No-Think Nation VI: Destroying the West with Political Correctness


Sixth and final
in a series on America`s imperiled future.
[I,
II, III,
IV,
V
]

Does democracy undermine a
country`s future by shortening the time-preference of
rulers? Does racial diversity produce conflict? Are
America`s “two greatest strengths” in fact the country`s
two greatest weaknesses?

In an important new book, Democracy:
The God That Failed
political economist Hans
Hermann Hoppe makes the

case
that democracy causes rulers to use policy for
their short-term gains at the expense of the long-term
welfare of the country.

A

king or hereditary line of rulers
has a long-term
view, because he and his heirs have a proprietary
interest in the country. Although all kings will not be
well-informed or in possession of good judgment, their
proprietary interest causes hereditary rulers to pay
attention to the repercussions of their actions on the
economic, social and cultural strength of their country.

A democracy, on the other hand, is
ruled by temporary and

interchangeable
caretakers, who have no proprietary
interest in the country. Their ability to exploit the
country to their advantage is limited to their uncertain
term of office. The results are shortsighted or
present-oriented policies, which benefit the office
holder at the long-term expense of the country.

The longer democracy exists, the
more damage will be done to law,

property
, culture, family, and moral values by the
musical chair system of rotating rulers guided by
short-term interest. As redistribution expands, the
incentive for businessmen, judges, and consumers to take
a long-term view is systematically reduced. Business
time horizons shrink to three months, saving rates fall
and debt levels rise as shortsighted rule reduces
government to income and wealth confiscation.

The prevailing incentive for
citizens becomes to over-consume income and to be a net
debtor, as wealth is targeted for exploitation both by
government and lawyers.

Not a cheerful analysis. Before
dismissing it, sit back and make your list of government
policies that take a long-term view to actually promote
“the general welfare.” In the past 102 years, only two
come readily to mind: President Reagan`s supply-side
policy, which

cured “stagflation”
by overthrowing Keynesian
short-term demand management, and President Reagan`s
decision to abandon “containment” and actively work to
hasten the

fall of the Soviet Union.

An honest look at democracy`s
“great victories” shows them to be unmitigated
disasters. The Civil Rights Act destroyed freedom of
conscience, voluntary association, and equality in law,
replacing it with

status-based
privileges from the feudal past.

Busing
and federal aid destroyed

public education.
The Great Society spending
programs

eroded family
and encouraged public dependency.

The

New Deal
  destroyed accountable law by forcing
Congress to delegate lawmaking power to

unelected federal bureaucrats
.  The

Social Security Act
substituted an

intergenerational Ponzi scheme
, which is entirely
dependent on favorable demographics, for individual
saving. The Federal Reserve Act

gave us
the Great Depression. American entry into
W.W.I, which was to make the world “safe
for democracy
,” resulted in Lenin, Stalin, Hitler,
and Mao.

Yet, all these disastrous policies
greatly benefited the politicians who inflicted them.

When democracy is mixed with
racial and cultural diversity, the combination of short
time horizons with internal conflict maximizes weakness,
regardless of accumulated scientific and technological
skills.

In another important recent book, Conflicts
Explained by Ethnic Nepotism
, Scandinavian scholar
Tatu Vanhanen

argues
that group conflict is biologically or
racially based.

Professor Vanhanen constructs an

Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity
, [RTF] a measure of
ethnic, tribal, racial, linguistic and religious
diversity, for every country in the world with a
population larger than one million. He then constructs
an

Index of Ethnic Conflict
[RTF] and finds a strong
correlation between the scores of the two indexes.

In our world of politically
correct scholarship, it is almost obligatory for
sociologists to assume that the source of conflict is
“oppression” or “injustice.” Prof. Vanhanen dismisses
these “explanations” as worn-out Marxist propaganda.

Conflict, he concludes, comes from
“ethnic nepotism.” It is natural to the human species to
favor relatives over people who are unrelated to us.
Extending this principle, people

care more
for those genetically related to them than
for others. Of all chasms that separate people, race is
the hardest to bridge.

Multiracial or multitribal states

break up
, because assimilation across racial
boundaries is rare.

The only solution to the conflict
is secession and separation.

Professor Vanhanen notes that the
belief that racial diversity is a strength is limited to
Western European countries, the U.S. and Canada. The
belief is so obviously at odds with the experience of
the rest of the world that only people brainwashed by
political correctness can believe it.

By infusing themselves with
massive racial diversity, the countries of the West are
ceasing to be nation-states and are planting seeds of
future conflict without precedent in world history.

Nonthinking civilizations are
doomed. The weakness of Western intellectual thought is
apparent when the entire edifice can be challenged by
two books.

Is the West too politically
correct to free itself from the black hole of No-Think?

Paul Craig Roberts is the author of

The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and
Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
of Justice
.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS
SYNDICATE, INC.