MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Is Dublin Burning?

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

Declan Hayes

Here, to conclude, is the loathsome Sky News Australia with the equally loathsome Douglas Murray making excuses for these no less loathsome Irish criminals. When such slugs as those are on your side, you can be sure MI6, the CIA and ASIO are playing you for the fool that you are.

As Americans tucked into their Thanksgiving Day turkeys, Ireland was rocked by its first ever mass stabbing of children exiting a Dublin kindergarten school, which was followed only hours later by the worst riots Dublin has witnessed since Sinn Féin’s 1981 betrayals of the H Block hunger strikers. On hearing the news as it unfolded, I surmised it was either a heroin addict, a family issue or one of the countless undocumented foreigners the Irish government has flooded the country with as part of NATO’s efforts to turn all of western Europe into a war-compliant wasteland. As the alleged culprit, who was beaten within an inch of his worthless life by Brazilians and other praise worthy passers by, seems to be a middle aged Algerian man, a mixture of all three of those reasons may still be to blame. As central Dublin is awash with all three types of flotsam, do yourself a favour and scrub visiting it; it is, as the American and allied embassies have warned, simply too dangerous and too expensive to be worth the effort.

And skip the rest of Ireland while you are at it, as women taking midday jogs in their home towns are now prime targets for psychotic Slovakian criminals and Kurds are castrating and decapitating homosexuals, whilst ISIS are busy murdering Japanese interpreters.

Horrific as all those attacks on innocent Irish children and adults were, in shades of the CIA’s Black Lives Matter front group, this most recent outrage against Dublin children was quickly overshadowed by the ensuing riots and looting that will cost tens of millions of euros to put some way to rights.

As the heaviest rioting occurred near the General Post Office (GPO), from where the iconic 1916 Rebellion was directed (and beside which adult males have recently been gang raped), thыщсшese latter events afford this article an excellent opportunity to assess revolutionary Ireland’s past, present and future.

The first relevant thing to note about 1916 is that James Connolly, the head of the GPO garrison, ordered his troops not only to fire on the rioters and looters of his day but to shoot to kill. The next thing to note about Connolly is that he imagined, in his absolute innocence and ignorance of events in Europe, that the British would not bring their heavy guns to bear on his adopted city. The British gunboat Helga, which levelled much of the GPO and its surrounds, quickly put him to rights on that score.

Such historical idiosyncrasies are important to mention as they show that, even during those golden revolutionary years Yeats’ indomitable Irishry, despite their Labour syndicalism, agrarian Fenianism and their robust Catholicism, had not the faintest clue where they were going politically.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

A History of Sino-American Relations

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

by Joseph Solis-Mullen

Apart from considerations of possible war or human extinction, as an advocate of constitutional, republican government, it is a fact that such a limited government is incompatible with a state powerful enough to engage in overseas adventurism and militarism as the United States does. It is economically and morally bankrupting us. In the words of Pat Buchannan, we are meant to be a republic not an empire, an example, not an enforcer.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/a-history-of-sino-american-relations/

The following lecture was delivered at Spring Arbor University, October 2023.

There is hardly anything more important to the future of the world than Sino-American relations. And that’s quite a thing to say when looking at the state of the world these days. But over the long-haul these, the two largest economies, militaries, and navies on earth must find some way to coexist, or else there is going to be trouble for everyone. The aim of this talk is to outline the course of Sino-American relations.

As I presume most everyone here is generally familiar with the history of the United States, my talk will follow Chinese history and I will be introducing the relevant intersections between the U.S. and China as we go along. The United States being less than three hundred years old, and the first recorded ruling dynasties of China dating back to the second millennia BCE, I will be beginning my narrative of Chinese history rather abruptly, and quite late. Fascinating though its antecedents are, considerations of the time allotted to us today demand that we start with the last of the several foreign dynasties that ruled the area we associate today with the Chinese state. This was the ethnically Manchu Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). These were the descendants of an earlier northern “barbarian,” that is non-Han Chinese, people who had conquered northeast China in the early twelfth century, establishing the Jin Dynasty (1115-1234), which was subsequently destroyed by the Mongol Yuan Dynasty a hundred odd years later (1271-1368).

Like their conquering predecessors, the Manchus had been effectively Sinicized. That is, in a manner not dissimilar to the case of the Normans of Europe during the Middle Ages, the ruling Manchus merged with and in important ways adopted Han Chinese culture, Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism. There were pragmatic reasons for this, and the reasons are in some ways central to the story of China in the nineteenth century, when it had its first sustained conflict with the newly industrialized states of Western Europe and the United States. You see, China is very large, the terrain is very challenging, and then as now it was extraordinarily populous. The Confucian bureaucratic elites and the existing governing structures were critical to anyone who wanted to effectively govern China, and prevent it from disintegrating into warring states, which happened at several points during Chinese history, most recently in the early twentieth century.

Marshalling the considerable resources of the Chinese state, scholars estimate that at the time China accounted for fully forty percent of global output, the Qing thereafter brought the Chinese Empire to its greatest territorial extent, adding new territories in central Asia, such as the province of Xinjiang and in the adjoining seas, such as Formosa, that is Taiwan. The centrifugal forces that would fatally weaken, undermine, and ultimately destroy the Qing dynasty were already at work, however, and these are what you see up on the screen here.

Obviously, any one of these problems is going to pose a severe challenge to any regime. Population growth strained the capacity of China’s non-industrialized agricultural sector at the same time a series of severe weather events put additional stresses on the ability of Chinese society to feed itself. Economically, local elites dominated markets that were in theory unified internally and without barriers. However, these markets were relatively limited by the vast distances involved and by the low level of urbanization and industrialization that had occurred. With regards to corruption, the problem was two-fold: on the one hand you had local elites who were resistant to obeying the central government, who were willing, for example, to let the British and Americans run opium into China in exchange for a cut of the action; while on the other hand, you have the more basic kinds of corruption like preferential treatment, bribery, et cetera. As for foreign interventions and rebellions, we’ll have plenty to say about those on the next slide.

Though internally there was relatively free movement of goods, as well as networks of finance, outwardly it was protectionist and, by the standards of the time, heavily bureaucratized. This hadn’t really mattered because for centuries there had been little the few visiting Europeans had to offer that the Chinese wanted, or that the Chinese government had wanted them to have. That last is, of course, a reference to opium. Because there was one thing the primarily British, but also American, sailors were increasingly bringing that millions of Chinese increasingly wanted and that was opium. Poppies were being run from India and later the Ottoman empire, processed into opium on a couple of offshore locations, and then smuggled into the country. This was as lucrative for the British East India Company and other traders as it was destructive to Chinese society, and so the British government was loath to put a stop to the flow when asked by the Qing. When diplomacy failed to stop the incoming opium, the Qing administration under the Emperor Daoguang took steps to try and block off and interrupt the illicit trade—going so far as to destroy British owned stocks of opium in Canton, at that time the only trading outpost open to the Europeans. A little pressure by the East India Company in London, and with that the First Opium War had begun.

Like the Second Opium War, which as you can see was fought just over a decade after the conclusion of the First, and was primarily concerned with enforcing the terms of the treaty of Nanjing, the military operations of the western powers concerned were primarily naval. That is, they primarily involved the blockading and shelling of ports. As for their aims, the wars were concerned with the expansion of the Europeans, and Americans’, privileges in China: these were things like extraterritoriality, the rights of citizens of, say, Great Britain, to not be subjected to Chinese authorities but rather to locally based British ones. The cession of so-called Treaty Ports, additional enclaves for foreign traders to do business, Shanghai perhaps being the most significant. And, lastly, the rights of Christian missionaries operating in China were protected. I’ll have more to say on Christianity in China later.

So as we can see from the conditions imposed on the Qing by the Europeans in the various treaties we see listed on the slide, neither the Opium Wars, nor any of the subsequent interventions we’re going to talk about by the European powers or the United States in China, had as their goal replacing the existing Chinese imperial system. In fact, several of the most important interventions in China by the other powers were operations conducted in order to protect the Qing from domestic opponents to its regime. Why did they do this? Well, essentially for the same reason conquering invaders like the Manchu or Mongols had allowed themselves to be incorporated into existing structures. The Europeans couldn’t possibly have occupied China, and after the experience of India few, particularly in England, at this point by far the strongest power, wanted to try. Leading intellectuals and politicians, people like William Cobden, believed colonizing India had been a mistake, and they wanted the British presence in China to be all the benefits of commerce with none of the expense and baggage of direct rule.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The 2009 “What if…” Speech

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Carry The Torch of Liberty With A Heart of Thanksgiving

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

Be seeing you

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

Who really owns the United States?

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

Walter Block

There is also more than just a little bit of hypocrisy involved in this left wing land recognition movement. If the native peoples really own it in total, all others should either depart (back to Europe? Back to Africa? Back to Asia?) and/or start paying rent to the rightful owners. Has anything of this sort, on a serious basis, been placed on the table by any of these advocates? If so, not by too many of them;

Nowadays, it is common, when introducing an event, to say something along the lines of: “We are grateful to the XYZ Indian Tribe for allowing us to hold this gathering on what is really their land.” Universities, bastions of the left, have been particularly intent upon engaging in this practice. For example, Northwestern University offered this “expression of gratitude and appreciation to those whose territory you reside on, and a way of honoring the Indigenous people who have been living and working on the land from time immemorial.” Here is another instance: “Princeton (University) seeks to build relationships with Native American and Indigenous communities and nations through academic pursuits, partnerships, historical recognitions, community service and enrollment efforts.  These communities and nations include the Lenni-Lenape people, who consider the land on which the University stands part of their ancient homeland.”

Do the American Indians really own the entire country based upon homesteading, mixing their labor with the land? Not at all. There are now some 350 million people in the country, and there are still vast areas of it that have never so much as been touched by human feet, let alone homesteaded as farms, factories or residences. Before the white man came to the continent the best estimate is that there were only 2-3 million native persons in existence (the lowest estimate is less than one million; the highest, 18 million). It is difficult to see how they, alone, could have accomplished any such task.

There is a continuum issue heavily involved in homesteading. How intensively must the land be homesteaded, and for how long, before it can be clearly stated that ownership has been attained? Experts aver that it must be more intense, and less acreage attained for any given amount of effort, east of the Mississippi rather than west of it. Why? This is due to the fact that area off the Atlantic is far more fertile, on average, than in most of the west. Thus, a family of four would rationally invest in the homesteading of less acreage in the east than in the west.

Not only is there a continuum in terms of how intensively must be the homesteading, and the duration thereof in order to attain ownership, but, also, the degree of property rights after the fact. Consider many Indian tribes in the Midwest of the United States.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

How to find your soul mate

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

https://youtube.com/watch?v=obu78DWfYlg&si=hpsYdDlbiCGUpXYb

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Separate Tech and State

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

by Ron Paul

Big tech censorship is a problem created by big government. The solution lies not with giving government more power but with separating tech and state.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/separate-tech-and-state-2/

Some libertarians dismiss concerns over social media companies’ suppression of news and opinions that contradict select agendas by pointing out that these platforms are private companies, not part of the government. There are two problems with this argument. First, there is nothing unlibertarian about criticizing private businesses or using peaceful and voluntary means, such as boycotts, to persuade businesses to change their practices.

The second and most significant reason the “they are private companies” argument does not hold water is the tech companies’ censorship has often been done at the “request” of government officials. The extent of government involvement with online censorship was revealed in emails between government and employees of various tech companies. In these emails the government officials addressed employees of these “private companies” as though these employees were the government officials’ subordinates.

Government officials using their authority to silence American citizens is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Yet some conservative elected officials and writers think the solution to the problem of big tech censorship is giving government more power over technology companies. These pro-regulation conservatives ignore the fact that it would be just as unconstitutional if a conservative administration was telling tech companies who they must allow to access their platforms as it is when progressives order social media companies to deplatform certain individuals. Furthermore, since the average government official’s political views are closer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than to Marjorie Taylor Greene, giving government more power over social media companies is likely to lead to more online censorship of conservatives.

Instead of giving government more power over social media, defenders of free speech should work to separate tech and state. An excellent place to start is pushing for passage of the Free Speech Protection Act. Unlike other legislation, such as the PATRIOT Act and the Affordable Care Act, this bill is accurately named.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Resilience of Property Rights

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

Dominic Pino

In 2018, the WEF tweeted a video of predictions for 2030 that included, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” Five years on, we can see that there’s still a long way to go for that prediction to come true.

The resilience of property rights is perhaps best demonstrated by the lengths that totalitarian regimes have to go to undo them.

In 2016, the goofballs at the World Economic Forum (WEF) published an article of fantastical utopianism. Ida Auken, a socialist member of the Danish parliament, wrote that in the year 2030, she lived in a city where nobody owned anything and everybody was happy. Private ownership has been abolished, everything we used to pay for is now free, green energy powers everything—it’s exactly the kind of nonsense you’d expect from a Danish socialist.

In 2018, the WEF tweeted a video of predictions for 2030 that included, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” Five years on, we can see that there’s still a long way to go for that prediction to come true.

In 2023, Carol Roth wrote a book called You Will Own Nothing, in which she takes the WEF a little too seriously and pulls together stray facts from around the global economy to allege that “World War F” is on the horizon, “a financial world war where you are ‘F’d.’”

Roth is a hyperactive Twitter user, and her book reads like an amalgamation of Twitter threads, so it can sometimes be difficult to keep the argument straight. Right off the bat, for example, the reader is told that there are three aggressors in World War F: “government and government-related forces (think Congress and the Federal Reserve),” “bad actors and elite power-grabbers (think the World Economic Forum and big business),” and “Big Tech.” These aren’t really distinct categories, as government contains bad actors and power-grabbers, and Big Tech is part of big business.

Regardless, there’s a group of elites out there who want to prevent you from owning stuff, according to Roth. As evidence, she points to government overreach during the Covid pandemic, high levels of government and individual debt, poor monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, the potential adoption of central-bank digital currencies, and the proliferation of ESG investing, among other economic problems.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Sulphurous Attraction of Nikki Haley Leads Back to Big Brother and the Globalists

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

https://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,

Leading MAGA pundit and former Donald Trump administration official Steve Bannon calls them “the Keebler Elves.”  I prefer the term “Munchkins,” or maybe “the Five Dwarfs”—No, it’s now just four dwarfs with Tim Scott bowing out: they are the Republican candidates participating in the charade, AKA “the GOP debates,” and desperately hoping—grasping—striving to displace Donald Trump as the frontrunner to oppose brain-dead Joe Biden in the 2024 election.

The Never Trumpers, the Establishment “conservative” think tanks and their journals and groupies, many among the Republican congressional leadership and office holders, have, for the past year, frantically beat the drums for someone—anyone—who could credibly challenge Trump, someone with the bona fides and a glossy resume, someone who could rein in rising MAGA populist traditionalism which threatens the once thought unassailable perch of the Managerial globalists.

At first, spearheaded by the powerful Murdoch media outlets, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and Fox News, the buzz among them was centered on Ron DeSantis. DeSantis would be the “giant killer.” DeSantis, it was argued, could enunciate the major popular Trumpian themes, even at times apparently go around to the Donald’s right, but without the verbal and personality “baggage” (according to them). And even more importantly, although he could sound a lot like a church deacon version of Trump, the Florida governor would not in reality threaten the essential control by the elites, at least not like Trump would.

But somewhere along the trail to Neverland, DeSantis fell flat, in no way denting President Trump’s unsurmountable lead in the polls. And the elite makers and shakers began to cast about looking for a new giant killer.

And their increasingly desperate gaze settled upon none other than the former governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, nee’ Nimarata Nikki Randhawa, perhaps the most ambitious and the most flagrant political chameleon the American nation has extruded in many a year.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Flip-flop Fauci Flips Again, Changes Tune on “Vaccine” Mandates

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

by Selwyn Duke

The bottom line is that the Covid response was always largely driven by politics and, Miltimore avers, so is Fauci’s recent vax-mandate flip-flop.

The public’s fear has abated and their faith in health authorities has cratered, Miltimore points out, and their tolerance for mandates has thus been expended. I’ll add that the establishment also no longer needs to use Covid to drive a hated rival (Trump) from office.

Miltimore concludes saying that the issue isn’t what is best, but is, to quote Thomas Sowell, “who shall decide what is best?” It’s just a shame, he then states, that it took Fauci so long to realize he’s not the one to decide.

https://thenewamerican.com/us/healthcare/covid/flip-flop-fauci-flips-again-changes-tune-on-vaccine-mandates/

“There should be more mandates, there really should be.” So said Dr. Anthony Fauci in July 2021 while speaking to CNN host Jake Tapper. It wouldn’t be the last time, either, Joe Biden’s Covid point man would advise that Americans be compelled to take the then-new and largely untested coronavirus “vaccines.”

This had an effect, too: More than two million Americans lost their jobs after balking at the experimental shots. Many multiples of that number submitted to the coercion, and some would later suffer serious side effects — including, in certain cases, death.

But now Fauci, (in)famous for flipping more than a gymnast, has changed his tune on mandates. In fact, points out the Washington Examiner’s Jon Miltimore, the ex-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and current Georgetown University professor is now a big proponent of “choice.”

Oh, it’s not that Covid has receded as a reality (only as a boogeyman). Why, “New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show COVID-19 cases are again rising in some parts of the country,” relates Miltimore.

“The CDC’s map indicates that several states are experiencing a ‘substantial increase’ in cases (more than 20%), including Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, and Nebraska, which saw a 57.3% spike from the previous week,” he continues.

Moreover, the statistics indicate that during September and October, Covid accounted for an average of more than 100 dead Americans a day. (This, however, is a surely inflated number. Note here that a source at a major medical examiner’s office told me a few months ago that only one to two percent of the “Covid” deaths evaluated at the office were actually caused by Covid.) Yet this doesn’t explain Fauci’s and authorities’ change in attitude; after all, the numbers have been exaggerated all along, as even government officials and The New York Times finally admitted. Yet the reality is that now there simply is no talk of reinstituting draconian measures.

Just consider the vacillating doctor’s latest prescriptions. As Miltimore writes:

While speaking to ABC’s Jonathan Karl on This Week earlier this fall, Fauci was asked who should be taking the new COVID booster.

“I believe we should give the choice to people that are not in the high-risk groups, to have the vaccine available for them,” Fauci replied.

Choice is the key word here. It’s a stark contrast to Fauci’s previous support of the White House’s vaccine mandate that required private companies to demand vaccination as a condition of employment.

“We know that mandates work,” Fauci told Wolf Blitzer in October 2021. “So, although you’d like people to do it on their own accord, sometimes mandates actually can help in that regard.”

Fauci’s new position isn’t just that low-risk people should get to choose, however, as his statement might imply. Fauci would subsequently imply that even high-risk people should be given a choice.

“Make [the vaccine] available to everyone, but certainly recommend it to high-risk people,” Fauci told Karl.

Do realize that Fauci’s devotion to Covid vax mandates was so extreme that he even said in August 2021 that he believes “mandating vaccines for children to appear in school is a good idea.” This is despite the fact the coronavirus posed virtually no threat to children. Consider, for example, that a study out of Germany — a Montana-size country with 83 million people — found that during 15 months of the pandemic, not even one healthy child died of Covid.

In contrast, a researcher predicted in 2021 that for every child “saved” by the Covid shots, 117 would be killed by them. What’s more, nine researchers from establishment institutions (e.g., Harvard) estimated last year that for college students, the shots were up to 98 times as dangerous as the disease itself. In other words, Fauci’s vax-mandate insistence was malpractice.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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