Israel can evict Palestinians from the the Palestinians’ villages in Palestine. Tiny Latvia can deport Russian ethnics born in Latvia for not learning to speak Latvian, but mighty America cannot prevent millions of immigrant-invaders from illegally entering the US each year and remaining.
How can this be? Clearly the US government is in a conspiracy with the NGOs that are recruiting and funding the invasion in order to replace the white American population.
Why is the US government cooperating with anti-American NGOs to steal America from Americans?
Why do Americans sit on their butts and permit their country to be stolen?
Why do a majority of American women vote for the Democrats who are aiding and abetting the theft of America?
When Washington speaks of “American national interests,” whose interests is meant? The military/security complex’s interest? How does a tower of babel have a national interest?
Why is it in America’s national interest to be overrun by invaders? Why is Washington worried about attack from Russia and China but not from the vastly larger army of the anti-American NGOs?
Does the US military have any role other than protecting the profits of the military/security complex?
How can the United States be a country when it has no borders?
How can something as abnormal as a country without borders continue to exist? When the Western Roman Empire was overrun, Rome ceased to exist. How can it be any different for America?
Why are voices that speak for American identity, such as VDARE, suppressed by American prosecutorial authorities?
What is not in dispute, however, is that a right to self-determination via secession exists and that the current borders of the world’s sovereign states are neither sacrosanct nor perpetual. The more radical liberals like Jefferson and Mises have historically interpreted the right of self-determination far more expansively than modern mainstream social democratic theorists.
In his 1927 book Liberalism, the radical classical liberal and economist Ludwig von Mises took a strict and expansive view in favor of secession. Specifically, he noted that respect for the right of self-determination required extant states to allow the separation of new polities seeking secession. He writes:
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with.
Where does Mises get this idea of self-determination? He did not invent the idea, of course, but at the time was likely drawing upon currents of thought alive and well in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Origins in the American Revolution
The concept of self-determination—albeit not the phrase—was already well-known as the driving force behind the American revolutionaries when the colonies seceded from the British Empire in the 1770s. Historian David Armitage describes the United States’ war for independence as essentially the practical and political starting point for modern ideas of self-determination. While the philosophical roots of self-determination are often attributed to Immanuel Kant, the prototype for a real-life secession movement was found primarily in the American war for independence. Armitage writes: “The notion that “one People” might find it “necessary” to dissolve its links with a larger polity—that is, that it might legitimately attempt to secede . . . was almost entirely unprecedented and barely accepted at the time of the American Revolution.”
The success of the United States in asserting a right of self-determination provoked similar movements in Europe and Latin America in the decades following American independence. For instance, Armitage notes that “language for self-determination” found in the Declaration of Independence would show up repeatedly Latin American, European, and Asian movements seeking political independence.
The Idea Spreads to Europe
In Europe, the concept was well worn by Mises’s time. For example, self-determination was a central theme in Poland’s fight in 1794 to fully separate from the Prussian, Austrian, and Russian states. Poland’s leading separatist was Tadeusz Kościuszko, who had been an officer in the Continental Army during the American Revolution and who was quite familiar with the Declaration of Independence. As Victor Kattan notes, Kościuszko was pushing for self-determination well before the concept entered the common lexicon in Europe and “was inadvertently prescribing and prefiguring national self-determination as it would come to be known over a century later.”1
Mises, who was well-versed in Polish history, was likely aware of this. Mises would have been even more familiar with the battles over self-determination that raged across Habsburg lands a generation before his birth. Chief among these was Hungary’s attempt to secede from the Austrian empire in 1848. The Austrian crown ultimately defeated the Hungarian separatists (and instituted a military dictatorship until 1867), but calls for self-determination in pockets across Europe hardly disappeared.
By the 1870s, the phrase “self-determination” appears to have been increasingly common—especially in the German language.
U.S. – Advanced new prenatal ultrasound technology can detect up to 50 genders.
The technology will be put to use in clinics and hospitals right away, so parents can know if they’re going to have a boy, girl, or one of the 48 other genders it’s capable of detecting. There are, of course, hundreds more genders, but researchers are still working on upgrading the technology to detect all the other ones.
“There was this huge problem we were having, where parents-to-be were under the illusion that their child could only be a boy or a girl,” said Brenda Watts, CEO of DiverseSound Tech, LLC, the creator of the new ultrasound. “This led to gender reveal parties where the baby was assigned the wrong gender. It was really embarrassing when everyone celebrated with pink balloons when the baby actually identified as a 30-story-tall building.”
“Now you can know for sure if your little one is male, female, agender, genderfluid, pangender, demigender, or a tater tot,” she added.
Unfortunately, most people who would have liked this technology are aborting their children anyway, so DiverseSound quickly filed for bankruptcy.
LEXINGTON, SC — With tensions continuing to rise in the Middle East and desperate calls for diplomacy being made around the world, former South Carolina Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley issued an urgent plea of her own, saying we must avoid peace in the Middle East at all costs.
Haley, still touting her distant second-place victory in the recent New Hampshire primary, stressed the need to fend off calls for any peaceful resolution to looming conflicts involving Iran and Palestine and emphasized the importance of maintaining a dangerous level of volatility in the region.
“We must find a path that leads us away from peace,” Haley said in a campaign speech to supporters in the Palmetto State. “There are dark forces at work behind the scenes who want nothing more than to bring about a meaningful, lasting peace in the Middle East the likes of which we have never witnessed in our lifetimes. That should never be our goal, and it never will be with me as your president.”
With political analysts warning that the region is becoming a growing powder keg, Haley voiced concern that a return to the White House of Donald Trump could have grave consequences for the quest to avoid peace. “I fear for the future,” she said. “If Donald Trump ends up back in power, we can all say goodbye to the days of war and bombings in the Middle East. None of us want that.”
At publishing time, Haley warned her supporters that a vote for Trump could lead to a total collapse of the military-industrial complex and a return of peace around the globe.
WASHINGTON. D.C. — An incredulous Alexander Mayorkas expressed shock at the House of Representatives recommending a vote on his impeachment, as he is unclear how a person doing absolutely nothing can be impeached.
“It makes no sense,” said Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security. “I’ve done nothing that could possibly warrant impeachment. I have done literally nothing at all. How can that be a crime?”
Lawyers for Mayorkas have begun assembling briefs arguing that impeachment proceedings cannot even be brought against someone who doesn’t do anything. “The man just sits there, twiddling his thumbs. What on earth can you charge him with?” said government lawyer Regina Halpert. “You can’t mess up on a job you’re not even doing. It’s as simple as that.”
According to sources within the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Mayorkas spends most of his time at the office staring silently at the floor, making no perceptible movement. “No one is as committed as Secretary Mayorkas to doing nothing,” said Chief of Staff Jonathan Davidson. “The most I’ve ever seen him do is turn on the television in his office to watch Beverly Hillbillies reruns. The Republicans have nothing.”
At publishing time, Mayorkas had announced he would visit the border before laughing heartily and yelling, “Sike!”
Now is the time to get ready for the planting season. Check out these great books and top-of-the-line products. Whether you’re an experienced gardener or planting a few tomatoes in a bucket, you’ll find these items useful.
LewRockwell.com readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on LewRockwell.com’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!
If you can’t live without your daily dose of LewRockwell.com in 2024, please remember to DONATE TODAY!
If we were to go by Dr. Harari’s worldview, then no he does not have a right to live. Fortunately, for the Professor, we do not live by his worldview. We believe in the intrinsic value of human life. For instance, if it turns out that if Professor Harari is directly involved in the global genocide that’s occurring, then he needs to face extreme accountability.
A recently unearthed video of WEF guru, Israeli Professor, Yuval Noah Harari, has made the rounds of late. As Dr. Harari asserted not only that God is a fiction, but he also asserted that human rights are a fiction, a nice fairy tale with no basis in reality. Dr. Harari apparently believes that human rights are simply a made up story. He further explains that if you dissect a human there are no rights there. Instead, there is simply a physical display of anatomy and what is left of the biological processes. Thus, he concludes that the only place human rights exist is in the imagination. A mountain is a reality, countries and legal systems, heaven, God, are not based in biological reality, they are merely artifacts of the imagination. Thus, homosapiens have no rights.
If there are no human rights, then none of us have a right to protections under the law. Neither do we have the right to possessions or relationships, or our experiences, or our body, or our mind, or to our life. If this is the case, then it begs the question, does Dr. Harari have a right to live?
First, let’s address the certainty, some might even say hubris, that Dr. Harari appears to project his opinion on human rights and even reality itself. The healthy skepticism of the ancient Greeks taught us empiricism and logic. Yet even logic and empiricism have an Achilles heal.
There is an often unspoken reality that underlies all, whether philosophical, religious, political, legal, ethical, or even scientific discussions and debates. This is the unfortunate reality that the original assumption or premise of every discussion or debate is always unproven. We accept, often unconsciously, the agreed upon unproven premise or assumption and engage in the discussion or debate.
Consider the scientific method and testing of a hypothesis or theory. Technically a hypothesis or theory can never be proven. We can only accumulate data that either supports the hypothesis or theory or does not support it. This in itself is often forgotten when the high priests of science push scientific theories as if they were scientific dogma. Still, in a perfect world science is an open ended continuous search for the truth relying upon the scientific method. Yet, the premise underlying the scientific method itself, and the view that a hypothesis can never be proven, is based on an unproven premise. Essentially, we come to an approximation for the truth and take a leap of faith on the original premise.
Humility is required.
Even Dr. Harari’s belief in material monism, which rests on the unproven premise that physical reality is all that there is, is dubious on multiple fronts. For instance, we experience the material world through our senses, which are experienced in the mind.
Can you really prove that anything exists outside of your mind?
Dr. Arthur Chang, the chief medical officer in the CDC’s environmental health division, confirmed to the media outlet a chemical exposure blanketed the town and persisting symptoms from residents are proof:
“We may not know how to get rid of the vinyl chloride from the body, but we know how to treat those cancers.”
President Biden’s planned trip to East Palestine, Ohio, is pure politics as the election cycle begins. The White House plans to do a victory lap on its response to the train derailment that nuked the small town with toxic chemicals one year ago. Yet, a new report reveals the federal government’s response has been sub-par, with cancer-causing chemicals still found in surrounding rivers and streams.
One year after the Norfolk Southern train derailment, NewsNation found toxic chemicals in rivers and streams around East Palestine. This comes even as the Environment Protection Agency has given residents the all-clear to return.
As residents return, some are developing “rashes, chronic nose bleeds, respiratory infections and many other side effects,” according to NewsNation.
“I undressed to get into the shower, and I had a rash all over the side of my face on both sides and all over my chest,” East Palestine resident Kaitlyn said.
Jessica Conard, another resident, said, “We are still experiencing some acute health care impacts” after the train derailment one year ago.
“Ultimately, what we need to understand is that there are still unmet needs here in terms of medical, and the health of this community needs to come first,” Conard said.
Dr. Arthur Chang, the chief medical officer in the CDC’s environmental health division, confirmed to the media outlet a chemical exposure blanketed the town and persisting symptoms from residents are proof:
“We may not know how to get rid of the vinyl chloride from the body, but we know how to treat those cancers.”
Meanwhile, shortly after the incident, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine asked the Biden administration to issue a disaster declaration after 116,000 gallons of the carcinogen vinyl chloride exploded after the train derailment. The White House has since ignored this request while residents continue to suffer health problems.
All of these are decisions that need to be made by government bureaucrats, but they do not have the necessary knowledge, imparted to them by profit and loss signals, to make that decision to achieve the most efficient outcome. All of these decisions are made arbitrarily, in the sense that they may think they need to do things this or that way but they will never truly know since they will never receive the profit and loss feedback I explained.
See today’s other (loss feedback) post regarding East Palestine.
There is an interesting paradigm in political culture where we seem to hold differing standards for private versus public entities. If you were to ask your average person walking down the street whether we should bail out a random, private company that is not performing well and will likely go out of business I think you’d be met with a resounding no. I agree with this; if a private company is failing it’s because they are failing to run their business properly and whatever the reason may be, they are failing to provide the necessary value creation to stay afloat. However, if I were to ask the same people, “Should we solve the myriad issues with public institutions like education, social care, healthcare etc?” I would most likely be told that we should intervene and, in some form, throw money at the problem.
You can see the inconsistency here. Why does it come naturally to intervene and chuck money at failing public institutions but when it comes to private firms, we balk at the thought of saving them?
Let’s take the National Health Service. It consistently underperforms in healthcare outcomes when compared to other European countries, even before 2010. In healthcare outcomes, the metric I think everyone would agree is heads and shoulders above the rest in importance, the NHS performs horrifically.
The British state school system has been failing for years, with attainment falling repeatedly even before the Labour Party—not exactly known for being fans of cutting spending—was kicked out of power in 2010.
These are two huge parts of political discourse where there is a clear inconsistency in the logic that higher spending equals better outcomes. If state run schools and hospitals were private firms, they would have gone out of business years ago for not being able to educate children and keep people alive. Some may be sympathetic to the idea that if money was thrown at a lot of failing businesses, that it’s reasonable to conclude that those businesses would be saved. However, that idea assumes that public and private entities operate under the same framework. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but it’s why we keep seeing a general stagnation or downward trend in the quality of services provided by public entities.
The “two-state solution” is functionally just a psychological box that liberals mentally tick off so they can pretend they have a real position on Israel-Palestine. Israeli leaders publicly spit on the notion of a Palestinian state with its own military and national sovereignty, and there is no political wherewithal to make such a thing happen. It’s nothing more than a conceptual construct which lets liberals feel nice about their personal politics without actually taking a stand against the western-backed tyrannical power structure that is the state of Israel.
And the conservative position is much simpler. Print money and keep on bombing.
More importantly-Licking Netanyahu’s boots keeps that AIPAC money rolling in.
Here are five noises western liberals often make to avoid having to take a real position on Gaza:
1. “It’s heartbreaking!”
2. “It’s complicated!”
3. “BUT TRUMP!”
4. “I really hope there can be peace there someday!”
5. “I support a two-state solution!”
Let’s talk about these a bit.
“It’s heartbreaking!”
Liberals love talking about how “sad” and “heartbreaking” what’s happening in Gaza is like it’s some kind of natural disaster, some tragically tragic tragedy that their government has been passively witnessing instead of actively facilitating. It lets them express their progressive humanitarian feelings without actually taking a meaningful political position against what’s being done in their name with their tax dollars and with their tacit consent.
In reality the genocide in Gaza is not sad or heartbreaking or tragic; those are words you use for diseases and accidents. When someone is murdered with malicious intent, we don’t heave a heavy sigh and shed a tear and move on — we prosecute their murderer. It isn’t raining bombs in Gaza because that’s just the unfortunate weather there today, those bombs are being dropped by Israel with genocidal intent with the full backing of the United States and its allies. This is a crime which requires outrage and punishment, not empty crocodile tears.
MCViewPoint 
