Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Additional Commentary and References


As people rise in power how are they entitled to change the character of the morality that they practice?
  One perspective on an.ethical issue:  

An opposing perspective on the . . . . .same ethical issue:
In the long run, moral consequences  
As people gain in power, they enter an
are the same for everyone     increasingly utilitarian world of realpolitik
Leaders should be held to higher stan-  
Leaders powerful enough to create laws
dards of integrity, not less  
are wise enough to rise above the law
Unrestrained leaders must be openly  
Criticizing our leaders gives propaganda
  criticized and even impeached     to enemies who are even more immoral

In the long run, there is no "disconnect" between the consequences of morality practiced by top leaders in society and the morality practiced by every day people. National leaders who engage in vicious, deceitful, and violently destructive behavior will eventually arouse internal adversaries and external coalitions of enemies no different than the way such behavior creates enemies within ones own local neighborhood or work place. Leaders must always be held accountable to their followers. In the course of normal civilian peacetime pursuits, they should be prepared to fully disclose the nature of their operations. Leaders who refuse to do this are dangerously irresponsible and must be investigated. If found guilty of crimes, they must be impeached and punished. Such individuals are usurping decision-making power from the people who in fact "employ" their bosses in a democratic or republican system. Leaders have no authority to violate normal social standards or customary laws unless they have explicitly made their case before the people and received a mandate.
. . .
In order to fend off rivals and remain at the top, leaders must always be at least feared and respected if not loved. High-stakes diplomacy and negotiation require leaders to skillfully manipulate information and present many faces. Therefore, it is justifiable and desirable for leaders to be mean and duplicitous for the gain of society as well as for themselves. Leaders with a distaste for real politick are generally weak, ineffectual people. Leaders can justify taking it upon themselves to secretly gamble their organizations for the long term good of all, since we live in a rough and tumble world where taking chances is a necessary part of life. Therefore, we must realize that Machiavellian horseplay is to be expected, and we must simply accept this. If we object, we risk angering our leaders and rocking the boat. This also gives propaganda ammunition to our enemies. Even more nasty things could then happen than what our own leaders visit upon us, thereby compounding a bad situation even more. Furthermore, our leaders got where they are by being smarter and tougher than us, so who are we to criticize them?


The perspective on an ethical issue in the left column:
I view the perspective provided on the left to be in the realm of a "mutualist" philosophy. Please see my article about "mutualism vs. parasitism." The general intellectual framework for analyzing ethics that I am using is also explained in A New Morality From Science: Beyondism and Beyondism: Religion from Science by Dr. Raymond Cattell. If everyone practices a "mutualist" morality, a society would be bolstered in its ability to survive and prosper.

A good starting point what I consider to be productive or "mutualist" behavior was the concept of "republican virtue" developed in the old Roman Republic, and later frequently cited by America's Founding Fathers. The traits involved in "republican virtue" concept generally had to do with promoting honest behavior and a willingness to voluntarily perform various civic duties to required to promote the common good. In the chart below, taken from my "Mutualism vs. Parasitism" article, I have provided my interpretation regarding how republican virtue might apply to a "productive" as opposed to a "parasite" government.

Productive Government
..... Parasite Government
Protects lives, property, and human rights   Maliciously destroys lives and property, undermines civil liberties
Renders socially useful services in proportion to the taxes it collects. Eliminates waste.   Grows bureaucracy and waste while raising taxes regardless of services rendered to taxpayers
Increases government accountability and transparency, protects whistle-blowers. Demystifies its processes and makes itself open to grass roots input.   Ruthlessly suppresses any criticism or any challenges to power. Creates a sense of religious awe about itself to stifle objective criticism. Launches ideological crusades without concrete justifications. This is typically done as a smokescreen to hide corruption and special privileges for crony groups.
Demonstrates consistent principles and inspires admiration both at home and abroad   Practices extreme double standards and inspires hatred and loathing at home and around the world
Serves the interests of honest, competent, hard-working, loyal people in society, to include their vital cultural and genetic interests   Serves a few narrow corrupt and disloyal interests at expense of everyone else. Undermines the cultural and racial coherence of core population.
Policies favor strong domestic economic development and job creation, to include the steady strengthening of the technological and manufacturing base.   Runs down domestic manufacturing base while empowering potential enemies
Maintains stable, trustworthy environment that honors contracts, encourages mutually beneficial trade relations   Foments international distrust through unnecessary aggressive wars, deception, barbaric practices such as torture, use of DU Weapons of Mass Destruction on helpless civilians, etc.
Maintains the value of currency, honors commitments to retirees, eliminates unnecessary cash drains on taxpayer   Debauches the currency, cripples or bankrupts country with debt
Protects productive capabilities of the private sector or at least leaves it alone ... Squeezes out the private sector


The perspective on an ethical issue in the right column: Although there is truth in these statements under certain circumstances, they are more the exception that the rule. Or stated differently, they "wag the dog." The overall tenor of this statement is in the ball park of what I call "parasitism" (criminality).

Probably the most serious weakness to this approach to ethics is that there are no checks and balances to restrain a criminally insane tyrant bent on destroying society. It encourages us to accept lying and intrigue as ends in themselves.

The second biggest weakness is that it places one componant of moral reasoning, called utilitarianism, in isolation as an end in itself.

According to various sources, ethical reasoning can be divided into three broad categories:
a) Duty based morality. This defines what is ethical based upon adherence to some code of conduct. On a more abstract level, it might include a duty to follow genetically-based instincts such as a will to live or procreate. It might also include a duty to follow ones conscience regardless of the cost to oneself, the classic example being men who sacrifice themselves in time of war in defense of their people and country.
b) Contractual ethics. This defines ethical behavior based upon the ability of people to live up to their agreements. The U.S. Constitution is a social contract between the people and their government.
c) Utilitarian reasoning. This defines ethical behavior based upon weighing cost benefit ratios. It can be used to justify ruthless behavior on the grounds that the end justifies the means.

Each of these approaches has its own strengths as well as limitations. Usually sound ethical reasoning considers all of these perspectives together rather than only one perspective to the exclusion of the other two. (For those interested in delving more deeply into the philosophical ramifications of each area and how they interrelate, I go into all this into more detail in Part Six of my "I, Robot Entrepreneur" series where I talk about the moral dilemnas in the movie "I, Robot" and potential problems we might face in the future programming highly intelligent robots).

Realpolitik usually means very hard-edged and selfish utilitarianism. I first became aware of the term when Dr. Henry Kissinger openly bandied it about during his tenure with the Nixon Administration. In my Preface to Ways That Are Dark (carried by America First Books) I provide some Kissinger quotes that help to flavor his use of this term, such as "“Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,” “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer,” and “Today Americans would be outraged if U. N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful!”

Realpolitik includes cases where national leaders are willing to break treaties (violate contractual ethics) and promote exceptionally cruel practices such as torture and genocide. This brand of cruelty violates most duty-based morality that citizens practice towards each other within most normal civilized Western societies. Usually realpolitik practitioners claim that the nation will gain in the long run despite the costs to their national reputation in the short run. A major problem with this brand of utilitarianism, apart from the damage it does to other people, is that it often becomes indistinguishable it from the characteristics of criminal behavior (I also use the term "parasite" interchangeably with "criminal" and "sociopath"). Many criminals operate under the principle that it does not matter how much they damage others so long as they benefit themselves, even if in the short run. (In his book By Way of Deception, author Victor Ostrovsky quotes a particularly applicable saying bandied about by Mossad agents that "It is OK as long as it does not happen to you.") I list criminal traits under "Defining Elements of the Criminal Personality" one third of the way through Part Four: Mutualism vs. Parasitism of my Reconciling Opposing Ideological Viewpoints series.

How do we know that a national leader isn't doing damage for his own short term self interest and for his criminal cronies rather than for a greater national good? How do we know that he is so smart, wise, and mature that he should dare to defy time-tested standards of conventional public morality or operate in secrecy behind the scrutiny of a free press, political representatives, very bright and perceptive individuals in various occupations both at home and abroad, and the citizenry at large? How do we know that such leaders are not simply a gang of criminal lunatics. This is not only an academic consideration, but also very much a current concern, as suggested by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his articles such as "Americans Have Lost Their Country" (28 Feb 2007), "The Failure of America As a Moral Force" (30 Jan 2007), "Failed States: The US and Israel" (4 Feb 2007), "Bush Says No to Reason" (2 Jan 2007), and "Is Bush Sane?" (1 Dec 2006).

It is true that special circumstance may arise where leaders may require special privileges or powers. However, in societies controlled by sane, mature, honest, and responsible people, there is usually an effort to create safeguards and specific limitations to this special exercise of power. For example, in Anglo-Saxon Common law, a policeman requires a warrant to engage in a search and seizure, and is constrained by habeau corpus to prevent arbitrary arrest. Getting back to the old Roman Republic, whenever someone assumed unusual powers, it was only after being elected to the position of dictator for one year by the Roman Senate, and the special powers were generally intended to be used to defend Roman against a foriegn military invader.

In constrast to this, the statement to the right gives a blank check for individuals in power to decide the law for themselves. This is extremely fertile ground for tyranny, which in turn is extremely fertile ground for sociopathic people to rise to the top and run society into the ground to suit their own selfish needs.

A good example of criminal high jacking of America involves the Israeli-Mossad assassination of President John F. Kennedy documented in Final Judgment (carried by America First Books) by Michael Collins Piper. In this book Mr. Piper describes how Jewish malefactors such as Meyer Lansky ran organized crime in America and bought off J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. Please also see his article "Who Runs U.S. Organized Crime?" (30 Oct 2006) and his book High Priests of War (carried by America First Books) about the Jewish neo-con cabal that high-jacked America into military adventurism in Afghanistan and Iraq. The CIA-Mossad partnership has played a key role in exporting opium out of the Golden Triangle in Southeast Asia and out of Afghanistan in central Asia. Defending the Golden Triangle suppy source was in important motivation (but by no means the only motivation) for America's disastrous involvement in the Vietnam War. (I also discuss this in my guest editorial to Sgt Skull's Field Manual, carried by America First Books). A desire to reverse the Taliban prohibition on opium-growing was an important motivation (although once again by no means the only motivation) for America's invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11. And speaking of 9-11, there is overwhelming evidence that Israel and senior U.S. military personnel orchestrated the attacks as an inside job. Please see "9-11: A Neo-Con Coup de Etat" in Col Donn de Grand Pre's author archive as well as his book Viper's Venom (carried by America First Books). And let us not forget the morally ambiguous fun and games of America's "elite" at Bohemian Grove or the involvement of certain members in the Franklin Cover-Up.

Obviously the controlled national media is aiding and abetting these criminals, because it covers up their activities. These criminals could have been brought to justice long ago if national media bothered to hound them even a tenth as much as it hounded President Richard Nixon out of office.

Connecting some dots further, in my Critical Issues article, I discuss America's seriously deteriorating economic fundamentals. An important cause of this is that America's business elite tends to have a very short term, selfish focus, preferring quick profits by exporting industry overseas to exploit cheap Third World labor rather than taking the more arduous, but in the long run far more rewarding and secure road of devoting the bulk of their reinvestment towards upgrading American industrial infrastructure and the skills of American workers. While their economic activity has probably been legal within technical interpretations of existing law, I believe that in spirit their very selfish and short term attitudes are symptomatic of the way in which hard core criminal groups, to include innately criminal Jewish cabals, have deeply infected the rest of American society.

Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Pro-Mut -5, Pro Para +5)

Return to question 3

Proceed to commentary for question 4


Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.