MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘deplorables’

Catcall and Response – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on March 11, 2021

Professional feminists like Filipovic don’t like to admit that feminism has succeeded overwhelmingly in the West, thus rendering their careers less relevant. Hence, they get angry when anybody points out that the main threat to women’s rights today is from importing toxic masculinity from the Muslim world. Meanwhile, in real-life France, working-class women are losing their freedom to leave the house due to Muslim hooligans feeling ever more entitled to catcall and paw at women they deem dressed immodestly by the standards of the Iron Age cultures they brought with them. Hirsi Ali quotes a prominent Egyptian lawyer declaring in 2017 “I say that when a girl walks about like that, it is a patriotic duty to sexually harass her and a national duty to rape her.”

https://www.takimag.com/article/catcall-and-response/print

Steve Sailer

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a refugee from Islamic Somalia’s maltreatment of women, asks in her important book Prey: Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women’s Rights why few feminists dare mention the ongoing diminishment of the basic female freedom to walk down the streets of Europe unharassed by the ever-growing numbers of young Muslim louts. She notes:

…even as individual women in the West hold the offices of prime minister and president, managing director and chief executive officer, women’s rights at the grassroots are under increasing pressure from imported notions of female subordination. Worse, many of today’s female leaders in the West are doing little or nothing to stop this turning back of the clock on gender equality.

But who cares about the fates of the European equivalent of deplorables? Hirsi Ali points out:

Most of the crime and misconduct against women takes place in low-income neighborhoods…. And somehow, in the era of #MeToo, their predicament arouses much less sympathy than that of Hollywood actresses subjected to sexual harassment by predatory producers.

We live in an age obsessed with sniffing out the most trivial and/or absurd threats to the self-perceived safety of protected classes. For example, in an essay denouncing Dr. Seuss, New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow announced:

Some of the first cartoons I can remember included Pepé Le Pew, who normalized rape culture…

The optimistically amorous but foul-smelling and perpetually frustrated French skunk has indeed been canceled from a return gig in Warner Bros.’ Space Jam franchise with LeBron James. “We live in an age obsessed with sniffing out the most trivial and/or absurd threats to the self-perceived safety of protected classes.”

Meanwhile, in real-life France, working-class women are losing their freedom to leave the house due to Muslim hooligans feeling ever more entitled to catcall and paw at women they deem dressed immodestly by the standards of the Iron Age cultures they brought with them. Hirsi Ali quotes a prominent Egyptian lawyer declaring in 2017:

“I say that when a girl walks about like that, it is a patriotic duty to sexually harass her and a national duty to rape her.”

As she points out, it’s hard to blame discrimination by Europeans for the bad behavior of Muslim migrants when they do much the same things at home, such as gang-rape CBS News correspondent Lara Logan while she was reporting from Cairo in 2011.

During Women’s History Month in the U.S., though, few are interested in women’s present in Europe. The topic of what is happening to European women is largely off-limits in Biden’s America. A month after publication of Prey, the book has been reviewed almost solely in right-of-center outlets, with virtually no coverage in Establishment venues like The Washington Post, NPR, The Atlantic, and the like.

The one exception was The New York Times, which commissioned a fulminating review from Jill Filipovic, who was outraged that Hirsi Ali would dare mention any downsides to immigration.

Filipovic argued that the Somali dissident’s amassing of exhaustive data on the magnitude of the problem of Muslim men harassing European women just proves she is not a good person:

It could also be said to be cut through with bigotry. Hirsi Ali seems to latch onto the trope of men of color threatening virtuous white women, a particular kind of fearmongering with a long and ugly history.

It’s a trope!

As I wrote in my 2019 column “Truth or Trope” on denunciations of Rep. Ilhan Omar, another fearless (if much less intelligent) Somali woman, for her publicly mentioning the “trope” that Jewish donors draw a lot of water in the Democratic Party:

The use of “trope” signals a faith in the literary theory that the concept of “reality” is irrelevant, perhaps fictitious, and definitely oppressive. There’s no such thing as nature, only social constructs, which can presumably be deconstructed out of existence by socially reengineering the discourse.

This notion that only a bad person would be well-informed on questions of vital import such as who is committing most of the gang rapes in Europe (74% of gang rapists in Sweden were born outside Europe) or mass shootings in America is increasingly common. After all, what you don’t know can’t hurt you.

It can’t, can it?

Professional feminists like Filipovic don’t like to admit that feminism has succeeded overwhelmingly in the West, thus rendering their careers less relevant. Hence, they get angry when anybody points out that the main threat to women’s rights today is from importing toxic masculinity from the Muslim world.

Hirsi Ali observes that the situation for women on the streets of Northern Europe has substantially worsened since 2015, the year of Merkel’s Mistake. She writes:

t is one of the rich ironies of early-twenty-first-century history that the single decision that has done the most harm to European women in my lifetime was made by a woman.

Merkel’s choice to let (or as Hirsi Ali portrays it, to not stop) a million military-age Muslim men from marching into German was celebrated unreservedly in the global press until word finally leaked out on social media of the mass sex assaults by refugees in front of the Cologne Cathedral on New Year’s Eve 2015, which police had initially dismissed (in a prelude to 2020 America) as “largely peaceful.” All told, 661 women filed criminal complaints as victims of sex crimes.

Whatever happened to the hundreds of groping Muslims in Cologne? As Prey documents:

Only three men were convicted of sex crimes such as sexual assault, of which two received only suspended sentences.

In recent years, European law enforcement has been trying to do with crime what the U.S. attempted in the 1960s–1970s (and also since Memorial Day 2020): close your eyes and hope it goes away. The damage done to American cities like Detroit is a tragedy, but the European cities that survived World War II unflattened are the world’s greatest works of art, so the risk is even larger.

Hirsi Ali, who is married to Scottish historian Niall Ferguson, praises Western civilization for offering her refuge from Islam. She is an Enlightenment atheist who sees the liberation of European women being a relatively recent phenomenon, tracking back to the time of John Stuart Mill.

But the West’s divergence from the Near East over the fundamental question of the value of women has deeper roots. As art historian Kenneth Clark attested in Civilisation:

In the early twelfth century, the Virgin had been the supreme protectress of civilisation. She had taught a race of tough and ruthless barbarians the virtues of tenderness and compassion…. It’s a curious fact that the all-male religions have produced no religious imagery—in most cases have positively forbidden it. The great religious art of the world is deeply involved with the female principle.

By the way, speaking of great religious art, do we have any clue yet after two years what (or who) half-burned down the cathedral of Notre-Dame?

Be seeing you

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

When Deplorables Become Ungovernables — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on December 17, 2020

A perverse form of blowback is already in effect as informed global citizens may now see, crystal clear, the astonishing depth and reach of Deep State power – the ultimate decider of what happens next in Dystopia Central.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/12/16/when-deplorables-become-ungovernables/

Pepe Escobar

China, Russia and Iran are the top three existential “threats” to the U.S., according to the National Security Strategy. Three features distinguish the top three. They are all sovereign powers. They are under varying degrees of sanctions. And they are the top three nodes of the 21st century’s most important, evolving geopolitical process: Eurasia integration.

What do the three sovereigns see when they examine the dystopia that took over Exceptionalistan?

They see, once again, three – discombobulated – nodes in conflict: the post-historic Pacific and Atlantic coasts; the South – a sort of expanded Dixieland; and the Midwest – what would be the American heartland.

The hyper-modern Pacific-Atlantic nodes congregate high-tech and finance, profit from Pentagon techno-breakthroughs and benefit from the “America rules the waves” ethos that guarantees the global primacy of the U.S. dollar.

The rest of America is largely considered by the Pacific-Atlantic as just a collection of flyover states: the South – which regards itself as the real, authentic America; and the Midwest, largely disciplined and quite practical-minded, squeezed ideologically between the littoral powerhouses and the South.

Superstructure, tough, is key: no matter what happens, whatever the fractures, this remains an Empire, where only a tiny elite, a de facto plutocratic oligarchy, rules.

It would be too schematic, even though essentially correct, to assert that in the presidential election, invisible campaigner Joe Biden represented the Pacific-Atlantic nodes, and Trump represented the whole South. Assuming the election was not fraudulent – and that remains a big “if” – the Midwest eventually swung based on three issues.

  1. Trump, as much as he relied on a sanctions juggernaut, could not bring back manufacturing jobs home. 2. He could not reduce the military footprint across the Greater Middle East. 3. And, before Covid-19, he could not bring down immigration.

Everything that lies ahead points to the irreconcilable – pitting the absolute majority that voted Dem in the Atlantic-Pacific nodes versus the South and a deeply divided Midwest. As much as Biden-Harris is bound to isolate the South even more, their prospects of “pacifying” the Midwest are less than zero.

Whose ground control?

Beyond the raucous altercations on whether the presidential election was fraudulent, these are the key factual points.

  1. A series of rules in mostly swing states were changed, through courts, bypassing state legislatures, without transparence, before the election, paving the way to facilitate fraud schemes.
  2. Biden was de facto coronated by AP, Google and Twitter even before the final, official result, and weeks before the electoral college vote this past Monday.
  3. Every serious, professional audit to determine whether all received and tabulated votes were valid was de facto squashed.

In any Global South latitude where the empire did “interfere” in local elections, color revolution-style, this set of facts would be regarded by scores of imperial officials, in a relentless propaganda blitz, as evidence of a coup.

On the recent Supreme Court ruling, a Deep State intel source told me, “the Supreme Court did not like to see half the country rioting against them, and preferred the decision be made by each state in the House of Representatives. That is the only way to handle this without jeopardizing the union. Even prominent Democrats I know realize that the fix took place. The error was to steal too many votes. This grand theft indicts the whole system, that has always been corrupt.”

Dangers abound. On the propaganda front, for instance, far right nationalists are absolutely convinced that U.S. media can be brought to heel only by occupying the six main offices of the top conglomerates, plus Facebook, Google and Twitter: then you’d have full control of the U.S. propaganda mill.

Another Deep State source, now retired, adds that, “the U.S. Army does not want to intervene as their soldiers may not obey orders.

Many of these far right nationalists were officers in the armed forces. They know where the nuclear missiles and bombers are. There are many in sympathy with them as the U.S. falls apart in lockdowns.”

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s dodgy dealings simply will not be made to vanish from public scrutiny. He’s under four different federal investigations. The recent subpoena amounts to a very serious case pointing to a putative crime family. It’s been conveniently forgotten that Joe Biden bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations

that he forced Ukraine’s chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin to be fired exactly when he was investigating corruption by Burisma’s founder.

Of course, a massive army of shills will always invoke another army of omniscient and oh so impartial “fact checkers” to hammer the same message: “This is Trump’s version. Courts have said clearly all the evidence is baseless.”

District Attorney William Barr is now out of the picture (see his letter of resignation). Barr is a notorious Daddy Bush asset since the old days – and that means classic Deep State. Barr knew about all federal investigations on Hunter Biden dating back to 2018, covering potential money laundering and bribery.

And still, as the Wall Street Journal delightfully put it, he “worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign”.

A devastating report (Dems: a Republican attack report) has shown how the Biden family was connected to a vast financial network with multiple foreign ramifications.

Then there’s Barr not even daring to say there was enough reason for the Department of Justice to engage in a far-reaching investigation into voting fraud, finally putting to rest all “baseless” conspiracy theories.

Move on. Nothing to see here. Even if an evidence pile-up featured, among other instances, ballot stuffing, backdated ballots, statistical improbabilities, electronic machine tampering, software back doors, affidavits from poll workers, not to mention the by now legendary stopping the vote in the dead of night, with subsequent, huge batches of votes miraculously switching from Trump to Biden.

Once again an omniscient army of oh so impartial “fact checkers” will say everything is baseless.

A perverse blowback

A perverse form of blowback is already in effect as informed global citizens may now see, crystal clear, the astonishing depth and reach of Deep State power – the ultimate decider of what happens next in Dystopia Central.

Both options are dire.

  1. The election stands, even if considered fraudulent by nearly half of U.S. public opinion. To quote that peerless existentialist, The Dude, there’s no rug tying the room together anymore.
  2. Was the election to be somehow overturned before January 20, the Deep State would go Shock and Awe to finish the job.

In either case, The Deplorables will become The Ungovernables.

It gets worse. A possible implosion of the union – with internal convulsions leading to a paroxysm of violence – may even be coupled with an external explosion, as in a miscalculated imperial adventure.

For the Three Sovereigns – Russia, China and Iran – as well as the overwhelming majority of the Global South, the conclusion is inescapable: if the current, sorry spectacle is the best Western liberal “democracy” has to offer, it definitely does not need any enemies or “threats”.

Be seeing you

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

Time for a divorce? The US is so bitterly divided between red & blue factions that some want it to split into two nations — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2020

So, could the nation irrevocably split into a red heartland and a blue one? It’s unlikely in my view. While the prevailing portrait of two Americas has some merit, it is a caricature that fails to account for the degree to which the two nations intermingle and depend on each other.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/508735-divorce-us-divided-red-blue/

Michael Rectenwald

Michael Rectenwald

is an author of ten books, including the most recent, Beyond Woke. He was Professor of Liberal Arts at NYU from 2008 through 2019. Follow him on Twitter @TheAntiPCProf

While my country’s currently the Dis-United States of America, calls for it to be broken up into a Republican-dominated state and a Democrat-dominated one are so radical that it’s difficult to see how it could be implemented.

The US is so bitterly divided that some wonks are calling for a formal split – either into an arrangement giving states more autonomy to govern themselves, or a two-nation solution. Neither will prevail because the pain of remaining ‘together’ is still insufficient. 

In the latest issue of its publication The American Mind, the Claremont Institute published a series of articles entitled ‘A House Divided’ – a conversation the conservative think tank says is taking place in private among Americans on both sides of the political divide. Matthew J. Peterson argues in the introduction that a discussion of possible remedies needs to come into the public light so the nation can avoid “serious and sudden shocks to our political and cultural life.” What remedies, you ask? The possibility and desirability of parting ways.

The division in the US seems to have reached an insurmountable impasse. America is divided – culturally, economically, and politically – into two separate tribes. Descriptions of a rankled, bitterly alienated nation are by now a cliché.

According to this view, red America – die-hard Republicans – consists of the mostly rural and suburban, religious, gun-toting, pro-America tribe. This tribe takes pride in America’s past and prizes its cultural and traditional heritage. Its members relish the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. They enjoy high school football and hunting, and proudly display the American flag. They hate ‘socialism’ and ‘communism,’ and prize individual freedom and the system of free enterprise. In the context of the virus, this group embraces risk and autonomy, and despises the orders of governors and mayors for masking, social distancing, and lockdowns. This is Trump’s America: the ‘deplorables’

The other tribe, blue America – die-hard Democrats – consists of a ‘progressive’, urban, secular, sophisticated coastal elite, along with those who identify with said values and prize the cultural capital that comes with espousing them. Many among this tribe believe America’s history is beyond redemption, marked with stains it nevertheless furiously attempts to expose and then remove by all means necessary. It keeps faith with a technocratic elite and a society administered by an academic, bureaucratic, and medical expert class. It extols collective responsibility and despises red-neck individualism. In the context of the virus, it welcomes universal masking, social distancing, and lockdowns. This is now Biden’s America.

At this point, so the argument goes, the two tribes have little in common and nothing but contempt for each other. The acrimony between blue and red is so intense and thoroughgoing that something must be done – or so argue two of the Claremont Institute’s contributors. (A third suggests the federalism in the Constitution is sufficient to deal with such factionalism). 

But these writers, a pseudonymous ‘Rebecca’ and ‘Tom Trenchard’, suggest the tribal differences are irreconcilable. The first calls for a formal “separation” under an enhanced federalism (or more state autonomy). The second suggests that a “divorce” and two-state solution is the only remedy. In any case, a second civil war must be avoided at all costs. It wouldn’t lead to the reunification of the country, as the first did, but would bring only needless violence and further enmity.

In 1845, the Tory statesman and sometime litterateur Benjamin Disraeli published the novel ‘Sibyl, or The Two Nations’, which describes in fictional terms the great polarity then existing within a newly industrialized England: the working classes on the one hand, and the industrial parvenu and old aristocracy on the other. The immiserated state of the working classes, or the Condition of England Question as it was called, was treated by writers of such varying political convictions as the socialist Friedrich Engels, the liberal John Stuart Mill, the great novelist and moderate reformer Charles Dickens, the wistful feudalist Thomas Carlyle, and Disraeli himself, a conservative. The recommendations proffered, depending on the author, included a new noblesse oblige on the part of the wealthy, extended political reform, and socialism.

There are some parallels with our nation today. In modern America, ‘the working classes’ aren’t all poor, although they have less cultural capital. Many own, or have owned, small businesses. They also work in any number of jobs. Yet they are opposed and silenced by the legacy media and internet technocracy and lack the power to resist the national Covid measures likely to be imposed by the incoming Biden administration. 

The ‘coastal elites’, on the other hand, aren’t all rich. They include students and former students who’ve accrued enormous student loan debt, activists living incommodiously in groups in family or non-family housing, and the laptop class surviving on piecemeal, occasional freelance gigs under the Uberization of the labor force.

Despite their hatred of the ‘coastal elites’, the supposed ‘country bumpkins’ use the technology, the educational systems, and even the legacy media and social media platforms that treat their values like so much refuse. 

Blue America relies on the red for ‘essential services’, including food, housing, industry, and the market that red America represents. They also need red America for propping up their sense of intellectual superiority. Without the supposed contrast provided by red America, blue Americans would have to base their self-esteem on actual accomplishments, which are quite sparse in many cases.

Furthermore, red and blue are not all strictly middle America or coastal. Red and blue live among each other, the former more than a little afraid to voice their opinions for fear of being mobbed by the latter. Some blues work as professors and live in otherwise red college towns. Reds live in urban centers too and some are as ‘educated’ as their blue peers. 

So, could the nation irrevocably split into a red heartland and a blue one? It’s unlikely in my view. While the prevailing portrait of two Americas has some merit, it is a caricature that fails to account for the degree to which the two nations intermingle and depend on each other.

Look at the map of how individual counties voted. While Trump won some 2,500 generally sparsely populated ones, and Biden some 500 largely heavily populated ones, there is no easy divide. Even within counties, there are mostly significant minority red or blue factions. The pain of separation would be greater than the discomfort of remaining ‘together’. Thus, these antipathetic twins will remain locked in a loveless, rancorous, and intolerable marriage – for the foreseeable future, at least. 

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Be seeing you

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

The Media Is Now Openly Pushing Secession as the Election Nears | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 9, 2020

At this point, there is only one strategy that can prevent a continued slide toward conflict, disunion, and (possibly) violence: decentralization of political power.

https://mises.org/wire/media-now-openly-pushing-secession-election-nears?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=954cb990c5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-954cb990c5-228343965

Ryan McMaken

It’s becoming increasingly clear to even mainstream media outlets that things are unlikely to return to “normal” after the 2020 election.

No matter who wins, it is likely the losing side will regard the winning side as having obtained its win using dirty tricks, foreign meddling, or through relentless propaganda offered up by a heavily biased and one-sided news media.

And if about half the country regards the winning president as illegitimate, where does one go from there?

The survey data isn’t exactly calming on this issue. As reported by Politico last week, the percentage of Americans who believe it is justified to use violence to “advance political goals” has quadrupled since 2017, for both Republicans and Democrats.

After all, political invective has reached a fever pitch since Hillary Clinton declared that a sizable portion of the United States population constituted a “basket of deplorables.” Perhaps not since the 1870s and 1880s—when Catholics, Southerners, and Irish (all core constituents of the Democratic Party) were denounced by Republicans as spies, traitors, and drunks—has half the country so despised the other half. As early as 2017, when asked of the chances of another civil war in the United States,  about one-third of foreign policy scholars polled said it was likely.

Perhaps, then, it is not shocking that we are now seeing articles even in mainstream publications suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the United States can’t continue in its present form. Moreover, the view is now increasingly being promoted by writers and ideologues outside the usual conservative and libertarian groups that have long advocated in favor of decentralization and local control.

On September 18, for example, Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune asked: “Can the United States survive this election?” For the past century, the answer given by most any mainstream journalist would have been a decisive yes. The usual narrative has long been this: “Of course America will endure for centuries to come! We Americans are masters of compromise. We’ll all soon realize we are all in this together and come together in unity!”

But now Chapman writes:

The concept of splitting off is as American as the Fourth of July. The high point of separation sentiment came after Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860, resulting in the Civil War. But New England states contemplated leaving over the War of 1812….The bonds that hold Americans together have frayed, and what happens on Nov. 3 may do additional damage. No nation lasts forever, and ours won’t be the first. This election won’t be the end of the United States. But it could be the beginning of the end.

Moreover, Chapman notes that while many no doubt will continue to see the United States as strong and likely to endure indefinitely, such assumptions may be unwise given the reality of experience elsewhere:

In 1970, the Russian dissident Andrei Amalrik wrote a book titled, “Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?” At the time, the idea of a giant superpower disintegrating sounded like a fantasy. But it eventually came true. … Countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia also have broken apart. Britain is leaving the European Union, and Scotland could push to leave Britain. It would be folly to think the United States is immune to these forces.

Chapman is not alone.

Last month in the Philadelphia Inquirer Chuck Bonfig suspected that maybe the end is near:

The country has gone through many periods of strife in my time here: assassinations, recessions, desegregation, inflation, gas crisis, Watergate, hanging chads, the AIDS crisis, 9/11. Maybe it’s the 24-hour news cycle or the immediacy of social media that makes the landscape seem so bleak, but I don’t recall us ever being so divided.

No one in our country seems happy today. The right is angry. The left is despondent. Our nation reminds me of those married couples who try to stay together for “the children” but end up making everyone around them miserable.

Maybe it’s time for a breakup….Just think about it, America. I know breaking up is hard to do. We used to be good together. But what is the point of having the “greatest country in the world” if none of us actually like it?

The debate over separation and secession has been additionally pushed into the national debate by Richard Kreitner and his book Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union. Kreitner, who writes for the leftist magazine The Nation, suggests that the United States has never been as unified as many suggest and also concludes that secession and division may be a necessary tactic in bringing about the left-wing reforms he’d like to see. In an interview with The Nation, Kreitner discussed how he began to think about secession as a serious solution:

What if the United States broke apart? Would that be such a bad thing? Is it possible that the progressive policies and programs that I wanted to see put into place might be easier to enact in a smaller entity than the United States, with its 330 million people and the need to always convince people with very different attitudes and interests? So with that question, I was curious if anybody else in American history had favored secession for noble or progressive reasons—not to perpetuate slavery but even to oppose it.

The answer, I quickly found, is yes: There were disunion abolitionists who were fiercely against slavery and who wanted the northern states to secede from the union in the 1840s and 1850s as a way not only to protest slavery but to undermine it. Taking in their arguments and their rhetoric was really, really interesting.

Kreitner goes on to note that secession has long been at the forefront of American political ideology. This, of course, goes back to the secession of the American Revolution and can also be found in the secession movement favored by abolitionists and in New England’s efforts to secede during the War of 1812.

Kreitner is right.

Secession has long been entertained by many Americans, and not just defenders of the old Confederacy. In the early days of Southern secession, many Americans—including those who didn’t like the South or slavery—were fine with the Confederacy’s departure. New Yorker George Templeton Strong, for instance, declared in 1861, “the self-amputated members [the Southern states] were diseased beyond immediate cure, and their virus will infect our system no longer.” That same year, other New Yorkers seriously discussed leaving the Union and becoming a city-state devoted to free trade. In 1876, the battle over who won the presidential election very nearly produced a national split, with the pro-Democrat governor of New York “promising state resistance” to the Republican usurpers.

Nor were the nation’s founders necessarily opposed to division. Thomas Jefferson expressed prosecessionist views, even when he was a sitting president. In an 1803 letter to John Breckinridge, Jefferson explained that if the future states of the Louisiana Territory sought to secede that was fine with him:

[If] it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic states dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take a side in such a question?

And in 1804, Jefferson wrote to Joseph Priestly stating:

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe it not very important to the happiness of either part.

Only Decentralization Can Save the Union

At this point, there is only one strategy that can prevent a continued slide toward conflict, disunion, and (possibly) violence: decentralization of political power.

Thanks to decades of growing centralization of power in Washington, DC, American policy is increasingly made by the national government and not by state and local authorities. This means American life is more and more governed by one-size-fits-all policies hatched by faraway politicians in DC. Thus, with each passing election, the stakes become higher as gun policy, healthcare, poverty relief, abortion, the drug war, education, and much more will be decided by the party that wins in DC, and not in the state capitol or in the city council. In other words, the laws that govern Arizona will be primarily made by politicians and judges from other places entirely. These faraway politicians will be more concerned with the needs and ideology of a national party, rather than with the specific needs of people who live in Arizona. 

It is only natural that as the national government becomes supercharged in this way many Americans might start considering ways to get beyond the central government’s reach.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The United States could follow another path in which domestic policy is created and enforced in a decentralized manner, in which laws for Texans are made in Texas and laws for Californians are made in California. This, of course, is what Thomas Jefferson imagined when he wrote that the states should be self-governing and unified only on matters of foreign policy:

The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only.

In a decentralized political scheme such as this, the stakes in a national election are much lower. It doesn’t matter as much for Ohioans which party is in power in Washington when relatively few laws affecting Ohioans are made at the federal level. 

To adopt this way of doing things, however, would require a sizable departure from the current ideology that reigns in Washington. On the left especially, it seems few can imagine a world where people in Iowa or Indiana are allowed to run their own schools and healthcare systems without meddling from Washington. While conservatives’ efforts to force marijuana prohibition on states like Colorado show that the Right is not immune from this impulse, it is abundantly clear that the Left is quite enthusiastic about the idea of sending federal enforcers to ensure the states enact abortion on demand, adopt Obamacare, and enforce drug prohibitions as dictated by Washington.

But unless Americans have a change of heart and begin to decentralize the political system, expect a growing unwillingness to accept the outcomes of national elections and growing resistance to the federal government in general. What follows is unlikely to be pleasant. Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Be seeing you

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

Ideas Have Consequences – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2020

I should have said, “the external cost of American police training is very high.”  US police are trained in Israeli practices that view protesters as enemies justifying very aggressive restraint techniques. The training produces such a high level of police anxiety that police feel compelled to handcuff 5-year olds before putting them in a squad car.

The New York Times’ 1619 Project is spreading this genocide of white history to all of North America.  Northern cities are in flames, and Canada won’t escape.  Nor will Europe. The idiot Northern liberals who think they can use black anger against the despised American South are going to find themselves flayed with the same whip.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/06/07/ideas-have-consequences/

Paul Craig Roberts

The Saker writes that “the systemic collapse of the US Society has begun.”  Actually, US societal collapse has been underway for a long time.  What The Saker means is that now it is obvious.

Organized violence and looting in many American cities with pre-deliveries of bricks as weapons of destruction.  Police and government officials kneeling in submission to the rioters, thus encouraging the rioters in their actions. The police unsupported and standing down. Destroyed businesses. Looters emptying even the big box stores. Enormous economic loss.  As I wrote, “the external cost of one Minnesota cop is very high.”

I should have said, “the external cost of American police training is very high.”  US police are trained in Israeli practices that view protesters as enemies justifying very aggressive restraint techniques. The training produces such a high level of police anxiety that police feel compelled to handcuff 5-year olds before putting them in a squad car. I doubt the Minneapolis police officer meant to kill George Floyd by employing a restraint technique that is taught to the police.  The Minneapolis cop was  a catalyst, not the cause of consequences set in motion with the second round of Reconstruction imposed on the South.

The first Reconstruction had to be closed down because its excesses were giving rise to a guerrilla movement in the invaded and occupied South.  The second Reconstruction was the  integration of neighborhood schools by force rather than by persuasion.  Force required denunciation, and the white liberals enjoyed their self-righteousness as they sowed the seeds of racial hatred. In the South I grew up in there was no hate. People don’t employ people they hate to look after their children, cook their meals, run their households, and people who hate don’t perform these tasks for those they hate.

As Richard Weaver said, “ideas have consequences.”  We are now experiencing the consequences of decades of teaching black Americans to hate white Americans and of teaching white Americans to accept guilt for the black slave trade that originated in the black Kingdom of Dahomey in 1600.  A black labor force was inherited by the United States and by the Confederate States of America. It was the gift of history.  But in the history that is mistaught, the inherited institution of slavery was imposed on black people by white supremacy.

These lies that have been institutionalized in American education are inconsistent with a diverse multicultural society and are now visibly at work unraveling it.

The Saker thinks that there is no going back from George Floyd. Blacks have gotten away with massive looting. Antifa is not being held accountable for massive violence and property damage. The Democrat and media establishments are using the events against President Trump and all other public officials who tried to protect private property. Leftists have gone beyond justifying violence to glorifying in it.

The Camp of the Saints is playing out before our eyes.  We are living the novel. It is impermissible to put down violent protests of “stigmatized and marginalized” black Americans.  But who is more stigmatized than white people, written off as “Trump deplorables” and “racist white supremacists”?  It is white people, not blacks who have to be careful in their language, to be careful about what parts of what cities they can safely enter. It is white people who are fired, sanctioned, evicted from social media for offending a black person, not the other way around. A white player for the professional soccer team, Los Angeles Galaxy, was let go not because of anything he did, but because his wife posted an Instagram of a black looter holding a shoebox with the caption, “Black Nikes Matter.”

It is perfectly acceptable to offend white people.  All is permissible. The governor of Virginia has ordered the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from Richmond, the Virginia capital that Robert E. Lee honorably defended for three years from being looted and burned by Union invaders. Thanks to Lee, Richmond escaped Atlanta’s fate, but Lee’s statue is being taken down. It was racist of Lee to defend his state and the property and lives of those in Virginia. The truth of the matter is that it is not blacks that have been genocided, it is Southern people and their history.

The New York Times’ 1619 Project is spreading this genocide of white history to all of North America.  Northern cities are in flames, and Canada won’t escape.  Nor will Europe. The idiot Northern liberals who think they can use black anger against the despised American South are going to find themselves flayed with the same whip.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Secession fever spikes in five states as conservatives seek to escape blue rule

Posted by M. C. on February 21, 2020

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/19/secession-fever-spikes-conservatives-seek-escape-b/

You’ve got Oregonians seeking to cascade into Idaho, Virginians who identify as West Virginians, Illinoians fighting to escape Chicago, Californians dreaming of starting a 51st state, and New Yorkers who think three states are better than one.

Separation fever is sweeping the nation as quixotic but tenacious bands of frustrated rural dwellers, suburbanites and conservatives seek to break free from states with legislatures increasingly controlled by liberal big cities and metropolitan strongholds.

“Oregon is controlled by the northwest portion of the state, Portland to Eugene. That’s urban land, and their decisions are not really representing rural Oregon,” said Mike McCarter, president of Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho. “They have their agenda and they’re moving forward with it, and they’re not listening to us.”

In Virginia, the newly elected Democratic majority’s progressive legislation on issues such as gun rights has spurred “Vexit,” or “Virginia exit,” a campaign to merge right-tilting rural counties into neighboring West Virginia that organizers say has the potential to catch fire nationwide.

“To be honest, if this works — you’ve got a lot of red areas in this country that are totally dominated by a blue metropolis,” said Vexit2020 leader Rick Boyer, a former member of the Campbell County Board of Supervisors. “If it works in Virginia, there’s no reason it can’t reshape the political map.”

Such campaigns can only be described longshots — no state has split off since West Virginia was carved from Virginia in 1863 — but the growing interest comes as those living outside cities wrestle with the consequences of the 1964 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims.

The ruling established the principle of “one man, one vote,” effectively eliminating state legislative districts apportioned by county or geography instead of population, which hobbled in the influence of smaller and rural communities.

Illinois state Rep. Brad Halbrook, who has introduced a resolution to spin off Chicago and declare it the 51st state, said that “downstate voices are simply not being heard because we’ve been forced into this democracy that’s concentrated power into a small geographical area of the state.”

“Sen. Everett Dirksen said that with Reynolds v. Sims, the major metropolitan areas, the large population centers, are going to control the rest of the state, and that’s what’s happened with Illinois, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, New York,” the Republican Halbrook said.

He acknowledged that the bill isn’t going anywhere without a popular uprising, and that’s where G.H. Merritt comes in. She heads New Illinois, a grassroots nonprofit seeking to kick Chicago out of Illinois using the Article IV process, which requires the consent of the legislature and Congress.

“We have operations in 49 of 102 counties,” Ms. Merritt said. “We kind of compare it to the way Solidarity worked in Poland, where the people just decided they were done and transitioned from a communist government to a democracy without having a civil war.”

Hers isn’t the only secession group in the Land of Lincoln. Illinois Separation has taken a different route with county ballot referendums that instruct local officials to “correspond” with Cook County about “the possibility of separating from the City of Chicago.”

So far the group has qualified three measures for the March 17 primary ballot and nine for the Nov. 3 general election, according to a spokesperson.

In New York, Divide New York State has for years championed the idea of three autonomous self-governing regions, eliminating the need for Congress to create separate states. More ambitious is New California, which seeks to create a 51st state, and Calexit, which wants to make California its own nation.

‘Extremely unlikely’

In Oregon, three counties have agreed to place a measure on the ballot instructing local officials to begin negotiations to “relocate the Oregon/Idaho border to make this county a county of Idaho,” described as a border readjustment and not secession.

“This proposal is different from secession because it is simply a shift in borders that does not affect the balance of power in the US Senate,” said the Greater Idaho’s petition. “It does not create a new state or increase the number of states.”

So far several Oregon Republicans have endorsed the idea, including Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger, who said in an email to CNN that he would “welcome the idea to serve on the Greater Idaho legislature!”

Also on board is Idaho Gov. Brad Little.

“They’d like to have a little more autonomy and a little more control and a little more freedom, and I fully understand that,” the Republican governor told “Fox & Friends.”

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has put out the welcome mat, and a state concurrent resolution inviting Virginia counties to cross over recently cleared a House committee and enjoys “overwhelming support,” said its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Gary Howell.

“The big difference is this is the first time another state has made the offer to take them. That’s never happened,” said Mr. Howell, adding, “There’s been very little pushback. The resolution I like to say has tri-partisan support because not only does it have Republicans and Democrats, it also has our lone independent on it.”

So far, however, blue states have shown little interest in parting with their taxpayers or electoral votes. Gov. Ralph Northam’s spokeswoman has dismissed the hubbub as election-year politics, while Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said last year that “I don’t have any concerns of any secession effort actually taking hold.”

The idea fell flat at a recent meeting of the Tazewell County [Virginia] Board of Supervisors, said chairman Charles Stacy, who added that the board “caught hell” in the media for even discussing the proposal.

“There were a few citizens that showed up that thought that was a good idea, but it overwhelmingly had zero support from anybody in the government of Tazewell County,” Mr. Stacy said. “The reality of it is, something like that is not even within the purview of the Board of Supervisors. That would be a legislative function between the two states to change their territories.”

Adam W. Dean, history professor at the University of Lynchburg, said the idea of moving Virginia counties to West Virginia is legal under Article IV, Section III of the U.S. Constitution, but gaining the approval of both state legislatures and Congress would be “extremely unlikely.”

While West Virginia did split from Virginia during the Civil War, Mr. Dean said the move was “legally dubious at the time and only approved because of the exigency of civil war.”

Instead of trying to rearrange state borders or form a new state, foes argue that disaffected residents should simply try to win back the state legislature, but Mr. Boyer said that in states like Virginia with growing urban population centers, it’s a losing battle.

“The demographics in Virginia are not good,” Mr. Boyer said. “The federal government employee base is more and more of our voting population in Virginia every year. Northern Virginia is more and more dominant every year, and the giant rest of red Virginia is overwhelmed by blue Northern Virginia. It’s a losing demographic war as Virginia is currently constituted.”

West Virginia’s Howell argued that liberal state Democratic legislators in Virginia should seize the opportunity to unload their “deplorables.”

“If they get rid of the ones that are supposedly their problem, they could have a super-majority with what’s left in their legislature,” Mr. Howell said. “So they could pass the liberal utopia that they want.”

Be seeing you

Which States Referred to Slavery in Their Cause of Secession?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

‘Racist’ Trump Supporters Should Lose Their Vote, Says NBC. Guess Who Decides They’re ‘Racist’? — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on January 30, 2020

Yet nowhere in any of Trump’s numerous campaign utterances or even Tweets has he ever singled out America’s White population as the intended sole beneficiary of his plans to remake the U.S. economy. In fact, just the opposite.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/24/racist-trump-supporters-should-lose-their-vote-says-nbc-guess-who-decides-theyre-racist/

Robert Bridge

 

Once again, the mainstream media is pushing the repugnant race card, suggesting that Trump supporters are a bunch of knuckle-dragging xenophobes whose only reason for wanting a wall on the Mexican border is because they suffer an aversion to people with different skin color than them.

What exactly do White Americans – who opened the floodgates to immigration in 1965 – need to do these days to prove they are not natural born racists? Cancel their monthly subscription to Town and Country? Stop walking their dogs, which are, of course, four-legged vehicles of “racial segregation,” or stop attending their evening yoga class, the unsuspecting breeding grounds for white supremacists? Somehow I suspect that even if White people took to burning effigies of Ku Klux Klan members on their manicured front lawns that would not even put a stop to the ugly rumors. Let’s just face it, the only thing that will finally stop the slanderous slurs is if all White Americans publicly denounce their support of the biggest race-hater of them all, Donald J. Trump. And should they refuse the itinerant Liberal Inquisition will be only too happy to do it for them.

Just ask Noah Berlatsky, occasional columnist for MSNBC, whose latest piece was crowned with the zinger of a headline, ‘Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?’ Nice leading question there, but the premise that precedes it, that Trump voters are “motivated by racism,” is just one more election-season deceit.

Berlatsky’s article opens with the conclusion that Donald Trump “ran an openly racist campaign for president,” and that his popular rallying slogan “Make America Great Again” is actually code that can be translated into “America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure.” Yet nowhere in any of Trump’s numerous campaign utterances or even Tweets has he ever singled out America’s White population as the intended sole beneficiary of his plans to remake the U.S. economy. In fact, just the opposite. As Trump has made it his goal to return some of the shine to America’s industrial Rustbelt, threatening companies with penalties and public scorn if they relocate their production operations overseas, the unemployment rate among Blacks now stands at 5.9%, down from 7.5% at the start of his presidency. At the same time, the employment rate among Hispanics is at historic highs.

At this point, the Democrats will invariably mention Trump’s promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, a promise that arguably won the real estate developer the White House in 2016. Yet Trump, the Democrats argue, is an unrepentant racist because he admitted to an unsavory truth that even Hispanics living in America agree with: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Trump was not arguing, of course, that all Mexicans are rapists or criminals. He was arguing that of the many who do make it across the border a disproportionate number do fit the description.

At this point, it needs to be asked why the Democrats deign to show so much care and compassion for those illegals breaching America’s border on a daily basis, at the very same time Democratic strongholds, like California and New York, are already bursting at the seams with tent cities and grinding poverty. Suffice it to consider a comment by a British tourist to San Francisco, the one-time crown gem of the increasingly tarnished, Democratic-controlled Golden State: “I can’t understand how anyone can live in a place where their everyday trip to get groceries or go to work includes a multitude of beggars asking for spare change or a meal.”

Considering that the Democrats can’t even take care of their own burgeoning problems in their primary constituencies, what is the real motivation behind their proposals to open the U.S. border and abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? After all, these are the very same people who screamed ‘not in my backyard!’ when Trump threatened to send all apprehended illegals to the so-called ‘sanctuary cities’. Nancy Pelosi skirted the periphery of racism when she called the idea “disrespectful.”

Would their sham benevolence have anything to do with securing more Democratic voters, or guaranteeing that the Republican Party eventually goes the way of the dinosaurs? Was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo motivated by pure compassion when he signed legislation granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, who may now cast a ‘legal’ vote under New York’s notoriously loose voting laws? Now Democrats are demanding the elimination Voter ID rules, declaring them racist against minorities. This is one of the ways Berlatsky proposes to end so-called “racist voting” now purportedly contaminating U.S. politics.

It’s no secret that Hispanic Americans traditionally vote Democratic, and if that tendency were to change tomorrow you can bet that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be camped out daily at the Mexican border, demanding the necessary funds to finish the project.

In the final analysis, the Democrat’s groundless assertion that Trump supporters are kneejerk racists disintegrates when it is remembered that up to 10 million former Obama supporters – many of them White – switched allegiances to the Trump camp in the 2016 presidential election. Are we really expected to believe that all of those Americans suddenly became hardcore racists with the arrival of the evil ‘orange man’ and his pledge to build a wall? That sounds highly unlikely. The far more logical explanation for this massive change in political sentiment is that Trump’s plan to remedy America’s dangerously porous borders, thereby enhancing the security of all Americans, regardless of skin color, was a welcomed idea across the board.

Nevertheless, the real danger is that the Democrats, entranced by the cult of political correctness and an out-of-control cancel culture, will attempt by some extreme measures to identify and ban so-called ‘racist Trump supporters’ who are just regular Americans looking for a leader who will provide them with a well-guarded country that protects the rights of all its citizens regardless of skin color. Banning undesirable Trump voters from the ballet box may eventually become as easy as censoring right-leaning Twitter users.

Clearly, the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the mistake of branding Trump supports “deplorables” – to quote Hillary Clinton – and have only worsened their present position by calling these same voters, many of them former Obama supporters, “racist.” Such a gross simplification and misunderstanding of the current American political realities goes far at explaining why the Democrats stand very little chance of beating Trump at the ballot box.

 

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

 

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

The New Racism – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 8, 2020

“The world could get by just fine with zero white people.” “Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” It’s “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/walter-e-williams/the-new-racism/

By

A voter may dislike a black, homosexual or female candidate, but it’s not likely that he would openly admit it. However, diversity-crazed leftist/progressive Democrats have openly condemned the physical characteristics of some of their 2020 presidential candidates. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are be leading the polls despite the fact that they have been condemned as old white men. While Pete Buttigieg is homosexual, something that pleases diversity crazies, he is also a white man, young and religious. With Kamala Harris’ departure from the race, the Democratic field has lost one of its persons of color. Another, Senator Cory Booker, stands at 2% in the polls; his days are numbered. That means the only Democratic candidates polling high are those condemned as old white people — two men and one woman, Elizabeth Warren.

LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of Black Voters Matter, said she was initially eager for Joe Biden to enter the race but now has second thoughts. Brown said: “I’m over white men running the country. I don’t know if him (sic) getting in changes the field. He has name recognition, but his strength is also his weakness.” Former presidential candidate Howard Dean lamented, “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose.” The newest entry into the presidential sweepstakes, Michael Bloomberg, had to apologize for what some see as his diversity insensitiveness namely that of calling fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker “well-spoken” in a TV interview. The New Jersey senator said he was “taken aback” by what he saw as Bloomberg’s racist “trope.”

Michael Moore gave us his racist warning: “Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump. That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you, down the street toward you, two of them voted for Trump. You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking toward you. You should be afraid of them.”

This is the new racism, much of it learned and taught at our nation’s colleges. George Orwell said, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” The stupid ideas about inclusion and diversity originate with academics on college campuses. If their ideas didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment. But these cancerous ideas have infected society. Statements such as “I’m over white men running the country,” or “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose” are examples of that cancer.

Last year, Philip Carl Salzman wrote “The War Against White People” in Minding the Campus. He declared: “Anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture. Not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter, for whom statements such as “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter” are racist. Our highest leaders sing the same song.”

When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he said of working-class white voters, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump’s supporters were “a basket of deplorables” who were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” Do you think Clinton was talking about Trump’s black, Asian and Hispanic supporters? No, she was talking about millions of Trump’s white supporters.

Then there’s Sarah Jeong, a member of The New York Times editorial board and graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard Law School. She expressed publicly many anti-white opinions. Among them are: “The world could get by just fine with zero white people.” “Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” It’s “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” I guarantee you that The New York Times would have fired any employee making similar statements about black, Hispanic or homosexual people.

The bottom line is that the new racism, born in academia, is just as ugly as the old racism.

Be seeing you

?u=http2.bp.blogspot.com-vsL9x6b60BcTcjveUcibvIAAAAAAAAB7o1H7iFzRkTx0s1600000pulp_fiction_judy_miller_the_heretik.jpg&f=1

 

 

 

 

 

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

Deplorables Versus the Ruling Class: A Global Struggle – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on December 27, 2019

The true American ideology cautions against granting power to any bureaucratic establishment.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/deplorables_versus_the_ruling_class_a_global_struggle.html

By Chet Richards

Consider the age of monarchs.  Squabbling barons select a supreme ruler – a king or an emperor — to suppress the squabbling.  Peace and prosperity return to the land.  The king makes policy but he can’t do everything.  His minions take care of the details.

Minions mean bureaucracy.   The bureaucracy grows.  The king grows old and dies.  The dynasty continues.  The bureaucracy continues – always continues, and always grows.  The bureaucracy becomes an establishment kingdom unto itself.  The bureaucracy grows in power and serves its own interests.  The king diminishes in power.  The land grows restless under the increasing regulatory tyranny and taxes.  Legitimacy –what the Chinese called the “mandate of heaven” —  is lost and so is the dynasty.

Change the names and we are at the end of a similar cycle – a cycle that began with the guillotine.  This time it is a world-wide cycle.  The modern king is a modern tyrant – Stalin, Hitler, Mao were the worst.

The socialist idea had been kicking around since the 18th century.  This seemingly plausible notion shaped the various Marxist evils of the 20th century.  The Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Nazism, Fascism, and today’s imperious European Union, are all socialist tyrannies of one degree or another.

Bureaucratic agencies become ideal tools for tyrants.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

How to Avoid Civil War: Decentralization, Nullification, Secession

Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2019

The FBI and CIA will go to even greater lengths to ensure the voters are never again “allowed” to elect anyone who doesn’t receive the explicit imprimatur of the American intelligence “community.”

It is true, however, that if the idea of a legally, culturally, and politically unified United States wins the day, Americans may be looking toward a future of ever greater political repression marked by increasingly common episodes of bloodshed. This is simply the logical outcome of any system where it is assumed the ruling party has a right and a duty to force the ways of the one group upon another. That is the endgame of a unified America.

https://mises.org/wire/how-avoid-civil-war-decentralization-nullification-secession?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=fe934d9513-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-fe934d9513-228343965

It’s becoming more and more apparent that the United States will not be going back to “business as usual” after Donald Trump leaves office, and it is easy to imagine that the anti-Trump parties will use their return to power as an opportunity to settle scores against the hated rubes and “deplorables” who dared attempt to oppose their betters in Washington, DC, California, and New York.

This ongoing conflict may manifest itself in the culture war through further attacks on people who take religious faith seriously, and on those who hold any social views unpopular among degreed people from major urban centers. The First Amendment will be imperiled like never before with both religious freedom and freedom of speech regarded as vehicles of “hate.” Certainly, the Second Amendment will hang by a thread.

But even more dangerous will be the deep state’s return to a vaunted position of enjoying a near-total absence of opposition from elected officials in the civilian government. The FBI and CIA will go to even greater lengths to ensure the voters are never again “allowed” to elect anyone who doesn’t receive the explicit imprimatur of the American intelligence “community.” The Fourth Amendment will be banished so that the NSA and its friends can spy on every American with impunity. The FBI and CIA will more freely combine the use of surveillance and media leaks to destroy adversaries.

Anyone who objects to the deep state’s wars on either Americans or on foreigners will be denounced as stooges of foreign powers.

These scenarios may seem overly dramatic, but the extremity of the situation is suggested by the fact that Trump — who is only a very mild opponent of the status quo — has received such hysterical opposition. After all, Trump has not dismantled the welfare state. He has not slashed — or even failed to increase — the military budget. His fights with the deep state are largely based on political issues, and not on major policy disagreements. Trump, for example, sides with the surveillance state on matters such as the prosecution of Edward Snowden.

His sins lie merely in his lack of enthusiasm for the center-left’s current drive toward ever more vicious identity politics. And, more importantly, he has been insufficiently gung ho about starting more wars, expanding NATO, and generally pushing the Russians toward World War III.

For even these minor deviations, we are told, he must be destroyed.

So, we can venture a guess as to what the agenda will look like once Trump is out of the way. It looks to be neither mild nor measured.

And then what?

In that situation, half the country — much of it from the half that calls itself “Red-State America” may regard itself as conquered, powerless, and unheard.

That’s a recipe for civil war.

The Need for Separation

But how can we take steps now to minimize this polarization the damage it is likely to cause?

The answer lies in greater decentralization and local autonomy. But as long as most Americans labor under the authoritarian notion that the United States is “one nation, indivisible” there will be no answer to the problem of one powerful region (or party) wielding unchallenged power over a minority.

Many conservatives naïvely claim that the Constitution and the “rule of law” will protect minorities in this situation. But their theories only hold water if the people making and interpreting the laws subscribe to an ideology which respects local autonomy and freedom for worldviews in conflict with the ruling class. That is increasingly not the ideology of the majority, let alone the majority of powerful judges and politicians.

Thus, for those who can manage to leave behind the flag-waving propaganda of their youths, it is increasingly evident that something other than repeating bromides about teaching high-school civics, reading the Constitution, or electing “strong leaders” will have to be done.

As I’ve noted in the past, the notion of increasing local autonomy through nullification and secession has long been gaining steam in Europe, where referendums on decentralization are growing more frequent.

And conservatives are increasingly seeing the writing on the wall. Among the more insightful of these has been Angelo Codevilla. In 2017, Codevilla, writing in the Claremont Review of Books, laid out a blueprint for local opposition to federal power and noted:

Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them? What would the federal government do if North Dakota declared itself a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” and simply banned abortion? For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California? Utah objects to the boundaries of national monuments created by decree within its borders. What if the state ignored those boundaries? Prayer in schools? What could bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do if any number of states decided that what the federal courts have to say about such things is bad?

Now that identity politics have replaced the politics of persuasion and blended into the art of war, statesmen should try to preserve what peace remains through mutual forbearance toward jurisdictions that ignore or act contrary to federal laws, regulations, or court orders. Blue states and red states deal differently with some matters of health, education, welfare, and police. It does no good to insist that all do all things uniformly.

And by 2019, the need for separation was becoming more urgent. Last week Codevilla continued in this line of thinking:

[A]fter the 2020 elections ordinary Americans will have to deal with the same dreadful question we faced in 2016: How do we secure and perhaps restore our fast-diminishing freedom to live as Americans? And while we may wish for help from Trump, we have to look to ourselves and to other leaders for how we may counter the ruling class’s manifold assaults now, and especially in the long term…

The logical recourse is to conserve what can be conserved, and for it to be done by, of, and for those who wish to conserve it. However much force of what kind may be required to accomplish that, the objective has to be conservation of the people and ways that wish to be conserved.

That means some kind of separation.

The rest here

Be seeing you

Project MKUltra: The CIA's Dally with Mind Control

 

 

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