MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Globalists’ Insidious Strategy For Russia and Ukraine

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

Vladimir Putin wants to keep Russia’s wealth for himself, for his supporters and also for his people. He sees what the globalists have done to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and others. They invaded and destroyed these countries and sucked out whatever wealth they could. And while millions in those lands have been killed and had their lives ruined, the architects of these disasters are well and enjoying their ill-gotten gains. One of them is Joe Biden who had his hand in all these ventures as he was a high government official while they were being planned and executed.

By Vasko Kohlmayer

In his recent appearance on Face the Nation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Margaret Brennan:

“The Ukrainians have killed more Russians in three weeks than we lost in Afghanistan and Iraq in 20 years. I think we ought to go into this believing the Ukrainians can actually win. And the way they win is for us to get these defensive weapons system to them as rapidly as possible.”

Listening to this one is seized with despair, because McConnell’s words reveal the monstrous strategy that is being adopted by the western ruling elites regarding the Ukrainian war.

These elites now smell blood in the water. They hope to drag the war on Ukraine for as long as possible, get Russia bogged down and bleed it out, both in terms of human life as well as financially.

This is an inhuman and misguided strategy that is likely to backfire.

To begin with, this war has been provoked by western globalists who were imperiously bent on driving NATO all the way to the Russian doorstep. This was understandably and rightly perceived by Russia as a move that posed a serious threat to its national security.

Russia had for years warned, pleaded, and implored the West not to do this, but to no avail. NATO, lead by the United States, did something the Unites States would never allow were the situation reversed. The United States would never allow a hostile military alliance on its borders. We saw what happened during the Cuban missile crisis when the Soviets were trying to bring military installations to Cuba. The United States threatened both Cuba and Russia and was ready to start a nuclear war if necessary to halt that undertaking. The United States was, of course, justified in its demands then. The Russians now feel the same about Ukraine.

Please watch the lecture below in which one of the world’s most distinguished political scientists Prof. John Mearsheimer explains who is responsible for this crisis. It is sufficient to watch only the first 25 minutes of the video.

Whatever we may be told by the media, the Ukrainians cannot win this war, since they are greatly overpowered by the Russian forces. The main reason why the Russian advance has been slow is because the Russians have been careful to minimize civilian casualties. The Ukrainian fighters have been taking advantage of this by using their own people as human shields.

If you do not believe this, please watch Ukrainians soldiers setting up rockets on top of a residential building in the city of Mariupol. Having been scattered by their more powerful foe, this is the only strategy for the embattled Ukrainians left to pursue.

If they keep doing this, sooner or later the Russians will become more ruthless, and the death toll will skyrocket. Whether we like it or not, the Ukrainians simply cannot come out on top in this dreadful conflict. The longer this war lasts, the more people will die and more of Ukraine will get wrecked.

But this is apparently okay with the western ruling elite who see a chance to bleed Russia in the same way we bled in Afghanistan and Iraq. That a country will get completely wrecked and hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die does not particularly seem to bother them.

Not only do they want to prolong the war in Ukraine, they, in fact, want to expand it further.

A couple of weeks ago they tried to goad the Poles into giving their jets to the Ukrainians even though Russia had made it clear that it would consider such a move an act of war. This action would be akin to Russia urging the Syrian government to give airplanes to the insurgents in Iraq while we were conducting military operations in that country. We would have doubtless declared such a provocation an act of war by both Syria and Russia, and we would have taken retaliative actions which would almost certainly include some kind of military punishment of the offending parties.

The Poles, however, saw through the ploy and did not take the insidious bait which would have brought them into direct conflict with Russia. Instead, they called the bluff and turned the tables on the warmongering schemers in Washington, DC. Without consulting the Biden administration, they issued a statement in which they said they would make their jets available by flying them to an American base in Germany, but it would have to be the Americans who would do the actual handover.

Exposed and humiliated, the Biden administration declined the Polish “offer” and promptly dispatched Kamala Harris to Warsaw to pacify the Poles who were seething at such betrayal by a supposed ally.

Now Joe Biden has come to Europe with promises of support and weapons for Ukrainians. He will encourage the Ukrainians to fight until the last drop of their blood. He will do it even though he knows all too well that the Ukrainians can never win this fight and will get slaughtered and shattered in the process.

But never mind. The Washington schemers do not care about the lives or well-being of the Ukrainian people. They are using Ukraine as a proxy in a war with Russia, hoping that their fighters will inflict sufficient damage on the Russian military to destabilize Putin’s regime in Moscow.

It is awful to think that our regime could be so cynical. For their part, they probably soothe their conscience by telling themselves that they are only engaging in realpolitik 101. The Soviets did this to us in Vietnam, which they used as their proxy against us, so we now do the same thing to Russia.

But the question is why do the global elites hate Russia and Putin in particular? They tell us that Vladimir Putin is a bad and corrupt man who stole from his people to accumulate great wealth and luxury for himself. But this surely cannot be the main reason, because the leader of the free world is also corrupt.

It is well-known that while he was vice president of the United States, Joe Biden would sell his influence around the world for his own personal enrichment. This he did through his lamentable son Hunter. Hunter, for example, was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma. Even though Hunter knew little about gas, he was being paid one million dollars a year in an obvious influence peddling scheme. His father, “The Big Guy,” as Hunter referred to him in his emails, would get a cut from the loot.

Rudy Giuliani called the Bidens a crime family. Even though this may sound harsh, it accurately describes their activities. Like some global gangsters, they prowl around the globe filling their pockets through illicit ventures while scheming with some of the most corrupt people in places like Ukraine, China and Russia. The plentiful evidence of their mischief is contained on Hunter Biden’s hard drive. This hard drive is authentic beyond any doubt, which is something even the New York Times has recently conceded. And yet our compromised institutions – such as the Department of Justice and the FBI – refuse to investigate these crimes.

The main reason why the globalists loathe Putin is because he does not want to play their game. He refuses to accept their woke ideology and become part of their corrupt global order based on the collapsing dollar and driven by the desire to plunder the world’s resources and populations.

Vladimir Putin wants to keep Russia’s wealth for himself, for his supporters and also for his people. He sees what the globalists have done to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and others. They invaded and destroyed these countries and sucked out whatever wealth they could. And while millions in those lands have been killed and had their lives ruined, the architects of these disasters are well and enjoying their ill-gotten gains. One of them is Joe Biden who had his hand in all these ventures as he was a high government official while they were being planned and executed.

Since Putin does not really want to share the great mineral and natural wealth of his vast country with the globalists, they want to take him out.  Once they bring Putin down – or so they think – they will install a puppet in his place who will throw the doors open for multinationals to plunder Russia’s resources in the same way they have done in other places.

But they seem to forget that they cannot kick Putin around in the same way they did Saddam Hussein and Moammar Khadafi.

For one thing, Putin has more nuclear warheads than anyone else on earth. If backed into a corner, it is likely he would use them.

We would do well to remember the wise warning of John Quincy Adams who advised us not to go abroad in “search of monsters to destroy.”

We should always try to pursue peace and not warmonger, especially in places like Ukraine where we have no vital national security interest.

To get ourselves bombed with thermo nuclear warheads over Ukraine would be a terrible mistake indeed.

Vasko Kohlmayer (email) was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. You can follow his writings by subscribing to his Substack newsletter ’Notes from the Twilight Zone’. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.

Be seeing you

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

Where’s Your Loyalty?

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

My own “country” is wherever the principles that I live by are respected, and I’m able to live with the greatest degree of freedom possible. I’m loyal to a concept, not a flag, a particular piece of dirt, or a government.

by Jeff Thomas

Recently, after reading an essay of mine, a reader angrily questioned my loyalty to the USA. My immediate reaction was that I’m not a US citizen. I therefore tend to observe the US dispassionately, just as I’d observe any of the nearly 200 “foreign” countries in the world.

But, as I’m British, what if he’d questioned my loyalty to the UK? Would he have a valid point? Well, at the very least, he’d certainly have a question worthy of an answer.

I, of course, have a legal right to live and work in the UK, and yet I choose not to. It’s simply not my idea of a great country in which to reside. As much as I regard the traditional English village to be an ideal environment in which to live, I reside elsewhere. The reason is that I place a very high value on personal freedom, a nonintrusive government, and a populace that doesn’t feel that it’s entitled to largesse that’s been forcibly taken from another segment of the population.

But that doesn’t exactly address the question of “loyalty,” does it? Well, there, I must confess, I tend to answer the question with another question. Whenever someone speaks to me of his loyalty to his country, I’m inclined to ask him to define “country.”

In most jurisdictions, the term “country” seems to be bandied about more by governments and the military than by the average citizen. Whenever a government wants blind compliance from its people, political leaders speak of “loyalty.” Whenever a military seeks to send people off to possibly be killed in battle, again, “loyalty” is the reason given.

But if the question is asked, “Loyalty to what?” answers vary. “Loyalty to the flag” is a common one. Another is “Loyalty to this great land of ours.” And, not surprisingly, these answers are common, no matter which country is under discussion. But is one flag superior to another? Is one land better than another (which would suggest that all those who feel their land is better are incorrect)?

Let’s have a closer look at some possible definitions and representations of “country.”

The Flag

One of my earliest memories is of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. But this is not so much due to the event itself, as it’s because my family’s home was littered with all the flags, pop-up books, biscuit tins, and other memorabilia that commemorated the coronation. The house was tricked out like Christmas in June and I’ve never forgotten it, although I was only five at the time.

So I was taught what the Union Jack represented at an early age. Yet I regard it primarily as a piece of cloth. I’ve lived in numerous countries and they all have their own bit of cloth that they run up the flagpoles. The reader might ask himself, “Am I loyal to this piece of fabric, regardless of whether the leaders of my country represent the principles in which I believe?”

A Particular Portion of Real Estate

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Pentagon Drops Truth Bombs To Stave Off War With Russia

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

The second article directly undermines Biden’s dramatic warning about a false flag chemical attack. Reuters reported: “The United States has not yet seen any concrete indications of an imminent Russian chemical or biological weapons attack in Ukraine but is closely monitoring streams of intelligence for them, a senior U.S. defense official said.”

It quoted the Pentagon official as saying, “There’s no indication that there’s something imminent in that regard right now.” Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post published the Reuters article, which appeared in the more obscure U.S. News and World Report. 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story — even if it could lead to the most devastating consequences in history.

By Joe Lauria
Consortium News

Two leaked stories from the Pentagon have exposed the lies of mainstream media about how Russia is conducting the Ukraine war in a bid to counter propaganda intended to get NATO into the conflict, writes Joe Lauria.

The Pentagon is engaged in a consequential battle with the U.S. State Department and the Congress to prevent a direct military confrontation with Russia, which could unleash the most unimaginable horror of war.

President Joe Biden is caught in the middle of the fray. So far he is siding with the Defense Department, saying there cannot be a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine fighting Russian aircraft because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

“President Biden’s been clear that U.S. troops won’t fight Russia in Ukraine, and if you establish a no-fly zone, certainly in order to enforce that no-fly zone, you’ll have to engage Russian aircraft. And again, that would put us at war with Russia,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin earlier this month. (The administration plan is to bring down the Russian government through a ground insurgency and economic war, not a direct military one.)

But pressure on the White House from some members of Congress and especially the press corps is unrelenting to recklessly bring NATO directly into the war. (Secretary of State Antony Blinken who initially backed a plan to send NATO plans from Poland to Ukraine has backed down and now opposes the no-fly zone. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also supported the Polish planes scheme, which was shot down by the Pentagon.)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, hailed as a virtual superhero in Western media, has vacillated between openness to negotiating a peace settlement with Russia and calling for NATO, again on Friday, to “close the skies” above Ukraine. To save his country he appears willing to risk endangering the entire world.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

What About Pentagon and CIA Aggression Against Cuba?

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

Keeping government in perspective. The perspective never changes.

Operation Northwoods called for real terrorist attacks against American citizens, in which Americans would die. The attacks (and murders) would be carried out by Pentagon agents secretly posing as Cuban communists. 

by Jacob G. Hornberger

While the mainstream media and American statists remain transfixed on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s difficult not to notice their moral blindness with respect to the evil and hypocrisy of the Pentagon and the CIA, which have spent years ginning up this deadly and destructive crisis as part of their political gamesmanship against Russia.

After all, let’s face it: When it was the Pentagon and the CIA invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the reaction of the mainstream media and American statists was totally opposite to how they have responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During those deadly and destructive invasions, there was hardly ever any sympathy for the victims and instead accolades, praise, and glorification of the invaders. Don’t forget the daily mantra that everyone was exhorted to recite, “Support the troops!”

But let’s leave Iraq and Afghanistan aside and let’s go back to the early 1960s, when the CIA and the Pentagon were doing everything they could, including committing fraud, to induce President Kennedy to invade Cuba, which is every bit as sovereign and independent as Ukraine. 

Let’s begin with a recent statement by U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price, who was expressing the official position of the Pentagon and the CIA. Price stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to violate “core principles,” including “the principle that each and every country has a sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy, has a sovereign right to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances, its partnerships, and what orientation it wishes to direct its gaze.”

Price was referring to Ukraine’s “right” to join NATO, the corrupt bureaucratic dinosaur that should have gone out of existence at the ostensible end of the Cold War. Price’s statement confirms, of course, the point I have long been making — that the war in Ukraine is not about freedom, it’s about NATO.

Keep Price’s statement in mind as we go back to the height of the Cold War and see how the Pentagon and the CIA were hell-bent on doing to Cuba what Russia is now doing to Ukraine.

That’s what the CIA’s invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba was all about — an effort to invade the island for the sake of ousting the Castro regime from power and replacing it with another corrupt and brutal U.S. puppet dictatorship, such as that of Fulgencio Batista, the brutal pro-U.S. dictatorial puppet that the Cuban revolution succeeded in ousting from power.

But that’s not all there is to the Bay of Pigs story. As I detail in my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, the Pentagon and the CIA were engaged in political gamesmanship against President Kennedy, who the CIA considered to be a neophyte president who could easily be manipulated into ordering an invasion of Cuba, one that would have been no different from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

The CIA told Kennedy that its invasion would succeed without direct U.S. military air and ground support. It was a lie — a deliberate, knowing, intentional lie. The CIA was just playing and maneuvering what they considered was an easily manipulable president. The CIA figured that once the invasion began faltering, Kennedy would have no choice but to send in air support,

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Character of American Individualism

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

Country is a concept of peace, of balance, of living and letting live. But State is essentially a concept of power.… And we have the misfortune of being born not only into a country but into a State.…

https://mises.org/library/character-american-individualism

Murray N. Rothbard

Individualism, and its economic corollary, laissez-faire liberalism, has not always taken on a conservative hue, has not always functioned, as it often does today, as an apologist for the status quo. On the contrary, the revolution of modern times was originally, and continued for a long time to be, laissez-faire individualist. Its purpose was to free the individual person from the restrictions and the shackles, the encrusted caste privileges and exploitative wars, of the feudal and mercantilist orders, of the Tory ancien régime.

Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the militants in the American Revolution, the Jacksonian movement, Emerson and Thoreau, William Lloyd Garrison and the radical abolitionists—all were basically laissez-faire individualists who carried on the age-old battle for liberty and against all forms of State privilege. And so were the French revolutionaries—not only the Girondins, but even the much-abused Jacobins, who were obliged to defend the Revolution against the massed crowned heads of Europe. All were roughly in the same camp. The individualist heritage, indeed, goes back to the first modern radicals of the 17th century—to the Levellers in England, and to Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson in the American colonies.

The conventional historical wisdom asserts that while the radical movements in America were indeed laissez-faire individualist before the Civil War, that afterwards, the laissez-fairists became conservatives, and the radical mantle then fell to groups more familiar to the modern Left: the Socialists and Populists. But this is a distortion of the truth. For it was elderly New England Brahmins, laissez-faire merchants and industrialists like Edward Atkinson, who had financed John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry, who were the ones to leap in and oppose the US imperialism of the Spanish-American War with all their might.

No opposition to that war was more thoroughgoing than that of the laissez-faire economist and sociologist William Graham Sumner or than that of Atkinson who, as head of the Anti-Imperialist League, mailed antiwar pamphlets to American troops then engaged in conquering the Philippines. Atkinson’s pamphlets urged our troops to mutiny, and were consequently seized by the US postal authorities.

In taking this stand, Atkinson, Sumner, and their colleagues were not being “sports”; they were following an antiwar, anti-imperialist tradition as old as classical liberalism itself. This was the tradition of Price, Priestley, and the late-18th-century British radicals that earned them repeated imprisonment by the British war machine; and of Richard Cobden, John Bright, and the laissez-faire Manchester School of the mid-19th century. Cobden, in particular, had fearlessly denounced every war and every imperial maneuver of the British regime. We are now so used to thinking of opposition to imperialism as Marxian that this kind of movement seems almost inconceivable to us today.

Murray Rothbard by Evan Wondolowski

By the advent of World War I, however, the death of the older laissez-faire generation threw the leadership of the opposition to America’s imperial wars into the hands of the Socialist Party. But other, more individualist-minded men joined in the opposition, many of whom would later form the core of the isolationist Old Right of the late 1930s. Thus, the hardcore antiwar leaders included the individualist Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin and such laissez-faire liberals as Senators William E. Borah (Republican) of Idaho and James A. Reed (Democrat) of Missouri. It also included Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., father of the Lone Eagle, who was a congressman from Minnesota.


This article is excerpted from The Betrayal of the American Right, chapter 2, “Origins of the Old Right I: Early Individualism” (2007).

https://mises.org/library/character-american-individualismSee the rest here

Author:

Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He combined Austrian economics with a fervent commitment to individual liberty.

Be seeing you

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

Talking About Stoicism 167 No Time to Lose

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

Be seeing you

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

Surprise! Biden Says Sanctions Will Cause Food Shortages

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2022

President Biden alerted us that, as a result of sanctions on Russia, food shortages for Americans are “going to be real.” So, for a fight on the other side of the world, that doesn’t threaten American interests in the least bit, the American people are supposed to suffer from a lack of food? Does that sound like a good foreign policy to you?

Be seeing you

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

ESSENTIAL Privacy Tools

Posted by M. C. on March 25, 2022

You don’t need to throw out all your digital devices to reclaim some privacy in the digital age. There are small choices you can make about which products you use that go a LONG way to giving you back control over your data and carving out a private space on the internet. I first gave this presentation at Liberty Forum 2022.

Be seeing you

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

A Manufactured World Crisis

Posted by M. C. on March 25, 2022

Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”

https://mises.org/wire/manufactured-world-crisis

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Few people today ask the most important question about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Many people want America to stay out of the fight, but even they don’t ask the vital question. Why does the world face a crisis today? Why has a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine escalated to the point where people fear nuclear war?

The answer is simple. America, under the “leadership” of brain-dead Biden and the forces controlling him, has done this and, by doing so, brought the world to the brink of disaster. As always, the great Dr. Ron Paul gets it right: “Three weeks into this terrible war, the US is not pursuing talks with Russia. As Antiwar.com recently reported, instead of supporting negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that could lead to a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed, the US government is actually escalating the situation which can only increase the bloodshed.

The constant flow of US and allied weapons into Ukraine and talk of supporting an extended insurgency does not seem designed to give Ukraine a victory on the battlefield but rather to hand Russia what Secretary of State Blinken called ‘a strategic defeat.’

It sounds an awful lot like the Biden Administration intends to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian. The only solution for the US is to get out. Let the Russians and Ukrainians reach an agreement. That means no NATO for Ukraine and no US missiles on Russia’s borders? So what! End the war then end NATO.”

Let’s look at an analogy that will help us understand Dr. Paul’s point. For years, the Ukrainian government has attacked an area in the Donbas region that has seceded from Ukraine and formed an independent, pro-Russian, republic. Just before Putin moved against Ukraine, Ukraianians increased the scale and scope of their attack. Rick Rozoff describes what they did: “Two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen have been amassed along the Donbas contact line, Eduard Basurin, spokesman for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) militia, said on Thursday.

“Another three brigades are on their way [to Donbas], which is 20,000 to 25,000 troops more. The total number will reach 150,000, not to mention the nationalists. This is about two-thirds of Ukrainian Armed Forces’ personnel,” Basurin said on the Rossiya 1 television channel (VGTRK) on Thursday.

Ukrainian troops are stationed along the 320-kilometer front line, he said.”

Unlike what has just happened, the Ukrainian attack did not result in US sanctions on Ukraine. There were no meetings of the UN to condemn Ukrainian aggression. There was no talk of world war. On the contrary, Ukraine government used American weapons in its attack and asked America for more weapons to continue their attack. Let’s listen to Rick Rozoff again: “The Armed Forces of Ukraine used the American anti-tank missile system Javelin in the hostilities in Donbas. This was announced by the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Kirill Budanov in an interview….

Budanov said that ideally, the U.S. would help deter any Russian incursion, through additional military aid and increased diplomatic and economic pressure, including more sanctions against Russia and the seizure and blocking of Russian banking accounts.

Also, in addition to U.S. aid already promised and delivered, including Mark VI patrol boats, Javelin anti-armor systems and AN/TPQ-53 light counter-fire radar systems, Ukraine seeks additional air, missile and drone defense systems and electronic jamming devices, Budonov said. Patriot missile batteries and counter rocket, artillery and mortar systems are on Ukraine’s wish list.

The AN/TPQ-53 systems were used to great effect, Ukraine military officials have previously reported. Budanov said the Javelin systems have also been used against Russian forces. Those, along with Turkish-manufactured drones, used against Russian-aligned separatist artillery troops, have a significant psychological deterrent value, said Budanov.”

Why the difference? We think that the US should not have shipped arms to Ukraine. Doing this made the situation worse. But for what we’re saying now, it doesn’t matter what you think of the policy. The key point is that because there was no international outcry and no sanctions, the matter remained a local fight. If brain dead Biden and his gang had reacted to the so-called Russian “invasion” in the same way, the matter would have remained a local quarrel. Russia and Ukraine would have made a deal and that would be that.

The neocon warmongers and other defenders of “democracy,” who unfortunately include some deluded “libertarians” object. Don’t we have a duty to resist “aggression?” The answer is clear: No, we don’t. We do not have a duty to evaluate every foreign quarrel and assess who is at fault. We do not have a duty to require leaders of regimes we, or rather our masters in Washington, don’t like to accept existing boundaries of countries as unchangeable. We should reject the false doctrine of “collective security,” which makes every border disputes a world war. The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators. It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign adventurism burst upon the country. This doctrine is simple. Europe has a set of ‘primary interests’ which have little or no relation to us, and is constantly vexed by ‘ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.’ The United States is a continental power separated from Europe by a wide ocean which, despite all changes in warfare, is still a powerful asset of defense. In the ordinary or regular vicissitudes of European politics the United States should not become implicated by any permanent ties. We should promote commerce, but force ‘nothing.’ We should steer dear of hates and loves. We should maintain correct and formal relations with all established governments without respect to their forms or their religions, whether Christian, Mohammedan, Shinto, or what have you.”

Beard then responded to those who wanted to scrap our traditional policy of non-intervention with “collective security”: “In the rest of the world, outside this hemisphere, our interests are remote and our power to enforce our will is relatively slight. Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”

We should heed Beard’s wisdom today. Otherwise, the world may go up in flames.

Author:

Contact Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.

e seeing you

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

Elite Flock To Doomsday Bunkers – World Bank Tells Peasant Class NOT To Store Food

Posted by M. C. on March 25, 2022

That being said, whether a worldwide crisis is caused by an asteroid hitting the Earth, a nuclear war breaking out, or Covid-19, the decisions made by the elite should always act as signals for the public. When the World Bank tells you not to do something, it may be a good choice to do the opposite.

HAF

Since the invasion of Ukraine began, manufacturers of doomsday bunkers have seen a massive spike in sales. This is typical during any crisis as people wait until the last minute to start preparing. What sets this rush toward prepping apart from ones in the past is the fact that the World Bank is warning against such actions — despite many of their elite friends doing exactly that.

elite flock to doomsday bunkers – world bank tells peasant class not to store food

During a virtual event hosted by the Washington Post on Monday, World Bank President David Malpass told people not to store food or gasoline in spite of the massive spike in prices since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“The right thing to do in these current circumstances is not to go out and buy extra flour or extra gasoline, it’s to recognize that the world is a dynamic global economy and will respond. There’ll be enough to go around,” Malpass said.

Malpass’ intentions are clear — don’t create fear to further hurt the supply chain. But it is too late for that and people should definitely be preparing. In fact, it may be too late.

This article from 2017 makes more sense now: Why Are The Elite Preparing For A Cataclysmic Event? ‘They May Have Information We Don’t’.

While high prices and inflation are being blamed on Russia, it is important to point out that we have been headed in this direction well before the invasion. Russia was just an easy scapegoat.

While the president blames high prices on “corporate greed” and the Federal Reserve blames supply chain dysfunction, no one is looking at the elephant in the room — massive expansion of the money supply and insane deficit spending which has reached historical proportions in the last two years.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »