More News and Commentary

 Posted by at 12:21 pm
Oct 052015

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has some thoughts on democracy, de-civilization, and the quest for a new counter-culture.

James Ostrowski says that progressivism cannot deliver multicultural tolerance and peace.

Lew Rockwell’s recent speech on the menace of egalitarianism.

William Anderson has some comments on the coming corporate “crime wave.”

Jacob Hornberger on killing people over there and random mass murders over here.

David Bromwich discusses Syria and the mystery of the “moderate rebels.”

Fred Reed discusses women in the military.

Sheldon Richman on gun control advocates’ belief in magic versus common sense.

Alex Newman on Obama exploiting anti-Christian terrorism to push gun control.

WND with an article on the Oregon shooter vs. Obama’s “universal background check.”

Patrice Lewis discusses the stupidity of gun-free zones.

Justin Raimondo on Catalonia and secession.

Thomas DiLorenzo on how Lincoln would have responded to the Catalonia secession vote.

Harrison Koehli provides the full unedited text of Putin’s interview with Charlie Rose and what CBS left out.

Richard Ebeling says that crony capitalism is the cause of society’s problems.

Laurence Vance on the economics of sports stadiums.

Thomas Sowell comments on the “affordable housing” fraud.

Tim Cushing on law enforcement agencies’ lust for stealing from the people via “civil asset forfeiture” that most people don’t know about.

Daniel McAdams asks, Why is Washington against Russia bombing ISIS and al-Qaeda?

Glenn Greenwald on how U.S. government bombed an Afghan civilian hospital just a day after warning Russia to stop bombing Syrian civilians.

Michael Rozeff says, Support neither dictatorship nor democracy.

James Bovard analyzes the Supreme Court’s dreadful record on freedom.

Kelly Vlahos explains how Republican primaries create more Pentagon pork.

John Whitehead says that Minority Report is 40 years ahead of schedule: The fictional world has become reality.

William Grigg on when insulting the police is a crime.

Marita Noon on the Pope, climate change, and VW.

Robert Murphy discusses Ludwig von Mises: scholar of free markets and prophet of liberty.

Murray Sabrin on trumping Trump.

James Bamford asks, Did a rogue NSA operation cause the death of a Greek telecom employee?

Paul Driessen discusses the alarmists who want climate change skeptics prosecuted under RICO.

Butler Shaffer on the politics of desperation.

WND with an article on Kathleen Willey vowing to “haunt” Hillary throughout the campaign.

Zero Hedge shows the new patch for U.S. troops fighting ISIS … looks like the ISIS logo.

Greg Grandin on Henry Kissinger’s influence.

And Patrick Eddington asks, Why are FBI agents trammeling the rights of antiwar activists?

Oct 022015

I am absolutely furious. There is steam coming out of my ears now. Must I continue taking time to write about this stuff, again? First, we have a mainstream media intentionally not reporting on the psychiatric drugs aspect behind most of the mass shootings, because many of the media outlets’ corporate sponsors include the pharmaceutical companies. And then we have the government criminals whose main goal with gun control is to disarm the civilian population to make them vulnerable and disable the civilians’ means of protecting their lives and liberty.

Once again, there was yet another mass shooting, this time on a college campus in Oregon. So far, we haven’t heard whether or not the shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, was taking any psychiatric drugs, or had been taking them and stopped. But already there are indications that he was. The mainstream media do not cover the fact that most of these modern day mass shooters were either on those SSRI anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, anti-psychotics (and often mixed with prescription pain-killers), or had been taking them but stopped and were in a withdrawal phase.

A Los Angeles Times article gives us a preliminary indication of the probability of psychiatric drugs in this case:

Mercer was among five students listed in the 2009 graduating class at Switzer Learning Center, … (which) teaches students with special needs, emotional disturbances, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, and other health issues.

Oftentimes, the young people, even at a very early age, are diagnosed or misdiagnosed, really labeled, as having “autism,” “Asperger’s,” “ADHD,” or with “depression,” etc. and they are given those powerful psychiatric drugs. The drugs themselves have been shown to exacerbate emotional problems including depression. Some of the side effects include aggressive and violent behavior, as well as having an effect on the individual’s sense of conscience and self-control.

As I noted before, the South Carolina church shooter, Dylan Storm Roof, was on the benzodiazepine anti-anxiety drug Xanax and the pain killer Suboxone. (Another well-known benzodiazepine drug is Valium.) Suboxone is a dangerous drug known to cause violent outbursts.

Last year’s Santa Barbara college shooter, Elliot Rodger, was on Xanax and the pain killer Vicodin.

The Aurora Colorado theater shooter James Holmes was taking the SSRI antidepressant Zoloft and the anti-anxiety drug Clonazepam. (Other SSRI drugs include Prozac and Paxil.)

The Germanwings Airlines co-pilot Andreas Lubitz who took down his plane and mass-murdered 144 people had been on Lorazepam, an anti-anxiety drug, as well as an unnamed antidepressant.

And Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris had been on Luvox, an SSRI anti-depressant also used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders.

While it was not officially confirmed that Sandy Hook School shooter Adam Lanza had been on psychiatric drugs, a parents rights organization sued the state of Connecticut to release Lanza’s medical records, but the request was denied “because ‘it would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications’.” I guess that answers that question.

And Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who has testified several times before Congress on these issues, speculates that Nidal Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter who apparently was a military psychiatrist, was in all likelihood “self-medicating” with psychiatric drugs. Dr. Breggin observes:

I’ve given seminars to the staff at both hospitals where Hasan was trained, Walter Reed in DC and the national military medical center in Bethesda, Maryland. The psychiatrists had no interest in anything except medicating their patients.

Modern psychiatry is not about counseling and empowering people. It’s about controlling and suppressing them, and that’s a dismal affair for patients and doctors alike. The armed forces have been taken in by the false claims of modern psychiatry.

By contrast, it’s not depressing to do psychotherapy or counseling. As therapists, it’s inspiring when people entrust their feelings and their life stories to us. There is no burn out when therapists feel concern and empathy for their patients and help them to find the strength and direction to reclaim their lives.

But being an ordinary psychiatrist is deadly depressing. Psychiatrists routinely commit spiritual murder by disregarding and suppressing their patients’ feelings and even their cognitive functions, making it impossible for them to conquer to their emotional struggles. It’s no wonder my colleagues have such high suicide and drug addiction rates.

Before Hasan became a murderer, he was a toxic agent stifling the morale of his patients by empathizing with their enemies rather than with them. The army needs to investigate the evil impact that this man must have had on the hundreds of soldiers he discouraged and drugged. He probably made his own personal contribution to the rising suicide rate among soldiers.

Psychiatrists are notorious for treating themselves with psychiatric drugs. They have them freely available and they simply don’t know anything different. The odds are that Dr. Hasan was self-medicating with antidepressants and tranquilizers that were causing his increasing disinhibition, at least in his pronouncements, until his final Allahu Akbar before he began shooting.

Yes, Hasan was motivated by Islamic religious fanaticism, as was, allegedly, the recent Oregon college shooter. And the South Carolina church shooter apparently was motivated by racism. Yet, had these bad people not been taking those very powerful psychiatric drugs they probably would have controlled their emotions and aggression and not committed acts of murderous violence against others.

For an even more extensive list of mass shootings and the psychiatric drugs the shooters had been taking or been in withdrawal from, see this article by Jerome Corsi, and this article by Melissa Melton.

Dr. Peter Breggin, by the way, has written several books on these matters, including Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime; and Guilt, Shame, and Anxiety: Understanding and Overcoming Negative Emotions.

As I have written previously, for those who are taking any of those drugs and want to get off them, to prevent a possible dangerous reaction to withdrawal, see Dr. Breggin’s book on psychiatric drug withdrawal, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.

Here is a recent interview of Dr. Breggin by Lew Rockwell. Breggin gets into the connection between these mass shootings and the psychiatric drugs at about 21:00 into the interview.

Will the mainstream media zombies ever begin to report on these important aspects of the mass shootings of the past 20 years or so? When I was growing up, there were no school shootings. At least, none that I can remember ever hearing about. There was the Kent State massacre, but that was the government shooting and murdering innocent students. Government goons don’t need psychiatric drugs to make it easier for them to kill people. They’re the government!

And when I was growing up, there was no “ADHD” or “Asperger’s,” i.e. made-up labels to stick to kids just for acting like normal kids. And there was no Adderall, no Ritalin, no Xanax. The top 12 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history begin in 1966.

Besides these mass killers not controlling their emotions and aggression as normal people do, there is also the cultural aspect to this violence. American culture is now one of immediacy, distraction, and narcissism. And as Butler Shaffer and Jacob Hornberger observed, perhaps one reason why these mass shootings happen more in the United States and not in most other countries is that our government is the one government mainly that starts wars of aggression against other countries, occupies foreign lands and acts with impunity against foreigners. The American government police are also notorious now for their criminal violence against innocents. These criminal acts of aggression by government goons against foreigners and against the bureaucrats’ own fellow Americans are now being seen, especially by the young, as implicit acceptance of violence.

But rather than looking at these actual causes of these shootings, especially the psychiatric drugs, the mainstream media instead promote the government-imposed gun control agenda!

Yeah, how’s that “Gun Free Zone” stuff working out at Sandy Hook, and this week in Oregon, and at Fort Hood? You see, all you gun control robots out there, when you impose legal restrictions on guns, those who actually obey the law will obey those laws. The criminals, however, who don’t obey laws against murder, rape, robbery, and assault, obviously will not obey the gun laws! Why can’t the anti-gun people understand that? I wonder if they really just like the idea of disarming innocent people, and making innocent people defenseless. Including people deemed “mentally ill.” (But who is to decide who has “mental illness“? All those mentally ill bureaucrats in Washington? All those idiot psychiatrists and primary care “doctors” prescribing those life-destroying drugs like candy? But I digress.) Eventually, those people who disagree with the Regime and criticize the Bureaucracy will be diagnosed by the government psychiatrists as “mentally ill”!

No, it just makes the gun-grabbers feel good to see that they are taking away guns from peaceful, law-abiding people. But one thing the emotion-driven control freaks don’t like to acknowledge is that all tyrannical government regimes disarm the population as a way to strengthen and expand the bureaucrats’ own power and control. The Nazis disarmed the Jews to make it easier to murder them, by the way, as discussed in this book on Gun Control in the Third Reich by Stephen Halbrook. Yet, when we who understand history bring up these points against gun control, the gun-grabbing fanatics scoff at it, like we’re the irrational ones!

Oct 022015

Ryan McMaken writes on the blog:

Join the Mises Institute for Saturday’s Mises Circle in Dallas-Ft. Worth via our livestream. The event, “Against Pc: The fight for Free Expression,” begins at 10 AM central time.

Video links here at the YouTube MisesMedia page.


10:00 a.m.  Jeff Deist “PC is Control, not Etiquette”
10:30 a.m.  Tom DiLorenzo “How Universities Silence Truth — And What We Can Do About It”
11:00 a.m.  Q&A
11:30 a.m.  Lunch, Mises Bookstore open
1:00 p.m.    Tom Woods “Political Correctness and the Argument from Intimidation”
1:30 p.m.    Lew Rockwell “The Egalitarian Menace”
2:00 p.m.    Q&A

Sep 302015

The attitudes of supremacy and entitlement are alive and well in America today, and it’s not just from the Left. Such attitudes can be seen in the administration of the death penalty, in the U.S. government’s wars, and the same-sex marriage issue as well.

To begin, there was an execution yesterday in Georgia of a woman, Kelly Gissendaner, who was convicted of arranging the murder of her husband who was murdered by Gissendaner’s boyfriend. Ironically, while Gissendaner was given the death penalty her murderer boyfriend got life in prison by way of a plea bargain. Because she didn’t actually do the killing, she should not have been given that ultimate penalty, in my view. Theoretically, only the one who actually committed the act should be given the death penalty. And I say “theoretically” because the agents of the State do not have the moral authority to administer such ultimate punishments. But I think there are just a lot of bloodthirsty employees of the State who don’t mind at all ordering or administering such punishments.

Those who supported this particular death sentence obviously don’t believe in the idea of personal responsibility. That is because, while Kelly Gissendaner did have her boyfriend murder her husband, she herself didn’t actually commit the murder. So in this case, even if one supports the State-perpetrated death penalty it certainly is not justifiable especially because Gissendaner did not directly cause her husband’s death. She did not actually kill him. Only those who actually commit some physical action are responsible for their actions, even if, in this case, Gissendaner asked the boyfriend to do it, or even if she paid someone to do it.

I compare this to Presidents who send soldiers to invade other countries and kill the people there and destroy their property. George W. Bush ordered the invasions and wars against Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001. And those wars (along with the previous war against Iraq started by Bush’s father in 1991) were not even justified because Iraq was of no threat to America either in 1991 or in 2003, and Afghanistan was also no threat to America. But, while criminally culpable, the Bushes were not the ones who committed the actual killing and destruction.

It was the actual soldiers who went in and murdered Iraqis, men, women and children, and the actual bomb-droppers who murdered innocent people. “Just following orders” or not, those who committed actual crimes against others are responsible for their own actions. Which is not to absolve the Bushes of criminal acts, as they used the armed monopoly power of the State to organize the actions against whole populations abroad. So deep down, those soldiers as individuals know when they are killing innocent people. Thus it’s no wonder there are so many soldier and veteran suicides each day, because their guilty consciences get the better of them, regardless of the military’s attempts to stifle such moral scruples.

Now, if you strongly disagree with all that, it’s because you probably have a distorted view of the facts of those cases, of the “War on Terror,” and 9/11, based on propaganda government bureaucrats gave us that was repeated without question by the robots of the mainstream media. And many people will say about the Iraqis and other foreigners, “But they’re terrorists!” when no, those people over there were merely responding to an invasion of their territory, by retaliating. It was the U.S. military who was the invader of foreign lands, not the other way around. (And no, such a U.S. military response to 9/11 was not moral nor legitimate, as the people of Iraq and Afghanistan were not responsible for 9/11.) Those people there in Iraq and Afghanistan had every right in the world to retaliate against the U.S. military’s invasion, just as Americans would do if U.S. territory were invaded, occupied, and the people’s homes destroyed and innocent Americans murdered by foreigners.

Unfortunately, there are millions of people in America with an “entitlement” mentality, and it’s not just those on the Left. Many of those who believe in the supremacist idea of “American Exceptionalism” really believe that America has some kind of inherent supremacy over other countries, and that Americans are entitled to go over to other territories, invade and occupy them and act criminally and murderously against foreigners. They base such supremacy on things such as their belief in God, the Bible, and the Founders’ beliefs as the Exceptionalists see them, and other rationalizations of immoral behavior toward others. So in their “American Exceptionalism” beliefs they are entitled to other peoples’ lands and resources, and are entitled to enter others’ property without permission, and entitled to violate the rights of others. And there will be those readers here who find all that absurd, especially the ones I am referring to. But of course those most in denial are those most indoctrinated of this American Exceptionalsim thing. But those who are more honest might begin to question their long-held beliefs. And some people might feel offended by my use of the word, “supremacist” even though that is exactly what it is. America is “supreme” over other countries and we can do what we want, we are above the law, and so on.

With this “American Exceptionalism” narcissism and entitlement is the exceptionalism, narcissism and entitlement of the State and its agents and enforcers. This is another reason why the State-perpetrated death sentence is immoral. Because of the many people who had been put on death row who were entirely innocent and those who were exonerated or whose cases had many holes in them yet were murdered by the State anyway. Many of the agents of the State have a supremacist attitude over the rest of us. Just read any of William Grigg’s articles on the police and prosecutors, or William Anderson’s articles on prosecutors, and you can see what I mean.

And I will conclude this with some comments on Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to give same-sex couples marriage licenses, who is still in the news. Now there’s someone who has a sense of entitlement, in which even though she disagrees with her employer’s duties as assigned to her, she insists on remaining at that job, when the responsible thing to do would be to just get another job. Sure, she can claim that that assignment violates her own personal religious views, but she is acting as though the employer (the government) is obligated to bend the rules to serve her beliefs. No, the employee is obligated to do the job as assigned, and if she doesn’t like it, get another job.

Now, in the private sector, sure, some employers are flexible and there have been many instances of negotiating a compromise. However, in this case when the employer is the government, which is the law, she must act in accordance with the law. Again, if she doesn’t like that, she can get another job. And that’s notwithstanding that she, in her entitlement-minded arrogance, wants to use the legal apparatus of the government, the State, to interfere with the rights of others to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That’s what a lot of people who agree with her point of view want to do, use the State’s monopoly and legal apparatus to prevent same-sex couples from having a legally-valid marital contract which these obstructionists have no moral right to do. Many people just don’t see how immoral it is to use the power of government to act as the final decider of who may marry and who may not, when supposedly in these religiously-oriented people’s minds it is their church or their God who has the final say on that. At least that’s what they say. But true to their State-supremacist mindset, in reality they believe it is the government that ought to have the final say on how people may live their lives.

Sep 282015

Just what is it about being a “Speaker” that causes some people to lose control, get in trouble, or otherwise cause controversies?

This week House Speaker John Boehner announced his resignation not just from the speakership but from the U.S. House of Representatives entirely. (Thank God.) Boehner is now known for his autocratic crackdown on Tea Party dissent. And his many crying fits. And his alleged alcoholism. (Yeah, but what congressman isn’t a drunk, a drug-addict, or a womanizer, or all of the above)? And now he’s leaving. One hopes ALL these jerks will follow him out the door, and not be replaced!

Before Speaker Boehner, there was Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said about the Affordable Care Act, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” Pelosi also complained about “disparity in our country of income, where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier,” while she herself is part of the 0.1 percent. Of all the nerve, Nancy!

And then there was Speaker Dennis Hastert, under whose speakership earmarks (a.k.a. “pork”) increased like crazy, and especially to benefit himself. And while this year he has been indicted for the non-crime of withdrawing money from his own bank account, such withdrawals were allegedly to pay “hush money” to an alleged accuser of alleged sexual abuse while Hastert was a school teacher.

What is it with these people?!

And then there was Speaker Newt Gingrich, his House reprimand and $300,000 fine for ethics violation, his bogus “Contract With America,” his marriages, affairs and divorces (or vice versa), his anti-freedom ignorance. Yes, he was “Mr. Speaker,” but certainly not “Mr. Brilliant.”

I can’t go any further back than that, my head is spinning.

Speaking of “Speakers,” you won’t believe just how bad it is with “Speakers” in Massachusetts.

Former Speaker Sal DiMasi was put on trial in 2011 for a kickback scheme to “line his own pockets,” and found guilty of conspiracy, fraud and extortion. That was after the previous Speaker, the retroactively disbarred Thomas Finneran, pleaded guilty in 2007 for felony obstruction of justice to avoid jail time in a redistricting case. Finneran then went on to be a radio talk show host, where he was known by other WRKO hosts and listeners as “Felon Finneran,” or just “The Felon.” Finneran is now a lobbyist, in Rhode Island. I’m shocked. And before Speaker Finneran was the previous Speaker Charlie Flaherty who pleaded guilty in 1996 to felony tax evasion and violating conflict of interest laws.

That’s three felon Massachusetts Speakers in a row, folks. Can any other state beat that?

The current Massachusetts Speaker of the House, Bob DeLeo, had a close brush with corruption exposure at last year’s trial of a former probation commissioner, but DeLeo wasn’t charged with anything despite questionable ties. He wasn’t even called as a witness even though he probably should have been. And now, his fellow hacks at the State House want to help him to extend his time as Speaker by repealing Speaker term limits despite his earlier promise to quit at the end of his legal term limit. (Heh, that’s a new one.)

Poor Speaker Bob DeLeo recently had gastric sleeve weight loss surgery. I hope that helps. Coincidentally, previous to Speaker Flaherty was the 400-pound Speaker George Keverian who had gastric bypass surgery in 2002, which did help him. He died a few years later, in 2009. During the 1980s and ’90s when Speaker Keverian weighed 400 lbs, Howie Carr would refer to “George Keverian (D-Papa Gino’s)” in his Boston Herald columns. And he still does, apparently. But now the formerly donut-munching Howie Carr himself also had gastric sleeve surgery for weight loss. That’s really catching on.

Anyway, whoever replaces Speaker John Boehner will be either a drunk, a crybaby, a fatso, corrupt, or all of the above. (Unless they draft Ron Paul, of course.)

Sep 282015

The Hillary Clinton email controversy has been in the news a little, but there are still plenty millions of people out there who will still vote for her. But why is all this attention being paid to Hillary Clinton’s possible cover-ups of things? No one made any fuss over Willard Romney’s similar or perhaps worse or more blatant acts of cover-up. According to Reuters, when he was just leaving office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s staff spent nearly $100,000 to hide records.

Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor of Massachusetts in 2007 as part of an unprecedented effort to keep his records secret, Reuters has learned.

When Romney left the governorship of Massachusetts, 11 of his aides bought the hard drives of their state-issued computers to keep for themselves. Also before he left office, the governor’s staff had emails and other electronic communications by Romney’s administration wiped from state servers, state officials say.

Those actions erased much of the internal documentation of Romney’s four-year tenure as governor, which ended in January 2007. Precisely what information was erased is unclear.

Well, duh. I wonder how much crony corruption we would have seen during their development of “RomneyCare,” the Massachusetts version of what was to become CronyCare ObamaCare, in all the emails that were erased, and the hard drives either destroyed or taken. If there wasn’t evidence of corruption, illegalities and ethics violations, then why was it so important to cover things up and destroy the material (which may very well have been evidence of criminality)? Who the hell does that? With the exception of Watergate and some other smaller scandals in the news since then, I haven’t really heard of a governor engaged in what appears to be sneaky shenanigans of cover-up.

And why didn’t the media and political opponents pay any attention to that story? Am I way off? But Hillary Clinton is in the hot seat for possibly compromising “classified” information and “national security.” (Even though what really compromised national security was the idiots in Washington provoking foreigners by starting wars of aggression against countries that were of no threat to us, the U.S. bureaucrats imposing deadly sanctions, and firing drone bombs and continuing to murder even more innocents.)

There is talk of Romney running for President and losing a third time, and also talk of a possible third-party Romney run. How sick is that? The Establishment neanderthals hate Trump so much that they would do that! I can just imagine how the 2012 election might have been had Romney not stolen the Republican nomination away from Ron Paul. That is how corrupt, power-hungry politicians and their little minions operate. Deleting and shredding stuff, doing the “public’s” business behind closed doors, stealing elections.

Some More Misc. Items

 Posted by at 9:43 am
Sep 272015

Daniel McAdams says, Draft Ron Paul.

Paul Joseph Watson on feminists vs. facts and logic.

Joshua Krause says that CPS “workers” are now being placed in the government schools.

Kevin Ryan shows why Saudi ties to 9/11 mean U.S. ties to 9/11.

Breitbart with an article on artwork mocking ISIS removed from free speech event for being “inflammatory.”

Robert Wenzel with some questions to ask Rand Paul on the campaign trail.

Charles Burris on the “Deep State” and the JFK assassination.

U.K. Daily Mirror with an article on a Russian spy in the British GCHQ.

Harrison Koehli on sadistic Saudi princes and Washington warmongers vs. Russia’s civilizing force.

Kit O’Connell with an article on rumors that CIA helping export opium from Afghanistan.

And Robert Murphy asks, Are prisoners who make low wages being exploited?

Sep 262015

The New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players (NYGASP) were going to perform The Mikado in December. But, according to WQXR, because of complaints of “perpetrating Japanese caricatures,” and because of not including actual Asian performers, the group has canceled their performances of The Mikado, and will instead perform The Pirates of Penzance.

C’mon, you ultra-sensitive nudniks out there, it’s only a show, it’s only a comic opera, a dramatization, for crying out loud. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow up!

In their announcement of this most recent caving to the extremists of the political correctness industry, NYGASP writes that they “never intended to give offense and the company regrets the missed opportunity to adapt its production of Gilbert & Sullivan’s 130-year-old satire of Victorian society to respond to contemporary criticism of some elements of traditional performance practice.”

Talk about nuts. You see, these are performances with actors. The actors don’t have to be of the same ethnic origin as their characters, as long as the actors are talented in portraying the characters they are supposed to portray. And also, some artistic works do “perpetrate ethnic caricatures” in one way or another. It’s only a play, or comedy. And Mikado is from 1885.

I can’t believe that so many people are so offended by this that they would write a letter or call this group to complain. There are so many thin-skinned people in America now, and in Europe as well, as we can see from the Europeans’ own idiotic “hate crimes” laws now. What a bunch of morons. (Ooops, I hope they don’t sue me for “hate.”)

And it’s one thing for NYGASP to apologize for possibly offending someone (or presenting a show which someone perceived to be “offensive”), but it’s another thing to actually cancel the whole thing.

Even the Metropolitan Opera went on with the show, with their performances of The Death of Klinghoffer (which one could argue has much more potential to elicit hurt or offense than The Mikado). The Met went on with the show despite complaints, the massive letter-writing campaign, the push for censorship, the push to have that production closed down, the protesters with signs outside the opera house. (And those protesters and calls for censorship tend to be from the conservative side of things. After they constantly criticize college campuses for intolerant speech codes, and criticize the whole political correctness industry, the conservatives — and “liberals,” too — then go on to try to suppress any criticism or negative portrayal of Israel as possible. Hypocrites. But I digress.)

So the Met courageously goes on with the show, but New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players cave to the thought police and they self-censor. That’s life in the 21st Century, the Era of Ultra-Thin-Skinnedness.

Sep 262015

Economist Robert Murphy has a new book titled, Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action. The Independent Institute’s notes on the book informs readers,

The most ambitious, and arguably greatest, treatise on economics ever written was published in 1949—Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. In that masterpiece, the learned scholar, who had fled war-torn Europe in 1940 and landed a visiting professorship at New York University five years later, summarized the state of economic science, especially as it related to the flourishing of a free and prosperous society. Mises valued the importance of educating the public about the basic teachings of economics, because public opinion ultimately shapes government policies that either support or sabotage the workings of the market economy. Human Action was Mises’s most painstaking effort to instill in the thinking public the profound notion that civilization rests on the basic fact that human society is vastly more productive when individuals work in cooperation with one another.

Mises was uncompromising in his commitment to teaching the deepest truths about economic science and to enlisting the public in the defense of the free society. But as brilliant as Human Action is, its length and depth can intimidate many potential readers. Hence the present book. In Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action, economist Robert P. Murphy distills the essence of Mises’s treatise into a more reader-friendly package. But Murphy’s book is not a mere study guide to the great treatise; it is a stand-alone work that elucidates Mises’s most important teachings in a style designed to engage the reader but without sacrificing the rigor of the master’s arguments.

In some of the reviews, Ron Paul wrote, “Robert Murphy’s Choice is the perfect book for those new to the Misesian paradigm and those in need of a ‘refresher course’ in Austrian School economics. All those who share my belief that increasing understanding of sound economics is vital to the triumph of liberty owe him a special debt of gratitude.”

And Tom Woods wrote, “If there is an economist out there who combines scholarly rigor with accessibility to the layman the way Robert Murphy does, I have not met him. If you are looking for an excellent, intermediate book between Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises, you will find it in Choice.”

Sep 262015

Ron Paul says that real charity is voluntary.

Butler Shaffer has some thoughts on capitalism and the Pope.

Jacob Hornberger on the Pope, socialism, and capitalism.

Thomas DiLorenzo on common good, common nonsense.

Brandon Smith says that the worst part is central bankers know exactly what they’re doing.

David D’Amato on a bloodstained legacy: police violence and the Fourth Amendment.

John Whitehead notes how Americans are distracted and diverted from the ever-encroaching police state.

And Ryan Gallagher analyzes the U.K. regime’s spying on Internet users.