MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarians’

The Domestic Terrorism Act Boils Down to State Prosecution of White People for False Sedition – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 27, 2021

This bill will be used to set up a witch-hunt for mainly white people in America, mostly white males. Half the country will be considered guilty. It will be used to destroy businesses, steal property, incarcerate those that oppose the state narrative, separate families, to censor speech at every turn, and even murder. Ex-CIA head, John Brennan, came up with a list that included as he put it, “an unholy alliance of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.” In this planned legislation, whiteness is vilified, as the bogeymen are white supremacists, white nationalists, and supposedly those that that are guilty of ‘hate’ crimes, hate crimes being anything thought ‘offensive’ by idiot leftists, progressives, and globalists.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/gary-d-barnett/the-domestic-terrorism-act-boils-down-to-state-prosecution-of-white-people-for-false-sedition/

By Gary D. Barnett

“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

~ Baron de Montesquieu

A very horrendous bill was introduced recently in Congress called the “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021.” The irony of this bill title is that it is not about preventing terrorism; it is about legalizing terrorism by the state against the citizenry. It would be more appropriately titled the U.S. Government Terrorism Authorization Act of 2021.

The motivating factor for this atrocity was said to be the recent purposely staged and intentionally allowed false-flag coup at the Capitol on January 6th. The entire situation was planned in advance to assure that Biden would be the ‘selected’ president, while the members of Congress could pretend to be fearful for their lives. The police led both legitimate and criminal protesters inside the Capitol building, allowed them to remain there, all while doing nothing but brutally murdering one innocent woman. The cowardly Congress was shuttled into safe places to hide until enough pictures and video could be taken, and enough facial recognition could be gathered so that the desired Trump supporters could be gathered up and jailed while others would walk free. This was the plot and now the scene is set. The feigned ‘indignant’ Congress got everything they wanted out of this directed production.

This non-threatening Hollywood-like creation ended peacefully of course, but was made out to be another 9/11. This minor event has been called a terrifying attack, a domestic terrorism attack, a hate crime, devastating, an experience of terror by white nationalists, and heinous violent crimes; all said to have been prosecuted by homegrown domestic terrorists made up of white supremacists, and other racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists. In other words, white people!

Co-sponsor for this tyrannical bill, Democratic Representative Brad Schneider, said this in a press release on January 20:

“Following the terrifying attack on the Capitol this month, which left five dead and many injured, the entire nation has been seized by the potential threat of more terrorist attacks in Washington and around the country. Unlike after 9/11, the threat that reared its ugly head on January 6th is from domestic terror groups and extremists, often racially-motivated violent individuals. America must be vigilant to combat those radicalized to violence, and the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act gives our government the tools to identify, monitor and thwart their illegal activities. Combatting the threat of domestic terrorism and white supremacy is not a Democratic or Republican issue, not left versus right or urban versus rural. Domestic Terrorism is an American issue, a serious threat the we can and must address together,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (IL-10).”

“I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which we need now more than ever. In the wake of the domestic terrorist attack on our Capitol two weeks ago, it is painfully clear that the current approach to addressing the real and persistent threat posed by white nationalism and similar ideologies is not working. We must not allow hate crimes and domestic terrorism to continue unchecked. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important and timely bill as quickly as possible,” said Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (NY-10).”

In this ridiculous press release, he used the word white, white nationalism, and white supremacist at least ten times. Democrat Vincente González from Texas said “the Domestic Terror Prevention Act is more important than ever as we work to root out and rid America of this cancer.” The cancer he is alluding to is concerning white people that either are not Democrat, are against Biden, or against this government.

This bill will be used to set up a witch-hunt for mainly white people in America, mostly white males. Half the country will be considered guilty. It will be used to destroy businesses, steal property, incarcerate those that oppose the state narrative, separate families, to censor speech at every turn, and even murder. Ex-CIA head, John Brennan, came up with a list that included as he put it, “an unholy alliance of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.” In this planned legislation, whiteness is vilified, as the bogeymen are white supremacists, white nationalists, and supposedly those that that are guilty of ‘hate’ crimes, hate crimes being anything thought ‘offensive’ by idiot leftists, progressives, and globalists. None of this is qualified of course, and this pending bill is just as vague in its description of the targeted class. All these people and more should be silenced, “reprogrammed,” and eliminated according to those supporting this act that is nothing less than a plan to prosecute false sedition.

The list of supporters endorsing this tyrannical piece of legislation is telling to say the least. They include:

Anti-Defamation League, Arab American Institute, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, Human Rights Campaign, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Muslim Advocates, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund, and Unidos.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will gain massive additional powers, and funding, in order to monitor (surveil), investigate (spy), and prosecute (terrorize, murder, and jail) so-called cases of generally undefined “domestic terrorism.” Fedora Hats for Men by… Buy New $45.99 (as of 04:06 EST – Details)

This legislation is a travesty, and can only lead to extreme totalitarian political policing of all that believe in freedom and that stand against the state.

Additional sources:

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/79031/who-planned-the-false-flag-on-capitol.html

https://redstate.com/streiff/2021/01/07/305949-n305949

The Best of Gary D. Barnett Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son. Visit his website.

Be seeing you

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

Gird Your Loins

Posted by M. C. on January 22, 2021

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2021/01/21/gird-your-loins-libertarians-the-biden-admin-is-going-to-be-keeping-an-eye-on-you-n1398939

By Paula Bolyard

Former CIA Director John Brennan let the cat out of the bag during an MSNBC appearance Wednesday, saying that the Biden administration is laser-focused on rooting out “insurgency movements” in the U.S., cracking down on pernicious malefactors like (gasp!) libertarians. No, really.

See the rest here…pay wall!

Be seeing you

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

Totalitarianism Is Upon Us – by Robert Ringer

Posted by M. C. on January 14, 2021

The paramount question we should be focused on is not the fact that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff won the Georgia elections — or even the possibility that their wins might have been a result of the usual Democrat cheating — but how two Marxists were even in a position to run for the United States Senate in a traditionally conservative state.  It seems reasonable to conclude that somewhere between 30-40 percent of voters in this one-time red state apparently prefer socialism to free-market capitalism.

https://robertringer.com/totalitarianism-is-upon-us/

by Robert Ringer

With the hysteria over the Capitol Building dustup Wednesday hogging the news, I think it’s important not to allow the Georgia runoff elections to be buried and forgotten about, because how a majority of liberty-minded Americans view what happened in Georgia will determine the impact it will have on America’s future.

If conservatives and libertarians throw up their hands in despair and view the Georgia elections as the final death knell for liberty in this country, they might just end up being right.  But if they view them as a clarion call to return America to its founding conservative-libertarian roots, they might also be right.  What is needed right now is clear thinking and a great deal of action.

The paramount question we should be focused on is not the fact that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff won the Georgia elections — or even the possibility that their wins might have been a result of the usual Democrat cheating — but how two Marxists were even in a position to run for the United States Senate in a traditionally conservative state.  It seems reasonable to conclude that somewhere between 30-40 percent of voters in this one-time red state apparently prefer socialism to free-market capitalism.

Clear thinking on this matter also forces one to face up to the reality that America is now closer to becoming a Marxist nation than at any time in its history.  And, if so, I believe it’s important for people to understand what Marxism is all about.

As a prelude, let me start by pointing out that socialism and communism are, for all practical purposes, one and the same.  Karl Marx made it clear that socialism was but a phase along the way to communism, which is why I use those two terms, along with terms like Marxism, progressivism, liberalism, leftism, and collectivism, interchangeably.

Second, communism as Marx described it has never existed on this planet.  Leftists like to romanticize about his heaven-on-earth version of communism, a fantasy wherein the state “withers away” because everyone has equally satisfying lives — food, housing, medical care, and more — thus no one covets his neighbor’s possessions.  In the real world, however, from Lenin to Stalin to Brezhnev, from Mao to Deng to Xi, the term communism (and all of its synonyms) has proven to be nothing more than a euphemism for totalitarian rule.

When communists take control of a country, what actually happens is that people end up with less of everything and are equally miserable.  But not all people.  Under communism, a new privileged class emerges that replaces the previous elites whose property was appropriated by the state.  In the Soviet Union, the privileged class under communism was known as the nomenklatura.  It consisted of tens of thousands of bureaucrats whom the oligarchy depended on to keep the proletariat in line.

Today’s American version of the nomenklatura is much greater in number and much more powerful than its counterpart in the former Soviet Union.  As a result, its members are highly motivated to push toward a totalitarian form of government to protect their elite status.  It’s a push that has been going on for decades, but what is different today is that many in the Democrat Party openly use the term socialism to mask their true goal, totalitarianism.

What is remarkable is that so many voters, who are not part of the corrupt nomenklatura, believe they would be better off under socialism than capitalism.  But why?  I can think of only three possible reasons why someone would favor a theoretical ideology that has resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions of people worldwide, as follows.

Naiveté.

Millions of people who are emotionally immature believe that all pain and suffering are unacceptable and that it is therefore the government’s job to make life risk-free.  Such a naïve mindset is what has given rise to the wild overreaction to the coronavirus pandemic.  Leftists have succeeded in scaring people into putting their lives on hold and focusing instead on protecting themselves from COVID.  This, even though the extreme measures taken by politicians and bureaucrats fly in the face of the actual science.

Staying alive is, indeed, of paramount importance, but being the most important thing does not mean to the exclusion of everything else.  If there is nothing else to life but trying to stay alive, then life has no meaning.  The refusal to accept the reality that risks are an integral part of life is what leads people to naively believe that an all-powerful central government can keep them safe and well fed, and it is this naïve belief that leads to totalitarianism.

Naiveté is not an easy condition to cure, because it requires a willingness to accept facts, something that is anathema to people who are genuinely naïve.  (As the Big Guy famously said, “We choose truth over facts.”)

Ignorance

Speaking of resistance to facts, ignorance is especially prevalent among college students, because in the vast majority of cases the colleges they attend are not bastions of education but cauldrons of miseducation.  Simply put, most of our schools, from kindergarten through college, teach ignorance.

Until a few decades ago, the realities of communism, including the death and destruction it has fostered since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, was taught in virtually all schools.  Today, however, communism is glorified by Radical Left teachers and professors, which is why it should not surprise anyone that children who have not had the benefit of a sound home environment based on Western values are especially vulnerable to the propaganda of those who promote the lie that communism is nirvana.

If kids were encouraged to study the true history of communism, beginning with Karl Marx in the mid-to-late 19th century and Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in the 20th century, they would be far less likely to end up as confused, lost souls preaching the wonders of communism and would realize that it is nothing more than an excuse to implement a totalitarian regime.

Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, leader of Italy’s communist party in the early part of the 20th century and generally thought of as “the godfather of cultural Marxism,” was an early advocate of playing the “long game.”  He believed that the best way to implement communism was through gradual, stealth revolution over a long period of time, and felt this could be accomplished through communist infiltration of a country’s institutions, particularly schools and universities.  Over the past 50 years, Radical Leftists have adopted this strategy and succeeded in gaining control of America’s culture by planting Marxists throughout the education system.

Deprogramming and reeducating people whose brains have been saturated with lies, half-truths, and, above all, false premises is a herculean task that realistically can produce only limited results.  To be effective, other efforts have to be made, such as taking back our schools and universities, finding ways to minimize the damage done by the fake-news media, and putting an end to big tech’s censorship of libertarian and conservative thought, beginning with repeal of Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act.

Malevolence

Unfortunately, a majority of Democrats today are hard-core malevolent, meaning they take satisfaction in the pain and suffering of others.  A study of the history of communism makes it clear that it’s an ideology fueled not by a desire to help the downtrodden, but by anger and hate.

It has often been said that liberalism is a mental disorder, because round-the-clock hatred and anger do not comprise a normal mindset.  So, even though it’s true that many people who have bought into the false promises of communism are simply naïve or ignorant, the primary drivers of communism are anger and hate.

Karl Marx was an angry, arrogant intellectual who harbored enormous scorn for the working class, notwithstanding his claim that revolution was necessary in order to free workers from oppression.  While insisting that their salvation could come about only through violent revolution, he made it clear to his fellow intellectuals that he believed the proletariat was too stupid and unmotivated to plan and carry out a world-changing revolution.

Vladimir Lenin, who led the world’s first communist revolution, was even angrier than Marx.  From an early age, he showed signs of being an extreme sociopath.  There are firsthand accounts of his amusing himself as a small child by ripping the arms out of dolls and torturing animals.  This anger propelled him to become a bloodthirsty dictator who, like Marx, had a low regard for farmers, workers, and peasants and excluded them from party meetings and policy-making decisions. 

Thus, the reality wasn’t so much “workers of the world unite” as it was “workers of the world, shut up and do as you’re told.”  Which is exactly the message coming from the today’s Democrat Party.  Totalitarian Democrats look down on everyday Americans, particularly blue-collar workers, and resent any attempt on their part to express their opinions.

Which brings me back to the Georgia runoff elections.  Now that the commies have taken control of the Senate, what Republicans need to do is resort to every dirty Democrat trick in the book in order to stall the Dems totalitarian agenda until January 2023.  By that time, Democrats will have brought so much pain and misery to most Americans that Republicans should win both the House and Senate by landslide margins — unless, of course, they still have not figured out a way to stop Democrat cheating.

The road ahead is no less challenging than the one faced by the Founding Fathers in 1776 when they threw out the British.  As Benjamin Franklin famously said at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, “We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”  This is where we are in 2021 America, and people should not delude themselves into believing that this is just a bump in the road and that America will somehow work things out.

As I have repeatedly said, if the objective is to take back America, the first order of business should be to primary Republicans who never tire of giving the middle finger to the voters who put them in office.  Not just vermin like Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Mitch McConnell (all three of whom President Trump naively endorsed), but choirboys like John Thune, James Lankford, John Cornyn, and Marco Rubio as well.

If Republicans do not get serious about cleaning house, nothing else they do to fight the totalitarian left will matter, because you have no chance of winning if you allow the enemy to operate freely within your ranks.  The most sickening thing about the last four years was watching establishment Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy snipe at President Trump for saying and doing things that swamp Republicans deem to be “unpresidential.”

What happened in Georgia is a wakeup call for liberty-loving Americans nationwide.  The reality is that totalitarianism is upon us.  Now, the question is, how many of us are willing to show, through our actions, that we are prepared to hang together? 

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

Be seeing you

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

Those Who Fear Disease Most Are Most Likely to Prefer Authoritarian Regimes | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2020

“Because many disease-causing parasites are invisible, and their actions mysterious, disease control has historically depended substantially on adherence to ritualized behavioral practices that reduced infection risk. Individuals who openly dissented from, or simply failed to conform to, these behavioral traditions, therefore, posed a health threat to self and others.” Unfortunately, as covid-19 has demonstrated, people are willing to subject themselves to rituals even if they have no discernible impact on deterring transmissions.

https://mises.org/wire/those-who-fear-disease-most-are-most-likely-prefer-authoritarian-regimes

Lipton Matthews

Covid-19 has unleashed a pandemic of restrictive measures on the population. Lockdowns and mask mandates are becoming widespread. Libertarians have been vociferously denouncing covid-19 containment strategies as draconian. Evolutionary psychologists, however, argue that reactions in favor of government restrictions are the norm in environments where the public fears contamination. According to the parasitic stress theory popularized by Randy Thornhill and Corey Fincher, societies with a high prevalence of diseases are more supportive of authoritarian policies. This is unsurprising because to prevent transmissions experts often recommend limiting movement. Due to fear, citizens would have a vested interest in promoting policies claiming to lower infections. Likewise, the aversion to contracting covid-19 has forced many to advocate hysterical policies. For anthropologists interested in analyzing the parasitic stress theory, covid-19 is a perfect case study.

Murray, Schaller, and Suedfeld (2013) in their discussion of the relationship between pathogens and authoritarianism elucidate the importance of disease control mechanisms in germ-rich societies. “Because many disease-causing parasites are invisible, and their actions mysterious, disease control has historically depended substantially on adherence to ritualized behavioral practices that reduced infection risk. Individuals who openly dissented from, or simply failed to conform to, these behavioral traditions, therefore, posed a health threat to self and others.” Unfortunately, as covid-19 has demonstrated, people are willing to subject themselves to rituals even if they have no discernible impact on deterring transmissions. One must appear to be complying with the crowd or face expulsion. Humans are emotional creatures, and hence they give primacy to symbolic gestures. For example, recently researchers noted that “no direct evidence indicates that public mask wearing protects either the wearer or others.” Yet despite the dearth of evidence in favor of wearing masks, the researchers nevertheless advocated their use in the name of group solidarity: “Given the severity of this pandemic and the difficulty of control…we suggest appealing to altruism and the need to protect others.”

Blind conformity to public opinion is also evident when analysts recommend mask mandates after admitting that they “may be far from enough to prevent an increase in new infections.” Although the evidence does not support containment measures such as mask mandates and lockdowns, they remain quite popular among the intelligentsia. However, this pattern is consistent with the parasitic stress theory. To some, the costs of tolerating dissent in an environment compatible with diseases are too onerous, so contrarians are usually viewed as a threat to society. Therefore, in the era of covid-19 ideas in opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy will be neutered.

For instance, writing in The Spiked Magazine, Fraser Myers exposes Google for censoring the Great Barrington Declaration:

The Great Barrington Declaration was spearheaded by Martin Kulldorff from Harvard Medical School, Sunetra Gupta from Oxford University and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University Medical School. The declaration was bound to cause controversy for going against the global political consensus, which holds that lockdowns are key to minimising mortality from Covid-19. Instead, the signatories argue that younger people, who face minimal risk from the virus, should be able to go about their lives unimpeded, while resources are devoted to protecting the most vulnerable. But for making this argument, the declaration has been censored. Tech giant Google has decided that the view of these scientists should be covered up. Most users in English-speaking countries, when they google ‘Great Barrington Declaration’, will not be directed to the declaration itself but to articles that are critical of the declaration—and some that amount to little more than smears of the signatories.

Moreover, numerous examples suggest that covid-19 is being leveraged as a justification for authoritarianism. Consider the insightful observation of Steven Simon in an article for the journal Survival:

In illuminating COVID-19’s utility for power-grabbers, observers have tended to point to three cases: Israel, Hungary and the Philippines. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been accused of manipulating pandemic fears to delay his prosecution on corruption charges by shuttering the courts, hamstringing his centrist opponent, Benjamin Gantz, and intensifying electronic surveillance of Israeli society. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has cited the crisis to extract from a right-leaning legislature remarkably broad powers to suppress dissent. And in the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte, after mishandling the response to the pandemic, has moved to quash criticism and harshly imposed quarantine and curfew rules, ordering that violators be shot dead.

Similarly, as Zmigrod et al. (2020) remind us, the changes wrought by pandemics are often long term: “Historical pathogen prevalence still predicts contemporary ideological attitudes, and so if Covid-19 elevates the allure of authoritarian ideologies, the effects could be long-lasting.” Covid-19 has nurtured authoritarian sentiments, and the residues will remain long after we have discovered a vaccine. Based on the present environment, measures may become more stringent. Therefore, the only option available to proponents of liberty is to be a bulwark against tyranny by strongly opposing the violations of human rights in the name of preventing covid-19. Author:

Contact Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to mises.org, The Federalist, and the Jamaica Gleaner. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or on Twitter (@matthewslipton

Be seeing you

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

Lockdowns: Immoral, Illegal, and Ineffective – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 16, 2020

The immorality of the lockdowns is evident from many perspectives (such as the non-aggression principle of libertarians). Here I will focus on the Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code for medical ethics developed in the wake of Nazi crimes during WWII. This list is in terms of a medical experiment, but as implied above we are all guinea pigs now.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/ira-katz/lockdowns-immoral-illegal-and-ineffective/

By Ira Katz

To lockdown a nation to prevent the spread of an infectious disease is a medical intervention never tried in the history of the world before 2020 and then almost immediately employed throughout most of the world. This observation alone is worth in depth consideration. Here I will make the case that, considered as a medical intervention, lockdowns are immoral, illegal and ineffective.

Immoral

The immorality of the lockdowns is evident from many perspectives (such as the non-aggression principle of libertarians). Here I will focus on the Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code for medical ethics developed in the wake of Nazi crimes during WWII. This list is in terms of a medical experiment, but as implied above we are all guinea pigs now.

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Clearly, the most obvious and important violation of lockdowns is of point 1 and the related point 9. Lockdowns are applied without consent and nobody is allowed to opt out. Point 2 is also violated. More fruitful approaches are available as explained in the Great Barrington Declaration. Point 3 is not directly applicable, but does highlight the fact that our rulers are flying blind with no animal or human pilot results to guide them (more on this below). The repugnant nature in which the lockdowns have been applied often are aimed to create physical and mental suffering and injury (for example, fear is always induced) violating point 4. Point 6 is also important to emphasize. What is the real importance of this problem. To me the fabrications and frauds of the Covid story were evident in the WHO declaration of the pandemic in March. The comparison of the infection fatality rate between Chinese hospitalized patients for Covid and the general population for flu was pure fraud. It is clear from this UK radio interview that the epidemiologists who have concocted this intervention have not done anything to quantify the negative effects violating point 7.

Illegal

I am not a lawyer so I will rely on Lord Sumption’s (the former supreme court justice) dissection of government illegality in the UK as a model of how governments have been acting. Furthermore,  it does not take a lawyer or health professional to note the violations of the Bill of Rights in the US.

Herein I will emphasize the more focused legal norms of the medical community. The fundamental basis of regulatory affairs is to assure, based on evidence from in vitro, ex vivo, in vivo preclinical and clinical testing that all medical interventions (pharmaceuticals, devices, procedures) are both effective and safe. The gold standard of evidence is the controlled, randomized clinical trial (CRCT). Furthermore, this testing should be assessed for all groups affected; men and women, different age groups, different race and ethnic groups. The lack of CRCTs for other Covid related interventions has been the common critique of the medical community against, for example, hydroxychloroquine. My key point is that no CRCT has been performed to assess the efficacy or safety of national lockdowns. The fact that such a trial is even difficult to imagine makes the case stronger not to apply this blunt instrument.

The fact that CRCTs are often severely compromised is not relevant to my argument here.

Ineffective

I noted above that there is no CRCT to prove the effectiveness of national lockdowns. Nonetheless, we do have data on the experience of the different countries (and US states) that have employed lockdowns, with the important case of Sweden as a control. Getting all of the data (which is always suspect today) into a form for easy comparison is an enormous task that government officials refuse to perform. Tom Woods has been collecting graphs from internet sources that should be required viewing by all citizens for their own wellbeing. I reproduce one of those graphs here that alone makes a devastating case for ending all national lockdowns.Not only did lockdowns not reduce the first wave in Europe, they have set us up for the second wave.

I am sure most readers will have already noted that a similar analysis can be applied to other Covid responses such as mask mandates and vaccinations.

The Best of Ira Katz Ira Katz [send him mail] lives in Paris and works as a research engineer for a French company. He is the co-author of Handling Mr. Hyde: Questions and Answers about Manic Depression and Introduction to Fluid Mechanics.

creativecommons.org

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

Trump Rallies or Struggle Sessions – A Lesson for Libertarians

Posted by M. C. on November 4, 2020

If it’s the latter then realize the opportunity is here to direct that energy towards what comes next. What comes after the election will require leadership and skill. It will require patience, temperance and most importantly, courage.

It will require people willing to step up, be better and lead. And if you don’t like Trump’s leadership, fine. What will you do to counter it…. and posting memes on Twitter isn’t an answer.

t means stating without irony that the State is truly immoral but you voted anyway. Not because you love Trump, though he’s hilarious, but because you are willing to find common ground with people who you disagree with but who also stand athwart the tide of authoritarian control.

The people you are trying to persuade will respect you for that. The ideas you have will get a better audience.

I used to be that guy. I know what that looks like. Guess what? It looks an awful lot like despair.

And if that’s the best we libertarians have to offer, then this fight for the individual’s spirit, regardless of what happens in this election, is already over.

https://tomluongo.me/2020/11/02/lesson-for-libertarians-trump-rallies-struggle-sessions/

This election season hasn’t been about Trump versus Biden. It hasn’t been about capitalism versus socialism.

It’s not even about liberty versus authority.

As I said in my last article this election is about a simple choice, facing a chaotic future with courage or fear.

Regardless of who wins, my many libertarian friends and colleagues are correct that the ship of state cannot and will not be turned at this point in any meaningful way.

There are forces at work which will unleash hell on earth if Trump wins, which he should.

If the past four years have taught us anything it should have taught us that.

What’s on the ballot tomorrow is something much larger, however, because hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and Europe are facing an existential choice on both sides of the power dynamic.

The People sense the closing off of escape routes by an oligarch class that rightly sees their institutional power waning in the face of rapid decentralization of information.

Because of this, an inevitable power struggle has ensued. This election has taken on a quality that transcends the practical nature of elections — who will run the consensual hallucination that is the State.

The Davos Crowd is in full control at the moment in Europe and attempting The Black Revolution here in the U.S. They will enact as much of their Great Reset as they can and play every card in their hand and dirty trick in their bag to achieve it.

This election is a nexus, a singularity, that has become an opportunity for an inflection point in history, one where ideas that were forced into the fringe of the political discourse during the last cycle have the opportunity for a real audience in the next one.

And the question I have for libertarians is, “Are you ready to lead or are you going to sit aloof, arms folded, and miss your chance?”

From what I’ve seen so far it’s not promising.

Donald Trump is no Ron Paul, but, honestly, libertarian commentators were moaning about Ron in 2008 and 2012. He didn’t pass the purity test they said and he was encouraging people into the vortex of politics.

That was the wrong read then and it’s the wrong read now.

As Trump holds rally after rally around the country, bringing literally millions of people together a statement has been made.

Courage trumps fear.

Even Obama couldn’t pull crowds like Trump has. This is unprecedented in American politics.

I contend the symbolism of this election far outweighs all other considerations. There’s a spirit animating this election unlike any other I’ve witnessed because not of who Trump is but what he represents.

Earlier in the year, post-George Floyd, the picture was very different. It was much darker. BLM and Antifa, thanks to corporate sponsorship and billions in oligarch money, ran wild in the streets.

Dressed in black bloc, chanting slogans, throwing rocks, sucker-punching suburbanites and burning cities they took over the streets in a crude attempt to force change onto people already scared over a virus.

Videos of white people washing the feet of their new black masters were all over social media. Struggle sessions were brought to diners forced to eat outside thanks to stupid COVID-19 social distancing rules.

With government assistance (because communists can’t build anything of value on their own) they set up the CHAZ in Seattle and failed miserably in places like Atlanta.

All of these projects, however, lost their momentum the moment it became obvious Americans weren’t buying any of it.

They bought guns instead.

They may have bought guns out of fear, but they bought them anyway.

Marxism has been the dominant political philosophy of this past cycle, pushing the nascent ideas of extreme individualism to the fringe.

And it is reaching for the gold ring of ultimate power. The orgy of violence its adherents call for is here. There’s no avoiding it but it doesn’t have to become an all-consuming jihad against the human spirit like it has been in the past – think Cambodia, Vietnam, the U.S.S.R and, of course, Germany.

Millions of Americans saw this future and recoiled from it. Right into the arms of Donald Trump who preached faith in them.

That’s where these mind-blowing rallies, flotillas, caravans and spontaneous uprisings supporting Trump are coming from. Improperly harnessed, that energy can be turned into something truly ugly.

This should be the signal for libertarians to come down off their mountains and declare themselves ready to lead the restitution of culture and civilized behavior.

Marxism can’t bring anything except a few thousand paid agitators to politically-sympathetic jurisdictions to loot, steal and bully people.

The mere threat of liberty brings out millions to sing ‘God Bless America.”

Because the Trump movement is a celebration of that which should unite us — family, faith, community, dignity. After decades of the Marxists dividing us into ever smaller echo chambers we were supposed to be demoralized and beaten.

And judging from what I see from great thinkers like Robert Higgs I can only conclude they are just that, encouraging Ancaps to think this is a winning strategy.

⬇️

This response is a defense mechanism of people without the capacity to lead.

Bob is right there are problems with Trump but where he sees dismay I see hope.

Why? Again, because this election isn’t about Trump or the State. It’s not about the nation. It’s about the assault on our communities, faith, family and sense of self.

It is an assault on the value of a human life.

And the question we are facing, imperfectly, is, “Are we the Last Man clinging to life like a barnacle in a violent sea or something greater; something with vitality, possessed with the spark of the creative, or even the divine?”

The people at those Trump rallies are anything but barnacles. And Twitter is full of supposed libertarians cynically reminding us that voting doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t, until it does.

For all his faults, Trump did what so many libertarians refuse to do, come off the mountain and lead. He could do this because Ron Paul motivated the people to declare they wanted some of what libertarians are selling.

In marketing terms these are ‘hot leads.’

And we don’t listen to them.

We talk at them, if not down to them.

We treat them exactly as Antifa and BLM treat those that don’t agree with them, as beneath them. People wonder why I hate the term, “sheeple.” Shouldn’t it be obvious? Because you don’t denigrate the people you’re trying to convince to buy what you’re selling.

So, my next question is, “Do you want to be right or do you want to help make a better world?”

If it’s the latter then realize the opportunity is here to direct that energy towards what comes next. What comes after the election will require leadership and skill. It will require patience, temperance and most importantly, courage.

It will require people willing to step up, be better and lead. And if you don’t like Trump’s leadership, fine. What will you do to counter it…. and posting memes on Twitter isn’t an answer.

Because even if we have the right ideas, we won’t be given that opportunity if we don’t first do the smallest thing we can do, stand next to them. Be a part of something not perpetually outside of it.

If that means voting, then vote. The symbolism should be clear enough.

It means stating without irony that the State is truly immoral but you voted anyway. Not because you love Trump, though he’s hilarious, but because you are willing to find common ground with people who you disagree with but who also stand athwart the tide of authoritarian control.

The people you are trying to persuade will respect you for that. The ideas you have will get a better audience.

I used to be that guy. I know what that looks like. Guess what? It looks an awful lot like despair.

And if that’s the best we libertarians have to offer, then this fight for the individual’s spirit, regardless of what happens in this election, is already over.

Be seeing you

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

Why COVID Kids May Grow Up To Be Libertarians | Intellectual Takeout

Posted by M. C. on October 5, 2020

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/why-covid-kids-may-grow-up-to-be-libertarians/

By Emma Freire

The Coronavirus crisis hit children as hard as any other segment of the population. All familiar routines were suddenly ripped away from them. Thousands are still doing school online. Many state mask mandates include young children.

For children old enough to remember it in the future, the year of Coronavirus, will be a significant event in their childhoods. They will probably tell their own children and grandchildren stories about what it was like to live through this time.

But how will they look back on this crisis when they reach adulthood? And how will it shape their worldview?

For adults, the debate about handling the pandemic has been highly politicized for some time. However, we are now moving into a phase of the reopening where different standards about what is allowed and what isn’t will be obvious even to children.

For example, last week a kind friend wanted to organize a picnic for my three small children. She prepared little sandwiches and lots of fun snacks, yet, when we arrived at our local park a guard approached us to tell us we couldn’t bring food in. This is normally allowed, but it is forbidden during COVID-19 because eating requires removing one’s mask. My children burst into tears. My friend and I tried – in vain – to convince them that having a picnic in the living room is also fun.

The worst part of this situation, however, is that we constantly walk by restaurants in our neighborhood that are open for business – both with indoor and outdoor seating. What’s the difference between us having a picnic in the park and buying an ice cream cone and eating it on the restaurant terrace? Why is one a health hazard and not the other? I was at a loss to explain this discrepancy to my children. It is simply unfair. As young as they are, my kids intuit that.

Children have a deep-rooted sense of fairness. Peter Gray, a professor of psychology, writes in Psychology Today that children grasp early on that fairness is necessary in order to play with each other.

Anyone who has spent much time observing children play independently of adult control knows that they are very concerned with fairness. ‘That’s not fair’ is among the most common phrases you will hear.…

There is a simple reason why play must be fair. The fairness doesn’t come from some highfalutin moral philosophy nor from deep-seated altruism. Children are neither philosophers nor angels. … Fairness comes from the simple reality that play with others is only possible if it is fair.

American children are seeing that their schools are still closed, but that other types of gatherings are allowed. Some activities are permitted while others – despite being essentially the same thing – are forbidden. Depending on their age, these observations will impact them deeply. Kids realize this is unfair. Not everyone is playing by the same rules.

Future research will likely tell us a great deal about which government imposed restrictions actually combatted the virus and which were pointless. We will also have a much better understanding of the side effects of these measures. Adults who were children during this pandemic will likely follow these developments with great interest.

Articles about the impact of the pandemic on children tend to focus on the education they have lost due to school closures. But it is also worth noting that children are witnessing repeated violations of their innate sense of fairness. This may well leave them with a sense of mistrust towards institutions and authorities. Is COVID-19 going to raise up a generation of libertarians?

Emma Freire

Emma Freire is a writer living in Sao Paulo, Brazil. She has also been published in The Federalist and The American Conservative.

Be seeing you

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

Too Much Centralization Is Turning Everything Into A Political Crisis | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2020

Fortunately, nobody has to know exactly what the new political structure will look like, and – arguably the best part of decentralization – it does not have to look the same everywhere.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/too-much-centralization-turning-everything-political-crisis

 

Authored by Porter Burkett via The Mises Institute,

Is American politics reaching a breaking point?

recent study by researchers from Brown and Stanford Universities certainly paints a grim picture of the state of the national discourse. The study attempts to measure “affective polarization,” defined as the extent to which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than their own, in nine developed countries, including the United States.

 

The study authors concluded that affective polarization has risen much faster and more drastically in the United States than in any of the other countries they studied (figure 1). They then speculated on possible explanations of increasing polarization, suggesting that changing party composition, increasing racial division, and 24-hour partisan cable news are convincing possible causes. Notably, the research was completed before the coronavirus pandemic or the police killing of George Floyd, two events that have only deepened political division.

While the study is interesting and well written, the authors completely fail to consider a more fundamental potential explanation of increasing polarization, one that is likely to be understood well by libertarians and federalists, who have long railed against the trend toward ever more usurpation of local and state sovereignty in American politics.

I propose that the real culprit behind worsening polarization is the gargantuan federal government that has turned the entire country into an unceasing political battleground. When virtually all political issues are settled at the national level, the whole nation becomes a source of potential political opponents. Centralization changes the scale and with it the locus of political debate and conflict. For the average political participant, it is probably true that people with differing ideas live near you, in your city or state, but the mathematical reality is that the vast majority of your political opponents live relatively far away (spread throughout the rest of the country) and thus have no material connection to your life or your community.

Political opposition becomes just numbers on a cable news screen: 49 percent for this, 51 percent for that. Sixty-two million votes for one candidate, 65 million for another. These numbers, without names or faces, become simple objects; some are pawns to be moved around, while others are obstacles to be pushed aside. This is not just speculation: previous research has indicated that partisanship is correlated with the use of tactics to dehumanize political opponents. Centralized political decision-making amounts to a systematic dehumanization of anyone who might participate in the political process.

The effects of such a disastrous form of organization are already evident. Political polarization is not confined to academic papers, but has now manifested in the streets of Kenosha and Portland. As the 2020 election approaches, politically charged killings between members of rival factions will only become more likely. What was formerly a central promise of democratic politics—the peaceful transfer of power—has been abandoned in favor of direct action and blood.

 

If centralization is the cause of our problems, then decentralization is the cure. Pushing decision-making power down to state and local levels as much as possible, closer to the people actually affected by the decisions, is the only way forward. Of course, it will not solve all the problems of political culture today. Policy debates and disagreements could still be just as intense at the local level as at the federal. But it is harder to dehumanize someone who might be a part of your community. Those numbers on the screen are on your local news now, not the national news. Those percentages and vote tallies might include your neighbor down the street, your Uber driver, the person ahead of you in line at the grocery store, or the old man you saw out walking his dog this morning. Technically, this has always been true, and we would do well to remember the humanity of the people we disagree with even while political focus is at the national level. This fact is simply harder to ignore when the primary nexus for political decisions is more immediate and local.

Admittedly, I do not know exactly how decentralization can happen. There is no magic blueprint. Maybe the worst pessimists are right, and we are doomed to fight some sort of second civil war before we remember that those with whom we disagree are people too. I think the future is brighter than that. Perhaps, as Mises Institute president Jeff Deist has pointed out, de facto decentralization has already begun. Fortunately, nobody has to know exactly what the new political structure will look like, and – arguably the best part of decentralization – it does not have to look the same everywhere. Both major parties, and people of all ideological persuasions, will probably have to give up some preferred victory or vanquishing of the “other side.” Many Democrats would love to prevent all abortion laws in the state of Georgia for the rest of time. Some Republicans would love to lock down California’s southern border with an airtight seal.

A new era of decentralization means that neither of these things can be accomplished by federal imposition, and their proponents are not going to be happy about that. The task ahead is to demonstrate that whatever the sacrifices required to achieve more localized decision-making might be, centralization is too dangerous to continue.

Be seeing you

 

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

The Foreign Policy We Need | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on August 7, 2020

Trump has shown that conservatives aren’t necessarily eager to go to war, even if they remain entirely too trusting of Republican presidents who want to take them there—including the current occupant of the Oval Office under the wrong set of circumstances. That is a good first step, but it is far from sufficient. Conservative restrainers must stop being passive observers in a foreign policy debate Trump and their libertarian allies have already joined. It’s well past time for a conservative foreign policy of peace. 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/time-for-all-conservatives-to-make-peace-with-the-antiwar-mission/

Restrainers on the right must stop being passive observers in a debate Trump and their libertarian allies have already joined.

Sen. Rand Paul (Gage Skidmore), President Trump (U.S. Coast Guard) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (Gage Skidmore)

Four years after the once unthinkable election of a Republican president who called the Iraq war a “mistake,” America still needs a genuinely conservative foreign policy of realism and restraint.

Hegemonists and hyper-interventionists are being challenged for the first time in two decades, perhaps as never before in the post-Cold War era. The folly of their never-ending, no-win wars is evident to voters, prime-time cable news hosts, diplomats, academics, even the veterans and active-duty soldiers who have fought in them. A new generation of conservative thought leaders is coming of age that turns the thinking that prevailed under George W. Bush on its head, yet the Right is still underrepresented in the fight against the hawkish dead consensus and the GOP’s governing class lags well behind.

There is a progressive critique of U.S. foreign policy that is gaining adherents, even if the Democratic Party nominated a conventional liberal hawk to challenge Donald Trump for president of the United States. Joe Biden represents the death rattle of the fading New Democrat politics of the 1990s, with its ever-present fear of being seen as less ready to go to war than the Republicans, a cry of electoral desperation and a reluctance to go into a competitive general election with an overtly socialist standard-bearer. Biden is himself responsive to trends within his party, including on matters of war and peace, even if he is too likely to appoint to critical national security positions the same set of officials who ruined Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Bernie Sanders’s team of relative realists is more likely to be the party’s future.

But there are millions of Americans for whom the progressivism of 2020 does not even claim to speak. Tulsi Gabbard’s fate—she won some delegates in American Samoa, and was kept off the debate stage as voting drew closer—shows that the modern Democratic Party prioritizes wokeness over war. Left-Right “transpartisan” coalitions can accomplish important things together, as the congressional resolution demanding an end to the war in Yemen shows. They have also become inherently unstable under Trump, who is an asset to making antiwar arguments to conservatives but anathema to liberals.

There has also been considerable resistance to the neoconservative hegemony that dominates Republican foreign policy thinking, making it possible once again to vote in good conscience for a GOP presidential candidate without the reservation that the installation of a center-right commander-in-chief will inevitably lead to a repeat of the Iraq war or worse. But much of this pushback, welcome as it is, comes from libertarians. The American political coalition that is more skeptical of statism, and has been since at least Ronald Reagan if not Barry Goldwater, needs to be reminded that war is as likely to end in failure or produce unintended consequences as any other government program. Too often, Republicans treat the Pentagon as an honorary member of the private sector and exempt its endeavors from the scrutiny they would apply to bureaucrats of any other stripe. But federal employees actually do a better job of delivering the mail than delivering democracy to the Middle East.

Libertarians have done yeoman’s work in turning the neocon foreign policy monologue of the 2000s into a real dialogue. Especially invaluable has been the contributions of two families, the Pauls and the Koch brothers. When the history of early 21st century conservatism is written, their names will be at least as important as the Kristols and Podhoretzs. But at the present time, libertarianism does not appear to be a governing philosophy that can win a national election and therefore seriously contest for control of U.S. foreign policy. The younger generation of conservatives who reject interventionism run amok should not be forced to choose between prudence in immigraton policy or foreign affairs, an endless repetition of a Reagan economic program better suited to the 1980s than 2021, or going abroad in search of monsters to destroy in pursuit of imaginary WMD and equally fictitious democratist fantasies, based on ideas that were terrible then and now, this time covered in a veneer of focus-grouped populism.

Yet the new national conservatism has produced exactly one reliable populist Republican politician who has shown a willingness to vote according to Trump’s foreign policy campaign promises when the going gets tough: Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida. The foreign policy of Sen. Josh Hawley remains a work in progress, though a potentially promising one; Sens. Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio remain as hawkish as ever, however Trumpian they have become on other issues. Rep. Walter Jones, who arrived at antiwar conservatism from a non-libertarian starting point, is dead. Rep. Jimmy Duncan is retired. This is a smaller group than the handful of libertarian Republicans standing athwart the neocon war machine yelling stop.

♦♦♦

Trump himself bears a great deal of responsibility for this unmet challenge. He has largely delivered the foreign policy of second-term George W. Bush, an improvement only over the first-term variety, though he seems a great deal less pleased about it. He has cycled through defense secretaries and national security advisors, but the endless wars have not yet come to an end. The most important former Trump official and ally who has moved in the right direction on foreign policy is Jeff Sessions; the president is actively campaigning against his return to the Senate. He has not started any new wars, but he has risked escalating some old ones—and, most dangerously, fanned the flames of tension with Iran.

That doesn’t mean Trump’s better instincts on foreign policy have been meaningless. Without them, the Qasem Soleimani killing earlier this year could have easily metastasized into a full-fledged Iraq-style war with Iran. He would not have sacked John Bolton, whom he should never have hired in the first place. He has kept the debate over the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Syria from fading into the background as falling bombs become ambient noise. He has eroded ISIS’s gains without massive new deployments to the Middle East and has stopped short of fighting every side of the Syrian civil war. Trump has also laid bare many of the leftist assumptions that undergird contemporary neoconservatism and sent prominent neocons, whose muggings by reality had apparently worn off, back to their ancestral homes in the Democratic Party.

What Trump hasn’t done is implement a new foreign policy that differs sufficiently from that which gave us the tragedies of Iraq and Libya or create a new talent pool of qualified federal officials who could help a future Republican president do so. With the possible exception of Gaetz, he has not even put the Republicans most aligned with his preferred foreign policy in the best position to succeed him. What does it profit us to move some troops around in northern Syria only to wind up at war in Iran, or to lose Jennifer Rubin as an intermittently conservative blogger at the Washington Post only to gain a President Nikki Haley?

Trump’s biggest positive contribution, like that of TAC founding editor Pat Buchanan before him, is to demonstrate that there is a real constituency for a different policy within the Republican electorate. To be sure, some of it had to do with their credibility with grassroots conservatives and GOP-aligned demographics. It was difficult to caricature Trump or Buchanan, like Jim Webb across the aisle, as uninterested in American national security or interests. They were not, hysteria about Russia or Iraq notwithstanding, “unpatriotic conservatives” in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans. They were seen as unimpeachably pro-American.

As antiwar conservative Fox News host Tucker Carlson explained it in another context, the American people do care if the president keeps them safe. “You can regularly say embarrassing things on television,” he said. “You can hire Omarosa to work at the White House. All of that will be forgiven if you protect your people. But if you don’t protect them—or, worse, if you seem like you can’t be bothered to protect them—then you’re done. It’s over. People will not forgive weakness.” Trump in 2016, like Buchanan in 1996, passed that test in Republicans’ eyes in a way that a liberal George McGovern and most libertarians never could. Ergo Trump sits in the Oval Office while McGovern lost 49 states and the Libertarian Party has never won more than 3.3 percent of the national popular vote.

But it wasn’t just the messenger. The message was a fundamentally conservative one, even if not the stereotypical saber-rattling Republican argumentation. The United States is a great country, but not an embryonic United Nations.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Greatest Political Strategist in History – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

With this laborious introduction out of the way, let’s begin.  The political strategist of whom I am speaking is Antonio Gramsci.  Malachi Martin summarizes the importance of Gramsci, in his book The Keys of this Blood:

…the political formula Gramsci devised has done much more than classical Leninism – and certainly more than Stalinism – to spread Marxism throughout the capitalist West.

What is that formula?  Gary North explains: Noting that Western society was deeply religious, Gramsci believed that…

…the only way to achieve a proletarian revolution would be to break the faith of the masses of Western voters in Christianity and the moral system derived from Christianity.

Religion and culture were at the base of the pyramid, the foundation.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/daniel-ajamian/the-greatest-political-strategist-in-history/

By

The year 2020 is not passing quietly.  We are witnessing events unthinkable even a few months ago: keep your anti-social distance, wear a mask when entering a bank, follow the arrows on the floor of the supermarket, all sporting events cancelled, homeschooling – even for university students – is approved by all corners of government and society.  Most relevant to this discussion: pot shops, liquor stores, and abortion clinics are essential, churches during Holy Week are not.

Add to this the protests – more specifically the riots.  Police told by government officials to stand down.  Those who intend to defend their lives and their property are the ones judged – by the media, and potentially by government prosecutors and courts.  Oh yes: protesting and rioting wards off viruses – no need for masks.

What, of all of this, is directly relevant to you?  Why did I feel it appropriate to change the topic of this lecture in the last days?  We are living through massive cultural changes.  While culture always evolves, in the last several decades the changes have been revolutionary – and I use that term purposefully.  These changes are aimed right at you and those who sat in your place over the last decades.  The purpose is to create soldiers for the revolution.

What I hear of college, and it also is true in business and government, are stories of various cultural indoctrinations – made ever-more intense given the pretext for these recent riots.  Politically correct speech to include even compelled speech, cancel culture, self-flagellation, a fight for the gold medal in the oppression olympics.  If you disagree with any of this, you are a fascist.  To further cement this indoctrination, a requirement to take classes that tear down Western Civilization – even saying those two words in anything other than a scornful tone could be costly.

There is a purpose behind this, a strategy.  Events that we have been living through recently are not spontaneous or random.  This is not accidental.  These events are the result of a political strategy designed to strip us of our liberty.  It is an insidious strategy.  It is also very effective.

Whether knowingly or not, those carrying out this strategy are using the playbook of the most successful Marxist thinker in history.  Given the damage this strategy has done to the freedoms of the West, I consider him to be the greatest political strategist in history.

And this is what I would like to discuss.  Before beginning, I must give you fair warning on two points: First, much of this Marxist playbook sounds an awful lot like the wishes of simplistic libertarians – libertarianism for children, as a good friend once labeled this.  I will come back to this point more than once.

Second, there will be a lot of discussion of western tradition and culture in this lecture.  Inherently this will include Christianity.  But if you want to understand the enemy’s playbook, then this cannot be avoided.

Now, I know many libertarians push back hard on this topic: Christianity is unnecessary for liberty, in fact it is an enemy to liberty.  I will only ask that you keep in mind: the most successful Marxist thinker in history believed that Christianity is the enemy of communism; it’s what stood in the way of communism’s advance in the West.  For now, I ask that you stay open to the possibility that he was right – because, when I look around me today, he sure appears to have been right.

With this laborious introduction out of the way, let’s begin.  The political strategist of whom I am speaking is Antonio Gramsci.  Malachi Martin summarizes the importance of Gramsci, in his book The Keys of this Blood:

…the political formula Gramsci devised has done much more than classical Leninism – and certainly more than Stalinism – to spread Marxism throughout the capitalist West.

What is that formula?  Gary North explains: Noting that Western society was deeply religious, Gramsci believed that…

…the only way to achieve a proletarian revolution would be to break the faith of the masses of Western voters in Christianity and the moral system derived from Christianity.

Religion and culture were at the base of the pyramid, the foundation.  It was the culture, and not the economic condition of the working class, that was the key to bringing communism to the West.  To be fair to Gramsci, he didn’t start this ball rolling; the West was doing a fine job of damaging its cultural tradition.

One can point to elements of medieval Catholicism, the Reformation and Renaissance, the Enlightenment (as I have previously discussed), and postmillennial pietist Protestants (as Murray Rothbard so clearly demonstrated), as all contributing to this destruction long before Gramsci hit the scene.  But without these cracks in the armor, Gramsci would never have been successful.

What is our current condition relative to Gramsci’s objectives?  I could speak to the destruction of the family, the loss of all meaningful intermediating governance institutions, the absurdity of a good portion of what passes for university studies today, especially in liberal arts and humanities – all of which are symptoms of the crumbling of the ultimate target at which Gramsci aimed.  We have, this year, been given indisputable evidence as to the success of his political strategy, in the response by Christian leaders to the coronavirus.  Just as one example, from Kentucky:

When I asked [Bishop John Stowe of the Catholic Diocese of Lexington] what he would say to a pastor planning Easter worship, he was blunt: “I would say it’s irresponsible,” he said. “It’s jeopardizing people’s lives.”

I know we live in a fact-free world, but was it ever wise to believe that we were facing the Black Death?  In pre-modern plagues, did Christian leaders act this way?  The simple answer to both questions is no, yet we have churches closed during Holy Week.  I cannot think of a better symbolic representation of the destruction of Christianity in the West.  Such is the success of Antonio Gramsci.

Who is Antonio Gramsci?  He was an Italian Marxist (more accurately, an Italian communist), writing on political theory, sociology and linguistics.  His work focused on the role that culture and tradition plays in preventing communism from spreading through the West.

Gramsci was born in 1891 and died in 1937, the middle of seven children.  Hunchbacked, either due to a malformed spine from birth or a childhood accident, it is not clear.  One of the stories has him falling from the arms of a servant down a steep flight of stairs.  Though his family gave him up for dead, his aunt anointed his feet with oil from a lamp dedicated to the Madonna.  Ironic.

Continuously sickly, until the age of fourteen a coffin for him was kept at the ready in his bedroom.  His father was thrown in prison for political cause and his mother, somehow, kept the family alive.

Prior to leaving Sardinia for Turin and university, he was a nationalist – Sardinia for the Sardinians.  Upon arriving in Turin, he came upon the automotive factories of Fiat.  It was here that he found the class struggle: workers and bosses.

World War One made this clear: half a million Italian peasants died, while the profits of industrialists rose.  He left university and began writing.  He founded a newspaper: L’Ordine Nuovo, The New Order, with its first issue delivered on May Day 1919.  He was a founder and leader of the Communist Party of Italy, and a member of Parliament.

With Parliamentary immunity suspended by Mussolini, he was sent to prison.  Several years later, a prisoner exchange was proposed by the Vatican: send Gramsci to Moscow in exchange for a group of priests imprisoned in the Soviet Union.  Mussolini put a stop to these negotiations in early 1933.

It was during his time in prison when he wrote his famous Prison Notebooks, describing the contents as “Everything that Concerns People.”  It comprised over 2,800 handwritten pages.  Twenty-one of the notebooks bear the stamp of prison authorities.  Given the risk of censorship, he used bland terms in place of traditional Marxist terminology.

Though completed by 1935, these were only published in the years 1948 – 1951, and not in English until the 1970s.  By 1957, nearly 400,000 copies had been sold.

Suffering from various heart, respiratory and digestive diseases, he was eventually transferred to a prison hospital facility.  On April 25, 1937 – the same day that he received news that he would be released – he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died two days later.

Through his notebooks, he introduced several ideas in Marxist theory, critical theory, and educational theory.  Most important was the idea of Cultural Hegemony, which was the unifying idea of Gramsci’s work from 1917 until he died.

Cultural Hegemony: Why hadn’t the Marxist Revolution swept the West by the early twentieth century?  Gramsci suggested that capitalists did not maintain control simply coercively – as Marx would describe it – but also ideologically.  The values of the bourgeoisie were the common values of all.  These values helped to maintain the status quo, and limited any possibility of revolution. Read the rest of this entry »

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