Thomas Sowell: Why Americans are Hungry and Poor

Sowell on Gun Control

Liberals imagine that law-abiding citizens do not have any idea how to use a gun responsibly — and that criminals will start following rules.

"Sometimes someone inadvertently performs a public service by bringing an unbelievably stupid and dangerous idea to the surface, where it can be exposed for what it is.

The New York Times can be credited — if that is the word — with performing this public service in a recent editorial against proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed guns. They refer to what they call the National Rifle Association’s “fantasy that citizens can stand up to gunmen by shooting it out.”

Nobody has suggested any such thing. Data collected over many years — but almost never seeing the light of day in the New York Times or the rest of the mainstream media — show many thousands of examples of people defending themselves with a gun each year, without having to pull the trigger.

If someone comes at you with a knife and you pull out a gun, chances are they will stop. The only time I ever pointed a gun at a human being, it was when someone was sneaking up toward me from behind a shed in the middle of the night. I never fired a shot. I just pointed the gun at him and told him to stop. He stopped.

Actually having to shoot someone is the exception, not the rule. Yet the New York Times conjures up a vision of something like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Concealed guns protect not only those who carry them but also those who do not. If concealed guns become widespread, then a mugger or a carjacker has no way of knowing who has one and who does not. It makes being a mugger or a carjacker a less safe occupation. Gun-control laws are in effect occupational-safety laws — OSHA for burglars, muggers, carjackers, and others.

The fatal fallacy of gun-control laws in general is the assumption that such laws actually control guns. Criminals who disobey other laws are not likely to be stopped by gun-control laws. What such laws actually do is increase the number of disarmed and defenseless victims.

What puts a stop to mass shootings? Usually the arrival on the scene of somebody else with a gun. Mass shootings are often used as examples of a need for gun control. But what puts a stop to mass shootings? Usually the arrival on the scene of somebody else with a gun.

Mass shooters are often portrayed as “irrational” people engaged in “senseless” acts. But mass shooters are usually rational enough to attack schools, churches, and other places where there is far less likelihood of someone being on the scene who is armed.

Seldom do we hear about these “irrational” shooters engaging in “senseless” attacks on meetings of the National Rifle Association or a local gun show or a National Guard armory.

The fallacy of believing that the way to reduce shootings is to disarm peaceful people extends from domestic gun-control laws to international disarmament agreements. If disarmament agreements reduced the dangers of war, there would never have been a World War II.

The decades leading up to that war were filled with international disarmament agreements. As with domestic gun-control laws, the agreements were followed by peaceful countries and ignored by belligerent countries that built up huge war machines, such as in Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.

The net result was that the belligerent countries had every incentive to start wars, and that they inflicted devastating losses on the peaceful countries that had drastically curtailed their own military forces.

Eventually the Western democracies got their act together and turned things around, after they belatedly beefed up their military forces. But thousands of lives were lost needlessly before that happened. World War II was in its third year before Western forces won a single battle.

Undaunted by history, the same kind of thinking that had cheered international disarmament treaties in the 1920s and 1930s once again cheered Soviet–American disarmament agreements during the Cold War.

Conversely, there was hysteria when President Ronald Reagan began building up American military forces in the 1980s. Cries were heard that he was leading us toward nuclear war. In reality, he led us toward an end of the Cold War, without a shot being fired at the Soviet Union.

But who reads history these days, or checks facts before leading the charge to keep law-abiding people disarmed?"

If Democrats/Leftist cared about the safety of children, they would protect them, wouldn't they? By placing schools into the Free Fire Targeting zones, they do the opposite. They even fear having armed professional guards, because "guns kill people". Then they weep oceans of tears when a shooter disobeys the No Guns sign, and kills a bunch of kids. They have the information: mass shooters go where guns are prohibited. As Sowell says, you never hear of a mass shooting at an NRA meeting or at a gun range.

Evidence does not drive Democrat/Leftist/Atheist "illogic"; the Atheist moral narrative which secures Leftist elitism ignores contrary evidence as if it does not exist. It is against the moral narrative to allow the designated Oppressor Class and Kill Class to have weapons. And by the way, the class of black gang-bangers is a Victimhood Class which is utilizing its First Amendment Right to express cultural distress by using guns in gun free zones. So of course it is the constabulary which is the Oppressor Class.

It's all traceable back to the Marxist three class system assault on free society, free people, and unbiased government.

Leftist Fascism: Thomas Sowell

Socialist or Fascist

"What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom."

Much more, THERE.

Sowell on Leftist Utopianism

From Thomas Sowell, in National Review, an excerpt:

The Left’s Central Delusion

All this moral melodrama has served as a background for the political agenda of the Left, which has claimed to be able to lift the poor out of poverty, and in general make the world a better place. This claim has been made for centuries and in countries around the world.

And it has failed for centuries in countries around the world. Some of the most sweeping and spectacular rhetoric of the Left occurred in 18th-century France, where the very concept of the Left originated in the fact that people with certain views sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

The French Revolution was their chance to show what they could do when they got the power they sought. In contrast to what they promised — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — what they actually produced were food shortages, mob violence, and dictatorial powers that included arbitrary executions, extending even to their own leaders, such as Robespierre, who died under the guillotine.

In the 20th century, the most sweeping vision of the Left — Communism — spread over vast regions of the world and encompassed well over a billion human beings. Of these, millions died of starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and tens of millions in China under Mao.

Milder versions of socialism, with central planning of national economies, took root in India and in various European democracies.

If the preconceptions of the Left were correct, central planning by educated elites who had vast amounts of statistical data at their fingertips and expertise readily available, and were backed by the power of government, should have been more successful than market economies where millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests willy-nilly.

But, by the end of the 20th century, even socialist and communist governments began abandoning central planning and allowing more market competition. Yet this quiet capitulation to inescapable realities did not end the noisy claims of the Left.

In the United States, those claims and policies have reached new heights, epitomized by government takeovers of whole sectors of the economy and unprecedented intrusions into the lives of Americans, of which Obamacare has been only the most obvious example.

Read more at the source; be kind, give them a click.

Thomas Sowell on Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Some highlights:

32:40 Obama critiqued

FED: the idea was wonderful; only the reality didn't cooperate.

37:30: immigration

38:00 family

39:00 Pope and trickle down theory

Mascot Politics

There is a very interesting discussion of Thomas Sowell's "Mascot Politics" article over at VFR. There are some very interesting comments in the thread below the article.

My personal current observation is that most of the liberal (AtheoLeftist Messiah) mascots (Victimhood Class) are as enabled as they want to be. Women, blacks, homosexuals (LGBTQDPNODFBKJDD) all are both a) not persecuted and b) free to do whatever they want... as well as enabled by Affirmative Action at every turn in their lives. If they want to be a part of successful living, they can be. And that is the reason for the invention of the microagression, white privilege, Black Lives Matter, and other tools for Leftist combat. The old oppressed classes are not oppressed in real life.

These newly fabricated "oppressions" are invisible, except to the SJW who makes the charge, usually against someone s/he doesn't like. It's not real racism, it's just that you have white skin, and that is offensive because it implies, no it proves that you belong to the wrong class: the Oppressor Class. Same with sexism: you don't have a "real" vagina.

No overt action of racist/sexist nature is required for racism/sexism to be charged. No panicky apology and genuflection can save the Oppressor Class individual from approbation and denigration, even overt attacks on employment, organization membership or status as student.

The total invisibility of the microaggression is a master stroke as a last ditch effort to maintain the three class marxist system of socio-political progressivism, dominated by the self-anointed Goods, the virtuous, (in a universe which contains neither good nor virtue). The Messiahs absolutely MUST have victims to save, or else Messiahism is trivial.

When I grew up, there were indeed highly visible class distinctions. Due to Democrat Jim Crow segregation, the blacks all lived "over there". They had their own schools, which taught them very little, certainly not personal hygiene or speaking American English. Segregation was the tool which the Democrats used to oppress and restrain blacks. The Republican Civil Rights laws (yes plural: laws) were essential at that time. But that was 2.6 generations ago, plenty of time for equalizing the rights of minorities to join the pursuit of the American Dream - and many did do just that.

But that damaged the Democrat - Leftist ability to claim oppression; they lost much of their Victimhood class. So they had to make "oppression" stuff up, and that is the thrust of the Democrat - AtheoLeftist - Progressive - Messiah movement, ever since. That explains the false campus rape panic, the "open season on black youth" panic, and the AGW panic. Without those (false) crises, the Messiahs have no traction, no raison d'etre.

And that is why Obama has just declared that AGW is the Hugest, Dangerousest, Super-Scariest threat that there is. Certainly not any form of Islam; Islam is firmly entrenched in the Victimhood Class, and therefore cannot possibly produce any offense or oppression, because of its class membership. Just as blacks cannot be racist and women cannot be sexist.

It's all easily understood, if it is observed through marxist class theory. Otherwise it appears chaotic and irrational.

Update:
Here's an example, where Arab Palestinians are the Victimhood Group and the Israelis are the Oppressors:

How The New York Times whitewashes Palestinian terror

Narrative always trumps truth.

"New Right That Violates Itself"

" David Burge @iowahawkblog

Breakthrough at Berkeley: university grievance scientists create new right that violates itself "

Well, they merely codified what already exists: Intolerance of Intolerance:

"University of California considering recognizing a “right” to be “free from … expressions of intolerance”"

Intolerance has no place at the University of California. We define intolerance as unwelcome conduct motivated by discrimination against, or hatred toward, other individuals or groups. It may take the form of acts of violence or intimidation, threats, harassment, hate speech, derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice, or inflammatory or derogatory use of culturally recognized symbols of hate, prejudice, or discrimination.

Everyone in the University community has the right to study, teach, conduct research, and work free from acts and expressions of intolerance. The University will respond promptly and effectively to reports of intolerant behavior and treat them as opportunities to reinforce the University’s Principles Against Intolerance.

Internal contradiction is irrational.

Persistent irrationality in an individual is insanity.

Persistent irrationality in a group is Leftism.

Persistent irrationality in the form of assumed moral authority is Messiahism.

And there's this, as well:

“Intellectuals Cannot Operate At Room Temperature”

"Found via Sissy Willis, back in 2004, Thomas Sowell was interviewed by the American Enterprise Institute [full quote at the end]:

There’s something Eric Hoffer said: “Intellectuals cannot operate at room temperature.” There always has to be a crisis–some terrible reason why their superior wisdom and virtue must be imposed on the unthinking masses. It doesn’t matter what the crisis is. A hundred years ago it was eugenics. At the time of the first Earth Day a generation ago, the big scare was global cooling, a big ice age. They go from one to the other. It meets their psychological needs and gives them a reason for exercising their power.

A couple of years later, Julia Gorin made an acute observation that during the mid-aughts, global warming served as a Freudian displacement for a left that turned their backs on the Global War on Terror:

It’s a peculiar thing that as the threat of global terrorism reaches a crescendo, so apparently does the threat of global warming – at least that’s what some would have us believe.

Tough language is borrowed from the war on terror and applied to the war on weather. “I really consider this a national security issue,” says celebrity activist and “An Inconvenient Truth” producer Laurie David. “Truth” star Al Gore calls global warming a “planetary emergency.” Bill Clinton’s first worry is climate change: “It’s the only thing that I believe has the power to fundamentally end the march of civilization as we know it.”

Freud called it displacement. People fixate on the environment when they can’t deal with real threats. Combating the climate gives nonhawks a chance to look tough. They can flex their muscle for Mother Nature, take a preemptive strike at an SUV. Forget the Patriot Act, it’s Kyoto that’ll save you.

But while the reasoning behind such impulses change over time, they all boil down to rehashes of a century-old concept by William James: the moral equivalent of war, as Jonah Goldberg told Salon while promoting Liberal Fascism, where, needless to say, the concept is explored in depth:

What appealed to the Progressives about militarism was what William James calls this moral equivalent of war. It was that war brought out the best in society, as James put it, that it was the best tool then known for mobilization … That is what is fascistic about militarism, its utility as a mechanism for galvanizing society to join together, to drop their partisan differences, to move beyond ideology and get with the program. And liberalism today is, strictly speaking, pretty pacifistic. They’re not the ones who want to go to war all that much. But they’re still deeply enamored with this concept of the moral equivalent of war, that we should unite around common purposes"

The full quote from Sowell, and where to find it (HERE):

"TAE: At the end of Applied Economics, you explain that it's impossible for different parts of the world to have equal development. Yet economic disparities often lead to claims of "exploitation" and solutions built on controlling people's lives.

Sowell: There's something Eric Hoffer said: "Intellectuals cannot operate at room temperature." There always has to be a crisis--some terrible reason why their superior wisdom and virtue must be imposed on the unthinking masses. It doesn't matter what the crisis is. A hundred years ago it was eugenics. At the time of the first Earth Day a generation ago, the big scare was global cooling, a big ice age. They go from one to the other. It meets their psychological needs and gives them a reason for exercising their power. Many intellectuals' preoccupation with the poor is very much the same thing. The thing that gives it all away is that after they say, "We must have this program because the poor can't afford medicine, or can't afford housing," they will splutter if you say, "OK, let's have a means test so it really goes to the poor." If they were really concerned primarily about the poor, they would agree to it. But they are bitterly opposed to that, because the poor are a lever to reach other, political, goals.

Walter Williams figured out some years ago that the amount of money needed to move the poor out of poverty would be trivial compared to the amount of money that's spent on these damn programs that are supposed to help the poor but usually don't. But the poor are being used as human shields in the political battle. You put the poor up in front of you as you march across the battlefield and enemy troops won't fire, so you can expand your power, and raise taxes, and so forth.

TAE: In a recent column, you mentioned that Democrats are running out of poor people as a useful tool.

Sowell: Yes, they inflate the numbers. One way is by counting persons who don't have real problems but temporarily lack income, like students. When I first started studying poverty some 20 years ago, I was astonished to discover how many people among the official ranks of the poor had air conditioning, which I didn't have! Thousands of poor people with swimming pools? I didn't have a swimming pool! I'm sure there were years when Donald Trump was not making money because things weren't going his way. Technically, he was down there among the poor."

Some "Random Thoughts" From Thomas Sowell

My favorites:

"Our schools and colleges are laying a guilt trip on those young people whose parents are productive, and who are raising them to become productive. What is amazing is how easily this has been done, largely just by replacing the word "achievement" with the word "privilege."

There are few modest talents so richly rewarded -- especially in politics and the media -- as the ability to portray parasites as victims, and portray demands for preferential treatment as struggles for equal rights.

When Professor Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. boasted of fooling the "stupid" American public, that was not just a personal quirk of his. It epitomized a smug and arrogant attitude that is widespread among academics at elite institutions. There should be an annual "Jonathan Gruber award" for the most smug and arrogant statement by an academic. There would be thousands eligible every year.

Republicans complain when Democrats call them racists. But when have you ever heard a Republican counterattack? You don't win by protesting your innocence or whining about the unfairness of the charge. Yet when have you heard a Republican reply by saying, "You're a lying demagogue without a speck of evidence. Put up or shut up!"

When the political left wants to help the black community, they usually want to help the worst elements in that community -- thugs they portray as martyrs, for example -- without the slightest regard for the negative effect this can have on the lives of the majority of decent black people."
[Emphasis added]

But read them all. I plan to nominate a few candidates for the Jonathan Gruber Smug Elitist Award this year. A few life-time achievement candidates such as Harry Reid are no longer players, though.

Video: Thomas Sowell on Obama, Black Caucus and Ferguson

Quote of the Day: Thomas Sowell

Sowell on RINOs:

"When it comes to national elections, just what principles do the Republicans stand for? It is hard to think of any, other than their hoping to win elections by converting themselves into Democrats lite. But voters who want what the Democrats offer can vote for the real thing, rather than Johnny-come-lately imitations.

Listening to discussions of immigration laws and proposals to reform them is like listening to something out of “Alice in Wonderland.”

Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them. One of the big problems that those who are pushing “comprehensive immigration reform” want solved is how to help people who came here illegally and are now “living in the shadows” as a result.

What about embezzlers or burglars who are “living in the shadows” in fear that someone will discover their crimes? Why not “reform” the laws against embezzlement or burglary, so that such people can also come out of the shadows?"

Well, lawbreakers are in charge of the nation; so why not just make a National Lawbreakers Political Party? Oh yeah, there already is one.

Thomas Sowell is Against the Three Party System

If you consider the Tea Party to be a separate political party, then Sowell seems to be against it.

Thomas Sowell is a hero of mine, and I respect his opinion greatly. However, the Republican Party has plenty for which to be criticised, and it seems oblivious to its failures. They need to listen to the Tea Party, or lose it to third party status.