Sunday, November 22, 2020

The COVID Cult

 I attempted multiple times to share this video on Facebook, but my posts keep mysteriously disappearing. So I'm going to post it here, and link to it on Facebook. Hopefully I won't be silenced this time. 

Oh, this video has been removed for violating YouTube's sensitive terms of service. I guess they can't handle the other side of the argument. It is really frightening to me, that alternative arguments are not even allowed to be spoken. 

Maybe you can get to it here, if the Digital Iron Curtain doesn't simply de-platform the Mises Institute.

Monday, February 3, 2020

March Through the Institutions

We Classical Liberals must start our own March Through the Institutions. Just volunteer for, or apply for, or run for positions of authority at every available level, in every institution there is: Government, church, school, work, union, whatever. And just start changing policy. Don't ask for permission. Just do it. It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. It's what the 'progressives' have been doing for 130 years, and look where it's got us. Time for us to start playing offense.
"Playing defense just keeps things from getting too much worse too quickly" -- Herbert Meyer


Monday, June 18, 2018

The Mainstream Media Gets it Not Just Wrong, but Wrong as Wrong Can Be

(Paraphrased and embellished from a video by Evan Sayet, author of 'KinderGarden of Eden', which has been called 'the unified field theory of neo-liberalism')

The mainstream media (and neo-liberals, but I repeat myself) have replaced 'objectivity' with 'neutrality' when reporting on issues like the environment, race, religion, national origin, culture, not to mention life, the universe and everything.

Instead of being 'correct' we must be 'politically correct'. Instead of 'equal justice' (or just plain 'justice'), we must have 'social justice'. Instead of 'equal opportunity' we must have 'equal outcome'.

When we are objective about things, we can say that one thing is better than another, usually because an objectively better outcome results. We can still be objective about sports teams -- maybe not for very much longer -- but practically nothing else. Objectivity is based on analysis, testability, reproducible results, and logic.

Neutrality, on the other hand, forbids anyone from saying that one thing is better than another, because... well... it wouldn't be neutral. It wouldn't be 'fair'. It would be hurtful. It might point out that a scientific hypothesis, a culture, a political regime, or a religion, or a political regime wrapped in a religion, is inconsistent, or has self-destructive tendencies.

It's a side issue, but the ineptly named 'net neutrality', the government mandate that all internet traffic must be prioritized the same, regardless of its time sensitivity, monetary value, business model, or whatever, makes a lot more sense to me now, when looked at through the neutrality lens of the neo-liberal.

Anyone who makes objective observations these days is attacked viciously as a denier, as a racist, or some icky-phobe or another, despite that in most cases, pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes is probably a GoodThing(tm) for the Emperor, his onlookers and society in general.

So when the mainstream media reports news, and looks at the facts with neutrality instead of objectivity, their predictions, or the predictions we make from their coverage, ends up being the exact opposite of what actually happens. That's what I mean by "wrong as wrong can be". The conclusions that they draw, or that we draw from them, are as wrong as can be.

Were you surprised when the USSR collapsed? Herbert Meyer (special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and vice chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council during the Reagan Administration) called it to the day. He was practically laughed right out of Washington, D.C. The mainstream media had a field day. Herb had the last laugh -- the media were as wrong as wrong can be. Right up until the end, the neutral mainstream media characterized the USSR as an equal superpower with the United States. They refused to acknowledge that we were winning the cold war, because to do that would admit that capitalism beats communism, and we're more successful than they were.

Were you surprised by the attacks on 9/11? Not the exact time and method; that probably would have been a surprise to anyone, but the fact that the attack took place. Why do they hate us? We deserved it? We were little Eichmanns? The chickens coming home to roost? Objective analysis would have (and did) provide all the answers. I'll get more specific below.

Were you surprised that Trump beat Hillary? You wouldn't have been if you were watching Fox News. Fox is reviled because it is 'disgustingly conservative'. Well, maybe if 'conservative' and 'objectivity' are related somehow. Fox does have mostly conservative commentators. I don't know what people are so afraid of, Fox news is the one outlier out of all the alphabet networks, (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS), MSLSD, Chicken Noodle News, and all the wire feeds from all the other mainstream publications. The entertainment industry has been slathering it on with the neutrality trowel too. When it's coming at you from all sides but one, it's easy to be misled.

Are you surprised and outraged to hear that we are 'ripping families apart' at the border? If the news media were objective, they would note that abortion does that irreversibly. They would report that it is considered inhumane to incarcerate minors with adults, if those adults are illegal invaders. They would report that these policies haven't changed since the Obama administration, but that Obama unconstitutionally refused to enforce border policy enacted by Congress. They would note also that neo-liberal policies have been depriving minorities of their nuclear families and upward mobility for at least the past 50 years. How immoral is that?

But don't just take my word for it; we can run some (objective) tests. Here is a falsifiable hypothesis: The mainstream media are not just wrong, but wrong as wrong can be. It is testable. Of course, that would lead us to an objective conclusion, which might offend and confuse neo-liberals.

Here's the test: For each news media outlet, pick some big news stories and predict what you think will happen next, based on their coverage. Then see what actually happens, and score the results.

Here's another test*: Compare the life, lifestyle and teachings of Jesus Christ to the life, lifestyle and teachings of Mohammad, and then try to predict what the cultural effects of unrestricted, un-assimilated immigration might be. Not even a hard core atheist should have the slightest difficulty working that out -- if he's objective. But if he is neutral, then he will be very surprised about what happens in Europe now and in the next few years, and what happens in this country a few years after that. But a neo-liberal will call any objective predictions 'hate speech'. And you can forget about any policies to forestall the predictable outcome.

And one final test: What do you think will happen when people reject and mock our Judeo-Christian heritage, and Western Civilization as being no better than any other? How deliciously neutral. What about The Golden Rule? Hell, even a hard core atheist will agree that The Golden Rule is objectively better than just about any alternative. Anyone wondering why our culture has coarsened so severely over the last few decades might want to give that a cold, objective review. Extra credit: What philosophical dogma has dominated the media monopoly until fairly recently?

*And this test gets right down to the nitty-gritty. If you are a neo-liberal, more concerned with neutrality than objectivity, you will be viciously offended, and you will want to censor me, maybe destroy my career, ostracise me and my family, and the horse I rode in on, and slap a repulsive label on me.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

How to Perpetrate and Perpetuate Lies


Around the turn of the 20th Century, the industrial revolution was in full swing. Mass production and assembly lines were beginning to develop. Seeing the success in one field, people assumed it would work in other fields, like public schools. Schools that once considered students as customers, under this new vision, began to think of their students as products. They even instituted "quality control" measures, such as standardized tests, to make sure the product was uniformly homogenized.

Labor saving devices and inventions were revolutionizing farming and construction, as well as housework. Simultaneously, other ideas, such as the effects of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto, along with the eugenics movement, were all contributing to the idea that we were 'progressing' into a brave new era of human development. 'Progressivism' was the word given to people who bought into this movement. Of course, it was anything but progress, but political forces like to redefine the language to create buzzwords that will get people to buy into the scheme.

Within a few decades, many of the 'progressive' agenda items were discredited, especially after the real Nazis demonstrated what eugenics and socialism were actually all about. So the 'progressives' renamed themselves 'liberals', and partially eschewed eugenics, but socialism and communism thrived in their minds (the brutality of actual communist implementations, like the USSR, North Vietnam, Red China, etc., drove communism underground for a while, but it's having a mainstream resurgence these days).

About the Buzzwords

The word 'liberal' means of, or pertaining to liberty. But the dictionary actually lists "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." as the first definition! Liberty isn't mentioned at all! The word 'progressive' means of, or pertaining to progress. But the dictionary actually lists "(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas." How does this happen? Deliberately! Someone picked a word and started using it for their movement, until the old context was drowned out. The deception was complete!

I understand that words and the language evolve, and words can take on nearly opposite meanings from what they once were. It's just important that we understand that the new meaning is based on a lie, and that the subliminal message is deliberate.


Consider the following: Let's say that in 1913, people of the Republican Party decided to call themselves 'beneficials', on the grounds that ideas like limited government, free markets, equal justice, personal freedom, personal responsibility and charity are beneficial to society, and are superior to any alternatives. After 75 years or so, the first definition for the word 'beneficial' might be "(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing limited government, free markets, equal justice, personal freedom, personal responsibility and charity." Hey, maybe we Classical Liberals should start calling ourselves 'beneficials'!

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Corporate Greed? It is to Laugh!

When I hear people talk about corporate greed, I point at government and say, "um... Hellooo!!!" At least the corporation doesn't have me over a barrel. I am at liberty not to do business with them. Government is more like Mafia thugs: you're in our territory; pay us or else. Sell it to us, or else. It's for your 'protection'.

If you don't have a permit, then it isn't permitted. A permit will be $7.00 per square foot, paid to the tribes. You need a permit for a domestic well to build a home? Well... you can't.

You want to build there? Sorry, that's wetlands! You can't. We don't care if it it's dry now. That'll be $30,000.00 per day that you haven't restored it to pristine condition. Not connected to federal navigable waters? Take it to the Supreme Court! It will take years, and millions of dollars. Your life will be ruined. Good luck with that!

You sunk your life savings into property to build your dream home? Too bad, sunshine, there's a pocket gopher living in one corner. It looks like nobody will ever build there.

We've rendered your property worthless? Your life savings are gone? That's not a taking; you should have done your research.

That is so not free.

Friday, July 8, 2016

In Need of Masters

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Inner city black neighborhoods are like war zones, with feral youth gangs raping and pillaging their own. Frightened residents, just wanting to be left alone, call the police. The police go in, and eventually somebody gets shot. The police amp up the force. 

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Black Lives Matter go on the march against the police, and it seems looting and rioting is the result. The police amp up the force. 

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Anti-Trump protesters show up to disrupt the peoples' right to hear a duly elected candidate for president. Looting, violence and rioting is the result. The police amp up the force. 

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

A bloodthirsty religious zealot shoots up a gay bar full of unarmed victims. Statists want to take the guns from the rest of us.

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

A candidate for president is guilty as hell, and if anyone else had done what she did, we'd be locked up like Martha Stewart. But Hillary walks.

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Statists, community organizers, Cloward and Piven, Saul Alinsky, you know who I'm talking about, all want to stir the pot, because they know that when violence, chaos and dissent are prevalent, they can be our masters.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

The Second Amendment & Federalist No. 29: Concerning the Militia

Federalist No. 29 (full text) was an attempt by Alexander Hamilton to allay the fears of the Anti-Federalists of the risk of a National Guard, or "Well Regulated Militia" from getting out of hand, and oppressing the citizens.

From the Daily Advertiser | Thursday, January 10, 1788 | Author: Alexander Hamilton

The Anti-Federalists were fearful of the strength and centralization that this new Constitution would bring to the federal government. The Federalist Papers were op-ed pieces published anonymously by several Federalists to support the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The Federalist Papers give us some of the most illuminating insight into what the founders were thinking.

In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton appears to be arguing in favor of a militia, even as a law-enforcement body, and rejects the idea that such a militia would be of any significant risk to citizens of the United States. Hamilton argues that we need not fear our sons, fathers and brothers, even if they are commanded by an executive magistrate. In fact, Federalist 29 uses the term “well-regulated militia” and variations on that phraseology. That turn of phrase seems to be well recognized in the lexicon of the time to describe the kind of national defense being contemplated.

James Madison believed that the Constitution, with its enumerated powers, would be sufficient to limit government specifically to the functions and authority granted therein. However, many were not so convinced. James Madison and others were finally persuaded to go along with the idea of a Bill of Rights – given the very real risk that the Constitution would not be ratified without it. If we think of the Articles of the Constitution as the “white list” of powers that the federal government should have, the Bill of Rights would be the “black list” of things that no good government would ever do. The Constitution granted certain powers to the federal government; the Bill of Rights guaranteed protection to the citizens from the government.

So Federalist 29 actually reinforces my conviction that people were worried that the federal government would have a “well-regulated militia”, so much so that Alexander Hamilton felt compelled to write Federalist 29, ridiculing that concern as being unfounded. But in the end, the Bill of Rights allowed that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The first clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, acknowledges the need for the federal government to have armed services at its disposal, but the Bill of Rights guarantees that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, lest We the People lose control of our government.

The Bill of Rights was never intended to provide more power to the government; quite the reverse. The Bill of Rights was always intended to prevent the government from ever becoming tyrannical and oppressive. So any attempt to morph the Second Amendment into an instrument of authority for mustering a national guard, would be a distortion of grave proportions. The Second Amendment was intended to protect individual citizens from government, just like all nine of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.