MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘anti-American’

Watch “Why the Ruling ‘Elite’ is Anti-American | Highlight Ep.32” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2021

Watch the entire course: https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/… The modern administrative state is anti-constitutional and directed by an oligarchic ‘elite’ that is corrupt and distant from the people it rules. This Highlight from Hillsdale College’s FREE Online Course, “Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution,” exposes the modern administrative state as the antithesis of Constitutional government. It is unaccountable to American citizens, intrudes on the most minute details of their lives, and is un-interested in protecting their rights.

https://youtu.be/YAK2SqhKzxI

Be seeing you

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

America Is a Dead Man Walking Because American Youth, or Their Minds, Have Been Stolen – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 31, 2020

The anti-American, anti-Western civilization (dead white men), anti-white indoctrination (systemic racism) that is the main function of an American university education is filtering down into the high schools and elementary schools. The United States is perhaps the first country to use education to destroy its own future. 

Graduates of American schools need a decade to recover from the indoctrination. I propose that the legal voting age in the US be legislated at 30 years of age. Perhaps it would be best if the voting age was 40 years of age or even 50. By then at least some people have learned lessons from life. At 18 no lessons have been learned.

America Is a Dead Man Walking because American Youth, or Their Minds, Have Been Stolen

The United States is a screwed-up country.  It this regard, the US has few rivals.

The legal voting age in the US is 18 years of age, which is also the age of female sexual consent and military enlistment.  So at 18 years of age youth can affect the governance of the country, get legally laid, kill and die in combat, but are considered too irresponsible to imbibe alcohol and purchase a pistol from a licensed dealer until three years later at age 21.

An 18 year old can be sent off to war armed to the teeth, but cannot legally purchase a pistol in a gun store.  He or she can influence how we are governed but cannot purchase a drink at a bar or restaurant.

What does an 18-year old know about politics, life, anything?  Except in very rare circumstances, nothing at all.

The anti-American, anti-Western civilization (dead white men), anti-white indoctrination (systemic racism) that is the main function of an American university education is filtering down into the high schools and elementary schools. The United States is perhaps the first country to use education to destroy its own future.  Most certainly, the US is the first country to make multicultural existence impossible.  The Identity Politics of the liberal-progressive-left splits the country into hostile Identity Groups, some of whom have successfully cultivated victim status, which they use to oppress those without it, primarily heterosexual white males.

The anti-American, anti-white liberal-progressive-left has succeeded in brainwashing large swaths of American youth.  In America the best students for the country are no longer the A students.  The best students are the C students who are turned off by the indoctrination and just want to get on with their lives.  

It is the A students who are receptive to the demonization of their country and themselves.  These students have been targeted by the Democrats for massive voter registration.  They have been refocused on overthrowing the “orange-haired racist/misogynist” in the White House.

It is unfortunate that the future of the United States depends on brainwashed, ignorant youth full of self-assertion and confidence that they know best.

But it does.  Therefore, the United States is doomed.

The Russians and Chinese are likely the future rulers, if they can free their minds from the propaganda that the United States is the Hegemonic and Indispensable Nation empowered to rule by the End of History.

Fortunately for the rest of us, both Russia and China have gone through despotic eras that, apparently, the ruling elites themselves are tired of and want no more of.  

Liberation often comes, not from those who speak its langauage, but from those who have suffered its absence.

Graduates of American schools need a decade to recover from the indoctrination.  I propose that the legal voting age in the US be legislated at 30 years of age.  Perhaps it would be best if the voting age was 40 years of age or even 50.  By then at least some people have learned lessons from life.  At 18 no lessons have been learned.  

To allow people judged too irresponsible to order a drink or to purchase a pistol to influence, even determine, the governance of a country is mindless.

Especially in America.

Be seeing you

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : ‘Anti-American’? House Members Move To Condemn Rep. Omar In Resolution

Posted by M. C. on July 17, 2020

However, the attention of her colleagues has not been on closing this loophole but instead on lashing out at her recent call for the “dismantling the whole system of oppression” in the United States from its economic to political structures.

The greatest “anti-American” threat to our freedoms is the effort to oppose or chill the exercise of free speech, particularly by a political leader. The debate started by Omar is the ultimate example of our core values. We can disagree with each other while affirming our right to call for and seek changes within our system. The use of institutional resolutions of censure or condemnation undermine those values.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/july/17/anti-american-house-members-move-to-condemn-rep-omar-in-resolution/

Written by Jonathan Turley

undefined

I have recently been highly critical of reports that Rep. Iihan Omar (D-MN) has given up to one million dollars in campaign funds to her own husband’s company, one of the long-standing loopholes for corruption in Washington. Omar has been highly controversial for her positions and statements but this should be a matter that unifies people across the political spectrum.

However, the attention of her colleagues has not been on closing this loophole but instead on lashing out at her recent call for the “dismantling the whole system of oppression” in the United States from its economic to political structures. A resolution, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) would denounce Omar for having “a documented history of expressing anti-American sentiments.” The resolution is a mistake that undermines both free speech and democratic values. It should be withdrawn.

Omar recently declared:

‘We are not merely fighting to tear down the systems of oppression in the criminal justice system. We are fighting to tear down systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment, in the air we breathe. As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality,’ she said. ‘We cannot stop at the criminal justice system, we must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.’

Many commentators and fellow members immediately denounced Omar’s positions. It was an example of how free speech is meant to work. Omar’s speech was met with counter speech.

However, members now want a formal censure or condemnation from the House as a whole. It is obviously not going to happen with the Democratically controlled House. Yet, the resolution itself is a concern for what it says about the right of Members to voice their views of the inherent flaws or abuses of our system. I do not happen to agree with Omar but I find the resolution far more concerning than her hyperbolic comments.

The resolution denounces Omar for advocating “a Marxist form of government that is incompatible with the principles laid out in the founding documents of the United States.”

As a Democratic nation, members have every right to call for sweeping reforms, even changing the emphasis or structure of our economic and political system. Omar has become a member of Congress to seek such changes lawfully and constitutionally. To her credit, she has overcome much in her life to attain her position in Congress and has become a global figure of influence. I do not agree with her and will oppose many of her proposals. However, we are all working within a constitutional structure that allows for and protects different visions for this country.

It is not enough to say that such resolution are just an exercise of free speech for other Members. These members are seeking to use the imprimatur of their House to denounce political opponents. I have long opposed the use of such institutional statements, including most recently the effort on my own faculty to denounce Attorney General Bill Attorney as a law school institution. Individual Members, like faculty members, are free to join as individuals in such statements. It is a misuse of the Congress to use resolution to denounce those with opposing political or economic views.

It is also a practice that makes for poor legislative cultures. The House Democrats could endlessly pass resolutions condemning their opponents as racists or fascists. Since these resolutions do not take any concrete action, courts are likely to view the matters as outside of the realm of judicial review or lacking a cognizable injury for judicial relief. The result is to further the stifling intolerance for opposing views that we are seeing across the country, particularly on our campuses. This becomes an insatiable appetite to use our institutions to denounce or silence or marginalize those with opposing views. The way to defend our system is not to use the Congress to denounce political opponents. We have gone through ugly periods like the Red Scare where such condemnations were common and members used their institutional power to intimidate or coerce those with dissenting views.

The greatest “anti-American” threat to our freedoms is the effort to oppose or chill the exercise of free speech, particularly by a political leader. The debate started by Omar is the ultimate example of our core values. We can disagree with each other while affirming our right to call for and seek changes within our system. The use of institutional resolutions of censure or condemnation undermine those values. Members, like free speech, require space. Indeed, in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan noted that “the freedoms of expression” require “breathing space…to survive.”

I do not question the sincere feelings of anger of these sponsors but they should withdraw this resolution in the interests of the very American values that they cite.

Resolution condemning state… by Fox News on Scribd


Be seeing you

 

 

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

Why I Don’t Criticize Russia, China, Or Other Unabsorbed Governments – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on December 31, 2019

When asked in an interview why he spends the bulk of his time criticizing his own government, Noam Chomsky replied:

“My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that: namely, I can do something about it.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/30/why-i-dont-criticize-russia-china-or-other-unabsorbed-governments/

author: Caitlin Johnstone

Depending on whose political echo chamber I happen to be arguing with on a given day, one common criticism I run into a fair bit which many of my readers have surely also encountered is that I put all my energy into criticizing the foreign policy of the United States and its allies.

“You’re not anti-war, you’re only anti-AMERICAN wars!” they say, as though they’re delivering some kind of devastating slam-dunk point. “If you’re so antiwar, why don’t you criticize Assad’s war in Syria? If you’re such an anti-imperialist, show me where you’ve ever once criticized Russian imperialism, or Chinese imperialism?”

The argument being that someone who opposes US-led warmongering isn’t really motivated by a desire for peace and an opposition to war unless they’re also voicing opposition to all other violent governments in the world. If you’re only criticizing US imperialism and not the imperialism of other nations, you must be motivated by something far more sinister, perhaps a hatred for the United States of America.

I have three responses to this feeble line of argumentation, which I’ll list here for the benefit of anyone else who’d like to make use of them:

1. People making this argument never apply its own logic to themselves.

Nobody criticizes all misdeeds by all governments everywhere in the world. If you run into someone making this “you have to criticize all bad governments or your criticisms are invalid” argument on Twitter, just do an advanced search for their Twitter handle plus “Duterte” or “Sisi” or one of the other US-allied tyrants who the mainstream media haven’t spent years demonizing, and you’ll find that they’ve never made a single mention of those leaders the entire time they’ve had that account.

What this proves, of course, is that they don’t actually practice the belief that all misdeeds by all governments are equally worthy of condemnation. What they actually practice is the belief that one ought to criticize the governments they hear their television criticizing: Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc. The governments the US State Department and the CIA don’t like. The disobedient governments. The governments which have resisted absorption into the blob of the US-centralized empire.

They don’t put the logic of their own argument into practice because it is impossible to put into practice. Everyone’s only got so much time in the day, so you have to choose where to put your focus. I personally choose to put my focus on the single most egregious offender in warmongering and imperialism. Which takes us to:

2. The US empire is by far the worst warmongering imperialist force on the planet.

US-led regime change interventionism is literally always disastrous and literally never helpful. This is an indisputable fact. Imperialists get very frustrated when I take my stand there in arguments online, because it is an unassailable position. That’s usually when the ad hominems start flying.

All things are not equal. This isn’t something you should have to explain to grown adults, but such is the nature of propaganda. It is true that other governments do evil things; as far as I can tell this becomes pretty much a given as soon as a government is allowed to have a military force and keep important secrets from its citizenry. Obviously Russia, China and other unabsorbed governments are no exception to this rule. But the US is worse, by orders of magnitude.

No other nation comes anywhere remotely close. No other nation is circling the planet with hundreds of military bases and engaged in dozens of undeclared military operations. No other nation has cultivated a giant globe-sprawling empire in the form of tightly knit alliances with powerful murderous governments like the UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia. No other nation is constantly laboring to sabotage and undermine any government which refuses to be absorbed into military and economic alliance with it using sanctions, staged coups, covert CIA operations, color revolutions, economic manipulations, propaganda, the arming of dissident militias, and launching full-scale military invasions. Only the US and the nations that its cancerous empire has metastasized into are doing anything like that on anywhere near the scale.

So since I, like everyone else, only have enough time in the day to oppose so many different evils in the world, I choose to pour my energy into opposing the single most egregious offender. An offender which doesn’t get nearly enough opposition, in my opinion.

3. I have a special responsibility for the evils of the empire in which I live.

When asked in an interview why he spends the bulk of his time criticizing his own government, Noam Chomsky replied:

“My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that: namely, I can do something about it. So even if the US was responsible for 2% of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2% I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.”

When people here in Australia ask about what I do for a living, I sometimes jokingly tell them I write about Australian foreign policy, which means that I write about US foreign policy. I’ve written many times about how Australia functions as Washington’s basement gimp, an impotent vassal which functions as little more than a US military/intelligence asset in terms of meaningful international affairs.

So all I really am doing here is applying Chomsky’s philosophy to the reality of an empire in which sovereign nations do not exist to any meaningful extent; as a member of a state within that empire I focus on US government malfeasance in the same way I would if I were living in Alaska or Hawaii.

All I’m doing is pointing my personal skill set at what I see as the biggest problem in the world: a murderous empire in which I happen to reside and therefore bear special responsibility for opposing. Which is simply the only sane stand for anyone to take, in my opinion.

________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

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

Telling the Truth Has Become an Anti-American Act – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on October 31, 2019

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/30/telling-the-truth-has-become-an-anti-american-act/

Paul Craig Roberts

Stephen Cohen and I emphasize that the state of tension today between the United States and Russia is more dangerous than during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. For calling needed attention to the risk of nuclear war heightened by the current state of tension, both Cohen and I have been called “Russian dupes/agents” by PropOrNot, a website suspected of being funded by an element of the US military/security complex.

Cohen and I emphasize that during the Cold War both sides were working to reduce tensions and to build trust. President John F. Kennedy worked with Khruschev to defuse the dangerous Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon made arms control agreements with the Soviet leaders, as did President Jimmy Carter. President Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to end the Cold War. President George H.W. Bush’s administration gave assurances to Gorbachev that if the Soviets agreed to the renunification of Germany, the US would not move NATO one inch to the East.

These accomplishments were all destroyed by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama neoconized regimes. President Donald Trump’s intention to normalize US/Russian relations has been blocked by the US military/security complex, presstitute media, and Democratic Party.
The Russiagate hoax and currently the illegitimate impeachment process have succeeded in preventing any reduction in the dangerous state of tensions between the two nuclear powers.

Those of us who lived and fought the Cold War are acutely aware of the numerous occasions when false warnings of incoming ICBMs and other moments of high tension could have resulted in nuclear Armageddon.

Former CIA official Ray McGovern reminds us that on October 27, 1962, during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a single Soviet Navy submarine captain, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, prevented the outbreak of nuclear war. Arkhipov was one of two captains on Soviet submarine B-59. After hours of B-59 being battered by depth charges from US warships, the other captain, Valentin Grigorievich Savitsky readied a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon capable of wiping out the entire USS Randolph carrier task force, to be readied for launch. It didn’t happen only because Arkhipov was present and countermanded the order and brought the Soviet submarine to the surface. Ray McGovern tells the story here: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/most-dangerous-moment-human-history and you can read it in Daniel Ellsberg’s book, The Doomsday Machine. The really scary part of the story is that US intelligence was so incompetent that Washington had no idea that Soviet nuclear weapons were in the combat area on a submarine undergoing debt-charging by the US Navy. The brass thought they could teach the Soviets a lesson by sinking a submarine and came close to getting the United States destroyed.

Another Soviet hero who prevented nuclear war was Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov who disobeyed Soviet military protocol and did not pass on reports of incoming US ICBMs. He did not believe that there was a military/political basis for such an attack and concluded it was a malfunction of the Soviet satellite warning system, which it was.

Many times both Americans and Soviets overrode warnings on the basis of judgment. My colleague, Zbigniew Brezezinski told me the story of being awakened at 2AM with reports of incoming Soviet ICBMs. It turned out that a simulation of an attack had in some way gotten into the warning system and was reported as real. It was a very close call. Someone doubted it enough to detect the error before Brezezinski woke the president.

Today with tensions so high and neither side trusting the other, the probability of human judgment prevailing over official warning systems is much lower.

Over the years I have tried to correct the widespread misunderstanding and misrepresentation of President Reagan’s military buildup/starwars hype and hostility toward Marxist, or perhaps merely leftwing reform movements, in Granada and Nicaragua. With his economic program in place and stagflation on the way out, Reagan’s plan was to bring the Soviets to the bargaining table by threatening their broke economy with the expense of an arms race. The plan also depended on preventing any Marxist advances in Central America or offshore islands. The Soviets had to see that there were no prospects for communist expansion and that they needed to get down to peace in order to free resources for their broken economy.

Reading Ben Macintyre’s The Spy and The Traitor, the story of KBG colonel Oleg Gordievsky, an asset of Britain’s MI6, made me aware for the first time how dangerous Reagan’s plan was. American intelligence was so far off-track that Washington did not realize that a plan designed to scare the Soviets into peace was instead convincing them that the US was readying an all-out nuclear attack.

At the time the Soviet leader was the former KGB chief, Yuri Andropov. The ABLE ARCHER NATO war game during the first part of November 1983 simulated an escalating conflict culminating in a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. The Soviets did not see it as a war game and regarded it as American preparation for a real attack. What prevented Soviet preemptive action was Gordievsky’s report to MI6 that the Americans were raising Soviet anxiety to the breaking point. This woke up Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to the threat they were creating with their bellicose words and deeds. The CIA later confessed: “Gordievsky’s information was an epiphany for President Reagan . . . only Gordievsky’s timely warning to Washington via MI6 kept things from going too far.”

In my seasoned opinion and in that of Stephen Cohen, with Hillary almost elected president branding the president of Russia as “the New Hitler,” with constant provocations and demonizations of Russia and her leaders, with the accumulation of nuclear-capable missiles on Russia’s borders, with an orchestrated Russiagate by US security agencies blocking President Trump from normalizing relations, things have already gone too far. The kinds of false alarms and miscalculations described above are more likely to have deadly consequences than ever before.

Indeed, this seems to be the intention. Why else are people such as Stephen Cohen and myself branded “Russian agents” for telling the truth and giving accurate heartfelt warnings about the danger of such high tensions when neither side trusts the other?

It is reckless and irresponsible to demonize people of integrity such as Stephen Cohen and myself as “Russian agents.” When telling the truth becomes the mark of being a disloyal American, what hope is there?

Be seeing you

truth

 

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

Miss Michigan Discovers She Has No First Amendment Rights – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on July 25, 2019

Miss Zhu’s pageant colleagues should rally around her and let Laurie DeJack know that if Miss Zhu goes, they go too.  It will be interesting to see if women are as mutually supportive as feminists want them to be.

Lost in the PC category.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/07/22/miss-michigan-discovers-she-has-no-first-amendment-rights/

Paul Craig Roberts

Kathy Zhu a pretty Asian Miss Michigan found out that she doesn’t have free speech.  The organization Miss World America took away her Miss Michigan title and banned Miss Zhu from further participation in their pageants.  The reason?  Someone complained that Miss Zhu’s posted opinions on social media are “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate.”

Did Miss Zhu post hateful comments like “the squad” did about President Trump and America? No.  Miss Zhu did much worse things:  She refused to don a hijab, which means she is Islamophobic, and she stated that black Americans kill more black Americans than do the police, which means she is racist.

If Miss Zhu had donned a hijab, she would have risked being lumped in with congresswoman Ilhan Omar and said to be anti-American, not a helpful designation for a beauty queen.  Have we already forgotten that, according to the official story, we were attacked on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists who destroyed 3 New York skyscrapers, part of the Pentagon and many US lives?  Muslims are the reason we have TSA and searches of airline passengers. Why would Michigan’s beauty queen want to associate herself with these memories?

If Miss Zhu had said that the police are the main killers of black Americans, it would have been a lie, but not distressing to victim groups.  By telling the truth, Miss Zhu caused “distress” and, therefore, was guilty of a racist act.  Miss World America officials decided that as Miss Zhu was Islamophobic and racist she was no longer “of good character” and, thus, her association with the Miss World America organization was terminated by Laurie DeJack, Michigan state director of the organization.

Perhaps Laurie isn’t very bright and can’t tell the difference between free speech, truth, and racism and also cannot see good sense in Miss Zhu’s reluctance to associate herself with Muslims with whom the US is at war and has been at war since Miss Zhu was two years old. As my readers know, I think the “Muslim terrorist” threat in America is a hoax and a Ziocon orchestration to deceive Americans into fighting Israel’s wars, but most Americans don’t. The minute Miss Zhu donned a hijab and a photo was snapped, she would have been history.

There is an alternative explanation to Laurie DeJack’s arbitrary action against Miss Zhu.  Perhaps Miss World America is a white supremacist organization and has seized the opportunity to get back one of its titles from a racial minority. It seems to me that Miss Zhu has a racial discrimination suit.   

Miss Zhu’s pageant colleagues should rally around her and let Laurie DeJack know that if Miss Zhu goes, they go too.  It will be interesting to see if women are as mutually supportive as feminists want them to be.

Be seeing you

Parenting Fails: Beauty Pageant Edition

 

 

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