The Freemen
By Bionic Mosquito
I have read a captivating novel, The Last of the Freemen, by Carl Trotz (his blog can be found here). From the Amazon description of the novel:
In a future America, trapped under a brutal and corrupt regime, Erin Gordon becomes a target for reasons beyond her control. Help comes to her from an unlikely source, as her neighbors – the secretive, agrarian descendants of suppressed medieval freemen – prove willing and able to intervene. Accepting their protection, she witnesses a people – unbeknownst to the world – who hold stubbornly to their traditions, and remain defiant in the face of modern tyranny.
The author, Carl Trotz, weaves together many themes and narratives that we find ourselves discussing and otherwise dealing with daily – some already in place and others feared to come.
The aforementioned Erin Gordon’s unlikely source of help is an individual named Harm. In many ways, he might be compared to Ayn Rand’s John Galt. Both characters are larger than life. Both offer an intellectual and philosophical wisdom, combined with physical action. In Galt’s case, the intellectual and philosophical attributes are much further developed by Rand. In Harm’s case, let’s just say you better bring an army (no, bigger) and know where to look (good luck).
I plan to write two posts regarding this novel. In the second, I will explore two topics: The Stellinga and Thomas Müntzer – both referenced in the novel, both I find of interest.
In this post, I will offer the themes and narratives woven together by Trotz into this tale. From this, I hope to convey a sense of the breadth of the work. The following might seem somewhat dry; believe me, the novel turns all of this to life.
The Government
•False flags abound: government-paid thugs create fear in the population in order to increase support for the government.Shockingly, the government is never able to catch them!
•Anti-government graffiti is removed immediately; graffiti advancing the government-paid thugs for some reason always remains.
•The Feds override local police; there are numerous random checkpoints.License plate scanners, drones, and satellites are employed for monitoring and tracking. Convoys of armored vehicles are a regular sight.
•Loyalty Counselors ensure compliance.
•The news is the government’s public relations department; controlled opposition is offered.
•The government doesn’t have to prove your guilt – you have to prove your innocence.
•Currency manipulation, money printing, and devaluation funds it all.
•Guns are illegal.
•Social workers check on (and remove) children.
•Government schools teach five-year-olds about sexual intercourse.
•They turn boys into criminals.
•Laws against medicinal plants.
•Destroy a culture in order to make the people easier to control.
•Mash together the cultures – because folks without roots cannot stand.
•Replace natural law and custom with their incontestable social-contract.
•No more allodial title to land.
•Price controls, carbon taxes, cholesterol tax.
•Cashless society.
•Leverage in all forms – this is for the well-connected to get what they want.
•Government laws protect the government, not the people.
•Anglo/English Empire.
The Sheep
•Government eco-cars.An access code is necessary even to open the hood. It can be controlled remotely; it can be switched off.
•Many have a recurring belief that the next vote will change things.
•Accepting the system, even knowing it is corrupt.
•Killing for the state is spiritual for much of the population – listen to the words of The Battle Hymn of the Republic.
•We are taught to idolize the brutal killers.
•Neglected kids, broken families; broken cultures make for broken people.
•The Constitution can’t save you – a piece of paper doesn’t create freedom.
The Freemen
•In their Germanic tradition, the safest place is family and extended family.
•The government doesn’t publicize those who successfully defy it – it would demonstrate their vulnerability.
•You can be a free man or a self-shearing sheep.
•Black market = free market.
•Freedom = illegal activity.
•Gold without a plan to launder it isn’t worth much.
•Kindness is made criminal.
•All the good people are fugitives.
•The purpose of voting is to choose the next thief.
•You’re not paranoid if they are really out to get you.
•Defend your children at all costs – this is your nature.
•Don’t send your children to government schools.
•Don’t fight them on their terms.
•You can’t stop what is coming, you can only be prepared for it.
•Hunting season and hunting licenses are for subjects of the crown – do you need a license to hunt on your own land?
•No authority above the family level.
•Follow custom, not man.
•Social pressure to behave a certain way – always true, so it only depends on what type of social pressure.
•Gray areas work themselves out.
•The absolute thought is fertile soil for the roots of tyranny.
•Those who suffer the consequences for defiling the natural order deserve all that they get.
•Regarding the government and connected: they will eventually rot – they always do.
•There is a remnant.
I have written nothing about the characters beyond Erin and Harm. Trotz brings many characters to life. Through their dialogue and actions, you understand the depth necessary in family, community, and culture in order to hold freedom together.
Freedom doesn’t happen merely by chanting “NAP.” This is demonstrated clearly through every page of this novel.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/bionic-mosquito/can-successfully-resist-regime/
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
"To teach young people, particularly young men, Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is a challenging task. But it is the job of adults to get such common-sense messages across, even at the cost of leftist condemnation."
Common Sense
By Walter E. Williams
Republican presidential aspirant John Kasich stirred up angry words from women’s organizations and the Democratic Party by his response to a question from a female college student at a town hall meeting in Watertown, New York, regarding sexual assault. Kasich said all the right things about prosecuting offenders, but what got the Ohio governor in trouble with leftists was the end of his response: “I’d also give you one bit of advice: Don’t go to parties where there’s a lot of alcohol, OK? Don’t do that.” Let’s examine that advice. To do so, let’s ask some general questions about common sense.
Does one have a right to put his wallet on the hood of his car, attend a movie show, return and find his wallet and its contents undisturbed? You say, “Williams, you’ve lost it! Why would one do such a crazy thing?” If that’s your response, you miss the point made by Kasich’s critics. People are duty-bound to respect private property rights. So why shouldn’t one feel at ease leaving his wallet on the hood of his car and expect it to be there when he returns?
If the person’s wallet were stolen, what would you advise? Would it be to counsel people to respect private property rights? Put into the context of feminists’ responses to Kasich’s suggestion, you might argue that it’s outrageous to suggest that people “restrict their behavior.” Plain, ordinary common sense would say yes, a person has the right to lay his wallet on the hood of his car and expect it to be there when he returns. But we don’t live in a world full of angels; therefore, the best bet is for one to keep his wallet in his pocket.
Here’s a does-the-same-principle-apply question. Does a voluptuous, scantily clad young woman have a right to attend a rowdy fraternity party, dance suggestively, get drunk and face no unwelcome sexual advances? My answer is yes. Her body is her private property, and she has every right to expect that her inebriated state not be exploited. Suppose you were the young woman’s father. Would you advise the following? “Go ahead and wear scanty attire, dance suggestively and get drunk. If a guy makes unwelcome advances, we’ll catch him and bring rape charges.” I’m betting that most fathers’ advice would be the opposite, namely: “Dress and behave like a respectable lady, and don’t attend drunken parties and get drunk.” It’s similar to the advice about leaving a wallet on the hood of a car. People are not angels, and one’s conduct ought to take that into consideration.
Suppose you have a well-behaved, law-abiding son whose friends are not so well-behaved and law-abiding. They do drugs, shoplift and play hooky. Your son does none of those things. As a responsible parent, your advice to your son would be that it is better to be alone than in the wrong company and that people judge you based on the people with whom you associate. Your son might respond by saying, “I have rights. If I’m not doing something wrong, I shouldn’t be judged based on what my friends do!” Your response should be, “You’re right, but unfortunately, the world doesn’t work that way.”
Here’s another common-sense issue particularly relevant to today’s police/citizen relations. Suppose it’s the middle of the night and a police officer is suspicious of a young male driver. The officer uses the excuse that the young man made an illegal lane change to pull him over. If the driver were your son, what would you advise him to do, exercise his free speech rights to berate the officer for making a stop on such a flimsy basis? Or would you advise him to quietly give the officer his license and registration and answer the officer’s questions, which probably would allow him to drive away without a citation at all?
To teach young people, particularly young men, Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is a challenging task. But it is the job of adults to get such common-sense messages across, even at the cost of leftist condemnation.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/walter-e-williams/plain-commonsense-un-pc/
By Walter E. Williams
Republican presidential aspirant John Kasich stirred up angry words from women’s organizations and the Democratic Party by his response to a question from a female college student at a town hall meeting in Watertown, New York, regarding sexual assault. Kasich said all the right things about prosecuting offenders, but what got the Ohio governor in trouble with leftists was the end of his response: “I’d also give you one bit of advice: Don’t go to parties where there’s a lot of alcohol, OK? Don’t do that.” Let’s examine that advice. To do so, let’s ask some general questions about common sense.
Does one have a right to put his wallet on the hood of his car, attend a movie show, return and find his wallet and its contents undisturbed? You say, “Williams, you’ve lost it! Why would one do such a crazy thing?” If that’s your response, you miss the point made by Kasich’s critics. People are duty-bound to respect private property rights. So why shouldn’t one feel at ease leaving his wallet on the hood of his car and expect it to be there when he returns?
If the person’s wallet were stolen, what would you advise? Would it be to counsel people to respect private property rights? Put into the context of feminists’ responses to Kasich’s suggestion, you might argue that it’s outrageous to suggest that people “restrict their behavior.” Plain, ordinary common sense would say yes, a person has the right to lay his wallet on the hood of his car and expect it to be there when he returns. But we don’t live in a world full of angels; therefore, the best bet is for one to keep his wallet in his pocket.
Here’s a does-the-same-principle-apply question. Does a voluptuous, scantily clad young woman have a right to attend a rowdy fraternity party, dance suggestively, get drunk and face no unwelcome sexual advances? My answer is yes. Her body is her private property, and she has every right to expect that her inebriated state not be exploited. Suppose you were the young woman’s father. Would you advise the following? “Go ahead and wear scanty attire, dance suggestively and get drunk. If a guy makes unwelcome advances, we’ll catch him and bring rape charges.” I’m betting that most fathers’ advice would be the opposite, namely: “Dress and behave like a respectable lady, and don’t attend drunken parties and get drunk.” It’s similar to the advice about leaving a wallet on the hood of a car. People are not angels, and one’s conduct ought to take that into consideration.
Suppose you have a well-behaved, law-abiding son whose friends are not so well-behaved and law-abiding. They do drugs, shoplift and play hooky. Your son does none of those things. As a responsible parent, your advice to your son would be that it is better to be alone than in the wrong company and that people judge you based on the people with whom you associate. Your son might respond by saying, “I have rights. If I’m not doing something wrong, I shouldn’t be judged based on what my friends do!” Your response should be, “You’re right, but unfortunately, the world doesn’t work that way.”
Here’s another common-sense issue particularly relevant to today’s police/citizen relations. Suppose it’s the middle of the night and a police officer is suspicious of a young male driver. The officer uses the excuse that the young man made an illegal lane change to pull him over. If the driver were your son, what would you advise him to do, exercise his free speech rights to berate the officer for making a stop on such a flimsy basis? Or would you advise him to quietly give the officer his license and registration and answer the officer’s questions, which probably would allow him to drive away without a citation at all?
To teach young people, particularly young men, Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is a challenging task. But it is the job of adults to get such common-sense messages across, even at the cost of leftist condemnation.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/walter-e-williams/plain-commonsense-un-pc/
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
More problems yet to come to our shores...
A collapse in South America places the U.S. in great danger
by Brandon Smith
If an economic system collapses in the woods and no one is paying attention, are there any consequences outside the woods? Well, yes, of course. As with most situations financial and global, however, consequences are not usually taken very seriously until they have spawned a vast bog of sewage we all have to then swim through.
The issue is and always will be “interdependency,” and the dissolution of sovereign borders. Take a close look at the European Union, for example.
You have a large network of fiscally interdependent nations struggling to maintain a sense of principled identity and heritage while participating in the delusion of multiculturalism. You have a system in which these nations are admonished or even punished for attempting to become self-reliant. You have a system which encourages a Cloward-Piven-style forced integration of incompatible cultures. You have unmanageable debt. You have a welfare addicted populace plagued by assumptions of entitlement. And on top of it all, you have a political structure dominated by cultural Marxists who would like nothing better than to see the whole of the old world go down in a blazing inferno.
This EU dynamic can only end in one of two ways — the complete dismantling of the supranational body and a return to sovereignty, or, a socio-economic crisis followed by even more centralization and the end of all remnants of sovereignty. Either way, the consequences will not be pretty.
In the EU there are particular nations that are being exploited by globalists to initiate greater disaster in the overall region. As Wikileaks exposed in transcripts of IMF discussions on Greece, the plan has always been to create enough chaos to drive fear into the general populace. Fear that can be used to manipulate the masses towards handing even more administrative power over to those same globalists. They know that a fiscally-tiny nation like Greece can still do kinetic damage to its neighbors because its neighbors have weak foundations. One domino sets off the chain.
The same strategy may also be used in the Western hemisphere; more specifically, the collapse in South America that almost no one in the mainstream seems to be paying attention to. While mainstream coverage looks at each South American nation as an isolated case, none of the coverage examines these crises as an interconnected breakdown, and they certainly do not suggest any future ill effects to the U.S.
First, lets take a look at some of South Americas most important economies and why they are on the verge of an epic catastrophe.
Venezuela
The crash of oil prices from more than $100 per barrel down to around $40 per barrel or less has annihilated oil-dependent Venezuela, a country already in financial turmoil. Overprinting of currency has been the only “solution” offered so far. Hyperinflation is now taking hold with the IMF warning of a 720 percent increase this year.
Currently, necessities are being rationed while a growing number of citizens are left empty handed.
Many food purchases in Venezuela require an electronic ration card. Shoppers are forced to wait in long lines for hours just for a chance to purchase staple items that may be sold out by the time they get their turn.
The government under Socialist President Nicolas Maduro has nationalized all food and medicine distribution, and is currently instituting rationing of electricity, and even time! A two-day work week for public sector workers is now in force. Private companies are being asked to use their own generators to continue operations rather than relying on the grid.
Finally, Venezuela is so close to implosion that they no longer have the money to pay for the work of currency printers they rely on outside the country. Meaning, they no longer have the money to pay for printing more money.
Disaster in the nation is inevitable and a general collapse is likely to occur this year.
Brazil
Brazil is simply a mess, and a perfect example of why the recently-established BRICS “bank” has always been a farce and will never be competition to the IMF (not that this was ever the intention, as I have proven in numerous articles on the false East/West paradigm).
Brazil’s national debt has doubled in the past five years and officially the economy is set to shrink by 3.5 percent in 2016. In the meantime, Brazil’s currency has recently hit record lows against the U.S. dollar as devaluation begins to sting.
As often happens during economic crisis, political chaos is taking hold. A whole host of criminal misconduct and corruption charges are being fielded against president Dilma Rousseff as impeachment proceedings gain momentum.
Perhaps not surprisingly, at least three of the politicians in line to take over Rousseff’s position are ALSO under investigation for criminal activity.
Brazil is set to host the Summer Olympics in Rio this year, but all indicators suggest that they will be fiscally incapable of adequately paying for the infrastructure improvements required for the games to proceed.
Argentina
Argentina has been in and out of economic crisis since 2002, and beholden to the IMF for almost as long. Argentina’s original collapse in 2001/2002 is a commonly-used example of a modernized and westernized economic system suffering from a high speed financial disaster.
Today, Argentina’s new government has chosen to do what most establishment controlled government do when the economy is in decline — they hide the numbers. Though government officials have claimed a reduction in Argentina’s poverty rate, other sources indicate it has actually soared this year to more than 32 percent of the population.
This poverty is compounded by heavy price inflation. Most goods and services in Argentina currently inflate in price by approximately 35 percent annually.
Though Argentina has recently restructured its debts and is now able to issue treasury bonds for sale again, essentially all of the capital gained through bond sales is used to pay back creditors from past economic crises. Under these conditions, it is only a matter of time before the country suffers yet another breakdown.
A chain reaction leading to martial law
Much of South America is on the verge of financial chaos, but I have focused on the three countries above because they are the most influential on the continent as a whole. As goes Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, so goes South America. That said, what does any of this have top do with the U.S.? Why should we care?
Various nations within South America are always experiencing intermittent crisis, and one might argue that this mattered little to the U.S. in the past. But what we are witnessing now is not an isolated collapse in a single country, but collapse conditions in all of South America’s major economies with weakness prevalent in most other nations. Like the EU, South America seems to be a powder keg waiting for a spark.
The U.S. itself is not far behind in terms of an economic breakdown and this could be exacerbated by fiscal chaos in the south. As for how this effects the U.S. in other ways, here’s where things get a little weird…
In the wake of the Iran/Contra hearings, the exposure of documents pertaining to a program called “Rex 84” hit the mainstream news. Rex 84 stood for “Readiness Exercise 1984,” and was a continuity of government program designed to lock down the U.S. under martial law during “civil disturbances.” This included the power of government to forcefully relocate large populations from their homes or even detain large populations at will. You can read the original Rex 84 documents in PDF form here.
Though Rex 84 was launched decades ago, the program never actually went away. All responsibilities pertaining to Rex 84 are now under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and Northcom.
One of the primary “disturbances” mentioned as a rationale for Rex 84 was a “mass exodus” of immigrants from Central or South America across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The exposure of Rex 84 was possibly the primary catalyst for the idea of “FEMA camps,” as the program demanded internment of “dissidents” and immigrants. As we know well after the events in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, FEMA “camps” are not necessarily places that are pre-established. Rather, an internment camp or detention facility can be erected in mere days by federal agencies anytime, anywhere. For those that think the idea of internment camps is a thing of the past, watch as Gen. Wesley Clark offers this very idea as a response to those he considers “disloyal to the U.S.”
I would suggest that the provisions of Rex 84 are an integral part of the establishment apparatus, and that they fully plan to utilize them in the near future. For Europe, Rex 84-style measures may very well be used in response to the continuing flood of millions of Muslim immigrants with no intentions of integrating with the existing European population. And certainly, many people might cheer those measures. A few more terrorist attacks and watch how quickly the socialist populace rescinds their welcome. Keep in mind, though, history shows us that the destruction of freedom for one broad group invariably leads to the destruction of freedom for all.
In the West, a South American collapse will likely lead to our own mass flood of illegal immigrants in addition to the millions already crossing our borders. This would be a crisis in direct proportion to that of Europe. Take note that in the U.S. and Europe the respective governments have encouraged mass migrations from cultures with little to no respect for the values and principles of the host nations. An economic crisis would only expedite the disasters they have already started.
Again, many Americans might cheer for mass detentions in the wake of an immigration threat, but in the end, the “defense” of U.S. borders would be used by the establishment to rationalize unconstitutional actions against everyone. I have outlined the threat of a South American exodus to our borders in the hopes that if and when it occurs, people are not so stupid as to turn to the government for help, the same government that aided in creating the calamity in the first place.
Expanded government power solves nothing in the long run, regardless of who is in office at the time (this includes Trump). Independent and sovereign action is the only answer. Individuals, counties and states securing their own borders. Whether it be in the face of a collapse in South America, or any other Black Swan event. Keep the feds out. Never invite the vampire into your house.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/a-collapse-in-south-america-places-the-u-s-in-great-danger/
by Brandon Smith
If an economic system collapses in the woods and no one is paying attention, are there any consequences outside the woods? Well, yes, of course. As with most situations financial and global, however, consequences are not usually taken very seriously until they have spawned a vast bog of sewage we all have to then swim through.
The issue is and always will be “interdependency,” and the dissolution of sovereign borders. Take a close look at the European Union, for example.
You have a large network of fiscally interdependent nations struggling to maintain a sense of principled identity and heritage while participating in the delusion of multiculturalism. You have a system in which these nations are admonished or even punished for attempting to become self-reliant. You have a system which encourages a Cloward-Piven-style forced integration of incompatible cultures. You have unmanageable debt. You have a welfare addicted populace plagued by assumptions of entitlement. And on top of it all, you have a political structure dominated by cultural Marxists who would like nothing better than to see the whole of the old world go down in a blazing inferno.
This EU dynamic can only end in one of two ways — the complete dismantling of the supranational body and a return to sovereignty, or, a socio-economic crisis followed by even more centralization and the end of all remnants of sovereignty. Either way, the consequences will not be pretty.
In the EU there are particular nations that are being exploited by globalists to initiate greater disaster in the overall region. As Wikileaks exposed in transcripts of IMF discussions on Greece, the plan has always been to create enough chaos to drive fear into the general populace. Fear that can be used to manipulate the masses towards handing even more administrative power over to those same globalists. They know that a fiscally-tiny nation like Greece can still do kinetic damage to its neighbors because its neighbors have weak foundations. One domino sets off the chain.
The same strategy may also be used in the Western hemisphere; more specifically, the collapse in South America that almost no one in the mainstream seems to be paying attention to. While mainstream coverage looks at each South American nation as an isolated case, none of the coverage examines these crises as an interconnected breakdown, and they certainly do not suggest any future ill effects to the U.S.
First, lets take a look at some of South Americas most important economies and why they are on the verge of an epic catastrophe.
Venezuela
The crash of oil prices from more than $100 per barrel down to around $40 per barrel or less has annihilated oil-dependent Venezuela, a country already in financial turmoil. Overprinting of currency has been the only “solution” offered so far. Hyperinflation is now taking hold with the IMF warning of a 720 percent increase this year.
Currently, necessities are being rationed while a growing number of citizens are left empty handed.
Many food purchases in Venezuela require an electronic ration card. Shoppers are forced to wait in long lines for hours just for a chance to purchase staple items that may be sold out by the time they get their turn.
The government under Socialist President Nicolas Maduro has nationalized all food and medicine distribution, and is currently instituting rationing of electricity, and even time! A two-day work week for public sector workers is now in force. Private companies are being asked to use their own generators to continue operations rather than relying on the grid.
Finally, Venezuela is so close to implosion that they no longer have the money to pay for the work of currency printers they rely on outside the country. Meaning, they no longer have the money to pay for printing more money.
Disaster in the nation is inevitable and a general collapse is likely to occur this year.
Brazil
Brazil is simply a mess, and a perfect example of why the recently-established BRICS “bank” has always been a farce and will never be competition to the IMF (not that this was ever the intention, as I have proven in numerous articles on the false East/West paradigm).
Brazil’s national debt has doubled in the past five years and officially the economy is set to shrink by 3.5 percent in 2016. In the meantime, Brazil’s currency has recently hit record lows against the U.S. dollar as devaluation begins to sting.
As often happens during economic crisis, political chaos is taking hold. A whole host of criminal misconduct and corruption charges are being fielded against president Dilma Rousseff as impeachment proceedings gain momentum.
Perhaps not surprisingly, at least three of the politicians in line to take over Rousseff’s position are ALSO under investigation for criminal activity.
Brazil is set to host the Summer Olympics in Rio this year, but all indicators suggest that they will be fiscally incapable of adequately paying for the infrastructure improvements required for the games to proceed.
Argentina
Argentina has been in and out of economic crisis since 2002, and beholden to the IMF for almost as long. Argentina’s original collapse in 2001/2002 is a commonly-used example of a modernized and westernized economic system suffering from a high speed financial disaster.
Today, Argentina’s new government has chosen to do what most establishment controlled government do when the economy is in decline — they hide the numbers. Though government officials have claimed a reduction in Argentina’s poverty rate, other sources indicate it has actually soared this year to more than 32 percent of the population.
This poverty is compounded by heavy price inflation. Most goods and services in Argentina currently inflate in price by approximately 35 percent annually.
Though Argentina has recently restructured its debts and is now able to issue treasury bonds for sale again, essentially all of the capital gained through bond sales is used to pay back creditors from past economic crises. Under these conditions, it is only a matter of time before the country suffers yet another breakdown.
A chain reaction leading to martial law
Much of South America is on the verge of financial chaos, but I have focused on the three countries above because they are the most influential on the continent as a whole. As goes Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, so goes South America. That said, what does any of this have top do with the U.S.? Why should we care?
Various nations within South America are always experiencing intermittent crisis, and one might argue that this mattered little to the U.S. in the past. But what we are witnessing now is not an isolated collapse in a single country, but collapse conditions in all of South America’s major economies with weakness prevalent in most other nations. Like the EU, South America seems to be a powder keg waiting for a spark.
The U.S. itself is not far behind in terms of an economic breakdown and this could be exacerbated by fiscal chaos in the south. As for how this effects the U.S. in other ways, here’s where things get a little weird…
In the wake of the Iran/Contra hearings, the exposure of documents pertaining to a program called “Rex 84” hit the mainstream news. Rex 84 stood for “Readiness Exercise 1984,” and was a continuity of government program designed to lock down the U.S. under martial law during “civil disturbances.” This included the power of government to forcefully relocate large populations from their homes or even detain large populations at will. You can read the original Rex 84 documents in PDF form here.
Though Rex 84 was launched decades ago, the program never actually went away. All responsibilities pertaining to Rex 84 are now under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and Northcom.
One of the primary “disturbances” mentioned as a rationale for Rex 84 was a “mass exodus” of immigrants from Central or South America across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The exposure of Rex 84 was possibly the primary catalyst for the idea of “FEMA camps,” as the program demanded internment of “dissidents” and immigrants. As we know well after the events in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, FEMA “camps” are not necessarily places that are pre-established. Rather, an internment camp or detention facility can be erected in mere days by federal agencies anytime, anywhere. For those that think the idea of internment camps is a thing of the past, watch as Gen. Wesley Clark offers this very idea as a response to those he considers “disloyal to the U.S.”
I would suggest that the provisions of Rex 84 are an integral part of the establishment apparatus, and that they fully plan to utilize them in the near future. For Europe, Rex 84-style measures may very well be used in response to the continuing flood of millions of Muslim immigrants with no intentions of integrating with the existing European population. And certainly, many people might cheer those measures. A few more terrorist attacks and watch how quickly the socialist populace rescinds their welcome. Keep in mind, though, history shows us that the destruction of freedom for one broad group invariably leads to the destruction of freedom for all.
In the West, a South American collapse will likely lead to our own mass flood of illegal immigrants in addition to the millions already crossing our borders. This would be a crisis in direct proportion to that of Europe. Take note that in the U.S. and Europe the respective governments have encouraged mass migrations from cultures with little to no respect for the values and principles of the host nations. An economic crisis would only expedite the disasters they have already started.
Again, many Americans might cheer for mass detentions in the wake of an immigration threat, but in the end, the “defense” of U.S. borders would be used by the establishment to rationalize unconstitutional actions against everyone. I have outlined the threat of a South American exodus to our borders in the hopes that if and when it occurs, people are not so stupid as to turn to the government for help, the same government that aided in creating the calamity in the first place.
Expanded government power solves nothing in the long run, regardless of who is in office at the time (this includes Trump). Independent and sovereign action is the only answer. Individuals, counties and states securing their own borders. Whether it be in the face of a collapse in South America, or any other Black Swan event. Keep the feds out. Never invite the vampire into your house.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/a-collapse-in-south-america-places-the-u-s-in-great-danger/
OOPS!!!
Rise in carbon dioxide unleashing global greening, faster food production, reforestation and new vegetation across the planet
by: Julie Wilson
A new study shows that Earth's vegetated lands or surfaces covered in plant life have greened "significantly" over the last 35 years. Using computerized models, scientists theorize that this so-called greening effect is in response to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as other, less influential contributors.
Published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25, the research concludes that about 25 to 50 percent of Earth's plant life has experienced a greening effect, increasing the leaves on plants and trees in an area equivalent to two times the continental U.S.
The amount of leaf cover blanketing the planet's vegetated regions was determined using satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments.
Carbon dioxide as a plant fertilizer
Previous research suggests that carbon dioxide boosts photosynthesis in plants, and in turn facilitates plant growth.
"Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth," according to Science Daily.
Scientists believe carbon dioxide fertilization is the most important factor for increasing plant growth, as it has contributed to 70 percent of the greening effect.
But there are other factors, too, say researchers, including "nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight." Together, these have vastly expanded leaf cover on Earth.
Computerized models suggest that nitrogen is the second most critical factor for plant growth."The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process," said study co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.
Zaichun Zhu, the study's lead author, says the greening effect we're observing "has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system." Zhu performed the first half of the study alongside Myneni as a visiting researcher at Boston University.
An international team of scientists worked on the study, employing 32 authors from 24 institutions across eight countries.
Green leaves cover 32 percent of Earth's surface
"About 85 percent of Earth's ice-free lands is covered by vegetation. The area covered by all the green leaves on Earth is equal to, on average, 32 percent of Earth's total surface area -- oceans, lands and permanent ice sheets combined," reports Science Daily.
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth's atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."
Another one of the study's co-authors, Dr. Philippe Ciais, says it's important to understand that the benefits carbon dioxide is having on plant life may be limited. "Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," said Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France.
In conclusion, scientists remind us that the predictions are not entirely certain. "While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models," said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia.
He added that while their models do theorize the "best possible simulation of Earth system components," there is still room for improvement.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053879_carbon_dioxide_global_greening_reforestation.html#ixzz47ae7JUuH
by: Julie Wilson
A new study shows that Earth's vegetated lands or surfaces covered in plant life have greened "significantly" over the last 35 years. Using computerized models, scientists theorize that this so-called greening effect is in response to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as other, less influential contributors.
Published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25, the research concludes that about 25 to 50 percent of Earth's plant life has experienced a greening effect, increasing the leaves on plants and trees in an area equivalent to two times the continental U.S.
The amount of leaf cover blanketing the planet's vegetated regions was determined using satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments.
Carbon dioxide as a plant fertilizer
Previous research suggests that carbon dioxide boosts photosynthesis in plants, and in turn facilitates plant growth.
"Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth," according to Science Daily.
Scientists believe carbon dioxide fertilization is the most important factor for increasing plant growth, as it has contributed to 70 percent of the greening effect.
But there are other factors, too, say researchers, including "nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight." Together, these have vastly expanded leaf cover on Earth.
Computerized models suggest that nitrogen is the second most critical factor for plant growth."The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process," said study co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.
Zaichun Zhu, the study's lead author, says the greening effect we're observing "has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system." Zhu performed the first half of the study alongside Myneni as a visiting researcher at Boston University.
An international team of scientists worked on the study, employing 32 authors from 24 institutions across eight countries.
Green leaves cover 32 percent of Earth's surface
"About 85 percent of Earth's ice-free lands is covered by vegetation. The area covered by all the green leaves on Earth is equal to, on average, 32 percent of Earth's total surface area -- oceans, lands and permanent ice sheets combined," reports Science Daily.
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth's atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events."
Another one of the study's co-authors, Dr. Philippe Ciais, says it's important to understand that the benefits carbon dioxide is having on plant life may be limited. "Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," said Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France.
In conclusion, scientists remind us that the predictions are not entirely certain. "While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models," said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia.
He added that while their models do theorize the "best possible simulation of Earth system components," there is still room for improvement.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053879_carbon_dioxide_global_greening_reforestation.html#ixzz47ae7JUuH
May Day a commie celebration...
History of May Day
William F. Jasper
Most Americans associate May Day with the hanging of flower baskets or the National Day of Prayer. With the Cold War now a distant memory, we seem to have forgotten that May 1, or May Day, while traditionally representing the coming of spring, has been for over a century the most important calendar day of the year for communists, socialists, and anarchists. This was the traditional day in the Soviet Union and the communist bloc countries for massive parades, replete with missiles, tanks, rank upon rank of goose-stepping troops, red flags, and huge posters of Marx and Lenin. This has not changed in countries that are still officially communist, such as China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. In non-communist countries of the world, the communist and socialist parties have continued to hold May Day celebrations, usually under the banner of International Workers Solidarity Day.
According to The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, communist countries and communist parties celebrate May Day "by mobilizing the working people in the struggle to build socialism and communism." The same source goes on to report: "On May Day the working people of the Soviet Union show their solidarity with the revolutionary struggles of the working people in capitalist countries and with national liberation movements. They express their determination to use all their power for the struggle for peace and building of a communist society."
Andy McInerney, a staff member of the communist Workers World Party and a leader of the ANSWER Coalition's illegal alien organizing effort, extolled the glories of May Day in the Spring 1996 edition of Liberation & Marxism. McInerney wrote:
Every year, the ruling classes around the world are again reminded of their vulnerability and of the power of their gravediggers. On May 1, the world working class displays its strength in demonstrations and strikes. May Day — International Workers' Day — is a reminder to the ruling classes that their days are numbered.... From 1919 onward, the success of May Day in the United States would depend on the success of the communist movement.
"The decision to make May 1st a day of annual demonstrations," says The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "was made in July 1889 by the Paris Congress of the Second International, to commemorate an action by the workers of Chicago, who organized a strike for May 1, 1886, demanding an eight-hour workday, and held a demonstration that ended in a bloody confrontation with the police."
The communist encyclopedia's account of May Day's origins cited above is deceptive and deficient on several important points. The Chicago strikes and demonstrations of 1886-1888 culminated in the violent Haymarket Square riots, which included the murder of Chicago police officers, when anarchists hurled a dynamite bomb into police ranks. In the aftermath of the terrorist event, Captain Michael J. Shaack of the Chicago Police Department launched an in-depth investigation that resulted in a monumental 700-page book exposing a vast network of communists and anarchists working in concert across the nation, with direct ties to confederates in Europe. Captain Shaack's expose, Anarchy and Anarchists, demonstrated that what appeared on the surface to many people to be spontaneous, desultory incidents were actually very meticulously planned revolutionary events.
American labor unions, recognizing the communist effort to exploit May Day worldwide as well as the communist effort to penetrate and control labor, refused to follow the Marxist-led Second International and instead have traditionally celebrated Labor Day in September.
Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/15268-history-of-may-day
William F. Jasper
Most Americans associate May Day with the hanging of flower baskets or the National Day of Prayer. With the Cold War now a distant memory, we seem to have forgotten that May 1, or May Day, while traditionally representing the coming of spring, has been for over a century the most important calendar day of the year for communists, socialists, and anarchists. This was the traditional day in the Soviet Union and the communist bloc countries for massive parades, replete with missiles, tanks, rank upon rank of goose-stepping troops, red flags, and huge posters of Marx and Lenin. This has not changed in countries that are still officially communist, such as China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. In non-communist countries of the world, the communist and socialist parties have continued to hold May Day celebrations, usually under the banner of International Workers Solidarity Day.
According to The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, communist countries and communist parties celebrate May Day "by mobilizing the working people in the struggle to build socialism and communism." The same source goes on to report: "On May Day the working people of the Soviet Union show their solidarity with the revolutionary struggles of the working people in capitalist countries and with national liberation movements. They express their determination to use all their power for the struggle for peace and building of a communist society."
Andy McInerney, a staff member of the communist Workers World Party and a leader of the ANSWER Coalition's illegal alien organizing effort, extolled the glories of May Day in the Spring 1996 edition of Liberation & Marxism. McInerney wrote:
Every year, the ruling classes around the world are again reminded of their vulnerability and of the power of their gravediggers. On May 1, the world working class displays its strength in demonstrations and strikes. May Day — International Workers' Day — is a reminder to the ruling classes that their days are numbered.... From 1919 onward, the success of May Day in the United States would depend on the success of the communist movement.
"The decision to make May 1st a day of annual demonstrations," says The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "was made in July 1889 by the Paris Congress of the Second International, to commemorate an action by the workers of Chicago, who organized a strike for May 1, 1886, demanding an eight-hour workday, and held a demonstration that ended in a bloody confrontation with the police."
The communist encyclopedia's account of May Day's origins cited above is deceptive and deficient on several important points. The Chicago strikes and demonstrations of 1886-1888 culminated in the violent Haymarket Square riots, which included the murder of Chicago police officers, when anarchists hurled a dynamite bomb into police ranks. In the aftermath of the terrorist event, Captain Michael J. Shaack of the Chicago Police Department launched an in-depth investigation that resulted in a monumental 700-page book exposing a vast network of communists and anarchists working in concert across the nation, with direct ties to confederates in Europe. Captain Shaack's expose, Anarchy and Anarchists, demonstrated that what appeared on the surface to many people to be spontaneous, desultory incidents were actually very meticulously planned revolutionary events.
American labor unions, recognizing the communist effort to exploit May Day worldwide as well as the communist effort to penetrate and control labor, refused to follow the Marxist-led Second International and instead have traditionally celebrated Labor Day in September.
Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/15268-history-of-may-day
"The libertarian goal is ultimately a free society where the non-aggression principle is the foundational principle and individual liberty, laissez-faire, and property rights reign supreme. Standing in the way of that goal is the state. And if that weren’t already a formidable enough obstacle, the state is also actively seeking to increase and expand its power and its interventions into the economy and society."
Libertarian Priorities
By Laurence M. Vance
“I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business.” ~ Murray Rothbard
That our enemy is the state, there is no question. As Rothbard explains:
Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects.
The libertarian goal is ultimately a free society where the non-aggression principle is the foundational principle and individual liberty, laissez-faire, and property rights reign supreme. Standing in the way of that goal is the state. And if that weren’t already a formidable enough obstacle, the state is also actively seeking to increase and expand its power and its interventions into the economy and society.
What, then, should the priorities of individual libertarians and libertarian organizations be as they seek to stop the advances of, chip away at, and roll back the state?
It is only natural that liberals and conservatives since they seek to use the power of the state for their own ends, not only have the wrong priorities, but also many dreadful priorities that are destructive to liberty and property.
Liberals generally want to increase the minimum wage, provide every working mother with free day care, institute a national health care system, increase poor women’s access to abortion, provide free contraception devices to any woman that wants them, expand Medicaid, remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, provide every child with a free college education, increase funding for mass transit, pass stricter gun control laws, make “the rich” pay their “fair share,” increase the number of groups protected under anti-discrimination laws, grant special rights to LGBT individuals, increase funding for public education and maintain the welfare state.
Conservatives generally want to simplify the tax code, reduce government waste and fraud, amend the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment, restore prayer and Bible reading in public schools, repost the Ten Commandments in public schools, increase funding for abstinence education, force all school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, reform welfare, reform immigration, slow the rate of increase of certain federal programs while calling it a cut, make flag burning a crime, provide low-income children with educational vouchers to attend the school of their choice, prevent people from using marijuana for medical purposes, strictly enforce drug laws, increase defense spending, and maintain the warfare state.
Oh, and both groups want to “save” Social Security and Medicare for our seniors.
Contrary to some of their liberal and conservative critics, libertarians are neither naïve nor intransigent. They know there will never be any magic buttons to push to immediately and completely eliminate this or that government agency or program. They are willing to accept a gradual gain or step in the right direction, as long as doing so doesn’t compromise their basic principles or detract from their ultimate goal of a free society.
But some libertarians are plainly headed in the wrong direction. There is nothing wrong with a gradual step toward liberty, but it has to be a step in the right direction. Other libertarians are indeed headed in the right direction but have the wrong priorities. It is this latter error that I want to focus on.
It is neither constitutional on the federal level nor the proper role of government at any level to take money from some and transfer it to others, fund medical or scientific research, monitor the weather, fund education, make or guarantee loans, provide medical care or insurance, fund welfare, provide airport security, collect economic statistics, provide flood insurance, operate a railroad, provide electricity, fight poverty, institute vehicle gas mileage standards, build public housing, operate a retirement program, promote home ownership or a college education, control prices, be involved in television or radio broadcasting, fight obesity, regulate or subsidize business or industry, collect garbage, ban substances, support the arts, explore space, or regulate voluntary, consensual, peaceful activities that take place on private property.
The “sum of good government,” said Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, is “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Although the following agencies of the federal government are neither constitutional nor legitimate, they are not high on my list of federal agencies that I think libertarians should spend a lot of time trying to eliminate:
•United States Geological Survey
•National Weather Service
•National Park Service
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
•Army Corp of Engineers
•National Marine Fisheries Service
•Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
•National Institutes of Health
In the case of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), I myself have written about the need to abolish it. Others have written about the politicization of the National Park Service and the blunders of the Army Corp of Engineers. But I don’t think libertarians should lose much sleep over the existence of these agencies.
Regular welfare programs like food stamps, free school lunches, subsidized housing, WIC, and Medicaid are clearly unconstitutional and illegitimate. They redistribute wealth and transfer income from “taxpayers” to “tax eaters.” Now, while welfare programs that hand out cash payments like TANF, SSI, and refundable tax credits like the EITC should and could be immediately abolished, I will be the first to admit—even though I have written extensively against the welfare state and oppose it root and branch—that, rightly or wrongly, these regular welfare programs do help a great number of people and many families are now dependent upon them. Medicare and Social Security, while both welfare programs, are a little different since they are partly (in the case of Medicare) and mostly (in the case of Social Security) funded by payroll taxes. And these are programs that have fostered dependency like none other. All welfare programs should, of course, be eliminated, but there are other things more insidious that should have a higher priority.
There are some federal agencies that benefit a select group of Americans. Three immediately come to mind, but there are certainly many more:
•National Endowment of the Arts
•National Endowment of the Humanities
•Corporation for Public Broadcasting
I have made the case against funding for the arts and for broadcasting. Since programs like these, by their very nature, benefit not just a few, but a select few who would fail a means test should one be concocted, they should be eliminated immediately or, in the case of NPR, which is funded by the CPB, sold to the highest bidder.
We have not yet reached the top of the priority ladder, but we are getting close.
Some government agencies and programs are pure evil.
Federal and state Drug Enforcement Administrations, the war on drugs, and all of the other federal and state agencies involved in carrying out the war on drugs have got to be at the top of this list. They should be eradicated and suppressed like the government’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program destroys marijuana plants.
Another agency with an evil mission is the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). Not only is it unconstitutional and illegitimate for the federal government to provide security for airports and airlines, the TSA commits great evils in doing so. Things like unnecessarily inconveniencing and delaying air travel, humiliating travelers, sexually abusing passengers, operating a very expensive security theater, and forcing people to throw out tubes of toothpaste over 3.4 ounces before they can board an airplane.
The federal Department of Education must also be included at the top of the evil list. Federal interference in what is a state and local matter has been the cause of great evils. Not to mention that it is also both unconstitutional and illegitimate. Every state has a Department of Education and every county operates a school system. They, of course, have their own set of problems, but it is absolutely unnecessary for the federal government to have anything whatsoever to do with any state’s educational system.
What, then, could possibly be a higher priority for libertarians than these evil triplets?
How about war, empire, and the military? How about the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force? How about the warfare/police/national security state? How about intervention, invasion, and occupation? How about foreign aid, foreign bases, and foreign wars? How about bombs, bullets, and missiles? How about innocents injured, maimed, and killed? How about an aggressive, belligerent, and meddling foreign policy?
And don’t forget about the widow and orphan twins.
Rothbard early on recognized what libertarianism’s priority should be: “I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business.”
Until such time as the United States returns to the foreign policy articulated by Jefferson in his first inaugural address—“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”—the top priority of libertarians must be to expose the evils of the warfare state.
I didn’t say the only priority, I said the top priority. Food stamps don’t kill Americans or foreigners. Foreign interventions kill both. Working to privatize local garbage collection is certainly a good thing, but libertarians need to never lose sight of the insidious nature of the warfare state and U.S. foreign policy.
Nevertheless, some libertarians seem like they are more concerned about expanding gay rights than the evils of the warfare state and U.S. foreign policy.
Don’t be one of them.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/laurence-m-vance/libertarian-priority/
By Laurence M. Vance
“I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business.” ~ Murray Rothbard
That our enemy is the state, there is no question. As Rothbard explains:
Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects.
The libertarian goal is ultimately a free society where the non-aggression principle is the foundational principle and individual liberty, laissez-faire, and property rights reign supreme. Standing in the way of that goal is the state. And if that weren’t already a formidable enough obstacle, the state is also actively seeking to increase and expand its power and its interventions into the economy and society.
What, then, should the priorities of individual libertarians and libertarian organizations be as they seek to stop the advances of, chip away at, and roll back the state?
It is only natural that liberals and conservatives since they seek to use the power of the state for their own ends, not only have the wrong priorities, but also many dreadful priorities that are destructive to liberty and property.
Liberals generally want to increase the minimum wage, provide every working mother with free day care, institute a national health care system, increase poor women’s access to abortion, provide free contraception devices to any woman that wants them, expand Medicaid, remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, provide every child with a free college education, increase funding for mass transit, pass stricter gun control laws, make “the rich” pay their “fair share,” increase the number of groups protected under anti-discrimination laws, grant special rights to LGBT individuals, increase funding for public education and maintain the welfare state.
Conservatives generally want to simplify the tax code, reduce government waste and fraud, amend the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment, restore prayer and Bible reading in public schools, repost the Ten Commandments in public schools, increase funding for abstinence education, force all school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, reform welfare, reform immigration, slow the rate of increase of certain federal programs while calling it a cut, make flag burning a crime, provide low-income children with educational vouchers to attend the school of their choice, prevent people from using marijuana for medical purposes, strictly enforce drug laws, increase defense spending, and maintain the warfare state.
Oh, and both groups want to “save” Social Security and Medicare for our seniors.
Contrary to some of their liberal and conservative critics, libertarians are neither naïve nor intransigent. They know there will never be any magic buttons to push to immediately and completely eliminate this or that government agency or program. They are willing to accept a gradual gain or step in the right direction, as long as doing so doesn’t compromise their basic principles or detract from their ultimate goal of a free society.
But some libertarians are plainly headed in the wrong direction. There is nothing wrong with a gradual step toward liberty, but it has to be a step in the right direction. Other libertarians are indeed headed in the right direction but have the wrong priorities. It is this latter error that I want to focus on.
It is neither constitutional on the federal level nor the proper role of government at any level to take money from some and transfer it to others, fund medical or scientific research, monitor the weather, fund education, make or guarantee loans, provide medical care or insurance, fund welfare, provide airport security, collect economic statistics, provide flood insurance, operate a railroad, provide electricity, fight poverty, institute vehicle gas mileage standards, build public housing, operate a retirement program, promote home ownership or a college education, control prices, be involved in television or radio broadcasting, fight obesity, regulate or subsidize business or industry, collect garbage, ban substances, support the arts, explore space, or regulate voluntary, consensual, peaceful activities that take place on private property.
The “sum of good government,” said Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, is “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Although the following agencies of the federal government are neither constitutional nor legitimate, they are not high on my list of federal agencies that I think libertarians should spend a lot of time trying to eliminate:
•United States Geological Survey
•National Weather Service
•National Park Service
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
•Army Corp of Engineers
•National Marine Fisheries Service
•Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
•National Institutes of Health
In the case of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), I myself have written about the need to abolish it. Others have written about the politicization of the National Park Service and the blunders of the Army Corp of Engineers. But I don’t think libertarians should lose much sleep over the existence of these agencies.
Regular welfare programs like food stamps, free school lunches, subsidized housing, WIC, and Medicaid are clearly unconstitutional and illegitimate. They redistribute wealth and transfer income from “taxpayers” to “tax eaters.” Now, while welfare programs that hand out cash payments like TANF, SSI, and refundable tax credits like the EITC should and could be immediately abolished, I will be the first to admit—even though I have written extensively against the welfare state and oppose it root and branch—that, rightly or wrongly, these regular welfare programs do help a great number of people and many families are now dependent upon them. Medicare and Social Security, while both welfare programs, are a little different since they are partly (in the case of Medicare) and mostly (in the case of Social Security) funded by payroll taxes. And these are programs that have fostered dependency like none other. All welfare programs should, of course, be eliminated, but there are other things more insidious that should have a higher priority.
There are some federal agencies that benefit a select group of Americans. Three immediately come to mind, but there are certainly many more:
•National Endowment of the Arts
•National Endowment of the Humanities
•Corporation for Public Broadcasting
I have made the case against funding for the arts and for broadcasting. Since programs like these, by their very nature, benefit not just a few, but a select few who would fail a means test should one be concocted, they should be eliminated immediately or, in the case of NPR, which is funded by the CPB, sold to the highest bidder.
We have not yet reached the top of the priority ladder, but we are getting close.
Some government agencies and programs are pure evil.
Federal and state Drug Enforcement Administrations, the war on drugs, and all of the other federal and state agencies involved in carrying out the war on drugs have got to be at the top of this list. They should be eradicated and suppressed like the government’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program destroys marijuana plants.
Another agency with an evil mission is the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). Not only is it unconstitutional and illegitimate for the federal government to provide security for airports and airlines, the TSA commits great evils in doing so. Things like unnecessarily inconveniencing and delaying air travel, humiliating travelers, sexually abusing passengers, operating a very expensive security theater, and forcing people to throw out tubes of toothpaste over 3.4 ounces before they can board an airplane.
The federal Department of Education must also be included at the top of the evil list. Federal interference in what is a state and local matter has been the cause of great evils. Not to mention that it is also both unconstitutional and illegitimate. Every state has a Department of Education and every county operates a school system. They, of course, have their own set of problems, but it is absolutely unnecessary for the federal government to have anything whatsoever to do with any state’s educational system.
What, then, could possibly be a higher priority for libertarians than these evil triplets?
How about war, empire, and the military? How about the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force? How about the warfare/police/national security state? How about intervention, invasion, and occupation? How about foreign aid, foreign bases, and foreign wars? How about bombs, bullets, and missiles? How about innocents injured, maimed, and killed? How about an aggressive, belligerent, and meddling foreign policy?
And don’t forget about the widow and orphan twins.
Rothbard early on recognized what libertarianism’s priority should be: “I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business.”
Until such time as the United States returns to the foreign policy articulated by Jefferson in his first inaugural address—“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”—the top priority of libertarians must be to expose the evils of the warfare state.
I didn’t say the only priority, I said the top priority. Food stamps don’t kill Americans or foreigners. Foreign interventions kill both. Working to privatize local garbage collection is certainly a good thing, but libertarians need to never lose sight of the insidious nature of the warfare state and U.S. foreign policy.
Nevertheless, some libertarians seem like they are more concerned about expanding gay rights than the evils of the warfare state and U.S. foreign policy.
Don’t be one of them.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/laurence-m-vance/libertarian-priority/
"Most of the troublemakers appear to be of college age, which means they’ve been taught to engage in envy and hatred rather than critical thinking. And it’s these same non-thinkers who are now able to vote, which doesn’t bode well for a return to a civilized society any time soon."
The Culture War Heats Up
By Robert Ringer
Can a society without certitudes, without norms, without a generally accepted code of conduct survive? Yes, but survival is not the issue. A society that is fundamentally transformed may retain its name and geographic boundaries, but at its cultural core, it is different.
Thus, the greatest danger the American Empire faces is not war with ISIS, or China, or Russia. And it certainly is not manmade global warming, which is nothing more than Glorified fiction. The real danger America faces is from the manmade secular-progressive war that is becoming increasingly bizarre and destructive.
Transgender bathrooms … a fictitious war on women … the legalization of illegal immigration … an insistence that bloody acts of terror are “workplace violence” … blaming black poverty on “institutionalized racism” rather than the breakup of the black family unit caused by left-wing politicians … repression of free speech … and a general hatred of all things civilized.
Perhaps never before has the crumbling of America’s once-civilized foundation been more apparent than in two California cities — Costa Mesa on Thursday and Burlingame on Friday — at two Donald Trump events. Young hoodlums who are devoid of both knowledge and purpose succeeded in forcing DT to have to be escorted by police through a back-door and hop over a fence in order to escape unharmed.
The media likes to refer to thugs like those in Costa Mesa and Burlingame as protesters, but a more correct (but politically incorrect) term is “criminals.” However, the rioters/criminals are not the worst of the problem.
The real problem is that authorities are so intimidated that they’re afraid to engage in swift, mass arrests. And even if someone jumping up and down on a police car is arrested, judges are afraid to send a message to other lawbreakers by giving such a social misfit a maximum jail sentence.
But perhaps the worst problem of all is the media. About an hour ago, my jaw dropped when I heard Fox News’s resident idiot, Juan Williams, argue that the rioting was Trump’s fault because he engages in “divisive” rhetoric (a.k.a. “free speech”).
Forget that tens of millions of Americans — who don’t jump up and down on police cars — agree with most of what Trump has to say. It’s a basic tenet of the radical left that all dissent must be quashed by any means necessary. (Suggestion: Read up on Marx, Lenin, and Alinsky.)
Most of the troublemakers appear to be of college age, which means they’ve been taught to engage in envy and hatred rather than critical thinking. And it’s these same non-thinkers who are now able to vote, which doesn’t bode well for a return to a civilized society any time soon.
But … hey … you know what the mayor of Baltimore says: Give space to “those who wish to destroy.” A cute thought, madam mayor, but my take is a little different: I say more arrests, more serious jail time, and, above all, raise the voting age requirement to twenty-five.
Whoever wins the presidency for the Republicans (and, barring an “emergency” extension of Obama’s second term, a Republican will win) should make his first priority winning the culture war against the secular-progressive hate mongers. If you win that war, everything else falls into place.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/robert-ringer/culture-war-heats/
By Robert Ringer
Can a society without certitudes, without norms, without a generally accepted code of conduct survive? Yes, but survival is not the issue. A society that is fundamentally transformed may retain its name and geographic boundaries, but at its cultural core, it is different.
Thus, the greatest danger the American Empire faces is not war with ISIS, or China, or Russia. And it certainly is not manmade global warming, which is nothing more than Glorified fiction. The real danger America faces is from the manmade secular-progressive war that is becoming increasingly bizarre and destructive.
Transgender bathrooms … a fictitious war on women … the legalization of illegal immigration … an insistence that bloody acts of terror are “workplace violence” … blaming black poverty on “institutionalized racism” rather than the breakup of the black family unit caused by left-wing politicians … repression of free speech … and a general hatred of all things civilized.
Perhaps never before has the crumbling of America’s once-civilized foundation been more apparent than in two California cities — Costa Mesa on Thursday and Burlingame on Friday — at two Donald Trump events. Young hoodlums who are devoid of both knowledge and purpose succeeded in forcing DT to have to be escorted by police through a back-door and hop over a fence in order to escape unharmed.
The media likes to refer to thugs like those in Costa Mesa and Burlingame as protesters, but a more correct (but politically incorrect) term is “criminals.” However, the rioters/criminals are not the worst of the problem.
The real problem is that authorities are so intimidated that they’re afraid to engage in swift, mass arrests. And even if someone jumping up and down on a police car is arrested, judges are afraid to send a message to other lawbreakers by giving such a social misfit a maximum jail sentence.
But perhaps the worst problem of all is the media. About an hour ago, my jaw dropped when I heard Fox News’s resident idiot, Juan Williams, argue that the rioting was Trump’s fault because he engages in “divisive” rhetoric (a.k.a. “free speech”).
Forget that tens of millions of Americans — who don’t jump up and down on police cars — agree with most of what Trump has to say. It’s a basic tenet of the radical left that all dissent must be quashed by any means necessary. (Suggestion: Read up on Marx, Lenin, and Alinsky.)
Most of the troublemakers appear to be of college age, which means they’ve been taught to engage in envy and hatred rather than critical thinking. And it’s these same non-thinkers who are now able to vote, which doesn’t bode well for a return to a civilized society any time soon.
But … hey … you know what the mayor of Baltimore says: Give space to “those who wish to destroy.” A cute thought, madam mayor, but my take is a little different: I say more arrests, more serious jail time, and, above all, raise the voting age requirement to twenty-five.
Whoever wins the presidency for the Republicans (and, barring an “emergency” extension of Obama’s second term, a Republican will win) should make his first priority winning the culture war against the secular-progressive hate mongers. If you win that war, everything else falls into place.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/robert-ringer/culture-war-heats/
"The only way we’ll ever achieve change in this country is for this generation of young people to say “enough is enough” and fight for the things that truly matter."
Don’t Sleep Through the Revolution: A Graduation Message for a Dark Age
By John W. Whitehead
“The most striking fact about the story of Rip Van Winkle is not that he slept 20 years, but that he slept through a revolution. While he was peacefully snoring up on the mountain, a great revolution was taking place in the world – indeed, a revolution which would, at points, change the course of history. And Rip Van Winkle knew nothing about it; he was asleep.”—Martin Luther King Jr., Commencement Address for Oberlin College
The world is disintegrating on every front—politically, environmentally, morally—and for the next generation, the future does not look promising. As author Pema Chodron writes in When Things Fall Apart:
When the rivers and air are polluted, when families and nations are at war, when homeless wanderers fill the highways, these are the traditional signs of a dark age.
Those coming of age today will face some of the greatest obstacles ever encountered by young people. They will find themselves overtaxed and struggling to find worthwhile employment in a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion. Their privacy will be eviscerated by the surveillance state.
They will be the subjects of a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies and on guard against domestic acts of terrorism, the blowback against military occupations in foreign lands. And they will find government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice.
As such, they will find themselves forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences.
It’s a dismal prospect, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, we who should have known better failed to guard against such a future.
Worse, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we neglected to maintain our freedoms or provide our young people with the tools necessary to survive, let alone succeed, in the impersonal jungle that is modern civilization.
We brought them into homes fractured by divorce, distracted by mindless entertainment, and obsessed with the pursuit of materialism. We institutionalized them in daycares and afterschool programs, substituting time with teachers and childcare workers for parental involvement. We turned them into test-takers instead of thinkers and automatons instead of activists.
We allowed them to languish in schools which not only often look like prisons but function like prisons, as well—where conformity is the rule and freedom are the exception. We made them easy prey for our corporate overlords while instilling in them the values of a celebrity-obsessed, technology-driven culture devoid of any true spirituality. And we taught them to believe that the pursuit of their own personal happiness trumped all other virtues, including any empathy whatsoever for their fellow human beings.
We botched things up in a big way, but hopefully, all is not lost.
Not yet, at least.
Faced with adversity, this generation could possibly rise to meet the grave challenges before them, bringing about positive change for our times and maintaining their freedoms, as well.
The following bits of wisdom, gleaned from a lifetime of standing up to injustice and speaking truth to power, will hopefully help them survive the perils of the journey that awaits:
Wake up and free your mind. Resist all things that numb you, put you to sleep or help you “cope” with so-called reality. From the day you are born, enter school, graduate and get a job, virtually everything surrounding you is not something you entered by free will. And those who establish the rules and laws that govern society’s actions dictate what is proper. They desire compliant subjects. Those who become conscious of the chains that bind them and free their minds and decide to disagree are often ostracized and find themselves behind bars. However, as George Orwell warned, “Until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they rebelled, they cannot become conscious.” It is these conscious individuals who change the world for the better.
Be an individual. For all of its championing of the individual, American culture advocates a stark conformity. As a result, young people are sedated by the flatness and predictability of modern life. “You can travel far and wide and have a difficult time finding a store or restaurant that is even mildly unique,” writes Thomas More in The Care of the Soul. “In shopping malls everywhere, in restaurant districts, in movie theaters, you will find the same clothes, the same names, the same menus, the same new films, the identical architecture. On the East Coast, you can sit in a restaurant seat identical to that you sat in on the West Coast.” In other words, the repetition that is modern life means the death of individuality.
Resist the corporate state. Don’t become mindless consumers. Consumption is a drug. It makes us unaware of the corruption surrounding us. As Chris Hedges writes in Empire of Illusion:
Corporations are ubiquitous parts of our lives, and those that own and run them want them to remain that way. We eat corporate food. We buy corporate clothes. We drive in corporate cars. We buy our fuel from corporations. We borrow from, invest our retirement savings with, and take our college loans with corporations and corporate banks. We are entertained, informed, and bombarded with advertisements by corporations. Many of us work for corporations. There are few aspects of life left that have not been taken over by corporations, from mail delivery to public utilities to our for-profit health-care system. These corporations have no loyalty to the country or workers. Our impoverishment feeds their profits. And profits, for corporations, are all that count.
Realize that one person can make a difference. If we’re going to see any positive change for freedom, then we must change our view of what it means to be human and regain a sense of what it means to love one another. That will mean gaining the courage to stand up for the oppressed. In fact, it’s always been the caring individual—the ordinary person doing extraordinary things—who has made a difference in the world. Even Mahatma Gandhi, who eventually galvanized the whole of India, brought the British Empire to its knees, and secured freedom for his people, began as a solitary individual committed to the idea of nonviolent resistance to the British Empire.
Help others. We all have a calling in life. And I believe it boils down to one thing: You are here on this planet to help other people. In fact, none of us can exist very long without help from others. This is brought home forcefully in a story that Garret Keizer recounts in his insightful book Help: The Original Human Dilemma. Supposedly in hell, the damned sit around a great pot, all hungry because the spoons they hold are too long to bring the food to their mouths. In heaven, people are sitting around the same pot with the same long spoons, but everyone is full. Why? Because in heaven, people use their long spoons to feed one another.
Learn your rights. It’s easy to complain, throw up your hands and just accept the way things are. Unfortunately, for all the moaning and groaning, very few people take the time to change the country for the better. Yet we’re losing our freedoms for one simple reason: most of us don’t know anything about our freedoms. Lest we forget, America is a concept. You have to earn the right to be an American, and that means taking the time to learn about your history and the courageous radicals who fought and died so that you and I could live in a free country. At a minimum, anyone who has graduated from high school, let alone college, should know the Bill of Rights backwards and forwards. However, the average young person, let alone citizen, has very little knowledge of their rights for the simple reason that the schools no longer teach them. So grab a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and study them at home. And when the time comes, stand up for your rights.
Speak truth to power. Don’t be naive about those in positions of authority. As James Madison, who wrote our Bill of Rights, observed, “All men having power ought to be distrusted.” We have to learn the lessons of history. People in power, more often than not, abuse that power. To maintain our freedoms, this will mean challenging government officials whenever they exceed the bounds of their office.
Don’t let technology be your God. Technology anesthetizes us to the all-too-real tragedies that surround us. Techno-gadgets are merely distractions from what’s really going on in America and around the world. As a result, we’ve begun mimicking the inhuman technology that surrounds us and lost sight of our humanity. If you’re going to make a difference in the world, you’re going to have to pull the earbuds out, turn off the cell phones and spend much less time viewing screens.
Give voice to moral outrage. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” There is no shortage of issues on which to take a stand. For instance, on any given night, over half a million people in the U.S. are homeless, and half of them are elderly. There are 46 million Americans living at or below the poverty line, and 16 million children living in households without adequate access to food. Congress creates, on average, more than 50 new criminal laws each year. With more than 2 million Americans in prison, and close to 7 million adults in correctional care, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. At least 2.7 million children in the United States have at least one parent in prison. At least 400 to 500 innocent people are killed by police officers every year. Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist. On an average day in America, over 100 Americans have their homes raided by SWAT teams. Since 9/11, we’ve spent more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It costs the American taxpayer $52.6 billion every year to be spied on by the government intelligence agencies tasked with surveillance, data collection, counterintelligence and covert activities.
Cultivate spirituality. When the things that matter most have been subordinated to materialism, we have lost our moral compass. We must change our values to reflect something more meaningful than technology, materialism, and politics.
Standing at the pulpit of the Riverside Church in New York City in April 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. urged his listeners:
[W]e as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motive and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
We didn’t listen then, and we still have not learned: Material things don’t fill the spiritual void.
Unfortunately, our much-vaunted culture of consumerism and material comforts has resulted in an overall air of cynicism marked by a spiritual vacuum, and this generation of young people is paying the price. For example, at least one in 10 young people now believe life is not worth living. A survey of 16- to 25-year-olds by the Prince’s Trust found that for many young people life has little or no purpose, especially among those not in school, work or training. More than a quarter of those polled feel depressed and are less happy than when they were younger. And almost half said they are regularly stressed and many don’t have anything to look forward to or someone they could talk to about their problems. Equally alarming is a recent report by The Washington Post indicating that the U.S. suicide rate has increased sharply since the turn of the century, particularly among women.
No wonder many young people have such a pessimistic view of the future. But that can change. As King said, we have to start putting people first.
Pitch in and do your part to make the world a better place. Don’t rely on someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. As King noted, “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.” In other words, don’t wait around for someone else to fix what ails you, your community or nation. As Gandhi urged: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Finally, you need to impact the government, be part of the dialogue on who we are and where we’re going as a country. It doesn’t matter how old you are or what your political ideology is. These are just labels. If you have something to say, speak up. Get active, and if need be, pick up a picket sign and get in the streets. And when civil liberties are violated, don’t remain silent about it. Take a stand!
The only way we’ll ever achieve change in this country is for this generation of young people to say “enough is enough” and fight for the things that truly matter.
I shall end as Dr. King ended his commencement address to the graduates of Oberlin College in June 1965:
Let us stand up. Let us be a concerned generation. Let us remain awake through a great revolution. And we will speed up that great day when the American Dream will be a reality.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/john-w-whitehead/dont-sleep-revolution/
By John W. Whitehead
“The most striking fact about the story of Rip Van Winkle is not that he slept 20 years, but that he slept through a revolution. While he was peacefully snoring up on the mountain, a great revolution was taking place in the world – indeed, a revolution which would, at points, change the course of history. And Rip Van Winkle knew nothing about it; he was asleep.”—Martin Luther King Jr., Commencement Address for Oberlin College
The world is disintegrating on every front—politically, environmentally, morally—and for the next generation, the future does not look promising. As author Pema Chodron writes in When Things Fall Apart:
When the rivers and air are polluted, when families and nations are at war, when homeless wanderers fill the highways, these are the traditional signs of a dark age.
Those coming of age today will face some of the greatest obstacles ever encountered by young people. They will find themselves overtaxed and struggling to find worthwhile employment in a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion. Their privacy will be eviscerated by the surveillance state.
They will be the subjects of a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies and on guard against domestic acts of terrorism, the blowback against military occupations in foreign lands. And they will find government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice.
As such, they will find themselves forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences.
It’s a dismal prospect, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, we who should have known better failed to guard against such a future.
Worse, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we neglected to maintain our freedoms or provide our young people with the tools necessary to survive, let alone succeed, in the impersonal jungle that is modern civilization.
We brought them into homes fractured by divorce, distracted by mindless entertainment, and obsessed with the pursuit of materialism. We institutionalized them in daycares and afterschool programs, substituting time with teachers and childcare workers for parental involvement. We turned them into test-takers instead of thinkers and automatons instead of activists.
We allowed them to languish in schools which not only often look like prisons but function like prisons, as well—where conformity is the rule and freedom are the exception. We made them easy prey for our corporate overlords while instilling in them the values of a celebrity-obsessed, technology-driven culture devoid of any true spirituality. And we taught them to believe that the pursuit of their own personal happiness trumped all other virtues, including any empathy whatsoever for their fellow human beings.
We botched things up in a big way, but hopefully, all is not lost.
Not yet, at least.
Faced with adversity, this generation could possibly rise to meet the grave challenges before them, bringing about positive change for our times and maintaining their freedoms, as well.
The following bits of wisdom, gleaned from a lifetime of standing up to injustice and speaking truth to power, will hopefully help them survive the perils of the journey that awaits:
Wake up and free your mind. Resist all things that numb you, put you to sleep or help you “cope” with so-called reality. From the day you are born, enter school, graduate and get a job, virtually everything surrounding you is not something you entered by free will. And those who establish the rules and laws that govern society’s actions dictate what is proper. They desire compliant subjects. Those who become conscious of the chains that bind them and free their minds and decide to disagree are often ostracized and find themselves behind bars. However, as George Orwell warned, “Until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they rebelled, they cannot become conscious.” It is these conscious individuals who change the world for the better.
Be an individual. For all of its championing of the individual, American culture advocates a stark conformity. As a result, young people are sedated by the flatness and predictability of modern life. “You can travel far and wide and have a difficult time finding a store or restaurant that is even mildly unique,” writes Thomas More in The Care of the Soul. “In shopping malls everywhere, in restaurant districts, in movie theaters, you will find the same clothes, the same names, the same menus, the same new films, the identical architecture. On the East Coast, you can sit in a restaurant seat identical to that you sat in on the West Coast.” In other words, the repetition that is modern life means the death of individuality.
Resist the corporate state. Don’t become mindless consumers. Consumption is a drug. It makes us unaware of the corruption surrounding us. As Chris Hedges writes in Empire of Illusion:
Corporations are ubiquitous parts of our lives, and those that own and run them want them to remain that way. We eat corporate food. We buy corporate clothes. We drive in corporate cars. We buy our fuel from corporations. We borrow from, invest our retirement savings with, and take our college loans with corporations and corporate banks. We are entertained, informed, and bombarded with advertisements by corporations. Many of us work for corporations. There are few aspects of life left that have not been taken over by corporations, from mail delivery to public utilities to our for-profit health-care system. These corporations have no loyalty to the country or workers. Our impoverishment feeds their profits. And profits, for corporations, are all that count.
Realize that one person can make a difference. If we’re going to see any positive change for freedom, then we must change our view of what it means to be human and regain a sense of what it means to love one another. That will mean gaining the courage to stand up for the oppressed. In fact, it’s always been the caring individual—the ordinary person doing extraordinary things—who has made a difference in the world. Even Mahatma Gandhi, who eventually galvanized the whole of India, brought the British Empire to its knees, and secured freedom for his people, began as a solitary individual committed to the idea of nonviolent resistance to the British Empire.
Help others. We all have a calling in life. And I believe it boils down to one thing: You are here on this planet to help other people. In fact, none of us can exist very long without help from others. This is brought home forcefully in a story that Garret Keizer recounts in his insightful book Help: The Original Human Dilemma. Supposedly in hell, the damned sit around a great pot, all hungry because the spoons they hold are too long to bring the food to their mouths. In heaven, people are sitting around the same pot with the same long spoons, but everyone is full. Why? Because in heaven, people use their long spoons to feed one another.
Learn your rights. It’s easy to complain, throw up your hands and just accept the way things are. Unfortunately, for all the moaning and groaning, very few people take the time to change the country for the better. Yet we’re losing our freedoms for one simple reason: most of us don’t know anything about our freedoms. Lest we forget, America is a concept. You have to earn the right to be an American, and that means taking the time to learn about your history and the courageous radicals who fought and died so that you and I could live in a free country. At a minimum, anyone who has graduated from high school, let alone college, should know the Bill of Rights backwards and forwards. However, the average young person, let alone citizen, has very little knowledge of their rights for the simple reason that the schools no longer teach them. So grab a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and study them at home. And when the time comes, stand up for your rights.
Speak truth to power. Don’t be naive about those in positions of authority. As James Madison, who wrote our Bill of Rights, observed, “All men having power ought to be distrusted.” We have to learn the lessons of history. People in power, more often than not, abuse that power. To maintain our freedoms, this will mean challenging government officials whenever they exceed the bounds of their office.
Don’t let technology be your God. Technology anesthetizes us to the all-too-real tragedies that surround us. Techno-gadgets are merely distractions from what’s really going on in America and around the world. As a result, we’ve begun mimicking the inhuman technology that surrounds us and lost sight of our humanity. If you’re going to make a difference in the world, you’re going to have to pull the earbuds out, turn off the cell phones and spend much less time viewing screens.
Give voice to moral outrage. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” There is no shortage of issues on which to take a stand. For instance, on any given night, over half a million people in the U.S. are homeless, and half of them are elderly. There are 46 million Americans living at or below the poverty line, and 16 million children living in households without adequate access to food. Congress creates, on average, more than 50 new criminal laws each year. With more than 2 million Americans in prison, and close to 7 million adults in correctional care, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. At least 2.7 million children in the United States have at least one parent in prison. At least 400 to 500 innocent people are killed by police officers every year. Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist. On an average day in America, over 100 Americans have their homes raided by SWAT teams. Since 9/11, we’ve spent more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It costs the American taxpayer $52.6 billion every year to be spied on by the government intelligence agencies tasked with surveillance, data collection, counterintelligence and covert activities.
Cultivate spirituality. When the things that matter most have been subordinated to materialism, we have lost our moral compass. We must change our values to reflect something more meaningful than technology, materialism, and politics.
Standing at the pulpit of the Riverside Church in New York City in April 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. urged his listeners:
[W]e as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motive and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
We didn’t listen then, and we still have not learned: Material things don’t fill the spiritual void.
Unfortunately, our much-vaunted culture of consumerism and material comforts has resulted in an overall air of cynicism marked by a spiritual vacuum, and this generation of young people is paying the price. For example, at least one in 10 young people now believe life is not worth living. A survey of 16- to 25-year-olds by the Prince’s Trust found that for many young people life has little or no purpose, especially among those not in school, work or training. More than a quarter of those polled feel depressed and are less happy than when they were younger. And almost half said they are regularly stressed and many don’t have anything to look forward to or someone they could talk to about their problems. Equally alarming is a recent report by The Washington Post indicating that the U.S. suicide rate has increased sharply since the turn of the century, particularly among women.
No wonder many young people have such a pessimistic view of the future. But that can change. As King said, we have to start putting people first.
Pitch in and do your part to make the world a better place. Don’t rely on someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. As King noted, “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.” In other words, don’t wait around for someone else to fix what ails you, your community or nation. As Gandhi urged: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Finally, you need to impact the government, be part of the dialogue on who we are and where we’re going as a country. It doesn’t matter how old you are or what your political ideology is. These are just labels. If you have something to say, speak up. Get active, and if need be, pick up a picket sign and get in the streets. And when civil liberties are violated, don’t remain silent about it. Take a stand!
The only way we’ll ever achieve change in this country is for this generation of young people to say “enough is enough” and fight for the things that truly matter.
I shall end as Dr. King ended his commencement address to the graduates of Oberlin College in June 1965:
Let us stand up. Let us be a concerned generation. Let us remain awake through a great revolution. And we will speed up that great day when the American Dream will be a reality.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/john-w-whitehead/dont-sleep-revolution/
"On this fifth anniversary of this extraordinary event, we pause to note how, as in so many situations, the great majority of the media — from the corporate, mainstream entities to the ideologically-driven organs of Left and Right — accept at face value the official story."
Reasons to Doubt the Official Osama Raid Story — Five Years Later
By Russ Baker
WhoWhatWhy exists in good part to serve as a kind of reality check. Its goal is to step outside the echo chamber, in which, no matter how improbable the “official” story, the media and the public reflexively accept it.
WhoWhatWhy exists to remind us that the powerful — whether corporations or presidents or national security agencies — often exaggerate, cherry-pick facts, and even construct total falsehoods in service of their agenda.
We see that again and again, with Vietnam, with Watergate, with Iraq, with the claimed reasons for invading Afghanistan, Libya and, through surrogates, Syria.
The examples are legion. Each time the propaganda machine comes up with a new story, our society’s default response is to accept it. And the bigger the story, the harder it is for people to imagine they are being lied to. And the more discomfort it causes, the more cognitive dissonance kicks in. Then we rally around the flag — and lash out at the skeptics.
Most recently, we encountered this with the Boston Marathon Bombing case, where so much doesn’t add up, but few seem to care.
An earlier case, which comes to mind now because this is its fifth anniversary, was the May 2, 2011, raid on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. On that occasion, we were told, the United States avenged the greatest terrorist attack ever on its soil when U.S. special forces swooped into an allied foreign country and successfully killed the No. 1 archvillain of our time — Osama bin Laden.
While the full range of media organizations, mainstream and “alternative,” accepted the government’s account, within hours of the raid, we began raising questions — and we have kept on doing so. You can read those early articles here:
•12 Questions About bin Laden
•More Questions About bin Laden
•Demanding the Evidence on Abbottabad: Even the Media Establishment is Wary
•Doubts on “Official Story” of bin Laden Killing
***
The basic story, which changed repeatedly in the early hours and days following the raid, finally settled into a few bare bones. And that is all the public remembers:
Relying on uncertain intelligence, President Obama made the risky decision to mount a raid into Pakistan without the consent or knowledge of the authorities there. Navy SEALs swooped in, killed bin Laden, and got out safely, after which bin Laden’s body was cleaned in accordance with Islamic law before being dumped in the Arabian Sea.
Yet, if you actually look at what we’ve been told, you will find that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. And if it doesn’t make a lot of sense, we have two choices: 1) Contort the particulars until it kind of, sort of, seems to make sense; or 2) say that there may be something entirely different going on.
First, let us recall that Osama bin Laden was not only a Saudi but from one of the kingdom’s most powerful, connected, protected families.
Since that raid, new information has emerged about the U.S. protecting Saudi elites, even to the extent of covering up evidence of Saudi complicity with the 9/11 attacks. But the growing body of evidence that the Saudis have not been America’s friends, and that they worked closely with Al-Qaeda, has never been squared with the story of the Abbottabad raid.
In that raid, we are told, the U.S. government relied on guidance from the Saudis as to what to do with Bin Laden and his body. This, we were told, was to avoid creating a shrine to Osama while also respecting Muslim customs — an odd claim given that such considerations never seem to have entered the picture in any other situation. Moreover, it would not have been so difficult to bury his body in an undisclosed location.
As we seek to connect the dots between these related parties and events, we cannot help but tote up some of the key factors in the Abbottabad story. We ask that you consider certain elements:
(1) The story of the raid changed over the course of several days, even though the commanders and those officials providing the narrative here at home had been in steady contact.
(2) Instead of presenting pictures of the corpse, as was done with Saddam, Qaddafi and most other “villains”, the U.S. government opted not to show it.
(3) Instead of keeping the body at an undisclosed location for comprehensive, DNA, and other identification measures, the U.S. government claims they hastily tossed his body into the ocean — after, we are told, advice to do so came from….the Saudi government.
(4) The photos we saw of the man purported to be living in that Abbottabad villa look strikingly different from prior photos of him.
(5) Just before the SEALs charged up the stairs toward the man who would be killed, they experienced a wardrobe malfunction — the transmission from their helmet cams suddenly stopped feeding into the White House Situation Room. So the president and his team actually saw nothing.
(6) When bin Laden purportedly died at 1 a.m. Pakistan local time on May 2, 2011, almost none of the Navy SEALs conducting the operation actually saw him.
(7) Former SEAL Mark Owen’s book “No Easy Day,” which received a lot of attention and became the definitive inside account of what took place, was reportedly frowned upon by the military — yet the military, which could have easily halted the publication if it wished to do so, did not.
(8) In his “tell all,” Owen admits — almost in passing — that he did not see Bin Laden, and was not in on the actual kill.
(9) We have been told that the SEALs themselves had been given the choice of whether to capture bin Laden or to kill him.
(10) Consider the incalculable intelligence value of an Osama captured alive.
(11) During the operation, one of two helicopters crashed into a wall in Osama’s compound and was essentially destroyed — yet we are told that every one of the inhabitants walked away without serious injury.
(12) A neighbor reportedly saw the crash and claimed no one emerged.
(13) Shortly after this debacle, another contingent of Navy SEALs perished in what we were told was an unrelated crash across the border in Afghanistan.
(14) We have heard no more of bin Laden’s wives and others who purportedly survived the raid. What happened to them? Were they punished? Were they interrogated? Were they remanded to Saudi custody?
(15) Consider what a tremendous publicity coup this was — for President Obama, who was preparing for his re-election bid, for the military and for the CIA. From the simple vantage point of wishful thinking, there was no reason for Obama or his ambitious Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to doubt or express doubts about this heroic achievement they were told had come on their watch.
Is it madness to exhibit skepticism, to ask that we be shown some kind of proof by a government that clearly cannot be trusted to level with us on matters of “national security?”
On this fifth anniversary of this extraordinary event, we pause to note how, as in so many situations, the great majority of the media — from the corporate, mainstream entities to the ideologically-driven organs of Left and Right — accept at face value the official story.
In the years since, the only significant voice to question the official story is Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
Hersh maintains another version, as told to him by a retired senior U.S. intelligence official who goes unnamed. As Hersh heard it, the Saudis were working with the Pakistanis to hide bin Laden, and were “financing (his) upkeep since his seizure by the Pakistanis.” Further, according to another anonymous Hersh source, the U.S. chose to execute bin Laden rather than capture him as a war criminal.
Hersh’s interpretation, for which he has faced harsh criticism, is an interesting one. Nonetheless, it does not adequately address the questions we have posed, primarily because it accepts that the person in the compound was indeed bin Laden, and that this person was indeed killed. We’ll withhold judgment on that until we see real evidence.
Why? Because there are two scenarios.
In one, Osama was the wayward child, a rebel against his parent country, a man whom the U.S. and Saudis wanted obliterated. In 1994, he was expelled from Saudi Arabia.
But in the other, Osama bin Laden played a valuable role for the Saudi royal family, keeping the war away from its own borders, focusing fundamentalist anger on the West. And because Osama bin Laden gave the always-hungry Western war machine the replacement villain for the Soviet “evil empire” — a casus belli that necessitates never-ending combat and never-ending and incalculable spending and riches for the military-industrial complex.
Obama’s counterterrorism advisor at the time of the raid, John Brennan, had been CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia just before 9/11 — and subsequent to the raid was made CIA director.
For so many, Osama seemed to be the gift that kept on giving.
Is it possible that he would not, in the end, be punished? That he would instead be protected, perhaps given a new identity like much lesser pawns in the games of power that nations and other entities play?
It may sound far-fetched. But in light of the unanswered questions about May 2, 2011, good journalism — indeed sound mental health — dictates that we not dismiss logical scenarios in favor of fundamentally illogical ones simply because we are told to do so.
Read more here:
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/05/02/reasons-doubt-official-osama-raid-story-five-years-later/
By Russ Baker
WhoWhatWhy exists in good part to serve as a kind of reality check. Its goal is to step outside the echo chamber, in which, no matter how improbable the “official” story, the media and the public reflexively accept it.
WhoWhatWhy exists to remind us that the powerful — whether corporations or presidents or national security agencies — often exaggerate, cherry-pick facts, and even construct total falsehoods in service of their agenda.
We see that again and again, with Vietnam, with Watergate, with Iraq, with the claimed reasons for invading Afghanistan, Libya and, through surrogates, Syria.
The examples are legion. Each time the propaganda machine comes up with a new story, our society’s default response is to accept it. And the bigger the story, the harder it is for people to imagine they are being lied to. And the more discomfort it causes, the more cognitive dissonance kicks in. Then we rally around the flag — and lash out at the skeptics.
Most recently, we encountered this with the Boston Marathon Bombing case, where so much doesn’t add up, but few seem to care.
An earlier case, which comes to mind now because this is its fifth anniversary, was the May 2, 2011, raid on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. On that occasion, we were told, the United States avenged the greatest terrorist attack ever on its soil when U.S. special forces swooped into an allied foreign country and successfully killed the No. 1 archvillain of our time — Osama bin Laden.
While the full range of media organizations, mainstream and “alternative,” accepted the government’s account, within hours of the raid, we began raising questions — and we have kept on doing so. You can read those early articles here:
•12 Questions About bin Laden
•More Questions About bin Laden
•Demanding the Evidence on Abbottabad: Even the Media Establishment is Wary
•Doubts on “Official Story” of bin Laden Killing
***
The basic story, which changed repeatedly in the early hours and days following the raid, finally settled into a few bare bones. And that is all the public remembers:
Relying on uncertain intelligence, President Obama made the risky decision to mount a raid into Pakistan without the consent or knowledge of the authorities there. Navy SEALs swooped in, killed bin Laden, and got out safely, after which bin Laden’s body was cleaned in accordance with Islamic law before being dumped in the Arabian Sea.
Yet, if you actually look at what we’ve been told, you will find that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. And if it doesn’t make a lot of sense, we have two choices: 1) Contort the particulars until it kind of, sort of, seems to make sense; or 2) say that there may be something entirely different going on.
First, let us recall that Osama bin Laden was not only a Saudi but from one of the kingdom’s most powerful, connected, protected families.
Since that raid, new information has emerged about the U.S. protecting Saudi elites, even to the extent of covering up evidence of Saudi complicity with the 9/11 attacks. But the growing body of evidence that the Saudis have not been America’s friends, and that they worked closely with Al-Qaeda, has never been squared with the story of the Abbottabad raid.
In that raid, we are told, the U.S. government relied on guidance from the Saudis as to what to do with Bin Laden and his body. This, we were told, was to avoid creating a shrine to Osama while also respecting Muslim customs — an odd claim given that such considerations never seem to have entered the picture in any other situation. Moreover, it would not have been so difficult to bury his body in an undisclosed location.
As we seek to connect the dots between these related parties and events, we cannot help but tote up some of the key factors in the Abbottabad story. We ask that you consider certain elements:
(1) The story of the raid changed over the course of several days, even though the commanders and those officials providing the narrative here at home had been in steady contact.
(2) Instead of presenting pictures of the corpse, as was done with Saddam, Qaddafi and most other “villains”, the U.S. government opted not to show it.
(3) Instead of keeping the body at an undisclosed location for comprehensive, DNA, and other identification measures, the U.S. government claims they hastily tossed his body into the ocean — after, we are told, advice to do so came from….the Saudi government.
(4) The photos we saw of the man purported to be living in that Abbottabad villa look strikingly different from prior photos of him.
(5) Just before the SEALs charged up the stairs toward the man who would be killed, they experienced a wardrobe malfunction — the transmission from their helmet cams suddenly stopped feeding into the White House Situation Room. So the president and his team actually saw nothing.
(6) When bin Laden purportedly died at 1 a.m. Pakistan local time on May 2, 2011, almost none of the Navy SEALs conducting the operation actually saw him.
(7) Former SEAL Mark Owen’s book “No Easy Day,” which received a lot of attention and became the definitive inside account of what took place, was reportedly frowned upon by the military — yet the military, which could have easily halted the publication if it wished to do so, did not.
(8) In his “tell all,” Owen admits — almost in passing — that he did not see Bin Laden, and was not in on the actual kill.
(9) We have been told that the SEALs themselves had been given the choice of whether to capture bin Laden or to kill him.
(10) Consider the incalculable intelligence value of an Osama captured alive.
(11) During the operation, one of two helicopters crashed into a wall in Osama’s compound and was essentially destroyed — yet we are told that every one of the inhabitants walked away without serious injury.
(12) A neighbor reportedly saw the crash and claimed no one emerged.
(13) Shortly after this debacle, another contingent of Navy SEALs perished in what we were told was an unrelated crash across the border in Afghanistan.
(14) We have heard no more of bin Laden’s wives and others who purportedly survived the raid. What happened to them? Were they punished? Were they interrogated? Were they remanded to Saudi custody?
(15) Consider what a tremendous publicity coup this was — for President Obama, who was preparing for his re-election bid, for the military and for the CIA. From the simple vantage point of wishful thinking, there was no reason for Obama or his ambitious Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to doubt or express doubts about this heroic achievement they were told had come on their watch.
Is it madness to exhibit skepticism, to ask that we be shown some kind of proof by a government that clearly cannot be trusted to level with us on matters of “national security?”
On this fifth anniversary of this extraordinary event, we pause to note how, as in so many situations, the great majority of the media — from the corporate, mainstream entities to the ideologically-driven organs of Left and Right — accept at face value the official story.
In the years since, the only significant voice to question the official story is Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
Hersh maintains another version, as told to him by a retired senior U.S. intelligence official who goes unnamed. As Hersh heard it, the Saudis were working with the Pakistanis to hide bin Laden, and were “financing (his) upkeep since his seizure by the Pakistanis.” Further, according to another anonymous Hersh source, the U.S. chose to execute bin Laden rather than capture him as a war criminal.
Hersh’s interpretation, for which he has faced harsh criticism, is an interesting one. Nonetheless, it does not adequately address the questions we have posed, primarily because it accepts that the person in the compound was indeed bin Laden, and that this person was indeed killed. We’ll withhold judgment on that until we see real evidence.
Why? Because there are two scenarios.
In one, Osama was the wayward child, a rebel against his parent country, a man whom the U.S. and Saudis wanted obliterated. In 1994, he was expelled from Saudi Arabia.
But in the other, Osama bin Laden played a valuable role for the Saudi royal family, keeping the war away from its own borders, focusing fundamentalist anger on the West. And because Osama bin Laden gave the always-hungry Western war machine the replacement villain for the Soviet “evil empire” — a casus belli that necessitates never-ending combat and never-ending and incalculable spending and riches for the military-industrial complex.
Obama’s counterterrorism advisor at the time of the raid, John Brennan, had been CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia just before 9/11 — and subsequent to the raid was made CIA director.
For so many, Osama seemed to be the gift that kept on giving.
Is it possible that he would not, in the end, be punished? That he would instead be protected, perhaps given a new identity like much lesser pawns in the games of power that nations and other entities play?
It may sound far-fetched. But in light of the unanswered questions about May 2, 2011, good journalism — indeed sound mental health — dictates that we not dismiss logical scenarios in favor of fundamentally illogical ones simply because we are told to do so.
Read more here:
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/05/02/reasons-doubt-official-osama-raid-story-five-years-later/
Monday, May 2, 2016
Fructose is linked to a number of health conditions...
Same fructose used in sodas found to damage brain cells... makes you stupid and promotes Alzheimer's
by: Isabelle Z.
We already know that sugar is bad for our health in general, but a remarkable study shows that its destruction even extends to our brains. That's right: The food you eat could actually be making you stupid.
According to research from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), fructose can damage your brain cells and spur a number of diseases, including Alzheimer's, heart disease, and diabetes.
In the study, researchers fed rats water spiked with fructose for a period of six weeks. This amount is roughly equal to a liter of soft drinks per day for humans. After that period, the rats were placed in a maze along with other rats who had only been given water to drink.
The rats who had been drinking fructose took double the amount of time it took the water-fed rats to complete the maze, even though both groups had received the same level of training. This implies that those who drank fructose were suffering from some sort of memory impairment.
Fructose is linked to a number of health conditions
Fructose can be found in cane sugar as well as in high-fructose corn syrup. While fructose does occur naturally in fruit, fruits also contain very important antioxidants that make them worth consuming. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans consume around 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup, and 47 pounds of cane sugar per year on average. This is pretty alarming when you consider the fact that studies have linked fructose consumption to fatty liver, obesity and diabetes.
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that fructose failed to trigger brain activity in the regions associated with satiety and feelings of fullness; it's almost as though fructose "tricks" the brain into seeking out food and increasing food intake.
Of course, high-fructose corn syrup is not the only unhealthy ingredient in foods. The truth is that grocery stores are full of dangerous foods, from canned goods that contain BPA, to food sprayed with toxic pesticides like cancer-causing glyphosate. There are so many dangers that Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, was inspired to write a book about it after analyzing a number of foods in his cutting-edge lab. The result of this effort is Food Forensics, which is set to be released this summer.
DHA has the power to reverse the harmful effects of fructose on the brain
Perhaps even more interestingly, the UCLA study also showed that the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) seemed to reverse the damage caused by fructose. A third group of rats who had been given an omega 3-rich flaxseed oil extract in addition to fructose water, were able to get through the maze almost as fast as those that had only been given water.
Senior author of the study Xia Yang said: "DHA changes not just one or two genes; it seems to push the entire gene pattern back to normal, which is remarkable."
DHA is also believed to help prevent age-related dementia. You can find DHA in fish – salmon is an especially good source. It can also be found in nuts and some vegetables.
UCLA Neurosurgery Professor Fernando Gomez-Pinilla said: "Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain's ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage."
It's no secret that certain foods have the power to heal, and this is something that the people behind the Natural Medicine, Healing and Wellness Summit are well aware of. In the summit, they show people how they can reverse disease and feel younger in general.
While food can do some serious damage to our bodies, it also has the power to bring about tremendous healing. Processed foods can cause irreversible harm, but natural, organic, whole foods can dramatically improve your health.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053860_HFCS_sodas_brain_damage.html#ixzz47UmXwfar
by: Isabelle Z.
We already know that sugar is bad for our health in general, but a remarkable study shows that its destruction even extends to our brains. That's right: The food you eat could actually be making you stupid.
According to research from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), fructose can damage your brain cells and spur a number of diseases, including Alzheimer's, heart disease, and diabetes.
In the study, researchers fed rats water spiked with fructose for a period of six weeks. This amount is roughly equal to a liter of soft drinks per day for humans. After that period, the rats were placed in a maze along with other rats who had only been given water to drink.
The rats who had been drinking fructose took double the amount of time it took the water-fed rats to complete the maze, even though both groups had received the same level of training. This implies that those who drank fructose were suffering from some sort of memory impairment.
Fructose is linked to a number of health conditions
Fructose can be found in cane sugar as well as in high-fructose corn syrup. While fructose does occur naturally in fruit, fruits also contain very important antioxidants that make them worth consuming. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans consume around 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup, and 47 pounds of cane sugar per year on average. This is pretty alarming when you consider the fact that studies have linked fructose consumption to fatty liver, obesity and diabetes.
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that fructose failed to trigger brain activity in the regions associated with satiety and feelings of fullness; it's almost as though fructose "tricks" the brain into seeking out food and increasing food intake.
Of course, high-fructose corn syrup is not the only unhealthy ingredient in foods. The truth is that grocery stores are full of dangerous foods, from canned goods that contain BPA, to food sprayed with toxic pesticides like cancer-causing glyphosate. There are so many dangers that Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, was inspired to write a book about it after analyzing a number of foods in his cutting-edge lab. The result of this effort is Food Forensics, which is set to be released this summer.
DHA has the power to reverse the harmful effects of fructose on the brain
Perhaps even more interestingly, the UCLA study also showed that the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) seemed to reverse the damage caused by fructose. A third group of rats who had been given an omega 3-rich flaxseed oil extract in addition to fructose water, were able to get through the maze almost as fast as those that had only been given water.
Senior author of the study Xia Yang said: "DHA changes not just one or two genes; it seems to push the entire gene pattern back to normal, which is remarkable."
DHA is also believed to help prevent age-related dementia. You can find DHA in fish – salmon is an especially good source. It can also be found in nuts and some vegetables.
UCLA Neurosurgery Professor Fernando Gomez-Pinilla said: "Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain's ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage."
It's no secret that certain foods have the power to heal, and this is something that the people behind the Natural Medicine, Healing and Wellness Summit are well aware of. In the summit, they show people how they can reverse disease and feel younger in general.
While food can do some serious damage to our bodies, it also has the power to bring about tremendous healing. Processed foods can cause irreversible harm, but natural, organic, whole foods can dramatically improve your health.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053860_HFCS_sodas_brain_damage.html#ixzz47UmXwfar
Urine for some interesting facts...
What Your Urine Color and Urine Odor Say About Your Health
By Dr. Victor Marchione
While we don’t tend to talk about our pee too often – even to our physicians – it’s actually part of an incredible system to which we owe much of our health. Our kidneys work round the clock to filter water-soluble wastes, toxins, bacteria, yeast, excess protein, and sugars out of our blood, that would otherwise build up in our system and make us ill. And not only does our urinary tract work as an effective filtration and disposal system, but it also functions as an early warning detection system, flagging certain signs and symptoms of potentially serious health problems that may otherwise go unnoticed.
The next time you head to the loo, here’s what to look for:
What your urine color says about your health
Urine is made up mostly of water, as well as uric acid, minerals, enzymes, waste materials, and substances such as urochrome, which gives urine its usual straw-yellow color. Here is your color reference list:Pink or red: From beets, blackberries, and iron supplements, the color change usually is temporary and harmless. It sometimes occurs after strenuous exercise, but it can also flag other, more serious conditions, such as hematuria (blood in the urine). A 2012 analysis published in the Southern Medical Journal lists off several possible causes, such as kidney stones, urinary tract infections, enlargement of the prostate gland, anemia, certain inherited conditions, or bladder cancer. If you notice pink- or red-hued urine, then contact your doctor immediately. Your doctor can perform a simple test to determine whether it’s actually due to blood in your urine and where to go from there.
Brown: From rhubarb and fava beans. This is also a common alert for the presence of a urinary tract infection, especially if you experience a burning sensation when you go. With normal urination, you shouldn’t feel any discomfort. Brown could also indicate a buildup of bilirubin in the blood, possibly indicating a liver problem, a blocked bile duct, a gallstone, hemolytic anemia, or a tumor.
Orange: From carrots and B vitamins. Darker orange could signal severe dehydration. This could easily be remedied by drinking more fluids, but if ignored it could eventually lead to serious complications such as cramping, chronic fatigue, brain swelling, seizures, or low blood volume.
Green or blue: From asparagus and some antidepressant medications. In more unusual cases, this could mean a urinary tract infection.
Dark yellow or amber: You may be severely dehydrated. Drink more fluids. If ignored, this could eventually lead to serious complications such as cramping, chronic fatigue, brain swelling, seizures, or low blood volume.
Transparent: Clear urine is a sign of being too hydrated.
Pale straw to amber or honey: This coloring reveals you are well hydrated, but if it gets darker you may need to fill up on some H2O.
White or milky: White or milky urine could indicate an excess of certain minerals or proteins in your urine. Consult with your doctor if your urine appears white or milky.
What your urine odor says about your health
Back in the day, doctors used to routinely smell a patient’s urine – and sometimes, even taste it – to help them diagnose particular conditions and illnesses. While this practice has largely been abandoned in modern-day medicine (you won’t hear me complaining here), an unusual smell emanating from the toilet bowl can be an important warning sign of something that isn’t quite right.The smell of your urine is related to the volume and concentration of certain chemicals that are excreted by your kidneys. Here’s what to note:
● No detectable odor: Normal. Urine doesn’t have a very detectable odor but, as with urine color, particular foods, supplements, and medications could cause your pee to be more pungent than usual.
● Slight odor: Asparagus, garlic, and meals high in animal-based foods, such as meat and eggs, are often to blame for odorous urine. Dehydration can also cause urine to be more concentrated, so it will have a stronger smell.
● Strong or foul odor: If your urine persists to have an unusually strong or foul smell, it could indicate a urinary tract infection, a kidney infection, bladder inflammation or infection, a metabolic disorder, a liver problem, or a sexually transmitted disease.
● Sweet, fruity, or yeasty odor: Could flag a case of diabetes or a rare genetic disease called Maple Syrup Urine Disease.
How often you need to go
On average, most people urinate about four to eight times a day. However, realistically, how often you go to the bathroom largely depends on how much fluid you drink, what you tend to eat, how much caffeine and alcohol you’ve had, how active you are, and what your daily lifestyle is like.Unfortunately, some people’s busy jobs and schedules lead them to “hold it in” for longer than others.
● Four to eight times a day: Normal range.
● More than eight times a day: The need to urinate more frequently often accompanies natural aging. Diuretic medications and some blood pressure medications can also cause you to go more often.
● Stronger sense of “urgency” or not experiencing a sense of completion after you’ve gone: Could be a symptom of several different health problems – urinary tract infection, pregnancy, prostate problems, type 1 or type 2 diabetes, an overactive bladder, interstitial cystitis (an inflamed bladder), or even a stroke or neurological disease.
Cloudy, foamy, or particulate urine
Normally, urine is clear or mostly translucent. If it’s completely clear and colorless, than it probably means you’ve been drinking a lot of water (it’s important to drink a lot of water every day, but drinking excessive amounts isn’t healthy either). Outside the norm, here’s what to watch for:
● Cloudy: If you occasionally notice that your urine is cloudy and are experiencing no other symptoms, it may simply indicate that you are mildly dehydrated and need to drink more. Cloudy urine could also be symptomatic of a urinary tract infection. In women, it could be due to vaginal discharge, vaginitis, or pregnancy. More serious potential causes include kidney issues, metabolic problems, pituitary problems, or a condition called chyluria, which is when chyle leaks into the urine due to a blocked lymph channel.
● Foamy: This is sometimes the result of an extremely fast stream of urine hitting the toilet bowl – nothing to be concerned about if this happens on occasion. But if you start to notice foamy urine more consistently, then it may be a sign of proteinuria, a condition characterized by a high concentration of protein in the urine and that usually indicates a kidney condition. It could also flag diabetes, an infection, or high blood pressure.
● Visible particles: This can be a sign of kidney problems, as well as the presence of bladder stones, kidney disease, a urinary tract infection, or other serious conditions.
Maintain and care for your urinary tract system
Most of us have been conditioned to wrinkle up our noses when it comes to urine, or to just flush it down without a second thought. But in order to notice the unusual warning signs that your pee may be trying to give you, you have to first familiarize yourself with its usual qualities – and this involves shamelessly looking down into the toilet bowl now and again, and noting what your pee looks like and smells like. It also involves paying attention to your daily bathroom habits and making sure that you are taking care of your urinary tract system.
Staying adequately hydrated is not the only key for maintaining a healthy urinary system, but it is also vital for healthy digestion and elimination, for keeping blood pressure and body temperature normal, for cushioning your joints and, essentially, for the proper functioning of every single organ and system in your body. And while most of us are familiar with the ‘eight glasses of fluid a day’ rule, the truth is that our actual fluid needs vary from individual to individual, depending on your weight, size, activity level, caffeine, alcohol, salt and sugar intake, medications you may be on, as well as the weather and climate you live in.
Drinking eight tall glasses of water a day could work as an easy guide to ensure you are drinking, but be sure to drink more on hot days, after you exercise, and when you are consuming caffeine, alcohol, or a lot of sugary or salty foods. Or drink when you are thirsty, and let your urine be your guide – if it’s darker than straw yellow, then try drinking purer, fresh water, noting how your urine color changes as your water intake changes.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/dr-victor-marchione/next-time-go-loo/
By Dr. Victor Marchione
While we don’t tend to talk about our pee too often – even to our physicians – it’s actually part of an incredible system to which we owe much of our health. Our kidneys work round the clock to filter water-soluble wastes, toxins, bacteria, yeast, excess protein, and sugars out of our blood, that would otherwise build up in our system and make us ill. And not only does our urinary tract work as an effective filtration and disposal system, but it also functions as an early warning detection system, flagging certain signs and symptoms of potentially serious health problems that may otherwise go unnoticed.
The next time you head to the loo, here’s what to look for:
What your urine color says about your health
Urine is made up mostly of water, as well as uric acid, minerals, enzymes, waste materials, and substances such as urochrome, which gives urine its usual straw-yellow color. Here is your color reference list:Pink or red: From beets, blackberries, and iron supplements, the color change usually is temporary and harmless. It sometimes occurs after strenuous exercise, but it can also flag other, more serious conditions, such as hematuria (blood in the urine). A 2012 analysis published in the Southern Medical Journal lists off several possible causes, such as kidney stones, urinary tract infections, enlargement of the prostate gland, anemia, certain inherited conditions, or bladder cancer. If you notice pink- or red-hued urine, then contact your doctor immediately. Your doctor can perform a simple test to determine whether it’s actually due to blood in your urine and where to go from there.
Brown: From rhubarb and fava beans. This is also a common alert for the presence of a urinary tract infection, especially if you experience a burning sensation when you go. With normal urination, you shouldn’t feel any discomfort. Brown could also indicate a buildup of bilirubin in the blood, possibly indicating a liver problem, a blocked bile duct, a gallstone, hemolytic anemia, or a tumor.
Orange: From carrots and B vitamins. Darker orange could signal severe dehydration. This could easily be remedied by drinking more fluids, but if ignored it could eventually lead to serious complications such as cramping, chronic fatigue, brain swelling, seizures, or low blood volume.
Green or blue: From asparagus and some antidepressant medications. In more unusual cases, this could mean a urinary tract infection.
Dark yellow or amber: You may be severely dehydrated. Drink more fluids. If ignored, this could eventually lead to serious complications such as cramping, chronic fatigue, brain swelling, seizures, or low blood volume.
Transparent: Clear urine is a sign of being too hydrated.
Pale straw to amber or honey: This coloring reveals you are well hydrated, but if it gets darker you may need to fill up on some H2O.
White or milky: White or milky urine could indicate an excess of certain minerals or proteins in your urine. Consult with your doctor if your urine appears white or milky.
What your urine odor says about your health
Back in the day, doctors used to routinely smell a patient’s urine – and sometimes, even taste it – to help them diagnose particular conditions and illnesses. While this practice has largely been abandoned in modern-day medicine (you won’t hear me complaining here), an unusual smell emanating from the toilet bowl can be an important warning sign of something that isn’t quite right.The smell of your urine is related to the volume and concentration of certain chemicals that are excreted by your kidneys. Here’s what to note:
● No detectable odor: Normal. Urine doesn’t have a very detectable odor but, as with urine color, particular foods, supplements, and medications could cause your pee to be more pungent than usual.
● Slight odor: Asparagus, garlic, and meals high in animal-based foods, such as meat and eggs, are often to blame for odorous urine. Dehydration can also cause urine to be more concentrated, so it will have a stronger smell.
● Strong or foul odor: If your urine persists to have an unusually strong or foul smell, it could indicate a urinary tract infection, a kidney infection, bladder inflammation or infection, a metabolic disorder, a liver problem, or a sexually transmitted disease.
● Sweet, fruity, or yeasty odor: Could flag a case of diabetes or a rare genetic disease called Maple Syrup Urine Disease.
How often you need to go
On average, most people urinate about four to eight times a day. However, realistically, how often you go to the bathroom largely depends on how much fluid you drink, what you tend to eat, how much caffeine and alcohol you’ve had, how active you are, and what your daily lifestyle is like.Unfortunately, some people’s busy jobs and schedules lead them to “hold it in” for longer than others.
● Four to eight times a day: Normal range.
● More than eight times a day: The need to urinate more frequently often accompanies natural aging. Diuretic medications and some blood pressure medications can also cause you to go more often.
● Stronger sense of “urgency” or not experiencing a sense of completion after you’ve gone: Could be a symptom of several different health problems – urinary tract infection, pregnancy, prostate problems, type 1 or type 2 diabetes, an overactive bladder, interstitial cystitis (an inflamed bladder), or even a stroke or neurological disease.
Cloudy, foamy, or particulate urine
Normally, urine is clear or mostly translucent. If it’s completely clear and colorless, than it probably means you’ve been drinking a lot of water (it’s important to drink a lot of water every day, but drinking excessive amounts isn’t healthy either). Outside the norm, here’s what to watch for:
● Cloudy: If you occasionally notice that your urine is cloudy and are experiencing no other symptoms, it may simply indicate that you are mildly dehydrated and need to drink more. Cloudy urine could also be symptomatic of a urinary tract infection. In women, it could be due to vaginal discharge, vaginitis, or pregnancy. More serious potential causes include kidney issues, metabolic problems, pituitary problems, or a condition called chyluria, which is when chyle leaks into the urine due to a blocked lymph channel.
● Foamy: This is sometimes the result of an extremely fast stream of urine hitting the toilet bowl – nothing to be concerned about if this happens on occasion. But if you start to notice foamy urine more consistently, then it may be a sign of proteinuria, a condition characterized by a high concentration of protein in the urine and that usually indicates a kidney condition. It could also flag diabetes, an infection, or high blood pressure.
● Visible particles: This can be a sign of kidney problems, as well as the presence of bladder stones, kidney disease, a urinary tract infection, or other serious conditions.
Maintain and care for your urinary tract system
Most of us have been conditioned to wrinkle up our noses when it comes to urine, or to just flush it down without a second thought. But in order to notice the unusual warning signs that your pee may be trying to give you, you have to first familiarize yourself with its usual qualities – and this involves shamelessly looking down into the toilet bowl now and again, and noting what your pee looks like and smells like. It also involves paying attention to your daily bathroom habits and making sure that you are taking care of your urinary tract system.
Staying adequately hydrated is not the only key for maintaining a healthy urinary system, but it is also vital for healthy digestion and elimination, for keeping blood pressure and body temperature normal, for cushioning your joints and, essentially, for the proper functioning of every single organ and system in your body. And while most of us are familiar with the ‘eight glasses of fluid a day’ rule, the truth is that our actual fluid needs vary from individual to individual, depending on your weight, size, activity level, caffeine, alcohol, salt and sugar intake, medications you may be on, as well as the weather and climate you live in.
Drinking eight tall glasses of water a day could work as an easy guide to ensure you are drinking, but be sure to drink more on hot days, after you exercise, and when you are consuming caffeine, alcohol, or a lot of sugary or salty foods. Or drink when you are thirsty, and let your urine be your guide – if it’s darker than straw yellow, then try drinking purer, fresh water, noting how your urine color changes as your water intake changes.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/dr-victor-marchione/next-time-go-loo/
"To understand the arguments of labor union economist in favor of the minimum wage, follow the money."
Labor Unions and the Minimum Wage: "We Got Ours -- Screw You."
By Gary North
Fred Reed wrote a gem of a rhetorical essay, “Capitalism and the Minimum Wage: ‘I Got Mine, Screw You.'” I was so impressed that I stole it, almost word for word, changing only “capitalism” to “trade unionism.”
Reed is a master of rhetoric. When his logic is sound, he is devastating — a model.
The problem comes in this case from his focus on producers: capitalists. This is mercantilist. The free market focuses on consumers. Why? Because they own the most marketable commodity: money. This point was made by Carl Menger in his final essay on economics in 1892. Ludwig von Mises wrote The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) in terms of this principle.
Producers compete with producers to gain consumers’ money. Consumers want lower prices. Capitalists cut costs so they can offer lower prices.
Customers drive the process. They are self-centered. They ask “What’s in it for me?” They ask: “What have you done for me lately?”
The ruthlessness of producers is driven by the ruthlessness of consumers.
When it comes to ruthlessness, I can do no better than to quote Pogo Possum: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
So, read Reed’s essay. The read mine. Same rhetoric, different analysis.
He asks us to follow the money. This is correct. But we must follow it all the way back to its source: consumers.
He began with producers: capitalists. I begin with producers: labor unions. They both want deliverance from consumers. They both invoke the state. “Help! Consumers are ruthless!” My advice: trust neither group. Instead, start with consumers. They have the money.
To understand the arguments of labor union economist in favor of the minimum wage, follow the money. In all the thickets of pious reasoning about the merits of trade unionism and economic justice, and of collective bargaining, and of allowing this marvelous mechanism to work its magic, and of what Walter Reuther said, the key is the dollar. The rest is fraud. Carefully ignored is the question that will be crucial in coming decades: What to do about an ever-increasing number of union members for whom there is no work.
There is of course much hypocrisy in the theoretical edifice. For example, unions argue that the minimum wage constitutes a morally necessary interference by the government in the conduct of business–meanwhile sending armies of lobbyists to Washington to make the government ignore laws against union cartels. In fact, unions have no objection to federal refusal to enforce the law. They just want it to be laissez-faire such that it puts more money in their pockets. Nothing more. Ever.
In like fashion they say that they want to protect the worker’s freedom to associate–yes, his freedom, such is the union’s benevolence, the worker’s freedom of association–to keep non-union members from selling their labor at a mutually agreed price. Curiously, in practice, this means the union’s freedom to push wages as close to business bankruptcy as it can get away with. This miraculous congruence of high principle with high wages for union members is among the wonders of the universe.
In every case, without exception, the labor union official’s high principles will lead to more in his pocket. He will be for a minimum wage because he says, it encourages inner city young blacks to stay in school and earn a diploma. You can just tell he is deeply concerned about young blacks. He probably wakes up in the middle of the night, worrying about them. He doesn’t, however, let any of them in the union. Purely incidentally, having a minimum wage saves him . . . competition from scabs. And if he were truly concerned about young blacks, might he not express this concern by letting them into the union, so they can earn a living wage after graduation?
Nah.
The quest for above-market wages has perhaps caused less misery than war–itself a most profitable business, war–but it is neck and neck. Union leaders used goon squads to keep businesses from hiring anyone who offered to work at a market wage, with disastrous results continuing to this day. Labor union leaders discourage legal immigration from the Latin lands so as to limit market-wage labor. They call for tariffs and quotas against imports that make it possible for poor people to have cheap goods. And now they warn against technologies to produce cheap goods . . . robots.
These will drudge away day and night, making no demands, never unionizing, needing no retirement or medical benefits. Actually, though, union leaders oppose robots because they care about freedom of association and want to help young blacks.
A cynic might see this as intellectual scaffolding for left wing social Darwinism -- called Progressivism -- and accountability to society--see, it's all due to the love of social justice, and the union official is only a bystander. But no. It is about freedom, and justice, and all.
Among the fantastic trappings of--"social justice" sounds nicer than "closed shop," doesn't it?--is that it rewards political mobilization and determination, which if pursued will lead to prosperity. This is both believed and beloved by many who believe it in part because for them it performed as described. The intelligent, healthy, ambitious and--a major advantage--unscrupulous can usually get ahead. And so, talking with others like themselves, they ask, "If I can do it, why can't they?" The underlying notion is that the poor are poor because they are unrepresented and lack mobilization. Some fit the description. Lots don't.
Here we come to Commentator's Disease, epidemic among talking heads and columnists.
A woman of my acquaintance once said, "In Washington, you assume that everybody outside the District is in the 10th percentile and needs bureaucratic representation. We high-IQ people are here to help them" Decompressed from the apothegmatic, it is true. Cognitive stratification is very real, though seldom noticed and never mentioned. The city attracts the highly bright. They hang out together. They date. They marry. They don't know anybody who is not like them. The same holds in many places, and on the web, but Washington is where policy comes from.
By and large they are neither arrogant nor snobs. Since they are all in the same bracket, snobbery would be difficult. They include a great many journalists. It is fun to speak of the press as imbeciles, but, apart perhaps from babble-blonde anchors chosen for their looks, they are not. The duller probably clock an IQ of 120. Even at dismal publications like Army Times and Federal Computer Week, with both of which I was once familiar, you find very smart people.
What has this to do with the minimum wage? A fair amount. People of IQ 130 and up tend to assume unconsciously--important word: "unconsciously"--that you can do anything just by doing it. If they wanted to learn Sanskrit, they would get a textbook and go for it. It would take time and effort, but the outcome would never be in doubt. Yes, of course they understand that some people are smarter than others, but they often seem not to grasp how much smarter, or what the consequences are. A large part of the population can't learn much of anything. Not won't. Can't. Displaced auto workers cannot be retrained as IT professionals.
Few of the very bright have have ever had to make the unhappy calculation: Forty times a low minimum wage minus bus fare to work, rent, food, medical care, and cable. They have never had to choose between a winter coat and cable, their only entertainment. They don't really know that many people do. Out of sight, out of mind.
Cognitive stratification has political consequences. It leads liberals to think that their client groups can go to college. It leads conservatives to think that with hard work and determination . . .
It ain't so. An economic system that works reasonably well when there are lots of simple jobs doesn't when there aren't. In particular, the large number of people at IQ 90 and below will increasingly be simply unnecessary. If you are, say, a decent, honest young woman of IQ 85, you probably read poorly, learn slowly and only simple things. Being promoted, or even hired, requires abilities that you do not have. This, plus high (and federally concealed) unemployment allows employers to pay you barely enough to stay alive. Here is the wondrous working of the market.
As the stock market reaches new highs and the nation's wealth is distributed at the same percentage as it was in 1897 when Vilfredo Pareto first reported on the 20/80 curve of wealth ownership, we hear that a rising tide floats all boats. This is fine if you have a boat. Maybe it only looks as though capitalists flourish while the middle class sinks and the welfare rolls grow and kids have to live at home and they will have no retirement. Well, some boats leak, I guess -- just as they did in 1897, when the rich had a lower standard of living than someone on welfare has today -- no cell phone, no electricity, no TV, no radio, and no free emergency care at a local hospital.
When the theorists of trade unionism imagine that our dim-witted young lady should be paid as much as a high school graduate with ambition, they do not worry that her labor isn't worth enough to feed her. Some who say this simply do not understand what her life is going to be if she is paid what her labor is worth. Others, with the lack of empathy that characterizes conservatives, don't care. If you look at the godawful conditions of their employees in the sweatshops of, say, Bangladesh, you will see that not caring is common. Let them eat cake.
The question arises: What does the country do with the large and growing number of people whose labor is worth nothing? Or, perhaps more accurately, whose labor isn't needed at above-market, union-mandated wages? We see this in the cities today. An illiterate kid in Detroit has no value at all in the market for labor. Assuming that he wants to work, a questionable assumption, what then? Endlessly expanding welfare? What about the literate, averagely intelligent kid for whom there are no jobs at union-secured, National Labor Relations Board-mandated wages? If people working in McDonald's can barely live on their wages, and strike, or the state institutes a higher minimum wage, McDonald's will automate their jobs, is automating their jobs, and conservatives will exult--the unionized bastards got what they asked for.
This is trade unionism in its perfection.
Link:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/15125.cfm
By Gary North
Fred Reed wrote a gem of a rhetorical essay, “Capitalism and the Minimum Wage: ‘I Got Mine, Screw You.'” I was so impressed that I stole it, almost word for word, changing only “capitalism” to “trade unionism.”
Reed is a master of rhetoric. When his logic is sound, he is devastating — a model.
The problem comes in this case from his focus on producers: capitalists. This is mercantilist. The free market focuses on consumers. Why? Because they own the most marketable commodity: money. This point was made by Carl Menger in his final essay on economics in 1892. Ludwig von Mises wrote The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) in terms of this principle.
Producers compete with producers to gain consumers’ money. Consumers want lower prices. Capitalists cut costs so they can offer lower prices.
Customers drive the process. They are self-centered. They ask “What’s in it for me?” They ask: “What have you done for me lately?”
The ruthlessness of producers is driven by the ruthlessness of consumers.
When it comes to ruthlessness, I can do no better than to quote Pogo Possum: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
So, read Reed’s essay. The read mine. Same rhetoric, different analysis.
He asks us to follow the money. This is correct. But we must follow it all the way back to its source: consumers.
He began with producers: capitalists. I begin with producers: labor unions. They both want deliverance from consumers. They both invoke the state. “Help! Consumers are ruthless!” My advice: trust neither group. Instead, start with consumers. They have the money.
To understand the arguments of labor union economist in favor of the minimum wage, follow the money. In all the thickets of pious reasoning about the merits of trade unionism and economic justice, and of collective bargaining, and of allowing this marvelous mechanism to work its magic, and of what Walter Reuther said, the key is the dollar. The rest is fraud. Carefully ignored is the question that will be crucial in coming decades: What to do about an ever-increasing number of union members for whom there is no work.
There is of course much hypocrisy in the theoretical edifice. For example, unions argue that the minimum wage constitutes a morally necessary interference by the government in the conduct of business–meanwhile sending armies of lobbyists to Washington to make the government ignore laws against union cartels. In fact, unions have no objection to federal refusal to enforce the law. They just want it to be laissez-faire such that it puts more money in their pockets. Nothing more. Ever.
In like fashion they say that they want to protect the worker’s freedom to associate–yes, his freedom, such is the union’s benevolence, the worker’s freedom of association–to keep non-union members from selling their labor at a mutually agreed price. Curiously, in practice, this means the union’s freedom to push wages as close to business bankruptcy as it can get away with. This miraculous congruence of high principle with high wages for union members is among the wonders of the universe.
In every case, without exception, the labor union official’s high principles will lead to more in his pocket. He will be for a minimum wage because he says, it encourages inner city young blacks to stay in school and earn a diploma. You can just tell he is deeply concerned about young blacks. He probably wakes up in the middle of the night, worrying about them. He doesn’t, however, let any of them in the union. Purely incidentally, having a minimum wage saves him . . . competition from scabs. And if he were truly concerned about young blacks, might he not express this concern by letting them into the union, so they can earn a living wage after graduation?
Nah.
The quest for above-market wages has perhaps caused less misery than war–itself a most profitable business, war–but it is neck and neck. Union leaders used goon squads to keep businesses from hiring anyone who offered to work at a market wage, with disastrous results continuing to this day. Labor union leaders discourage legal immigration from the Latin lands so as to limit market-wage labor. They call for tariffs and quotas against imports that make it possible for poor people to have cheap goods. And now they warn against technologies to produce cheap goods . . . robots.
These will drudge away day and night, making no demands, never unionizing, needing no retirement or medical benefits. Actually, though, union leaders oppose robots because they care about freedom of association and want to help young blacks.
A cynic might see this as intellectual scaffolding for left wing social Darwinism -- called Progressivism -- and accountability to society--see, it's all due to the love of social justice, and the union official is only a bystander. But no. It is about freedom, and justice, and all.
Among the fantastic trappings of--"social justice" sounds nicer than "closed shop," doesn't it?--is that it rewards political mobilization and determination, which if pursued will lead to prosperity. This is both believed and beloved by many who believe it in part because for them it performed as described. The intelligent, healthy, ambitious and--a major advantage--unscrupulous can usually get ahead. And so, talking with others like themselves, they ask, "If I can do it, why can't they?" The underlying notion is that the poor are poor because they are unrepresented and lack mobilization. Some fit the description. Lots don't.
Here we come to Commentator's Disease, epidemic among talking heads and columnists.
A woman of my acquaintance once said, "In Washington, you assume that everybody outside the District is in the 10th percentile and needs bureaucratic representation. We high-IQ people are here to help them" Decompressed from the apothegmatic, it is true. Cognitive stratification is very real, though seldom noticed and never mentioned. The city attracts the highly bright. They hang out together. They date. They marry. They don't know anybody who is not like them. The same holds in many places, and on the web, but Washington is where policy comes from.
By and large they are neither arrogant nor snobs. Since they are all in the same bracket, snobbery would be difficult. They include a great many journalists. It is fun to speak of the press as imbeciles, but, apart perhaps from babble-blonde anchors chosen for their looks, they are not. The duller probably clock an IQ of 120. Even at dismal publications like Army Times and Federal Computer Week, with both of which I was once familiar, you find very smart people.
What has this to do with the minimum wage? A fair amount. People of IQ 130 and up tend to assume unconsciously--important word: "unconsciously"--that you can do anything just by doing it. If they wanted to learn Sanskrit, they would get a textbook and go for it. It would take time and effort, but the outcome would never be in doubt. Yes, of course they understand that some people are smarter than others, but they often seem not to grasp how much smarter, or what the consequences are. A large part of the population can't learn much of anything. Not won't. Can't. Displaced auto workers cannot be retrained as IT professionals.
Few of the very bright have have ever had to make the unhappy calculation: Forty times a low minimum wage minus bus fare to work, rent, food, medical care, and cable. They have never had to choose between a winter coat and cable, their only entertainment. They don't really know that many people do. Out of sight, out of mind.
Cognitive stratification has political consequences. It leads liberals to think that their client groups can go to college. It leads conservatives to think that with hard work and determination . . .
It ain't so. An economic system that works reasonably well when there are lots of simple jobs doesn't when there aren't. In particular, the large number of people at IQ 90 and below will increasingly be simply unnecessary. If you are, say, a decent, honest young woman of IQ 85, you probably read poorly, learn slowly and only simple things. Being promoted, or even hired, requires abilities that you do not have. This, plus high (and federally concealed) unemployment allows employers to pay you barely enough to stay alive. Here is the wondrous working of the market.
As the stock market reaches new highs and the nation's wealth is distributed at the same percentage as it was in 1897 when Vilfredo Pareto first reported on the 20/80 curve of wealth ownership, we hear that a rising tide floats all boats. This is fine if you have a boat. Maybe it only looks as though capitalists flourish while the middle class sinks and the welfare rolls grow and kids have to live at home and they will have no retirement. Well, some boats leak, I guess -- just as they did in 1897, when the rich had a lower standard of living than someone on welfare has today -- no cell phone, no electricity, no TV, no radio, and no free emergency care at a local hospital.
When the theorists of trade unionism imagine that our dim-witted young lady should be paid as much as a high school graduate with ambition, they do not worry that her labor isn't worth enough to feed her. Some who say this simply do not understand what her life is going to be if she is paid what her labor is worth. Others, with the lack of empathy that characterizes conservatives, don't care. If you look at the godawful conditions of their employees in the sweatshops of, say, Bangladesh, you will see that not caring is common. Let them eat cake.
The question arises: What does the country do with the large and growing number of people whose labor is worth nothing? Or, perhaps more accurately, whose labor isn't needed at above-market, union-mandated wages? We see this in the cities today. An illiterate kid in Detroit has no value at all in the market for labor. Assuming that he wants to work, a questionable assumption, what then? Endlessly expanding welfare? What about the literate, averagely intelligent kid for whom there are no jobs at union-secured, National Labor Relations Board-mandated wages? If people working in McDonald's can barely live on their wages, and strike, or the state institutes a higher minimum wage, McDonald's will automate their jobs, is automating their jobs, and conservatives will exult--the unionized bastards got what they asked for.
This is trade unionism in its perfection.
Link:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/15125.cfm
"The establishment adores Hamilton (and hates Jefferson) because Hamilton was a consummate statist and imperialist."
The Establishment’s Love Affair With Hamilton
By Thomas DiLorenzo
When former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke got wind of the fact that the U.S. Treasury Department was considering replacing Alexander Hamilton on the ten-dollar bill he threw a fit of protest. Writing on his Brookings Institution blog, Bernanke said that he was “appalled” that “the greatest of the founding fathers” (and the founding father of central banking) would be mistreated in this way.
The New York Times immediately weighed in, apparently outraged that such a famous New Yorker would ever be demoted in such a way. The neocons were especially incensed over the proposal. After all, David Brooks of the New York Times has claimed that Hamilton single-handedly “created” American capitalism all by himself with help from no one, not even God Himself.
Pat Buchanan, who once said to me that “Hamilton is my hero,” must have lost a lot of sleep over it as well. Around the same time, New Yorkers began flocking to a new Broadway musical named “Hamilton” that repeats the old statist tale about how allegedly wonderful the statist/imperialist Hamilton was compared to the strict constructionist, “that government is best which governs least,” Thomas Jefferson.
The establishment adores Hamilton (and hates Jefferson) because Hamilton was a consummate statist and imperialist. He persistently denounced his nemesis Jefferson for his “excessive concern for liberty.” When President Jefferson announced in his first inaugural address that his foreign policy would be “honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” and that “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . .”, Hamilton denounced it as “the symptom of a pygmy mind.” Hamilton wanted a more centrally-planned and government-subsidized and supervised economy, and was itching to start a war with France in the name of what he called “imperial glory.”
When the constitutional convention quickly discarded Hamilton’s proposal of a permanent president (i.e., a king) who would appoint all the state governors who would have veto power over all state legislation, effectively destroying any semblance of federalism, Hamilton loudly denounced the Constitution as “a frail and worthless fabric.”
Hamilton’s objective was “to build the foundations of a new empire,” wrote Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter. Just like the British empire, against which the American Revolution had just been fought. Hamilton “had perhaps the highest respect for the government of any important American political thinker who ever lived,” wrote Rossiter. No wonder the government establishment has always been “in love” with Hamilton.
Hamilton was the founding father of constitutional subversion, having literally invented the “implied powers of the constitution” scam during his debate with Jefferson over the constitutionality of a national bank. (He was for it; Jefferson opposed it). Of course, once it is conceded that there might be “implied” as opposed to explicit, delegated powers of the federal government, you are on the road to unlimited government, which is the road that Hamilton favored. “With the aid of the doctrine of implied powers,” Clinton Rossiter boasted, Hamilton “converted the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 into foundations for whatever prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate.” The “living constitution” was born. No wonder the establishment loves Hamilton.
With such lawyerly subterfuge, Hamilton hoped to “affix a certain certificate of constitutionality to every last tax,” said Rossiter. “Hamilton took a large view of the power of Congress to tax because he took a large view of the power to spend.”
His view of the Constitution was the exact opposite of Jefferson’s. With Jefferson, the government should be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.” To Hamilton, the Constitution could and should be used as a rubber stamp on anything the federal government ever proposed to do. This, in fact, is the kind of Constitution that Americans have slaved under now for several generations.
Hamilton harbored the bloody impulse to literally murder tax dissenters and anyone who challenged the “authority” of the federal government, as was proven by his behavior during the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion. This impulse would eventually become the defining characteristic of the federal government during the Lincoln regime, with Lincoln being the political son of Alexander Hamilton.
When Pennsylvania farmers began fermenting grain into whiskey and protested Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s new whiskey tax as discriminatory, Hamilton persuaded George Washington to ask governors along the eastern seaboard to conscript 15,000 men to march into Western Pennsylvania to quell the protest. They captured several dozen leaders of the tax protest movement and marched them across the state barefoot in the winter and put them on “trial” in Philadelphia, with Hamilton posing as the “judge.” Hamilton wanted to hang all of them to teach all other taxpayers a lesson, but George Washington introduced a dose of sanity to the whole affair by pardoning all of them, to Hamilton’s everlasting dismay. No wonder the establishment loves and adores Hamilton.
Hamilton was the political water boy for the crony capitalist one-percenters of his day. All of his efforts to create a bank run by politicians out of the nation’s capital (the First Bank of the United States) had one main purpose: to provide cheap credit for his big business political patrons in New York and Philadelphia, and to subsidize the banking industry itself, at the expense of the general public.
Hamilton was a protectionist who repeated all the silly slogans of the British mercantilists. He wanted to bring the rotten, corrupt, British system of “mercantilism,” against which the Revolution had been fought, to America, run by Americans like himself and his New York political cronies. He mocked the free-trade views of his British contemporary, Adam Smith, the French physiocrats, and almost all other economic scholars of his day as he advocated ripping off the common man for the benefit, once again, of his big business political patrons who wanted to be protected from international competition. (As John C. Calhoun once said, what the public is “protected” from with protectionism is low prices for goods).
As though that weren’t enough pandering for the benefit of the founding one percenters, Hamilton also championed direct corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer subsidies for all kinds of businesses and industries in his famous Report on Manufactures. It was called the “infant industry argument” for corporate welfare, but of course, because America was a young country, ALL industries could be labeled “infant” industries! He just did not believe that commerce could succeed without his guiding hand.
Hamilton championed the biggest corporate welfare subsidies for the road- and canal-building corporations even though thousands of miles of roads had been built by private companies with private capital by the early 1800s. Just in case tax revenues weren’t enough to cover all these blatantly unconstitutional expenditures that appear nowhere in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Hamilton waxed eloquently about how the public debt could be “a public blessing.”
Hamilton’s argument for the “blessing” of a large public debt was quite Machiavellian. His theory was that because the wealthier people of the country would be the owners of the debt (i.e., government bonds), they would form a formidable lobbying power for higher taxes and bigger and more centralized government to assure that their bonds would always be paid off. As William Graham Sumner wrote in his biography of Hamilton, he wanted a large national debt because of “its tendency to strengthen our . . . government by increasing the number of ligaments between the government and interests of individuals.” Rich and politically-influential individuals, that is. And as Douglas Adair, an editor of The Federalist Papers, wrote in the introduction to one edition of the publication:
With devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system . . . . Hamilton transformed every financial transaction of the Treasury Department into an orgy of speculation and graft in which selected senators, congressmen, and certain of their richer constituents throughout the nation participated.
Is there any wonder why the “establishment” of “senators, congressmen, and richer constituents throughout the nation” today are so worshipful of Hamilton and so relieved that his mug shot remains on the ten-dollar bill?
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/thomas-dilorenzo/establishment-love-affair/
By Thomas DiLorenzo
When former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke got wind of the fact that the U.S. Treasury Department was considering replacing Alexander Hamilton on the ten-dollar bill he threw a fit of protest. Writing on his Brookings Institution blog, Bernanke said that he was “appalled” that “the greatest of the founding fathers” (and the founding father of central banking) would be mistreated in this way.
The New York Times immediately weighed in, apparently outraged that such a famous New Yorker would ever be demoted in such a way. The neocons were especially incensed over the proposal. After all, David Brooks of the New York Times has claimed that Hamilton single-handedly “created” American capitalism all by himself with help from no one, not even God Himself.
Pat Buchanan, who once said to me that “Hamilton is my hero,” must have lost a lot of sleep over it as well. Around the same time, New Yorkers began flocking to a new Broadway musical named “Hamilton” that repeats the old statist tale about how allegedly wonderful the statist/imperialist Hamilton was compared to the strict constructionist, “that government is best which governs least,” Thomas Jefferson.
The establishment adores Hamilton (and hates Jefferson) because Hamilton was a consummate statist and imperialist. He persistently denounced his nemesis Jefferson for his “excessive concern for liberty.” When President Jefferson announced in his first inaugural address that his foreign policy would be “honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” and that “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . .”, Hamilton denounced it as “the symptom of a pygmy mind.” Hamilton wanted a more centrally-planned and government-subsidized and supervised economy, and was itching to start a war with France in the name of what he called “imperial glory.”
When the constitutional convention quickly discarded Hamilton’s proposal of a permanent president (i.e., a king) who would appoint all the state governors who would have veto power over all state legislation, effectively destroying any semblance of federalism, Hamilton loudly denounced the Constitution as “a frail and worthless fabric.”
Hamilton’s objective was “to build the foundations of a new empire,” wrote Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter. Just like the British empire, against which the American Revolution had just been fought. Hamilton “had perhaps the highest respect for the government of any important American political thinker who ever lived,” wrote Rossiter. No wonder the government establishment has always been “in love” with Hamilton.
Hamilton was the founding father of constitutional subversion, having literally invented the “implied powers of the constitution” scam during his debate with Jefferson over the constitutionality of a national bank. (He was for it; Jefferson opposed it). Of course, once it is conceded that there might be “implied” as opposed to explicit, delegated powers of the federal government, you are on the road to unlimited government, which is the road that Hamilton favored. “With the aid of the doctrine of implied powers,” Clinton Rossiter boasted, Hamilton “converted the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 into foundations for whatever prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate.” The “living constitution” was born. No wonder the establishment loves Hamilton.
With such lawyerly subterfuge, Hamilton hoped to “affix a certain certificate of constitutionality to every last tax,” said Rossiter. “Hamilton took a large view of the power of Congress to tax because he took a large view of the power to spend.”
His view of the Constitution was the exact opposite of Jefferson’s. With Jefferson, the government should be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.” To Hamilton, the Constitution could and should be used as a rubber stamp on anything the federal government ever proposed to do. This, in fact, is the kind of Constitution that Americans have slaved under now for several generations.
Hamilton harbored the bloody impulse to literally murder tax dissenters and anyone who challenged the “authority” of the federal government, as was proven by his behavior during the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion. This impulse would eventually become the defining characteristic of the federal government during the Lincoln regime, with Lincoln being the political son of Alexander Hamilton.
When Pennsylvania farmers began fermenting grain into whiskey and protested Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s new whiskey tax as discriminatory, Hamilton persuaded George Washington to ask governors along the eastern seaboard to conscript 15,000 men to march into Western Pennsylvania to quell the protest. They captured several dozen leaders of the tax protest movement and marched them across the state barefoot in the winter and put them on “trial” in Philadelphia, with Hamilton posing as the “judge.” Hamilton wanted to hang all of them to teach all other taxpayers a lesson, but George Washington introduced a dose of sanity to the whole affair by pardoning all of them, to Hamilton’s everlasting dismay. No wonder the establishment loves and adores Hamilton.
Hamilton was the political water boy for the crony capitalist one-percenters of his day. All of his efforts to create a bank run by politicians out of the nation’s capital (the First Bank of the United States) had one main purpose: to provide cheap credit for his big business political patrons in New York and Philadelphia, and to subsidize the banking industry itself, at the expense of the general public.
Hamilton was a protectionist who repeated all the silly slogans of the British mercantilists. He wanted to bring the rotten, corrupt, British system of “mercantilism,” against which the Revolution had been fought, to America, run by Americans like himself and his New York political cronies. He mocked the free-trade views of his British contemporary, Adam Smith, the French physiocrats, and almost all other economic scholars of his day as he advocated ripping off the common man for the benefit, once again, of his big business political patrons who wanted to be protected from international competition. (As John C. Calhoun once said, what the public is “protected” from with protectionism is low prices for goods).
As though that weren’t enough pandering for the benefit of the founding one percenters, Hamilton also championed direct corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer subsidies for all kinds of businesses and industries in his famous Report on Manufactures. It was called the “infant industry argument” for corporate welfare, but of course, because America was a young country, ALL industries could be labeled “infant” industries! He just did not believe that commerce could succeed without his guiding hand.
Hamilton championed the biggest corporate welfare subsidies for the road- and canal-building corporations even though thousands of miles of roads had been built by private companies with private capital by the early 1800s. Just in case tax revenues weren’t enough to cover all these blatantly unconstitutional expenditures that appear nowhere in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Hamilton waxed eloquently about how the public debt could be “a public blessing.”
Hamilton’s argument for the “blessing” of a large public debt was quite Machiavellian. His theory was that because the wealthier people of the country would be the owners of the debt (i.e., government bonds), they would form a formidable lobbying power for higher taxes and bigger and more centralized government to assure that their bonds would always be paid off. As William Graham Sumner wrote in his biography of Hamilton, he wanted a large national debt because of “its tendency to strengthen our . . . government by increasing the number of ligaments between the government and interests of individuals.” Rich and politically-influential individuals, that is. And as Douglas Adair, an editor of The Federalist Papers, wrote in the introduction to one edition of the publication:
With devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system . . . . Hamilton transformed every financial transaction of the Treasury Department into an orgy of speculation and graft in which selected senators, congressmen, and certain of their richer constituents throughout the nation participated.
Is there any wonder why the “establishment” of “senators, congressmen, and richer constituents throughout the nation” today are so worshipful of Hamilton and so relieved that his mug shot remains on the ten-dollar bill?
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/thomas-dilorenzo/establishment-love-affair/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)