“Don’t Buy Government Bonds”
As another farcical “debt-ceiling raising” saga unfolds, conducted by the two indistinguishable political parties hell-bent on driving America into economic ruin, it would be instructive to look at how some earlier conservative/libertarian thinkers viewed public debt. Unlike the present generation – with the notable exception of Ron Paul – these intellectuals asked fundamental questions about such matters as debt, taxation, central banking, and foreign policy.
One of the leading lights of what was known as the “Old Right” of the 1950’s, which opposed the Cold-War globalism of the likes of William Buckley and domestically sought to overturn the New Deal, was Frank Chodorov (1887-1966). In his books and essays, Chodorov challenged the pillars which social democracy rested and sought to return America to small government, free trade, and “isolationism.”
In one of his provocative essays, Chodorov pervasively argued that those who purchase public debt are complicit in the enhancement of state power. Unlike many present-day economists who only see the baneful economic effects of profligate government borrowing, he makes a moral case against debt financing.*
He points out that public borrowing burdens future generations for the benefit of the present. Despite reasons often given for the necessity of borrowing – war, natural disaster, infrastructure, etc., – Chodorov contends that the practice of shifting the cost to later generations, whatever the reason, is unjust:
This is exactly what you do when you
cooperate with the State’s borrowing
program. You are loading on your children
and your children’s children an obligation to
pay for something they had no voice in, and
for which they may not care at all. Your
‘investment for posterity’ may earn you
nothing but the curses of posterity.
Chodorov understood, as most commentators do not today, that a gold-backed currency restrained State largesse: “When money was redeemable in gold, the inherent profligacy of government was somewhat retrained; for, if the citizen lost faith in his money, or his bond, he could demand gold in exchange, and since the government did not have enough gold on hand to meet the demand, it had to curtail its spending proclivity accordingly.”
It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s despicable and criminal act of taking the U.S. off the gold standard domestically that led to the expansion of the public debt as Chodorov describes: “. . . Mr. Roosevelt removed this shackle and thus opened the flood gates. The only limit to the inclination of every politician to spend money, in order to acquire power, is the refusal of the public to lend its money to the government. . . . the government can then resort to printing of money, to make money out of nothing. . . .”
Not realized at the time, but the ability of the American government to expand its revenue base fit nicely into FDR’s later nefarious foreign policy objectives.
Chodorov’s viewpoint on public debt can also easily be applied to FDR’s decision to eradicate the gold standard through which the U.S. currency could be redeemed for precious metals. FDR’s act, however, was a “violation of contract” with American citizens since the U.S. government defaulted on its obligations.
In Orwellian fashion, the verbiage used with most government operations is often misused to legitimize State functions. “Investment” is one such term that has been corrupted in relations to spending and debt.
In promoting their spending schemes, politicians will often use the term investment, “investment in education,” “investment in infrastructure,” etc. This is deliberate, since it tries to equate government spending with a vital component of the market process.
In a market economy, investment means the lending of savings, which is used to expand and/or start an enterprise. In return, the lender receives a stock or a bond. If the business is successful, the lender’s investment will receive a return – dividends from a stock or interest from a bond. Business investment is, therefore, a necessary aspect of capitalism which results in economic growth and increased living standards.
As Chodorov incisively points out, however, government investment is the antithesis of what takes place in the marketplace:
The State, however, does not put your money into production. The State spends it – that is all the State is capable of doing – and your savings disappear. The interest you get comes out of the tax fund, to which you contribute your share, and your share is increased by the cost of servicing your bond.
Chodorov’s solution to deficit financing was not to buy government bonds. While this would certainly be a step in the right direction, a more radical approach is needed since the problem has now become so immense.
Simply put: there should be a prohibition on government borrowing of any kind. State revenues should only come through tax receipts and fees paid by those in the present. This would completely eliminate the “moral hazard” of debt financing and drastically reduce the size and scope of government over society.
For those who seek to put an end to the current debt-ceiling charade and rectify the immoral practice of burdening future generations by the irresponsibility of the present, the works of Frank Chodorov are essential.
* “Don’t Buy Government Bonds,” The Mises Institute, 13 January 2011. https://cdn.mises.org/Out%20of%20Step_4.pdf
Can Feudalism Save the Western World?
Late Medieval France
It is both surprising and infuriating that many conservatives, libertarians and those on the Right describe today’s political and financial order as “neo-feudalism.”(1) Surprisingly, because many of these commentators are trained academics(2) who should know better and infuriating, since feudalism and the glorious age which it reigned – the Middle Ages – if rightly understood and not denigrated could provide a paradigm for the reconstruction of the present social order after its inevitable collapse.
Many compare today’s political and economic configurations of vast wealth disparity and totalitarian democratic nation-states whose latest, and probably most egregious, abuse of power has been the lockdowns and compulsory face-mask edicts to combat a supposed deadly virus, with the conditions which existed under feudalism.
This is false.
Feudalism, and for most of the era which it existed, was characterized by political decentralization with little financial concentration of wealth.
Feudalism can be described as an arrangement between lords and monarchs with their underlings – vassals, dukes, earls, princes, counts, marquises, knights – in exchange for services. “Feudal tenure, whatever its minor adaptations,” writes medieval historian Carl Stephenson, “was essentially military because the original vassalage was a military relationship.”(3)
In return for military service, the vassal would receive a “fief” in the form of land, money, goods, or other benefits. “[A] fief,” Stephenson describes, “was the special remuneration paid to a vassal for the rendering of a special service.”
The relationship, unlike what modern commentators would have many believe, was not one-sided. While the vassal swore allegiance to his lord, the latter was obligated to provide his vassal with agreed upon “payment.” If the lord failed to fulfill his obligation, the vassal was free to break the agreement and find another lord.
The vassal, to receive his due from the lord, had to “faithfully give aid and counsel so that in every way the lord may be safeguarded as to person, rights, and belongings,” while the lord “has a reciprocal duty towards his faithful man. If either defaults in what he owes the other, he may justly be accused of perfidy.”(4)
The feudal relationship between lords and vassals had immense consequences – mostly positive – for medieval life. It helped shape the social order which impacted all aspects of society such as law, the political order (such as it was), war-making, and economics. The arrangement between lord and vassal was not really “political” as in the modern sense; it was more of a “contractual relationship” than that of power.
Lords and vassals and, for that matter, monarchs, did not create law or legislation but were subjected to the (natural) law. There was no monopolistic justice system, but a number of courts which were for the adjudication of disputes where cases could be appealed to different courts for redress. The myriad of public legislation regulating every aspect of modern man’s life, where most laws are not even read by legislators until they are enacted was, happily, not a feature of the Middle Ages. Law had to be “discovered” and based on custom and tradition in which all sectors of society had to abide by.
The feudal arrangement between lord, monarchs, and their vassals, where all had to live according to the law resulted, throughout the Western world, in a diffusion of power. Professor Stephenson illustrates how this effected France for centuries:
France, obviously, had ceased to be a
state in any proper sense of the word.
Rather, it had been split into a number
of states whose rulers, no matter how
they styled themselves enjoyed the
substance of the regal power.(5)
The idea and reality of monarchial absolutism, which characterized the early modern era and which nation states would build upon for their own aggrandizement, was not part of the medieval period. In many areas, authority was held by dukes, princes and earls not based on political power, but one of trust, loyalty and contract.
The most vilified institution of the Middle Ages was serfdom. Yet, compared to the present epoch where the working classes are largely indebted, have had their individual liberties curtailed, and now many are dependent on the welfare state for their financial survival, could serfdom be worse? Charles Coulombe contrasts:
The serf, like laborers everywhere and
at all times, had a hard life. He also could
not be forced off the land, worked about
30 days a year for his lord (as opposed to
the average American’s 167 for the IRS),
and could NOT work on Sundays and the
30-odd Holy Days of obligation and certain
other stated times. One may compare that
to any current job description one wants to.(6)
The amount of taxation and its legitimacy in a society is ultimately determined by ideology. And, the ideology of the era frowned on taxation and those that were laid were done so grudgingly. It was the institutional framework of feudalism which limited taxation to the benefit of the social order.
Private property was considered sacrosanct and the violation of it an egregious offense. In the medieval world, taxation was a “sequestration of property” which the monarch only had the right to tax when it had “become traditional.” “The rights to property possessed by every individual member of the community,” according to historian Fritz Kern, “are an absolutely sacred part of the whole absolutely sacred legal order; the criterion of the rights in property of the individual as well as of the State is the good old law.”(7)
While many other passages could be cited, the existence of state power in feudal times is almost the polar opposite of the political situation which exists in the world today. It is inconceivable that the draconian measures taken by governments in response to the phony pandemic, which has ruined countless lives and allowed monetary authorities the world over to assume unseen power and control, could have never taken place during the Middle Ages.
Instead of naming the current age “neo-feudalism” it is far better categorized as “neo-Progressive,” a term which describes the era of American history at the beginning of the 20th century. The Progressive Era, despite the façade of supposed regulation of Big Business, was really the start of American corporativism – a cozy alliance between the State and Big Business to protect the latter, especially the financial sector, from competition. Each successive generation saw this alliance become stronger leading to today’s situation of mega bailouts for the 1% at the expense of the middle class.
The learned detractors of feudalism who mischaracterize it are doing a great disservice to those who are seeking solutions to the myriad of social and economic crises which the Western world faces. The prime lesson that can be gleaned from feudalism is the diffusion of power. Attempts at reform of the current totalitarian democratic social order or the creation of alterative political parties to challenge the entrenched, corrupt, political order will result in failure.
Instead, all activities, movements, and more importantly, intellectual arguments should be directed toward the break-up of the nation state. Brexit, the recent victories of pro-independence parties in the Catalan elections, and the nascent Texas secession movement – TEXIT – should be encouraged and supported.
Happily, the pages of history provide a paradigm of a decentralized social order which thrived for nearly a millennium. Instead of bashing it, feudalism should be embraced and its principles incorporated into modern political discourse.
(1) The latest smearing of feudalism can be seen in Charles Hugh Smith, “The Coming Revolt of the Middle Class,” Zero Hedge, 28 January 2021.
(2) As an example, see Paul Craig Roberts, “Are We Brewing a New Feudalism?” Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy. 16 April 2020.
(3) Carl Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions: Selected Essays, ed. Bryce D. Lyon (Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1954, Cornell Paperbacks, 1967), 217.
(4)Carl Stephenson, Mediaeval Feudalism, 4th ed. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Great Seal Books, 1960), 20.
(5) Stephenson, Mediaeval Feudalism, 78.
(6) Charles Coulombe, “”Monarchist FAQ.” Tumblar House.
(7) Fritz Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages, trans. S.B. Chrimes (New York: Frederick A Praeger Publishers, 1956), 186.
On the 75th Anniversary of V-E Day and the Coronavirus Scamdemic
The iconic Champs-Élysées and its Arc de Triomphe stand eerily empty before V-E Day ceremonies Friday in Paris.
This month (May 8th) marks the 75th anniversary of “V-E Day” when German forces unconditionally surrendered to the “Allies.” Numerous articles, essays, and monographs have appeared commemorating the anniversary and while all are mostly laudatory, some have acknowledged that the outcome had its “drawbacks.”
By any objective rendering, for Western Civilization WWII was an unmitigated catastrophe whose reverberations continue to this day. Forty-three million troops were senselessly killed between American, British and Continental forces while 38 million civilians perished. Europe’s current demographic nightmare had its unfruitful seeds cut down with the depopulation of the Continent’s finest for the maniacal aims of the world’s power elites. Not only the loss of life, but the destruction of property and the cultures upon which they were built have been incalculable. Although the US emerged in the post-war world as the dominant economic and political power (as its mainland remained unscathed from wartime destruction), its participation in the conflict was a titanic geopolitical blunder.
The defeat of Germany and Japan, which would have not come about without US military might, left vast power vacuums in Eastern Europe and the Far East that Soviet Russia and Red China ruthlessly filled. Half of Europe would fall behind the Iron Curtain, subjected to fierce political repression and debilitating socialistic economic planning. In Asia, Communist regimes sprang up with the assistance of China and the Soviet Union which America attempted to counter in Korea and Vietnam at a staggering cost to its domestic economy and social tranquility.
Even after the fall of Soviet Communism, the US’s supposed lethal enemy, America maintained its empire as its “defense” spending continued to escalate beyond all reasonable levels which has led, in part, to the decline of domestic living standards of nearly all except, of course, for the politically well-connected. Not only has military adventurism bankrupted the country, but there is now “blowback” from the countless enemies either real, imagined, or contrived – created by US overseas meddling. Moreover, the nation’s military-industrial and security complex has turned on its own citizens with spying, surveillance, and data gathering that would be the envy of Stalin’s Cheka. Yet, it was US participation in WWII which cemented the nation on its ruinous course as global policeman. This was predicted and feared by “isolationists” at the time which is why they so courageously fought to keep the country neutral.
While the peoples of the world suffered from the Apocalyptic-like destruction of the war, certain groups did gain. The benefactors were obvious – Stalin and the Soviet state which was given free reign in Eastern Europe; the US military and security industrial complex which had a world empire to police; Chinese Communists, with Imperial Japan decimated, it left little opposition for them to gain control in China and beyond. For almost everyone else, even the so called “victors,” WWII was a Pyrrhic victory at best.
For the remainder of 20th century American history, US entry into the Second World War proved to be the catalyst which led to the immense cultural, economic, and political changes, which many conservatives, libertarians, and traditional-minded people at the time and afterwards opposed. Yet, it was US participation in the war which meant that all of those changes would become permanent. Harry Elmer Barnes, who was a keen social theorist and wrote extensively in sociology, clearly understood the effects of US entry into the war:
Drastic changes in the domestic realm can also be attributed to the impact of our
entry into the second World War. The old rural society that had dominated
humanity for millennia was already disintegrating rapidly as the result of
urbanization and technological advances, but the latter failed to supply adequate
new institutions and agencies to control and direct an urban civilization. This
situation faced the American public before 1941 but the momentous transformation
was given intensified rapidity and scope as a result of the extensive dislocations
produced by years of warfare and recovery.*
While every sector of American life was unalterably changed, the most ominous took place in the political order. Although the federal government had begun to expand during the Progressive Era, its scope and involvement in society drastically accelerated during and after the war. Barnes, holding many libertarian beliefs, observed the totalitarian features of the post-war nation:
The complex and cumulative aftermath of [WWII] has played the dominant role in
producing the menacing military pattern and political impasse of our time, and the
military-industrial-political Establishment that controls this country and has sought
to determine world policy.**
The rise of America to world power status diverted attention and scarce resources away from the domestic front, which further exacerbated social and economic changes. The societal strife would become more and more acute as the nation’s overseas commitments mushroomed, as Barnes incisively explains:
The social problems of an urban age were enlarged and intensified, crime increased
and took on new forms that became ever more difficult to combat, juvenile
disorganization became rampant, racial problems increased beyond precedent, and
the difficulties of dealing with this unprecedented and complicated mass of domestic
issues were both parried and intensified by giving primary but evasive
consideration to foreign affairs in our national policy and operations.***
While domestic problems received less attention as the American empire expanded, foreign lands which held different patterns of social order or had non “democratic” forms of government, were targeted for “regime change,” even if they had taken no hostile action toward the US:
. . . the results of [WWII] already indicate that this produced drastic and possibly
ominous changes in the pattern of American relations to the rest of the world. We
voluntarily and arbitrarily assumed unprecedented burdens in feeding and
financing a world badly disrupted by war. . . . The United States sought to police the
world and extend the rule of law on a planetary basis, which actually meant
imposing the ideology of our eastern seaboard Establishment throughout the world,
by force, if necessary. . . .****
Had the US remained neutral as the isolationists and American First supporters had pleaded, the world today would be markedly different – undoubtedly freer, more prosperous, and likely more peaceful. Since every society is governed, in part, by its understanding of the past, the post-WWII world is built on a lie. The lie, of course, was that the attack on Pearl Harbor was unprovoked and that the Roosevelt Administration had negotiated in good faith with the Japanese in the months and years leading up to it.
While not recognized at the time and even today the outcome of WWII ushered in the totalitarian nation state which would become a permanent and intimate fixture in the lives of its citizens. There was no appeal to its dictates and as the decades rolled on it accrued unthinkable power over the society and economy. It attempted to solve every social and economic problem or inequality (most of which it created) and in each action enhanced its power and control dramatically.
The corona scamdemic may be the state’s greatest power grab yet. Besides the infringement of civil liberties, the shut down has been adroitly used to cover for the titanic economic collapse which began in the weeks prior to the draconian response measures. Actually, the financial breakdown began last September with the Fed’s “repo” operations.
All of this has been quietly and deliberately forgotten by the financial press and under the cover of fighting the virus, the Fed and the rest of the world’s central banks have expanded their power and control of financial markets to unprecedented levels, making a mockery that the economy is in any sense “capitalistic.”
The adage that “history is written by the victors” has never been more apparent than in regard to V-E Day, however, the coronavirus scam has shown once again that the consequences of the day and the war which it commemorates are now being ominously fulfilled.
*Harry Elmer Barnes, “Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century.” In Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought. Vol. IV, 1968, p. 11.
**Ibid., pp. 9-10.
***Ibid., p. 11.
****Ibid., pp. 10-11.
The Constitution IS the Crisis
A Review of Murray N. Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty, Vol. 5
The posthumous release of Murray Rothbard’s fifth volume of his early American history series, Conceived in Liberty, is a cause of celebration not only for those interested in the country’s constitutional period, but also for the present day as the nation is faced with acute social, economic, and political crises. The fifth volume, The New Republic: 1784-1791, stands with Boston T. Party’s 1997 release, Hologram of Liberty, as a grand rebuttal of the cherished notion held by most contemporary scholars, pundits on the Right, and, surprisingly, many libertarians who believe that the US Constitution is some great bulwark in defense of individual liberty and a promoter of economic success.
Rothbard’s narrative highlights the crucial years after the American Revolution focusing on the events and personalities that led to the calling for, drafting, and eventual promulgation of the Constitution in 1789. Not only does he describe the key factors that led to the creation of the American nation-state, but he gives an insightful account of the machinations which took place in Philadelphia and a trenchant analysis of the document itself which has become, in the eyes of most conservatives, on a par with Holy Writ.
What Might Have Been
While Rothbard writes in a lively and engaging manner, the eventual outcome and triumph of the nationalist forces leaves the reader with a certain sadness. Despite the fears expressed by the Antifederalists that the new government was too powerful and would lead to tyranny, through coercion, threats, lies, bribery, and arm twisting by the politically astute Federalists, the Constitution came into being. Yet, what if it had been the other way around and the forces against it had prevailed?
It is safe to assume that America would have been a far more prosperous and less war-like place. The common held notion that the Constitution was needed to keep peace among the contending states is countered by Rothbard, who points out a number of instances where states settled their differences, most notably Maryland and Virginia as they came to an agreement on the navigation of the Chesapeake Bay. [129-30]
Without a powerful central state to extract resources and manpower, overseas intervention by the country would have been difficult to undertake. Thus, the US’s disastrous participation in the two world wars would have been avoided. Furthermore, it would have been extremely unlikely for a Confederation Congress to impose an income tax as the federal government successfully did through a constitutional amendment in 1913.
Nor would the horrific misnamed “Civil War” ever take place with its immense loss of life and the destruction of the once flourishing Southern civilization. The triumph of the Federal government ended forever “states rights” in the US and, no doubt, inspired centralizing tendencies throughout the world, most notably in Germany which became unified under Prussian domination.
In a failed attempt in 1786 to enact an impost tax under the Confederation, Abraham Yates, a New York lawyer and prominent Antifederalist, spoke of decentralization as the key to liberty as Rothbard aptly summarizes:
Yates also warned that true republicanism can only be preserved in small states, and
keenly pointed out that in the successful Republics of Switzerland and the
Netherlands the local provinces retained full control over their finances. A taxing
power in Congress would demolish state sovereignty and reduce the states, where
the people could keep watch on their representatives, to mere adjuncts of
congressional power, and liberty would be gone. 
Antifederalists, such as Yates, had a far greater understanding of how liberty and individual rights would be protected than their statist opponents such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Antifederalists looked to Europe as a model, which, for most of its history, was made up of decentralized political configurations. The Federalists, on the other hand, got much of their inspiration from the Roman Republic and later Empire. There is little question that an America, with the political attributes of a multi-state Europe, would be far less menacing to both its own inhabitants and to the rest of the world than what it has become under the current Federal Leviathan if the Constitution never passed.
Speculation aside, historical reality meant that America would be fundamentally different than it would have been had the Articles of Confederation survived, as Rothbard points out:
The enactment of the Constitution in 1788 drastically changed the course of
American history from its natural decentralized and libertarian direction to an
omnipresent leviathan that fulfilled all of the Antifederalists’ fears. 
Limited Government Myth
One of the great myths surrounding the American Constitution – which continues within conservative circles to this very day – is that the document limits government power. After reading Rothbard, such a notion can only be considered a fairy tale!
The supposed “defects” of the Articles of Confederation were adroitly used by the wily nationalists as a cover to hide their real motives. Simply put – the Articles had to be scrapped and a new national government, far more powerful than what had existed under the Articles, had to be created as Rothbard asserts: “The nationalists who went into the convention agreed on certain broad objectives, crucial for a new government, all designed to remodel the United States into a country with the British political structure.” 
In passing the Constitution, the nationalist forces gained almost all they had set out to accomplish – a powerful central state and with it a strong chief executive office, and the destruction of the states as sovereign entities. The supposed “checks and balances,” so much beloved by Constitution enthusiasts, has proven worthless in checking the central state’s largesse. Checks and balances exist within the central government and is not offset by any prevailing power, be it the states or citizenry.
There was no reform of the system as it stood, but a new state was erected on the decentralized foundation of the Confederation. Why the idea of the founding fathers as some limited government proponents is a mystery.
The Chief Executive
As it developed, the Presidency has become the most powerful and, thus, the most dangerous office in the world. While its occupants certainly took advantage of situations and created crises themselves over the years, the Presidency, especially in foreign policy, is largely immune from any real oversight either from the legislature or judiciary. This was not by happenstance. From the start, the nationalists envisioned a powerful executive branch, and though the most extreme among the group were eventually thwarted in their desire to recreate a British-style monarchy in America, the final draft of the Constitution granted considerable power to the presidential office.
As they did throughout the Constitutional proceedings, the nationalists cleverly altered the concept of what an executive office in a republic should be, by subtle changes in the wording of the document as Rothbard incisively explains:
[T]he nationalists proceeded to alter . . . and exult the executive in a highly
important textual change. Whenever the draft had stated that the president ‘may
recommend’ measures to the Congress, the convention changed ‘may’ to ‘shall,’
which provided a ready conduit to the president for wielding effective law-making
powers, while the legislature was essentially reduced to a ratification agency of laws
proposed by the president. [190-91]
As if this was not bad enough office was given the ability to create departments within its own domain.
In another fateful change, the president was given the power to create a
bureaucracy within the executive by filling all offices not otherwise provided for in
the Constitution, in addition to those later created by laws. 
The totalitarian federal agencies that plague the daily lives of Americans were not some later innovation by the Progressive movement or New Dealers, but had been provided for within the document itself. The efforts of those opposed to the various social welfare schemes of the past, which have been put into effect through the various Cabinet departments, have been in vain since the power was given to the Presidency and has been taken advantage of by nearly all of its occupants.
Rothbard’s analysis of the chief executive office is especially pertinent since the nation is once again in the midst of another seemingly endless presidential election cycle. The reason that the office has attracted so many of the worst sort (which is being kind) is because of its power. If elected, the ability to control, regulate, impoverish, and kill not only one’s fellow citizen, but peoples across the globe is an immense attraction for sociopaths!
A Coup d’état and Counter Revolution
Rothbard makes the compelling case that the Constitution was a counter revolution, which was a betrayal of the ideology that brought about the Revolution:
The Americans were struggling not primarily for independence but for political-
economic liberty against the mercantilism of the British Empire. The struggle was
waged against taxes, prohibitions, and regulations – a whole failure of repression
that the Americans, upheld by an ideology of liberty, had fought and torn
asunder. . . . [T]he American Revolution was in essence not so much against Britain
as against British Big Government – and specially against an all-powerful central
government and a supreme executive. 
[T]he American Revolution was liberal, democratic, and quasi-anarchistic; for
decentralization, free markets, and individual liberty; for natural rights of
life, liberty, and property; against monarchy, mercantilism, and especially
against strong central government. [307-08]
There was, however, always a “conservative” element within the revolutionary leadership that admired Great Britain and wanted to replicate it in America. It was only when there was no alternative to British political and economic oppression that they joined with their more liberal-libertarian brethren and decided for independence.
Conservatives did not go away after independence, but would continue to push for an expansion of government under the Articles and finally, after most of their designs were consistently thwarted, did they scheme to impose a powerful central government upon the unsuspecting country.
Yet, they would not have triumphed had a number of key liberal-libertarians of the revolutionary generation moved to the Right during the decade following independence. Rothbard shows why he is the master in power-elite historical analysis in his discussion of this tragic shift, which would spell the death knell to any future politically decentralized America:
[O]ne of the . . . reasons for the defeat of the Antifederalists, though they
commanded a majority of the public, was the decimation that had taken place in
radical and liberal leadership during the 1780s. A whole galaxy of ex-radicals, ex-
decentralists, and ex-libertarians, found in their old age that they could comfortably
live in the new Establishment. The list of such defections is impressive, including
John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, Alexander
McDougall, Isaac Sears, and Christopher Gadsden. [308-09]
As the country’s elite became more statist and as political (Shays Rebellion) and economic (a depression) factors played into their hands, the nationalists seized the opportunity to erect on America a powerful central government:
It was a bloodless coup d’état against an unresisting Confederation Congress. . . .
The drive was managed by a corps of brilliant members and representatives
of the financial and landed oligarchy. These wealthy merchants and large
landowners were joined by the urban artisans of the large cities in their
drive to create a strong overriding central government – a supreme government
with its own absolute power to tax, regulate commerce, and raise armies. 
The Mises Institute and the editor of the book, Patrick Neumann, must be given immense credit for bringing this important piece of scholarship into print. Once read, any notion of the “founding fathers” as disinterested statesmen who sublimated their own interests and that of their constituents to that of their country will be disavowed. Moreover, The New Republic:1784-1791 is the most important in the series since the grave crises that the nation now faces can be traced to those fateful days in Philadelphia when a powerful central state was created.
Volume Five shows that the problems of America’s past and the ones it now faces are due to the Constitution. The remedy to the present societal ills is not electing the “right” congressman, or president, but to “devolve” politically into a multitude of states and jurisdictions. For the future of liberty and economic well-being, this is where efforts should be placed and Murray Rothbard’s final volume of Conceived in Liberty is essential reading if that long, arduous, but much necessary task is to be undertaken.
Maybe the West Should Adopt Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Policy
Prior to the modern age, when war was engaged in, combatants, for the most part, acted by a code of conduct which attempted to minimize civilian deaths and the destruction of non-participants’ property. With the onset of the democratic age and the idea of “total war” such modes of conduct have tragically fallen by the wayside, the consequence of which has made warfare far more bloody and destructive.
The ultimate violation of “just warfare” has been the possession and use of nuclear weapons which by their very nature cannot be reconciled with any notion of a civilized society. Of all the hysteria over “terrorism,” nuclear weapons are rarely discussed anymore, but are the ultimate form of terror.
Despite the obvious fact that nuclear weapons cannot be reconciled with any moral code of warfare, Western nation-states continue to possess them and the US has actually used them in the final stages of WWII as it mercilessly bombed the Japanese civilian centers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
While most modern scholarship has abandoned the older idea of moral conduct in warfare, the great libertarian theorist, Murray Rothbard, continued the venerable tradition in his thought and applied it not only to nuclear weapons, but bombing as well:
Not only should there be joint disarmament
of nuclear weapons, but also of all weapons
capable of being fired massively across national
borders; in particular bombers. It is precisely
such weapons of mass destruction as the missile
and the bomber which can never be pinpoint-
targeted to avoid their use against innocent
. . . since modern air and missile weapons
cannot be pinpoint-targeted to avoid harming
civilians, their very existence must be condemned.
It is beyond hypocritical, therefore, that the US has repeatedly accused Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons despite the fact that the nation’s leadership has consistently declared that it will not do so because of its religious beliefs. In June, President Trump called off retaliatory raids on Iranian targets after it downed a US drone (which had flown into Iranian airspace), citing that it would cost the lives of some 150 people. In response, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif exposed the hypocrisy of the US’s position on nuclear weapons:
You were really worried about 150 people?
How many people have you killed with a
nuclear weapon? How many generations have
you wiped out with these weapons?**
It is us who, because of our religious views,
will never pursue a nuclear weapon.
Not only has Iran’s leadership consistently declared that it would not use or build nuclear weapons, but it has stood by its words. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), Iraq (with US knowledge) repeatedly used chemical weapons. Despite Iran’s protests to the U.N., it refused to take action – mainly because the US through its position on the Security Council tabled any attempt to curtail Iraq’s nefarious actions.***
Despite the flagrant violation of international law, Iran refused to retaliate, although it had the capacity and certain justification in doing so. The Ayatollah, in a religious ruling – fatwa – at the time of the war, asserted that such an act (the use of chemical/nuclear weapons) was “forbidden by god.”
This has been the position of the Ayatollahs since the formation of the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that “from an ideological and fighi [Islamic jurisprudence] perspective, we consider developing nuclear weapons as unlawful. We consider using such weapons as a big sin.” A top-ranking cleric, Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, confirmed that this is part of Islamic doctrine:
There is complete consensus on this issue. It is
self-evident in Islam that it is prohibited to have
nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because the
basic function of these weapons is to kill innocent
people. This cannot be reversed.
Despite Iranian claims to the contrary, the US and the controlled press continue to mischaracterize Iran’s position on nuclear weapons. Not only has it lied, but it continues to enact crippling sanctions on the beleaguered nation causing untold suffering which itself is an act of war.
The fact that Iran follows a moral principle which was once part of Western thought shows how far the Western world, especially the US, has declined in civility. A return to a saner, more just position on nuclear weapons will only take place when there is a change in ideology. Under current intellectual conditions, such a change appears unlikely. A rethinking will only take place of necessity when America has exhausted itself through debt and money printing and can no longer sustain its Empire and nuclear capabilities.
*See, Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 293.
**Reuters, “Iran Will Never Pursue a Nuclear Weapon, Says Foreign Minister.” 24 April 2019.
***Ted Snider, “Iran, Islam, and Banning the Bomb.” Antiwar.com 30 September 2019.
posted October 28, 2019
The Geopolitical Consequences of a Coming Recession
With the recent ominous inversion of the 2-10 year yield curve and its near infallible predictive recessionary power, the consequences for the economy are plain to see, however, what has not been spoken of by pundits will be the effect of a recession on US foreign policy. If a recession comes about prior to November 2020, or if economic indicators such as GDP plummet even further, the chances of a Trump re-election is extremely problematic even if the Democrats nominate a socialist nut case such as Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas.
Elizabeth Warren has been the most vocal about coming economic troubles:
Warning lights are flashing. Whether it is
this year or next year, odds of another
economic downturn are high – and growing. . . .
When I look at the economy today, I see
a lot to worry about again. I see a
manufacturing sector in recession. I see
a precarious economy built on debt – both
household debt and corporate debt and that
is vulnerable to shocks. And I see a number
of serious shocks on the horizon that could
cause our economy’s shaky foundation to crumble.*
A “doom and gloomer” Demo?
If the economy cannot be reversed, despite the likelihood of rate cuts in September and a possible resumption of “QE” by the end of the year, President Trump will probably look for some “victory” or success to divert public attention away from deteriorating economic conditions. The most likely targets will be renewal of hostilities toward Iran and/or an escalation of pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to resign.
Of course, the US has been conducting economic warfare on Iran ever since Trump stupidly pulled out of the nuclear agreement and began applying even more crippling sanctions on Iran. In June, armed hostilities were about to take place over the Iranians downing of a US drone over its air space. Reportedly, at the last minute, Trump called off retaliation, enraging, no doubt, the bloodthirsty neocons itching for an excuse to unleash more death and destruction.
Another factor, which has been little spoken of, but may contribute to foreign intervention is that Trump has alienated a number of his political base especially the spokesmen among the Alt Right. While he still commands high poll numbers among Republicans and still attracts impressive rallies of “deplorables,” a number of his prominent backers, who were so crucial for his success in 2016, are, to say the least, disappointed over his inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Moreover, these voices feel rightly betrayed since he has done nothing to halt the Internet tech giants from de-platforming many of their social media activity.
Another group which may be quickly added to disillusioned Trump supporters are gun owners and free-speech advocates if the President goes along with the proposed draconian “red flag” legislation. If these totalitarian measures are enacted, 2nd Amendment defenders will probably not vote for Trump’s opponent in 2020, but instead, may stay home in protest.
In electoral politics, voter enthusiasm can sometimes offset money and media control which was certainly the case for Trump both in the Republican primaries and the general election. To win again, he will need to mobilize similar sentiment.
The politically savvy neocons, which the President has insanely surrounded himself with, are certainly aware of this dynamic which will give them considerable leverage to push forward their agenda. A desperate Trump will surely be more malleable if a second term is in jeopardy. Just look at the recent capitulation when there is, as of yet, no recession, yet, he called off the additional Chinese tariffs after the Dow plunged 800 points.
Even if a recession does not rear its ugly head, an armed conflict with Iran is a distinct possibility. The more hard line neocons understand that they would be out of power under a Democratic president who may revert to compromise and negotiations to re-engineer a nuclear deal with Iran. The push for war will intensify if Trump’s poll numbers drop as the election gets nearer due to a moribund economy.
Of course, the US is infamous for provocations and with the huge military build up in the Persian Gulf, any of the many trip wires may spring, leading to a local war which might turn into a general conflagration.
While it is not a certainty that a recession will lead to regime change in Washington, Trump has mistakenly tied his political fortunes to the well being of the economy especially the stock market. He had the chance and the public support at the beginning of his term to level with the country and explain the monumental financial and economic problems which exist and that he had pointed out during the campaign. Unfortunately, for both his and the nation’s future, he chose business as usual putting his own political goals (re-election) over the good of the country.
The cost of that choice is now coming to bear which may end in another war that will certainly seal the President’s fate and likely that of America.
*Sanjana Karanth, “Elizabeth Warren Predicts Another Economic Downturn.” Politics. 22 July 2019.
Demonocracy: The Great Human Scourge!
Review: Christophe Buffin de Chosal, The End of Democracy, Translated by Ryan P. Plummer. Printed in the U.S.A.: Tumblar House, 2017.
One cannot speak too highly of Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s The End of Democracy. In a fast paced, readable, yet scholarly fashion, Professor Buffin de Chosal* demolishes the ideological justification in which modern democracy rests while he describes the disastrous effects that democratic rule has had on Western societies. He explodes the myth of Democracy as a protector of individual liberty, a prerequisite for economic progress, and a promoter of the higher arts. Once Democracy is seen in this light, a far more accurate interpretation of modern history can be undertaken. The book is a very suitable companion to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s iconoclastic take down of democracy in Democracy: The God That Failed, released at the beginning of this century. Buffin de Chosal has spoken of a follow up which will be eagerly awaited for.
The idea of rule by the people is a scam, one perpetuated by those who, in actuality, are in control of the government. Through the “democratic process” of voting and elections, a small, determined minority can impose its will despite majority opposition:
We often hear it said that ‘in a democracy,
it is the people who rule. . . .’ Rule by the
people is a myth which loses all substance
once confronted with the real practice in
Quoting from a Russian philosopher, Buffin de Chosal continues his criticism:
The best definition [of democracy] was
given by the Russian philosopher Vasily Rozanov.
‘Democracy is the system by which an
organized minority governs an unorganized
majority.’ This ‘unorganized majority’ is the
people, aggregated and individualistic,
incapable of reaction because disjointed. 
He expands upon Rozanov’s theme:
. . . [C]ontrary to what [democracy’s] principles
proclaim: one can say that the majority
almost never wins. Democracy is not the
system of the majority, but that of the most
powerful minority, and it has this power
not simply due to its numbers, but also and
above all due to its organization. 
Power does not reside in “the people” and certainly not in the individual. In democracy, the only way to express one’s preference or protect one’s rights is through the ballot box every so often. “Each voter,” writes Buffin de Chosal, “in a democracy, is the depositary of a tiny particle of sovereignty, in itself unusable. His sole power consists in dropping a ballot into a box, whereby he is immediately dispossessed of his particle of sovereignty at the profit of those who are going to represent him.” [Ibid.]
Popular democracy has always been condemned and feared by most thinkers since the beginning of human societies. It was not until intellectuals saw democracy as a way they could attain power that they began to advocate it as a system of social order. Prior to the democratic age, most of the learned understood that democracy would result in mob rule and the displacement of natural authority with demagogues. In short, the worst would rise to the top as the author describes the characteristics of a contemporary politician:
The ideal politician, on the other hand, is
pliable, convincing, and a liar by instinct. He is
not attached to any platform and has no
ideological objective. The single thing to which
he is truly committed is power. He wants its
prestige and advantages, and seeks above all
to be personally enriched by it. Any politician
who presents this aspect is recognized as fit for
power in a democracy. . . . It is therefore not
surprising that democratically elected assemblies
are almost exclusively comprised of
these kinds of men and women. Elected
heads of state almost always fit this profile,
and international institutions, such as the
European Union, consider it the only
acceptable profile. . . . 
Democracy and the State
Since the advent of modern democracy, the principle benefactor of its rule has been the State and the politically-connected financial elites who are in actuality the true rulers of societies. Instead of putting an end to the supposedly despotic rule of the Ancien Régime, which Democracy’s proponents claim to have existed throughout the monarchial and aristocratic age, governance by the people, has instead witnessed an increase in state power and control of individual lives to an unprecedented level in human history. Few, if any, pope, emperor, king, prince, or duke have ever possessed such suzerainty.
In contrast to what has been taught in classrooms, on university campuses, and espoused throughout the media, individual rights and freedoms were far better guarded in the age prior to Democracy’s ascendancy. Pre-revolutionary Europe had social structures which insulated individuals from State power far more effectively than under modern democracy:
The concept of an organic society was abolished at
the time of the French Revolution. The corps and
orders were suppressed, the privileges were abolished,
and everything which allowed the people to protect
themselves from the power of the state was banished
in the name of liberty. 
And in return for giving up the order that protected them from state depredations, the people received “sovereignty:”
They were given the false promise that they
would no longer need to defend themselves
from the state since they themselves were the
state. But if a people organized into corps and
orders are incapable of exercising sovereignty,
how much more so a people comprising a formless
mass of individuals! [Ibid.]
Historically, all of the democratic movements which supposedly stemmed from the people were, in fact, a falsehood, perpetuated largely by revolutionaries who sought to replace the established order with themselves. While legislatures, congresses, and democratic bodies of all sorts have been interpreted as the fruition of the masses’ desire for representation, the reality was quite different:
Democracy is not, in its origin, a system of
the people. In England with the advent of the
parliamentary system just as in France during the
Revolution, it was not the people who were seen
at work. Even the Russian Revolution was not a
phenomenon of the people. To regard the people
or what the communist elegantly call the ‘masses’
as the agent of change or political upheaval is purely
a theoretical view, a historical myth, of which
one sees no trace in reality. The ‘people’ were
the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the
victims of the revolutions, not the engines. 
Not only was propagation of the myth of popular support for democratic ideals propounded for the survival of the new social order, but putting these tenets into practice was accomplished, in large part, by the role of the “intellectual” an often neglected feature of standard historical analysis and the reason behind much social transformation:
The ‘nation’ met the desires of the philosophers
who wanted to transfer power from the monarch
to an enlightened, philosophical, and philanthropic
class who, moreover, ought to be financially
comfortable. The educated bourgeoisie of the
time were the protagonists of this idea, and a
portion of the nobility formed their audience. [13-14]
The intellectuals promoted Democracy because it would open up for them considerable opportunities for position and income in the nation state. It must be remembered that it was the intellectuals who justified the idea of Absolutism. Later, the intellectuals turned on the monarchies and sided with the emerging republican classes rightly believing that democratic governance would give them greater opportunities for power in the emerging nation states.
Democracy and Modern History
While most historians see the advancement of democracy and the development of legislative bodies over the course of the last centuries as an advancement in the human condition and one that has emanated from the people’s desire for greater political representation, Buffin de Chosal presents a far different and more accurate interpretation. “Democracy,” he asserts, “is not, in its origin a system of the people.”  All of the social movements which eventually led to the destruction of Christendom did not come from the people seeking a greater “voice” in their governance.
“The ‘people,’” he argues, “were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines.” [Ibid.] Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was not a popular cry, but one coined and used by the “enlightened” classes to mobilize and justify their overthrow of the French monarchy and with it the destruction of the Church.
The French Revolution was built on the
idea of the ‘nation,’ which claimed to bring
together the intellectual, social, and financial
elite of the country. It was on this foundation
that democracy was established and that it
functioned during almost all of the nineteenth
A similar historical narrative can be seen in England.
The rise and eventual triumph of representative democracy in England was not one that percolated from the masses itching for more freedom. “The appearance of the parliamentary system in England,” Buffin de Chosal contends, “was tied to the great movement of Church property confiscation begun under Henry VIII and continuing until the coming of the Stuarts.” 
After Henry gorged himself on the Church’s wealth, he sought to bribe as much of the nobility as possible with his ill-gotten gains to insure his power. An envious Parliament, however, wanted its cut of the loot which led to the great internecine struggle between Crown and Parliament which eventually ended in the suzerainty of the latter with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The real power from then on rested with an oligarchical legislative branch:
The families who had thus helped themselves
to the Church’s goods, morally justified by
Protestant ethics, formed the gentry, the class
of landowners who sat in Parliament. Parliament
was not then, as one might believe today, an organ
of poplar representation. It was an instrument
in the hands of the gentry to defend its own class
That Parliament and the monarchy would become the two dominant ruling structures was the result of the breakdown of the feudal structure which was taking place not only in England, but across Europe. European monarchs continued to gain more and more power at the expense of the feudal landed elite. The gentry’s power and wealth was also on the wane with the rise of commercial centers which most of the time aligned themselves first with the kings and then later with Parliament. The eventual triumph of Parliament, however, did not mean greater democracy for the people:
The financial incentives for England’s adoption
of the Protestant Reformation are therefore
intimately connected with the bolstering of
Parliamentary power. The Parliament in England
was used to put the monarchy in check and to
replace it with an oligarchic class of wealthy
Protestants to whom the kings were required to
submit. This is why the overthrow of James II
in 1688 was a true revolution. It was not a
popular revolution or the overthrowing of a
tyranny, but it was the rebellion of a class
implementing the transfer of sovereign power
for its own profit. 
The Market Economy
The author takes a refreshing look at the market economy that sets straight the inaccurate and often times hostile analysis of it that frequently comes from conservative circles. He distinguishes and rightly points out that “pure capitalism” or the “unhampered market” is an “excellent thing” . The free market is intimately tied with private property which is a prerequisite for a just society:
[Capitalism] proceeds from respect for private property.
As capitalism is the reinvestment or saved money for the
purpose of making new profits, it presupposes respect for
property rights and free enterprise. It has existed in Europe
since the Middle Ages and has contributed significantly to
the development of Western society. [Ibid.]
He insightfully notes that “bad capitalism” often gets lumped in with its “good form” while the latter gets the blame for the baneful excesses of the former. “Monopoly capitalism,” “corporatism,” “the mixed economy,” and “crony capitalism” are not the result of the market process, but stem from “intervention” brought about by the State in favor of its business favorites through participatory democracy. In a truly free market, entrenched wealth is rarely maintained but is constantly subjected to challenges by competitors:
But what one ought to designate as bad
capitalism is the concentration of wealth and
power this wealth procures. This danger does
not stem from capitalism itself but rather from
parliamentary democracy, for it is democracy
that enables money powers to dominate the
political realm. [Ibid.]
The “monied interest” did not exist under “traditional monarchy,” but was a product of Democracy and the protection and extension of the “bad capitalistic” paradigm that came into being and was expanded by the rise of popular representative bodies. Assemblies, legislatures, and congresses, which emerged, became aligned with the banking and financial interests to bring about the downfall of the monarchies.
The concentration of political power could only be attained after the control of money and credit were centralized in the form of central banking and the gold standard was eliminated. Central banks have been an instrumental part of the democratic age, funding the nation state’s initiatives and enriching the politically- tied financial elites at the expense of everyone else.
Wealth concentration is not a by-product of the free market. Rarely are firms able to maintain their dominance for long periods of time. Many turn to the State to get protection and monopoly grants to ensure their position in the economy:
. . . capitalism only becomes harmful when
it grants political power to the money powers.
This was only made possible thanks to the advent
of parliamentary democracy, which was an
invention of liberalism. It is therefore the
foundational principles of political liberalism
(equality before the law, suppression of privileges,
centralization of political power, censitary suffrage,
and the accountability of ministers to the legislative
houses) which have enabled the rise of a wealthy class
and its power over society. 
Such sound economic analysis abounds throughout his tome.
The author rightly sees that because of its nature and the type of personalities that it attracts, modern democracy cannot reform itself, but will eventually collapse from financial stress, war, and/or civil strife:
Parliamentary democracy rarely produces true
statesmen, as its party system more often
promotes ambitious and self-interested persons,
demagogues, and even communication experts.
These are generally superficial and egocentric
individuals with a very limited understanding
of society and man. These politicians do not
have the makings of statesmen. They are
adventurers who use the state to satiate their
hunger for power and money or to benefit
their party. 
Efforts to reform it, however, should not be totally dismissed since they could lead to more fundamental change and ultimately the creation of a new political paradigm for Western governance. Populism and the various movements around the globe which fall into that category should be encouraged. Populism, because of is lack of definite ideological underpinnings, has meant different things at different times to different people. Most populists, however, do not want to get rid of democratic forms of government, but want the system to be more “responsive” of its constituents instead of favoring entrenched political elites. Populism is a symptom of the growing failure of modern democracy’s inability to “deliver the goods” that it promises to a now growing dependency class.
As a means of getting rid of totalitarian democracy, populist movements and themes should always be encouraged:
In Europe, the only political forces today
which could, in the more extreme of circumstances
assume this rescue role are found on the side of
populism. Conservative in its values, sometimes
classically liberal when it is a matter of opposing
the stifling interventionism of the state, and yet ready
to defend social gains . . . populism is the only
political current which comes to the defense of
those interests of the population denied or ignored
by the parties in power. 
Populist parties, from the simple fact that they
can bring together voters from both the left
and the right, have a chance of coming to power
in the near enough future. The deterioration of
security conditions in Europe due to mass
immigration plays in their favor. [148-49]
While he does not explicitly discuss it, a more concrete and ideological coherent idea and one of historical precedent, is that of secession. For all those who oppose the democratic order, secession is the most justifiable, logical, and practical strategy for the dissolution of the nation state. Secession movements, therefore, whether they do not outwardly condemn parliamentary democracy and only seek to establish a “better run” system, should always be supported.
The most likely scenario if there is to be a change in Western democratic life will be from a world-wide economic crisis and collapse of the financial system which will render the nation states unable to meet their financial obligations to their citizens. All economies are hopelessly indebted from their welfare state excesses and can never hope to meet their promises which now runs in the trillions. What will emerge in the aftermath of a collapse is hard to predict, but some form of authoritarianism is likely which will be centered on a one-world state with a single, irredeemable currency.
While the financial demise of Western-styled democracy will be evident for all to see, its ideological underpinnings which have justified its existence needs to be extirpated. Any hope of it being reconstituted to better serve “the people” needs to be shot down. There is no better place to start the de-mystification of Democracy than with Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s magnificent, The End of Democracy.
*Professor Christophe Buffin de Chosal teaches economic history at the United Business Institutes.
The Constitution Myth
One reason for the failure of the modern conservative and libertarian movements to scale back, in even a miniscule way, the now gargantuan US welfare/warfare state has been the misinterpretation of the US Constitution. Many conservatives have a slavish devotion to the document, placing it on a par with the Ten Commandments and New Testament.
A typical misunderstanding of the Constitution’s history and content appeared in this recent op-ed:
The Constitution was intended to limit 1) the power
of government over the citizenry 2) the power of
each branch of government and 3) the power of political/
financial elites over the government and the citizenry,
as the Founders recognized the intrinsic risks of an
all-powerful state, an all-powerful state dominated by one
branch of government and the risks of a financial elite
corrupting the state to serve the interests above those
of the citizenry.*
The author, like so many “Constitution enthusiasts” has also been hostile to the Medieval era, denigrating its institutions and social constructs – feudalism, aristocracy, crusading – when, in fact, the Middle Ages, in many respects, were far freer with less government than the present epoch. **
When the founding fathers decided to meet in Philadelphia in 1787, they did so at first to “amend” the Articles of Confederation which had guided the young country through some perilous times. While the Articles had some defects (some libertarians even contend that they were too statist***), the delegates, at first, did not want it scrapped, however, it was the “leading lights” of the convention which connived to completely do away with it.
By superior political maneuvering, the pro-Constitution forces were able to ramrod their plan through despite being in the minority. Not only were the majority of the delegates initially against scrapping the Articles, but most Americans were opposed to the creation of a new central government.
Despite this, the Constitution was ruthlessly pushed through and, as its opponents feared, America would be saddled with a highly centralized national government, the loss of considerable state sovereignty, and the eventual erosion of individual liberties even with the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.
A brief examination of the document reveals that its implicit and explicit language grants wide latitude for the expansion of state power. In its Preamble, the ambiguous clause to “promote the general welfare” can and has led to all sorts of destructive social engineering schemes. More ominously, for anyone that is under the illusion that America is governed by a “federal” system, they should reread Article VI which in part says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. [emphasis added]
An all-powerful central state went against much of Western history after the fall of the Roman Empire and the idea was always feared by philosophers. Basic political theory and practical experience showed that a multitude of sovereign states were preferable not only for the protection of personal liberty, but for economic growth. Numerous states and jurisdictions were a far greater check on government than the much celebrated “separation of powers” concept of constitutional government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, each individual state was autonomous while the national government had to rely on the states for most of its support. Unfortunately, it will never be known what would have happened if the country remained as a confederacy of states, it is likely however, that there would have been less bloodshed, greater economic growth, and more personal freedom under a decentralized regime.
It is curious, therefore, why so many on the Right continue to revere the Constitution as some great bulwark against state power. Much of it probably stems from ignorance or personal bias against the political conditions which existed prior to the late 18th century.
Much of European history was under the sway of monarchial and aristocratic rule and the integral presence of the Catholic Church in society with a diffusion of power among kings, princes, dukes and Churchmen. While far from perfect, the social order which existed under Christendom may not have been as materially or technologically advanced as contemporary times, but in regard to morality, justice, and individual freedom, there is no comparison. The Christian age saw nothing of the social depravity, war making with its mass murder, the trampling of individual rights, and the existence of totalitarian government as witnessed in the supposedly “enlightened” modern age.
Decentralized Europe 1300
Until it is realized that the Constitution is an impediment to rolling back the American Leviathan, there will be little progress in the fight for individual liberty and economic progress.
*Charles Hugh Smith, “Let’s Face It: The U.S. Constitution Has Failed.” Zero Hedge. 20 February 2019.
**One example, Charles Hugh Smith, “America’s ‘Neo-Feudal’ System is ‘Both False & Precarious.” Zero Hedge 19 December 2018.
***David Gordon, ed., Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard, Auburn, AL.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2015, pp. 96-98.
Debt, Death, and the US Empire
Deep State Operative John Bolton
In a talk which garnered little attention, one of the Deep State’s prime operatives, National Security Advisor John Bolton, cautioned of the enormous and escalating US debt. Speaking before the Alexander Hamilton Society, Bolton warned that current US debt levels and public obligations posed an “economic threat” to the nation’s security:
It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level ours is, that it constitutes an economic threat to the society. And that kind of threat ultimately has a national security consequence for it.*
What was most surprising about Bolton’s talk was that there has been little reaction to it from the financial press, the markets themselves, or political commentators. While the equity markets have been in the midst of a sell off, it has not been due (as of yet) to US deficits, currently in excess of $1trillion annually. Instead, the slide has been the result of fears over increase in interest rates and the continued trade tensions with China.
While Bolton’s warning about the debt is self-serving, it is accurate in the sense that the US Empire which, in part, he directs is ultimately dependent on the strength of the economy. National security” is not threatened by a debt crisis which would mean a compromised dollar, but such an event would limit what the US could do globally. Real national security is defense of the homeland and border control – not intervention abroad.
War mongers like Bolton are fearful that a debt crisis would necessitate a decline in the US power overseas. America is fast approaching what took place with the British Empire after its insane involvement in the two World Wars and its own creation of a domestic welfare state which exhausted the nation and led to the displacement of the British pound as the “world’s reserve currency.”
The US-led wars in the Middle East have been estimated by a recent Brown University study to have cost in the neighborhood of $4 trillion.** Despite this squandering of national treasure and candidate Trump calling the Iraq War a “disaster,” as president, Trump increased “defense” spending for FY 2019 to $716 billion.***
Profligate US spending and debt creation has, no doubt, been noticed by those outside of the Empire. It is probably why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been so hesitant to take any serious action against the numerous provocations that the US has taken around the globe and against Russian interests directly. The wily Putin probably figures that an implosion of US financial markets would eventually limit America’s ability to foment mayhem and havoc internationally.
The Trump Administration’s latest bellicose act, engineered by – you guessed it – John Bolton, has been the withdrawal from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty (INF). The treaty, signed in 1987, was a landmark achievement of the Reagan Administration which de-escalated tensions between the two super powers and kept a lid on a costly arms buildup that neither can afford.
The next financial downturn will certainly dwarf the 2008 crisis, the latter of which nearly brought down the entire financial system. The next one will be far worse and will last considerably longer since nothing has been resolved from the first crisis. The only thing that has occurred has been the creation of more debt, not only in the US, but by all Western nation states.
Under current ideological conditions, a change in US foreign policy to non-intervention is unlikely. Public opinion is decidedly pro-military after years of indoctrination and propaganda by the press, government, academia, and the media. It will take a fall in America’s economic power, specifically the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which will ultimately bring down the empire which has neocons like John Bolton concerned.
Unfortunately, until that time, the US will continue its rampaging ways. The day of reckoning, however, appears to be fast approaching and instead of a defeat on the field of battle, the US Empire will collapse under a mountain of debt. It would be more than fitting that such a scenario should play itself out which would thus begin the very necessary retribution process that may, at least in a small sense, compensate those who have suffered and died from America’s murderous foreign policy.
*Tyler Durden, “John Bolton Warns National Debt Is An ‘Economic Threat’ To The US Security.” Zero Hedge. 01 November 2018.
**Jason Ditz, “Study: US Wars Cost $4 Trillion, Killed 259,000.” Antiwar. 29 June 2019.
***Military Benefits, “2019 Defense Budget Signed by Trump.” Military Benefits. September, 2018.
Mike Pompeo and John Bolton: Trump’s Neocon Tag Team of Death and Destruction!
With the welcome departure of war mongering UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, the Trump Administration’s neocon tag team of death and destruction – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor (NSA) John Bolton – have enthusiastically taken up where the repellent Haley has left off. It is highly doubtful that the former Ambassador will meekly return from under the rock in which she crawled, but will reappear possibly as a primary challenger to her former boss in 2020, and, most certainly, as a Presidential contender in 2024.
Last week, Messrs Pompeo and Bolton were dutifully carrying forth Haley’s promises of mayhem to anyone opposed to US hegemony even if those “enemies” have never taken hostile action against the US mainland. Of course, threats and attacks against nations which have done nothing to America have never much mattered to the foreign policy establishment!
In one of the most provocative comments ever made by a US diplomat, maniacal Mike threatened Iran with mass starvation of its population (via US sanctions) if it does not submit to Uncle Sam’s outrageous and humiliating demands. In a BBC interview, the Secretary of State warned that:
[Iran’s] leadership has to make a decision that they want their people to eat.*
Following up on his genocidal warning, the Secretary of State (with a supposedly straight face) said that Iran was a “destabilizing influence” in the Mideast and was a state sponsor of terrorism.
Incredibly, the sociopathic Pompeo actually believes that Iran has been the greatest disrupter of peace in the Middle East when, in fact, he represents the nation (along with Israel) that has been the real culprit of state sponsored terrorism with its destruction of Iraq, the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and the attempted regime change in Syria – to name just a few of America’s nefarious activities in the region.
A Brown University study shows the absurdity of Pompeo’s claims. The study estimates that between 480,000 to 507,000 people were killed in America’s post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For the US, some 60,000 troops have lost their lives or been wounded.***
US Destruction of Iraq
After threatening genocide of the Iranian people, Pompeo told an outright lie as he accused Iran for the catastrophe that is taking place in Yemen:
[The] Iranians are responsible for the starvation of Yemen civilians.****
No one outside of the Western controlled press or among the clueless American populace believes such a claim and knows that the starvation which is taking place in Yemen has been caused by the US’s ally, Saudi Arabia, which America has armed for decades. It is not the Iranians, but the US which is guilty as an accomplice for the genocide taking place in that misbegotten land.
Yemen Drone Strike
Not to be outdone by his fellow merchant of death, John Bolton focused his most recent bellicose talk on Latin American regimes that have not fallen in line with the US Empire’s wishes. He labeled three countries as “the troika of tyranny in this hemisphere – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua.”** Big Bad John boasted that the three had “finally met [their] match” in the Trump Administration.
Wow, John, you are so tough, but saying that these three hellholes are a “match” for the US is a bit much when it is unlikely that the three combined could even defeat Rhode Island’s National Guard in a pitched battle!
While Bolton ruled out (for now) military intervention, he did say that sanctions would soon be placed on the “troika of tyranny.” Bolton proclaimed that “Under this administration, we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores.”
Yes, by all means, a possible invasion by a Cuban/Venezuelan/Nicaraguan juggernaut rolling up to the shores of south Florida should be a concern for all Americans. No telling how much damage inflicted and territory conquered the “Latin American Axis” could accomplish! It is good that perceptive and ever vigilant foreign policy experts like John Bolton keep a watchful eye out for such threats!
These are dangerous and evil men who think nothing of inflicting pain and suffering upon innocent people who have little control over what their nation’s leadership does, just as Americans have little say in the policies and actions of their government.
A global empire attracts personality types like Haley, Pompeo and Bolton. It needs such sociopaths to provoke others and stir up troubles where there is none to justify its existence. A more peaceful world will only come about with the demise of the American Empire, not by changing the personalities who guide it.
Sadly, for Americans who have to fund it and the peoples of the world who are in its path, until there is an economic collapse and/or a dollar crisis, the American Empire will continue to threaten and, in some instances, carry out those threats led by the likes of Michael Pompeo and John Bolton.
*Tyler Durden, “Iran’s Leadership Must Decide ‘If They Want Their People to Eat’ – Pompeo.” Zero Hedge. 9 November 2018.
**Alex Gorka, “US Declares War on ‘Troika of Tyranny’ Pushing Them Closer to Russia.” Strategic Culture Foundation. 7 November 2018.
*** Jason Ditz, “US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 People.” Antiwar.com 8 November 2018.
****Durden, “Iran’s Leadership Must Decide.”
Pope Francis: A Clear and Present Danger!
Europe’s Future if Pope Francis has his way!
There is probably no greater threat to the long-term survival of the Occidental peoples of the world than the purported head of the Catholic Church, Jorge Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis. In his latest plea for greater “acceptance” of refugees, Bergoglio held a “Mass” where several migrants and their family members attended. The service was to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Bergoglio’s visit to the island of Lampedusa which has been a launching pad for invading migrants on their path to destroy what is left of European civilization.
During his “sermon,” the “Pope” condemned the “globalization of indifference” which many hold toward refugees and their plight. “Before the challenge of contemporary movements of migration,” Bergoglio said, “the only reasonable response is one solidarity and mercy.”*
While Bergoglio had the gall to call for even greater societal-wrecking migration, one of his Church’s top prelates, “Cardinal” Theodore McCarrick had just been exposed as being a paedophile and was relieved of his public ministry. To date, McCarrick has been the highest Church official to be guilty of sex crimes with more sure to follow. Worse, McCarrick’s abominable actions had been taking place for years and were known to just about everyone within his inner circle (including Bergogio), but none had the courage to speak out or take any action against the predator for his debauchery.
Sex crime partners – Bergoglio & McCarrick
It is beyond hypocritical that Bergoglio expresses so much concern for the refugee crisis, most of which has been orchestrated by the usual suspects, yet has done virtually nothing against his own underlings, many of whom have assaulted, raped, and molested thousands of young boys and girls. Instead of expunging these perverts from the Church, he has, in some instances, promoted them.
Whether Bergoglio knows it or not, it was the Catholic Church which preserved many of the treasures of the ancient world which would have surely been lost forever during the barbarian incursions. Likewise, it was the Papacy itself which inspired the Christian princes to undertake the Crusades and defend Europe from the repeated attempts by the Muslims to overrun the Continent. Now, in a direct refutation of its history, the Church is encouraging Muslim penetration of its once sacred soil.
At one time, the Catholic Church stood for the integrity of the traditional family, realizing that it was the backbone of any healthy and fertile society. The Church condemned artificial contraception, frowned on “working mothers,” and prohibited divorce while it taught that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation of children not the embodiment of spousal love. Since the Second Vatican Anti-council (1962-65), however, things have changed dramatically, now the Church speaks of diversity, multiculturalism, and, under Bergoglio, coercive integration.
As the West has crazily adopted Democracy as its governing paradigm, voting and elections will be determined by demographics. If Europeans become a minority, they will be voted out of power, have their property confiscated, and eventually be replaced. For an ominous example of what will happen unless mass migration is halted, the horrific plight of white South African farmers is instructive.
While tighter border controls are imperative, fundamental changes need to take place to reverse Europe’s demographic nightmare as the latest statistics have confirmed where the number of deaths (5.3 million) in 2017 have overtaken the number births (5.1 million).** Most critical in reversing the demographic decline is a revival of the family and the removal of the impediments that have been placed in its way to procreate and nurture children. Two of the most important of these obstacles are the welfare state and public schooling, both of which have been used by the Left to replace the critical role of the family in the upbringing, education, and the shaping of the young’s moral values.
If the likes of Bergoglio get their way, there will be nothing left of Western Civilization; its institutions, arts, music, literature, languages will be swept away under a deluge of racially, culturally, and religiously distinct and often hostile peoples that cannot and should not be assimilated. While immigration enthusiasts must be stopped, Europeans must once again realize what it takes to have sustainable and fruitful societies. When this again becomes part of the Western ethos, the demographic imbalance will cease to be a concern.
*John Bowden, “Pope Francis Celebrates Special Mass for Migrants,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395799-pope-francis-celebrates-special-mass-for-migrants 6 July 2018.
**Gavin Freiburger, “Deaths Overtake Births in Europe, New Stats Confirm,” Lifesite, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/deaths-overtake-births-in-europe-new-stats-confirm 12 July 2018.
The United States of Terror!
Two recent articles* have again demonstrated that the greatest “terrorist” entity on earth is not the bogymen – Russia, China, Iran, North Korea – so often portrayed by Western presstitudes and the American government, but the United States itself! Ever since World War II, the US has been the most militaristic, far surpassing all of the Communist and dictatorial regimes combined.
Some startling and rarely reported facts:
- Currently, the US drops on someone or something a deadly explosive once every12 minutes
- W. Bush’s military dropped 70,000 bombs on five different nations during his murderous regime
- Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Barrack Obomber, launched 100,000 bombs on seven countries
- Funding this mass murder is a reportedly $21 trillion (!) that is unaccounted for in the Pentagon’s coffers
Despite all of the “America First” bluster at the start of the Trump Administration, little has changed but, in fact, things have escalated. While G.W. Bush in his wicked eight years dropped over 24 bombs per day and his successor upped that total to 34 bombs per day, the current Bomber-in-Chief has, in his first year in office, averaged 121 bombs per day! For the initial year of his Presidency, 44,000 bombs were dropped on people and lands despite the fact that the US is not officially at war with a single country!
Despite these grisly statistics, which are hardly ever reported by the mainstream press, the military industrial complex and the controlled Western media outlets have propagated the lie of “precision bombing.” Precision bombing has been trumpeted to minimize the effect of US aggression to the public that only true belligerents are targeted and not innocents.
When US bombing is reported by the press, the actual casualties and property damage are never accurately given. The most notorious example of this mendacity was the coverage of Bush II’s Iraq war. “The US and its allies ruthlessly carpet-bombed Iraq,” a UN report acknowledged, “reducing it from ‘a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society’ to a ‘pre-industrial age nation.’”
Later accounts of what actually happened showed that “only seven percent of the 88,500 tons of bombs and missiles devastating Iraq were ‘precision weapons.’”
Yet, it is hypocritical US policy makers that call certain regimes “rogue” and/or “terrorist” while their own defense budget is set at $700 billion to increase next year by $16 billion. Yes, more taxes extorted from the public for the pulverization of peoples and their homes across the globe!
Even if these statistics were of common knowledge, do not look for things to change. The majority of the American public loves its military and government and has been conditioned to overlook and accept nearly all of its wars and interventions along with the propaganda that attempts to justify them.
What must change is ideology which, at one time, was strongly anti-interventionist, but gradually became pro-war. Through education, the press, books, and the electronic media, the intelligentsia was able to manipulate public opinion. Americans began to glorify war under the guise of spreading democracy and “freedom” to everyone, whether they wanted it or not.
Under current ideological conditions, a reversal of thinking to a non-interventionist foreign policy is not likely. The only way that the nation’s rampaging foreign policy will be checked is through an economic collapse or a severe dollar crisis, the latter of which would end the greenback’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
If America no longer has the means to fund its military around the world, its imperialism will quickly come to an end. It is extremely burdensome on a domestic economy to maintain a global empire and one that is actively engaged in costly military operations. If the nation’s economy severely contracts or the dollar can no longer be printed with impunity, the bombing of other peoples and political involvement in overseas affairs would have to cease, or be drastically curtailed. A historical example of this is Great Britain after WWII.
As it stands now, only financial calamity will bring down the world’s foremost terrorist state. If such a scenario comes about, the US may become the recipient of the destruction, loss of life, and mayhem it has unleashed upon the world.
*Tyler Durden, “America’s Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One is Talking About it.” Zero Hedge, 6 June 2018, *https://antoniusaquinas.comhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-22/trumps-military-drops-bomb-every-12-minutes-and-no-one-talking-about-it
Tyler Durden, Debunking the Persistent Myth of U.S. Precision Bombing,” Zero Hedge. 23 June 2018, https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-23/debunking-persistent-myth-us-precision-bombing
Is Political Decentralization the Only Hope for Western Civilization?
A couple of recent articles have once more made the case, at least implicitly, for political decentralization as the only viable path which will begin to solve the seemingly insurmountable political, economic, and social crises which the Western world now faces.
In the last few months, over 3,000 millionaires have fled the hopelessly corrupt and bankrupt state of Illinois. When asked, 47% of Illinoisans would like to leave the state which, over the last decade, has seen over a half million of its residents flee. Naturally, this exodus has exacerbated the Land of Lincoln’s financial straits to catastrophic levels.*
A report published by the American Legislative Exchange Council predicted that the tax flight which is occurring in Illinois will similarly take place in the coming years in high-tax blue states such as California and New York. The 2017 Trump tax reform will accelerate this process since under the new legislation the amount of state income tax that can be deducted on federal tax returns has been capped at $10,000 per family. The authors of the report wrote: “. . . high [income] earners in places with hefty income taxes – not just California and New York, but also Minnesota and New Jersey – will bear more of the true cost of their state government.”**
The not too subtle consequences of the new tax code will mean an even greater exodus of taxpayers out of blue states which will shrink state revenues even further and create job losses across the board.
While those who want to escape the crushing burden of individual state taxation and regulation, if they have the means and desire to do so, can move to more favorable climes, no such option exists (except the drastic step of expatriation) to escape federal tyranny. Yet, the same benefits which occur from a multiple of individual states and jurisdictions would be present if the various nation states which dominate the globe were broken up into smaller political units.
While the authors of the cited articles see the advantage that multiple states have where one can “vote with his feet,” the same logic can be applied to central governments across the planet who are, on the whole, more tyrannical than local jurisdictions. More political bodies would not only provide sanctuary for the oppressed, but it would tend to keep a check on tyranny among existing states.
Political decentralization is a far greater deterrent to government largesse than constitutions, elections, or finding the “right person” to “fix things.” The events of the last few weeks in the realm of US foreign policy once again demonstrate that trusting candidates to fulfill campaign promises is naive, to say the least.
To get to this goal, all and every secession movement, even of a Leftist bent, should be supported, whether they are nations that want to “exit” from larger political units, such as Great Britain from the EU, or within nation states themselves such as California in the US. All should be encouraged.
Of course, the case for decentralization has to be made on ideological grounds. The Left, most likely, will not be a natural ally for secession, nor are conservatives, most of whom are under the spell of “nationalism” and “restoring the Republic,” likely to support secession. Yet, the Right offers the best opportunity to build a secession movement and needs to be convinced that the preservation of the nation state will only lead to the complete triumph of liberalism.
Secession would also necessitate the breakup of the nation-state’s monopoly of money and banking. Numerous political divisions would be more likely to adopt a single monetary unit – gold – which would guarantee financial stability rather than the debt ridden paper-money system now in place.
Next to the outbreak of World War III, immigration is the greatest threat to what remains of Western Civilization. Smaller political units would be far better to control their borders than reliance on a central authority which can be easily manipulated from outside agents.
The solution to the myriad of social and economic problems that confront Western societies will not come about from a “reform” of the nation state, but through its dissolution. Only through a world made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of Lichtensteins, Hong Kongs, Monacos, confederacies, free cities, etc., will these crises be hoped to be resolved.
*Tyler Durden, “This $5 Trillion Time Bomb Will Devastate Americans.” Zero Hedge. 9 August 2017. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-09/5-trillion-time-bomb-will-devastate-americans
**Robert Frank. “800,000 People Are About to Flee New York and California Because of Taxes, Say Economists.” CNBC.com. 26 April 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/800000-people-are-about-to-flee-new-york-california-because-of-taxes.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar
Only Economic Collapse Will Bring Down the American Empire
The Bomber-in-Chief announces air attacks on Syria
Despite the vehement pleas and letter-writing campaigns by a significant portion of his political base including notable media personalities such as Tucker Carlson against military action in Syria, President Trump committed what looks like political suicide by ordering air strikes on Friday evening. The bombing, thankfully, appeared to have been thwarted by Syrian air defenses, nor, as of this date, has the insane American, British and French action led to a wider conflagration.
As of yet, no doubt due to Divine Intervention, WWIII has not erupted and although the ramifications of the attack will reverberate for weeks to come, what is clear is that President Trump is now firmly in the clutches of the neocons, Israel, and the American Deep State, all of who are the direct beneficiaries of the wanton attack on the Assad regime.
A good portion of Trump’s base is rightfully enraged by the action, which will dash any hope of it coming to his aid if future impeachment proceedings are commenced over the Mueller investigation. Many of Trump’s supporters have been seething ever since he signed off on the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending package in March and his continued failure to start construction on a border wall.
Talk about shooting one’s self in the foot!
Whether President Trump survives until 2020 or is replaced in the interim by neocon Mike Pence, American foreign policy will, in all likelihood, continue its bellicose ways. Ever since WWI, which the current Bomber-in-Chief mentioned in his address announcing the air strikes, America has been an interventionist, destructive, and murderous empire.
The reason for this is that the nation’s ideology had changed where it had once trumpeted the ideas of non-intervention and peace (except, of course, for the people of the South during their heroic attempt at independence) to those that glorified empire and war, largely based on the British model which, ironically, was the system that America seceded from in 1776. By the time of WWI (actually the disgraceful Spanish-American War), the ideals of non-intervention, peace, free trade, and hard money had been gradually replaced by those of empire, central banking, war, and debt.
Until there is a change in ideology, it is unlikely that the US will refrain from its interventionist foreign policy. And, typically, social change comes after men’s minds have been convinced of a different paradigm which, of course, does not happen overnight.
Like the British Empire before it, the only way the US will stop its murderous ways will be from economic collapse or a severe financial panic which threatens or ends the US dollar’s status as the world reserve currency.
Candidate Trump may have been the last hope of an American Firster who had the wherewithal to attain the Presidency. Although not an ideologue, Trump spoke of getting along with Russia, disengaging from the Middle East, and backing out of, or making NATO members pay for their own “defense.” These qualities faded once elected and the ominous talk about scuttling the Iranian arms deal and spending more on the military were pushed ahead.
After WWII, Britain had simply exhausted itself with its insane participation in the world wars and could no longer maintain its empire. Britain’s ideology did not change, but reality stepped in: it simply did not have the capacity (wealth) to fund a world-wide empire. It had squandered its resources and men on the battlefields of Europe.
Winston Churchill the destroyer of the British Empire
The US is headed in the same direction, which is what both Russia and China are counting on. Its crushing debt burden, costly wars, and out-of-control spending are sapping its productive capacity, which the military industrial complex taps to sustain itself.
The US enemies have based their strategies on this. In reference to the US’ involvement in the Afghanistan quagmire, Osama bin Laden reportedly said:
We, alongside the mujahideen, bled Russia for 10
years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to
withdraw in defeat . . . So we are continuing this
policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.*
Osama Bin Laden
The question that remains is when will a collapse occur or at least another crisis like in 2008 take place? The warning signs abound. The most pressing is the exploding US deficit which has soared in March to $209 billion. In 2007, the entire deficit for the year was less than $200 billion!
The collapse of the US economy is unavoidable, however, it is not “if” but “when.” For world peace, it had better be sooner than later.
*Brian Whitaker, “Al-Qaida is Bleeding US to Bankruptcy, Bin Laden Claims.” The Guardian, 3 November 2004. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/03/usa.alqaida
Say it Isn’t So Rex!
After nearly a year of gaffes, provocations, threats, bombings, destabilizing arms deals, and, most recently, the disastrous decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the sanest member of the Trump Administration, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, appeared to have begun a new and promising diplomatic direction in relations with tiny, beleaguered North Korea.
In a surprising statement given to a Washington think tank on December 12, Secretary Tillerson said:
We are ready to talk anytime North Korea would
like to talk. We are ready to have the first meeting
without preconditions. Let’s just meet. We can talk
about the weather if you want. We can talk about
whether its going to be a square table or a round table
if that’s what you’re excited about. And then we can
begin to lay out a road map.*
He perceptively added that it was “unrealistic” for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program.
Tillerson’s reasonable approach, however, did not sit very well with either his boss or the blood thirsty war hawks within the Administration who now have enough ammunition to force his removal, probably after the first of the year. One of Trump’s top aides reportedly said Tillerson “hasn’t learned his lesson.”**
A couple of days later, and probably after a tongue lashing by the Chief Executive, Tillerson had taken back his earlier statement and was once again pushing the hardcore, neocon line declaring: “North Korea must earn its way back to the table. The pressure campaign must and will continue until denuclearization is achieved.”***
The “preconditions” for any US-North Korean talks was spelled out by the Secretary of State: a “sustained cessation of North Korea’s threatening behavior” and that the “ultimate outcome of the talks would mean that it would abandon its nuclear weapons program.”****
As an astute appraiser of the situation, Tillerson understands that the preconditions set by the US will never be agreed to by North Korea. They would be insane to do so. Kim Jong Un realizes what happens to regimes that renounce their nuclear weapons program – their leadership usually faces a grisly demise – see Iraq and Libya.
Why is it that the US should unilaterally set preconditions? Doesn’t North Korea have any say in how negotiations should commence? Wasn’t it North Korea that bore much of the destruction in the “police action” of the 1950s, when 10% of its population perished and only a few buildings remained standing in its capital after merciless American carpet bombing?
The effects of what the US did are still embedded in the North Korean psyche, President Trump, who avoided military service during the Vietnam War due to a mysterious foot ailment, called it “pointless” to negotiate without preconditions which would in effect mean surrender for North Korea.
While anti-immigration proponents and border wall enthusiasts continue to press President Trump to fulfill his campaign promise, illegal immigration is still secondary to that of war and peace. In fact, the two are linked. A de-escalation of tensions in North Korea as Secretary Tilllerson’s path would most likely lead to would mean that the Trump Administration could concentrate more on domestic issues with the first priority being border security.
Secretary Tillerson’s level-headed thinking should be applied to other parts of the world that the US has poked its unwanted nose into. A pull back in its role as global policeman would reduce the massive wasteful defense spending which would leave resources available for the domestic economy.
If, God forbid, war does break out on the Korean peninsula, the blame can be directly placed on the crazed war hawks of the Trump Administration up to and including the Chief Executive himself and not in the more moderate voices like Rex Tillerson. Not only would there be massive bloodshed and destruction from such a conflict, but it might lead to a general world conflagration.
Ultimately, however, even Rex Tillerson’s approach goes beyond what a true America First foreign policy should look like. America has no business being involved in the political affairs of Korea. Non-intervention, free trade, and cultural exchange are the principles of a true America First program. Only when these ideals are adopted will the crisis on the Korean Peninsula be solved.
*Tyler Durden, “After Shocking Reversal Tillerson, North Korea Agrees ‘It’s Important to Avoid War.'” Zero Hedge 12 December 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-12/after-shocking-tillerson-reversal-north-korea-agrees-it-important-avoid-war
**Jason Ditz. “Trump Allies: Tillerson Hasn’t Learned His Lesson.” Antiwar.com 15 December 2017. http://news.antiwar.com/2017/12/15/trump-allies-tillerson-hasnt-learned-his-lesson/
***Carol Morello, “In Reversal, Tillerson says N. Korea must ‘earn’ way back to talks.” The Washington Post, 16 December 2017, A9.
Heaven Forbid Peace Should Break Out Between the US and North Korea
As long as the US Empire can be funded and maintained on the backs of its taxpaying public, the chance of de-escalation of tensions not only on the Korean peninsula, but throughout the world are practically nil. And, as long as the nation’s current interventionist ideology holds sway, it will only be through a financial meltdown that the US’s role as global policeman will come to a much- needed end.
The most recent example of the world’s biggest bully escalating matters is its on- again, off-again badgering of North Korea. In contrast to Western/CIA media reports, the November 28 launch of what appears to be an intercontinental ballistic missile, the Hwasong-15, was not unprovoked. Instead, the North Korean test firing was in response to the unexpected announcement of further US/South Korean military drills to take place starting on December 4. The exercises are, in part, to show off the latest mass murdering “product” of America’s military industrial complex, the USF-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet.
Before the latest launch, the Kim Jong Un regime had not fired a missile for two months and was in discussions with other intermediaries about how tensions could be lessened on the Korean peninsula. For the bellicose US, however, not even an uneasy “truce” can be tolerated. The next American scheduled drill was not to take place until the spring of 2018, yet, while negotiations were taking place, the US abruptly, and to the outrage of everyone involved, renewed exercises. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, explains:
We have been working with Pyongyang. Then,
all of a sudden two weeks after the United States
had sent us the signal [about readiness to dialogue],
they announced unscheduled drills in December.
there is an impression that they were deliberately
provoking [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Un t
make him break the pause and gave in to their
This, of course, is not the first time that the US has acted with duplicity in foreign matters. Its barbaric dealing with two Middle Eastern strongmen (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi) are grisly examples of what happens to those who run afoul of the US Empire, especially those who do not possesses a nuclear deterrent.
North Korea, too, has witnessed the wanton destructive capabilities of the American military during the so called “police action” of the early 1950s:
The US Air Force estimated that North Korea’s
destruction was proportionally greater than that
of Japan’s in the Second World War. . . . American
planes dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea . . .
including 32,557 tons of napalm, compared to
503,000 tons of bombs dropped in the entire Pacific
theatre of WWII.**
The loss of life was, to say the least, catastrophic as 10% of the population, some 3 million people, perished due mostly to American bombing while the destruction of property was equally brutal. “By the end of the war,” North Korean sources assert, “only two modern buildings remained standing in Pyongyang.”
Is it any wonder that the North Korean leadership gets a little antsy when the US scramble its jets. It does not want a repetition of the holocaust inflicted on it by the merciless American Air Force.
Of course, these inconvenient facts are rarely if ever spoken about in the Western media, academia, and certainly not by war-mongering politicos like U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. They are simply ignorant of history or pretend not to know.
The US Empire only accepts peace if it favors its interests. For the Korean Peninsula that means that Kim Jong Un must disband his nuclear program. Such a move, however, would mean a premature death to Un and the eventual carpet bombing of his country. The North Korean strongman will do no such thing.
The Trump Administration may huff and puff all it wants and enact greater sanctions on the North, but unless it wants to risk a nuclear confrontation that may spread into a general world war, it has little options.
Instead of another round of destabilizing military maneuvers, maybe President Trump and his foreign policy team should try to engage in genuine negotiations to bring about an equitable solution to the matter.
Why not “give peace a chance?”
* “Russian FM Reveals First Victims in Case of War on Korean Peninsula.” Sputnik News. 2 December 2017. https://sputniknews.com/asia/201712021059640205-russia-provocations-korea-war/
**Charles K. Armstrong, “The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950-1960.” The Asian-Pacific Journal. http://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html
Pope Francis and Perversity
Last week, the purported head of the Catholic Church, Jorge Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, popped off once again about the supposed danger of global warming to mankind. “Pope Francis” called climate change “one of the most worrisome phenomena that humanity is facing” while those who hold dissimilar views on the subject have “perverse attitudes.”
It is interesting that Bergoglio used the term “perverse” to describe those who might see climate change as a hoax being used by global elitists to further enslave humanity. Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd college edition defines perverse in the following way:
- deviating from what is considered right and good; wrong
improper, etc. or corrupt, wicked, etc; perverted.
- persisting in error or fault; stubbornly contrary.
- obstinately disobedient or difficult; intractable
- characterized by or resulting from obstinacy or
It would be difficult to find a better term for Bergoglio and his wretched papacy than “perverse!”
It is apparent to any semi-cognizant person that Jorge Bergoglio, who has uttered a stream of mind-boggling heresies and has engaged in numerous scandalous activities, is not a Catholic. Not only is it impossible for a manifest heretic to be pope, but Bergoglio’s “papacy” is invalid since he was neither ordained a priest or consecrated as a bishop in the traditional, Apostolic rite, but instead was given orders created after the Second Vatican Anti-Council, 1962-65.
If this was not bad enough, Bergoglio who was “elected,” in part, to clean up the Church’s abominable and still ongoing pedophile scandal has done virtually nothing to oust the perverts, rapists, and enablers involved in the child holocaust, but has “perversely” promoted a number of these deviants into high-ranking Vatican positions!
Bergoglio has sought to change two millennium of Church teaching, some of which goes contrary to the very words of Christ Himself, on marriage, divorce, and sodomy. Moreover, he has continued, like his post-Vatican II predecessors, to add novelties and make changes to the Church’s ancient liturgy and practices, most of which have been condemned by earlier popes and councils.
Despite all of this, Bergoglio has had the audacity to castigate those who do not go along with the phony baloney notion of climate change. He not only has lost all moral authority to do so, but, like many of the climate change hustlers, Bergoglio has no scientific credentials to make such pronouncements one way or the other. Nor does the office that he illegitimately occupies possess jurisdiction in this field.
The post-Vatican II popes have turned the august Chair of St. Peter into a pulpit for all sorts of crazed liberalistic causes with Bergoglio being the most radical of its proponents. Another favorite of the Argentine heretic is his championing of mass migration unto European shores.
That Bergoglio has been allowed to not only remain in office, but has not been challenged when he utters such nonsense shows the low degree of knowledge of the faith that exists among most Catholics. Popes have very limited authority and are only “infallible” in very specific theological areas. This is why popes of the past never wrote books, issued statements or made speeches on social issues. They are supposed to preach the Gospel.
The attainment of the sublime virtues contained in the Beatitudes as the goal of Christian living has under Bergoglio been replaced with a liberalistic creed of social activism that includes climate change, mass migration, and income redistribution. Such a transformation is the very antithesis of what the office that he holds was originally constituted to accomplish.
Bergoglio’s support for global warming demonstrates again that the Catholic Church is now an organ of the New World Order. Politics, control and social engineering are the tenets of the New Faith while the spiritual wellbeing of souls is an afterthought. It is a rarity when “Pope Francis” ever preaches on Christian themes, and when he does it is usually laced with heresies, confusion and downright lies.
If any institution should be free of perversity, it is the Catholic Church and that its current head is the embodiment of it shows the depths upon which that venerable institution has sunk. When Bergoglio and his crowd are either silenced or replaced, fraudulent ideas like global warming will become regrettable memories of a distant past.
What President Trump and the West can Learn from China
Instead of a demonstration of its overwhelming military might intended to intimidate tiny North Korea and pressure China to lean on its defiant communist neighbor, President Trump and the West should try to learn a few things from China.
The President’s trip to the Far East came on the heels of the completion of China’s 19th National Congress where the current president, Xi Jinping, has cunningly positioned himself as China’s unchallenged leader. In an address at the opening of the Congress, Xi cautioned that the country faced “challenges” that are “extremely grim” yet, despite these, the nation’s future is “extremely bright.”*
While Western politicos and pundits bemoan the lack of political pluralism that exists within China and President Trump complained about bad trade “deals,” they miss an important factor as to why China has transformed itself from a socialist basket case some three decades ago into an economic powerhouse which now boasts over a third of the world’s billionaires!
China’s economic ascendancy can be attributed not only to the implementation of market reforms in the 1990s, but also its lack of “political competition.” As a one-party state, resources, time, energy, and capital are not allowed to be channeled into wasteful political processes, but instead are used and “invested” in wealth-creation activities – construction, factories, plants, equipment, research, technology – all of which leads to more and cheaper consumer goods.
The US and the West spend too much on elections, campaigns, polling, political consultation, etc., which diverts scarce resources away from the private wealth sectors of society. For example, in her last failed presidential campaign run, the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua alone spent over a half of billion dollars.
Under Western democratic pluralism, public debt and state spending have increased to unsustainable levels. In the US alone – history’s greatest debtor nation – the national debt is in excess of $20 trillion, while its total debt officially is $68 billion with a federal deficit (GAAP) running yearly at $5 ½ trillion.
Such staggering numbers are the result, in part, from political parties seeking public office and once elected exploiting their position to enrich themselves, their constituents, and create dependent classes among the ever shrinking productive segments of society.
China’s foreign policy – an extension of politics – has also been conducive for wealth creation. Instead of wasteful spending on military hardware, the maintenance of a far-flung global empire, and involvement in incessant wars, China has a rather meek military compared to its national income and has conducted a pretty much non-interventionist foreign policy – witness its diplomacy with North Korea.
The US is almost the polar opposite. It spends more on “defense” than the next eight countries combined.** Instead of the production of useful consumer goods, billions are siphoned off into the military/security industrial complex. Not only does this impoverish Americans at home, but it leads to never ending involvement in wars, conflicts, and disputes, most of which are created or exacerbated by US spy organizations.
After meeting with Chinese leadership, President Trump tweeted:
I don’t blame China, I blame the incompetence
of past Admins for allowing China to take advantage
of the U.S. on trade leading up to a point where the
U.S. is losing $100’s of billions. How can you blame
China for taking advantage of people that had no clue?
I would’ve done the same!
Making better trade deals will not revitalize the moribund US economy. Instead, there should be less politicization of society and adoption of market reforms as China has done. The most important plank of such a policy would be the encouragement of real savings – not the creation of bank credit – through the normalization of interest rates. This would begin the arduous process of capital accumulation, the basis upon which any economy can be built.
Another sign of the divergence between the two is China’s continued push to make the yuan the world’s reserve currency with apparently some sort of gold backing to it. Contrarily, the Trump Administration has continued the same disastrous policies of its predecessors and has chosen a Janet Yellen clone to head the Federal Reserve with a continuation, no doubt, of the suppression of interest rates. On the other hand, China continues to import massive quantities of gold and encourages its citizens to own the yellow metal while the West is in the midst of a crypto currency mania, another fraudulent monetary scheme.
China’s economic miracle, while certainly impressive, would not look as astounding if Western economies had not been in a state of stagnation and decline over the past half century. It was not political liberalization that led to China’s phenomenal growth, but economic freedom which used to be a staple of Western life. The lesson that should be taken from President Trump’s trip is less politics domestically and more free markets.
*Chris Buckley, “Xi Jinping Opens China’s Party Congress, His Hold Tighter Than Ever.” The New York Times, 17 October 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/world/asia/xi-jinping-communist-party-china.html
**Peter G. Peterson Foundation. “US Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries.” 1 June 2017. https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
In Remembrance of the October Revolution
The Communist monster Vladimir Lenin
This October marks the centennial anniversary of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia and the establishment of Soviet-style Communism which tragically, for the Russian people, would last for some seventy interminable years. Not only did the Soviet regime liquidate and imprison millions, but its idiotic system of central planning impoverished the country, turning it into an economic basket case, the effects of which continue to this day.
Just as bad, the Bolsheviks murdered the last Czar, Nicholas II and his family, brutally ending nearly five hundred years of monarchial rule of Russia. Within a year of the demise of the Russian aristocracy, two other of Europe’s venerable royal houses – Germany and Austria – met the same fate, all three casualties of their insane decision to participate in World War I. The end of the German Court and especially that of Austria came at the vengeful insistence of then President Woodrow Wilson, who brought the US into the conflict on the pledge to make the “world safe for democracy.”
The triumph of the Bolsheviks and the downfall of the German and Austrian monarchies ushered in the Age of Democracy as other Western constitutional republics at the time and in each passing year began to resemble and adopt features of their supposed Communist foe. As the 20th century wore on, each Western nation state became more “democratic,” increasing their welfare/warfare state apparatus, imposing more and more radical egalitarian social and economic measures, and adopting greater amounts of economic planning mostly through central banking. Not only did economic activity become increasingly effected by monetary policy, but the central banks were instrumental in the eradication of the gold standard throughout the Western world.
Not only did Communism prove to be a disaster economically in Russia and everywhere else tried, but socialism had other debilitating effects. The quality of the population declined along with the numbers of ethnic Russians, a trend that ominously continues to this day. While ingenuity was stifled by the Soviet command economy, its culture, although never as advanced as Western Europe, became sterile and overshadowed by the heavy hand of the commissar. The only memorable literature produced during the period were accounts of the gulag and the repression of dissent. Music and the arts were similar cultural wastelands.
The West, too, as its nation states became more socialistic and egalitarian, witnessed retrogression in every aspect of society. The catastrophic drop off in the size of the native populations can largely be attributed to crazed feminism, where women were encouraged and given privileges to pursue careers and become “working moms,” which led to the phenomenon of the “dysfunctional family” and declines in the number of child births. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains this effect in the American context:
In the U.S., . . . less than a century of full-blown
democracy has resulted in steadily increasing
moral degeneration, family and social disintegration,
and cultural decay in the form of continually rising
rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and crime.
As a result of an ever-expanding list of non-
discrimination – ‘affirmative action’ – laws and
nondiscriminatory, multicultural, egalitarian
immigration policies, every nook and cranny of
American society is affected by government
management and forced integration.*
Hoppe’s seminal demolition of Democracy
A primary reason why the quality of Western life has crumbled so markedly has been the replacement of its “natural elites” with “political elites” via the democratic process. Every society is led by its leading individuals who through talent, hard work, brains, foresight, moral fortitude, fairness, and bravery come to the top and are looked to for guidance. Under democratic conditions, however, the natural elites have, in a sense, been “voted out” by the political class who, instead of out competing their rivals, secure their status by politics mostly through demagogy.
In Soviet Russia, the natural elites were ruthlessly purged by Lenin’s forces and over time any sort of advancement or achievement had to come via the Communist Party.
Despite the overwhelming failure of socialism, Western nation states continue to practice many of its features, a most notorious recent example being that of the passage of Obamacare, the first step on the road to universal health care in the US. America, itself, resembles more of a police state than ever before with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of draconian legislation such as the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The October Revolution should be remembered for what it was: the inauguration of mankind’s first total state. It, and the social system which it spawned, should be condemned by all those who seek prosperity and an advanced civilization.
*Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order. New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Publishers, 2001, p. xiii.
Donald Trump: Warmonger-in-Chief!
If a world conflagration, God forbid, should break out during the Trump Administration, its genesis will not be too hard to discover: the thin-skinned, immature, shallow, doofus which currently resides in the Oval Office!
This past week, the Donald has continued his bellicose talk with both veiled and explicit threats against purported American adversaries throughout the world. In a cryptic exchange with reporters during a dinner with military leaders, he quipped:
You guys know what this represents? Maybe
it’s the calm before the storm. It could be the
calm. . . before. . . the storm.*
A reporter asked if he meant Iran or Isis which the POTUS responded, “you’ll find out.” Instead of threatening supposed overseas foes with nuclear annihilation, none of whom have taken any concrete military action against the US, why not go after someone who has actually compromised the country’s security, namely Hillary Rodham Clinton!
While some dismissed the comments as typical Trumpian bluster, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders added further ominous overtones when questioned saying they were “extremely serious.”
Later in the week, Trump continued to threaten tiny North Korea, this time in not so veiled terms:
Presidents and their administrations have
been talking to North Korea for 25 years,
agreements made and massive amounts
of money paid hasn’t worked, agreements
violated before the ink was dry, making
fools of U.S. negotiators. Sorry, but only
one thing will work.**
If war erupts either on the Korean Peninsula or in any other part of the globe that the US has wantonly poked its nose into, it can be safely assured that neither Trump nor any of the other “military leaders,” with which he recently had dinner with, will be in the midst of hostilities as the bombs and bullets are being cast about. No, these laptop bombers will be in safe quarters far away from enemy lines, giving orders, making speeches, and praising the troops while Congress will be hurriedly passing more “defense” funding legislation further lining the pockets of the military industrial complex.
The Warmonger-in-Chief, who has repeatedly bragged about America’s military prowess, had a chance to become a part of the organization he constantly gushes over during his youth at the time of the Vietnam War. Yet, he escaped military service, due to the machinations of his father, because of a mysterious foot/toe malady.
For all those who avoided being conscripted into America’s disastrous imperial exercise in Southeast Asia during those years, whether it was from phony medical conditions, escaping to Canada or beyond, or going to jail, they did so for justifiable reasons. The war was immoral, since Vietnam had taken no hostile action against the US and what made it worse, the government drafted thousands of America’s youth to fight it. It is reprehensible that those who got out of military service then are now at the forefront in advocating mass murder (war).
One resolution that would certainly curtail warmongering in the future would be that any legislator, president, cabinet officer, or ambassador that promotes military intervention abroad should be required to directly participate in field operations. This would quickly put the brakes on threatening talk from the likes of Trump and his crazed UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley.
A country’s leadership personally conducting military operations has had a long tradition in Western history. During the crusading era, princes and kings led their retinues and forces into battle risking life and limb such as the great Norman prince, Bohemond, whose courage, tenacity, and military acumen won the day for Christian forces at the battle of Antioch.
This venerable ideal can still be seen in Russia when recently one of its generals and two colonels lost their lives in the Syrian quagmire.*** When was the last time a US general has perished in active combat?
It is apparent that the current POTUS does not understand the catastrophic consequences of what his threats, if carried out, would lead to – death to millions, unimaginable destruction, and the end of civilization. Maybe, had he actually suffered through the horrors of combat or had been the victim of US aggression as the peoples of North Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have witnessed, he might refrain from such bellicose language.
Hopefully, cooler heads in the Administration will prevail, however, a more peaceful world is unlikely with the likes of Donald John Trump at the command of the greatest destructive force in human history.
*Tyler Durden, “President Trump Warns Ominously: ‘It’s the Calm Before the Storm.'” Zero Hedge. 6 October 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-05/president-trump-warns-ominously-its-calm-storm
**Tyler Durden, “Trump Hints at War With North Korea: ‘Sorry, But Only One Thing Will Work.'” Zero Hedge. 7 October 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-07/trump-hints-war-north-korea-after-25-years-failed-diplomacy-only-one-thing-will-work
***Alexander, “General Asapov Died Because as a Russian Officer He Led From the Front.” Russia Feed. 30 September 2017. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/no_author/general-asapov-died-because-as-a-russian-officer-he-led-from-the-front/
A Constitutional Anniversary to Forget
While not a jubilee year, last week marked the 230th anniversary of the US Constitution. Naturally, most of its devotees enthusiastically praised the document which by now is seen on a par with Holy Writ itself. An editorial from Investor’s Business Daily provides an example of such hagiography
The Constitution’s beauty is that it not only delineates our rights
as Americans, but expressly limits and defines government’s ability
to interfere in our private lives. This equipoise between citizens’
duties, responsibilities and rights makes it the defining document
or our nation’s glorious freedom.
But America is wonderful largely because of the Constitution and
those who framed it .
What we have is too precious to squander.*
Most of the piece laments about the widespread ignorance of its sacred contents among the denizens in which it rules over and encourages the unlearned “to bone up a bit on your constitutional heritage . . . .” The editorial fails, as do most others on the Right, to understand that it is not a lack of knowledge of the Constitution’s contents among the populace which lies at the heart of America’s social, economic, and political problems, but the very document itself.
One of the main reasons why the Constitution continues to be so widely venerated is due to the deliberate distortion of history that its “founders” promoted and that generations of its sycophants have continued to perpetuate to this very day. The official narrative runs that the Constitution was enacted because of widespread popular support for a change to the supposed inadequacies and deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation.
This is a myth. Instead, the Constitution was a coup deliberately schemed by the leading political and mercantile classes to set up a powerful central government where ultimate authority rested in the national state. The use of the term “federal” to describe what was created in Philadelphia in those fateful days was a ruse much like the banksters and politicos used “Federal Reserve” to describe the central bank created in 1913. It was neither “federal” – a decentralized monetary order – nor a “reserve” of gold, but a monetary institution which could create money out of thin air and eventually eliminate the gold standard.
It was a similar political maneuver 230 years ago as a new American national state was established and touted as a decentralized form of government where power was evenly divided between state and national levels and between the different branches of the government itself – “separation of powers.” In actuality, however, the “federal system” was the elevation of central power at the expense of local authority which had previously existed. Section VI of the Constitution says it all:
The Constitution and the laws of the United States . . .
shall be the supreme law of the land; and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Elementary political science has shown and plain common sense knows that any person or institution given “supreme authority” will misuse and abuse such power. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely is an undeniable dictum of human nature. A truly decentralized system of governance would not contain a plank as “supreme law of the land” as part of its foundation. Instead, real federalism would be dispersed, as it existed in the past in such political arrangements as confederacies, leagues, and, certainly, under the much maligned feudal social order.
Even the Constitution’s celebrated Bill of Rights is flawed and has proven to be ineffective in protecting basic human freedoms. It is the federal government which enumerates and interprets what freedom individuals should possess. Thus, the meaning and extent of individual liberties will be in the hands of federal jurists and courts who will invariably rule on cases in favor of the state. The ensnaring of individual rights within the central government’s authority did away with the venerable common law which was a far greater defender of liberty than federal courts.
Just as important, the enactment of the Constitution, which brought all the individual states under it suzerainty, did away with one of the most significant checks on state power – “voting with one’s feet.” When there are multiple governing authorities, if one jurisdiction becomes too oppressive, its subjects can move to freer domains. This still happens on a local level as high tax and regulatory states such as California and New York have lost demographically to freer places like Nevada and Texas. Yet, from the Federal Leviathan there is no escape, except expatriation.
Unless and until Americans and all the other peoples of the Western world who live under constitutional rule recognize that it is the type of government which is the cause of most of the political turmoil, social unrest, and economic malaise which they face, there is no hope of turning things around.
*”Sturdy Constitution, ” Investor’s Business Daily, Week of September 18, 2017, A20.
The United States of Hubris
If anyone should have any questions about whether the United States of America is not the most aggressive, warlike, and terroristic nation on the face of the earth, its latest proposed action against the supposed rogue state of North Korea should allay any such doubts.
Last week, the US circulated a draft resolution which it intends to present to the UN Security Council that would give the American Navy and Air Force the power to interdict North Korean ships at sea to determine if they were transporting “weaponry material” or fuel and that US forces would be given “the right” to use “all necessary measures” to “enforce compliance.”*
Not surprisingly, Nikky Haley, the blood-thirsty and incompetent American Ambassador to the UN, has enthusiastically backed the resolution, utterly clueless of its ramifications if passed, the most horrific of which would be the igniting of WWIII. Trump’s selection of the neocon mouthpiece as UN Ambassador has been a disaster on several fronts: first, it was an early and quite telling sell out of his political base whom he promised an American First foreign policy of less belligerency and intervention. Second, Haley had no foreign policy experience and has made a fool of herself internationally on more than one occasion with her inane statements.
That the US is even considering such a provocative scheme once again shows the hubris which exists within its vast corridors of power. Any other country which would suggest such an audacious act would be rightly condemned, ostracized, and labeled as a rogue state. Yet, it is US lawmakers, policy wonks, and the CIA/NSA-directed American press corps that charge others (mostly those who do not kowtow to US dictates) of “terrorism.”
This year, as of yet, North Korea has not been responsible for a single death of a foreign national. Nor has the tiny communist state ever used a nuclear weapon against an enemy like the US did with its immoral and hellish destruction of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the conclusion of WWII.
On the other hand, since the start of the Trump Presidency, US-backed forces have been responsible for the deaths of some 3700 civilians in Mosul, Iraq.** This is not to mention its murderous armed strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan. Nor is American aggression limited to direct military action, but its arms supply sales to despots and its puppets has escalated tensions and makes conflicts that do break out much more brutal.
The US does so because simply – “it can.” Because it pursued, for a long time, sound economic policies that created a vast amount of wealth and because its homeland was never decimated in the two global conflagrations of the last century, America was able to produce and create wealth without interruption. After WWII, with the world still smoldering from the war’s destruction, America was able to rise to the planet’s dominant power, offset a bit by the Soviet Union and Red China.
Fortunately, for the future of global peace, US hegemony is coming to an end. The nation is hopelessly broke while its welfare/warfare economy is beyond reform and faltering badly which means that when the inevitable collapse does happen, it will mean the end or a serious pull back of the Empire. A similar situation took place in Great Britain in 1945 after it took part in another senseless global conflict which liquidated the British Empire once and for all.
Any sober thinking realist would recognize the deteriorating societal and economic conditions at home, yet because of the collective hubris embedded in the political class, American bellicosity continues.
The last hope of changing US overseas affairs in a peaceful direction was Donald Trump who throughout the campaign spoke of an American First foreign policy which garnered widespread support. Within Trump’s foreign policy statements, however, there were many troubling ones: call for increased defense spending, “wiping out ISIS,” updating the nation’s nuclear arsenal, putting an end to the North Korean “problem.” The encouraging words about non-intervention and getting along with Russia were quickly scuttled while the militaristic side of Trump’s campaign rhetoric has won the day.
History is replete with examples of hubristic regimes which appeared invincible and everlasting, but quickly fall with severe and quite nasty retribution from their enemies. While the US goes about the world threatening, bombing, and destabilizing those it does not like, it too, possibly in the not too distant future, will face the deserved wrath of those it has humiliated and terrorized.
*David E. Sanger, “U.S. Seeks U.N. Consent to Interdict North Korean Ships.” New York Times. 6 September 2017.
**Adam Johnson, “Corporate Media Largely Silent on Trump’s Civilian Death Toll in Iraq.” Fair. 19 July 2017. http://fair.org/home/corporate-media-largely-silent-on-trumps-civilian-death-toll-in-iraq/
Christopher Columbus and the Falsification of History
The Los Angeles City Council’s recent, crazed decision* to replace Christopher Columbus Day with one celebrating “indigenous peoples” can be traced to the falsification of history and denigration of European man which began in earnest in the 1960s throughout the educational establishment (from grade school through the universities), book publishing, and the print and electronic media. It is amazing that, as of yet, the federal holiday commemorating the Genoese explorer’s world- changing voyage has not come under attack. It is doubtful that in the current radicalized leftist ideological atmosphere, the national government’s recognition of Columbus will survive much longer.
Most of what has been taught about Christopher Columbus and his holy and heroic patroness has been distorted, lied about, and politicized for the advancement of leftist causes, the most important of which is the smearing of the great European men of the past and to ridicule their descendants’ pride in their glorious heritage. The historical untruths have not stopped with Columbus and Queen Isabella, but are being spread about conditions of the pre-Columbian societies.
Instead of an idyllic land where the inhabitants lived in peace and harmony with one another until the evil, conquering white man appeared, life in the pre-Columbian Americas’ was, to say the least, quite grisly. A recent archeological discovery in Mexico City of the ancient Aztec Empire shows again what most knew, prior to the onslaught of leftist historical revisionism, that human sacrifice was practiced on a large scale.**
Archeologists have found more than 650 skulls where human sacrifices were conducted at the site of Templo Mayor, which was one of the primary temples of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan. The new find substantiates the description of Andres de Tapia, a Spanish soldier who accompanied conquistador Hernan Cortes in 1521, and his account of the discovery of tens of thousands of skulls which were in the temple that became known as Huey Tzompantli. The number of skulls must have been vast for they “struck fear” in the hearty and seasoned Spanish explorers.
A depiction of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica
That the Spanish immediately ended this hellish practice is not much spoken about by history professors in their lectures to their gullible students, nor did the Los Angeles City Council refer to the satanic ritual during their announcement. Such inconvenient facts do not fit the liberal paradigm of the evil, marauding conquistadors subjugating the innocent Mesoamerican peoples to Spanish rule. Nor will there be much mention that Columbus’ discovery brought civilization to the pagans and more importantly – and horrifically for the politically-correct – Christianity to the indigenous peoples and a chance for eternal salvation.
The takedown of Columbus is also a swipe at the figure who made his exploits altogether possible. For Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand’s underwriting of the great Genoese Admiral’s voyage came only after they had completed their sacred mission of ridding the Iberian Peninsula of the dreaded Moors. Once accomplished, the Queen fulfilled her promise to finance Columbus. It has been contended by some scholars that the discovery of the New World under Spanish auspices was a reward by Divine Providence for the freeing of Spain of the Mohammedan menace.
Instead of enslavement and plunder that leftist historians accuse the Spanish Crown as motives for the exploration, the exact opposite was the truth, as candidly stated by Columbus himself: “she [Isabella] would continue the experiment for the glory of God and His Church, even if the islands yielded nothing but rocks and stones. She had spent more money . . . on enterprises of less importance, and would consider all she had disbursed well employed, for it would result in the spread of [Christianity] and the good of Spain.”***
Nearly every moral and ethical system ever devised has always condemned ingratitude. Acknowledgement and veneration of the glorious deeds of those of the past in which a civilization was built is a necessary duty for its preservation. When a culture’s icons are ignorantly defamed or replaced, it is a sure sign that it is in steep decline. The scuttling of the yearly commemoration of Christopher Columbus’ monumental expeditions by the city of Los Angeles is another ominous indicator of a deeply troubled and disintegrating society.
*Tyler Durden, “Los Angeles Changes ‘Columbus Day’ to ‘Indigenous Peoples Day.'” Zero Hedge. 31 August 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-31/trump-was-right-it-will-never-end-los-angeles-changes-columbus-day-indigenous-people
**Reuters, “Tower of Human Skulls in Mexico Casts New Light on Aztec Sacrifices.” 2 July 2107. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tower-human-skulls-mexico-casts-new-light-aztec-sacrifices-n779106
*** Quoted in Rev. Frs. Alphonsus Maria Duran, M.J., and Paul Mary Vota, M.J., “Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition?” (Chicago: Miles Jesu, 2000), p. 10.
Bitcoin in an Illusionary Age
It is altogether fitting that crypto currencies, in particular Bitcoin, have witnessed a meteoric rise in this illusionary age. Not only has their monetary value gone to dizzying heights, but they are now being touted as the destroyer of the current, crumbling monetary order and the next paradigm upon which a new money and banking system will emerge.
In an era where sacrifice, hard work, loyalty, ingenuity, tradition, and independent thought are considered anathemas, while affirmative action, sloth, effeminacy, office seeking, and something-for-nothing schemes are endemic in every walk of life, it is not surprising that non-tangible, computer-generated currencies would become a “natural” feature of such a world.
While it has always been a haven for charlatans, traitors, cheats, thieves, liars, and serial adulterers, contemporary political life has become even more of a sham. The most glaring example of politics’ utter corruption can be seen in the recent departed chief executive officer of the US. Unless one abandons all critical thinking, Obummer was unqualified to be president because of the obvious fact that he was not born on American soil. Not only did this disqualify him, but his educational and professional backgrounds have not been verified. Neither his collegiate records nor his supposed teaching career at the University of Chicago Law School have ever been exposed to public scrutiny. From the few utterances he has made about his supposed specialty – constitutional law – it appears that he has only a rudimentary knowledge of the subject.
Cultural life has descended to the basest of levels and has abandoned nearly all of Western Civilization’s glorious achievements. Consider music. The dominant form of what passes as music today is not the works of the great maestros of the past – Bach, Mozart, Beethoven – but instead, noise in the form of rock, hip hop, rap, grunge, or whatever the latest degenerate trend is in vogue.
Modern democracy is also a fallacy. Being sold to the masses as a system where the people rule and personal liberties are guaranteed, democratic governance is anything but, and has instead been craftily used by the elites to amass state power to an unprecedented extent not witnessed in human history. The much maligned monarchial age even during its “absolutist phase” could not come close to the scope and intrusiveness that democratic governments possess today.
Religion, too, is not immune from its share of hypocrisy. Not only is the supposed head of the Catholic Church a manifest heretic who almost daily blasphemies the Divine Majesty, but he is not qualified to occupy the august chair in which he sits. Jorge Bergoglio was neither ordained as a priest nor consecrated as a bishop in the traditional, Apostolic rite of Holy Orders. He is, therefore, an imposter not a priest, nor the bishop of Rome, and scandalously not a true pope.
Now enter crypto currencies. Not only will they never become money – a general medium of exchange – as gold and silver once were and will become once again, but cryptos lack the necessary requirements to be money. Yet, their “development” is systematic of the times. Cryptos are another variant of fiat currencies which digitally can be created by a stroke of a computer key or in cryptos’ case, a code.
Gold and silver – real money – must be mined from the ground, minted and “marketed” before they can be used to facilitate exchange. This is an arduous, capital-intensive process which takes resources, labor, and time to accomplish. Something as important as money should require an elaborate procedure not be created out of thin air as are all fiat currencies as well as cryptos.
Money must originate as a tangible, sought-after commodity – the great Misesian insight that crypto enthusiasts do not know or do not understand – then, over time, be recognized as having a “second feature” as a good sought after for “exchange value.” Once a good is demanded for its use primarily to facilitate exchange, it then becomes a “money.”
In a fundamental sense, crypto currency cultists are rebelling against the natural order of things. The precious metals were created in their quantity and quality by Divine Wisdom for a purpose – to act as money. While governments have habitually corrupted the monetary order through coin clipping, fractional-reserve banking, and other nefarious schemes, it does not undo this primordial fact. It is for the intellectually honest opponents of monetary chicanery to point this out and decry all governments and banksters’ attempts to eradicate gold and silver as money, not attempt to create another unnatural and false monetary order that mirrors the current fiat system.
Money, like all other institutions of society, will reflect its belief system. Decaying cultures will most likely have debased monetary units. A turnabout in the status of money will only happen when Western Civilization returns to what money is – gold and silver – and abstains from trying to create illusions of it through computer software schemes.
Vladimir the Great Sums Up Pope Francis the Fake!
Vladimir Putin has once again demonstrated why he is the most perceptive, farsighted, and for a politician, the most honest world leader to come around in quite a while. If it had not been for his patient and wise statesmanship, the world may have already been embroiled in an all encompassing global configuration with the possibility of thermonuclear destruction.
His latest comments on the purported head of the Catholic Church may have been his most perceptive as of yet and should be heeded not only by Western secular leaders, but by the globe’s one billion or so Catholics, most of whom regard Jorge Bergoglio as pope.
The Russian President’s statement came on a visit to the Naval Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Kronstadt. Mr. Putin succinctly sums up what Pope Francis is not: “If you look around at what he (the Pope) says it’s clear that he is not a man of God. At least not the Christian God, not the God of the Bible.”*
No truer words have as yet been said about this cretin by a world leader since his wretched pontifical reign began in 2013!
While Mr. Putin and those with “eyes to see and ears to hear” recognize that “Pope Francis” is not a Christian, the current occupant of St. Peter’s Chair is disqualified for that position on theological grounds. To be a legitimate pope, one must be “bishop of Rome,” and prior to becoming a bishop, one must be a priest. Jorge Bergoglio was not ordained (1969) in the traditional Apostolic ordination rite of the Church, nor was he consecrated (1992) as a true bishop in that rite. His predecessor, Benedict XVI, was, likewise, not consecrated in the traditional rite although he was ordained as a priest under the “old rite.”
Simply put: Jorge Bergoglio is just a layman masquerading as a pope as are all of the other priests and bishops which were given Holy Orders under the new rites which came into effect in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Anti-Council (1962-65).
Not only is Pope Francis a Christian fraud as Vladimir Putin and other perceptive commentators have observed, but in secular matters he is a neo-Marxist in economic thought, a One-World Government advocate, and an enthusiast of open borders and mass migration. In other words, an enemy of what is left of Western Civilization.
Mr. Putin accurately describes his “secular sins:”
- Pope Francis is using his platform to push a dangerous far-left political ideology on vulnerable people around the world, people who trust him because of his position
- He dreams of a world government and a global communist system of repression
- As we have seen before in communist states, this system is not compatible with Christianity**
If these despicable qualities are not bad enough, there is a seedier side of Bergoglio that Mr. Putin did not address. Pope Francis is now the third Paedophile Pope who has presided over the Church’s Great Sex and Embezzlement Scandal. Neither Francis, or his two derelict predecessors (Benedict XVI, JPII) have done anything to either punish or root out the child predators under their charge. On the contrary, Francis has encouraged perversion with his now infamous statement of “who am I to judge.”
The debauchery continues to take place with the latest coming right under the nose of the Argentine heretic. An apartment occupied by the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Franecesco Coccopalmerio, was raided in July to break up a “gay” orgy. The police found drugs and men engaged in orgiastic sex.* Coccopalmerio, who Bergoglio had considered for promotion to bishop, was hauled away and jailed by authorities.
This came on the heels of Cardinal George Pell, the Vatican’s Chief Financial Officer, being charged with sex crimes against ten children. Pell has since left Rome in disgrace for his native Australia to answer the charges.
While Western Civilization is on the decline due to economic stupidity and open borders promoted by the likes of Pope Francis, there are a few bright spots, the brightest of which is Vladimir Putin. If the West is ever going to regain its sanity, it should take the sage counsel of the Russian president especially when he speaks of phonies like Pope Francis.
*Baxter Dmitry, “Putin: ‘Pope Francis is Not a Man of God.'” Your News Wire. 3 August 2017. http://yournewswire.com/putin-pope-francis-god/
**Traditio, Traditional Roman Catholic Network. 8 July 2017, http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1707.htm
Can Germany Be Made Great Again?
Ever since the start of the deliberately conceived “migrant crisis,” orchestrated by NWO elites, the news out of Germany has been, to say the least, horrific. Right before the eyes of the world, a country is being demographically destroyed through a coercive plan of mass migration. The intended consequences of this – financial strain, widespread crime and property destruction, the breakdown of German culture – will continue to worsen if things are not turned around.
Opposition to the societal destruction within Germany have been harassed and persecuted by the authorities and labeled by the mass media with the usual epithets: “far right,” neo-Nazi, “haters,” and heaven forbid, “separatists.” Because of this and other factors, there has been no mass movement, as of yet, that has coalesce to challenge the German political establishment.
A possible reversal of German fortunes, however, has come from a recent poll of Bavarians.*
A survey conducted by YouGov, a market research company, found that 32% of Bavarians agreed with the statement that Bavaria “should be independent from Germany.” This percentage has increased from 25% of secession-minded Bavarians when polled in 2011.
Of the some 2000 surveyed between June 24 and July 5, most supporters of independence come from the southern portions of the country.
Whether Bavarians or their fellow German separatists realize it or not, the only “political” solution to the migrant crisis is secession. This is not only true for Germany, but for all Western nation states swamped with unwanted migrants. Once free from the domination of the national government (and just as important the EU), each jurisdiction could make its own immigration policy and would be better able to control population influx at the local level.
Historically, Germany’s past has much more in common with a decentralized political landscape than with a unitary state. From the disintegration of the Roman Empire until Napoleon wantonly abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Germany was an amalgam of different political units – kingdoms, duchies, confederacies, free cities, etc. With no grand central state, there was considerable freedom and economic growth as each sovereign entity was largely able to conduct its affairs on its own terms.
Decentralized political power is also conducive for the advancement of culture. Music, the highest art form, found some of its greatest expression from the German peoples. And, the monumental figures of Western music were financed in large measure by German princes, kings, and emperors. Johann Sebastian Bach’s sublime Brandenburg concertos were underwritten, so to speak, by Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg while Beethoven received support from Archduke Rudolph. Mozart was funded no less by the Austrian emperor himself, Joseph II.
Political decentralization provides an important mechanism as a check on state power. A multitude of governments prevents individual state aggrandizement as oppressed populations can “vote with their feet” and move to safer and less repressive regimes. A unitary state, or just a few, throughout the world would negate such an advantage.
Naturally, if nation states are a constant threat to the liberties and economic well being of their citizens, global organizations and states are that much more of a danger and should always and everywhere be opposed. The European Union, largely based on the principles of the US Constitution, has pressured nations under their sway, such as Germany, to accept the migrants and has threatened members such as Hungary and Poland with penalties if they do not do their fair share.
The empirical evidence is overwhelming in regard to political decentralization and economic growth. Since the level of taxation and government regulation are crucial factors in an economy’s ability to produce, the limitation on taxation and government oversight tend to be significantly lower if there are numerous states since there would be amble opportunities for producers to go to more conducive areas to set up shop. This can be seen in the US as thousands of oppressed businesses and firms have left California to lower tax and restrictive climes such as Texas and Nevada.
If Germany is ever to get a handle on the migration crisis before the country is completely demographically dismembered, its only hope is to return to its decentralized political roots. Let Bavaria lead the way!
The Student Loan Bubble and Economic Collapse
The inevitable collapse of the student loan “market” and with it the takedown of many higher educational institutions will be one of the happiest and much needed events to look forward to in the coming months/years. Whether the student loan bubble bursts on its own or implodes due to a general economic collapse, does not matter as long as higher education is dealt a death blow and can no longer be a conduit of socialist and egalitarian nonsense for the inculcation of young minds.
The perilous condition of the student loan sector can be seen by looking at a few ominous pieces of data:
- The US has around $1.3 trillion in non dischargeable loans to students
- Over 120 billion in student loans are already in default
- 27% of students are a month behind on their payments*
As economic conditions deteriorate and there are even less meaningful jobs for college graduates than there are now, these numbers will only get worse.
Not only have colleges and universities been havens of leftist thought for many years, but they have become ridiculously expensive and beyond the reach of most middle-class income earners to afford without going into significant debt. Moreover, the incessant barrage by the Establishment about the necessity of a college degree has distorted the labor market to where worthless, debt-ridden degrees are pursued instead of much needed blue-collar employment. The readjustment of the labor market to a proper balance will not only take time, but it will be a costly, painful process.
While the “hard” sciences have not been as effected by the Left, the social sciences have long been an intellectual wasteland devoid of any freedom of thought or opinion. Promotion and recognition of academic excellence is, more often than not, based on diversity and one’s skin color not merit. Arguably, economic science has been the most corrupted discipline. Economics departments of major universities are now training grounds for employment in state and federal bureaucracies, the banking industry, and Federal Reserve where Marxism, Keynesianism, neo-Keynesianism or whatever kooky, nonsensical theory of the day can be put into practice.
While higher education has long been hostile to the ideals of Western Civilization, it is now explicitly a bastion of anti-white discrimination and hostility especially against white heterosexual men. Few days now pass where there is not an incident, many of which are approved by school authorities, blatantly attacking white Americans or symbols that supposedly represent them.
Of course, the higher education apparatchiks have had an easy time in their brainwashing task since the impressionable minds in their charge have been indoctrinated by twelve years of public “schooling.” Not only has the public school been a mechanism of social engineering, but it has constantly pushed its chattel to continue their “education” at the collegiate level.
The Trump Administration and most on the Right have failed to grasp the liberalistic bias of American education. Education Department Secretary Betsy DeVos has spoken about “competition” via school choice, vouchers, magnet and charter schools to increase school and student performance. The Administration’s proposed 2018 education budget calls for an increase in federal spending on school choice by $1.4 billion, a $168 million increase for charter schools, and a $1 billion increase for Title I “to encourage school districts to adopt a system of student-based budgeting and open enrollment that enables Federal, State, and local funding to follow a student to the public school of his or her choice.”**
These shopworn ideas and policies are not only fundamentally flawed and will make matters worse, but they will do nothing to counteract and or end the Left’s domination of education. Instead, President Trump should do what he spoke of at times on the campaign trail and what President Reagan promised to do, but never did – abolish the Department of Education!
While the collapse of the student loan bubble may be the catalyst for a general financial downturn and will certainly be the cause of tremendous social pain and dislocation, it will, nevertheless, be a necessary prerequisite if America and, for that matter, the Western world is to ever break the grip of leftist ideology which rules it. May the bursting of the student loan bubble commence!
*Tyler Durden, ‘”Staggering’ Student Loan Defaults On Deck: 27% Of Students Are A Month Behind On Their Payments.” Zero Hedge. 15 April 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-15/staggering-student-loan-defaults-deck-27-students-are-month-behind-their-payments
**Jade Scipioni, “Why Betsy DeVos Is Visiting This Ohio School Today.” Fox Business. 20 April 2017. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/20/why-betsy-devos-is-visiting-this-ohio-school-today.html
Nikki Haley: Warmonger Extraordinaire!
It must now be a prerequisite of those who become an American ambassador to the UN to possess certain characteristics and traits, the most important of which are rabid warmonger, child killer, and outright liar.
Remember it was Madeleine Albright when asked about the US blockading Iraq which prevented medicine and medical equipment from entering the country that resulted in the estimated death of a half a million children who coldly responded: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” Then there is Colin “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Powell who told a bald-face lie about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities which paved the way for the US destruction of the country.
In her brief tenure as UN ambassador, Nikki Haley is fulfilling these requirements quite nicely. Her latest crazed outburst came on the heels of the bizarre White House press release about another supposed Syrian government gas attack which warned President Assad that he would “pay a heavy price” if carried out.*
While the State and Defense Departments were apparently caught off guard by the White House action, Ambassador Haley was not (probably given advanced notice) and issued an even more provocative tweet:
Any further attacks done to the people
of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but
also on Russia & Iran who support him
killing his own people.**
Not only has Haley appointed herself judge, jury and executioner of the Assad regime, but her wild accusation includes reprisals to the neocons’ ultimate targets of Russia and Iran. Her ridiculous statement has now given Syria’s enemies the green light to conduct another gas attack which will be blamed on Assad and his allies, Russia and Iran. Nice work, Nikki!
From a diplomatic perspective, the entire affair was bungled and amateurish, confirming once again that the Trump Administration is out of its league in conducting foreign policy.
That Haley was even chosen to become part of the Trump Administration has been odd from the beginning, but as things have unfolded quite telling. Haley was a vociferous critic of the future president. She, and the likes of another war-monger and Russophobe, Lindsey Graham, were consistently attacking candidate Trump for being “soft” on Russia and his immigration stance especially his wildly popular border wall proposal. To Haley and Graham, Donald Trump was out of step with the Republican Party’s values such as diversity as represented by Haley who, herself, is of Indian heritage.
Yet, despite all of the vitriol heaped at candidate Trump, the newly elected president, in a surprising and ominous move, decided to make the South Carolina governor, UN ambassador. This, and a number of other selections to foreign policy posts, signaled that President Trump would abandon his promises and vote-garnering campaign talk of peaceful coexistence with Russia, a reduction of US presence in the Middle East, and in other hot spots across the globe.
While Haley has been an ardent warmonger from the start, President Trump did not have to select her for the post. There were other more competent and surely less belligerent candidates available. More than likely, the choice was probably a nod to his “advisor” daughter Ivanka, to curry favor among feminists.
While it looks like President Trump may have won the war, at least temporary, over the press and the anti-Trump Congressional forces about the fake Russian election involvement, he and his bellicose UN ambassador are now using the same underhanded methods to instigate a conflict to depose President Assad. While the alternative media rightly showed how the mainstream press and politicos made up and manipulated stories to undermine President Trump, it should now be intellectually honest and call out the president and his UN ambassador for what they are doing in Syria. In doing so, it may prevent the outbreak of WWIII.
*Tyler Durden, “Syria Denies Plans For A Chemical Attack As Russia Slams US Warning As ‘Unacceptable.'” Zero Hedge. 27 June 2017 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-27/syria-denies-plans-chemical-attack-russia-accuses-us-provocation
Pope Francis and Angela Merkel: Enemies of European Civilization
Two of Europe’s greatest contemporary enemies recently got together to compare notes and discuss how they were going to further undermine and destabilize what remains of the Continent’s civilization. Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met on June 17, in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace to discuss the issues which will be raised at a Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, from July 7-8.
The Vatican said that Frau Merkel and the Pope discussed the need “for the international community to combat poverty, hunger, terrorism and climate change.”* Ms. Merkel, in an obvious swipe at US President Donald Trump, said that “we are a world in which we want to work multilaterally, a world in which we don’t want to build walls but bring down walls.” The reference to “walls,” of course, was to President Trump’s promise to construct a wall on the Mexican-American border. The pope, too, has been critical of Mr. Trump’s proposed plan.
Ms. Merkel also lamented about the Trump Administration’s decision to opt out of the 2015 Paris climate accord. Pope Francis urged President Trump to remain in the accord and gave him a copy of his encyclical, “Praise Be,” when they met earlier this spring. The encyclical elevated “climate change” and protection of the environment as “moral obligations” while it criticized “perverse” economic development models that “enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor.”
As has been the case since the Second Vatican Anti-Council (1962-65), popes have spent most of their time on secular concerns in which they have little competency and less on matters of the Faith. Pope Francis has taken this to a new level and rarely preaches on doctrine. This, in one sense, is good because when he does speak on religion, he usually spouts out some heresy or falsehood which scandalizes the Church. His many blasphemies and heresies, plus the fact that he was never ordained as a priest in the traditional Catholic rite or traditionally consecrated as a bishop (neither was Benedict XVI), makes him ineligible to be a true Catholic pope.
The latest fraud that these two cretins are now pushing is the supposed threat of global warming. The idea that “climate change” has had some nefarious effect on the environment has long ago been debunked by legitimate scientists and scholars. Climate change is a ruse used by global elites to further tax, regulate and enslave humanity.
Facts and sound theory, however, do not bother the collectivist minds of Pope Francis and Angela Merkel. What they are interested in is power and control and they intend to keep it through lies like global warming and by coercive massive migration which will fundamentally alter Europe’s demographics to their New World Order masters’ advantage.
Had it not been for the likes of Pope Francis and Ms. Merkel, it is unlikely that Europe would be under a deluge of mostly Mohammedan “asylum seekers.” The claim that the invasion was “spontaneous” due to the turmoil in the Middle East from US and Western nation-states military intervention is implausible. The region has been unstable for decades. Why all of a sudden is there a mass exodus and why it is mostly of young single Muslim men?
The invasion of Europe was carefully orchestrated and planned by the world’s power elite whose goal is to eliminate what is left of the Continent’s white Christian heterogeneous male population. Pope Francis and Ms. Merkel are the New World Order’s puppets carrying out their marching orders.
While the outlook for Europeans may currently appear grim, it is not hopeless. While Pope Francis and Angela Merkel cannot at present be deposed for their crimes, they can be defeated in the court of public opinion. For Europe to become once again the center of human civilization, the ideals of multiculturalism and the fraud of global warming must be slain on ideological grounds.
This is the duty that confronts those that seek a return of Europe’s previous glories. While the task appears monumental, it must be remembered that the pagan Roman Empire was eventually converted by the teaching of twelve men and one indomitable former Pharisee from Tarsus.
*Merkel Says Pope Francis Urged Her to Fight for Paris Climate Accord.” New York Times. 17 June 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/world/europe/merkel-pope-francis-paris-climate-accord.html?_r=0
Donald Trump is an Economic Ignoramus!
Not surprisingly, Donald Trump has followed in the infamous footsteps of his presidential predecessors in the transition from candidate to chief executive. Invariably, every candidate for the presidency makes a whole host of promises, the vast majority of which are horrible and typically only exacerbate the problems they attempt to resolve. Among the proposals, however, there is an occasional bright spot. Yet, once elected the stupid polices are eagerly pursued while the good ones are quickly discarded.
What was somewhat unique about Donald Trump was that he was the first candidate in a long while who had a number of refreshing and much needed proposals – border wall, “drain the swamp,” criticism of Ma Yellen and the Fed, rapprochement with Vladimir Putin and Russia, a deescalation of U.S. imperialism. There were bad ones, too, but the good ones were enough to lead him to a smashing win over the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua.
Even before being sworn in, however, the president-elect began to downplay his most positive positions and emphasize the worst. At the top of this list, and what Trump has been consistently wrong about since the inception of his political career, and even prior to it, has been “trade.”
Trump considers himself an “economic nationalist” in the mold of Patrick Buchanan. Both, however, are simply wrong in this regard demonstrating that they do not have a grasp of the most basic of economic principles.
The latest Trump tirade on trade was reported during his recent trip to Europe and a meeting with high-ranking officials. Trump is reported to have lashed out at German auto makers who the President accused of being “very bad” because of the “millions of cars that they sell in the U.S.” The Donald bemoaned, “Terrible, we’re going to stop that” and added “I don’t have a problem [with] Germany, I have a problem with German trade.”*
Such talk makes Trump sound like a fool. What is “bad” about providing American consumers with first-class automobiles that they apparently want in large quantities and are voluntarily willing to pay for? And what of American workers employed with Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Volkswagen? What is so horrible about the jobs and income that is provided by German firms to these workers?
Instead of berating German car manufactures, Trump should direct his ire at the immigration policies of psychopathic politicians like Frau Merkel. Candidate Trump was very vocal about this and criticized European leaders for allowing their countries to be turned into multicultural cesspools.
The benefits of free trade and the baneful consequences of protectionism have long ago been elucidated by right-thinking economists, while the historical record has shown that lands which engage in “free trade” are decidedly richer than those that do not. That Trump could spout off such nonsense about the evils of German trade shows how far the level of economic understanding has fallen.
Not only does free trade allow for the extension of the division of labor and specialization, but it has very important non-economic fruits. When trade is unregulated, there is less of a tendency of trading partners to engage in bellicose actions toward each other. Free trade and peaceful coexistence among nations are synonymous. It is when trade is prohibited, skewed by governments to “protect” favored industries, which creates tensions among peoples.
Free trade does not require measures such as NAFTA or negotiated deals by politicians. Instead, producers of one region are free to sell their goods at whatever prices or quantities to consumers of other areas that agree to buy them. Ultimately, trade is up to individual producers and consumers in what they contractually agree to exchange, there is no need for political involvement.
Trump’s lambasting of the German auto makers, however, underscores a more fundamental problem with the U.S. economy. America no longer produces goods that the world’s consumers desire, but instead, produces military hardware that it sells to despotic regimes which enables them to remain in power and wreck havoc on their enemies. Predictably, this escalates tensions abroad while, domestically, the standard of living of Americans fall as scarce resources that could have been used in the production of useful consumer goods are diverted to the creation of murderous military armaments.
Trump has repeatedly boasted about his and his appointees’ abilities to negotiate great trade “deals.” His bashing of the German auto makers right after his multibillion dollar arms sales to the Saudis show not only that he is clueless in regard to the immense benefits of free trade, but that he is just another adherent, like his predecessors, to the ideals of crony capitalism.
*Tyler Durden, “Trump Slams ‘Very Bad’ Germans for Selling Millions of Cars in US: ‘We Will Stop This.'” Zero Hedge 26 May 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/print/596683
Pope Francis and Libertarianism
The purported pope of the Catholic Church recently attacked “libertarianism.” As a number of theologians have ably shown, Jorge Bergoglio, a.k.a Pope Francis, cannot be a legitimate pope since he was neither ordained as a priest or consecrated as a bishop in the traditional Catholic rite of Holy Orders. And, since he is not a bishop, he cannot be “bishop of Rome” – a prerequisite for being the head of the universal Church.
While “technically” he is not the pope, Bergoglio is a notorious heretic who has said a mind-boggling number of heresies, engaged in the most scandalous of actions, and has attempted to change doctrine and Church teaching. He is not the pope since a heretic is necessarily outside the Church and, thus, cannot hold ecclesiastical office, especially that of supreme pontiff.
If Bergoglio’s “invalidity” is not damnable enough, “Pope Francis” is a neo-Marxist who has repeatedly called for the redistribution of wealth, promoted mass migration, and has denigrated capitalism, accusing it of impoverishing the poor.
Naturally, with such a dossier, Bergoglio would be hostile to the concept of libertarianism. And, as a skillful demagogue, he has deliberately mischaracterized the subject.
In a message to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Bergoglio harshly stated: “I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education.”*
If Bergoglio thinks that higher education is infected with “libertarian individualism,” he is more delusional than he has been given credit for! Academia has long been a bastion of collectivist thought. Libertarianism and, for that matter, conservative ideas have little voice in higher education. Moreover, Western culture is dominated by the ideals of social democracy, a philosophy that is anathema to libertarianism and also to real Catholicism, not the kind that is preached by imposters such as “Pope Francis!”
It is probably deliberate that Bergoglio uses the word “invasion” in his description as he subtly mocks his audience. The only invasion that has happened is not a takeover of academia by free-markets zealots, but by the millions of “asylum seekers” that have been thrust upon European soil which has been encouraged and orchestrated by the likes of multiculturalists such as Jorge Bergoglio.
“[T]he libertarian individual denies the value of the common good,” Bergoglio continues, “because on the one hand he supposes that the very idea of ‘common’ means the constriction of at least some individuals, and on the other hand that the notion of ‘good’ deprives freedom of its essence.”
Of course, to arch collectivists like “Pope Francis,” the common good always trumps individual rights. While he does not explicitly say it, the “common good” means for the good of the state, and for those who place their own self interest or that of their family before the state’s interest, they are to be ostracized or worse.
Libertarianism to Bergoglio is an “antisocial radicalization of individualism” that “leads to the conclusion that everyone has the right to extend himself as far as his abilities allow him even at the cost of the exclusion and marginalization of the more vulnerable majority.” By living “independently of others” a person can attain freedom.
Once again, as he had done throughout his “papacy” Bergoglio demonstrates that he is an economic ignoramus who does not grasp a basic tenet of social relationships.
Libertarians are proponents of the market economy and markets are the result of the division of labor, specialization, and exchange. Society, in part, is the amalgamation of numerous markets and advanced societies are ones with a highly developed division of labor. Overwhelming empirical evidence has shown that such societies are not only richer, but are more culturally advanced than self- sufficient societies (autarky) where individuals produce everything for themselves.
In such an order, an individual produces or provides services which he does best. Since he does not produce everything himself, he, therefore, depends and needs to interact with others in exchange of goods he does not produce. In the market economy, very few live “independently of others” as Bergoglio stupidly believes, but must rely and depend on their fellow man. Even entrepreneurs, who Bergoglio implicitly condemns in the above passage, have to rely on consumers to patronize their products and services or they will quickly go out of business.
Bergoglio, of course, does not understand that there are many shades of libertarianism running a wide spectrum of social, political and economic thought. If there is a common theme among libertarians, it is opposition to the modern state and the welfare/warfare system upon which it rests. The modern state will not tolerate any competition for the minds, hearts, and souls of men.
Until the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Church recognized that the modern state was not only its enemy, but the enemy of mankind. In this respect, the Church had common ground with the libertarian and conservative movements of the 20th century.
The Second Vatican Council and the “reforms” which came in its wake produced an environment that has led to the likes of cretins like Jorge Bergoglio who has not only repeatedly blasphemed the Divine Founder of the institution in which he supposedly heads, but regularly spews out all sorts of discredited neo-Marxist nonsense.
While “Pope Francis” condemns libertarianism, the solution to the financial, political, and many of the social problems which confront the Western world will only be solved by “libertarian means” – a gold/silver monetary standard, political decentralization/secession, de-militarization/non-intervention, free trade, and the application of private property rights to the migration crisis.
For the good of mankind, not only should Jorge Bergoglio be ignored as supreme Roman pontiff, but he should likewise be ignored when speaking on any and all public policy matters.
*Thomas D. Williams. “Pope Warns Against ‘Invasion’ of Libertarianism.” Breitbart. 28 April 2017. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/04/28/pope-francis-warns-against-invasion-of-libertarianism/
Why is North Korea Being So Unreasonable?
On April 28, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the U.N. that North Korea “must dismantle its nuclear missile programs” before the US “can even consider talks.”*
Why hasn’t the Kim Jong-Un regime responded with open arms and shouts of joy for this generous and fair-minded proposal from Uncle Sam?
Maybe it is because North Korea not only has first-hand knowledge of US “diplomacy,” but it can point to the grisly consequences that happen to regimes that do not have nuclear capabilities when they fall out of favor with Washington war mongers. Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria are just some recent examples.
Nor does North Korea have to look around the globe for what the US does to nations without nuclear arsenals, but can recall events which took place not so far away. For more than a decade, America mercilessly pulverized the little, defenseless country of Vietnam. Despite the destruction and mass murder inflicted, it was to no avail except, of course, to line the pockets of arms manufactures while American citizens were drained of their wealth and blood.
Or simply, Kim Jong-Un can look at his nation’s own history and see how the US treated it prior to it becoming nuclear. In the “police action” of 1950-53, American coalition forces killed over 3 million North Koreans and dropped more bombs on the country then were used on Japan in World War II according to international war crimes lawyer Christopher Black.**
And, why would North Korea or, for that matter, anyone else have any faith in diplomatic agreements with the US which consistently violates terms of international accords and often complains afterwards when agreements are reached. The latest example is President Trump carping that Iran is not living up to the “spirit” of the nuclear deal concluded under the Obummer Administration and signed off on by six major world powers.
North Korea, as well as the rest of the world, which is not bribed or threatened by the US Deep State, is certainly aware that the two American-Iraqi Wars had their origins due to American duplicity. While it originally gave Saddam Hussein permission to intervene in Kuwait, the US then reneged blaming the Iraqi strongman which thus laid the groundwork for his murder and the country’s destruction.
Not only can North Korea look to the murderous and duplicitous US foreign policy record, but it can point to how the American state has killed its own citizens from its involvement in the take down of the World Trade Center, to the gassing and slaughter of men, women and children at Waco, Texas. Moreover, the federal government and now local authorities are terrorizing their citizens with increasing regularity via a number of false flag events and drills.
By all means, the Kim Jong-Un regime should come to its senses and acquiesce to US demands.
Unfortunately, because it is an authoritarian society based on the immoral and economically unworkable system of communism, North Korea is unable to make an ethical case against the hypocrisy of the US which accuses Syria and others of human rights violations, yet has allowed the slaughter of innocent babies of some 40 million since the legalization of abortion in 1973. Moreover, in another societal-wrecking and depraved act, the US Supreme Court has sanctioned sodomy, one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.
While no single entity can militarily challenge US hegemony, a reversal of the murderous ways of American foreign policy will only come about through a change in ideology on the home front. Once the justification for empire is debunked in the court of public opinion, the mobilization of anti-war/anti-empire movement can commence.
After generations have been inculcated by the media, public schools, colleges/universities and the government about the glories of the US military, it is unlikely that there will be any paradigm shift in American foreign policy matters anytime soon. Only an economic collapse or severe enough financial panic will force the US to pull back on its overseas adventurism.
In the meantime, if Kim Jong-Un intends to survive and keep his country from resembling Iraq or Syria, he should maintain his “unreasonable” stance when the likes of Rex Tillerson demand that North Korea disarm.
*Tyler Durden. “Trump Slams ‘Disrespectful’ North Korea After Unsuccessful Missile-Test, Warns Situation is ‘Bad.'” 28 April 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/north-korea-test-fires-another-ballistic-missile
**Christopher Black. “North Korea: The Grand Deception Revealed.” New Eastern Outlook. 3 March 2017. http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/13/north-korea-the-grand-deception-revealed/
On the Commemoration of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson to Donald Trump
It is altogether fitting that the US attack on a Syrian airport, the dropping of a MOAB on defenseless Afghanistan, and the potential outbreak of nuclear war with North Korea have all come in the very month one hundred years earlier that an American president led the nation on its road to empire. President Trump’s aggressive actions and all of America’s previous imperialistic endeavors can ultimately be traced to Woodrow Wilson’s disastrous decision to bring the country into the First World War on April 6, 1917.
This month, therefore, should be one of national mourning for the decision to enter that horrific conflict changed America and, for that matter, the world for the worse.
Had the US remained neutral, the war would most likely have come to a far quicker and more politically palatable conclusion, however, the entry of America on the Entente side prolonged the conflict and extended its economic and political destruction to such a degree that the Old Order could not be put back together again. The great dynasties (Germany, Russia, and especially Austria) were ruthlessly dismantled at the conclusion of WWI by the explicit designs of Wilson which left a power vacuum across Central Europe. The vacuum, of course, was filled by the various collectivist “isms” which produced the landscape for another global conflagration even greater than WWI.
For America, after a brief revival of isolationism and non-interventionist sentiment throughout the land, the country, led by another ruthless and power-mad chief executive, provoked and schemed its way into the second general European war within a generation, this time via “the backdoor” with Japan. A second US intervention, making the war global, could not have come about had there been no WWI, or if that war had ended on better terms.
After the Second World War, the US emerged as the world’s dominant power with bases across the globe and entered into a string of never ending hot and cold wars, regime changes, destabilizations, assassinations, bombings, blockades, and economic sanctions that have continued to this very day and hour. Quickly after the war’s conclusion, the American media, academia, and the security and military industrial complex had to invent the myth that the Soviet Union and the US were of equal military might which turned out to be a blatant lie. After being decimated in WWII and its adherence to unworkable and economic destructive socialistic planning, the Soviet Union could never produce the wealth necessary to maintain a global empire as the US did, and still does. The “Soviet threat” was always a ruse to get gullible Americans to vote for and support greater and greater “defense” spending.
Besides Ron Paul and to a far lesser extent his son, Donald Trump was the only viable candidate who spoke of taking a new, less interventionist foreign policy which is why he was able to garner so much support from millions of empire-weary Americans during the presidential campaign. He rightly called the Iraqi War a “disaster,” spoke of getting along with Russia, and the US’s commitment to NATO should be rethought, among other refreshing comments on foreign affairs.
In one of the most memorable and hopeful passages of his Inaugural Address, the new president championed non-intervention abroad:
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow.
Unlike Ron Paul, however, Trump had no grounding in a true America First foreign policy. While critical of his predecessors’ foreign policy decisions, Trump was not opposed philosophically to the US Empire or saw it as the greatest threat to world peace which currently exists.
Without an ideological basis against American globalism, Trump was easy pickings against the threats and machinations of the Deep State. Without a refutation of the ideology which drove Wilson and all of his successors to promote military adventurism abroad, Trump will be little different than his imperial predecessors and with a personality that is thin-skinned, impulsive and unpredictable, Trump could, God forbid, become another Woodrow Wilson.
The Cost of a Trump Presidency
Last Thursday’s wanton attack on a Syrian air field by the US and its bellicose actions toward North Korea have brought to the forefront the real cost of candidate Trump’s landslide victory last November.
Unlike most laymen, accountants, and financial analysts, economists look at cost differently. For economists, cost or more specifically, “opportunity cost,” means “a benefit that a person could have received, but gave up, to take another course of action. Stated differently, opportunity cost represents an alternative given up when a decision is made.”
Such thinking can be roughly applied to the political realm. In the case of last fall’s US Presidential election, the cost of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory was not the money spent on the campaign, but the diffusion (hopefully, only temporary) of the growing anti-Establishment groundswell that was percolating not only in America, but across the globe.
The Trump phenomenon, Brexit, Texas secession talk, anti-immigration gatherings, central bank scrutiny, the exposure and decline of the lying, dominant mass media, and other populist movements and causes were symptoms of the masses dissatisfaction with their exploitation by the ruling elites. Trump’s triumph has squashed and defused many of these populist uprisings since a number of his campaign themes empathized with these trends.
A similar situation occurred after Ronald Reagan’s victory in the 1980 election as the great anti-government wave, which swept him into power, dried up almost immediately since Ronnie was perceived as “one of us.” Of course, Reagan was a disaster and fulfilled none of his anti-government campaign rhetoric, but instead went on to become, for a time, the biggest Presidential spender in US history.
A Clinton victory, although certainly tyrannical in the short run, would have, no doubt, furthered the anti-Establishment fires and inspired more. For example, Texas may be now on the road to independence from the Federal Leviathan.
The ills that plague the US and, for that matter, the Western world, will not be solved through a Trump Presidency in “making America great again,” but will only come about through political decentralization and the abolition of central banking with a return to sound money. Concomitant with political decentralization and secession is military contraction, as smaller political jurisdictions will have lesser pools of wealth to tap from while the absence of an inflationary central bank will make military adventurism extremely difficult to conduct.
Yet, before such a transformation can take place, an ideological foundation must first be established. A Hillary Clinton Administration would have provided fertile ground for such change.
Since the groundwork for a de-politicized world has not been laid, a Trump Presidency made sense as long as he kept as close as possible to his campaign agenda, the most important of which was foreign policy. His condemnation of the neocons’ policies which have bankrupted the nation, murdered thousands of innocents abroad, and heighten tensions everywhere was crucial in his shocking victory last November. It is apparent that he did not understand how important this support was or he would have never undertaken such an utterly stupid decision.
With the strike on Syria and seemingly more military action in the offering, Trump’s Presidency is now the worst of all possible worlds, at least in the short run, for those opposed to the New World Order. Most serious observers, however, understood, especially after the appointment of so many Goldman Sachs cretins, Israeli Firsters, and nutty warmongers to his administration, that Trump would eventually succumb to the pressure. More importantly, Trump was never fully grounded in an America First mindset, probably not knowing where that term originated or its gallant founders.
All, however, is not lost.
Trump’s capitulation makes it abundantly clear that the system itself is beyond repair. Getting the right individual to salvage the American welfare/warfare state cannot be done. Trump had many advantages that no future candidate will likely possess which means that anybody that follows will be an “insider.” Much of his base, therefore, will no longer support a future Republican candidate or will give him only lukewarm support . With no independent personality to rally around, the millions of disappointed Trumpians will seek new governing paradigms which hopefully will lead to the growth of secession movements.
Ultimately, however, a permanent American foreign policy of non intervention, peace, and free trade will only come about when there is a change in the prevailing ideology of society where all contenders for political office espouse such a notion and today’s warmongers are seen for what they are: enemies of humanity and its Creator.
The American Empire and Economic Collapse
Despite the widespread hope among libertarians, classical liberals, non-interventionists, progressive peaceniks, and all those opposed to the US Empire that it may have some of its murderous reins pulled in with the election of Donald Trump, it appears that such optimism has now been dashed. While the hope for a less meddlesome US foreign policy is not completely extinguished and would never have existed had the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua been elected, a number of President Trump’s foreign policy actions, so far, have been little different than his recent predecessors.
President Trump’s biggest blunder was his acquiesce to the Deep State’s coup of General Michael Flynn, the most Russian friendly among Trump’s foreign policy entourage. Since Flynn’s abrupt departure, there has been little talk of a rapprochement with Russia, but instead there has been continued saber rattling by the war mongers that Trump has, unfortunately, chosen to surround himself with.
The most recent Russian badgering has come from Secretary of Defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis who wrongly accused it of “bad behavior:” “Russia’s violations of international law are now a matter of record from what happened with Crimea to other aspects of their behavior in mucking around other people’s elections and that sort of thing.”* Of course, the US has never tried to influence the outcomes of elections or “mucked around” in the affairs of sovereign countries, heaven forbid!
While candidate Trump correctly spoke of the Iraqi War as a disaster and US Middle Eastern policy as a failure, he has done little to alter course in the region, but continues to follow and has, in some instances, escalated tensions. Some ominous examples:
Bombing raids of Mosul killing over 200 civilians
The deployment of another 1,000 ground troops to Syria
Additional US ground troops “expected” to be deployed to Afghanistan
Continuous threats to Iran – “put on notice”
In the Far East, President Trump has done little to alleviate hostilities. In a belligerent March tweet during Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson’s trip to the region, he wrote: “North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been ‘playing’ the United States for years. China has done little to help.”**
A number of perceptive commentators think otherwise and have shown that it has been the US over the years that has acted disingenuously. “Despite Western media demonization of North Korea as some kind of crazy rogue state,” Finian Cunningham points out, “the people there are not fools. They know from family histories the atrocious cost of American war. And they know that any nation perceived as weak by Washington will be bombed back to the Stone Age.”***
These trends, and the President’s unnecessary request for increased “defense spending,” all point to more of the same for US overseas relations. In fact, there will most likely be continued military escalation if the likes of General “Mad Dog” Mattis get their way.
It is now apparent that the only way in which significant change will come about in American foreign affairs will be if there is a severe financial crisis which impairs the nation enough so that it can no longer bankroll its military adventurism. History has a number of examples of this.
Great Britain, who the US Empire is largely patterned after, lost its empire when it became financially exhausted due, in large part, to its insane decision to enter the two World Wars of the past century. To fight in those conflagrations drained Britain of its wealth and devastated it demographically which it, and the rest of Europe, has never recovered.
The US is heading down a similar path of decline as it has squandered its wealth and treasure in the maintenance of an overseas empire while it has expanded its welfare state at home, meaning less wealth which can be tapped from an increasingly unproductive and parasitic populace. Couple this with an onerous tax burden, an inflationist monetary policy which has destroyed the purchasing power of the dollar, and gargantuan public debt and you have primed the country for a financial cataclysm.
Despite the dramatic fall in the standard of living and the immense social strife and unrest that an economic collapse would bring about, there is a silver lining. Like Great Britain before it, a financial crisis and/or the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency would force the US to abandon its overseas empire – closing bases, bringing troops home, and stopping intervention in the myriad of arenas across the planet.
A defunct US Empire would also be bad news and mean grisly retribution for all those lackeys and puppets who have been supported and propped up by American might: another positive aspect to the end of the Empire.
The collapse will mean America, too, will face reprisals from all those who have suffered under its hegemony. The payback will come from both economic warfare as the US has used through its “Dollar Diplomacy” to control and manipulate foreign economies and by some sort of military humiliation.
The impact of an economic collapse could be mitigated somewhat if the US abandoned its role as global policeman as resources squandered abroad could be then available for the rebuilding of the domestic economy while, at the same time, hostility with America’s adversaries would be reduced.
Unless President Trump replaces the warmongers and interventionists which he has unwisely surrounded himself with and return to his wildly popular campaign promise of an American First foreign policy, the US Empire will remain the greatest threat to world peace that currently exists. If things continue as such, it will only be through the comeuppance of Economic Mother Nature when She bursts the American bubble economy that the Empire upon which it rests will, at long last, come to a fitting and much needed end!
*Ellen Mitchell, “Mattis Says Response Coming Soon on Russia Arms Treaty Violation.” The Hill. 31 March 2017.
**Pamela Engel, “Trump: North Korea is ‘Behaing Very Badly,’ and China ‘Has Done Little to Help.'” Business Insider. 17 March 2017.
***Finian Cunningham, “Only a Fool Would Trust Rogue State USA.” Sputnik Internaional. 19 March 2017.
Welcome to Totalitarian America, President Trump!
If there had been any doubt that the land of the free and home of the brave is now a totalitarian society, the revelations that its Chief Executive Officer has been spied upon while campaigning for that office and during his brief tenure as president should now be allayed.
President Trump now joins the very crowded list of opponents of the American State which includes the Tea Party, tax resistors, non-interventionists, immigration opponents, traditional family advocates, and a host of others who have been spied upon, persecuted and badgered by federal “intelligence” authorities. While Congress conducted some feeble hearings and investigations of the shenanigans of the US spy agencies during the interminable Obummer Administration, no real action or reform was taken to reign in the eavesdropping and spying by the national security state on American citizens.
Hopefully, the surveillance of President Trump will change his outlook on the US “intelligence community” especially in regard to those courageous souls who have spoken out and risked life and limb to alert the public about their rulers’ nefarious activities. Edward Snowden should be among the first to receive a pardon while the person who provided him sanctuary from his American persecutors, the reviled Vladimir Putin, should be commended for his noble act, a rarity among world leaders in this democratic age.
President Trump has demonstrated throughout his life loyalty to those who have supported him. He should, therefore, do all in his power to extricate Julian Assange from the Ecuadoran Embassy in Great Britain and provide him with safe conduct to the US or any destination in which the heroic whistleblower prefers. Without the deluge of Wikileaks during last fall’s presidential contest exposing the massive corruption of the Clintonistas, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever prevailed never mind winning by an electoral landslide.
Not only has candidate and President Trump been monitored, but just about every American citizen is under surveillance the data of which can be used against them at the appropriate time if and when they should challenge the American Leviathan. NSA whistleblower, William Binney, confirmed what has been long known in government circles and by those Americans awake to Washington’s tyranny.
Binney confirmed Trump’s suspicion about surveillance to Fox News, “I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically was being monitored.”* He added that, “Everyone’s conversations are being monitored and stored.”
Ironically, it has been the immense wealth generated by a relatively free market in America that has provided the means for the government to create, expand, and maintain such a sophisticated and dangerous spying apparatus that is now being used on the very people funding it. That such a situation could emerge under the supposed “checks and balances” of the US Constitution demonstrates again how truly worthless the document is in the protection of individual rights.
While reform of the current system has proven to be futile and without any constitutional restraint, it, unfortunately, will mean that spying and the murderous US empire of which it is a part will continue as long as the economy does not collapse and the dollar retains its world reserve status. A silver lining, therefore, from a dollar crisis, would mean a decline in the US military and security state.
Of course, the demise of the US spy and military establishment will not be a simple process, but will be fraught with tremendous social and political upheaval and more than likely bloodshed as the Deep State will do everything in its power to protect its turf.
While a collapse may be a ways off, it is hoped that the spying on President Trump will move him to rethink his position on the Deep State which wants to sabotage his every move that goes against its interests most notably a potential detente with Russia. Talk of deescalation of American military presence in world affairs is anathema to the powers that be.
In his Inaugural Address, President Trump repeatedly promised to put America first. The nation’s intelligence agencies do not share that vision, but instead owe their allegiance to the New World Order. If the President has not figured this out after having been secretly monitored, there is little hope for the near future.
*Tyler Durden. “Former NSA Whistleblower: ‘Trump Is Absolutely Right, Everything Was Being Monistored.'” Zero Hedge. 3 March 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/print/589722
California, Nestle and Decentralization
California, Nestle and Decentralization
Nestle USA has announced that it will move its headquarters from Glendale, California, to Rosslyn, Virginia, taking with it about 1200 jobs. The once Golden State has lost some 1600 businesses since 2008 and a net outflow of a million of mostly middle-class people from the state from 2004 to 2013 due to its onerous tax rates, the oppressive regulatory burden, and the genuine kookiness which pervades among its ruling elites.* A clueless Glendale official is apparently unconcerned about the financial repercussions of Nestle’s departure saying that it was “no big deal” and saw it as an “opportunity,” whatever that means!
The stampede of businesses out of what was once the most productive and attractive region in all of North America demonstrates again that prosperity and individual freedom are best served in a political environment of decentralization.
That the individual states of America have retained some sovereignty, despite the highly centralized “federal” system of government of which they are a part, has enabled individuals and entrepreneurs living in jurisdictions that have become too tyrannical to “escape” to political environments which are less oppressive. This, among other reasons (mainly air conditioning), led to the rise of the Sun Belt as people sought to escape the high taxes and regulations of the Northeast to less burdensome (and warmer!) southern destinations.
This can also be seen on a worldwide scale. The US, for a long time, had been a haven of laissez-faire economic philosophy, which, not surprisingly, became a magnet for those seeking opportunity and a higher standard of living. No longer is this the case as increasing numbers of companies and individuals are seeking to avoid American confiscatory tax and regulatory burdens and move “offshore” or expatriate to more favorable economic climates.
The idea of political decentralization as a catalyst for economic growth has become a part of a “school of thought” in the interpretation of how Europe became so prosperous compared to other civilizations. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe for centuries was divided politically among numerous jurisdictions and ruling authorities with no dominant central state on the Continent. The multitude of governing bodies kept in check, to a large degree, the level of taxation and regulation. If one state became too draconian, it would lose population to less oppressive regimes.
Just as important, Europe’s governing system was aristocratic and monarchical which has proven to be far more conducive for economic growth than democracies.
While the economic oppressed can escape among the various states, there is no avoidance from the wrath of the federal government unless through expatriation and that option has become less viable with those leaving still subject to tax obligations. This, fundamentally, is the crux of the problem and has been since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789.
The chance that a totalitarian state such as California or the Leviathan on the Potomac would actually reform themselves or relinquish power through legislative means is a mirage. Nor will revolution work as revolutionaries, while appearing altruistic, typically get a hold of the machinery of government to plunder society for their own self interest on a far grander scale than the supposed despots which they replaced!
The only viable option for the productive members of society to seek redress of state oppression is to argue, work, and eventually fight for political secession and the fragmentation of states as much as possible. Decentralization is the only hope for those opposed to the modern, omnipotent nation state. Moreover, any notion or effort to salvage the current centralized political system must be abandoned.
Naturally, before the breakup of the nation state can become a reality, the ideological case for political decentralization must be made. Public opinion must be convinced of the superiority of a world consisting of many states. Such a cause, however, will be considerably difficult after generations have been raised and made dependent upon social democracy.
When Nestle and other oppressed businesses and individuals can easily escape the clutches of totalitarian entities like California and, more importantly, the most dangerous government on the face of the earth for freer destinations, then will individual liberty and economic growth be assured.
*Terry Jones, “Another Big Company Departs California – Will Last One to Leave Shut the Lights?” Investor’s Business Daily. February 3, 2017. http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/another-big-company-departs-california-will-last-one-to-leave-shut-the-lights/
Pope Francis Now International Monetary Guru
Neo-Marxist Pope Francis
In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for
a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of
‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of
monetary exchanges similar to the national central
The paper, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” contends that a world central bank is needed because institutions such as the IMF have failed to “stabilize world finance” and have not effectively regulated “the amount of credit risk taken on by the system.”Naturally, as one of the planet’s preeminent social justice warriors, Bergoglio claims that if a world central bank is not commissioned, than the gap between rich and poor will be exacerbated even further:
If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice,
the negative effects that will follow on the social,
political and economic level will be destined to create a
climate of growing hostility and even violence, and
ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic
institutions, even the ones considered most solid.
Bergoglio acknowledges that if a central monetary authority is established it will mean a loss of sovereignty and independence among nations, but such “costs” are well worth the overall societal and economic gains:
Of course, this transformation will be made at the
cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each
nation’s powers to a world authority and to
regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time
when the dynamism of human society and the
economy and the progress of technology are transcending
borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a
While the document demonstrates that Bergoglio has not a clue of basic monetary theory, it shows again that the “pope” is a radical socialist who has more in common with the loony ideas of Karl Marx than he does with Roman Catholicism.
The ongoing and deepening financial crisis that Bergoglio seeks to address is not because there has been no global central bank to regulate more effectively the money and credit flow of the various nation states, but the crisis is because of the machinations of central banking. Central banking, through the fraudulent practice of fractional-reserve banking, has been the culprit in almost every financial calamity that has beset the Western world since the institution was first created.
If “Pope” Francis was truly interested in solving the financial crisis and alleviating the income gap between rich and poor, he would call for the abolition of this evil institution and advocate the re-establishment of an honest international monetary order based on gold and silver as money. But, as a good neo-Marxist, Francis is more concerned with the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.
Yet, as sound economic theory has shown, this Leftist ideal is a scam. Redistribution of income never enhances the conditions of the poor but instead enriches the politically-connected elites and impoverishes the middle class.
Unlike what Bergoglio believes and what is taught in nearly all college and university economics classes, wealth can only be created by real savings (the abstention from consumption) and the investment of those savings into the production of capital goods which, in time, creates consumer goods. To foster such an environment, however, there must be a sound monetary order not open to manipulation via inflation and credit expansion by central banks.
As he has been accused by several of his cardinals for espousing heretical views on re-marriage and the reception of the Sacraments, “Pope” Francis’ position on international money and banking matters is equally erroneous. Jorge Bergoglio’s “pontificate” has been an unmitigated disaster plagued by constant scandal so it would be wise of him before it is too late to remember the ominous words of the Founder of the institution he now heads about the grizzly consequences that are in store for those who bring about scandal.
*Baxter Dmitry, “Vatican Calls for ‘Central World Bank’ and ‘Global Authority.'” Your News Wire.com 2 January 2017.
On the 225th Anniversary of the United States’ Bill of Rights
This Constitution and the laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of
any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Since the central government is the final arbitrator of the document, any ruling or decision on particular laws or regulations which would impinge on individual rights will, for the most part, be favorable to the government itself. And, due to man’s fallen nature, any such power will be abused.
The ratification of the Constitution in 1789 made in essence the individual states mere appendages of the central government. While the Constitution’s sycophants boast of its “checks and balances,” a far superior bulwark against political repression is that of people “voting with their feet.” Under the Articles of Confederation, when the national government was not the supreme law of the land, if a certain state became too tyrannical, at least in theory, and had the much neglected Articles remained in place, those persecuted could simply move to a more friendlier jurisdiction.
This would also hold true in the realm of taxation and regulatory policy. Those political authorities who became too confiscatory in their taxing or enacted burdensome regulations could also see population outflows. Similar activity goes on all the time currently as people flee high tax municipalities and states like California and New York to lower tax regions such as Florida and Texas.
For voting with one’s feet to be most successful, there needs to be a multitude of states and political jurisdictions. In the current political climate, this would mean the breakup of the nation state. Secession and political decentralization should thus be the goals of those who prize individual liberty and prosperity, not the celebration of constitutionalism and the supposed guarantees of personal freedoms under ideas such as the Bill of Rights.
It is the intellectuals in this sense who decide what views andopinions are to reach us, which facts are important enoughto be told us, and in what form and from what angle they areto be presented. Whether we shall ever learn of the results of thework of the expert and the original thinker depends mainly on theirdecision. *
Since at least the 1960s, the dominant opinion-molding sector of the mass media has been the electronic media, which has far outpaced newsprint and academia in influence. While its power may be on the wane in the Internet Age, it is still the most powerful and important tool in the political elites arsenal for imparting their agenda.
The electronic media, through its use of pictures and images, has been able to manipulate political outcomes and shape public policy discussions at almost every turn. As every media realist has long understood, the mainstream media has long been controlled by the Left which has used this power to counter any opposition to its narrative.
The major media outlets are controlled by five corporate giants – Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom – the largest purveyors of crony capitalism and cultural Marxism the world has ever witnessed. No dissent is allowed to be heard on these outlets nor is there any hope of career advancement for journalists or writers if the Leftist paradigm is not trumpeted.
A free society does not exist because of a free press. In fact, every society which has naively allowed a free press to exist, invariably finds that the press will seek to undermine it, especially its most innovative and successful individuals. The reason, as Hayek so brilliantly explains, is that the press, and in this age the electronic media, is part of the intelligentsia which by its nature is envy ridden since it has little to offer the world in the production of actual goods and services. Its members, therefore, are constantly denigrating their betters.
Such a mindset and sociological disposition will naturally lead members of the mass media to support politicians who will regulate, tax, and control the productive members of society. This explains, in part, their vile and hysterical opposition to Donald Trump. For Trump, unlike his crazed opponent, has largely gained his wealth and position through his own intelligence, foresight, and hard work.
Offsetting media bias is a Herculean task and can only be done by one who is savvy and financially independent enough. This is why Donald Trump has gotten as far has he has and has used his leverage to heroically call out the manipulations of the mainstream media.
It is surprising, therefore, that Trump agreed to the Presidential “debates” in a forum orchestrated by the media with “moderators” who would be gunning to undermine him at every turn. Better to have chosen a neutral environment with an honest third party participant such as Brian Lamb of C-Span. Agreeing to the same rigged debate format was a tactical mistake.
For anyone to seriously challenge the American Leviathan, it must be understood that the mainstream media is a part of that despotic structure and it too must be neutered. Donald Trump has done more than any Presidential candidate to expose the treachery of the mainstream media, now others must take up the cause.
F.A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism.” https://www.mises.org/sites/default/files/Intellectuals%20and%20Socialism_4.pdf
That Hillary Clinton is even remotely competitive in the race despite her flagrant and undeniable corruption, numerous breaches of national security, a long incompetent and bungling political career, and the utter lack of any personal charm or charisma, points to ominous trends within the American electorate that if not checked will mean political futility for future challengers of the status quo and continued economic deterioration.
Simply put: Killary is in contention despite a mountain of negatives because the “dependency class” of the electorate has mushroomed to such an extent that anyone who seeks its reform is automatically at a disadvantage while candidates, no matter how vile, who promise to keep the gravy train rolling or expand it, will remain viable. This is the dilemma that Donald Trump faces.
Most of the data in this regard is quite telling. To show how far the US has fallen as an economic power, government workers outnumber manufacturing workers by 9,932,000! The three levels of government – federal, state, local – employ some 22,213,000 people while the manufacturing sector employs 12,281,000.** Parasitical bureaucrats outnumber those who actually create wealth by almost double. Not only is this a recipe for economic stagnation and decline, but it creates an entrenched voting bloc and contingency for government-friendly office seeking politicians. There have been few if any more government-friendly figures over the past century than Hillary Rotten Clinton!
Those who are dependent on the State goes far beyond mere government employees: 46 million receive food assistance, 66 million people are “Social Security” recipients, 8 million people receive “unemployment insurance.” Federal government spending on for-profit firms comes to some $500 billion which Charles Murray has estimated is about 22% of the workforce or about 36 million people. Non-profit organizations and NGOs with income of $2 trillion and 12 million employees receive about one third of their funding from the government which accounts for another 3 million dependents. This brings the total American State-dependency class to a staggering 181 million members!***
Summing up this disturbing data, the eminent economist and philosopher, Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote:
. . . only 79 million people or about one third
of the adult (above 18) US population of 260 million
(or about 25 percent of the total population of 320
million) can be said to be financially wholly or largely
independent of the State, whereas close to 70 percent of
the US adult population and 57% of the total population
are to be counted as State-dependents.****
These trends will be accentuated, to say the least, if Donald Trump is defeated, which will give Hillary and the Republican-amnesty crowd free reign. After grants of amnesty for the millions of illegals already in the country are given and opening of the nation’s borders to even more, any hope of true reform of the welfare state will be extinguished. Moreover, it will further burden those of the productive, non-dependency sectors of society who will have to support even larger groups of parasites and free loaders.
The Left clearly understands what is at stake, which is why they see Trump’s anti-immigration stance, his talk of closing agencies (Department of Education), and grappling with federal spending as a direct threat to their power base. This is why they are apoplectic in their opposition to the billionaire businessman turned presidential contender. He and his constituency are, for the most part, outside of the dependency class.
A population that is increasingly tied to government largesse is obviously not conducive for economic growth. For Donald Trump to make America great again, the nation’s burgeoning dependency class must be halted. Not only will this mean that the “Trump Movement” will not be a passing political fad, but will have a necessary and lasting impact.
That Hillary Clinton is not significantly ahead despite her enormous advantages must be cause for a lot of sleepless nights among the power elite. A Clinton Presidency would secure the Left electoral dominance for years to come.
One man stands in their way.
*Guy Benson. “Question From Hillary Clinton: ‘Why Aren’t I 50 Points Ahead?'” Townhall 22 September 2016.
**Terence p. Jeff. “Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,932,000. CNS News. 2 September 2016.
***Hans-Hermann Hoppe. “Democracy, De-Civilization, and Counterculture.” HansHoppe.com 26 September 2015.
We’re not in a stable equilibrium. I hope
we can all find a way out because this too
great a country to be undermined, by how should
I say it, crazies.*
Well, if there is anyone who knows how to “undermine” an economy, it is the Maestro, since it was his “crazed” policies that brought about the 2008 financial crisis which ushered in the Great Recession that continues to this very day.
In a demonstration of how truly clueless Greenspan is about economic conditions, he cautioned that the U.S. is “headed toward stagflation – a combination of weak demand and elevated inflation.” Memo to the Maestro: stagflation is already here and has been for quite a while, especially when real economic gauges are used instead of the phony baloney numbers routinely lied about by the BLS and other corrupt state agencies.
The “crazies” that Greenspan refers to are, of course, the “deplorable” Trump supporters and The Donald himself, who the Maestro contends is responsible for “the worst economic and political environment that I’ve ever been remotely related to.” Oh, poor Alan has to suffer through an election where one of the candidates has not been approved by the ruling class. Too bad.
Instead of carping about the current state of political affairs which, at least financially, he and his successor, Helicopter Ben Bernanke, largely contributed to, Greenspan should be grateful that he has had no reprisals for the financial crimes, chaos, and misery that he has afflicted upon the world. Instead of significant jail time or worse, Greenspan is free to pontificate on current events, receiving hefty financial remuneration, and just as important for top members of the governing elite, ego-enhancing hosannas!
While Ben Bernanke has been a lifelong committed Keynesian and inflationist, Alan Greenspan, at least in his younger days as a member of Ayn Rand’s circle, was a free marketer who spoke positively about the efficacy and moral soundness of a gold standard. That he abandoned these beliefs to go over to the Dark Side is further cause for retributive justice.
Greenspan’s betrayal was similar to those economists of the 1930s (Lionel Robbins most notable) who were followers of the teachings of Mises and Hayek, yet were swept away by the fanciful Keynesian deluge of the day and abandoned their economic senses and conscious for similar allurements which seduced the Maestro. Had these economists as well as Greenspan stuck to their original principles, the world may not be in its current financial mess.
While Greenspan was lamenting the state of political affairs, the head “crazy,” Donald Trump, commented on the Maestro’s former place of employment. Unlike the Maestro, the financial media, and just about every other politician, Trump had some perceptive things to say about the nation’s central bank, showing again that the billionaire businessman’s political acumen is quite good:
The Fed is being totally controlled politically because
Obama wants to go out with no stock market disruptions.**
The Republican Presidential hopeful could have easily added that the Fed’s policy is being deliberately carried out to ensure his Democratic opponent’s victory this fall. A booming stock market is perceived by most as an indication of a vibrant economy.
Trump does not buy the supposed “independence” of the Fed from political influence and the conduct of monetary policy solely for the well being of the economy:
If it was a choice between the right decision and a political
decision… The Fed would choose the political decision.
Throughout the campaign, Trump’s instincts on political and economic matters have been quite good and hopefully if he does become chief executive those instincts will translate into positive change.
A Clinton Presidency would assuredly mean a continuation of the ruinous policies of Greenspan and his successors. The election of Donald Trump could not only mean a new direction in monetary policy, but the public demotion of the likes of Alan Greenspan who will hopefully fade into the sunset never to be heard or seen from again.
*Rich Miller, “Greenspan Worries That ‘Crazies’ Will Undermine the U.S. System.” Bloomberg. 14 September 2016. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-14/greenspan-worries-that-crazies-will-undermine-the-u-s-system
**Tyler Durden, “Trump Slams ‘Totally Politically Controlled’ Fed, Sees No Rate Hike Until Obama Has Left.” Zero Hedge. 15 September 2016. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-15/trumps-slams-totally-politically-controlled-fed-sees-no-rate-hike-until-obama-has-le
The Donald Versus Killary: War or Peace?
Although history does not exactly repeat itself, it does provide parallels and sometimes quite ominous ones. Such is the case with the current U.S. Presidential election and the one which occurred one hundred years earlier.
The dominating question which hung over the 1916 campaign was whether the country would remain neutral in regard to the mass slaughter which was taking place on the European battlefields in probably the greatest act of mass insanity ever recorded, World War I.
President Wilson had maintained that the U.S. would continue a policy of strict neutrality. By all indications, the nation wanted no part of the war, with the President’s own party at his nomination delivering an emphatic “No” to any foreign intervention.
Although Wilson maintained a neutral policy through the election and briefly afterwards, his advisors and Cabinet had been lobbying for war and continued to do so even more vehemently after the President’s re-election was secured. Nearly all of them, including Wilson himself, had deep financial, family, and political ties to J.P. Morgan. Wilson received considerable Morgan financial backing for his two presidential runs.
The Morgan operatives within the Administration were pushing for war because the House of Morgan had “invested” heavily in the “Allied” cause and a defeat or a negotiated settlement with any favorable concessions to Germany would be a catastrophe for Morgan financial interests.
Germany understood the cozy Morgan relationship with the Wilson Administration and the Allied powers as Morgan representatives, especially the sinister Colonel House, had repeatedly rebuffed peace proposals from the Central Powers. The Allies and their opponents understood that Wilson’s re-election would mean U.S. entry into the conflict.
Tragically, for the U.S. and for the course of war-ridden 20th century history, Wilson capitulated and brought the U.S. into the battle despite the campaign promise of neutrality and no real German threat. The House of Morgan’s financial bacon was saved at the cost of a devastated world.
One hundred years later, the U.S. and the world stand at another critical juncture and face a similar choice: the election of a known war criminal who has not only shown no remorse for her murderous policies, but promises, if elected, to continue them; or the election of a candidate who has spoken of negotiating with America’s supposed principle enemy, a possible pull back in the nation’s unsustainable global empire, and the enactment of a legitimate use of federal authority – protection of the country’s borders.
It is difficult to believe that Donald Trump is not sincere in seeking accommodation and friendly relations with Russia. It would be far easier for the billionaire businessman and would most likely secure his election if he followed the bellicose policy of the Democrat and Republican Presidents of the recent past who have continued to antagonize and threaten Russia. The most hopeful sign for peace coming from the U.S. in quite a while has been Trump’s talk of de-escalation of tensions and a pledge to place American interests first in foreign policy, instead of mouthing the global domination designs of the crazed neocons.
Some of the things he has said about Vladimir Putin and Russia have been, to say the least, quite encouraging:
I think I would get along with Vladimir Putin.
I just think so.*
It is always a great honor to be so nicely
complimented by a man [Putin] so highly respected
within his own country and beyond.**
I have always felt that Russia and the United States
should be able to work well with each other towards
defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not
to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from
Although not a non-interventionist, a President Trump is unlikely to provoke Russia or China into a civilization-ending conflagration and has displayed the instincts of a true peace maker.
There is, however, little hope for a reduction of global tensions if his sociopathic opponent becomes Commander-in-Chief. Killary has repeatedly demonstrated that she is a willing tool of the neocons and the global financial forces that will profit mightily from continued U.S.- instigated conflicts. If she makes it past the finish line, either legitimately or more likely through fraud, she will surely do their bidding.
For once, politicians and pundits who routinely call every election “the most crucial of a generation” are right. This year’s Presidential election is the most significant one since at least the fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. If the U.S. electorate wants to avoid the disaster not only to its own land and the world that followed in the wake of the 1916 election, there can be only one choice in November of 2016.
*, “Trump Says he Would ‘Get Along Very Well’ With Putin.” NBCNews.com 30 July 2015.
**Maxwell Tani, “Vladimir Putin’s Praise is ‘A Great Honor.'” Business Insider. 17 December 2015.
The Gold Standard: Friend of the Middle Class
It has been theoretically demonstrated and seen in general practice that a monetary system of 100% metallic money devoid of central banking checks monetary inflation, prevents a general rise in the price level, and eliminates the dreaded business cycle while making all sorts of monetary mischief nearly impossible. A gold standard is not only economically superior to any paper money scheme, but is morally just, which is why it is hated by the politically well-connected, academics, politicians, and the rest of the Establishment.
Often not discussed, however, even by its proponents is the beneficial effect that “hard money” has for the middle class.
It is not a coincidence that since the U.S. left the last vestiges of the gold standard in 1971with President Nixon’s nefarious decision to no longer redeem international central bank payments in gold, real wages for Americans have stagnated. Nixon’s decision to put the nation on an irredeemable paper money standard set it on a course of economic ruination, which is why he should have been hounded from office not for his role in the bungled, petty cover up at the Watergate.
Stagnating wage rates have been confirmed by a number of studies, take, for instance one from the Pew Research Center which states that “today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979. . . . [I]n real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.”*
While the absence of the gold standard has impoverished laborers, it has benefitted (not surprisingly) the very wealthy – hence, the reason why it was abandoned, as the Pew Study reports: “What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.”**
Of course, this was part of Nixon’s plan: redistribution of wealth from the middle class and low income groups via money printing to the political class. Such a scheme, however, could have only happened if the gold standard was eliminated.
Since the start of the abominable Obama Administration in 2009, the adjusted monetary base of the U.S. rose from $1.772 trillion to $3.966 trillion as of March 16, 2016.*** Of course, even these unfathomable figures as well as all other information supplied by the dominant media and government cannot be trusted. It, therefore, can be safely assumed that the real money supply is more than officially reported.
Money, like every other good, is subjected to the immutable law of supply and demand. Every increase in the money supply reduces the purchasing power of the monetary units which are already in circulation. Naturally, since wages are paid in dollars, increases in the supply of them will decrease their purchasing power. Thus, while nominal wages have gone up as the Pew Study shows, real wages (what wages can purchase) have stagnated.
The decline in real wages over the decades from profligate money printing has resulted in lower standard of living for wage earners and those living on fixed incomes. The rise in two income families is, in part, a consequence of a paper money economy and the fact that the financial survival of families now requires two incomes. Two-income families have also profound cultural implications which are now manifesting themselves.
There has been much talk throughout the current presidential campaign about the financial decline of the middle class. Candidates on the Left naturally talk of subsidies and more redistribution of wealth while those on the Right have called for tax cuts. While tax reduction of any kind is always welcomed and leads to economic growth, a sound monetary policy is just as important for a revitalization of the middle class. Moreover, a return to honest money does not require any expansion of government spending or debt.
If policy makers truly want to improve the condition of the middle class, which consists primarily of wage earners, a return to a monetary order of “hard money” is an economic and moral necessity.
*Drew Desilver. “For Most Workers, Real Wages Have Barely Budged for Decades.” Pew Research Center. 9 October 2014.
***Jerome R. Corsi, “Obama’s Latest Fraud: ‘Economic Recovery’ Disproven in Just 9 Charts.” WND Money. 3 March 2016.
This entry was posted in Central Banking, Economics, Federal Reserve, Gold Standard, Middle Class, Money, Political, Taxation, Uncategorized and tagged Central Banking, Economics, Economy, Federal Goverment, Gold Standard, Middle Class, Political, Taxation on July 5, 2016. Edit
Executive orders, undeclared wars, drone hits, assassination of citizens and non-citizens alike, the overthrow of foreign regimes, domestic spying, the abetting of known criminal activities through pardons, economic planning, opening borders, monetary manipulations are just some of the nefarious activities that routinely emanate from the most dangerous political office that the world has ever painfully come to know – the United States Presidency!
The U.S. presidents can and have created a veritable “hell on earth” for their opponents, perceived enemies, and the innocent not only in the country in which they reign, but over the lives and fortunes of peoples and places where they have absolutely no authority to interfere. While other chiefs of state have theoretically had such power, U.S. presidents have been able to inflict their destruction and chaos because, paradoxically, the nation’s free-market system, for a long time, created immense wealth which could be tapped into.
The tyrannical nature of the presidency was recognized long ago by those politically perspicacious men who opposed both the office and the draconian document which created it. Few groups in history have been so vindicated for their foreboding as those who vainly argued against the ratification of the United States Constitution than the Antifederalists.
“An Old Whig”* aptly sums up the damage that would come about if the Constitution was ratified and the office of president would come into being:
. . . the office of President of the United States appears to me
to be clothed with such powers as are dangerous. To be the
fountain of all honors in the United States, commander in chief
of the army, navy and militia, with the power of making treaties
and of granting pardons, and to be vested with an authority to
put a negative upon all laws, unless two thirds of both houses
shall persist in enacting it, . . . .**
An Old Whig saw that the president would become a “king” but without the natural and binding checks that even the most absolutist of monarchs were restrained by:
[The president] is in reality to be a KING as much a King
as the King of Great Britain, and a King too of the worst
kind; – an elective King. . . . The election of a King
whether it be in America or Poland, will be a scene of
horror and confusion; and I am perfectly serious when
I declare that, as a friend to my country, I shall despair
of any happiness in the United States until this office
is either reduced to a lower pitch of power or made
perpetual and hereditary.***
One of the Federalists’ counterarguments to the Antifederalists’ concern over the presidential office was the widely held assumption that George Washington would become the new Republic’s first chief executive and the general knowledge of his impeccable character would assuage those worried of potential executive overreach. Such a lame response neglected to look into the future when the office’s huge potentiality for despotism would be sought after and won by those who had less upstanding personal traits than the father of the country.
The growing decentralized political movements throughout the world with, for instance, the hopefully upcoming British exit from the European Union, can only be enhanced if the office of the president and, for that matter, all other nation state’s chief executives are exposed as tyrannical institutions which are anathema to individual liberty and collective self-determination. Presidents, premiers, chancellors, prime ministers, and their like along with central banking are the two nefarious pillars of power of the modern nation state whose continued existence guarantees perpetual war and economic regression.
In this seemingly interminable presidential election cycle, populist, libertarians, conservatives, and all sorts of anti-Establishment types are delusional if they believe the totalitarian direction in which the country is now headed will be reversed through elections or choosing the “right” candidate. “Making American Great Again” will only come about when the chief executive office and the statist document that created it have been repudiated.
Prior to the presidency’s abolition, its ideological justification must be first debunked. There is no finer place to start for this most necessary task to take place than in the dissemination of the perceptive and enduring words of the much neglected Antifederalists.
*Probably penned by a group of Philadelphia Antifederalists – George Bryan, John Smilie, James Hutchinson and maybe others. See, John P. Kaminski & Richard Leffler, eds., Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution. Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House Publishers, 1989, p. 18.
**Ibid., p. 86.
Long Live the Flags of Dixie!
On May 19, the House of Reprehensibles passed a proposal that would essentially ban the display of Confederate flags from national cemeteries. The amendment was added to a Veteran Affairs spending bill.
Not surprisingly, House Speaker Paul Ryan allowed the measure to be voted upon in hopes of not disrupting the appropriations process. Yes, by all means Paul, the redistribution of taxpayers’ confiscated wealth should take precedent over a draconian attempt to eradicate a heroic symbol of the country’s past. Hopefully, Ryan will be ousted this November as both Speaker and Congressman for not only his consistent sell out to Obummer and the Democrats on the budget, but his lack of understanding and appreciation of what is arguably the most important period of American history.
In a certain sense, the Confederate flag should not be displayed in national cemeteries or for that matter flown alongside those of the Union. The two are representations of dramatically opposed political ideologies. Liberals and political opportunists of all sorts have deliberately smeared the South’s attempt at secession as being entirely over the issue of slavery. The “Civil War” (which that struggle has become known by) is now seen through Politically Correct hindsight.
A civil war, in the truest sense, is a conflict between factions attempting to gain control of a government typically for their own aggrandizement. The bloody conflict between the North and South was not that, nor was it solely over slavery although the institution played a role in it.
The Confederacy wanted no part of the Washington establishment at the time, which it believed had become too tyrannical, and attempted to secede from it. The remaining states of the North, under the “leadership” of Abraham Lincoln, prevented this at the cost of more than 600,000 lives, the vast destruction of property, and the impoverishment of a people who simply sought to rule themselves.
The South’s action was nearly identical to what the colonies, North and South, did some 80 years previously in breaking away from the British Empire and becoming free and independent states under the benign rule of the Articles of Confederation.
As America’s Founding Fathers saw their liberties violated by King and Parliament, Southerners witnessed similar tyrannies and wisely anticipated more federal oppression with the election of Lincoln.
This interpretation has been ably supported by scholarship, though the view is rarely acknowledged in academia or in the mainstream media. In an essay from an insightful collection titled Secession, State and Liberty, Donald Livingston persuasively describes the ideological content of the Declaration of Independence, the revolution it inspired, and its influence on the South’s leadership.
He writes: “Overall, the Declaration is an argument designed to justify the secession of the new self-proclaimed American states from the British state. . . [It] is a document justifying the territorial dismemberment of a modern state in the name of the moral right of a people to self-government.”*
The South, imbued with such logic and the example of the Revolutionary generation’s break with Great Britain, attempted to separate from the Union on similar grounds and, in Livingston’s view, had a much stronger claim than the Founding Fathers had for independence:
[T]he colonies were not and never had been recognized as sovereign states, either by others or even by themselves. At the time of the Civil War, however, the southern states had been and still were sovereign states, and so they could mount not only a moral argument but a legal one as well. And it was the legal argument they primarily insisted upon. Each state used the same legal form to secede from the Union that it has used to enter, namely, ratification in a convention of people.**
Although slavery was a part of the South’s final break with the North, the Confederacy could never have been built on such a narrow foundation. Those who seek to paint Southern secession as a movement solely designed to protect their “peculiar institution” have either misunderstood the genesis of that struggle or do so for political gain.
While Southern secession is mercilessly condemned by the Establishment, scholars like Professor Livingston see it and the War for Southern Independence in a much different and far nobler light: “With the orderly, legal secession of the southern states, the American genius for self-government reached its highest moral expression.”***
The Northern and Southern flags which fly in national cemeteries across the land are indeed representative of different traditions, but not what the Politically Correct crowd would have everyone to believe.
The defenders of Dixie and the flags that commemorate their courageous actions have long since been morally justified. The Union flag, on the other hand, has been one of aggression and domination, at first, brutally directed at its fellow countrymen who simply sought self-determination, and afterwards against millions of peoples from Vietnam to Iraq.
Hopefully, in the not too distant future as economic conditions worsen and American hegemony can no longer be maintained, the Union flag and the empire in which it represents will receive greater vitriol than the Confederate flag has gotten for its innumerable mass murders, destruction, crimes, and chaos which it has wantonly brought to every corner of the planet.
*David Gordon, ed., Secession, State & Liberty. Donald W. Livingston, “The Secession Tradition in America.” New Brunswick (U.S.A.), Transaction Publishers, 1997, p. 7
** Ibid., 18.
*** Ibid., 19.
Rock ‘N’ Roll Has Got to GO!
Has Got to GO!
Those who believe that the Western world can solely be turned around by the enactment of sound economic policies are sadly mistaken. Until the Left is not only defeated, but annihilate in the culture war, the decline of the West both economically and socially will continue as recently witnessed by the “controversy” over the use of public bathrooms by perverts.
To accomplish such a necessary task, those on the Right must identify the means and mechanism by which liberalism has so adroitly used to accomplish the cultural transformation.
No finer example of the Left’s use of a medium for its depraved ends can be seen in that of rock “music.” It is safe to say that rock ‘n’ roll has done more to undermine public morality than all of the judicial activism and welfare legislation enacted throughout the past half century or so. And, without a conducive social atmosphere created by such music, it is doubtful that the sexual revolution and its perverse byproducts such as militant homosexuality and feminism would have ever flourished.
While initially rock was relatively innocuous, it, nevertheless, was subversive to traditional morality. Most rock songs are couched in cleverly worded lyrics which promote promiscuity, vices such as drug use, and frequently mocks Christianity, all of which has led to the corruption and eventual ruination of countless lives.
Yet, despite these well established sociological “facts” of rock ‘n’ roll’s corrupting influence, those among the Right have long ago accepted this insidious form of music. In fact, many actually promote it. Rock is used as lead-in and background music to conservative television and radio programs while publications carry reviews of rock albums and concerts with writers often boasting about attending such events with their wives and children in tow.
After the recent passing of the degenerate and truly odd character who went by the name of “Prince,” a number of conservative outlets praised his “music” while one popular radio and television personality attempted to make the case that Prince was an opponent of the New World Order!
At one time, the culture war was an integral part of the political discourse, however, the debate over the issues of that war have been abandoned. The acceptance of rock music by the Right is another demonstration of how it has succumbed to nearly all of liberalism’s premises.
The Left has understood (and still does) that through mediums such as television, motion pictures, and music, they could accomplish their agenda despite setbacks in the political arena. While unsuccessful for a time in politics, they were, nevertheless, winning the important cultural battles and it was through rock music that society was gradually transformed.
There is, thus, no need for those who seek a return to traditional society to celebrate and embrace rock music, instead it should be treated with scorn. But, it must first be recognized for the evil that it is.
While rock music must be understood for what it represents and debunked for its part in the triumph of the counterculture, an alternative should also be offered. Happily, one can be readily found in the sublime and societal enhancing music of such masters as Brahms, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and Tchaikovsky.
Better still, St. Augustine reportedly remarked, “Qui cantat, bis orat” (“A person who sings prays twice”). When Western man’s Creator is once again prayed to through the music of such greats as Palestrina, Victoria, and Byrd throughout all the lands will the cultural war be won and society revitalized while rock music will be a distant and regrettable memory of a troubled time.
A Morally Sound Tax Reform Proposal
The Oppressed U.S. Taxpayer
This year, Americans’ day of tribute to their federal overlords falls on April 18. As calculated by the Tax Foundation, the average American will work from January 1 to April 24 (Tax Freedom Day) to pay his share of taxes to all levels of government with some $3.3 trillion to be forked over to the federal government and $1.6 trillion to state and local jurisdictions.*
While any talk of tax cuts are verboten on the Democratic side of the presidential campaign, the remaining Republican contenders have offered their views on the matter suggesting a flat tax, reduction in corporate tax rates, and a call for the consolidation of the current tax bracket from seven to four.* Most of these and their variations have been trumpeted before and even if enacted would not permanently undo the crushing tax burden or prevent rates from escalating to even more confiscatory heights.
If real and lasting tax relief is ever going to come, a more fundamental alteration of tax policy needs to be taken, which has not been suggested by any of the presidential contenders, but had once been an integral part of the nation’s political thought.
One of America’s most neglected political theorists of the 19th century was South Carolina statesman John C. Calhoun, who wrote the important treatise, A Disquisition on Government. Calhoun perceptively saw that politically, society is divided between two distinct groups: taxpayers and taxconsumers. Obviously, taxpayers are the ones who “pay” taxes while taxconsumers, such as government employees, welfare recipients, state contractors, and all others that receive income from the public trough, “consume” or live off taxation.
Naturally, when it comes to the issue of taxation, taxconsumers will be in favor, or, at least, want to maintain the status quo and, more than likely, would support notions of tax increases. Taxpayers, on the other hand, would oppose increases or enlargement of the tax base, since they are the ones “footing the bill.”
Of course, politicians of all stripes and colors try to blur this distinction that Calhoun so brilliantly made, especially on tax day by declaring how “they paid their taxes.” This, however, is sophistry.
In reality, politicians are just returning some of the loot that they coercively took from their fellow citizens. Federal government employees in essence do not pay federal taxes! Nor do individual state employees pay state taxes. This is merely an accounting gimmick to bamboozle the public. And, this is one of the reasons that, for the longest time (and wisely so), citizens of the District of Columbia could not vote in federal elections since most of them were government employees and would, in their self interest, oppose tax cuts or public spending reductions.
When government was limited and the welfare state effected only a small group, voting and levels of taxation did not have a significant correlation. However, with the number of people working for the government in the millions and those dependent on state largesse in the tens of millions, who votes, and in what numbers is extremely important.
It has been recently estimated that of the total U.S. adult population of some 260 million, only one third (some 79 million) can be said not to be dependent on state support for their existence while 70% of the adult population or 57% of the total population is dependent on some form of state aid. And, unfortunately, all indicators point to more and more headed for the dependency category, primarily due to the destructive economic policies of the Obama Administration.
All of those who seek to lower the oppressive levels of taxation not only in America but throughout the Western world are foolish if they allow those who parasitically live off others to have a voice in choosing candidates or initiatives in regard to taxation. Democracy does not trump human nature. State dependents will vote for those they perceive will continue their subsidies.
Instead of lobbying for the redress of phony grievances against Politically Correct victims and groups, social justice warriors should direct their energies to the long suffering U.S. taxpayers and demand that those who live off them should have no say in either how much taxpayers are to pay or how their confiscated wealth is to be dispersed.
*”No Emancipation This Year.” The Washington Times. Friday, April 15, 2016, B2.
“Pope” Francis and the Disintegration of Europe
A Massive Wall Surrounds Francis-Bergoglio’s Vatican City-State
Despite being rebuked and humiliated by the Republican presidential front runner over his inflammatory statements about U.S. illegal immigration policies, Newpope Francis of the Vatican II sect has continued to opine about the migration crisis.
In an address to a Newcatholic French group, Bergoglio admitted the obvious: “We can speak today of [an] Arab invasion. It is a social fact.” Yet, despite the horrific consequences of this fact, mostly orchestrated by New World Order groups and organizations of which his church is a part, Newpope amazingly contends that this will eventually be a positive thing for Europeans: “How many invasions has Europe experienced in the course of its history! But it’s always been able to overcome them and move forward, finding itself complimented and improved by the cultural exchange they brought about.”*
Europe “complimented and improved”?! Right. Tell that to the thousands of women who have been raped, assaulted, and terrorized by mostly Muslim fanatics, or look at the widespread destruction of private property that these trespassers have wrought, and worse, the cultural transformation that this deliberately created crisis has produced.
Bergoglio furthered these idiotic statements with some multicultural speak: “the only continent [Europe] that can bring some unity to the world.” And that Europe must fulfill its “universal role” and “rediscover its cultural roots.”**
If Bergoglio really wants Europeans to “rediscover” their “cultural roots,” they will find that ever since the emergence of Mohammedanism, its fanatical adherents have repeatedly attempted to overrun and conquer the Continent and subject its peoples to the crazed religious and political dictates of its possessed “prophet.”
At one time, Europe fulfilled its “universal role” by engaging in a series of military actions (the Holy Crusades) which were mostly inspired by true popes (which Bergoglio and his Vatican II predecessors are certainly not) to expunge the infidel from the sacred places where the Founder of Christianity lived, preached, was crucified, and gloriously rose from the dead. These authentic successors of St. Peter, in particular Urban II and Innocent III, understood the threat that Mohammedanism posed to their flocks both spiritually and culturally.
The failure of Christendom to ultimately defeat Islam and drive it out of the former lands of the Roman Empire was not the fault of the popes, but that of the secular powers who increasingly sought their own aggrandizement. If the European principalities had heeded the popes’ calls and driven the Muslims back to their tribal homeland, history would have had a happier outcome.
Bergoglio, if he cared to look, would find that Europe’s “universal role” included the justification of “holy war,” in the use of violence against Islam, not only during the Crusades, but in the re-conquest of Spain, and in the defense of its homeland from numerous Muslim assaults. Moreover, the idea of Muslims living side-by-side with Europeans or being able to create their own autonomous communities would have rightly been considered societal genocide.
No authentic pope would be engaged in “dialogue,” common prayer meetings, or other ecumenical interchanges with Muslims as Bergoglio and his Vatican II predecessors have repeatedly and blasphemously done over the years. Any pre-Vatican II pope, theologian, bishop, priest, or, for that matter, astute layman would properly consider such actions abominable and would recommend as punishment a rendezvous with some of the scum that abounds at the bottom of the Tiber for its transgressors!
Bergoglio and most of the Newchurch hierarchy’s support for free migration and open borders and their condemnation of those who have opposed such lunacy clearly demonstrates that the Vatican II sect is part and parcel of the New World Order which seeks the eradication of sovereignty and the extinction or at least subjugation of European peoples to the global elites.
Not only is this cretin wantonly overturning two thousand years of traditional Christian teaching on morality, but he is openly encouraging the destruction of those societies which that morality ultimately helped to build.
Despite the skillfully and deceitfully crafted persona as “Mr. Humble” and his white pontifical attire, “Pope” Francis and the sect that he heads are a clear and present danger to what remains of Western civilization and must be opposed and removed from power.
*Tom Wyke, “The Pope says ‘It is a Social fact’ that Europe is seeing an ‘Arab Invasion’ and it’s a Good Thing.” Daily Mail.com. 4 March 2016
Queen Isabella and the Invasion of Europe
The Muslim Surrender of Granada to Fernando and Isabella, 1492
If the Western world ever becomes serious on how to deal with the current, mostly Muslim, invasion of its once sacred soil, all it needs to do is to look to its glorious past. In particular, it should examine the heroic actions of one of its greatest figures, Isabella of Castile. This is why the historian William Thomas Walsh entitled his magisterial biography of the queen, Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader.
While the Reconquista was not directed at securing access to the Holy Land and Jerusalem as earlier Crusades had attempted, the ridding of the Spanish peninsula of Muslim power was a definite part of what Jonathan Riley-Smith calls the “paraphernalia of crusading:”
. . . with the union of Aragon and Castile in the
persons of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1479 and
the resurgence of crusading ideas that had followed
the loss of Constantinople the Spanish court, with
Isabella taking the lead, began to seethe with fervour,
nationalistic as well as religious. The paraphernalia
of crusading – papal letters and crusading privileges –
were in evidence. [Jonathan Riley-Smith,
The Crusades: A History, p. 312
Isabella and Fernando used their money and resources not for “national greatness,” or their own self aggrandizement as the later “absolutist” monarchs would do, but instead employed their treasures to triumphantly defeat one of Christianity’s mortal foes.
Huge sums of money were spent and large armies
raised and the war was pursued with a remarkable
singlemindedness at the expense of almost
all the country’s other interests. [Ibid]
If Christian principalities and powers had a portion of Isabella’s ardor for the Faith, the infidel would have long since been vanquished or at least pushed out of the former lands of the Roman Empire which they had brutally overrun. Unfortunately, the Western world went in an increasingly secular direction after the passing of the great queen, eventually adopting totalitarian social democracy as its governing system while pushing Christianity out from nearly every sector of public life.
Norman Housley in Contesting the Crusades adds, “. . . the Granada war of 1482-92 had shown not just that the crusading mechanism could still work, thereby confirming the lesson of the Hussite crusades, but that it could generate military success.” (p. 138) He points out that the Reconquista was a part of crusading tradition and not some separate political aggrandizement scheme of Isabella and Fernando: “A significant feature of recent research on the Granada war, however, has been the demonstration that the campaigns were advanced with the help of a cluster of ideas and emotions that had strong links with past crusading.” (p. 139)
Before the final elimination of Muslim power in Spain, Isabella was engaged in crusading activity. Her forays against the Muslims were undertaken outside of Spain proper and done despite the kind of internal political difficulties which kept other sovereigns from taking up the Cross.
In 1479, the Grand Turk Mohammed II besieged Rhodes which Venice had abandoned, in part, to preserve its own trading privileges in the Levant. While the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem had held off the Muslims, it did not end the threat as the Turks set their sights on the coast of Italy which, of course, sent shock waves not only throughout the country, but Europe at large.
In August of 1480, the Turks attacked and took the city of Otranto in the Kingdom of Naples. The atrocities committed were particularly heinous as Walsh details:
Of the 22,000 inhabitants, the barbarians bound 12,000
with ropes and put them to death, thus helpless, with
terrible tortures. They slew all the priests in the city.
They sawed in two the aged Archbishop of Otranto,
whom they found praying before the altar. On a hill
outside the city, now known as Martyrs’ Hill, they
butchered many captives who refused to become
Mohammedans, and threw their corpses to the dogs.
[Walsh, Isabella of Spain, p. 192]
The account of these actions became widely dispersed and certainly known to Isabella.
As happened far too often in earlier crusades the political leadership, this time in Italy, was too busy with their own petty squabbles to recognize the Muslim threat despite pleas from the pope: “If the faithful, especially the Italians wish to preserve their lands, their houses, their wives, their children, their liberties, and their lives; if they wish to maintain that Faith into which we have been baptized, and through which we are regenerated, let them at last trust in our word, let them take up their arms and fight.” [Quoted in Walsh, Isabella of Spain, p. 192]
Not only for the rest of Europe, but the Moors’ capture of Otranto was a threat to Spain, especially since Granada, with two important sea ports on the Mediterranean, could easily be used as military bases. Isabella, however, keenly understood what the establishment of a Muslim foothold on Italian soil would mean for the security of Christendom. In response, she sent the entire Castilian fleet to assist in the recapture of Otranto. The queen went beyond just providing arms for defensive purposes, but took the offensive despite delaying much needed domestic reform as Walsh describes:
. . . it was characteristic of Isabella to stop at nothing short of
her utmost. At a moment when she had need of her new
revenues to complete her program of reform and to prepare
for war with Granada . . . she generously threw all her energies
and material resources into the major struggle for the safety
of Christendom. She formed the audacious design of raising
a fleet powerful enough not only to defend Italy and Spain,
but if necessary to defeat the Turks on the high seas and
smash their whole offensive. [Ibid., p. 193]
The idea of compromise or coexistence with the Muslims, a policy which had been taken by crusaders both in the East and in Spain’s case with El Cid was anathema to Fernando and Isabella. [S.J. Allen & Emilie Amt, eds.,The Crusades: A Reader, pp188-191] After the sultan of Egypt, al-Ashnat Saifud-Din Qa’it Bay, had won a significant victory over the Ottoman Turks, he demanded that Fernando and Isabella stop their war on Granada. He threatened, among other measures, to take reprisals on Christian pilgrims and suggested destroying the Holy Sepulcher. [Warren H. Carroll, Isabel of Spain: The Catholic Queen, p. 190]
Fernando was not to be intimidated. He quickly retorted with a sharp and detailed history of the Reconquista which showed that it was his and his predecessors’ right to regain their homeland from the Muslim invaders. Moreover, if Catholics were killed to stop the war in Granada, Fernando would kill Granada Moors in retribution. [Ibid.] To this warning, no response was ever recorded from the sultan!
Isabella’s personal sanctity and love for her people has never been denied. Prior to the attack on the Muslim held fortress of Loja, Isabella organized a massive army the makeup of which consisted of soldiers from across the Continent eager to join the crusade, inspired, no doubt, by the queen’s indomitable will as the late Warren Carroll shows:
The whole army knew that Isabella . . . was praying night
and day for their success; knowing her holiness, they were
immensely confident in the power of her prayers. Never
had her prestige among them stood so high; her constant
care for the wounded, her fine and firm hand upon their
supply line, keeping them equipped with all they needed
wherever they might go, were now known and honored by
every soldier. [Ibid., p. 172]
Even her love for her husband would not dissuade the queen from accomplishing what she believed was a holy mission. In 1484, Fernando had sought to reclaim rights that his family had in Roussillon, France. Yet, the financial situation at the time only allowed for one war to be fought so a decision had to be made: a conflict over a dynastic dispute or the continuation of the struggle to expel the Muslims.
Isabella never wavered. Unlike other sovereigns who became embroiled in internal politics instead of fulfilling their crusading vows, Isabella pressed on, even more determined. In one of the few instances where her disagreements with her husband became public, the queen wrote:
This is so just and so holy an enterprise that among all
those of Christian princes there was none more honorable
or more worthy, none more likely to gain the aid of God and
the love of the people. . . . Two years ago the war with the
Moors began, in which great efforts were made and great
preparations undertaken on land and sea, at immense cost.
In view of all this, it appears unwise to lose all by beginning
another war with the French. [Quoted in Carroll, Isabel of Spain,
The Reconquista was not only a part of Spain’s struggle, but became one of Christendom’s, which can easily be seen with the participation of knights and fighting men from across the Continent. The most important of these were the Lombards whom Isabella recognized as crucial for the achievement of the ultimate goal as Carroll points out:
. . . the Lombards became the key to the war against Granada;
they were the decisive and irresistible weapon, once brought
to the scene of action. It was not easy to transport these
monsters over the primitive roads of southern Spain, but
it was done under Isabella’s constant prodding. [Ibid., p. 159]
While the conquest of Granada at the beginning of 1492 ended seven hundred years of Muslim rule on the Iberian peninsula, the victory would have never been achieved without the sacrifices of Queen Isabella. Before an attack on Granada could be made, the fortress of Baza had to be captured, however, Fernando’s earlier defense of Sicily and his foray into France left him critically short of funds. He considered postponing the assault until the needed money and supplies could be procured and sought Isabella’s advice.
Her response was typical, “[Baza] has to be continued and it will continue.” [quoted in Carroll, Isabel of Spain, p. 192] Another retreat would be fatal to the spirit of the people and ultimate success. William Thomas Walsh explains the heroic efforts the queen made to secure the funds, soldiery, and supplies for Baza’s capture:
Money was the first need. She pawned her gold and plate,
priceless heirlooms from her ancestors; and she sent all
her jewels by speedy messengers to Valencia and
Barcelona . . . her pearl necklace, her balas rubies, even
the jeweled crown of Saint Fernando. [Walsh, Isabella of
Spain, p. 312]
The amount sold was astronomical totaling some 60,000 gold florins. [Carroll, Isabel of Spain, p. 192] “The pawning of Isabella’s jewels,” Walsh contends,” was the turning point in the Crusade, and the fall of Baza marked the beginning of its third and final phase.” [Walsh, Isabella of Spain, p. 314]
The capitulation of Granada and the restoration of Christianity throughout Spain was celebrated throughout Europe and recognized at the time for its supreme significance. Probably no one summed up the accomplishment of Fernando and Isabella than King Henry VII who proclaimed:
These many years the Christians have not gained new ground
or territory upon the infidels, nor enlarged and set farther the
bounds of the Christian world. But this is now done by the
prowess and devotion of Fernando and Isabella, sovereigns
of Spain, who to their immortal honor have recovered the
great and rich kingdom of Granada, and the populous and
mighty city of the same name from the Moors . . . for which
this assembly and all Christians are to render laud and thanks
to God, and to celebrate this noble act of the King of Spain, who
in this is not only victorious but apostolical, in the gaining of
new provinces to the Christian faith. [Quoted in Walsh, Isabella
of Spain, pp. 333-34]
While it took some 700 years to rid Spain of the Muslim yoke, at least Isabella and her predecessors had only to contend with the infidel. Today, however, those who oppose the invaders have a two-fold problem: not only must they battle a hostile, alien group which may freely roam within their midst, but they must counter the Continent’s political elites who are allowing and, often times, encouraging the catastrophe to take place.
If victory is to be achieved, those who seek to preserve Europe’s cultural and demographic heritage must adopt Isabella’s uncompromising policies and replicate her own tremendous sacrifices. Many have done so already and will certainly be honored by history for their gallant stand, but many more must join if the contest is to be ultimately won.
Allen, S.J. and Amt, Emilie, eds., The Crusades: A Reader. 2nd ed., Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2014.
Carroll, Warren H. Isabel of Spain: The Catholic Queen. Front Royal, VA.:
Christendom Press, 1991
Housley, Norman. Contesting the Crusades. Malden, MA.: Blackwell
Smith, Jonathan Riley. The Crusades: A History. 3rd ed., London:
Bloomsbury Academic, 1987; 2014.
Walsh, William Thomas. Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader. New York:
Robert M. McBride and Company, 1930; Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and
Publishers, Inc., 1987.
Another Constitutional Convention: An Idea Whose Time Has Not Come
In the midst of the seemingly indeterminable presidential electoral campaign, some of the candidates have been asked about the possibility of convening a constitutional convention in the hope of addressing the nation’s most pressing issues, most ominously the gargantuan federal deficit now in excess of $18 trillion.
Governor John Kasich supports such a notion with the explicit purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment.
Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self Governance, a leading group pushing the idea, believes that “If it starts to become a serious presidential issue, we could get it done in 2016.”*
Not all presidential contenders are on board with the idea. Senator Marco Rubio has expressed trepidation over the possibility of a convention for amending the current document fearful that it would lead to a total rewrite:
Just make sure that we know how it is going to turn out
because if you open up the Constitution, you are also
opening it up to people that want to re-examine the First
Amendment, people that want to re-examine the Second
Amendment, people that want to re-examine some other
fundamental protect[ions] that are built into the Constitution.”**
Unlike most issues on which he pontificates, Senator Rubio is this time right in his analysis, but most likely for the wrong reasons.
The original Constitutional convention was called to “revise” the supposedly defective Articles of Confederation, but by the time the deliberations (more like arm twisting, threats, and bribes) were over, the Articles had been replaced by a brand spanking new document. The Constitution granted the central government far more power than it had before while the individual states had, in effect, lost their cherished sovereignty and had become mere appendages within the new “federal” union.
Under the current ideological climate, the convocation of another constitutional convention would not return the nation to its halcyon days as a confederation of independent states, but would more than likely increase the central government’s power at the expense of what is left of state and individual rights. The idea of amending the current document is naïve at best, but more importantly a gigantic waste of time.
Groups like Citizens for Self Government do not grasp the essential problem of American political, social and economic life. It is the Constitution itself that is the cause of the myriad of problems which besiege the land. The adoption of the Constitution despite what its sycophantic champions of today and yesteryear have erroneously argued, created a highly centralized national state which is virtually limitless in its power.
The Articles of Confederation, on the other hand, were just that – a system where the national government was dependent for its existence on the individual states’ benevolence. American constitutional history can be seen as the systematic destruction of state, regional, local and, eventually, individual sovereignty from the aggrandizement of federal power, all achieved under Constitutional rule.
The Constitution negates one of the great safeguards of individual liberty – “voting with one’s feet.” Under a confederation of states, tyranny can be avoided, to an extent, by simply relocating to another political jurisdiction. If a state becomes too confiscatory in its taxing policies, its subjects can move to a less tax burdensome district. Thus, the more political jurisdictions there are the better.
Under the Constitution, there is no escape from its dictates unless one expatriates. The ability of populations to move and the greater number of political units provides a far superior check on tyranny than the supposed “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” so celebrated in American federalism.
Amendments, conventions, “strict interpretation” of the Constitution, and all other reforms of the federal system will do nothing to limit or eventually slay the American Leviathan. Decentralization is the key which means secession and a dismantling of the Union.
Secession should not be limited to the Union, but allow for the breakup of the existing states along political, economic and cultural lines. States as geographically, culturally, and economically diverse as California should be broken down into numerous smaller entities. The overriding principle in regard to liberty and prosperity is the greater number of political configurations the better.
Until the Constitution is seen for what it truly is, the rapacious federal state will continue to gorge itself on the ever dwindling productive efforts of its citizenry. Once this is recognized and efforts are taken to disembowel the beast, will the lives, liberties, and property of Americans and a great many around the globe be secured.
*David Sherfinski, “GOP Hopefuls’ Support Boosts Constitutional Convention Idea.” The Washington Times. 24 December 2015.
Baby Butchering Continues to Get Subsidized at Planned Parenthood
If future chroniclers of the American past are to have any credibility in their recording of the present epoch, there must be included in their histories the vile and murderous saga of Planned Parenthood and its enabler, the United States Federal Government. That Planned Parenthood will continue to receive state largesse despite the well documented fact that the organization engaged in the selling and exchange of aborted (murdered) baby parts is a dramatic, but accurate indicator of the utter depravity of American society.
For all the bluster and threats by pro-life groups and conservative Republicans of a government shut down if Planned Parenthood was not defunded, the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Paul Ryan, voted to maintain taxpayer support of the organization. The Left, which had fought tenaciously to protect Planned Parenthood’s funding, was clearly pleased over the outcome as The Hill reported:
Planned Parenthood is praising Democrats in Congress after
the spending bill released early Wednesday morning spared
the organization from cuts.
As expected, the spending bill does not defund Planned
Parenthood, a clear deal-breaker for Democrats, but the
absence of spending cuts is still noteworthy given the
intensity of the push to defund the group earlier this year.*
While no one expects the den of thieves which roam the corrupt halls of Congress to take a courageous stand in defense of the innocent, one would at least expect the supposed moral leaders of the world to speak out in some regard against such an outrage.
While the egregious revelations of Planned Parenthood were becoming known, the purported pope of the Catholic Church was gearing up for another of his scandalous junkets, this time to the Western Hemisphere, with stops in Communist Cuba and the United States.
While Bergoglio performed a “Mass” under a huge display of Che Guevara in Cuba and spoke in front of the American Congress about a number of liberalistic causes, there was not one mention of the genocidal acts taking place at Planned Parenthood! Instead, there were smiles, exchange of gifts and backslapping between the supposed “Vicar of Christ” and America’s Chief Executioner of babies, Barack Hussein Obama, who has previously come out in favor of the grizzly procedure of late term abortion even up to and including the moment of birth. Obummer has also been a staunch advocate of “gay marriage” which was recently given legitimization by the other contemptible arm of the U.S. Leviathan, the Supreme Court.
Instead of warm words between Bergoglio, whose Church supposedly condemns abortion and sodomy, and high ranking members of the U.S. government, shouldn’t Bergoglio have excoriated the nation’s chief executive, its legislative, and judicial bodies for having fostered these abominations? And, why didn’t the mainstream press question this blatant hypocrisy of the person who is supposedly the chief guardian of the Church’s moral laws?
Neither has there been a peep from Bergoglio’s effeminate, clerical American underlings during the “debate” over the bill’s passage. Of course, how could “Catholic” prelates take any moral stand since most of these perverts are still in the midst of covering up and taking part in the Church’s Great Sex and Embezzlement Holocaust, another topic that Bergoglio paid only scant attention to during his infamous visit?
If Americans think there will not be some form of retribution for allowing an organization like Planned Parenthood to remain in existence, they are sadly mistaken. Justice must and will be served. Sympathy for tragedies which come down the line will be hard to muster for a society that tolerates such evil.
Not only will those at Planned Parenthood and its patrons suffer for their crimes, but those who were in positions of authority and influence and did nothing, like Bergogolio, are also culpable and will be chastised.
While psychopaths such as Planned Parenthood’s Vice President, Dana Singiser, dementedly boasted about how they defeated the “extreme members of Congress” who sought to defund the agency, their “victory” will only be fleeting as they will eventually have to face and answer for their atrocities to the Divine Judge who will be a bit more of a formidable adversary than sell outs like House of Representative Speaker Paul Ryan, and the United States Congress.
*Peter Sullivan, “Planned Parenthood Unscathed in Spending Bill,” The Hill. December 16, 2015.
The Constitution’s Big Lie
One of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon Americans at the time of its telling and which is still trumpeted to this very day is the notion that the U.S. Constitution contains within its framework mechanisms which limit its power. The “separation of powers,” where power is distributed among the three branches – legislative, executive, judicial – is supposedly the primary check on the federal government’s aggrandizement.
This sacred held tenet of American political history has once again been disproved.
Last Friday (October 23), the Attorney General’s office announced that it was “closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges” against former Internal Revenue Service’s director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, anyone else from the agency over whether they improperly targeted Tea Party members, populists, or any other groups, which voiced anti-government sentiments or views.
The Department of Justice statement read:
The probe found ‘substantial evidence of mismanagement,
poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the
belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted
them based on their political viewpoints. But poor
management is not a crime.’ (My emphasis)
Incredibly, it added:
We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on
political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate
motives that would support a criminal prosecution.*
That the DOJ will take no action against one of its rogue departments demonstrates the utter lawlessness and totalitarian nature of the federal government. The DOJ’s refusal to punish documented wrongdoing by the nation’s tax collection agency shows the blatant hypocrisy of Obummer, who promised that his presidency would be one of “transparency.”
It can be safely assumed that Congress will not follow up on the matter, as Darrell Issa (R-Ok.), who chaired a committee to investigate the bureau’s wrong doings, admitted that its crimes may never be known.** The DOJ and Issa’s responses are quite predictable once the nature of the federal government and, for that matter, all governments are understood.
Basic political theory has shown that any state is extremely reluctant to police itself or reform unless threatened with destruction, take over, or dismemberment (secession). The Constitution has given to the federal government monopoly power where its taxing and judicial authority are supreme. It will not relinquish such a hold nor will it seek to minimize such power until it is faced with one of these threats.
While it was called a federated system at the time of its enactment and ever since by its apologists, the reality of the matter is quite different. As the Constitution explicitly states in Art. VI, Sect. 2, the central government is “the supreme law of the land.” The individual states are inferior and mere appendages to the national government – ultimate control rests in Washington.
In fact, it was the Constitution’s opponents, the much derided Antifederalists, who were the true champions of a decentralized system of government while their more celebrated opponents such as Madison, Hamilton and Jay wanted an omnipotent national state.
Thus, in the American context, the only method for those oppressed by the federal government is to either threaten or actually go through with secession. Attempts to alter its dictatorial rule through the ballot box or public protests are futile. While there will naturally be outrage at letting the IRS off the hook, focus and anger must be redirected away from participation within the current political system to that of fundamental change.
Congress’ refusal to prosecute an executive bureau that has deliberately used (and is still using) state power to oppress and harass opponents of the Obama regime demonstrates the bankruptcy of the idea that “separation of power” limits tyranny. Federal power and the corresponding tyranny and corruption which it has bred has never been countered by the “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” of the supposed “federal republic” created a little over two centuries ago.
Until the “big lie” of the Constitution is realized, agencies like the IRS will continue to target and tyrannize anti-government organizations, groups, and individuals. The Constitution provides no real mechanism for the redress of grievances from the subjects which it rules. Only when the breakup of the “federal” Union has taken place, will American liberties and freedoms be secured.
*Tyler Durden, “DOJ Closes Lois Lerner Investigation Without Charges.” Zero Hedge http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-23/doj-closes-lois-lerner-investigation-without-charges
October 23, 2015.
**Melanie Batley, “Issa on IRS Scandal: May Never Get the Truth.” Newsmax http://www.newsmax.com/US/issa-scandal-irs-investigation/2014/07/09/id/581638/ July 9, 2014.
Down with the Constitution!
It has been quite an eventful and productive couple of weeks for the forces of statism in the former “land of the free, and home of the brave.”
The federal government’s highest court has enshrined “perversity” into law, guaranteeing untold amounts of future litigation while infringing on the right of freedom of association and, just as important, “disassociation” for those who rightly consider sodomy an abomination which wantonly mocks the Author of the natural law.
Prior to its cultural wrecking decision on “gay marriage,” the Court ensured that socialized medicine would become a permanent feature of American life upholding a key provision of Obamacare.
While the Supreme Court was issuing its heinous decisions, the two other federal branches of government were also actively augmenting the American Leviathan. After considerable arm twisting, threats, payoffs, and a large dose of GOP support, President Obummer was able to secure passage of the TPA fast-track legislation one of, if not, the greatest piece of “crony capitalism” ever conceived. Of course, in the current statist era, the exact details of this monstrous law has, as of yet, been made public, however, what has been made known is quite chilling.
While these liberty-defying acts were being committed, a prior provision of the American police state was renewed by Big Brother Barack and his Congressional Commissars. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which outlines the budget and expenditures of the U.S.
Defense Offense Department has since 2012 contained the provision (section 1021) “which allows the Federal government, through military force, to arrest anyone, including American citizens, without a warrant, and hold them indefinitely without charges or due process – habeas corpus.”
Naturally, there was considerable outrage among freedom groups and those within the alternative media over the latest expansion of federal power. The responses, however, were typical with calls for “taking back the country from the globalists,” “restoring the Constitution,” “electing liberty-loving candidates to office.” The latter cry was spoken about the most with the Presidential election around the corner with some commentators speculating on which candidate could best “turn things around.”
Such talk and the tactics promoted to combat totalitarian America have been trumpeted so many times that they have long ago lost their appeal. They are not only worn out, but they would not work even if successfully implemented, simply because they are not directed at the source of the problem.
The recent judicial decisions, the many wars, the debasement of the currency, spying, the fomentation of racial violence, and the ruination of the economy are the result of a single institution – the United States federal government – which was surreptitious created with the “ratification” of the Constitution in 1789 against, as most historians agree, the will of the American majority for which it would tyrannically rule over ever since.
“The Miracle at Philadelphia” was a “miracle” only in the sense that the event has been viewed as some sort of liberty defining watershed where individual rights would be safeguarded and state power held in check by the Constitution. Few historical fantasies have been believed for so long!
Instead of a federated system where power is decentralized between national and local governments, the Constitution created a highly centralized state through the document’s often vague terminology “for the general welfare,” and its explicit grants of power, “federal statute is the supreme law of the land.”* The highly lauded system of “checks and balances” between the three branches of government have rarely, if ever, stemmed the growth of state power.
Yet, despite the suzerainty of the federal state, “patriots” and all those opposed to the regime still believe the system can be “reformed.” Even when the national government is controlled by those supposedly sympathetic to liberty, government power continues to expand while any previous welfare or draconian measure enacted are never curtailed, much less abolished.
Attempts at reform or working within the “political process” is a gigantic waste of time. Instead, such efforts should be directed at secession the goal of which is the dismemberment of the Federal Union into sovereign, independent entities, the greater in number the better.
Until the Constitution is recognized for what it is, the chances of ending the American police state, economic recovery, and the cessation of the myriad of global conflicts, wars, and hostilities in which the U.S. is actively fomenting, are next to nil.
The dissolution of the U.S. “federated” Republic is not only necessary for the well being of Americans, but for the peoples of the globe, millions of which have been murdered, intimidated, plundered, and spied upon by the Leviathan residing on the shores of the Potomac. Likewise, as the Constitution has served as a model in the development of nation states throughout the last three centuries, so its demise will provide an example for the rest of the world to hopefully emulate.
* Kenneth W. Royce, Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance with Big Government. Javelin Press, 2nd ed., 2012, pp. 105-106.
Secession: The Key to Peace and Prosperity
Despite the rise of global totalitarianism and the financial clouds of collapse continuing to darken, there are, believe it or not, a few bright spots that if trends continue, could provide “the solution” to mounting state tyranny while providing an escape for the coming economic cataclysm.
From the ancient waterways of Venice, Italy, to the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, there are a number of secessionist/independence movements which seek to disengage themselves from their current nation-state overlords. Some of these groups are relatively new while others are older movements reinvigorated due to the growing oppression and bankruptcy of their national governments.
Venice is the latest and one of the most promising entities that may seek to secede. A spokesman for its independence movement, Lodovico Pizzati, told The Daily Telegraph that “If there is a majority yes vote, we have scholars drawing up a declaration of independence and there are businesses in the region who say they will begin paying taxes to local authorities instead of to Rome.” There are other areas in Europe which are holding referendums on secession most notably Scotland and Catalonia.
In seeking to leave Italy, the Venetians have history on their side since the city and its surroundings were for a millennium an independent (and prosperous) Republic which, unfortunately, like many other places were consolidated in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Italy itself only became a nation state in the 19th century after being an amalgam of political and religious jurisdictions in the aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire.
The nation states which dominate the global political landscape are going through their final death struggle as they desperately seek to stave off collapse through the issuance of more and more debt. Most are artificial constructs made up of dissimilar cultural, religious, ethnic, and economic groups who are being compelled to live together ruled by a central state. The financial crisis has exacerbated these tensions which will only deepen as times get worse.
Secession is the only morally justifiable and politically sensible route for like-minded groups to form their own governing bodies to represent and solve their own particular needs and grievances. Naturally, the New World Order despises secession and will take any and all measures to crush such movements and to discredit them intellectually.
It is most likely that once a couple of entities successfully split from their parent governments, others will follow. Success breeds imitation. There is no telling how far decentralization will go once a few “break away” groups attain independence.
Maybe, the most important consequence of secession is the near certainty of a reduction in global conflict. As national states are broken up, the ability to conduct war will be severely reduced. There simply will not be enough “resources” available since the “tax base” of the various central governments will be shrunken. Moreover, as ethnic, religious and racial groups splinter off and form their own political entities, conflict between dissimilar groups will be lessened.
For those who are opposed to the current global political configuration ruled by a plutocratic elite of central bankers, militarists, and statists politicians of every stripe, the secessionist/independence movements offer a viable alternative to the burgeoning New World Order. Thus, any coalition, organization, or individual which aims at bringing about the breakup and eventual downfall of the current dictatorial global power structure, should be championed.
For its eventual success, the secessionist/independence movement must first attain “intellectual justification.” “Public opinion” must be convinced of not only its moral legitimacy which is undeniable, but as a way out of the increasingly despotic and bankrupt systems of nation states. The battle for secession must, however, be first won in the realm of ideas which, if successful, will lead to real world change.
Two books on secession should be read for those who want to delve further into this exciting and very vital subject. Secession, State & Liberty edited by David Gordon is a theoretical and historical look at the topic mostly from a libertarian bent while the collection of essays assembled by Donald Livingston, Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century focuses on the United States. For more on America, the late Thomas Naylor’s works on Vermont secession are superb.
First published 3-21-’14