MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

bionic mosquito: Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory Today

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2021

There is only one path possible for the return to some level of sanity, let alone liberty.  It is for the Christian Church and Christian leaders to properly lead in accord with the Scripture and Natural Law.  This is the narrative that sustained the West for centuries; it is the narrative – the only narrative in the history of the world – that gave us something approaching a healthy individual liberty.

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2021/11/cultural-marxism-and-critical-theory.html

…Critical Theory has come to dominate the academic world.

The Red Trojan Horse: A Concise Analysis of Cultural Marxism, by Alasdair Elder

This is the second of two posts on this book by Elder.  In the first, I covered the chapters in which he examined the history of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory.  In this post, I will review his comments on the current situation and his proposed solution.

NB: I use the term Cultural Marxism because this is how Elder labels the situation.  I think it is more accurately described as Cultural Gramsci-ism.

Just as Classical Marxism considers that everyone has been fooled by capitalism, Cultural Marxism considers everyone has been fooled by the patriarchy.  Race, gender, sexual orientation, even religion – all are fair game as tools to crush traditional cultural and ethical bounds.

The tactic is always the same: identify a privileged oppressive group; this leads to identifying the underprivileged oppressed group; the oppressive group is then tagged with at least one pathology – an “ism” or a phobia; a victim narrative is established; finally, a feedback loop is established – constant reinforcement of the victim narrative.

This mechanism can be seen in feminism, multiculturalism, transgenderism, etc.   Sound arguments are never presented or addressed; bullying and labeling are the preferred tools.  Per Anita Sarkeesian, “Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic, and you have to point it all out.”

Hypocrisies abound, but these are irrelevant.  Pointing these out is also irrelevant.  Doing so merely demonstrates your phobia, your “ism.”  What is left for the Cultural Marxists is to be for nothing and against everything – ultimately leading to a radical individualism.

This is an individualism, not of responsibility and self-governance, but an individualism of complete isolation, resulting in such a nihilism that the societal fabric is destroyed, and all that is left of the culture is a void.  Total dependence on the state (communism) is all that is left.

This can be seen in many examples.  The nationalization of childhood (it takes a village).  Family life is dull, restrictive, oppressive.  Education is removed, replaced by schooling.  Memorization of facts (if that) instead of developing the ability to use reason in order to think critically. 

Feminism is another, used, finally, as a lever to destroy family – again, leaving children in the hands of the state.  Identity politics, offering power to every “identity” except straight white males.

Elder offers a nice overview of the economics of Cultural Marxism, although I would describe this as the economics of a state willing to leverage the destruction of a culture in order to maximize control.  Monetary and fiscal policy controlled by state actors and bankers, not by individuals acting in a market.  Fiat money, giving the control over the key commodity in a division of labor economy to a small group of central planners.

Elder does offer a chapter on the subject of religion and Cultural Marxism:

It was with very good reason that the progenitors of Cultural Marxism, particularly Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, manifested such a vitriolic loathing for Christian culture. …it is impossible to deny that Christian values have formed the bedrock of Western Civilization.

Unfortunately, as will be seen shortly, Elder does nothing more with this reality. 

It was this cultural tradition that had to be destroyed; Freud’s views on Christianity as a psychologically unhealthy oppressive force would be quite useful for this purpose.

Elder points to the counterculture of the 1960s – the abandonment of traditional sexual mores, the promotion of mysticism and psychedelic “woo.”  As an aside, I recently heard, in a podcast by Tom Holland, a very interesting thought: someday, the 1960s will be seen as a historical turning point much as we today see Luther’s nailing of the ninety-five theses and the Reformation. 

Holland might be right, although I don’t think the effects will be as long lasting.  As violent, maybe; but there is no staying power in continuous deconstruction.

Returning to Elder: the enemy which he spends a good amount of effort on is Islam.  He spends far more time in this chapter on Islam than he does on Christianity.

I don’t know that Islam is any more of an “enemy” than the dozen other tools used by those who want to destroy Western Civilization.  In any case, it is a tool, it isn’t the craftsman. 

He makes an interesting point, and one that points out why continuous deconstruction will consume itself.  As more Muslims come to the West, what will come of transgender rights (and you may fill in any other of the shibboleths of the critical theorists)? 

My thought: deconstruction as a means cannot be satisfied merely with the communism as its end.  Deconstruction is not merely a means; it is the end, the purpose.  It will not be satisfied, as if to say “here, we have reached our goal.” 

There is no goal to reach, because every “achievement” only leads to a new hierarchy that must be deconstructed.  This will be the undoing of this era, but, again, it may be a painful experience for many of us between now and then

In the final chapter, entitled “The Cultural Battlefield,” Elder comes to his solution, or his method of combat.  I must say, it is a disappointing chapter.  After being clear that the Cultural Marxists have won the battle of the narrative, he focusses exclusively on the strategy of fighting with facts.  In speaking of the SJWs as useful idiots:

SJWs usually believe their lies because they are ignorant of any rational arguments to the contrary.

This really is an unbelievable statement.  They either know the arguments but don’t care, or they are screaming whenever someone tries to make a rational argument.  Elder earlier noted that sound arguments are never addressed.

…check the facts and examine statistics, which will always show such [Cultural Marxist] narratives to be false.

Wrong again.  Steven Pinker has made a career of facts and statistics.  He has lost the argument.  Facts and statistics don’t give meaning to life.  People don’t live in a world of facts and statistics; people live in a story, a narrative.  The most powerful story wins.  The West has lost its narrative, not its facts.

Elder is focused on winning one at a time by facts, yet the universities are turning out thousands a year on the other side.

To successfully combat an SJW, the red-pilled rebel must understand the programming, which controls the SJW in question…

Programming doesn’t get altered by facts; it gets altered by a change in the program.  The program is a narrative.  It acts on the facts presented to it in accord with the narrative with which it has been programmed.  Present the same facts to two different programs and you will get two different results.

Conclusion

After spending the entire book discussing how the means of the Cultural Marxists is exercised through the destruction of culture, Elder sees as the solution not some consideration about culture, but a presentation of facts.  It is an unfortunate conclusion. 

You can’t beat programming with facts.  Two individuals with two different “programs” will look at the same facts and come to different conclusion.  This is so obvious on its face; it is almost embarrassing to have to say it.

There is only one path possible for the return to some level of sanity, let alone liberty.  It is for the Christian Church and Christian leaders to properly lead in accord with the Scripture and Natural Law.  This is the narrative that sustained the West for centuries; it is the narrative – the only narrative in the history of the world – that gave us something approaching a healthy individual liberty.

Posted by bionic mosquito at 12:03 AM

Be seeing you

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

Name 2 Things – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2021

After hundreds of challenges in dozens of markets from NY to LA to DFW, ATL, DC, and even Toledo (!), only once, a caller in North Carolina got the correct answer: “Nothing”. Zip. Zero. None. No “2 things” or even 1 we “come in contact with on a daily basis” is not taxed, regulated, embargoed, licensed, restricted or prohibited by the Government.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/11/brian-wilson/name-2-things/

By Brian Wilson

Here’s a little game I used to play with listeners on my talk show. The goal was to compel them to think about the Government, its size, the pervasiveness of its laws, and smothering regulations.

The challenge: Name the 2 things you come in contact with every day that are not taxed, regulated, embargoed, licensed, restricted, or prohibited by the Government

Invariably, the phone lines exploded! Unfortunately, the majority of callers usually misunderstood the most important part of the challenge: “…you come in contact with…”. As a result, ‘contestants’ would name “ love”, “sunrise and sunset” and similar misses. (In a tactile sense, you don’t come in contact with ‘love’ and there is Daylight Saving Time). Others would try “children”, “air”, “water” – as if kids aren’t subject to taxes, compulsory education, and a boatload of age-specific rules; air and water have their own mountain of pollution laws, water and ‘wetlands’ regulations. Invariably, there would come “sex”, “economics”, “Government” – some never having heard of sodomy laws, intangible “economics” and untouchable Government. A few creative folks tried “prayer”. While it is problematic whether one “…comes in contact…” with prayer, just try kneeling with some fellow believers at the Lincoln Memorial in DC. It’s a blessed opportunity to get educated by members of the Park Police.

After hundreds of challenges in dozens of markets from NY to LA to DFW, ATL, DC, and even Toledo (!), only once, a caller in North Carolina got the correct answer: “Nothing”. Zip. Zero. None. No “2 things” or even 1 we “come in contact with on a daily basis” is not taxed, regulated, embargoed, licensed, restricted or prohibited by the Government.”

While it’s been 10 years since the last game, we could play it today with just one small change:

“Name the 2 issues impacting your life on a daily basis that have not originated from Government?”

Consider:

Presidential ‘mandates’, lockdowns, ‘social distancing’, family association, church attendance, school attendance, and school board meetings, now with FBI agents monitoring rightfully outraged parent-terrorists, employment security, unemployment income, taxation, inflation, savings, investments, groceries, gas, dining out, football games, birthday parties, weddings, even funerals continue to be subject to capricious Government intrusion. If you or a loved one serve in the Armed Forces, a separate set of COVID-related Government regulations can cost you your rank, job, and earned benefits. The impact of legally dubious State and Federal government intervention continues unabated as politicians ‘green mail’ corporate entities in place of enabling legislation even to the point of ignoring SCOTUS verdicts.

The answer is still the same: None. The issues roiling our lives today come from Government laws, unconstitutional regulations, illegal restrictions, and policies intruding into every aspect of our daily life.

How does this happen in America, “Land of the Free”?

As a prescient Ayn Rand wrote:

“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws.”

Tragically,  Reality is not a radio game; there’s no way to tune out. Think ‘Hotel California’. It’s all happening before our eyes right now, every day: specific, intentional parts of a much bigger plan previously discussed here; Mike Nichols reviews the plan and progress in enlightening detail here.

Since there are no prizes for the correct answer, what to do? Play the game anyway with folks you know. Or don’t know. Their reaction will be telling; a new ‘woke-ness’ may come over them and you just may find some valuable comrades for the days ahead.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Why Not Abandon All Foreign Bases? – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2021

Why not abandon all foreign military bases, bring all of the troops home (not just the ones in Afghanistan), and stop policing the world? And while we’re at it, turn over all of the DOD golf courses in Japan to the Japanese.

The U.S. global empire of bases and troops is unnecessary to the defense of the United States, a global force for evil, and a drain on U.S. taxpayers. It’s only purpose is to carry out an imperialistic, militaristic, reckless, belligerent, and meddling U.S. foreign policy that is not in the interest of the American people.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/laurence-m-vance/why-not-abandon-all-foreign-bases/

By Laurence M. Vance

Neoconservatives—like Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (“The One Foreign Base Biden Should Abandon”)—haven’t gotten over President Joe Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

But Rubin is also upset that “the Biden administration is determined to hold on to the one base that America should have abandoned a decade ago.” This is Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

Rubin maintains that during the Cold War, Incirlik was crucial. But even though “the base supported U-2 surveillance flights, U.S. operations during the 1958 Lebanon crisis, the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, and, most recently, the fight against the Taliban,” Incirlik—which “also hosts approximately 50 nuclear weapons”—is “now a strategic liability” instead of “a strategic asset.”

Turkey “is as much an enemy as an ally.” President Erdogan cannot be trusted. “Every American serviceman, contractor, and family at Incirlik are potential hostages.” “Incirlik now risks a repeat of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.” An American “departure from Incirlik” would not “affect U.S. operations.” The United States should use the “Mihail Kogalniceanu air base in Romania” or the “Souda Bay Naval Base” in Greece. It would not be “irresponsible” to leave “an obsolete base.”

Rubin is right. The United States needs to “end the U.S. military presence in Turkey.”

But here is a better idea: Why not abandon all foreign bases?

According to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Base Structure Report: “The DoD manages a worldwide real property portfolio that spans all 50 states, 8 U.S. territories with outlying areas, and 45 foreign countries. The majority of these foreign sites are located in Germany (194 sites), Japan (121 sites), and South Korea (83 sites).” Incredibly, the DOD is “one of the Federal government’s larger holders of real estate managing a global real property portfolio that consists of over 585,000 facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures), located on 4,775 sites worldwide and covering approximately 26.9 million acres.” The DOD has acknowledged the existence of about 800 U.S. military bases in 80 countries, but we know from the work of Nick Turse, David Vine, and the late Chalmers Johnson that that number could be over 1,000. The United States has about 95 percent of the world’s foreign military bases. “Red” China has just one.

There are also about 175,000 active duty U.S. troops overseas in over 170 countries and territories. World War II ended in 1945, and yet the United States still maintains tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan.

Why not abandon all foreign military bases, bring all of the troops home (not just the ones in Afghanistan), and stop policing the world? And while we’re at it, turn over all of the DOD golf courses in Japan to the Japanese.

The U.S. global empire of bases and troops is unnecessary to the defense of the United States, a global force for evil, and a drain on U.S. taxpayers. It’s only purpose is to carry out an imperialistic, militaristic, reckless, belligerent, and meddling U.S. foreign policy that is not in the interest of the American people.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

We’re “Very Sorry” – Bank Of England Governor Apologizes To Brits For Crushing Their Standard Of Living | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2021

“We’ve never seen a shock of this kind and the big thing we are seeing at the moment is the furlough scheme is coming off, there is going to be an increase in taxes on National Insurance [and] universal credit was just cut.

“So, the central bank really hasn’t a lot of clue what is going on.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/were-very-sorry-bank-england-governor-apologizes-brits-crushing-their-standard

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

In an odd moment of truthful admission – that absolutely will not be heard in the US – The Bank of England governor has said he is “very sorry” that UK inflation is rising amid forecasts the cost of living could increase as much as 5%.Andrew Bailey told the BBC that households were already feeling the impact of rising prices.

“I’m very sorry that’s happening,” he said.“None of us want to see that happen.”

Inflation is currently ahead of the Bank of England’s 2% target at 3.1%. There are expectations it could rise to 5% by next April.Mr Bailey said:

“Inflation is clearly something that bites on people’s household income. I’m sure they’re already feeling that in terms of prices that are going up.”

While real wages soared during the pandemic as supply of free-money dominated the suppressed-demand for goods/services – all thanks to government intervention – that is all unwinding now and real wage gains are rapidly slowing…Source: BloombergThis has helped push UK’s “Misery Index” to its highest in a decade…Source: BloombergAnd arguably things are about to get far more serious as the choice between heating your home and feeding your family is a real one for many Brits…Along those lines, commenting on the decision not to raise borrowing costs this month. Mr Bailey said:

“Putting interest rates up, I’m afraid, isn’t going to get us more gas.”

Finally, Danny Blanchflower, a former member of the MPC who is now an economics professor at Dartmouth College in the US, warned that trusting what The Bank says may be a mistake:“We have no historical precedent for what’s happened,” he said.”We’ve never seen a shock of this kind and the big thing we are seeing at the moment is the furlough scheme is coming off, there is going to be an increase in taxes on National Insurance [and] universal credit was just cut.“So, the central bank really hasn’t a lot of clue what is going on.”He concluded rather ominously: “This is a really big uncertain world and everybody should tread cautiously. I’m afraid I have to say… you have to take what the governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee said with a very large pinch of salt.”

Be seeing you

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

MSNBC Goes Full Clowntard: Gaslights That Inflation Is A “Good Thing”, Deletes Tweet After Angry Backlash | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2021

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/msnbc-goes-full-clowntard-claims-inflation-good-thing-families-struggle-soaring-prices

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

While millions of Americans are suffering from runaway, galloping inflation everywhere (to avoid the dreaded “H” word that made Jack Dorsey every lib’s enemy #1) from the gas pump to the grocery store aisle – which of course affects low-income individuals the most, MSNBC has gone up to bat for the Biden administration, deploying their best pretzel-logician to explain why all this inflation is literally – wait for it – good. First, the now-deleted tweet…

Nevermind that in September, a Kroger executive warned in that grocery prices were about to get nasty, and the company will be “passing along higher cost to the customer where it makes sense to do so.” Or that Nestle CFO Francois-Xavier Roger said blistering inflation would likely continue into next year – telling the crowd at a Barclays consumer staples conference: “If we talk of 2022, it is likely that input cost inflation will be higher next year than this year.” Or that Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic admitted last month that inflation is not transitory (and even has a swear jar collecting dollar bills for every time some gaslighter utters the word “transitory”).Or that agricultural input costs from fertilizer to feed have gone through the roof – thanks to soaring natural gas prices of all things.Or labor shortages throughout the supply chain – including US ports and the trucking industry – including those who refuse to take the Covid-19 vaccine.Or just read this from Bank of America:

“Meanwhile on Main Street: cost of living rising…wages rising; food (coffee @ 7-year high, wheat @ 13-year high), energy (BofA forecast $120/bbl Brent next 6 months), shelter (US rents up 9% YoY), wages annualizing 6% past 6 months; US core CPI currently 4.0% YoY, likely to be 5-6% spring’22.”

Nope. You see, the inflation we’re seeing today is a good thing, according to MSNBC’s James Surowiecki, whose financial background is a Ph.D. in American history and being a writer at The Motley Fool and The New Yorker.Their rationale: people spent less and saved more during the pandemic (more disposable income), and the stock market (which most American’s still don’t participate in) went apeshit.

Even though millions of Americans lost their jobs, enhanced unemployment benefits and stimulus payments left many of them better off, not worse. And the stock market, after initially falling, boomed.

Which of course is just propaganda, because as Morgan Stanley explained so simply even MSNBC columnists could understand, the “bottom 80%” of the population retained just a third of the $2 trillion in so-called excess savings. And without jobs, most have already burned through whatever money they had saved up. In other words, the bulk of government handouts ended up – you guessed it – in the hands of the ultra rich who never needed it!Facts be damned, MSNBC’s propaganda continued: “American consumers are, relatively speaking, flush, and it’s that strong demand for goods and services that is sending prices higher.”BUT (and totally couldn’t be the primary reason, could it?), “it’s taking manufacturers and food producers time to increase supply after cutting back production during the pandemic,” and as a result, “When you have high demand, and relatively low supply, prices go up.””The inflation we’re seeing is not, then, some mysterious affliction that’s descended on the economy. It’s the predictable product of the economy’s rapid recovery, and its costs have been offset, to a large degree, by robust wage growth and government policies.”Except, when adjusted for inflation, real weekly earnings are negative.

Meanwhile, even the notorious optimistic Wall Street is starting to tell the truth, with Goldman warning that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.Not surprisingly, after getting ratio’ed in a furious backlash, MSNBC did the only thing it could and deleted its tweet, as its latest attempt at mass gaslighting propaganda went terribly wrong.

Be seeing you

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

The Frances Haugen Insurgency | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2021

In reality, Haugen has “revealed” only that the social media platform founded by Mark Zuckerberg has not been conducting itself in the manner in which Haugen’s associates want it to.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-frances-haugen-insurgency/

by Laurie Calhoun

Former Facebook employee Frances Haugen has taken the world by storm by stealing and sharing reams of company communications in which the social media giant’s cavalier attitudes toward a range of behaviors among its users are revealed. She compares what she regards as “the Facebook problem” with earlier corporate revelations in history which led to legislation regulating tobacco and automobile use, and she emphasizes that children are specifically at risk from the company’s policies. The disgruntled former employee also alleges that Facebook products—in particular, Instagram—harm young women by promoting unhealthy and unrealistic body images.

Despite the vagueness and generality of these complaints, Haugen is being hailed as a “whistleblower” by everyone who agrees with her ideological and political perspective, which is as plain as day: textbook neoliberal, big government, pro-Democratic Party. The objective of the Frances Haugen insurgency is equally manifest: to implement formal government censorship of social media platforms, a literal Ministry of Truth, for “the good” of the people who use them.

The mere fact that Haugen has been granted such an impressive platform and portrayed throughout the mainstream media as some sort of heroine does not imply that she is a “whistleblower” any more than calling the innocent people killed by bombs “collateral damage” somehow exonerates the killers for their completely avoidable acts of homicide. Frances Haugen, whose vast and highly visible media tour has been funded by Pierre Omidyar (according to Glenn Greenwald, formerly of The Intercept, which, too, is funded by Omidyar), is not, let us be perfectly frank, a whistleblower. This is yet another case where language has been redefined to support a particular political program. Just as “assassination” became “targeted killing” and “torture” became “enhanced interrogation techniques” when authorized by the U.S. president, the concept of “whistleblower” has now been rebranded to cover people who speak out in ways approved of by the very people who provide the speaker with a platform for airing grievances with which all “good” people will agree, with the ultimate aim of expanding the orchestrators’ own domain of power and control.

In reality, Haugen has “revealed” only that the social media platform founded by Mark Zuckerberg has not been conducting itself in the manner in which Haugen’s associates want it to.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Europeans Refuse To Defend Selves, Demand US Go To Nuclear War for Them – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2021

But that wasn’t all. They expected the US to use nukes in response to conventional attack. From their standpoint, that was a lot better than having to create effective militaries of their own. It was the miracle of maximum retaliation. Which put the American homeland at risk in any conflict involving Europe.

https://original.antiwar.com/?p=2012344364

by Doug Bandow

Nuclear weapons are terrible, but that gives them greater deterrent power. However, few of America’s allies have them, so Washington has promised to fight potentially multiple nuclear wars on their behalf. It is a great deal for countries that have spent decades cheap riding on the US.

With the Biden administration involved in a “nuclear posture review” and a National Security Council meeting scheduled this month on the issue, a variety of allied powers are afraid that President Joe Biden will adopt a “no first use” policy or at least narrow the circumstances (so-called “sole purpose”) under which he would use them. Then the good times would be over, upsetting Asian and European nations which now rely on the US for their defense.

Indeed, the poor dears are beside themselves. “Allies are essentially, in unison, collectively panicking,” one unnamed American told the Financial Times: “Adopting a ‘sole purpose’ nuclear declaratory policy would be soul crushing to US allies and partners. It would gut our credibility. After Afghanistan and Nord Stream 2, there is a genuine concern as to how much more they can take.”

There apparently is no limit to the whiny outbursts of defense dependents which believe it is America’s job to coddle and succor them forever. There is a simple solution, however. If they are overcome with horror that Americans might not prove willing to fight a nuclear war on their behalf, then all they need do is take over their own defense. Spend more on the military. Build more weapons. Ally with other nations which do the same. Problem solved!

Possession of nuclear weapons is an awesome responsibility. Only America has ever used them, and that was against a non-nuclear power. However, Washington has routinely threatened to employ them in the succeeding years

“Massive retaliation” became the strategy to deter a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Explained Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, the doctrine placed “more reliance on deterrent power and less dependence on local defensive power… Local defense will always be important. But there is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty land power of the Communist world. Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power.”

America’s many allies grew to like the idea of the US holding a “nuclear umbrella” over them to ward off any nuclear attack by other states. But that wasn’t all. They expected the US to use nukes in response to conventional attack. From their standpoint, that was a lot better than having to create effective militaries of their own. It was the miracle of maximum retaliation. Which put the American homeland at risk in any conflict involving Europe.

Biden sought to roll back US nuclear support, backing the “sole use” limitation as vice president and 2020 presidential candidate. Moreover, the administration’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance held: “We will take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, while ensuring our strategic deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective and that our extended deterrence commitments to our allies remain strong and credible.”

However, since becoming president he has not indicated what he plans to do. Biden committed to “a credible and united nuclear alliance” when meeting French President Emmanuel Macron. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby intoned that “Our US extended deterrence commitments remain strong and credible,” which may be true even without first use, since a nuclear umbrella could be limited to an attack with nuclear weapons.

However, both Moscow and Beijing plan to modernize and expand their forces, allowing the Pentagon to grab the pole position. Observed the Brookings Institution’s Robert Einhorn: “This year, conditions really have deteriorated.”

No surprise, so-called allies want to keep America’s nuclear umbrella open and as large as possible. An unnamed NATO diplomat told the Financial Times that “Allies are extremely concerned and in no uncertain terms have made clear what they thought.” Apparently, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom as well as Australia and Japan all lobbied the president to put their interests before that of the American people. Even some US policymakers worry more about allied governments than Americans. For instance, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) complained that “to even consider adopting either [no first use or sole purpose] is a complete betrayal of our allies,” apparently forgetting that he was not elected to represent them.

Worse is the chutzpah of the ever hapless, helpless Europeans. One official told the Financial Times: “This would be a huge gift to China and Russia.” Eh? Someone representing a country and continent which won’t use their abundant resources on their own behalf and begging for US support is blaming America for giving China and Russia a gift? How about the European governments and Japan which do so little to defend their independence and freedom? Which bear but a fraction of the burden they expect Americans to shoulder on their behalf?

The arguments offered for eternal US defense subsidies all presume allied incapacity. Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security contended that threats from China, North Korea, and Russia have increased, so it is “not the time for a US ‘no first use’ pledge.” The question, however, is why haven’t the responses of other threatened parties – cheap-riding Asian and European allies all – also increased? A no first use pledge simply indicates that conventional arms would be met with conventional arms. Whose fault is it that the conventional capabilities of Asian and European countries are so inadequate that Washington must be willing to ignite a nuclear war?

Another worry is that US allies would go rogue and create their own nuclear deterrents if Americans didn’t risk their homeland. That might not be a good solution, but it still would be better than Washington promising to go to nuclear war against several antagonistic nuclear powers. It is foolish to risk American cities to protect other nations, especially those insisting that they are too busy to defend themselves.

Michael Green of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argued that “The problem with ‘sole purpose’ and ‘no first use’ is that the allies believe it, and adversaries do not.” In fact, it is difficult to know who believes what. A Chinese general famously doubted that the US would risk Los Angeles for Taipei, whatever Washington officials claimed. And for good reason: it would be both suicidal and stupid to do so, and the Chinese did not believe Americans were either. Indeed, the greater the threat and more peripheral the interest, the less believable any commitment looks. How little the Chinese understand the myopia of Washington policymakers.

The worst argument was repeated by retired national security officials Eric Edelman and Franklin Miller: The “change would strike at the heart of transatlantic ties and would be interpreted as a huge step toward decoupling the United States from Europe’s defense.”

So? Why are the Europeans professing to be helpless if America won’t promise to start a nuclear war? If Russia is a genuine threat, why don’t the Europeans do more? Edelman and Miller complained that the president’s position “assumes that deterrence by conventional means alone can successfully forestall war (an assumption belied by centuries of European history) and that – despite two decades of US disinvestment in armor, long-range weapons systems and short-range air defenses while Russia has advanced in electronic warfare and other conventional capabilities – NATO is not ‘outranged and outgunned’ by the Russians. It also ignores geography: Russia’s superior forces along the European front line could quickly seize NATO territory before U.S. forces even arrived. Finally, and most important, it assumes that NATO governments and populations are prepared to accept victory achieved by a bloody conventional war on their territory.”

All this comes down to the Europeans’ refusal to arm themselves with nukes and willingness to fight with conventional weapons, instead expecting Americans to lead with nuclear weapons against a peer nuclear competitor. In such a war what would they do? Have tea and watch as American cities burned? Don’t the Europeans have any responsibilities? Why does the seeming solution to every allied problem involve the US doing, spending, and risking more for cheap-riding Europeans? Do the Europeans plan to be childlike dependents of America forever, after the Second Coming and even beyond?

The Biden administration should decide on no first use based on what is in the interest of Americans, not allied states. Moreover, it should rethink the doctrine of extended deterrence. That’s become an especially bad idea for Korea, given the North’s rapidly expanding nuclear capabilities. As US military domination fades with the rise of other powers, Washington should expect its professed allies to do more for themselves.

Of course, that guarantees even more allied wailing and gnashing of teeth. How the tears flow when US subsidies ebb. Yet helpless dependence is not a good policy for friendly governments either. While Washington cannot force allies to do more militarily, it can create the right incentives for them to do so by doing less. Much less. Once they realize that they must act for themselves if they are to be defended, they will be more likely to act responsibly.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

UK Considering Legislation That Would Imprison Internet Trolls | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2021

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/uk-considering-legislation-would-imprison-internet-trolls

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

Authored by Brad Polumbo via FEE.org,

f you ever need a reminder of how important freedom of speech is, all you need to do is look across the pond…

The United Kingdom, which doesn’t have a First Amendment, has slowly seen citizens’ free speech rights eroded—and now may soon start imprisoning people for being trolls on the internet.    

At question is pending legislation called the “Online Safety Bill,” which ostensibly punishes social media companies that allow harassment. Yet it may be expanded to include new criminal penalties for individuals who engage in mean speech online.  

“Trolls could face two years in prison for sending messages or posting content that causes psychological harm under legislation targeting online hate,” the Times of London reports. “The Department for Culture, Media & Sport has accepted recommendations from the Law Commission for crimes to be based on ‘likely psychological harm.’ The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the ‘harmful effect’ of a message rather than if it contains ‘indecent’ or ‘grossly offensive’ content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.”

Social media users could face two years in prison for sending messages or posting content that causes ‘psychological harm’ under the government’s new online harms bill

Ministers are looking to include so-called Twitter “pile-ons” as a possible offence https://t.co/aXHNTfXaWQ — The Times (@thetimes) November 1, 2021

Other offenses will reportedly be created for “knowingly false communication,” applying to those who “send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience.” The new offenses will also include punishment for social-media “pile-ons,” where groups gang up and are rude to people online.

Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries is reportedly planning on adding these provisions to the Online Safety Bill when it’s introduced in Parliament next month.

This blatant attempt at the censorship of online speech is deeply concerning. The government has absolutely no business punishing people for words that “cause others harm,” such a subjective and slippery standard that it beggars belief. This vague standard could be used to silence just about any speech that one finds offensive. And it surely stifles the free exchange of ideas that leads to social progress.  

Ideas like allowing women to vote, ending racial segregation, and legalizing same-sex marriage were all once considered “harmful” by many. If subjectively harmful or disruptive speech is stifled, progress is drastically held back. 

Moreover, the government punishing “knowingly false” speech is deeply disturbing. Firstly, it’s not a black-and-white matter to actually determine what is “true” and what is “false.” There are a million shades of gray and robust debates over factual reality across countless subjects. No one who values freedom should want a government Ministry of Truth determining what speech is “false” and punishing those who spread it. 

And this would all have a chilling effect on speech that questions the status quo or the government itself. After all, free speech doesn’t exist to protect popular or uncontroversial speech; such speech is in little need of protection. It’s dissident voices and information that threatens centralized power that is crushed under the guise of “protecting people” from “harmful” speech. 

The UK’s new censorship efforts are no exception.

“The laws are highly likely to be ineffective at keeping people safe, whilst actually restricting free speech considerably, as well as creating a chill by making people who don’t really understand the law feel too scared to actually say what they want to say,” said University of East Anglia Law School Professor Paul Bernal. “That’s the bottom line here: the main impact of laws like this will be to restrict legitimate criticism of people in power.”

Indeed they will. Americans should heed the sad example of the United Kingdom as a warning of what fate could await us if we don’t jealously guard our free speech rights.

*  *  *

Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

Be seeing you

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

How To DE-GOOGLE Your Phone!

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2021

Not an easy option, but an option.

Be seeing you

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

They Accidentally Admitted Masking Kids is Harmful to their Development

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2021

“The experts” like to pretend that masking kids will have no negative impact on their development. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ resources say otherwise… or at least they did until they started deleting those resources in August. Here I dive into an Atlantic article, to show that even the elite progressives from San Francisco have to admit that their kids are having problems with masking at school.

Be seeing you

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