The Secret Knowledge Read online

  The Asians, like the Jews, immigrants one hundred years ago, saw both a market and a vacuum of power, and responded. They saw in effect that no one was there.

  My father bluffed his way into Northwestern Law on the GI Bill, having (perhaps) finished two years of community college. He graduated first in his class. I asked him what his secret was, and he explained that he didn’t realize how little was required of him.

  President Obama announces every day (and his presidency could, indeed, be reduced to this announcement and its results) that the West is finished: with capitalism, with Democracy, with self defense, and that anyone who wants it can have it. Will our opponents, those declared and those indeed stunned into wakefulness by our lassitude, be any less likely to respond to opportunity than the Asians in Harlem?

  The same rules governing commercial real estate must govern geopolitics—how could it be otherwise, as each are only expressions of the universal nature of human interaction?

  If the other fellow has damaged his property, if he has mismanaged it, and depressed or miscalculated its value, if he does not engage in its supervision and upkeep, it becomes a Bargain, and the bargain will be snapped up by the observant.

  Where do these conditions of mismanagement and unconcern apply more frequently than in the case of property that is inherited (“shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” being proverbial)?

  Our forebears struggled and fought and died to establish and to preserve and broaden those freedoms they bequeathed us, and which have made us the most prosperous country in history. To denigrate our culture and traditions, to turn our back on our place and duty in the world—to, in effect, live off the interest and call it Humanism, or One-Worldism, or re-distribution of wealth, is an act of folly like that of any thoughtless and weak (not to say ungrateful) inheritor of wealth.

  But the Liberal West must hide from itself its dysfunction, noting only those trends and occurrences indicative not only and not even primarily of the success of its theories49 but of their rationality.

  To defend the practice of the irrational consumes any organism’s energy and, as with the Reverend Sharpton’s cry of “exploitation,” blinds the irrational to better uses of his time and power. What is to prevent African Americans from either opening their own hair salons, or, like the Asian Americans, casting about for a need to fill and filling it (as Reverend Sharpton has)? Nothing.50 And those who do so are rewarded according to the rules of the free market: “Give me something I want or need and I will pay you for it.” Mr. Rock’s film, in fact, contains a striking instance of a successful Black-owned business, Dudley’s Hair Care & Cosmetics, which produces and distributes a vast amount of hair, skin, and makeup products to the African American community.

  To defend the irrational or inconsistent becomes, in the dysfunctional organization, the prime goal—and any other use of energy secondary—for the dysfunctional organism’s life, that is, its ability to function as constituted, depends on the devotion, among its members, to fantasy.

  Here is an example. President Obama, in a speech in July 2010, declared that the Government should be ready to support Green Business—that if anyone wanted to create these jobs, the Government would be there to help.

  What was the help? He was offering rebates. But what are rebates but tax cuts?

  To suggest that giving back (to approved entities) some of the money drained from them in taxes, and to characterize this as “help,” is like a mugger pausing in administering his beating and characterizing this pause, to his victim, as assistance.

  If, as President Obama announced perceptively, cutting taxes creates jobs (as it does; as anyone not blinded by theory knows: when taxes are raised, businesses close), then why not cut all taxes?51

  This inconsistency is ignored only by those who benefit from it (the administration), and the confused (Liberals).

  Why not, O Liberals, vote to cause the Government to keep its filthy hands off the possessions of its citizens, and let those citizens and their country thrive?

  It’s not the largess of Government which is required (the money existed before they confiscated it—it simply was not theirs) but its reduction. This can only be brought about by reducing taxes, for government and taxes are each the secret name of the other.

  To whom is this, in his sober moments, other than evident?

  To defend and continue the practice the irrational, and thus necessarily destructive, consumes energy and time which cannot be expended on production, innovation, actual revision, or on anything else. For the dysfunctional group—a state or family—congeals around and must spend increasing amounts of its energy defending a lie.

  The lie may be that Daddy is not abusing little Susie, or it may be that increased taxes, Government intervention, and One-Worldism somehow bring stability to our country, and bring to its citizens not only health and prosperity, but Salvation (called, in 2008, “Change”).

  The dysfunctional State and the dysfunctional Family have in common an emergency tool for dealing with, defusing, or indicting outbreaks of reason. The sick family employs the mechanism of the Designated Criminal. It is this person who is always doing something wrong, which is to say contrary to his family’s interests and destructive of its peace. His thoughts, behavior, attitude, and loyalty may always be called into question; and he is punished, mocked, marginalized, or ignored, as circumstances warrant, which responses in themselves unite and strengthen the threatened organism. How is this Designated Criminal selected, he whose actions and demeanor are all that stands between his family and Happiness? He is chosen by his health. He is invariably the most clearheaded member of the household.

  He may be designated because he is passive, or weak, but more usually, because he is not.

  For the more clearheaded, healthy, and strong the child is, the more likely he is not only to question, but to rebel against unreason, thus increasing his utility as a recipient of scorn, his condign punishments standing in support of the original proposition of his perfidy.

  It is no great leap to discern, in the Family of Nations, this same mechanism—denial and coalescence around a lie.52 No reader need waste reflection in identifying the cause of the West’s woes—the Designated Criminal State—it is done for us constantly by the United Nations.

  23

  GREED

  Greed is a sin. It is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, where it is called covetousness, which is to say the wish for that which another possesses. As such it is allied to envy and resentment.

  But there is a nonsinful wish for more, and it is called ambition.

  How is the sin of covetousness to be differentiated from a legitimate desire for gain?

  The Torah cautions us not to go astray after the evidence of our eyes and our hearts “which we are whoring after”—a good harsh word to describe covetousness. Should we go astray, that which was a sin may fall from the moral world into the judicial realm—sin may become crime and, as such, the legitimate concern of the community. The community must protect itself not from ambition, neither from covetousness, but from crimes committed in their pursuit. And the criminal act, as opposed to the merely distasteful or, indeed, immoral, must be clearly delineated, or else there can be no justice. A democratic system and civilization punishes those who take that which does not belong to them according to law.

  There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

  The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

>   We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

  But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference.

  The Left’s current sentiment for the confiscation of benefits legally earned, but to them offensive, is Greed.

  To wish to abrogate a legal contract between employer and employee because a nonparticipant feels someone got too much money is greed. It is not greed for money, but covetousness born of envy—the desire for that which legally belongs to another. That those in favor of this may not want the actual money for their own use is beside the point—they want the enjoyment of the power to strip the money from another. They may not use the confiscated funds to buy a car or a meal, but the billionaire who earns another million dollars cannot spend it either—he, like the offended Liberal, is enjoying the warm glow of its possession. A rampant and untrammeled glee, an unchecked ambition for gain is, in the individual, called miserliness; in the society which strips him of it, it is called Socialism.

  Who is to decide what is too much? Various religions demand or suggest tithing, and the State demands taxes; both are based upon the principle of proportionality—that is, the surrender of a percentage of earnings.

  This seems to be both fair and just. Do some cheat on taxes? Of course—but the Legislature, in its wisdom, has passed laws criminalizing this behavior—not because it leaves the individual with “unearned wealth,” but because it deprives the society of its just legislated share.

  Do some avoid taxes through cunning and chicanery? Of course. But there is a line, as in any business, between fraud and sharp practice. And the individual is free to figure his taxes according to his consideration of his own best legal interest. Should he cross the line, he is free to go to jail.

  It is the business of government to tax the individual sufficiently to support the legitimate operations of Government. The identity of these legitimate purposes is a matter of debate, which may begin in society at large, but must culminate in the Legislature. When the greed of the Legislature oversteps the will of the People, and its understanding of the role of government, they may be voted out.

  What institution is more greedy than Government?

  What individual more ravenous than the Perpetual Candidate who is every politician?

  We are all subject to envy, covetousness, and greed (else why would we find them in the Ten Commandments?). The purpose of religion and of morality is to limit these corrosive influences on the mind and soul. The purpose of law is to control the destructive actions which spring therefrom.

  But not all the actions of ambition spring from Greed. One may grow wealthy through hard work, through persistence, or, indeed, by chance or lucky accident. (Many gullible purchasers of western land in the nineteenth century found themselves duped, in the discovery that their beautifully described property was oozing black sludge, which sludge, on the invention of the automobile, made them and their descendants wealthy beyond belief.)

  And one may be greedy as the Horse Leech’s Daughter, but, absent luck and crime (dealt with above), he may not gain wealth. Greed is a sin. Ambition is a virtue. Society may express its appreciation of the fine distinction through gossip, but the law cannot take notice of anything other than crime. Greed does not create wealth. Barring luck and crime, wealth may only be created through satisfying the needs of others.

  A motion picture studio and its bosses may be as greedy as they like, but they can only gain through the public’s desire to buy tickets. Are the producers and the studio and network heads greedy? Perhaps; consumed and devoured by covetousness, perhaps; but they only grow rich through bringing pleasure to the audience.53 And this holds true of every other good and service. In the Free Market the individual can prosper only through providing for the desires of others.

  But are there not cartels and so on? Of course, but they, if merely noxious, are to be borne, or dealt with through withdrawal of custom; if actually illegal, they are the province of the law, and if immoral, that of society, which may deal with them under the law or change the law.

  But what of the massive collapse of the housing market?

  President Obama spoke of “predatory lending.” But how can lending be predatory which is not usurious? It cannot. No one forced the virtually cost-free loans upon the borrowers. They took the loans in hope of gain. The banks made the loans in hope of gain. Is either side greedy? The actions of the banks may have been ambitious, but what, otherwise, is the nature of a business? And the borrowers’ desire to get the best possible terms at the lowest cost, had the market not failed, would have been hailed as genius. It is disingenuous, then, that the borrowers, having lost, are championed by those who enjoy identifying them as victims.

  (Imagine two golfers. One suggests an unusually high bet on one hole. The other accepts. The first man wins, and the loser explains: “I thought you were just kidding.” Well, perhaps he did, and perhaps he did not, but the question is not what he thought, but would he [having accepted the bet, kidding or not] have accepted the money had he won? Had the housing market continued to rise, would the borrowers have accepted the gain? Of course. As would you and I. How, then, can the loans be called “predatory lending”? Only by suggesting the borrowers’ incapacity to form a legal contract. On what basis?)

  That the borrowers lost is unfortunate. But had they won they would have taxed the next buyers with the increase in their property’s value, rewarding and applauding themselves not only for their foresight but for the bravery of their investment.

  Absent luck there is no gain without risk. One may risk one’s savings, one’s time, one’s energy, and so on, but inherent in the Pursuit of Happiness is risk; and the essential freedom of our Democracy is the freedom to risk, that is to try, which has made us the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.54

  Some success is borne, by the public, and not envied. There was much outcry when a director of the stock exchange was awarded a vast golden parachute, and fury over the salaries of various executives whose businesses have failed. But who suggests that the contract of a highly paid pitcher be torn up because his team did poorly, or that a movie star whose last film flopped return his salary?

  But, one might say, the highly paid money manipulators, stock market operations, et cetera, performed no service.55 Perhaps they did, and perhaps not, but a lot of people who gave over their money to them thought they did.56 And one must reason that the money these folks played around with came, originally, from investors interested—I will not say “greedily,” but “intensely” in an increase of the entrusted funds. It is not “fair” to execrate the failed CEO and to exempt the failed pitcher. It is irrational. As the idea of “fairness” is, itself, irrational.

  The baseball pitcher brought us some enjoyment, so he does not fall, in our Jacobin dreams; but if we did not possess the excess funds to dabble in the stock market, its director has brought us neither enjoyment, reward, nor hope of the same, so we award ourselves the enjoyment of his humiliation.

  The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”

  But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferm
ent (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation).

  Ivan Boesky, stock manipulator and convict, said, in a speech at the University of California at Berkeley in 1986, Greed is good.

  Greed is not good, greed is bad. Ambition is neutral, and the distinction is subjective, sometimes difficult, and no business of the State.

  Who is to say that the success we applaud (that of the pitcher or quarterback, for example) stems from one and not the other? Can we know? Is it our business? It is not, save in a theocracy, whether Puritan, or its current remanifestation as Socialist—Humanist.

  We cannot know, neither is it our business to know, what is in another’s heart. We can judge the results of his actions and reward them should they meet our needs. When we are no longer free to do so, we will have eliminated not Greed but Free Enterprise, and with it, all other freedoms.

  24

  ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT

  I was teaching a seminar on dramatic structure at a university. All was going well, until I suggested that the heroine of the story we were constructing be kidnapped by some Arab terrorists. One student asked, “Haven’t the Arabs been picked on enough? Why,” he asked, “did you specify Arabs? As terrorists.” “I don’t know,” I said. “They came to mind, perhaps as Arab terrorists bombed New York.” Another student suggested the Pakistanis might be the villain of this piece, and a third said, “That’s just not funny.”

  But, my golly, I said, can the piece have no villain? Are we to suggest that, since any actor must himself have characteristics, we strive to create a featureless villain, to our choice of which then, could be ascribed no attempt at derogatory racial or social comment? Whereupon the class degenerated in a way which, seemed to me, must be rather usual, for the students lapsed into rather stilted and formulaic repetition of pronouncements.