MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Jefferson on the Family and Liberty | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

Jeff Deist argues in a similar vein:

It scarcely needs to be said that family has always been the first line of defense against the state, and the most important source of primary loyalty—or divided loyalty, from the perspective of politicians. Our connection with ancestors, and our concern for progeny, forms a story in which the state is not the main character. Family forms our earliest and hence most formative environment—and at least as an ideal, family provides both material and emotional support. Happy families actually exist.

But government wants us atomized, lonely, broke, vulnerable, dependent, and disconnected. So of course it attempts to break down families by taking kids away from them as early as possible, indoctrinating them in state schools, using welfare as a wedge, using the tax code as a wedge, discouraging marriage and large families, in fact discouraging any kind of intimacy not subject to public scrutiny, encouraging divorce, etc. etc.

https://mises.org/wire/jefferson-family-and-liberty

Thomas Jefferson has valuable things to say about two key criticisms of the free market. I learned about these from reading C. Bradley Thompson’s America’s Revolutionary Mind (Encounter Books, 2019) Thompson has done an immense amount on research on the thought of the leading figures of the American Revolution, and I urge everyone to read this excellent book.

Many critics of the free market say that it is unfair that some people are much wealthier than others. Isn’t it largely a matter of luck how well you do? If so, shouldn’t the state take steps to benefit those who aren’t successful? This is a line of thought I’ve often written about, so I’ll just give one example of it. The late G.A. Cohen states the position in this way, in his Rescuing Justice and Equality (Harvard University Press, 2008):

People with greater-than-average talents and abilities should not in justice receive more wealth and income than others, even if their work is more productive and valuable than their less-fortunately-endowed coworkers. People do not deserve the abilities by which they surpass others, and my own animating conviction…[is] that an unequal distribution whose inequality cannot be vindicated by some choice or fault or desert on the part of (some of) the relevant affected agents is unfair, and therefore, pro tanto, unjust, and that nothing can remove that particular injustice.

Jefferson does not agree. People have a natural right to benefit from their industry and talents, and it is wrong for the state to take money from the rich to help the poor. He says,

To take from one, because it is thought that his industry…has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who…have not exercised equal liberty or skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of liberty, and the fruits acquired by it.

Someone might object to Jefferson in this way: Aren’t there some people who are so badly off that they need help in order to survive? Shouldn’t they be guaranteed at least a minimum by the state?

Again, Jefferson doesn’t agree. Rights in his view are purely negative. Someone’s being poor does not give him a right to the labor or property of others. Further, “the forced sharing of property would likewise cause all generosity, benevolence, and charity to wither on the vine. If such ‘noble principles’ were destitute of objects and exercise,’ Jefferson added, they would ‘forever lie dormant’” (quoted in Thompson, America’s Revolutionary Mind).

What I’ve said so far describes a familiar libertarian position, but now I’d like to turn to something more controversial. One of the standard criticisms of the free market point of view is that it treats individuals as isolated atoms who view other people only as means to the pursuit of their selfish ends. You can certainly find people who do adopt this view, but Mises and Rothbard do not. Lew Rockwell notes in Against the Left:

Today, the fundamental threat to liberty comes from leftist programs to promote absolute equality. In this chapter, we will first describe egalitarianism in general terms and then discuss one of its main, and most dangerous, manifestations. This is the attempt to destroy the traditional family, the hallmark of civilization….In order to maintain a free society, it is essential that the traditional family, i.e., the union of one man and one woman in marriage, in most cases to raise a family, be preserved. Ludwig von Mises offers some profound insights on this matter.

Jeff Deist argues in a similar vein:

It scarcely needs to be said that family has always been the first line of defense against the state, and the most important source of primary loyalty—or divided loyalty, from the perspective of politicians. Our connection with ancestors, and our concern for progeny, forms a story in which the state is not the main character. Family forms our earliest and hence most formative environment—and at least as an ideal, family provides both material and emotional support. Happy families actually exist.

But government wants us atomized, lonely, broke, vulnerable, dependent, and disconnected. So of course it attempts to break down families by taking kids away from them as early as possible, indoctrinating them in state schools, using welfare as a wedge, using the tax code as a wedge, discouraging marriage and large families, in fact discouraging any kind of intimacy not subject to public scrutiny, encouraging divorce, etc. etc.

On this issue, Jefferson supports the family rather than the atomized individual. Here I need to confess a deception. I truncated a passage I quoted earlier from Jefferson, not to give a false idea of its contents, but rather to hold in reserve something I wanted to emphasize later. The full quotation from Jefferson is

To take from one, because it is thought that his industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal liberty or skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of liberty, and the fruits acquired by it. (emphasis added)

In his second inaugural address, Jefferson said:

With those, too, not yet rallied to the same point, the disposition to do so is gaining strength; facts are piercing through the veil drawn over them; and our doubting brethren will at length see, that the mass of their fellow citizens, with whom they cannot yet resolve to act, as to principles and measures, think as they think, and desire what they desire; that our wish, as well as theirs, is, that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved; equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers. (emphasis added)

Jefferson’s view would get him into trouble with contemporary egalitarians. They think it is especially “arbitrary from the moral point of view” that some people have advantages because of their family. Jefferson sees matters differently.

Author:

Contact David Gordon

David Gordon is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review.

Be seeing you

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

No, you don’t have to care about any of this

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

If you’re not contributing to wrong, that is enough.

In fact that is MUCH BETTER than acting like you’re saving the world, when in reality you are contributing to evil.

It’s great to care about important causes, but “I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his own contemplations too.”

For example, helping poor people is a noble cause. Forcing others to help poor people is pursuing a noble cause “sitting upon another man’s shoulders.”

Live your life. Be a good person. That’s enough.

Ignore the noise.

My thought is you can’t complain too much when things go haywire for you.
Part of the problem is there are too many people and too much government NOT leaving us alone.
This is for wiser philosophers than me.

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/no-you-dont-have-to-care-about-any-of-this-crap/

By Joe Jarvis

Lots of people are trying to force you to care about the things they care about.

True, some of these issues are really important. But if you don’t care, you don’t care.

You don’t have to pretend. And you don’t owe anyone an explanation.

Henry David Thoreau summed it up almost 200 years ago when he said:

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him.

See, a lot of self-righteous people can’t imagine how anyone could make a different calculation about the most important causes in the world. The person who donates to hungry children finds it absurd that others donate to animal shelters while there are still needy kids out there.

But this is just another variation of how specializing makes things more efficient. If everyone works on the causes they care about most, their passion and efforts will go the furthest.

But Thoreau continues that even if someone doesn’t want to help eradicate a wrong, it is “his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.”

If you’re not contributing to wrong, that is enough.

In fact that is MUCH BETTER than acting like you’re saving the world, when in reality you are contributing to evil.

It’s great to care about important causes, but “I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his own contemplations too.”

For example, helping poor people is a noble cause. Forcing others to help poor people is pursuing a noble cause “sitting upon another man’s shoulders.”

No, he isn’t automatically evil if he doesn’t help the poor, “he may still properly have other concerns to engage him.”

These days you’ll hear people say things like, “it’s not enough to simply not be racist, you have to be actively anti-racist.”

Incorrect. It is absolutely enough to simply not perpetuate an evil.

They don’t know you. They can’t see inside your head, or into your life. They don’t know what you’re engaged in.

But if you are not hurting others, that is enough.

Like imagine if someone told you, it’s not enough to not murder, you have to become a criminologist, and go out there and solve murders.

You know I am grateful there are people out there who go into homicide investigation. But it’s not for me.

It’s pretty ironic actually. Because the same people who try to bully you into taking the action that they want you to take would scoff at your demands for a more peaceful and prosperous society.

Because guess what one of my causes is? It’s not enough to simply not steal others money. You must actively oppose the systemic theft the government calls taxes.

Oh wait, but they need to steal from me in order to pursue their causes, because they do so “sitting upon another man’s shoulders.”

They tell me that a portion of my income, my labor, my time, will be taken without my consent to support the causes they care about, while whatever I had planned for my labor and time will be subordinated to their whims.

But guess what? No one really cares about my cause. So I moved to Puerto Rico to take advantage of tax incentives, and now perfectly legally pay a 4% tax rate.

That did a lot more for me than trying to get people to vote– as if there was anyone who would advance my causes anyway.

Now, more than ever, as the chaos of the world seems to be reaching a crescendo, it is perfectly reasonable to tune out, and say, you know what, I just don’t care.

All the ships have sailed.

It’s much more important to make sure you and your loved ones are in a position of strength moving forward.

Everyone is going to tell you that you have to care about this, that your silence on that is as bad as whatever, that you’re either with us or against us…

I care about a lot of things, and have plenty of passionate ideas about how this world should turn out. But now is the time to keep your powder dry, and wits about you.

In the board game Risk, you win by building strength while remaining unnoticed. The strongest players fight it out, and weaken each other.

It is then, when the smoke clears, that it is easiest to control the board.

Deep breath in. Deep breath out.

Live your life. Be a good person. That’s enough.

Ignore the noise.

Never let a good crisis go to waste is the mantra of the elites.

In tumultuous times, their tactics have extra potency. They reach for more power.

But this is also when the elite are most vulnerable.

By studying their tactics, you will be more prepared to guard against, and counter-attack the enemy.

The current crisis is being used to exploit the masses. But it also presents tremendous opportunity to take the power back, and reshape this world.

Society is entering a new period of transition, a struggle that will reveal the elites of the next generation.

Now is the time to seize your power if you intend to be among their ranks.

Subscribe to THE DAILY BELL and immediately receive TWO FREE BLACKPAPERS:

1. Four Ways The Elite Control You in a Crisis

     And how to flip the script to seize their power now

2. The Trojan Horse: How (and Why) to Join the Ranks of the Elite

Be seeing you

 

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

Black Lives Matter Gives Revolution A Bad Name

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

But more alarming than their Marxist tendencies is the organization’s insistence that their plans will create paradise for black Americans through force.

How, you might ask? By abolishing prisons, transforming all schools into multicultural institutes, and providing all black Americans reparations regardless of their proximity to historical injustices—all through the government, of course.

But as history shows us, governments do not create harmony or paradise—only actual cooperation can help us achieve that vision.  But cooperation always fails when force enters the equation, which makes Black Lives Matter’s stated goals untenable for a free society. 

Black Lives Matter Gives Revolution A Bad Name

By Christian Watson

The word “Revolution” is among the most consequential gems in the english language.

History has associated the word with images of musket-wielding, ash-faced frenchmen or battle-hardened colonists soon-to-be Americans fighting for higher-order ideals of freedom. But similar to most illustrious historical concepts, contemporary politics rarely does them justice.

Enter Black Lives Matter.

The New York Times, for instance, noted that overall American support for Black Lives Matter increased “nearly as much as it had in the two preceding years.”

Of course, novelty often brings excitement. Think of the crowds that flood the streets of major cities around the world whenever a new iPhone is released– Black Lives Matter is no exception to this rule.

Indeed, TeenVogue urged Black Lives Matter activists not to allow their “revolution” to succumb to those nasty, grubby general political interests.

And the ever-so hip-to-the-left publication Vox’s Black Lives Matter apologism tied the movement’s activities to a long tradition of “American radicalism.”

The article incorrectly associates Black Lives Matter with the struggle against Jim Crow laws that resulted in the Civil Rights Movement.

Oh, yes: some actors in left-wing media are likening the goals of Black Lives Matter, the organization, with the Civil Rights Movement. And if one attacks anything resembling the struggle for Civil Rights, they can quite easily be written-off as a bad person, a racist, and so on. All while attaching Black Lives Matter to “American radicalism.”

Oh, how far we are from the promised land.

The premise of this argument quite boldly fails to understand the point of the American Revolution. The American Revolution—which had a clear, overarching principle—was both new and unique as the world hadn’t seen anything like it before. Thus, they set their own example for others to follow.

Unlike the American Revolution, Black Lives Matter, the organization, lacks a clear goal beyond their disjointed policy proposals.

Also unlike the American Revolution, Black Lives Matter rehashes old Marxist revolutionary tactics, such as the pumped fist symbolism, the goal to pour government funds into “community based” alternatives to policing, and the organization’s now redacted desire to overturn “US imperialism and capitalism.”

The list is endless. These goals would find a home among the manifestos of communist revolutionaries like Mao Zedong or Che Guevera. But in the American tradition? Not a chance.

But more alarming than their Marxist tendencies is the organization’s insistence that their plans will create paradise for black Americans through force.

How, you might ask? By abolishing prisons, transforming all schools into multicultural institutes, and providing all black Americans reparations regardless of their proximity to historical injustices—all through the government, of course.

But as history shows us, governments do not create harmony or paradise—only actual cooperation can help us achieve that vision.  But cooperation always fails when force enters the equation, which makes Black Lives Matter’s stated goals untenable for a free society.

And in this instance, the American Revolution, too, distinguishes itself from Black Lives Matter: The colonists goals addressed a legitimate danger to individual freedom. And that gave the colonists an obvious direction take their revolution.

For example, the American Revolution had a clear goal: To redress the actions of the British crown. In pursuance of this goal, seismic speeches and pamphlets like Patrick Henry’s Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense saturated the colonies and provided an intellectual framework for the impending American government.

Indeed, letters and correspondence between the founders and the legislative bodies of the colonies provided many of the ideas that constitute the Constitution. All of this, of course, at a time when questioning the crown was strictly forbidden.

But Black Lives Matter exists in the 21st century, in a time where African Americans are represented in media, politics, law, and other fields in large numbers. They don’t face a king trying to muffle them,  nor the inconveniences of organizing with just paper, pamphlets, and speeches—they have the internet and social media.

And yet, with all of their advantages, they lack an overarching principle which justifies their revolution. That’s a shame.

One thing is for certain: the goals of the organization Black Lives Matter, summed up, are simply anti-freedom. In contrast, the American Revolution had an overarching goal: to preserve freedom for everyone.

Even if that goal didn’t happen immediately, they gave their descendants the necessary tools to work with. Which one do you think reflects “American radicalism” better?

The rallying cry “Black Lives Matter,” which is different from the organization, has brought to light many issues pertinent to the preservation of individual liberty, such as the desperate need for policing and sentencing reform.

But the phrase’s power is lost amid the noise of a raucous Marxist militia which is concerned about fulfilling its agenda to the detriment of black lives.

If  black lives truly do matter, let’s focus on respecting individual rights, embracing freedom, and kicking Marxism to the curb.

In this era of wokeness, that would truly be revolutionary.

Christian Watson is a political writer based in Georgia and host of the Pensive Politics podcast. He can be found on Twitter at @OfficialCWatson.

Never let a good crisis go to waste is the mantra of the elites.

In tumultuous times, their tactics have extra potency. They reach for more power.

But this is also when the elite are most vulnerable.

By studying their tactics, you will be more prepared to guard against, and counter-attack the enemy.

The current crisis is being used to exploit the masses. But it also presents tremendous opportunity to take the power back, and reshape this world.

Society is entering a new period of transition, a struggle that will reveal the elites of the next generation.

Now is the time to seize your power if you intend to be among their ranks.

Subscribe to THE DAILY BELL and immediately receive TWO FREE BLACKPAPERS:

1. Four Ways The Elite Control You in a Crisis

     And how to flip the script to seize their power now

2. The Trojan Horse: How (and Why) to Join the Ranks of the Elite

Be seeing you

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

It Could End Right Now

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

The rest of your life is a bonus. Adjust your outlook accordingly.

 

Be seeing you

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

Defend America, Not Ukraine: Treat Kiev as a Friend Rather Than an Ally – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

Yanukovych’s decision to reject an economic association agreement with the European Union and forge closer relations with Moscow triggered demonstrations in which violent demonstrators took over government buildings in Kiev’s center. Such protests were easy to organize since the capital was located in the country’s west, dominated by the opposition and oriented toward America and Europe.

https://original.antiwar.com/?p=2012340695

by

Should the U.S. be ready to go to war with Russia over Ukraine? NATO’s answer is yes. At least, leaders of the transatlantic alliance continue to encourage Kiev’s ambition to join NATO, thereby becoming yet another costly Washington defense dependent.

US policymakers should remember that alliances are supposed to be a means to the end, America’s security, not the end itself. Absent necessity to protect an overriding, genuinely vital interest, risking war with a nuclear-armed power, in this case Russia, would be a particularly stupid policy.

Ukraine has a long, storied, and tragic history. Subsumed by the Russian Empire, Kiev briefly gained independence amid the Russian Revolution, German victory over the Bolshevik regime, and the bitter Russian civil war. (Poland also was intimately involved in the ludicrously complicated period of chaos and conflict.)

Unfortunately, the territory, augmented by lands that had been governed by Austro-Hungary, ultimately was reabsorbed by Moscow, this time through the new but not improved imperial Russia in the form of the Soviet Union. Ukraine suffered through the murderous Stalin-induced famine, known as the Holomodyr, which killed millions. Estimates vary widely but range up to about ten million.

Unsurprisingly, many Ukrainians initially welcomed German troops as liberators in 1941. However, Adolf Hitler viewed Slavs as untermenschen and saw Ukrainians no differently. Berlin’s murderous mistreatment turned the population against the Nazis. Perhaps six million Ukrainians died during the war – and another 1.4 million were killed fighting with the Red Army. After Moscow’s forces returned Ukrainian resistance, this time against the Soviets, continued for years. The territory was beset by famine, again. About one-fifth of Ukraine’s population, including ethnic Germans and Tartars, was deported.

Freedom finally came. In 1990 a popularly elected parliament approved the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which set Ukrainian law before that of the Soviet Union. In late 1991 Ukraine voted for independence and a president. A nation then of 52 million, it was the largest constituent republic to break away from the U.S.S.R. Alas, the new country suffered from economic decline, corruption, awful leadership, and Russian meddling.

Kiev inherited some 3000 nuclear weapons, stationed in its territory during the Cold War. In 1994 Ukraine joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and two years later transferred the warheads to Russia to be dismantled. Through the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances the US, Russia, and the United Kingdom promised to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and offered vacuous security assurances. The agreement was a presidential proclamation, not ratified by the US Senate, and provided no practical recourse, backed only by a promise to go to the UN Security Council for redress. Which in practice was no promise at all.

Ukrainians’ choice in leaders seemed perennially suspect. The first two presidents were essentially apparatchiks from the past. Among the least competent leaders was American favorite Viktor Yushchenko. This president won just 5.45 percent of the vote in his 2010 reelection campaign and his party garnered only 1.11 percent of the vote in the 2012 legislative election. His successor was the egregiously corrupt but freely chosen Viktor Yanukovych, who represented Ukraine’s Russia-friendly east.

Yanukovych’s decision to reject an economic association agreement with the European Union and forge closer relations with Moscow triggered demonstrations in which violent demonstrators took over government buildings in Kiev’s center. Such protests were easy to organize since the capital was located in the country’s west, dominated by the opposition and oriented toward America and Europe. As violence mounted Washington and Brussels promoted what amounted to a street putsch, even discussing their preferred candidates for prime minister. Yanukovych agreed to early elections, but his support dissipated and the Rada removed him.

Moscow responded violently, seizing Crimea, in which Sebastopol naval base is located. Russia subsequently held a referendum, which backed annexation. The vote was highly unfair but probably reflected local sentiment. The territory historically was part of Russia, transferred to Ukraine only in 1954. The shift caused little practical difference in the Soviet Union; the move likely reflected political maneuvers involving Ukrainian Communist Party officials as Nikita Khrushchev and his Politburo colleagues fought for supremacy in the aftermath of Joseph Stalin’s death.

Vladimir Putin’s government also backed ethnic-Russian insurgents in Donetsk and Luhansk. Some 13,000 people so far have died in the ensuing conflict. In 2016 both sides agreed to the Minsk Protocol, in which Kiev agreed to constitutional changes enhancing regional autonomy in the Donbas and Russia promised to end military support for opposition forces, after which the region would be reintegrated into Ukraine. The pact has not been fulfilled due to failures on both sides, especially by Kiev: nationalists opposed the accord from the start and some Ukrainians reconsidered retaining areas with a heavy ethnic Russian presence.

Although Ukraine is not a member of NATO – it was promised membership, along with Georgia, in 2008, without any timetable given – much of official Washington urged American military intervention. Some policymakers proposed rushing Kiev into the transatlantic alliance. Others urged sending US troops to Ukraine to serve as a tripwire for war to discourage further Russian action. Almost everyone backed arming Kiev’s armed forces.

The Obama administration provided non-lethal aid. Despite the Trump administration’s supposed pro-Russia bias, it ramped up tensions by shipping Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Good Fights – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

McGrath is a nostalgic writer, evoking the time Greek leaders led from the front or acted like Henry V, who disguised himself among his troops at Agincourt in order to gauge their resolve. Just imagine LBJ or George W. Bush or Obama leading a column and soiling their trousers, and you’ll get McGrath’s point.

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-good-fights/print

Taki

SERIFOS—There’s no high life here, only family life, so I’ve been hitting the books about great Greeks of the past, and they sure make today’s bunch look puny. Philosophers, playwrights, statesmen, artists, poets, orators, sculptors—the ancients had them all. In 2,500 years they’ve never been equaled. I was once at the New York Met walking around the Greek wing and I ran into Henry Kissinger, whom I knew slightly. He asked me what ancient Athens’ population was. “About twenty to thirty thousand citizens,” I answered. He shook his head in amazement. “And they produced all this,” he said.

When I first began learning about the Greeks—my great-uncle was the foremost intellectual of his time and a brilliant pedagogue—I was mystified by the collapse of Athens and Sparta. Athens under Pericles reached its cultural peak, Western man was born, whereas in Sparta the martial state came into being. No state before or after has even come close to matching the martial readiness and spirit of my grandmother’s birthplace. Just imagine what those two, Athens and Sparta, could have accomplished together, but it was yet another Greek who managed it—conquered the known world, that is.

The Greeks invented modern warfare, a collision of soldiers on an open plain where courage, skill, and physical prowess were paramount. They also invented honor and fair play on the battlefield, and even protection of noncombatants. Archers and javelin throwers who launched from afar were not held in the same esteem as those who fought at great risk of themselves. (I wonder what they’d think of Saudis dropping ordnance on women and children in Yemen.) Sword and spear was manly and heroic, the rest was looked upon with suspicion.

“I shall never forget the first time the Battle of Marathon was read to me.”

In the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, the Athenians showed their mettle by fielding citizens, both young and old, from age 18 to 60, led by aristocrats using a phalanx of tight formation eight rows deep. Socrates fought his last battle at Delion at age 46. The Greek hoplite was most likely a farmer, middle-class and youngish. He did not fight for booty or plunder but for defense of his home and the right to vote. I shall never forget the first time the Battle of Marathon was read to me, when the citizen soldiers of Athens saw the Persians getting slowly off their boats and under Miltiades’ cry to attack sprinted into the sea and chopped them to pieces. That glorious sprint still thrills me the way it did back then.

Ten years later the Persians were back for another round, this time in Salamis, where Themistocles was waiting for them. Their heavy boats oared by slaves were no match for citizen sailors rowing for military glory, and our triremes sunk them by ramming them into oblivion. Weeks earlier King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans had given the Greeks time to plan and execute, and Xerxes fled, never to return. Alexander the Great finished them off but showed the Barbarians—which all non-Greeks were considered—what it is to be civilized by sparing Darius and marrying his daughter.

The Peloponnesian War signaled the end of the two great powers. It was a war of attrition, a foreign concept to citizen hoplites. One fought for one’s farm and family; only mercenaries fought unending wars. My friend, the wonderful historian Roger McGrath, has written wistfully about citizen soldiers, comparing the glory days of Athens against the Barbarians with those of the United States of America fighting for freedom and justice, not oil rights: “I suspect that historians one day will look back and conclude that America’s great victory in World War II led to empire-building, power, and glory but also marked the beginning of the end of the United States, and ultimately of Western Civilization. Our reach now exceeds our grasp, and long ago we stopped fighting to defend our land and people.” Truer words have never been spoken.

McGrath is a nostalgic writer, evoking the time Greek leaders led from the front or acted like Henry V, who disguised himself among his troops at Agincourt in order to gauge their resolve. Just imagine LBJ or George W. Bush or Obama leading a column and soiling their trousers, and you’ll get McGrath’s point. But also imagine a world that required those who declared war to fight it. Churchill would have done it, as would Hitler. I’m not sure about Stalin. (He was more of an assassin than a soldier.) Boris I’m certain about, in fact I can see him charging up a hill waving a sword, or a bazooka. Don’t bring up Trump because he has not started anything, in fact he’s bent over backwards not to shoot. (Except for one Iranian.) Putin would fight from the front, as would Viktor Orban of Hungary and any Pole leader, but that is all. (E.U. leaders would surrender before an enemy even threatened war.)

Any way you look at it, we are now in a situation where the worst people on earth set the agenda—woke activists, celebrities, free-speech interdictors, left-wing academics, and media people—where allegation is the new guilty, and where film, TV, and the internet are in pursuit of an ever more fickle and idiotic audience. I’m thinking about all this while on my way back to Athens; then I’m off to Switzerland, but still dreaming of those monumental events I’ve been reading about all week that the youth of today are barely aware of.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Shocking Dystopian Video of NYC – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/no_author/shocking-dystopian-video-of-nyc/

Be seeing you

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

The Real Target of ‘Anti-Racism’ Protests: Western Civilization, and Its Values – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

There was, however, a jarring incoherence in the whole enterprise. Even though the protests were ostensibly about the supposedly pervasive racism in Britain, they were launched and conducted in the name of George Floyd. The question that arises is this: If you are protesting racism in the UK, why do you do it in the name of a man who had nothing to do with the UK? 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/vasko-kohlmayer/the-real-target-of-anti-racism-protests-western-civilization-and-its-values/

By

That Western civilization is in crisis has been obvious to some people for some time. The dramatic events of recent months in America and Europe have brought home with great vividness and immediacy the seriousness of this crisis. The protests and looting that swept through the United States quickly turned dozens of inner American cities into something akin to bombed out war zones. The surging wave of violence and anarchy, however, was not the only issue of deep concern. Equally alarming was our society’s response to it. Instead of taking measures to reestablish order and the rule of law, our political system malfunctioned at the moment of emergency. Fractious and paralyzed, the political establishment not only failed to implement meaningful measures to take control of the situation, it – unbelievably – tied the hands of the law enforcement, forcing it to stand by as destruction unfolded right before our eyes. Rather than encouraging and empowering the police to fight the unfolding anarchy, the events took a truly bizarre twist when some politicians and public officials began cutting funding for the very bodies and agencies tasked with protection of public order.

It is no exaggeration to say that the protests shook our society to its very foundations. They exposed a number of latent fault lines and further exacerbated those that had been painfully obvious before. The situation suddenly appeared to be so dire that many people began to fear that our nation – and indeed the whole of Western society – may be on the brink of disintegration. These fears may well be justified, since America was not the only country so shaken. Protests of similar natured gripped other Western democracies as well.

Most would now agree that the West is in the throes of an existential crisis. What is not so clear or agreed upon, however, is the nature of the crisis or even what the core issues and problems are. This lack of clarity is disconcerting, because if we cannot accurately identify the cause, we cannot take effective measures to address it. The first step toward understanding the nature of our plight, therefore, is to grasp what these protests were really about, since they obviously represented a violent eruption of the discontent and pathologies that have been festering in the Western psyche and which now threaten to engulf and destroy our societies.

The stated reason for these protests – both in the United States and Europe – was racism, which is said to be the great moral failing of our civilization. In the United States especially, we saw protesters asserting with great vehemence and anger that our society is oppressive toward minorities, particularly black people. But for anyone who knows the situation in the United States there was something fundamentally problematic with these assertions. They just don’t ring true.

Even though it is true that the United States has had a history of racial injustice – as, in fact, almost all countries have – it is most definitely not the case today. In a sincere effort to correct past wrongs, in the last sixty years the United States has undertaken tremendous efforts to assist and uplift its black population. This massive multipronged undertaking has been carried out with great resolution and at tremendous cost. It took the form of financial and material assistance, of various types of reverse discrimination, racial quotas in employment and education, preferential treatment of various kinds, lowering of professional and educational standards for black people and a host of other measures. Most of this was motivated by a genuine desire to improve the lives and situation of African Americans.

After six decades of this we can say with complete confidence that never in history has a power-yielding majority done so much for a racial minority as white Americans have done for black Americans. As the writer Fred Reed put it: “In truth, America has made the greatest effort ever essayed by one race to uplift another. 

The fact is that not only black people have equal rights – individual, civil, legal and political – with whites, but our current societal system is actually biased in favor of racial minorities. If truth be told, blacks in America today enjoy more protections, rights and advantage than white people do. American whites are the only ruling majority that has voluntarily relinquished its hold on power and made blacks the most protected, financially supported and privileged racial minority in history. This much is obvious to any objective observer.

Racism the American way: The 44nd President of the United States with the first lady and the first family

The claim that the United States is a racist society is thus completely at variance with reality. It is simply not true. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Erie Times E-Edition Article – Why some Americans don’t wear face masks, distance

Posted by M. C. on August 16, 2020

Obey

Don’t worry about this week’s definition of “case”.

Obey

Don’t worry about 50% (or less effective) rushed market vaccines, side effects, tattoos, digital passport nor chips.

Obey

Don’t about the man NOT behind the curtain.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=00f2b065d

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Joe Biden’s Mask Mandate Is Only The Beginning – Issues & Insights

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2020

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/08/14/unmasking-joe-bidens-and-kamala-harris-plans-to-control-americans/

I&I Editorial

At a briefing on Thursday, Joe Biden called for a nationwide mask-wearing mandate “for the next three months at a minimum.” Never mind that such a federal mandate is likely unconstitutional, this is just one of a multitude of areas where Biden, and his running mate Kamala Harris, want to impose the federal government on even the most mundane of actions by Americans.

It is surely worth noting, especially by those who claim to value liberty, that Biden and Harris eagerly desire to take much of it away, always in the name of some greater good. Indeed, over the course of their campaigns, the two have proposed either to outlaw or force so many things there’s not enough room to list them all here.

So, as a reader service, we’ve gathered up a sampling of things they say they want to either ban or mandate should they gain access to the White House.

Bans

Plastic straws: When Harris was asked at a town hall whether the federal government should ban plastic straws, her answer was, “I think we should, yes.” Biden didn’t go that far, but did say that “I don’t think we should be using plastic straws anymore.”

Plastic bags: Biden did, however, say he favored a ban on plastic grocery bags. “I agree with you, 100%,” Biden told a woman at a campaign stop. “We should not be allowing plastic. What we should do is phasing it out.”

Gas-powered cars: Biden pledges that he will impose fuel economy mandates that will “ensure” 100% electric cars. Harris, meanwhile, was a co-sponsor of The Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which would outlaw the sale of new gas-powered cars starting in 2040.

The death penalty: Biden used to support the death penalty, but flipped so he could appeal to his party’s left wing. Now he says that “Because we can’t ensure that we get these cases right every time, we must eliminate the death penalty.” Many Democratic presidential candidates echoed the same message.

Private prisons: Biden promises to “end the federal government’s use of private prisons,” says his campaign website, “And he will make clear that the federal government should not use private facilities for any detention, including detention of undocumented immigrants.”

New oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore: In a March debate, Biden promised that if elected there would be “no more drilling on federal lands, no more drilling, including offshore, no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.” Later his campaign said he meant only to ban new permits.

Fracking: Biden has tried to straddle the fracking issue, but Harris said during her primary campaign that she supports an outright prohibition. “There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking.”

“Assault” Rifles. Both Biden and Harris promise to ban so-called assault rifles such as the AR-15, but Harris went much further. She promised that if elected she would impose a mandatory buyback program. “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do” support a forced buyback, Harris said. “We have to take those guns off the streets.” The Washington Examiner reported last August that Harris was even open to the idea of sending the police into homes to confiscate guns.

Right-to-work laws: In a sop to their union benefactors, both Biden and Harris promise to overturn the right-to-work laws in effect in 28 states. Harris said the president needs “to speak up about the need and the right workers have to be able to organize and fight for their rights … It has to be about banning right-to-work laws”.

Trump from Twitter: Harris pushed Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from Twitter. “Twitter should be held accountable and shut down that site,” Harris said during one of the Democrats’ debates.

Social media hate speech: Harris also wants to ban “hate speech” on social media. ”We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy,” Harris said during her campaign.

Private health insurance: During the campaign, Harris said she favored a ban on private insurance, then retreated somewhat. The health plan she eventually released would have ended up putting private insurance out of business. Biden says he wants to “build on ObamaCare,” but his “public option” would also result in the eventual destruction of private insurance.

Mandates

Masks: Biden hasn’t specified how he’d enforce a nationwide a requirement to wear masks, or explained how it could be constitutional. As James Phillips and John Yoo pointed out, “There is nothing that authorizes a President Trump now, or a President Biden tomorrow, to mandate face coverings nationwide via executive power. Congress has not enacted any such law for the president to enforce. Masks do not fall under the president’s power as commander in chief, nor do they plausibly come within any of his other executive authorities, such as granting pardons or nominating officers.”

Government-approved insurance: Biden promises that he will reimpose the hated ObamaCare individual mandate — along with the mandate tax — to buy government-approved insurance.

$15 minimum wage: Biden and Harris both endorse this, despite the adverse impact it will have on jobs.

Equal Pay: “Equal pay for equal work. It’s common sense. It’s also overdue. Let’s close the gap & let’s do it now,” Biden tweeted.

Six months paid parental leave: Harris proposed this during her campaign, saying that “Guaranteeing six months of paid leave will bring us closer to economic justice for workers and ensures newborn children or children who are sick can get the care they need from a parent without thrusting the family into upheaval,”

A third Federal Reserve mandate: Little noticed has been Biden’s promise to add a third mandate to the Federal Reserve’s charter, (which already has one mandate too many). In addition to containing inflation and maximizing employment, Biden would have the central bank  “aggressively target persistent racial gaps in job, wages, and wealth.” The Wall Street Journal called it “a promise to politicize the Federal Reserve in a whole new way.”

The bottom line is that if you cherish freedom, you will get a lot less of it in a Biden-Harris administration. However, if you like the federal government bossing you around in every corner of your lives, then they are the candidates for you.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

Be seeing you

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »