The Biden directive also targets Bible buyers and Bass Pro Shop customers.
Serves you deplorables right for clinging to your religion and all that other stuff government doesn’t like.
The failing banking industry has been rolling over and reporting on customers since 9/11 and Dubya. Probably before that. They can’t survive without government handouts.
Doug Casey: As Der Schwabenklaus of the World Economic Forum boldly said some years ago, “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”
Doug Casey: One currently fashionable indication of this is the 15-minute city, which governments are trying to impose all over the world. These would penalize you if you exit your designated 15-minute zone more than X number of times per month. The idea is green. And, like most green notions, it is very retrogressive. They want to return people to the status of medieval serfs, when few ventured more than 15 minutes from their hovels.
International Man: The carbon hysteria extends far beyond oil and gas companies.
One overlooked area is household appliances.
Politicians are implementing increasingly stringent regulations for dishwashers, washing machines, and other appliances. There have even been reports of a desire to phase out gas stoves.
What’s your take on all of this?
Doug Casey: As Der Schwabenklaus of the World Economic Forum boldly said some years ago, “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”
The fact that a prominent figure could actually say that, promote the idea, and not be pilloried gives you an idea of the spirit of the current century. The lack of outrage from the average man is even more sick than the idea itself.
Not owning appliances is a practical application of the meme, but just one tentacle of the global warming octopus. Appliances are constructed from resources that have to be mined and run with electricity; that makes them evil. It’s much more important in these people’s views to “save the planet”—a ridiculous concept—than to continue raising the standard of living.
The fact is that the self-righteous authoritarians who want to limit the use of appliances basically just hate people—especially middle-class people. They’d really like to revert to pre-capitalist times, when only the upper classes, the feudal aristocrats, could benefit from conveniences.
Ecowarriors, the Greens, are cut from the same cloth as socialists, communists, and fascists. Their totem fruit is the watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.
International Man: Many people have noticed that modern appliances are not the same quality as the ones produced decades ago. For one thing, modern appliances tend to require much more time to do the same thing an older model could do faster.
For example, today, it’s common to see a standard dish-washing cycle to take more than two hours.
Modern appliances also don’t perform as well and break down more frequently. Climate regulations are largely to blame for this regression.
What is really going on here?
Doug Casey: I don’t have a lot of personal experience with how appliances work, but I’ve certainly heard that modern appliances are designed to sacrifice convenience and time in order to possibly use less water or electricity.
One thing that I do recall is that several decades ago, the US government decided to regulate the amount of water that could be used to flush toilets. The devices are now less sanitary and often have to be flushed twice. The idea that politicians should mandate plumbing designs is absurd. But they do this with all products—cars, planes, houses, you name it. They destroy capital and slow technological progress, even while annoying and frustrating engineers.
But perhaps the average person doesn’t think about these things or care. The standard of living has gone up for so long that we tend to think it’s automatic and divinely ordained. I’m not so sure about that. Everything tends to wind down unless there is enough outside force to counteract it.
For instance, we live in a throwaway society. If you need something repaired, it’s generally more economic to throw the whole thing away than to hire a skilled craftsman to fix it, even though they barely exist anymore, and they’re very expensive. It’s often cheaper to replace things that break.
Is that truly economic or not? I’m not sure, but we can see it even with houses. Once upon a time, houses were built to last 100 years or longer. They were a major capital investment. But now, they seem to be the residential equivalent of IKEA furniture. They’re disposable assets. But who cares if you’re renting or have a large mortgage?
I can understand how a “throwaway” mentality might be a good thing, even though it seems wasteful, simply because technology improves. Out with the old, in with the “new and improved.” Most changes make electricity, plumbing and insulation more economic. Who wants old stuff when technology can give you new stuff that works better? The problem, however, might be that new appliances are expensive and often financed. Your standard of living might go up in the short run but further down in the long run as you deal with debt.
A case can be made for everything being bulldozed after 50 or 100 years—a cycle of life argument. You may want to keep an old car for sentimental reasons, but newer cars really do work better. Although you’ll probably have to finance the thing over seven years since they’re so expensive. Or lease it, turning a minor asset into a perpetual liability. And if it breaks, you can forget about trying to fix it yourself, if only because of its thousands of computer chips. The same is true with most devices.
There are reasons to hate appliances and devices even while you need or even love them. But I prefer to make the decision, not some government official. It’s a moral question, not a technical question.
In other words, Gonzalo dared exercise the “free speech” Washington claims it is defending in Ukraine to tell the truth about what is actually going on in a country where billions of US dollars have simply “disappeared”
This article first appeared in an update to RPI subscribers. Subscribe for free here.
One call from the White House or State Department could have saved California-born journalist Gonzalo Lira’s life. Living in Ukraine-controlled Kharkov (to be close to his children), Lira saw early on, from his unique vantage point, that the propaganda being fed to the American people from the mainstream media about that “plucky little democracy” in Ukraine fighting to protect “our values” was, as is all pro-war propaganda, utterly false.
War propaganda. We don’t need to go down the whole line, but “yanking babies from incubators” and “giving Viagra to the troops” and “mobile rape vehicles” and “mobile chemical weapons delivery devices” and “these Iraqi weapons could decimate New York!” and so on and so on.
You know the routine. You know how war propaganda works.
And you know how furious the US regime becomes when anyone dares to refute that war propaganda.
When Julian Assange dared reveal to the American people that their own government was not on a “liberation” mission but rather on a murder mission in Iraq, the permanent state began plotting its revenge. When Wikileaks exposed the secret murder and surveillance workings of the CIA, Assange’s fate was sealed. His whistleblower organization became, in the words of neocon former CIA director Mike Pompeo, a “hostile intelligence service,” a determination Assange himself explained to Ron Paul Institute DC Conference attendees in 2017.
The life of American citizen and journalist Gonzalo Lira ended on Friday, all alone in a cold Ukrainian dungeon. Freezing, he slowly suffocated to death with a collapsed lung and double pneumonia. His body was swollen with systemic edema from fluid-filed heart and lungs. He was left to slowly die from October when he developed pneumonia, until December when his captors finally admitted that he was sick, to this past Friday, January 12th (yesterday), when, with no medical treatment, his 55 year old body finally gave out.
Desperate to save money anywhere, they announced in December their plans to abolish subsidies for agricultural diesel and impose the standard motor tax on previously exempt farm vehicles like tractors, provoking an immediate outcry among the people who produce our food.1
We are now a week into the great German farmers’ protest, and the main event is set for tomorrow in Berlin. 10,000 demonstrators are expected; the rally will begin at 11:30am. Speakers will include Johann Rukwied, President of the German Farmers’ Association, and also Finance Minister Christian Lindner. I doubt he will be well received.
I’ve traveled to the capital to report on these events in person. The tractors are slowly collecting on the Street of 17 June, between the Siegessäule and the Brandenburger Tor. As of about 11am this morning, hundreds had already arrived:
A great many more are expected. Some farmers are concerned that police, who have established a marked presence on all the main arteries entering the city, may try to limit arrivals, but I can’t find any confirmation that that’s happening yet. Police continued to escort newcomers into the barricaded boulevard throughout the afternoon.
There’s a heavy police presence …
…but the mood is not threatening. There’s a clear sympathy between at least some of the officers and the demonstrators, and a great many ordinary Germans were on hand too. Some were just mothers with young boys eager to inspect the farm equipment, but also hundreds of people came by to chat with the farmers and show their solidarity.
The media, on the other hand, were conspicuous by their absence. I expect there will be much more press tomorrow, but today is a great opportunity to interview the participants in a relaxed environment. I guess it’s no surprise that our journalists aren’t very interested in doing that. I did see one camera crew from CNN Turkey. I stalked them for a few of their interviews, and all their questions seemed openly supportive. I also saw a few live-streamers with their cellphones on selfie sticks, one of them providing hostile commentary I guess to a leftist audience. Otherwise, there were no direct counter-demonstrators, although the Greens did show up on Pariser Platz this afternoon to demand yet again that Alternative für Deutschland be banned.
It’s very clear, both from the signs and the few brief conversations I had, that the protest has grown much, much bigger than the tax-hike on agricultural diesel that set it off. It has become a broader anti-tax protest and a statement of profound displeasure with the government in general. In contrast to most leftist protestors, the farmers are eager to explain their grievances, they welcome photos and are otherwise highly conscious of public relations. One of them had even set up a stand to hand out free sausages to passersby, as an excuse to engage ordinary people in conversation. Politically – and for better or worse – they’re very vocally centrist; talking about the AfD makes them nervous, though they’re eager to cite growing support for the party as evidence of dissatisfaction with the traffic light coalition. Given their high levels of organisation, this is probably due at least in part to simple messaging discipline. Rukwied has made many tedious statements distancing the protests from the “right” and the protestors on scene this afternoon seemed to support this line.
One man I talked to assured me that a core group of protestors plan to stay where they are well after tomorrow. He said a lot of them are veterans of earlier actions, including the Dutch farmers’ protest that culminated in 2022, and they’ve brought supplies for many weeks. I can confirm that they seem very well prepared.
Below I provide some pictures of their signs and placards, with English translations, to give you a flavour of the protest. I’ve cropped all number plates out of the photos, because some leftists are reporting these to police, in hopes that their owners will be fined for operating them on public roadways. (This is a pretty dumb campaign and unlikely to succeed, but better safe than sorry). You’ll have to take my word for it that they’re from all over Germany; I looked for the promised Dutch contingent but couldn’t find them, I suspect they have yet to arrive. If you’re reading this on email, you may need to click over to my website to access all the photos, as there’s too many of them for gmail and other email services.
“Want to save energy? Turn off the traffic light.”
“Without us, Ricarda would never be full.” The reference is to the obese Green co-chief Ricarda Lang.
Paine lacked even the distinction of being regarded as a hero. As I wrote in an earlier essay, “The man who inspired the country to secede from a corrupt state had six people in attendance at his funeral [in 1809], none of whom were dignitaries.”
Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Alex Jones, and Rudy Gulianni are in deep trouble with the US state. How about you?
Most likely you feel safe because your voice hasn’t attracted a large following. What would the state’s enforcers gain by attacking a little guy? They’re big game hunters. Pull the plug on the big guys and their everyday followers float away like bathtub water down a drain.
Possibly you believe you aren’t really attacking the state with your social media posts, just the corrupt regime currently in power. As long as your words don’t go too far off the rails you think trouble will leave you alone.
That’s the theory, at least.
Most libertarians are not Rothbardians. They think the state is necessary but needs to be slashed, not done away with — much like the heroic Javier Milei is doing in Argentina. Their comfort zone is a minimalist state, and they write or lecture from that position. As such these people are explicit defenders of the state per se and therefore cannot be considered enemies of the state.
The SWAT team hacking at your door could care less.
Why would they pick on you, an inconspicuous promoter of seditious thoughts? The big guys have money and influence to defend themselves. You have nothing. You would be at their mercy, and they have no mercy. Would you stand your ground or crumble like a shack during a hurricane? Would you wave your First Amendment rights at their weapons or would you forget your own name? Your story would shake the social media world, exactly their reason for attacking you.
Is it really worth your life defying the state?
In June 1989 Tank Man stood in front of a column of Chinese tanks as they advanced on Beijing’s Tiananmen Square to crush a student protest. No one knows who he was or what happened to him. Yet for a few tense minutes he stopped the progression of the tanks by holding his hand up before being swept away by Chinese officials. He did this in daylight, while in full public view. Most people are asleep at six in the morning when the SWAT boys come knocking.
It was dramatic and what I want to say is that I weep for our country. If you can pull in a person like me … [and] have the FBI break down your door with 20 guns, shackle you [in] handcuffs [and] drag you off, I mean it was really terrible … I’m telling you America, this can happen to you.
If the “rules-based international order” has allowed all these things to happen, what kind of “rules” are we talking about exactly? And what kind of “order” do they sustain?
The “rules-based international order” allowed NATO powers to knowingly provoke a world-threatening proxy war in Ukraine.
The “rules-based international order” allowed western powers and their regional partners to plunge Syria into a horrific civil war by flooding the nation with heavily armed fascistic extremist factions.
The “rules-based international order” has allowed the US to invade and occupy a vast stretch of Syrian territory in order to control the nation’s natural resources and prevent reconstruction.
The “rules-based international order” allowed the invasion of Afghanistan and a decades-long occupation sustained by lies and corruption.
The “rules-based international order” allowed the imprisonment of Julian Assange for journalistic activities exposing US war crimes.
The “rules-based international order” has allowed the planet to be circled by hundreds of US military bases, including in places where the people who live there vehemently oppose their presence like Okinawa, Iraq and Syria.
Moreover, the US Navy has not been hired by the UN or any other global body to safeguard every sea lane on the planet. Nor should it take the assignment if offered because the homeland security of America does not depend upon Washington functioning as the gendarmerie of the world.
Here we go again. The “Joe Biden” thing just started another war in Yemen without a constitutionally compliant declaration by Congress. And it/they did so against a rag-tag tribe of desert insurgents who cannot possibly harm the liberty or security of the American homeland.
After all, the most fearsome missile possessed by the Houthi is the Burkan-3, which has a maximum range of 750 miles. Yet the last time we checked, the distance from Yemen to Washington DC was 7,200 miles. So why is the GOP leadership branch of the Uniparty saluting Sleepy Joe with a chorus of attaboys?
GOP Senate Leader, Mitch McConnel: I welcome the U.S. and coalition operations against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists responsible for violently disrupting international commerce in the Red Sea and attacking American vessels. President Biden’s decision to use military force against these Iranian proxies is overdue.
GOP House Speaker Johnson: This action by U.S. and British forces is long overdue, and we must hope these operations indicate a true shift in the Biden Administration’s approach to Iran and its proxies that are engaging in such evil and wreaking such havoc. They must understand there is a serious price to pay for their global acts of terror and their attacks on U.S. personnel and commercial vessels. America must always project strength, especially in these dangerous times.
No, Speaker Johnson, America must not go abroad seeking monsters to destroy, as our sixth president, John Qunicy Adams, stated so cogently nearly 203 years ago on Independence Day. The Red Sea is not the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound or the Gulf of Catalina—meaning that the Houthi blockade on ships heading to Israel in retaliation for the latter’s genocidal assault on Gaza is Jerusalem’s business to treat with, not Washington’s.