Many people today are unfortunately prone to regard all merit as opinion and all standards as subjective. But while some values and standards are subjective, others are quite objective and are matters of fact: independent of anyone's opinion.

The goodness of ice cream, measured as the quality of its taste, is subjective (an opinion). But when its goodness is measured as a function of its nutritional content, there is no subjectivity. The calories, the fats and sugars, in a typical ice cream cone exist whether you want them to, whether you "believe in them," or even whether you even know about them, or not.

And just as absolute measures of quality or worth may be objective, so too may relative measures. An orange has more vitamin C than a potato. To someone in danger of scurvy, an orange would be a food superior to a potato, and anything you might believe to the contrary is error.

The effect of years of media indoctrination with false ideas can be difficult to undo. You probably have no problem accepting what I've said about about the objectivity of some estimates of superiority and inferiority where different kinds of foods are concerned. Now, try to maintain a logical frame of mind. If you happen to be a liberal, please control your impulse to squawk "WHAAAAT!" like an indecently propositioned old grandmother. I'm about to turn the discussion to race.

Blacks and Whites are no more "equal" under the skin than an orange and a potato are. Just as those foods have differing nutritional qualities, so too do the races have differences in temperament, in mental agility, and in spiritual outlook. Mixing races in society never produces a harmonious result. The natural inclinations of each race in the mixture clash. Expectations are frustrated. Hostility is the result. You can never completely educate out of people that which they were born with, and the attempt to do so, if continued long enough, will most likely just create mental disorders, crime, and revolution.

The technological culture of America and Europe were White creations, not Black ones. They weren't Gypsie, Mestizo or Turk. Neither were they Asian, though the Asians have adapted to the lifestyle better than any other non-White group; the Asian adoption of similiar culture is a reflection of the West, not an independent reinvention of technology. Although the Jews pitched in here and there with some overly-hyped trifles, the culture that has produced the greatest comforts and technical marvels of history was essentially the product of the White mind.

In other words, something about the White race is superior to other races in ability for creating this particular kind of civilization, just as an orange is superior to a potato in terms of vitamin C.

The advantage of technology, of course, is that it makes comfortable living possible with less human labor. Many people are fond of such comforts, including those belonging to races whose abilities aren't up to duplicating White technical achievements. That's why so many Blacks and Browns immigrate to White countries, and it's why so many non-White countries demand technical and material assistance from White countries. They want what we've got, and they aren't good enough to make it themselves, so they want to take ours from us.

Politicians aren't stupid. You don't win consistently in politics by not knowing a thing or two about human motives. Our government hasn't been duped into permitting hordes of non-Whites to come to America. The governments of European nations weren't tricked, either. What's going on is treason. In each White country, the government has deliberately betrayed the people who had given it authority. Constituted to secure the prosperity for the people who created the country, the government instead sold those people out for the sake of political favors and financial gains that the various public officials valued higher than their duty.

Democracy facilitates treason whenever a country becomes larger than a community where gossip can be relied upon to carry news of the day's events and where the average resident recognizes a quarter of the people he sees during the day. When countries become larger than this, there emerges a market for media to disseminate information. The market produces the media, but then those media fall into the hands of a special interest group, which uses this new power for deceiving and conditioning the public in the service of their own hidden agenda. That's why nation-sized democracies are always corrupt, expensive and poorly-run. That's why democracies burden their citizens with taxes much higher than any kingdom or aristocracy ever has. The general quality of life for peasants living under a BAD king is no worse than, and possibly much better than, what the citizen of a TYPICAL democracy must endure.

Joseph Sobran is a political writer who is fond of baseball and Shakespeare. He finds many of the same flaws in democracy that I do. Joe's a libertarian. He wants the individual to have the maximum in personal freedom, and he rightly perceives that democracy undermines those freedoms.

I disagree with him in several respects. I don't to accord primacy to personal freedom in the scale of values. Before anything can have value, there must exist a kind of organism able to use it advantageously and with an eye on the future as regards the consequences of its use. Personal freedom is not an exception. It does not "stand alone" in any reasonable measure of merits.

I disagree with him, also, on the wisdom of getting rid of the state. He believes that organized government is a moral evil in itself, and that without it people would be much happier and more productive. The problem With Joe's viewpoint is that states do guard their cattle—whoops, I mean "their citizens"—from predatory other states. Getting rid of the United States Government would relieve Americans of the evils of the state for a month or so. That's about how long it would be before another state's army moved in to begin the conquest of America and to start stripping Americans of their property—all of it.

To make matters worse, not every government is as multiculturally enervated as the US government is. The Jewified US Government regards a steer of one race as being about as good as a steer of any other race. (Except that Jews are to be preferred and gentile Whites are to be sent to the back of the line.) But a foreign conqueror might easily be more racially loyal to his own breed. That loyalty would manifest, during a conquest of America, in a wild wave of ethnic cleansing in which US-residents of differing races would be exterminated.

Which foreign group would lead the charge is debatable. That the attack would come is not. It probably wouldn't be Iraq or Serbia, much as they would like to get revenge for the US Government's recent outrages against their peoples. Other countries are simply better positioned to do the invading, and the politics of such situations gives means a higher potential than justifiable retribution does. Canada might diffidently pinch off, say, Montana and the Dakotas. Mexico would brazenly grab California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas...and maybe go right on grabbing. China might get Oregon and Washingon State. Cuba might take Florida. Without an American "state" to defend the territory, at least, if not the Americans, what's to stop other states from moving in?

That's why getting rid of the state isn't a workable solution. Any thinking person who recommends that his country change to anarchy should be suspected of being a subversive. No homebrewed resistance, no bunch of farmers with shotguns in their closets, no impromptu militia of flabby executives with handguns under their pillows, is going to stand successfully against a modern invading army. Without at least an EVIL, EXPLOITATIVE state to defend us as it would defend cattle or sheep, we'd fall prey to another exploiter who (most likely) would be even worse—possibly to the point of killing us all.

If we can get a state that doesn't exploit us so much, fine. If we can have again a king or an aristocracy, wonderful. Some of us will still be slaves. Some of us will be relatively privileged. There would still be the threat of death in every parking ticket—but there were be fewer parking tickets. Without democracy and its malicious, deceptive media attachment, everybody would at least know where he stands. Force can be honest and its demands can be open and relatively modest. That's the best situation that anybody can really hope for. Sobran's strange notion that it can be made to disappear is wrong.

It would be a mistake to believe that no one among the commoners has the necessary degree of discrimination, good taste and sound judgment to exercise a part of the sovereign power by voting. But it is a much larger error to think that everyone has those qualities. The masses have not been called the herd for nothing. The epistemological standards by which the common run of people form their opinions, including their political opinions, are not good ones. Left to itself, a mass democracy cannot help but be short-sighted and blundering, noisy and stupid, bringing out the worst in most men, succumbing to a disaster of its own making sooner or later. When a mass democracy coexists with a mass media, the real power is held by those who control the media, because the media become the standard of opinion for the common people.