Home > Uncategorized > The master plan described by economist James Buchanan

The master plan described by economist James Buchanan

July 5, 2019

from Ken Zimmerman

Oligarchy is an old form for economic and political organization. It was invented long before the invention of capitalism. From about 1500 forward all western nations have been organized as oligarchies politically and economically. All modern capitalist nations today are democratic oligarchies. That means in many areas of life pluralities of citizens, or even populist demands make the decisions about major areas of concern. But oligarchies attempt to protect their advantages. Since all oligarchies in these nations are concerned with protecting the advantage they have in wealth, these oligarchies are concerned with property rights and taxes. Since most believe loss of property rights in these nations in unlikely, most of their efforts focus on tax policy and rates. The simplest and most effective way for oligarchies to effect tax policy and rates is to purchase the policies and rates they want. After all they possess more wealth that other members of society which allows them to purchase and control media sources such as newspapers, social media companies, and, of course politicians. This doesn’t guarantee success, however, as some in these groups may resist bribes. But great wealth also purchases propaganda, alliances with groups with “dirt” on opponents, and high walls, both physical and digital. As a last resort, the members of the oligarchy can always hire thieves to steal what they need to win. But oligarchy and democracy can coexist in the same nation and do in many parts of the western world. Some are more successful than others.

The Nordic nations for example struck a bargain with their oligarchies – the government will protect a portion of your wealth up to an identified point so long as the oligarchies stay out of the political game. It’s not 100% successful but it works well enough to make the Nordic nations 300% more economically equal than the US. It’s not unlike the more tacit agreement between the British Parliament and the British Royal family.

No oligarchy in any western nation is monolithic. That is, there are clear divisions in the oligarchy. While generally pursuing protection of their wealth the members of an oligarchy often differ on ways to achieve this end, who is and is not a member whose wealth ought to be protected, and the belief in and support for democratic decision making. For example, some members of the American oligarchy see no prohibition on murder to protect their wealth. Also, Donald Trump is generally not accepted by the other members of the American oligarchy as someone whose wealth ought to be protected. Finally, some members of the American oligarchy support American democracy (within the bounds of wealth protection). For example, two famous Presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. On the other hand, David and Charles Koch present a libertarian version of democracy that undercuts government efforts to ensure elections are fair and honest, or that the average American should receive help from their own government to ensure each has enough resources to survive. In the “Samaritan’s Dilemma,” James Buchanan, the libertarian economist funded by David and Charles Koch, claimed Jesus was mistaken. Enlisting the Good Samaritan story, Buchanan made his case that “modern man [had] ‘gone soft’”: he lacked the “strategic courage” needed to restore the market to its proper ordering. From this perspective, what seemed to be the ethical thing to do—help someone in need—was not, in fact, the correct thing to do, because the assistance would encourage the recipient to “exploit” the giver rather than the recipient solving her/his own problems. Buchanan used as an analogy the spanking of children by parents: it might hurt, but it taught “the fear of punishment that will inhibit future misbehavior.” Similarly, “the potential parasite” needed curbing to prevent efforts to “deliberately exploit” society’s “producers” (businesspersons and other members of the oligarchy accepted by the Kochs, etc.). More than any other writings by Buchanan, this article captures the stark morality of libertarianism, giving us the movement’s prescription for how America’s third century could reverse the “soft” errors of its second. Perhaps they didn’t recognize what they had done, or perhaps they didn’t care, but Buchanan with money from the Kochs re-invented “Social Darwinism,” the most malicious theoretic intrusion in human society before the racial theories of the Nazis.

Ensuring that resources needed for survival are scarce for those not part of the oligarchy is one effective tool for use by the oligarchy to protect its wealth. It doesn’t matter if there really is a shortage of these resources. It matters only that those the oligarchy wants to control and keep subservient believe that a shortage exists. This is the primary reason that the bought-and-paid-for political servants of the oligarchy hammer constantly on the national debt, budget deficits, and the need to reduce payout by the government for such basic citizen aid programs as social security, food assistance, government assistance for education, and government aid when ordinary citizens suffer violent crime. Some in the oligarchy have accepted Buchanan’s “Good Samaritan” story as fact, and thus see any sort of government aid to “non-producers” as both an attack on society and unlikely to make the recipients better off. Those not sold on Buchanan’s story simply see the denial of public aid as an effective and inexpensive way to protect their wealth.

Over the last 10 years the Koch brothers and other rich right-wing donors provided vast quantities of “dark money” (political spending that, by law, had become untraceable) to groups and candidates whose missions, if successful, would hobble unions, limit voting, deregulate corporations, shift taxes to the less well-off, and even deny climate change. The master plan here was to turn the US into the libertarian paradise described by economist James Buchanan. Or, more accurately to use the national and state governments to recreate the US in this image. This was done without any vote or even cursory request for permission from the American public. The American oligarchy, or at these segments of it have gone too far. They obviously don’t want a discussion or compromises with other segments of American society. They choose instead to recreate American culture in any way they see fit. This is not acceptable. This is insurrection under the Constitution and must be treated as such.

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/the-constant-production-of-scarcity/

  1. July 5, 2019 at 1:05 pm

    An excellent exposition! I do my very best to spread this POV every day.

  2. Ikonoclast
    July 6, 2019 at 6:28 am

    Just a couple of quick questions and ideas.

    1. The Iron Law of Oligarchy.

    “The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an “iron law” within any democratic organization as part of the “tactical and technical necessities” of organization.

    Michels’s theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.” – Wikipedia.

    Are we hostage to the Iron Law of Oligarchy? That is to say, is it an inescapable law of civilizational structure?

    Ulf Martin in his paper “THE AUTOCATALYTIC SPRAWL OF PSEUDORATIONAL MASTERY” essentially proposes two forms of modern oligarchy which interact by both competing with and complementing and supporting each other:

    “… there are two modes of rational mastery:

    a) The extension of property and its monetary quantification, or capitalization; and

    b) Procedural rationality institutionalized as bureaucracy: an organization’s rational goals are calculated and implemented using formal procedures by a hierarchical organization that is created according to allegedly rational principles.

    The two modes exist side by side—indeed, capitalizing organizations like corporations are typically internally organized as bureaucratic hierarchies – and there are feedback mechanisms between the two modes.” – Ulf Martin.

    Do we generate and maintain civilization (meaning dense urban cultures with accumulations of wealth, amenity and learning) at the cost of greater hierarchy and oligarchies? How could we flatten these structures while maintaining civilization, learning and democracy?

    2. Differential inflation and Full Enclosure.

    After reading “Capital as Power” by Bichler and Nitzan, where they talk about differential accumulation, a key and salient point about our economy appears to me to be a regime of differential inflation. Clearly, differential inflation can enable differential accumulation. Economists often talk about economies as if one average inflation rate affects the entire economy. This does not seem to me to capture the situation at all. The modern (neoliberal / monetarist) economy is notable for its differential inflation rates and the staggered spread of sectoral bubbles over time. (Tech bubble, property bubble etc.)

    In terms of the differential inflation rates now embedded in the modern global economy we can note;

    (1) Minimal to zero wage inflation (no wage rises).
    (2) A long term high inflation period for real estate which (despite corrections) seems to have permanently implemented higher real estate prices relative to wages.
    (3) General high asset inflation dependent on asset class but particularly notable for shares.
    (4) Low inflation in basic goods and services (those purchased by wage earners and thus wage earners can continue to live day to day but most move to renting rather than purchasing real estate).
    (5) Higher inflation for luxury goods but the wealthy can afford this and still be better off (differentially wealthier) because of points 2 and 3 above. Differentially Inflated luxury goods and services prices also serve to exclude more and more of the hoi polloi, including the middle classes, which process is a very enjoyable addition to the privileges of exclusivity for the rich in a crowded world.

    Along with this pattern, the price of money (interest rates) is high for the myriads of small loans (credit card debts, personal loans and mortgages) of the type that workers take but low for large loans. Corporations can get billion dollar loans for an effective 0% real interest rate after taking relatively low general (official and headline) inflation rates into account.

    The cheapness of money for large loans (and bailouts via quantitative easing etc.) is somehow quarantined from the expensive nature of loans to workers. A great deal of money creation has occurred (fiat and credit money creation) but much of this money in effect is kept in different circuits (it seems to me) than the wages – basic consumer purchases circuit.

    The logical end result of these processes will be the reduction of workers to a new modern form of debt peonage. Forgetting the precariat, who will have no wages at all, workers will earn modest wages which will be entirely spent on basic consumption items, rents and hires. Workers eventually will own no property beyond personal effects (toothbrush, toiletries and clothes). They will rent accommodation, uber-style rides, computers, computer software and even their physical mobile phones (not just the plans).

    The goal of late-stage, neoliberal capitalism is for the capitalists to own everything worth owning which can generate rentier income and have the working populace renting everything. This is the logical end-point of the neoliberal master plan: the scarcity of assets for the worker (and for the precariat of course). Can we even doubt the eventual full privatisation of water and in some cunning manner the (virtual) enclosure of the atmosphere, long term? The workers would pay private charges to breath. After all, all the O2 would be re-generated by cropland and forest plants owned by private holders. “My plants make the O2 so you have to pay for it.” Where does the logic of enclosure ownership end? Is this dystopian fantasy or a logical culmination of current capitalization and privatization trends?

    • Ken Zimmerman
      July 12, 2019 at 2:36 pm

      Ikonoclast, many complex organizations, and even non-complex organizations can be oligarchic, but they cannot be oligarchies. In other words, they can be controlled by a small and cohesive group. For it to be an oligarchy its power must be a form that is unusually resistant to dispersion, and its scope must be systemic. The huge and growing wealth, both company and private of the American oligarchy is nearly impossible to disperse. Particularly, considering the mixed judgments of the American public regarding this wealth, from unjust to it’s okay. Also, the corporation is not an oligarchy so long as its power is not system wide. To escape the power of an oligarchic corporation as an employee I can quit, as a customer I can change brands or stop purchasing the corporation’s products. Finally, to understand the basis of the massive wealth accumulations at the heart of American oligarchy we must grasp wealth-as-power (political and physical) of the American Democracy and be sensitive to how wealth-as-power politics has changed over time and why. We must also recognize that wealth-as-power is not the same politics in all parts of the US. No matter how we approach oligarchies they are complex (nonlinear).

      Your discussion of “Differential inflation and Full Enclosure” is excellent. These are new tools for the American oligarchy. And they are effective. They achieve all the results you list, and many more. All to the disadvantage of the “hoi polloi.” For example, the effective interest rate on home mortgages for members of that group is presently about 35%. Your conclusion is correct, in my view, “The goal of late-stage, neoliberal capitalism is for the capitalists to own everything worth owning which can generate rentier income and have the working populace renting everything.” And, of course, the privatization of everything and the end of any public goods. On enclosure I have a New York Times cartoon from thirty years ago addressing enclosure. It shows a crane (Exxon on its side) lowering a cover over a solar farm. Makes the point well, I think. If it does go this far, the only solution I see is the end of capitalism. I’ve been a socialist since 14. So, its end wouldn’t bother me much.

  3. Yok
    July 6, 2019 at 4:32 pm

    Excellent

  4. Econoclast
    July 7, 2019 at 12:37 am

    Yes, an excellent exposition, not only of oligarchy but of the narrow-minded ideology called libertarianism.

    For deeper insight into the twisted mind of economist James Buchanan I recommend Nancy McLean’s highly readable “Democracy in Chains”. But there’s another twisted mind lurking behind Buchanan, the Koch Brothers, and other libertarians of their ilk: Ayn Rand. Lisa Duggan’s “Mean Girl” is a good current read about this goddess of selfishness. For a good counterpoint, I’ve always enjoyed Petr Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid”.

  5. Rob
    July 13, 2019 at 6:52 am

    Second, create a guerrilla force outside of government that directly threatens the wealth of members of the oligarchy. Sort of like a pro-government, anti-rich terrorist group. It’s proved useful in France and Germany. Don’t know if it’s workable in the US. ~ Ken Zimmerman

    So, Ken, are your advocating terrorism? Reads like it. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then I think it reads, appropriately like a duck.

    • Ken Zimmerman
      July 13, 2019 at 12:12 pm

      Rob, you sound surprised. Wealthy and other elites have periodically used terror to gain their objectives. Why should that option to barred to non-elites? There are several examples in American history. Before the American Revolution American Rangers terrorized native American tribes who had attacked and brutalized frontier settlers. The terror was a counter measure to the large disparity in numbers between Americans and the tribes. Freed African American slaves after the Civil War formed self protection groups. Historian David Krugler notes, “The history of black responses to the violence of 1919—which ranged from the use of a single weapon against a home invader, to the organization of defensive posses like Davis’ that were meant to protect potential victims of lynching, to the deployment of groups of men who patrolled city streets during unrest—makes it clear that armed self-defense, far from being an invention of Malcolm X and the Black Power movement, is a strategy with deep roots.” When the need arose these groups went beyond self-defense. Until the conditions at hand are examined, it’s not correct to dismiss out of hand terrorism as a response.

      • Rob
        July 13, 2019 at 1:00 pm

        Actually Ken, I am not surprised as I have already seen this tendency towards fananticisn and fundamentalist mindset — a form of intellectual totalitarianisms — in your just-so stories already. So no, you are mistaken, I am not surprised at all just making explicit what I see.

        Your attempt to justify your position by citing past violence against native American Indians is pathetic, and frankly is ridiculous and disgusting.

        It proves to me you have really learned little of long-lasting value from American history let alone human history as a whole. You argument ignores time and place (historical context) as well as the fundamental ideals (which of course we know no generation, past or present, has perfectly realized) are embodied in the ideas and ideals of the American experiment in self-government and democracy.

        I think that fanaticism comes in many forms, ranging from the religious to the secular, but they are cut essentially from the same cloth of totalitarian ideological thinking, which has been seeping into you comments now and then.

        I would no more trust you to decide who the bad actors are deserving to be targets of terrorism than I would the Taliban, for your argument is different from then only in degree.

        If America comes to the point where ideologues like you who advocate violence and terrorism against those “elites” (reminds me of how Islamists label Kafir or evangelicals label and condemn homosexuality, on recently calling for their death), than the American experiment has failed fatally.

      • Ken Zimmerman
        July 13, 2019 at 1:27 pm

        Rob, first I’m not justifying anything. I’m just providing context. Time and place is precisely my position. American Rangers terrorized Native American tribes because they, and the governments that supported them believed this would stop attacks on American settlers. And it did. This is not near the worst that’s happened during war. So far, humans have not learned to avoid such actions. Finally, I don’t decide any of this. If you want to find blame check American colonists, freed black slaves in the southern US, Jewish settlers in Israel, Moslems fighting for Pakistani independence, the IRA, and many more. I’ll leave it to you to lecture them on it.

      • Rob
        July 13, 2019 at 1:49 pm

        BS Ken, total BS. You are attempting to use your above examples as justification, or why else wrap them in such sophistry. It is an error to judge past generations behaviour by our modern standards, values, and experiences. Similarly, citing past historical acts of violence (whether legitimate self defense or not) to legitimize a justification for terrorist acts of violence targeting “elites” (decided by “elites” such as yourself?) is to lift these historical cases out of context and apply them to today for self-serving purposes. I don’t buy it.

        Worse is the manner in which you throw out the baby with the bathwater in that the entire premise of self-government as envisioned in our Constitution is aimed at replacing the bullet with the balet. You advocate replacing one totalitarian elite with another by the bullet not the balet yet seem to be blind to that fact.

        How are you any different than the elites you advocate targeting with terrorism (extra judicial means)? You are not any different in my view, and just as quick to use your intellect to justify your might makes right ideology

      • Ken Zimmerman
        July 13, 2019 at 2:17 pm

        Rob, those involved in all the examples would disagree with you strongly. They were fighting for freedom, independence, return of lands or wealth, or simply defending themselves, as THEY not you or I saw the need to. Terrorism is a relatively modern term to include all of this. It’s still just killing for a cause.

      • Rob
        July 14, 2019 at 11:36 am

        Your dead wrong as regards time and context and trying to twist context in an attempt to use their unique historical context to justify your argument for use of violence in our situation today is dead wrong and nothing but self-serving. Your quible over the term “terrorism” is silly. What you propose in you rhetorical question whether past acts of violent acts in their time and context would work in our time and context blindly ignores both history in context and the very substantive principles of self-government and democracy envisioned in our Constitution.

        Who decides which bad actors deserve to be targeted? You? A small click of self anointed elites?

        The Founders setup a brilliant form of government in an experiment is self-rule. And what you are suggesting ignores the steps that must be traversed before recourse to violent revolution is deemed justified.

        Trump was elected through a democratic process despite it’s flaws. He must be removed by that process too if we are to maintain and not lose our democracy. The fact is that we collectively are responsible for this failure in that we have failed to properly educate our citizens in their duty as citizens and therefore we have done this too ourselves.

        Fananticisn is dangerous regardless if it is motivated by “socialist” secular ideology or right-wing extremism or religion. I see you in the camp of fananticisn, and I don’t see this as the path to saving our Constitutional democracy.

        You would replace the tyranny of one group of elites for another, and effectively destroy our democracy just as surely as those whom you suggest the elites such as yourself seem deserving to be targets of such violence (terrorism).

      • Ken Zimmerman
        July 14, 2019 at 1:22 pm

        Rob, even if I could I would not erase any of these events from history. That’s no way for people to learn to avoid the need for such actions in the future. Many of your questions would be relevant and should be asked should the US once again use its Army Rangers to terrorize some group like Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

        I ask the question because I don’t know the answer. Is US terrorism a legitimate approach to dealing with some of its problems? Looks like your vote is no. Not under any circumstances.

        As to the American democratic process, it is a wonderful invention. But don’t forget it was George Washington and other American commanders, along with British commanders who ordered Roger’s Rangers to terrorize frontier Indian tribes. You’ll get no argument from me that the scrambled situation with American democracy today is mostly the fault of Americans themselves.

        Finally, I’ll point out that with few exceptions the examples I presented did not end up creating a tyranny. Some even helped democracy a bit. For example, the Jewish settlers use of terrorism to force the British out of Palestine.

      • Rob
        July 14, 2019 at 3:11 pm

        No one every said past events should be erased from history; that is your claim not mine. You are making a straw man argument. That is really not your best Ken.

      • Rob
        July 14, 2019 at 3:22 pm

        Regarding Al-Qaeda and ISIS, you are in my view conflating apples and oranges. Calling on US citizens to engage in violence against economics elites and defeating Al-Qaeda and ISIS are two different questions and you are conflating them it seems to me. I don’t accept the premise of your argument. It is flawed from the start.

        I never said nor do I hold that there are no legitimate uses of violence. I am not a pacifist. You are making, it seems, straw men arguments.

        Regarding Indian tribes, one again, and now I must add, disingenuously, twisting history for rhetorical purposes. George Washington’s behavior towards the Indians has nothing to do with your call of violence against economic “elites,” and your argument to conflate and distort one historical context with today is unworthy of serious intellectual consideration.

        We draw very different conclusions from history Ken. That is clear.

        I am not denying that there are legitimate uses of violence Ken and never have said any such thing.

      • Rob
        July 14, 2019 at 3:34 pm

        I find it interesting that you overlook the role played by non-violent civil disobedience in the civil rights movement. I wondery why that is? You cite those who take up arms as having improved democracy a ‘bit’. You cite the Jewish settlers using viollence to expel the British as having helped democracy a ‘bit’, but I find great Irony in the fact the Jewish state virtually treating the Palastinians like black South Africans were treated during aparthied. Do Muslim citizens of Palestinian ethnicity have the same equal rights as Jewish citizens? I think not. Isreal is sliding into an aparthied state. A poor example if you ask me. You are seemingly getting to the bottom othe barrel on this one.

      • Rob
        July 14, 2019 at 4:07 pm

        Do Muslim citizens of Palestinian ethnicity –> Do Muslim citizens Israel (yes, such doesn exist) of Palestinian ethnicity …

      • Rob
        July 14, 2019 at 4:03 pm

        You said you have been a “socialist” since the age of 15 (I may have gotten the exact age wrong, but I remember it as being very young). That sounds more like a religious devotee pronouncing their faith in their chosen religion that an attempt to make a dispassionate and objective (to the degree we as human being can engage in critical thinking despite our biases and prejudices, for as you once said, we all have a perspective).
        .
        You are in my view a victim of your own “concealed ideology” (Fullbrook 2016, 65, Narrative Fixation in Economics). But no wonder, you are not seeking truth but promulgating a “religious” ideology. I find your use of history selective and self-serving Ken, in that you cite Israeli settlers using violence to drive out the British but selectively ignore how they then turned and used terrorism to drive out the Palestinians form their own land. How did that help democracy Ken? Especially given that the use of violence via Israeli occupation is breeding an endless cycle of violence that threatening not only the stability of the Middle East but even the world.
        .

        After the Holocaust, it has become impossible to conceal large-scale crimes against humanity. Our modern communication-driven world, especially since the upsurge of electronic media, no longer allows human-made catastrophes to remain hidden from the public eye or to be denied. And yet, one such crime has been erased almost totally from the global public memory: the dispossession of the Palestinians in 1948 by Israel. This, the most formative event in modern history of the land of Palestine, has ever since been systematically denied, and is still today not recognized as an historical fact, let alone acknowledged as a crime that needs to be confronted politically as well as morally.
        .
        Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, and the people who perpetrate it today are considered criminals to be brought before special tribunals. It may be difficult to decide how one ought to refer to or deal with, in the legal sphere, those who initiated and perpetrated ethnic cleansing in Palestine in 1948, but it is possible to reconstruct their crimes and to arrive at both in an historiographical account that will prove more accurate than the ones achieved so far, and a moral position of greater integrity. (Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: OneWorld; 2006; p. xiii.)

        .
        In another context I wrote, but find it apropos now:
        The first step in any search for peace is a just reconciliation of facts. Illan Pappe has written a history that documents and supports the claims of systematic abuse of the Palestinian people by both the Israeli military and the settlers. The facts and truth are coming out, and they are based upon the declassified documents of the Jewish military released under the Jewish version of the Freedom of Information Act.
        .
        The illegal occupation, brutal collective punishment, forced ghettoization, random acts of violence and murder of innocents, and ongoing attempts at ethnic cleansing continues to this day with the complicity of the western media that fails to reveal the full truth, overlooks relevant facts, and fails to inform the western public of the real history that underlies this conflict. To fail to portray the entire context is to perpetuate the myth that Israelis are innocent of covert or overt oppression against the Palestinian people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
        .
        The West has turned a blind eye to the religious militancy of some Jewish groups who cling to the outworn and false ideology that because they are the “chosen people” and all of Palestine is Israeli land because God gave it to them. That indeed is the religious ideology that feeds the militancy of the Jewish religious extremists who setup illegal settlements and then systematically harass and abuse their Palestinian neighbors to drive them off their land and deny them a livelihood by destroying their orchards and crops.
        .
        Those who say this is one sided to point these facts out or somehow turn a blind eye to the ongoing injustice are only delaying the inevitable, for just as the genocide of the Turks against the Armenians has historically been documented, so too, the ethnic cleansing perpetrated against the Palestinians by the Zionists and continued to this day is being documented.
        .
        One injustice does not justify a second injustice; at least that is what we teach our children. How then can the ongoing practice of collective punishment via ghettoization (what the Nazis did to the Jews) by radical religious fanatics who call themselves “settlers” carrying out pogroms against Palestinians who attempt to farm their own land, and other ongoing violent acts against the indigenous Palestinian population by the building of illegal settlements in occupied lands, be justified by any humane or international standards?
        .
        What makes me deeply perplexed and sad, is that Israelis and Jews, who suffered under the brutal Nazi policies of enforced ghettoization are now perpetrating the same horror through an illegal occupation and systematic apartheid practiced as a matter of policy against the Palestinians. The real question is not if the world is or will forget the history of the Holocaust, but if the Jewish people themselves have forgotten it and are like an abused child repeating the abuse against others in a cycle of violence and oppression that destroys both the oppressed and the oppressor. The very soul of the Jewish nation, its long-standing religious values of upholding righteousness, is now threatened to be extinguished in this systematic policy of the collective punishment, illegal occupation, and ongoing apartheid carried out by Israel against the Palestinian people.

      • Rob
        July 14, 2019 at 4:04 pm

        dispassionate and objective –> dispassionate and objective search for historical truth, relative though it may be. But facts do exist; and they do come out, tardily, but eventually.

  6. lobdillj
    July 13, 2019 at 12:25 pm

    This is the very best discussion of our prospects and options I have ever read. It is disturbing to say the least.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.