Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’

Secession Fever in Today’s America: What Would Lincoln Think? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2020

In addition to closing newspapers and deporting deplorables a Lincloln of today would no doubt institute an internet gatekeeper.


A February 19 article in The Washington Times announced that “Secession Fever Spikes” in five states where “conservatives” are attempting to escape neo-Stalinist policies of the Democrat Party majority there, now that the mask is finally off and the Democrats are the proud party of socialism and omnipotent government.  Long gone are the days when they hid their true beliefs by calling themselves “liberals” and their brand of fascism “The New Deal.”  They are now the party of the Green New Deal, the crazed, Soviet-style government plan to totalitarianize all of American society under the dishonest guise of “saving the planet.”  In other words, they are all card-carrying “watermelons” – green on the outside, red on the inside.

As soon as they took control of the Virginia state government, helped along with mega-donations by billionaire fellow totalitarians Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, among others, they immediately waged political war on the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.  Their governor, Ralph Northam, is on record in a publicly-recorded video as supporting infanticide in cases where babies survive abortions.  That’s just for starters in the first month of their rule.

Virginia politics is now dominated by the heavily-populated D.C. suburbs composed of hundreds of thousands of deep state bureaucrats, government contractors, and Third World immigrants promised the riches of the American welfare state by the Democrats.  Most of the rest of the counties in the state have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries.  Most strikingly, there is a “Vexit” movement whose goal is for those counties to secede from Virginia and become a part of more Constitution-friendly West Virginia.  The governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice, joined with Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr. in a press conference at which they invited the more conservative Virginia counties to secede.  The West Virginia legislature is on board.

In Illinois – “Land of Lincoln” – a similar movement is shaping up.  State Representative Brad Halbrook has proposed allowing the rest of the state to escape the political crutches of the hyper-Leftist Chicago political machine.  Mr. Halbrook has issued a resolution to kick Chicago out of Illinois and make it the 51st state.  His attitude is apparently “If you want to become a communist society go right ahead; just leave the rest of us out of it.”  He is frustrated that people like himself are “forced into a democracy that’s concentrated power into a small geographical area,” i.e. Chicago.

This is a recurring theme in today’s “secession fever”:  People seem to have tolerated the Democrat political machine control of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit (and now all of Virginia) for the past seventy years or so as long as they could escape to the suburbs and rural areas and be largely left alone.  Those days are now over, with the out-of-control crime of the cities permeating all other areas; the ever-escalating tax increases to pay for their hopelessly-failed government programs and pie-in-the-sky pensions for retired bureaucrats of all sorts.  Then there’s the aggressive drive to effectively abolish the First and Second Amendments.

Thousands of New Yorkers are similarly disgusted by the far-left, self-described “communist” mayor of New York City and the just-as-far-to-the-left governor, Cuomo the Elder.  Consequently, there is a movement whose goal is to create three politically-autonomous regions in New York state, each with its own governing body, but still a part of New York state.  De facto secession, in other words.  Then there’s the “Calexit” movement that wants California to secede altogether and become an independent country.

Oregonians outside of the leftist-dominated northwest part of the state are petitioning to move the Idaho border westward to include them, for almost identical reasons given by the Virginia Vexit proponents.

All of these movements are in the spirit of American federalism, the core idea of the U.S. Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson considered the Tenth Amendment to be the most important principle of the Constitution because it said that although the citizens of the free and independent states (as he called them in the Declaration of Independence) had delegated eighteen or so powers to the federal government (Article 1, Section 8), so that it could act as their agent and for their mutual benefit, all others are reserved to the people and the states respectively.  And of course it was also Jefferson who famously wrote in the Declaration that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  And, whenever governments become destructive of the citizens’ rights to life, liberty and property it is their “duty” to abolish that government and create a new one if they wish.  Isn’t that exactly what the people of Virginia, Illinois, Oregon, California, and New York who are part of the new secession movements are all about?

The founders were aware that the European city states of antiquity assured themselves of a much higher degree of freedom and prosperity because government was so decentralized.  If one city state became annoyingly tyrannical with excessive taxes, corruption, and other such ingredients of all governments, citizens could vote with their feet and move to another city state.  This form of competition between city states worked to moderate the tyrannical impulses of Europe’s political class.  (And is why that political class worked mightily for generations to destroy the city states and create systems of consolidated, monopolistic government).  This history is part of the reason why the American founders, like the Swiss founders, created a highly decentralized system of government known to us now by the word federalism.  The original constitution, the Articles of Confederation, did not even give the central government taxing powers.  (Like the European princes and potentates, the Hamiltonian wing of the founding generation got the ball rolling to centralized, monopolistic government by scrapping the Articles of Confederation –after promising to only “revise” it– and created a much more centralized form of government with taxing powers).

With all of this talk of secession, one naturally wonders what Abraham Lincoln would think of it.  There is of course a very clear record of his thoughts on the subject; one only needs to read parts of his first inaugural address to glean them.  (See my forthcoming book, The Problem with Lincoln, for a fuller dissection of Lincoln’s first inaugural address).  There he proclaimed that the then-existing structure of the American union was “perpetual” and written in stone, even though the previous generation had seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, as it was officially called, and did not repeat the word “perpetual” in the Constitution of 1789.  That the existing configuration of the union of the states was perpetual was “not expressed” in the text of the Constitution, Lincoln stated, but is “implied,” in a good example of the usual leftist tactic of proclaiming the Constitution to be a “living” document to be altered not by the formal amendment process but by the twisting or words by clever, weaselly politicians.

Lincoln claimed that if there was any change at all in the configuration of the existing American union, then it would mean the “termination” of the federal government.  A dumber theory was never put forth by an American politician.  After the Southern states seceded the federal government proceeded to explode in size, create one of the largest and best-armed armies in world history up to that point, and wage total war on the South for four years.  Hardly a disappearing act.

If any state or part of a state seceded, said the man or orchestrated the illegal and unconstitutional secession of West Virginia from Virginia, then such states will “make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them . . . .  [W]hy may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?”  Counties may secede from states, and cities from counties, he was effectively warning.  This of course sounds exactly like what freedom-loving Virginians, Illinoians, Oregonians, New Yorkers, and Californians are proposing to do.  But to Lincoln such acts are nothing less than “the essence of anarchy” and a guarantor of “despotism” (his exact words).

In other words, Lincoln defined the whole classical liberal history and theory of the virtues of voluntary government, decentralization, consent of the governed, and federalism as recipes for despotism and anarchy, exactly the opposite of that which all the great students of liberty, from Lord Acton to Ludwig von Mises and beyond, believed.  As Lord Acton wrote in his famous November 4, 1866 letter to General Robert E. Lee, “”I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of he sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . .  I deemed that you were fighting for the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo” (emphasis added).

Mises wrote in Omnipotent Government (pages 3-4) of how, with the growth of government in the U.S. and in Switzerland during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, “New powers accrued not to the member states but to the federal government” in each country.  “Every step toward more government interference and toward more planning means . . . an expansion of the jurisdiction of the central government . . . .  It is a very significant fact that he adversaries of the trend toward more government control describe their opposition as a fight against Washington and against Berne, i.e., against centralization.  It is conceived as a contest of states’ rights versus the central power.”

Lincoln repudiated the philosophy of freedom and championed the philosophy of centralized, monopolistic governmental tyranny instead.  He even threw in one last straw-man argument by claiming that the advocates of secession were claiming that in the seceded states there would be a “perfect identity of interests among the States,” which he then ridiculed, demonstrating that he was clueless about the meaning of federalism and constitutionalism (unless he did and was simply lying for political effect).

This is why Frank Meyer, a conservative literary icon of the last generation, wrote in an August 24, 1965 article in National Review that Lincoln’s “pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius of freedom of our country” with his “repressive policies” of abolishing civil liberties in the North, waging total war on civilians in the South, and how he “moved at every point . . . to consolidate central power and render nugatory the autonomy of the states . . .”

In an essay entitled “Federalism in America” historian Forrest McDonald wrote that “Political scientists and historians are in agreement that federalism is the greatest contribution of the Founding Fathers to the science of government.  It is also the only feature of the Constitution that has been successfully exported, that can be employed to protect liberty elsewhere in the world.  Yet what we invented, and others imitate, no longer exists on its native shores (emphasis added).  No one is more responsible for this than Lincoln, which is why the answer to the question of “what would Lincoln think” of the new “secession fever” in

America is so obvious.

Be seeing you

F-Secure Internet Gatekeeper |

Hillary’s server



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

Elizabeth Warren Has a Bad Plan for Everything – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 1, 2020

Rest assured someone has to pay for all this “Free Stuff”.

Even the Leftist UK party figured this out when they trounced Corbyn.

Independents and moderates will be highly unlikely to support Marxist nutcases.

Count the times you read “tax”.

As George Will is fond of saying-Corporations are tax collectors, not tax payers. Taxes like most government mandates (minimum wage) are costs of business that get passed on.


Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

Elizabeth Warren wants to steer the US to the Left, radical Left.

If you are looking for ideas, Elizabeth Warren has a ton of them. All of them are bad. Please consider Elizabeth Warren’s Plan.

  1. Wealth tax: Tax net worth over $50 million at 2% a year, and 6% above $1 billion. To prevent the rich from yachting off, add a 40% “exit tax” on assets over $50 million upon renouncing U.S. citizenship. Estimated revenue: $3.75 trillion over a decade from 75,000 households. Most economists, including many Democrats, call that number a fantasy. Courts might also find the tax unconstitutional.
  2. Medicare for All tax: Mandate government coverage for everyone, including for illegal immigrants, with no copays or deductibles. Phase out the private plans of 170 million Americans. She says this would cost $20.5 trillion over a decade, which most economists say is $10 trillion short of reality. Keep the growth of health spending below 4% a year with tools like “population-based budgets” and “automatic rate reductions.” Pay doctors at “Medicare rates” and hospitals at 110% of that. Charge companies with at least 50 workers an “Employer Medicare Contribution,” equal to 98% of their recent outlays on health care, while adjusting for inflation and changes in staff size. These varying fees “would be gradually shifted to converge at the average health care cost-per-employee nationally.”
  3. Global corporate tax: Raise the top business rate to 35%. Apply this as a world-wide minimum on overseas earnings by U.S. companies. Businesses would “pay the difference between the minimum tax and the rate in the countries where they book their profits.” Apply a similar minimum tax to foreign companies, prorated by the share of their sales made in the U.S. Estimated revenue: $1.65 trillion over a decade.
  4. Corporate surtax: Tax profit over $100 million at a new 7% rate, without exemptions. This would go atop the regular corporate rate. Estimated revenue: $1 trillion over a decade from 1,200 public companies.
  5. Slower expensing: “Our current tax system lets companies deduct the cost of certain investments they make in assets faster than those assets actually lose value.” Closing this “loophole,” she says, would raise $1.25 trillion over a decade.
  6. Higher capital gains taxes: Tax the investment gains of the wealthiest 1% as ordinary income, meaning rates near 40% instead of today’s 23.8%. Apply the tax annually on gains via a “mark to market” system, even if the asset hasn’t been sold. Estimated revenue: $2 trillion over a decade.
  7. Finance taxes: Tax the sale of bonds, stocks and so forth at 0.1%. Estimated revenue: $800 billion over a decade. Charge big banks a systemic risk fee, raising $100 billion more.
  8. Individual tax increases: There’s no detailed proposal, but Ms. Warren’s clean-energy plan is “paid for by reversing Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and giant corporations.” She’s budgeted $1 trillion.
  9. Social Security: Increase benefits by $2,400 a year across the board. Raise them further “for lower-income families, women, people with disabilities, public-sector workers, and people of color” by changing “outdated” rules that Ms. Warren says disadvantage them.
  10. Lobbying tax: Tax “excessive lobbying” over $500,000 a year at rates up to 75%. Ms. Warren says this would have raised $10 billion over the past decade, although it probably runs headlong into the First Amendment’s right to petition the government. Use the revenue for “a surge of resources to Congress and federal agencies.”
  11. Green New Deal: Spend $3 trillion, including $1.5 trillion on industrial mobilization, $400 billion on research, and $100 billion on a Marshall Plan. By 2030 hit 100% carbon-neutral power and 100% zero-emission new cars. Retrofit “4% of houses and buildings every year.” For “environmental justice,” put a third of the funds into “the most vulnerable communities.”
  12. An end to fossil fuels: Ban fracking. Halt new drilling leases on federal land. “Prohibit future fossil fuel exports.” Kill the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. “Subject each new infrastructure project to a climate test.” Give “workers transitioning into new industries” a “guaranteed wage and benefit parity” and “promised pensions and early retirement benefits.”
  13. K-12 education: Add $450 billion to Title I, $200 billion for students with disabilities, $100 billion for “excellence grants,” and $50 billion for school upgrades. “End federal funding for the expansion of charter schools.”
  14. A “right” to child care: Build a federal network of local providers, subject to national standards. Give free care to the “millions of children” whose households are under 200% of poverty, or $51,500 for a family of four. For everyone else, cap child-care spending at 7% of income. Estimated cost: $700 billion.
  15. Free college: “Give every American the opportunity to attend a two-year or four-year public college without paying a dime in tuition or fees.” Add $100 billion to Pell Grants and $50 billion for historically black colleges, tribal schools and more. Estimated cost: $610 billion.
  16. Student-debt forgiveness: Write off $50,000 for households with incomes under $100,000. This would phase out as income rises toward $250,000. Estimated cost: $640 billion.
  17. Housing: Spend $500 billion “to build, preserve, and rehab” millions of affordable-housing units. Condition such funding “on repealing state laws that prohibit local rent control.” Paid for by lowering the death-tax exemption to $7 million from $22 million per couple. At the same time, “raise the tax rates above that threshold.”
  18. Unions: Overturn “so-called ‘right to work’ laws” in 27 states. Guarantee public employees an ability to “bargain collectively in every state.” Amend labor law to aid “sectoral bargaining.” Give the National Labor Relations Board “much stronger” powers, such as “to impose compensatory and punitive damages.”
  19. Corporate governance: Make companies with revenue over $1 billion obtain a new federal charter—separate from the current state charter system—that requires them to “consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders.” Give workers 40% of board seats, and put CEOs under “a new criminal negligence standard.”
  20. Industrial policy: Manage the dollar’s value “more actively” to “promote exports and domestic manufacturing.” Create a Department of Economic Development, and have it write a National Jobs Strategy. Expand the Export-Import Bank. Impose a “border carbon adjustment” fee—that is, new tariffs—on imports from countries that don’t align with U.S. climate policies.
  21. Antitrust: Break up AmazonFacebook and Google. “Unwind” their mergers with Whole Foods, Instagram, DoubleClick and more. Regulate as a “platform utility” any online marketplace with global revenue of $25 billion. Reverse agriculture consolidation, “including the recent Bayer-Monsanto merger,” and create a “supply management program” to “guarantee farmers a price at their cost of production.”
  22. Banking: Pass “a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that breaks up the big banks.” Let the U.S. Postal Service “partner with local community banks” to provide “basic banking services like checking and savings accounts.”
  23. Gun control: Create a “federal licensing system for the purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition.” Raise taxes to 30% on guns and 50% on ammo. Ban sales of “assault weapons,” and make current owners “register them under the National Firearms Act.” Pass a law to let shooting victims “hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable.”
  24. Centralized elections: Use federal money to “replace every voting machine in the country.” For federal elections, mandate early voting and same-day registration. If state elections follow the same rules, they can be “fully funded by the federal government,” with “a bonus for achieving high voter turnout.” Estimated cost: $20 billion, paid by “closing loopholes” in the death tax.
  25. Miscellaneous: Spend $100 billion “to end the opioid crisis,” $85 billion “to massively expand broadband access,” $25 billion on “health professional shortage areas,” and $7 billion “to close the gap in startup capital for entrepreneurs of color.” Double the foreign service and the Peace Corps.

Warren’s Marxist Manifesto Read the rest of this entry »

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

Socialism and the Green New Deal: Choose One | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on December 14, 2019

A socialist government would determine where and how you lived, the type of work and employment opportunities you had, the education that you and your children would be allowed, the types and quantities of goods to which you would have access, as well as the political, cultural and philosophical ideas you would be permitted to read and learn about and discuss.

Nothing would be outside of the restricting reach of the socialist state of the future.

The American experiment has lasted much longer than socialist experiments (maybe all added together).

Will new socialism seal America’s fate?

The Spanish philosopher, George Santayana (1863–1952) is usually credited with the phrase, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Nowhere is this truer than with the renewed idea and demand for the establishment of a socialist economic system.

A noticeable number of intellectuals inside and outside the ivy tower of academia, as well as a vocal segment of those on the “progressive” side of American politics are insisting on the desirability and necessity for ending the “neo-liberal” capitalist system and replacing it with a “democratic” socialism dedicated to “social justice,” “identity politics,” and relatively comprehensive centralized planning of economic and social affairs.

Listening to and reading the arguments of these proponents of the “new” socialism, you would think that nothing had happened over the last one hundred years that in any way, shape, or form had anything to do with the case for and likely consequences from introducing socialism into twenty-first-century society.

In their minds, what have been considered to be “socialist” regimes in the twentieth century were either “false” forms of socialism not representing what a “real” socialism could and would look like; or they were socialisms that went wrong because the “wrong people” were in political power in socialist countries around the world; or the full possibilities and potentials of those socialist experiments were undermined and weakened due to American imperialist interference trying to make them “fail;” or the “new” socialists just try to ignore the history of socialism over the last one hundred years, sending it all down an Orwellian “memory hole.”

Early Anti-Socialists Warned of Tyranny and Plunder

Their naïve optimism and confidence might have been understandable and even excusable before the First World War. Before then, socialism was still primarily a political ideal and dream of those wanting to make over society so mankind could have a beautiful and more just and prosperous future. But even then, in the nineteenth century, critics of the socialist promise warned in often amazingly prescient ways, given all that has happened over the last one hundred years, what socialism-in-practice would really mean.

Those earlier critics of socialism warned that a triumphant socialism would mean a terrible tyranny. Socialism would mean comprehensive government ownership and control over all the means of production. Such total control by those in political power and directing the central planning of all economic activities in the society would hold the destiny of everyone in their hands.

A socialist government would determine where and how you lived, the type of work and employment opportunities you had, the education that you and your children would be allowed, the types and quantities of goods to which you would have access, as well as the political, cultural and philosophical ideas you would be permitted to read and learn about and discuss.

Nothing would be outside of the restricting reach of the socialist state of the future. Each person would be nothing more than a cog in the collectivist machine, commanded, controlled and, when necessary, coerced to serve and be sacrificed for the wider and more important socialist good.

In spite of all the rhetoric and promise of the “liberation” of man under the socialism-to-come, the actual individual human being would be lost in the collective mass of “the people” as a whole, for which all that the socialist state implemented was the rationale and justification.

The critics of socialism also warned that “human nature” was not a moldable putty to be remade into a new “altruistic man” unconcerned with personal self-interest once common ownership had replaced private ownership over the means of production; and once a new generation had arisen that was sufficiently “reeducated” by the state to have been freed from “bourgeois” thinking, attitudes, and proclivities of focusing on the self rather than the group.

All that would have changed was the institutional setting within which human nature manifested and played itself out. Such extensive and monopolized economic power, as would exist under socialism, would merely mean the motives and incentives would be shifted to gaining political control over the state to use its power to benefit oneself and others important to oneself, at the expense of everyone else. (See my article, “John Stuart Mill and the Dangers of Unrestrained Government.”)

Early Criticisms of Economic Planning

Finally, a number of these critics of socialism pointed out the inherent unworkability of a socialist central planning system once private property, competition, and market-based prices had been abolished through the nationalization of the means of production by the government. How would producers know what to produce if competitive supply and demand did not generate the market prices to tell producers what it was that consumers wanted and the relative value they placed on those goods? Indeed, how could supply and demand be brought into coordinated balance if market-based and changing prices did not constantly and continuously adjust the two sides of the market?

How would competent directors of production be selected with the end of private enterprise, absent entrepreneurs to direct those enterprises who had proven their worth through winning profits and avoiding losses? How would labor be efficiently and effectively directed in their employments for assisting in the manufacture of the goods that consumers wanted, if in the name of “social justice” wages were determined by the socialist redistributors of income rather than by market-guiding wage incentives?

Every one of these worries and warnings turned out to be true in every instance in which fairly comprehensive socialist central planning was imposed and implemented anywhere and everywhere around the world over the last one hundred years. To enumerate them would be too gratuitous for anyone who possesses even a limited knowledge of the reality of socialism-in-practice. (See my articles, “Paul Leroy-Beaulieu: A Warning Voice About the Socialist Tragedy to Come,” “Socialism: Marking a Century of Death and Destruction” and “The Human Cost of Socialism in Power.”)

World War I Ushers in Government Central Planning

Read the rest of this entry »

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

Watch: Inventor of Green New Deal Renounces Eco-Lunacy, Goes Nuclear

Posted by M. C. on October 10, 2019

The first you’re all familiar with: unreliable electricity means you always have to have fossil fuel power plants backing up when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.

But this is the kind of info I have been waiting to see…

It takes 150 times more land to get the same amount of electricity from a solar farm as from a nuclear plant; 17 times more materials are required for solar than for nuclear; and if you just total up all the used solar panel waste compared with nuclear, solar actually creates 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear.

by James Delingpole

Before we go to the main event and meet the only Greenie talking sense on climate change and the environment, let’s first catch up with the latest in Climate Stupid…

Extinction Rebellion protestors in Germany have been caught green-handed powering their camp with a ‘planet-destroying’ diesel generator – which they tried to hide with wooden pallets.

The BBC has been caught lying again about climate change, this time with a cock and bull story about rising sea levels displacing families in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. (The real reason is soil subsidence: but that doesn’t suit the climate change narrative, obviously)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been caught data-tampering again to make ‘global warming’ look more ‘real’ and scary than it actually is.

Disgraced climate ‘scientist’, fake Nobel prizewinner and failed litigant Michael Mann has been caught trying to erase from history the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP) using ‘dubious, revisionist temperature data.’ Why are Mann and his co-conspirator Katharine Hayhoe so keen to ditch the MWP? Because between 900 AD and 1200 AD, the world was at least as warm – if not warmer – than it is today. Yet there were no 4 x 4s or planes or factories ‘pumping out CO2’ to make this happen – so gosh, what might this tell us about Anthropogenic Global Warming theory?

The BBC’s only politically unbiased interviewer Andrew Neil has totally owned an Extinction Rebellion activist called Zion Lights. (He/she was presumably named after some kind of super potent indica/sativa hybrid you buy on the dark web). Having been Andrew Neiled myself, I do have a tiny smidgen of sympathy for Zion Lights. Except then again I totally don’t because I’m right on the No Deal Brexit thing whereas Zion Lights is totally wrong on her/his/its entire belief system.

Extinction Rebellion crusties are currently trying to close down London City Airport. If you listened to Nick Robinson’s questions on the Today programme this morning — my wife forced me to listen as I drove her to work because she hates me and because she wanted me to see just how much worse the BBC has got since I stopped listening to its drivel a year ago — you would have got the impression that this is perfectly legit and that London City’s Airport’s management really should be in the business of having to justify their core business (viz being an airport, where aeroplanes take off and land, with business people and holidaymakers inside) to tone deaf, left-biased BBC reporters.

The police have made some arrests, including of some whiny harpie who screeched ‘You’re hurting me’ as she was dragged off. “Not enough,” I imagine one or two air passengers are muttering this morning…

What does all this tell us about climate change? Nothing that we didn’t know already: that it’s a bogus cause, invented by dodgy, activist scientists, propped up by mainstream media lies and hysteria and promoted by soap-dodging loons who are not only naive and ill-informed but outrageously hypocritical in the way that they want to end Western Civilisation but still somehow keep their mobile phones powered…

This is why I was so pleased to meet just about the world’s only sensible Greenie, Mike Shellenberger. Shellenberger used to be a deep green activist – pushing heavily for renewables – but then saw the light.

He still cares about nature very much. But he thinks greenies like Extinction Rebellion are doing more harm than good.

I asked him what the red-pill moment was that made him see the light.

“So in the early 2000s I was the co-founder of our original Green New Deal. We called it the New Apollo Project. It was for a $300 billion investment in renewables. And we succeeded. We got President Obama, he did about $150 billion in renewables between 2007 and 2015 but right away we started running into big problems.

The first you’re all familiar with: unreliable electricity means you always have to have fossil fuel power plants backing up when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. But the other issue, which had a bigger impact on my heart, is the environmental impact of all those solar and wind farms.

So you started having local conservationists raising concerns about the impacts of wind farms on bird and bat species; about the impact of solar farms on our desert tortoise. So you started having environmental consequences of renewables. I started running the numbers. It takes 150 times more land to get the same amount of electricity from a solar farm as from a nuclear plant; 17 times more materials are required for solar than for nuclear; and if you just total up all the used solar panel waste compared with nuclear, solar actually creates 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear.

For me it was like, if I care about the environment, why are we not doing more nuclear power? Even if you don’t care about climate change. Nuclear has the smallest environmental footprint because it has the highest energy density. So for me my red pill moment was realising that energy density determines environmental impact. A single coke can of uranium provides enough energy for my entire life. Whereas it would require many train cars full of coal, oil or gas; many more of renewables. So that for me was what made me change my mind.”

I was very impressed by Shellenberger (who, incidentally, may soon be running for Governor of California). You can hear more from him on my Delingpod podcast and vidcast next Thursday (details here).

Be seeing you




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

Watch: AOC Dumbfounded as Town Hall Attendee Says We Must ‘Eat the Babies’ to Save Planet

Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2019

Another chapter in the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” story.

Insignificant yet amusing.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded to a woman at her town hall who proclaimed that we must “eat the babies” to save the world from climate change, and she urged everyone to “treat the situation compassionately.”

A clip emerged Thursday evening of Ocasio-Cortez’s town hall at the Queens Public Library, featuring a flustered woman who proclaimed that we need to “eat the babies” in order to save the planet from climate change.

“We are not going to be here for much longer because of the climate crisis,” the woman said. “We only have a few months left!”

The woman told the socialist “Squad” member that she loves her support for the Green New Deal but lamented that it is “not getting rid of fossil fuel; it’s not going to solve the problem fast enough.”

“A Swedish professor [said] we can eat dead people, but that’s not fast enough. So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this: ‘We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! There is too much CO2,” the woman proclaimed.

“All of you … you are a pollutant, too much CO2,” she continued. “We have to start now, please, you are so great.”

“I’m so happy that you really are supporting New Green Deal, but it’s not enough, you know. Even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people,” she added. “Too much pollution, so we have to get rid of the babies! That’s a big problem. We need to eat the babies!”

“We need to treat the climate crisis with the urgency that it does present,” Ocasio-Cortez told the distressed woman.

“Luckily we have more than a few months. We do need to hit net zero in several years,” she added.

Ocasio-Cortez also responded to the clip on Twitter, reprimanding right-wing individuals for “mocking” the woman. She also used the incident to plug Medicare for All.

“We had a fabulous town hall tonight & I’ll be highlighting some moments from it,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “At one point I was concerned there was a woman in crisis & want to ensure we treat the situation compassionately.”

“Let’s not mock or make a spectacle. &let’s work on Medicare for All!” she plugged.

“This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “Be a decent human being and knock it off”:

It remains unclear if the woman was a genuine Ocasio-Cortez supporter or someone spoofing the socialist lawmaker.

President Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. reacted to the clip on Twitter:

Be seeing you

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is a bird ...

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

Club Of Rome Supports the Global Student Climate Protests – Coercion Code – “Dark Times are upon us”

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2019

Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome was the original elite group who created crisis-mode global cooling and then global warming.

The venerable global elite group, The Club of Rome, has tipped its hand by gushing over the Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal.

Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome was the original elite group who created crisis-mode global cooling and then global warming. They produced the infamous treatise called “The Limits to Growth” that was positioned as “A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.” Limits to Growth proposed a resource-based economic system in the likeness of Technocracy, and called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources.

When the Trilateral Commission was co-founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski to establish a “New International Economic Order”, Club of Rome members intermingled with the Bilderberg group and members of the Commission.

The totality of the Green New Deal spectacle in America is precisely in line with the global elite’s plan to force Sustainable Development upon the entire world. In the Club’s statement below, they state “We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will.” The purpose of Green New Deal movement is specifically to develop the “political will” to implement their “solutions”.

The recent tweet that spilled the beans on Club of Rome’s support is pictured below.

Again the protests took place on the 15 March – on the Ides of March


The organization sponsoring these youth protests is the Sunrise Movement. Their website states,

We’re building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people.

We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country. Everyone has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us – if we unite by the millions we can turn this into political power and reclaim our democracy.

These students may think that they are “ordinary young people” but they are completely unaware that they are being shamefully manipulated and orchestrated by the global elite to drive the world into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy…

Be seeing you




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

Government Won’t Save Us From “Woke” Corporations | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2019

Many of those who avail themselves of Zuckerberg’s invention hold the same political and cultural beliefs… Perhaps most users of these internet conveniences welcome P.C. intolerance.

From the shoes you wear to the ice cream you eat, politics has found a way to sneak into some of the most mundane aspects of our lives. The new trend of “Woke Capital,” where firms are actively promoting social justice causes, has had many free-marketers scratching their heads at how corporate America has hopped on board this wave of Progressivism.

Take for example the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s. Ben & Jerry’s has made it a point to virtue signal about the latest leftist hobby horses. It made sure to showcase its progressive credentials through its launch of a resistance-themed ice cream flavor and even went as far as to endorse the Green New Deal.

Woke Capital was also on full display when Nike decided to pull its Betsy Ross flag line of shoes thanks to pressure from former NFL player Colin Kaepernick. Now an activist, Kaepernick viewed the Betsy Ross flag as an image of racism due to its creation during the American Revolution when slavery was still present.

A similar trend of political activism gone corporate has popped up when dealing with wedge issues such as gun rights. Companies such as Salesforce recently stopped doing business with organizations that sell semi-automatic rifles and firearms accessories. This decision is part of a larger wave off corporate gun control taking place since the 2018 Parkland shooting.

Corporations are Following in the State’s Footsteps

The threat of state action has hamstrung many forms of private associations and has seeped into the culture as well. The “therapeutic managerial state” we see today functions as a public-private partnership where political correctness culture is pushed as a means of re-socializing the public. Corporate actors are now well aware of this and work to one-up their PC overlords in the entrenched DC bureaucracy by trying to be “woke” in the boardroom.

Big Tech is a great example. Last year’s social media purges of political personalities such as Alex Jones demonstrated this new form of corporate policing. However, the blunt force of the state still lurked in the background as the late Justin Raimondo previously noted during the Jones deplatforming saga:

All this wasn’t good enough for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who demanded to know if the plan was to only take down “one web site.” No doubt he has a whole list of sites he’d like to take down. Even more ominously, it was revealed that a direct threat had been made to these companies by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia), who sent out a memo listing all the ways the government could crack down on Big Data if they refuse to go along with cleansing the internet of “divisive” material.

Even though no direct legislative action came out of Senator Murphy’s threats, many companies are well aware of the state’s power to modify private behavior. The administrative state’s willingness to put the clamps on allegedly discriminatory activities is well-documented. So, these companies have every incentive to be on their best behavior, and in some cases go the extra mile by being “woke” to avoid bureaucratic persecution.

Changing Corporate Culture?

It is intriguing that there hasn’t been much pushback against corporate virtue signaling from consumers. This indicates some degree of cultural tolerance from a large portion of the population. Just think about it, when’s the last time a mass conservative boycott of a company enacting “woke” policies led to its bankruptcy?

Bill Anderson’s point about how “the fundamentals of private property, prices, and profits and losses” cannot be ignored in any business operation is valid, but it overlooks one trend that has taken place during the last few decades — how much the American consumer base has been re-socialized by the managerial state and its many indoctrination mechanisms.

Paul Gottfried makes an interesting observation about both corporate titans and consumers in the twenty-first century when it relates to deplatforming:

Many of those who avail themselves of Zuckerberg’s invention hold the same political and cultural beliefs. I’m not even sure that the decisions made by Facebook and Google here and in Western Europe to kick political conservatives off their sites is a bad business practice. Perhaps most users of these internet conveniences welcome P.C. intolerance.

Gottfried also explains how entrepreneurs during the Gilded Age like Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie generally held more traditional views and “were devout Protestants, and they lived in societies in which both rich and poor were expected to conform to certain bourgeois proprieties that hardly exist anymore.” In sum, there is not enough collective opposition to match the “woke” Corporate America of the twenty-first century nor the activist groups constantly pressing for more diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace.

What we see now is both corporate leadership that is either culturally receptive to social justice culture and a more apathetic consumer base that does not care about the politics of these companies enough to actually revolt against them via the pocketbook.

Some rightwing politicians have suggested additional government regulation in retaliation against these firms. But for those more inclined toward laissez-faire, consumer action and robust civil society are more important than ever. Instead of exclusively focusing on elections, free-marketers should shift their energy toward business and cultural endeavors. In these areas, there are more level playing fields. The silver lining of this new Woke Capital trend is that these kinds of battles will incentivize free-market advocates to put more skin in the game and actually build viable alternatives to current corporate structures.

For example, Amazon shareholders nixed several employee-led proposals which included a plan to tackle climate change. Similarly, Google shareholders rejected a plan to link executive compensation to diversity goals. Through shareholder pressure, those of free-market inclinations can make their voices heard. More boardroom, less ballot box.

The last thing we should do in these situations is to bring the government in to “normalize” business conduct. If anything, the last century has demonstrated that government stepping into private affairs has thrown everything out of whack. As American society becomes more polarized and the government maintains its automated growth, alternative strategies that promote political decentralization are crucial.


Be seeing you

Should the New York Times sack Sarah Jeong over her racist ...

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

Why Are Progressives so Bad at Governing? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 21, 2019

Not only does de Blasio call for an end to private property and the total transformation of the economy via the “Green New Deal,” but he also has pushed “egalitarian” initiatives like ending charter schools in New York. (The fact that charter schools perform better than their regular public-school counterparts galls de Blasio and he believes they must be stopped.)

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Paul Krugman declared that the Bush administration failed in its response to the flooding of New Orleans because the administration consisted of people, according to Krugman, who didn’t “believe in government.” One cannot say that about progressives who truly believe in government, and believe in unlimited government at that. Yet, it also is clear that when in power — and especially when they face no real opposition — progressives generally govern very badly. Why this is so — in direct contradiction to Krugman’s stated belief — requires an examination of the progressive mindset, something Krugman probably is intellectually and emotionally incapable of doing.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: New York’s Progressive Disaster

The first thing to understand about progressives in government is that they have a much different view of “progress” than most other people. For example, even though whatever positive changes New York made in the 1990s and 2000s has been waning during the terms of Mayor Bill de Blasio, de Blasio believes that future “progress” now must come in the form of something other than the decline of crime rates and business growth. Instead, de Blasio, who wears his socialist cap proudly declares that the real threat to New York’s future is private property. He says:

Our legal system is structured to favor private property, (but) people would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. If I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see.

Any competent (or even incompetent, for that matter) economist can tell us how such a scenario plays out in the long run, and the economic chaos that was the former Soviet Union stands as Exhibit A, while the New York of the 1970s and the 1980s is Exhibit B. Yes, even in the face of hardcore evidence against his position, de Blasio stands firm. In fact, an entire new wave of politicians in this country calling themselves “progressives” are trying to fashion a “new” economy, one based upon a “Green New Deal,” and other massive interventions into private economic activity. That the experience of socialism never matches its utopian rhetoric seems not to have changed a mind among this new generation of progressives.

If de Blasio is an example of modern progressivism (he even took his honeymoon in Cuba, taking a cue from Bernie Sanders who honeymooned in the USSR shortly before it collapsed), then his words and actions shed light on what progressives consider to be “proper” governance. Not only does de Blasio call for an end to private property and the total transformation of the economy via the “Green New Deal,” but he also has pushed “egalitarian” initiatives like ending charter schools in New York. (The fact that charter schools perform better than their regular public-school counterparts galls de Blasio and he believes they must be stopped.)… Read the rest of this entry »

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

Ocasio-Cortez: Avoid ‘Colonial’ Produce Like Cauliflower in Communities

Posted by M. C. on May 21, 2019

How bad can this get?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) declared on Sunday that the Green New Deal will reverse purported “colonial” attitudes associated with growing vegetables in community gardens.

“What I love too is growing plants that are culturally familiar to the community. It’s so important,” the 29-year-old freshman congresswoman said while filming herself strolling through a community garden in the Bronx.

“That’s really how you do it right,” the self-described Democratic- socialist continued in a follow-up video. That is such a core component of the Green New Deal is having all of these projects make sense in a cultural context, and it’s an area that we get the most pushback on because people say, ‘Why do you need to do that? That’s too hard.’”

Ocasio-Cortez then said that growing cauliflower in community gardens represents a “colonial approach,” turning off people of color from embracing environmentalism.

“But when you really think about it — when someone says that it’s ‘too hard’ to do a green space that grows Yucca instead of, I don’t know, cauliflower or something — what you’re doing is that you’re taking a colonial approach to environmentalism, and that is why a lot of communities of color get resistant to certain environmentalist movements because they come with the colonial lens on them,” she argued…

Be seeing you

An Ocasio-Cortex sampler | Catallaxy Files

Cauliflower is Racist.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment » NYC Mayor de Blasio Goes Full Idiot: ‘We Are Going to Ban’ Glass and Steel Skyscrapers

Posted by M. C. on May 9, 2019

De Blasio as socialist engineer.

He doesn’t mention what replaces steel. Plastic, graphite?

Windowless hives. Caves of Steel.

We know what Ayn Rand would said about government directing Architecture.

NYC Mayor de Blasio Goes Full Idiot: ‘We Are Going to Ban’ Glass and Steel Skyscrapers

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said on MSNBC Monday morning his city will ban “inefficient” steel and glass skyscrapers as part of their Green New Deal.

This is hardcore Climate Fearmonger Malthusian idiocy.

Be seeing you

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