Enemy of the State-Read the Book-Know the Man
This is not a Safe Space but Baby, I don't care.
"I am not a number, I am a Free Man" - No. 6
Information Liberation Alex Jones’ Prison Planet Gary North Specific Answers Antiwar The Daily Bell Tenth Amendment Center Economics Policy Journal The American Thinker The New American Lew RockwellPosted by M. C. on July 31, 2025
On this day, July 30th, 1881, Smedley Butler was born, a Marine who later decried war profiteering in *War is a Racket*. His exposé of the American-engineered Banana Wars across the Caribbean in the early 1900s hits home.
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania echoes him—end the war economy, prioritize peace and liberty.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Smedley Butler, War is a racket | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 30, 2025
Sesporondt218500faa4hm0c0aa6al106t23uc5fic983l19i81i3aia2am5 ·
“The government has somehow brainwashed people into believing that they must justify why they deserve to keep their liberty.”
“The opposite is true. The government must prove they have the right to take it away.”
“(Spoiler: They don’t)”
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: brainwashed, Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 29, 2025
The strategy aims to utilize “militant anti poverty groups” to facilitate a “political crisis” by overloading the welfare system via an increase in welfare claims, forcing the creation of a system of guaranteed minimum income and “redistributing income through the federal government”.[1][2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The strategy aims to utilize “militant anti poverty groups” to facilitate a “political crisis” by overloading the welfare system via an increase in welfare claims, forcing the creation of a system of guaranteed minimum income and “redistributing income through the federal government”.[1][2][3]
Cloward and Piven were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was outlined in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.[4]
Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on compelling the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to redistribute income to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would: “…deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[5]
They further wrote:
The ultimate objective of this strategy – to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income – will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[5]
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.”[6]
The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party:
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Cloward–Piven strategy, Frances Fox Piven, Richard Cloward | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 29, 2025
Date of recording: June 3, 2025, The Savvy Street Show
Host: Roger Bissell. Guests: Walter Block, Vinay Kolhatkar
For those who prefer to watch the video, it is here.
Editor’s Note: The Savvy Street Show’s AI-generated transcripts are edited for removal of repetitions and pause terms, and for grammar and clarity. Explanatory references are added in parentheses. Material edits are advised to the reader as edits [in square brackets].
Roger Bissell
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to The Savvy Street Show. My name is Roger Bissell, and I’m your host for this third installment of our series on controversies in libertarianism. Tonight’s topic is libertarian foreign policy. Is there even such a thing? And if there is more than one candidate, are any of them correct in their basics or, if not, can they be fixed? So again, here to explore this topic are my two guests, the eminent economist and libertarian theorist and author of the series, Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block. Welcome to the show, Walter.
Walter Block
Thanks for having me. It’s always a pleasure.
Roger Bissell
Pleasure for us, too, Walter, good to have you. And second, we have my friend and frequent co-host, a novelist and screenwriter, chief editor of The Savvy Street, and co-author with me of Modernizing Aristotle’s Ethics, Vinay Kolhatkar. Welcome to the show, Vinay.
Vinay Kolhatkar
Thank you for having me.
Roger Bissell
Well, we’re going to just plunge right in. The first question is rather open-ended, just to kind of warm up with. Does a nation-state, such as the United States, have rights or obligations or any kind of moral principles that it needs to act according to? Walter, let’s have you begin, if you would.
Walter Block
On the one hand, I wear an anarcho-capitalist hat. And on the other hand, I wear a moderate libertarian hat; call it classical liberalism.
I guess I’m torn on this because I wear two hats. On the one hand, I wear an anarcho-capitalist hat. And on the other hand, I wear a moderate libertarian hat; call it minarchism or classical liberalism or something like that. Now, with the anarcho-capitalist hat, paradoxically, we’re not against government. We just want everyone to have one. So, from the anarcho-capitalist point of view, the optimal number of governments is about 8 billion, because there are 8 billion people here, and everyone should have one. You know, be the first on your block to have a government, and everyone should get one. And then my government should be nice to your government, Roger, and nice to your government, Vinay, and we should all follow the non-aggression principle, and we should all cooperate with each other. We don’t have to like each other, but we’ve got to keep our mitts off each other—unless we agree to put our mitts on each other, like in a voluntary boxing match or something like that. So, the foreign policy of me should be the same as the foreign policy of you guys, and that is to adhere to the non-aggression principle and uphold private property rights based on homesteading—and as Robert Nozick would then say, on anything subsequent like voluntary trade. So, if I homestead some land and you homestead a cow, and I produce corn and you produce milk, and now we trade, I now have the righteous ownership of the milk even though I didn’t produce it, because I can trace it back to homestead and voluntary trade.
Now for the tough part. Now we’re minarchists for the moment, or classical liberals, and what should the government do? Well, it’s going to collect taxes, which is a no-no, but now I’m not an anarcho-capitalist anymore. I’m schizophrenic. I’m now a limited-government libertarian. And yes, we’re going to have taxes, and the taxes are mainly for armies to protect us from foreign invaders; police to protect us from local invaders, rapists, murderers; and courts to determine, what should be the statutory rape age, or is my music too loud at three in the morning? Things like that. Or Vinay and I had a contract, and I say he broke it, he says he didn’t, so I’ll appoint you, Roger, as the court. You would decide, based on the evidence that Vinay and I give to you.
I don’t see anything in the bowels of libertarianism that says you can’t have any allies.
So, what should the foreign policy be? The foreign policy should be to protect the country. Don’t let any invaders come in and get us. Now, this leads to an issue. Should we have allies? Well, I don’t see why we shouldn’t have allies. I don’t favor an alliance with everybody from our country, let’s say that our country is the United States, but I don’t see anything in the bowels of libertarianism that says you can’t have any allies. So, I would say that if we’re the ally of Israel, and Israel is under attack, we help them; and on the other hand, if we’re under attack, we would expect Israel to help us. This leads to a whole can of worms. Who should be our allies? NATO? How about China? Better yet, Taiwan. Should the Taiwanese be our allies? That would be my opening answer to the question.
Roger Bissell
Okay. Well, Vinay, do you see it that way or do you have a different slant on it?
Vinay Kolhatkar
Governments only have rights that are delegated to them by their citizens.
Well, a little different slant. First of all, I’ve held this view, I think, for many decades, which is a view that we do have allies [naturally]. So, for instance, if the three of us are walking down Central Park, let’s say somebody attacks Walter Block. He doesn’t have a gun, he doesn’t have a knife, and Roger being a big strong guy, I’m going to encourage him to intervene. [Laughter]. I will intervene as well, especially if it’s a physical fight, and poor Walter could be beaten to death, but three against one, we might have a better chance. And it’s an implicit contract because we’re friends or colleagues, we help each other out. But the critical question was, do nation-states have rights and obligations? And I found out that my answer is identical to [Ayn] Rand’s. She explores that in an essay called “Collectivized Rights” in the book The Virtue of Selfishness. She divides the world into black and white, no gray in that hypothetical, which is typical of Rand. So, let’s say there are nations that are fundamentally secular, democratic, and respect the rule of law, have a wall between religion and the state, and, most importantly, they respect the rights of their citizens. Now, she’s a little bit uncertain where to draw the line, and she’s drawn the line where the US, the UK, in her time—the 60s, would clearly fall on the good side. And her favorite villain, Soviet Russia, would fall on the bad side, as would Cuba, because they’re completely communist, and they respected no rights, it was a kangaroo court system out there. So, in those, she says firstly, that the governments only have rights that are delegated to them by their citizens. So, the right to protect them from internal strife [requires that] we have the police, the courts. But in this situation, [the government also has] the right, clearly, and an obligation to protect the citizens from outside threats.
But what if the threat isn’t imminent to the United States itself, taking the US as an example? And this is a statement I completely agree with. Then the government has the right to intervene, but not an obligation. That’s a statement that is absolutely right in one sense. If you’re going by the beach and you see somebody drowning, [and] it’s a complete stranger, not your own son or daughter or somebody that you love, then you do have the right to jump in the water and save him or her; but you may not be so confident of your swimming, you might drift away and you might drown yourself and such things have happened, and so you don’t have the obligation. You’ve got to make a split[-second] decision, a quick decision; but in foreign policy, we don’t have to make that quick a decision.
Governments like Iran’s, that abrogate the rights of their own citizens, have no right to exist, and any country has the right (but not the obligation) to help topple that kind of government.
Essentially, these kinds of governments, like the government of Iran, that abrogate the rights of their own citizens, have no right to exist, and we, or the US or any country, according to Rand, and I agree, has the right to help topple that kind of government, especially if the end result is going to be a better one.
Even Murray Rothbard, about as anti-war [an intellectual] as you can get, said that the Indo-Pakistan War in 1971 was a just war.
Even Murray Rothbard, about as anti-war [an intellectual] as you can get, said that the Indo-Pakistan War in 1971 was a just war, because you had East Pakistan on the east of the Indian subcontinent and on the west, you had Pakistan. It was a funny kind of unified country [the old Pakistan] with a large area in the middle that belonged to India. Apparently, Pakistan was raping, pillaging, and looting out in East Pakistan, and there were refugees coming in hordes crossing over the Indian border. To cut a long story short, the Indian army went into what is now Bangladesh. They repelled the Pakistani army, freed the people, and then they just came back, and they [people there] had a new election and called it a new state: Bangladesh. That was, even according to Rothbard, a just cause. Now, I don’t know how many Indian soldiers died in that, and somebody might argue, wait a minute, you’re still using taxpayers’ money to intervene, and even if one soldier died, what right did you have to put him into an external conflict? But there was a danger in the future to the Indian subcontinent from Pakistan winning against East Pakistan. So, I rest my case there. The principle is there. The particulars get very complicated.
Roger Bissell
They sure do. I like your example of our pal Walter [being] out there in Central Park, and he’s being set upon by some violent person. Now, let’s expand it a little bit to a situation where the guy has not attacked Walter yet, but we’re strolling along, the two of us, and we know Walter is not far away. Maybe he’s over at the food wagon getting a hot dog or something, and we hear this guy over in the bushes, and he says, “I’m going to get that blasted Walter Block,” and he’s loading up his pistol. Now, by the NAP [non-aggression principle] and the right to self-defense and the right to help your friend by defending them—this gets into preemptive stuff, right? —if there’s no policeman nearby, and our phones don’t have any charge in the batteries, then it’s up to us. Do we have the right to apprehend, subdue, disarm this guy, to initiate force against him? Or, in fact, is he initiating force already, even though he hasn’t laid a hand on Walter yet? He’s planning, and he’s loading up his gun. Maybe he’s mentally deranged, and he’s not really going to do anything, he’s just hallucinating. But what kind of chance do you take in a situation like that? Do you go after the crazy person? Vinay, go ahead and comment.
Vinay Kolhatkar
If the threat is absolutely imminent, we do have the right to intervene.
If the threat is absolutely imminent, we do have the right to intervene. I’ll give you a couple of other examples. Even in a libertarian society, you would probably take away the firearms from a person who is a paranoid schizophrenic, has a history of violence, has been in and out of jail, has been warned plenty of times but can’t help himself, and has already shot at a few people. He’s not in jail because fortunately his aim was pretty bad, and he ended up injuring people in the leg or the arm, hasn’t killed anyone simply because he’s not as good a shot, but he keeps doing this, and even a libertarian society would take away his firearms. And in cases otherwise, even this person may have made many threats to Walter, he has mailed him [threats], has shouted from his soapbox that “I don’t like Walter’s existence, he should be eradicated from the earth.” And suppose in this case, Roger and I are policemen, so it makes it a little bit easier than us unarmed taking on an armed, deranged person. We are policemen, we sight him, and he is right behind Walter, about to draw his gun. Yes, we have every right at least to use the taser guns on him to disarm him and disable him. And if nothing succeeds, and he lunges at Walter with a knife, and there’s only five feet between them, at that stage we have the right to shoot [the assailant] in the chest or the head area.
Roger Bissell
So, you’re going to wait till you see the whites of his eyes or something? You wouldn’t preempt him if he’s just off in the bushes loading his gun and muttering ominously?
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: anarcho-capitalist, Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Libertarian, minarchists | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 28, 2025
On this day, July 26th, 1947, the National Security Act spawned the CIA, DoD, and more, centralizing power for the Cold War. This birthed the surveillance state—everything from the NSA to mass surveillance.
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania demands their end—decentralize power, protect liberty, and stop the spying.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: CIA, cold war, DOD, National Security Act | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 27, 2025
“We are going to conduct these righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law,”
The FIB investigates itself. I think I know how that will turn out.
Bongino is shocked that the group he leads is totally corrupt, totally political..hold my beer while I violently barf.
FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino revealed that he was “shocked” to his “core” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) discoveries regarding matters relating to corruption and political weaponization, adding that he would “never be the same.”
In a post on X, Bongino expressed that things were happening at the FBI “that might not be immediately visible.” Bongino added that he and FBI Director Kash Patel were “committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations.”
“The Director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations,” Bongino wrote. “It is a priority for us. But what I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters, has shocked me down to my core.”
“We cannot run a Republic like this,” Bongino added. “I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned.”
Bongino added the FBI would be conducting “righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law,” and there would be “an honest and dignified effort at truth.”
“We are going to conduct these righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law,”
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Corruption, Dan Bongino, FBI, Political Weaponization | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 25, 2025
One issue that unites Americans is the hatred of pedophiles.
Two parties, one coin.
One issue that unites Americans is the hatred of pedophiles.
And that issue is now at the forefront of American politics because Donald Trump and the Republicans are defending pedophiles linked to Jeffrey Epstein.
Epstein is possibly the most prolific child sex (rape) trafficker in this country’s history, yet his clients have never been prosecuted, or even publicly exposed, for their disgusting crimes.
When Trump took office and placed Kash Patel and Dan Bongino as the heads of the FBI, many MAGA types hoped that the country was finally on the path to righting this injustice.
However, Trump went the opposite direction and has chastised his base for demanding to know which of our elites committed sex crimes against children.
The reason may be, as the Wall Street Journal alleges, that Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: GOP, Jeffrey Epstein, pedophiles | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 24, 2025
US corporations and military planners welcome the ‘legal maneuver space’ Israel has opened up for them to profit from warfare that slaughters and starves civilians
The Financial Times revealed this month that a cabal of Israeli investors, one of the world’s top business consulting groups and a think-tank headed by former British prime minister Tony Blair had been secretly working on plans to exploit the ruins of Gaza as prime real estate.
In an interview with US journalist Chris Hedges, Albanese, an expert in international law, concluded: “The genocide in Gaza has not stopped, because it is lucrative. It’s profitable for far too many.”
Albanese lists dozens of major western companies that are deeply invested in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.
This is not a new development, as she notes. These firms have exploited business opportunities associated with Israel’s violent occupation of the Palestinian people’s lands for years, and in some cases decades.
The switch from Israel’s occupation of Gaza to its current genocide hasn’t threatened profits; it has enhanced them. Or as Albanese puts it: “The profits have increased as the economy of the occupation transformed into an economy of genocide.”
The special rapporteur has been a growing thorn in the side of Israel and its western sponsors over the past 21 months of slaughter in Gaza.
That explains why Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, announced soon after her report was issued that he was imposing sanctions on Albanese for her efforts to shed light on the crimes of Israeli and US officials.
Revealingly, he called her statements – rooted in international law – “economic warfare against the United States and Israel”. Albanese and the UN system of universal human rights that stands behind her, it seems, represent a threat to western profiteering.
Israel effectively serves as the world’s largest business incubator – though, in its case, not just by nurturing start-up companies.
Rather, it offers global corporations the chance to test and refine new weapons, machinery, technologies, data collection and automation processes in the occupied territories. These developments are associated with mass oppression, control, surveillance, incarceration, ethnic cleansing – and now genocide.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Big Business, Gaza, Genocide, Israel, Tony Blair | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2025
“Weiner credits Sylvester with “stealing Russia’s war plans for Ukraine,” but completely ignores the role the CIA played in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.“
“Based on Weiner’s article, we now know that the US launched an intelligence war on Russia based completely on a lie. And the senior leaders of the CIA went along with it. In my view, the CIA ought to be dismantled and cast to the four winds. We need to start over with some people of actual intelligence.“
We know what happened the last time those “wind” words were used.
Foreign Policy published an article last week by Tim Weiner, author of Legacy of Ashes, with the title, When the Threat Is Inside the White House: What CIA insiders make of the MAGA moles and toadies now in charge of U.S. national security. While the intent of the article is to paint Trump and his team as a bunch of Russian toadies, Weiner unwittingly paints a picture of the CIA’s leadership as biased operators with no understanding of Russia… They still think they are engaging a communist authoritarian state.
Here’s the opening paragraph:
If our nation’s spies are the infantry of our ideology, as John Le Carré once observed, Tom Sylvester is an unknown soldier who became a four-star general. Two years ago, he was named the CIA’s deputy director of operations, in charge of thousands of officers conducting espionage, covert action, and paramilitary operations. He won the job by virtue of his role in stealing Russia’s war plans for Ukraine, warning the world about the coming invasion, and providing steadfast support to Kyiv’s military and intelligence services.
Weiner credits Sylvester with “stealing Russia’s war plans for Ukraine,” but completely ignores the role the CIA played in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The entire narrative surrounding Sylvester’s actions is constructed around the premise that Russia is a bad, evil actor and that its actions have nothing to do with Western provocations, especially the expansion of NATO to the East.
The next “highlight” from Weiner’s piece provides an excellent example of the CIA’s bias and ignorance when it comes to Russia:
In the summer of 2017, Sylvester received new marching orders from Tomas Rakusan, the new chief of the clandestine service, whose identity remained a state secret until after his retirement. Rakusan had spied on Russia since before the end of the Cold War, operating throughout Central and Eastern Europe. His hatred of the Russians was bred in the bone. His parents were Czech; he was 9 years old when Soviet troops crushed the Prague Spring uprising in 1968. Rakusan saw Russian President Vladimir Putin’s subversion of the presidential election on Trump’s behalf as the espionage equivalent of 9/11. In retaliation, he aimed to penetrate the Kremlin—among the greatest aspirations of the CIA since its foundation, and a goal never achieved.
Hatred of Russians? It is one thing to despise the Soviet Union, which was governed by a Communist ideology. But the “End of the Cold War” was marked by the peaceful overthrow of a communist government and the creation of a new Russian government that emphasized nationalism and Christianity. So how is that a threat to the United States? Moreover, during the decade of the 1990s, Russia’s military was in disarray and the society was ravaged by economic crisis, which included two periods of hyperinflation, widespread poverty among the Russian people, and a dramatic decline in life expectancy among Russian men.
This did not age well: “Rakusan saw Russian President Vladimir Putin’s subversion of the presidential election on Trump’s behalf as the espionage equivalent of 9/11.” Tulsi Gabbard’s declassification of intelligence documents and emails from various members of the CIA and other intelligence officials on Friday, shows that Rakusan either had his head up his ass or was part of the conspiracy to attack Donald Trump with a lie (or both). The memo carries the following subject line: Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing “Russian and criminal actors did not impact” the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure. I am sure this caught Tim Weiner by surprise. Certainly takes the wind out of his sails as he tries to portray the CIA as a saintly, honest outfit being undermined by a President who is in the pocket of Putin.
The next couple of paragraphs from Weiner paint a picture of Western intelligence ramping up against Russia, but also exposes CIA’s impotence with respect to human intelligence assets in Russia:
By the summer of 2020, CIA officers were working in close liaison with the British, Dutch, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Estonians, and many other services against the Russians. “There was the strategic decision on how we would share intelligence,” Sylvester said. “We used it as an influence mechanism, in and of itself, to get governments to start cooperating with us.” This hard-won trust “allowed them to open up taps of cooperation and intelligence that they had theretofore not shared with us,” he added. The CIA and its foreign allies were cross-fertilizing intelligence, choreographing operations, and, most importantly, recruiting Russian sources.
The CIA had been able to “push back against the Russian services” largely by “working with liaison partners overseas to expose and disrupt Russian intelligence activities,” then-CIA Director William Burns told me last year. “And then what we tried to build on that, starting in the spring of 2021, was the recruitment dimension of this,” he said. “This was really, especially once the war drums started beating, a once-in-a-generation opportunity, given the disaffection in some parts of the Russian elite and Russian society” against Putin’s regime.
This quote jumped off the page for me: largely by “working with liaison partners overseas to expose and disrupt Russian intelligence activities.” That is a polite way of saying that the the CIA had no assets of its own and was relying on foreign intelligence services, with the bulk of the information coming from Ukraine.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: CIA, Lie, Russia | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2025
“Judith South comment: People buying online & that is what they want…no more driving around…haven’t you noticed even the supermarkets are getting people used to getting deliveries not going to the store“
Oz competing with their UK brethren to see how fast they can destroy society. The 15 minute city fetish.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Australian, Conservative, Libertarian | 1 Comment »
MCViewPoint 