lewrockwell--2020-01-14--Why Are Volcanoes All Over The Globe Suddenly Shooting Giant Clouds of Ash Miles into the Air?

There certainly hasn ’ t been a lack of seismic activity so far in 2020 .
Just a few days ago , I wrote about the horrific earthquake swarm that Puerto Rico is currently experiencing .
More than 1,000 earthquakes have rattled Puerto Rico so far , and as you will see below , it was just hit by another very large earthquake .
But right now volcanic eruptions have taken center stage .
In particular , a massive eruption in the Philippines is making headlines all over the world , but what most people don ’ t realize is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their tops in spectacular fashion within the past week .
Suddenly , volcanoes all over the globe are shooting giant clouds of ash miles into the air , and this is greatly puzzling many of the experts .
Let ’ s review what we have witnessed over the past 7 days .
Last Tuesday , one of the most important volcanoes in Alaska shot hot ash 25,000 feet into the air… Shishaldin Volcano erupted at 5 a.m. Tuesday , the Alaska Volcano Observatory announced , and sent up an initial ash cloud to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mountain , but satellite imagery confirmed the ash cloud , U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Hans Schwaiger said .
Seismicity diminished for a few hours , but it then increased again .
During the increase , the volcano spewed an ash cloud to 25,000 feet , the observatory announced .
The later eruption increased the volume of ash .
There are 5280 feet in a mile , and so we are talking about an ash cloud nearly 5 miles high .
Living A Life That Rea ... Michael Snyder Best Price : $ 14.48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mt .
Popocatepetl in Mexico shot hot ash nearly 4 miles into the sky… Those that follow my work on a regular basis already know that I am deeply concerned about Mt .
Popocatepetl .
It has the potential to create the worst natural disaster in the modern history of North America , because it is quite close to Mexico City .
The following summary of the potential threat that Mt .
Popocatepetl poses comes from one of my previous articles… Approximately 26 million people live within 60 miles of Popocatepetl ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about the potential for death and destruction on a scale that is difficult to imagine .
In ancient times , Mt .
Popocatepetl buried entire Aztec cities in super-heated mud , but then it went to sleep for about 1,000 years .
Unfortunately for us , it started waking up again in the 1990s , and now this is the most active that we have seen it ever since the volcano originally reawakened .
Let us hope that Mt .
Popocatepetl settles down , because the death and destruction that a catastrophic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charts .
Meanwhile , down in South America the Sabancaya volcano in Peru just shot a plume of volcanic ash approximately 24,000 feet into the air… But hardly anyone is paying any attention to what just took place in Peru because of what just happened in the Philippines .
On Sunday , Taal volcano roared to life , and it is being reported that the eruption sent “ steam , ash and pebbles up to 10 to 15 kilometers ( 6 to 9 miles ) into the sky ” .
Can you imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ash has already reached Manila , and “ red-hot lava ” has started gushing out of the volcano… Unfortunately , authorities are warning that the worst may still be yet to come .
In fact , they are telling us that a “ hazardous explosive eruption ” could literally happen at any moment… Meanwhile , we continue to see unusual earthquake activity all over the globe .
After already experiencing more than 1,000 earthquakes since the beginning of 2020 , Puerto Rico was hit by a magnitude 5.9 quake on Saturday… Get Prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barbar ...
Check Amazon for Pricing .
For quite a while , I have been warning that our planet is becoming increasingly unstable and that the shaking is only going to get worse .
I know that a lot of people didn ’ t believe me at first , and that is okay .
After the events of the last few days , perhaps a few more people will start to understand what is going on .
There have always been earthquakes and volcanic eruptions , but for most of our lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our planet is generally stable .
Unfortunately , that is no longer a safe assumption .
We have entered a period of time when all of the old assumptions will no longer apply , and everything that can be shaken will be shaken .
Reprinted with permission from End Of The American Dream .
The Best of Michael Snyder

There certainly hasn’t been a lack of seismic activity so far in 2020. Just a few days ago, I wrote about the horrific earthquake swarm that Puerto Rico is currently experiencing. More than 1,000 earthquakes have rattled Puerto Rico so far, and as you will see below, it was just hit by another very large earthquake. But right now volcanic eruptions have taken center stage. In particular, a massive eruption in the Philippines is making headlines all over the world, but what most people don’t realize is that several other volcanoes have also blown their tops in spectacular fashion within the past week. Suddenly, volcanoes all over the globe are shooting giant clouds of ash miles into the air, and this is greatly puzzling many of the experts.
Let’s review what we have witnessed over the past 7 days.
Last Tuesday, one of the most important volcanoes in Alaska shot hot ash 25,000 feet into the air…
Shishaldin Volcano erupted at 5 a.m. Tuesday, the Alaska Volcano Observatory announced, and sent up an initial ash cloud to 19,000 feet. Clouds initially obscured the mountain, but satellite imagery confirmed the ash cloud, U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Hans Schwaiger said. Seismicity diminished for a few hours, but it then increased again. During the increase, the volcano spewed an ash cloud to 25,000 feet, the observatory announced. The later eruption increased the volume of ash.
There are 5280 feet in a mile, and so we are talking about an ash cloud nearly 5 miles high. Living A Life That Rea... Michael Snyder Best Price: $14.48 Buy New $14.53 (as of 06:20 UTC - Details)
Then on Thursday, Mt. Popocatepetl in Mexico shot hot ash nearly 4 miles into the sky…
Mexico’s Popocatépetl volcano burst to life on Thursday in a spectacular gush of lava and clouds of ash that hurled incandescent rock about 20,000 feet into the sky. The dramatic explosion of the active stratovolcano, a little over 40 miles southeast of Mexico City, was captured on video by Mexico’s National Center for Disaster Prevention, CENAPRED.
Those that follow my work on a regular basis already know that I am deeply concerned about Mt. Popocatepetl. It has the potential to create the worst natural disaster in the modern history of North America, because it is quite close to Mexico City. The following summary of the potential threat that Mt. Popocatepetl poses comes from one of my previous articles…
Approximately 26 million people live within 60 miles of Popocatepetl’s crater, and so we are talking about the potential for death and destruction on a scale that is difficult to imagine. In ancient times, Mt. Popocatepetl buried entire Aztec cities in super-heated mud, but then it went to sleep for about 1,000 years. Unfortunately for us, it started waking up again in the 1990s, and now this is the most active that we have seen it ever since the volcano originally reawakened.
Let us hope that Mt. Popocatepetl settles down, because the death and destruction that a catastrophic eruption would cause would be off the charts.
Meanwhile, down in South America the Sabancaya volcano in Peru just shot a plume of volcanic ash approximately 24,000 feet into the air…
Explosive activity continues. Volcanic Ash Advisory Center (VAAC) Buenos Aires warned about a volcanic ash plume that rose up to estimated 24000 ft (7300 m) altitude or flight level 240 and is moving at 15 kts in S direction.
But hardly anyone is paying any attention to what just took place in Peru because of what just happened in the Philippines.
On Sunday, Taal volcano roared to life, and it is being reported that the eruption sent “steam, ash and pebbles up to 10 to 15 kilometers (6 to 9 miles) into the sky”.
Can you imagine that?
According to USA Today, ash has already reached Manila, and “red-hot lava” has started gushing out of the volcano…
Red-hot lava gushed from of a Philippine volcano on Monday after a sudden eruption of ash and steam that forced villagers to flee and shut down Manila’s international airport, offices and schools. There were no immediate reports of casualties or major damage from Taal volcano’s eruption south of the capital that began Sunday. But clouds of ash blew more than 100 kilometers (62 miles) north, reaching the bustling capital, Manila, and forcing the shutdown of the country’s main airport with more than 240 international and domestic flights cancelled so far.
Unfortunately, authorities are warning that the worst may still be yet to come.
In fact, they are telling us that a “hazardous explosive eruption” could literally happen at any moment…
“The earthquakes were strong, and it felt like there was a monster coming out” as in the movies, Cookie Siscar, who had left the area and was relaying a report from her husband, Emer, a poultry farmer, told the Times. The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology increased its threat level for Taal Volcano to four out of five, saying that a “hazardous explosive eruption” could happen at any minute
Meanwhile, we continue to see unusual earthquake activity all over the globe.
After already experiencing more than 1,000 earthquakes since the beginning of 2020, Puerto Rico was hit by a magnitude 5.9 quake on Saturday…
A magnitude 5.9 quake shook Puerto Rico on Saturday, causing further damage along the island’s southern coast, where previous recent quakes have toppled homes and schools. The U.S. Geological Survey said the 8:54 a.m. (1254 GMT) quake hit 8 miles (13 kilometers) southeast of Guanica at a shallow depth of 3 miles (5 kilometers).
Get Prepared Now!: Why... Fix, Barbara Buy New $7.95 (as of 05:05 UTC - Details) For quite a while, I have been warning that our planet is becoming increasingly unstable and that the shaking is only going to get worse.
I know that a lot of people didn’t believe me at first, and that is okay.
After the events of the last few days, perhaps a few more people will start to understand what is going on.
There have always been earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, but for most of our lives we have been able to assume that our planet is generally stable.
Unfortunately, that is no longer a safe assumption.
We have entered a period of time when all of the old assumptions will no longer apply, and everything that can be shaken will be shaken.
Reprinted with permission from End Of The American Dream.
The Best of Michael Snyder


Unappreciated Crime Costs

Criminal activity imposes huge costs on black residents in low-income neighborhoods of cities such as Chicago , Baltimore , Detroit , St. Louis , Philadelphia and many others .
Thousands of black Americans were murdered in 2019 .
Over 90 % of the time , the perpetrator was also black .
Leftists and social justice warriors charge that what blacks have to fear most is being shot and killed by police , but the numbers don ’ t add up .
For several years , The Washington Post has been documenting police shootings in America .
Last year , 933 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Twenty-three percent ( 212 ) of people shot and killed were black ; 35 % ( 331 ) were white ; 16 % ( 155 ) were Hispanic and 201 were of other or unknown races .
The high homicide rate within the black community doesn ’ t begin to tell the full tragedy .
Crime imposes a hefty tax on people who can least afford it .
They are the law-abiding residents of black neighborhoods .
Residents must bear the time cost and other costs of having to shop outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in low-crime neighborhoods are absent or scarce in high-crime , low-income neighborhoods .
Because of the paucity of supermarkets and other big-box stores in these neighborhoods , some “ experts ” and academicians have labeled them as “ food deserts.
” That ’ s the ridiculous suggestion that white supermarket merchants and big-box store owners don ’ t like green dollars coming out of black hands .
The true villains of the piece are the criminals who make some businesses unprofitable .
By the way , these are equal opportunity criminals .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would victimize a white-owned business .
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities .
American Contempt for ... Walter E. Williams Best Price : $ 6.24 Buy New $ 13.08 In low-crime neighborhoods , FedEx , UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages containing valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is home .
That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages .
In high-crime neighborhoods , delivery companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide .
Fearing robberies , taxi drivers , including black drivers , often refuse to accept telephone calls for home pickups and frequently pass prospective black customers who hail them on the street .
Plus , there ’ s the insult associated with not being able to receive pizzas or other deliveries on the same terms as people in other neighborhoods .
Another often-overlooked impact of crime is lower property values .
Homes that wouldn ’ t fetch $ 10,000 , $ 20,000 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up .
This is called gentrification , where wealthier , predominantly white , people bid higher rental prices thus forcing out low-income residents .
As a result of gentrification , there is greater police protection and other neighborhood amenities increase .
Many make the erroneous assumption that black people don ’ t care about crime .
But black people strongly disapprove of the day-to-day violence that ’ s all too common in their communities .
What compounds that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in poor black neighborhoods .
This distrust , along with fear of reprisals by black criminals , causes an atmosphere of noncooperation with the police .
It creates the “ stop snitching ” principle .
This principle of snitches being worse than criminals themselves only exacerbates the crime problem in black communities by giving aid and comfort to the true enemies of the community — those who prey on the community and have little fear of being brought to justice .
In some cities , less than 10 % of murderers are ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of blacks could be laid at the feet of racial discrimination .
Our ancestors started a civil rights struggle and won .
Today , the most devastating problems of blacks are entirely self-inflicted such as high illegitimacy , family breakdown and unsafe communities .
These problems have little to do with civil rights .
But as long as blacks buy into the notion that white racism is the source of their problems , the solutions will be elusive forever .
The Best of Walter E. Williams

Criminal activity imposes huge costs on black residents in low-income neighborhoods of cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia and many others. Thousands of black Americans were murdered in 2019. Over 90% of the time, the perpetrator was also black. Leftists and social justice warriors charge that what blacks have to fear most is being shot and killed by police, but the numbers don’t add up. For several years, The Washington Post has been documenting police shootings in America. Last year, 933 people were shot and killed by police. Twenty-three percent (212) of people shot and killed were black; 35% (331) were white; 16% (155) were Hispanic and 201 were of other or unknown races. The high homicide rate within the black community doesn’t begin to tell the full tragedy.
Crime imposes a hefty tax on people who can least afford it. They are the law-abiding residents of black neighborhoods. Residents must bear the time cost and other costs of having to shop outside of their neighborhoods. Supermarkets that are abundant in low-crime neighborhoods are absent or scarce in high-crime, low-income neighborhoods. Because of the paucity of supermarkets and other big-box stores in these neighborhoods, some “experts” and academicians have labeled them as “food deserts.” That’s the ridiculous suggestion that white supermarket merchants and big-box store owners don’t like green dollars coming out of black hands. The true villains of the piece are the criminals who make some businesses unprofitable. By the way, these are equal opportunity criminals. They will victimize a black-owned business just as they would victimize a white-owned business. The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. American Contempt for ... Williams, Walter E. Best Price: $14.29 Buy New $11.75 (as of 02:30 UTC - Details)
In low-crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages containing valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high-crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door or supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide. Fearing robberies, taxi drivers, including black drivers, often refuse to accept telephone calls for home pickups and frequently pass prospective black customers who hail them on the street. Plus, there’s the insult associated with not being able to receive pizzas or other deliveries on the same terms as people in other neighborhoods.
Another often-overlooked impact of crime is lower property values. Homes that wouldn’t fetch $10,000, $20,000 or $40,000 suddenly fetch hundreds of thousands when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification, where wealthier, predominantly white, people bid higher rental prices thus forcing out low-income residents. As a result of gentrification, there is greater police protection and other neighborhood amenities increase.
Many make the erroneous assumption that black people don’t care about crime. But black people strongly disapprove of the day-to-day violence that’s all too common in their communities. What compounds that problem is a deep mistrust of police in poor black neighborhoods. This distrust, along with fear of reprisals by black criminals, causes an atmosphere of noncooperation with the police. It creates the “stop snitching” principle. This principle of snitches being worse than criminals themselves only exacerbates the crime problem in black communities by giving aid and comfort to the true enemies of the community — those who prey on the community and have little fear of being brought to justice. In some cities, less than 10% of murderers are ever charged.
For decades, the problems of blacks could be laid at the feet of racial discrimination. Our ancestors started a civil rights struggle and won. Today, the most devastating problems of blacks are entirely self-inflicted such as high illegitimacy, family breakdown and unsafe communities. These problems have little to do with civil rights. But as long as blacks buy into the notion that white racism is the source of their problems, the solutions will be elusive forever.
The Best of Walter E. Williams


Marginal Revolution

Professor Janek Wasserman , to his credit , is not a polemicist .
His new book The Marginal Revolutionaries : How Austrian Economists Fought the War of Ideas is indeed a critique of the broad school of economic thought now colloquially referred to as “ Austrian , ” but it is not only that .
It is also a lively and well-paced history of the astonishing influence prewar Viennese intellectuals had on the greater world , and continue to have in areas far beyond economics .
The author ’ s ideology intrudes at times , but never quite so obtrusively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission .
The Marginal Revolutionaries first and foremost is a worthwhile historical account of major figures from the Austrian school , and not primarily an attempt at academic or ideological refutation .
Contrast Wasserman with Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean , who is a polemicist .
Her now-infamous Democracy in Chains , published in 2017 , was a broadside not only against the supposed rightwing takeover of academic economics , but also against the network of think tanks and university sinecures funded by business titans Charles and David Koch .
In MacLean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken deep root in the American political landscape courtesy of a vast and nefarious Koch campaign of intellectual subterfuge .
This coordinated effort to capture economics departments across the country produced a cadre of essentially kept academics , who dutifully provide pseudo-scientific cover for big business interests—particularly oil oligarchs like the Kochs .
The Marginal Revolutio ... Janek Wasserman Best Price : $ 23.54 Buy New $ 21.84 In effect , MacLean insists that highly compromised academics favor laissez-faire economic policies because their patrons pay them to do so .
In the insecure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an incendiary charge .
The Koch sphere responded predictably , and badly , attempting point-by-point refutations of MacLean ’ s entirely political hit job .
Instead of dismissing her book the way one might treat an offering , from , say , Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow—as unserious and plainly partisan—they defaulted into full academic mode and went running for the footnotes : “ Actually , on page 173 of The Calculus of Consent James Buchanan really says… ” This was an obvious mistake , because in politics if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus MacLean , an unknown and lightweight historian , suddenly became the Left commentariat ’ s darling and the bête noire of nervous Koch professors at universities like George Mason .
On the heels of Maclean comes Wasserman ’ s book , which similarly approaches its subject from the Left but without MacLean ’ s outright attacks , vitriol , and blinkered view of professional motivations .
The Marginal Revolutionaries does not mimic MacLean ’ s Koch-bashing style ; it is less incendiary and more scholarly in tone .
But Wasserman can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s concluding chapter , with its tedious concerns about a so-called Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline , laughably worried references to supposedly controversial libertarian figures like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul , and tut-tutting details of internecine fights between the Koch-funded Cato Institute and the Koch-free Mises Institute ( your reviewer ’ s employer ) .
There are also vague but requisite protestations about “ reactionary ” and right-wing forces in modern Austrianism , including Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe , which , for all their lack of objectivity , could have appeared in Vox or The Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wasserman ’ s heart is not in examining the sociology of late 20th century libertarianism and issuing indictments .
As an historian of central Europe he ’ s happier considering the familiar turf of coffeehouse Vienna , and thus finds firmer footing at the beginning of the book— particularly in his opening chapters on the early and then “ golden age ” of Austrian economists .
Here we find a fairly robust account of Carl Menger , widely considered the father of the Austrian school owing to his seminal 1871 Principles of Economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less prolific than most of his successors , and almost reclusive later in life .
As a result Principles was not fully appreciated for two decades , until Menger ’ s publication of a second major book on method in 1883 revived interest in his work .
But Wasserman seems to grasp the enormity of Menger ’ s contribution to a theory of value , an understanding desperately missing from classical and Marxist economics in the late 19th century .
Wasserman duly credits Menger with helping to birth the “ Marginal Revolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine the value of any good subjectively , based on the importance of the final , marginal unit of that good to them .
This contribution , along with Menger ’ s other developments in Principles concerning the role of time in production and proffering a deductive methodology for economics , earn sufficient mention from Wasserman .
But the author entirely misses arguably the biggest revelation in the book , namely Menger ’ s groundbreaking insights on the origins of money .
According to Menger , money emerges naturally in the market as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liquid ) commodity .
Markets over time determine the best medium of exchange , an evolution tragically distorted by sovereigns or governments issuing currency by fiat .
This was a revolutionary point not only for monetary economics at the time , but also for the broader understanding of political economy in the late stages of European monarchy .
Wasserman ’ s treatment of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk , the most important “ second generation ” Austrian economist , is thorough and engaging .
The author deftly illuminates the fin de siècle setting for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Menger consciously set about developing an established school of thought .
Wasserman correctly captures Böhm ’ s rigor not only as an economist , but also as a wily builder of relationships and alliances at the University of Vienna and beyond .
He is portrayed as an ambitious and driven actor , one who sought and found “ broad resonance ” in academia , government , law , philosophy , and business circles .
Böhm welcomed academic controversy and debate , expanding Menger ’ s theoretical work on marginal utility to the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value .
Böhm for the first time offered a rational theory of interest payments , not as a form of capitalist exploitation but rather as a natural part of the production process based on “ time preference.
” Humans always value something today over something in the future , and so delayed consumption must yield greater value in the form of interest paid in the future .
Time preference , the desire to forego consumption today by investing for tomorrow , is Böhm ’ s key to civilization itself .
“ Roundaboutness ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future makes us all richer .
Professor Wasserman does not completely buy this , and takes a jab at Böhm ’ s “ misreading of socialist theories of exploitation.
” But still he gives the Austrian his due as a rising star : “ Böhm ’ s Positive Theory of Capital ” did not disappoint .
He offered a comprehensive explanation of the interest phenomenon while also leveling a blistering attack on labor theories of value .
He became a major international figure , embodying the Austrian school even more than Menger.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... F. A. Hayek , Bruce Cal ... Best Price : $ 1.98 Buy New $ 1.99 Under Böhm ’ s leadership , the rising movement slowly but surely begins to wrest prominence and energy away from the arch-rival German Historical School , which had looked down its nose and Menger and the renegade Austrians .
The Historicist Gustav Schmoller in particular attacked Menger as lacking in “ universal philosophical and historical education , ” questioning his ability to work broadly across disciplines .
But Böhm ’ s rise improves the fortunes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence east toward Vienna by the end of the 19th century .
Wasserman is skillful in showing this evolution , and the reader appreciates the nuances of both interpersonal and doctrinal disputes between the characters .
Both Mises and his onetime protege Hayek emigrate to America , but via different paths .
Hayek wins teaching positions at the London School of Economics and then the University of Chicago , while Mises has to flee Vienna to Geneva in 1934 ahead of the Nazis , who would seize his personal papers .
Ultimately Mises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the patronage of supporters for a position at New York University while Hayek has an easier go of things financially .
The two men ’ s lives and careers remain intertwined , with Mises emerging as the weightier economist through his magnum opus Human Action but Hayek gaining greater notoriety and mainstream acceptance via his political philosophy in The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty .
Wasserman treats both thinkers fairly , but seems disappointingly conventional in his failure to understand Mises ’ s deductive method of economics ( praxeology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hayek as the godfather of “ neoliberalism ” ( Leftspeak for “ anything I don ’ t like about modern capitalism ” ) .
But The Marginal Revolutionaries is a history , not a novel , and thus the central portion of Wasserman ’ s book deals with dozens of other figures as well .
Names like Morgenstern , Haberler , and Machlup will escape most lay readers , while the dates , places , and myriad controversies fade into obscurity .
So while Mises and Hayek stand today as the best-known Austrian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the book is a survey with no one figure taking prominence .
One of Wasserman ’ s tendencies , beginning in the introduction and repeated throughout the book , is a form of “ concern trolling ” in today ’ s vernacular .
Despite his strong criticisms of Austrian economics , he helpfully frets about the movement ’ s public image .
He particularly laments what he sees as heretical deviations into radical libertarianism and unwarranted disdain for empirical data , the former a red herring and the latter a reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ method .
This ersatz concern bleeds into the text at several points , with volleys like this : He also takes pains to inveigh against “ American Austrians , ” as seen in this perplexing and context-free personal correspondence sent by minor figure Josef Herbert Furth to economist Fritz Machlup : Notes and Recollection ... Ludwig Von Mises Best Price : $ 11.97 Buy New $ 12.00 Are we somehow to assume the author would accept the “ older tradition ” of Austrian thought were it presented to him anew today ?
Would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market economics , if stripped of strident political associations and corporate patrons Wasserman does not like ?
Of course not .
To the Left , all economics divorced from Keynes or Marx is dangerously rightwing and protective of established capital .
On one hand Wasserman works to portray the modern Austrian school , the ominous “ American Austrians , ” as radical libertarians whose appendages to the tradition would render it unrecognizable to the old Viennese masters .
On the other hand he credits the radicals with untoward success and influence ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevailed in the late 20th century .
So are the Rothbardian radicals obscure and dismissible , or are they the new mainstream Austrians ?
Readers already reasonably well-versed in the history and sociology of the Austrian school , from sources such as Mises ’ s Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics and Hulsmann ’ s aforementioned biography , will find enough new insights and anecdotes here to maintain their interest .
Readers less interested in economics and more concerned with tracing Viennese intellectual traditions across the Atlantic will benefit as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain particulars .
But The Marginal Revolutionaries is a worthwhile book for anyone interested in the historical context of the Austrian school , its superb and complex thinkers , and its far-reaching , enduring influence on the western world .
This book demonstrates beyond a doubt the intellectual firepower of the late Habsburg era , and provides a worthy account of an Austrian revolution which went beyond economics .
Even the reluctant author himself can not help but accept it : As Ron Paul said , we are all Austrians now .
The @ @ @ @

Originally published by Chronicles.
Professor Janek Wasserman, to his credit, is not a polemicist. His new book The Marginal Revolutionaries: How Austrian Economists Fought the War of Ideas is indeed a critique of the broad school of economic thought now colloquially referred to as “Austrian,” but it is not only that. It is also a lively and well-paced history of the astonishing influence prewar Viennese intellectuals had on the greater world, and continue to have in areas far beyond economics. The author’s ideology intrudes at times, but never quite so obtrusively as to derail the book’s mission. The Marginal Revolutionaries first and foremost is a worthwhile historical account of major figures from the Austrian school, and not primarily an attempt at academic or ideological refutation.
Contrast Wasserman with Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean, who is a polemicist. Her now-infamous Democracy in Chains, published in 2017, was a broadside not only against the supposed rightwing takeover of academic economics, but also against the network of think tanks and university sinecures funded by business titans Charles and David Koch. In MacLean’s telling, anti-government libertarianism has taken deep root in the American political landscape courtesy of a vast and nefarious Koch campaign of intellectual subterfuge. This coordinated effort to capture economics departments across the country produced a cadre of essentially kept academics, who dutifully provide pseudo-scientific cover for big business interests—particularly oil oligarchs like the Kochs.
The Marginal Revolutio... Janek Wasserman Best Price: $23.54 Buy New $22.01 (as of 09:53 UTC - Details) In effect, MacLean insists that highly compromised academics favor laissez-faire economic policies because their patrons pay them to do so. In the insecure and petty world of academia, this is an incendiary charge.
The Koch sphere responded predictably, and badly, attempting point-by-point refutations of MacLean’s entirely political hit job. Instead of dismissing her book the way one might treat an offering, from, say, Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow—as unserious and plainly partisan—they defaulted into full academic mode and went running for the footnotes: “Actually, on page 173 of The Calculus of Consent James Buchanan really says…” This was an obvious mistake, because in politics if you’re explaining, you’re losing. Thus MacLean, an unknown and lightweight historian, suddenly became the Left commentariat’s darling and the bête noire of nervous Koch professors at universities like George Mason.
On the heels of Maclean comes Wasserman’s book, which similarly approaches its subject from the Left but without MacLean’s outright attacks, vitriol, and blinkered view of professional motivations. The Marginal Revolutionaries does not mimic MacLean’s Koch-bashing style; it is less incendiary and more scholarly in tone.
But Wasserman cannot help indulging himself in the book’s concluding chapter, with its tedious concerns about a so-called Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline, laughably worried references to supposedly controversial libertarian figures like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul, and tut-tutting details of internecine fights between the Koch-funded Cato Institute and the Koch-free Mises Institute (your reviewer’s employer). There are also vague but requisite protestations about “reactionary” and right-wing forces in modern Austrianism, including Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, which, for all their lack of objectivity, could have appeared in Vox or The Nation.
But unlike MacLean, one senses Wasserman’s heart is not in examining the sociology of late 20th century libertarianism and issuing indictments. As an historian of central Europe he’s happier considering the familiar turf of coffeehouse Vienna, and thus finds firmer footing at the beginning of the book— particularly in his opening chapters on the early and then “golden age” of Austrian economists.
Here we find a fairly robust account of Carl Menger, widely considered the father of the Austrian school owing to his seminal 1871 Principles of Economics, published in Vienna. Menger was less prolific than most of his successors, and almost reclusive later in life. As a result Principles was not fully appreciated for two decades, until Menger’s publication of a second major book on method in 1883 revived interest in his work. But Wasserman seems to grasp the enormity of Menger’s contribution to a theory of value, an understanding desperately missing from classical and Marxist economics in the late 19th century. Wasserman duly credits Menger with helping to birth the “Marginal Revolution,” the critical understanding of how consumers determine the value of any good subjectively, based on the importance of the final, marginal unit of that good to them.
This contribution, along with Menger’s other developments in Principles concerning the role of time in production and proffering a deductive methodology for economics, earn sufficient mention from Wasserman. But the author entirely misses arguably the biggest revelation in the book, namely Menger’s groundbreaking insights on the origins of money. According to Menger, money emerges naturally in the market as the most salable (i.e. most liquid) commodity. Markets over time determine the best medium of exchange, an evolution tragically distorted by sovereigns or governments issuing currency by fiat. This was a revolutionary point not only for monetary economics at the time, but also for the broader understanding of political economy in the late stages of European monarchy.
Wasserman’s treatment of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, the most important “second generation” Austrian economist, is thorough and engaging. The author deftly illuminates the fin de siècle setting for a burgeoning Austrian movement led by Böhm—who unlike Menger consciously set about developing an established school of thought. Wasserman correctly captures Böhm’s rigor not only as an economist, but also as a wily builder of relationships and alliances at the University of Vienna and beyond. He is portrayed as an ambitious and driven actor, one who sought and found “broad resonance” in academia, government, law, philosophy, and business circles.
Böhm welcomed academic controversy and debate, expanding Menger’s theoretical work on marginal utility to the point of eviscerating the Marxist labor theory of value. Böhm for the first time offered a rational theory of interest payments, not as a form of capitalist exploitation but rather as a natural part of the production process based on “time preference.” Humans always value something today over something in the future, and so delayed consumption must yield greater value in the form of interest paid in the future. Time preference, the desire to forego consumption today by investing for tomorrow, is Böhm’s key to civilization itself. “Roundaboutness” leads to more and greater goods in the future makes us all richer.
Professor Wasserman does not completely buy this, and takes a jab at Böhm’s “misreading of socialist theories of exploitation.” But still he gives the Austrian his due as a rising star:
“Böhm’s Positive Theory of Capital” did not disappoint. He offered a comprehensive explanation of the interest phenomenon while also leveling a blistering attack on labor theories of value. He became a major international figure, embodying the Austrian school even more than Menger.”
The Road to Serfdom: T... F. A. Hayek, Bruce Cal... Best Price: $3.06 Buy New $1.99 (as of 03:40 UTC - Details) Under Böhm’s leadership, the rising movement slowly but surely begins to wrest prominence and energy away from the arch-rival German Historical School, which had looked down its nose and Menger and the renegade Austrians. The Historicist Gustav Schmoller in particular attacked Menger as lacking in “universal philosophical and historical education,” questioning his ability to work broadly across disciplines. But Böhm’s rise improves the fortunes and standing of the Austrian movement, shifting influence east toward Vienna by the end of the 19th century. Wasserman is skillful in showing this evolution, and the reader appreciates the nuances of both interpersonal and doctrinal disputes between the characters.
Böhm dies in 1914, as Austro-Hungary is embroiled in the Great War. A new breed of Viennese economists and thinkers emerges in the interwar and postwar years, led by Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. The biography and oeuvre of either man could fill several books, but their respective histories have been fully developed elsewhere and Wasserman does not attempt it. Still, it is nearly impossible today to separate their stories from the broader story of the school itself.
Both Mises and his onetime protege Hayek emigrate to America, but via different paths. Hayek wins teaching positions at the London School of Economics and then the University of Chicago, while Mises has to flee Vienna to Geneva in 1934 ahead of the Nazis, who would seize his personal papers. Ultimately Mises lands in New York City, relying on the patronage of supporters for a position at New York University while Hayek has an easier go of things financially. The two men’s lives and careers remain intertwined, with Mises emerging as the weightier economist through his magnum opus Human Action but Hayek gaining greater notoriety and mainstream acceptance via his political philosophy in The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty. Wasserman treats both thinkers fairly, but seems disappointingly conventional in his failure to understand Mises’s deductive method of economics (praxeology) and in his lazy labeling of Hayek as the godfather of “neoliberalism” (Leftspeak for “anything I don’t like about modern capitalism”).
But The Marginal Revolutionaries is a history, not a novel, and thus the central portion of Wasserman’s book deals with dozens of other figures as well. Names like Morgenstern, Haberler, and Machlup will escape most lay readers, while the dates, places, and myriad controversies fade into obscurity. So while Mises and Hayek stand today as the best-known Austrian economists, and giants in their field, the book is a survey with no one figure taking prominence.
One of Wasserman’s tendencies, beginning in the introduction and repeated throughout the book, is a form of “concern trolling” in today’s vernacular. Despite his strong criticisms of Austrian economics, he helpfully frets about the movement’s public image. He particularly laments what he sees as heretical deviations into radical libertarianism and unwarranted disdain for empirical data, the former a red herring and the latter a reflection of the author’s aforementioned misunderstanding of method. This ersatz concern bleeds into the text at several points, with volleys like this:
It is also fair to wonder whether Austrian economics is really about economics (and not ideology) anymore. I would not blame readers who are tempted to throw up their hands at this point and, channeling Voltaire, declare that the Austrian school of economics is not Austrian nor a school nor economics.
He also takes pains to inveigh against “American Austrians,” as seen in this perplexing and context-free personal correspondence sent by minor figure Josef Herbert Furth to economist Fritz Machlup:
US Austrianism lost most of the diversity that had defined the best of the earlier tradition. The last ‘Austrian Austrians’ took part in preserving their tradition, trying to save their nonsectarian ‘family’ from radical libertarians who (quoting Furth) ‘have inherited Mises’s dogmatism without his genius, and are continuously quoting Hayek without…understanding a word of what he actually means.
Notes and Recollection... Mises, Ludwig Von Best Price: $12.00 Buy New $12.00 (as of 04:10 UTC - Details) Are we somehow to assume the author would accept the “older tradition” of Austrian thought were it presented to him anew today? Would he approve of any branch of free market economics, if stripped of strident political associations and corporate patrons Wasserman does not like? Of course not. To the Left, all economics divorced from Keynes or Marx is dangerously rightwing and protective of established capital. On one hand Wasserman works to portray the modern Austrian school, the ominous “American Austrians,” as radical libertarians whose appendages to the tradition would render it unrecognizable to the old Viennese masters. On the other hand he credits the radicals with untoward success and influence; and in effect quite remarkably insists their worldview prevailed in the late 20th century. So are the Rothbardian radicals obscure and dismissible, or are they the new mainstream Austrians?
Readers already reasonably well-versed in the history and sociology of the Austrian school, from sources such as Mises’s Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics and Hulsmann’s aforementioned biography, will find enough new insights and anecdotes here to maintain their interest. Readers less interested in economics and more concerned with tracing Viennese intellectual traditions across the Atlantic will benefit as well, though perhaps choose to skim over certain particulars. But The Marginal Revolutionaries is a worthwhile book for anyone interested in the historical context of the Austrian school, its superb and complex thinkers, and its far-reaching, enduring influence on the western world. This book demonstrates beyond a doubt the intellectual firepower of the late Habsburg era, and provides a worthy account of an Austrian revolution which went beyond economics. Even the reluctant author himself cannot help but accept it:
Whether in university halls or libertarian think tank offices, WTO boardrooms or Silicon Valley confabs, the Austrian school has not only transformed economics and social theory but changed our world. The school’s effects are profound and pervasive, and its history permits us to think the present age.
As Ron Paul said, we are all Austrians now.
The Best of Jeff Deist


lewrockwell--2020-01-15--Trump and Congress Double Down on Demonizing Iran

If one seriously seeks to understand how delusional policymakers in Washington are it is only necessary to examine the responses by the president and Congress to the assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani .
The first response came in the form of a Donald Trump largely incoherent nine-minute self-applauding speech explaining what he had done and why .
It was followed by a House of Representatives War Powers non-binding resolution that was all theater and did nothing to limit the president ’ s unilateral ability to go to war with the Islamic Republic .
It was reported that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aides the night before it was given and that it existed in several competing drafts .
It was full of out-and-out lies and half truths and intended to reassure the American people that the president was keeping them safe .
The opening line might well be regarded as some kind of joke : “ As long as I am President of the United States , Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
” Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action ( JCPOA ) and his assassination of Soleimani , which together have convinced the Iranian leadership that there is no possibility of a reasonable negotiated solution when dealing with the American president , even when he claims he wants to “ talk.
” The Deep State : The Fa ... Mike Lofgren Best Price : $ 3.12 Buy New $ 11.22 Trump then went on characteristically to eulogize our brave soldiers on far flung battlefields before lying again , saying “ For far too long — all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be exact — nations have tolerated Iran ’ s destructive and destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and beyond .
Those days are over .
Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism , and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world .
We will never let that happen.
” Lie one is that the “ destructive and destabilizing behavior ” actually has Made in U.S.A. stamped all over it .
Lie two is “ leading sponsor of terrorism , ” an honor that belongs to Israel , Saudi Arabia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And lie three is that Iran “ pursued ” nuclear weapons .
It has never done so .
Trump them boasted that “ Last week , we took decisive action to stop a ruthless terrorist from threatening American lives .
At my direction , the United States military eliminated the world ’ s top terrorist , Qasem Soleimani .
As the head of the Quds Force , Soleimani was personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities.
” Trump ’ s preening was again wrong on every count : Soleimani is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor is there any evidence that he threatened American lives .
And Trump and his chorus of neocons can not name a single “ atrocity ” committed by the man The president claimed that Soleimani “ …viciously wounded and murdered thousands of U.S. troops , including the planting of roadside bombs that maim and dismember their victims , ” a particularly absurd charge suggesting that Trump believes that any American soldier who died in Iraq or Afghanistan did so at the hands of the Iranian Major General .
By the same logic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have served in Afghanistan , Iraq and Syria have murdered hundreds of thousands of people .
If Trump wants to start counting fatalities he should perhaps start with David Petraeus.. Piling Ossa on Pelion , Trump declared that Soleimani “ …orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad .
In recent days , he was planning new attacks on American targets , but we stopped him.
” There is no evidence whatsoever to support either assertion and Trump then goes on to ascribe all the problems of the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by others , most notably Washington , Israel and the Saudis .
He also roundly condemned the JCPOA before asserting falsely that “ Three months ago , after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate , we killed the savage leader of ISIS , al-Baghdadi… ” In reality , ISIS was defeated by the Syrian Army and its allies Russia and Iran , the very countries that Trump has continued to vilify even as he struts his anti-terrorist credentials .
Qassem Soleimani played a major role in the destruction of ISIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump speech were that it was short and the president did not find it necessary to say a whole lot of good things about Israel .
Interestingly , no one in the mainstream media or in the political chattering class made much effort to challenged Trump on the “ facts ” he cited , though there was some pushback from mostly Democratic congressmen who stated that they could not see any “ imminent threat ” in the evidence that the Administration produced during a classified briefing .
The actual war powers concurrent resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was symptomatic of the unwillingness of the political opposition to take on the illegal and immoral wars in the Middle East themselves – it had no teeth and will not change anything .
The resolution ’ s subject line “ Directing the President pursuant to section 5 ( c ) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran ” actually is misleading .
And the first thing the text does do is slam Iran with the same dubious “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East .
Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran ’ s destabilizing activities throughout the world.
” The resolution includes “ In matters of imminent armed attacks , the executive branch should indicate to Congress why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity , the possible harm that missing the window would cause , and why the action was likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” It then goes on to explain that “ When the United States uses military force , the American people and members of the United States Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military force… ” because “ The War Powers Resolution ( 50 U.S.C .
1541 et seq . )
requires the President to consult with Congress ‘ in every possible instance ’ before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.
” It concludes with “ Congress has not authorized the President to use military force against Iran.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating critique of the Trump Art of War but then comes the wiggle room “ …Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military , unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces ; or such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements of the War Powers Resolution .
Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent the President from using military force against al Qaeda or associated forces… ” In other words , all Trump has to do is claim “ imminent threat ” or that he is attacking “ terrorist associated forces ” and he is home free no matter what he does , particularly as the resolution itself is non-binding .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 The sheer ignorance and arrogance of elites in Washington combined with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africans as unthinking “ wogs ” who will do one ’ s bidding if they are confronted with punishment is currently on display .
It was inevitable that Iraq would demand the departure of U.S. troops after thirty-four Iraqi militiamen were killed by American drone and air strikes , but many in Washington just didn ’ t get it .
Trump threatened , in characteristic fashion , to respond with sanctions , but now Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has made it official in a phone call to Secretary of State Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the removal of the American soldiers .
The State Department has indicated that it is not prepared to discuss the matter .
Some pundits who should know better have predicted that the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers will not take place because Iraq somehow “ needs ” the United States .
And besides , there will be economic consequences if Iraq does go ahead to insist on an American withdrawal .
But sometimes abstractions prove to be more powerful than material incentives .
The United States violated Iraqi sovereignty not once but twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pompeo can huff and puff all he wants and Trump can mouth his illiteracies , but nothing changes the fact that the United States did things it did not have to do based on a delusional view of the Middle East and will have to pay a price .
Minus a presence in Iraq , Syria will be untenable and one might hope that once the U.S. loses its ability to directly confront Iran on the ground the whole house of cards just might collapse , leading to Washington ’ s gradual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be good for the region and also for the United States even if Israel and the Saudis , who prefer to have Americans fight and die in their wars , might object .
Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review .
The Best of Philip Giraldi

If one seriously seeks to understand how delusional policymakers in Washington are it is only necessary to examine the responses by the president and Congress to the assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani. The first response came in the form of a Donald Trump largely incoherent nine-minute self-applauding speech explaining what he had done and why. It was followed by a House of Representatives War Powers non-binding resolution that was all theater and did nothing to limit the president’s unilateral ability to go to war with the Islamic Republic.
It was reported that the Trump speech had been hurriedly written by aides the night before it was given and that it existed in several competing drafts. It was full of out-and-out lies and half truths and intended to reassure the American people that the president was keeping them safe. The opening line might well be regarded as some kind of joke: “As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) and his assassination of Soleimani, which together have convinced the Iranian leadership that there is no possibility of a reasonable negotiated solution when dealing with the American president, even when he claims he wants to “talk.”
The Deep State: The Fa... Lofgren, Mike Best Price: $2.15 Buy New $11.01 (as of 11:20 UTC - Details) Trump then went on characteristically to eulogize our brave soldiers on far flung battlefields before lying again, saying “For far too long — all the way back to 1979, to be exact — nations have tolerated Iran’s destructive and destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and beyond. Those days are over. Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. We will never let that happen.” Lie one is that the “destructive and destabilizing behavior” actually has Made in U.S.A. stamped all over it. Lie two is “leading sponsor of terrorism,” an honor that belongs to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States, in that order. And lie three is that Iran “pursued” nuclear weapons. It has never done so.
Trump them boasted that “Last week, we took decisive action to stop a ruthless terrorist from threatening American lives. At my direction, the United States military eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani. As the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani was personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities.” Trump’s preening was again wrong on every count: Soleimani is no terrorist by any reasonable definition, nor is there any evidence that he threatened American lives. And Trump and his chorus of neocons cannot name a single “atrocity” committed by the man
The president claimed that Soleimani “…viciously wounded and murdered thousands of U.S. troops, including the planting of roadside bombs that maim and dismember their victims,” a particularly absurd charge suggesting that Trump believes that any American soldier who died in Iraq or Afghanistan did so at the hands of the Iranian Major General. By the same logic, the musical chairs series of American generals that have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have murdered hundreds of thousands of people. If Trump wants to start counting fatalities he should perhaps start with David Petraeus..
Piling Ossa on Pelion, Trump declared that Soleimani “…orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him.” There is no evidence whatsoever to support either assertion and Trump then goes on to ascribe all the problems of the Middle East to Iran, ignoring the roles played by others, most notably Washington, Israel and the Saudis. He also roundly condemned the JCPOA before asserting falsely that “Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi…” In reality, ISIS was defeated by the Syrian Army and its allies Russia and Iran, the very countries that Trump has continued to vilify even as he struts his anti-terrorist credentials. Qassem Soleimani played a major role in the destruction of ISIS.
The only good things in the Trump speech were that it was short and the president did not find it necessary to say a whole lot of good things about Israel. Interestingly, no one in the mainstream media or in the political chattering class made much effort to challenged Trump on the “facts” he cited, though there was some pushback from mostly Democratic congressmen who stated that they could not see any “imminent threat” in the evidence that the Administration produced during a classified briefing. The actual war powers concurrent resolution that passed in the House last Thursday was symptomatic of the unwillingness of the political opposition to take on the illegal and immoral wars in the Middle East themselves – it had no teeth and will not change anything.
The resolution’s subject line “Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran” actually is misleading. And the first thing the text does do is slam Iran with the same dubious “facts” employed by Trump, including that “The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran’s destabilizing activities throughout the world.”
The resolution includes “In matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch should indicate to Congress why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks against the United States.” It then goes on to explain that “When the United States uses military force, the American people and members of the United States Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military force…” because “The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) requires the President to consult with Congress ‘in every possible instance’ before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.” It concludes with “Congress has not authorized the President to use military force against Iran.”
It would seem to be a devastating critique of the Trump Art of War but then comes the wiggle room “…Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent the President from using military force against al Qaeda or associated forces…” In other words, all Trump has to do is claim “imminent threat” or that he is attacking “terrorist associated forces” and he is home free no matter what he does, particularly as the resolution itself is non-binding. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
The sheer ignorance and arrogance of elites in Washington combined with a colonialist mentality that dismisses Asians and Africans as unthinking “wogs” who will do one’s bidding if they are confronted with punishment is currently on display. It was inevitable that Iraq would demand the departure of U.S. troops after thirty-four Iraqi militiamen were killed by American drone and air strikes, but many in Washington just didn’t get it. Trump threatened, in characteristic fashion, to respond with sanctions, but now Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has made it official in a phone call to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, demanding a plan and timetable for the removal of the American soldiers. The State Department has indicated that it is not prepared to discuss the matter.
Some pundits who should know better have predicted that the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers will not take place because Iraq somehow “needs” the United States. And besides, there will be economic consequences if Iraq does go ahead to insist on an American withdrawal. But sometimes abstractions prove to be more powerful than material incentives. The United States violated Iraqi sovereignty not once but twice and murdered 34 Iraqis in the process. Pompeo can huff and puff all he wants and Trump can mouth his illiteracies, but nothing changes the fact that the United States did things it did not have to do based on a delusional view of the Middle East and will have to pay a price. Minus a presence in Iraq, Syria will be untenable and one might hope that once the U.S. loses its ability to directly confront Iran on the ground the whole house of cards just might collapse, leading to Washington’s gradual departure from the region. That would be good for the region and also for the United States even if Israel and the Saudis, who prefer to have Americans fight and die in their wars, might object.
Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.
The Best of Philip Giraldi


lewrockwell--2020-01-15--Impeachment, Soleimani, and the Pull of the Swamp

The day Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would open up impeachment proceedings against President Trump I called it a coup .
It was obvious to me then and more obvious to me today that we are headed to a dangerous place ( a dangerous place ) .
Trump ’ s impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week and it ’ s clear that this will not be a walk in the park for the President .
Anyone dismissing this because the Republicans hold the Senate simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first place .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a President whose desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C .
Swamp .
This is what I said back in September : Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 The Democrats would not be pushing for this if they didn ’ t think they have the votes in the House and the Senate to get this done .
Ignore the conventional wisdom on this .
They were wrong in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upholding Johnson proroguing Parliament ] They will be wrong here , unless Trump has something else up his sleeve .
His removing John Bolton and refusal to attack Iran is driving the neoconservatives to apoplexy .
They want their holy war against the apostate Shi ’ ites and they will get it .
Mike Pence will be their avatar until such time as he can be removed through a sham election in 2020 .
If this wasn ’ t the case they wouldn ’ t be risking what ’ s left of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joe Biden , who they don ’ t actually want to be the candidate anyway .
Take this one step farther .
You don ’ t start this process if you aren ’ t going to use what it gives you .
Thinking only in terms of the Democrats ’ horrific slate of challengers to Trump betrays the myopia of most political analysts .
They see things , wrongly , in terms of partisanship .
This isn ’ t primarily about Democrat v. Republican .
This isn ’ t even just about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And you have to ask yourself the question why would Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell go along with a real trial unless the fix was in ?
Because , as Trump rightly points out , he ’ s got the approval rating nationally and within his own party .
He ’ s a lock for re-election .
So , given the clear unconstitutionality of these impeachment articles ( which I discussed previously ) why is this even still a thing ?
Because Trump is going to be taken out .
The events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murdered IRGC General Qassem Soleimani prove this beyond any doubt .
Impeachment was the leverage point to drive open a wedge between Republicans and Trump through Iran .
Pelosi slow-walking the articles of impeachment to the Senate was all part of the pantomime , folks .
She gets what she wants : Congress asserting more power and the Democrats shoring up their base by taking out an eyesore in Trump .
She waits just long enough for Trump to do something questionable and for it to be made known publicly .
The neocons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — further escalation of pressure on Iran with the hope of destroying them .
Moreover , they prove to Trump , Israel , the MIC and the world that they are still fully in charge of U.S. foreign policy .
The Swamp Strikes Back and puts Trump in a no-win situation .
The Wall St. Journal article from this weekend which intimated that Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani was motivated by shoring up his support in the Israeli Occupied Senate is further proof .
It ’ s not like Trump hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Neocons in the past .
He did it with the bombing of the Al Shairat airbase in Syria back in April of 2017 .
Remember , that was the night the MSM and Congress declared Trump suitably “ Presidential.
” Then he did it again four months later , doubling our presence in Afghanistan in the hopes of getting Obamacare repealed .
Oh , by the way , Lindsey Graham reneged on that deal .
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper doing the Sunday talk show circuit to throw the President under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now Pelosi wants to add more charges to the docket and McConnell is going for a trial , when he should just outright dismiss these charges .
I told you that this all comes down to McConnell and how he handles the terms of the trial .
He sets the table for this .
And if he ’ s not tilting it in Trump ’ s favor , Donald is right to be worried .
Trump ’ s killing Soleimani gives them plenty of cover to do so .
His lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used against him .
That ’ s why Esper told the world Trump didn ’ t have proof of an imminent threat .
So , Trump , often his own worst enemy , then defends himself by saying Soleimani just needed killin ’ .
It ’ s all being stage-managed by a nearly rogue Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and facilitated through Lindsey Graham .
The events that led up to Iran ’ s missile attack on our bases in Iraq should not be taken at face value .
Killing one U.S. oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PMU bases ringing the Iraqi/Syrian border crossing between Al Qaim and Al Bukamai .
It certainly doesn ’ t necessitate taking the conflict all the way to the point of Iran firing missiles at our airbases in Iraq .
Don ’ t think for a second that if Graham feels Trump isn ’ t sufficiently controlled at this point that he won ’ t , in the end , wring his hands and vote for his removal from office because the President ’ s decision-making skills are questionable .
If the Swamp truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial is their best chance of getting that done .
At this point we have a handful of open Republican turncoats .
Swelling that number to twenty in the Senate is not that hard .
Remember , twenty is a helluva lot smaller than the millions of voters that would have to turn against Trump to elect Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings to emerge from a brokered Democratic convention this summer .
That ’ s what ’ s fundamentally wrong with representative forms of government .
For a New Liberty : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... Best Price : $ 5.46 Buy New $ 10.50 And even then , Pence v. Clinton would be a close affair because of the deep divisions within the electorate and Hillary ’ s fundamental evil .
Either way , the Swamp wins .
Nothing happens in D.C. that doesn ’ t become a weapon in these people ’ s hands .
To think Pelosi wouldn ’ t use this to its fullest is terminally naive .
To think Trump is savvy enough to see the game board in all its complexity having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family ) member is also naive .
To think McConnell is anything more than an order-taker from those above him is the height of naivete .
I give Trump credit for navigating things to this point and keeping the violence to a minimum , but if he ’ s going to go down , he better be prepared to go scorched earth in the process .
It ’ s his only chance at survival and fulfilling even one of his many campaign promises .
Either way , the U.S. electorate will not stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they shouldn ’ t .
I may be angry with Trump for his recent actions , but this impeachment is the height of lunacy .
And when something this ludicrous goes this far , it means the fix is in .
The Flying Monkeys have taken over the asylum .
The existence of this trial is itself an inflection point in history .
The rest is just a chase scene .
The Best of Thomas Luongo

The day Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would open up impeachment proceedings against President Trump I called it a coup. It was obvious to me then and more obvious to me today that we are headed to a dangerous place (a dangerous place).
Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week and it’s clear that this will not be a walk in the park for the President. Anyone dismissing this because the Republicans hold the Senate simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first place.
It is the ultimate form of leverage over a President whose desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C. Swamp.
This is what I said back in September: Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
The Democrats would not be pushing for this if they didn’t think they have the votes in the House and the Senate to get this done. Ignore the conventional wisdom on this. They were wrong in the UK.[about the courts upholding Johnson proroguing Parliament] They will be wrong here, unless Trump has something else up his sleeve. His removing John Bolton and refusal to attack Iran is driving the neoconservatives to apoplexy. They want their holy war against the apostate Shi’ites and they will get it. Mike Pence will be their avatar until such time as he can be removed through a sham election in 2020. If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t be risking what’s left of their political future defending a senile old man, Joe Biden, who they don’t actually want to be the candidate anyway. It’s a coup folks.
Take this one step farther. You don’t start this process if you aren’t going to use what it gives you. Thinking only in terms of the Democrats’ horrific slate of challengers to Trump betrays the myopia of most political analysts.
They see things, wrongly, in terms of partisanship. This isn’t primarily about Democrat v. Republican. This isn’t even just about Clinton v. Trump and a temper tantrum.
Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2020
And you have to ask yourself the question why would Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell go along with a real trial unless the fix was in?
Because, as Trump rightly points out, he’s got the approval rating nationally and within his own party. He’s a lock for re-election. So, given the clear unconstitutionality of these impeachment articles (which I discussed previously) why is this even still a thing?
Because Trump is going to be taken out.
The events of the past twelve days since Trump murdered IRGC General Qassem Soleimani prove this beyond any doubt. Impeachment was the leverage point to drive open a wedge between Republicans and Trump through Iran.
Pelosi slow-walking the articles of impeachment to the Senate was all part of the pantomime, folks. She gets what she wants: Congress asserting more power and the Democrats shoring up their base by taking out an eyesore in Trump.
She waits just long enough for Trump to do something questionable and for it to be made known publicly.
The neocons in the Senate get what they want — further escalation of pressure on Iran with the hope of destroying them. Moreover, they prove to Trump, Israel, the MIC and the world that they are still fully in charge of U.S. foreign policy.
The Swamp Strikes Back and puts Trump in a no-win situation.
The Wall St. Journal article from this weekend which intimated that Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani was motivated by shoring up his support in the Israeli Occupied Senate is further proof.
“Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said,” the newspaper reported.
It’s not like Trump hasn’t let missiles fly to appease the Neocons in the past. He did it with the bombing of the Al Shairat airbase in Syria back in April of 2017. Remember, that was the night the MSM and Congress declared Trump suitably “Presidential.”
Then he did it again four months later, doubling our presence in Afghanistan in the hopes of getting Obamacare repealed. Oh, by the way, Lindsey Graham reneged on that deal.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper doing the Sunday talk show circuit to throw the President under the bus about his intelligence seals the deal.
What an astoundingly embarrassing “defense” of President Trump’s claim of bomb threats to four embassies. “What the President said was he believed it probably could have been. He didn’t cite intelligence.” – Defense Secretary Mark Esper pic.twitter.com/b5LwrlbC4K — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) January 12, 2020
Now Pelosi wants to add more charges to the docket and McConnell is going for a trial, when he should just outright dismiss these charges. I told you that this all comes down to McConnell and how he handles the terms of the trial.
He sets the table for this. And if he’s not tilting it in Trump’s favor, Donald is right to be worried.
Trump’s killing Soleimani gives them plenty of cover to do so. His lack of consistency in defending the act will be used against him. That’s why Esper told the world Trump didn’t have proof of an imminent threat.
So, Trump, often his own worst enemy, then defends himself by saying Soleimani just needed killin’.
The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020
It’s all being stage-managed by a nearly rogue Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and facilitated through Lindsey Graham. The events that led up to Iran’s missile attack on our bases in Iraq should not be taken at face value.
Killing one U.S. oil contractor does not justify attacks on five PMU bases ringing the Iraqi/Syrian border crossing between Al Qaim and Al Bukamai.
It certainly doesn’t necessitate taking the conflict all the way to the point of Iran firing missiles at our airbases in Iraq.
Don’t think for a second that if Graham feels Trump isn’t sufficiently controlled at this point that he won’t, in the end, wring his hands and vote for his removal from office because the President’s decision-making skills are questionable.
If the Swamp truly wants Trump removed from office then this impeachment trial is their best chance of getting that done. At this point we have a handful of open Republican turncoats. Swelling that number to twenty in the Senate is not that hard.
Remember, twenty is a helluva lot smaller than the millions of voters that would have to turn against Trump to elect Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings to emerge from a brokered Democratic convention this summer.
That’s what’s fundamentally wrong with representative forms of government. For a New Liberty: The... Murray Rothbard Best Price: $9.51 Buy New $10.50 (as of 02:10 UTC - Details)
And even then, Pence v. Clinton would be a close affair because of the deep divisions within the electorate and Hillary’s fundamental evil. Either way, the Swamp wins.
Nothing happens in D.C. that doesn’t become a weapon in these people’s hands.
To think Pelosi wouldn’t use this to its fullest is terminally naive. To think Trump is savvy enough to see the game board in all its complexity having not one truly loyal staff (or family) member is also naive.
To think McConnell is anything more than an order-taker from those above him is the height of naivete.
I give Trump credit for navigating things to this point and keeping the violence to a minimum, but if he’s going to go down, he better be prepared to go scorched earth in the process.
It’s his only chance at survival and fulfilling even one of his many campaign promises.
Either way, the U.S. electorate will not stand for removing Trump over this. And they shouldn’t. I may be angry with Trump for his recent actions, but this impeachment is the height of lunacy. And when something this ludicrous goes this far, it means the fix is in.
The Flying Monkeys have taken over the asylum. The existence of this trial is itself an inflection point in history.
The rest is just a chase scene.
Reprinted with permission from Gold Goats ‘n Guns.
The Best of Tom Luongo