In the lively presentation and conversation "Playing the Race Card" given a week ago by Ted Hayes, an audience member questioned whether there exists a single antidote to the problem of racism and of racial division, but the conversation veered to a related tangent, leaving the core of the question unanswered.   As per usual I didn't get my hand up early enough, but there are two vital points that need to be made on the nature of racism and on its sole antidote - but which rarely appear in discussions of racial division. 

1.)  In attempting to solve any serious problem, the first and most important step is to identify and define the problem's fundamental nature.  In this case the problem is racism and the sociopolitical corruption that results from it.  So first:  What, specifically, are race and racism?

Like a lot of people, when I was a kid my parents taught me a simple maxim:  "Race is no more important than your shoe size."  We generally take that statement figuratively, but what few people think about is the fact that the statement is also literally true.  
 
What is the actual substance of your race?  Of mine?  Of anyone's?  
In a word, it's:  A measurement. 
 
It's an aggregate of physical and facial dimensions that bear a superficial similarity to those of some others:  The shape of one's eyes, the length and width of one's nose, etc.  Even skin color is only a measurement - of the wavelengths of visible light that are alternately reflected or absorbed by one's pigmentation.  (The measurement in this case is in the "nano" scale, but it remains: a measurement.)  Similarly, even complex three-dimensional shapes, such as the curvature of one's cheekbones, jawline, etc., are functions of geometry.  They too are just: measurements.

So there you have it.  Your and my precious "racial ethnicity" is every bit as important as ...our shoe sizes.  Which is to say:  "Not very."  
Race is, in fact, trivia.

The essential defining attribute of a human being is, as Dr. King correctly stated, the content of one's character.  Unlike race, our character is not an inborn trait over which we have no control, it's a function of the values we consciously accept and internalize throughout our lifetimes, and of the choices we make on the basis of those values.  Racism, by definition, is the futile and destructive attempt to elevate a trivial collection of measurements to the status of an essential - as a perceptual-level substitute, or trump, to overrule and obliterate what truly is essential:  one's values.   That is why racism - like fascism, socialism, communism, tribalism and every other form of collectivism - is evil and must itself be obliterated. 
 
So what, exactly, is the "antidote" to racism?  It can be named in a single word, a word that is avoided by politicians of virtually every stripe as a kind of Kryptonite.  Yet it remains the sole antidote to the evil that is racism.  So what is this word?  In a minute...
 

2.)  Classified philosophically, racism is a variant of collectivism, a.k.a. "group-think."  It's the belief that some group - again, with one's unchosen membership being based on the perceptual trivia of measurement - somehow can trump the individual constituents of that group.

A group has no concrete, tangible form in reality.  It's an abstract concept we use to denote two or more... what, exactly?  
 
Individuals. 

The individual is a concrete, tangible, real physical entity.   It is, along with other individuals, the sole existential (real) content of the figure of speech we call a "group."  To assert that an abstract concept ("group") can somehow take precedence over the actual physical referents (individuals) of that very concept, is self-contradictory and logically null - the fallacy of the Stolen Concept.  Which means that collectivism, at its very root, is illogical and therefore impracticable at best.

The sole antidote to the problem of racism is, in a word:  Individualism. 

The sole course of action toward eliminating racism and racial division, is this:
- Each of us must become an Individualist, proudly;
- Each of us must fight for an Individualist politico-economic system - i.e., a Constitutional, representative republic in which laissez faire capitalism (which again is only: the free choices of individual traders in the marketplace,) is left free to flourish. 

A fact to contemplate:  It is no accident that the Apartheid regime in South Africa was rabidly anti-capitalist.  Traders don't care about the trivia of your physical measurements, they only care how productive and how honest you are - therefore capitalism, where it's allowed to flourish, ultimately drives out the irrationality of racism over time.  The Afrikaaners knew that capitalism was a grave threat to their racial separation scheme, so they waged war against it.*

Finally, Mr. Hayes is to be applauded for identifying the Declaration of Independence as America's most essential foundational document, preceding the Constitution itself in importance - another point that is rarely heard in political discussion, but which is essential.  Where the Constitution provides the proper structure and restrictions on government, the Declaration of Independence identifies the nature of man and the fact that rights inhere in the individual, and only in the individual.  The word "Independence" in the document's title refers not only to the Colonists' demand for independence from Great Britain, but to the individual's moral independence from any group, no matter how powerful.  
 

(A great book on the subject is "South Africa's War Against Capitalism" by economist Walter E. Williams.  There's an instructive review of the book here:  http://rickreviewsbooks.blogspot.com/2010/01/south-africas-war-against-capitalism.html )

It is abundantly clear this President would rather be golfing than doing the work of the Presidency. 

Never in the history of this country have we had a more incompetent or disengaged President. How many times does he have to tell you he had no idea , he didn't know, he only heard about it on the news? He knew nothing about Fast and Furious, nothing about Benghazi being a planned attack, nothing about the IRS targeting conservatives, nothing about the NSA spying on all of us, nothing about the DOJ spying on journalists, and so on, and so forth.

It is no secret on Capitol Hill that he doesn't meet with the panels he handpicks (Jobs Panel, Debt Panel, etc.), his Cabinet , or many members of Congress……. Nor, for that matter, does he take their advice. One reporter at his press conference mentioned the fact that he hasn't forged any friendships or working relationships even with members of his own party. Major Garrett  called Obama's inner circle " insular" .  

ObamaCare was Obama's signature program, his supposed legacy.  The week before its website launch , he was telling people it would be as  easy to navigate as Amazon or Expedia.  This was his SIGNATURE legislation.  You'd think he'd meet with those involved in its implementation every so often , or at least a few weeks before its  launch,  if only to ask them how things were going, is there anything he should know about, are there any problems, glitches, delays?  But no. He said in his press conference he had no idea the website had any problems. Really? Seriously? He asked no one?  

In his "mea culpa" press conference he said insurance was very complicated and it would never be as easy as buying something on Amazon. Wait a minute, didn't he say the week before its launch that it would be exactly like Amazon? He said he's just learning it's a complicated process? JUST learning? NOW? AFTER the fact?  

And what about his people? What about those involved in the implementation of ObamaCare? They knew the website wasn't ready.  No one went to him to tell him there were problems? They didn't think he should know about it before he went out and made a jackass of himself? Apparently, we're on a speeding train with no engineer.  HELLO, is anyone home? 

After his ratings dropped like a stone, he came out with a non-apology apology. First he said he was sorry people "found" themselves in this situation. Um, they "found" themselves “in this situation" because he PUT them in it!  He was sorry they weren't smart enough to understand he didn't mean what he said.  They weren't smart enough to understand that he had to tell them they could keep their insurance in order to get the “law” passed, because not even with a Democrat majority in both houses was there enough support for it.  

Nixon resigned when he was threatened with impeachment over having people break into Democrat headquarters (which hurt no citizens directly), Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath (which hurt no citizens directly).  Obama LIED to get ObamaCare passed (which IS hurting millions of citizens directly). He has lied to us from the day he ran for office. Besides telling us nineteen times jobs were his number one focus, how many other times has he lied to the American public? Let's see… Shovel-ready jobs? Bill Ayers was just some guy in the neighborhood.  He didn't know Rev. Wright hated America.  His mother died because she didn't have insurance. His father served in WWII.  His uncle liberated Auschwitz. He wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K. He supports traditional marriage.  Benghazi was caused by a video. ObamaCare penalty is not a tax.  If you like your plan, you can keep it.  If you like your doctor, you can keep him. PERIOD. American automobile industry has come roaring back. He said he didn't set a "red line". He said he'd get to the bottom of the IRS scandal. And on, and on, and on. 

Do we want a Saul Alinsky follower as President? The ends justify the means, so lying is perfectly acceptable?  Do you want a man mentored by Soviet agent, CPSUA member, Frank Marshall or friend of the Weatherman Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers as President?  Do you like being treated as if you are too stupid to know what is best for you? Do you want to choose what to do with your life? I have one more question to ask: would this man still be President if he were white??? 

The Left has this Utopian dream for us.  Although it has been tried time and  time again and always failed, they refuse to let it go.  We will all live blissfully with all our needs taken care of by a benevolent government.  All those who want a job will have a job plus a nice place to live and healthcare insurance and college, all paid for by someone else. With all our needs taken care of , there will be no reason for war, and we all will live happily ever after.

The only problem with Utopia is human nature…..and money.  Has the Left considered that not everyone wants the same things?  What would make one person blissfully happy might make someone else miserable.  Some love living in an apartment and taking public transportation, others love gardening in their yard, swimming in their own pool and having lots of pets.  Some love open space and their nearest neighbor at least two miles away.  Others live to hunt, or camp, or climb mountains, or explore caves. The United Nations Agenda 21 Utopian plan (that we signed and have been moving forward for the last 20 years) calls for all people to live in apartment buildings along transportation corridors.  Private ownership of property is considered unfair, because not everyone can afford to own a home.  And, since owning property is the greatest source of wealth, the government will take over all property and provide you with a place to live. There will be no privately owned cars and we will all use public transportation.  We will live and work in the same neighborhood just like China.  Are you feeling blissful yet?

Of course, the Left thinks Utopia hasn’t worked before because their guy wasn’t in charge.  But now he is, so let’s look at the Left’s idea of Utopia, because since their guy was elected, they’ve been showing us what they want.  There will be no discrimination, because they are passing laws against “hate speech”.  If speaking of your concerns about a lifestyle or choice is considered “hate speech”, we won’t be doing that.  San Antonio passed a law against any city employee or anyone contracting with the city, having any anti-gay opinions.  That wouldn’t be considered censorship, would it? They will control what you eat ~for your own good, of course.  No salt, no sugar, no soda’s, no “junk food”.  They will make everything “fair”~at least their idea of fair.  They want income equality.  Those who have worked hard and played by the rules need to have their income redistributed to those who dropped out of school and sat on their lazy asses.  Ah, yes, that is fair.

They don’t want anyone to feel shame or be “judged”, so there will be no public disapproval of…….well, anything.  No moral compass to guide us.  In the name of separation of church and state there will be no religious, symbols, sayings, quotes, or songs ever in public.  Ever. No religious holidays either.  Those might offend someone.  That is another thing that will be outlawed:  no one will be allowed to offend anyone else, even if that was not the intent.  They have been wanting to bring back the “fairness doctrine” that would shut down talk radio, as it did in the past.  If we are to have Utopia, we can’t have opposing opinions, can we? 

But we will have free education from pre-school through college, free birth control, free healthcare.  But, hmm, let me ask.  If the government is going to provide a place to live, food, healthcare, public transportation, etc. to everyone,  whether they work or not, why would anyone work?  I think that is what Greece is facing right now.

In the Left’s Utopia, they will defend a woman’s right to choose….to kill her baby up to and including the date of birth…..but if she chooses to keep her baby, they deny her the right to choose the school to which to this child must go.  While claiming to be the champions of choice, they deny us the choice of which light bulb to use.  They mandate a “low flow” toilet that you have to flush three times.  They mandate these lovely new washing machines that stink because they don’t use enough water to rinse out the dirt.  Funny, I had a washing machine for 20 years that never stunk.

In Utopia, our children will be educated according to Common Core, which will teach them how to be good little socialist citizens of the world.  As Michelle Obama said, “…we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we are going to have to change our traditions; our history; we are going to have to move into a different place as a nation.”  The Left has been changing our history books for many years, but in Utopia history will be changed completely, to support the Left’s agenda.  Can’t have children knowing what our country was founded on, or why.  Data will be collected on our children, and their lives will be guided by the government, not parents.  After all, the Left has already told us our children don’t belong to us ~ they belong to the collective.  I wonder what would have happened to Dr. Ben Carson if his future had been planned by government by the time he was seven.

Are you feeling blissful yet?  All our needs met, no discrimination, no one offended, no messy disagreements.  May I ask, who are these “angels” who are going to decide what is best for us?  Will their decisions be based on what is truly best for us, or on their own desire to control what we do?  After all, their blueprint for Utopia is Agenda 21.  For all intents and purposes, it puts us in “human habitats” and gives animals free reign of the land.  Is it really best for us to have our use of energy restricted?  What does that do to the economy?  Remember Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…..and then just expect [that] other countries are going to say OK”. 

Utopia has never worked, and it never will.  There isn’t enough money for it to work, and in spite of what the “elites” think, people would not be better off or happier.  In spite of what they think, they aren’t any smarter than we are.  They don’t know better than us how we want to live our lives.  Look at some examples of Utopia, the USSR, Nazi Germany, Cuba, to name a few.  The “elites” lived lavishly, while everyone else lived in poverty…..and those who opposed the government, died.  Do you think an American Utopia would be different?  Look at how Obama lives.  He thinks nothing of sending Air Force One to pick up his dog.  He and Michelle take separate planes on lavish trips paid for by taxpayers.  Look at how rich our representatives become after getting elected.  Look at Al Gore, living in a house that uses more electricity than the average city,  being chauffeured around in a limousine, flying his private plane around the world telling us we have to live with less.  

The Utopia the Left dreams of is for them, not us.  They will control jobs, the economy, banks, schools, and entertainment.  They will decide how we live, where we live, what we eat, and what we learn.  They will deny the rest of us any chance of improving our lives,  and will keep us from living as they do.  Feeling blissful now?

Here's a fact that every one of us should understand and keep at the ready, in every debate on the issue of prosperity vs. poverty:
 
The groups typically labeled "the poor" and "the rich" are not static.
 
Please read that again and remember it.
 
The collectivist Left typically - and usually without challenge - speak as if income level is an immutable condition, that we're either born "poor" or born "rich," and that is where we stay for life.  The facts of reality expose this as another collectivist fraud, passed off mostly on the strength of its never being questioned.
 
There are always people who are poor, there are always people who are rich, and there are always people who fall somewhere between.  But here's the fact the Left do not want known: 
 
The individual people who comprise those groups rarely stay put, especially people who start out as members of "the poor."
 
Assuming even a semi-free economy, people invariably move upward in income and in their consequent standard of living.  And of course there is no guarantee that someone who has achieved wealth will stay wealthy (wealthy people can and do sometimes lose their shirts and fall out of the upper income groups.) At any given time, and assuming a relatively-constant level of government meddling with the economy, the percentages of people comprising the different income groups remain constant - but the specific people that comprise a given group, including the poorest quintile, are moving through it constantly, generally in an upward direction. The total quantities of people within those groups themselves remain constant despite the fact of people leaving them for higher ones, because people new to the job market constantly emerge to replace those who move up,   For example, a recent college grad on his or her first entry-level job may be working at an income level that classifies that person as "poor" - until skill, effort and gained experience enable him to make more; the same is true of immigrant laborers - who are an asset, not a drain on the economy, assuming they're employed rather than dependent on government assistance.
 
So...what is the most effective method of raising people out of poverty on a continual basis?  Is it the self-generated action of individuals exercising their effort, their creativity and initiative within a market that's left free enough for them to do so?  Or is it the government handing out freebies, as "entitlements" that one collects passively for no other reason than possessing a pulse, and which drain the vitality of the economy as a whole?
                         
History tells us that it is the former - economic liberty, a.k.a. capitalism - that "helps the poor," and only the former.  The simple reason is that economic opportunity and advancement are available to all people, but only in an economy that is left free by its government to thrive and grow.  Beyond that norm, charity can only come from surplus income earned by people who are... left free to earn.  If government steps in and forces people at gunpoint to endure crushing taxation for the sake of "anti-poverty" programs, the entire fabric of the economy is dragged into poverty, and all "help for the poor" - voluntary or forced alike - dries up along with that destroyed economy. 
              
- Up until 1981, forty-plus years of complete Democrat control of social policy in America caused multiple generations of welfare dependency and the most prosperous nation on Earth to get its clock cleaned by the Deming-schooled and relatively-free Japanese.  Democrat policies culminated in Jimmy Carter 1.0's disastrous experiment with Keynes and its consequent "malaise," "stagflation" and the like - essentially across-the-board impoverishment of the American people, and by extension, the world's people;
 
- Then came eight years of Reagan's baby-steps in the direction of laissez faire, which in the face of withering opposition as "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor," despite an expensive but necessary restoration of national defense as government's first priority (see the Declaration of Independence,) and his consequent defeat of the Soviet empire - launched both the American and world economies into a boom cycle, during which those who started out in the poorest income quintile profited most.  That "Reaganomics" boom cycle would last a full quarter-century, until...
 
- Un-jailed economic vandals Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Alan Greenspan, BillyBob Clinton, George Bush (both of them,) Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama (Jimmy 2.0,) Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a few dozen minor others, brought it to a screeching halt, I'm thinking by conscious intent. So as to provide justification for... a full return to the same Marxian / Keynesian cancer that Reagan successfully treated between 1981 and 1988.
 
So what is the goal of "charity for the poor?"  Is it for the "giver" to feel self-satisfaction at his intentions regardless of effect, or is it to actually make a long-term difference in people's standard of living and thereby to eliminate dependence?  The old bromide "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime," is fully valid and applicable - but not if your ideology and your very profession require a dependent class for you to "help."  In this sense the advocates of permanent welfare exhibit the same mentality as drug pushers - and occupy the exact same ethical status.
 
If the goal is to improve the standard of living of people who are poor, then the goal is to improve the standard of living of people who are poor. 
 
It is not to enrich the ruling class via transforming everybody else into a "ruled" class - which is clearly the goal of the newly-religious Left.
Isabel Paterson's 1943 work "The God of the Machine" is directly relevant to the context of motives and their practical effects in "helping the poor."  A notable excerpt:
http://www.panarchy.org/paterson/guillotine.html
 
Ayn Rand's broader analysis of the proper relationship between each individual and his own life, between each individual and every other individual, and between each individual and the government (which latter is just: a group of individuals,) is covered in two landmark 1963 articles that should be considered required reading prior to any discussion of wealth and poverty, and referred back to frequently:
 
"Man's Rights" -
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights
and "The Nature of Government" -
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government
 
Another useful reference, further analyzing the issue of income mobility vs. fixed statistics, is economist Thomas A. Garrett's 2010 article "U.S. Income Inequality: It’s Not So Bad" -
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1920

Both theory and the empirical evidence of recent history tell us two things, loudly:
 
- The market, when the control-fetishists are compelled to leave it alone and individual rights are upheld and enforced, is entirely self-regulating and a vast benefit to people of every income level, especially those who start out poor. IOW, though it may sound counterintuitive, the best - arguably only - way to "help the poor" is to release the government's shackles from the economy and allow that market to do its stuff.  [Again, this is not a prescription those whose livelihoods require a dependent class - the Dependency-Dope Pushers - want to accept.]
 
- Government anti-poverty programs, to the degree to which they interfere with the natural, spontaneous function of the economy, impoverish not only the people they ostensibly are there to "help," but the whole of the economy upon which their, and everyone else's, livelihoods depend as well. Which makes such government "anti-poverty" schemes morally obscene.
 
If you doubt that Reagan's policies not only benefited people who started out poor but benefited them more than any other income group during the '80s decade, then consider the 1993 article "Gekko Echo" by economist Jeff Scott and philosopher David Kelley to be a mandatory bookmark and required reading. Its presentation is derived entirely from apolitical data from the Census Bureau and the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis, and its conclusions are the exact opposite of the "decade of greed" narrative, promoted ever since in collectivist media:
 
http://reason.com/archives/1993/02/01/gekko-echo              
              
Again, if the idea is to transform poverty to productivity to the extent of what is possible to human effort, rather than to enrich a ruling/taxing class, then both theory and history tell us that government programs are ethically monstrous - in outcome if not in intention - while economic liberty is an unqualified success, wherever and to whatever degree it is allowed to flourish. 

I feel like Paul Revere riding from Townhall to Townhall to warn the citizens of the ObamaCare invasion.  Saturday it was Rosemead and Assemblyman Ed Chau.  There were more than two hundred mostly Asian people there.  They had interpreters for five languages, English, Spanish, and three Asian languages. 

Covered California is having these Townhalls/Enrollment Fairs because obviously, the website isn't answering people's questions. The panel, once again, explained how wonderful ObamaCare is and completely disregarded the obvious and contradictory evidence it is not. A woman from AARP repeated numerous times that AARP was a non-profit organization and she was a volunteer. She failed to mention the FOR-profit side of AARP that makes millions selling Senior Advantage Plans. She also failed to explain how ObamaCare was going to expand Medicare benefits when it cuts $716 Billion out of Medicare.  

The first woman to speak during the Q&A session said she was 56, single and childless. She has always paid out of pocket for healthcare as she is healthy and requires little more than a yearly check-up. She is now being forced to buy insurance that covers maternity care, birth control, mental health etc.  that she neither needs or wants.  

People are just starting to realize that the insurance you are required to have is the same for all. The only difference in the bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans is the premium and deductible. Plans for single men also include maternity coverage.  The insurance coverage is the same for everyone regardless of sex or age. The only thing you "shop" for is how you pay for it.

ObamaCare mandates like free birth control, maternity coverage, pre-existing conditions, mental health care, no cap on sending etc. are all VERY expensive.  This administration knew that when the kept telling us if we liked our insurance or doctor we could keep them.  They KNEW it would not be possible due to the expensive mandates they were adding to the minimum coverage.  There is no question they lied……so that people would not object.  If the general public had known this before ObamaCare passed there would have been triple the number of protestors and protests.

Keith got great applause when he asked how many in the audience had their premiums raised. He spoke of the Constitution and natural law. He reminded the Assemblyman that he took an oath of office and that taking one person's property and giving it to another who didn't earn it was in violation of the Constitution. More Applause.

I spoke again of the false promise of "quality care" when few doctors take Medical and they were adding millions more for them to care for. I told them that for any "good" doctor the quality of care is more important to them than a bonus for taking Medical patients. As I walked back to my seat several people thanked me for pointing that out.

One woman asked about the income levels listed to receive subsidies.  She asked if those referred to just the income you earned that year or did it include your assets.  They said it did NOT include your assets. So……..you could live in Bel Air, drive a Tesla and have millions in investments but if your earned income for that year was less than $16,000 for a single person, you would get a subsidy. 

Of the approximately 20 people who spoke during the Q&A, all but three had objections to ObamaCare, the huge premiums, the website, the lack of trust, government overreach etc.  The other three had questions about coverage and were referred to the Enrollment Fair after the meeting where people could answer those questions.

After the meeting all of us Paul Reveres stayed for quite a long time talking to people.  If each of us helps just one person understand what ObamaCare really means to their Liberty it is worth the effort.