FILE PHOTOS: The ‘Baker’ nuclear weapon test is seen at Bikini Atoll, July 25, 1946; UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss. (Credit: Pentagon; UK Prime Minister’s Office)
UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has declared that she is ready and willing to kick off thermonuclear warfare should she take over as prime minister, stressing her hawkish bonafides as she seeks to replace Boris Johnson.
Appearing at a town hall event in Birmingham on Tuesday, Truss was asked how she would feel about ordering “global annihilation” in the event of a nuclear standoff with a foreign adversary.
“I won’t ask you if you would press the button, you’ll say yes, but faced with that task I would feel physically sick,” said host John Pienaar, who went on to ask: “How does that thought make you feel?”
“I think it’s an important duty of the prime minister and I’m ready to do that,” Truss replied, drawing applause from the audience. When Pienaar asked again how that decision would make her “feel,” she simply stated “I’m ready to do it.”
Maybe some reflection is in order. There is no real security in the group, there is only consensus, confusion, and emptiness. The next time you find yourself asking others for a solution to your problems, or asking questions about your own freedom and how to attain it; stop, close your eyes, and seek your answers from within. When those answers come, trust them, and escape from the hellish and barren existence that is the non-thinking collective horde.
“A strong man cannot help a weaker unless the weaker is willing to be helped, and even then the weak man must become strong of himself; he must, by his own efforts, develop the strength which he admires in another. None but himself can alter his condition.”
Contrary to popular belief, “waking up,” as in seeking and accepting truth, is not something that requires outside assistance, force, or consensus. It is not something that can be bought. It is not something that can be given to you. It is not something that can at once happen to the collective masses. There is no solution that can awaken a people. There is no ‘leader’ who can awaken the herd. There is only the individual, and each individual is responsible for his own awakening. That oh so rare awakening means gaining for self the ability to think, to think as an individual, to think critically, to accept what he alone thinks, to seek and know truth, and to act on that individual knowledge. This fact, in my view, is why most all humans remain completely unconscious for their entire lives, never understanding truth, or anything of value or honesty, and living only to accept the opinions of others, especially government, media, celebrities, and so-called experts and authority figures. They have to remain in the crowd, never straying from the ‘group think,’ never taking a risk, and therefore, never having an original or independent thought. This is considered the ‘safe place,’ and in the minds of this collective, this means protection from reality.
I am asked almost daily: “What is your solution to this madness?” “What plan do you have to fix our problems?” “What are you doing to wake everybody up?” “Who should we ‘elect’ to save us?” I am heavily criticized at times for telling the truth instead of staying ‘positive.’ I am cursed for being too critical and ‘negative.’ Questions and comments such as these are a sure sign of an unconscious mind, a non-thinking person, and a proud member of the unawakened herd of sheep.
One major example of the unawakened are those who cling to one political party or the other. In essence, the ‘party’ is simply a substitute for the original herd. One is Republican, one is Democrat, one is red and one is blue, one is conservative and one is ‘liberal.’ In fact, they are both herds supported by non-thinking drones. By claiming to be one or the other, no thinking is necessary, as all thought is accomplished by the red or blue herd as a whole. Obviously, when one votes, he is choosing a collective side, and picking who is to be his ruler, and in doing so, he becomes a slave, but he also acquiesces to the ‘thinking’ of the group instead of thinking for himself. This political structure was no accident, as this designed hostility of one against another guarantees group ‘think,’ and therefore eliminates the need for individuality, self, and responsibility. The amount of time and energy put into this asinine circus is evidence enough of the worthlessness of it all.
By looking to others, by looking outside, and by searching for opinions from the group instead of believing in self, one becomes dependent on what is mostly propaganda, and exposes that he does not have any trust in himself. This is why these seemingly helpless people cannot fix themselves or face the truth. This is why capitulation and submission to authority by the masses is now so rampant. This kind of behavior is similar to addiction in that the more people who look away for answers instead of looking inward, the less likely they will ever change, and actually, they will usually become more and more dependent as time passes.
There is no way to know for sure, but my belief is that at least 80% or more (maybe much more) of this population are a part of the collective herd that has little or no ability to think on their own concerning matters of importance. I do realize that this is a startling conclusion to reach, but given all that has happened to date, how can this be doubted?
There is no way to awaken the herd by force, by political means, by demands, or even by persuasion. Each individual has to delve inside himself, and awaken his own spirit so he can find the courage to improve self instead of relying on the crowd. This will lead to seeking the truth, and that is the first step toward independence. This is not an easy task, because to trust self requires personal responsibility for every thought, every action, and every life situation. When this occurs, all fear disappears, and the minds eye opens to bright light instead of darkness.
Maybe some reflection is in order. There is no real security in the group, there is only consensus, confusion, and emptiness. The next time you find yourself asking others for a solution to your problems, or asking questions about your own freedom and how to attain it; stop, close your eyes, and seek your answers from within. When those answers come, trust them, and escape from the hellish and barren existence that is the non-thinking collective horde.
“It was when I stopped searching for home within others and lifted the foundations of home within myself I found there were no roots more intimate than those between a mind and body that have decided to be whole.”
~ Rupi Kaur
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy & not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power
Regardless of written constitutions and the laws on the books, individual liberty is always at risk. And as liberty goes, so goes our capacity to live well, to achieve the good life as rational, virtuous social beings.
The danger comes from left and right, both of which aspire to have a body of elders impose narrow cultural and moral norms on everyone, overriding our right to think for ourselves. (Progressives and National Conservatives have a lot in common in that regard, even if they differ on what is to be imposed.)
This point about the fragility of liberty was well understood by the Irish politician, judge, and orator John Philpot Curran (1750-1817), who said: “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”
As often happens, variations of this insight have been attributed to other people, most famously Thomas Jefferson, who is widely and apparently erroneously thought to have said more pithily: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” Curran has missed out on the credit he deserves.
At any rate, we have a problem. Although liberty is never safe from political ambition or even good intentions, most people are understandably absorbed in raising their families, earning their livelihoods, and just plain living. Thinking about liberty, much less exercising vigilance, has a low priority — if it is on their agendas at all. I’m not finding fault; it’s just a fact.
Hence the need for a degree of specialization. Libertarians to one extent or another specialize in keeping watch over liberty and drawing the public’s attention to dangers from governments and nongovernment sources. These aren’t entirely two separate categories because if an influential segment of the public comes to believe that liberty must be curtailed, such sentiment could find its way into the halls of power. For example, if enough people decide that offensive words or obscene images are equivalent to violent acts, politicians may take up that cause and prohibit so-called hate speech and the like. This has happened in Great Britain, where citizens can be visited by the police, fined, and compelled to take a sensitivity course for posting something on social media that allegedly made someone feel anxious. So far, thanks to the tradition of free speech and press recognized in the First Amendment, that does not happen in the United States. But we mustn’t rest on our laurels. A violation could be just around any corner, and we can’t be sure from which direction it will come.
Although Jefferson did not say, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” we know he believed it. We know this because of his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, which he wrote anonymously for the state legislature in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts of that year. The Acts were passed by the Federalist party-controlled Congress under Federalist President John Adams. (Jefferson, who was not a Federalist, was the vice president at the time.) As one description of the Acts puts it:
The Resolutions by Jefferson and Madison were provoked by the Alien and Sedition Acts adopted by a Federalist-dominated Congress during the Quasi-War with France; those Acts gave the president the authority to deport any alien whom he thought a threat and made it illegal to criticize the president or the Congress. Dozens of people were prosecuted under the Sedition Act, with prosecutions targeted at newspaper editors who favored the new Democratic-Republican party – Jefferson’s party. Seeing such political prosecutions of free speech as a fundamental threat to the republic, Jefferson referred to this period as a “reign of witches.”
Federalist support for the Acts was also fueled by Jeffersonian sympathy for the French Revolution. The government’s fears about French influence in the United States had reached a fevered pitch.
In his Kentucky Resolutions — a second, shorter resolution written by an unknown person passed in 1799 — Jefferson invoked the principle that the Constitution delegated only certain limited powers to the national government and therefore the states individually could check that government whenever it broke through the limits. Hence, the document declared the Alien and Sedition Acts “void and of no force” and requested their repeal. (Jefferson’s draft called for nullification, but that language did not make the final document. It did make the second version, however.)
In making his case, Jefferson wrote something that more people need to understand,
For centuries, slavery was considered legitimate commerce; hence, Africans, like their peers, sanctioned it and were willing to participate in the sale of their people to advance economic and political agendas. Whitewashing Africa’s involvement in the transatlantic trade only succeeds in infantilizing black people.
There is a revival in the study of the transatlantic slave trade. Several studies pinpoint the slave trade as the genesis of defects in African societies. Continuing in the intellectual tradition of Walter Rodney, these later works posit that the transatlantic slave trade underdeveloped Africa. However, there is no verdict on the transatlantic slave trade’s effects because scholars are still divided over its consequences.
But despite their differences, opposing camps in the literature adopt a lopsided stance by fixating on the implications of the slave trade instead of discussing Africans’ agency. Researchers tend to explore how the slave trade altered African societies rather than showing that European traders became embedded in Africa’s complex sociopolitical networks.
Africans were building empires and chiefdoms long before interactions with Europeans, so when Europeans arrived in Africa, they quickly recognized that their fortunes were linked to the benevolence of African elites. Without complying with local regulations, European traders could not engage in business. Frequently, it is taught that Europeans constructed forts in Africa, but it is rarely noted that such forts could not have been built absent the African elites’ permission.
In the Galinhas empire, the Vai adage “Sunda ma gara, ke a sunda-fa,” which means “A stranger has no power but his landlords,” describes foreign traders’ relationships with African rulers. Africans were unwilling to tolerate squatters, so Europeans had to pay for their quarters.
In West Africa, for example, the Akwamu collected rents from European forts and employed a customs officer to oversee trade flow. This excerpt from a report compiled by a Danish official captures the authority of African rulers: “The King of Akwamu charges customs duties here on all goods which pass along the river and to ensure that these are paid, he has employed an official to take care of his interest.”
Not only did Africans extract financial benefits by charging Europeans for building forts on African soil, but they also retained property rights to the land. In some cases, Africans invited Europeans to their trading centers. Renting space to Europeans became so lucrative that on the Gold Coast, African elites permitted one European group per trading town. Further, the intense rivalry between Europeans elevated Africans’ position and allowed them to benefit from lower prices and a wider array of goods.
The transatlantic slave trade was a harrowing event, but it was a business nonetheless and can be analyzed using economic tools. The trade’s victims were disproportionately African, but this should not conceal the fact that for many Africans, the slave trade was a legitimate venture connected to preexisting trading arrangements. In his new book, Slave Traders by Invitation: West Africa’s Slave Coast in the Precolonial Era, Finn Fuglestad avers that the slave trade was sustained by Africans who beckoned Europeans to trade.
Africans even formalized trading relations with Europeans by participating in treaties that governed the purchase of slaves. Moreover, according to the fifteenth-century reports of Portuguese official Diego Gomez, some monarchs were so inclined to their pursue economic interests that they demonstrated an “overwhelming willingness” to offer natives as slaves. Collaborating with Africans was crucial to the success of the slave trade and European trading centers like Liverpool.
According to David Richardson, Africans were instrumental in establishing the networking and institutional arrangements that enabled British slaving to thrive. “Without African agency and support, British slaving could not have reached the scale that it did,” he writes.
Other than downplaying African agency, historians usually argue that the transatlantic trade undermined African economies. But this assumption is a failure to understand economic utility. If imported items satisfied Africans’ demands, then we cannot argue that imports made them worse off.
Similar rules have already been enforced in Germany, where thermostats in public buildings are being limited to 19 degrees Celsius, and in Spain, where at the height of summer, non-residential buildings can set the temperature no lower than 27°C.
Czech President Miloš Zeman has blamed “green madness” for the energy crisis and warned that the abolition of cars with internal combustion engines will only prolong the agony.
Zeman said the primary cause of the crisis was not the Ukraine war, but “green fanaticism” that has left European countries dependent on energy sources that cannot meet demand.
“Whether it’s called the Green Deal or whatever, I’m afraid. However, I won’t be here anymore when we find out where the green madness will take us,” said Zeman.
“The abolition of cars with internal combustion engines will lead to the advent of far more demanding electromobility. The biggest consumers of electricity will be electric cars with a short range and a high price,” he added.
The comments were made amidst controversy in the Czech Republic caused by new government regulations which mandate schools, hospitals, and households reduce their temperature by up to six degrees Celsius to save energy.
Owners of care homes for the elderly complained that old people cannot live in a 20°C environment without it posing a threat to their health.
“It is not permissible for the elderly to spend 100 percent of their time in spaces at 20°C and below. It is life-threatening to bathe frail seniors in a room heated to only 20°C when they get cold quickly,” said Daniela Lusková, vice-president of the Association of Social Service Providers.
However, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health insisted that regulations were made in consultation with professional scientific opinion.
Similar rules have already been enforced in Germany, where thermostats in public buildings are being limited to 19 degrees Celsius, and in Spain, where at the height of summer, non-residential buildings can set the temperature no lower than 27°C.
Back in May, Italy began rationing electricity to ‘support Ukraine’, with public buildings banned from running air conditioning at lower than 25°C or heating higher than 19°C.
As we highlighted earlier, Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles has warned that Europeans are about to endure a “winter of great suffering” as a result of Russia fully suspending gas supplies during the freezing months.
As we document in the video below, the disastrous pursuit of ‘net zero’ has partly caused the energy crisis because it has left many countries dependent on energy sources that are not fit for purpose.
This is how Poland operated at the end of the 1980s, and that is how Ukraine should act today. Even if, in the broader context, the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is in fact a clash between the American empire and “Russian mir,” we must nevertheless view it as an attempt to move Ukraine toward complete independence and freedom because they chose to be with the West.
Not so simple. If Ukraine goes West, the US will try it’s hardest to make Ukraine a puppet.
In the previous articles I touched upon the question about subject of global American hegemony and its consequences for freedom. Now let’s look at the problem from another perspective. In the 1980s, Poland viewed the United States as a country capable of defeating the “Evil Empire” (USSR) and thus sowing throughout the Soviet bloc ideas of freedom that were so close to societies tormented by the yoke of communism.
Today, Poland’s enthusiasm for the United States and its presence in Eastern Europe has not waned. The latest polls confirm that over 80 percent of Poles surveyed are in favor of a permanent presence of American troops in Poland. And Poland is ready to pay for that.
Ukraine, like Poland once has no alternative, believes today that the help of one imperialism will help it liberate itself from other imperialism and thus build the freedom and security it desires. Freedom from geopolitical dependencies and geographic determinism. In other words, freedom from the monstrous influences of empires.
But the times are changing, in the Western world too. Unfortunately, freedom values in the Western world are subject to change by their own institutions and social revolution. So we need to be honest, the threat to Central and Eastern Europe comes not only from imperialistic Russian aggression, but also from potentially something which we can call as an illiberal liberalism, which is the common norm in the progressive federalization of the EU.
When entering the Western world in its newest version, Ukraine must be ready to accept also the ideological agenda of certain values currently hidden not only in the today’s United States, but also in the European Union. Taking into account its relatively conservative society, the process of accepting social solutions currently flowing from the Western world, in the long term may be difficult for Ukrainians to accept. Ukraine’s integration with the European Union may over time, resemble that experienced of countries such as Poland and Hungary, which oppose the centralist solutions of Brussels.
Progressive theories, redefinition of the concept of the family, political correctness and oppressive institutional postmodernism in other social relations probably mean that the pendulum of freedom, in which the countries of Central and Eastern Europe so strongly believed, again leans toward oppressive despotism. The European Union is dominated by completely left-wing elites currently waging a cultural war, and the values that are institutionally promoted are not fully accepted by countries such as Poland or Hungary. There is therefore a conflict within the EU itself. A conflict between the old union (Western countries) and the new union in the form of the former Soviet bloc countries that joined it recently.
These are the differences that the British writer and commentator Douglas Murray skillfully described and presented, he explained that if the EU wants to survive, it must respect the otherness of Central and Eastern Europe. This difference is due to the fact that Central and Eastern Europe was dependent on the “Soviet soldier’s rifle” for almost half a century, while Western countries enjoyed complete freedom.
These differences were also perfectly understood by President Donald J. Trump, who during his visit to Poland at Krasiński Square referred to the prayer acclamation that is close to Polish hearts: we want God! This speech touched Polish hearts and today it is impossible to demonstrate a similar approach in the position of Joe Biden’s administration. Another important thing is to say that the Ukrainian issue divided Poland’s strong alliance with Hungary.
Conclusion
Taking all the arguments into account, it must be said that the Ukrainians chose the West, which, as we have already mentioned, is not an ideal, but gives for them a better perspective for life than submission to the Eastern satraps. Maybe Ukraine takes just a pragmatic position in this case and fight for freedom, turning to the EU and the US as the only available alternative.
Ukraine looks to the rich West and would like to join this category. Paradoxically, the weak structures of political and economic statism give Ukraine a chance to triumph in a libertarian economic perspective while preserving their conservative values. In the face of difficult times, clashes of powers, the libertarian perspective in this region of the world should focus on getting the most out of it.
This is how Poland operated at the end of the 1980s, and that is how Ukraine should act today. Even if, in the broader context, the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is in fact a clash between the American empire and “Russian mir,” we must nevertheless view it as an attempt to move Ukraine toward complete independence and freedom because they chose to be with the West.
I saw a friend yesterday and asked him what he had been doing.
“I’m coaching t-ball again in the 6 and under league,” he said.
“That sounds fun, how’s it going?” I asked.
“Well, the 6 and under league used to be the most fun age to coach, but the ability of the t-ballers has decreased so much since I began coaching 20 years ago that it has become just babysitting. 4 kids on one of my teams in the early 2000’s could regularly hit home runs, now I’m lucky to have one kid that can hit it out of the infield.”
“What do you think is the cause?” I asked.
“The problem is the parents. They don’t play with the kids anymore. They give them a screen to look at and then leave the kid alone. Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw kids playing ball in the front yard?”
I told him I didn’t think I’d ever seen kids playing ball in the front yard.
“Well there you go.”
I don’t know if this is true or if true what the cause is. But maybe the parents have to work so much to get by the last thing they want to do when they get off work is to play with the kids. Maybe just giving the kids a screen so the parents can go in the other room and look at their screen is the best option to unwind. I leave it here as a curiosity.
Author: Robert Slye
Robert Slye is the editor and publisher of ManAndWar.com. Contact him at rs@manandwar.com View all posts by Robert Slye
MCViewPoint 
