The efficacy of a metallic monetary system is beyond dispute at least among real economists which eliminates just about 95% of whom are now engaged in the “profession.” Money, which gold is, allows for specialization, the division of labor, and provides the means for mankind to escape from barter and, thus, a primitive existence. Like free trade, money naturally integrates mankind both among and between peoples.
A system of central banking with an unbacked paper currency is the antithesis of a gold standard. Manipulation of currencies by central banks, mostly through debasement, hinders trade, creates distortions, and ultimately leads to the dreaded business cycle. Murray Rothbard aptly describes the baneful results of state intervention in the monetary system:
. . . government meddling with money has
not only brought untold tyranny into the world;
it has also brought chaos and not order. It has
fragmented the peaceful, productive world
market and shattered it into a thousand pieces,
with trade and investment hobbled and hampered
by myriad restrictions, controls, artificial rates,
currency breakdowns, etc. It has helped bring
about wars by transforming a world of peaceful
intercourse into a jungle of warring currency blocs.*
While the economic efficiency of a gold standard is important, the ethical case for it is more compelling and was the reason why gold, as money, lasted as a medium of exchange for so long. Gold/money has to be created through honest-to-goodness production and exchange. The often dangerous mining of gold takes labor, capital goods, and land. Turning raw gold into coinage is another process which requires a high level of specialization and production techniques. Both are honest and morally sound activities which make for the betterment of life all around.
The ethical standing of central banking and its issuance of unbacked currency as money through the printing press, stroke of a computer key, or via the expansion of credit cannot stand similar scrutiny. By any appraisal, central banking is immoral. Through the creation of money, banks stealthy transfer wealth to those who control the money supply and those closely associated with it.
The ability of central banks to create unlimited amounts of money and credit has been the greatest redistribution scheme ever conceived. The process ultimately leads to class conflict as the wealth disparity between the politically well-connected and those outside that nexus invariably widen.
Under a gold standard, none of this would take place.
Because of their lack and often distain for economic doctrines, in particular, monetary theory, “economic nationalists” (really “economic ignoramuses”) have wrongly focused on trade as a factor in the continued decline of the middle and working classes. China’s supposed unfair trade practices was a staple of President Trump’s campaign rhetoric and has continued through much of his first term.
The focus on trade has deflected attention from the real cause of worsening economic conditions for American workers and the enrichment of Wall Street. Despite the blatant transfer of wealth via the Fed’s policies of suppressed interest rates and money printing since the 2008 Recession, economic nationalists continue to applaud President Trump’s tariff policies while the President continues to browbeat the Fed to do more of the same even calling for negative interest rates and more Quantitative Easing.
The Left rightly speaks out of the vast and growing inequality of wealth distribution, but like those who espouse economic nationalism, they fail to understand the reason for why the societal imbalance has occurred. One remedy they propose – a “wealth tax” – will not address the problem. Moreover, their “soak-the-rich” schemes would snare in their plunder (not that Leftists particularly care) many of the wealthy outside of the banking and financial sector of their legitimate, just gains.
The case for honest money must be made on ethical grounds. The current system must be exposed and shown for the scam that it is: a massive redistribution scheme enriching the political elites and their closely aligned business and financial allies. While it is undeniable that a gold standard would lead to enormous prosperity, its reinstatement would remedy one of the great injustices that plague the world – central banking!
*Murray N. Rothbard, What Has Government Done To Our Money? BN Publishing, 2012: 84.
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.
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 – non intervention abroad.
War mongers like Bolton are fearful that a debt crisis would necessitate a decline in 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 that 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 byTrump.” Military Benefits. September, 2018.
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!
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.
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.
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.