MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘New World Order’

George Soros Urged Use Of Eastern European Soldiers To “Reduce The Risk Of Body-Bags For NATO Countries” In ‘New World Order’ Article | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on January 24, 2023

Japan should be asked to join NATO. Then we would have the beginnings of an architecture for a new world order. It is based on the United States as the remaining superpower and on open society as the organizing principle. It consists of a series of alliances, the most important of which is NATO and, through NATO, the Partnership for Peace which girds the Northern Hemisphere,” he writes.

Soros acknowledges that the NATO countries have no appetite for “body bags,” but his statement implicitly indicates that Eastern Europeans can fill this role.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/george-soros-urged-use-eastern-european-soldiers-reduce-risk-body-bags-nato-countries

Tyler Durden's Photo

BY TYLER DURDEN

Authored by John Cody via Remix News,

As the war in Ukraine rages on, there is little doubt that the human cost has been enormous for Ukraine, including what is likely more than 100,000 soldiers who have died in combat operations.

However, there was one man who predicted much of what has come to pass in the battle in the east of Europe: George Soros.

The billionaire oligarch financier, often portrayed as a humanist, promoted a hard-nosed geopolitical strategy in his 1993 piece entitled “Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO.”

In the piece, he outlines how Eastern Europeans could be used as the “manpower” in coming conflicts in an effort to reduce the number of deaths in Western countries, which Soros argues the West would not politically tolerate, unlike the east of Europe.

“The United States would not be called upon to act as the policeman of the world. When it acts, it would act in conjunction with others. Incidentally, the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act. This is a viable alternative to the looming world disorder,” wrote Soros in the article.

Soros acknowledges that the NATO countries have no appetite for “body bags,” but his statement implicitly indicates that Eastern Europeans can fill this role.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The US-Led World Order Is Faltering… Here’s Why It’s Bad News for Europe

Posted by M. C. on September 14, 2022

by Chris MacIntosh

The effect on the West of U.S. sanctions and military operations against Russia has been to lock Europe into a political and economic Iron Curtain of dependency on the United States, while driving Russia to form closer ties with the US enemies, namely China and Iran.

It is so myopically and comically stupid that only bureaucrats in their ivory towers suffering massive hubris, at the tail end of the Empires days could think such a strategy had any merit whatsoever.

The sanctions against Russia have accelerated the fragmentation of systems while backfiring spectacularly. Consider that India is now buying Russian oil, then exporting it to Europe – at a premium. China is buying Russian crude, refining it in China, and selling it to Europe – at a premium. And the head-choppers (Saudi’s) are buying Russian oil, swapping it out for their own and selling theirs to Europe – at a premium.

Europe is the loser in all situations. They still get Russian energy, they just pay far more for it, eroding their own manufacturing competitiveness, while sending Europeans’ capital to Riyadh, Beijing, Delhi and Moscow for the privilege. Swaps on oil within OPEC are already taking place and will continue.

The effect on the West of U.S. sanctions and military operations against Russia has been to lock Europe into a political and economic Iron Curtain of dependency on the United States, while driving Russia to form closer ties with the US enemies, namely China and Iran.

It is so myopically and comically stupid that only bureaucrats in their ivory towers suffering massive hubris, at the tail end of the Empires days could think such a strategy had any merit whatsoever.

So not only do these sanctions destroy Europe economically, while pushing US enemies closer together but they will inevitably cause Europeans to hate the US…

Take. Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, who accurately said that Brussels has “shot itself in the lungs” with its sanctions.

But for Europe, it is obvious that it is too late. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

What’s Really Up with Ukraine? Deep State Seeking New World Order

Posted by M. C. on March 10, 2022

The Biden Regime is negotiating with Iran and Venezuela to buy oil. They will literally do anything to avoid restarting the Keystone pipeline and anything to prevent US energy independence, even in the face of this immense crisis that they’ve created.

The New American magazine’s Alex Newman has an answer to that question: “The Russians are deeply in bed with these clowns at the World Economic Forum. Putin’s central bank chief is on the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees. Vladimir Putin is good friends with Henry Kissinger, the ultimate New World Order Deep State toady here, in the United States; the Rockefeller poodle who made his living serving as a shill for the New World Order.

For all of the vilification outwardly being heaped upon Putin by the establishment, the sanctions being placed on Russia by this same establishment will do a lot more to hurt the West than they will to hurt Russia.

The Biden Regime is negotiating with Iran and Venezuela to buy oil. They will literally do anything to avoid restarting the Keystone pipeline and anything to prevent US energy independence, even in the face of this immense crisis that they’ve created.

On Monday, we saw Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg tell people who can’t afford $4 gas that they should buy $60k Electric Vehicles. It should be clear by now to even the dumbest people that, together with the promotion of this war, the Climate Change agenda being promoted by the Globalists is about collapsing the West, ending the Petrodollar and ending the US dollar as a reserve currency. Everything we see from the propped-up corpse of a Biden Presidency is about the Globalists’ controlled demolition of American sovereignty, power and prestige.

The World Economic Forum is now suddenly mass-deleting their cyber attack “plans” from their websites, which they admit will kill millions of people and they’ve also deleted their profiles of Vladimir Putin, who was one of the earliest graduates of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program.

This has some wondering whether the former KGB agent was spying on the Globalist organization to protect Russia’s interests or if he was being trained for his role as a major player in the New World Order agenda?

The New American magazine’s Alex Newman has an answer to that question: “The Russians are deeply in bed with these clowns at the World Economic Forum. Putin’s central bank chief is on the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees. Vladimir Putin is good friends with Henry Kissinger, the ultimate New World Order Deep State toady here, in the United States; the Rockefeller poodle who made his living serving as a shill for the New World Order.

“So what comes next? They’re going to bring in a central bank digital currency. The Ukrainians are working on this big time. We’re seeing massive things taking place, This is all by design and it’s all engineered…

“You’ve got Zelenskyy demanding that the EU immediately grant membership to Ukraine…Zelenskyy has also called on the United Nations ‘court’ – the kangaroo court – to step in and stop the Russian invasion…

“We see the Finnish government talking about how they’re going to join NATO. We see the Swedish government talking about ‘maybe we’re going to join NATO,’ as a result of this invasion from Putin.

“And so, what they’re doing, Folks is they’re demolishing sovereign nation-states, they’re amalgamating them all into these freakish regional orders, exactly like Henry Kissinger explained in his book, ‘World Order’.

“He said the key to achieving world order is getting these countries involved in these regional orders and then merging all those regional orders together.

“Folks, that’s exactly what Putin has been trying to do for many, many years and we’ve been exposing it all here, on the New American.

“He’s building a Eurasian Union with the former Soviet States and he has said publicly that this future Eurasian Union should be fused with the European Union to have a free trade area, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, Folks.

“We are being played. Don’t line up behind Putin. Don’t line up behind this kleptocratic Far-Left radical extremist government in Ukraine, none of them are your friends. Don’t line up behind the European Union, Folks. You don’t have to choose one or the other. That’s what the Deep State does. They give you two false choices, they let us all line up behind one and we can argue with each other and no matter which one wins, they win.”

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce

Contact

Be seeing you

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

The New World Order, Courtesy of Rube Goldberg

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2021

Henry Kissinger, now 97, has spent his life believing that a New World Order is best achieved through diplomacy – positioning each of the world’s countries for maximum usefulness and cooperation. Close friend George Soros, now 90, believes that dominance is best achieved through chaos and destruction. Klaus Schwab, 83, has spent the last half-century pursuing the concept that the proles must be taught to give up their possessions in favour of the rulers’ largesse. Baron Rothschild, now 85, continues to follow his family’s long-held belief that the solution for dominance lies in the control of all the currency in the world – both its creation and its distribution.

https://internationalman.com/articles/the-new-world-order-courtesy-of-rube-goldberg/

by Jeff Thomas

New World Order

In the 1930s, cartoonist Rube Goldberg became famous for designing machines that sought to fulfill a task, but did so in such a complex way as to be utterly ridiculous and, very possibly, unworkable.

Governments, of course, are Rube Goldbergs on steroids. They have a penchant for making any task absurdly complicated, expensive and, ultimately, dysfunctional.

Whilst this is the norm in any era, we’re presently living through a period that’s becoming overwhelmingly confusing worldwide. The governments of the First World countries are pushing a whole series of mismatched agendas all at the same time. They seek to present a uniform objective, but even they cannot manage much consistency of purpose. Although all of the First World countries (US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) are fully on board, there’s no real match-up in their game plan, or even their statements as to what the end goals are meant to be.

There are several main themes: the purported evil of the Second World leaders and the need for First World aggression toward them, even though no one on the other side seems to want to engage. The reinvention of society in which basic truths are turned on their heads and replaced with new, often ridiculous “truths” that no one seems to fully understand, even when they’re rabidly promoting them.

And, of course, the COVID scare. COVID-19 was identified early on by a few observers as a lab-created variation on the seasonal flu that was consciously released in several countries at the same time as it was released in its “source” country. It was then hyped to be a killer disease that would create a pandemic.

The virus itself is a threat to the cardiovascular system. The powers behind the scare insisted that the only acceptable treatment was a selection of mRNA vaccines.

The rollout of this effort has been bungled so badly that even its leading salesmen have found it necessary to continually change their stories as to the effectiveness and necessity of lockdowns, distancing, masking and the cancelling of freedoms.

But one constant has remained: No previous flu treatment was of any use and should absolutely not be considered, no matter how effective it had been for decades. Only a vaccine and, indeed, only an mRNA vaccine would do – the patents for which seemed to be held by the salesmen who were leading the vaccine charge in the media.

So, what’s really going on here? We’re looking at a host of patently absurd notions, each obsessively presented as being beyond question and told that, if we fail to accept all of them 100%, we’re a danger to society and need to be punished. We’re looking at what occurred in Germany in 1938, following the Nazis’ Kristallnacht… but on steroids.

For those of us who have been paying attention over the last decades, it’s been quite clear that the New World Order – an extension of the concepts of Mayer Rothschild in the eighteenth century and revitalized by the Rockefeller family a hundred years ago – has been in the works since that time and has recently approached fruition. Most of the pieces of the puzzle are in place and the primary goals appear to be on the horizon.

First, a collectivist form of rule is nearly complete. Collectivism consists of a gumbo of ingredients – socialism, communism, fascism and capitalism – with whatever recipe works for the particular population it is foisted upon. The actual recipe can be changed to fit whatever the tastes of the given country may be.

To soften up the people, ideals and beliefs must be done away with. Karl Marx was quite correct when he postulated that the removal of core beliefs was essential; that perceptions of truth be replaced with non-sensical “truths” and that the only faith be faith in the rulers.

Next, the constant threat of aggression from others is necessary. If no armed conflict exists, conflicts need to be invented. The people must live in fear of a perceived enemy.

The end product is a return to serfdom. The modern serf would have a flat screen TV and a smart phone, but his wealth would be lost to such a degree that he’d be unable to take charge of his own life. He must rely on his government to provide him with his needs on as short-term a basis as can be made workable. This makes him compliant.

Okay, so the New World Order concept has ben kicking around for a long time. It’s been the great pride of David Rockefeller, its senior proponent for the greater part of his life.

But why all the craziness? Why now? Why has this behemoth of disjointed concepts suddenly come together and why the rush to make it all happen at the same time? Why not phase it in, possibly over a decade or two?

Well, there’s a problem. The very concept of a New World Order, in which a very small number of people lord over millions of proles is, at its heart, a sociopathic one. A part of the pathology of sociopaths is to see the world see the world as a playland that exists for them alone. As they see it, if they die, the world has no further reason to exist.

But the principal movers of the New World Order are now getting very long in the tooth. They’ve spent their lives pursuing their individual versions of a New World Order, whilst putting up with the versions that their fellow conspirators envision.

Henry Kissinger, now 97, has spent his life believing that a New World Order is best achieved through diplomacy – positioning each of the world’s countries for maximum usefulness and cooperation. Close friend George Soros, now 90, believes that dominance is best achieved through chaos and destruction. Klaus Schwab, 83, has spent the last half-century pursuing the concept that the proles must be taught to give up their possessions in favour of the rulers’ largesse. Baron Rothschild, now 85, continues to follow his family’s long-held belief that the solution for dominance lies in the control of all the currency in the world – both its creation and its distribution.

What we’re looking at is a cabal of the most politically and economically powerful people and business entities in the world, with an overall agenda, but each with their own individual mini-agendas, each fighting to lead the charge. Predictably, this once-cohesive-sounding concept is beginning to resemble a Rube Goldberg creation.

Such a condition cannot last. However, whilst it’s in play, it will be a cock-up of mythical proportions and will assure that the next few years will be as devastating as they’ll be confusing. By the end of the decade it’s likely to be over, and the world will be forever changed. The trick will be to sidestep events as much as possible and make it to the other side. That will be no easy task.

Economically, politically, and socially, the United States seems to be headed down a path that’s not only inconsistent with the founding principles of the country, but accelerating quickly toward boundless decay.

In the years ahead, there will likely be much less stability of any kind.

That’s precisely why, Doug Casey and his team just released this new video with all on details on how to can play your cards—both for prudence and profit. Click here to watch it now.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Power Elite Analysis: The Rockefeller World Empire – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 2, 2021

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/08/charles-burris/power-elite-analysis-the-rockefeller-world-empire/

By Charles Burris

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hNFwz7OW6mo
https://www.corbettreport.com/?powerpress_embed=8200-podcast&powerpress_player=mediaelement-video
https://odysee.com/$/embed/how-big-oil-conquered-the-world/06095dc87bbe492ae15c8e3d92bdc03fd17663ab?r=5dLh3P41ND2YErqLnrLQANUNrCiYniij
https://odysee.com/$/embed/why-big-oil-conquered-the-world/a3e1264f7b8fbcf4894685631b36ae02f1faed3d?r=5dLh3P41ND2YErqLnrLQANUNrCiYniij

Today the names of Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg are the powerful globalist billionaire oligarchs which come to mind when using power elite analysis to study global governance and technocratic tyranny of the planet’s people and resources

But for decades the sly old weasel David Rockefeller presided over what economist/historian Murray Rothbard aptly called the Rockefeller World Empire (RWE), survived the demise of his siblings and reigned unopposed until the age of 101. The central focus of Rockefeller’s life was dedicated to the expansion and consolidation of the RWE. This has been his proud legacy and the world’s unconscionable and horrific burden. Under his visionary rubric of the New World Order, a global governance by a predatory plutocracy of oligarchs such as himself has been carefully shaped for decades.

There are those in academia and the elite news media who characterize anyone who raises the impending spectre of a coming “New World Order” as a “conspiracy theorist.” Such “researchers” who attempt to document plans for the implementation of an authoritarian world government with far-reaching political and financial control are simply delusional and suffer from status anxiety, psychological projection, fusion paranoia, conspiracism, or producerism. Since court historian Richard Hofstadter‘s Ur-text in the field, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, was published in 1965 (following the Goldwater presidential campaign debacle), a thriving sub-genre of debunking screeds have appeared in the academic and popular press attacking these alleged “conspiracy theorists.”

This has been exceedingly disingenuous and deceptive. During this same period we saw the emergence at universities coast-to-coast of what has been labeled “World Order Studies.” For over twenty five years I have had a copy of Peace and World Order Studies: A Curriculum Guide, published in 1978. It is 476 pages in length, and is a collection of introductory essays, course outlines or syllabi from university faculty across the nation (along with a bibliography of books and periodicals) for teaching global studies leading to the implementation of a New World Order. It was published by The Institute for World Order, and contains the following acknowledgement:

Very special thanks are due, also, to the Rockefeller Foundation without whose generous support neither this curriculum guide nor its forthcoming companion manual (Global Interdependence and Human Survival: An Introduction to World Order Studies) would have been possible.

Kinda let the old cat outta the bag, didn’t it David?

The Best of Charles Burris Charles A. Burris [send him mail] teaches history in the Murray N. Rothbard Room at Memorial High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Be seeing you

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

What Is America’s Cause in the World? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/06/patrick-j-buchanan/what-is-americas-cause-in-the-world/

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” is a comment attributed to Winston Churchill, when a disappointing dessert was put in front of him.

Writers have used Churchill’s remark to describe a foreign policy that lacks coherence or centrality of purpose.

For most of our lifetimes, this has not been true of the United States. The goal of our foreign policy has been understandable and defined.

From 1949-1989, it was Cold War containment of the Soviet Empire and USSR.

Ronald Reagan believed in a “rollback” of communism, once telling an aide that his policy might be summed up as: “We win. They lose.”

At the Cold War’s end, George H. W. Bush said America would now lead mankind in the creation of “a New World Order.”

George W. Bush was going to deny to all “axis of evil” nations — North Korea, Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — access to the “world’s worst weapons,” with our ultimate goal being “ending tyranny in our world.”

According to the Biden Democrats of today, America’s goal is the preservation of “a rules-based international order,” which is less inspiring than “Remember the Alamo!” or “Remember Pearl Harbor!”

What are the causes that actually animate Americans?

A March survey of 2,000 registered voters, done by the Center for American Progress, reveals that most Republicans still share the foreign policy priorities of Donald J. Trump.

Asked to identify their first three foreign policy priorities from a list of a dozen, two-thirds of Republicans, 65%, gave as their principal concern “Reducing illegal immigration.” And 57% of Republicans put “Protecting jobs for American workers” right behind it. Independents agreed that these should be the top twin goals of U.S. foreign policy.

What does this tell us?

Economic nationalism is alive and well in the GOP, and securing the border remains a central concern of America’s center-right.

In third position, at 31% among Republicans, was “Taking on China’s economic and military aggression.”

Only 9% of Republicans listed “Fighting global poverty and promoting human rights” as top foreign policy priorities. Last among GOP priorities, at 7%, was “Promoting democratic rights and freedoms abroad.”

Indeed, this was the least popular foreign policy option among all voters.

Conclusion:

The priorities of the Bush presidencies and the neocons — democracy crusades, free trade, the New World Order, open borders — have failed to recapture the constituencies they lost in the Trump years.

While “Combating global climate change” rests near the bottom of Republican concerns at 10%, it is the No. 1 priority of Democrats, with 44% listing it first.

When it comes to “Ending US involvement in wars in the Middle East,” that goal ranks 5th among all voters. Democrats, Republicans and independents all support that objective.

Since the last CAP survey in 2019, the greatest change is the reduced concern over “terrorist threats” from al-Qaida and ISIS. Fewer than 1 in 4 voters now view this as a top priority.

As Matthew Petti writes in an analysis of the CAP survey, today, Americans “prioritize getting out of Middle East wars over confronting Middle East adversaries.”

This survey would thus seem to provide public support for the Trump-Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan, and for Biden’s effort to reengage with Iran and renew the 2015 nuclear deal.

Also ranked high among Democrats and independents, but less so among Republicans, is “Improving relationships with allies.”

What does the survey tell us?

Illegal immigration and economic nationalism energize the GOP rank-and-file; climate change does not. There is no enthusiasm in either party for new democracy crusades. And there seems to be no enthusiasm in either party for a clash with Iran, North Korea, Russia or China.

Only 14% of Democrats wish to address China’s “military and economic aggression,” though 31% of Republicans do.

But the overall impression here is one of democratic confusion.

We Americans are all over the lot about what our foreign policy should be and what it should do. One is reminded of an insight from Walter Lippmann about U.S. foreign policy confusion before World War II:

“When a people is divided within itself about the conduct of foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or safeguard successfully its peace. Thus, it course in foreign affairs depends, in Hamilton’s words, not on reflection and choice, but on accident and force.”

Should we energetically promote democracy worldwide, because it is the right and moral thing to do, though the American people clearly do not see this as America’s cause?

Should we intervene to help Ukraine retrieve Crimea?

Should we fight to prevent China from consolidating rocks, reefs and islets of the East and South China Seas?

Is preserving the independence of Taiwan, which we conceded half a century ago is part of China, worth a war with a nuclear-armed China?

What role should U.S. public opinion play in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy?

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

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

Not an Election, a Plebiscite on the Social Order – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 29, 2020

Even if the “something else” were to conquer electoral politics, the last institution on their long march, and regain power in 2021, the result would not be a New World Order, but chaos. There would be no reigning ideology to replace the traditional principles of God, law, nature, and rights.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/10/mark-sunwall/not-an-election-a-plebiscite-on-the-social-order/

By Mark Sunwall

In 2020, there is no excuse not to vote. I completely understand the Anarcho-libertarian view that all politics is corrupt and voting corrupts even the voter. However 2020 is something more than a political choice, it is a plebiscite on the direction which society will be taking henceforth. A plebiscite is a referendum on the fundamental unit which will comprise the body politic. For example, a colony may vote to federate with its motherland, or to strike out as an independent nation. The etymology of the term is interesting, for it indicates a broad electorate is required to legitimately found or abolish a state. While special issues might be decided by a restricted electorate, even the “plebs” (a Roman word for “the deplorables”) should have the right to decide what country they will be obliged to live in.

This would all be clearer if the American people were being offered a referendum worded: “Should the United States surrender its sovereignty to a New World Order.” But of course this would be putting too fine a point on the matter, and one would instantly get called out as a “conspiracy theorist”…as if there were something wrong in theorizing about conspiracies. The reality is more complex than geographical aggregation can describe, but the choice remains stark. It is a choice between two quite distinct principles of social ordering, as embodied in two increasingly polarized constellations of institutions and ideologies. I would like to say that it was a choice between two religions, but here again the complexity and asymmetry of the conflict precludes equivalent terms.

Let us just say this is a conflict between the remnant of all the old traditions and values of humanity and a “something else.” To paraphrase Yeats, this “something else” is “slouching towards Bethlehem” and desperately wants to be born as a new and reigning religion, yet remains thwarted by its own internal contradictions. It thinks it has already conquered its adversaries, that it has completed its long march through all the institutions, and furthermore any resistance to it is treason since for decades it has legitimized itself through a “living constitution.” Now in 2020, as in 2016, a penultimate barrier has been thrown up to its progress by insouciant plebs and their quaint notions of electoral politics.

Even if the “something else” were to conquer electoral politics, the last institution on their long march, and regain power in 2021, the result would not be a New World Order, but chaos. There would be no reigning ideology to replace the traditional principles of God, law, nature, and rights. This is not because they lack ideas. Ideas and ideologists abound, but there is no common denominator. What do technocrats and Marxists, let alone their allied tribal and utopian cults, have in common except a common enemy? Unfortunately for the non-religion of “something else” the common enemy is reason itself, which would make their victory even more bitter than their defeat. In place of of the Socratic dialectic of truth-seeking and common accord, that staple of liberal Western society, they espouse a neo-Hegelian dialectic of force, futurity, and forgetting. Possibly, these titans of tomorrow might feign coherence if their discordant intersectionality could be papered over using a strong unifying label. Yet strictly speaking, “progressive” denotes little more than forward motion in time, a condition which hardly requires consensus. A better fit for the “something else” would be “fascist” which originally conveyed the image of rods bound together with nothing but constricting bonds of force. Unfortunately the devotees of “something else” have already, and quite unjustly, projected that term on to their adversaries.

Against the tantalizing transcendence of the “something else” the best the traditionalists have to offer can be summarized in Dr. Michael Savage’s phrase, “Borders, language, and culture.” I will be the first to admit a degree of dissatisfaction with this slogan. It doesn’t quite “immanetize the eschaton” to my fondest fancy. Taken as first principles, the trinity of borders, language and culture seem overly restrictive and rather lacking in imagination. Yet they are the notes of a concrete social life such as anthropologists have observed over the course of human history. They may not be the final end of life, in this world or beyond, but they are a solid foundation to build on. To the extent that they can be preserved, hopefully we can muddle on to better and brighter things. However if we reject them, we also reject “nature and nature’s God.” The alternative is unlikely to involve finding a new religion, a “something else”…rather it means stepping into the abyss of an unknown futurity.

So please do consider voting, even if you have to bend a few libertarian scruples.

The Best of Mark Sunwall

Mark Sunwall [send him email] studied Austrian economics at George Mason University and now teaches Rhetoric and Social Science at the University of Hyogo. He is an Adjunct Scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Be seeing you

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

Can America Do It All? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 21, 2020

Can we continue to defend South Korea and Japan from Kim Jong Un and his nuclear arsenal, confront and choke the Ayatollah’s regime in Iran and, at the same time, reconstruct George H. W. Bush’s “new world order”?

While doing all this, can we overcome the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and deal with a national divide and racial crisis as bad as any since the 1960s, if not the Civil War?

We’re going to find out.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/10/patrick-j-buchanan/can-america-do-it-all/

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In fiscal year 2020, which ended on Sept. 30, the U.S. government set some impressive new records.

The deficit came in at $3.1 trillion, twice the previous record of $1.4 trillion in 2009, which was set during the Great Recession, and three times the 2019 deficit of about $1 trillion.

Federal spending hit $6.5 trillion, one-third of U.S. gross domestic product, a share unrivaled except for the later years of World War II when federal spending exceeded 40% of GDP.

The U.S. national debt, $14 trillion when Donald Trump took office, now stands at $21 trillion, roughly the same size as U.S. GDP.

In fiscal year 2021, the deficit could be of the same magnitude as 2020.

Why so? First, the economy is not fully recovered from the 2020 depression. Unemployment is still near 8%. Nancy Pelosi has already proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending to battle the effects of the coronavirus pandemic in the first month of this fiscal year. And COVID-19 cases are spiking again.

With the national debt already equal to the GDP, and growing faster now, a question arises: Where does this end?

How many more multitrillion-dollar deficits can we sustain before the quality of U.S. debt is called into question by Japan, China and the other nations that traditionally buy and hold U.S. debt?

How long before the value of the U.S. dollar is questioned?

How long before our creditors start demanding higher interest rates to compensate for the rising risks they are taking in buying the bonds of so profligate a nation?

According to Stein’s Law, named after Herb Stein, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers who enunciated it, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

Or was Herb Stein wrong, and we can borrow and spend forever?

Consider the built-in engines of spending that were causing trillion-dollar deficits even before the coronavirus hit?

With the huge baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, only half retired and still reaching 65 and 66 in the millions every year, the claims on Social Security and Medicare, the two largest programs in the U.S. budget, are certain to grow. So, too, are the claims on Medicaid, health care for the poor, the next largest item in the budget.

With unemployment at 8%, other social programs that date to the Great Society days of over half a century ago — welfare, housing, education, nutrition — and consume a large share of our budget, are unlikely to shrink.

Interest on the debt, as the U.S. national debt rises and becomes riskier, is also likely to be headed one way — straight up.

Which brings us to that other major budget item: national defense.

The Trump era has already produced a significant increase in defense spending, while defense commitments have seen no reduction.

We are obligated to defend some 30 NATO allies from the Atlantic to the Baltic and Black seas. In the Middle and Near East, we have troops stationed in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Afghanistan and Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

With the new strategic “pivot to Asia,” U.S. troops and ships have moved into the Indo-Pacific region to contain China in what is being called Cold War II. Then there are the U.S. treaty commitments to defend Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand dating to the ’50s

Allies are our strength, we are told. They are also our dependents.

This morning came press reports that ISIS, whose caliphate in Syria and Iraq we annihilated, is turning up in Africa. A new front may be opening up in the global war on terror.

The question here is a simple one: Can we continue to do it all?

Our resources are not inexhaustible.

Already, U.S. GDP is receding as a share of global GDP, and the defense budget is receding as a share of U.S. GDP.

We are being obligated to do more and more, at home and abroad, while our share of the world’s wealth is less and less.

Can we continue to maintain strategic parity and contain the ambitions of the other great powers, Russia and China?

Can we continue to defend South Korea and Japan from Kim Jong Un and his nuclear arsenal, confront and choke the Ayatollah’s regime in Iran and, at the same time, reconstruct George H. W. Bush’s “new world order”?

While doing all this, can we overcome the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and deal with a national divide and racial crisis as bad as any since the 1960s, if not the Civil War?

We’re going to find out.

The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

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

My Corner by Boyd Cathey – The Philosophy of Progress is Killing Us

Posted by M. C. on October 7, 2020

The progressivist Left goes much further. Indeed, the same demands for equality, and expanded and newly-discovered “rights,” in the slogans and proposals of Leftists often become props in an overpowering effort, not as much for desired “social justice,” but more for the acquisition of power: a means to an end, the control of society and its structures.

http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,

Over the past few years I have written about what I term a “triumph of lunacy” in our society—most significantly on our college campuses and in our schools, in our entertainment, in the media, but also in our culture generally. The post-Marxist progressivist Left, after the apparent political set-back of the 2016 elections, has redoubled its efforts with a frenzied fanaticism unknown in our history, at least since a few years before the War Between the States.

What distinguishes our revolutionary period from previous upheavals is that today’s revolutionaries have, in effect, created a “counter-reality” in which they base their thought and actions. That reality they have manufactured out of a critical misapprehension of the nature of creation and the nature of mankind. That counter-reality is totally subjective, anchored in fractured internal thinking processes which have been infected and warped from their inception. That counter-reality is the inverse of the two-millennia of Western civilization; it possesses its own language, its own precepts, its own rules of conduct, its own goals and objectives, undeterred by the inexorable laws of nature or the historic teachings of the Christian faith. Indeed, it is the contrary of historic Christianity.

In a very substantial sense the raging post-Marxist Left and its nostrums are grounded in the “idea of progress,” a broad conceptual movement in history that dates back several centuries, at least to the Enlightenment of the 18th century, but which achieved a large degree of intellectual triumph in society in the 19th, most especially with the social theories of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and others. The late conservative philosopher, Robert Nisbet, wrote comprehensively about it in his volume, The History of the Idea of Progress. It posits that history is a process materially leading to the improvement and refinement of our technological and scientific environment, and, philosophically, leading to more “individual freedom” and the abolition of what are considered hindrances to that expanding freedom and what are perceived to be any obstacles to the irreversible expansion of “rights” and “equality”—which become over time almost inexhaustible and unlimited. Nothing can stand against the ideas that proponents of progress propound. If you do, you are a hopeless reactionary, a bigot, old-fashioned, and probably a racist and a misogynist.

Of course, material progress is observable, constant, and measurable, and is to be welcomed generally. Going from oil lamps to electric lights, or from horse-and-buggies to automobiles is seen positively by most everyone. There are, certainly, a few negatives in such progress (e.g., damage to the environment, altered living patterns, etc.), but most of those negatives are outweighed by the positives and the material enhancement of civilization.

The real problem comes when the “idea of progress” is made the benchmark for intellectual thought and how political and social goals are presented and achieved under its banner. For it then becomes, depending on how it is defined, the vehicle for ideologies that use it to shape and push their agendas—whether the liberals of the 19th century, or the Marxists and Communists of the 20th. To be “on the side of progress,” to be part of the irresistible “forces of history,” is to grant to one’s beliefs a kind of inescapable inevitability: you can’t oppose what I am saying and doing, because it’s simply going to happen, and you can’t stop it!

In our society, and in Western society generally, the inevitability and positive nature of intellectual progress is more or less taken for granted. Most conservatives, including those opposed supposedly to the current revolution on our campuses and in our streets, accept it as a given. They may demur and disagree about what the goals should or ought to be, but the essential premise, the template idea, remains fixed and unassailable.

Thus, on Fox News most pundits applaud greater “rights” for minorities, both racial and sexual. They just don’t agree with some of the more vigorous applications coming from the Left. For “establishment conservatives” increasingly same sex marriage must be a full constitutional right—full transgender normalization and acceptance in society is desirable—women must have equal access to every position or role that men have (e.g., no more male-only academies, no more “Boy” Scouts, etc.)—absolute racial equity, even if that means special advantages, must be pursued—and “American democratic values” are in all parts of the globe demanded (even at the point of an M-16 rifle).

The progressivist Left goes much further. Indeed, the same demands for equality, and expanded and newly-discovered “rights,” in the slogans and proposals of Leftists often become props in an overpowering effort, not as much for desired “social justice,” but more for the acquisition of power: a means to an end, the control of society and its structures.

Right after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the first violent riots here in North Carolina, a couple of black college students videotaped a group of exclusively-white “millennials” demonstrating in a frenzy in Raleigh, North Carolina. The black videotapers noticed and commented that all the demonstrators were white, probably the sons and daughters of wealthy white (liberal) parents, and graduates of prestigious universities like Duke or UNC. The irony wasn’t lost on the two blacks, who wondered: “What do those privileged whites know about black issues?” Indeed, what they know is undergirded by and laden with the intellectual progressivism and post-Marxist ideology they’ve learned in classrooms at those very same prestigious universities.

In effect, these protesters demonstrate against “white supremacy” and “institutional racism” in a not-so-hidden effort to expiate their own sin of “whiteness,” inculcated into them by “woke” professors and an ideologized educational system.

But they are also out in the streets attempting to create a “new world order” in which the real objective is power, and that power recurs to global elites. “Systemic racism” may be a target but actually and more significantly, opposition to it is a means of advancing the overall goal of completely restructuring and recasting society—and the destruction of two millennia of civilization and its culture, annealed by the Christian faith—on behalf of those elites.

Until conservatives understand the fundamental dangers in embracing the “idea of progress” philosophically and in praxis—until they learn that beginning with the same premises on “equality” and “rights” as their purported opponents will inevitably conduct them to giving way to those opponents…and to denying implicitly, if not finally explicitly God-given creation and its natural and Divine Positive Laws–until they recognize this, they will remain prisoners of a dialectic that leads them always to eventual surrender to the Left.

The post-War Between the States Southern divine and essayist Robert Lewis Dabney summed up this type of conservatism succinctly and presciently 150 years ago. That quotation is apt and applies to far too many members of today’s “conservative loyal opposition”:

“This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its ‘bark is worse than its bite,’ and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent rôle of resistance.

“The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it ‘in wind,’ and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”  [From Womens’ Rights Women,” Discussions, vol. IV, Secular Discussions.]

Will they learn before it is too late? Or will they—far more likely—give way like previous temporizers in the face of the lunacy? 

Be seeing you

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

Australia Is A Full Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order — Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch

Posted by M. C. on September 15, 2020

Originally posted on ConspiracyAnalyst.org: SHTFplan by Mac Slavo ? Several journalists and content creators have noticed that Australia looks like the most totalitarian police state that has existed in recent history.? It has become a full-scale pilot test for the elitists to see how well they can implement the New World Order. Australians have…

Australia Is A Full Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order — Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »