By Morris Hart and Jimmy T LaBaume
They who say all men are equal speak an undoubted truth, if they mean that all have an equal right to liberty; to their property, and to their protection of the laws. But they are mistaken if they think men are equal in their station and employments, since they are not so by their talents. (Voltaire)
First, we’d best define some terms. Without getting to wrapped around the axle, “race” is a genetic term. But in Orwellian speak, “racism” has little to do with genetics except for the fact that skin color is genetically determined. Allowing for that, to me a “racist” is someone who hates someone else for no reason other than the color of his/her skin.
That is a really silly reason to hate anyone. And, there would be far less of it in a free world because it would be free of provocations and agitations like, for example, affirmative discrimination (err action).
However, it is perfectly natural and normal for folks to prefer living among and associating with other folks who are like themselves—same language, culture, world view, etc—and disassociate themselves from those who make them uncomfortable to be around. Nothing wrong with that.
With that said, here are some reasons for saying it:
The circus over the SAE fraternity at Oklahoma University (OU) is really irritating me. The most sickening thing is how the PSM (Piss Stream Media) is handling it. TV media types know how to spin their stories, not just with the words but also with their actions—mannerisms, voice tone and emphasis, etc. Listening to these professional indoctrinators (especially the females) you’d think a mass murder of the local Brownie Scout Troop had been committed at OU.
I had an email in my inbox this morning from an old, long time Cyber Bud, Morris Hart. Morris is a graduate of OU and spent his career teaching English in at a small university in Oklahoma. He taught a course (or courses) called (something like) “The Constitution” as Literature. He is currently retired and living with his beautiful wife in Ecuador. (I did touch it up a little to get it out of “email among friends” format.):
Since somewhere around 1954, the U.S. government has embroiled us in a constitutional argument that strikes at the core of our freedoms, while fomenting mayhem and hatred within the citizenry:
Does the constitution protect freedom of association or egalitarianism?
What ultimately is the result of government enforced egalitarianism?
We need to think about this, for while it is possible for us to be equal, it is only possible when we’re equal at the lowest level of society (under our present state of coercion). The Great War Criminal (er Emancipator) is credited with saying (paraphrased): “You can’t raise a man without his pulling you down.”
The same s true of universal welfare: you can only give money to the “down-trodden” by giving up a portion of your own living. And, when it is done at gun-point, as it is in the US, it can only be accomplished upon the destruction of the constitution.
Now, freedom of association, based upon the constitution’s anti-egalitarianism is unconstitutional. How can a person be free (a constitutional objective) if the government denies freedom of association (and of speech, for that matter)?
When I was a freshman at OU, the great majority of fraternities were white Christian. We had two Jewish fraternities and two Jewish sororities, neither of which accepted non-Jewish pledges, i.e. they wished to associate with whom they pleased, which choice the constitution supported.
The government during this period of the late ’50 s, early 60’s commenced a brain washing program , the scope of which would boggle the mind of George Orwell and took a totally unconstitutional stand forcing egalitarianism on us all, thus making the constitution an arbitrary document that has evolved into the toothless document it is today.
Boren’s action supports its further destruction. Free people associate with whom they wish. Otherwise they’re not free. – Morris Hart
While I was reading this, something I had long forgotten came to mind. As best as I can recall it was quite a few years ago. Some university somewhere had a Hispanic Students Club. A boy from Spain tried to join but they wouldn’t allow him membership. The reasoning behind that is beyond description. In fact, there was no “reason” behind it. They either needed to change their club’s name or allow the Spaniard membership—after all, up until the mouth breathing communists stole the term, “Hispanic” meant “Spanish speaking.”
For those of you who live under a rock and don’t know what this is all about, here is one of the typical whiney rants. This one happens to be from International Business Times:
The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.
You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.