Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 8 20:07:18 EDT 1994
Article: 1794 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: How will antiegalitarian views resurface?
Date: 8 Jun 1994 09:09:42 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <2t4fum$lgm@panix.com>
References: <2t1r0v$ckr@panix.com> <16FCEE991.SESSMAN@ibm.mtsac.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
SESSMAN@ibm.mtsac.edu writes:
>The current ideological rigidity on equality issues ...
>Why presuppose that the rigidity is a lack of articulating ones doubts
>as opposed to a ingrained belief in justice?
Rigidity that is nervous and overreactive, which I think is what we see
on these issues, is a sign of insecurity. Also, it seems to me there's
quite a gap between public pronouncements and private comments in this
area.
The reliance on the federal judiciary (which is required publicly to
articulate the reasons for its actions) rather than private agreement,
public opinion or the elected or local branches of government in dealing
with equality issues suggests that people's intuitive sense of what is
reasonable and right isn't trusted. The denunciations of "social
stereotypes" suggest the same thing, since "ingrained beliefs" are what
are reflected in social stereotypes.
>For instance, you may be against the inherent nature of equality as a
>social phenomenon. Is this due to your fears of the other or merely
>your personal convictions in homogeneity?
This is all rather vague. A good society would have equality in some
respects and inequality in others, it seems to me. As for fear of the
other and love of homogeneity, I think those things are characteristic
of egalitarians. They want everyone to be as equal as possible so there
will be no differences and no "others".
> Who are the thought police these days? Rev. Widmon and his naysayers in
>Alabama? Pro-censorship groups? "Family" resource centers? I think that
>the only groups with such an adamant "this is unacceptable" voice these
>days are the staunch rightist conservatives ready and willing to restore
>"goodness" to the shores of our country by eliminating progressive thought.
You consider talk of "political correctness" pure fantasy?
>>Also, evidence needs to be interpreted, every particular piece of
>>evidence can always be criticized or explained away, and superstrength
>>arguments to the effect that for methodological reasons no conceivable
>>evidence could establish the unwanted conclusion can be deployed.
>
> If you really believe this, how can you believe ANY type of evidence, even
>that which you believe supports your OWN positions?
Belief is difficult, and requires courage, good faith and humility. For
discussions of the necessity and possibility of belief when every
particular support for belief can be explained away, read Pascal's
_Pensees_ and Newman's _Grammar of Assent_. For an attempt to ground
belief on things that can't be explained away, read Descartes. For what
happens when the Cartesian project fails, read Samuel Beckett. You
might also read Kuhn's _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ for a
currently popular account of how scientific belief comes about
consistent with the language you quote.
>Any evidence that contradicts the natural priniciple of egalitarianism
>will surely be bound to be full of holes considering the degree to
>which there are so many different strands of different people. The
>entire concept of race is quite ambiguous.
So is the concept of well-being. Does that mean we should get rid of
all the doctors, mental health professionals, economists and so on?
>>alternative media are the natural home of half-baked, frivolous and
>>crackpot ideas.
>
> Like the creation of an "all-white" society as outlined on this post?
The post suggested nothing about an all-white society. I don't recall
that it said anything directly about policy of any sort. I agree that
it was written from a point of view that finds our current
antidiscrimination laws misconceived. (Incidentally, by "post" do you
mean newsgroup or a particular article posted to a newsgroup? I assume
the latter because that is how other people use the word.)
>>Part of the reason people fear antiegalitarian ideas is that that
>>they can lead to horrifying results unless they are tempered by notions
>>of universal human dignity or something of the sort.
>
> Your phrase CAN LEAD TO HORRIFYING RESULTS is much too soft. How about
>HAS LED TO HORRIFYING RESULTS AT REPEATED TIMES IN THIS CENTURY?
Sure, but it's a tough world. The body count for left-wing ideas
intended to sweep away all barriers between man and man has been even
higher.
>>Egalitarianism isn't going to last forever, though,
>
>You'd like to think so, but genocides have failed over and over again,
>so the likelihood that egalitarianism will perservere is pretty strong
>these days.
Don't understand. Every known society has been sexually inegalitarian,
but not every known society has engaged in genocide. Why do you believe
the alternatives are egalitarianism and genocide?
>The BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY, an offshoot of your type of thinking, just
>lost its one significant political seat. What major threats to the
>egalitarian principle exist in this country today???
I don't know anything about the BNP, so I won't comment on its relation
to my type of thinking. According to the _New York Times_, Republicans
wage war on the poor, gut social programs, willfully neglect civil
rights enforcement, and cultivate the politics of divisiveness and
bigotry. I will defer to my betters on these points, and assume that it
follows that Republicans are a threat to the egalitarian principle.
>Any specific involuntary distinctions that exist among people (skin
>color, language differences, gender separation) have been so
>exploited, abused and manipulated, that through this evil called
>prejudice, it has been made impossible for many average people to
>TRANSCEND their experience and avoid EMPHASIZING these distinctions.
It seems to me that people have some things that make them similar and
some things that make them different, and that both are important. You
seem to believe that if their differences matter then their similarities
can't matter. I don't understand that.
>I wonder if you and others on this post practice the idea of
>disregarding simple distinctions so to evalutate each and every person
>for who that person is as an individual. I think not.
When and for what purposes? "Family member/not family member" is a
simple distinction with consequences that don't have much to do with who
someone is as an individual. On the other hand, when I deal with my
children I try to keep in mind the particular qualities each one has.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 9 13:54:32 EDT 1994
Article: 1796 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: How will antiegalitarian views resurface?
Date: 9 Jun 1994 06:34:02 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <2t6r6q$5a0@panix.com>
References: <2t1r0v$ckr@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>> 4. Part of the reason people fear antiegalitarian ideas is that that
>> they can lead to horrifying results
>Is a fraudulent egalitarianism any less horrifying than an
>openly violent and oppressive anti-egalitarianism?
Each is antihuman because each denies essential human characteristics.
The slavery in the former case may be less burdensome but it's more
universal.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 9 13:54:41 EDT 1994
Article: 6217 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Go Away GOP 'Moderates'!
Date: 9 Jun 1994 06:44:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <2t6rqe$69r@panix.com>
References: <2t4s8l$9t4@clarknet.clark.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:6217 alt.politics.usa.republican:6474
In purves@cfht.hawaii.edu (Norman Purves) writes:
>I voted for Reagan, twice! Wasn't *he* conservative enough for you?
Just because you heard it on TV and read it in the press doesn't mean
it's true. For a discussion of how conservative Reagan was, see the
article "It's Big Government, Stupid" in the current issue of
_Commentary_. The article was written by David Frum, the well-known
neocon Buchanan-basher. He finds a form of conservatism that admires
FDR and greatly increases government spending a little questionable.
>Sorry, pal, but we've been around since 1854, and we ain't goin' nowhere!
A fair enough comment, in my view.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 9 13:55:00 EDT 1994
Article: 25356 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 8 Jun 1994 22:18:55 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <2t5u6f$i07@panix.com>
References: <2ssj3n$n0v@panix.com> <2sun41$9ic@goshen.connected.com> <2t5d6s$ehi@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25356 alt.politics.libertarian:30009 alt.politics.radical-left:15305 alt.society.anarchy:8369
carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
>Assuming, then, that you are talking about coercive redistribution from
>an outcome of LFC property rights as the baseline, why should such
>redistribution be minimized ("kept at the lowest sustainable level")?
Part of the issue, I think, is how dangerous or stultifying you think
state administrative discretion and political decisionmaking are.
Libertarians want to get rid of them altogether, which is no doubt an
extreme position, but even many non-libertarians are sympathetic to the
idea of limiting them to particular situations in which such things have
special advantages. One way of restricting them is to vest certain
powers in private hands and establish formal rules for the exercise of
those powers and their transfer to other people. If that's done in a
way that corresponds to a durable consensus as to what people ought to
be able to do without the involvement of government, then the role of
politics and the state has successfully been limited. If the consensus
supporting the property rights goes deeper than the consensus supporting
the government, then one can even say that the government was created
(possibly among other reasons) for the sake of protecting those rights.
If you can show that the consensus supporting the property rights is not
only durable but is even right, then you've attained nirvana from the
standpoint of establishing constitutional limits on the scope of
government action.
One problem with the redistributive welfare state from this perspective
is that it's hard to see how any particular redistributive scheme could
be established as a set of vested rights and formal rules viewed as a
matter of right that precedes political and administrative decisions.
So if you accept the RWS you accept a very large and very active
government that makes a lot of decisions that directly affect
everyone's welfare in an open-ended way. Control of the government
thus becomes a much bigger prize than it might otherwise be, and the _a
priori_ limitations on what the people do who obtain the prize become
somewhat vague. Many people find that situation worrisome.
>Perhaps one will say that everyone has a natural right to possess and
>dispose of whatever he or she has received via voluntary exchange or
>gift, and to possess and dispose of the full fruits of their labor. If
>so, what are the grounds for asserting these rights? In the case of the
>"full fruits of one's labor", this phrase must be defined not only for
>independent production but also for integrated, cooperative systems of
>production.
Could I say that the fruit of my labor is the marginal output generated
by my contribution to the productive process? I could have withheld the
contribution but I chose not to, and the consequence of my choice is
that output went up the marginal amount. Therefore that marginal amount
is mine. I think there's a theorem in classical economics, by the way,
that in a perfect market compensation would equal marginal output. (I
hope an economist will tell me if I am wrong or confused on all this.)
>The "mixing labor" argument is, I believe, incoherent, since labor is
>not a substance that can be mixed, and if it were there is no reason to
>believe that it would confer ownership.
You mean Locke's explanation of how natural resources became privately
owned? I'm not sure it matters much. I don't think much of the
existing distribution of wealth within a modern society is explained by
the way natural resources were initially partitioned among individuals.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 9 17:12:30 EDT 1994
Article: 25373 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 9 Jun 1994 14:27:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <2t7mvd$t1s@panix.com>
References: <2t5d6s$ehi@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <2t5u6f$i07@panix.com> <2t6u6v$935@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25373 alt.politics.libertarian:30068 alt.politics.radical-left:15371 alt.society.anarchy:8387
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| One problem with the redistributive welfare state from this perspective
>| is that it's hard to see how any particular redistributive scheme could
>| be established as a set of vested rights and formal rules viewed as a
>| matter of right that precedes political and administrative decisions.
>
>I have read that in the tradition of one American Indian
>nation (at least) a woman who has a child is granted a
>certain amount of land to work
I agree you can probably say "a mother has a right to a livelihood" and
define and enforce the right without a lot of politicking if people live
by subsistence farming and think of a "livelihood" as a plot of land big
enough to live on but small enough to cultivate comfortably with a hoe.
I don't think life is going to get that simple for us any time soon.
>Our present arrangements of welfare are as political and bureaucratic
>as they are because they are fairly recent, are contested territory,
>and were created as part of an industrial society which generally
>accomplished large projects through bureaucratic structures.
I think it has more to do with the wealth, diversity and fluidity of
modern economic life, which make it impossible to define non-arbitrarily
what welfare rights people should have and what they owe in return.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 11 06:19:26 EDT 1994
Article: 25396 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 9 Jun 1994 20:06:23 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <2t8apv$6el@panix.com>
References: <2t6u6v$935@panix.com> <2t7mvd$t1s@panix.com> <2t7rcn$g3v@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25396 alt.politics.libertarian:30110 alt.politics.radical-left:15410 alt.society.anarchy:8400
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>What you're saying implies that it's all a sort of technical problem --
>that things move along so fast we can't figure out _how_ to set up
>these rights and obligations before they're obsolete.
It implicates technical factors, but I'm not sure what that shows. A
detailed account of the processes that make it worse to deprive someone
of water for a week than for an hour would be technical, but that
doesn't mean the difference between the two acts is technical.
The things people view as fundamental rights and obligations have to be
understood as preceding any ordinary political or administrative
decision. That means, I think, that they have to be things that are
stable over time, and that ordinary people can understand as reasonably
determinate before they are formulated legally. It seems to me that the
common-law rules of property qualify reasonably well on that score, and
in the right setting your "every mother gets a plot to cultivate" rule
would qualify. I don't see how modern welfare rights could qualify.
The reasons for that may be technical, but that doesn't mean that the
problem is technical.
>I would agree with this, if it were not for the fact that there is such
>hostility to welfare in general, such abuse of welfare recipients, so
>many suggestions that no one who has anything should be obliged to give
>anything to anybody under any circumstances -- a flat contradiction to
>the way human beings live, in families and communities which could not
>exist for more than a few decades without constant "redistribution."
I attribute fanaticism to moral insecurity. Both exist among
libertarians and other opponents of the welfare state, no doubt in part
because they are morally in the minority. Such attitudes are not
universal, though, and why judge a position by the worst of its
proponents?
>I think the word "redistribution" contains the key to this issue. It
>implies that there is some original Natural distribution, after which
>we fall away into _re_-distributions which only take us further and
>further away from truth and light. But every distribution is a
>redistribution, and it's a fantasy that certain distributions which
>favor certain social roles, most notably "capital", are more natural or
>true than others which don't.
One problem with denying that some distributions are more natural or
true than others is that it puts everything up for grabs politically.
If that happens, there's going to be a lot of grabbing and presumably
the strongest and most unscrupulous grabbers will win. Also, if one
cares about either community or individual freedom and integrity, such
things tend to disappear in an open-ended free-for-all.
Presumably anyone with a theory of justice, whether libertarian or
Rawlsian, believes that there is some distribution that is the right
one. If you think attaining that distribution will require continual
explicit political and administrative activity, then it makes sense to
say you favor redistribution. If you think that distribution can be
attained by establishing formal property rules and vested rights that
explicate a pre-political understanding of who should have what, and can
be applied without exercising much discretion, then it makes sense to
say you don't favor redistribution. The distinction seems real and
important to me.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 11 06:19:27 EDT 1994
Article: 25430 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 10 Jun 1994 14:32:38 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <2tabk6$38h@panix.com>
References: <2t6u6v$935@panix.com> <2t7mvd$t1s@panix.com> <2t7rcn$g3v@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25430 alt.politics.libertarian:30188 alt.politics.radical-left:15505 alt.society.anarchy:8425
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>there is such hostility to welfare in general, such abuse of welfare
>recipients, so many suggestions that no one who has anything should be
>obliged to give anything to anybody under any circumstances
Another thought -- people who think they have a strong moral argument
and stand to lose something they care about (like money) if the argument
is overridden often get cranky. So maybe explicating the libertarian
moral objection to welfare would make the hostility and ill temper one
sometimes sees easier to understand. As I understand the objection (I'm
not a libertarian), it might be stated as follows:
1. People are free and responsible for their actions, which means that
the consequences of their actions ideally should accrue to them alone.
That means that if they've injured someone they should pay the damage
and if they've created a benefit the benefit should be theirs. (Of
course, someone might choose to give the benefit to someone else.)
2. Liability for injury can be handled reasonably well through tort
law. A regime of free contract and free alienability of property
ensures better than any other that people will receive the value of
benefits they create, since under such a regime one's compensation tends
to equal the marginal value of one's contribution to the productive
process (that is, the value resulting from one's choice to contribute
rather than not contribute to the process). It is at least reasonable
to identify that marginal value of one's contribution with the value of
the benefit one created.
3. English and American common law in general reflected the assumptions
stated in (1) and (2) and gave rise to lassez-faire capitalism. These
are still the assumptions that most people think are right in day-to-day
dealings among responsible adults. Thus, libertarians are fighting not
merely for a speculative theory but for something rooted in fact and
tradition.
4. Taxation could be justified within the system described so far to
the extent it is needed to compensate those who provide things like
national defense that cannot be provided to consumers separately and
that are judged to be clearly of great benefit to everyone. The
incidence of such taxation should be proportioned as much as possible to
the benefit accruing to the particular taxpayer.
5. How to apply (4) will often be debatable, but it doesn't seem to
justify many welfare expenditures. Therefore, the welfare state fails
to treat people as free and responsible owners of their own actions, and
thus is morally unjustifiable.
6. A standard liberal (Rawlsian) justification for redistributing the
benefits that would arise within a lassez-faire capitalist system is
simply that such redistribution makes its beneficiaries better able to
pursue their own projects, whatever those projects happen to be. The
welfare state is thus in essence based on a demand that some people work
to advance the arbitrary projects of other people as the price for being
permitted to pursue their own projects. There is no claim that the
redistribution promotes a public good or a good that everyone shares.
Such a justification strikes libertarians as truly outrageous, because
requiring someone to serve the arbitrary will of another simply because
that is the other's will is a pretty good definition of slavery.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 11 06:19:28 EDT 1994
Article: 25431 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 10 Jun 1994 14:55:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <2tacvt$7i7@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25431 alt.politics.libertarian:30190 alt.politics.radical-left:15507 alt.society.anarchy:8426
In pajerek%tels24.telstar.kodak.com@kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>One problem with denying that some distributions are more natural or
>>true than others is that it puts everything up for grabs politically.
>How about that! That is *exactly* what Gordon is saying.
I didn't misunderstand him then. After the language you quote I went
on to the point of my comment, which was the very bad consequences of
putting everything up for grabs politically.
>You seem to
>have this idea that there is some kind of 'moral gravity', and that if
>we let our 'moral objects' move about unconstrained in this gravitational
>field, they will find their 'correct' paths.
I think that different moral and political theories have different
consequences, that considering their consequences can help one see that
some are objectively better than others, and that the "no distribution
is more natural, truer, better or juster than any other" theory is a
very bad one. I think that moral arguments are worth attending to, and
that we are sometimes rightly persuaded by them. I think that whether
things are good or bad normally does not depend on my particular tastes
or goals, so when I investigate moral issues I shouldn't try to
constrain them to do what I want. Is that what you mean?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 12 20:22:55 EDT 1994
Article: 25458 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 11 Jun 1994 10:52:11 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <2tcj2r$p72@panix.com>
References: <2tacvt$7i7@panix.com> <2tavr8$8jp@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25458 alt.politics.libertarian:30279 alt.politics.radical-left:15571 alt.society.anarchy:8443
carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
>Rather, the prior distribution of property from which "redistribution"
>begins is just as much the result of human choice and action, and often
>as coercively enforced, as the redistribution.
No doubt all features of human society are the result of human choice
and action. That doesn't mean that all features of human society have
actually been chosen or that all could be made objects of choice. To do
the latter would require construction of an all-powerful government.
I'm not sure that the notion of an all-powerful government is even
coherent, since I'm not sure rationality would be possible if everything
a government could affect were simultaneously made an object of choice.
I *am* sure, though, that attempts to establish such a thing typically
end badly.
>When goods are created or discovered, ownership rights are in each case
>assigned by law, custom, bargaining, or superior force rather than by
>some process of nature. Since "laissez-faire" as the term is generally
>used implies that property rights are assigned in a specific way, it is
>a misnomer if it is taken to mean letting some natural process run its
>unimpeded course. Similarly, "government intervention" is a misnomer
>if it is taken as intervention in a naturally occurring process.
You seem to view all human activities that could be affected by exercise
of choice as equally artificial. I don't agree. For example, it is
natural for human beings to use language, and the distinction between
natural and constructed languages strikes me as legitimate. A law
requiring people to speak Esperanto would strike me as intervention in a
naturally occurring process, while a law prohibiting certain insults or
making fraudulent misrepresentations illegal would not.
It's true that it is impossible to draw a strict distinction between
what is artificial and what is natural for human beings, but the
distinction is not therefore meaningless. It largely relates, I think,
to the role arbitrary choice and conscious thought play in a process,
and the effort required to kept the process going or make it other than
what it is. On those criteria lassez faire capitalism appears more
natural than socialism or the welfare state, at least under current
circumstances of technical, economic and social complexity. The former
consists essentially in a set of practices that grow up when independent
actors produce and trade things in order to better their material
positions, while the latter require a great deal more conscious
construction.
>What this means in particular is that there is no special "burden of
>proof" or burden of argument on those who advocate "redistribution" (as
>from rich to poor) from the baseline of capitalist free-market
>outcomes, because this is not the "natural" baseline, there being no
>such thing.
Are you saying that there is no reason to keep the state out of the day-
to-day business of deciding who gets what based on the views of those
who control the state as to the relative needs and merits of the people
involved? (Note that if such reasons exist they place the burden of
argument on the redistributors.)
>Nature does not grant one ownership of the fruits of one's labor;
>rather, this is a human and social decision.
I'm not sure what this means. It might mean that moral principles are
purely a matter of human and social decision, in which case (presumably)
might would make right. It might be a denial that ownership of the
fruits of one's labor is intrinsically just, even though other things
may be so. Or it might simply be a request for arguments regarding the
justice of such ownership.
>Further, if you (generic you) advocate and support a system, such as
>that of the U.S. currently, in which some people are deprived access to
>basic medical care and other necessaries of life while others have
>vastly more wealth, this outcome is something you have chosen, assuming
>that there are feasible alternatives.
This statement would be more sensible if we could predict the results of
changes as accurately as we can survey the current situation.
I agree (if this is part of what you are saying) that when we consider
political principles our most fundamental concern should be what kind
of people and what kind of way of life will grow out of a society
governed by such principles. That, by the way, is why I don't like the
welfare state.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 13 06:06:12 EDT 1994
Article: 1801 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: How will antiegalitarian views resurface?
Date: 12 Jun 1994 21:15:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <2tgbvs$mbq@panix.com>
References: <1994Jun10.222618.14148@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
schulz@omcron.uleth.ca (Tom Schulz) writes:
>>Radical universalist/egalitarian regimes have been
>>responsible for more butchery in this century than all of the radical
>>anti-egalitarian regimes put together.
>
> Truth is, I am also unaware of this fact, and am dying to see you
>produce figures and stuff ( which, no doubt you probably can ).
In the 1968 edition of his _The Great Terror_, Robert Conquest included
a lengthy appendix using several lines of analysis resulting in an
estimate of the number of prisoners who died by execution and in labor
camps in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era at no less than
20,000,000. My understanding is that in the X-SU his estimates are
generally considered overly conservative. He considers criticisms of
the estimates in the recent revised edition of the book, and agrees they
should be revised upward, pointing out that he had said at the time they
were intended to be conservative. I believe the estimate in the revised
edition of the total body count resulting from Soviet rule is about
40,000,000. I should add that the revised estimate includes forms of
Soviet state terror other than forced labor camps and executions (the
Ukrainian famine is an example). I seem to recall that in the _Gulag
Archipelago_ Solzhenitsyn suggests a figure of 60,000,000, but he of
course was writing under circumstances that made scholarly accuracy
difficult.
I don't know of a good analysis of the numbers killed in China. (Not
that my ignorance proves anything.) Last time I looked several years
ago, the _Guinness Book of World Records_ gave a figure of about
40,000,000 but no source. The Khmer Rouge have also contributed their
bit to the tally.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 13 14:54:32 EDT 1994
Article: 1803 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: How will antiegalitarian views resurface?
Date: 13 Jun 1994 07:37:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <2thgdd$ikl@panix.com>
References: <1994Jun10.222618.14148@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
bsl@tiamat.umd.umich.edu (Joel Stanley) writes:
>Why don't you have any potatoes? Or, Why does the other fellow have
>coke & caviar? Is it because you didn't bother planting and raising
>the potatoes? There is no problem if that is the case.
There's always a problem if what you're looking for is abstract
fairness. The guy who has the coke and caviar probably didn't plant
potatoes either. Maybe he inherited it all, or maybe he's president of
Almalgamated Potato Plantations Inc. and all he does is sit in his
office. Suppose I say I didn't plant potatoes because I felt sick at
the time, and I didn't have the money for seed potatoes, and I think the
work is degrading and don't see why I should have to perform work that I
think is degrading when Mr. Coke and Caviar doesn't. Since it would be
lots of trouble to prove me wrong on all those points, and it would be
unfair to let me starve without proving I did something wrong, why not
just give me the potatoes?
The point of the foregoing, by the way, is not that the welfare state is
a good thing, but only that it is hard to avoid if you think the
government should intervene when individuals suffer from the unfairness
of life.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 13 14:54:39 EDT 1994
Article: 6251 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Go Away GOP 'Moderates'!
Date: 13 Jun 1994 07:38:48 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <2thgg8$iqn@panix.com>
References: <2t7r7n$q59@mimsy.cs.umd.edu> <2t8117$hm2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <2tgpik$dtl@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:6251 alt.politics.usa.republican:6783
steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
>> This is, if I may quote Pat Buchanan, about responding
>>to a "Culture War" that is being waged against our values
>>and our nation.
>
> Any introduction of "Culture War" issues into the political arena
>is a politicization of matters that are simply no business of the
>State.
How can this be? I don't see how you can keep cultural matters out of
education, and state schools and state supervision of education seem
pretty well established. Both the educational system and the welfare
and social security systems replace the family in some of its
functions, and the state also enforces civil rights laws that are based
on particular assumptions as to sex roles and the place that particular
cultural communities should play in people's lives. So I don't see how
Culture War issues can be kept out of politics. For starters, you
can't evaluate current government programs without discussing them.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 13 14:54:44 EDT 1994
Article: 25562 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Marginal product (was: Re: Property and the State)
Date: 13 Jun 1994 07:42:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <2thgn4$j76@panix.com>
References: <2t5d6s$ehi@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <2t5u6f$i07@panix.com> <2tgfsr$4q1@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25562 alt.politics.radical-left:15699 sci.econ:23195
carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
>This obvious fact has not prevented some people from saying that the
>*owner* of the capital should receive the marginal product of his
>capital because that is his productive contribution. But an owner qua
>owner engages in no productive activities; all an owner does, qua
>owner, is grant permission to others to use his capital in a production
>process, and granting permission is not labor in the sense that people
>have in mind in saying that one is entitled to receive the "fruits of
>one's labor."
The claim is that we have a right to the fruits of our labor, not that
the fruits of our labor is all we have a right to. An owner could let
others use his property in production or he could consume it or use it
for some project of his own. His decision to let his property be used
in the productive process means production goes up a certain amount, and
if you think it's OK for people to own things then you'll think it makes
sense for him to get that additional amount.
> The concept of the 'marginal product' of a resource is
> not really concerned with who has 'actually produced' what, but with
> guiding the allocation of resources by examining what would happen if
> one more unit of a resource were to be used (given all the other
> resources).
I don't question that Amartya Sen, and for all I know all professional
economists, rely on the concept solely for the latter purpose. I don't
see why an economist as an economist would be concerned with the former
issue. However, the question is not what uses of concepts economists
find helpful in carrying on value-free social science. The claim is
that to treat people as free and responsible is to attribute their acts
and the consequences of their acts to them. Asking what difference
particular acts make holding everything else constant gives us a way of
doing that. Sen seems to confirm that there is no other non-arbitrary
way to say what the consequences of an act are. Since Sen also appears
to reject marginal product or anything like it as a concept that can be
used morally, it's not clear to me that he could give any sense to the
notion of responsibility for one's acts. Without the concept of
responsiblity, though, I'm not sure how much is left of the concept of
freedom. Some would find it troubling to eliminate the concept of
freedom from discussions of government.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jun 14 20:00:57 EDT 1994
Article: 25646 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 14 Jun 1994 16:53:22 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <2tl5c2$b92@panix.com>
References: <2timt5$pav@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25646 alt.politics.libertarian:30735 alt.politics.radical-left:15854 alt.society.anarchy:8536
bsharvy@efn.org (Ben Sharvy) writes:
>A "laissez-faire" system is very close to whatever "system" people
>might find themselves in if they dedicated no thought to, and made no
>choices, concerning the sytem they want to be in.
If that were so then all traditional tribal societies would have
laissez-faire systems. I don't think that's so, at least if "laissez-
faire" means "laissez-fair free market capitalist".
It seems to me that a LFFMC system is associated with certain abstract
ideas, like the sovereignty of the individual, that don't arise in
every society. For example, traditional Hindu society was not a LFFMC
society, even though it arose without prior philosophizing. A lot of
economic functions were obligations like caste duties that people were
born into and so were not subject to free market bargaining.
I don't deny, by the way, that the LFFMC system has characteristics that
make it the natural system, or a more natural system than some other
system, for some groups of people or in some states of society. My only
claim is that it takes work to show that in a particular case.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 15 15:56:58 EDT 1994
Article: 25679 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Marginal product (was: Re: Property and the State)
Date: 15 Jun 1994 11:30:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <2tn6rh$abt@panix.com>
References: <2tgfsr$4q1@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <2thgn4$j76@panix.com> <2tmgdp$6r7@samba.oit.unc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25679 alt.politics.radical-left:15945 sci.econ:23242
Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>Being a Joan Robinson fan, I am sympathetic to Richard Carnes'
>position. She used to say that although individual capital goods may be
>productive, ownership of capital is not productive.
She's right, of course. We can all agree that ownership of capital is
no more productive than ownership of oneself. I think we can also
agree (Joan Robinson says nothing to the contrary in the quote) that in
and of themselves individual capital goods are not productive. They
may be productive if they are systematically used in production. So
like ownership of capital, individual capital goods may contribute to
production as part of a system.
>Both sides accept that marginal products provide a theory of
>distribution.
I thought Mr. Carnes' Sen quote was to the contrary.
>marginal productivity is *not* a theory of income distribution.
>Suppose one knows everything there is to know about the physical flows
>and stocks actually occuring in an economy [ ... ] Can one calculate
>unique values for the corresponding prices, including factor prices?
>No, one does not [ ... ] How about if more data is known, this time
>counterfactuals - but still in physical terms [ ... ] Knowing these
>possibilities and the actual selected process, can we now calculate
>what equilibrium prices and distribution must be?
>
>No, we cannot [ ... ]
This is too refined for a non-economist to address on its own terms, so
what I will do is explain my view of things and hope you can show where
I'm missing something.
My understanding is that in a laissez-faire capitalist society the
return to each person who contributes something to production will tend
to approximate the increased production that would not have occurred but
for his contribution. If he were paid more than that the person
benefitting from the increased production would lose, while if he were
paid less, he could sell his contribution for more elsewhere.
It sounds as if you are saying that we could have twin worlds, both with
laissez-faire capitalist systems, with physically the same economic
resources and physically the same productive processes but radically
different prices that have no tendency to converge. If that is what you
are saying, do you intend it as a general truth that would apply for
example to a laissez-faire version of the economy of the United States,
or is it only a claim that one could construct situations in which it
would apply?
>Disequilibrium presents the opportunity to make pure economic profits.
>Only with this opportunity could a tendency toward equilibrium exist.
>But these pure profits would be immoral if one was only justified in
>receiving the value of the marginal products of the services of the
>factors one owned.
Suppose after a hurricane someone in another part of the country rents a
truck, fills it with portable generators, takes them to the affected
area, and sells them at a large profit. That, I take it, would be an
example of a profit arising from disequilibrium. It seems to me,
though, that he wouldn't be getting more than the amount that what he
did increased production in the affected area. Otherwise the people
there wouldn't be willing to pay him what they did. What am I missing?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 15 20:39:46 EDT 1994
Article: 25701 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Marginal product (was: Re: Property and the State)
Date: 15 Jun 1994 16:11:20 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <2tnn98$kra@panix.com>
References: <2tmgdp$6r7@samba.oit.unc.edu> <2tn6rh$abt@panix.com> <2tnhof$njn@portal.gmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25701 alt.politics.radical-left:15978 sci.econ:23250
jhal5@mason1.gmu.edu (John M Hall) writes:
>In article <2tn6rh$abt@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>>>She [Joan Robinson] used to say that although individual capital
>>>goods may be productive, ownership of capital is not productive.
>>
>>She's right, of course.
>
>I am not quite ready to accept Robinson's claim
>as factual. The basis for my hesitation is the
>implication that the institution of ownership
>and property makes no positive contibution to
>social interactions, particularly in the sphere
>of production.
The point of my further response was that it is also right that
although ownership of capital may be productive, an individual capital
good (taken by itself) is not. Both individual capital goods and their
ownership can become productive only by becoming part of a system.
Therefore, the productivity of each is a "may" rather than an "is". If
that wasn't clear, I'm not surprised. My writing seems to be getting
foggier ...
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 15 21:58:06 EDT 1994
Article: 25746 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Marginal product (was: Re: Property and the State)
Date: 15 Jun 1994 21:57:55 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <2tobj3$psc@panix.com>
References: <2tn6rh$abt@panix.com> <2tnhof$njn@portal.gmu.edu> <2tnng8$ljf@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25746 alt.politics.radical-left:16028 sci.econ:23266
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I thought the previous participants were talking about
>ownership as practiced by a given owner and as involved in
>a given product, not the whole institution, which is of the
>community or state, not of particular individuals who own.
It seems to me a defense of the institution of private ownership is also
a defense of things necessary for that institution to exist, like the
existence of particular instances of ownership by particular
individuals.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 15 21:59:33 EDT 1994
Article: 25747 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Marginal product (was: Re: Property and the State)
Date: 15 Jun 1994 21:59:20 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <2toblo$qc3@panix.com>
References: <2tnhof$njn@portal.gmu.edu> <2tnng8$ljf@panix.com> <2tnqqq$fus@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25747 alt.politics.radical-left:16029 sci.econ:23267
carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
>It would seem then, that according to the (highly debatable) canon of
>"to each according to his productive contribution," the state should
>receive a share of the product.
The people who protect and enforce property rights (soldiers, policemen,
judges, lawyers) do get paid for their services. Laissez-faire types
generally agree it's appropriate for those who benefit from the services
to pay for them.
>Ownership, however, means essentially that one has the right to
>withhold some object from the use of others.
Why not to use the object for one's own purposes or to trade it for
something to be so used?
>Therefore, the only function an owner-qua-owner has in connection with
>the process of production is that of granting permission to others to
>make use of his property; and granting permission (i.e., refraining
>from exercising one's legal right to withhold) cannot be considered a
>productive activity.
If I have a plot of land and I lease it to a potato farmer instead of
keeping it as a private hunting preserve, it seems to me I've done
something that contributes to the production of potatoes.
> "It is much preferable to speak of capital as having a yield over the
> course of its life in excess of its original cost, than as being
> *productive*. For the only reason why an asset offers a prospect of
> yielding during its life services having an aggregate value greater
> than its initial supply price is because it is *scarce*.... If capital
> becomes less scarce, the excess yield will diminish, without its
> having become less productive -- at least not in the physical sense.
If labor becomes less scarce, then the excess yield to the laborer over
his cost of providing the labor (food, training, transportation to the
place of employment, incidental expenses of employment) will also
diminish without the labor becoming physically less productive. Does
that mean it is preferable not to speak of labor as being productive?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 15 22:02:50 EDT 1994
Article: 25748 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Property and the State (was: Re: "People" qua state)
Date: 15 Jun 1994 22:02:33 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <2tobrp$s3v@panix.com>
References: <2timt5$pav@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <2to1oo$ao7@tequesta.gate.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25748 alt.politics.libertarian:30893 alt.politics.radical-left:16030 alt.society.anarchy:8572
caliban@gate.net (Caliban) writes:
>After all, even choosing not to decide something is in itself a choice
>(to paraphrase a popular song).
Since we couldn't possibly make decisions regarding each of the billions
of things we might possibly decide, isn't this just a fiction? People
aren't in control even of their own lives, but somehow they're expected
to make society fully rational.
Also, this formulation ignores the presence of deciders other than
oneself. Some people believe that if the government could stop
something but doesn't then the government (and voters) have chosen that
thing. I suppose that on the same grounds Booth would have been
responsible for all of Lincoln's actions after that play at Ford Theater
if he had chosen not to bring those actions to a sudden end.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 17 05:18:43 EDT 1994
Article: 6278 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Go Away GOP 'Moderates'!
Date: 16 Jun 1994 20:26:06 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <2tqqiu$18d@panix.com>
References: <14JUN199413060851@sscvx1.ssc.gov> <2tqi7o$ia0@mimsy.cs.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:6278 alt.politics.usa.republican:7130
brad@cfar.umd.edu (Brad Stuart) writes:
>The most likely explanation for the fact that children do better in
>two-parent families is that parents who stay married are better
>parents. Simply preventing parents from divorcing is not going to
>save their disfunctional family, nor will it even improve it.
The question is less what would happen in specific cases if the law on
divorce or anything else were changed than what the world would look
like overall. Once a marriage is hopelessly gone wrong then most
likely a divorce will cut the damage. Similarly, once a 17-year-old
girl who is on bad terms with her mom, herself an unwed mother, has had
an illegitimate child it's quite possible that generous government
support that sets her up in her own apartment will minimize the damage.
That doesn't mean beefing up AFDC benefits is necessarily a good idea.
Similarly, if people know when then get married that it's a very
serious matter, and they'll have to live with whatever situation they
create because divorce won't be a solution, there will be fewer
dysfunctional marriages. On your theory, easier divorce should have
meant better child welfare. That hasn't happened.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 17 05:18:48 EDT 1994
Article: 15653 of talk.philosophy.misc
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Atheism & Moral Foundations (was Re: Q for monotheists)
Date: 16 Jun 1994 20:21:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <2tqqak$hs@panix.com>
References: <1994Jun16.233550.43080@Lehigh.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.atheism:107217 talk.religion.misc:91408 talk.philosophy.misc:15653
In <1994Jun16.233550.43080@Lehigh.EDU> pv02@lehigh.edu (Peter V.Vorobieff) writes:
>>1. Everyone seems to be fascinated with burning at the stake. For
>>what it's worth, the only death by fire deliberately imposed in recent
>>years has been the necklacing semi-sanctioned by the ANC, not a notably
>>religious group, in South Africa (in a good cause, no??).
>Just for the record - to my knowledge, it's done rather by the tribalists.
>ANC just shoot everything that moves.
I thought Winnie Mandela once said something about marching to
liberation "hand in hand, with our matches and our necklaces".
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 17 09:49:46 EDT 1994
Article: 25818 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: On Laws and Society (essay) [long]
Date: 17 Jun 1994 06:21:54 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <2trtg2$86d@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25818 alt.politics.libertarian:31076
tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
> For the purpose of this discussion we will take the last
>answer to be good enough. We are a "cosmic accident". From this
>assumption, we were not created with a meaning, and as such no
>one meaning is intrinsic to our being. However, this does not in
>any way preclude us from inventing a meaning for our lives; quite
>contrary, it makes such an effort absolutely necessary!
I don't see how it's possible to accept something as a meaning and also
to view it as something one has arbitrarily chosen. We sometimes set
goals and then care very much about achieving them, but that's because
the goals we set are connected to goals we already had. We don't create
such things out of nothing. Another way to make the point: you seem to
believe it makes sense to talk about "absolutely necessity" before
accepting any goals or meanings. I don't understand that.
> Keeping an eye on the Natural Selection process which has
>thus far brought the human race to its current state, one might
>easily draw the conclusion that our only goal thus far has been
>the propagation of the species. I will extend that a bit: the
>goal of our society is not only the propagation of the species,
>but also the advancement of the comfort and ease of living
>enjoyed by that species.
If Natural Selection is the key, why not choose struggle and ruthless
elimination of the unfit over comfort and ease of living?
> Present life must work towards the betterment of present and
>future life as well as guarantee the existence of future
>generations.
It's not clear what "betterment" has to do with comfort and ease of
living. Nietzsche thought to the contrary. St. Francis thought to the
contrary. Michael Milken thinks to the contrary. Anything those three
agree on must be true.
> Deal fairly and with openness at all
> times
This is an ideal rather than a law. One might as well have a law "be
good". Any attempt to make such a thing law would be tyrannical.
> Judge no man on a group to which he
> belongs involuntarily (ie, race,
> nationality, gender, age)
What can this mean? Is it a basic law that U.S. citizens can't have
rights under the laws of the U.S. that are different from those of other
people? That sex shouldn't be a criterion when you choose a spouse?
That it's against basic law to have a voting age, a drinking age, a
driving age, an age at which one qualifies for a pension, compulsory
school attendance for children of certain ages, an age of majority?
Never subject any man to a punishment he
does not deserve
This doesn't say anything. What law would violate such a principle?
No single religion may be favored by the
state; all thoughts must be voiced
freely.
You want the state to have laws that favor goals that you say are
absolutely arbitrary, except now you say those goals can't include
religious goals. Why is that? I would think that one arbitrary goal is
as good as another. Suppose it turns out that most people will be more
comfortable and life will go easier if there is a state religion that
people aren't allowed publicly to disagree with?
> The basic laws have mostly been around for a long time.
That's certainly not true of all of them, for example your
antidiscrimination and secular state principles.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 17 16:20:57 EDT 1994
Article: 6281 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Go Away GOP 'Moderates'!
Date: 17 Jun 1994 10:10:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <2tsarv$7f2@panix.com>
References: <2t8l5t$r1r@lucy.infi.net> <2tranl$jvo@tequesta.gate.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:6281 alt.politics.usa.republican:7178
dcitron@gate.net (David H. Citron) writes:
>The following distinction has been made between fascism and socialism:
>F: Govt control, private ownership
>S: Govt control and ownership
>Using this (over-)generalization, the current administration in
>Washington, which sounds socialist, is really more fascist.
I don't think so. Fascism is not primarily an economic system, although
Marxists and other economic determinists view it as such. It's more
concerned with cultural issues such as the decline of social solidarity
and the rise of individual self-seeking and love of comfort and ease in
the modern world. All real problems, I think, except that the fascists
don't have any substantive solution to them, so they treat subordination
to the group and struggle with other groups as ultimate values in
themselves.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 06:35:53 EDT 1994
Article: 25913 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Marginal product (was: Re: Property and the State)
Date: 18 Jun 1994 17:28:25 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <2tvotp$4e1@panix.com>
References: <2tmgdp$6r7@samba.oit.unc.edu> <2tn6rh$abt@panix.com> <2tveao$sjj@samba.oit.unc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:25913 alt.politics.radical-left:16246 sci.econ:23317
Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>> It sounds as if you are saying that we could have twin worlds, both with
>> laissez-faire capitalist systems, with physically the same economic
>> resources and physically the same productive processes but radically
>> different prices that have no tendency to converge.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> do you intend it as a general truth that would apply for
>> example to a laissez-faire version of the economy of the United States,
>> or is it only a claim that one could construct situations in which it
>> would apply?
>
>I do not see that in commenting on your logic I am called to have any
>opinion on the applicability of these models to the "real world," not
>that a laissez-faire U.S. economy is not already a totally theoretical
>abstraction that I have never seen.
You don't have to have or express an opinion on anything. We're all
here to learn, though.
It seems clear that in some situations twin worlds of the sort we are
discussing could exist. For example, if the only possible source of
food and clothing is mastodon carcasses, and it takes two hunters to
kill a mastodon, and two mastodon hunters hunting full time can kill
more than enough mastodons to keep them both hunting at full efficiency
but not enough to make both of them well-fed and warmly-clad, there
would be a range of distributions that would result in the same economic
activity.
Intuitively, it appears that such situations are far more likely to be
important in an economy in which technology is simple, the products and
productive processes are few and fixed, it is difficult to substitute
one input for another, and so on. In America in 1994 that doesn't seem
to be the sort of world we are in. So if you're inclined to identify
"marginal product" with "the fruit of one's labor" (or capital), to say
that it's presumptively what we have a right to, and to think it's what
people tend to get paid in a free market, you would like to know the
chances that the pricing in an actual modern society has an element of
arbitrariness as large as your line of thought seems to suggest. Can
you help me?
>If the owners of all factor services receive the value of their
>marginal products, costs of "production" will exactly equal their
>selling price. Pure economic profit would not exist. Thus the presence
>of pure profit is enough to imply some factor is not receiving the
>value of its marginal product, is "exploited" in A. C. Pigou's
>terminology.
A question of terminology: it sounds like you are using "marginal
product" to mean "marginal product at equilibrium". Is that right? I
have been using it to mean "amount by which the value of production
would have been reduced in the absence of the particular input".
>In disequilibrium, the first agent who is alert enough to notice an
>opportunity, that the price of a generator in Florida exceeds all the
>costs of getting it there, receives a pure profit. That profit cannot
>be said to equal the value of the marginal product of any factor
>service. But some have said, it is just this possibility of obtaining
>pure profits that lies at the basis of a market process that leads to
>equilibrium.
Here what I take to be Chris Auld's view, that noticing a disequilibrium
and moving to bridge the gap is an activity that contributes to
production and therefore is a factor service, seems plausible. What's
wrong with it? Who in the Florida situation didn't get his marginal
product?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 17:21:43 EDT 1994
Article: 1810 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Wild.Boy
Date: 19 Jun 1994 07:56:23 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <2u1bp7$cov@panix.com>
References: <1994Jun19.032902.6909@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>The alternative is to learn French, or German, or Italian, and go to
>Europe and buy the titles in question - there should be quite a few
>kicking around used book stores, if the title is not in print.
There must be buying services for European used books. Anyone know of
any? If no one does I'll try to find some names and add them to the
Resource Lists.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 17:21:45 EDT 1994
Article: 1811 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: FYI -- arbitron ratings
Date: 19 Jun 1994 11:13:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <2u1nbf$rn1@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Relative ratings of selected rant groups, from the USENET readership
report for May 94:
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (megabytes per month)
| | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
| | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
| | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
| | | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V V
413 90000 745 57% 7989 13.1 40% 0.11 1.5% alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
725 68000 565 67% 1072 2.3 36% 0.03 1.1% talk.politics.theory
831 62000 517 52% 2916 2.6 76% 0.03 1.0% alt.politics.libertarian
1509 38000 315 45% 2670 1.9 77% 0.03 0.6% alt.politics.radical-left
1796 31000 255 43% 251 0.2 74% 0.00 0.5% alt.society.conservatism
2204 22000 186 45% 82 0.3 3% 0.01 0.4% alt.revolution.counter
2280 21000 172 35% 15 0.0 50% 0.00 0.3% alt.politics.equality
2520 17000 138 21% 61 0.1 0% 0.00 0.3% alt.feminazis
It turns out, by the way, that a.r.c. has exactly the same arbitron
rating as alt.depression.support. Any idea what that shows?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 17:21:50 EDT 1994
Article: 6290 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Go Away GOP 'Moderates'!
Date: 19 Jun 1994 07:58:25 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <2u1bt1$cto@panix.com>
References: <2tqi7o$ia0@mimsy.cs.umd.edu> <2tqqiu$18d@panix.com> <2tvpod$ink@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:6290 alt.politics.usa.republican:7320
steve-b@access.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> > The question is less what would happen in specific cases if the law
> >on divorce or anything else were changed than what the world would
> >look like overall.
>
> Words for anthill collectivists to live by.
Anthill collectivism is not something that exists within a specific
case. It is a feature of the world overall. So if you want to object
to laws that create it you have to object to their effect in general
rather than the results they give in particular.
If you don't want to be an anthill collectivist you have to reject the
welfare state. In other words, if you want a state that leaves people
alone and makes them responsible for their own lives you can't have a
state that makes sure that no person is injured or disadvantaged by laws
and social institutions. But if the state doesn't try to ensure a good
result in each situation to which its laws apply, then "what would
happen in specific cases" can't be the criterion for a good law.
Instead, some other criterion must be used. I propose the public good,
a.k.a. "what the world would look like overall".
> > Similarly, once a 17-year-old girl who is on bad terms with her mom,
> >herself an unwed mother, has had an illegitimate child it's quite
> >possible that generous government support that sets her up in her
> >own apartment will minimize the damage.
>
> Not at all, since such action replaces individual conscience and
>responsibility with one-size-fits-all government policy
Giving money to a single 17-year-old girl who has a child to look after,
poor relations with the other members of her family, and poor prospects
for making money herself doesn't replace individual conscience and
responsibility with government policy any more than individual
conscience and responsibility would be replaced by the laws of property
if she happened to receive an inheritance. Nonetheless, a government
program that establishes a welfare entitlement for all such girls may
have the unwanted effect. So the key is not what the law does when
specific cases are considered in isolation but the social and moral
world that the law helps create.
> -- just like your idea for forcing marriages to stay together.
On the face of it, marriage ceremonies evince an intention to do
something binding. I don't see why giving effect to that intention
would destroy individual conscience and responsibility.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 17:22:01 EDT 1994
Article: 25929 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Better Work for Less Pay? (was: Re: Is Health Care A Right? (essay))
Date: 19 Jun 1994 08:04:31 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <2u1c8f$dbf@panix.com>
References: <2tqodh$7tj@gwis.circ.gwu.edu> <2tqqoj$1mm@panix.com> <2u08cb$q4d@rtp.vnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.clinton:64411 talk.politics.misc:178610 talk.politics.theory:25929 alt.politics.usa.misc:8331 alt.politics.usa.constitution:8497 alt.politics.libertarian:31348 alt.politics.reform:8173 talk.politics.medicine:7020 alt.politics.radical-left:16286
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> I have it on
> reliable account that Mr. Murray believes that raising
> teachers' salaries is a mistake, and does not lead to the
> best teaching. You see, the best teachers are interested
> in -- well -- higher things. So you don't want to get mere
> money-grubbers trying to pay for the beemer into the fold.
> Let them go broker stocks -- and let the sensitive, the
> humane, the lovers of the art of teaching remain. Better
> work for less money!
The discussion I think you're referring to (in _Pursuit of Happiness_
or whatever the name of the book is) isn't concerned with policy
recommendations. Its purpose is to illustrate some points about human
motivation and moral ecology by describing how in the absence of
government parents might be able to set up an effective educational
system and how that system could be degraded if a rich third party
stepped in and started making grants to improve teachers' salaries.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 17:22:03 EDT 1994
Article: 25949 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Better Work for Less Pay? (was: Re: Is Health Care A Right? (essay))
Date: 19 Jun 1994 11:45:52 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <2u1p7g$1h4@panix.com>
References: <2tqqoj$1mm@panix.com> <2u08cb$q4d@rtp.vnet.net> <2u1c8f$dbf@panix.com> <2u1lm1$o5s@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.clinton:64445 talk.politics.misc:178644 talk.politics.theory:25949 alt.politics.usa.misc:8351 alt.politics.usa.constitution:8517 alt.politics.libertarian:31386 alt.politics.reform:8200 talk.politics.medicine:7049 alt.politics.radical-left:16310
In <2u1lm1$o5s@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Don't you suppose Mr. Murray was _hinting_ something about
>the government, hmmm?
Did he have some agenda regarding the level at which teacher salaries
should be set within the current system that he didn't want to avow
openly? I don't think so. The overall tendency of the book, I think,
was to the effect that a legal regime rather like the one the
libertarians favor would be a good idea for a number of reasons,
including some reasons that many net libertarians don't seem to share.
For example, he thinks that in such a system people would find it less
practical than in a welfare state to base their personal lives solely
on the pursuit of material self-interest. They would need each other
too much. Accordingly, things that are not based on property rights,
exchange, and material self-interest, like public spirit, the family,
and respect for non-material attainments, would be better established
than at present because people who tried to do without them would run
into problems. I think that was the line of thought that his story
about the debauching of a community school system by an outside
grantmaker was intended to illustrate.
>The fact is, though, he might have something. It's a well-
>known fact that simply raising the rewards of an activity do
>not guarantee increased or improved performance of the
>activity.
As always, we agree on everything.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 19:17:26 EDT 1994
Article: 1815 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: "Identity: A Religion for White Racists" (fwd)
Date: 19 Jun 1994 19:15:02 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <2u2jhm$1jv@panix.com>
References: <1994Jun19.170117.3066@newstand.syr.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.revisionism:13498 alt.revolution.counter:1815
clstampe@rodan.syr.edu (Chris Stamper) writes:
> "Christian Identity" is the name of a religious movement
>uniting many of the white supremacist groups in the United States.
Does anyone know how many are involved in the movement or otherwise how
important it is?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 19 19:17:28 EDT 1994
Article: 1816 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Melancholy
Date: 19 Jun 1994 19:16:59 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <2u2jlb$1rj@panix.com>
References: <9406191908.AA14333@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rickertj@athena.cas.Vanderbilt.Edu (John Rickert) writes:
> The German sense of melancholy, particularly as it comes through
>the music of J.S. Bach and the visual arts (of, say, Albrecht
>Duerer), is dense and heavy, very intellectual, and perhaps the most
>despairing outside of Scandanavia.
There was also von Kleist, who killed himself with his fiancee after he
read Kant and realized that he was forever stuck with phenomena and
would never get to the noumena.
>The English seem to be relatively
>free from melancholy, their strain usually taking the form of a
>certain wistfulness.
This seems right. Maybe Thomas Hardy is an example to the contrary. In
his novels he sometimes carries the principle that everything always
goes as badly as possible to the point of silliness.
What about the other British? Irish melancholy is charming, sociable,
alcoholic and ineffectual. Scottish melancholy seems more obstinate and
sordid. Or such is my impression. (I'll accept instruction!)
>The Spanish sense of melancholy is most fascinating to me, and it is
>very evident in their music: Scarlatti and Padre Soler in particular.
>How is one to describe the Spanish sense of melancholy? It is not
>characteristically hot-tempered, although it certainly can be. More
>often than not it is quiet and private to the point of being enigmatic.
Does it involve a hopeless incompatibility between pride and aspiration
on the one hand and sordid reality on the other? Apart from _Don
Quixote_, I remember a beautiful movie I saw a long time ago (I forget
the name) that involved a young and acutely impoverished nobleman and a
boy he took on as his servant but couldn't pay. The nobleman was as
fine and generous a person as anyone could imagine, but he had no money
and part of what made him admirable was his devotion to the code of
honor that kept him from doing anything productive.
Is there anyone who can tell us about Portuguese melancholy? Polish
melancholy? Melancholy Danes?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 20 04:40:03 EDT 1994
Article: 6292 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Go Away GOP 'Moderates'!
Date: 19 Jun 1994 19:22:37 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <2u2jvt$2hv@panix.com>
References: <2tvpod$ink@access3.digex.net> <2u1bt1$cto@panix.com> <2u26h6$ep5@access3.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:6292 alt.politics.usa.republican:7366
steve-b@access.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> > Anthill collectivism is not something that exists within a specific
> >case. It is a feature of the world overall.
>
> What is this supposed to mean?
Anthill collectivism is a characteristic of a social order as a whole
rather than of particular events considered separately. So if you think
a tendency to promote a.c. is an objection to legislation you're using
the general tendencies of the legislation rather than its effect in
individual cases as a criterion.
> > So if you want to object to laws that create it you have to object to
> >their effect in general rather than the results they give in particular.
>
> This is a recipe for abandoning principle in favor of (perceived)
>expediency.
It seems to me that the way to evaluate and defend principles is to
consider what kind of world the principles support. I don't see why
that is a recipe for abandoning principle. There are other methods of
defending principles, of course, such as yelling at people who
disagree. What's your method?
>If you really believe this, you would be in favor of any Statist power
>grab which made a halfway plauible promise of favorable overall
>results.
Why couldn't I adopt principles of limited and constitutional government
after considering what they lead to and what the alternative principles
lead to?
>The issue of what happens to individual liberty in individual
>cases is the only principled criterion for good and just law.
Why do you say that? And how do you derive your principles of
individual liberty and show that they are good without considering what
a social order based on them would be like?
Also, you seem to believe that law can be determined entirely without
reference to the conditions of the time and place and the way of life of
the people. If so, that strikes me as an impractical view. For
starters, liberties conflict, and how it makes sense to resolve the
conflicts will depend on how people live. Mr. A generally has a right
to act as he wants, while Mrs. B has a right not to be subjected against
her will to situations of A's making. Presumably it's OK for A to tap B
on the shoulder and ask her the way to the railroad station, but I can
imagine forms of physical contact that are equally non-injurious but
ought to be illegal. I can't imagine how to distinguish the two without
considering how people feel and the role the various forms of contact
play in people's lives, and such things change from time to time and
can't be decided based on abstract principles.
>Ask the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin, and they'll swear up and down that
>every law they made was for "the public good".
I never read or heard that either ever talked about the public good. No
doubt if it were to their advantage they would swear up and down that
their actions were intended to vindicate individual rights. So what?
>Providing for one's children after one's death _is_ a classic example
>of individual conscience and responsibility.
Who said the girl had to have gotten the legacy from her parents?
Under current law she could get one from someone she had never heard
of. Do you find that aspect of the law objectionable? If not, it
isn't the mere fact that a particular girl with an illegitimate child
gets supported but rather the systemic consequences of supporting all
girls in that situation that is troublesome.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 20 13:02:30 EDT 1994
Article: 18878 of alt.discrimination
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: A long right-wing discussion of discrimination
Date: 20 Jun 1994 07:55:49 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 212
Message-ID: <2u4045$eh5@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
The following represents an attempt to organize and develop my
thoughts on the subject. Comments are welcome. It's long, and I'm
sure some people will find it racist and sexist, so not everyone will
find it worth reading.
People have a natural tendency to feel kinship with fellow members
of groups that have characteristic perceptions, experiences, attitudes,
habits, affiliations, and so on. When membership in such a group
carries benefits with it, and the group is one ("straight white males")
that is difficult or impossible for outsiders to enter, nonmembers often
object to being treated as such. The view that is publicly accepted
today is that such objections are well-founded and failure adequately to
address them is morally inexcusable, at least if the benefits are
anything but idiosyncratic, intangible and personal in nature.
Several methods have been proposed for eliminating or neutralizing
the effects of discrimination of the sort objected to. Of these, I will
discuss affirmative action, pure equal opportunity, and libertarianism.
For the reasons given below, I believe that none of these can come close
to satisfying the objections to exclusiveness without a great deal of
social damage. Of the three, I favor the libertarian approach because
it is least destructive, and because I am less convinced than most that
the objections are well-founded.
1. By "affirmative action" I mean the attempt to equalize benefits
for all groups. Such equalization is hard to achieve, however.
Benefits arise from what members of a group do as well as what is done
to them, so attempts to equalize benefits create resentments and, by
further effects on perceptions and behavior, create new distinctions
that also have to be equalized. For example, if blacks are guaranteed
an equal share of jobs and honors then non-blacks competing for the
remaining jobs and honors will be resentful, talented blacks will feel
less need to compete and their performance will suffer, and honorable
distinctions will confer less honor on blacks than on others because the
common view will be that they stand for less. Affirmative action thus
deals with material issues at the cost of making other aspects of
intergroup relations worse. The deterioration of relations feeds on
itself, since black beneficiaries of affirmative action can justify
their own position only by finding that they are surrounded by powerful
antiblack bias, and they can do so by treating non-black resentment of
affirmative action programs as proof of such bias. Thus, the more
unjust non-blacks consider affirmative action to be the more convinced
blacks become that it is necessary and that an equal share of benefits
is simply their right.
The foregoing argument loses much of its force to the extent
affirmative action only puts blacks in the position they would be in if
they were treated in accordance with their conduct and ability rather
than subjected to arbitrary discrimination. In that case one could
hope that non-blacks would eventually come to understand the
justification for the programs and stop discriminating, so that the
programs would no longer have a function and could be done away with.
Such a defence of affirmative action policies seems implausible,
however. Such policies have required major changes in all institutions
to which they have been applied, including those one would have least
expected to be discriminating. Accordingly, their primary effect can
be to redress arbitrary discrimination only if biases against blacks
are very strong and pervasive. If antiblack bias is so universal and
strong, though, it is hard to understand how the programs could ever
have been adopted.
In addition, there seem to be no grounds other than faith for
believing that lesser black occupational success is mostly due to
current discrimination rather than other factors such as black culture
or lesser average aptitude. Differences between black and non-black
success rates are very large in many of the fields, such as athletics
and the quantitative sciences, where aptitude and performance are most
easily judged and arbitrary discrimination should therefore play the
smallest role. On the other hand, such things as the very high rates
of illegitimacy and crime among blacks, and their low average scores on
intelligence tests, suggest important reasons other than discrimination
for lesser average occupational success.
2. The strict antidiscrimination/equal opportunity approach is to
forbid people to act on feelings of kinship based on common group
membership, at least if the group is thought to be a privileged one. A
problem with this method is that people feel that their membership in
groups of the kind in question is part of what makes them what they are.
That is why discrimination on grounds like race or religion can be
painful, but it is also why it is an extreme measure to tell people that
they can't discriminate -- that is, that in the common affairs of life
they can't associate by preference with those they view as their
fellows. As extreme measures, antidiscrimination laws have been very
difficult to enforce, and in practice the government has fallen back on
affirmative action.
Feelings of kinship based on ethnicity and the like are often
called irrational or worse, but calling them that doesn't make it
reasonable to ignore or try to abolish them. Man is a social animal,
and his good is typically realized through participation in communities
tied together by common history, beliefs, habits, attitudes, and the
like. It is just such ties that give rise to loyalties of the kind that
antidiscrimination laws require people to ignore. Thus, such laws by
their nature require people to ignore and deny affiliations of the kind
that for most people are basic to a good life.
People normally lead a good life through participation in a
particular culture. Cultures differ, and such differences are not
private matters. They are essentially public, because they relate to a
shared way of life that includes a common understanding of what things
are important and a common style of living together. Since ethnic and
religious groups are the primary bearers of culture, to demand that
ethnic and religious affiliation be made irrelevant to publicly
important matters such as government, economic activity, education and
housing is to is to demand that culture be deprived of its essential
functions. The consequences of full compliance with such a demand would
not be liberation from narrowness but rather the destruction of culture
and therefore a descent into public brutality and squalor. The more
diverse society becomes the worse such consequences will be, because
less will remain as a publicly acceptable common culture after
particularisms are excluded.
To be slightly more specific, different groups have different
standards regarding the intangible things that determine how
organizations function. Examples of such things are codes of manners
and standards for the appropriate relationship between individual
initiative and authority. No group's standards can be taken as a
universal ideal, but if there are no particular accepted standards
within an organization it is likely to be more a place for
misunderstanding, conflict, and self-seeking than for effective
cooperation carried on in a manner and spirit that fits it to be part
of a good life for those involved. Accordingly, every successful
organization must be particularistic in the sense that it must have its
own accepted ways. Since the ways of any organization will be far more
compatible with those of some groups than others, and since it will
normally be easier for an organization to deal with people who grow up
with a compatible outlook and habits than people who have to learn them
as adults, it is hard to see how an organization could avoid being more
hospitable to people from some groups than others without destroying
the basis of its own success. To be particularly hospitable to one
group, though, is to discriminate against all others.
Another problem with the strict antidiscrimination/equal
opportunity approach is that some distinctions between groups are
necessary to a successful society. The distinction between the sexes is
the most obvious example. Every known human society has recognized a
difference in function between men and women, with men dominating the
public sphere and positions of formal authority and women dominating
childcare and the domestic sphere. The difference in function, which
corresponds to differences between the sexes in average inclinations and
aptitudes, has made possible stable unions between men and women that
give women the protection and support they need to care for their
children while socializing men's aggressive and domineering impulses.
No substitute for that difference in function has yet become visible,
and it is not clear what such a substitute would look like. The radical
attack that has been mounted in recent years on sex role differentiation
has therefore been an attack on a fundamental principle of social order,
and the consequences we see around us, which are those that should have
been expected, will continue until the attack is abandoned.
3. The libertarian approach in dealing with intergroup relations
is to reduce government regulation. This approach would reduce the
amount or effect of discrimination if the government itself
discriminates, requires discrimination, or forbids people (for example
by imposing licensing requirements or supporting trade unions) to enter
into relationships that undercut advantages conferred on particular
groups. Although this approach would reduce the potential harm, it
would not eliminate discrimination, if only because discrimination is
often functional. Also, since this approach tends to require government
to treat discrimination as legitimate when enforcing contracts and
property rights, to accept it is to abandon the view that discrimination
is by nature a gross evil that should be eradicated.
It is not clear, however, why that view should be retained. The
doctrine that discrimination on racial and similar grounds is a moral
outrage is novel, and its basis has never been made clear. It is said
to deny the human dignity of those discriminated against, but that
seems clearly wrong. We all pick and choose our associates, for good
reasons and bad, without necessarily denying the human dignity of those
we reject. It is also said to inflict material and emotional damage on
those discriminated against. However, so does discrimination on grounds
like incompetence; the issue is therefore in each case whether it is
permitting discrimination or attempting to uproot it that causes more
damage. Modern trends have reduced the potential damage from private
discrimination, since they have made markets more efficient and
therefore made it harder to keep a worker from realizing the full
potential value of his labor. If one employer is biased and unwilling
to employ a worker to his full capacity, another will, and if none will
then a market irrationality has been created that an entrepreneur
(possibly a foreigner or a member of the group subject to
discrimination) can take advantage of. In addition, as discussed above,
(1) a prohibition of discrimination is ineffective without affirmative
action programs, which cause their own problems; (2) prohibiting
discrimination causes damage by forbidding people to carry on the way of
life they prefer among the people to whom they are attached, and such
damage becomes greater as society becomes more diverse; (3) some
discrimination, like that relating to sex roles, seems to serve
important social functions, and (4) it is hard to understand how
antidiscrimination programs could ever get adopted if public attitudes
were such as to justify them.
A final point is that if discrimination means only a lessened
ability to have dealings with members of other communities, as it would
in a libertarian society, then to be subjected to discrimination is
simply to be thrown on one's own resources and challenged to develop
one's own community and way of life. In contrast, to be a member of a
group protected from discrimination can be to see one's own group and
its way of life disintegrate as its most active and capable members
leave it. Contemplation of the history of the Jews since emancipation
or of American blacks since 1964 need not lead to the conclusion that
the legal abolition of discrimination tends to be favorable in all
respects, or even on balance, to the groups that had been subject to it.
Those who believe there is something valuable and irreplaceable in the
separate culture and way of life of such groups will not necessarily
favor measures that if successful will result in their absorption by an
increasingly featureless larger society.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 20 13:02:35 EDT 1994
Article: 1820 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: CR multiculturalism?
Date: 20 Jun 1994 13:02:18 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <2u4i2q$87k@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
What CRs, CR-symps and fellow travelers have paid serious attention to
non-Western thought? I can think of Irving Babbitt, who liked Confucius
and the Buddha, T.S. Eliot (Babbitt's student), and Ezra Pound, who
liked Confucius. Any others?
It seems to me the ENR ought to be interested in Indian thought, since
it's nonmonotheistic, nonuniversalistic (all those gods, goddesses,
castes, cults, and so on), and Aryan to boot, and traditionalists ought
to be interested in Confucianism. Are any of them? If the whole idea
of the counterrevolution is that Western Civ. has taken the wrong turn
or gone too far it would seem natural to take an interest in other
traditions.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 20 17:20:24 EDT 1994
Article: 1821 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 20 Jun 1994 16:46:52 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <2u4v7s$fv0@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Here's the latest version of the FAQ. As always, it's a draft, so
comments are requested, especially from those who think I've
misrepresented their views.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Q - What is the purpose of alt.revolution.counter?
A - The discussion of counterrevolutionary perspectives on society,
politics, culture and religion. The newsgroup was orginally started by
Catholic integrists and others of similar persuasions opposed to the
ideals of the French Revolution and its progeny and attached to
Christianity as the basis for politics and culture. It has developed
into a forum for the discussion of all aspects of counterrevolutionary
and related thought, including American paleoconservatism, the European
New Right, Integrism, Distributism, ethnic nationalism and Southern
Agrarianism.
2. Q - What is a counterrevolutionary?
A - One who believes that the leftward trend of recent times (some
view "recent times" as extending back to the Middle Ages), which has
established egalitarian hedonism as the guiding principle of almost all
present-day political discussion and institutions, has become
irredeemably destructive. As a result, conservatism is no longer
tenable; fundamental changes in the direction of society are required.
3. Q - What do counterrevolutionaries oppose?
A - In general, they oppose the tendency of modern society to take
nothing seriously other than on the one hand the impulses and desires
particular individuals happen to have, and on the other the
establishment and maintenance of a universal rational order designed to
organize all available resources for the maximum equal satisfaction of
those impulses and desires. The modern order is universalistic,
materialistic, egalitarian, and hedonistic, and counterrevolutionaries
don't like any part of it.
4. Q - What do counterrevolutionaries favor?
A - The things that don't fit into the foregoing scheme of things:
the Good, the Beautiful, the True, God, love, loyalty, family, local and
ethnic particularity, and so on.
5. Q - Are all counterrevolutionaries the same?
A - No. Major schools of thought include:
a. American Paleoconservatism. Bring back the pre-1861 (or at
least pre-FDR) republic. Down with the neoconservative revistionists
and other left-wing deviationalists. Keep government small, limited and
local. Bring back the Protestant ethic. Build communities of
individualists. (Typical query from other counterrevolutionaries:
isn't the present situation a necessary outcome of the thought of John
Locke and Thomas Jefferson?)
b. European New Right. Down with all universalisms. Long live
the Europe of 100 flags, the Fourth World, and polytheism. What we need
is a fundamental shift in our collective consciousness and basic
philosophical and epistemological foundations. (Typical query: exactly
what does this all mean? Is this the wish list from outer space, or is
there something to take seriously?)
c. Ethnic nationalism. A politically independent and
geographically separate state as the vehicle for the collective life of
each people. (Typical query: isn't partitioning a state on ethnic lines
messy when transfers of populations are required? Also, once there are
separate ethnic states, what then? If we're looking for a fundamental
political attitude, can ethnic nationalism really fit the bill?)
d. Integrism. Long live Christ the King!
e. Distributivism. Decentralize economically. Promote small
business. Build a nation of independent property owners.
6. Q - Are counterrevolutionaries racist sexist homophobes?
A - As a general thing, yes. They tend to think that socially-
defined sex roles and ethnic loyalties are OK, and so qualify on all
three counts.
7. Q - My ex-wife in Ulan Bator wants to join a.r.c. so she can
discuss her plans for bringing back the Mongol Empire, only with more of
a theocratic emphasis. She has Internet email but not Usenet access.
What can she do?
A - She should send email to jk@panix.com asking for a connection
to the a.r.c. mail gateway.
8. Q - How can I find out more?
A - Listen to the discussions, join in if you wish, and take a look
at the associated posting containing the a.r.c. Resource Lists.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 20 17:20:25 EDT 1994
Article: 1822 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: a.r.c. Resource Lists
Date: 20 Jun 1994 16:49:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 1825
Message-ID: <2u4vcd$gjd@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Here are revised and updated Resource Lists. New material is marked
with a "#". As always, additions and comments are welcome.
RESOURCE LISTS
The purpose of the lists is to help users explore and study
counterrevolutionary and related thought in all its forms. They have
grown through contributions from a number of sources, are not at all
balanced, and include material many people find objectionable. Let me
know if there is something you think should be added. The brief
descriptions are from a number of sources and often reflect the views of
the contributor or of the publication itself rather than any neutral
judgment.
One reader suggested adding the following writers:
#Taylor Caldwell
#Charles Coughlin
#Robert Welch
##Fisher Ames
#Anthony Sutton
#Cleon Skousen
Any suggested titles?
Table of Contents:
Books & Articles
Journals
Organizations
Book Stores & Mail Order Services
BOOKS & ARTICLES INDEX
Table of Contents:
General
Books
Articles
Other Sources
Christian Counter-Revolution
Christian Society
History & Biographies.
History of the Revolution
United Nations, New World Order, Communism, and Other Conspiracies
Catholic Traditionalism
Monarchism
Distributism, Economics
Southern Agrarians
European New Right
Third Positionist
Populist, Nationalist, White Separatist, and Beyond
Literature
Miscellaneous
GENERAL: books
Aquinas, Thomas. _Works_. [selection of his political writings]
Aristotle. _Ethics_ and _Politics_.
Aurelius, Marcus. _Meditations_.
Babbitt, Irving. _Democracy and Leadership_ and _Rousseau and
Romanticism_. An analysis of modern cultural and spiritual
tendencies and proposed remedies.
Frank Bryan and John McClaughry. _The Vermont Papers_ (Post Mills, VT:
Chelsea Green Publishing Company 1989). A neo-anti-federalist
program for the 1990s covering issues ranging from agriculture and
administration to land-use and education.
Burke, Edmund. _Reflections on the Revolution in France_.
Burnham, James. _The Suicide of the West_ (1965); _The Managerial
Revolution (1941). Antecedents to Burnham''s theory of
bureaucratic elites set forth in the latter book are Vilfredo
Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels.
Confucius. _Analects_. An example of tradition-based thought at its
best.
Eliot, T.S. _Notes toward the Definition of Culture_.
Kendall, Willmore, _The Conservative Affirmation in America_ (available
from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute); _Willmoore Kendall
Contra Mundum_.
Locke, John. _Second Treatise of Government_. Should we follow most
American conservatives and retain Locke because he inspired the
American order or reject him as part of the liberal tradition?
Ludovici, Anthony. _Defense of Aristocracy: A Text Book for Tories_
(1915) London: Constable; _A Defense of Conservatism: A Further
Text-Book for Tories_ (1921) London: Faber and Gwyer.
Maistre, Joseph de. _Works_. The most admired French
counterrevolutionary thinker.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. _After Virtue_ (Notre Dame, 1981). An exploration
of the collapse of moral order in the modern period.
Marx, Karl. _Works_. If you want to understand the revolution, you
have to read him.
Molnar, Thomas. _The Counter-Revolution_ (Funk & Wagnalls, 1969). A
general study of counterrevolutionary thought and the reasons for
its pragmatic failure.
#Alfred Jay Nock. _Our Enemy the State_.
Ortega y Gasett, Jose. _Revolt of the Masses_.
Lord Percy of Newcastle: The Heresy of Democracy. A study in the History
of Government (London, 1954). A conservative criticism of the new
Democracy of 1789 which puts forward the alternative of the Moral
State based on Dualism as opposed to Totalism.
Plato. _Republic_ and _Laws_. Among its excellencies the _Republic_
includes (in books viii and ix) a penetrating account of social and
political evolution, from military aristocracy through commercial
oligarchy to democratic consumer society and then to tyranny.
Rousseau, J.-J. _Social Contract_ and other writings.
Schmitt, Carl. _The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy_ (MIT Press
1992), _Political Theology_ (MIT Press 1988), _Political
Romanticism_ (MIT Press 1986). Also see Carl Schmitt: Politics
and Theory, by Paul Gottfried (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990),
and recent English language articles on Carl Schmitt in TELOS and
POLITICAL THEORY.
Roger Scruton. _The Philospher on Dover beach_ (essays) and _The
Meaning of Conservatism_ (the first edition is more CR than the
second).
Spengler, Oswald. _Decline of the West_.
Stephen, James FitzJames. _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. _Democracy in America_.
Voegelin, Eric. _The New Science of Politics_.
GENERAL: Articles
Berlin, Isaiah. "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism", in _The
Crooked Timber of Humanity_.
John Grigg: Nobility & War, _Encounter_ March 1990 Vol. 74 No. 2
An interesting discussion on whether Britain was more or less
moral in the First or the Second World War.
Wilmoore Kendall. "The People of Athens vs Socrates Revisited"; "The
Two Majorities" (_Midwest Journal of Political Science_, Nov. 1960,
pp. 317-345); "John Locke Revisited" (_Intercollegiate Review_,
Jan.-Feb. 1966 pp. 217-234); "The People versus Socrates
Revisited" _Modern Age_ (Winter 58-59, pp. 98-111).
GENERAL: Other Sources
_Guide to the American Right_, compiled by Laird Wilcox (Editorial
Research Service, PO Box 2047, Olath, KS 66061). $24.95.
A directory (updated annually) of over 3,300 anti-communist,
conservative, patriotic, tax protest, pro-family, libertarian,
ethnic (white) nationalist and other "right-wing" organizations,
publishers, book dealers, newsletters, and journals in the United
States and Canada. Listings are coded to indicate special areas of
interest and serials are cross-indexed with sponsoring
organizations. Includes a bibliography of over 540 books on the
American "right-wing".
Louis Filler: A Dictionary of American Conservatism (Citadel Press,
Secaucus, NJ, 1988). Not quite as complete a guide as the blurb
claims, but still a useful reference for mainstream American
conservatism (especially for non-Americans). The coverage is
varied and not just limited to America - there is an article on
Belloc (but not on Distributism).
Ciaran o Maolain: The Radical Right: A World Directory (A Keesing's
Reference Publication, Longman Group, UK, 1987). Somewhat dated,
this work is a directory of groups and organisations considered by
the author to be right-wing, ranging from Anti-Communist to
Monarchist to White Supremacist to Mainstream right-wing political
parties. The author is fairly obviously biased against these
groups. The information provided for the various groups included
is often out-of-date and incomplete (even when such information
would be reasonably easy to find).
CHRISTIAN COUNTER-REVOLUTION
#James Aho: _The Politics of Righteousness_ (1990, University of
Washington Press)
Hugh Akins: Christian Order and the Modern World
G.K. Chesterton: What's Wrong with the World? (1910)
Discusses the family, imperialism, feminism, education.
Corneliu Codreanu: For My Legionaries.
The story of the Iron Guard in Romania as told by its leader.
Many are still inspired by this book.
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Revolution and Counter Revolution
An inspired analysis of the forms that the Revolution has taken
and an examination of valid Counter Revolutionary responses.
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: What does Self-Managing Socialism mean for
Communism - A Barrier? Or a Bridgehead? Crusade for a Christian
Civilization Vol 12 No 3 Apr-Jun 1982).
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Unperceived Idelological Transshipment and
Dialogue (also > Crusade for a Christian Civilization Vol 12 No. 2,
Oct-Dec 1982 originally Port. Baldeaco Ideologica Inadvertida e
Dialogo)
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Indian Tribalism, the Communist-Missionary
Ideal for Brazil in the Twent-First Century (also > Crusade for a
Christian Civilization Vol. 10 No. 4 / Vol. 11 No. 1 (joint
publication)
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Agrarian Reform - A Question of Conscience
Shows how socialist agrarian reform offends against Catholic
doctrine.
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: In Defense of Catholic Action
An attack on the infiltration of progressive ideology with the
Catholic Church.
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: What does Self-managing Socialism Mean for
Communism - A Barrier or a Bridgehead? > (1) Crusade for a
Christian Civilization Vol 12 No 3 April-June 1992; (2) The
Washington Post 9 Dec., 1981; (3) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
9 Dec., 1981
Examines the implications of the policy of self-managing
socialism in France.
Rev. Denis Fahey: The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (3rd ed.
1939, rpd Omni Publications, Hawthorne California, 1987)
An extremely important book for all concerned with restoring
the Social Reign of Christus Rex (Christ the King).
Rev. Denis Fahey: The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the
Jewish Nation.
Rev. Denis Fahey: The Social Rights of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ the
King
Rev. Denis Fahey: The Kingship of Christ According to the Principles of
St Thomas Aquinas
Solange Hertz: The Start Spangled Heresy - Americanism (Veritas
Press, Santa Monica, CA)
Traces the source of many ills such as democratism,
revolutionary liberalism and religious pluralism in the
contemporary Church to the influence of the heresy of
Americanism (that the liberal and democractic assumptions of the
USA should be applied to the Church) on the Second Vatican Council.
Douglas Jerrold: The Necessity of Freedom. Notes on Christianity and
Politics (London, 1939)
Concerns the restoration of Christian authority and freedom
against the ideas of 1789.
James Hitchcock: Years of Crisis. Collected Essays, 1970-1983
(Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1985)
Discusses many topics affecting Christianity in general and
Catholicism in particular in an increasing secular modern
America.
C.S. Lewis: The Abolition of Man
Rev. Praniatis: The Talmud Unmasked.
An examination of the Talmud and its anti-Christian basis.
ed Avril Smith: The Voice of Christian Affirmation
Thirteen talks given at conferences of the Christian Affirmation
Campaign 1974-1986. (Christian Heritage Publications, Worthing, 1987)
Includes talks by Michael Davies, Hamish Fraser, Rev. Arthur Lewis,
Ray Honeyford, Prof Dr Peter Beyerhaus, Edmund Ball, Rev Francis Moss,
John Braine, Rev Maurice cartledge, John Gouriet, Ian Thompson
on a variety of subjects.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Rebuilding Russia (1990)
How Russia can be reconstructed.
Tradition, Family & Property: Half a Century of Epic Anti-Communism (New
York, 1981). The history of the founding of the TFPs and their
campaigns for a Christian society.
Marion Michael Walsh: The New Christendom. How We will Build It
Marion Michael Walsh: A Manual of Christian Social-Political Action
The Christian Law Institute Position Papers, Releases and Reports
CHRISTIAN SOCIETY
Alan J. Barron: _The Death of Eve_
The effects of "women's liberation" on Western society.
Attacks the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination Against Women and "equal opportunities".
Hilaire Belloc: _The Jews_
An examination of the causes of friction between Gentile and
Jew.
L. Brent Bozell: _Mustard Seeds_ (Trinity Communications).
Carlos Patricio del Campo: _Is Brazil Sliding Toward the Extreme Left?_
How left-wing policies threaten to ruin the properity of
Brazil.
Homer Duncan: _Secular Humanism_. On Anti-Christian secular education.
Rev. Denis Fahey: _Money Manipulation and Social Order_
Rev. Denis Fahey: _The Church and Farming_
Grady: Abortion - _Yes or No?_ Pro-life booklet which sets out the case
against abortion.
Fr. Francis Marsden: _Weaving a Web of Confusion_ (Parents' Concern,
16 St Mary Court, Faversham, Kent ME13 8AZ, 2.50 pounds).
A booklet examining the failure of current religious syllabi to
actually teach the Catholic faith in favour of false religions.
Malcolm Muggeridge: _Great Liberal Deathwish_
David Thompson: _Green Hoax_
An attack on the hoax of the greenhouse effect.
HISTORY & BIOGRAPHIES
Books by counterrevolutionaries, about counterrevolutionaries and
studies of the Revolution and Counterrevolution in action.
Carlos de Arce: _Los Generales de Franco_ (Barcelona, 1984)
An account of the generals who fought on the Nationalist side
during the Spanish Crusade.
D. Bacu: _The Anti-Humans_
The story of the Romanians who had followed Cornelie Codreanu
after the Bolseheviks took power.
Luis Bolin: _Spain - The Vital Years_ (J.B. Lippincott Company, 1967)
The account of the author's participation in the Spanish
Crusade (a.k.a. Spanish Civil War) including his part in aiding
Franco at the start of the war.
Salvador Borrego: _Puzzling Neighbours - A Historical Guide to
Understanding Modern Mexico_
An account of how Masonic forces have attacked and weakened
Mexico.
G.K. Chesterton: _Autobiography_
Corneliu Codreanu: _Nest Leaders Manual_
Organisational handbook of the Iron Guard.
Corneliu Codreanu: _Circulars & Manifestoes_
It records the victories and defeats, bitterness and pain, hopes
and joys, but always the moral brilliance and the honour of the
man who led the Legion.
Barbara Cole: _The Elite - The Story of the Rhodesian Special Air
Service_.
The story of this crack anti-terrorist unit during the Rhodesian
struggle against Communism.
Jay P. Corrins: _GK Chesterton & Hilaire Belloc. The Battle Against
Modernity_ (Ohio, 1981)
Ian Crowther: _ G.K. Chesterton_ (Thinkers of Our Time, The Claridge Press,
London, 1991)
An introduction to Chesterton and his philosophy concentrating
on his Christian worldview and its relevance today.
Donald Day: _Onward Christian Soldiers_
A correspondent for The Chicago Tribune in Europe, Day reports
on the Bolshevik subversion in the Baltic states before and
during the Second World War.
Leon Degrelle: _Persiste et Signe. Interviews recueilles pour la
television francaise par Jean-Michel Charlier_ (Editions Jean
Picollec, Paris, 1985).
In a series of interviews, Leon Degrelle details his youth, his
activities as the leader of Rex in Belgium, his struggle during
the war and his subsequent exile in Spain.
Leon Degrelle: _Campaign in Russia_
A more detailed account of Degrelle's campaigns in Russia as a
political soldier.
Leon Degrelle: _Letter to the Pope on his Visit to Auschwitz_
Leon Degrelle: _Hitler - Born at Versailles_.
Traces the causes and results of the First World War in the
shaping of the 20th century.
F.C.C Egerton: _Salazar. Rebuilder of Portugal_ (London, 1943)
A description of the Portugese state and its ruler Antonio de
Oliveira Salazar.
Mike Hoare: _Congo Mercenary_ (London, 1967)
An account of the campaign against the communist rebellion in
the Congo (shortly after the UN suppression of Katanga) by 'Mad
Mike', the leader of the mercenaries.
Michael Ffinch: _G.K. Chesterton. A Biography_ (London, 1986)
W. Foss & C. Gerahty: _The Spanish Arena_ (Catholic Book Club, London)
A contemporary account of the Spanish Crusade.
L. Fry: _Waters Flowing Eastward_
Eye-witness account of the Bolshevik Revolution and its causes.
Solange Hertz: _Dicovering Cristabal Colon_ (Supplement to Apropos No 12)
Seeking the real Christopher Columbus amongst the lies and
detractions of his enemies.
David Irving: _Uprising! - One Nations Nightmare: Hungary 1956_
The story of the revolt of the Hunagrian people against
the Communist regime.
Siegfried Kappe-Hardenberg: _Ein Mythos wird Zerstoert - Der Spanische
Buergerkrieg, Guernica, und di Antideutsche Propaganda_
A refutation of the myth of Guernica as portrayed by the Red
propaganda campaign.
Michael Kenny S.J.: _No God Next Door - Red Rule in Mexico and Our
Responsibility_ (Wm. J. Hirten Co, 1935; rpd C.S.G. & Associates
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA)
First published in 1935, this book has been recently reissued.
It describes the sufferings of the Cristeros inflicted by the
Masonic-Socialist alliance (with American backing).
Jesus Salas Larrazabal: _Guernica_ (Libros de Historia 22, Ediciones Rialp,
Madrid, 1987)
Examines the myth of Guernica from a neutral viewpoint and
concludes that the actual facts of the bombing raid bear no
relation to what was later reported outside the local area in a
world-wide propaganda campaign.
Father Arthur Lewis: _Christian Terror_
Details communist terrorist atrocities during the Rhodesian
bush war and the financial backing given to the perpetrators by
the World Council of Churches.
Hon. Mrs Maxwell-Scott: _Garcia Moren~o, the Regenerator of Ecuador_
Geoffrey Moss (Major Geoffrey McNeil-Moss): _The Epic of the Alcazar_.
A History of the Siege of the Toledo Alcazar, 1936 (London,
1937)
A daya-by-day account of this famous siege during the Spanish
Crusade.
Eustace Mullins: _Ezra Pound - This Difficult Individual_
An insight into 'the most difficult years of this difficult
individual'.
Ezra Pound (ed DD Paige): _Selected Letters 1907-1941P
Ezra Pound: _Selected Prose 1909-1965_
A selection of Pounds political and literary writings. Includes
_ABC of Economic_, _Murder by Capital_, _National Culture -
A Manifesto_ and commentaries on Eliot, Buchan and others.
Tolstoy: _Victims of Yalta_.
How anti-Communist fighters were repatriated by the British
after the war to face torture and death.
Maisie Ward: _Gilbert Keith Chesterton_ (London, 1944)
The official authorised biography.
E. Waugh: _Robbery under Law - the Mexican Object-Lesson_ (Catholic
Book Club, London, 1940)
A sketch of Mexico during the 1930's detailing the attacks on
private property and the Church.
Robert Wilson: _Last Days of the Romanovs_ (first 1920; updated ed, ?)
An investigation by a journalist into the murder of Czar
Nicholas and his family. With a modern introduction and
appendix by Ivor Benson.
HISTORY OF THE REVOLUTION
D. Manifold: Karl Marx - True or False Prophet?
A critical analysis of the life of Karl Marx and his part in the
Revolution.
Nesta H. Webster: The French Revolution
The causes and effects of the French Revolution - corrects many
misunderstandings.
Nesta H. Webster: The Socialist Network (London, 1926)
The links between socialist organisations and people.
Probably somehat dated to be of more than historical use.
Nesta H. Webster: Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (1924, rpd
Christian Book Club of America, 197?)
An account of masonic and other subversive movements from the
Middle Ages to the early Twentieth Century.
Nesta H. Webster: World Revolution. The Plcot against Civilization
(London, 1921)
Details the links between the Illuminati, the French
Revolution and their modern ideological descendants.
Nesta H. Webster: Surrender of an Empire (3rd edition, 1931)
Details the attacks launched against the British Empire in
order to bring abouts its downfall as a stumbling block to
Communist expansion.
UNITED NATIONS, NEW WORLD ORDER, COMMUNISM, AND OTHER CONSPIRACIES
Is the Revolution simply a series of unconnected waves in society? Are
there philosophical connexions between the different directions and
emphases of the Revolution? Or is there a guiding hand behind the
scenes? Many of the books in this section will not be to everyone's
taste.
Gary Allen: Done Dare Call it Conspiracy
The secrets behind the World Revolution and the hidden
financial influences of manipulators behind the scenes.
Gary Allen: Say 'No' to the New World Order
How the West has helped Communist regimes.
Ivor Benson: The Zionist factor
An examination of the Zionist impact on the 20th century.
James Billington: Fire in the Minds of Men - Origins of the
Revolutionary Faith (1980)
Discloses the part played by Illuminism in the French and
Bolshevik Revolutions.
Eric D. Butler: Red Pattern of World Conquest (1961)
An examination of the UN and the One World Government.
AK Chesterton: The New Unhappy Lords
GK's cousin examines international finance and the power it is
able to obtain and the global assault on Nationalism.
AK Chesterton: Facing The Abyss
The treason within our governments in their support for a "world
order".
ed Ronald Duncan & Colin Wilson: Marx Refuted. The Verdict of History
(Ashgrive Press, Bath, 1987)
A selection of anti-Marxist writings from a variety of (mainly
liberal-conservative) viewpoints including Hayek, Thatcher,
Flew, Rowse, Solzhenitsyn,
Paul Findley: They Dare to Speak Out
An examination of the powerful Zionist lobby in American
politics.
G, Edward Griffin: The Fearful Master. A Second Look at the United
Nations (1964).
Attacks the double standards guiding the UN. Uses Katanga as a
case study in which the UN troops inflicted atrocities as they
crushed the attempt by Katanga to become an independent state
from the rest of the Belgian Congo.
Rev W. Hannah: Darkness Visible
An expose of the evils of Freemasonry.
Douglas Hyde: I believed. The autobiography of a Former British
Communist (London, 1950)
The story of a communist and his work and his eventual
conversion to Catholicism.
Inter-City Researchers: The Longest Hatred. An Examination of
Anti-Gentilism (London, 1991)
This booklet looks at the phenomenon of anti-gentilism.
Kitty Little: Mammon versus God. The Bankers "New World" Disorder
(London, 1993)
This booklet [30pp] examines usury, the power of international
finance over national governments and the undermining of
civilization.
Stephen Knight: The Brotherhood
A mainstream examination of Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry.
Arthur Koestler: The Thirteenth Tribe
Shows that the majority of Jews are in fact descended from the
Khazar tribe which converted to Judaism.
Robert W. Lee: United Nations Conspiracy
The real purpose of the UN.
Alfred Lilienthal: Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace?
Israel and the Zionist lobby examined from a critical
viewpoint of an Anti-Zionist Jew.
Deirdre Manifold: Karl Marx - A Prophet of Our Time (CSG & Associates
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA)
A concise history of Marx, his Satanic doctrine and its effects
including the Church through the medium of Liberation Theology.
Deirdre Manifold: Fatima and the Great Conspiracy
Sketches the destruction of civilisation, the forces
responsible and an answer to the malaise.
Deirdre Manifold: Towards World Government - New World Order (Firinne
Publications, Galway)
Analyses what lies behind the changes in Russia. A sequel to
Fatima and the Great Conspiracy.
Count Leon de Poncins: State Secrets
A selection of state documents which illustrate some of the
forces which have shaped this century.
Count Leon de Poncins: Secret Powers behind Revolution
A study of the influences behind modern revolution and
subversion.
Prof Carroll Quigley: Tragedy & Hope
An 'insider's view on the global money-power and how governments
are manipulated.
Captain A.H. Ramsey: The Nameless War
Details the secret war against Europe. The author was gaoled
during the 1940's without charge despite being a Conservative
Member of Parliament.
Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion
This book reveals the real nature of Zionism.
Bernard Smith: The Fraudulent Gospel. Politics and the World Council
of Churches (new edition, 1990)
The World Council of Churches and its support for communist
terrorism in Africa - this book gives the facts about the WCC's
political activities. This is a recent edition of a book first
issued some years ago.
Bernard Smith: The Crooked Conscience
Another work on the World Council of Churches and its support
for communism in Africa.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West
Contains 4 speeches from 1975 & 1978 warning of the real nature
of the Soviet Union and the moral weakness of the West.
Stuart: The Beast in the Temple
An account of the world-wide corruption of morality and good
order in society.
Stuart: The Lemming Folk.
A study of the enemy within Western society that seeks its
destruction.
Prince Michael Sturdza: Betrayal by Rulers
The betrayals by Western rulers since the Second World War.
Richard Wurmbrand: Was Karl Marx a Satanist? (1976)
Argues that there is evidence that Marx and other communist
leaders were Satanists rather than Atheists as commonly
accepted.
CATHOLIC TRADITIONALISM
Hilaire Belloc: Survivals and New Arrivals (London, 1929, rpd 1939)
An examination of lines of attack used against the Church, both
old and new.
GK Chesterton: Orthodoxy
An explanation of Chesteron's belief in Christianity.
Piers Compton: The Broken Cross
Masonic infiltration within the Vatican. Some of the claims made
in this book should be treated with care.
Michael Davies: Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Part I 1905-1976 (The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1979)
Part II 1977-1979 (The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1983)
A detailed 'blow-by-blow' account of the dispute between the
former traditionalist Archbishop and the Vatican.
Michael Davies: An Open Letter to a Bishop on the
Development of the Roman Rite (Chulmleigh,Devon, 1980)
Michael Davies: A Privilege of the Ordained (The Angelus
Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1982)
Michael Davies: The Goldfish Bowl: The Church Since
Vatican II (The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1985)
Michael Davies: St Athanasius. Defender of the Faith
(The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1985)
Michael Davies: The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass
(The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1982)
Michael Davies: The Catechetical Revolution. Blessing or
Disaster (The Antony Roper Memorial Lecture, 1984)
Michael Davies: Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious
Liberty (Augustine Publishing Co, Chulmleigh, Devon, 1980)
The above 7 booklets by Michael Davies deal with the
contemporary crisis in the Church in the wake of Vatican 2 and
related matters.
Michael Davies: The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty
(Neumann Press, Long Prairie, Minnesota)
Examines how the traditional teaching of the Church on religious
liberty was distorted at the Second vatican Council under the
influence of Americanism amongst others.
Marcel Lefebvre: A Bishop Speaks
Marcel Lefebvre: An Open Letter to Confused Catholics
(tr The Society of St Pius X - Great Britain, Angelus
Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1987)
Marcel Lefebvre: They Have Uncrowned Him. From
Liberalism to Apostasy. The Conciliar Tragedy (tr
Reverend Father Gregory Post, Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1988)
Count Leon de Poncins: Judaism and the Vatican
Describes the eternal conflict between Judaism and Christianity
and how the 2nd Vatican Council was affected.
Count Leon de Poncins: Freemasonry and the Vatican
The secret Freemasonic attacks on the Church.
MONARCHIST
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in
the Allocutions of Pius XII
Yves Dupont: More about the Great Monarch (Tenet Books, Hawthorne,
Australia)
John Farthing: Freedom wears a Crown (Toronto, 1957)
A presentation of the constitutional power and significance
of the British Crown. A study of constitutional monarchy.
Marquis de la Franquerie: Le Caractere Sacre et Divin de la Royaute en
France (Editions de Chire, Vouille, 1978)
Marquis de la Franquerie: Louis XVI le Roi Martyr (Editions Resiac,
Montsurs, 1974)
Solange Hertz: The Strange Spirit of '76 (Big Rock Papers, 1975)
Solange Hertz: The Thought of His Heart (Big Rock Papers, 1975)
Solange Hertz: Louis XVI, Royal Martyr and Victim (Big Rock Papers, 1979)
DISTRIBUTISM, ECONOMICS
Hilaire Belloc: The Servile State (1912)
An attack on socialism and statism.
Hilaire Belloc: Restoration of Property (1936)
An essay [78pp] which argues against both Communism and Capitalism.
Hilaire Belloc: The Alternative
An reprinted article originally from _St George's Review_ which
explains that socialism is no alternative to capitalism and that
puts the case for distributism.
G.K. Chesterton: The Outline of Sanity
Classic Distributist work. Argues for the wide-spread ownership
of property as the economic way forward which will preserve
the individual and family.
Rev. Cleary: The Church & Usury
The history of the opposition of the Church to usury.
Cobbett: Cottage Economy
The alternative to the concentration of economic wealth and
power in the hands of a few - small businesses and a return to
honesty and craftsmanship.
Rev. Charles Coughlin: Money - Questions and Answers
Father Coughlin, the famous "radio priest" answers questions on
money.
Rev. Denis Fahey: Workingmen's Guilds of the Middle Ages
Olive & Jan Grubiak: The Guernsey Experiment.
A booklet [25pp] on how Guernsey freed itself from usury
and high taxation.
Aidan MacKay: Hilaire Belloc and his Critics
Available from the GK Chesterton Study Centre - vide list of
organisations. An introduction to Hilaire Belloc and
Distributism in booklet form [26pp].
Aidan MacKay: The Wisdom of G.K. Chesterton
A short introduction [15pp] to Chesterton and his Distributist
ideals.
E.F. Schumacher: Small is Beautiful
The anti-social effects of big business and the need for small
family properties.
E.F. Schumacher: A Guide for the Perplexed
E. Soddy: Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Reality
A study of money and credit.
SOUTHERN AGRARIANS
_Twelve Southerners: I'll Take My Stand_.
The twelve Southerners consisted of Donald Davidson, John Gould
Fletcher, H.B. Kline, Lyle H. Lanier, Stark Young, Allen Tate, Andrew
Nelson Lytle, H.C. Nixon, F.L. Owsley, John Crowe Ranson, John Donald
Wade, and Robert Penn Warren.
# Calhoun, John C. 1992. _The Papers of John C. Calhoun_.
ed. Clyde Wilson, New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.
# DeRosa, Marshal L. 1991. _The Confederate Constitution of 1861_
University of Missouri Press.
ed William C. Harvard & Walter Sullivan: A Book of Prophets (1982)
# Kirk, Russell 1978. _John Randlph of Roanoke: A Study in American
Politics_ Indiapolis: Liberty Press.
Thomas D. Young: Waking their Neighbours Up (1982)
# Weaver, Richard M. 1991. _The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver_.
ed. George M. Curtis and James J. Thompson. Indianapolis: Liberty
Fund.
ed Clyde Wilson: Why the South will Survive (1981)
EUROPEAN NEW RIGHT
Alain de Benoist:
_Vu de Droite, Copernic 1977
_Les Idees a L'Endroit_, Libres-Hallier 1979
_Comment peut-on etre Paien?_, Albin Michel 1971
_Les Traditions d'Europe, Labyrinthe 1982
_L'Eclipse du Sacre, Table Ronde 1986
_Eroope, Tiers Monde: Meme Combat, Robert Laffont 1986
#John Casey, _Pagan Virtues_. Casey is 'old right' in English terms and
#had quite a lot to do with the Salisbury Review in its earlier days.
#His book has no specific connection with the ENR, but is mentioned here
#because of the ENR interest in paganism. He argues that there are
#'Pagan' (Classical world) virtues different from those engendered by
#Christianity and worth considering seriously.
Tomislav Sunic, _Against Democracy and Equality: the European New
Right_, Lang 1990.
See also under G.R.E.C.E. in Bookstores (France).
THIRD POSITIONIST
Derek Holland: Political Soldier 1
Explains why the Nationalist militant must strive to become the
Political Soldier needed to fight corruption and save Europe.
Derek Holland: Political Soldier 2
Thoughs on struggle and sacrifice. For those who wish to fight
for Tradition and Order.
International Third Position: A Third Positionist Reader.
Contains 5 extracts on the family, economics, Palestine,
Codreanu and the 'Rural Revolution'. Useful as a cheap
introduction to the policies of the ITP, but fairly limited if
the reader is already familiar with these topics.
POPULIST, NATIONALIST, WHITE SEPARATIST, AND BEYOND
Eric D. Butler: Truth About the Australian League of Rights (1985)
A response to attacks on the Australian League of Rights.
Roy Clews: To Dream of Freedom
Details the campaigns of the Movement for the Defence of Wales
and the Free Wales Army during the 1960s.
#Kevin Flynn and Gary Gerhardt: The Silent Brotherhood: Inside
America's Racist Underground
Hearne: ABC of the Welsh Revolution
Although based on Wales, the ideas in this book are true for all
nations. The 'Revolution' of the title is what we would rather
call Counter-Revolution.
David Lane: Percepts
A short pamphlet [10pp] of a gaoled White Racial activist in
AMerica.
#Jack B. Moore: Skinheads Shaved for Battle: a Cultural History of
American Skinheads.
Prof R.P. Oliver: America's Decline
Prof R.P. Oliver: Enemy of Our Enemies
Prof R.P. Oliver: Is there Intelligent Life on Earth
A debunking of liberal myths.
#James Ridgeway: Blood In the Face
Wilmot Robertson: The Dispossessed Majority
How the liberal/minority coalition discriminates against White
Americans.
Wilmot Robertson: Ventilations.
A follow-up to _The Dispossessed Majority_. A call for White
awakening in America.
George Lincoln Rockwell: White Power
By the leader of the American Nazi Party
#Michael Schmidt: The New Reich: Violent Extremism in Unified Germany
and Beyond
Zeev Sternhell. _The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion
to Political Revolution_. Princeton University Press. Aroused a
storm of response when published in France and Italy. In
Sternhell's view, fascism possessed a coherent ideology with deep
roots in European civilization, and was a major cultural phenomenon
long before it became a political force.
#Donald Warren: _The Radical Center_
Francis Parker Yockey: Imperium
A call to arms in defence of Europe & America with a plan
for European rebirth.
LITERATURE
Various fictional works from different streams of the Counter-Revolution.
Hillair Belloc: Hills and the Sea (1906)
GK Chesterton: The Return of Don Quixote
GK Chesterton: The Napoleon of Notting Hill (1904)
A entertaining novel about patriotism and the richness of life in
small communities. Anti-imperialist.
GK Chesterton: The Man who was Thursday (1908)
Paranoia and suspicion are the themes of this novel in which
an anarchist council call themselves by the days of the week,
but nobody seems to be quite who he seems.
GK Chesterton: The Flying Inn (1914)
GK Chesterton: The Innocence of Father Brown (1911)
GK Chesterton: The Wisdom of father Brown (1914)
GK Chesterton: The Incredulity of Father Brown (1926)
GK Chesterton: The Secret of Father Brown (1927)
GK Chesterton: The Scandal of Father Brown (1935)
Classic detective stories.
C.S. Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia
C.S. Lewis: The Perelandra Trilogy
Jack London: Call of the Wild
Jack London: White Fang
A Macdonald: The Turner Diaries
A violent novel about revolution and a future ethnic war in America.
George Orwell: Animal Farm
The Classic allegory of Communism.
George Orwell: 1984
A view of what a future super-state might become. Frightening.
Ezra Pound: The Cantos
Jean Raspail: The Camp of the Saints
Europe invaded by millions of refugees. A chilling novel.
Alan Stang: The Highest Virtue
A novel of Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution.
Stuart: Holocaust Island
Ten families driven by the threat of nuclear war build their own
community. Then they need a money system and send for a London
banker...
J.R.R. Tolkien: The Hobbit
J.R.R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Harvey Ward: Sanctions Buster (William Maclellan Embryo Ltd, 1982,
Glasgow)
A novel set in the world of sanctions busting during the
Rhodesian bush war.
MISCELLANEOUS
Material which does not seem to fit well elsewhere.
H. Belloc: Advice (Harvill Press, London, 1960)
H. Belloc: A Moral Alphabet in Words of from One to Seven Syllables
(1899, rpd Duckworth, 1974)
Elizabeth Lady Freeman: Traditionalist's Anthology
A collection of quotations under various headings.
PERIODICALS INDEX
Some publications are marked as 'local interest' - i.e. that they would
probably not be of much interest to people in other countries.
Table of Contents:
General
Christian Counter-Revolution
Southern Agrarians
European New Right
Third Positionist
Populist, Nationalist, White Separatist, and Beyond
GENERAL
_Chronicles_
Subscription department:
P.O. Box 800
Mount Morris, IL 61054
Tel # 1-800-877-5459
Subtitled "a magazine of American culture", _Chronicles_ puts out
"theme" issues with an interesting mix of stuff mostly tending toward an
anti-internationalist and neotraditional outlook that bases conservative
views on modern modes of analysis. They also have an interesting group
of regular contributors.
Published monthly for $24 a year, $30 for foreign subscribers. U.S.
funds only.
_Conservative Review_
Council for Social and Economic Studies
1133 13th St., N.W.
Suite C-2
Washington, D.C. 20005-4297
Telephone (202) 789-0231 FAX (202)-842-1758
This periodical occasionally publishes articles by European New Right
intellectuals. Subscription: $28 for 6 annual issues.
#_The Freeman_. [Any info on when it was published and why back issues
should be of interest?]
_The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies_
Council for Social and Economic Studies
1133 13th St., N.W.
Suite C-2
Washington, D.C. 20005-4297
USA
Telephone (202) 789-0231 FAX (202)-842-1758
Subscription: $32.50 for four quarterly issues
_Intercollegiate Review_.
[Published by Intercollegiate Studies Institute, below.]
_Modern Age_.
Intercollegiat Studies Institute, Inc.
14 S. Bryn Mawr Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-3275
USA
The scholarly magazine of American paleoconservatives. Founded by
Russell Kirk.
Quarterly. One year $15, two years $25. Add $5 for Canadian and
foreign postage. Academic rate (students and staff) available at $7.50
one year; $13.50 two years.
_The Salisbury Review_
33, Canonbury Park South
London, N1 2JW
UK
An intellectually distinguished magazine covering continental as well as
British culture and politics. Edited by Roger Scruton, a professor of
philosophy.
Quarterly. Annual subscriptions are 16 pounds sterling for Europe and
for the rest of the world 18 pounds sterling surface mail and 23 pounds
sterling airmail. North American subscriptions are $23 from
Intercollegiate Studies Institute at the address given for _Modern
Age_.
_Telos_.
Quarterly. The Frankfort School goes reac. The search for federalism,
tradition and communalism in pomo-speak. Paul Gottfried is a frequent
contributor.
_The Unpopular Review_
Published between 1914 and 1921, it contains some very lucid critiques
of national trends in that period, and prescient essays. Paul Elmer
More was a frequent contributor.
CHRISTIAN COUNTER-REVOLUTION
_Action Familiale et Scolaire_
31 Rue Rennequin
75017 Paris
France
Articles from this publication are often published in an
English translation in Apropos
_All These Things_
5835 Bramble Ave
Cincinnatti, OH 45227
USA
_Apropos_ (previously _Approaches_)
Editor: Tony Fraser
Burnbrae
Staffin Road
Portree
Isle of Sky
Scotland
Officially quarterly but tends to appear less frequently. _Approaches_ was
founded by the late Hamish Fraser, the famous Catholic convert from
Communism, and _Apropos_ is the continuation of his work by his son.
It is a traditionalist Catholic publication and tends to concentrate on
social issues in the light of Catholic social teaching.
_Candour_
Forest House
Liss Forest
Hampshire
GU33 7DD
United Kingdom
Founded by A.K. Chesterton, now edited by Rosine de Bounevialle,
_Candour_ recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. Monthly. UK
subscriptions 10 pounds; overseas 12 pounds; US airmail $25.
A list of audio tapes is also available from the same address.
_Catholic_
Published under the patronage of Our Lady help of Christians by
Silvester Donald Maclean.
Mail Address: P.O. Box 36 Yarra Junction Vic. 3797 Australia
Phone (+61 (59) 66-6217)
Australia: $15 Supporting $30
Seamail: all countries $A20.00 Airmail: all countries direct on
application.
Overseas Agents:
New Zealand:Mrs. Margaret McKenna 33 Puketea Street Blockhouse Bay,
Auckland 7 ($NZ20.00)
UK: Mrs. Susan Horton Flat 1, 30-32 Worple Road, Wimbledon SW19 4EF. (#8.40p)
USA: Mr. Richard Bullard P.O.Box 1789 Post Falls, Idaho 83854 ($US15.00)
RSA: Mrs. Mena Povarello, 42 Carisbrook Str. Sydenham, Johannesburg (R30.00)
Canada: Mr. John Cotter, 38 Jill's Court, Barrie Ont. L4M 4L7 ($C18.00)
_Catholic Action_
P.O. Box 184
Dover
Kent CT16 1NQ
England
A journal dedicated to the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Subscriptions are 5 pounds within Europe; 7 pounds outside Europe. Bulk
rates are also available.
_Catholic Counter-Reformation_
CONTRE-REFORME CATHOLIQUE
Maison Saint-Joseph
F-10260 Saint-Parres-les-Vaudes
France
The journal edited by the Abbe de Nantes. It is concerned with the
nefast tendencies and even heresies which have been
introduced in our Church since the 2nd Vatican council.
It is NOT connected with the Society of St Pius X.
Subscription for U.K., Ireland and other countries of Europe: 10 pounds,
20 dollars, 100 FF with payment to the above address.
Subscription for Canada, U.S.A., Ireland and other countries of America:
30 dollars, 150FF with Payment to:
CENTRE DE RENAISSANCE CATHOLIQUE des Laurentides (Inc.)
255, Chemin de la Reserve
Shawinigan - RR2, P.Q.
Canada G9N 6T6
Tel: (819) 539 9779.
_The Catholic Quarterly Review_
The Society of St Pius X
St George's House
125 Arthur Road
London SW19 7DR
UK
Catholic Traditionalist review.
_The Chesterton Review_
Robert Hughes
11 Lawrence Leys
Bloxham
Oxon OX15 4NU
UK
Published in Canada. The above address is the UK subscription contact.
_The Correspondent_ is a newsletter which was launched in December. It
is designed to be an information exchange between Catholic
Traditionalists in America and Europe. There are no subscriptions, the
basis of operation being a "pay what you think it is worth basis". To
be added to the mailing list, write to:
Matthew Anger
P.O. Box 10311
Arlington VA 22210
USA
Readers in Europe should contact monaghan@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au to
receive a sample copy.
_Crusade for a Christian Civilization_
Issued by the American Society for the Defnse of Tradition, Family and
Property. Now defunct.
_Gaudete. A catholic Quarterly of Counter-Revolutionary Politics_
PO Box 338
Winsted CT
06098-0338
USA
A Journal devoted to spreading the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.
Subscriptions (1991 prices) $10.
_A Half-Open Eye_
Flint House
30 Clifton ROad
Worthing
Sussex BN11 4DP
UK
Subscription: 2.50 pounds p.a.
Published by Bernard Smith of the Christian Affirmation Campaign as an
occasional newsletter.
_The Keys of Peter_
157 Vicarage Road
London E10 5DU
UK
Catholic. A newsletter "faithful to the authentic teaching of the Church".
#Prag (Pragmaticus Mercurius) describes itself as a Christian Tory
quarterly. Very High Anglican/RC orientated. Normally 12 pages long,
including a couple of pages of organisations and publications of similar
outlook, some good journalism and political pieces and often rather bad
bits of potted history. 40 Albany Court, Epping, Essex CM16 5ED.
Subscription 4 pounds in the UK, 5 pounds elsewhere surface, 6 pounds
airmail. They ask for a further 3 pounds if you don't pay in sterling.
_The Remnant_
2539 Morrison Avenue
St Paul
Minnesota 55117
USA
Traditionalist Catholic. Issues semi-monthly. Subscriptions $13 USA, $16
foreign.
_Signposts_
Signposts Publications and Research Centre
PO Box 26148
Arcadia 0007
Republic of South Africa
Tel # 012-98-2680
A Christian fundamentalist, strongly anti-communist, anti-secular
humanist newsletter concentrating on South African politics and church
affairs. Subscriptions, R36 in South Africa, US $40 overseas (airmail).
Issues 6 times p.a.
_Verbum_
R.R. 1
Box 97 A-1
Winona
Minnesota 55987
Tel # 507-459-8000
A full colour Traditional Catholic newsletter issued by St Thomas
Aquinas Seminary (Part of the Society of St Pius X). Also issued is a
monthly letter by Bishop Williamson. No charge, but a donation would be
appreciated.
_The Wanderer_
SOUTHERN AGRARIANS
Southern Partisan
P.O. Box 11708
Columbia, SC 29311
$14 for four quarterly issues.
_Southern Partisan_ is a quarterly magazine that defends the culture,
traditions, and symbols of the Old South.
EUROPEAN NEW RIGHT
_Elementi_
C.P. 51
41034 Finale Emilia
Modena
Italy
Italian New Right journal.
_EUROPA VORN_
Postfach 30 10 10
5000 Koln 30
Telephone 0221-520 999
FAX 0221-526 848
_Krisis_
5 impasse Carriere
Mainguet
75011 Paris
France
Another French journal.
_O_rion
Marco Battarra
La Bottega del Fantastico
via Plinio
32-20129 Milano (MI)
Italy
Another New Right journal.
_Perspectives_
Transeuropa, BM-6682
London WC1N 3XX
England
_Perspectives_ , like _The Scorpion_, is influenced by GRECE and the
ENR, but takes a more strongly regionalist, neo-pagan, and semi-
anarchist position than others in this tendency. Strong interest in
regional folklore & folk music, *as well as* modernism, futurism and the
avant garde.
Airmail to the Americas: 13 Pounds sterling
Surface mail outside Europe: 10 Pounds sterling.
Checks/postal orders made out to Transeuropa.
_The Regionalist_
16 Adolphus Street West
Seaham Harbour
County Durham
Northern England
Name says it all.
_The Revolutionary Conservative_
The Revolutionary Conservative Caucus
BCM 6137
London WC1N 3XX
England
Single issue price is 2 pounds sterling. No subscription info listed.
The RCC promotes radical, right-wing poliitics within the Conservative
(Tory) Party. It apparently also publishes the _Revolutionary
Conservative Review_, which apparently has aroused widespread comment in
the main stream British press. The second issue of the RC is
disappointing - no photos,no illustrations, and rather thin.
_Right NOW!_
PO Box 3561
London E1 5LU
England
Similiar to the RC above - advocating traditional right wing politics
within the Tory party and rejection of third party attempts at political
power.
_The Scorpion_
Lutzowstrasse 39
50674 Koln
Nord-Rheinland
Germany
Right now, _The Scorpion_ is coming out at the rate of a year or more
per issue (the subscription rates are for 4 issues). Back issues are
worth getting. _The Scorpion_ is the prime source for English
translations of GRECE writers such as Alain de Benoist and Guillaume
Faye (Tomislav Sunic is now publishing his translations of some of M.
Benoist's essays in _Telos_). The writing in _The Scorpion_ is of a very
high quality and though it comes out infrequently, it's been getting
longer - 52 pages in last issue.
North America air mail: 25 pounds sterling ($40.00 U.S.)
Surface mail: 17 pounds sterling
All curencies accepted. Cheques made payable to _The Scorpion_ except
for francs and marks (made payable to Michael Walker). For cheques in
currencies other than Pounds sterling, French francs, and Germans marks,
add 10%. Mr. Deane sends cash in U.S. dollars, as this avoids the
problem, but of course there is the usual risk of sending cash through
the mail. If you can send money orders in foreign currency, that can
work too.
_Third Way_
P.O. Box 1243
London SW7 3PB
England
Strictly speaking, _Third Way_ is not part of the ENR, but the influence
is there, Mr. Deane thinks. This group emphasizes "common sense"
approaches to political problems, opposition to Maastricht, green
politics, cooperation between conservatives/nationalists of all
ethnic/racial/relgious groups, etc. _Third Way_ does not state that it
is ENR, nor does it write or act as an ally of G.R.E.C.E. in the way
that _The Scorpion_ does. But it does advertise ENR publications
(_Elements_?). Patrick Harrington and _Third Way_ came to their present
stance via "third position" politics (weird & radical stuff, pro-
Khaddafy, pro-Islamic militancy, radical Catholicism a la Derek Holland
and Nicolas Griffin). The influence of _The Scorpion_ and the ENR in
general may have pulled Mr. Harrington and his group in a less extremist
direction.
Outside UK, surface mail: 19 pounds sterling.
Outside Europe, airmail: 24 pounds sterling.
All payment must be in pounds sterling (Mr. Deane has gotten away with
cash, U.S. dollars, but he sends a little more than what the exchange
rate is, just in case). All cheques/postal orders/International money
orders payable to Third Way Publications, Ltd.
_Ulster Nation_
PO Box 140
Belfast
Ulster BT15 2HY
U.K.
THIRD POSITIONIST
_News from Somewhere_
BCM ITP
London WC1N 3XX
England
An occasional newsletter describing progress on the 'News from
Somewhere' project which aims to set a practical example in creating
another way of life built on an alternative society based on Religion,
Patriotism and Family. The current activity is centred on renovating a
farm in France. For a copy send a small subscription or an s.a.e. or a
couple of IRCs. Possibly of local interest (UK and France) only.
POPULIST, NATIONALIST, WHITE SEPARATIST, AND BEYOND
_American Renaissance_
PO Box 1674
Louisville, KY 40201
USA
Edited by Samuel Taylor, author (as Jared Taylor) of _Paved with Good
Intentions_. Articles on sociobiology, genetics, and racial
differences, and on current events, detailing the deterioration of
America, ethnic and racial fragmentation, liberal doublethink and racial
double standards. Very intelligently written. $20 a year. First class
postage add $8. Canada first class and overseas surface, $30. Overseas
airmail, $40.
#The Balance
C/O Cause
1101 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 9497
Houston, TX 77056
_Choice_
31 East Vale
Second Avenue
Acton Vale
London W3 7RU
UK
A Nationalist, Anti-immigration newsletter edited by Lady Jane Birdwood.
No set subscription. Local interest only.
_Final Conflict_
BCM 6358
London WC1N 3XX
UK
A Nationalist newsletter offering articles on popular music, politics and
history. Subscriptions: UK 6 pounds; Europe 8 pounds; Rest of the World
12 pounds; for 5 issues. Special rates for bulk copies available.
probably local interest only.
_Identite_ describes itself as 'Principal orgue de reflexion du Front
national, Identite a pour ambition de jouer le role d'aiguillon
intellectuel dans le comabat politique et philosphique qui oppose
desormais les defenseurs de l'identite francaise et europeenne aux
partisans du cosmopolitanisme'
_Instauration_
Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc.
Box 76
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
$20/year for students and $30/year for others
Considered one of the best magazines dealing with racial topics from a
right-wing perspective. Very intelligently written, but mostly
anonymous. Much in this publication will offend some people. This is
the publication that got Joseph Sobran in trouble.
The _Intelligence Survey_
Australian League of Rights
GPO Box 1052J
Melbourne 3001
Victoria
Australia
Published by the Australian League of Rights, _The Intelligence Survey_
is a monthly with in-depth articles. Subscription: $A20.
_The Jubilee_
P.O. Box 310
Midpines, California 95345
(209) 742-6397
$15 donation/Year
A Christian Identity newspaper.
_The New Order_
NSDAP-AO
P.O. Box 6414
Lincoln, NE 68506
USA
A National Socialist newspaper, edited by Gerhard Lauck. The
subscription is $10 p.a. within the US and Canada; $20 elsewhere by
surface mail. The following affiliated newspapers are also publised
by the NSDAP-AO:
_Nouvelles NS_ (French)
_Boletin de Noticias NS_ (Spanish)
_Sveriges Nationella Fo"rbund_ (Swedish)
_Uj Rend_ (Hungarian)
_Foedre landet_ (Danish)
_NS Kampfruf_ (German)
_Boletim de Noticias NS_ (Portugese)
_Bollettino Novita NS_ (Italian)
_NS Nieuwsbulletin_ (Dutch)
_On Target_
Australian League of Rights
GPO Box 1052J
Melbourne 3001
Victoria
Australia
Published by the Australian League of Rights, _On Target_ is a weekly
news bulletin. Subscription $A30.
#National Vanguard
by National Alliance P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro WV 24946
#NS Kindred P.O. Box 256 N.S.J. Ca 95960
_The New Times_
Australian League of Rights
GPO Box 1052J
Melbourne 3001
Victoria
Australia
Published by the Australian League of Rights, this monthly has an
international circulation. Subscription: $A20.
#Plexus: A National Socialist Theoretical Journal
by National Worker's League P.O. Box 642376 Omaha Ne 68164-8376
_The Populist Observer_
PO Box 15499
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
USA
$25 a year. Tabloid format. Current events, political topics: NAFTA,
immigration, Bosnia, Somalia, "new world order", political correctness,
etc. Also reprints from both "movement" and mainstream (Pat Buchanan,
Joseph Sobran, Samuel Francis, etc.) sources. Published by Populist
Party.
_Spearhead_
P.O. Box 117
Welling
Kent DA16 3DW
UK
_Spearhead_ supports the British National Party editorially, although it
is officially independent. A sample copy is available for 1 pound. An
annual subscription (12 issues) costs 12.50 in the UK. Probably local
interest only.
_Stormfront Magazine_
203 Lakeland Drive
W. Palm Beach, Florida 33405
$22/year
A new publication.
_Die Sweepslag_
Posbus 274
Ventersdorp, 2710
Republic of South Africa
The newspaper of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging. Mainly in Afrikaans
but usually contains a number of articles in English. Cost with South
Africa is R.18 p.a. R.40 would likely cover foreign postage (i.e. about
$US 15 depending on the exchange rate).
_The Truth at Last_
P.O. Box 1211
Marietta, Georgia 30061
USA
$15/year
A newspaper covering a variety of topics of interest to separatists.
Originally _The Thunderbolt_, the publication of the (presumably
defunct) National States Rights Party.
#WAR P.O. Box 65 Fallbrook Ca. 92088
#The War Eagle P.O. Box 6881 Champaign Illinois 61826
_White Eagle_
P.O. Box 299
Caerdydd
CF2 3XQ
Wales/Cymru
Published by the Welsh Distributist movement, the _White Eagle_ is a
Welsh Nationalist newsletter with a focus on Distributism.
BOOK STORES & MAIL ORDER SERVICES
Unless otherwise stated, the entries will run a mail-order service. SOme
also have display rooms which can be visited. If possible, telephone to
check before a wasted journey.
The definition of 'book' has been stretched to include other resources
such as video-tapes and audio-tapes.
Again, unfortunately with the exception of one French entry, all from
English speaking countries. Suggestions for outlets in other countries
are very welcome.
Table of Contents:
Australia
France
UK
USA
AUSTRALIA
Conservative Bookshop
2nd Floor
McConaghy House
460 Ann Street
Brisbane
Queensland
Tel # 831-5481 Fax # 03-650-9368
A Division of the Australian League of Rights. Telephone for opening
hours for the display room.
Heritage Bookshop
145 Russell Street (or GPO Box 1052J)
Melbourne
Victoria 3000
Tel # 03-650-9749
A Division of the Australian League of Rights
Heritage Bookshop
2nd Floor
24 Waymouth St
Adelaide
South Australia
Tel # 08-231-3801
A Division of the Australian League of Rights
Heritage Bookmailing Service
P.O. Box 93
Boronia Park
New South Wales
Tel # 02-817-1776
A Division of the Australian League of Rights
Heritage Bookmailing Service
P.O. Box 1035
Midland
WA 6065
Tel/Fax # 09-574-6042
A Division of the Australian League of Rights
FRANCE
G.R.E.C.E.
13, rue Charles Lecocq
75015 Paris
France
For a list of all the works by members of G.R.E.C.E and current prices,
write to the above address enclosing two International Reply Coupons.
UNITED KINGDOM
BNP Book Service
154 Upper Wickham Lane
Welling
Kent DA16 3DP
Tel # 081-316-4721
The British Nationalist Party Book Service operates both as a mail order
service and as an actual book shop (the one that various left-wing
groups keep threatening to take apart brick-by-brick). 'Phone to check
the opening days and times.
Carmel of Plymouth
1 Grenville Road
St Judes
Plymouth
Traditionalist Catholic.
Christus Vincit Productions
P.O. Box 17
Rainham
Gillingham
Kent ME8 OJU
UK
Traditional Catholic audio-tapes.
Final Conflict
BCM 6358
London WC1N 3XX
UK
Nationalist books, videos and other material by mail-order. Send an
s.a.e. for current list. A second hand list is also available.
Freedom Videos
BM Truth
London WC1N 3XX
Nationalist videos, including American imports in VHS PAL format
suitable for European systems.
Rising Books
P&P Rising Books
BCM ITP
London WC1N 3XX
England
An interesting and useful source of Distributist & Nationalist books. Rising
Books imports many otherwise hard to get AMerican reprints into the UK.
USA
#Aryan Free Press Books P.O. Box 6853 Champaign Illinois 61826
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, West Virginia 24946
Broad assortment of books on history, philosophy, culture and other
subjects that you can't get anywhere else (except below). Run by Dr.
William Pierce, a national socialist.
The Noontide Press
1822 1/2 Newport Blvd. Suite 183
Costa Mesa, California 92627
$1.00 for the catalog
A wide assortment of books, cassettes and pamphlets you can't get
anywhere else. A branch of the Institute for Historical Review.
Andrew Proser
Book Seller
3118 N. Keating Ave.
Chicago, IL 60641
USA
Andrew Proser is said to be a good source for out-of-print titles of
Chesterton, Belloc and several other authors of what is sometimes
referred to as the "Catholic Revival" . He asks that you send a
self addressed, stamped envelope for his list.
J.S. Sanders and Company
P.O. Box 50331
Department SP
Nashville, TN 37205
Phone: (615) 790-8951
Recently reprinted titles by the southern agrarians are available from
this company.
Transaction Publishers
Rutgers--The State University
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
Telephone: (908) 932-2280 Fax (908) 932-3138
Titles by such illustrious counter-revolutionaries as Mel Bradford,
Russell Kirk, Paul Gottfried, and Thomas Molnar. Call or write for a
catalogue.
Sources of Christian Reconstructionist Literature:
Institute for Christian Economics (ICE)
P. O. Box 8000
Tyler, Texas 75711
Biblical Horizons
P. O. Box 1096
Niceville, Florida 32588
Chalcedon
P. O. Box 158
Vallecito, California 95251
American Vision
P. O. Box 724088
Atlanta, GA 31139-1088
(404) 333-6203
The Christian Statesman
715 School Street
McKees Rocks PA 15136
Messiah's Congregation
2662 E. 24th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Still Waters Revival Books
4710-37A Ave.
Edmonton, AB Canada T6L 3T5
ORGANIZATIONS INDEX
These are mainly from the English-speaking counties. It would be useful
to include more European material.
Table of Contents:
General
Christian Counter-Revolution
Monarchist
Third Positionist
Populist, Nationalist, White Separatist, and Beyond
GENERAL
Council for Social and Economic Studies
1133 13th St., N.W.
Suite C-2
Washington, D.C. 20005-4297
Telephone (202) 789-0231 FAX (202)-842-1758
It publishes two periodicals: _Conservative Review_ and _The Journal of
Social, Political and Economic Studies_.
CHRISTIAN COUNTER-REVOLUTION
American Catholic Lawyers Association
KTF
810 Belmont Avenue
P.O. Box 8261
Haledon, N.J. 07538-0261
USA
Aims to be a counter-American Civil Liberties Union to counteract the
forces of revolution in American Society. Open to all, lawyers and
non-lawyers.
American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
# 4107 North 27th Road
# Arlington, VA 22207
# Phone (703) 892-1810
Publishes various books, and magazines/newsletters in defence of
Catholic Social Teaching and its application to current political
problems.
Christian Affirmation Campaign
Flint House
30 Clifton Road
Worthing
Sussex BN11 4DP
England
A group concerned with Marxist infiltration into Christian Churches.
Publishes an occasional newsletter _A Half-Open Eye_.
Christian Anti-Communist Crusade
P.O. Box 890
Long Beach, CA 90801-0890
USA
Tel # 310-437-0941 Fax # 310-432-2074
Publishes a newsletter. The CACC is active in anti-communist
missionary work in the Third World.
Christian Law Institute
Box 37070
Omaha, Nebraska 68137
U.S.A.
Founded to promote Christian values in Civil law. Each year the
Institute celebrates the feast of Christ the King with a public dinner
honouring Christ the King. A symposium is also held each year, normally
with sessions in both Spanish and English.
G.K. Chesterton Study Centre
15 Shaftesbury Avenue
Bedford
U.K.
Tel # 0234-357760
A booklet 'Hilaire Belloc and His Critics' by Aidan MacKay,
the owner of the study centre is available for 1.50 UK pounds plus postage.
Second hand books may also be available.
Directory of Organizations:
_A New Rite: Conservative Catholic Organizations and Their Allies_,
published by Catholics for a Free Choice, a pro-abortion outfit.
Profiles 28 organizations with explicit Catholic identities or close
alliances with Catholic leaders or Roman Catholicism. Researched and
written by freelance journalist Steve Askin, _A New Rite_ examines and
analyzes each group's policies and activities. Each entry provides
financial data, as well as information on structure and leadership. The
91-page directory includes a comprehensive index of individuals and
their organizational affiliations. The groups profiled in the book
include the Catholic Campaign for America, Catholic League for Religious
and Civil Rights, Free Congress Foundation, Opus Dei, Knights of Malta,
Human Life International, Tradition, Family, and Property and more than
20 others. The book can be ordered from CFFC at 1436 U St. NW,
Washington, DC, 20009 for $15.00 US, although some may be unwilling to
give money to that organization.
MONARCHIST
Monarchist League
BM Monarchist
London WC1N 3XX
THIRD POSITIONIST
International Third Position
BCM ITP
London
WC1N 3XX
UK
A Nationalist, Distibutist Third Positionist movement based on the
Principles of The Primacy of Spirit, Popular Rules, Racial and Cultural
Diversity.
POPULIST, NATIONALIST, WHITE SEPARATIST, AND BEYOND
Australian League of Rights
GPO Box 1052J
Melbourne 3001
Victoria
Australia
The Australian League of Rights is a conservative Christian pro-British
monarchy, anti-communist and anti-republican political group. It
publishes _On Target_, _Intelligence Survey_, and _The New Times_.
National European American Society
P.O. Box 2245
St. George, Utah 84771
USA
Fax/Voice: (801) 673-9558
A pressure group to support the European American identity. Send a few
dollars for a newsletter.
NSDAP-AO
P.O. Box 6414
Lincoln, NE 68506
USA
National Socialist. An introductory pack is available for $2 (+overseas
postage presumably). This contains samples of the various newspapers
available including _New Order_.
Welsh Distributist Movement
P.O. Box 299
Caerdydd
CF2 3XQ
Wales/Cymru
The aim of The Welsh Distributist Movement is to see Wales as an
integral part of a loose federation of Europeran nations united in
purpose by ties of faith, honour, justice and a common heritage. This
group publishes _White Eagle_.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat.
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.