The Last Straw for Alfred Nobel

Alfred Nobel was a Swedish inventor, chemist, industrialist and when he had reached the end of his life of incredible achievement he left a legacy of philanthropy directed toward the awarding, year in and year out, of the greatest possible merit in the physical sciences, literature, and diplomacy. The Nobel Peace Prize, since its establishment after Nobel's death in 1896 (the first was awarded in 1901), has since becomes one of the pinnacles of modern human glory (even enshrined for board game players everywhere as a seminal lifetime achievement in the game of LIFE). Unfortunately, the process for choosing who wins the prizes, particularly the peace prize, has always been open to wide latitudes of opinion and standards for what constitutes sound peacemaking. Often it is awarded to whoever can steal headlines in any particular year for a peace treaty or accord, hence it was awarded to American President Theodore Roosevelt, and to heads of states and even terrorists who decided to try to make peace (or fool those desirous of peace of their good intentions) the world over. It has also occasionally been awarded to a dissident suffering under an oppressive regime who is trying to create a civil society, one that will not be prone towards aggressive war making. These were all, whether properly awarded or not, the precedents and largely accepted ways one could earn a once prestigious prize.

I use the word "once" because the most recent winner, former Vice-President Albert Gore, Jr., has "earned" the prize in a novel and problematic way. The Nobel committee awarded him the most recent Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to raise global awareness to an alleged problem which supposedly promises, if unchecked, to promote global conflict and war over resources. The alleged problem is, of course, what Gore has been crying wolf over ever since 1992 when he published his alarmist book, Earth in the Balance. Gore is being awarded a prize for advancing world peace without actually having done anything at all to advance world peace. This has been true of former winners in far different contexts, i.e. Yasser Arafat won through his own duplicitous efforts to achieve peace (some saw through him at the time), and dissidents in oppressed countries are working for internal peace and long-term international peace, but usually aren't achieving anything in the short-term.

However, Gore's "peace-making" achievement lies mainly in frightening the non-scientific community with dire predictions of worldwide doom and making absurd causal linkages between variations in global temperatures and weather phenomenon (like Hurricane Katrina which was cruelly used like a piece of propaganda in his sleazy ad campaign for An Inconvenient Truth). Actual temperature measurements, by this I mean actual day-by-day measurements of the actual temperature on earth, don't even go back two centuries which is not only a blip in human history but an infinitesimally small speck of a blip in the history of the earth. To attempt to generalize from current data and make claims, knowing full well that the earth has had numerous temperature fluctuations over its history without the involvement of any human beings (both to much much cooler than present temperatures, and to much much hotter than present) is not scientific caution, but criminally reckless scaremongering.

I say this not because I think it impossible for what Gore and his supporters assert is true to be true (though I think it is absurdly improbable) but because they are more concerned about political activism inimical to liberty than about the problems in their causal reasoning and the problems with computer modeling based on imperfect data and equally imperfect assumptions. Scientists do not shout down opponents and declare debate on questions is dead. Certainly, some issues are "put to rest" empirically or due to a preponderance of evidence, or because nothing else makes as much sense, but Gore and no other proponents of man made global warming have come anywhere near that standard of evidence. Asserting that one's opponents are either nuts or bought off by the "evil corporations" allegedly most responsible for the supposed problem is not an argument, but a pathetic combination of several logical fallacies.

So back to the related but different issue of Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize. With this action, the Nobel Committee has merely taken a further step towards making a once sought after and prestigious prize a trapping of political orthodoxy. This is fine if that's what the committee wishes the prize to become, but do not continue to refer to it in the memory of fine man or refer to it as an award to promote a noble goal. Call it what it is, something like "The Prize awarded for being in line with a select group of Swedish leftists" because that is, unfortunately, what Alfred Nobel's legacy is becoming.

Immigration Hysteria and Confusion

A pundit on a show this afternoon has compared the act of coming to the United States illegally to the act of forging a check or robbing a bank. Such a comparison is symptomatic of the hysterical confusion which surrounds the question of immigration. It also highlights the tremendous amount of xenophobia and subtle (if not obvious) racism on the part of those so concerned about the immigration of millions of people from what is essentially a corrupt economic backwater (Mexico) to a prosperous much freer country, the United States.

A bank robber forcibly steals money which he has no right to and a check forger defrauds people by passing himself off as someone with access to money. They both operate on the principle that they have a right to the financial rewards earned by others simply because they have the ability to do so and possibly get away with it. What is an immigrant doing if they enter the country without waiting or even applying for the proper paperwork? What principle is animating them? Is it the principle of the bank robber, to steal the productive affluence of others? How can this be? Some would say that illegal immigrants from Mexico are mostly very poor and use state and federal welfare services which they technically have no “right” to since they are not citizens, and thus, are in fact acting under the same principle as the bank robber. This is a confused and muddled mess of an argument. State and Federals agencies and programs give away money pilfered through taxation largely from the most productive people in the economy in order to subsidize the poor. Should it surprise anyone that the poor, whether domestic or foreign, should be attracted to free money and services? This is not the fault of the poor per se, though they are certainly no saints, but the fault of those who think it is good policy to pay the poor for being poor and to offer them rewards which others, not the poor, have earned. As most of those bleating the loudest about this alleged problem never stop to point this out it can only be assumed that they support the principle of taking from the rich and productive in order to give to the poor and unproductive, and are thus most responsible for attracting immigrants who are coming for reasons other than to enjoy a life of free economic opportunity and free of political repression.

This brings us to another issue which is of course intertwined in this whole immigration debate, but which should be extracted and clarified. Citizenship entitles one to a whole host of things in American society, including the right to vote. Currently the easiest way to earn citizenship in our republic is simply to be born within its boundaries. For immigrants the task is much more difficult, not only are there irrational quotas restricting the numbers of people who can apply for citizenship depending on where they come from, but there are numerous steps in a process which takes years and stacks of paperwork to complete. But what is the purpose of this process? Allegedly it exists to allow the person to immerse themselves in American culture and demonstrate an overwhelming desire to become an American. These are laudable goals certainly. However, it is in no way clear how, exactly, restricting the numbers of immigrants at all, let alone by where they are immigrating from, aids the process of attracting people who are interested in embracing the American dream and the ideals of freedom, liberty and equality before the law. Also, immersion in American culture is delayed by the fact that this process adds tremendous expense to people making a tremendous move, hampers their ability to find gainful employment (finding an employer willing to sponsor them), and leaves them uncertain of their futures, particularly if they are not able to get restricted numbers of work visas and other important documents and permits. Citizenship should not be denied or delayed for those who are clearly trying to lead productive lives in the United States. For those not looking to become citizens, but merely wish to work here, they too should be embraced, not as golden geese who will lay golden tax eggs, but as productive human beings who are not leeches on anyone.

The problem as far as immigration is concerned is the influx of either outright criminals, or of those who are not interested in leading productive and independent lives. The only cure for this latter problem is to make sure ours is a society which does not indulge and reward such people. If this is to continue to be a country with a government and people that wishes to engage in such behavior then those who support that cannot and should not be surprised by the people they attract. Fortunately, a great many immigrants (like a great many born Americans) are still desirous of leading productive, independent, and fulfilling lives, and are desirous of living in the country founded on the principle that they should be able to do that in liberty and freedom to the best of their abilities.

New Book and Preview of an Upcoming Article

Contrary to reports, rumors of my blogging demise were premature. I have put together a new book of (mainly) historical essays covering a wide range of topics. The TOC is below and if you're interested in getting a copy, a link is also provided.

I am currently working on a piece which explores the reactions to Saddam Hussein's execution and what they can tell us about the culture at large and some of the troubling notions people have about justice, among other things.

I hope everyone had a great holiday and that the new year find's you well, mentally and physically.

Cheers,
Alexander Marriott

http://www.lulu.com/alexmarriott

TABLE OF CONTENTS


MEANDERING INTO MEDIOCRITY

THEATRE OF THE ABSURD: KORAN ABUSE

A TALE OF TWO 9/11s

LAST STAND OF TRADITION: THE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

THE IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES IN THE POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF THE "POST-HEROIC" GENERATION, 1825-1861

PURITAN LITERARY APOLOGIA: MICHAEL WIGGLESWORTH’S DAY OF DOOM

DIVERGENT PATHS: RIGHTS IN THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS

HERESIES AND EVASIONS: JAMES MADISON AND NULLIFICATION

THE “DELICATE INTEREST:” U.S. RELATIONS WITH HAITI, 1798-1848

REPUBLICANISM AT WAR: WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS AND THE WAR OF 1812

DECLINE HALTED: THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION AND THE REBIRTH OF PURITY IN NEW ENGLAND

IMAGES OF THE GLORIOUS: CLASSICISM IN AMERICAN HISTORY

KASPAROV PLAYING CHESS WITHOUT A BOARD

CONSPIRACY THEORIES: WAS 9/11 AN “INSIDE JOB?” AND OTHER TALES OF THE RIDICULOUS

ISRAEL AT WAR: PROBLEMS AND FALLACIES

Happy Columbus Day!

Of course, this will always be an interesting anniversary for me. However, that is in the fading past, let us remember the daring and courage it took to cross the Atlantic 514 years ago and sparked the eventual spread of western civilization into the Americas that eventually resulted in the establishment of our republic. That achievement, though not Columbus's, would not have been possible without his voyage, and for that we should and do salute him.

Conspiracy Theories: Was 9/11 An “Inside Job” and Other Stories
By Alexander Marriott


I was recently forced to break off an amicable correspondence of several years because of 9/11 conspiracy theories and this person’s acceptance of them. Our conversations became nothing but this person trying to convince me that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an “inside job” and that for me to contend otherwise was to show my willingness to accept State lies and be a serf. This line of conversation and reasoning became tiring for me and all prior benefit of our correspondence was lost, so I broke off contact. I do not do this very often, mainly because I do not generally begin correspondences with the hopelessly irrational. But, unfortunately from time to time, it does happen that the previously rational become irrational for one reason or another. Before this instance it was because the correspondent lost someone close to them and turned, against my repeated pleas, to mysticism and altruism. So, as a way of expressing my disgust for conspiracy theories in general, and this one in particular, I write this article in dedication to all instances of broken correspondence I have personally gone through and heard about in similar cases from others over the years.

The conspiracy theory is the bastion of shadows and little or no evidence. It explains a famous or known event by appealing to the leftist dictum of “follow the money” or “look who benefits” as if actual evidence is irrelevant and personal ethics are just a farcical way for the rich and powerful to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else. Whether it is the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11 attacks, conspiracy theories which pop up to counter the “official” tale of events share common characteristics.

As a historian, I come across conspiracy theories all the time. Progressive historians like Charles and Mary Beard made the conspiracy theory view of history a popular vogue for a while. They contended that the founders plotted the constitution as a way of aggrandizing their power and property at the expense of common folk, the evidence being that nearly all of the men at the convention were wealthy property owners and remained so afterwards, or became richer under the new system. Of course, this case is circumstantial at best and ignores the actual debates which occurred at the convention and afterwards on real political and philosophical issues.

Beard’s assertions inspired other historians to go into other historical episodes and see greedy conspiracies. The War of 1812 is a topic I study quite a bit and a topic with a historiography full of conspiracy theories, whether to steal Canada, Indian land, or whatever else, as opposed to the real issues of free trade and sailor’s rights which actually sparked the conflict. The conspiracy theory today is usually a way to cast the darkest aspersions upon the government in general and certain officers of the government in particular. I am no fan of the government in most of its actions. It is too big, too powerful, does a whole host of unconstitutional and immoral things, and is generally wasteful and inept. That does not mean I (or anyone else) should automatically buy into every conspiracy theory people come up with to explain events. I am not concerned here with delving into the specifics of these conspiracy theories to dispute their specific claims, there are experts and scholars already doing that in professional journals all over the country. I am more interested in the implications of conspiracy theories in general what one has to accept in order to buy one of these conspiracy theories.

To accept a conspiracy theory that the government or certain of its officers killed President Kennedy or carried out the 9/11 attacks, without overwhelming evidence (as in a criminal conspiracy case), requires the acceptance of certain other implausible facts. For instance, one would have to accept that scores of people in the government are able, at will, to plan secretly large scale attacks or plots and maintain operational security against leaks. This makes a good movie plot, but a rather alarming fact of reality if one accepts it. To accept this idea though, one has to ignore clear evidence that other plots and schemes by government officials including the “most powerful man on earth,” the President, have not succeeded and have been uncovered. The list of these is a long list of scandals from efforts to have the CIA kill Castro (a noble effort if ill-conceived) to Watergate, Whitewater, Travel Gate, the Iran-Contra scandal, Clinton’s efforts to cover up the Lewinsky affair and on and on. But for the person who accepts the conspiracy theory view of reality, the government is able to keep omniscient control of diabolical plots which are much more complex, require far more people, and involve the killing of perfectly innocent Americans.

Another point which the person who accepts these conspiracy theories much accept, at least implicitly, is that all people, particularly government officials, are evil incarnate. This may sound almost like common sense at first. How many of us don’t think the vast majority of officials and government employees are jerks at one point or another? But this belief is far more serious than frustration with the post office or genuine disgust with hated political foes. It means that you seriously believe that the vast majority of government officials are, on the whole, willing to kill anyone they have to in order to add to their own power or achieve certain goals, whether that means winning an election or, far more diabolical, toppling the republic to establish a despotism. As citizens we must always be wary and on guard against Catilines, men willing to scheme to overthrow the republic, but these men are rare (hence the name Catiline still rings down through history from ancient Rome). For one man to undo a political system and instate his own person rule is exceedingly difficult, the examples of it in all history are all too numerous but sufficiently small to make the threat real while rare. If we honestly believe that the majority or even a minority of our government is made up of genuine Catilines and Cromwells then we should give up on self-government altogether for it will prove nothing but a pipedream. We’ve had two large examples of purely evil governments in the 20th century, with hordes of evil henchmen, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Those governments were not brought about by shadowy conspiracies, but by very public leaders and their followers, along with the surrender and impotence of their opposition.

People who believe 9/11 was an “inside job” say Bush wanted a rationale for war or a way to win the next election, etc. So aside from the first two points (the government is capable of keeping such a plot secret and government is run by men of pure evil) one must also accept that Bush is a diabolical genius. He had to formulate and execute a perfectly secure plan to attack his own country in nine months in order to gather a rationale to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and win re-election in 2004. Since every new development, from the foiled plot in England to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, can be added to the conspiracy, Bush’s tremendous mind and evil genius become magnified over and over again. He makes Lex Luther look retarded in the conspiracy theory universe. He sees things so far in advance he is almost prophetic. Of course, questions are being begged left and right. For instance, given that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had already attacked the United States numerous times, why plot such an elaborate and traitorous scheme that, if discovered, would mean the utter contempt of people today and all posterity, not to mention sure death for treason? Also, Iraq was invaded under the auspices of the United Nations and their resolutions. Bush purposely and foolishly went out of his way to wrap all the rationale for the Iraq war in United Nations priorities and bromides, not 9/11. How did 9/11 help that? How did Bush know he could win in 2004, even with the terrorist attacks? His re-election was not automatic, and had the Democrats nominated someone competent they may well have won. Of course the conspiracy theory answers to these questions are predictable. Bush is evil; the attack created an environment to make the Iraq war acceptable; and Bush conspired to and stole the ’04 election. The evidence is that the event occurred and thus was in the interest of the subject of the conspiracy theory.

I will end this essay by creating my own conspiracy theory, using the conspiracy theory methods. Unfortunately it is all too easy.

George Washington, widely regarded as the father of his country and a great man, was in fact an evil genius bent on domination and tyranny. He callously egged on revolution and war with England and then purposely went out of his way to become commander of the continental army by shamelessly coming to the second continental congress in his uniform. When he relinquished his sword at the end of the war it was but a brilliant avaricious calculation for future power which worked perfectly as he chaired the constitutional convention and steered the proceedings to make the presidency powerful because he wanted to be the first one and knew the others would make him so. He also made sure Madison’s and the other delegates notes on the convention left his role of active manipulation out of the “official” record. When he became President he found the job not as powerful as he liked and wanted to quit which he did after two terms. As he was about to make his comeback as the commanding general of a huge army to, on paper, fend of French invasion (but really he was going to use it to kill President Adams and declare himself dictator), he caught pneumonia and died. Lucky for his country too, because he would have destroyed it as his whole malign career says he would.

These are all horrible lies about Washington’s great career designed to manipulate the various events of that career to fit an evil storyline. Because the events happened to his interest in this storyline it almost sounds plausible, but the evidence is very decidedly against all of it and historians are, on the whole, more than honest enough to tell it the way it was, not the way paranoid conspiracy theorists would have it. Bush is certainly no Washington, but with no evidence to the contrary, he is also no Stalin, Catiline, Cromwell, or Lex Luther.