Correction of 'Egregious' Mistake , by Ray Zwarich

To all the Really Good Ones, and to all in peril in these strange and dangerous times:

I am writing to correct an 'egregious' mistake I made in my recently sent 'open letter' to Dr. Michael Rectenwald, in which I discussed the basic Human Paradox that comprises our human condition, of which the Paradox of the Free Market is an ancillary, (every truly 'free' market inevitably self-destructs through natural forces that produce oligopoly and monopoly). The Human Paradox is comprised from our instinctive human behavior, behavior that is coded into our DNA, which defines us as both social beings, cooperating in groups, as members of tribal 'collectives', to enhance our survival in a hostile environment, but also as separate individuals who compete for primacy and dominance within the tribal collectives to which we ALL belong. (Individual humans in Nature are very poorly equipped to survive).

In some animals, such as bees and ants, only the colony, only the collective matters at all to the individual animals. Neither individual bees nor ants have any individual (selfish) motivations, not even for their own safety/survival. Only the collective matters, which becomes as if the colony itself, is the organism, and the individuals are like cells are to our bodies. They only serve the existence of the colony. (We maintain bee colonies here on Bent Birch Farm, to sell the honey. My wife of 47 years is the bee-keeper in the family).

Our basic and powerful biological human instinct to cooperate, and our equally powerful basic biological instinct to compete, are in direct opposition to one another in the context of Human Civilization, because they evolved to serve our survival at a much less complexly organized 'tribal' level of human organization. In the context of Human Civilization, these oppositional, contradictory, 'paradoxical' instincts have brought us, Humanity itself, to the verge of self-annihilation.  

These instincts evolved to serve us in the natural 'wild' environment in which they evolved, and they served us well for several millions of years, as primates gradually evolved into humans. As long as our highest level of human organization was at the primitive 'tribal' level, the biological evolutionary benefit of being endowed with these opposing instincts is clear. The capacity to cooperate in groups clearly enhanced our capacity to survive and prosper in a hostile environment, both against other species, and also against other tribal groups of our own species. The instinct to compete for primacy within the tribal group clearly honed the raw strength and power of each group, as it allowed the strongest (most capable) individuals to rise to dominate and lead the group, and also to contribute more of those individuals' genes into the group's gene pool. Since physical strength, enhancing the ability to kill other animals for food, and/or to fight other groups for survival, was so essential, the strongest most capable males dominated tribal groups. 

Group security, survival itself, always dominates groups' most elemental concerns. (When immediate survival is at stake, ALL other concerns fall to insignificance). Modern feminism has only developed under the safety of modern nuclear armed, and otherwise 'technologically armed', nations, wherein the nation's safety no longer is perceived as dependent upon the greater physical strength of males as soldiers fighting each other directly in the field. Females can 'push buttons' to launch missiles, (or fly drones, etc), quite as well as males. 

The domination of human tribes by males included having access to mate with more of the females, which honed the tribes' genetic makeup itself. A woman can only have one offspring per year, (actually less, since women are not usually fertile while breastfeeding), and seldom more than 10 or so in her lifetime, whereas a man can potentially have as many children as he can find women to couple with. So male genes can be more dominant in a tribal group's gene pool. This is reflected, even today, in instinctive human sexual behavior, as well, despite the development of our culture of pair-bonding (marriage). All individual human sex acts, every individual instance of males and females 'coupling', consist of 40% of females coupling with just 20% of the males. Women have a more highly developed instinctive desire to 'collect' better genes to sire their children, because of their greater commitment to fewer children. Men have the innate instinct to 'spread their genes' as widely as possible.    

These biological behavioral patterns among humans are found among other primates as well, and very similar instinctive (DNA rooted) behavior is found among other animals as well, such as among some species of felines, (as among 'prides' of lions), and canines, (as among 'packs' of wolves). Other species of higher mammals, such as bears, do not have this set of instincts. Bears live as solitary creatures. They never get lonely for the company of other bears, (save for once a year during rutting season). They evolved to be the largest most powerful individual creatures in the environment, to enhance their survival, instead of social animals operating as groups like us.  

Our directly opposing instincts, the instinct to cooperate in groups, and the instinct to compete as individuals for primacy within the groups, only became problematic when humans began evolving the intelligence to cooperate in concentric circles of larger groups. Closely interrelated 'family' groups began to associate themselves into genetically related 'clans'. Intermarriage between individuals from different groups began to be used to create bonds between them. This process advanced as clans formed into 'tribes', and eventually tribes of people began associating into nations. Every individual then was a member of concentric circles of associative cooperation. Every person was a member of a family, which was itself a part of a clan, which was a part of a tribe, which was part of a nation. 

At this advancing state of human organization, when 'nations' formed, we could say that 'civilization' began. Such sharply defined lines of demarcation in Nature are seldom actually so clear. The development of agriculture, to first enhance, and then largely replace hunting and gathering, required wider more generalized recognition of property rights. If people expended the labor to plant crops, they wanted a level of security that would assure their 'right' to harvest those crops. New levels of organization were required to provide and protect property rights.

Our written history of human civilization dates back a bit more that 5,000 years, but our oldest known evidentiary history of human civilization dates to ancient Sumer, about 8,000 years ago. The natural forces leading to civilization, largely the development of agriculture, had likely been forming up over at least a couple of millennia before that. 10,000 years, 100 Centuries, is a time frame that is often cited as the period, (to date), that Human Civilization has existed. 

So....Endowed with biologically rooted instincts that equipped us to survive and prosper in a 'wild' environment, we evolved our intelligence to the point that we were able to create this thing we now call 'civilization'. 

Civilization is a 'cultural' creation, however. Biology led us to it, but our biology also still clashes sharply with it. Our biological instincts evolved over several millions of years. There are 10,000 centuries in each million years. Human Civilization has only developed over these last 100 centuries. 

Biological evolution cannot move that fast. If given enough time, our biological instincts will likely evolve to be more attuned to civilization. But as we can all surely see, we have now arrived at a crucial cusp in Human History at which our competitive biological tribal instincts are still driving us to such an extent that we will likely self-exterminate our entire species in just the next 25-50 years, which is obviously not a time frame in which our biological instincts will have time to evolve to keep pace with our existentially crucial need to ameliorate them.   

When we developed the biological capacity of higher intelligence, (bigger brains containing more complex synapses connecting individual brain cells), we then had more 'information processing' power in our skulls. This is very much analogous to the advances we've made in just the last 40 years in creating information processing 'hardware' machines. Very similar to computer processing power, (in many ways, anyway), the processing power that evolved in our skulls requires more highly developed 'software applications' in order to be more useful to us. 

'Culture' is the software we humans developed that enabled us to start to become more 'civilized', which imparted to us the capacity to cooperate in expanding concentric circles of larger groups. We still were members of families. Parents still loved their own children more than other children, and children loved their parents more than other adults, and their siblings more than other children. We were still members of wider clans, comprised of more distant 'blood relations', (aunts and uncles, cousins, and in-laws), and of 'tribes', defined by various associative legacies. But with the developing advent of the 'culture' of civilization, tribes began to form into nations.   

The existence of nations required Law. Or, we could say, nations came into existence because the development of human culture, primarily the development of agriculture, required Law. Law defines the rights of individuals within the collectives we call nations. Law both protects the rights of individuals, but also, and crucially, LIMITS the rights of individuals, to protect the rights of 'the collective' from the selfish desires of individuals. Property rights, both private property rights, and the rights of the 'commonwealth', the rights and concepts of public lands and resources, property owned by the collective, are, and have always been, a CRUCIAL element of the human culture of civilization. 

As most of us surely (or at least hopefully) know, our oldest known published 'code of law' was developed adjacent and overlapping to Sumer, (in roughly the same territory we now call Mesopotamia), by King Hammurabbi of Babylon. The Code of Hammurabi dates back only about 4,000 years, however. Codes of laws no doubt have existed for as long as human civilization has existed. (Again, people would not expend the grueling labor and energy to plant crops unless they had expectations that they had the protected 'property right' to harvest those crops). Civilization is simply not possible unless rooted in a Culture of Law. 

If we look at our current existential human predicament, which is now threatening us ALL with fast approaching self-annihilation, we can see that all the long sad (mostly tragic) saga of Human History has come down to a contest between an alliance of nations that advocate for the collective 'Rule of Law' among and between all the nations that comprise all Humanity, and a competing alliance of nations that want to have the power to unilaterally impose self-serving 'rules' on all other nations.

The alliance of nations favoring the Rule of International Law, (led by China and Russia), advocates strenuously, and constantly, that all Humanity, as represented by the rights of all nations into which Humanity remains divided, must negotiate this Code of International Laws through democratic negotiations among all the nations, in which all nations respect the rights and interests of all other nations. These nations advocate for the development of international administration of International Law through the development of the mechanics of the already existing United Nations. 

The competing alliance, led by the US, demands that every nation must follow the rules that the US unilaterally promulgates. Any nations that refuse to follow these rules are immediately attacked militarily, if they are too weak to fight back, usually killing large numbers of civilians. If stronger nations refuse to follow US commands, but have the ability to fight back effectively should the US led alliance attack them, they are instead subjected to various forms of economic warfare, often amounting to 'siege warfare', (often called "economic sanctions"), which also kill large numbers of civilian people in nations with weaker economies. 

Either way, whether by direct military attack, usually bombing, or through economic 'siege warfare', the US led alliance demands that all nations must follow its unilaterally issued rules and commands, under the pain of having large numbers of their citizens killed. 

The US promotes this concept as "Rules Based Order", to compete with the concept of the "Rule of International Law" established through democratic negotiations between nations. 

This US led alliance, which wants to 'rule the world', ironically claims that it wants to do so to "spread democracy". And this US alliance, which enthusiastically kills large numbers of people, as many as it can, in any nation that refuses to follow its orders, claims that the other alliance, which advocates for the democratic negotiation of International Law, to be administered through an international democratic organization, is somehow opposing democracy. 

Anyway....This is all 'background' for my apology to Dr. Rectenwald....LOL...This is how it goes....(at least for odd old simian creatures like Caliban).....All subjects are related in a unitary 'vision'....We can't really discuss ANY subject fully without discussing them ALL. For our purposes here, please follow me back to the subject at hand, which is my correction of an 'egregious' mistake consisting of (apparently) erroneous assumptions I made concerning what yet appears to me to be glaring contradictions in Dr. Michael Rectenwald's political advocacy. 

I have tried to make it VERY clear that my recognition of these glaring contradictions in his advocacy do not negate my admiration for the work he is doing. He is an energetic advocate for human rights and freedoms. He has shown his courage, by putting his actual career 'on the line', (and having it 'destroyed' as a result; he was forced out of his professorship at NYU), in opposing the deadly dangerous and completely crazed and nonsensical Woke Cult that has been duped by the Elite Powers that have captured the US under their control, and are determined that they must rule over the entire world by unilateral command, (killing large numbers in any nations that refuse to follow their imperial commands).

This Ruling Elite would be fatally weakened, and completely vulnerable to defeat by the united forces of our nation's Common People, were the Elites not cunningly able to dupe the Woke Cult, (and finance them as well, as all surely know that Black Lives Matter is primarily financed by the wealthiest people on Earth), into serving their (the Woke Cult's) own declared enemy. This stupified Woke Cult is so crazed that it somehow thinks it is opposing the Elites' control over us, but it is completely obvious to any rational thinking person that it is the Woke Cult that is the PRIMARY force protecting the Elites by dividing the Common People into mutually hateful factions, both along the classic (ancient) 'divide and rule' lines of tribal (racial) divisions, and the brilliantly conceived and newly implemented modern gender divisions, (with large numbers of women having been duped into adopting an ideology that demonizes not merely men, but manhood itself). 'Divide and rule' is more effective today in rendering the Common People completely powerless against the Elites than it ever has been, due the the advent of modern Mass Media. 

Anyway...In times of 'warfare', an old adage holds that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Thus, to a large extent, as we are now engaged in this great struggle between the Rule of Law, (democratically negotiated between all nations), and the so-called 'Rules Based Order', which consists of Rules unilaterally issued by the US Ruling Elites, under threat of enforcement by death to large numbers of civilians, an enemy of these deadly ruthless US Ruling Elites is a friend of mine. These deadly ruthless forces are DETERMINED to rule over the entire Earth, (Amerika uber alles!), and they routinely kill LARGE numbers of people in any nations that refuse to follow their unilaterally issued commands. In our own nation, their unbridled lust and greed relegates teeming tens of millions of own own fellow citizens to crushing poverty, to "food insecurity", and to the immediate presence of deadly violence in their neighborhoods, any time they step outside their own front doors. Any enemy of these ruthless Ruling Elites is indeed, at least while this 'war' rages on, a friend of mine. 

This crazed and stupified Woke Cult, (which I have long called the Bolshevik Marionette Left), has been duped into loyally serving as the Elites' PRIMARY means of continued empowerment. These Woke Cult crazies are a direct threat to our freedoms and rights. Any 'enemy' of theirs is a 'friend' of mine, at least to some large degree, at least as long as this war for our nation's soul rages on. 

Such 'friendships' are temporary and tenuous, however, and in this case, regarding the political advocacy of Dr. Rectenwald, I believe that his advocacy is actually counterproductive to our shared cause. I believe that he himself has allowed himself to be duped into supporting a foolishly misguided ideology, (libertarianism), which only serves and protects the interests of the very forces he opposes.  

The 'egregious' mistake I previously made concerning Dr. Rectenwald, for which I hereby apologize, and for which Dr. Rectenwald wrote to accuse me of "spreading lies about him", (sheesh!...LOL....sigh....), was in assuming that his presentation given to the absurdly extremist Mises Caucus of the Libertarian Party, a presentation in which he lauds the Mises Caucus with such statements as "By standing for individual rights and individual liberty under all circumstances, the Mises Caucus can lead the way out of the tyranny that besets us", was an indication that he himself is a member of the Mises Caucus, and therefore that he himself supports such ridiculously extremist statements in the Mises Caucus Platform, such as "We categorically reject socialism, defined as the non-private collective ownership of resources".              

Dr. Rectenwald contacted me to assure me that he is NOT a member of the Mises Caucus, and is NOT even a member of the Ayn Randian rooted Libertarian Party. "I am a libertarian, but not a Libertarian", he wrote to tell me, (whatever that means). 

Well....I'm not sure what that means, and I invited him to explain, but he has not yet done so. I have waited these few days before sending this correction and apology to give him time to prepare an explanation, but none has come, and I feel compelled to not wait any longer to correct my 'egregious' mistake in assuming that he is a member of this extremist sect that he praised so effusively in his presentation to them. He assured me that he is NOT against the existence of "non-private ownership of resources", such as public beaches and parks, public roads, public ownership of our air and water, (our environment), etc, as this ultra-extremist Mises Caucus sect so clearly states that it is. 

Anyone who has read the work of Ayn Rand knows of her intense contempt for the Common People. Lacking Dr. Rectenwald's explanation of his adoption of the libertarian ideology, (although he is NOT a member of the Libertarian Party....I don't want to find myself again accused of "spreading lies about him"), one would presume that his concerns for 'individual freedom' may approach Ayn Rand's in its elitist nature, which would include contempt for the Common People, and contempt for the rights and interests of The Collective being equitably balanced against those of The Individual.  

The reason I think Dr. Rectenwald's advocacy now appears to be counterproductive, (since finding out he is a (small 'l') libertarian), is my own belief that the ONLY means that we have that can POSSIBLY defeat the Elite Powers that have captured control over us, over our nation, is to UNITE the Common People under a Common Banner. 

A political philosophy that is itself inherently elitist, by its very nature, a philosophy which glorifies unbridled individualism, which denies and denigrates the rights of The Collective, the rights of The Common Good, the dignity and rights of The Common People, has no chance of UNITING the nation's Common People, and thus no chance defeating the forces that Dr. Rectenwald nominally opposes. 

All for one. One for all. The sanctity of Individual Rights must be limited by the equal sanctity of the rights of The Collective. They must be 'in balance'. Your rights end where they impose on mine. I will respect and honor your rights and interests, and I will expect that you will respect and honor mine in return. That is the version of the so-called 'golden rule' that must be the basic foundation of True Democracy. 

True Democracy cannot exist in a nation in which poverty exists. Poverty in a wealthy nation is a glaring neon signpost of injustice. True Democracy cannot exist in a nation where injustice exists, and not only exists, but is tolerated as 'routine'. Injustice is a glaring neon signpost declaring that The Collective holds the rights and interests of The Individual in contempt. 

All for one. One for all. This MUST be a contract that is entered voluntarily by all parties. The Individual will NOT respect the rights and interests of The Collective unless every individual knows that The Collective respects her or his individual rights the same. The Individual canNOT be forced, not by ANY power, to respect The Collective. That respect must be freely given, and it will NOT be given so long as ANY individuals suffer from poverty and/or other forms of injustice at the hands of The Collective. 

I hope that Dr. Michael Rectenwald will accept my apology for my 'egregious' mistake in assuming that his laudatory praise for the extremist Mises Caucus sect of the Libertarian Party was an indication that he supports the policies and formalized 'platform' of that extremist sect. 

The Mises Caucus Cult Ideology is no better, nor the least bit worse, that the Woke Cult Critical Race Theory Ideology that Dr. Rectenwald opposes with such an heroic degree of energy and courage.


R Zwarich
Bent Birch Farm, (the old Webber place, once the land of the Quaboag Clan of the Nimpuc tribe)