With the arrival of 2012, the American Presidential election is sure to be a topic which is on many people’s minds, both in America and abroad.

Among the candidates, there is one person in particular who seems to earn the anger and vitriol of the media, special interest groups, and lobbyists.  That person is none other than Dr. Ron Paul, the 76-year old physician and congressman from Texas.

It seems every time there is a news story on the mainstream news regarding his campaign, it is almost always negative.  In contrast, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the media gushed over Barack Obama, and the media coverage of his campaign was almost entirely positive.  What can only be described as an all-out attack on candidate Paul in the media, by both neoconservative and far-left pundits, should be very telling indeed.  While the media is consistently lambasting Ron Paul for supposedly “racist” newsletters published in his name, they hardly ever bring up Obama’s association with a black supremacist church.  Then again, if observation tells us anything about the way that the media operates, the more vociferously the media clamours against something, the better the chance is that there is something half-way decent about that something.  And, when the “left” and the “right” (for the lack of better terms) start agreeing on who to hate, that something might be a very decent thing indeed.

You may already be familiar with some of these criticisms.  On the left, people criticise him for being a “racist” and an “isolationist” who opposes illegal immigration.  They also dislike his views regarding civil liberties, because he would apply civil liberties equally to all American citizens, including European-Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans.  Of course, this isn’t good enough for social liberals, who believe that human rights only apply to certain groups.  But while we’re at it, neoconservatives aren’t helping Paul either, citing, among other things, his refusal to become a hard-liner with respect to Iran, and lack of support for Israel (disregarding that he’d end all foreign aid) as a key reason why he is “too extreme” to be a viable candidate.  Even the more liberal wing of the Republican Party seems to think that Paul is “too conservative”.

Ron Paul: Visionary or dangerous man?

It’s far from the purpose of this essay to endorse any candidate in a democratic election.  Moreover, here at RidingTheTiger, we’re far from being libertarians, although we might agree with Ron Paul that the government wastes too much time and money with things that are ultimately non-issues.  However, in one respect, Dr. Paul does deserve credit.  He has been consistent, and stands up for what he believes in.  And he comes across as being an honest man.

Te way that the media, as well as certain non-government agencies view Ron Paul is revealing.  The current front-runner, as the Iowa Caucus would have us believe is Mitt Romney.  But, Romney, it turns out, is not that different from Obama.  His record as governor of Massachusetts was far from what might be called “conservative”.  The American Spectator reported that in 2008, despite his attempts to cast himself as a right-of-center conservative, he had “previously staked out liberal positions on abortion, guns, immigration and a litany of other issues”.  Santorum, who came in second place in Iowa, was originally projected to get only half as many votes as Paul, causing some people to suspect voter fraud.

It is a known fact that most of the media favors the Democratic party.  Because of this, a weak Republican candidate would be seen favourably to the media, if only because it would make Obama look stronger.  For instance, some observers had noted that the choice of McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 was a blunder, which allowed Obama to more easily win the election in that year.  But leaving aside party-politics for a moment, to those who pull the strings on Capitol Hill, if Obama’s not going to win, his opponent should at least be someone who is not that different.

One group has a vested interest in smearing Paul (besides the obvious suspects at the Federal Reserve) seems to be the Zionist lobby.  As the Forward reports, the far-left ADL accuses Paul of having “extreme views on U.S. aid to Israel” and having “racist and homophobic but also anti-Israeli” views.  It should come as no surprise that these are the same accusations being made in the media by both the “mainstream” sources, as well as those who consider themselves more “conservative”.  Meanwhile, a more recent Forward article praises Romney and Santorum for being “professed Israel-lovers,” while hinting that Republicans should jump ship and vote for Obama, in the event that Paul should get the nomination.  The reason for the ADL’s hostility is clear.  Paul’s ideas do not benefit Israel exclusively.  And it follows that the media, which is closely linked, politically speaking, to the ADL is being used to slander him at every possible opportunity.

People who are aware of their situation in America are tired of having their Constitutional rights violated.  Many people have also begun to realise that the liberals and neoconservatives are both two sides of the same coin, and are no longer surprised by any revelation of the government’s hypocrisy or crookedness. Ron Paul, at least in his rhetoric, and to a large extent in his voting record, has shown that unlike the other candidates, who are willing to circumvent the Constitution to either the bankers or foreign interests, he is at least willing to defend the Constitution.  On the other hand, the candidates championed by the media all promote the expansion of Federal power and cater to every possible definable special interest.  Ron Paul clearly opposes such an abomination and the media, as well as special interest groups (namely AIPAC and the ADL) support it.  This is the fundamental difference between Ron Paul and other candidates, and why the media and special interest groups go out of their way to denounce Paul much in the same manner that the Soviet commissars would denounce dissidents.  The great danger for the lobbyists and the special interest groups is that to the average person, Paul represents something of a bye-gone era of American common sense.

So, in perhaps what can only be described as a “Bizarro-like,” down-is-up (or politically speaking, “left-is-right”) fashion, we’re being told that Ron Paul would destroy America, and is somehow going to be bad for us if he wins.  It may ultimately be true, as others have noted here on this site, that America’s collapse is not too far ahead.  While it’s sad that those who choose to vote are voting for the lesser of two evils, I doubt that if Ron Paul wins, it could be any worse than another term of Obama, or a term of Romney or Santorum.  The fact is that if the liberals and neoconservatives are free to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior through social engineering, this process will be far more painful than it already is.   Nearly a century of bad politics have shown that their manifesto is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad ideas which have done more to harm Western civilisation than anything else.

However, for those who believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than the Freudo-Marxist welfare state that America has become.

Ron Paul, however imperfect he may be, is miles ahead of the other candidates.

Americans, by most standards, are considered rather well off in comparison to the rest of the world.  The standard of living in the United States is one of the top 20 in the world by the standards economists use as measures of standards of living.  In the Human Development Index, which measures life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living, America ranks fourth in the world, behind Norway, Australia, and New Zealand.  Yet for all the benefits that an American life should theoretically bring, there are significant issues with life in America.  America has more poor, more crime and more ghettos than ever; while its middle and working class feel increasingly alienated and rejected by the government.

Imagine  – if you will – the Fosters, an ordinary suburban family in America: Bill is 33, an laid-off office worker who has spent a lifetime studying hard and working to succeed in life. He and his wife spend hours at the office, day after day, and reside in a modest home.  They pay a great deal in taxes and must work to pay off their mortgage and college loans.  They want to start a family, but know that it is not financially feasible with the way the job market is.  They are hoping, in a couple of years, to be able to afford one child, but they know that it will be extremely expensive sending their child to a private school. They feel it wouldn’t be right to send their child to a public school with under-qualified teachers and filled with drugs and crime.

Now imagine Latisha; she’s just moved in a few blocks away from the Fosters, into a three-bedroom townhouse in a gated community, that the Fosters would have loved to live in, could they have afforded it.  Not only that, she receives food stamps, and welfare payments. She knows that her assistance will increase upon the birth of her second baby.  Thanks to her EBT card, she can now eat steak and lobster for dinner on a regular basis.   Her family can recieve free medical care at a government-subsidized clinic, and when her children are ready to attend college – assuming that they graduate high school – they will be eligible for certain scholarships and affirmative action benefits.  She has no incentive to work, knowing that the government will continue to assist her financially no matter what.

Latisha’s case is not an isolated one.  “Official” government statistics place the rate of black welfare recipients at nearly 40%, despite the fact that blacks only comprise 12.6% of the total population.  72% of all black children are born out of wedlock, while the black and Latino birth rate is significantly higher than that of whites; accurate numbers are difficult to arrive at due to the number of out-of-wedlock births.  In what must be painfully obvious to almost any reasonable person, we are quite simply headed for a Malthusian catastrophe: the high birthrate of those receiving welfare outstrips our ability to finance meaningful programs to help the poor.  The effect can only be mirrored by the relationship between a parasite and its host.

Today, many municipalities pay sales taxes in excess of 8%, with sales taxes in California reaching 9.75%.  Federal and state income taxes amount to 30% for middle-class families, while the extremely wealthy are exempt from taxes.  At the same time, people like Latisha are becoming ever more common in major urban areas, despite the fact that state, local, and federal government spending on welfare increases to skyrocket.  In other words, the American middle class is coming under increasingly greater burdens to support those like Latisha.  If Americans knew, I am sure they would be furious that while much of the industrious working and middle classes are eating potatoes, pork and beans, and ramen noodles, their tax dollars are going to fund the extravagant lifestyles of those who refuse to work.  And since Americans are so fed up with the situation, we might ask ourselves in the tradition of Lucius Cassius, cui bono?

In the short run, Latisha wins.  Her food stamps, free rent, and government subsidies give her a relatively unfettered life of luxury,  free from the drudgery of everyday work, which, though many people would be loathe to say, is undeserved.  There is, though, another side to the story, since if the real intent was to help the poor, then there would be no need for such excesses.

The Section 8 housing program  authorizes the payment of rental housing assistance to private landlords on behalf of approximately 3.1 million low-income households.  The program pays landlords for two years of the rent cost when a tenant begins the lease agreement.  The economic theory of  investments and time value of money dictates this is a favorable advantage as the funds can be invested elsewhere at a higher return.   Many of the real-estate developers also receive tax breaks to build these houses, and a portion of them make significant profits, so they recieve exemptions from paying income tax.

The reality for the people who must live here is not as pleasant, however.  As the housing bubble burst and home prices plummeted, and investors became desperate to make returns, they encouraged low-income to move from urban areas to suburban areas under section 8.  While this was supposed to help the poorer individuals, it had the opposite effect.  Lancaster, California, which retains 10 percent of all Section 8 contracts nationwide, the highest concentration of any city., has seen a spike in crime, while ethnic tensions have flared up.  Similarly, in North Memphis, Tennessee, increasing levels of crime were also linked to a Section 8 resident influx.

At the same time, the presence of government programs for food discourages many of the poor from working or ever attaining self-sufficiency.  It does, however, keep any politician who can promise to keep handing out the government dole out to those who refuse to work in power, which perpetuates a vicious cycle that keeps such politicians in power at the cost of ever-increasing government programs at an ever increasing cost.  Thus the real beneficiaries in the long run are the elites, who wish to keep people like Latisha at bay with bread and circuses.  The greatest victims are the working and middle classes, who have been sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.

Rich poor people

It must be painfully obvious to almost everyone who is reasonable by now: the high welfare-receiving birthrate outstrips our ability to finance meaningful programs to help the poor, and as the middle class becomes more and more aware of this, there will undoubtedly be more friction between various factions of American society.  Just as a true parasite which kills its host, the underclass of “lumpenproletariat” who refuse jobs and consume resources shall lead to the destruction of America.  Just as Rome succumbed to its own greatness and eventually imploded under the weight of economic deterioration resulting from excessive taxation, inflation, and government doles, America is just as likely to follow this path.

While an end to unrestricted welfare for parasitic individuals is not the be-all and end-all of solutions regarding the health of Western society, it is still a step in the correct direction.  The famous Finnish ecologist once made the following analogy:

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.

This is an apt analogy; it is time to sever the hands of those who threaten to sink the boat by weighing it down with parasitic behavior.

America and ameriKwa are two ideas that represent the various aspects of the same geographical region.  The former, in its most literal sense, is a geographical designation which represents the landmass which separates the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  On a different level, it also metaphorically represents a nation which was founded some 200 years ago, when the descendants of British colonists living on the said continent revolted against the Crown and established independence.  In other contexts, it refers to a hedgemonic entity which arose from the imperialistic and interventionist nature of the said nation.Culturally, America is synonymous with the evolution of the nation from its inception until the post-WW2 era.   It is dominated by a sense of place and of history which is derived from its English ancestors.  It is concerned with the protection of property, but not its excess, and it is opposed to the therapeutic welfare state.

ameriKwa: the capital of quantity

The notion of “ameriKwa” is something quite different.  It does not refer to a place or a nation in the classical sense, but rather, is indicative of a type of civilization whose characteristics Evola termed the “reductio ad absurdum of the negative and the most senile aspects of Western civilization.”  While America can be assigned a number of positive traits, there are none to be found in ameriKwa, which is indeed the most recent manifestation of America.  Such negative traits of ameriKwa include the rootless nature of its culture, the fusion of consumerism and politics, its rampant egalitarianism and its liberal decadence.  Put another way, ameriKwa is the concept of the rejection of the organic society, and the embracing of the artificial anti-culture which is grounded in individualism and decadent modernist thinking.

We need to only observe the current state of ameriKwan society to understand what lies underneath its veneer of freedom, equality and benevolence: rap music, Hollywood movies which promote every form of degeneracy, dancing, violent racial conflicts, the crime in the streets and a generation of children born out of wedlock to a future of hopelessness are an example of some of these things.  In ameriKwa, the inversion of old orders are present everywhere: the irreligious are lauded to the heavens whilst those of faith are persecuted, and the most degenerate of individuals occupy high places once reserved for the most virtuous or intelligent.  Even as Hitler so concisely rendered his commentary on American society, “Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together?”

The ameriKwan lifestyle can only be compared negatively to a neurotic one, with their material wealth only partially covering up their interior formlessness and barbarism.  In all aspects of life, the need for accumulation and the subservience to the material creates a world in which people are bound by economism, and in which all of culture, media, and government exist to subject people to further indignities at its own hands while also inflicting severe damage on the natural world.  The condition of modern ameriKwan society causes young people to be frustrated in their expectation of meaning in life by endeavoring to satisfy material needs and creating artificial ones.  Out of this, a new value system arises, which includes democracy, individualism, freedom, tolerance, diversity, and secularism – one which is clearly at odds with the Traditional outlook on life.

The transition from home life to the office was especially difficult on the American woman.  Hysteria, neurasthenia, psychoneurosis and other neuroses were quick to take root in the female population after they gained their so called “liberation,” and spread to the rest of society.  By the end of the 70′s, nobody was was safe from the medico-cultural virus of neurosis.  In this respect, in modern times, internally and externally, America is the epitome of a deformed society with no identity, no real past and no real future.

The America that Never Was

What remains of America is ameriKwa, and under the steel-and-concrete cities, and behind the facades of Wall Street or Congress, is a world depraved and corrput to its heart, a soulless world rotting away.  People around the world must thus heed the call against ameriKwa, and preserve their own ethnic and religious characters without without pretending that the promises made by ameriKwa of democracy and freedom will better their lives.

Having defined the character of ameriKwa, it should now be clear the gravity of the cultural struggle which various peoples around the world are currently engaged in.  To put it concisely. it is the former is the world of being, while the latter is the world of ceaseless becoming.

In his 1981 book, The Nine Nations of North America, Joel Garreau argues that, because of the vast differences between several parts of North America, the many national borders are irrelevant, and, that indeed, the United States and Canada are not just two nations, but nine nations.  In its time, the book was hailed as a classic text on the current regionalization of North America” by American intellectuals.

Garreau’s idea that borders are essentially artificial must be taken in the proper context; they are not to be used in a sentimental sense which would make them easily appropriated by people who advocate massive immigration between nations.  Quite the contrary, Garreau’s idea establishes the opposite: that in defiance of the widely-accepted idea of huge superstates encompassing many different peoples, a smaller and localized nationalism, maintaining the local character of the people is needed.

The nine hypothetical nations of North America, according to Garreau

Indeed, the borders of the United States and Canada are artificial, with even less historical justification than Russia’s dominion over Siberia or China’s over its various regions.  In the case of the latter, Russia permits certain areas to form autonomous republics, many of which have the limited right of nullification, or the right to enact legislation at odds with the federal constitution.  China allows some autonomy in its outer regions by designating them as “autonomous regions”.  The United States was formed by the westward expansion of the Federal Government, incorporating land formerly belonging to the Red Indians into the newly-formed nation.  The American system also differs considerably, with a bloated federal government which maintains a “one-size-fits-all” outlook on their authority.  In reality, then, the “United States” is just that: 50 sovereign states in a union and that union can dissolve just like the Soviet Union did.

Perhaps, the nature of the Americans, as noted by Francis Galton, is nearly a recipe in itself for disaster when combined with a tyrannical but incompetent government.  As Galton once said:

The North American people has been bred from the most restless and combative class of Europe. Whenever…a political or religious party has suffered defeat, its prominent members, whether they were the best, or only the noisiest, have been apt to emigrate to America…Every scheming knave, and every brutal ruffian, who feared the arm of the law, also turned his eyes in the same direction. Peasants and artisans, whose spirit rebelled against the tyranny of society and the monotony of their daily life, and men of a higher position, who chafed under conventional restraints, all yearned towards America. Thus the dispositions of the parents of the American people have been exceedingly varied, and usually extreme, but in one respect they almost universally agreed…They are enterprising, defiant, and touchy; impatient of authority; furious politicians; very tolerant of fraud and violence; possessing much high and generous spirit, and some true religious feeling, but strongly addicted to cant.

One of the major possibilities for the breakup is the ever-widening political divides between Americans.  A few Americans are opposed to the current Obama regime and favor limited government intervention in property rights, some Americans favor the status quo of continued wars and interventions which have gone on since the end of the Second World War, while yet others wish to use the current conditions to pass and uphold every sort of socialist legislation such as hate speech laws, gun laws, immigration laws, socialized medicine, social activism and secular humanism agendas in schools.  Such people also want to expand the authority of welfare state and turn it into a Freudo-Marxist secular regime, while increasing big brother/nanny state police powers and many other laws and regulations that subvert individual freedoms given under the Constitution of the United States.

The American economy is not in good shape.  In a society which is materialistic and in which people demand their bread and circuses, this translates into a decreasing trust in the American government’s abilities.  Reckless deficit spending has caused our federal government to amass a fourteen trillion dollar debt.  The American dollar has lost its value significantly in recent decades, fallen by 1000% since 1950.  In other words, goods which cost $10 to purchase in 1950 cost $1000 today.  With such crippling debt, excessive spending on wars and entitlement programs, the American economy cannot be sustained.  Those who depend on the government dole for their bread will also revolt against the government.

Desolation: The Future of America?

At some point in the not too distant future I surmise that a significant segment of the population will rebel against this government.  Another crack in the American dam is noted by Toynbee, the noted British historian, who noted that:

First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold by force – against all right and reason – a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence when it executes its acts of secession. Yet the whole movement ends in positive acts of creation – and this on the part of all the actors in the tragedy of disintegration. The Dominant Minority creates a universal state, the Internal Proletariat a universal church, and the External Proletariat a bevy of barbarian war-bands.

There exist today in America, in fact, many dominant minorities who are willingly subverting the interests of the United States for their own purposes.  Certainly, America is also fracturing along racial lines.  Even under the Obama regime, people of different ethnic groups are finding it difficult to co-exist, as evidenced by the rampant crime in American cities.  Latinos have come to dominate the American Southwest and display more loyalty to their Hispanic brethern across the border then they do to the United States.  Native Americans, perhaps the biggest victims of the Federal Government, also have a compelling case for secession, as does the former Confederacy.  The Catholic Knight points out that secessionist movements have already cropped up around the country.

What would a hypothetical re-drawn map of America look like?  On one extreme, it could resemble Europe during the Dark Ages: a vast continent composed of many small states and fiefdoms.  As the Union collapses, and states secede, different nations might arise, citing commonalities in their regional lifestyles.  For instance, the former Confederacy might form a single nation, while some West Coast states form another.  Some Canadian provinces might join with former U.S. states, but Quebec will certainly become its own nation.  The entire Southwest might be absorbed into Mexico, or certain Northern Mexican states may secede from Mexico and join the largely Hispanic Southwest.  Indian nations might also secede.  There is no telling how many nations America may be broken up into, and it is certainly possible that Garreau was rather kind in making his predictions.

Another proposal for what a Balkanized North America may look like (click to expand)

Those who are unlucky enough to witness this collapse will have to weather the initial storm of violence and social unrest before more stable and localized societies are formed.  Such an event may take a few generations.  Eventually, an equilibrium might be established, or these newly formed states could degenerate further into violent conflict.  If future generations are fortunate, a few centuries of peace and prosperity may arise out of these smaller nations, forcing people to return to a smaller ecological niche.  Unfortunately, history has been shown to be cyclical and not linear, and perhaps one day in the future, a new Union of North American states will be formed at the great expense of the people living there, thus initiating the cycle once more.

This article is a response to the letter from G. Dhananjay and R. Venkataraman regarding the recent overturning of Proposition 2 in the American state of Michigan.

The recent overturning of Proposition 2 is perhaps a stunning example of judicial activism in America.  The people of Michigan voted overwhelmingly to ban affirmative action, but two activist judges claimed that it was somehow unconstitutional because it somehow restricted the political rights of minorities.  While one could plausibly make the argument that assigning racial preferences to Black and Hispanic students, solely on their race gives them more political rights, it is preposterous to say that the elimination of such preferential treatment and the consideration of the an individual’s merit as a student is somehow unfair.  To put it bluntly, an affirmative action ban is not unjust simply because it doesn’t allow underachievers from the ghetto to take spots from better qualified students.

Particularly, part of the Michigan State Constitution (Section 26 of Article I) was being targeted, which stated:

The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

This law on its own, would sound perfectly reasonable, but in practice it turned out the Black and Hispanic students were losing out.  The Federal Appeals Court judges were enraged that the only factor which wasn’t allowed to be considered was the student’s race while other criteria were left alone.  This is an audacious remark which would have garnered disdain had the race in question been the white race.  Shanta Driver, a Black activist claims that overturning Proposition 2 now allows Black and Hispanic students to attend the University of Michigan.  The problem with this logic is that they also had the opportunity to attend without affirmative action.

We would like to present some statistics in order to shed an objective light on race-based admissions.

A 2010 study produced by the makers of the ACT (an American college-qualifying exam) showed that in the state of Michigan, about 7% of blacks were academically prepared for math at the college level, and 4% of blacks were qualified for biology.  As it can be seen, the average for all races in those categories is 33% and 25%, respectively.

Based on US census data, a hypothetical prospective applicant pool of 1,000 students from Michigan would include  141 African-Americans, 23 Asian-Americans, 796 European-Americans and 4 Hispanics.  Bout of these, if we consider mathematics qualifying scores, we might expect to see approximately 10 African-Americans (the number who applied multiplied by the percent qualified), 14 Asian-Americans, 318 European-Americans, and perhaps 1 Hispanic student.  Adding these numbers, it would mean that in merit-based admissions, out of the original applicant pool, 343 people were admitted, which is about 30% lower than the rate at which Michigan actually admits its students.  Based on this, we would expect an average entering class would should be approximately 92% white, 4% Asian-American, 3% Black, and less than 1% Hispanic.  According to data from 2009, the actual acceptance statistics were: 5.8% Black, 12.1% Asian, 65.0% white, 4.1% Hispanic, and 5.7% International, with about 7% of people declining to state their race.

This would mean that both Blacks and Hispanics, while less qualified than Whites, were over-represented while Whites were in fact under-represented.  The anomaly here seems to be the Asian population, however, 34% of University of Michigan students came from out of state.  As Michigan has a relatively low population of Asians compared to other states, west-coast states may provide a greater number of Asian-Americans.  Also, it is not clear if the University of Michigan includes foreign students under the category of “Asian” to bolster this statistic.  Indeed, under the old system, the Asian-Americans were not considered an under-represented minority, and their numbers rose as a result of the affirmative action ban.