MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Imagine if you could vote “none of the above” | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on July 27, 2019

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/imagine-if-you-could-vote-none-of-the-above/

By Joe Jarvis

“Did not vote” won a landslide victory in the 2016 Presidential race.

If its votes had been counted, “did not vote” would have won 41 states and 471 of 538 electoral votes.

Inaction is still a choice. It means no candidate was able to inspire that person to go to the polls. Or perhaps the whole system seems stupid to them. Whatever the reason, their electoral voice is not being heard.

But it should be loud and clear. The people want a “none of the above” option when it comes to elections.

Maybe then elections would make a difference. Instead of abstaining, or voting for the lesser evil, you could choose no one.

If “no one” won, then the seat could either remain vacant or a new election could be called with all new candidates. This wouldn’t solve all the issues with democracy, but it would be a good start.

Well quit your dreaming, it will never happen. Politicians won’t pass laws that make their own reelection harder.

But another solution doesn’t require the approval of politicians. It could be used as a tool of the electorate to actually have its voice heard in electoral politics.

Referendum Candidates

A referendum is when the people vote directly on a policy issue, like legalizing marijuana for instance.

A Referendum Candidate would be a stand-in when that option is not available.

Referendum Candidates could:

1) Make voting for this third-party candidate a referendum on the other candidates, or the two-party system in general.

Instead of voting for the lesser evil, you can vote for the Referendum Candidate standing in as a “none of the above” option.

The RC (Referendum Candidate) could pledge to never show up for work, refuse a salary, and make sure that the seat is “empty” for the next election cycle.

Example: An election with two unpopular candidates, one from each major party. No one really wants to vote for either one, so they resort to voting for the lesser of two evils.

An RC would come in and vow to occupy the seat without doing anything for the next election cycle.

But they would have to be someone who is clearly not partisan, otherwise, it will simply bleed votes from one party or the other, as Libertarian or Green Party candidates tend to do.

The RC would be running more as a neutral arbiter of the two sides. Something along the lines of, “Look, both our choices are really terrible, let’s just sit this one out. Send a message to both parties that they better shape up, or neither one will get the seat.”

If the RC loses but captures, say 15% of the vote, they will make headlines that 15% of the electorate voted non-of-the-above. Next election cycle, more people will want to join the chorus of disapproval for the politicians, as long as the RC wasn’t a spoiler candidate.

2) An RC could run on a specific issue that your politicians have been ignoring, or that both mainstream politicians agree on.

But in order to make this work, RCs have to be single issue. Otherwise, they are no different than any other third-party candidate.

People need to feel their vote for the RC is making an actual statement, versus being thrown away. Then even if the RC doesn’t win, the message is clear. X percentage of voters agree strongly with the single position on which they ran. And that could influence the politician who does win to adopt that policy.

So to be a true Referendum Candidate, you would have to pledge to not vote on any matters that don’t relate to that single issue platform.

Example: A county in Washington state banned marijuana businesses, despite a state law that legalized them. Say both candidates for County Commissioner support the ban.

A Referendum Candidate could come in and run on the single issue: repealing the ban on marijuana retail in the county.

Who has partisan politics been excluding?

Republicans and Democrats have become so polarized that you actually have to be at least a little crazy to even run for office these days. How else could you align yourself with such rigid ideologies?

So perhaps Referendum Candidacies could actually give truly moderate, independent people a chance to re-enter the arena of politics.

Two more options for RCs:

1) Run as a true voice of the people. Let your constituents voice their opinion on every vote, and serve as a true proxy for the people. At least then the RC would be an actual representative.

But to be a truly non-partisan wise judge would be the ultimate respect for this position. Carefully weigh what the people tell you, and make the final decision–probably the way it was intended to be.

2) Design a platform from scratch. But this would require careful planning to avoid any of the buzzword issues that would reveal you as a mole of one side or the other. Explain the issue in new terms, and dissect why both the left and the right gets it wrong, or better yet, which tiny elements of the issues they get right.

But this won’t work if you are truly a lefty or righty, simply trying to repackage the same ideas. You must be genuinely different, and it would help to have no background of belonging to a party or publicly voicing partisan opinions…

Be seeing you

None of the Above 2016 Yard Sign | Zazzle

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

HOW POROUS SHOULD AMERICA’S BORDERS BE? THOMAS JEFFERSON’S THOUGHTS ON IMMIGRATION

Posted by M. C. on July 27, 2019

“[N]o endeavor”, he said, “should be spared to detect and suppress” this sort of im- migrant. (2) So much for blind liberality. Not every immigrant is a friend of America. Jefferson was no fool. He had other concerns too.

https://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity.shtmlBy Steven M. Farrell

You and I are “melting pot” people; citizens, that is, of that country set apart by Heav- en to receive those in search of the good life–those from from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. As such, we, of all people, ought to recognize the value of a liberal [generous, not strict] immigration policy.

President Thomas Jefferson, a descendent of immigrants, presiding over a nation of immigrants, thought so. In his first annual message, dated, December 8, 1801, he asked of those who thought to impose an extremely arduous course to citizenship for the im- migrant (a 14 years residency requirement), a few probing questions:

    “Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall op- pressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a resi- dence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to eve- ry one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes perma- nently with us?” (1)

The advocates of today’s liberal immigration policies, or of far more radical proposals for open borders, might feel inclined to thus quote Jefferson, and feel justified.

Yet they had better do so with caution. President Jefferson also suggested that America balance her open arm policy “with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war”.

“[N]o endeavor”, he said, “should be spared to detect and suppress” this sort of im- migrant. (2) So much for blind liberality. Not every immigrant is a friend of America. Jefferson was no fool. He had other concerns too.

In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Jefferson reflects:

    “It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possi- ble in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.
    “Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of abso- lute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emi- grants.” (3)

Jefferson warns, nearly prophetically:

    “They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass.” (4)

There is theory; and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that, to every liberal law, there were some reasonable limits.

We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want true freedom seekers to come, but without “extraordinary encouragements.” (5)

What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration policy today that, with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come–to come from countries that hate us, to a feast of “free” food, “free” health care, “free” education, “free” social security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards? It is hard to see Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily unwise, and extraordinarily rev- olutionary. Jefferson would have proposed something better–a policy liberal in its ex- tension of the blessings of liberty to those who desired it, and conservative in its eco- nomic and political common sense.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Another ‘NY Times’ biased report — this one about Israel’s destruction of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem

Posted by M. C. on July 27, 2019

All The News That Fits

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/07/destruction-palestinian-jerusalem/

The New York Times had to report Israel’s shocking demolition yesterday of Palestinian apartment blocks in Jerusalem; the story was too big to ignore. But the paper’s Isabel Kershner cleverly tried to present Israel’s brutal action in the best possible way, while muffling the voices of the victims.

Contrasting the Times’s coverage with other reports, including an excellent article by Mondoweiss’s Yumna Patel, reveals just how biased Kershner’s effort is.

Isabel Kershner (Photo: New York Times)

Kershner’s slant starts right in the second paragraph, with a long quote from an Israeli minister ominously warning that the “mostly uninhabited buildings” were “a severe security threat and can provide cover to suicide bombers and other terrorists. . .” Kershner’s insinuation is clear; Israel reluctantly had to tear down the apartments to protect itself. She nowhere explains that suicide bombings stopped more than a decade ago, and many reports have shown that the so-called separation wall does not stop Palestinians from crossing into pre-1967 Israel if they want to.

But Kershner’s most impressive effort at whitewash comes immediately, in the 4th paragraph. Here is her tortured sentence:

The decision to proceed with the demolition underscored the legal complexities and human difficulties caused by the absence of internationally recognized boundaries and competing authorities.

This sentence is a masterpiece of deceit. Here is what Kershner should have said: “Israel illegally occupies West Bank Palestine and refuses to negotiate borders. Even though the Palestinian Authority is supposed to be in charge of the area where Israel demolished the apartment buildings, and even granted building permits there, Israel simply overrode the P.A. and tore them down.”

Kershner’s euphemism about “human difficulties” is also repulsive. Her article continues, “By late afternoon, the police were still barring entry to the neighborhood to all nonresidents, including reporters.”

So Kershner just gave up trying to talk to eyewitnesses, confining herself to quoting a couple of Palestinians who were outside the police perimeter. Contrast that with our own Yumna Patel, whose lengthy report includes comment from the Palestinian activist Hamada Hamada: “‘The soldiers were really aggressive, pushing and shoving people, firing tear gas at us, and even beating some people with the butts of their rifles.’”

Two outstanding reporters from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Amira Hass and Jack Khoury, also managed to speak to the actual Palestinian victims:

“I built this house stone by stone. It was my dream to live in this house. Now I am losing everything,” said Fadi al-Wahash, 37, his voice breaking as a bulldozer destroyed his unfinished three-floor house.

Hass and Khoury reported that Israel sent 700 police and 200 soldiers to destroy the homes — figures nowhere reported in the Times. The photo accompanying Kershner’s article also left out this massive assault, portraying only a bulldozer in the distance and a couple of blurry army vehicles in the foreground.

There are other documented reports that Israeli soldiers celebrated and cheered as they blew up the Palestinian homes — a fact also unmentioned in the Times…

Be seeing you

TransConflict » No peace and quiet for Israel until the ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

American Politicians Use Jews as Pawns To Excuse Their Meddling in Israeli Elections – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on July 27, 2019

https://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2019/07/26/american-politicians-use-jews-as-pawns-to-excuse-their-meddling-in-israeli-elections/

William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

On July 23, the US House of Representatives passed (the vote went 398-17, with five voting “present”) a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.

The resolution was an outrageous condemnation of the freely chosen economic actions of millions of Americans.

Worse, that condemnation was made on the express behalf of not just a foreign government but the specific policies of one foreign political party (Israel’s Likud Party and its leader, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu). Its intended purpose is to give Likud and Netanyahu the advantage of perceived US support in Israel’s upcoming election.

Worst of all, the resolution’s proponents made – and now that it’s passed, will continue to make – extensive use of overt, undisguised race-baiting, posturing as defenders of Jews while smearing their opponents as anti-Semites.

What are the purposes of the BDS movement?

To pressure the government of Israel to meet “its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully compl[y] with the precepts of international law by: 1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”

Who supports BDS?

Yes, some BDS supporters oppose the existence of the Israeli state as such, and some of them are anti-Jewish bigots. Go figure.

Other BDS supporters are Jews, including some Israelis. Being Jewish or Israeli no more entails supporting one political party’s agenda than being American does.

BDS harnesses the consciences of individuals – individuals of all religions, nationalities, and ethnicities – to voluntary action pressuring the Israeli government to abide by the same standards of international law that the US government routinely, and with great pomp and circumstance, imposes coercive sanctions on other governments for supposedly violating.

The anti-BDS resolution is a far more overt, and likely far more effective, instance of US government meddling in Israel’s elections than anything the Mueller Report credibly accuses the Russian state of doing vis-à-vis the 2016 US election.

That’s disgusting…

Be seeing you

aipac

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Having the Manhood To Be a Coward – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 27, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/jim-fedako/having-the-manhood-to-be-a-coward/

By

Words are funny. Strung together, they can have multiple meanings depending on the perceived context and reader’s viewpoint. I can make a statement with the intent to convey argument A, but the reader interprets my statement as not-A.

An example: Trotsky, in “What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat” (published as “How Mussolini Triumphed,” in Fascism: What it is and how to fight it, 1944), disparaged the Italian socialist, Turati, for saying, regarding the political battle with Mussolini’s fascist movement, “One must have manhood to be a coward.”

Given the context, it appears Turati spoke with a sense of irony, defending his political strategy. Trotsky subjected those same words to close reading in order to bolster his argument that the Italian socialist was retreating before the fascists. Turati claimed he had manhood, while Trotsky insinuated Turati was a coward.

Forgetting the internecine war among socialists, let’s examine Turati’s prescient claim in ano

During my high school years, “Jimmy Carter signed Proclamation (Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act) in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the previous year of 1979, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18- to 26-year-old male citizens born on or after January t, 1960.” This made me eligible for the draft upon turning 18.

But who was I going to fight – who was I supposed to slaughter, burn, maim, etc.? In 1981, as my eighteenth birthday approached, it looked like a hot war in Nicaragua or elsewhere was possible – actually, likely. That meant I could have ended up in uniform shooting peasant farmers whose political worldview disagreed with the then-current policies of the US government – policies that changed with elections. Today’s enemy could be tomorrow’s ally.

Regardless of the side, I could have been required to do the bidding of those in power, to bloody my hands and taint my soul. As a quasi-radical, or what went for a quasi-radical in middle class, suburban Pittsburgh in the early 1980’s, I would have none of it.

In those days, I was a Deadhead – a fan of the rock group, the Grateful Dead. Each Sunday evening, a true public radio station (i.e. non-government funded) had a show that replayed recordings of the band’s concerts. Either before that show or after it (l no longer remember) was another show where antiwar activists discussed the evils of US interventions overseas – this is back when there was a strong antiwar left. That program greatly influenced me. And when there was talk about conscientious objection to war, I listened.

Initially, upon turning 18, I refused to register. However, based on information from the radio show, as well as consultations with my church minister and the antiwar mother of a friend, I learned my best chance to not being forced to point a gun – ironically, at the point of a government bayonet – was to register, but register as a conscientious objector.

However, I did not write this article as a guide to registering as a conscientious objector today – there are many resources on the internet. Instead, I wrote it to discuss the Turati-Trotsky rhetorical divide and answer the question of whether it takes manhood to be a coward. My article is also meant to encourage today’s youth to stand for peace and not war.

To answer the coward question in the context of this article, I revised Turati’s statement to read, “One must have manhood to object to war.” Sadly, that is a true statement, with an unwillingness to fight perceived by many as a sign of cowardice. This is especially so given the lack of any antiwar movement outside of libertarianism.

If the government institutes the draft and your number comes up, are you prepared? If you believe war is wrong, you need to begin documenting those beliefs well in advance of a draft. That documentation will be the primary evidence on your side as you stand before the draft board.

Nevertheless, if your number comes up, you will be called to “serve.” And you may not get that deferral. You may end up being forced to fight. lf you choose not to, you will likely end up in prison, which is not a coward’s path. Additionally, where you would have probably been placed in a non-frontline position (most soldiers are not even near the frontlines, never coming face to face with a person in a different uniform), your objection may put you on the line as an unarmed medic. Again, not a coward’s path.

Nevertheless, folks will call you a coward. But it also takes manhood to hold your ground in face of social pressure.

Luckily, there was no draft in the 1980’s and I never had to find out whether I would have held true to my ideals – whether I truly had manhood. But you, youth of today, may not be so lucky. Plan ahead. Political positions change. War may be nearer than thought. These words, spoken by former Prime Minister Henry Palmerstone in the British Parliament in 1848, are as true in the US today, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

And those interests may indeed lead to war.

Ask yourself whether you are willing to kill in an unjust war, whether decrees from the US government can provide sufficient moral justification for you to slaughter folks in Afghanistan or Nicaragua (in my day), or anywhere, and whether being called a coward is more frightening than selling your soul, so to speak.

For me the answer is no, but I am long past the draft age. What is your answer?

Think, consider, and act today!

Be seeing you

2976.Don't wait for the draft volunteer.Army POSTER ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Tulsi Gabbard sues Google over post-debate ad suspension – POLITICO

Posted by M. C. on July 26, 2019

Gabbard is the only anti-war candidate.

I am glad she didn’t complain about the CIA…

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-account-suspension-1435405

SAN FRANCISCO — Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential campaign is suing Google in a California court, charging her free speech was violated when the tech giant blocked her ad account in the hours after the first Democratic presidential debate.

Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii who has called for the breakup of big tech companies, was among the top search topics on Google during and after the debate. Gabbard’s campaign decided after the debate that “now is the time we can get our message out there by buying search ads,’’ said attorney Brian Dunne, who is representing Gabbard. But “just as her Google traffic was spiking, her Google ad account was taken offline,’’ he said.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Of Two Minds – It’s Not Just the News That’s Fake–Everything’s Fake

Posted by M. C. on July 26, 2019

https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly19/everything-fake7-19.html

Charles Hugh Smith

That we fall for the fakes and cons is understandable, given that’s all we have left in the public sphere.

What do we mean when we say corporate media is fake? We mean it’s a carefully crafted con, a set of narratives, cherry-picked data and heavily massaged statistics (the unemployment rate, etc.) designed to instill the reader’s confidence in a narrative that serves the interests not of the citizenry but of a select few pillaging the citizenry.

Once upon a time in America, no adult could survive without a finely tuned BS detector. Herman Melville masterfully captured America’s culture of cons and con artists in his 1857 classic The Confidence-Man, which I discussed in The Con in Confidence (October 4, 2006).

An essential component of the American ethos is: don’t be a chump. Don’t fall for the con. And if you do, it’s your own fault. America in 1857 was a simmering stew of con artists, flim-flammers and grifters exploiting the naive, the trusting and the credulous, and that remains the case in 2019.

We now inhabit a world where virtually everything is a con. That “organic” produce from some other country–did anyone test the soil the produce grew in? It could be loaded with heavy metals and be certified “organic” because no pesticides were used during production. Are there any nutrients left in the soil or has it been depleted? What’s in the water used to irrigate the crops?

The point of the con in offshored “organic” is the higher prices fetched. This is why it’s critical to ask of every narrative, story, product and data set: cui bono, to whose benefit?

The employment/unemployment statistics are obviously a con...

“Healthy choice” snacks: fake:…

Social media privacy: fake:…

Democracy: fake:…

Prosperity: fake:…

Melville understood that we want to be conned: we want to believe the elixir will make our aches and pains go away, that the new face in politics will clear out the rot of corruption, that rising prices for everything means we’re getting richer and so on.

Orson Welles’ weird and wonderful documentary F for Fake reminds us that a successful fake is essentially identical with the real thing: so the S&P 500 hitting 3,000 means we’re all getting more prosperous, right?

Despite all the craftsmanship, though, fake is still fake. And today virtually everything is fake, a con designed to trick or distract the marks (us) from the looting, plundering and predation of those running the con for their own self-interest…

Be seeing you

20+ Worthy Thomas Jefferson Quotes

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Algorithms don’t write themselves’: Google whistleblower on Big Tech merging with politics — RT USA News

Posted by M. C. on July 26, 2019

Algorithms “don’t write themselves – we write them to do what we want them to do,” he pointed out, explaining that even AI machine learning is “just a tool that we control.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/465000-google-engineer-whistleblower-veritas/

A senior Google software engineer has dismissed the idea that Big Tech can be politically neutral and called out his company as “very biased,” joining Project Veritas’ growing stable of whistleblowers.

“I’m very concerned to see Big Tech and Big Media merge basically with a political party, with the Democratic party,” Greg Coppola, a Googler since 2014 who works on the AI Google Assistant, told the conservative muckraking outlet.

While he doesn’t have a specific “smoking gun” proving bias, decades of programming experience (he’s been coding since age 10, he said) inform his growing certainty about Google’s political slant. Algorithms “don’t write themselves – we write them to do what we want them to do,” he pointed out, explaining that even AI machine learning is “just a tool that we control.”

Coppola pointed to Google News as an example – a news aggregator that draws from “just a handful of sites, and all those sites are vitriolically against President Trump, which I really consider to be interference in the American election.”…

Google only began meddling in politics starting with the 2016 election, the engineer claimed, explaining that “the angle that the Democrats and the media took was that anyone who liked Donald Trump was a racist, even a Nazi, and that got picked up everywhere” – even Google. And even then, “most people’s jobs are not political and don’t involve politics.” But it only takes a few bad apples to spoil democracy for everyone…

While Coppola said he enjoys working for Google and stopped short of accusing his bosses of lying under oath (though he did go so far as to deny their congressional testimony was true), he was apparently willing to risk being fired in order to speak to the outlet. Veritas is actively soliciting stories from Google employees following a bombshell hidden-camera report that appeared to show Google exec Jen Gennai discussing how the company was preparing to “prevent the next Trump situation” and another employee explaining how Google’s “machine learning fairness” algorithm attempts to “correct” reality’s biases by skewing search results.

Be seeing you

google-evil-1200x900

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

American Pravda: Breaching the Media Barrier – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 26, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/ron-unz/american-pravda-breaching-the-media-barrier/

By

The Unz Review

A couple of years ago, I launched my Unz Review, providing a wide range of different alternative perspectives, the vast majority of them totally excluded from the mainstream media. I’ve also published a number of articles in my own American Pravda series, focusing on the suspicious lapses and lacunae in our media narratives.

The underlying political strategy behind these efforts may already be apparent, and I’ve sometimes suggested it here and there. But I finally decided I might as well explicitly outline the reasoning in a memo as provided below

The Mainstream Media is the Crucial Opposing Force

Groups advocating policies opposed by the American establishment should recognize that the greatest obstacle they face is usually the mainstream media.

Ordinary political and ideological opponents surely exist, but these are usually inspired, motivated, organized, and assisted by powerful media support, which also shapes the perceived framework of the conflict. In Clauswitzian terms, the media often constitutes the strategic “center of gravity” of the opposing forces.

The Media Should Be Made a Primary Target

If the media is the crucial force empowering the opposition, then it should be regarded as a primary target of any political strategy. So long as the media remains strong, success may be difficult, but if the influence and credibility of the media were substantially degraded, then the ordinary opposing forces would lose much of their effectiveness. In many respects, the media creates reality, so perhaps the most effective route toward changing reality runs through the media.

Discrediting the Media Anywhere Weakens It Everywhere

The mainstream media exists as a seamless whole, so weakening or discrediting the media in any particular area automatically reduces its influence everywhere else as well.

The elements of the media narrative faced by a particular anti-establishment group may be too strong and well-defended to attack effectively, and any such attacks might also be discounted as ideologically motivated. Hence, the more productive strategy may sometimes be an indirect one, attacking the media narrative elsewhere, at points where it is much weaker and less well-defended. In addition, winning those easier battles may generate greater credibility and momentum, which can then be applied to later attacks on more difficult fronts.

A Broad Alliance May Support the Common Goal of Weakening the Media

Once we recognize that weakening the media is a primary strategic goal, an obvious corollary is that other anti-establishment groups facing the same challenges become natural, if perhaps temporary, allies.

Such unexpected tactical alliances may drawn from across a wide range of different political and ideological perspectives—Left, Right, or otherwise—and despite the component groups having longer-term goals that are orthogonal or even conflicting. So long as all such elements in the coalition recognize that the hostile media is their most immediate adversary, they can cooperate on their common effort, while actually gaining additional credibility and attention by the very fact that they sharply disagree on so many other matters.

The media is enormously powerful and exercises control over a vast expanse of intellectual territory…

A similar strategy in broader form is applied by my Unz Review alternative media webzine, which hosts numerous different writers, columnists, and bloggers, all tending to sharply challenge the establishment media narrative along a wide variety of different axes and issues, some of them conflicting. By raising serious doubts about the omissions and errors of our mainstream media in so many different areas, the goal is to weaken the perceived credibility of the media, leading readers to consider the possibility that large elements of the conventional narrative may be entirely incorrect.

Be seeing you

045-0613075528-msm-harmful-if-swallowed

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Siren Song of the State | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on July 26, 2019

The so-called war on terror has given rise to a huge industry that has emerged almost from scratch during the past few years. According to a 2006 Forbes report, the Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor agencies paid private contractors at least $130 billion after 9/11, and other federal agencies have spent a comparable amount. Thus, besides the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC), we now have a parallel security-industrial-congressional complex (SICC).

https://mises.org/library/siren-song-state

Robert Higgs

The state is the most destructive institution human beings have ever devised—a fire that, at best, can be controlled for only a short time before it o’erleaps its improvised confinements and spreads its flames far and wide.

Whatever promotes the growth of the state also weakens the capacity of individuals in civil society to fend off the state’s depredations and therefore augments the public’s multifaceted victimization at the hands of state functionaries. Nothing promotes the growth of the state as much as national emergency—war and other crises comparable to war in the seriousness of the threats they pose.

States, by their very nature, are perpetually at war—not always against foreign foes, of course, but always against their own subjects. The state’s most fundamental purpose, the activity without which it cannot even exist, is robbery. The state gains its very sustenance from robbery, which it pretties up ideologically by giving it a different name (taxation) and by striving to sanctify its intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary. State propaganda, statist ideologies, and long-established routine combine to convince many people that they have a legitimate obligation, even a moral duty to pay taxes to the state that rules their society.

They fall into such erroneous moral reasoning because they are told incessantly that the tribute they fork over is actually a kind of price paid for essential services received, and that in the case of certain services, such as protection from foreign and domestic aggressors against their rights to life, liberty, and property, only the government can provide the service effectively. They are not permitted to test this claim by resorting to competing suppliers of law, order, and security, however, because the government enforces a monopoly over the production and distribution of its alleged “services” and brings violence to bear against would-be competitors. In so doing, it reveals the fraud at the heart of its impudent claims and gives sufficient proof that it is not a genuine protector, but a mere protection racket.

All governments are, as they must be, oligarchies: only a relatively small number of people have substantial effective discretion to make critical decisions about how the state’s power will be brought to bear. Beyond the oligarchy itself and the police and military forces that compose its Praetorian Guard, somewhat larger groups constitute a supporting coalition. These groups provide important financial and other support to the oligarchs and look to them for compensating rewards—legal privileges, subsidies, jobs, exclusive franchises and licenses, transfers of financial income and wealth, goods and services in kind, and other booty—channeled to them at the expense of the mass of the people. Thus, the political class in general—that is, the oligarchs, the Praetorian Guards, and the supporting coalition—uses government power (which means ultimately the police and the armed forces) to exploit everyone outside this class by wielding or threatening to wield violence against all who fail to pay the tribute the oligarchs demand or to obey the rules they dictate.

Democratic political forms and rituals, such as elections and formal administrative proceedings, disguise this class exploitation and trick the masses into the false belief that the government’s operation yields them net benefits. In the most extreme form of misapprehension, the people at large become convinced that, owing to democracy, they themselves “are the government.”…

Notwithstanding the ideological enchantment with which official high priests and statist intellectuals have beguiled the plundered class, many members of this class retain a capacity to recognize at least some of their losses, and hence they sometimes resist further incursions on their rights by publicly expressing their grievances, by supporting political challengers who promise to lighten their burdens, by fleeing the country, and, most important, by evading or avoiding taxes and by violating legal prohibitions and regulatory restraints on their actions, as in the so-called underground economy, or “black market.”

These various forms of resistance together compose a force that opposes the government’s constant pressure to expand its domination. These two forces, working one against the other, establish a locus of “equilibrium,” a boundary between the set of rights the government has overridden or seized and the set of rights the plundered class has somehow managed to retain, whether by formal constitutional constraints or by everyday tax evasion, black-market transactions, and other defensive violations of the government’s oppressive rules…

National emergency—war or a similarly menacing crisis—answers the political class’s crucial question more effectively than anything else, because such a crisis has a uniquely effective capacity to dissipate the forces that otherwise would obstruct or oppose the government’s expansion.

Virtually any war will serve, at least for a while, because in modern nation-states the outbreak of war invariably leads the masses to “rally ‘round the flag,” regardless of their previous ideological stance in relation to the government.

In searching for the cause of this tremendous, rationally unjustified “rallying ‘round the flag,” we do not have far to go. Such public reactions are always driven by a combination of fear, ignorance, and uncertainty against a background of intense jingoistic nationalism, a popular culture predisposed toward violence, and a general inability to distinguish between the state and the people at large.

Because the government ceaselessly sings the siren song, relentlessly propagandizing the public to look upon it as their protector—such alleged protection being the principal excuse for its routinely robbing them and violating their natural rights—and because the mass media incessantly magnify and spread the government’s propaganda, we can scarcely be surprised if that propaganda turns out to have entered deeply into many people’s thinking, especially when they are in a state of near-panic. Unable to think clearly in an informed way, most people fall back on a childlike us-against- them style of understanding the perceived threat and what should be done about it…

A peaceful state is an impossibility. Even a state that refrains from fighting foreigners goes on fighting its own subjects continuously, to keep them under its control and to suppress competitors who might try to break into the domain of its protection racket. The people cry out for security, yet they will not take responsibility for their own protection, and like the mariners of Greek mythology, they leap overboard immediately in response to the state’s siren song.

When the Israelites had fled from their captivity in Egypt, they made do for centuries with only judges, yet they were not satisfied, and eventually they demanded a king, crying out:

“We will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.” (1 Samuel 8:19–20)

Well, they got a king all right, just as we Americans have embraced one of our own, though we call ours a president. The Israelites, as the prophet Samuel had warned, were no better off for having a king, however: King Saul only led them from one slaughter to another (1 Samuel 14: 47–48).

Likewise, our rulers have led us from one unnecessary slaughter to the next; and, to make matters worse, they have exploited each such occasion to fasten their chains around us more tightly. Like the ancient Israelites, we Americans shall never have real, lasting peace so long as we give our allegiance to a king—that is, in our case, to the whole conglomeration of institutionalized exploiters and murderers we know as the state.

Be seeing you

On Trump, Many Big Lies and Us

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »