Skip to content

The Latest Examples of Statism, Government Buffoonery, and Liberal and Conservative Authoritarianism

There have been many recent examples of U.S. government buffoonery and nationalist authoritarianism (or authoritarian nationalism, if you prefer). While I don’t have all day now, I’ll try to cover some of the important developments recently.

Activist Post has an article by Rachel Blevins on how the mainstream media and the FBI have pushed another fake terror attack even when their patsy resisted. There are still many people who refuse to believe that the FBI would deliberately pick some young mentally deficient Muslim or convert, motivate him to commit “jihad,” set him up with materials to entrap him in order to thwart the FBI’s own FBI-concocted plot. “Why, the FBI wouldn’t do that, we trust the FBI to do the right thing,” say the True Believers. Even after years and years now of the FBI concocting their own plots to thwart and many articles and books written about all that, there are still people who don’t know about what the bureaucrats in Washington are doing. Or if they do hear about it they don’t believe it, because, being submissive obedient sheeple like the Salem Radio talk show hosts and other dittoheads, they have a blind faith in the gubmint bureaucracy that rules over them.

Related to all that, Glenn Greenwald has this article about the Israeli regime requesting Facebook to delete accounts the regime decides are causing “incitement,” when really most of the account holders are merely Palestinian activists who are attempting to inform one another on the various crimes taking place there, as well as in some cases people merely criticizing the regime. And the double standard! Greenwald writes: “As Al Jazeera reported last year, ‘Inflammatory speech posted in the Hebrew language … has attracted much less attention from the Israeli authorities and Facebook.’ One study found that “122,000 users directly called for violence with words like ‘murder,’ ‘kill,’ or ‘burn.’ Arabs were the No. 1 recipients of hateful comments.’ Yet there appears to be little effort by Facebook to censor any of that.”

I have heard some people assert that criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.” And, speaking of Salem Radio nudniks, while writing that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, Dennis Prager has stated that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Hmm, I don’t see much of a difference. I am critical of Zionism and Israel because I am not a collectivist. During the 20th Century, if people needed a “safe haven,” they could’ve come to the U.S. (If only FDR didn’t turn the Jews away and make them go back to the concentration camps, that is.) There was no practical need to fabricate a new artificial country in the Middle East. I am also not a Bible believer which Prager is, and the current state of Israel is based mainly on the Bible, and not on practicality, and certainly not based on morality. Prager goes on about “morality” constantly on his radio show, yet he supports immoral policies, like invading Iraq, and has said that the U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War was a good thing, because “communism is bad.” (And now we have a united communist North and South Vietnam. And because of the U.S. military’s involvement, many innocent civilians were murdered, as well as 58,000 Americans dead. But I digress.)

No, criticism of Israel is generally not referring to the whole state of Israel, but its regime and its military. The Israeli government deserves to be criticized when it wages war on the million people of Gaza, it bombs civilian homes and schools, and imposes a blockade which prevents Gazans from getting outside Gaza just to get medical treatment in Israel, and when the regime enables so-called settlers to seize lands away from Palestinians. So, if I criticize Israel, it is not because I am an “anti-Semite,” or a “self-hating Jew,” but because I am anti-militarism, anti-police state, anti-socialism and anti-central planning. The same thing applies to my criticism of Washington, by the way.

There is another thing with the Salem Radio talk hosts and other dittoheads, in their politically correct siding with the “protesters” in Iran. That is because they hate the Iranian regime and blame them as the “#1 sate sponsor of terror,” even though these conservatives rarely if ever criticize the Saudi regime, which actually IS the #1 state sponsor of terror! You see, because of their blind faith in central planning and in a militaristic and covetous approach to international relations, many people don’t understand that it was the CIA who imposed a coup in Iran in 1953 (and for oil, of course) and propped up the Shah and his SAVAK police state, which tyrannized and thus radicalized many in Iran leading up to the Revolution of 1979 and rule by the Ayatollahs since then. That probably wouldn’t have happened had the CIA not imposed a coup and forced a totalitarian police state on the Iranians. But the True Believers in central planning love their CIA, their FBI and all the rest.

Speaking of being Against Central Planning, Walter Block has this new article on what to do with North Korea. Stop all the “war games” (i.e. provocations), take all U.S. troops out of South Korea (and, I would add, out of Japan and all the other areas out there, including removing all U.S. ships from the entire region), encourage talks and reunion between North and South, unilateral free trade between the U.S. and North Korea. I’m not sure about appointing Dennis Rodman as ambassador, but whatever.

Sadly, many of today’s conservatives and authoritarian nationalists act in the same way as they criticize the Left and the college snowflakes of acting, with hysteria, with chicken-little-ish running around in circles being afraid of all the monsters, like Iran and North Korea. That’s because they believe the propaganda being spoon-fed to them by their beloved bureaucrats of the regime in Washington, like the college snowflakes believe all the propaganda about “triggering,” “microaggressions,” and racists, etc.

So the American militarists who thrive on having an enemy “over there,” no matter who it is, will not approve of any kind of diplomacy or acting morally. They don’t see the U.S. government and military’s actions outside the U.S. for the past century as immoral. Many people are raised with an authoritarian mentality, in addition to blindly worshiping their rulers in Washington. They really believe that America is “divinely inspired,” and the U.S. regime in Washington may do whatever it wants outside the U.S., including starting wars of aggression and bombing other countries, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of innocents who are murdered by the regime. (Noam Chomsky recently discussed “why the world hates America,” listing one immoral and criminal act of militaristic aggression after another committed by the U.S. regime in Washington.) But, as Lawrence Wittner discusses, the “Merchants of Death” continue to survive and prosper. Collectivism, socialism, and central planning, folks, that’s what militarists stand for, really.

Related to all this, Laurence Vance writes about the “So what?” Christians. He writes:

I have written many times about Christian jihadists, Old Testament Christians, Christian armchair warriors, theological schizophrenics, Christian Coalition moralists, nuclear Christians, Janus Christians, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, pro-lifers for mass murder, Red-State Christian fascists, bloodthirsty Christian conservatives, beam Christians, nuclear Christians, Christian Coalition moralists, double-minded Christians, Christian warmongers, God and country Christian bumpkins, sniper theologians, Christian military idolaters, conservative Christian militarists, and members of the Christian axis of evil.

The So what? Christian, when presented with some negative assertion about the U.S. government, the U.S. military, U.S. wars, or U.S. foreign policy, instead of inquiring as to its validity, doing some research, or spending more than three seconds thinking about it, dismisses it with “So what?,” usually followed by some ridiculous statement.

Here are some examples.

The U.S. military has bombed Afghan wedding parties: So what? The bride and groom were going to produce potential terrorists.

The U.S. military has killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan: So what? They are just collateral damage.

And he lists many more examples of the “So what?” Christian moral relativists. But sadly, many of the So what? moral relativists also consist of Jews, atheists and people of other non-Christian beliefs. (e.g. Salem Radio dittoheads Dennis Prager and Michael Medved who I have heard rationalize many, many immoral U.S. government policies. Yech.). I’ll bet that they don’t view themselves as moral relativists, yet they are exactly that.

Speaking of authoritarians, Justin Raimondo’s recent article discusses the “liberal” version of the aforementioned authoritarian American militarist conservatives, in the “liberals” own acts of domestic witch hunting. And Charles Burris adds some further comments on that, with many links to follow. Both give a good historical perspective on the witch-hunters of the Left.

The Salem Radio hosts and dittoheads don’t realize just how close to the Left they really are in their collectivist ideology and authoritarianism, but that is why I’m here, to point that out. (Also, Ron Paul discusses the relationship between political immorality and personal immorality.)

Speaking of the Left and their crusades, the lawsuit of over $100,000 by the lesbian couple was upheld by a court as the bureaucrats of the court show that they stand with extortion as a means to punish others who exercise their right to freedom of thought and conscience, and upheld by a court to further empower activists to enslave others to serve them involuntarily. The lettered imbeciles of the appeals court wrote that bakers who refused to bake a cake for the lesbians caused “emotional harm” to the lesbians in the bakers’ quoting the Bible! Well, ignorant robed “judges,” how about the “emotional harm” done to the bakers in the lesbian activists’ crusade in dragging innocent people through the courts in order to extort money from them as well as causing the closing down of their business, even though said lesbian couple was nevertheless able to find another baker right away who would bake a stupid cake for them! Talk about criminally narcissistic! If someone does that to you, and they go to police and courts, it might be a good idea to fight back by insisting that they immediately be arrested and criminally charged with extortion, harassment and theft.

Published inUncategorized