Skip to content

Category: History

JFK and Donald Trump

Jacob Hornberger has written a lot about the JFK assassination. (Here is one of his major articles on that subject.)

In his most recent post on JFK, Trump, Russia, and the deep state, he writes:

Ever since I began writing on the JFK assassination, there have been those who have said to me, “What difference does it make whether this was a regime-change operation? Most everyone who engaged in it is dead by now anyway. What relevance does the assassination have for us living today?”

The answer: We are still living under the governmental structure that pulled it off, the same structure that has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump to determine whether he is a secret agent of the Russian government and, therefore, a threat to “national security.”

And he goes on to explain the historical context of why Donald Trump is being “investigated” as a “national security threat.”

Democrat Warmongers, Socialism, and the Need for an American Brexit

Glenn Greenwald features polling data that suggest Democrats now are the new warmongers, while Republicans tend to agree with Donald Trump in Trump’s getting the military to begin withdrawal from Syria (and, let’s hope, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those other territories that are not U.S. territories where U.S. government military do not belong!). Greenwald notes how the change in party-warmonger association occurred after the 2016 election. Like, “we hate Donald Trump, so if he wants to get troops out of foreign war zones, then we want them in there,” is what today’s Democrat voters seem to be saying.

Meanwhile, across the pond the besieged and embattled-axe Theresa May is doomed as Prime Minister of the U.K. because her clinging Brexit plan is going down to defeat in Parliament. She may very well be replaced by the far-leftist Jeremy Corbin. Why is it that there can only be the choice of left-wing statists or “rightists” conservative nationalists? Libertarians no longer exist, either in U.K. or in the U.S., it seems.

If it is a war between private property advocates and collectivists, socialists and nationalists, the private property advocates are in a teeny-tiny minority.

And here in the U.S. we have the young people attracted to socialism, even though they have no idea what it really is. It sounds nice. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sweden and the Nordic countries are not “socialist” countries, because they are generally “free-market” economies with privately-owned industry and means of production but with a welfare state, just like in the U.S. and the U.K.

Socialism is not Sweden, Norway, Denmark, et al. No, socialism is Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela.

But because those who advocate for socialism are ignorant of what it is and of the history of its murderous, destructive effects throughout history, they advocate for it, because “socialism” sounds nice.

The advocates for continued government central planning in immigration in Amerika, so-called nationalists like Donald Trump, want a Government Wall on the border. They are unified in that. So, not much difference between those guys and the people on the left who want government central planning in other areas. And yes, the controls that the U.S. government has over immigration are examples of socialist, government central planning. As I wrote before, The Donald is himself a diehard socialist. And so are his ignorant followers, apparently. Socialism is all about a criminal police state over the people, in immigration, and all other areas.

Besides the hysterical cheerers-on for immigration socialism central planning police state Government Wall, the other more overt socialists want the government to run just about everything else. What they, too, want is a police state. What do they do if people don’t want to submit to the socialists’ plan for funding and participating in a government-run health care scheme? The socialists send the armed police after the people. What do the socialists do if people don’t obey their government edicts and diktats on firearms ownership, or financial regulations or continuing to use cash, gold or bartering against the rules? The socialists send the armed police after the people. That’s their police state.

But contrary to today’s proud self-proclaimed socialists who want to control every aspect of the lives of the people, and throw the serfs in jail if they don’t comply, or today’s not-so-self-proclaimed socialists in immigration who want to arrest and jail “illegal” immigrants who neglected to get a bureaucrat’s permission to travel or move to a better area, the true purpose of America was supposed to be FREEDOM!

And centralization such as in Soviet Union, European and United States always goes against freedom. Decentralization promotes freedom.

For example, in a free society people are free to come and go as they please, without anyone’s authorization. As long as they are peaceful. If you don’t suspect some individual of violating the person or property of others, then you leave him alone. Don’t punish peaceful, innocent people for the actions of others. The American Revolutionaries, so-called Founding Fathers, would never have wanted a Government Wall on the border of their new “America.”

Besides the freedom to come and go as one pleases, a free society also means the freedom to own and possess whatever material property one wants, as long as one is peaceful and acquires the property honestly, including any kind of weapons or means of defense one wants. No permission from bureaucrats, no registration, no license.

I could go on and on, but the free society that was envisioned by the American Revolutionaries was with respect to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, private property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, freedom of movement, and so on.

But those guys didn’t realize what a mistake they made by empowering a centralized government in Washington over the people of the states. The Anti-Federalists were right to be skeptical. If today’s Trump-worshiping nationalists were around at the time of the Revolution, they would never have even considered the Anti-Federalists’ skepticism and their views against centralization of power.

And now, America is too big to be one single country with one single culture, from coast to coast and border to border. It’s just too big. So, we need our own Brexit, too. We need to decentralize, just as the European Union needs to do, just as Soviet Union did.

But I don’t have that much hope for that, for any return to freedom because too many people among the population reject that freedom, on the left and the right, and all points between. Just look how juvenile the Democrat voters are, drooling with hatred of Donald Trump, as well as the nationalist Trump followers, drooling with hatred of foreigners. They are all in agreement that government central planning should continue, and they oppose private property and free markets.

Why Do People Still Embrace Socialism, Despite Its Failure Throughout History?

Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute has a concise overview of the “last war against socialism,” asking, “Why does support for socialism persist?” Despite all its historical failures, the immorality and criminality of it. The self-proclaimed socialists want a planned society, and they don’t care about the lives of those who get in the way of their plans. It is a utopia of extreme narcissism, in my view.

Socialism Is Not Good for You

Zero Hedge with an article on a Venezuela Supreme Court judge fleeing and defecting to the U.S. and denouncing Venezuelan president Maduro. (But will Trump have the guy arrested and charged as an “illegal” immigrant? Probably.)

Related: James Bovard writes about Karl Marx and the great socialist revival. A lot of today’s sheeple youngins are taken in by the utopian vision of “from each according to his means to each according to his needs” (by force, subjugation, coercion, and violence, that is).

A Christmas Message

Becky Akers has this very nice Merry Christmas message, including a link to George F. Smith’s video of the Christmas Truce of 1914 around the beginning of World War I on or near Christmas to initiate peace. After all, was Jesus Christ not the “Prince of Peace”? She also quotes from an article with a Christmastime pro-life message.

Becky writes: “Mr. Smith’s video gently prompts viewers to question the identity of the soldiers’ actual enemies (hint: it’s not the poor slobs firing away at them). The film is a riveting introduction to the philosophy of freedom, and since it’s especially apropos now, you might want to forward it with your greetings to friends and family.”

George Smith points out that after all the death and destruction that governments have caused, the bureaucrats and politicians themselves survive and have enriched themselves off the wars. “Never forget the spirit of ’14.” I think I’ll post the video below.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gave a very thought-provoking speech recently, The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative, at the annual meeting of his Property and Freedom Society. It would be very difficult for anyone to match Hoppe’s expert defense of freedom and property, and his exposing the State for what it is. Video below.

Here are some excerpts from Hoppe’s speech.

Early on in the speech Hoppe clarifies the truth about free market capitalism versus socialism.

Contrary to still popular myth in leftist circles, then, capitalism did not cause misery, but it literally saved the lives of countless millions of people from death by starvation and gradually lifted them up from their previous state of abject poverty; and labor unions’ and governments’ so-called “social policies” did not help in this regard but hampered and retarded this process of gradual economic improvement and were and still are responsible for countless numbers of unnecessary deaths.

Hoppe gives some historical perspective and references the Ten Commandments.

And here is then another quote I wanted to provide here:

For surely, slavery and serfdom have not disappeared in the democratic world. Rather, some increasingly rare ‘private’ slavery and serfdom have been replaced by a near-universal system of ‘public’ tax-slavery and serfdom. As well, wars have not disappeared, but only become of a larger scale. And as for excessive punishments and witch hunts, they have not gone away either. To the contrary, they have multiplied. Enemies of the State are tortured in the same old gruesome or even technically ‘refined’ ways. Moreover, countless people who are not a murderer, a thief, a libeler, an adulterer or a rapist, i.e. people who live in complete accordance with the ten biblical commandments and once would have been left alone, are nonetheless routinely punished today, up to the level of lengthy incarceration or the loss of their entire property. Witches are no longer called that way, but with just one single authority in place, the “identification” of anyone as a “suspect of evil-doing” or a “trouble-maker” is greatly facilitated and the number of people so identified has accordingly multiplied; and while such suspects are no longer burnt at the stake, they are routinely punished by up to life-long economic deprivation, unemployment, poverty or even starvation. And while once, during the Middle Ages, the primary purpose of punishment was restitution, i.e. the offender had to compensate the victim, the primary purpose of punishment today is submission, i.e. the offender must compensate and satisfy not the victim but the State (thus victimizing the victim twice).

Hoppe then goes on to comment at length on Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker’s book The Better Angels of Our Nature. It appears that Pinker doesn’t get it as far as the distinction between aggressive violence and defensive violence is concerned. Pinker also seems clueless about the ideas of private property and property rights, as well as the big picture of basic moral scruples.

Property and property rights do not systematically figure in his analyses. Indeed, the terms do not even appear in the book’s 30-page subject index. For Pinker, violence is violence, and the reduction of violence is progress, regardless of whether this reduction is the result of the successful suppression and resignation of a people by and vis-à-vis another, conquering people, or the result of a people’s own successful suppression of aggressors and conquerors.

Pinker does not follow his own logic to the bitter end, but it deserves to be pointed out to reveal the full depravity of his thought. According to him, a smoothly run concentration camp, for instance, guarded by armed men who do not murder the inmates and prevent them from killing each other, but who supply them with “happiness drugs” to keep them quietly working on for the benefit of the guards until their natural (non-violent) deaths, is the perfect model of peace and social progress, while the violent overthrow of the guards by the concentration camp inmates is, well, violence and de-civilization.

Hoppe continues at great length to analyze and criticize Pinker’s cognitive dissonance and moral depravity. Hoppe really goes in depth on this subject.

After demonstrating the relationship between the State and violence, Hoppe asks,

But how much evil can a single, deranged individual do without the institution of a centralized State? How much evil could Hitler have done within the framework of a State-less society such as the Middle Ages? Would he have become a great lord, a king, a bishop, or a Pope? Indeed, how much evil could he have done even within the framework of a thousand mini-States, such as Liechtenstein, Monaco or Singapore? Answer: Not much, and certainly nothing comparable to the evils associated with WW II. It holds not, then: ‘no Hitler, no Churchill, no Roosevelt or no Stalin, and then no war,’ as Pinker would have it, but rather: ‘no highly centralized State, and then no Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin.’

The above is quoted from the transcript from Hoppe’s recent speech at his Property and Freedom Society, which meets annually.

Here are Parts 1 and 2 of the whole speech:

On Believing Military Myths

Laurence Vance has this article this week referring to those people with bumper stickers stating, “My Son Is a Marine.” Dr. Vance points out that many people think that Marines “defend our freedoms, protect us from terrorists, keep us from having to speak German, Japanese, Vietnamese, or Arabic, and fight ‘over there’ so we don’t have to fight ‘over here’,” and probably other reasons.

And then he lists a whole bunch of things that bumper sticker really means. For example,

My son bombs other countries.
My son fights foreign wars.
My son is part of the president’s personal attack force.

My son maims foreigners.
My son polices the world.
My son is responsible for the deaths of children.

There are many items on the list. It really is quite an extensive list. And Vance adds, “Now, is every Marine guilty of all of these things? Of course not. But by virtue of being a Marine, he is guilty of many of them.”

And he adds some more honest bumper sticker suggestions, including:

My son suffers from PTSD from being in the Marine Corps.
My son lost his legs in the Marine Corps.
My son received a traumatic brain injury in the Marine Corps.
My son died for the military/industrial complex in the Marine Corps.

And in a follow-up blog post, he writes:

In response to my article “My Son Is a Marine,” I have not received such vicious and threatening e-mails since I began to criticize the Iraq War on LRC almost 15 years ago. All of them have a common theme: It is because of the Marines fighting wars, bleeding, and dying that I have the freedom to write the crap that I write. Actually, it isn’t. That is the point that they don’t get. Marines who fight unjust wars, bleed, and die do nothing for anyone’s freedom. They fight, bleed, and die in vain. Here is a question for Marine lovers: How does a Marine going to Vietnam and dying for a lie give me the freedom to write articles for LRC?

You see, a lot of people have a deep faith in the rulers and in their beloved government in Washington. They believe the war propaganda given to them, because it may be too frightening not to believe it. “Why would our beloved rulers lie to us?” and so on. And many have been indoctrinated to believe myths about the military and other parts of the Washington racket. They really believe that the U.S. military “gives us our freedom,” and so on.

But they can’t answer the question as to how exactly the military’s wars overseas and their sacrifices have protected our freedom.

Dr. Vance cites the Vietnam War, for instance. The U.S. military’s role in the Vietnam War was to “prevent the spread of communism,” and so on. But what happened, after the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and the deaths of a million or more Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians? Vietnam became a communist country, a united north and south communist Vietnam. And the U.S. has friendly relations with them, including trade.

And people go on and on about World Wars I and II, especially the Second World War. “If we didn’t send Americans off to die in Europe we would be speaking German now,” which is an utter crock. Just how exactly would Hitler’s forces been able to even get over here to the U.S., let alone take over the country and make us speak German?

Yet, a lot of people still believe the myths and lies about these wars. They faithfully believe, based on all the propaganda fed to them by the gubmint and repeated word-for-word by the bureaucrats’ lapdogs in the mainstream media. The masses are brainwashed by fake news, unfortunately.

Mainstream Media Whitewashing and Fawning Over War Criminal George H.W. Bush

Just as I had been predicting rather recently, the praises and whitewashing of George H.W. Bush are flowing from the mainstream media, and once again, the truth is to be swept under the rug. This is just like the Richard Nixon funeral in 1994, with the newscasters including Baba Wawa then not uttering a word of the Nixon war crimes in Vietnam or his other terrible criminal policies and impositions.

Later yesterday I heard Michel Martin on supposedly “liberal” NPR’s All Things Considered and this morning Lulu Garcia-Navarro was talking to Mara Liasson. And on other stations the news coverage with interviews of people talking about what a “decent” “gentleman” Bush Sr. was. No objective, thorough discussions, just cringe-worthy praise and fawning.

And I don’t expect to hear the truth from the conservative talk radio crowd. Certainly not Bush pal Rush Limbaugh, or Mr. Authoritarian Dennis Prager, who still defends the U.S. military’s bombings of Vietnam.

And I’m not even talking about “Read my lips — no new taxes” and then raising taxes stuff. It’s the Bush war crimes and the police state thanks to George H.W. Bush. We’re not hearing about any of that.

In the newscasts and on the discussion shows not a word about Bush’s starting a war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 that included the bombing and destruction of civilian water and sewage treatment centers which caused the Iraqi civilian population to have to use untreated water which led to skyrocketing disease and infant mortality rates. The U.S.-led sanctions and no-fly zones, which I wrote about recently, that were imposed on Iraq and enforced sadistically, prevented the Iraqi people from being able to rebuild those water and sewage treatment centers and the electrical service as well. And the sickness, deaths and suffering of the civilian population was intentionally caused by the U.S. military, as James Bovard and others have noted.

By the mid-1990s hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians because of the sanctions and no-fly zones imposed by George H.W. Bush that were continued by Bill Clinton, “liberal” Bill Clinton. Then hundreds of thousands more deaths by the year 2000. Bush Sr. also established more U.S. military bases in the Middle East, bases and military personnel that don’t belong in those areas! So such an invasion, bombings, and occupations were provocations of those Middle Easterners, those mainly Muslim people living over there.

The Nuremberg Tribunal determined that starting a war of aggression was in and of itself a war crime.

The Bush war in Iraq in the early 1990s brought on heavy blowback. There probably would not have been terrorist bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, or the bombing of the USS Cole in the year 2000, and, very likely wouldn’t have been a 9/11 had George H.W. Bush not started that war, destroyed civilian infrastructure and imposed sanctions and no-fly zones. The 9/11 terrorists had stated as part of their motivations that war and those sanctions.

And then there’s the police state that had already been building up since well before 9/11, but hugely escalated after 9/11. Much of the post-9/11 police state was planned since before 9/11. During the 1990s a Patriot Act-like major piece of legislation had been continuously voted down in Congress. The national security state needed some kind of excuse to finally get that passed, and they got their excuse.

So now, in addition to NSA, CIA, FBI, we have DHS, TSA, and a huge increase in Constitution-free zones on the borders, as well as the roads and highways.

Now as an aside, here’s something a bit of a “conspiratorial” nature. A possible Bush association with the JFK assassination. To most people that would sound really far-fetched. But I’m not too sure about that.

Russ Baker, author of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, had this 10-part article, on the possible Bush-JFK assassination connection. Baker gives a lot of detailed information to show that Bush may have been with the CIA (either formally or informally) long before he was its Director under Gerald R. Ford, and may have played a role in the JFK assassination. If Bush was involved with the CIA since the 1950s, could he have been involved in Operation Ajax, CIA’s coup that took down Iranian leader Mossadagh?

Regarding the JFK assassination, most people want to believe the Lone Nut conspiracy theory, which makes no sense. Given that Kennedy was starting to have peace talks with Khrushchev, something the national security state did not want, then why would an alleged communist and Soviet sympathizer Lee Harvey Oswald want to kill Kennedy?

In fact, given how entrenched the national security state was in Amerikan life by the 1980s and ’90s, one can see how the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War would motivate the bureaucrats of the national security state, a.k.a. “deep state,” to try to find or create some new “enemy” to go after. The “Islamic threat” coming from the more primitive societies of Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim countries had already been built up by that time. In Iran following the CIA’s Operation Ajax, the CIA supported the Shah’s new Iranian SAVAK police state from the rest of the 1950s up to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. So, there was an ulterior motive in Bush Sr.’s starting his war on Iraq in 1991 and imposing sanctions as mentioned above. A whole new program of provoking Muslims to elicit retaliation against the Western regimes to justify further expanding national security state bureaucracies and their budgets, and so on. The Bureaucracy is the bottom line on that.

And George H.W. Bush was a True Believer in the national security state and the Bureaucracy. He was Mr. Bureaucrat, in my view.

And to those who are saying that being critical of someone on the occasion of his death is “dancing on his grave,” well, no, someone needs to point out the truth of who Bush was and what he actually did. The mainstream news media commentariat and pundit class will not do that, because the mainstream news media are an entrenched wing of the bureaucracy in Washington, including the national security state!

The truth is, rather than abolish the agencies of the national security state following the end of the Cold War because they were no longer needed, Bush criminally started a whole new scheme of conflicts and provocations and expanded the police state in Amerika.

George H.W. Bush Has Died

Charles Burris discusses the entrenched, “deep state” background of George H.W. Bush, his role in the savings and loan scandal, the 1980 “October Surprise” with Bush negotiating for Iran to keep the American hostages held hostage until after Reagan was elected, and the shooting of Reagan.

Robert Wenzel on Bush Sr.’s death, including Gary Johnson’s reaction.

And, here is my article from 2013 on the beginning of the Iraq War that George H.W. Bush started in 1991 and continuing.

Some More Articles

Walter Block clarifies the non-aggression principle (NAP) regarding “disparaging somebody” based on skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.

Robert Wenzel asks, Can ideas be blocked? regarding the Google/thought police crowd.

Jeff Deist interviews Lew Rockwell (both of the Mises Institute) on Rockwell’s life’s work. A transcript. If a video is made available, I would like to post it. (Good discussion, although Lew Rockwell stated that he is glad that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Bureaucrats. Hmm. Who can figure that one out? Oh, well.)

Laurence Vance on what the Republicans could have done while they still had both houses of Congress.

And Shlomo Sand discusses the twisted logic of the Jewish “historic right” to Israel.