the one hand, and nations on the other. The most stable and peaceful arrangement is for national and country or state boundaries to coincide. That is, for virtually every member of the same nation to live within the boundaries of one state or country. This is referred to as a nation-state. Japan is an excellent example. Virtually everyone in Japan is Japanese, ethnically, linguistically and culturally. There is very little political violence in Japan. There is political disagreement, to be sure, but violence is minimal. In fact, Japan guards its nationality very closely. An outsider can visit Japan, but cannot become truly Japanese.

    Once we depart from the nation-state, the problems begin. With the other three possible combinations, conflict is the order of the day, and violence is common. First, there is the possibility of one nation being divided into two or more states. Ireland and Northern Ireland come to mind. For decades, the counties of Northern Ireland were plagued by political violence. It must be understood that this violence had as its goal the unification of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is, it was an effort on the part of the Irish nationality of Northern Ireland to establish for itself a nation-state—a situation in which national and state boundaries coincided.

There seems to be a universal desire on the part of all people to live within their own nation-state. We see efforts to establish such political units taking place all over the world. Those efforts are usually accompanied by conflict. North and South Korea, one nation of people divided into two states, has been the scene of continuous violence, war and tension for almost sixty years. A formal state of war still exists there after all that time. To this day, the very real possibility exists that a catastrophic war could erupt there at any moment.

In the former North and South Vietnam the urge to unify the nation was so intense that it produced a decade-long war with the United States. Whatever one's thoughts concerning that war, the element of nationalism cannot be discarded.

Africa has been the scene of continuous violence since the end of the colonial era. On that unfortunate continent there are many nations that are divided into two or more states. There are over two thousand nations of people in Africa. When the European powers decided to establish colonies there, they simply whacked up the place to their own satisfaction with no consideration for nationality. Arbitrary colonial boundaries were drawn all over the continent. The result was an absolute nightmare of circumstances, among which are many nationalities divided into two or more states. The examples are far too numerous to mention.

The former East and West Germany were great examples of this problem. For more than four decades, until the collapse of central power in Moscow, the German nation was divided into two states. Tensions were high. Many predicted that World War Three would break out there. Fortunately, reunification was peaceful, if not exactly comfortable.

Less comfortable are relations between Taiwan and mainland China, Cubans in Cuba and Cubans patiently biding their time in south Florida, and Turks in Cyprus as well as in Turkey, and Greeks in Cyprus as well as in Greece. One may even rightfully include in this category Finns in Finland and members of the Finnish nation stranded in Russian Karelia. Many more examples exist.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the Islamic nation. Samuel P. Huntington of Harvard goes so far as to classify them as much more than a distinct nationality, but as a separate civilization, and the Federal Recluse would certainly agree with that assessment. Here we have well over a billion people united, at the very least, by religion, divided into numerous states stretching across a major region of the globe. The Islamic nation in southwest Asia and even north Africa is partially united not only by religion, but by culture, ethnicity, history, and, to some extent, language. Certainly this national unity is not complete. There are the Iranians to contend with from an ethnic and linguistic standpoint, as well as sectarian differences within Islam, such as between Shiite and Sunni in Iraq and elsewhere. But if one speaks in sufficiently broad terms, as did Huntington, an Islamic nation certainly exists. President Nasser of Egypt attempted a partial political unification decades ago, but was unsuccessful. The success of future attempts seems unlikely, but is not inconceivable. Culture, language and religion are powerful unifying forces. If this nation of people were ever to unify politically, given the hatred and resentment of Western Civilization throughout the region, the West would have a great deal more to worry about than terrorism.

To be continued…

    A close friend holds the position that massive, uncontrolled immigration is of little concern to the survival of the American nation because anyone coming to this country must enculturate if they are to succeed in this society. He argues, for example, that they should be free to speak any language they choose, but if they choose to speak one other than English they will suffer the consequences of failure. This is very much a laissez-faire approach to the question and, in the vast majority of cases, such a position is to be applauded. But he lives in a bucolic American village embedded deep in the Heartland seventeen hundred miles from the Mexican border. The Federal Recluse lives on the "crust" and is witness to an entirely different reality.

    This region is a Mexican enclave. Its population is overwhelmingly Mexican and is constantly being reinforced by a steady stream of newcomers from across the border. And this enclave is growing. What, some decades ago, were mere pockets of Mexican nationality has now engulfed an entire section of the country stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. It is spreading north and east, with only the Canadian border and the seas to stop its progress. This friend may eventually find himself squeezed into an ever-shrinking pocket of American nationalism, which grows smaller and smaller until, ultimately, it winks out of existence altogether.

    Within this enclave, the use of the English language is not only largely unnecessary, but can actually be a detriment. Its use is increasingly less an asset than a liability. The Federal Recluse has encountered members of the Mexican nation living in this country who, when asked a question in English, became irate. On one occasion, the possibility of violence was very real.

    Why this focus on language? It is an extremely accurate barometer of the power of Mexican nationalism in the United States and the concomitant decline of the American nation. Language is a powerful transmitter of culture. Those who refuse to learn English, or who feel no need to learn it, are vastly more likely to retain the culture of their homeland and to fail to adopt the culture of the country in which they are now living. This has profound implications for the United States. As discussed in earlier entries, it is the position of the Federal Recluse that Mexican culture, and, more specifically, the philosophy which underlies it, is intrinsically flawed by a deeply embedded and centuries-old element of altruism: the belief that one's highest moral duty is to sacrifice one's interests for those of some other entity in society. Over time, that entity, the recipient of sacrifice, has assumed many forms: the King, the Viceroy, the encomendero, the hacendado, or, more recently, an amorphous Mexican nation. This expectation of self-sacrifice causes a deep-seated resentment and precludes cooperation. The country's economy, its political system, and every other aspect of its functioning as a modern society, suffer as a result. A country which should be a paradise is instead mired in poverty, ignorance and hopelessness. All of this is entirely independent of race. Blonde, blue-eyed Mexicans are as likely to possess this philosophy of altruism and the resentment that accompanies it, as are the darkest Mestizos. The danger here is not unchecked immigration per se, but the societal, political and economic repercussions it brings with it. To the extent that we import the carriers of this intellectual virus, this failed philosophy, we too will fail.

    None of this would matter if the philosophy which built this country was not worth preserving. The Federal Recluse believes that it is. That philosophy, with its emphasis on self-interest—a healthy selfishness, if you will—produced the greatest, freest, wealthiest country in the history of the world. Such a jewel should not be tossed aside lightly.

Down On the Democrat Plantation

    The ongoing flooding disaster in the mid-western United States is exposing, for those who were not previously aware of it, an insidious truth: for decades, blacks in this country have been kept "down on the plantation" of poverty, misery and dependency primarily by the Democrat party. There has been an unspoken quid pro quo. In exchange for democrat votes by blacks, those elected democrats would "take care" of their black constituents in a highly paternalistic fashion. Trillions of dollars have been redistributed "taking care" of black Americans, primarily through the efforts of elected democrats. These unfortunate individuals are less perpetrators than victims. They are victims of all the ills of paternalism that have been intentionally and consciously inflicted upon them by the Democrat party. In spite of those trillions, they are poverty-stricken, ill educated, and lethargic in taking those actions which are in their own self-interest. Nothing could demonstrate the truth of these assertions more clearly than the differences one sees between the reactions of inhabitants to the disasters of Hurricane Katrina and the current massive flooding of the Midwest.

    When Katrina struck, there were immediate demands to be taken care of, by FEMA, by President Bush and by the general government as a whole. New Orleans has still not recovered, and one can only guess at how long it will be before it does. When sufficient care was not forthcoming, or when it was perceived to be too slow in coming, residents were so resentful that violence in that city became widespread. The black residents of New Orleans had been almost completely enculturated into a state of dependency. They appeared to be, quite literally, incapable of taking care of themselves.

    By contrast, inhabitants of the Midwest who are currently experiencing a flooding disaster of far greater proportions, do not appear, at this writing, to be seeking more than minimal help from the general government. The Federal Recluse has heard no recriminations of FEMA or of the president. Quite the contrary seems to be the case. Residents appear to be rolling up their sleeves and getting down to the business of rebuilding. Unlike many of the victims of Hurricane Katrina, these people are taking it upon themselves to put their lives back in order. They have never been the targets of a concerted effort to inculcate in them the self-perception of victim-hood. They have never been the raw material for Democrat ascendancy.

    There is nothing intrinsically inferior about black people that would make them especially prone to dependency. Of all the variables that determine success in this world, skin color, from a rational standpoint, is of absolutely no importance. There are too many counterfactuals to place any credence at all in racism. Millions of black Americans have risen from the most humble beginnings, and, through talent, ambition and force of will have achieved success. There is no reason for the rest to be in such a state of paralytic dependency except for the fact that the seductive carrot of being taken care of by a paternalistic state has been dangled before them. When someone, especially a government, offers to provide for one's needs, it is a difficult thing to refuse. It is a tempting offer, especially when seemingly justified by three hundred years of enforced victim-hood.

The fault does not lie with our black brethren, but with a government, and in particular, with one political party, which has virtually justified its existence for generations in the paternalistic pursuit of "taking care of" black Americans in exchange for their votes. They have been engaged in the hideous practice of keeping the better part of a race "down on the plantation" for purely selfish political reasons. How much these political vampires actually care about their victims, for that is what they are, is highly questionable. Black Americans have been relegated by democrats to the status of tools—things—to be used to achieve and maintain political ascendancy and all the power and perquisites that go with it. Nothing could be more cynical and inhumane. Generations—past, present and future—of dependent black Americans have been turned into sacrificial animals for the benefit of ambitious democrat politicos and their activist henchmen. Those individual politicians and activists who are responsible for this most recent form of American human bondage shall remain nameless, as they should. Their names should be stricken from the roles of this country's history, and we should forget that they were our countrymen.