Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘CHAZ’

RT’s The Wokies: America’s politicians had a busy 2020 virtue-signaling. Here are the top 10 — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on December 28, 2020

Nebojsa Malic

Nebojsa Malic

is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic

Amid the pandemic lockdowns, riots and a very controversial election, America’s politicians raced to out-woke each other. From the obscure to the obvious, all listed here pledge allegiance to the flag…of critical social justice.

Here they are, starting on the local level and going all the way up to the top.

10. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey

Minneapolis, Minnesota Mayor Jacob Frey simply must be mentioned in any review of performative wokeness in 2020. After the death of George Floyd – an African-American man whose death during a botched arrest was attributed to an officer kneeling on him, rather than Covid-19 or fentanyl present in his system – rioters set a police station and the surrounding block on fire. From there, the riots spread to the neighboring St. Paul and then across America.

Frey’s reaction was to take a knee and wail like a professional mourner at Floyd’s funeral, as if he were best friends with the man. He also tried to join the “protesters” two days later and declare his devotion to social justice, only to be chased off by demonstrators calling on him to resign. He hasn’t been heard from much since. 

9. Minneapolis City Council

Yet the 13-member city council apparently decided to outdo Frey in public displays of wokeness. Composed of twelve Democrats and one Green, the council first voted to “defund the police” – outright replace the Minneapolis PD with a “reimagined public safety” agency. Except three of them then hired private security – at taxpayer expense of $4,500 a day – for themselves, saying they had received threats. City council chair Lisa Bender famously told CNN that being able to call the police when your home is being invaded “comes from a place of privilege,” in one of the stupidest statements of 2020.

Since then, the council has voted to spend an extra $500,000 to hire new police officers, only to slash the police budget by $8 million – in the name of ‘racial justice’ and ‘equity’ of course. They did so while lamenting the 537-percent increase in carjackings and a 17-percent spike in violent crime in general, as if that was entirely unrelated.

8. Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan

For three weeks in June, Black Lives Matter activists and Antifa occupied several blocks of downtown Seattle, declaring it a Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), also known as Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). Mayor Jenny Durkan, a Democrat, initially insisted it was “not a lawless wasteland of anarchist insurrection” but “a peaceful expression of our community’s collective grief and their desire to build a better world.”

“We could have the summer of love,” she told CNN. When criticized by President Donald Trump, she shot back: “Seattle is fine. Don’t be so afraid of democracy.” 

Seattle is fine. Don’t be so afraid of democracy.— Mayor Jenny Durkan (@MayorJenny) June 12, 2020

CHAZ protesters, meanwhile, stormed City Hall and demanded Durkan’s resignation. Eventually, they even showed up outside her house – whose location had been kept secret since Durkan’s days as a federal prosecutor. Only then did Mayor Jenny decide that maybe CHAZ wasn’t a summer of love and democracy, and moved to dismantle the shantytown.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Here’s What the Revolution will Look Like

Posted by M. C. on December 19, 2020

Will your son or daughter soldier be fighting you or your neighbor?

Is this what they signed up for?

Will they succumb?

By Joe Jarvis

In 2018, the Pentagon held a “War Game” depicting a scenario where the military would be deployed against the American people.

The Intercept has published documents detailing the background information on the exercise.

The Pentagon imagined a disenfranchised Generation Z, strapped with college debt and no opportunities. They have lost faith in the American Dream, and believe the system is rigged against them. As so they rise up.

To be clear, the scenario is fictitious, and shouldn’t be interpreted as being based on real intelligence. However, the Pentagon tries to make the War Game scenarios realistic.

And it certainly identifies real reasons why people are pissed off at the establishment. “The system”, from the Federal Reserve to the Police State, has kept people under the thumb of the government, and their corporate cronies.

The US military clearly thinks this is along the lines of the threats they will face over the next decade. The exercise material details the scenario:

In early 2025, a cadre of these disaffected Zoomers launch a protest movement. Beginning in “parks, rallies, protests, and coffee shops” — first in Seattle; then New York City; Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles; Las Vegas; and Austin — a group known as Zbellion begins a “global cyber campaign to expose injustice and corruption and to support causes it deem[s] beneficial.”

During face-to-face recruitment, would-be members of Zbellion are given instructions for going to sites on the dark web that allow them to access sophisticated malware to siphon funds from corporations, financial institutions, and nonprofits that support “the establishment.” The gains are then converted to Bitcoin and distributed to “worthy recipients” including fellow Zbellion members who claim financial need…

Gen Z’s most militant members have essentially taken to privately taxing large corporations and other institutions to combat income inequality or, as the war gamers put it, using the “cyber world to spread a call for anarchy.”

Now here we are in 2020, and sadly the military being used against the American people has become a distinct possibility.

And it starts in Seattle.

“Welcome to CHAZ: Capital Hill Autonomous Zone”

Earlier this year, a section of Seattle declared itself a Free Autonomous Zone.

Protesters, who claimed to have the support of the businesses within the area, set up roadblocks, and occupied an abandoned police precinct.

Police and National Guard units pulled out of the area. Police barricades and walls were used by protesters to create a defensive traffic flow through the area. Armed citizens guarded the entrances to the area– a friendly neighborhood drug lord even provided some security and weapons.

The police department sign was altered to read “People Department.”

Socialist City Council-member, Kshama Sawant, jockeyed for control over the movement. She was one of many speakers to address crowds in the “autonomous zone” saying, “What we are seeing now is an uprising. A rebellion of young people. Not just nationwide but globally.”

A few weeks earlier Kshama Sawant tweeted that, “corporations like Amazon need to be taken into democratic public ownership, to be run by workers for social good. We will need militant mass movements, strike actions at workplaces, to begin to fight to win this. Because it will be a political strike against billionaires.”

This is important to understand in the broader context of the opposition facing the federal, as well as state and local governments.

The Bolsheviks are attempting to co-opt the police brutality protests to accomplish their own socialist goals.

I certainly oppose police brutality, and the federal intrusion into my life. And I recognize that certain replacements would be worse– like replacing a Czar with a genocidal Dictator in Soviet Russia.

It is important to pay attention. But the group that starts the revolution is rarely the same one which declares victory.

Take a look at my video about who wins the game of Risk.

It is the people like Joseph Fouche (his story starts at 2:40 in the video above), who work behind the scenes to hold power while others fight.

Fouche participated in the French Revolution, beheaded some aristocrats, survived waves of beheadings himself, and emerged as Minister of Police in France. He stayed in power through the revolutionary government, Napoleon’s rise, the restoration of the monarchy, Napoleon’s 100 day return to power, and another restoration of the monarchy.

French Statesman Talleyrand had a similar story. His power also survived the French Revolution, before he helped Napoleon take power, then helped overthrow Napoleon, and later helped Napoleon escape imprisonment, and regain power for 100 days. Then Talleyrand also worked for the next government.

What is happening now is the very early stages of a serious economic catastrophe, and widespread social unrest.

Many different scenarios could play out. And some of those possibilities involve a revolution or civil war.

But any revolution will be very fragmented. There will not be one organized force opposing the US government.

And each little rebellion will be different. Some will take over police precincts and government buildings. Others will be entirely online, hacking, taking out cyber-infrastructure, and intercepting information.

Sure, at some point larger, cohesive movements will occur. We might even see state government take a stand against the feds.

But this is a large country, which was never really cohesive to begin with. A decentralized rebellion will spark in many places across the nation. City by city, and state by state, the goals, demands, and ideologies of these movements will be unique.

People who are out in the countryside will see a very different revolution.

It is possible that while the military focuses on urban opposition, the countryside fights a defensive war.

Imagine a well-armed, tight-knit group of people in a relatively small proximity. They can grow and hunt their own food. Hell, they might even has stills making alcohol-fuel for their tractors and trucks.

These people exist all throughout America. When the times comes for them to protect themselves, their livelihoods, their land, their loved ones, and their way of life, it will be only in self defense.

These people are not insurgents. And they aren’t the type to allow insurgents into their communities.

The US government has a big problem on its hands. The USA started with a guerrilla uprising, and the modern US Military has never decisively won a war against guerillas.

Let’s hope enough people in power recognize their precarious positions, and opt for a very simple approach (but one that does not come easy for tyrants):

They can leave people alone and let them be free.

To be honest, I don’t really care if the Bolsheviks take over Seattle. I’m much more concerned about them taking over DC, and being able to force their Socialist agenda on the entire USA.

Really, that’s already happened to a large extent, and fragmentation of government would safeguard us in a sense.

When there is no centralized power structure to control, it allows free people, and all the social and economic benefits they create, to flourish.

But individuals do need to prepare for that fragmentation.

Under many scenarios, supply chains will suffer, and food and medicine will need to be sourced locally.

Alternative currencies to the US dollar will be required in order to continue trade.

Personally, I’d be more interested in fulfilling market demands at a local level than participating in any revolution.

You gain more power by serving the demands of a local market– the more beneficial your contribution, the more you are needed, and can set the tone for local governance.

By producing certain tangible goods that work well as a medium of exchange, you essentially become a money printer.

Check out my recent video on currencies in a worst case scenario.

It should be obvious by now: 2020 is the elite’s big move.

We are entering the climax of a long planned crisis. Your family, your community, and your countrymen need honest leaders to guide them out of the elite’s traps.

Learn how to turn the elite’s own tactics against them, divert their attacks, and grow your own sphere of power.

Subscribe and immediately receive TWO FREE TACTICAL REPORTS:

1. Four Ways The Elite Control You

2. How to Infiltrate the Elite and Steal Their Power for Yourself

Be seeing you

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

Try Libertarians’ Souls – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 19, 2020

On the one hand, the libertarian position on oceans, rivers, lakes and all bodies of water is to privatize them. But is this Chinese initiative a move in this direction or not? I think the answer is yes, but it is a close call.

On the bad side, state ownership of anything is a move away from private propertarianism. The People’s Republic of China is certainly a government, so we must count this on the debit side. On the other hand, before this initiative of theirs, the ruling doctrine was freedom of movement on the seas, alternatively known as “Freedom of Navigation Operations.” But that is the exact polar opposite of the libertarian doctrine of privatization.


According to that old aphorism we owe to Thomas Paine: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

Well, these are the times that try libertarian’s souls too. Here, I do not refer to Covid, to Black Lives Matter, to the riots, to vast unemployment, to the U.S. imperialistic system, etc. Nor, even, to issues on which libertarians disagree: immigration, abortion, voluntary slavery, anarchism, reparations, etc. Rather I have in mind a series of episodes about which libertarians are, if not indifferent, then at least ambivalent. What is ambivalence? It is, according to the dictionary, “the state of having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something…”

So which events engender in us this reaction?

1. Strikes by public sector unions

Who is in the right when a public sector union strikes against the government? Who do we as libertarians “root for?” The difficulty here is that at least for the anarcho-capitalist division of libertarians, all of government is illegitimate, and, anytime anyone attempts to undermine this institution, we strongly tend to incline in that direction. And, certainly, the teachers union, the civil servants union, the firemen’s union, the post office workers union, the police union, the municipal clerks union, etc. are all in effect destabilizing governments with their gigantic salaries and fringe benefits which lead to bloated budgets and subsequent risks of bankruptcy for statist entities. On the other hand, libertarians naturally look askance at all unions, certainly including these examples, since they do not limit themselves to mass quits. Rather, they engage in threats and actual violence against “scabs,” against anyone else who stands in their way.

One way to resolve our ambivalence about this occurrences is to favor the weaker of the two, on the ground that the stronger is to that extent more of a threat to liberty. This is akin to when the Nazis fight the Communists. We support both, unless one of them is clearly winning. Then, our support transfers to the other side.  On this ground, we would be inclined in the direction of preferring public sector unions. Ugh!

2. Defund government police

Government police are a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are funded through compulsory taxation, which is certain one strike against them. On the other hand, sometimes they do good work in the direction of liberty: stopping murderers, rapists, thieves, etc., or, if not preventing these occurrences, at least, sometimes, catching the miscreants afterwards and imprisoning them. On the third hand, to say nothing of every once in a rare while stepping on the neck of a handcuffed prisoner and murdering him, they attack victimless criminals such as those engaged in “capitalist acts between consenting adults” (in the felicitous phraseology of Robert Nozick) regarding sex, drugs, gambling, etc. But, then, they comprise a “thin blue line” protecting us not from “anarchy” but from criminal savagery.

So, should the police be defunded or not, in our view? Well, as I say, that is a difficult question. Ideally, they should be replaced, holus bolus, with private cops. But that is not the question on the table. As to that one, we are, gulp, at least somewhat ambivalent.

3. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)

This bit of real estate has been taken over by what can best be characterized as Maoist Cultural Revolutionaries. A white member of this take-over crew is demanding that “All white people must pay black people $10.” Can reparations from all whites to all blacks be far behind? This is not, exactly, the Rothbardian vision of privatization.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied, this group of Antifas, Black Lives Matter people and other such folk are to be congratulated for in effect seceding from the dreaded, evil, monstrous U.S. government. Pretty much nothing that does that can be considered all bad.

So where oh where are libertarians supposed to stand in this matter? No doubt more commentators will soon be piling on, but as of the time of this writing I am aware of only two responses to this challenge; one at least vaguely supports this move, the other decidedly does not. I do not propose to answer all of these questions. My goal here is mainly to point to instances of libertarian ambivalence.

4. Chinese ocean encroachment

The Chinese government has been converting semi-submerged sandbars into small islands, all over the South China Sea. Then, they claim a twelve-mile extension into this body of water as their sovereign territory. Do we favor or oppose this initiative of theirs?

On the one hand, the libertarian position on oceans, rivers, lakes and all bodies of water is to privatize them. But is this Chinese initiative a move in this direction or not? I think the answer is yes, but it is a close call.

On the bad side, state ownership of anything is a move away from private propertarianism. The People’s Republic of China is certainly a government, so we must count this on the debit side. On the other hand, before this initiative of theirs, the ruling doctrine was freedom of movement on the seas, alternatively known as “Freedom of Navigation Operations.” But that is the exact polar opposite of the libertarian doctrine of privatization.

Imagine if there were such a natural law as “freedom of movement on the land.” That would mean, if the analogy holds, that everyone would be free to wander wherever he wanted to: onto someone else’s farm, factory or, indeed, private residence. Under such a ruling, there would be no such thing, any more, as private property. Water is just fast moving land (some of it moves slowly: icebergs); land is just slow moving water (e.g., mudslides, volcanic ash). Libertarian principles apply, and equally so, to both.

So, I give the nod to China, but it is indeed a close call. At least that country is undermining this water socialist rule that ships may wander wherever they please.

Be seeing you



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

A Rejoinder to Jeff Deist on CHAZ | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on June 18, 2020

My motto in matters of this sort is the following: “If it moves, privatize it; if it does not move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or does not move, privatize everything. A CHAZ undertaken by Rothbardians is a move in the right direction.

Walter Block

The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) is an area of several city blocks in Seattle that has been taken over by a group of people unconnected with the government. They have established a police-free zone and are now busily administering this territory.

Is this a voluntary socialist commune? A free enterprise zone? Are the new inhabitants who have seized control of the area legitimate homesteaders or illegal squatters, that is, trespassers? Who are now the proper owners of this acreage, of the buildings, roads, parks, and houses therein?

From a libertarian perspective, we must first distinguish between (previously) city government–owned property and that of the private storekeepers, homeowners, and other private citizens. As to the latter, the analysis is easy: they should remain in control of their property, and if the CHAZ folk interfere with their continued use of these possessions of theirs, they are in the wrong. But what about public property? CHAZ now possesses the streets, police stations, libraries, museums, post offices, parks, opera houses, and other assets previously in government hands. Who, now, has a right to take charge of all of these goods?

Suppose we were privatizing this area under Rothbardian rules. Who would obtain which government assets? “Homesteading” and “Rothbard” are not synonyms in the English language, but in the present context they might as well be. All of these resources would belong to the owners of private property in the area. However, there is one difficulty in concluding that control of this material properly belongs to them and not to the CHAZites: these locals did nothing to claim ownership. They did not lift a finger in objection to governmental property in their area. One part of homesteading, to be sure, is to “mix one’s labor” with virgin territory. But, another is to declare ownership. Rather, the CHAZers did precisely that. They actually seized control of illicit statist property. At the very least then, even if the previous owners were to be given a portion of these statist goods, the CHAZ people would certainly be owed what might be considered a “finder’s fee.”

Of course, implicit in the Rothbardian notion of homesteading is that it is open to just about anyone, except for criminals. The actual possessors of CHAZ, as of this writing, are members of Antifa, a criminal organization, guilty of vast mayhem, looting of private property, assault, threats, etc. So they cannot be the proper owners of the goods in question. But suppose that instead of Antifa a group of Rothbardians took on this role (we pass quickly over the point that the powers that be in Seattle and Washington State, although looking on somewhat askance but also benignly at CHAZ, would crush without mercy any free enterprisers who acted as they have, in a similar manner to what happened to David Koresh in Waco).

Would the ownership of the libertarian CHAZers be legitimate, not of the private hotels, restaurants, shops, houses, and condos in this six-block area, but, rather, of the public facilities? It is difficult to see why not. After all, according to strict
Rothbardianism, these amenities are not—cannot be—legitimately owned by a coercive government. If this is so, then they are unowned and therefore available for the taking by the next homesteader to come down the pike. And that would be this passel of hypothetical Rothbardians, not the owners of the private facilities who long acquiesced in paying compulsory taxes to support them.

Another theory, prevalent in libertarian circles on this matter, has been put forth by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and by Jeff Deist in this recent article. In this Hoppean view, the proper owners of the government roads, streets, parks, libraries, museums, etc., are not the libertarian homesteaders. They are but trespassers. No, the appropriate titleholders are the long-suffering taxpayers. And which organization is their agent? Why, the very government that has long been abusing them in this manner.

The Hoppean solution to the problem is open to several objections. First, Hoppe is a world-class anarcho-capitalist. There is at least a certain tension, not to say a blatant self-contradiction, in such a scholar holding out the state apparatus as the agent of the tax victims. No, the government is not their agent; it is their abuser. Hoppe here is in the unenviable position of taking on the role of a progovernment anarchist. So much for deontology.

Second, this thesis also faces a pragmatic difficulty. Remember, the would-be homesteaders here are all Rothbardians. They will attempt to engage contractually with the home and business owners along the hypothetical lines of what would have occurred had free enterprise been the order of the day right before the time of settlement. For example, the road owners will not charge the locals gigantic fees for usage of their holdings to the locals. Rather, they will require an amount that would have arisen had they attracted businesses to locate along their thoroughfares before anyone had located there. This hypothetical fee level would have been voluntarily agreed upon. And, ditto for use of the parks and other features of the urban landscape.

But Hoppe’s theory would say nay to these arrangements. This author would place in charge, as their “agent,” the very institution responsible for the deviation from pure Rothbardianism in the first place. Thus, the implication of Hoppe’s theory would be a very conservative one, conservative in the worst sense. What would be conserved, in this view? It would be the reinstitution of government control over these premises. The anarcho-libertarian homesteaders would be considered illegal squatters and arrested for their supposed violation of private property rights—the roads, parks, etc., presumably owned by the taxpayers. To see the falsity of this, let one of these citizens try to sleep in a government park or library overnight; he will soon become acquainted with their real owner. It is not him. Not even close. Under Hoppeanism, there would be no way for the ancap libertarians to “seize the streets.” The roadways would be forever in the hands of the evil state.

That is not the libertarianism of the Rothbard variety. (I full well acknowledge that Rothbard himself would not allow the “bum” in the public library. He would side with Hoppe in this matter. I speak here, then, of the platonic version of Rothbardianism that would exult in such a ruination of public property.) Either we take the libertarian rejection of public property seriously, or we do not. If the latter, we reduce the power and accuracy of this philosophy. My motto in matters of this sort is the following: “If it moves, privatize it; if it does not move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or does not move, privatize everything. A CHAZ undertaken by Rothbardians is a move in the right direction.


Be seeing you


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

The Joys of Diversity and Multicullturalism Have Come Home to Roost –

Posted by M. C. on June 16, 2020

Perhaps you don’t think Americans are stupid,  but Democrats certainly think they are. The Democrats think voters are going to blame Trump, not the Democrats who are encouraging more looting and burning, and that voters will elect the Democrats, who have stood down in the face of massive looting and property destruction, to run the country.  If voters elect Democrats, it will prove the Democrats are correct that Americans are stupid.

Consider the female Democrat that the smart, white, high-tech people in Seattle elected as their mayor.  She enabled peaceful protests to burn down businesses.

Paul Craig Roberts

Hi Dumbshit American.  Have you had enough of diversity and multiculturalism?  If not, vote a Democrat president, and the second wave of peaceful protests will loot and burn down your homes and neighborhoods.  Be sure you understand that diversity means no more white statues and white history, because they are racist.  Multiculturalism means no more white civilization, which is racist. You may have to give up your language as well, because English is racist.

I have been telling you for years that you are living The Camp of the Saints.  Having failed to become aware, you have no idea what is happening. When it finally dawns on you, it will be too late.

The anti-white, white presstitute national media have not told you what is going on. The official line is that a few peaceful protests have been marred by white supremacists sneaking in among the peaceful protesters and causing violence in order to discredit blacks.  Some of the more deranged white liberals say that the burning and looting in cities and states run by Democrats is Trump’s plot to discredit Democrats as the party that will not protect property, thereby assuring Trump’s reelecton.  The terrorist threat scare doesn’t work any more, so the white liberals claim that Trump has replaced it with the black scare.  The Democrat mayor of Minneapolis is really a Trump Agent and allowed 500 Minneapolis businesses to be destroyed in order to ensure Trump’s election.  If you don’t believe it, just ask a white liberal.

Perhaps you don’t think Americans are stupid,  but Democrats certainly think they are. The Democrats think voters are going to blame Trump, not the Democrats who are encouraging more looting and burning, and that voters will elect the Democrats, who have stood down in the face of massive looting and property destruction, to run the country.  If voters elect Democrats, it will prove the Democrats are correct that Americans are stupid.

Consider the female Democrat that the smart, white, high-tech people in Seattle elected as their mayor.  She enabled peaceful protests to burn down businesses.  Some of the peaceful protesters have set up a foreign country within Seattle’s city limits called the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), which is already receiving foreign aid from the citizens of Seattle courtesy of the mayor.  Can World Bank and IMF loans and a seat at the UN be far behind?

So far Seattle’s foreign aid has not been enough. One of the rulers in the Autonomous Zone has told the white citizens of the new country that they have to give their non-white counterparts money or face retribution. “White people, I see you. I see every one of you, and I remember your faces. You find an African American person and you give them $10. Do It!”  If white people find giving up their money difficult, the Leader said, how “are you going to give up power and land and capital?”

Change is so rapid that not even the Leader can keep up and mistakenly calls an African CHAZ  citizen an African American.

The black female police chief in Seattle, Carmen Best, said that “rapes, robberies, and all sorts of violent acts have been occurring in CHAZ  (the new country inside Seattle) that we’re not able to get to.”  The Seattle Democrat mayor, Jenny Durkan, says it is all just “a summer of love,” and nothing is going on but “free speech and self-expression.”  Be sure you get that, White America.  Looting, burning, rape, and extorting money are just free speech and self-expression, so don’t dare protest when free speech and self-expression come to your neighborhoods.

Before the embers went cold Atlanta is alight again. On Saturday June 13  peaceful protesters burned down a Wendy’s. A black man who resisted arrest, disarmed a police officer of his or her Taser and aimed it at police was shot in front of Wendy’s.  Obviously, it was Wendy’s fault, and Wendy’s paid by being burned down.

Atlanta’s white female police chief was so devastated, not, of course by the fate of Wendy’s, but by the non-sympathetic response of police to a man aiming a weapon at them, that she was despondent and resigned, leaving the black protesters without a white uncle Tom to cover for them.  Racist of her, don’t you think?

In Chicago the black female Democrat mayor confronted by one of the city’s Democrat aldermen concerned that the looting was approaching neighborhoods told him he was full of shit.

Efforts are underway to get peaceful protests going in Ashville, Portland, and Chattanooga. Having wrecked large cities like Minneapolis, New York, Chicago, and Atlanta, smaller cities are being targeted.

The Tennessee governor, Bill Lee, made it clear that there will be no toleration of violent protests or autonomous zones in Tennessee.  As the US is in an advanced stage of collapse, exactly like France in The Camp of the Saints, don’t be surprised if Pentagon Chief Mark Epsy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley take a page from The Camp of the Saints and send the US Air Force to bomb the Tennessee State Police and National Guard who demonstrate white racism by protecting Tennessee’s cities.

To comprehend the collapse of white confidence consider the number of top US military leaders who have declared President Trump, not looters and rioters, to be the real menace. Espy and Milley have already undercut President Trump’s effort to protect life and property by falsely alleging that it would be unconstitutional to use the US military to stop America’s cities from burning.  These two enemies of white Americans and their property are joined by former Pentagon chief James Mattis, former Special Operations Commander William McRaven, former Joint Chiefs Chairman and Secretary of State Colin Powell, former commander of US forces in Afghanistan John Allen, former commander of the US Southern Command Barry McCaffrey, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen.  These top military commanders have called for Trump’s removal from office.

McRaven said that President Trump was working to destroy America.

Powell said that Trump lies all the time—an example of the pot calling the kettle black—and is a menace who has drifted away from the US Constitution.

Allen says the Constitution is under threat from the President of the United States.

McCaffrey denounced Trump as a threat to national security.

Mattis said that Trump made a mockery of the Constitution.

Let’s see now.  It was George W. Bush who made a mockery of the Constitution when he asserted the power to detain Americans indefinitely without due process of law.  It was Obama who asserted—and exercised—the right to execute American citizens on suspicion alone without due process of law.  It was Congress which repearedly renews the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act which pisses all over the US Constitution and destroys the constitutional protection of privacy.

The big shot generals all lived through these horors without opening their mouths.  But OhMyGod the racist Trump is going to frustrate blacks by protecting private property!  He has to go.

This is precisely how France collapses in Jean Raspail’s famous novel The Camp of the Saints. In the United States we are living the novel, as is most likely all of Europe.

Good will between races and genders has been destroyed by Identity Politics, and without good will there is only violence. The age of violence is upon us.  Our leaders have no awareness and encourage the violence.   A thug with a long criminal record who was resisting arrest died either from illegal substances he was consuming or from Israeli training of Minnesota police, but it has been declared by the White Establishment to be Murder by Racism, with the consequence that American businesses are looted and famous cities are burned in what the white liberals say is “just retribution.”

The 21st century is the century that White Civilization will vanish along with its monuments and history books.  You can read your certain future by reading  The Camp of the Saints.

Be seeing you


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

Seattle’s CHAZ: Homesteaders or Illegal Squatters? | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2020

Jeff Deist

Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

Protestors in Seattle have taken over whole city blocks in a neighborhood known as Capitol Hill, just a bit north of downtown. They occupy city streets and parks, as well as (apparently) a police precinct building. This enclave, dubbed the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” or CHAZ, is now making headlines around the world. Its newly assembled residents have declared CHAZ an independent nation apart from both Seattle and America, and thus exempt from laws and local police jurisdiction. They have set up fences and checkpoints around the area (so much for open borders), and already urban legends are proliferating about warlords taking over, extortion and shakedowns replacing taxes, and new forms of quasi-private security taking hold. Nobody knows how long the situation will persist, but recall how 2011’s Occupy Wall Street demonstrations lasted many months.

Of course Capitol Hill, like all urban neighborhoods, is a mix of “public” and private property. Ingress and egress for residents and businesses take place via public streets, which are severely impaired at the moment. Property values, the viability of retail stores, and the general quietude and livability of this gentrified neighborhood are very much in flux. Anyone who owns a condo, shop, or restaurant in the area has a right to be angry and an argument for monetary compensation from both the protestors themselves and the city government that has so badly failed them.

Good luck with that in a Seattle courtroom.

But what about the purely “public” (i.e., government owned) land and buildings around Capitol Hill? To the extent that the occupied buildings and streets “belong” to the city of Seattle, are the protestors legitimately occupying them? Can anyone, Seattleite or not, make a valid claim to such property? Are they illegal squatters or legitimate homesteaders?

It seems like an absurd question on its face, and it is: surely the forceful takeover of a long-established area cannot be legitimate, even if a few government-owned roads and buildings muck up the principles involved. But no less than Professor Walter Block likens government-owned property to virgin territory, albeit stolen, available to any claimant for homesteading. In Block’s conception, anything owned by the city of Seattle—libraries, buildings, equipment, roads, you name it—is as wide open to anyone as a virgin tract of land in deepest Alaska never touched by humans.

I do not at all claim that property such as government roads or libraries is “unowned.” Rather, I claim these holdings were stolen. I agree that the state now possesses them; I argue, only, that this is unjustified. And, yes, I insist, the same libertarian analysis can be applied, in this context, to virgin and stolen land. Why? This is because for the libertarian, at least as I construe him, stolen land is de jure virgin land, ready for the next homesteader to seize it (on the assumption that the rightful original owner cannot be located, or he acquiesces in the state’s seizure, or that, arguendo, we can ignore this rightful owner.)

Seattle’s mayor Jenny Durkan may not go quite as far as Dr. Block, but she does appear to acknowledge the new, uh, “community” essentially colonizing major thoroughfares in the Emerald City. She may not be ready to grant the CHAZ outright ownership of the streets in question, but neither is she setting any deadlines for eviction:


Clearly the mayor is in the midst of a dangerous situation, both literally for the people in the CHAZ and in terms of her own political career. It’s a public relations nightmare. And from a purely legal perspective, what grants her authority over who occupies Capitol Hill?

One answer is taxes, says Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. In his view, the streets of Seattle are not virgin territory available to homesteaders, but rather akin to land held in trust by (admittedly unworthy) state agents on behalf of taxpayers. If those trustees won’t sell the land or other property outright and return the funds to taxpayers, Hoppe’s view is that they at least ought to operate and maintain such property on their behalf. So, for the purpose of countering Dr. Block’s contention that government property should be viewed as open to homesteading—and only for that purpose, Hoppe says—”public” property should be viewed as being owned by taxpayers. As such, it should be managed on behalf of the long-suffering (net) taxpaying citizens as a matter of simple justice.

Principles aside, the essence of ownership is control. Bureaucrats, police, and politicians who control access to and use of “public” property are its de facto owners, because only they can sell, encumber, or control its use. The average American’s ownership claim to the local playground or a city library is virtually nil. Simply try sleeping in them overnight, and you’ll quickly find out who really owns them. So, for the moment, the Seattle protestors have the greatest control over Capitol Hill and hence an ownership claim of sorts under the brute force of “possession is nine-tenths of the law.”

Whether their claim is valid comes down to whether they are illegal squatters or righteous Lockean homesteaders. In a densely settled area like Seattle, with a long history of property titles flowing from valid sales, the question becomes absurd. Their protests and encampments directly affect the undisputed private property all around them. The Seattle government has thoroughly controlled the roads and police using funds forcibly taxed from Seattle residents. Capitol Hill residents, businesses, and visitors rely and depend on existing understandings and contractual arrangements. Seattle cannot be homesteaded, not even city property, in any conceivable manner that does justice to its current inhabitants. And to the extent that they’ve paid for it all through taxes, their right to evict the CHAZ protestors clearly supercedes any “right” to conflate occupation with protest.

It’s tempting to dismiss the Seattle protestors en masse because of their terrible and violent political beliefs, and their terrible designs for remaking America without property or markets. But that doesn’t change the thorny question of how to deal with them here and now. If they are illegal squatters—not to mention disruptors of many who live or work in the area—then their forcible removal is justified. But New York City lacked the political will to remove Occupy Wall Street campers from Zuccotti Park for many months. Will ultrawoke Seattle in 2020, with its obliging mayor, evict the CHAZ protestors anytime soon?

Be seeing you


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

Nolte: This CHAZ Idea Is Growing on Me

Posted by M. C. on June 12, 2020

You go your way. I’ll go mine.

We’ve already self-sorted and migrated into Red and Blue enclaves where this could be pretty quickly put into place.  

The federal government and some state governments are now so overbearing and powerful, every political decision is a bitter battle because we’re forcing our values and ideas on one another.

Remove that stress, and things can only get better.

PANARCHISM! Wouldathunkit!

by John Nolte

This whole CHAZ idea is starting to grow on me. Border walls. High-capacity weapons. Federal and state governments no longer exist. A neighborhood in charge of itself, creating its own laws, its own mores, its own economic and justice system. The left like it. The media freakin’ love it. If you think about it, what’s not to like?

As I write this, Black Lives Matter and Antifa have created their own confederacy and seceded from the union with the establishment of a Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, or CHAZ, right in the heart of Seattle. They have seized six city blocks, built border walls, and are running around with guns in a community that reflects their values and their desire to live their lives in the way they choose to live their lives.

This includes high-capacity weapons and vigilante groups that punish vandalism with a good, sound beating.

The best part is that the CHAZ residents are refusing to allow “biased media” to enter their country. That sounds like paradise to me.

As far as I know, anyone who wishes to exit the Seattle CHAZ is allowed to exit the CHAZ, so what’s the harm? If you want to live under a warlord, you can live under a warlord.

Obviously, there are some issues here. Within the CHAZ you have about 500 residences, people who might not want to be part of the CHAZ. You also have property owners who are probably a little worried — and for good reason.

But is this really the worst idea in the world?

I’m not calling for armed insurrection or anything, but let’s be adults for a second and talk about the concept…

I don’t know anyone on the left or right who isn’t fed up with the one-size-fits-all madness coming out of Washington DC, the courts, and state governments.

The left is frustrated and angry over abortion restrictions, laws that allow corporations to donate money to political campaigns, and voter ID. What’s more, they want guns, the police, prisons, and charter schools outlawed and pot legalized. They want green energy, CEO pay limited, more socialism, lockdowns during pandemics, speech restrictions, and biological men to be allowed to compete in women’s sports. What the left resents more than anything is having their lives shaped by executive orders signed by Donald Trump and whichever way Clarence Thomas votes.

The left believe in centralized authority.

On the other side, there’s the right, who oppose abortion, public schools, and the war on their sacred religious rights being waged by the sexual revolution. We want to hunt, fish, worship, judge people based on their personal character as opposed to identity… We want unlimited speech and artistic freedom, as well as a level playing field that allows us to achieve as much personal freedom, wealth, and success as power.

The right believe in individual liberty within the framework of “live and let live” and the Ten Commandments.

Does a workable CHAZ not sounds like a possible solution to massive divide?

Thomas Jefferson envisioned a nation of farmers, where everyone owned their own little piece of America and basically governed themselves: an agrarian society that grew its own food, hired its own teachers, built its own churches, and left the neighboring societies alone. If you didn’t like the way your town was governed, you were free to vote with your feet and move to a place more to your liking. That might sound less than visionary when you consider how technology — cars, planes, mass media — changed everything, but you have to keep in mind that from the beginning of civilization to the day Jefferson died in 1826, there was almost no real technological advancements.

But basically, Jefferson described a CHAZ, no?

The Southern Confederacy was a CHAZ, no?

Obviously, we cannot allow for a CHAZ where slavery is legal or NAMBLA has its way with young boys, but maybe there’s a way for Blue and Red America to agree to just leave each other the hell alone.

Maybe we can agree that the federal government should protect us from foreign invaders and otherwise stay out of our business.

New York City can be its own CHAZ.

Wyoming can be its own CHAZ.

Southern California can be its own CHAZ.

Northern California can be its own CHAZ.

If the Austin CHAZ wants an abortion clinic on every corner and rural Texas wants abortion outlawed… Well, there you go.

Tear down or erect all the statues you want!

A CHAZ can be as large as a state and as small as a compound.

The more we eliminate central control and authority, the more we balkanize into societies governed by laws, mores, and rules that reflect our own personal beliefs, the happier we will all be and the less concerned we will be with how others live because it’s no skin off my nose if you legalize pot in your CHAZ and teach homosexuality in your schools, and it’s no skin off your nose if my CHAZ legalizes prayer in school.

Honestly, what’s wrong with that idea?

You go your way. I’ll go mine.

We’ve already self-sorted and migrated into Red and Blue enclaves where this could be pretty quickly put into place.  

The federal government and some state governments are now so overbearing and powerful, every political decision is a bitter battle because we’re forcing our values and ideas on one another.

Remove that stress, and things can only get better.

Be seeing you






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