MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarians’

The New Deal and the Emergence of the Old Right | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on January 15, 2022

https://mises.org/library/new-deal-and-emergence-old-right

Murray N. Rothbard

[This article is taken from chapter 4 of The Betrayal of the American Right.]

During the 1920s, the emerging individualists and libertarians — the Menckens, the Nocks, the Villards, and their followers — were generally considered Men of the Left; like the Left generally, they bitterly opposed the emergence of Big Government in twentieth-century America, a government allied with Big Business in a network of special privilege, a government dictating the personal drinking habits of the citizenry and repressing civil liberties, a government that had enlisted as a junior partner to British imperialism to push around nations across the globe. The individualists were opposed to this burgeoning of State monopoly, opposed to imperialism and militarism and foreign wars, opposed to the Western-imposed Versailles Treaty and League of Nations, and they were generally allied with socialists and progressives in this opposition.

All this changed, and changed drastically, however, with the advent of the New Deal. For the individualists saw the New Deal quite clearly as merely the logical extension of Hooverism and World War I: as the imposition of a fascistic government upon the economy and society, with a Bigness far worse than Theodore Roosevelt (“Roosevelt I” in Mencken’s label) or Wilson or Hoover had ever been able to achieve. The New Deal, with its burgeoning corporate state, run by Big Business and Big Unions as its junior partner, allied with corporate liberal intellectuals and using welfarist rhetoric, was perceived by these libertarians as fascism come to America. And so their astonishment and bitterness were great when they discovered that their former, and supposedly knowledgeable, allies, the socialists and progressives, instead of joining in with this insight, had rushed to embrace and even deify the New Deal, and to form its vanguard of intellectual apologists. This embrace by the Left was rapidly made unanimous when the Communist Party and its allies joined the parade with the advent of the Popular Front in 1935. And the younger generation of intellectuals, many of whom had been followers of Mencken and Villard, cast aside their individualism to join the “working class” and to take their part as Brain Trusters and planners of the seemingly new Utopia taking shape in America. The spirit of technocratic dictation over the American citizen was best expressed in the famous poem of Rex Tugwell, whose words were to be engraved in horror on all “right-wing” hearts throughout the country:

I have gathered my tools and my charts,

My plans are finished and practical.

I shall roll up my sleeves — make America over.

Only the few laissez-faire liberals saw the direct filiation between Hoover’s cartelist program and the fascistic cartelization imposed by the New Deal’s NRA and AAA, and few realized that the origin of these programs was specifically such Big Business collectivist plans as the famous Swope Plan, spawned by Gerard Swope, head of General Electric in late 1931, and adopted by most big business groups in the following year. It was, in fact, when Hoover refused to go this far, denouncing the plan as “fascism” even though he had himself been tending in that direction for years, that Henry I. Harriman, head of the US Chamber of Commerce, warned Hoover that Big Business would throw its weight to Roosevelt, who had agreed to enact the plan, and indeed was to carry out his agreement. Swope himself, Harriman, and their powerful mentor, the financier Bernard M. Baruch, were indeed heavily involved both in drafting and administering the NRA and AAA.1

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

TGIF: Rigged Political Language | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on November 21, 2021

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-rigged-political-language/

by Sheldon Richman

It’s an old trick: gain advantage over others by hiding one’s meaning behind euphemisms and other forms of linguistic camouflage and misdirection. People do this in all walks of life, but politicians make careers of it. If they engage in straight talk at all, it is by far the exception. The journalist Michael Kinsley defined a gaffe as “when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

Obfuscation is the currency of politics. Little has changed since Oscar Wilde’s time: “Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out.”

Libertarians have emphasized this scam for years. When they say that taxation is theft, they offer an illustration. If you threatened to harm people, say, by imprisonment, unless they surrendered some of their incomes each year, you would be prosecuted for extortion, even if you planned to do good works with the money. Punishment would then follow. Politicians do the same thing, except that taxation is not illegal.

When the government orders people to leave their homes so politicians may put the land to other uses, that is also theft. But it is called by the high-sounding term eminent domain. That euphemism adds to the mystique of the state as it reveals what ought to be a repugnant idea: that the government is the supreme owner of all land in its jurisdiction — even in the United States, whose Constitution implicitly embraces that principle. True, eminent domain is not an enumerated power (so much for the doctrine of the limited power), but it is acknowledged indirectly in the clause about compensation in the subsequently added Fifth Amendment. This shows that the framers thought the power to take private property was inherent in the sovereign.

The so-called “takings clause” is an odd part of the Bill of Rights. It proclaims that people have a right to “just compensation” whenever the government violates their right to property. That the government pays what it calls “just compensation” does not make eminent domain alright. What makes compensation just in a normal transaction is that the buyer and seller freely agree to the amount. Since sellers are coerced under eminent domain, no compensation qualifies as just.

If we set our minds to it, we could all find many more examples of political euphemisms. The Department of Defense was once called the Department of War. The term free election disguises the fact that voters choose among politicians under duress: they will be coerced by government policy whether or not they participate in the election. Climate policy ought to be called pro-poverty policy. Trade policy would better be known as crony-reward policy. Government intelligence and military justice … well, you get the idea.

Scanning the recent headlines, I notice that many places are enacting so-called gun-buyback programs. What a euphemism that is. You would think that the only thing that the government could buy back was something that it had originally sold. That’s what back means in such a phrase. But state and local governments don’t sell guns to citizens, so how can they buy them back?

I concede that the recent programs appear to be voluntary, although the money paid (sometimes in the form of grocery gift cards) is taken by force from the taxpayers. So the politicians aren’t even buying back with their own money. In the past, however, buyback campaigns were mandatory, and some favor compulsion today. For example, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke favorably about Australia’s compulsory program. Beto O’Rourke, who sought the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a compulsory “assault weapons” buyback.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Equality in Slavery

Posted by M. C. on August 10, 2021

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/august/09/equality-in-slavery/

Written by Ron Paul Monday August 9, 2021
undefined

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved last month a National Defense Authorization Act that includes a requirement that women register with Selective Service on their 18th birthday. If the bill becomes law with this provision included and a military draft is reinstated, women will be forced to join the military, and America will have equality in slavery.

Proponents of drafting women argue that since women can now serve in combat it makes sense to make the draft “gender neutral.”

Some conservatives have made moral arguments against drafting women, saying that women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to serve in the military. It is certainly true that it is immoral to force women into military service, but that is because it is wrong to force anyone into military service.

Forcing young people, regardless of their sex, to fight, kill, and even die in war is the worst violation of individual liberty a government can commit. Those who support the military draft implicitly reject the Declaration of Independence. How can someone support forced military service and still claim to believe all individuals are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

While commonly thought of as a “left-wing” position, opposition to the draft has historically united Americans across the political spectrum. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both opposed the draft while running for president. Russell Kirk, the scholar who helped popularize the term “conservative,” opposed conscription.

Some progressives oppose a military draft but support other forms of mandatory national service. These progressives fail to understand that forcing someone to serve the welfare state is just as immoral as forcing someone to serve the warfare state.

Some conservatives join progressives in supporting mandatory national service. These conservatives claim that mandatory national service provides young people a way to “pay back” the debt they owe society. But these are moral obligations owed to families, churches, and communities, not legal obligations owed to, and properly enforceable by, the government.

Libertarians are consistent opponents of all forms of mandatory service. This is because libertarians apply the prohibitions against violence, theft, and fraud to governments as well as private citizens. So, if it is wrong for your neighbors to force your children to mow the neighbors’ lawn, it is wrong for government to force your children to serve in the military or perform any other type of “national service.”

The nonaggression principle is why libertarians oppose taxation, nationalized healthcare and education, and military crusades in the name of “democracy” or “human rights.” It is also why libertarians oppose laws telling people how to raise their children, limiting access to “extremist” websites, telling business owners who can and cannot use what bathrooms on their property, or prohibiting someone from gambling online, smoking marijuana, or drinking raw milk.

Some libertarians urge their liberty movement compatriots to not talk about the nonaggression principle. These “pragmatists” think the focus should be on making the “practical” case for liberty. But those who embrace liberty because it “works” better than statism will make “exceptions” if they think an authoritarian idea like mandatory national service is a more practical way of achieving their political, economic, or social goals. Only those committed to the moral case for liberty can be counted on to defend all liberty at all times.


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you

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

Libertarians pushing the envelope

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2021

There is Hope

In 2019, we shocked Pennsylvania’s political establishment when 47 Libertarians won municipal elections. This increased the total number of Libertarians across the Commonwealth who hold public office to 70. Pennsylvania now leads the entire nation in elected Libertarians. We even won a Libertarian majority on two borough councils!

https://lppa.org/civicrm/mailing/view/?reset=1&id=9e852d60ef59ebd7

The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania is doing something unprecedented.  

In 2019, we shocked Pennsylvania’s political establishment when 47 Libertarians won municipal elections.  This increased the total number of Libertarians across the Commonwealth who hold public office to 70.  Pennsylvania now leads the entire nation in elected Libertarians.  We even won a Libertarian majority on two borough councils!

This year, we intend to double that effort.  We want to elect 100 more Libertarians to office in Pennsylvania in 2021.  No minor party has ever done this before.

We will need your help to accomplish this.  To get those 100 Libertarians elected this year, we must raise $15,000.  We keep overhead low, but politics is expensive, and this is the bare minimum we would need to cover the costs of recruiting and ballot access.  

Would you like to help us make history?  If so, please donate here: lppa.org/moulton-maneuver

Donations both large and small are appreciated.  We understand that budgets vary, and we’re grateful for anything you can contribute to this effort.

This is time-sensitive.  The state’s petitioning and ballot access deadline is August 2, so please contribute today!

Let’s get Libertarians elected to public office, and let’s set the world free in our lifetimes.

In Liberty,

Kevin Gaughen
Executive Director
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania

The Libertarian Party is committed to America’s heritage of freedom: individual liberty and personal responsibility, a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity, a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace and free trade.

This mailing was sent by: Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
3915 UNION DEPOSIT RD # 223
HARRISBURG, PA 17109-5922
United States info@lppa.org

Be seeing you

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

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 »