Publisher Bill Collier

Why I Am Disappointed In Ted Cruz

W R Collier Jr April 25, 2016

This meme illustrates how the deal between Kasich and Cruz to bow out of different states looks to me...and many others..even though I have always wanted Cruz to win. — This meme illustrates how the deal between Kasich and Cruz to bow out of different states looks to me…and many others..even though I have always wanted Cruz to win.

By Bill Collier- From the start of the campaign I was excited for Ted Cruz. He made his announcement on March 15, 2015. Technically he had already announced via a Tweet, but his speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg VA was the starting point.

I followed his career as a Senator and was often inspired by his speeches. When I saw his actual plans….I was hopeful oh so hopeful, that we could get this man, the only rock-solid and straight down the line true conservative in the race, into the White House! No more backroom deals, no more insider baseball, oh, and did I mention the gold standard? Cruz supports SOUND MONEY and only gold can give us that. He supports the things he supports because they will make us all more likely to prosper!

He was quoted by the Washington Post-

“Today, I am announcing that I am running for president of the United States,” Cruz said, about 20 minutes into a speech to students here. “Ted! Ted!” students yelled.

“It is the time for truth. It is the time for liberty. It is the time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States,” Cruz said.

It was a moment of promise and hope and I was happy to count myself a TedHead. Cruz had proven he could and would fight, he had an exemplary public record, and he had argued liberal lawyers to a stand-still in front of the Supreme Court. His resume is a conservative fantasy come true, frankly.

But as the race proceeded it became all too clear. Ted Cruz was missing the plot.

Back in August of 2015, Trump and Cruz joined forces to protest the Iran deal. This was before they cordially loathed one another. (The cordiality is gone now, too.) The whole exercise was a distraction, it elevated Trump, and it didn’t do Cruz any good. It was such a total distraction from his main offering, his main selling point, which was and is PROSPERITY.

Art Laffer and Steve Moore, full disclosure, for whom I have built a website, were quick to note that of the candidates running in November of 2015, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had the best tax plans. His plan and his initial rhetoric in favor of his pro-prosperity plan were praised by Ralph Benko in his Forbes online column. In fact I have my own insider sources who re-assured me that Cruz had been told that his plan was the best plan for prosperity and that he could win by preaching a pro-prosperity message.

The sad irony for prosperity voters such as myself, Ted Cruz did not push a prosperity message, his theme was a mixture of conservative purity, outsider street cred, and Christian statesmen. None of these are bad things, but voters really mostly want prosperity. And, unlike anyone else, I think, Ted Cruz has a plan that will deliver that, but Donald Trump is the one who is promising that. (Clearly, a vote for Trump is NOT a vote for prosperity, regardless of the rhetoric).

So what has become of the Cruz campaign?

Cruz failed to win straight up. He didn’t get the popular votes needed to secure first round votes in the convention- Trump has more than 2.5 million vote than Cruz and almost 300 more first round guaranteed delegate votes in the convention. Cruz, a lawyer and a brilliant tactician in such matters, has figured out how to game the system to snatch away delegates, all legally I will add, to try to win on round two of the votes. He is spending money and resources, and lots of it, to get delegates.

Meanwhile, now it is announced that Cruz will cede Oregon and New Mexico to Kasich who will cede Indiana to Cruz in the hopes of stopping Trump from winning in those states. This is all perfectly legal and legitimate, and Trump complaining about it is laughable (as if he would not do the same thing). But it is a far cry from the opening lines of such a promising campaign.

While no formal numbers have been revealed, Ted Cruz’s campaign is said to be “well organized” to mobilize people on the ground and get his supporters nominated and elected, by local to state conventions, to be delegates. Even in states where Trump won, many of the delegates selected have pledged to vote for Cruz on round two if Trump doesn’t come in with enough to win in the first round. This is a credit to Cruz and demerit to Trump who should have known better!

Cruz became mired in responding to the latest outlandish Trump attack, he threw out red meat, he had near religious events with Glenn Beck, and now he is focused on getting delegates to secure a win…by what many see as a backdoor. It may be legal and fair, but it is hardly what I had hoped to be seeing this late in the game.

Cruz is not liked by the establishment types. Mitch McConnell, who loathes both Trump and Cruz openly, gleefully, predicted a contested convention. Karl Rove’s speculation of a “fresh face” emerging may not have been evidence of an evil plot on his part, but a learned analysis of what is quite possible- the GOP will try to put up someone other than Trump or Cruz in a contested convention.

The opening remarks of the campaign, which were so promising, have now devolved to this from an interview with Seam Hannity:

“Donald Trump’s campaign does not know how to organize on the grassroots, and so when the delegates are elected the real conservative activists show up, they elect delegates and we are winning those elections over and over and over again,” Senator Cruz explained to Sean. “I cannot help that the Donald Trump campaign does not seem capable of running a lemonade stand.”

This may in fact be true. But winning elections by the popular vote is the key to legitimacy in this society, a society long trained in the notion that every vote counts and that it is your duty to go out and vote. It is also a complete distraction from Cruz’s actual best selling point- that he has the plan that will make us all more prosperous.

It is a lawyerly response from Cruz- now it’s not the votes in primary or caucuses which are convenient and open to all registered party members, it’s the delegates. Technically, quite true, and yet, it’s sausage and now we are talking about all the ingredients of sausage instead of prosperity!

Ted Cruz being forced to rely on legerdemain to win, instead of good, clean wins at the polls coupled with such legerdemain to protect his delegates, is about as appealing as, well, the legal profession itself. The fact is. we are at this place because Ted Cruz could not muster enough of a plurality of votes to beat a New York liberal in a GOP primary. And the reason for that is not Trump, the media, Sean Hannity, or Drudge, all the people Cruz blames: the reason is that Ted Cruz had a brilliant path to victory through a prosperity message but he allowed himself to get distracted.

I am disappointed in Cruz because he allowed himself to become distracted from the only message that will work, prosperity, despite having the plan to back such a message up. He failed to win nice and clean by wining so much support that he only needed to use his delegate mining legerdemain to protect his lead in subsequent rounds if needed. I don’t blame him for fighting on, but I am disappointed that he could not win a clear MORAL victory, coupled with a legal victory, over his opponents.

If Cruz manages to pull this off and win by delegate mining legerdemain I won’t necessarily fault him. You can bet if Cruz was ahead and wasn’t so good at the delegate game he’d be the one facing a contested convention despite being far ahead. In other words, the other side would resort to these means in a heartbeat.

But even if he does win- if he fails to get on the prosperity train and stay there and not be distracted by anything or anyone, not even Hillary and her media sycophants, he will lose the popular vote and he will have no recourse to delegate mining legerdemain!

I do not mean to suggest I won’t vote for Cruz, I am simply disappointed, and I say that as someone who wants Cruz to win. If he manages to pull this off, and, again, nobody can convince me anybody else would not do whatever it takes, he has a choice. Push a massive prosperity message making big promises he can deliver- people will quickly forget and not care about the process that led to his COMING OUT as a prosperity guy.

In the end, we are all prosperity voters. Trump and the Democrats seems to be very good at talking that talk. Cruz can walk that walk, it’s only his messaging that I am disappointed in.

Why The Election of 1896 STILL Matters Today

W R Collier Jr April 19, 2016

By Bill Collier- Winning an election depends upon a mix of popularity, a well-run campaign built on sound strategy, and a willingness to do whatever is necessary. This must be coupled with a firm grasp of the best techniques, and technologies, to reach the right people at the right time. Finally, it depends on a mastery of narrative.

This has been the genius of “the architect”, as some call him, Karl Rove. With his ground-breaking book, The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters, we gain deep insights into Rove’s genius, an important episode in American history, and the fundamentals of modern politics

No doubt the book was written as Rove’s valuable contribution to the study of American history. But, for me, it is much more than that. It is practically a scientific manual any would-be “influencer” should digest deeply and thoroughly until the insights gained become instinctive reactions. I intend to read this book often, take notes, and encapsulate its ideas until they become enmeshed in my train of thought. I liked it that much.

I should note: I am no fanboy. I have never had a problem holding back my criticism of Mr. Rove or anyone. But I took this book at face value and my review reflects the merit of the work. However, I should also add, the book gave me insights into Mr. Rove which certainly raised his esteem in my eyes.

McKinley fought the duel for the White House, first against the party bosses in his party, then against the populist and charismatic William Jennings Bryan. Bryan being of “cross of gold” speech fame. The duel was not pretty and makes today’s politics seem utterly pedestrian by comparison. Instead of mean names tossed about on camera, men fought it out with fists right in the convention hall!

(That McKinley turned those same bosses and his former opponents into allies during the general election is also an important lesson.)

My attraction to this book began with reading another review, by my colleague and business associate, Ralph Benko, in his Forbes column. Benko compared the election of 1896 to today and his review is worth a read for its insights. Mr. Rove’s publisher graciously sent me a copy for review on The Freedomist upon my request: and from the first chapter I was hooked.

To read history by an historian is one thing, but to read a well-researched history by one who has mastered the arts perfected by the object of that history is quite another thing. One discovers a great American, President McKinley, whose most endearing qualities are lost on the minds of many Americans. While not covered in the book, McKinley is most well-known for being assassinated shortly after his re-election. But this man re-wrote the political handbook, as it were, and, aside from changes in electoral coalitions and technology, the fundamentals laid down by this campaign remain valid.

One also discovers the deep insights which, love him or hate him, made and make Karl Rove himself a fixture in today’s political scene. What is more, the writing style really feels like Rove is talking about this campaign, narrating for us, WHILE IT IS HAPPENING. I might be forgiven for feeling like I lived through that election myself!

The book is accessible to anyone who enjoys history, biography, or politics. For those who want to understand politics, especially those trying to get their head wrapped around the role of delegates or how campaigns are run, this book is required reading as a primer. It is true that in 1896 there were no primaries or caucuses which informed the votes of delegates. But there was dependence on a combination of popularity among rank and file voters and the ability to recruit and elect YOUR delegates.

As Rove notes on page 95,

“In politics, it pays to be lucky. But to win, Hanna and McKinley would leave nothing to chance. They would insist on instructions for national delegates. This meant using their grassroots majorities at district and state conventions to vote to direct their national delegates to support McKinley as long as he was in the race.”

Party participation was much more intense and widespread back then. For this reason the multiple conventions by which delegates were chosen tended to reflect the “grassroots consensus.” Lining up your support to the delegate choosing process has long been a staple of politics. McKinley took it to a whole new level of mastery.

I might argue, in 2016 we see a master of dominating a strong plurality of grassroots supporters dueling with a master of managing the delegate selection process. This explains the sudden confusion as voters consider that how delegates vote may disagree with who won the greatest plurality of votes in their state. McKinley’s lesson from 1896, so aptly discerned by Rove, has somehow been lost on modern politicians in both parties.

More than the process, McKinley managed the narrative, and he did so against a worthy opponent in the general election. While it took him some time, eventually McKinley got down to confronting his opponent’s key issue, but on McKinley’s terms.

That issue turned out to be the economy. In particular, the right currency for the economy. Bryan was pushing for “free silver”, to debase the dollar and use the printing press to infuse the economy with cash. This would also make American exports more attractive, it was proposed. It was a populist notion aimed at “the rich.” It was designed to paint the Republicans as the party of the rich. As Rove notes on page 315, the answer was to open mills, not mints. McKinley went on the attack, undermining the very premise of Bryan’s argument. McKinley also went for the very workers and farmers Bryant was courting. McKinley said, “No one suffers from cheap money so much as farmers and laborers.”

In short, McKinley matched wits with a powerful narrative weaver by launching an equally powerful narrative of his own. This was not a narrative versus a counter-narrative, it was two opposing narratives, both offering prosperity as the final goal.

McKinley didn’t just argue “Free Silver won’t do what Bryan says it will do.” He didn’t just argue that the gold standard was superior. He argued: Gold will make YOU prosper and “free silver” will drive you to poverty.

The battle, if not explicitly stated in these terms, was between prosperity versus poverty. Bryan argued for what we could call “fairness” and “equality” and tried to make McKinley look unfair.

McKinley argued for prosperity, simple and clean and sure: Sound money would beat cheap currency and naturally rising income would beat socialist schemes. For every Utopian promise, McKinley offered a better answer. For every stereotype deployed, McKinley responded without holding back. (He painted Bryan as un-patriotic and divisive.)

The book itself is filled with these stories. One is left wondering how much better the GOP itself would be if every member of the Party read and understood what is contained in this book.

I would urge the reader to get this book and spend a lot of time with it. I would urge Karl Rove to consider digging much deeper into the general election. Perhaps with volume two? The book is more focused on the primary battle than the general election. But it was not found wanting.

I already knew from reading Benko’s review that this book would surprise me. If you watch Rove on TV expect a far more approachable style in plain language than might be possible in the brief segments in which he is featured. Rove comes across a storyteller and an historian. You will kick yourself if you don’t read this book.

Find the book HERE- The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters

US Under Threat Of Saudi Economic Attack

W R Collier Jr April 18, 2016

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, joined by the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia, shake hands with members of the Saudi Royal Family at the Erqa Royal Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on January 27, 2015, as they, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other dignitaries extended condolences to the late King Abdullah and call upon and met with King Salman. (Photo by State Department) *** Please Use Credit from Credit Field *** (Newscom TagID: sipaphotosfive183721.jpg) [Photo via Newscom] — President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, joined by the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia, shake hands with members of the Saudi Royal Family at the Erqa Royal Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on January 27, 2015….[Photo via Newscom]

This problem has been illustrated in profound ways by the American President’s trip to Saudi Arabia on April 20th. He is expected to try to mend fences with the despotic salafist kingdom despite its possible role in sponsoring terrorism which may have benefited those who attacked Americans on September 11, 2001. At issue is an effort, and an unfulfilled promise, to release 28 pages of the 911 report which spell out suspicions that Saudi officials aided the 911 hijackers. This would be a crippling blow to Saudi prestige in the US and abroad and would sour the public even further against the despotic salafist kingdom.

The timing of the President’s trip is disconcerting to many who see kowtowing to the Saudis at play here. This has been an ongoing problem since well before President Obama took office, but the President had promised to release the 28 pages. Those who felt that President (GW) Bush was too cozy with the Saudis have been let down by President Obama whose rhetoric has not matched his actions.

The Saudis have been rather bald and open in their response to the mere “threat” of exposing possible terror ties. Adel al-Jubeir, their foreign minister, has literally threatened to unload as much as $750 billion in US assets, securities, and other holdings. He claims it would better to unload these assets rather than face any possible forfeiture of such assets if victims of Saudi-sponsored terror are given the green light to sue the despotic salafist kingdom. Congress is considering legislation that would pave the way to sue any foreign government which might have even indirectly sponsored terrorism resulting in harm to Americans. With those 28 pages as proof, 911 families might have grounds to sue the Saudis and seize parts of their US business empire as compensation.

The key threat is Saudi Arabia’s intention to liquidate its US dollar holdings. This would amount to economic warfare aimed at punishing the US by attempting to cause a collapse in the value of the dollar. But nobody knows how many treasury holdings the Saudis possess- unlike the figures for other nations, the figures for Saudi are kept secret.

Saudi Arabia holds around $500 billion in US dollars. China, by comparison, holds almost $3.5 trillion in US dollars. While analysts focus on Saudi Arabia’s threats, which some assert would hurt the Saudis, the greater issue is the policy that allows foreign governments to directly or indirectly control vital US assets.

It is not possible to stop anyone from holding dollar reserves, which are bought on the open market, but actual US properties, businesses, and treasuries could be used by foreign governments to hold US policy hostage. US policy is being held hostage by this despotic salafist kingdom because of threats of brutal economic warfare against the American people.

At the very hour in which the American people want answers about the possible Saudi ties to the 911 hijackers so that our people can obtain justice, the American President is flying off to that same despotic regime to “mend fences.” Instead of supporting the American people, the US President, like so many before, is caving in to Saudi economic blackmail.

This all comes back to the core problem. Nations such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia see no separation between economic and political activity. They have no hesitation in using economic activities in the global market to pursue political aims. The US has officially turned a blind eye to this. Our government allows foreign powers to have so much control over vital US economic assets and resources that political policies that are beneficial to the US could be jeopardized.

Will the Saudis follow through on these threats if Congress passes the 911 bill and if those 28 pages are released? This is not the real question. The real question is: will President Obama listen to the American people or Saudi threats of brutal economic warfare against Americans? Few predict President Obama will do anything different than any other President has. Even fewer would predict the US will rethink its myopic policies of allowing foreign powers to control vital economic assets.

Salafist Jihad In Brussels

W R Collier Jr March 22, 2016

W. R. (Bill) Collier Jr- The Salafists affiliated with the Sunni Salafist group known as ISIS have struck the main airport and in the subway in Brussels, both the capital of Belgium and the EU. The attacks, as of this writing, have killed at least 28 people and injured other. Multiple explosions at the airport and 3 explosions in the downtown metro occured outside of the security zones in a coordinated attack.

The open borders policy in Europe, pushed especially by Germany’s Angela Merkel, and the influx of millions of Salafist leaning Muslims from the Middle East and Africa have led to a situation that is untenable for security. The population streaming from places like Libya and Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq leans heavily toward a Salafist version of Islam aligned with groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. There exists no credible way to screen these migrants to ensure that those who harbor Salafist views do not slip across the border where, instead of them becoming potential resources for terrorist attacks or the cause of crimes such as the mass assault on German women in Cologne during New Year’s Eve when 900 Salafist-leaning Muslim men sexually assaulted dozens of German women.

Salafism, not Islam of which it is a bastardized derivative, is the bane of civilization and the failure of most Western Governments to differentiate between Salafo-Islam and modern Islam cripples an effective response. A failure to appreciate that in places like Iraq, Syria, North Africa, Afghanistan, Palestinian areas in Israel, and Pakistan Salafo-Islam is in fact dominant has blurred the lines between jingoism and common sense security. In other words, those opposed to Salafism but who do not differentiate it from modern Islam tend to want to shut all Muslims out. On the other hand, those who presume ALL or most all Muslims are like the Islam we might see in the UAE or Jordan cannot fathom the threat of Salafo-Islam and its adherents when they come across their border.

The pure hatred, the apacolyptic vision, and the penchant for violence against infidels and women shared by Salafists is WIDESPREAD in certain populations. This is especially true of Syria, and denial of this fact is, quite simply, suicidal. The failure to even NAME Salafism and therefore divide it from modern Islam has also caused a backlash against Muslims who have to Salafist leanings and who pose a threat to nobody. This is not Islam or “radical Islam”: the Shia Salafists of Iran and Hezbollah and the Sunni Salafists of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan are a threat to non-Muslims and to Muslims. Indeed, Salafism has slaughtered more Muslims than all its other victims combined. Salafism is the IDEOLOGY of these deadly killers and everyone who does not wish to recreate the 7th century Islamic caliphate in its most brutal interpretation is “fair game” for their end-times jihad against human civilization. Imagine an apacolyptic cult that believes that it must bring the end of the world about through violence against the civilized world to recreate it’s interpretation of a 7th century brutal empire. Now, that is Salafism, and among certain populations Salafism in some form is in fact the DOMINANT view. And yet it is not named nor engaged in a battle of ideas and some of its chief progenitors, namely Iran’s Shia Salafism and Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Salafism, are coddled and even welcomed by the Western powers.

The first attacks occured at the airport and 79 minutes later three explosions ripped apart the downtown metro. This attack was made possible by an unwilligness to prevent Salafists from coming to and freely moving about Europe and by a failure to tackle Salafism head on through an ideological counter-attack against its fundamental assumptions.

I Am The Prosperitist!

W R Collier Jr March 18, 2016

Bill Collier Jr- I am the Prosperitist. Are you a Prosperitist too? A Prosperitist is someone who believes prosperity for everyone is possible and that creating an environment where people are free to prosper is a moral and ethical obligation incumbent upon all who hold a public trust. Prosperity is not “being rich”, it is being free to pursue your God or your conscience’s BEST for your life without dependence upon or subservience to others. Prosperity is huan dignity respected and advanced by ennobling people instead of holding them back or making them by artibtrary and unfair rules of rendering them dependent on other people.

Prosperity has four pillars- economic growth in excess of population growth, peace and security at home and abroad, a sound money supply that is stable and isn’t easily manipulated, and good government that is both fair and efficient in every way. So we have economic growth, peace and security, sound money, and good government as the four pillars of prosperity. Prosperity levels inquealities naturally, giving all a chance to rise without artificial hindrances. Prosperity removes social and economic injustices: self-reliant people are not a prey to bigots and exploiters. Prosperity leads to freedom: self-reliant people won’t crave more government control or benefits when they do fine without both.

It is for all of these reasons that the reds on the left and right oppose true prosperity. They don’t want everyone in such a state that 95% of their needs and wants can be met without government being involved. Indeed, for inner city poor who face discrimination and exploitation to rise up on their own without the “benefit” of government dependency would be a blow to their basis of power!

So I am a Prosperitist. I focus on building Prosperity for all- and this requires a growing economy, peace and security, sound money, and good government. All of these things are threatened by the lefist anti-prosperity and pro-bureaucracy policies.

Become a Prosperitist.

The Red Conservative Rebellion

W R Collier Jr March 18, 2016

W. R. Collier Jr- The Red Conservatives are following Erick Erickson and his supporters into open rebellion against the Republican Party and possibly into the political wilderness. They are doing so because of disgust with Donald Trump and the Party shot callers who can be blamed for his rise.
(more…)

10 US Sailors In Iranian Custody

W R Collier Jr January 12, 2016

140210-N-IZ292-113 NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY BAHRAIN (Feb. 10, 2014) Electronics Technician 2nd Class Andrew Garcia, right, and Boatswain's Mate 2nd Class Chris Stout handle a line while a coastal command boat is lifted from the pier in preparation to lower into the water. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Felicito Rustique/Released) — 140210-N-IZ292-113
NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY BAHRAIN (Feb. 10, 2014) Electronics Technician 2nd Class Andrew Garcia, right, and Boatswain’s Mate 2nd Class Chris Stout handle a line while a coastal command boat is lifted from the pier in preparation to lower into the water. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Felicito Rustique/Released)

W. R. Collier Jr- BREAKING- 10 US Sailors In Iranian Custody- POSSIBLE SECRET NEW US NAVY BOAT MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN
Two US boats reportedly run aground on Iranian island due to mechanical failure, 5 sailors on board taken in custody by Iranians who promise to return boats and crews promptly. Among the sailors taken into custody are nine men and one women. Within 18 hours, at around 6 AM US Eatern on the 13th, it was reported the sailors were freed, but not the boats.

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR UPDATES

The incident was first reported to US Secretary of State John Kerry, at 12:30 PM on January 12, 2016, who called Iran’s Foreign Minister, a man who he is said to have warm relations with, and he was assured that the crews and vessels would be promptly reutrned. However, it was nearly 18 hours later that the sailors were freed while the boats remained in Iranian custody.

(more…)

The Fantasy of Progressivism- A Sewer of Death

W R Collier Jr November 23, 2015

W. R. Collier Jr- Some 80 plus years ago Oswald Spengler, in his “Man and Technics”, described the final form of “materialism” a civilization takes before it enters a dead Caesarism which he felt had been expressed in the 18th and 19th centuries but which would give way to the fascism of the 1930’s which, though he was no fan of fascism, he felt was inevitable.

Spengler was prescient but wrong, at the same time. While he described a genuine philosophy of “materialism”, rooted in Hegel and Marx’s interpretation of Hegel, he failed to see that this ideology as a rebellion against morality had not taken root in the masses, but only among the elite. It is for our day that what he called materialism, and which I describe, I think more accurately, as libertine collectivism has become so general that in much of Western Civilization it has displaced faith and morality as surely as it has replaced science and reason, it’s constant claims to be “scientific” notwithstanding.

And so he writes of this utopian, but actually dystopian, fantasy that poisons the minds of a late and dying culture:

“No more war; no more distinctions between races, peoples, states, or religions; no criminals or adventurers; no conflicts arising out of superiorities and differences, no hate or vengeance anymore, but eternal comfort throughout the millennia. Even today, when we experience the last phases of this trivial optimism, these idiocies make one shudder, thinking of the appalling boredom — the taedium vitae of the Roman Imperial age — that spreads over the soul in the mere reading of such idylls, of which even a partial actualisation in real life could only lead to wholesale murder and suicide.”

What he leaves us with, however, is only resignation and despair. The Caesar must come, sewing together the ruined pieces sundered by the time of fantastical decadence, and he must reign some centuries before the final curtain falls on a civilization.

Spengler failed on three counts: the attempted Caesarism of the 1930’s and 40’s in the West was only a dry run for the real thing, his “materialism” had not run its course (and still has not), and he neglected to take into account that the history of civilizations is not linear- one civilization does not follow another, but one begins even as another is coming to an end, and many escape the vissicitudes of the dying civilization by embracing the ideals of the new civilization.

His description, however, of 19th century materialism in its propositions, promises, and its gross pride in its alleged scientific basis (witness the global warming cult, akin to the classic end-times cults of the mid to later 19th century which were just as “certain” of their theological and mathematical predictions), sounds like the pop-culture version of late Western “progressivism” which, as he also notes, actually seeks a stasis of luxury for all without want, a paradise on earth, achieved by the gods of men, the technocracy, all for pleasure, a utility of “whatever pleases the majority”, that sweeps aside the individual, all while claiming to practically adore the individual, that, like Caesar, “makes a desert and calls it peace.”

Because MOST people, even some reading this, have such a tiny porthole through which they view such things as history and philosophy, instead of the grand vistas of 30,000 plus years of the rise and fall of human societies, it is impossible to dig deeper than perhaps 100 years back and to look no further than the next “most important ever” election! When you see the march of history, in its cycles and patterns, it is a wonder everyone isn’t even now looking for signs of the coming civlization which, like all new civilizations, will be first and foremost moral, virtuous. They would discard the pleasure seekers and fantasy weavers, knowing that these are not prophets of a golden age but pallbearers of a dying culture.

The Refugee Crisis- Balancing Humanitarian Aid with Protection

W R Collier Jr September 14, 2015

From the World Freedomist, Bill Collier gives us an analysis of the dilemma of aiding people in need with the real security risks of inviting tens of thousands of people in your country, some of which may be coming in to do you harm.

Refugees Versus Security

Bill Collier- The surge of refugees from Syria and Northern Iraq into Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and central Europe has caused alarm bells to ring around the world. The chief concern, and suspicion, has come from the fact that over 70% of all those claiming to be refugees are, apparently, well fed, strapping young men between the ages of 17 and 30: precisely the demographic who are most likely to be members of ISIL or any number of Salafo-facist groups (both Shia and Sunni).

Read the Full Article of World Freedomist

It’s the Monetary Policy, Stupid

W R Collier Jr August 31, 2015

Bill Collier with Monetary Policy Expert George Gilder at the Jackson Hole Summit

Presidential Candidates Ignore the 5th Element For Economic Growth

R. Collier Jr- Today’s candidates for the White House have announced the economic platforms of their campaigns, and among the Republican candidates who are trying to gain traction in the face of Trump’s poll numbers and celebrity, the fare is rather light when you consider that they either give scant attention to or ignore the fifth element of economic growth- monetary policy.

It may not be a terribly interesting issue, but money is everywhere and drives everything, so why wouldn’t one make money, how it is valued and managed, THE central aspect of your economic platform IF you, as a candidate, are truly serious about real and sustained growth for everyone?

I recently attended a summit in Jackson Hole, Wyoming (put on by The American Principles Project who, full disclosure, sponsored my trip to the event), in which leading luminaries of the free market and of monetary policy focused on the issues and problems of monetary policy as enacted by the Federal Reserve. The focus was on economic growth, or, rather, the desire and need to re-stimulate economic growth and to discern the impact of a central bank, like the Fed, on economic growth.

It is true that economic growth which includes all sectors and most all people is a key factor for ending problems ranging from poverty to the deficit, to national debt, and even our imbalance of trade. Growth that is productive and that reaches into every home sustains many advances. As former President John Kennedy said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

There are five major elements that impact economic growth
Tax policy
Fiscal policy
Trade policy
Regulatory policy
Monetary policy

Under Reagan and Clinton, George W and Obama, we did not have major operational difference in ANY of these elements of economic growth except for ONE, the fifth element, monetary policy.

Under Reagan and Clinton we had 4% annual growth. Under George W and Obama, 2% or less annual growth (George HW raised taxes which, it can be argued, drove us into a recession).

From “The Great Moderation” under the Fed, which reigned during the Reagan-Clinton years, we went to a boom and bust cycle after 2000. Average Americans prospered, as did the wealthy. Since 2000, the wealthy may have gone from boom to bust to boom and back again, but average Americans went from doing OK, to not doing OK, to doing poorly, to even worse and, finally, to near hopelessness.

If the economy is a fire that we want to keep burning in a manner that keeps us warm from the “elements” of poverty, without burning our house down, then money is like oxygen. Too little oxygen and the fire goes out, too much and the fire gets out of control (you get things like massive inflation that burns the house down).

Monetary policy, how we manage money supply through things like interest rates and the amount of currency in circulation, is not only the fifth element of economic success, it has been the only element changed in an operational and substantive manner since the Reagan-Clinton growth period (The Great Moderation) and thus is THE lead suspect behind the dramatic fall-off of growth (shall we call it The Great Regression?) since 2000 during the Bush-Obama malaise. In fact, 2% growth is really 0% growth per capita because our population grows by 2% a year. (If you want to see real wealth increase, you need an economic growth rate higher than the population growth rate.)

Think of it like this: if we had the extra 2% growth for the last 15 years most everyone, like YOU and me, would have 30% higher incomes, 30% more real property wealth, 30% more in our 401k’s and retirement plans, and 30% more money in the bank.

And yet, for all that, today’s Presidential candidates are focused on the other four elements, while none of them are seriously talking about the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. As John Fund said at The Jackson Hole Summit, “it (the Fed) is the dog that didn’t bark.” Indeed, nobody is barking about monetary policy- how we value the dollar and manage the supply of money.

Where is Ted Cruz? While Rand Paul has touched on this, he has not made it central to his economic platform. The same can be said of them all- monetary policy is the one major change in all economic factors from 2000 that has led to 15 years of economic malaise, therefore, addressing this should be THE central issue of this campaign.

The candidate who can address this with something rational and workable and who can articulate this will rise, even above the heights of mere celebrity.