Aristotle on the Middle Class and the Socialist Banking Oligarchy

Aristotle is the most prominent ancient advocate of freedom. However, his argument is imperfect because he supports the institution of slavery and opposes equality of women.  It is asking much of a philosopher to overcome the prejudices of his era.  Certainly no philosopher did so perfectly.  But the fundamentals of the argument for freedom are in Aristotle's Politics. In this he differs markedly from Plato, who was a totalitarian.  Aristotle's arguments against Plato's Republic suggest the arguments that the Austrian economists used nearly a century ago to show why socialism inevitably fails to operate efficiently.

One of the points that Aristotle emphasizes is the importance of the middle class to the functioning of constitutional government.  As well, he notes that kingly government was characteristic of "barbaric" Europeans.  He writes:

"For barbarians, being more servile in character than Hellenes, and Asiatics than Europeans, do not rebel against a despotic government.  Such royalties have the nature of tyrannies because the people are by nature slaves; but there is no danger of their being overthrown, for they are heditary and legal.  Wherefore also their guards are such as a king and not such as a tyrant would employ, that is to say, they are composed of citizens, whereas the guards of tyrants are mercenaries. For kings rule according to law over voluntary subjects, but tyrants are involuntary..."

Thus, writing in the fourth century BC, Aristotle outlined the nature of medieval Europe.  For following the decline of Rome in the fifth century AD, 900 years later, the same European barbarians conquered the former Roman Empire and established barbaric kingly rule across Europe, which remained intact until the 1800s (and in several cases is still intact today).  Today's socialist Europe reflects the evolution of the servility of Europeans to the kingly state that goes back for millennia.


The claim of some conservatives that retention of the barbaric kingships is "conservative" is a matter of perception.  For it would have been more "conservative" to re-institute the dictatorial Roman Empire than to retain barbaric kingly rule, or more conservative still to re-institute the kings of the other primitive barbarians such as the Celts that go back further.  Democracy would be the conservative path for someone wishing to "conserve" Athenian culture.  Personally, I prefer the "conservatism" of Aristotle, who believed in pluralism, freedom and constitutional rule, to the conservatism of barbarians or the reactionary socialist primitivism of Plato and Marx.

Aristotle's Politics  anticipated Book I of Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies by 2,400 years.  For like Aristotle, Popper outlines the totalitarian nature of Plato's Republic, fleshing out Aristotle's argument in the opening chapters of Politics.  

Concerning the middle class, in Politics Book IV, chapter 11 (1296) Aristotle writes:

"...it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant.  Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme--either out of the most rampant democracy or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of the middle constitutions and those akin to them...The mean condition of states is clearly best, for no other is free from faction; and where the middle class is large, there are least likely to be factions and dissensions.  For a similar reason large states are less liable to faction than small ones, because in them the middle class is large; whereas in small states it is easy to divide all the citizens..."

The considerable harm that the Federal Reserve Bank's and the illegitimate socialist federal government does to democracy and to freedom.  For in creating money and distributing it to wealthy investment bankers, the Fed harms the middle class; and in taxing the middle class further and redistributing the wealth to the lumpenproletariat, the middle class is harmed further still.  As America is pushed into a two-tier society, dominated by wealthy socialists who provide just enough to the lumpenproletariat to keep them happy, fewer and fewer can sustain a middle class lifestyle; the lumpenproletariat grows; and the socialist banking elite becomes an oligarchy.

Phone Your State Senator In Support of School Vouchers

I just received a phone call from the New York State Union of Teachers (to which I belong) asking me to call my State Senator, John Bonacic, in favor of increases, or at least elimination of decreases, in the state education budget.  This is the reason that the state budget is bloated. The state's education system is broken. Far too much money is spent on incompetently run schools.  Vouchers are needed.

In response, the Tea Parties should call the legislature in favor of budget cuts. Please call your state senator about the need for school vouchers.  Mr. Bonacic's phone number is as follows:

Albany Office:
Room 508 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
(518) 455-3181

District Offices:
201 Dolson Avenue, Suite F
Middletown, NY  10940
(845) 344 3311
111 Main Street
Delhi, NY 13753
(607) 746-6675

Email address: bonacic@senate.state.ny.us

I Help Expose Faculty Union's Lies

Professor David Seidemann of Brooklyn College sued the faculty union of the City University of New York, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC).  The suit concerned the far-left union's use of dues money for political purposes unrelated to contract negotiation or administration.  The State of New York threatens any faculty member who would rather not pay dues to the union with violence.  Those not in the union must pay an agency fee.   The union has done little, if anything, to further the faculty's broad economic goals. Once the highest paid faculty in the nation, the CUNY faculty are now in the bottom quartile.  But the union spends an inordinate amount of time  in pro-left-wing and pro-Obama political activity. Initially, the current leadership's insurgency had been funded by one of George Soros's institutes.  In effect, the leadership is using the union as a cash cow to fund left wing political activity while failing to competently operate a union.

Seidemann had sued to require that non-members who are violently forced to the agency fee be able to get a refund for the portion of their dues spent for political purposes.  Initially the PSC claimed that less than 1% of the dues was used for political purposes.  One of Seidemann's former students is now an attorney at the prestigious firm of Jones, Day and he took the case pro bono. Because of a pro-union federal magistrate, the case had to be appealed twice.  As the case was appealed, more and more of the union's budget turned out to be devoted to political purposes.  When they were still not fully examined, the PSC decided to cut its losses and offered to pay Jones, Day Seidemann's legal fees.  By the time they settled, the court had forced the PSC to admit that over 14% of its budget is spent for political purposes.  The true amount is even more.

Yet, in a statement to its executive committee, the PSC lied once again and claimed to have won the case.

Sharad Karkhanis asked me to write an article for his Patriot Returns newsletter, which is sent to 13,000 CUNY employees.  The newsletter went out this morning.  I had asked the PSC to comment on the case, but they did not respond.  But this morning, after the newsletter was released, I received an e-mail from Dania

Rajendra, the PSC's coordinator, of communications. The e-mail added nothing.

Ed Koch Denounces Obama's Anti-Israel Stance

In 2008, Israel National News reported that 77% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama for president.  Perhaps we might call this a suicidal commitment to political correctness.  It was fairly evident at the time of the 2008 election that Obama would be anti-Israel.  First, at a minimum Obama's upbringing was heavily influenced by the Islamic faith. He attended Islamic schools for several years while he lived in Indonesia.  Second, Obama grew up with numerous far left influences.  His mentor while he was growing up was Frank Marshall Davis. His mother was committed to a left-wing viewpoint.  Third, Obama's cousin in Kenya, Raila Odinga, has led a violent insurrection that may have included appeals to support the imposition of Sharia law, and Obama went to Kenya to support him.  Fourth, Obama has associated with far-left anti-Semites Reverend Michael Pfleger, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan as well as violent felon Professor William Ayers. 

In a Washington Post article in January 2008, Richard Cohen wrote about Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ and that church's newsletter's having given an award to Louis Farrakhan. The newsletter said that Farrakhan ""truly epitomized greatness."  

Cohen pointed out that "the Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter."  Despite his perceptiveness, Cohen lapses into denial:  "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan."

Based on what?

During the course of the election, a televised interview of former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton (see video embedded below) revealed that Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, personal advisor to the king of Saudi Arabia (recall Obama's bow to King Abdullah), had called him when Obama was applying to Harvard Law School. Mansour asked Sutton to intervene with Harvard on Obama's behalf.

I know that Ed Koch knew about all of this because I recall writing him an e-mail two years ago when I was shocked to hear of his support for then-candidate Obama.  Mr. Koch was intelligent enough to know better. His failure was moral.  He allowed political correctness and the desire to conform to the benighted opinions of the Democratic Party media to overcome his sense of decency. 

The same is true of the Jewish community at large.  The 77% of Jews who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 are worse enemies of their fellow Jews than the most virulent of anti-Semites in America. They are a moral disgrace.

Now, in the video directly below (h/t Phil Orenstein and my cousin Don, the video of Sutton follows) Mr. Koch complains about Mr. Obama's all-out attack on Israel.  The one perplexing question:  why is Mr. Koch surprised?