Skip to content

Category: Bureaucracy

Articles for Fascists Day (a.k.a. “Presidents Day”)

Sheldon Richman asks, Who owns you?

Zero Hedge with an article on national security state apparatchiks wanting to use the 25th Amendment against Trump.

Reason with an article on Trump wanting to raid asset forfeiture fund to build his anti-freedom wall.

Conor Friedersdorf calls Trump the triggered Snowflake-in-Chief.

And Kimberly Dvorak asks, U.S. military sales gone rogue?

***

And a couple of classics for “Presidents Day”:

Laurence Vance wrote in 2010: U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for Them.

And Lew Rockwell’s speech from 1996: Down with the Presidency.

Leftists and Conservatives All Agree: Against Freedom!

We’re getting it from both sides, the leftists and the conservatives. And frankly, I’m really fed up and sick and tired of all this.

Both sides want to control the lives of others, throw people in jail who disagree or who dissent, or who do business in a way that’s not in accordance with the control freaks, or who eat or consume chemicals not approved by the gubmint, or who come from outside the territory and are not approved by the immigration commissars.

People on both sides just don’t want to leave others alone.

The “Green New Dealers” say they want to eliminate airplane travel, as well as all fossil fuels and cars. They want just electric cars? How will you juice up the cars? What will power up the electric cars? So they just want to outlaw travel, basically.

I guess they are like the conservatives who want to prevent people from traveling into the U.S., as well as harass Americans who want to travel outside the U.S. and return without harassment. Good luck with that.

The “Green New Dealers” also want to retrofit all buildings in the U.S., including houses, apartment buildings, office buildings, schools, churches.

To make it easier for them to make sure that all the buildings in America are getting rebuilt, what they really want is to eliminate all privately owned property in America. They want the government to seize the property, the homes and businesses. The government and its bureaucrat overlords will be the owners of the property.

In our homes the government overlords will be our landlords and we their obedient tenants. They must also take over all the buildings of churches or any houses of worship to make sure that they, too, will be rebuilt to the satisfaction of the “Green” dictators. And naturally that will give them more power to control religion (i.e. abolish it, like in the Soviet Union).

And their real intention is to nationalize the industries, just like in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela.The people on the left want to take over all industries and will try to impose bureaus with commissars who will attempt to run the industries, as though they can do better than the actual people who currently own and operate their businesses.

So in the process of their taking over industries, they will be stealing businesses that many people worked long and hard to build, all the labor and effort they put into it, now to be enslaved by those who will take it over.

For example regarding the “Green Wheeling and Dealing” “Green New Deal” “democratic socialists” real intention of government takeovers of private industries, here is Marxine Waters letting the cat out of the bag:

Because of their narcissism and arrogance many of them really believe they have the ability to run industries better than those currently doing so. As Thomas DiLorenzo referenced F.A. Hayek in today’s article, the leftist activists have a “fatal conceit.”

But really it’s a control freak issue that these people have. They just like to have a lot of power and order others around. All these bossy little “green” dictators.

Here is Congressman John Dingell, the one who just died, on how we need ObamaCare (or, later on, single payer, “Medicare for All,” etc.) to “control the people”:

So, how will the “Green New Dealers” or “democratic socialists” administer over the forcible taking of all that property in the United States? Many sheeple will swallow the propaganda in which bureaucrats and their minions will convince them it’s for their own good, and that Mr. and Ms. Government Agent or Enforcer knows what’s best for them. Anyone who resists will be arrested or shot. That is how they did things in past socialist societies.

And here is the late Larry Grathwohl who as an FBI agent had infiltrated the Bill Ayers group Weather Underground in the 1970s, detailing how his interactions with those commie wackjobs and college professors (sorry for the redundancy) went, in this interview excerpt:

But the conservatives are no better. There are millions of them all over America who really believe that a government Wall on the border will solve the immigration problem. Like the leftists, the conservatives are also afflicted with short-sightedness. I think that their motivation is mainly out of hatred of foreigners. They are obsessed with discussing the victims of crimes committed by “illegals,” but do not seem to care about the many more victims of crimes committed by their own fellow Americans.

It’s all about foreigners, and keeping out foreigners. But it isn’t just keeping out foreigners, and this is where there is a connection between these nationalist conservatives and the leftists. With the conservatives, they believe that people who are not “citizens” should have restrictions imposed on their lives if they dare to set foot in America, or the non-citizens should be kept out, and with a Wall if necessary. What matters here is this “citizenship” thing, which really means government authorization.

The conservatives are really just as authoritarian and socialistic as the leftists, in which for an individual to have legitimacy one must have government authorization or approval (“citizenship”).

And regarding this obsession that Donald Trump and his sheeple followers have with a government Wall like that will cure any problems society might have, I have a feeling that Trump is acting on behalf of the people on the left, like helping them to set up the closed-in society for them in advance. But I could be wrong.

Like the commie thugs on the left, the conservatives and ditto-heads just don’t want to leave people alone. The conservatives want to harass, molest, kidnap and throw into a cage any travelers who are not authorized by government bureaucrats in Washington, regardless of whether the travelers are peaceful. The conservative thugs want to arrest businessmen who hire non-government-authorized workers. And again, it has nothing to do with being “concerned” that immigrants are committing crimes against Americans, because if so then they would be expressing equal concern about Americans committing crimes against other Americans. But no, the conservatives are not doing that. It has to do with hating foreigners, quite frankly. It has to do with their brainwashed nationalism and tribalism.

And also, the real causes of the immigration problem have to do with the drug war and U.S. government interventionism and funding in Central and South American countries, such as Honduras. But the conservatives are too short-sighted to see that. Which they don’t WANT to see, by the way, because they support the drug war. The conservatives support government goons harassing and throwing in a cage those who might have ingested or might be in possession of some government-disapproved chemical or plant.

Honestly, between the power-hungry leftists and the conservatives and nationalists, FREEDOM is under attack from all sides!

What we really need is a free society. Just leave people alone, and liberate them, and let them have their freedom, for crying out loud.

A free society in which everyone comes and goes as they please, no showing ID or papers, no being stopped by goons. And America is supposed to be a society of individualism, in which each individual is left alone by gubmint unless one is actually suspected of violating the person or property of others.

And people come and go as they please as long as they don’t use aggression or coercion against others, as long as they don’t steal or defraud, as long as they are peaceful. And don’t trespass on private property, or else they could get hurt by a private property owner exercising one’s right to keep and bear arms (that no one would be interfering with because it’s a free society).

And no, traveling along “public” property (i.e. unowned) is not “trespassing,” because there’s no such thing as some sort of common ownership of “public property” by the “citizens” that conservatives try to promote. That would be very communistic or socialistic. Any common ownership of the territory as a whole would really negate the concept of private property within the territory. But sadly, conservatives have as much a hard time understanding private property as do the leftists.

In a free society all trades, transactions, contracts are voluntary, and would be only the business of those who are parties to such contracts, trades and transactions. The trades of labor and employment and goods and services would not be interfered with by third parties. And no one is allowed to steal anyone’s earnings or wealth away, including the government! And people consume whatever they want, healthy or harmful.

But we have these people on the left and the conservatives who obediently love and worship their government overlords to decide for them what’s best for them, and to protect them from “bad guys.” And both sides want to usurp control over private property and contracts using armed powers of government to do it. Both sides want to control the lives of others, but they shouldn’t be allowed to do these things.

More News and Commentary

Ron Paul on the hysterical warmongers of Congress when Trump wants to remove U.S. troops from Syria.

Veronique de Rugy comments on Donald Trump’s statement, “America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control.”

Jay Engel says that billionaires already gave their “fair share.”

Ludwig von Mises says that “progressive” attacks on capitalism were key to Hitler’s success.

And Bill Wirtz says that the French government is deliberately increasing the price of food.

“I Am a Socialist”: What Socialists Really Support

With the rise in the advocacy for socialism, such as with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, etc., and their rationality-free, knowledge-free emotional appeals to the ignorant and gullible masses, I am reminded of this article I had on LewRockwell.com in 2010, “I Am a Socialist,” with a self-proclaimed socialist explaining what he really supports. And so I will repost that here now. (There may be one or two things in which I wouldn’t put it in exactly the same way as I did in 2010, but I think this makes some important points.)

“I Am a Socialist”

November 24, 2010

Recently, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell announced that he is a “socialist.” O’Donnell referred to Milton Friedman’s quote, “We’re all Keynesians now,” and President Richard Nixon’s quote, “I am now a Keynesian,” in the context of Keynesian economics being very similar to socialism. O’Donnell went on to assert his pride in being a socialist, and even suggested that Glenn Beck, Rand Paul and others are also socialists in one form or another.

So here is an elaboration of someone, whoever that might be, explaining why he is a socialist:

“First and foremost, I am a socialist because I disagree with the Founding Fathers’ ideas on morality and the Rule of Law. It is important that we have a centralized government that redistributes all the wealth. The State needs to have the power to take some of the wealth away from those the State decides have too much of it. Obviously, no one has a ‘right’ to one’s own wealth or property. And I don’t believe that ‘all men are created equal’ because, if there is a law against theft, then obviously because we need to allow agents of the State to take wealth away, then therefore laws against ‘theft’ must exempt agents of the State. That means that some people should be above the law.

“And I am a socialist in medical care because I think that the centralized government should control everyone’s medical care – it’s as simple as that. It is important that government bureaucrats and their government doctors and medical services have a monopoly in the medical industry so they don’t have to deal with competitive interests, as opposed to a free market in medical care in which the consumers determine which doctors and medical plans would stay in business and which ones would fail. Some people assert that that gives ‘power to the people,’ but we socialists don’t want the people to have that kind of power – it takes control away from government bureaucrats and that’s why I don’t like that. It’s important that government officials control the ultimate decisions in what affects American medical patients (and because the Blue State grandmas are more likely to vote for the “good guys” than the Red State grandmas, if you know what I mean).

“I support socialist immigration central planning because the State has a right, for example, to prevent an employer in Arizona from hiring an applicant from Mexico despite the fact that the employer believes that individual is qualified for the job and the Mexican applicant is willing to accept the job at the wage both agree on. Their prospective contract should not be in their control, it should be in the central planners’ control. When we say that socialism includes public ownership of the means of production, then that includes ownership of the employer’s business, as well as the prospective employee’s direction of employment (as well as the employer and employee themselves – after all, one of the most important of the means of production is the people).

(If I may interject here while Mr. Socialist goes to take a brief powder: Some of what is being described is actually fascism. While socialism can generally be described as public ownership of wealth and the means of production, fascism allows for private ownership of wealth and the means of production but the control is usurped by the State. So, there are elements of socialist programs that are also fascist in nature, and vice versa. In immigration, for instance, the central planning nature of public ownership of wealth and the means of production also includes State control over immigration which is really part of fascism, so our socialist here is also a fascist, but don’t tell him I said that. Actually, there really is little difference between socialism and fascism when you get right down to it. But, for the sake of discussion, we’ll continue with our self-proclaimed “socialist” in his discussion of why he favors socialism.)

“To continue, I am a socialist because I support the central planning of chemical ingestion, otherwise known as the War on Drugs. While the common sense answer to the ‘drug problem’ might be freedom and personal responsibility, it is nevertheless important that the centralized bureaucrats have the power to dictate to people what chemicals they may or may not ingest (even though this causes a black market in banned drugs, dramatically raises the prices of drugs and thus incentivizes the black marketers to form gangs and cartels that causes turf wars and increased violence, and incentivizes them to push the drugs on impressionable youths and adults some of whom turn to robbery to afford the pricey substances, as well as distracts and corrupts the police).

“Speaking of police and protecting the public, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the socialist central planning monopoly in territorial security (as opposed to a free market in security, in which those in the protection business would have to deal with profit-and-loss as determined by competitive agents and consumer control). It is important that 300 million Americans are compelled by law to use the monopoly of centrally planned ‘defense’ in Washington to protect them from harm by foreign elements, while legally forbidding anyone from competing in the business of protection.

“I also believe in that central planning military socialism because I haven’t read Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s books, The Private Production of Defense and The Myth of National Defense, or Morris and Linda Tannehill’s book, The Market for Liberty, and because I really do believe in the myth that the U.S. government’s committing aggression on foreign lands actually protects Americans and doesn’t instead provoke those in the foreign lands to retaliate against that aggression and intrusion. I don’t want to admit that giving central planners a monopoly in defense, without the constant checks on their behavior that the pressures of competition in a free market and the requirement to follow the Rule of Law would bring, actually encourages central planners to use the government apparatus to further expand their power and control (and profits at taxpayers’ expense). Can you imagine a private security firm or insurance agency deliberately provoking the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or deliberately encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as an excuse to invade Iraq? A private firm with competitive pressures and under the Rule of Law would not only lose business but its agents would end up in jail. But, despite the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan that our central defense planners in Washington have caused, and the fact that Washington’s intrusions abroad have made us less safe, I still want to pretend that this socialism in defense actually works. As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted, “the system worked.”

“Of course, given that I’m a proud supporter of redistribution of wealth schemes, military socialism is effective in taking wealth from American producers and laborers and redistributing it over to those in the defense contractor industry (and Wall Street). While this socialist (and fascist) monopoly of territorial protection may be completely disorganized because there is no incentive among the government bureaucrats to be efficient and productive, such a scheme nevertheless effects in getting contractors’ campaign contributions in the pockets of those politicians who need the jobs they get in Washington as they would otherwise be unemployed in the private sector. It’s important for America.

“After all, the Founding Fathers were also socialists in that their Constitution mandates a centralized government monopoly in defense, in which free, open competition in that area is outlawed. That’s been good for America.

“And finally, I support the socialized commerce that the Federal Reserve provides, with the help of legal tender laws and loose fractional reserve banking permissions, because I believe that it is vital that a centralized government control the money supply and banking. We can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose a bank based on its record of service to the community, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people, and we can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose among competing currencies, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people.

“Like the central planning micromanagement from ObamaCare, Social Security and government-run education, the Federal Reserve is important to micromanage the economy, despite all the damage it has caused since its founding in 1913. So, as a socialist, I feel it’s important to continue the Fed’s control over and intrusions into our money, banking, savings and investments (and our prosperity, security and Liberty as well).

“We need as many government intrusions into every aspect of human existence as possible, so most of all, I guess I’m a socialist because I like power and oppose freedom.

“Bye.”

Yeah, goodbye, Socialist. Now, get lost – we’re better off without you.

The Increasing Gap Between Government Apparatchiks and Reality

Glenn Greenwald details how Jeff Bezos protests invasion of privacy, as Amazon builds a surveillance state for everyone else. Sick.

Thomas Knapp has a preference for peace. And provides some clarity. Just because one is not a warmonger, that does not mean that one supports the gubmint’s enemy du jour.

And James Bovard on Trump’s absurd claim that Americans are free from government coercion.

The Ongoing Mueller Kangaroo Court

Apparently former Trump lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen has postponed his testimony before Congress for a few more weeks.

The latest controversy includes some emails that have surfaced between Cohen and Felix Sater.

Sater is known as “Individual 2” in the case against Cohen in this kangaroo Mueller fishing expedition. Sater, a felon, bar-brawl fighter, and Mafia-tied longtime FBI informant, is yet another sleazy character among the Trump universe.

Given that Sater has been an FBI informant since 1998 and had infiltrated the Trump organization as early as 2003, I would not be surprised to hear that the FBI has been using Sater to go after Trump for many years now. I would also not be surprised to hear Michael Cohen just make things up in his congressional testimony, like according to whatever made-up stories Herr Mueller told him to say.

Those latest controversial emails between Sater and Cohen include Sater allegedly writing, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it.” And, “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected.”

The emails seem to indicate, at least to me, that Sater is writing the things he wrote in order to try to fabricate some sort of connection between Trump and Putin, on behalf of the FBI’s possible entrapment obsession. But, you can believe what you want to believe. Given the sleazy and corrupt characters in all this, I would not be surprised if Sater wrote those things like directed by the FBI for the purpose of entrapment. Call me cynical. (Call me realistic.)

Now, I’ve written this several times now, so, sorry if I sound like a broken record. The reason that government apparatchiks like John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller go after successful entrepreneurs in the private sector, like Martha Stewart and Michael Milken, Aaron Swarz, Joseph Nacchio and John Kinnucan, and now Donald Trump, is that bureaucrats are a different breed of human being (if I can use the phrase “human being” to even describe them). They are parasites, generally with no real talents or abilities, except for playing along in an organization or racket whose main purpose is siphoning off the earnings of others, benefiting from the labor of others.

Bureaucrats, a.k.a. apparatchiks, have an anti-capitalistic mentality. Their persecution is of those whose success is based on voluntary action and the voluntary choices of consumers. The bureaucrats’ persecution is motivated by envy and covetousness. It’s the same kind of motivation behind those who want to steal as much as possible from “the rich,” from entrepreneurs. The apparatchiks are those who enrich themselves from such “taxation” i.e. theft and plunder. The government-monopolized “justice” system enables and empowers those parasites to go after peaceful traders who are guilty of made-up non-crimes in which there are no victims.

Ludwig von Mises called the apparatchiks and parasites’ mentality an “anti-capitalistic mentality.” [Also see Mises’s Bureaucracy (.pdf)]

It looks like, given that the FBI has probably been after Trump for decades, this is going to never end, until they see him taken down from the Presidency, by hook or by crook, or throw him in jail based on minor technical “offenses” from his taxes from 10 or 20 years ago.

“Green New Deal”: Rule by Crazed, Brainwashed Fanatics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey have presented their hysterically irrational plan of nearly-total government takeovers of the energy sector or of the entire economy, in the name of “saving the planet.”

But it is really in the name of giving more elitists in Washington more control over the lives of others, in the name of slowing down and reversing society’s growth and progress it has experienced over the past 100 years, and reversing the rise in our standard of living.

It is in the name of punishing those who are successful and wealthy and taking away from them the justly acquired fruits of their successes in order to “equalize the wealth.” In other words, rather than strive to make more people wealthy and prosperous, let’s strive to make the masses poor and impoverished. And we’ll implement our fanatical mythological beliefs as part of the process.

Ed Marxey has a history of this kind of insanity as part of the Massachusetts moonbat tradition. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Loonytunes, the world is not going to “end in 12 years” if we don’t do the progress-reversing, mass poverty-causing things you think are necessary.

“Climate change” fanatics: the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years. There have been ice ages, and there have been warming periods. Nothing you can do about it. The effects of human industrial activity and fossil fuels could only be so infinitesimal as to not have any real effect whatsoever. Climate change is a natural occurrence of the Earth, regardless of human behavior.

The climate change hysteria is mainly based on computer models that don’t pan out, and fraudulent, junk science. But people believe what they want to believe. The hysterical fanatics refer to skeptics of the global warming/climate change fanaticism as “deniers,” explicitly referring to Holocaust deniers to insult and denigrate those who are not a part of the hysterical, irrational chicken littlers. The fanatical climate change crusaders have also called for jailing skeptics. These fanatics are literally crazy, brainwashed people.

I heard Glenn Beck this morning lambasting Boston University, where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got her degree in economics. But ALL the colleges are like that. The colleges are turning out brainwashed robots who think thoroughly irrational things. And those young people already begin by being products of the government schools, who make the kids dumber and dumber as they go from K through 12. Sad.

Freedom Is Assaulted from the Left, from Nationalists, Ignoramuses, Morons

So here is another rather disorganized post (maybe another “rant”?) expressing some of the thoughts I have been having, regarding the lovers of the police state on both left and “right” (who are often “wrong” so put it in quotes), those opponents of freedom.

We have an immigration battle between the Trump nationalists who want a damn un-American Wall, and the Democrats and socialists. And Democrats announcing a run for President who have no chance of winning. They aren’t Democrats but far-left ideologues who really want a Soviet Union 2.0. (However, Donald Trump with his love for government central planning! I think he would LOVE a U.S. Soviet Union!)

And we have a continuation of a kangaroo Mueller “investigation” that should embarrass any honest people anywhere in the legal or law enforcement communities. How disgusting, all of this.

I just wanted to get this in here. Glenn Greenwald writes about NBC news with a sham report on Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard being supported by the Russian regime and Putin, based on info from a firm the New York Times recently caught fabricating Russian data for the Democrat party. I never thought I would see the day when Glenn Greenwald would write about the “playbook used by the axis of the Democratic Party, NBC/MSNBC, neocons and the intelligence community” that would be “to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin.”

Now, I am not a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard, regardless of her non-interventionist views in foreign policy, because of her way-out leftist views on everything else.

And speaking of way-out leftists, I heard someone on one of those Sunday news shows, maybe ABC This Week, not sure, on Bloomberg Radio, with a very distorted view of freedom. (Bloomberg Radio airs This Week, Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday and Fake the Nation on Sundays.) I think the guy I heard being interviewed was Sen. Cory Shnooker, who has announced a run for President in 2020, nearly two years before the actual election, just like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Three ignorant and dangerous shnooks (like Trump).

Anyway, the guy was saying that people talk about “freedom” like “freedom from government regulation” and so on. And he wanted to clarify that freedom is really (and I’ll paraphrase because I’m not sure who said it, probably Cory Shnooker, or which show it was on, and can’t find a video or transcript of this), that freedom is really “freedom to not have to worry about being able to pay the bills, freedom to not worry about losing your health care,” and so on, you know, an irrational and incorrect meaning of “freedom.” (And if I’m wrong and it wasn’t Cory Shnooker I heard saying these things, then sorry about that. But I’m pretty sure of it.)

Many people on the Left believe that freedom means the freedom from contractual obligations or the freedom from risk with one’s financial decisions. They want the nanny government to take care of them so that everything is taken care of, health care, and so on. Freedom from responsibility.

And many of them believe that freedom includes the freedom to not be offended, the freedom to not hear words or expressions that might make one uncomfortable.

So they believe that censoring and silencing others by law or policy is an acceptable way of protecting themselves from having to hear uncomfortable things. But in doing so, they are using, in the case of legally doing so, armed force of government to silence others. In the case of college campuses with speech codes, using the power to have other students thrown off campus for “offensive” speech. So, that is how many people define “freedom” now.

And when they use the armed government to act as a nanny state to take care of the people, what if some of the people don’t want to participate in the scheme? What would happen if you don’t pay your Social Security taxes (that you have not voluntarily contracted to participate in)? And more recently with ObamaCare if you didn’t buy health insurance? The armed goons of the IRS gestapo would come after you.

So, many people, not just those on the Left, want to force everyone into these collectivist government-run schemes, whether they like it or not! For them, the IRS-FBI-ETC Police State is a part of “freedom.”

The conservatives and nationalists are just as bad, in my view. They are a narcissistic crowd of “freedom for me but not for thee,” especially in their anti-immigration views, and trade as well. These anti-freedom worshipers of government central planning in the name of the Nation, want a POLICE STATE on the border, within the bureaucracy centered in Washington that includes electronic databases and requirements that Americans must submit their personal information as well as harassing both Americans and foreigners who want to travel, and a government Wall on the border. How “un-American” is all that?!

Sorry, statists. Actual “freedom” is presumably innocent people (not suspected of violating the person or property of others) traveling freely and not being harassed, intruded upon by others, not being stopped and asked to show their identification, not submitting personal information or fingerprints to the gubmint, not being searched, and so on.

A society of freedom in which people come and go as they please. Peaceful people who are non suspected of harming others have a right to be left alone.

But the nationalists and conservatives are paranoid, and believe that “harm” is when someone enters the territory without a government bureaucrat’s permission or without following some bureaucratic rules imposed by central planners, i.e. an act of disobedience, not “harm.”

But whether people are peaceful or not does not matter to the nationalists. Because nationalists are collectivists, if a few people within a group of foreigners have committed crimes, then we must blame all members of the whole group, peaceful or not. Yes, that is the idiocy we have coming from the nationalists and conservatives.

Robert Higgs recently wrote on nationalism,

What is this mystical magnetism that nationalism exerts on so many Americans? It is the wholly superstitious conviction that some special, deep, and overriding solidarity binds them to a particular group of almost 330 million strangers, people they have never met, never will meet, and with whom in many cases they have practically nothing in common. Indeed, in many cases, if any given American were to meet with a great many of his “fellow Americans,” he would find them altogether odious…

In history, nationalism has served as a powerful means whereby ambitious would-be national leaders have forged groups of unrelated and sometimes hostile people into a unitary political entity with the enlarged force that resides in sheer numbers. Nevertheless, the substantive moral irrelevance of nationalism arises from, if nothing else, the mere accident of one’s having been born within the boundaries that contentious rulers happen to have established in their struggles with the rulers of adjacent territories….

Yet, however morally irrelevant nationalism ought to be, it is in practice often of life-and-death importance, and during recent centuries, hundreds of millions of persons have regarded it as so important that they would fight and die in loyalty to the political leaders of “their” nation-state or gladly send their sons to be slaughtered in the same cause…

So today’s “nationalists” are authoritarians and collectivists who are opposed to freedom, and instead love government central planning in immigration and trade. They don’t get the principles of America’s founding.

And as mentioned above, many of those on the Left, like Sen. Cory Shnooker, Pocahantas, Koala Harris, and so on, they HATE actual freedom. And by actual freedom I mean, if you don’t want any involvement in government-run retirement schemes, you don’t get involved with government-run retirement schemes. Or health care schemes, or education, etc.

And when there is freedom, someone who owns a bakery will serve whomever the owner wants, and won’t serve whomever the owner doesn’t want. A Christian who doesn’t want to serve gays won’t do so, and gay bakers who don’t want to serve Christians won’t do so, and won’t be punished by laws and the police. You see, people who believe that the gubmint ought to steal money from the disobedient ones or send the police after them, are police statists. They believe in the police state. They are fascists.

And in freedom, you will educate your children however the hell you want to educate them, you will homeschool them, Christian school, secular school, or NO formal school, and Kamama Harris can’t do ANYTHING about it! That’s freedom. But she wants to send the police after disobedient parents who don’t follow Frau Harris’s orders! She HATES freedom, just like many of her ilk on the left, as well as the ignorant nationalists who believe in “freedom for me but not for thee.” Okay, I’m done.

The State of the Union

Apparently Donald Trump has been permitted by the high queen of botox to give his State of the Union this week. I hope that Rex Reed and Jaye P. Morgan don’t come along and gong him. But here is my take on the “state of the union.”

As I’ve written before, the territory of America is just too big a territory and too big a population to be all one single country or culture, all ruled over by one bureaucracy in Washington. It needs to be decentralized.

On the one side, we have the mystical nationalists who want that single nation and culture, from coast to coast, border to border. And their tribalist mentality, endorsing the police state and government wall to lock out foreigners. Many of these same people who say they are against the killing of unborn babies, couldn’t give a damn about babies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and so forth.

And on the other side, we have the leftists who want to kill babies, steal money and property away from people and who want the government to be in control of taking in foreigners, mainly to have new voters to help further empower Democrats.

Many on both sides are lacking in moral principles, and are in contempt of freedom, individualism and private property, the very principles upon which America was founded. I’m really getting tired of all this.

The latest controversy is Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam who admits to being in a yearbook photo in which 2 people are shown, one wearing “black face” and the other in a KKK shmata. The news articles aren’t saying which one is Northam. But this is coming up at this time because of further scrutiny of Northam now that he has expressed the sentiments of abortion-promoting Democrats and Planned Parenthood.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was Democrat strategists who found the yearbook and brought that to people’s attention, just to take attention away from Northam’s quote in an interview on abortion.

The recent abortion controversy has been revived by New York state whose anti-freedom governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a much loosened abortion policy, in which non-doctors may perform abortions, and if the baby is “not viable.” (A lot of born babies and young kids are “not viable,” because they are dependent on their mommies for feeding. Should it be legal to kill them, too?)

And then in Virginia this House delegate Kathy Tran introduces a “partial-birth abortion” bill, to allow the killing of a baby just as it’s being born. Now, some talk radio people have been saying that Tran’s bill would allow the killing of the baby after the baby is born, which would be murder. However, there is not much difference between killing a baby just as it’s being born and killing a baby after it is born.

But Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the bill in an interview and it is really this quote that Democrats are trying to sweep under the rug. Northam misunderstood what the actual bill would allow, but obviously he gets what the pro-death activists and the abortion industry really intend. Here is the quote, according to the Daily Caller:

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Like the narcissism of the social activists who want to compel others to have to use certain pronouns that are incorrect or accept as truth that someone is a male even though he is a female just because he says he is a male, narcissism is what abortion activism is all about. “The baby is inconvenient for me, so kill the baby. I can’t be bothered to go through 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth. I can’t be bothered with using birth control, etc., etc.”

Related to all this, Democrats want “Medicare for All” or “single payer,” but most important is that the government has complete control over our medical matters, has complete access into our private medical and personal information. The anti-freedom socialists don’t believe that people have a right to privacy (except when it comes to abortion!). They don’t want a society of private property, so your home is not yours, and your private medical matters are not for just you to know, or just between you and a doctor. The socialists will want to know everything about the people among the population. They especially will want to know who might be a Christian or a conservative, or who homeschools their kids, or who owns firearms.

So with the abortion issue we have had a good idea of how some people really think, such as when we heard that Planned Parenthood was selling body parts of aborted babies. That is how some people think of their fellow humans.

And there is the narcissism and economic covetousness of many of the same people.

Elizabeth Warren says that billionaires should “stop being freeloaders,” even though probably in most cases billionaires became billionaires by way of consumers voluntarily paying their money for products or services those billionaires are offering.

Why does Elizabeth Warren want to steal even more income or wealth from people than the government already steals from them? And yes, when the government orders someone to hand over one’s earnings involuntarily at gunpoint and with the threat of being thrown in a cage, that’s stealing.

Warren stated:

“All I’m asking for is a little slice from the tippy, tippy top. A slice that would raise — and this is the shocking part, Jim — about $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years … That’s money we need so that every kid in this country has a decent child care opportunity, has an opportunity for pre-K, has an opportunity for a decent school.”

Barf. Me. Out.

But the federal, state and local governments have been throwing more and more money into government-run education, and the schools are producing dumber and dumber, and more and more ignorant graduates. What about that, Pocahantas?

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to tax, i.e. steal, a much higher percentage of people’s earnings as well. Some people have been referring to her as “AOC,” but that reminds me too much of “AOL,” which I had from 2001-2005 and that ruined my then-computer with a terrible virus. So AOL sucks, and I will not refer to “AOC,” and just type out her name.

Steal 70% of someone’s earnings? Will it ever be enough? And for what? What exactly does the government in Washington do that is worth ANY of the money it steals from us? NOTHING!

And now the new congressperson from Detroit Rashida Tlaib wants to seize GM’s closed plants using eminent domain, and use such places for the “Green New Deal.” She’s the degenerate who spewed a most profane and disrespectful tirade at a bar recently.

Nothing about paying GM for the use of the closed plant, or offering to buy the closed plant from GM with funds from the philanthropists who generally seem to agree with these crazy clucks and their environmental fanaticism, such as Bill Gates or George Soros.

Nope. their mentality is “let’s steal property and confiscate wealth,” robbing and thieving, make use of other people’s hard work and labor to serve our own narcissistic agendas, etc. “All these producers and creators of wealth in our society are too ‘rich,’ so because of our own selfish envy and covetousness we must take it all away form them and steal their property.”

And kill babies just before they’re born (or after they’re born), because they are inconvenient.

But the people on the other side, such as conservatives, talk radio ditto-heads, nationalists, are just as bad. They don’t believe in private property and free markets, and they also believe in stealing private wealth, imposing fines on those who trade with non-government-authorized producers or sellers, jailing employers and laborers who do not comply with orders to get government authorization to exist, in their trade idiocy and their anti-foreigner immigration collectivism and tribalism.

I’ve heard plenty of the egalitarian “everybody has to pay their fair share” crapola from the talk radio ditto-heads and so forth. They do not get what America is all about: private property, free markets and voluntary trade, individualism and freedom.

Each person is an individual. If you don’t suspect an individual of violating the person or property of others, then you leave him alone. An employer wants to hire a worker the employer thinks is most qualified, so he hires him, and you leave them alone. No going to Mommy and Daddy government for permission or authorization to work somewhere or employ someone. But the dittio-heads don’t get that. For them, freedom stops at the border, and outsiders may not come into “our home” without a bureaucrat’s authorization.

So, both the leftists and the other side are for the police state, government intruding into people’s private lives, and, most of all, government central planning.

It’s enough already.

Donald Trump and Regime Change in Venezuela

Jacob Hornberger has this very frank and honest post about the indifference toward the people of Venezuela shown by Donald Trump and his national security handlers. The one thing that Trump and John Bolton and Mike Pompeo really seem to care about is regime change, even if it means large numbers of civilian casualties throughout Venezuela.

Hornberger points out many of the past regime change ops imposed by U.S. bureaucrats, in Chile, Iraq, and Guatemala. U.S. President George H.W. Bush’s war on Iraq in 1991 and sanctions and no-fly zones led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq by the year 2000. And these U.S. bureaucrats didn’t even succeed in ousting Saddam Hussein from Iraq. So, there was no regime change, only the mass murders of innocent civilians. Then Bush’s son, George W. Bush started a new war on Iraq (that was really a continuation of the earlier war on Iraq), which caused the deaths of many hundreds of thousands more innocent civilians in Iraq.

And the bumbling Bushes actually did finally get their regime change in Iraq during the mid-2000s ousting Saddam Hussein. But they replaced the Iraqi regime with a new government that showed obedience to the U.S. government, albeit a sharia law theocracy that didn’t exist prior to the interventions.

Hornberger didn’t mention Iran in his post, although he has mentioned this aspect many times previously. The CIA initiated a coup on the leader of Iran in 1953, followed by the new Shah-led government in Iran that did what U.S. bureaucrats wanted them to do. Throughout the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the U.S. government and CIA continued to support the Shah’s totalitarian SAVAK police state, which led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the taking of American hostages in Iran. The coup and the Shah/CIA’s police state contributed to the radicalization of Muslims and the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran.

And now in Venezuela we have almost civil war, because of mass starvation that Maduro’s government takeovers of industries have caused. Donald Trump and his minions might just impose a coup there or invade the country with the U.S. military. As with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, and all those other countries, U.S. bureaucrats’ interventions and invasions will only cause more death and destruction. That is what government interventionism causes, as history tells us.

But, as Hornberger asserts, Trump and his neocon handlers and warmongers really just want regime change and a U.S.-loyal regime installed in Venezuela. The Trump people really couldn’t care less about the Venezuelan people. And as Hornberger points out at the end of his post, if they did care about the Venezuelan people, they would have them come to the U.S. where there is much more freedom, opportunity and much less starvation and chaos, and wouldn’t be trying to build a government wall to obstruct the foreigners’ way to a better life.

A Further Left Turn for Amerika?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that an economic system that “allows billionaires” is “immoral.” Oh yeah? How about the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, raking in $1.4 billion, according to the Washington Post? Is that “immoral”? (Oh, it’s okay that government bureaucrats and politicians have as much money as they want, but not private citizens. How dare they.)

Robert Ringer writes about Ocasio-Cortez and the moron mob.

And Robert Wenzel says that Kamala Harris has a lot of charisma which could be dangerous, and seems to want to implement a tax system that combines Elizabeth Warren’s progressive tax with Ocasio-Cortez’s wealth tax. Not good.

***

In this next video, Kamala Harris says that “a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime.” What she really means is that it should be considered a crime to not coercively put children in government schools for the daily propaganda and indoctrination of State worship and obedience.

Here is Harris bragging and laughing about her policy of prosecuting parents for “truancy.” (I guess that means she’s against homeschooling? Yup, probably.)

In the video, she says her staff was very concerned about such a policy, not because it is immoral and in fact criminal to intrude herself into the schooling choices of private citizens and their kids, but a concern because she didn’t know at the time if she had an opponent in her reelection race! That is what politicians are concerned about. Their political career in harassing and threatening innocent, private citizens.

So, as part of the Melissa Harris-Perry ilk (Are they related?), Kamala Harris seems to think that the community or the State owns the children.

You see, she’s one of those True Believers in the authority of the State and its Bureaucracies and its Propaganda apparatus, the government schools. “You vill go to government school, and you vill enjoy it!”