In all the hysteria over the latest strain of the Coronavirus virus, the frenzied ideological (and essentially authoritarian and anti-constitutional) activities of the House January 6 “Investigatory” Committee, and the frenetic lead up to this recent Christmas, one significant anniversary was missed, or rather ignored, by our media, including the so-called “conservative” media: the birth on December 11, 1918 of arguably the 20th century’s greatest novelist and social/cultural critic, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Solzhenitsyn, let it be said, will long be remembered when the names of moronic fanatics like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and others of that ilk, have become filthy curse words symbolizing the political and cultural nadir of our once great republic.
Yet, with all the ejaculatory exclamations and dire warnings, and subsequent demands for “American” and “NATO” action to thwart the supposed “threat” by the Russians, under that evil genius Vladimir Putin, to use bloodthirsty Cossack troops to invade and conquer poor, little democratic Ukraine, Solzhenitsyn’s comments shortly before he died on August 3, 2008, demand consideration.
No one can accuse the great Russian writer of being an advocate of violence, aggression or war. His experiences, so brutally and so vividly recounted in his various semi-autobiographical novels dissuade any dispassionate reader from that conclusion. He had seen the open jaws of bitter Hell, and that Hell attempted not only to swallow him but destroy him and his soul totally. That the Soviet Hell—the Gulag—did not succeed, and that he emerged stronger for it, a man of resilient and unquestioned Faith, is a remarkable example of how true religious conviction and Hope can indeed overcome even the worst trials, both physical and spiritual.
When Solzhenitsyn came to the United States and gave his famous address at Harvard, June 8, 1978, it was met first by shock, then by a studied if respectful silence by many in the media. For in that speech he had taken target at some of America’s showiest and most prized attributes:
He attacked moral cowardice and the selfishness and complacency he sees in the West. Materialism, sharp legal maneuvering, a press that invades privacy, “TV stupor” and “intolerable music,” all contribute to making the western way of life less and less a model for the world, he said. “A decline in courage,” Solzhenitsyn said, is the most striking feature of what he called “spiritual exhaustion” of the West. “The forces of evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?” “To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being….”
Impartiality is now an unknown word to young journalists, who have been brainwashed to see only diversity or lack thereof. Which brings us to the surreal misinformation world that the Zuckerbergs, Dorseys, and Soroses of our society control. This world is the ultimate tyranny, the victory of evil over good, the end of the greatest civilization ever‚ that of Christian Europe and America.
A revisionist-historian-anthropologist-anarchist, whose name is not important because his works are based on personal assumptions and prejudices, insists in a book he co-wrote before his recent death that agriculture was to blame for the sorry state humanity finds itself in at present. According to the departed, hunter-gatherers lived happily in bands, then agriculture was invented, and that led to surpluses, population growth, private property, tribes, cities, chiefs, tyrants, bureaucrats, kings, capitalism, and so on.
I could have told him as much—and I’m no genius, far from it, unlike the departed, who has been called an intellectual superstar by those sandal-wearing (with socks) bearded horrors of the left, otherwise known as professors. The anarchist virtuoso claims that long before the Athenians, in Mesopotamia, councils and citizen assemblies had real power and authority. Another genius, the great classical scholar Taki, disputes that particular theory based on his close friendship with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. “These tales originate with con men who spread fake news for profit in the agora and have been and will be around forever,” according to the three wise Greeks. Read The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and the rest of the lefty media for con men.
Any theory, however outlandish and ridiculous, is grist for publicity-hungry wannabes nowadays, so I won’t go on about how magnificently people in Tarzan loin skins democratically managed their affairs. What I will do is praise the Athenian system because it was selective democracy, the purest of the pure of all systems as far as my direct ancestor Taki the elder was concerned.
Not too long after Jimmy Carter had vacated the White House, at a rather rowdy New York party, I posed the question of selective democracy to him. Admittedly I was in my cups, but my question was valid: “Why should a violent drug dealer have the same right to vote as a brilliant doctor or scientist who has benefited society?” “It’s an interesting question,” said Jimmy, before signaling to his Secret Service people to gently remove me. The ancients had no doubts about this, nor did the Brits until recently. One had to show responsibility before earning the right to vote. As I write, in New York, the state assembly has passed a law permitting noncitizens to vote in local elections.
You Must Choose Wisely We hear a great deal about mass formation and mass psychosis these days. The psychological theories are palatable and familiar enough to be distributed amongst those who can recognize truths, associate them with our two-year nightmare and easily communicate them to others. Free floating anxiety, personal anxiety, isolation, segregation, engineered fear through propaganda for social division and control. These are all interconnected but they require greater examination for comprehending the machinations of our information age, especially the propaganda side of the equation which is really the wellspring of resultant psychological responses. The propaganda of today is not your grandmother’s propaganda.
Here one could dive into the nature of propaganda, its history and all the literary staples of propaganda studies, but in trying to convince others that what they believe to be true is actually propaganda, this methodology might be as effective as that David Foster Wallace story about fish comprehending what water is. With the ubiquitous nature of propaganda today, a life source for millions of misguided world views and beliefs, a different approach is required.
The most impressive and fascinatingly spectacular thing about propaganda today is the people trapped in its spell believe they are simply and passively engaging art, education, cinema, late night entertainment, online news and information searches and consumption. This is how the powers that be can socially engineer a catatonic state of blissful ignorance and total obedience in millions of people around the world through one series of events. Their lives are constantly controlled. Their impressions and stimuli always carefully managed. Their perception of it all is under the spell that they are freely making choices for information that haven’t already been made for them through behavioral conditioning and predictive engineering.
All of the above is related to the process of passively accepting information, rather than discerningly choosing information.The former is done for you, the latter requires a dedicated effort that results in not being a manipulated ignoramus. I don’t mean to insult you reader but this is a far more profound collective crisis than a virus, and most of the past two years does not happen if the majority out there were not lazy, passive acceptors of information.
Now that the introduction is concluding and your attention spans are fading, the impulse to depart this essay and return to your regularly scheduled programming is going to be too overwhelming soon, if I keep writing you’ll leave, another sentence and you’ll be gone…Let’s play a game!
Only one of these three options below is true.You must accept choose wisely.
A. A novel coronavirus was transmitted at wet market in Wuhan, China through a bat and an intermediary animal before infecting humans. The novel virus was first identified from an outbreak in December 2019, and attempts to contain it there failed, allowing it to spread across the globe. To protect their citizens governments across the west had to lockdown societies to keep the virus from spreading and hospitals from becoming too overwhelmed with patients. In addition to necessary lockdowns, health experts implemented other safety measures to slow the spread of the virus, including masks, social distancing and contact tracing using human and digital surveillance technologies. Thanks to scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology vaccines were quickly developed, tested and approved for mass distribution around the world. The vaccines are safe, effective and necessary to protect the health and safety of citizens, especially the most vulnerable. They should be mandatory for everyone to participate in society to protect the health of everyone else.
B. A coronavirus may have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China in December of 2019, where important research on bat coronaviruses was being conducted. The virus was identified and sequenced by the Chinese government and distributed around the world for companies to begin the process of developing vaccines. Government imposed lockdowns were necessary to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed with patients. Other measures and safeguards were put in place to buy time until the vaccines could be safely tested and then approved for emergency use. Some of these measures were more effective than others but governments and policy makers did the best they could with a rapidly evolving situation. The masks turned out to not be as effective as we were told, and the vaccines not as effective or safe as they initially believed but are still a useful tool in protecting the health and safety of those who want them.
C. A lab engineered coronavirus that was not novel was intentionally released in Wuhan, China in September or October of 2019 during the world military games. The virus is a bioweapon with a deadly spike protein inserted to make it highly transmissible and toxic in humans. As it spread across the globe governments across the west coordinated harmful policies and measures that intentionally did far more harm than good and sold it to the people as necessary for their ‘health and safety’. Early effective treatments were ignored or suppressed, cases manipulated with false positive results, and for the first time in human history ‘harm’ was collectivized to retract civil liberties while the only government ‘cures’ were experimental “vaccines” already in waiting which would be forced on entire populations through human rights violating coercive measures. The entire purpose of all of it was to usher in vaccine passports so governments could have total control over their populations, whose liberties would now be contingent on them doing whatever they were told for “health and safety” and “the common good”.
And only one of these two options below is true. You must accept choose wisely. One will nurture your immunity to engineered fear and the other will nurture your immunity to common sense.
You Must Choose Wisely We hear a great deal about mass formation and mass psychosis these days. The psychological theories are palatable and familiar enough to be distributed amongst those who can recognize truths, associate them with our two-year nightmare and easily communicate them to others. Free floating anxiety, personal anxiety, isolation, segregation, engineered fear through propaganda for social division and control. These are all interconnected but they require greater examination for comprehending the machinations of our information age, especially the propaganda side of the equation which is really the wellspring of resultant psychological responses. The propaganda of today is not your grandmother’s propaganda.
Here one could dive into the nature of propaganda, its history and all the literary staples of propaganda studies, but in trying to convince others that what they believe to be true is actually propaganda, this methodology might be as effective as that David Foster Wallace story about fish comprehending what water is. With the ubiquitous nature of propaganda today, a life source for millions of misguided world views and beliefs, a different approach is required.
The most impressive and fascinatingly spectacular thing about propaganda today is the people trapped in its spell believe they are simply and passively engaging art, education, cinema, late night entertainment, online news and information searches and consumption. This is how the powers that be can socially engineer a catatonic state of blissful ignorance and total obedience in millions of people around the world through one series of events. Their lives are constantly controlled. Their impressions and stimuli always carefully managed. Their perception of it all is under the spell that they are freely making choices for information that haven’t already been made for them through behavioral conditioning and predictive engineering.
All of the above is related to the process of passively accepting information, rather than discerningly choosing information.The former is done for you, the latter requires a dedicated effort that results in not being a manipulated ignoramus. I don’t mean to insult you reader but this is a far more profound collective crisis than a virus, and most of the past two years does not happen if the majority out there were not lazy, passive acceptors of information.
Now that the introduction is concluding and your attention spans are fading, the impulse to depart this essay and return to your regularly scheduled programming is going to be too overwhelming soon, if I keep writing you’ll leave, another sentence and you’ll be gone…Let’s play a game!
Only one of these three options below is true.You must accept choose wisely.
A. A novel coronavirus was transmitted at wet market in Wuhan, China through a bat and an intermediary animal before infecting humans. The novel virus was first identified from an outbreak in December 2019, and attempts to contain it there failed, allowing it to spread across the globe. To protect their citizens governments across the west had to lockdown societies to keep the virus from spreading and hospitals from becoming too overwhelmed with patients. In addition to necessary lockdowns, health experts implemented other safety measures to slow the spread of the virus, including masks, social distancing and contact tracing using human and digital surveillance technologies. Thanks to scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology vaccines were quickly developed, tested and approved for mass distribution around the world. The vaccines are safe, effective and necessary to protect the health and safety of citizens, especially the most vulnerable. They should be mandatory for everyone to participate in society to protect the health of everyone else.
B. A coronavirus may have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China in December of 2019, where important research on bat coronaviruses was being conducted. The virus was identified and sequenced by the Chinese government and distributed around the world for companies to begin the process of developing vaccines. Government imposed lockdowns were necessary to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed with patients. Other measures and safeguards were put in place to buy time until the vaccines could be safely tested and then approved for emergency use. Some of these measures were more effective than others but governments and policy makers did the best they could with a rapidly evolving situation. The masks turned out to not be as effective as we were told, and the vaccines not as effective or safe as they initially believed but are still a useful tool in protecting the health and safety of those who want them.
C. A lab engineered coronavirus that was not novel was intentionally released in Wuhan, China in September or October of 2019 during the world military games. The virus is a bioweapon with a deadly spike protein inserted to make it highly transmissible and toxic in humans. As it spread across the globe governments across the west coordinated harmful policies and measures that intentionally did far more harm than good and sold it to the people as necessary for their ‘health and safety’. Early effective treatments were ignored or suppressed, cases manipulated with false positive results, and for the first time in human history ‘harm’ was collectivized to retract civil liberties while the only government ‘cures’ were experimental “vaccines” already in waiting which would be forced on entire populations through human rights violating coercive measures. The entire purpose of all of it was to usher in vaccine passports so governments could have total control over their populations, whose liberties would now be contingent on them doing whatever they were told for “health and safety” and “the common good”.
And only one of these two options below is true. You must accept choose wisely. One will nurture your immunity to engineered fear and the other will nurture your immunity to common sense.
“Or consider 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who used his semi-automatic weapon to kill two Black men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, while waging a glorious race war on behalf of his inherited White power. That’s not to mention the White people who rallied behind him to post his bail. Fear has gripped the patriarchy, and the threat of righteous violence—or the lethal use of it—is the patriarchy’s response.”
What a steaming pile! When wokeness attacks the brain, academic rigor goes right out the window.
A recent article in The Daily Wire noted that a UCLA professor who is a “self-described ‘Egyptologist’” stated in a book she authored that Kyle Rittenhouse had shot two black men. The “self-described ‘Egyptologist’” designation led me to believe the author was probably a professor in some field like Gender Studies who felt like dabbling in Egyptology but was actually a crackpot in that field; real Egyptology demands an academic rigor that would never allow someone in that field to make such a stupid statement, and in a publication no less. I know whereof I speak because my intellectual curiosity led me on a foray into the world of real Egyptology.
I have a long-standing interest in ancient mathematics that led me to peruse a work called the Demotic Mathematical Papyri edited by the late, great Brown University Egyptologist Richard Parker. (The word demotic, by the way, refers to a later stage of the ancient Egyptian language.) In one of the papyri, a particular word had the meaning of circumference, while in another it had the meaning of diameter, Parker attributing this discrepancy to scribal error. But I had been learning Middle Egyptian, an earlier stage of the language, and I came across a related word in the Middle Egyptian vocabulary that was used in one compound form to describe the oceanic band surrounding the earth disk (there’s your circumference) and in another compound form to describe the transit of the sun across the earth disk from horizon to horizon (there’s your diameter). I also referenced the depiction of both of these ancient cosmological assumptions in a particular work of Egyptian art.
I wrote up my findings in a short article that I submitted to a top-notch, peer-reviewed Egyptology journal, and it was green-lighted a couple of weeks after it was received; typical submissions often take months to evaluate.
“The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.“
It must have been considered very dangerous as there is likely not much DARPA wouldn’t do.
Update (1505ET): As more and more information pours out of the Project Veritas leaked military documents, there appears to be a damning section in support of Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment.
“Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response.”
Project Veritas has obtained military documents hidden on a classified system [HERE – and HERE – and HERE] showing how EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses.
The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violated the gain of function research moratorium. However, according to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.
[ZH – and just today, Twitter banned Project Veritas’ Eric Spracklen…]
[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Jan. 10, 2022] Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.
The documents in question stem from a report at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which were hidden in a top-secret shared drive.
DARPA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Defense in charge of facilitating research in technology with potential military applications.
Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.
Although the Mayan civilization was ultimately absorbed by Spanish and Latin American states, it took centuries to close the frontier, and a big reason for this was the Mayas’ geopolitical arrangement of myriad independent polities subject to secession by disgruntled elites and desertion by unhappy commoners.
The US and other countries of the Western world are divided by ever more stark ideological differences, to put it mildly. Because most people live in societies where the power to make some of the most important choices and to use offensive force to effect them is concentrated in the state, these increasing differences of opinion are raising the stakes of losing or lacking political power. Accordingly, all kinds of people have begun to take an interest in political secession and decentralization as a solution to the intensifying power struggles.
But one of the critiques of the secession-decentralization strategy is that it allegedly results in scattered populations vulnerable to military conquest and that the model is cumbersome when it comes to trade, travel, and communication. The idea is that a single strong state is the most secure and the most practical option. The example of pre-Hispanic and early modern Mayan civilization provides a powerful retort to this argument, as we will see. Ethnically and linguistically similar but divided into scores of smaller states connected by long-distance trade networks, Mayas were able to escape homegrown tyranny for millennia and resisted foreign Spanish conquest for hundreds of years.
Pre-Hispanic Mayan Civilization: A Multitude of Regional States and City-States
Centered on the Yucatan Peninsula, pre-Hispanic Mayan civilization flourished in what is now southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and Honduras, not far south of the Aztec Empire.1 Unlike its neighbor, the Mayan civilization was never a centralized empire. Instead, the land was a patchwork of small states jostling one another for power, many of whom were connected by various military alliances and long-distance trade networks. In the twenty-five hundred years from the rise of Mayan civilization to the Spanish conquest, political scientists Claudio Cioffi-Revilla and Todd Landman have identified seventy-two major Mayan chiefdoms (akin to city-states) and regional states (ruling over tiers of municipalities), noting the existence, in addition, of hundreds of smaller polities, though these were mostly “minor by comparison” and were not included in their study.2
The Classic-Era Maya World: Many Strong States and Centralized Domestic Politics
The most centralized period in Mayan history was the Classic period (roughly 250–950 AD). As anthropologist Antonia E. Foias explains, “At the heart of Classic Maya polities was the divine ruler, or k’uhul ajaw, who lived in the royal court in the epicenter of an independent political capital, from which he conducted the affairs of the state.”3 The k’uhul ajaw’s rule was complemented by two to four strata of political officials and the royal household. The political elite enriched itself through the goods that they expropriated from commoners and subordinate states (if any) as tribute, as well as through their subjects’ labor, which they used in massive public works projects.4 Power was concentrated in the k’uhul ajaw, however, who was deified and whose reign and its events were commemorated in large stone monuments called stelae.5
The Classic era was marked by the emergence of states, a growing number of polities born through fissure, and the rise of several massive cities with a strong regional influence.6 As Hispanicist Lynn V. Foster explains,
The 100 years beginning around 672 witnessed the flowering of many great cities…. Competition among these Maya cities fueled more wars and demand for tribute; wealth generated building booms and increased production of luxury goods. The result was a period fraught with political tension and warfare but also one in which artistic production culminated in the greatest works of Maya civilization.7
But although secession produced more states, they were tainted by the conceit of political privilege internally and externally. From roughly the 600s to the 900s, as Foias explains,
[t]he elite class grew in numbers and prerogatives as hieroglyphic texts and monuments that had previously been exclusively associated with Early Classic royals became more widespread…. More and smaller sites declared themselves independent seats of royal power with their own emblem glyphs…. The extensive noble class and the increasing number of royals must have felt intense competition as areas of possible expansion diminished over time and as warfare continued and intensified.8
For reasons that are heavily disputed and multifaceted—but that very likely have something to do with these states’ expansionist ambitions and the war and rising economic exploitation they entailed—Mayan civilization suffered a political “collapse” at the end of the Classic era that saw the dissolution of many of the existing states between roughly 800 and 1100.9 The collapse was “marked by abandonment, migrations, death, and other terminal modes of political extinction—not by consolidation or integration into fewer, larger, or more complex polities,” as Cioffi-Revilla and Landman, who see the Mayan civilization’s lack of political integration as a failure and the root of its demise, take pains to emphasize.10 Contrary to the term’s connotations, the so-called collapse also saw the rise of many new smaller polities and ushered in a period of increased political decentralization.11
The Postclassic Maya World: More Petty States, More Trade, More Freedom
The Postclassic era (950–1542) saw the rise of new powers, but this time there were fewer large regional states and more city-state chiefdoms, and Cioffi-Revilla and Landman recorded fewer “significant” polities overall.12 Foias describes the Postclassic geopolitical landscape as ranging from
the small Yucatec cah [“the basic Maya municipal community consisting of both the residential site and the territorial lands controlled by the town”] ruled by a batab [local ruler] to regional polities ruled by a halach uinic [regional overlord] to the militarized and expanding states of the K’ich’ean kingdoms of highland Guatemala and finally to the hegemony of the Itza in the Central Peten lowlands.13
The stelae to rulers went away, there were less expensive monumental projects, more trade, and the source of political power broadened to encompass the elite court of the halach uinic in the larger states and local councils.14 During this period states do not seem to have interfered much in people’s production of goods, which continued to be geared toward local markets and regional trade networks, beyond, of course, parasitically siphoning off part of it.15 As a result, there was plenty of entrepreneurial activity, social mobility, and a “widely integrated mercantile economy.”16 Mayanists Marilyn A. Masson and Carlos Peraza Lope observe that “[t]he distribution of many classes of material in households of all sizes implies that opportunities for economic affluence may have been fluid for some non-elites.”17 Elites “maintained their distinctions … through investment in domestic and ritual architecture and through the control of important calendrical ceremonies celebrated at Maya communities.”18
Unfortunately, though they were an improvement over the more expansionist states of the Classic era, the Postclassic-era Mayan states also had the issue of competing for power, and the period was plagued by war, as implied by the prominence of war motifs in artwork and the incidence of defensive walls.19 Cioffi-Revilla and Landman accordingly trace a second political collapse beginning in the 1490s, just after the circa-1450 fall of the large regional power of Mayapán (present-day Yucatán State, Mexico), and predating the Spanish conquest and in fact continuing through it.20 Of course, sovereign Mayan civilization ultimately failed to rebound from this collapse and was subsumed under the Spanish and Latin American states.
Daniella Bassi is assistant editor at the Mises Institute and copyedits the Mises Wire, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. She holds master’s degrees in early American history from the University of Vermont and the College of William and Mary and an undergraduate degree from Amherst College.
This seemingly magical ability…is the power of armed, individual self-defense…weapons freedom for the private citizen. And it is a power that the government of Taiwan has systematically denied to its people, at grave risk to a nervous world.
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”– Sun Tzu
On March 12, 2006 five U.S. soldiers violated, then murdered, 14-year-old Abeer Hamza in her home at Yusufiyah, Iraq. Then they covered up the killing by wiping out most of her family at taxpayer expense.1
Fifteen years and four days later, several dozen U.S. policy enforcement officers stormed a quiet neighborhood in America’s Pleasantville: Keene, New Hampshire. After using a battering ram connected to an armored vehicle, they flew a drone through the window of a home studio housing the state’s top radio discussion show, Free Talk Live. Washington claimed that some of its libertarian hosts had been selling significant amounts of Bitcoin without government permission and filed charges of “unlicensed money transmission.” The imperial capitol is seeking life imprisonment for at least one of the arrestees, with no credible claim that he even victimized anyone.2
Though different in a hundred ways, each of these federal excesses exemplified the numberless grievances which have sparked a growing pushback against D.C. in the “Live Free or Die” state. Local activists and legislators reacted with the New Hampshire Independence Amendment, also known as CACR 32. This constitutional revision would allow all NH residents to vote in a 2022 referendum on whether the state will continue being governed by Washington.
New Hampshire already has a long history of example-setting. But by striving for independence—and a more humane world security protocol—its citizens may be able to do something better. With your help, and the careful placement of a new idea on the geopolitical board, maybe our tiny new nation could even stop a world war.
NH independence proponents make a simple case. The FedGov, they say, has bloated beyond the point where normal individuals can meaningfully oppose its atrocities with conventional civics. They point to the successes of Estonian and British independence movements as well as the global trend toward “smaller nations.” In 1900 there were roughly 60 countries in the world. Now there are about 200. Meanwhile, thanks to these and other national divorces, the harm-inflicting capacity of various empires is less than it would be if they were still full-sized. Successful independence drives in America, too, should have a limiting effect on U.S. warmongering in faraway places.
But what of, say, Chinese government warmongering outside its borders? Whatever cruelties the U.S. government may have imposed, the nations bordering China do seem to generally prefer alliance with Washington over alliance with Beijing; some rely on D.C. for their security more than they should.
One of the main criticisms of NH independence is that it could undermine U.S. defense capability or, more accurately, American capacity for carrying out the existing commitments to NATO and Taiwan. The latter is of special significance, and we’ll use it as the focus of this discussion. But the arguments here apply to every U.S. ally.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla dropped a bombshell in a CNBC interview yesterday, admitting that his company’s Covid “vaccine” offers limited if any protection! He went on to say that a third shot of the same formula does offer some protection. The Biden Administration is in full panic mode as its Covid response lies in tatters. Also today: LA Times columnist believes it’s a great idea to mock unvaxxed people who die of covid.
The final straw was to be Ukraine. After U.S. officials helped to orchestrate the regime-change operation that ousted a pro-Russia regime and installed a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine, the next step was to invite Ukraine to join NATO. That would mean U.S. bases, missiles, and troops on Russia’s border. It would would mean the eviction of Russia from its longtime military base in Crimea and its replacement by a U.S. military base.
Predictably, all this makes Russia the “aggressor” against the peace-loving officials within NATO and within the U.S. government (which controls NATO).
The New York Times published an article yesterday that denied that U.S. officials promised Russia at the end of the Cold War that NATO would not expand membership to Warsaw Pact countries.
Unfortunately, the article misses the point. The point is that NATO should have been abolished when the Cold War ended, which would, needless to say, have meant that it would not have absorbed those former Warsaw Pact countries and would not have moved U.S. bases, missiles, and troops inexorably closer to Russia’s borders.
The ostensible purpose of NATO was to protect Western Europe from an invasion by the Soviet Union, which, ironically, had been America’s partner and ally in World War II. At the end of the Cold War, the threat of such an invasion was non-existent. Therefore, NATO’s ostensible mission was over. NATO should have been disbanded immediately.
But like so many other Cold War programs and bureaucratic agencies, NATO bureaucrats were not about to let their bureaucratic agency go quietly into the night. Too many officials had become accustomed to and dependent on the taxpayer-funded largess that came with NATO.
Moreover, the NATO bureaucrats and the Cold War officials within the U.S. national-security establishment were not ready to let go of their Cold War racket, which they had milked for some 45 years. They had to figure out a way to keep their racket going.
That’s why NATO began absorbing Warsaw Pact countries instead of simply going out of business. They knew that as they brought U.S. bases, missiles, and troops closer to Russia’s borders, Russia would have to finally respond. And when that would happen, U.S. and NATO officials and their Operation Mockingbird acolytes in the mainstream press could exclaim, “The Russians have committed aggression! They are the aggressors!”
The final straw was to be Ukraine. After U.S. officials helped to orchestrate the regime-change operation that ousted a pro-Russia regime and installed a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine, the next step was to invite Ukraine to join NATO. That would mean U.S. bases, missiles, and troops on Russia’s border. It would would mean the eviction of Russia from its longtime military base in Crimea and its replacement by a U.S. military base.
The result was predictable. Russia invaded Crimea and took it over. Russia has also made it clear that it fiercely opposed NATO’s absorption of Ukraine and the U.S. military bases, missiles, and troops on Russia’s border that would come with it.
Predictably, all this makes Russia the “aggressor” against the peace-loving officials within NATO and within the U.S. government (which controls NATO). It’s all Russia’s fault for opposing U.S. peace-loving plans to establish and install military bases, missiles, and troops along Russia’s borders.
When will the American people wake up and come to the realization of what the conversion of their federal government to a national-security state has done to our nation? The sooner that day comes, the better off everyone will be. We will be able both to abolish NATO and restore a limited-government republic to our land. That would not only finally put a stop to the old Cold War racket but also set America on the road to liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world.
The only way to avoid this fate is by a revolution. I am not speaking of a violent revolution that replaces one form of authoritarianism with another, but a peaceful revolution of ideas. This revolution aims to replace the authoritarian interventionist ideology that dominates both the left and right wings of the ruling class with the ideas of liberty.
A recent Washington Post/University of Maryland poll found that 34 percent of Americans think violent action against the government can be justifiable. This view is held by 40 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of Democrats. The result may seem surprising since leftists have been responsible for much of the recent politically-motivated violence, and many Democrats have called for violence against Trump supporters. However, the cultural Marxists appear to have (temporarily) ceased using violence as a tactic—although had President Trump won reelection, it may well have been ANTIFA members inside the Capitol on January 6 trying to “stop the steal.”
The rising support for violence against government is rooted in the growing (and justified) belief that the people’s liberties are being taken by a ruling class that is indifferent at best, and hostile at worst, to their values and concerns.
The devastation wrought by the lockdowns, as well as the conflict over the promotion of masks, vaccines, critical race theory, and transgenderism, heighten these social tensions.
Another major contributor to the social unrest is the economy. Rising prices combined with supply shortages and the increasing national debt are all signs that we may be witnessing the final days of the Keynesian welfare-warfare state. Unless Congress immediately begins to cut spending and transition to a free-market monetary system, America will soon face a major economic crisis. The crisis will likely be caused by a collapse of the dollar’s value. This will likely lead to increased violence. The violence will start when those who believe they are entitled to live off the stolen property of their fellow citizens decide to take matters into their own hands because the government can no longer do the looting for them.
The only way to avoid this fate is by a revolution. I am not speaking of a violent revolution that replaces one form of authoritarianism with another, but a peaceful revolution of ideas. This revolution aims to replace the authoritarian interventionist ideology that dominates both the left and right wings of the ruling class with the ideas of liberty. Such a revolution would restore respect for individual liberty, constitutional government, free markets, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and sound money.
The revolution of ideas would resolve social conflicts by getting the government out of social issues and instead allowing private property owners to, for example, decide who can and cannot use which restroom on their property. It would also restore control over education to parents. The goal is to respect the rights of each individual to live their lives as they choose as long as they do not violate the rights of others to do the same.
A free market with a sound currency would release lower-income Americans from the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax as well as provide them with expanded economic opportunities. The growing economy would reduce tensions between races and lead Americans to view immigrants as an asset rather than a burden.
A free and peaceful society cannot be brought about by a violent revolution. Instead, it must occur via peaceful conversation of a critical mass of citizens. When that critical mass is reached, even many authoritarian politicians will endorse liberty and limited government out of fear of losing reelection if they do not. Therefore, the best thing those of us who know the truth can do to restore a free society is to convert as many people as possible to the movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity.
