MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘civil war’

Biden Unhinged: Voter ID Requirements Worst Threat ‘Since The Civil War!’

Posted by M. C. on July 14, 2021

But the Real ID is OK! January 6 is now small potatoes?

President Biden once again dredged up his “not since the Civil War” hyperbole, this time to describe efforts in Texas and elsewhere to require people to show IDs before casting a vote. Civil War? Really? Also today, Biden allies plan to “fact check” private text messages? And…why is the Post Office spying on you?

Be seeing you

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

The progressive civil war over Syria and Assad exposes an astonishing lack of intellectual curiosity by some on the American Left — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on July 8, 2021

detailed forensic analysis of the rocket used in the Ghouta attack – an improvised 330mm-to-350mm rocket equipped with a large receptacle on its nose to hold chemicals—by Richard Lloyd, a former United Nations weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, undermined the claims made by the US government assigning culpability for the attack. Not only were the weapons used not included in the arsenal of chemical weapons declared by the Syrian government to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which oversaw the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons capability between 2013-2014, but the short range of the weapon made its being fired from government-held territory impossible.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/528531-progressive-war-syria-american-left/

Scott Ritter

is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

Truth and politics are often mutually exclusive concepts when dealing with the progressive American Left. This unfortunate fact is being driven home in spades in an ongoing spat between two lefty online personalities.

Anyone following Aaron Maté (149K followers on Twitter); The Young Turks (TYT, with 440K followers as an institution, and as many followers each tracking the activity of co-hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian); the comedian Jimmy Dore (274K followers); or any number of other Twitter personalities whose online paths have crossed with any of the above; knows these left-leaning social media stars have been engaged in a vicious feud. Full disclosure, I have appeared on both Maté’s podcast, Pushback, as well as The Young Turks radio show. At issue is Syria and, more pointedly, the contention by both Uygur and Kasparian that Maté is shilling for President Bashar Assad.

A tale of two narratives

The sheer drama and vitriol which has emerged as a result of this feud has been entertaining for those who get a kick out of leftwing internecine warfare. Maté’s use of Jimmy Dore’s popular online program The Jimmy Dore Show as a platform for promoting his arguments has torn the scab off old wounds created when Dore left The Young Turks and struck out on his own, appears to underpin at least some of Uygur and Kasparian’s anti-Maté invective. However, more interesting is the fact that, as Maté pointed out in a recent interview with The Hill, the progressive wing of the American Left has hit a brick wall over the issue of Syria. Criticism of Assad has run up against the lies used to sustain US military hegemony in the Middle East.

“I think,” Maté noted, “that that meltdown reflects just like a general hostility they [The Young Turks] have towards people who are upholding actual progressive values and upholding actual journalism standards.” While the smear campaign waged by Uygur and Kasparian has been as unconscionable as it has been factually wrong, the fact that there is controversy among the progressive wing of the American political Left should not surprise anyone.As Maté observed, “[t]he reason why they slandered me at that time is because I was in Syria and Syria is a, you know, touchy subject for many people on the Left. It has been divisive.”

Syria is a touchy subject, especially for progressives who primarily focus on notions of human rights and democratic values. Maté has come under attack for taking a contrarian stance on two of the most hot-button issues surrounding Assad: allegations of chemical weapons use, and the suppression of political free will through the conduct of elections designed to keep the reins of political power in Syria firmly in his hands. (It should be pointed out that Maté is joined by other outstanding progressive journalists, including Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Rania Khalek, and many others whose informative work predates Maté’s on the issue of Syria.)

See the rest here

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Be seeing you

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

The VMI Controversy – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 22, 2021

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/jacob-hornberger/the-vmi-controversy/

By Jacob G. Hornberger

The Future of Freedom Foundation

Last year, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in Lexington, Virginia, came under scrutiny for alleged acts of racial discrimination against black members of the corps of cadets. The controversy began with an article in the Washington Post, which was followed by a call by the governor of Virginia for an official state investigation into racism at VMI. Under pressure, VMI’s superintendent, who is equivalent to a college president, resigned and was replaced by a temporary superintendent, who is black. Pending the outcome of the state’s investigation, the school removed a statue of Confederate hero Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson from the parade ground in front of barracks, where it had stood for many decades.

The controversy raises interesting questions regarding independence, discrimination, state financial support of colleges and universities, and the concept of freedom. The controversy has particular interest for me because I graduated from VMI in 1972.

One of the things that surprised me when I got to VMI was how important the Civil War was to many of the students, especially those from Virginia. They knew all about the war. And having had stories about the war passed on from one generation to the next, they were deeply passionate about it. One of the most popular classes at VMI was a two-semester course on the Civil War in the history department.

VMI is an unusual place. Today, almost 50 years after I graduated, I still have mixed feelings about the school. I received a great liberal arts education, for which I am still very grateful. It enabled me to get into University of Texas law school, one of the best in the country.

VMI also taught me the importance of honor, for which I shall always be grateful. VMI arguably has the strictest student honor code in the country. It’s run entirely by the cadet corps. We elected the members of the honor court, and they had the full authority to accuse cadets of honor violations, put them on trial, and evict them from the school. From the very first day I arrived at VMI and continually thereafter, it was emphasized that no cadet would lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who did. The honor code is a centerpiece of life at the Institute.

It was the military side of VMI about which I still have misgivings. Of course, that was several years before I discovered libertarianism, a philosophy based on individualism, liberty, free markets, and limited government, all of which are opposite to the highly regimented, controlled, and regulated way of life that comes with a military structure.

Whenever people ask me about my four years at VMI, I tell them that I learned what it’s like to live in a harsh socialist and totalitarian system. That type of education, ironically, is invaluable for a libertarian because it actually helps to inculcate a deep love and passion for liberty. At VMI, we were awakened and put to bed at set hours. We assembled in military form for all meals and then marched to the mess hall, singing cadence songs in the process. Daily life was strictly regulated, monitored, and controlled. We all were required to wear uniforms, even when we went into Lexington, the small town in which VMI is located. We were not permitted to have cars before our senior year. We had a Marine Corps superintendent who apparently believed that cadet life should be modeled after boot camp at Paris Island. Justice by the VMI administration, if you can call it that, was usually arbitrary and capricious.

I survived VMI’s harsh military environment, but I wasn’t enamored with it. Many cadets responded positively to the highly regimented and controlled environment and even ended up making the military their career. Others were like me — grateful for the education but all too ready to escape the military environment upon graduation.

Transforming VMI

Founded in 1839, VMI’s mission is to educate and train “citizen-soldiers,” men who will graduate and return to civilian life but who are trained in warfare and are expected to come voluntarily to the assistance of their country in times of peril. It is, of course, a mission that is entirely consistent with the libertarian philosophy and also with the limited-government, anti–standing-army system on which the United States was founded and that remained in existence until after World War II, when the federal government was converted into an all-powerful national-security state consisting of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.

When I was at VMI, the Vietnam War was in full swing and I fully expected to be sent there. Luckily, the war was winding down by the time I graduated and so I ended up spending eight years in the Reserves as an infantry officer. During my four years at VMI, the VMI administration aligned itself with the U.S. national-security establishment and its intervention in Vietnam. Thus, when an increasing number of cadets began turning against the war in 1969–1971, including me, administration officials frowned upon us as being “unpatriotic.”

Today there is a plaque on barracks listing VMI cadets who “died in service to the nation” in Vietnam from 1961 to 1975. That’s standard Pentagon-CIA propaganda. The truth is that the more than 58,00 U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam, many of whom were conscripted (i.e., forced to “serve”), died serving their government, not their nation. Or to put it another way, they died for nothing.

There is another plaque on barracks that states that VMI cadets died in the 2003 war in Iraq as part of the U.S. government’s “global war on terror.” That’s sheer nonsense too. The truth is that the U.S. government’s war on Iraq, a Third World nation that never invaded the United States, was an unprovoked war of aggression, a type of war that was declared a war crime at Nuremberg.

Moreover, the concept of a “global war on terror” itself is nonsensical and has proven more destructive to the liberties and well-being of our nation than even the national-security establishment’s Cold War “global war on communism.”

It is unfortunate that the VMI administration still does not understand these basic truths about what former General and President Dwight Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” and its policy of foreign wars, foreign interventions, and an empire of foreign military bases.

See the rest here

This article will appear in the April 2021 edition of Future of Freedom.

Jacob Hornberger [send him mail] is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Be seeing you

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

Do Black Lives Matter in the White Elite’s Civil War?

Posted by M. C. on January 5, 2021

It is not wayward elites who are abusing our democratic public, so much as the public abusing itself, when it chooses to be ruled by antiwhite racists.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/03/do-black-lives-matter-in-the-white-elites-civil-war/

By Paul Gottfried

Sasha Johnson, a prominent Black Lives Matter activist, tweeted the last day of 2020 her highest hope as a black nationalist: “The white man will not be our equal but our slave. History is changing. No peace without justice.” 

I kept this statement in mind as I looked at USA Today and our look-alike local newspaper on the newsstand on December 31. Both featured prominently on their front pages a BLM crusader looking down defiantly at whites in a widening revolt against a racist America. I have no idea what BLM is doing to remove any of the systemic social problems of urban blacks or to improve their material well-being.

Last week, I watched on TV as a black boxer entered the ring, dressed in a BLM robe, and surrounded by a ring staff who also wore BLM advertisements on their clothing. According to the announcer, this politically engaged boxer had lost siblings in what seems to have been gang wars. I am at a loss to see how BLM’s call to defund or abolish the police will engage the worrisome problem of black-on-black crime.

One may also be puzzled about why the black racism featured by BLM, and which comes through most plainly in its refusal to recognize that white lives have the same value as black ones, occasions only scattered objections from whites. This may be the most surprising thing about the rise of BLM to national and even international prominence. Why don’t whites care about being accused of supporting a racist society that is allegedly descended from a bigoted white past? 

In my former home state of Connecticut, Miguel Cardona introduced a critical race studies program into public education, which earned this top educational official nationwide plaudits. Now Cardona is being rewarded for his antiwhite educational crusade by being considered for education secretary in the Biden Administration. The overwhelming majority of those who cast their ballots for Cardona’s Democratic Party in Connecticut, whose popular U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal showcases his relationship to BLM and Antifa, are white and may even include acquaintances. Don’t these voters care that the party they overwhelmingly support, throws dirt at whites as whites? Many white voters seem delighted to have this dirt thrown at them and to have their children coming home and reciting the antiwhite hate-speech they picked up courtesy of Cardona and the teachers’ unions. 

I am not denying others are complicit in this continuing outrage, like woke capitalists, government bureaucrats, black race hustlers, and media ideologues. But let’s not forget the predominantly white electorate in this country, especially the self-important soccer moms, who seemed pleased with the new order. These people do have political choices and they make disastrous ones. It is not wayward elites who are abusing our democratic public, so much as the public abusing itself, when it chooses to be ruled by antiwhite racists. 

Recently someone asked me why I am not a white nationalist. My answer was that we first must address the looming white problem. Then we can share the blame with others for our current madness. There would be no critical race theory being taught anywhere in this country unless whites wanted it taught and in fact insisted that it be taught. 

The question is why this is the case. Something like what I’ve described is going on throughout the Anglosphere and Western Europe. There Islamophilia and anticolonialism have led to the same kind of socially suicidal mentality among the native white populations that we find among our woke elites and their ubiquitous imitators. The closest to an explanation that I can come to after researching this behavior is that there is a white civil war going on, in which racial minorities and, in Europe, Muslims play an ancillary role. Upwardly mobile urban whites hate other whites living in what until recently were traditional, religiously influenced communities. The anti-white, anti-Christian torrents of abuse coming from these elites and would-be elites are never aimed at themselves. Rather they are intended for those other whites whom they despise and want to see degraded. 

In a recent, stirring speech at a Turning Point conference, Fox News host Tucker Carlson observed that the cultural Left is trying to take away our “road map” by cutting us off from any sense of an historical past. The Left is doing this by pulling down statues, renaming buildings, army bases, and even sports teams, and railing against the American past. This, of course, is all true. What we are seeing in the United States has been going on in a slightly different form elsewhere—for example, in Germany, where the government claims to be saving its population from a largely imaginary return to fascism by condemning and extinguishing much of its past. 

But there is another side to this cancel culture that Carlson failed to mention. It is a weapon in a civil war that some whites are wielding against other ones. The elites and their followers are just punishing those they hate. They obviously don’t see they are wreaking havoc on themselves.

About Paul Gottfried

Paul Edward Gottfried is the editor of Chronicles. An American paleoconservative philosopher, historian, and columnist, Gottfried is a former Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, as well as a Guggenheim recipient.

Be seeing you

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

The American History You’re Not Supposed To Know – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 7, 2020

History is often written by the winners.

Until someone with courage comes along.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/thomas-dilorenzo/the-american-history-youre-not-supposed-to-know/

By

Brion McClanahan’s new book, Southern Scribblings, contains sixty scholarly and eloquently-written essays about the American history you are not supposed to know.  The reason you are not supposed to know about it is America’s first cultural war that long preceded the current one and is still ongoing.

That “war” began with the New England Puritans, whose philosophical descendants became the universally despised “Yankees.”  These are people mostly from New England and the upper Mid-West originally who believed that they were superior to all others and therefore had a “right” to govern over them, by force if necessary.  They have a mindset of what Judge Napolitano calls “libido dominandi,” or the lust to dominate.  Today, Hillary Clinton would be what Clyde Wilson has called “a museum-quality specimen” of a Yankee.  Yankees are a component of both political parties, but today’s Democratic party is the home of the most extreme ones, who seem to be part Yankee and part Stalinist totalitarian with their university speech codes, their “cancel culture,” their utopian plans to centrally plan all aspects of everyone’s life with their “Green New Deal,” to confiscate private wealth, communist style, with “wealth taxes,” and so on.

After waging total war on the entire civilian population of the South from 1861-1865, murdering hundreds of thousands, the Yankees commenced a “holy war” against American history and especially Southern history, a major theme of Southern Scribblings.  In war, the victors always write the history to portray themselves in the best light possible, no matter what the truth is.  The Yankees have been doing this for more than 150 years, as McClanahan describes in essay after essay.

Among the things you will learn from this book are why Hamiltonian statism has always been the enemy of American freedom and a poisonous threat to genuine, free-market capitalism.  Most Americans would also be surprised to learn that, after the War to Prevent Southern Independence, there was a monumental effort at reconciliation, lasting for generations, and supported by presidents from McKinley to Bill Clinton.  McClanahan calls Jimmy Carter “the last Jeffersonian president” and discusses how “Memorial Day” began as “Decoration Day” where the sacrifices of soldiers on both sides of the “Civil War” were recognized.  This of course is no longer the case thanks to the stultification of America by the country’s own universities over the past generation.

Prior to the 1960s “Civil War” history was much more honest and truthful than it has become ever since then.  For example, everyone understood that the tariff was the main bone of contention between the Yankees of the North, who wanted a 50% (and higher) protectionist tariff, whereas the South wanted its entire country to be a free-trade zone with minimal “revenue tariffs.”  Republican party newspapers even editorialized in favor of bombarding the Southern ports before the war because they understood that free trade in the South would be devastating to the Northern plutocracy.

Everyone also understood that slavery had nothing to do with why Lincoln launched a military invasion of his own country because they were familiar with his own words and the 1861 war aims resolution of the U.S. Congress. That all changed in the 1960s when Leftist historians like Kenneth Stampp decided that the history of the war and reconstruction should be rewritten so as to portray the New England Yankees as angels of salvation who were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands solely for the benefit of black strangers a thousand miles away.  (McClanahan points out the truth that racism and white supremacy was worse in the North than in the South in the nineteenth century, something that even Toqueville wrote about in Democracy in America).

At the same time the history profession since the 1960s contrasted angelic Northern saviors to the descendants of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and other Southerners as the most evil and decadent human beings to ever inhabit the earth.  This of course is the current politically-correct view of everyone and everything Southern in the eyes of the left-wing political elite.

Southern Scribblings explains what a big, steaming pile of horse manure this all is, along with the incredible hypocrisy of “Northern self righteousness.”  It has fueled the fires of “PC Lunacy,” a section of the book containing nine hard-hitting essays.

You will also learn how insidious the academic history profession is with book after book having been written with false narratives about the “lost cause.”  As the only group of Americans who ever seriously challenged the tyrannical impulses of the central government, Southerners must be demonized for eternity in the eyes of the Puritan/Yankee culture that lords over American academe – and much of the rest of society.

The most interesting chapters to your author are the ones that dissect the Leftist and neo-conservative smearing of such Southern figures as Robert E. Lee and John C. Calhoun and their never-ending deification of Lincoln.  The chapters on “the real Robert E. Lee” is worth the price of the book.  Addressing the current effort by the ignoramus governor of Virginia, among others, to get the statue of Lee removed from the national Capitol building in Washington, McClanahan writes:  “No one as grand as Lee . . . should be surrounded by such reptiles in Washington” anyway.

Few Southerners have been as vilified as John C. Calhoun, a former secretary of war, secretary of state, vice president, senator, and representative.  The real reason for this vilification has nothing to do with slavery, but with the fact that, philosophically, Calhoun was “too much” of a Jeffersonian and a champion of federalism, states’ rights, and decentralization, deadly poisons to all would-be tyrants and dictators.  His Disquisition on Government is one of the greatest treatises on political philosophy ever written by an American and was a favorite of Murray Rothbard’s, who cited him in many of his writings.

McClanahan discusses many of the key ideas in the Disquisition in several essays  on Calhoun.  After reading them you will understand the evil and dishonesty of his detractors, from neocons like Victor Davis Hanson to just about the entire academic history profession, which after all is dominated by self-described Marxists.

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo [send him mail] is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His latest book is The Problem with Lincoln.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Did Bankers Foment the “Civil War”? – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on July 25, 2020

The Southern states seceded because the Republicans passed a high tariff.

Slavery was in the mix.

For the North the issue was perserving the empire (saving the Union).

Northern Railroads (Honest Abe was a railroad lawyer), Washington business cronies and of course banksters were all instigators.

I am seeing a lot of Civil War press in the places I frequent. Maybe it has to do with Thomas DiLorenzo’s new book – The Problem With Lincoln.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/22/did-bankers-foment-the-civil-war/

Paul Craig Roberts

In my last two columns, sufficient evidence was provided that the Lincoln regime was an unconstitutional war crime regime and that the so-called “civil war” was an act of northern aggression against the South initiated by Lincoln for the  purpose of saving the Union. See: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/20/the-cause-of-the-so-called-civil-war/

and   https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/21/how-lincoln-destroyed-the-united-states/ 

Slavery was not an issue.

The Southern states seceded because the Republicans passed a high tariff.

For the North the issue was perserving the empire (saving the Union).

Now comes defense attorney and former public prosecuter John Remington Graham.  Was there a deeper underlying cause, an agenda unbeknown to the southern states and perhaps also to Lincoln?  Graham puts forward an intriguing thesis that bankers spent a decade fomenting hatred between North and South in order to provoke a war that would greatly increase federal debt, which the banks could acquire and use as reserves to support the issuance of money and credit.  Federal debt would become the reserve basis (like gold) for the expansion of the money supply. This power would give bankers control of the government.

Graham states his position:

“The divisive antagonisms between the North and the South, finally erupting in the spring of 1861, were not unfortunate historical accidents, nor the result of some inexorable momentum in events. Those anatagonisms, rather, were deliberately agitated during the 1850s by great international banking houses with a preconceived motive of provoking secession. And secession was to be used as a pretext for a bloody and expensvie war of conquest which was actually launched and carried out. The war was planned as a brutal slaughter, as it tragically became. The war was planned to generate a stupendous national debt, mostly represented by bonds, and such a national debt was in fact generated. The private interests acquiring these bonds successfully plotted to secure the passage of legislation which enabled them to convert the paper by them acquired in financing the war into a new and dominant system of banking and currency under their ownership and control. And those private interests fully succeeded in their sinister program, and set up a huge financial empire centered on Wall Street from which they have ever since governed the United States from behind the scenes.”

Graham is factually correct about the huge increase in US national debt caused by the war. In 1860 US national debt stood at a mere $65 million. By war’s end, US national debt was $2.7 billion–41.5 times larger.

Graham’s evidence that hatred was intentionally fomented in order to stimulate a war is circumstantial, but strong.  Graham focuses on the questions of who financed John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, who financed the marketing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s propagandistic novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and turned it into an international best seller, and who financed the expensive and long drawn out legal case of Dred Scott?  These are honest and important questions.  Graham also stresses the role played in fomenting armed strife in Kansas by Stephen Douglas’ modification or repeal of the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.

Today I reproduce with permission a section, “Inciting Hatred: Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” from Graham’s monograph, Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve (https://www.turningthetidepublishing.com/shop/blood-money ).

This will be followed by Graham’s analysis, “Transcontinental Railroads and the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise,” and by “The Case of Dred Scott.”  Once the reader is acquainted with some of the circumstantial evidence, I will attempt a review essay of Graham’s monograph. His intriguing thesis that “in order to stimulate a civil war within the United States, it was necessary to foment hatred between the North and the South” should spark a deeper investigation into the cause of the war.

Inciting Hatred: Uncle Tom’s Cabin

          The opening salvo in the campaign to sow hatred was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, first serialized in a newspaper, then as a book in 1852. It was not a reasoned argument against slavery. It had no basis in fact. It was pure fiction, reaching a melodramatic climax in a scene where the sadistic master Simon Lagree murders a kindly slave Uncle Tom who pleads, “Mas’r, if you was sick, or in trouble, or dying, and I could save ye, I’d give ye my heart’s blood; and, if taking every drop of blood in this poor old body would save your precious soul, I’d give ‘em freely, as the Lord gave his for me. O, Mas’r, don’t bring this great sin on your soul!” After more gaudy sensationalism, the awful moment: “There was one hesitating pause, — one irresolute, relenting thrill, — and the spirit of evil came back, with sevenfold vehemence; and Legree, foaming  with rage, smote his victim to the ground.”      

          This vindictive fabrication was published as a malicious libel against the Old South. It was mass marketed, requiring vast capital which could only have been supplied by the largest banking houses in the United States and Great Britain. This book was promoted lavishly like no other book had ever before been promoted in the history of Western civilization. The King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer aside, ten times more copies were published and sold than of any other work then known in the English-speaking world.

Mrs. Stowe’s corny novel could not have gained a large readership without the kind of advertising and fanfare that only powerful connections and big money could assure. Pushing her work was like selling a low-grade Hollywood film today. It might be tasteless as so many films are, but with enough capital it is possible to sell almost anything. Northerners read Mrs. Stowe’s absurdity, and were outraged because they believed it was true. Southerners read her lie, and were outraged because they knew it was false. There was enough resulting anger in the air to generate the desire in men to kill each other, an essential ingredient of war — exactly what the financiers behind this “literary” production wanted.    

Be seeing you

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

Why This Election Could be The Most Important Since the US Civil War

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2020

I suspect the Dems will win in November because they actually have a core of philosophical beliefs—and that counts during chaos. It doesn’t matter that they’re irrational or evil. Then, whenever a really radical group takes over—and these people are serious radicals—they cement themselves in power. And it only takes a small number of people working as a cadre to do it.

https://internationalman.com/articles/why-this-election-could-be-the-most-important-since-the-us-civil-war/

by Doug Casey

International Man: The hysteria surrounding COVID-19 and the government lockdown has completely changed in-person interactions.

How do you think this will impact the way that Americans cast their vote in the presidential election?

Doug Casey: It’s a very bad thing from Trump’s point of view. For one thing, it’s severely limiting the number and size of his rallies, which he relies on to keep enthusiasm up.

More people are staying at home and watching television than ever before. And unless they glue their dial to Fox, they’ll gravitate towards the mainstream media, which is stridently anti-Trump. People who are on the fence hear authoritative-sounding talking heads on television, and it naturally influences them away from Trump.

Furthermore, this virus hysteria is discouraging people from going out—especially older people who are roughly 80% of the casualties of this virus. They’re less likely to go to vote. But older people are most likely to be Trumpers because they’re culturally conservative. I’m assuming that the COVID hysteria will still be with us in November.

Keeping his voters at home is one thing. But the effects that the hysteria is having on the economy are even more important. Presidents always take credit when the economy is good and are berated when it’s bad on their watch, regardless of whether they had anything to do with it. If the economy is still bad in November—and I’ll wager it’s going to be much worse—people will reflexively vote against Trump.

With free money being passed out—the $600 per week in supplementary unemployment—between the state and federal payments, something like 30 million people are making more now than they were before the virus. In February, before the lockdown, there were about 3.2 million people collecting unemployment. Now, there are about 35 million. So, it seems we have over 30 million working-age people who are . . . displaced. That doesn’t count part-time workers, who aren’t eligible for unemployment but are no longer working.

When the supplementary benefits end, so will the artificial good times.

Worse, the public has come to the conclusion that a guaranteed annual income works. This virus hysteria has provided a kind of test for both universal basic income and modern monetary theory—helicopter money. So far, anyway, it seems you really can get something for nothing.

Even Trump supports helicopter money because he knows it’s all over if today’s financial house of cards collapses.

Most people will still be out of work when the free money ends. The recognition that the country is in a depression will sink in. They’ll look for somebody to blame. When things get seriously bad, people want to change the system itself.

There’s now a lot of antagonism toward both free minds and free markets. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans actually support BLM, an openly Marxist movement. Forget about free minds—someone might be offended, and you’ll be pilloried by the mob. Forget about free markets—they’re blamed for all the economic problems, even though it’s the lack of them that caused the problem. The idea of capitalism is now considered undefendable.

Widespread dissatisfaction with the system is obviously bad for the Republicans and good for the Democrats, who promote themselves as the party of change.

The bottom line is that this whole episode with COVID is uniformly bad for whatever Trump or the Republicans represent. It’s bad for the old status quo.

International Man: If people are afraid to go out, will it impact voter turnout?

Doug Casey: Absolutely. As I just said, especially among older people who tend to be conservative Republican voters.

But let’s be candid. This election is going to hinge on who cheats the best. And the Democrats have, over the years, developed far greater expertise in cheating than the Republicans. Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” wasn’t written for the kind of people who vote Republican.

For one thing, there’s going to be more emphasis on mail-in votes, which make it easier to cheat. You can register dead people as voters. You can register your dog as a voter. If the fraud is ever even discovered, it won’t be until long after the election.

That’s only part of it, though. A high percentage of voting machines are computerized. Fraud by hacking voting machines is apparently easy to do—and it’s pretty untraceable. It’s just a matter of planning and boldness.

One of the consequences of this widely acknowledged dysfunction is to delegitimize the whole idea of voting. As you know, I don’t believe in mass democracy, because it inevitably degrades into a system where the poorer citizens vote themselves benefits at the expense of the middle class. Basically, mob rule dressed in a coat and tie. But if the populace loses faith in “democracy” during a serious economic crisis—like this one—they’re going to look for a strong man to straighten things out. The US will look more and more like Argentina.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/why-the-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery/

By Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.,

From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and to defend his home; the two great heroes of the war were Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee; and the South admitted that slavery was wrong but never conceded that it was cruel.

Around 1960, the Democratic Party—led by Lyndon B. Johnson—advanced the modern incarnation of identity politics. It worked very well for them. In the election of 1956, 75% of African-Americans voted Republican. By 1964, more than 90% of them voted Democrat, and they have been doing so until 2020. As part of their effort to control and manipulate the black vote, the Leftists and their myrmidons advanced the myth that the Civil War was all about slavery. It wasn’t. It was, in my opinion, about money, more than anything else. Now, at this point, I know some of my liberal friends will bristle up and say: “It was too all about slavery!” Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but let me ask you this: What was slavery about?

ANSWER: It was about money.

The “it was all about slavery” argument is an oversimplified and infantile claim that has duped many people. Those who subscribe to this flawed theory ignore one undeniable fact: history is messy. It is almost never as simple as the modern Left would have you believe. Oh, sure, slavery was an issue, but it was certainly not the only issue and not even the dominant one. Listed below are eleven others:

1. The Question of What Kind of Government Would We Have? Would we follow the Alexander Hamilton’s big government/commercial state model, featuring a strong, centralized government, a chief executive with almost royal powers, a Senate elected for life, high tariffs to encourage manufacturing at the expense of agriculture, a strong National Bank to control the currency, and high public land prices to generate income for Washington, D.C., to finance internal improvements (especially canals and roads in the North), selling public lands at high prices would also have the advantage of keeping the new waves of immigrants from Europe in the cities. Because they could not afford to buy land and therefore could not farm, they would have to remain in the cities, providing a ready pool of cheap labor for big business.

The alternative was the small government, “governs best which governs least” philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. This viewpoint was adopted by his intellectual heirs, John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, among others. The Hamiltonian model was adopted by Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, who embraced Clay’s “America System” ideas as his political North Star.

One never hears about this nowadays because it is largely a dead issue. It was settled at Appomattox. Big government won. And it is still winning. This is why one can say that, when it comes to the Civil War, in a sense, both sides lost.

2. Northern corporate greed. Northern corporations liked high tariffs (taxes) on goods the South imported, because it reduced competition with European manufacturers and allowed them to charge higher prices for often substandard goods. The tax revenue went to Washington, which used it to subsidize Northern industries (both directly and indirectly) at the expense of Southern agriculture. Cotton was especially lucrative. In 1859, the value of exported cotton totaled $161,000,000. The value of all Northern exports combined was just over $70,000,000. By 1860, the Federal budget was $80,000,000. Seventy million of that was paid by the South. One section, which amounted to 29% of the population, was paying more than 82% of the taxes. Of that, four out of five dollars was being used for internal improvements in the North. This was not good enough for Abraham Lincoln. He backed an increase in the tariff from 24% to 47% (and 51% on items containing iron). He got his way. This tariff rate was in effect until 1913.

3. Northern hypocrisy. The North also had slaves. It is an actual fact that Massachusetts had slavery 78 years longer than Mississippi. They freed their slaves by a process called manumission, which was designed so that the Northern master didn’t lose any money. Wall Street continued to finance Southern plantations, and thus slavery, until the Civil War. The Northern bankers wanted slaves as collateral and preferred them to land. Very often, “Massa” used the money he borrowed from Northern banks to purchase more slaves. The Northern bankers thus financed slavery.

Also, it did not escape the attention of the Southern editors that the slave fleets did not headquarter in Southern ports. They operated out of Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, joined later by New York City. The Lincoln regime did nothing to restrict these Northern shipping interests. Nor did this stop with the war. It continued until 1885, 20 years after Lee surrendered, when Brazil became the last nation in the New World to outlaw the international slave trade. Southern editorial writers hammered home all these points in the 1840s and 1850s, when charges of Northern hypocrisy were quite common in Southern newspapers.

4. Abolitionist terrorism. The greatest fear most Southerners had before 1861 was the slave revolt along the lines of that experienced by Haiti in 1791. Many abolitionists called for them, and some of them financially supported John Brown’s terrorist attack on Harpers Ferry in 1859. Frederick Douglass and W. E. B. DuBois called the shots fired here and the first shots of the Civil War. They were probably right.

5. Republican willingness to protect terrorists. The John Brown terrorists who escaped to the North were incarcerated. The states with Republican governors refused to extradite them and let them go. The South looked upon this as a preview of what they could expect from a Republic president. When John Brown seized Harpers Ferry, Democratic President Buchanan sent in the Marines. The Southern leaders asked if they could expect the same from a Republican president? The answer was no.

6. The Federal budget grossly favored the North (see Number 2 above).

7. Cultural differences. These are too complex to innumerate here, but they still exist. Because of television, they are less pronounced than they were in 1860, but they are still there.

8. Political power. Because of immigration, the demographics caused a power shift in favor of the North. By 1860, the South felt (with considerable justification) that it was doomed to become an economic colony of the North if it remained in the Union, so it did not.

9. Constitutional Issues. After large sections of New England threatened to secede five times between 1803 and 1860, Lincoln and his cronies suddenly decided that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (somehow) did not apply to the South in 1861, and that the powers not delegated to the states or the people somehow did not count when it came to secession. But after the war, the Federal government refused to bring Jefferson Davis (or any other Southern leader) to trial, even though he demanded it, because as Senator Sumner (a radical Republican) wrote to Chief Justice Chase: “because by the Constitution, secession is not treason.”

10. Nineteenth-Century Fake News. In 1832, a motion to abolish slavery failed in the Virginia legislature by a vote of 58 to 65. Four years later, the legislature made it a crime even to advocate abolition. The difference? Northern abolitionist propaganda, which was often hateful, salacious, and untruth. It made the slavery issue sectional. In the 1830s, anti-slavery societies in the South outnumbered those in the North 106 to 24. By 1850, there were no anti-slavery societies in the South—zip, zero, nada.

11.Economic Issues After Secession. The Confederacy set its tariff rates at 10%. (If it was good enough for God, it was good enough for them.) There was no way Lincoln’s 47% tariff could compete with that for foreign trade. Lincoln legitimately feared the Northern economy would crash into a recession, if not a depression, and the Federal Government would lose 82% of its tax base, so Washington would be in desperate straits. Because Northern public opinion did not support a war (many Northerners said “Good riddance!” to the South), Lincoln had to walk a political tightrope. He had to instigate a war and make it appear that the South started it by maneuvering Jefferson Davis into firing the first shot. The slick corporate lawyer was up to this as well, but that is a story for another time.

When one has written an entire book about a subject like the causes of the Civil War, it is difficult to condense it into 1,500 words or so. Suffice it to say that the onset of the Civil War was much more complex than the average American today thinks it was. For those astonished by the facts I have mentioned above, I hope you are inspired to do further reading on the subject. To paraphrase Harry Truman: the only thing new is the history you don’t know.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

George Washington Tried To Warn Americans About Foreign Policy Today – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2020

Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America’s treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington’s support for reckless war-mongering.

https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2020/07/12/george-washington-tried-to-warn-americans-about-foreign-policy-today/

Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, unkindly characterized the foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C., as “the Blob.” Although policymakers sometimes disagree on peripheral subjects, membership requires an absolute commitment to U.S. “leadership,” which means a determination to micro-manage the world.

Reliance on persuasion is not enough. Vital is the willingness to bomb, invade, and, if necessary, occupy other nations to impose the Blob’s dictates on other peoples. If foreigners die, as they often do, remember the saying about eggs and omelets oft repeated by communism’s apologists. “Stuff happens” with the best-intentioned policies.

One might be inclined to forgive Blob members if their misguided activism actually benefited the American people. However, all too often the Blob’s policies instead aid other governments and interests. Washington is overrun by the representatives of and lobbyists for other nations, which constantly seek to take control of US policy for their own advantage. The result are foreign interventions in which Americans do the paying and, all too often, the dying for others.

The problem is primarily one of power. Other governments don’t spend a lot of time attempting to take over Montenegro’s foreign policy because, well, who cares? Exactly what would you do after taking over Fiji’s foreign ministry other than enjoy a permanent vacation? Seize control of international relations in Barbados and you might gain a great tax shelter.

Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America’s treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington’s support for reckless war-mongering. And given the natural inclination of key American policymakers to intervene promiscuously abroad for the most frivolous reasons, it’s surprisingly easy for foreign interests to convince Uncle Sam that their causes are somehow “vital” and therefore require America’s attention. Indeed, it is usually easier to persuade Americans than foreign peoples in their home countries to back one or another international misadventure.

The culprits are not just autocratic regimes. Friendly democratic governments are equally ready to conspiratorially whisper in Uncle Sam’s ear. Even nominally classical liberal officials, who believe in limiting their own governments, argue that Americans are obligated to sacrifice wealth and life for everyone else. The mantra seems to be liberty, prosperity, and peace for all – except those living in the superpower tasked by heaven with protecting everyone else’s liberty, prosperity, and peace.

Although the problem has burgeoned in modern times, it is not new. Two centuries ago fans of Greek independence wanted Americans to challenge the Ottoman Empire, a fantastic bit of foolishness. Exactly how to effect an international Balkans rescue was not clear, since the president then commanded no aircraft carriers, air wings, or nuclear-tipped missiles. Still, the issue divided Americans and influenced John Quincy Adams’ famous 1821 Independence Day address.

Warned Adams:

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”

“The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…. [America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.”

Powerful words, yet Adams was merely following in the footsteps of another great American, George Washington. Obviously, the latter was flawed as a person, general, and president. Nevertheless, his willingness to set a critical precedent by walking away from power left an extraordinary legacy. As did his insistence that the Constitution tasked Congress with deciding when America would go to war. And his warning against turning US policy over to foreign influences.

Concern over obsequious subservience to other governments and interests pervaded his famous 1796 Farewell Address. Applied today, his message indicts most of the policy currently made in the city ironically named after him. He would be appalled by what presidents and Congresses today do, supposedly for America.

Obviously, the US was very different 224 years ago. The new country was fragile, sharing the Western hemisphere with its old colonial master, which still ruled Canada and much of the Caribbean, as well as Spain and France. When later dragged into the maritime fringes of the Napoleonic wars the US could huff and puff but do no more than inconvenience France and Britain. The vastness of the American continent, not overweening national power, again frustrated London when it sought to subjugate its former colonists.

Indeed, when George Washington spoke the disparate states were not yet firmly knit into a nation. Only after the Civil War, when the national government waged four years of brutal combat, which ravaged much of the country and killed upwards of 750,000 people in the name of “union,” did people uniformly say the United States “is” rather than “are.” However, the transformation was much more than rhetorical. The federal system that originally emerged in the name of individual liberty spawned a high tax centralized government that employed one of the world’s largest militaries to kill on a mass scale to enforce the regime’s dictates. The modern American “republic” was born. It acted overseas only inconsistently until World War II, after which imperial America was a constant, adding resonance to George Washington’s message.

Today Washington, D.C.’s elites have almost uniformly decided that Russia is an enemy, irrespective of American behavior that contributed to Moscow’s hostility. And that Ukraine, a country never important for American security, is a de facto military ally, appropriately armed by the US for combat against a nuclear-armed rival. A reelection-minded president seems determined to turn China into a new Cold War adversary, an enemy for all things perhaps for all time. America remains ever entangled in the Middle East, with successive administrations in permanent thrall of Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing foreign leaders to set US Mideast policy. Indeed, both states have avidly pressed the administration to make their enemy, Iran, America’ enemy. The resulting fixation caused the Trump administration to launch economic war against the rest of the world to essentially prevent everyone on earth from having any commercial dealing of any kind with anyone in Tehran.

Under Democrats and Republicans alike the federal government views nations that resist its dictates as adversaries at best, appropriate targets of criticism, always, sanctions, often, and even bombs and invasions, occasionally. No wonder foreign governments lobby hard to be designated as allies, partners, and special relationships. Many of these ties have become essentially permanent, unshakeable even when supposed friends act like enemies and supposed enemies are incapable of hurting America. US foreign policy increasingly has been captured and manipulated for the benefit of other governments and interests.

George Washington recognized the problem even in his day, after revolutionary France sought to win America’s support against Great Britain. He warned: “nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” Read the rest of this entry »

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

It’s the 4th of July! Why Is Democracy Destroying the World? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020

In natural democracy, folks seek out others who agree with them and are willing, temporarily at least, to contribute time and/or money to their mutually agreed upon project(s). They don’t involve those who aren’t interested in their project(s) and certainly don’t expect the non-interested to pay for them.

In fact, as six-term U.S. Senator John McCain explains, it’s often those professional lobbyists who write the laws passed by the minions and, according to 26-term (52 year) U.S. Congressman John Conyers, the minions don’t even read them anyway – – –

“We don’t read most of the bills…that we pass.”

Do you suppose they’re passing too many? Rep. Conyers seems to think so. You will too if you keep reading.

Https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/l-reichard-white/its-the-4th-of-july-why-is-democracy-destroying-the-world/

By

History definitively proves that, when practiced by governments, democracy guarantees discord, discontent, disharmony, upheaval, chaos, and political disaster, often leading to totalitarianism.

But,” you may be thinking already, “How can that be? Isn’t democracy good? Doesn’t it prevent those things?

So you may be surprised to discover that more than half — 58% — of 4 million folks around the world surveyed in a Cambridge U. study are dissatisfied with democracy. That’s the highest level of discontent ever recorded in the survey’s 25 year history. Further, the level of dissatisfaction is particularly high in the U.S.A. and U.K.

The New Yorker calls the unprecedented number of world-wide upheavals, most in democracies, The Story of 2019.” They’re continuing in 2020.

For starters, there are upheavals in The Cradle of Democracy, Greece — and Bolivia, Ecuador, Iraq, Algeria, Haiti, Hong Kong, Columbia, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina. And more democracies on the brink. South Africa, Italy, and “authorities” aren’t too sure about India, etc.

Even Germany. And England, Scotland, Ireland, Whales and their people are divided over “BREXIT.”

These shakey democracies include assumed-to-be extremely stable countries such as Chile, Spain (Catalonia), Venezuela, Lebanon, even Israel.

Perhaps most surprising so far is France, with over a year — 60 weeks so far — of massive street demonstrations, beginning on Nov. 17, 2018 with the “Gilets Jaunes” or “Yellow Vests,” ignited by an increase in petrol tax and now re-upped by the Orange Vests, ignited by an attempted government re-form of French “Social Security.”

You can find a sporadically updated list with links here: UNCOMMON SENSE: Major Demonstrations and Riots .

In some ways, these uprisings are more focused continuations of the “Occupy” Movements that began in late 2011 and spread all around the world to at least 951 cities in 82 countries.

The”Occupy Wall Street” branch prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to quip to the bankers rather appropriately, My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.

And there’s this:

31% Think U.S. Civil War Likely Soon – Rasmussen Reports®

And that was all before the COVID-19 fiasco and the George Floyd related Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations all around the world.

Maybe democracy isn’t such a good idea after all? And do the bankers have something to do with it? If so, what?

Let’s take a look – – –

Imagine “we” — that is all approximately 320 million Americans — went to Baskin & Robbins (or Ben and Jerry’s) but collectively we — even the folks who didn’t vote — or even eat — all had to buy and pay for the winning flavor of ice cream — vanilla perhaps. Even when less than half voted for it. Even when less than half voted at all. –L. Reichard White, What You Mean ‘We,’ Paleface?

That’s an example of direct democracy. On the other hand, we might elect a few folks to decide which flavor of ice cream we all get and how much we have to pay for it. That would be “representative democracy.”

Clearly such circumstances should be avoided if at all possible, especially because when the “majority rules,” there’s always a minority that loses. The more votes taken, the more losers.

There’s a third form of democracy which avoids that problem. It’s the one we want, use in our daily lives, and subconsciously ass-u-me when we hear the word. That’s probably because it’s almost certainly built-in to our genome. We’ll call that natural democracy.

In natural democracy, folks seek out others who agree with them and are willing, temporarily at least, to contribute time and/or money to their mutually agreed upon project(s). They don’t involve those who aren’t interested in their project(s) and certainly don’t expect the non-interested to pay for them.

Where natural democracy exists — as practiced by the original North American inhabitants and other “primitive” folks and in most of our day-to-day interactions, including voluntary exchanges in markets free of unwanted third party taxers and pseudo “regulators” — the folks who want vanilla get and pay for their own vanilla. Even the folks who want Bacon or Razzleberry can usually get what they want.

And the folks who aren’t hungry or don’t want ice cream don’t have to pay or even get off the recliner to vote.

On the other hand, some of them might voluntarily contribute to folks they feel need ice cream.

Who would want to do things any other way?

Because it’s so difficult, expensive, time-consuming and thus impractical to take universal votes on everything, direct democracy becomes unwieldly, even in relatively small groups.

As a result, despite certain psychological advantages, there are few groups of any size — and no countries — run by direct democracy.

When practiced in private groups, however — where participation is voluntary — both direct democracy and representative democracy approximate natural democracy and so can be useful.

And because you aren’t forced to belong to such private, voluntary groups — the PTA, Orthodox church, Mosque, the local paint-ball club, etc. — and those who do belong are free to easily leave them and/or stop paying dues, they stay mostly under control or else they disappear.

However, once you lose that ability to easily leave a group — and/or to stop paying dues — the membership loses that easy control and the organization eventually gets out of control.

Democracy or not, that “gets out of control” situation always applies to territorial state-based governments. That’s because, if you live in the geographical area they claim, those organizations make your membership mandatory, claim jurisdiction over you, and assert the right to extort your dues as “taxes.” This insight may be what promped U.S. founder Thomas Jefferson to pen, “The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.

And so, lacking meaningful control, sooner or later territorial states begin to deteriorate towards discord, discontent, disharmony, upheaval, chaos, and political disaster, often leading to totalitarianism.

History — particularly 2019 and 2020 history as above and developing — shows this just happens a lot faster in democracies. Why do you suppose?

And yes, these days the banks — especially the Central Banks — are involved.

And yes, there’s an alternative form of government that can, temporarily at least, hold the bad territorial democracies at bey.

Our early American ancestors understood the dangers of democracy — and of majority rule in general — and weren’t shy in warning about them – – –

Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.” –U.S. “Founding Father” John Adams

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:163

U.S. “founding father” James Madison was more specific – – –

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” –James Madison, Federalist Paper 10:

That’s what happens when folks stop minding their own business and start minding someone else’s. Read the rest of this entry »

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