The Socialism Of Europe Has Arrived At Our Shores...

Tyler Durden's picture

Via Mark J. Grant, author of Out of the Box,


“There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief.”
                    -All Along the Watchtower, Bob Dylan
I am sorry to tell you that whatever door that had been opened is now closed. We currently find ourselves locked in a vault of our Masters’ making and whatever treasure it had held is being rapidly depleted and yet more, I am afraid, will be demanded. America has turned the corner from the self-sufficiency of an individual to a new ideology for this country which is that incomes and life-styles should be equalized by taxes in the name of patriotism and for the greater good. The Socialism of much of Europe has arrived at our shores and spread from sea to shining sea and the safety net of decades past for our less fortunate citizens has been raised to a harmonization of social/governmental benefits regardless of hours worked or income earned. Obama is right that a new day is dawning but the mist is cold upon our faces, the horizon appears bleak and those more prosperous citizens that can find alternatives will do so.
“The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny…Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them.”
                          -Calvin Coolidge
The calls are increasing and insistence is rising from the White House to end the exclusion for tax-exempt bonds, to end the DRD (Dividends Received Deduction) program for preferred stock, to end the write-off for home mortgages especially second houses and to increase taxes to pay for the social programs ingrained in the new Socialism of the United States. The next four years are likely to bring State and Federal taxation to levels that will curtail both innovation and profits as the demands of income harmonization affects both individuals and corporations alike. The financial capacity of the country, even now, is not based upon our economics but upon a Federal Reserve Bank that buys what the Treasury and various Agencies offer creating puffs of little green paper that buoy the markets because nothing else is sufficient. Stock markets rise, Treasury yields decrease, other bonds compress because there is no place off-world to invest money and it must be put somewhere. We are living in a fantasy world of the voters’ making and, I predict with some certainty, that we will all suffer the consequences of our decisions. The problem is extremely serious, answers are frustrating and aggravating and great care must now be exercised because this cliff is exceedingly steep.
“Anyone may so arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible. He is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the Treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.”
                         -Judge Learned Hand
So much for this notion; goodbye and thanks for all the fish. The country has turned the corner and around the bend is startling façade that is just coming into view. Now I do not write my commentary to take social positions and I am not advocating any new political agendas but having identified the problem, having seen the writing upon the wall and speaking to the some 5,000 financial institutions that receive my musings; once having identified our new reality it is then a question of what is to be done about it to preserve capital and to win at our new-fangled Great Game as re-set by Mr. Obama and friends. Pay close attention here, focus your intellectual capacity; the Great Game has been re-set!
“The political promises of yesterday are the new taxes of today and tomorrow.”
                        -The Wizard
The paths may well diverge in the woods and the roads are marked by two well-worn street signs; Inflation and Valuation. Inflation calls for TIPS, corporate bonds linked to Inflation, hard assets such as Real Estate, Gold and other metals. The other boulevard is a more treacherous route as Valuation calls for Gold, currencies and bonds of nations not engaged Socialist agendas though given the collective actions of the world’s central banks there are scant places to go and none with the liquidity that is necessary so we are backed into a corner where all that separates us from this treachery is a fervent hope that we will not go there because Valuation is the three headed dog at the gates of Hades from whom there is little chance of escape. Fervently hoping that we do not need some Armageddon agenda, and the intermediate stop in any event, it is likely that floating rate notes will be a sufficient alternative in our new, new world. I continue to advise taking some profits in equities, in bonds and rearranging your portfolios.

Vanilla floating rate notes, fixed-to-float bonds, long floaters for insurance companies or those needing duration and any other structures that rise with increasing interest rates either as engineered by the Fed, the markets’ reluctance to accept the political agendas as offered or the realization that the economies in America and in Europe are floating in hot air and that the sun is setting. It has not been just mad dogs and Englishmen that have been out in the midday sun but evening approaches and the sounds of the night may not be quite such a harmonized tune as once thought.
“Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.”
                             -H.L. Mencken
Now when I first said that Greece was going bankrupt in January 2010 the yield on their ten year sovereign was 4.38%. Peering out into the future is not predicting what is going to happen in the next twenty-four hours and time and preparation are what is necessary to reorient your portfolios. The hedge funds will “bet with” or “bet against” and during the next turn of the wheel fortunes will be made and lost but I speak today to investors, to those that are charged with “Preservation of Capital” and I mark the areas in red where the denizens of the dark stand ready to serve their fare upon silver platters where you might find your own head underneath the gleaming dome. Nothing is worth that experience and so I carefully point out the minefields to be avoided.
So come Watson; and Dancer and Prancer and Rudolph and Vixen. The three little pigs are asleep in their houses. The big bad wolf is at the door. The seven dwarves are off to work and Little Red Riding Hood is arriving. The fairy tale is “once upon a timing” and the Dragons and Barbarians are at the gate. The Wizard is off in Oz and the Wicked Witch is riding her broomstick unobstructed. The Great Game is afoot!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GetZeeGold's picture



We can make it work....we're Americans! Sure we fought some wars to keep it out....but that's before we became enlightened.

Pladizow's picture

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. – Winston Churchill

"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest.” – Denis Diderot

Shell Game's picture

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." - Thomas Jefferson

trav777's picture

"arrives"?!?!?  LOL it done been here

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

 "idiot fail to learn is repeat" - George Santayana


Boris Alatovkrap's picture

"socialism is work wonderful until other people is spending all money" - Margaret Thatcher

espirit's picture

Para los mercados negros.

Viva la revolution.

hannah's picture

"God save the Queen...she ain't no human being." - johhny lydon

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

What a rotten thing is to be saying!

TruthInSunshine's picture


God save the Queen

She ain't no human being

There is no future

In England's dreaming

-- Johnny Rotten  

Oh regional Indian's picture

Such deep irony that the Land of the "free" houses the home of the corrupt to the core United Nations, that spear in the side of any remaing freedom in the world.

One just needs to look at everything that is "tax-free" and all those that are taxed to understand the depth of the issue at hand.

One world socialism headquartered in the USA. Crazy irony.

ANd one just need to look 10,000 miles or so south-east and see Israel, that bastion of demoncrazy born out of the Kibbutz. Irony piled upon irony. Some are indeed more equal than others...




Zap Powerz's picture

I want to live in a country full of people that find it morally reprehensible to receive any form of assistance or welfare.

I want to live in a country that values self reliance, hard work, creativity, resourcefulness and independence over dependency, laziness, and theft.

The greatest act of charity a man can give to his country/society/tribe is to never ever need charity from said group.

If we would rather die than  bear the burden of shame for needing help, we would be a better country.

And Im not just talking about welfare queens and drug addicts either. Im talking about all forms of welfare, both corporate and private, that people demand.

If you are unable to stand on your own two feet and survive without depending on others then you should be selected out of the gene pool.  That is the way it is supposed to happen.

otto skorzeny's picture

that's the whole thing about relativism-the corruption starts at the top and then it gradually permeates everyday society down to the smallest action

GetZeeGold's picture



Many have left South America and Mexico to turn America into South America and Mexico. Not sure where they're gonna head after that.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Who is give Boris down arrow!!!? Who is not like Canadia!? Everyone is like Canaida! Canadia is have no natural enemy (except maybe Baby Seal)!

Vashta Nerada's picture

Sadly, you probably only have Singapore left as an option now.

philipat's picture

Singapore doesn't want you. There is a Nationalist "Kick out foreigners" movement in Singapore now. And "PR" (Permanent Residence) is only valid for 5 (Five) years. After that, if you are not "Contributing", you are gone.

Unlike The US , where, so long as you vote Democrat, you are welcome to stay indefinitely, even without legal status??

BLOTTO's picture

Under Capitalism, man exploits man, while under Communism its the other way around.


~Old Russian Joke

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Russian Joke from Soviet Era...

Why is worker sitting so tense? And where is shovel!? Get back at work!

Poster_Boy's picture

You are the biggest danger to mankind there is. Fuck you and the utopian horse you ride on. Utopia means can't exisat, or never existed. Yet people like you are always finding people to blame for why the world isn't the way you want it. Human beings have survived because of compassion and helping one another, even whne there no benefit from the magical free market. But, I don't why I post on this site with all of you internet brown shirts who worsip at the alter of Der Furer Tyler himdelf ( who is so original he doesn't even get the movie, just steals names and thinks of it the way a teen would). You are live in an acho chamber. And I want to live in a country where my tAX DOLLARS don't go to fund southern red states and the defense hjobs that are nothing more than a form of welfare that exist there. The south equals ultimate welfare. No feds, no jobs. You people are such hypocrites.

monad's picture

Ask your doctor if Extra Strength Kleenex is right for you.

Shell Game's picture

Nice.  And especially appropriate for that 'acho chamber'....

Raymond K Hessel's picture

I was thinking the same thing...what's an acho chamber? Is that like an echo chamber except you're a tech sgt from the Blue Army?

monad's picture

Can't get a majority with kotex smears.

Zap Powerz's picture

@Poster boy.

"And I want to live in a country where my tAX DOLLARS don't go to fund southern red states and the defense hjobs that are nothing more than a form of welfare that exist there. The south equals ultimate welfare. No feds, no jobs."

So you agree with my original post and yet you disagree with my original post.  Stupid much?

I must have touched a nerve.  Perhaps youre one of those parasites that depend on people like me for your survival.  I dont live in a southern state.  I promise I pay a helluva lot more taxes than you do unless you are also in the 1% and its highly likely my taxes go to fund your existence..

So, kindly fuck yourself and your high horse with a sharp rusty farm implement of your choosing.

Shell Game's picture

Funny how parasites forget how charitable self-sufficient people are. Charity and long-term welfare support are not the same thing.  It scares the shit out of parasites that they might actually have to learn how to fish - and succeed...


malek's picture

Now that's funny.
By extension you are stating principles are dangerous, because they are utopian in that they can never be followed 100% by a real person.

Try again.

knowless's picture

glad to hear you're for southern seccession.


read kropotkin.

Alpha Monkey's picture

I want to live in a country full of people that find it morally reprehensible to receive any form of assistance or welfare.

So, school children should not raise their hands if they don't understand a concept in a class, and should feel shame and guilt that they can't quite grasp some arbitrary concept being presented to them for the first time ever.  Perhaps they should just kill themselves if they can't learn to read and write on their own... you know, thin out the gene pool from those that can do everything for themselves. 

I want to live in a country that values self reliance, hard work, creativity, resourcefulness and independence over dependency, laziness, and theft.

I do believe that if you look closely enough, you will see a majority of people do value the things you favor and a minority value the latter.  It's just unfortunate that there is a very strong minority holding most of the wealth whose appetites can't be satiated and they have decided to turn to theft.

The greatest act of charity a man can give to his country/society/tribe is to never ever need charity from said group.

Well... not needing something is not charity.  I'm not sure what kind of technical term to apply to this argument except that it's stupid.  I'm pretty sure, giving some form of assistance to a charity is WAY more beneficial to the charity than not taking anything from it.

If we would rather die than  bear the burden of shame for needing help, we would be a better country.

Yeah, let's put down the cripples and old people and young children and anyone whose home burns down and isn't able to rebuild it on their own and shit, while we are at it, any student that needs a teacher should be shot.  God you are really stupid aren't you.

And Im not just talking about welfare queens and drug addicts either. Im talking about all forms of welfare, both corporate and private, that people demand.

If you are unable to stand on your own two feet and survive without depending on others then you should be selected out of the gene pool.  That is the way it is supposed to happen.

Fuck ya, kill all the newborns!  Rip them off their mothers tits and slam their worthless dependent heads on the floor until the brains run out of their noses.

According to my calculations you must live on a farm, with a mine under it, and a processing plant for metals and synthetics, as well as have a chemistry lab in your basement and a spaceship launch pad to take your satellites to space, as well as a hefty lot of petroleum products under you with refineries, you are also the smartest person ever to have existed because you invented all of the math needed to make those things work, and you must be a hermaphrodite because you can reproduce on your own... If my calculations are not correct... then you have received a whole lot of help to get all the things you use in your daily life.  I know you're not one of those live-in-the-woods-and-eat-bugs-to-survive types because your using a computer or other silicon based device for spewing your ignorant short sighted classist bullshit with the rest of the world.

Your whole rant is tantamount to some sort of Hitleresque I have a dream speech.  Since you can't seem to think on your own, I would like to recommend that you seek some help for your anger issues as well as broadening your perspective.  if you find that too difficult, feel free to thin yourself out of the gene pool.

Zap Powerz's picture

You make emtional pleas.  You filter you ideology through emotion.  Emotion is inherently irrational.

You are scared. You worry about the suffering of poor and needy people.  Their suffering makes you feel bad inside.  So, to assuage your bad feelings you advocate a system that steals my money from me and gives it to people that did nothing to earn thereby ruining their potential.

In short, my dear statist, emotionally driven friend, you harm me and those you wish to help in order for you to not feel bad about poor people.  Youre whole ideology causes death and destruction but you dont care because you get to "feel good".  You fucking selfish piece of shit.  Your happiness and good feelings depend on the misery you cause others.  Youre a fucking sociopath of the worst order.  Of course you dont realize it becuase youre totally unaware.

Im sure you think youre pretty smart, but youre not.  Youre emotional.  Youre irrational.  Logic scares you because it hurts your feelings.  Stop feeling and start thinking like a human being.  Quit reacting on your emotions like a lower animal acts on instinct.  Youre a human being for fuck's sake.  Use that big brain nature gave you and THINK with it.

gtb's picture

He's not human...he's a monkey.

Zap Powerz's picture

Well that explains everything.

So, he is just here flinging pooh?

Alpha Monkey's picture

Interestingly, if I only thought, but did not feel (emotions) I would have to consider myself closer to a robot... But, since I both think and feel, that puts me closer to the status of human than those who protest the HUMAN element of emotions.

There is no doubt, emotions unchecked can lead to dismay, but locking down emotions permanantly has the same effect.  You think those banker or political scum "feel bad" for ripping off millions of people around the world?  Maybe the world would be a little better off if people let themselves feel a little bit more.

knowless's picture

you aren't discussing in good faith. which makes the majority of your response invalid and quite useless.

it's a dishonest tactic, but i'm sure someone will still try to help you on your way little fella.

Stuck on Zero's picture

Socialism is what hucksters, hooligans, and kleptocrats call rule by gangsters.


reTARD's picture

Both the "conservatives" and the "liberals" stress a fact with which everybody seems to agree: that the world is facing a deadly conflict and that we must fight to save civilization.

But what is the nature of that conflict? Both groups answer: it is a conflict between communism and ... and what?—blank out. It is a conflict between two ways of life, they answer, the communist way and ... what?—blank out. It is a conflict between two ideologies, they answer. What is our ideology? Blank out.

The truth which both groups refuse to face and to admit is that, politically, the world conflict of today is the last stage of the struggle between capitalism and statism.

We stand for freedom, say both groups—and proceed to declare what kind of controls, regulations, coercions, taxes, and "sacrifices" they would impose, what arbitrary powers they would demand, what "social gains" they would hand out to various groups, without specifying from what other groups these "gains" would be expropriated. Neither of them cares to admit that government control of a country's economy—any kind or degree of such control, by any group, for any purpose whatsoever—rests on the basic principle of statism, the principle that man's life belongs to the state. A mixed economy is merely a semi-socialized economy—which means: a semi-enslaved society—which means: a country torn by irreconcilable contradictions, in the process of gradual disintegration.

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.

The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the state, the same conflict that has been fought throughout mankind's history. The names change, but the essence—and the results—remain the same, whether it is the individual against feudalism, or against absolute monarchy, or against communism or fascism or Nazism or socialism or the welfare state.

If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man's individual rights; if one upholds man's individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism.

Individual rights, freedom, justice, progress were the philosophical values, the theoretical goals, and the practical results of capitalism. No other system can create them or maintain them; no other system ever has or will. For proof, consider the nature and function of basic principles; for evidence, consult history—and the present state of the different countries of Europe.

The issue is not slavery for a "good" cause versus slavery for a "bad" cause; the issue is not dictatorship by a "good" gang versus dictatorship by a "bad" gang. The issue is freedom versus dictatorship. It is only after men have chosen slavery and dictatorship that they can begin the usual gang warfare of socialized countries—today, it is called pressure-group warfare—over whose gang will rule, who will enslave whom, whose property will be plundered for whose benefit, who will be sacrificed to whose "noble" purpose. All such arguments come later and are, in fact, of no consequence: the results will always be the same. The first choice—and the only one that matters—is: freedom or dictatorship, capitalism or statism.

That is the choice which today's political leaders are determined to evade. The "liberals" are trying to put statism over by stealth—statism of a semi-socialist, semi-fascist kind— without letting the country realize what road they are taking to what ultimate goal. And while such a policy is reprehensible, there is something more reprehensible still: the policy of the "conservatives," who are trying to defend freedom by stealth.

If the "liberals" are afraid to identify their program by its proper name, if they advocate every specific step, measure, policy, and principle of statism, but squirm and twist themselves into semantic pretzels with such euphemisms as the "Welfare State," the "New Deal," the "New Frontier," they still preserve a semblance of logic, if not of morality: it is the logic of a con man who cannot afford to let his victims discover his purpose. Besides, the majority of those who are loosely identified by the term "liberals" are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to accept the full meaning of their goal; they want to keep all the advantages and effects of capitalism, while destroying the cause, and they want to establish statism without its necessary effects. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery. So they evade the issue, for fear of discovering that their goal is evil.

Immoral as this might be, what is one to think of men who evade the issue for fear of discovering that their goal is good? What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

These are the "conservatives"—or most of their intellectual spokesmen.

One need not wonder why they are losing elections or why this country is stumbling anxiously, reluctantly toward statism. One need not wonder why any cause represented or upheld in such a manner, is doomed. One need not wonder why any group with such a policy does, in fact, declare its own bankruptcy, forfeiting any claim to moral, intellectual, or political leadership.

The meaning of the "liberals'" program is pretty clear by now. But what are the "conservatives”? What is it that they are seeking to "conserve"?

It is generally understood that those who support the "conservatives," expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of "the American way of life." The moral treason of the "conservative" leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined—and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.

If the "conservatives" do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the "conservatives" dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism. Altruism holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value. Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. The conflict between capitalism and altruism has been undercutting America from her start and, today, has reached its climax.

The American political system was based on a different moral principle: on the principle of man's inalienable right to his own life—which means: on the principle that man has the right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself, and that men must deal with one another as traders, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.

But this moral principle was merely implied in the American political system: it was not stated explicitly, it was not identified, it was not formulated into a full, philosophical code of ethics. This was the unfulfilled task which remained as a deadly flaw in our culture and which is destroying America today. Capitalism is perishing for lack of a moral base and of a full philosophical defense.

The social system based on and consonant with the altruist morality—with the code of self-sacrifice—is socialism, in all or any of its variants: fascism, Nazism, communism. All of them treat man as a sacrificial animal to be immolated for the benefit of the group, the tribe, the society, the state. Soviet Russia is the ultimate result, the final product, the full, consistent embodiment of the altruist morality in practice; it represents the only way that that morality can ever be practiced.

Not daring to challenge the morality of altruism, the "conservatives" have been struggling to evade the issue of morality or to bypass it. This has cost them their confidence, their courage, and their cause. Observe the guilty evasiveness, the apologetic timidity, the peculiarly non-intellectual, non-philosophical attitude projected by most "conservatives" in their speeches and in their writings. No man, and no movement, can succeed without moral certainty—without a full, rational conviction of the moral rightness of one's cause.

Just as the "conservatives" feel guilty, uncertain, morally disarmed in fighting the "liberals," so the "liberals" feel guilty, uncertain, morally disarmed in fighting the communists. When men share the same basic premise, it is the most consistent ones who win. So long as men accept the altruist morality, they will not be able to stop the advance of communism. The altruist morality is Soviet Russia's best and only weapon.


In recent years, the "conservatives" have gradually come to a dim realization of the weakness in their position, of the philosophical flaw that had to be corrected. But the means by which they are attempting to correct it are worse than the original weakness; the means are discrediting and destroying the last remnants of their claim to intellectual leadership.

There are three interrelated arguments used by today's "conservatives" to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many "conservatives" decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The "conservatives'" claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the "conservatives" concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists' irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits.

Observe the results. On the occasion of Khrushchev's first visit to America, he declared, at a televised luncheon, that he had threatened to bury us because it has been "scientifically" proved that communism is the system of the future, destined to rule the world. What did our spokesman answer? Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge answered that our system is based on faith in God. Prior to Khrushchev's arrival, the "conservative" leaders—including senators and House members—were issuing indignant protests against his visit, but the only action they suggested to the American people, the only "practical" form of protest, was: prayer and the holding of religious services for Khrushchev's victims. To hear prayer offered as their only weapon by the representatives of the most powerful country on earth—a country allegedly dedicated to the fight for freedom—was enough to discredit America and capitalism in anyone's eyes, at home and abroad.

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word "conservative" into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a "conservative" means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old.

America was created by men who broke with all political traditions and who originated a system unprecedented in history, relying on nothing but the "unaided" power of their own intellect But the "neo-conservatives" are now trying to tell us that America was the product of "faith in revealed truths" and of uncritical respect for the traditions of the past (!).

It is certainly irrational to use the "new" as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the "old" as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. The "liberals" are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are "new," "progressive," "forward-looking," etc.—and they denounce the "conservatives" as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The "conservatives" concede it, and thus help the "liberals" to propagate one of today's most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress—while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation.

The plea to preserve "tradition" as such, can appeal only to those who have given up or to those who never intended to achieve anything in life. It is a plea that appeals to the worst elements in men and rejects the best: it appeals to fear, sloth, cowardice, conformity, self-doubt—and rejects creativeness, originality, courage, independence, self-reliance. It is an outrageous plea to address to human beings anywhere, but particularly outrageous here, in America, the country based on the principle that man must stand on his own feet, live by his own judgment, and move constantly forward as a productive, creative innovator.

The argument that we must respect "tradition" as such, respect it merely because it is a "tradition," means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man's self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man's nature are obvious.

This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some "conservatives": the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man's depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man's goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man's punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men's existence. "You can't change human nature," is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one's own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of "conservatism," do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.

Such are capitalism's alleged defenders—and such are the arguments by which they propose to save it.


At a time when the world is torn by a profound ideological conflict, do not join those who have no ideology—no ideas, no philosophy—to offer you. Do not go into battle armed with nothing but stale slogans, pious platitudes, and meaningless generalities. Do not join any so-called "conservative" group, organization, or person that advocates any variant of the arguments from "faith," from "tradition," or from "depravity." Any home-grown sophist in any village debate can refute those arguments and can drive you into evasions in about five minutes. What would happen to you, with such ammunition, on the philosophical battlefield of the world? But you would never reach that battlefield: you would not be heard on it, since you would have nothing to say.

It is not by means of evasions that one saves civilization. It is not by means of empty slogans that one saves a world perishing for lack of intellectual leadership. It is not by means of ignoring its causes that one cures a deadly disease.

So long as the "conservatives" ignore the issue of what destroyed capitalism, and merely plead with men to "go back," they cannot escape the question of: back to what? And none of their evasions can camouflage the fact that the implicit answer is: back to an earlier stage of the cancer which is devouring us today and which has almost reached its terminal stage. That cancer is the morality of altruism.

So long as the "conservatives" evade the issue of altruism, all of their pleas and arguments amount, in essence, to this: Why can't we just go back to the nineteenth century when capitalism and altruism seemed somehow to co-exist? Why do we have to go to extremes and think of surgery, when the early stages of the cancer were painless?

The answer is that the facts of reality—which includes history and philosophy—are not to be evaded. Capitalism was destroyed by the morality of altruism. Capitalism is based on individual rights—not on the sacrifice of the individual to the "public good" of the collective. Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. It's one or the other. It's too late for compromises, for platitudes, and for aspirin tablets. There is no way to save capitalism—or freedom, or civilization, or America—except by intellectual surgery, that is: by destroying the source of the destruction, by rejecting the morality of altruism.

If you want to fight for capitalism, there is only one type of argument that you should adopt, the only one that can ever win in a moral issue: the argument from self-esteem. This means: the argument from man's right to exist—from man's inalienable individual right to his own life.

I quote from my book For the New Intellectual:

The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution.... The New Intellectual must fight for capitalism, not as a "practical" issue, not as an economic issue, but, with the most righteous pride, as a moral issue. That is what capitalism deserves, and nothing less will save it.

Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future—if mankind is to have a future. Those who wish to fight for it must discard the title of "conservatives." "Conservatism" has always been a misleading name, inappropriate to America. Today, there is nothing left to "conserve": the established political philosophy, the intellectual orthodoxy, and the status quo are collectivism. Those who reject all the basic premises of collectivism are radicals in the proper sense of the word: "radical" means "fundamental." Today, the fighters for capitalism have to be, not bankrupt "conservatives," but new radicals, new intellectuals and, above all, new, dedicated moralists.




Based on a lecture given at Princeton University on December 7, 1960. Published by Nathaniel Branden Institute, New York, 1962.

Sudden Debt's picture


You guys had to prove to your friends that you aren't racists and that's why you voted Obama.

It was and is still cool.

The first time it was like buying the first iPhone

The second time is like buying the iPhone v5

and the third time you'll vote something totally different.

trav777's picture head.  Belgian FTW.

Oh yeah, but you mfers had to prove you weren't so you gave him a gd'd Peace Nobel.  And a coronation tour where you all turned your slobbering nondiverse @sses to adulate.

His approval rating in your neck of the woods is asininedly high.  Germans and Swedes I met on safari were DEVOUT in approval of the clown.  They didn't even know that he assassinates without warrant or law...hadn't heard of our other half dozen low-grade drone wars.

Clark Bent's picture

That seems to be surprisingly common; those that support the pig haven't the slightest idea what he does, or doesn't do. But you see, he's black, and it is for many a lascivious pleasure to be dominated by a black man. There seems to be an ecstatic frisson to this subjugation. "Oh my, what would Daddy say?!"

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1  

Nicely put Sudden Debt.

When my contract runs out, I will fix my error of buying an iPhone.  My next phone will make calls, nothing else.

Lost My Shorts's picture

This entire post is nonsense and devoid of reason.  Americans want middle class jobs, not socialism.  Why do some people on the right have this compuslive desire to slander their fellow citizens?

Get the grip of Wall Street off the real economy; end the joke of "Free Trade" with China; bring back middle class jobs.  Why are you so afraid of that?

Vashta Nerada's picture

If Americans wanted middle class jobs, they would have voted differently, assuming the election was legitimate.

MinnesotaMD's picture

That's what makes the election demoralizing. Either a majority of people actively want the thing that slaughters our Golden Goose, or the powers that be rigged things to destroy the ideas that America was predicated upon.

Either way, things look a bit dark at the moment.