International Man: We’re seeing several disturbing trends converge: currency debasement, increased surveillance, and more travel restrictions.
It seems governments everywhere—and the WEF elite behind them—are waging an all-out war on ordinary people worldwide.
What do you make of this trend, and where is it headed?
Doug Casey: Well, as I said earlier, the World Economic Forum is actually an informal United Nations, which is bad enough.
It’s populated by people who like the idea of powerful government in general, and a powerful world government in particular. When you look at history, you find that there are people who arise from seemingly nowhere and are able to put themselves in positions of huge influence and power. In today’s world, that usually happens through elections. But Bismarck, Napoleon, Mao, Kissinger, Schwab, Gates, and most others didn’t come up through elections for what they’re worth. They came up through force of personality, cleverness, and connections. Elections are essentially an Americanism.
Incidentally, I don’t believe in elections or “democracy” as means for determining who your boss is and who controls you. Elections have rarely been more than popularity contests at best, and more often, mob rule dressed in a coat and tie. As HL Mencken quipped, an election is just an advance auction on stolen goods. Now, more than ever, they’re just rubber stamps for political operators who are adept at using the media and other forms of influence to get the hoi polloi to robotically legitimize their rulers.
Manipulating public opinion has become a fine art using electronic media. It’s especially effective in getting the bottom half of society—let’s call them marginal citizens—who aren’t famous for researching issues or thinking critically, to vote one way or another. Voting can make sense if the voters are virtuous, independent thinkers, at least 21 years old, and property owners. Many today are none of these things. That’s why elections are meaningless shams, more now than ever. They do nothing but legitimize power junkies.
Where is this trend going? As the economy and the dollar deteriorate further, people are likely to look for a strong leader, someone who will promise to make things better if he’s given enough power.
Both men have bragged openly about creating a new genetically-engineered breed to replace the human race. I have some Jewish blood in me from my dad’s side, and I have to say, hearing a Jewish professor like Harari utter such scorn for humanity is no different than the extreme hatred Hitler had toward the Jews—which led to genocide, by the way. Obviously, Harari does not practice traditional orthodox Judaism, and will be as happy as Hitler to see “genetically impure” humans shrink in numbers.
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.” ― J. Edgar Hoover
The majority of the populace living in the free nations remind me of stiff white bowling pins. They see the big black bowling ball of globalism hurling down on them, knowing it will eventually take them out in one strike, and yet they remain woefully willing to take on whatever dreadful fate it renders. I believe part of this apathy stems from their inability to grasp just how destructive that rolling globe will be to their lives once it knocks them over. If there is any chance of stopping this global takeover before the year 2030 bears down on us, the despondent “pins” of the world need a very honest dousing of reality on what sort of life awaits them.
There is no easy way to talk about what we are all about to face, and so I am going to get down and dirty with the nitty-gritty cold hard facts behind the running engine of this one world centralized government. China’s present cushy communism or the ruthless Soviet communism I grew up under is a spit in the sea compared to the dictatorial government coming into power. Remember, a global government has never ruled the world before, and if we look back at history, we see that the quests for globalization always commenced under repressive rulers, such as Alexander the Great and Napoleon, to name a few. But those past despots do not come close to the evil plans the elite have for humanity under the upcoming global Great Reset of nations.
The global autocrats undermining every nation today did not pop up a few decades ago and decide to turn the world upside down and form a global government while drinking tea with the heads of the United Nations. The pursuit for globalization has been going on for ages, and originated way back in history, and strengthened in ideology during the Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people in 597 BC. Because the Babylonian culture and rule was steeped in occult practices, many of the captured Jewish priests ended up compromising their beliefs in the God of Israel and embracing the occultic teachings they observed around them. This included adopting the philosophy that they were superior over the rest of the Jews who upheld the worship of one God. That “elitist” mindset turned into a lifelong mission to rule the world and enslave the peoples of every nation whom they considered beneath them.
Jesus exposed this minority of subverters in the New Testament, when He cursed the Sanhedrin (Jewish priests and elders who allied with the teachings of mysticism) and told them that they ‘outwardly appeared righteous, but within were full of hypocrisy and iniquity’ and ‘one with their father the devil.’
In order to conceal their esoteric views and gain a foothold in leadership positions, the compromising Jews of this underground sect continued observing and participating in the customary orthodox Jewish tradition. Today the principles of this faction are promoted through Kabbalah, secret societies, and communism.
This is why the Soviet-controlled organization, The Communist International, initiated in 1919, stated that their objective was world domination and that they would “struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie {capitalism} and the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state.”
This same mindset to destroy capitalism and globalize is now being passed on through social Darwinism, which is the belief system of today’s elite, whom foolishly assert that their genes are purer than the rest of humankind.
Klaus Schwab, CEO of the World Economic Forum and author of the book the Great Reset, and his advisor Professor Yuri Harari, who demoralizes the human race in his speeches and published book, Homos Deus, are both globalists who view themselves as superior to the rest of humanity. Both men have bragged openly about creating a new genetically-engineered breed to replace the human race. I have some Jewish blood in me from my dad’s side, and I have to say, hearing a Jewish professor like Harari utter such scorn for humanity is no different than the extreme hatred Hitler had toward the Jews—which led to genocide, by the way. Obviously, Harari does not practice traditional orthodox Judaism, and will be as happy as Hitler to see “genetically impure” humans shrink in numbers.
In our case, it is certainly true that government regulations have increased costs and limited the supply of housing. That’s not the issue. The issue is that faraway governments will predictably be even less responsive to localdemands in different neighborhoods. Incidentally, it would be remiss not to mention that most who would involve the state and federal governments in local zoning are conspicuously silent on monetary policy. Yet, an inflationary monetary policy is one of the major obstacles to affordable housing.
The real problem here is progressives want to dictate how you live. Those using climate as the excuse to control they want to keep you out of the suburbs and countryside and in high density urban caves. Small farms, especially methane producing dairy and cattle farms will also be out.
It is all about (population) control. As I have said before, Isaac Asimov’s “Caves of Steel” will give you a preview of life may well be like for your children and grand children.
In recent years, there’s been a push to move zoning decisions further from the local level. In 2019, Oregon passed House Bill 2001, making it the first statewide law to abolish single-family zoning in many areas. By expanding the state government’s jurisdiction to include zoning decisions previously handled by local agencies, the law entails an alarming centralization of state power. This was quickly followed by the introduction of similar bills in Virginia, Washington, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Now President Biden is attempting to increase federal influence over local zoning.
Included in Biden’s American Jobs Plan is a proposal that would award grants to jurisdictions that move to eliminate single-family zoning and other land-use policies the administration deems harmful. Biden’s plan has been widely opposed by conservatives and libertarians alike, but some libertarians view this zoning proposal as the plan’s silver lining. These libertarians hope federal incentives will remove government obstacles to affordable housing. To be sure, government regulations at every level increase costs and violate property rights. However, political centralization will not reduce government. To the contrary, centralization must be understood as an expansion and concentration of state power. Instead of furthering property rights, centralization will promote a one-size-fits-all approach regardless of homeowner preferences.
At this point, some may object that unlike the laws introduced at the state level, Biden’s proposal could be resisted by simply refusing the grants. Indeed, a White House Official describes Biden’s approach to zoning as “purely carrot, no stick.” However, this offers little reassurance. Experience has shown that governments cannot be relied upon to refuse funding, and as Murray Rothbard points out, “[G]overnment subsidy inevitably brings government control.” Once the public becomes accustomed to the federal standards and local governments become dependent on the federal money, there’s little to stop them from accepting those same standards as laws. We need only look at education to see where federal subsidies can lead.
The zoning issue is instructive, because it demonstrates both how the federal government can seize control of local functions through the back door, and how a move from the local to state level can lead to further centralization. Given that centralization moves decisions further from individual property owners and ultimately in the direction of supranational government, federal control of zoning is the logical next step. Decentralization, by contrast, would be a step toward self-determination.
One of the more common arguments against local control holds that zoning cannot be left to localities because local zoning is often exclusionary. But this position is completely untenable. If a property owner finds his control over his own property limited by zoning ordinances, then his opposition is justified, because the ordinances violate his property rights. However, opposition to zoning cannot be justified simply because it’s exclusionary. After all, private property is inherently exclusionary. Hence, if zoning is opposed on the grounds that it’s exclusionary, then the concept of private property can be opposed on the same grounds. Moreover, if all neighborhoods were completely private, we could expect some neighborhoods to be more exclusive than is presently the case. Rothbard explains,
With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflict, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.
As we have seen, neighborhoods would be as exclusive or inclusive as property owners wish them to be if all neighborhoods were privately owned. Some would only allow single-family homes while others would permit duplexes and multifamily homes. It should therefore be clear that a uniform zoning code cannot represent the wishes of property owners in different locales.
In distinct contrast, one of the benefits of localism is that the wishes of property owners tend to be better represented at the local level. Astonishingly, the ostensibly libertarian Reason magazine uses this same point to argue in favor of moving zoning decisions to the state level. They approvingly quote Emily Hamilton of the Mercatus Center arguing that local policymakers are too beholden to local property owners.
Yet, localism is the better strategy here, because local regulations are more easily avoided than state regulations. If a local government’s regulations prove too onerous, it risks the loss of its most productive citizens to the next city or town. However, as a state expands the territory under its control, it becomes more difficult for citizens to escape its jurisdiction. Thus, there’s less reason for a large, centralized state to refrain from imposing such regulations.
Opposition to any and all centralization is particularly important when the centralizing measure sounds superficially appealing. This could be a supposed deregulation measure, or to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s examples,
It would be anti-libertarian, for instance, to appeal to the United Nations to order the breakup of a taxi-monopoly in Houston, or to the US government to order Utah to abolish its state-certification requirement for teachers, because in doing so one would have illegitimately granted these state agencies jurisdiction over property that they plainly do not own (but others do): not only Houston or Utah, but every city in the world and every state in the United States.
In our case, it is certainly true that government regulations have increased costs and limited the supply of housing. That’s not the issue. The issue is that faraway governments will predictably be even less responsive to local demands in different neighborhoods. Incidentally, it would be remiss not to mention that most who would involve the state and federal governments in local zoning are conspicuously silent on monetary policy. Yet, an inflationary monetary policy is one of the major obstacles to affordable housing.
Make no mistake: the power libertarian centralists would grant the federal government in the name of deregulation would be used in service of the broader egalitarian project. Indeed, under Biden, HUD (the Department of Housing and Urban Development) has already moved to restore an Obama-era rule which previous housing secretary Ben Carson warned would essentially turn HUD into a national zoning board. Not surprisingly, this is being sold as an attempt to reduce “racial segregation.”
Empowering state legislatures—or worse, the federal government—to abolish local regulations would be a grave mistake. Rather than limiting government, centralization under any pretext will only add new layers of government. We must therefore resist all assaults on local self-government by more distant governments and combat government regulations at the location they occur. Otherwise, distant administrators will continue to seize power and local control will become increasingly trivial. Author:
There are many agendas being pursued by the self-claimed elites, but the core element of this takeover of society is based on centralizing all power in the hands of the few so that the masses and the world economy can be controlled from the top. This has always been about power and control, and has never been about any risk due to any virus.
“Every time I hear a political speech or I read those of our leaders, I am horrified at having, for years, heard nothing which sounded human. It is always the same words telling the same lies. And the fact that men accept this, that the people’s anger has not destroyed these hollow clowns, strikes me as proof that men attribute no importance to the way they are governed; that they gamble – yes, gamble – with a whole part of their life and their so called ‘vital’ interests.”
~ Albert Camus (1978). “Notebooks, 1935-1942”, Harcourt
Is it any wonder that the entirety of our current predicament rests on the lies of the governing system and its ruling accomplices? American governance, all governance in fact, is and has always been susceptible to seeking power and control by means that prove very harmful to the general population. Conspiracy is always evident, and has led to abuses that have included theft, war, killing, imprisonment, torture, and in many cases genocide. In the U.S. today during this false flag event called a ‘virus pandemic,’ we have already seen massive theft in the form of multi-trillion dollar money printing, imprisonment of much of the country through lockdown and isolation mandates, killing of the old and innocent through criminal medical care or lack of medical care, medical martial law, and torture in that many died horrible deaths due to state regulations and procedures. This is a war, but in this case the war is openly being waged against the American public by the very government that most support. Americans have voluntarily allowed its existence, and this is a travesty.
What is likely unknown to most is that this nightmare is just beginning, while the average citizen is still thinking about or hoping for a return to ‘normal.’ Hope and prayer without action will accomplish nothing, but little if any mass dissent and disobedience are evident at this time. The reinstating and acceleration of the tyrannical measures we have seen to date are just around the corner, and with the ‘perfect storm’ of a very weak and unhealthy society with highly compromised immune systems, during what will probably prove to be an especially severe flu season, the sickness and death will all be blamed on a virus that has never been shown to exist. This is astounding, because this information is readily available for any that choose to see, but mass blindness seems to be a real risk we face today. This public blindness is due to ignorance and indifference, and that combination is a recipe for disaster.
There are many agendas being pursued by the self-claimed elites, but the core element of this takeover of society is based on centralizing all power in the hands of the few so that the masses and the world economy can be controlled from the top. This has always been about power and control, and has never been about any risk due to any virus. The fact that no such thing as ‘Covid-19’ has ever been isolated or identified, is staggering to say the least, but this ruse has been fully accepted by the herd, so much so that their very lives and livelihoods have been purposely destroyed due to voluntary compliance. Most have concentrated on being obedient slaves, while becoming fearful of their own family, friends, and neighbors in order to protect themselves from a ‘deadly virus’ that according to the perpetrators of this fraud has a stated survival rate of over 99.8%. In other words, there is no virus threat.
This conspiracy has but one main goal, and that is securing the centralization of power and control over all people and economies in order to achieve global dominance. It is being labeled as ‘The Great Reset,” as described by the very evil Klaus Schwab who is the founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. He is tied to Bill Gates, George Soros, and the rest of these inhuman monsters. His and the ruling class ‘elites’ plans for our future are ominous, and currently being accepting by the bulk of this pathetic society. Here are some of his predictions for 2030, which include the United States surrender to the United Nations:
“You’ll own nothing” — And “you’ll be happy about it.”
“The U.S. won’t be the world’s leading superpower”
“You won’t die waiting for an organ donor” — They will be made by 3D printers
“You’ll eat much less meat” — Meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.”
“A billion people will be displaced by climate change” – Soros’ Open Borders
“Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide” – “There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels history”
“You could be preparing to go to Mars” — Scientists “will have worked out how to keep you healthy in space.”
“Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.” – “Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten”
He is also a proponent of transhumanism, and has said that nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the “coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.” Schwab stated this even though admitting that: “Unlike certain past epidemics, COVID-19 doesn’t pose a new existential threat.” Covid-19 never existed, and never was a threat, but has been the tool used to advance a new world order, or as he calls it, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
Concerning the melding of machines and humans, transhumanism, Schwab spells it out in more detail in “Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution:”
Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us—they will become part of us. Indeed, some of us already feel that our smartphones have become an extension of ourselves. Today’s external devices—from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets—will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains. Exoskeletons and prosthetics will increase our physical power, while advances in neurotechnology enhance our cognitive abilities. We will become better able to manipulate our own genes, and those of our children. These developments raise profound questions: Where do we draw the line between human and machine? What does it mean to be human?
“We the people” are not a part of this agenda, and are not included in this planning of a new society. We are simply the cattle being prodded and used to sustain the masters. The public makes no decisions, as this plot for gaining technocratic control over all of us has been in the works for many years, but is now going forward at an unimaginable pace, all due to the Covid lie. Everything was planned long ago in secret, but now is being completed and telegraphed out in the open for all to see. This is due to the fact that these manipulating rulers have no fear of the people at large, and believe them too lazy and ignorant to grasp the scope of this totalitarian takeover. Schwab admits this when he writes:
“We must re-establish a dialogue among all stakeholders to ensure mutual understanding that further builds a culture of trust among regulators, non-governmental organizations, professionals and scientists. The public must also be considered, because it must participate in the democratic shaping of biotechnological developments that affect society, individuals and cultures.”
This fake pandemic has supplied what the ruling class calls an opportunityfor a reset of society. When the chosen masters call what they claim to be a deadly risk to all mankind an opportunity, one should stand up and take notice, and should immediately understand that we are all the victims of a terrible coup meant to enslave humanity.
Lockdowns, isolation, masks, economic destruction, digitized monetary restructuring, deadly vaccines, gene-controlling technology, transhuman experimentation, total surveillance, and a totalitarian police state are what the masters you have chosen want for all Americans. They are blatantly claiming that this is the new normal they have chosen for you, but you have a choice. Accept all you are being told and become a slave, or realize that the only pandemic is this claimed “Great Reset” that is being used to eradicate you. Acceptance can only lead to hell in a world consumed by evil.
The Best of Gary D. Barnett Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son.
Fortunately, nobody has to know exactly what the new political structure will look like, and – arguably the best part of decentralization – it does not have to look the same everywhere.
A recent study by researchers from Brown and Stanford Universities certainly paints a grim picture of the state of the national discourse. The study attempts to measure “affective polarization,” defined as the extent to which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than their own, in nine developed countries, including the United States.
The study authors concluded that affective polarization has risen much faster and more drastically in the United States than in any of the other countries they studied (figure 1). They then speculated on possible explanations of increasing polarization, suggesting that changing party composition, increasing racial division, and 24-hour partisan cable news are convincing possible causes. Notably, the research was completed before the coronavirus pandemic or the police killing of George Floyd, two events that have only deepened political division.
While the study is interesting and well written, the authors completely fail to consider a more fundamental potential explanation of increasing polarization, one that is likely to be understood well by libertarians and federalists, who have long railed against the trend toward ever more usurpation of local and state sovereignty in American politics.
I propose that the real culprit behind worsening polarization is the gargantuan federal government that has turned the entire country into an unceasing political battleground. When virtually all political issues are settled at the national level, the whole nation becomes a source of potential political opponents. Centralization changes the scale and with it the locus of political debate and conflict. For the average political participant, it is probably true that people with differing ideas live near you, in your city or state, but the mathematical reality is that the vast majority of your political opponents live relatively far away (spread throughout the rest of the country) and thus have no material connection to your life or your community.
Political opposition becomes just numbers on a cable news screen: 49 percent for this, 51 percent for that. Sixty-two million votes for one candidate, 65 million for another. These numbers, without names or faces, become simple objects; some are pawns to be moved around, while others are obstacles to be pushed aside. This is not just speculation: previous research has indicated that partisanship is correlated with the use of tactics to dehumanize political opponents. Centralized political decision-making amounts to a systematic dehumanization of anyone who might participate in the political process.
The effects of such a disastrous form of organization are already evident. Political polarization is not confined to academic papers, but has now manifested in the streets of Kenosha and Portland. As the 2020 election approaches, politically charged killings between members of rival factions will only become more likely. What was formerly a central promise of democratic politics—the peaceful transfer of power—has been abandoned in favor of direct action and blood.
If centralization is the cause of our problems, then decentralization is the cure. Pushing decision-making power down to state and local levels as much as possible, closer to the people actually affected by the decisions, is the only way forward. Of course, it will not solve all the problems of political culture today. Policy debates and disagreements could still be just as intense at the local level as at the federal. But it is harder to dehumanize someone who might be a part of your community. Those numbers on the screen are on your local news now, not the national news. Those percentages and vote tallies might include your neighbor down the street, your Uber driver, the person ahead of you in line at the grocery store, or the old man you saw out walking his dog this morning. Technically, this has always been true, and we would do well to remember the humanity of the people we disagree with even while political focus is at the national level. This fact is simply harder to ignore when the primary nexus for political decisions is more immediate and local.
Admittedly, I do not know exactly how decentralization can happen. There is no magic blueprint. Maybe the worst pessimists are right, and we are doomed to fight some sort of second civil war before we remember that those with whom we disagree are people too. I think the future is brighter than that. Perhaps, as Mises Institute president Jeff Deist has pointed out, de facto decentralization has already begun. Fortunately, nobody has to know exactly what the new political structure will look like, and – arguably the best part of decentralization – it does not have to look the same everywhere. Both major parties, and people of all ideological persuasions, will probably have to give up some preferred victory or vanquishing of the “other side.” Many Democrats would love to prevent all abortion laws in the state of Georgia for the rest of time. Some Republicans would love to lock down California’s southern border with an airtight seal.
A new era of decentralization means that neither of these things can be accomplished by federal imposition, and their proponents are not going to be happy about that. The task ahead is to demonstrate that whatever the sacrifices required to achieve more localized decision-making might be, centralization is too dangerous to continue.
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. No standing federal police agencies or apparatus are required to enforce these; in fact the latter appears to be the express policy of our central bank. There should not be federal agents, overt or covert, in Portland.
Dear Portlandia progressives: a federal government big enough to take care of you is a federal government big enough to “take care of you.”
Scary unidentifiable police, federal black sites, and procedureless snatching of individuals from the streets are the wholly predictable and natural consequences of the very policies you advocated for decades. Why do you imagine a big government with lots of power will restrict itself to the cozy “social issues” and economic takings you support? Government can seize the means of production, but not seize you? You wanted everything run from DC, and you got what you wanted. Plus you certainly would be every bit as outraged if federal agents concerned about the undermining of America surreptitiously snatched up a few “white supremacists,” right?
Progressives of all parties have cheered the relentless centralization of state matters—and rejection of the Tenth Amendment—for nearly 150 years. The shaky and infirm Incorporation Doctrine federalized the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court federalized social and economic issues, and the the alphabet soup of federal agencies created by progressive administrations federalized the regulatory state. Foreign policy was ripped away from Congress and commandeered by bureaucratic Deep State actors at the DOD, CIA, NSA, and the State Department. Thousands of new federal crimes were created by statute. These statutes in turn created a vast federal police state, one heavily influenced and provisioned by the residual weaponry and machinery of our overseas wars.
So now you wonder why the Feds are sent in to quell an uprising in Portland?
Who wanted to make the world safe for democracy? Remember Woodrow Wilson, suddenly a bad guy because of racism? At least Truman had the honesty to admit regrets about creating the CIA. Who wanted federal control over the retrograde Southern states? Who dismissed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as relics? Who derided states’ rights and nullification as legal cover for bigotry? And for the millionth time, “states’ rights” does not mean states have “rights” relative to their citizens; it refers to their retained powers in a federal system—so enough with the dishonest smears.
Who shrugged at Waco and Guantanamo Bay, for that matter? Or when Obama signed the NDAA?
At this writing, federal agents operating in the City of Roses appear to be from the Department of Homeland Security (sic). Here is what Ron Paul, a true man of peace yet despised by progressives, had to say back in 2002, shortly after the DHS was created with overwhelming support in Congress:
The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal. The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents. Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.
Similarly, Dr. Paul was scorned and attacked by progressives of all parties in the early 2000s for labeling the Bush/Ashcroft/Yoo junta as a “police state.” He was dismissed for opposing TSA at the airport, for opposing FISA warrants, for his Fourth Amendment absolutism, and especially for warning how American forays in the Middle East would come home in a multitude of ways.
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. No standing federal police agencies or apparatus are required to enforce these; in fact the latter appears to be the express policy of our central bank. There should not be federal agents, overt or covert, in Portland. The riots taking place there are criminal matters for local authorities and local authorities alone. If residents and local politicians prefer to give the mob freedom to run amok over both public (taxpayer) and private property, while also threatening the physical safety of ordinary citizens, Uncle Sam has nothing to say about it. But the same people who demanded endless growth in the federal police and regulatory state ought to be more circumspect today. A cynic might call them hypocrites.
Church attendance in the United States is at an all-time low, according to a Gallup poll released in April 2019. This decline has not been a steady one. Indeed, over the last 20 years, church attendance has fallen by 20 percent. This might not sound like cause for concern off the bat. And if you’re not a person of faith, you might rightly wonder why you would care about such a thing.
Church attendance is simply a measure of something deeper: social cohesion. It’s worth noting that the religions with the highest rate of attendance according to Pew Forum have almost notoriously high levels of social cohesion: Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and historically black churches top the list.
There’s also the question of religious donations. Religious giving has declined by 50 percent since 1990, according to a 2016 article in the New York Times. This means people who previously used religious services to make ends meet now either have to go without or receive funding from the government. This, in turn, strengthens the central power of the state.
It is our position that civil society – those elements of society which exist independently of big government and big business – are essential to a functioning and free society. What’s more, these institutions are in rapid decline in the United States, and have been for over 50 years.
Such a breakdown is a prelude to tyranny, and has been facilitated in part (either wittingly or unwittingly) by government policies favoring deindustrialization, financialization and centralization of the economy as well as the welfare state. The historical roots of this breakdown are explored below, along with what concerned citizens can do to mitigate its impact on their loved ones.
Centralization serves the needs of government and its dependents. Honest production and exchange require little government, perhaps none at all.
It will come as a surprise to many, but governments cannot suspend reality. Their arsenal, when things break down, comes down to their arsenal: the capacity to coerce. Violence or its threat enables governments to exact compliance. Proponents of government power invariably see themselves exercising it. Once the ship hits the iceberg, it will be obvious that governments’ guns are not wands, freeing citizens from the necessity of producing as much or more than they consume. They cannot compel innovators to innovate or producers to produce. While coercive power comes from one end of a gun, none of the powers that produce progress (and the gun) magically materialize at the other end.Read the rest of this entry »
MCViewPoint 