Nationalism and Secession

With the collapse of communism all across Eastern Europe , secessionist movements are mushrooming .
There are now more than a dozen independent states on the territory of the former Soviet Union , and many of its more than 100 different ethnic , religious , and linguistic groups are striving to gain independence .
Yugoslavia has dissolved into various national components .
Slovenia , Croatia , Serbia , and Bosnia now exist as independent states .
The Czechs and the Slovaks have split and formed independent countries .
There are Germans in Poland , Hungarians in Slovakia , Hungarians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germans and Hungarians in Romania , and Turks and Macedonians in Bulgaria who all desire independence .
The events of Eastern Europe have also given new strength to secessionist movements in Western Europe : to the Scots and Irish in Great Britain , the Basques and Catalonians in Spain , the Flemish in Belgium , and the South Tyrolians and the Lega Nord in Italy .
Democracy u2013 The Go ... Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price : $ 24.77 Buy New $ 37.61 From a global perspective , however , mankind has moved closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a world government .
Even before the dissolution of the Soviet Union , the United States had attained hegemonical status over Western Europe ( most notably over West Germany ) and the Pacific rim countries ( most notably over Japan ) —as indicated by the presence of American troops and military bases , by the NATO and SEATO pacts , by the role of the American dollar as the ultimate international reserve currency and of the U.S. Federal Reserve System as the “ lender ” or “ liquidity provider ” of last resort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) and the World Bank .
Moreover , under American hegemony the political integration of Western Europe has steadily advanced .
With the establishment of a European Central Bank and a European Currency Unit ( ECU ) , the European Community will be complete before the turn of the century .
In the absence of the Soviet Empire and its military threat , the United States has emerged as the world ’ s sole and undisputed military superpower .
A look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beginning of this millennium , Europe consisted of thousands of independent territorial units .
Now , only a few dozen such units remain .
To be sure , decentralizing forces also existed .
There was the progressive disintegration of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century until after World War I and the establishment of modern Turkey .
The discontiguous Habsburg Empire was gradually dismembered from the time of its greatest expansion under Charles V until it disappeared and modern Austria was founded in 1918 .
However , the overriding tendency was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , during the second half of the 17th century , Germany consisted of some 234 countries , 51 free cities , and 1,500 independent knightly manors .
By the early 19th century , the total number of all three had fallen below 50 , and by 1871 unification had been achieved .
The scenario in Italy was similar .
Even the small states have a history of expansion and centralization .
Switzerland began in 1291 as a confederation of three independent cantonal states .
By 1848 it was a single ( federal ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A Theory of Socialism ... Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price : $ 1.99 Buy New $ 10.70 How should one interpret these phenomena ?
According to the orthodox view , centralization is generally a “ good ” and progressive movement , whereas disintegration and secession , even if sometimes unavoidable , represent an anachronism .
It is assumed that larger political units—and ultimately a single world government—imply wider markets and hence increased wealth .
As evidence of this , it is pointed out that economic prosperity has increased dramatically with increased centralization .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this orthodox view is more illustrative of the fact that history is typically written by its victors .
Correlation or temporal coincidence do not prove causation .
In fact , the relationship between economic prosperity and centralization is very different from—indeed , almost the opposite of—what orthodoxy alleges .
Political integration ( centralization ) and economic ( market ) integration are two completely different phenomena .
Political integration involves the territorial expansion of a government ’ s power of taxation and property regulation ( expropriation ) .
Economic integration is the extension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor and market participation .
In principle , in taxing and regulating ( expropriating ) private property owners and market income earners , all governments are counterproductive .
They reduce market participation and the formation of economic wealth .
Once the existence of a government has been assumed , however , no direct relationship between territorial size and economic integration exists .
Switzerland and Albania are both small countries , but Switzerland exhibits a high degree of economic integration , whereas Albania does not .
Both the United States and the former Soviet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is much division of labor and market participation in the United States , in the Soviet Union , where there was virtually no private capital ownership , there was hardly any economic integration .
Centralization , then , can go hand in hand with either economic progress or retrogression .
Progress results whenever a less taxing and regulating government expands its territory at the expense of a more expropriative one .
If the reverse occurs , centralization implies economic disintegration and retrogression .
Yet a highly important indirect relationship exists between size and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over large-scale territories—much less a single world government— can not come into existence ab ovo .
Instead , all institutions with the power to tax and regulate the owners of private property must start out small .
Smallness contributes to moderation , however .
A small government has many close competitors , and if it taxes and regulates its own subjects visibly more than these competitors do , it is bound to suffer from emigration and a corresponding loss of future revenue .
Consider a single household , or a village , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Could a father do to his son , or a mayor to his village , what the government of the Soviet Union did to its subjects ( i.e.
, deny them any right to private capital ownership ) or what governments all across Western Europe and the United States do to their citizens ( i.e.
, expropriate up to 50 percent of their productive output ) ?
Obviously not .
Either there would be an immediate revolt and the government would be overthrown or emigration to another nearby household or village would ensue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hoppe , Hans-Hermann Best Price : $ 5.95 Buy New $ 1.99 Contrary to orthodoxy , then , it is precisely because Europe possessed a highly decentralized power structure composed of countless independent political units that explains the origin of capitalism—the expansion of market participation and of economic growth—in the Western world .
It is not by accident that capitalism first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralization : in the northern Italian city states , in southern Germany , and in the secessionist Low Countries .
The competition among small governments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other .
As a result of interstate conflicts , historically drawn out over the course of centuries , a few states succeed in expanding their territories , while others are eliminated or incorporated .
Which states win in this process of eliminative competition and which ones lose depends on many factors , of course .
But in the long run , the decisive factor is the relative amount of economic resources at a government ’ s disposal .
In taxing and regulating , governments do not positively contribute to the creation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draw on existing wealth .
However , they can influence the amount of the existing wealth negatively .
Other things being equal , the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed by a government on its domestic economy , the larger its population tends to grow ( for internal reasons as well as immigration factors ) , and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which it can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors .
For this reason centralization is frequently progressive .
States that tax and regulate their domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand their territories at the expense of , nonliberal ones .
This accounts for the outbreak of the “ industrial revolution ” in centralized England and France .
It explains why in the course of the 19th century Western Europe came to dominate the rest of the world ( rather than the other way around ) , and why this colonialism was generally progressive .
Furthermore , it explains the rise of the United States to the rank of superpower in the course of the 20th century .
However , the further the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal ones proceeds—i.e.
, the larger the territories , the fewer and more distant the remaining competitors , and thus the more costly international migration—the lower a government ’ s incentive to continue in its domestic liberalism will be .
As one approaches the limit of a One World state , all possibilities of voting with one ’ s feet against a government disappear .
Wherever one goes , the same tax and regulation structure applies .
Thus relieved of the problem of emigration , a fundamental rein on the expansion of governmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course of the 20th century : with World War I , and even more with World War II , the United States attained hegemony over Western Europe and became heir to its vast colonial empires .
A decisive step in the direction of global unification , therefore , was taken with the establishment of a pax Americana .
And indeed , throughout the entire period the United States , Western Europe , and most of the rest of the world have suffered from a steady and dramatic growth of government power , taxation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price : $ 3.95 Buy New $ 7.95 What then is the role of secession ?
Initially , secession is nothing more than a shifting of control over the nationalized wealth from a larger , central government to a smaller , regional one .
Whether this will lead to more or less economic integration and prosperity depends on the new regional government ’ s policies .
However , the sole fact of secession has an immediate positive impact on production , for one of the most important reasons for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the secessionists that they and their territory are being exploited by others .
The Slovenes felt that they were being robbed systematically by the Serbs and the Serbian-dominated central Yugoslavian government , and the Baltics resented the fact that they had to pay tribute to the Russians and the Russian-dominated government of the Soviet Union .
By virtue of secession , hegemonic domestic relations are replaced by contractual—mutually beneficial—foreign relations .
Instead of forced integration there is voluntary separation .
Forced integration , illustrated by such measures as busing , rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free immigration , ” invariably creates tension , hatred , and conflict .
In contrast , voluntary separation leads to social harmony and peace .
Under forced integration any mistake can be blamed on a foreign group or culture and all success claimed as one ’ s own , and hence there is little or no reason for any culture to learn from another .
Under a regime of “ separate but equal , ” one must face up to the reality not only of cultural diversity but in particular of visibly distinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secessionist people wishes to improve or maintain its position vis-á-vis a competing one , nothing but discriminative learning will help .
It must imitate , assimilate , and , if possible , improve upon the skills , traits , practices , and rules characteristic of more advanced cultures , and it must avoid those characteristic of less advanced societies .
Rather than promote a downward leveling of cultures as under forced integration , secession stimulates a cooperative process of cultural selection and advancement .
Moreover , although everything else depends on the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although no direct relationship between size and economic integration exists , there is an important indirect connection .
Just as political centralization ultimately tends to promote economic disintegration , so secession tends to advance integration and economic development .
First , secession always involves the breaking away of a smaller from a larger population and is thus a vote against the principle of democracy and majoritarian ownership in favor of private , decentralized property .
More importantly , secession always involves increased opportunities for interregional migration , and a secessionist government is immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To avoid the loss of its most productive subjects , it is under increased pressure to adopt comparatively liberal domestic policies by allowing more private property and imposing a lower tax and regulation burden than its neighbors .
Ultimately , with as many territories as separate households , villages , or towns , the opportunities for economically motivated emigration would be maximized , and government power over a domestic economy minimized .
Specifically , the smaller the country , the greater will be the pressure to opt for free trade rather than protectionism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcibly limits the range of mutually beneficial interterritorial exchanges and thus leads to relative impoverishment , at home as well as abroad .
But the smaller a territory and its internal markets , the more dramatic this effect will be .
A country the size of Russia , for instance , might attain comparatively high standards of living even if it renounced all foreign trade , provided it possessed an unrestricted internal capital and consumer goods market .
In contrast , if predominantly Serbian cities or counties seceded from surrounding Croatia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this would likely spell disaster .
Consider a single household as the conceivably smallest secessionist unit .
By engaging in unrestricted free trade , even the smallest territory can be fully integrated into the world market and partake of every advantage of the division of labor , and its owners may well become the wealthiest people on earth .
The existence of a single wealthy individual anywhere is living proof of this .
On the other hand , if the same household owners decided to forego all interterritorial trade , abject poverty or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a territory and its internal markets , the more likely it is that it will opt for free trade .
The Economics and Ethi ... Hoppe , Hans-Hermann Check Amazon for Pricing .
Secessionism , then , and the growth of separatist and regionalist movements in Eastern and Western Europe represent not an anachronism but potentially the most progressive historical forces .
Secession increases ethnic , linguistic , religious , and cultural diversity , while in the course of centuries of centralization hundreds of distinct cultures were stamped out .
It will end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of centralization , and rather than stimulating social strife and cultural leveling , it will promote the peaceful , cooperative competition of different , territorially separate cultures .
In particular , it eliminates the immigration problem increasingly plaguing the countries of Western Europe as well as the United States .
Now , whenever a central government permits immigration , it allows foreigners to proceed—literally on government-owned roads—to any of its residents ’ doorsteps , regardless of whether these residents desire such proximity to foreigners .
“ Free immigration ” is thus to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solves this problem by letting smaller territories have their own admission standards and determine independently with whom they will associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate from a distance .
Lastly , secession promotes economic integration and development .
The process of centralization has resulted in the formation of an international , American-dominated government cartel of managed migration , trade , and fiat money ; ever more invasive and burdensome governments ; globalized welfare-warfare statism ; and economic stagnation or even declining standards of living .
Secession , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change all of this .
A Europe consisting of hundreds of distinct countries , regions , and cantons , of thousands of independent free cities ( such as the present-day “ oddities ” of Monaco , San Marino , and Andorra ) , with the greatly increased opportunities for economically motivated migration that would result , would be one of small , liberal governments economically integrated through free trade and an international commodity money such as gold .
It would be a Europe of unparalleled economic growth and unprecedented prosperity .
The Best @ @ @

[Published in Chronicles, Nov. 1993, p. 23–25]
With the collapse of communism all across Eastern Europe, secessionist movements are mushrooming. There are now more than a dozen independent states on the territory of the former Soviet Union, and many of its more than 100 different ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups are striving to gain independence. Yugoslavia has dissolved into various national components. Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia now exist as independent states. The Czechs and the Slovaks have split and formed independent countries. There are Germans in Poland, Hungarians in Slovakia, Hungarians, Macedonians, and Albanians in Serbia, Germans and Hungarians in Romania, and Turks and Macedonians in Bulgaria who all desire independence. The events of Eastern Europe have also given new strength to secessionist movements in Western Europe: to the Scots and Irish in Great Britain, the Basques and Catalonians in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium, and the South Tyrolians and the Lega Nord in Italy.
Democracy u2013 The Go... Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price: $24.77 Buy New $37.61 (as of 09:25 UTC - Details) From a global perspective, however, mankind has moved closer than ever before to the establishment of a world government. Even before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States had attained hegemonical status over Western Europe (most notably over West Germany) and the Pacific rim countries (most notably over Japan)—as indicated by the presence of American troops and military bases, by the NATO and SEATO pacts, by the role of the American dollar as the ultimate international reserve currency and of the U.S. Federal Reserve System as the “lender” or “liquidity provider” of last resort for the entire Western banking system, and by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Moreover, under American hegemony the political integration of Western Europe has steadily advanced. With the establishment of a European Central Bank and a European Currency Unit (ECU), the European Community will be complete before the turn of the century. In the absence of the Soviet Empire and its military threat, the United States has emerged as the world’s sole and undisputed military superpower.
A look at history reveals yet another perspective. At the beginning of this millennium, Europe consisted of thousands of independent territorial units. Now, only a few dozen such units remain. To be sure, decentralizing forces also existed. There was the progressive disintegration of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century until after World War I and the establishment of modern Turkey. The discontiguous Habsburg Empire was gradually dismembered from the time of its greatest expansion under Charles V until it disappeared and modern Austria was founded in 1918. However, the overriding tendency was in the opposite direction. For instance, during the second half of the 17th century, Germany consisted of some 234 countries, 51 free cities, and 1,500 independent knightly manors. By the early 19th century, the total number of all three had fallen below 50, and by 1871 unification had been achieved. The scenario in Italy was similar. Even the small states have a history of expansion and centralization. Switzerland began in 1291 as a confederation of three independent cantonal states. By 1848 it was a single (federal) state with some two dozen cantonal provinces.
A Theory of Socialism ... Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $10.70 (as of 07:55 UTC - Details) How should one interpret these phenomena? According to the orthodox view, centralization is generally a “good” and progressive movement, whereas disintegration and secession, even if sometimes unavoidable, represent an anachronism. It is assumed that larger political units—and ultimately a single world government—imply wider markets and hence increased wealth. As evidence of this, it is pointed out that economic prosperity has increased dramatically with increased centralization. However, rather than reflecting any truth, this orthodox view is more illustrative of the fact that history is typically written by its victors. Correlation or temporal coincidence do not prove causation. In fact, the relationship between economic prosperity and centralization is very different from—indeed, almost the opposite of—what orthodoxy alleges.
Political integration (centralization) and economic (market) integration are two completely different phenomena. Political integration involves the territorial expansion of a government’s power of taxation and property regulation (expropriation). Economic integration is the extension of the interpersonal and interregional division of labor and market participation.
In principle, in taxing and regulating (expropriating) private property owners and market income earners, all governments are counterproductive. They reduce market participation and the formation of economic wealth. Once the existence of a government has been assumed, however, no direct relationship between territorial size and economic integration exists. Switzerland and Albania are both small countries, but Switzerland exhibits a high degree of economic integration, whereas Albania does not. Both the United States and the former Soviet Union are large. Yet while there is much division of labor and market participation in the United States, in the Soviet Union, where there was virtually no private capital ownership, there was hardly any economic integration. Centralization, then, can go hand in hand with either economic progress or retrogression. Progress results whenever a less taxing and regulating government expands its territory at the expense of a more expropriative one. If the reverse occurs, centralization implies economic disintegration and retrogression.
Yet a highly important indirect relationship exists between size and economic integration. A central government ruling over large-scale territories—much less a single world government—cannot come into existence ab ovo. Instead, all institutions with the power to tax and regulate the owners of private property must start out small. Smallness contributes to moderation, however. A small government has many close competitors, and if it taxes and regulates its own subjects visibly more than these competitors do, it is bound to suffer from emigration and a corresponding loss of future revenue. Consider a single household, or a village, as an independent territory, for instance. Could a father do to his son, or a mayor to his village, what the government of the Soviet Union did to its subjects (i.e., deny them any right to private capital ownership) or what governments all across Western Europe and the United States do to their citizens (i.e., expropriate up to 50 percent of their productive output)? Obviously not. Either there would be an immediate revolt and the government would be overthrown or emigration to another nearby household or village would ensue. A Short History of Man... Hoppe, Hans-Hermann Best Price: $5.95 Buy New $1.99 (as of 06:55 UTC - Details)
Contrary to orthodoxy, then, it is precisely because Europe possessed a highly decentralized power structure composed of countless independent political units that explains the origin of capitalism—the expansion of market participation and of economic growth—in the Western world. It is not by accident that capitalism first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralization: in the northern Italian city states, in southern Germany, and in the secessionist Low Countries.
The competition among small governments for taxable subjects brings them into conflict with each other. As a result of interstate conflicts, historically drawn out over the course of centuries, a few states succeed in expanding their territories, while others are eliminated or incorporated. Which states win in this process of eliminative competition and which ones lose depends on many factors, of course. But in the long run, the decisive factor is the relative amount of economic resources at a government’s disposal. In taxing and regulating, governments do not positively contribute to the creation of economic wealth. Instead, they parasitically draw on existing wealth. However, they can influence the amount of the existing wealth negatively.
Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed by a government on its domestic economy, the larger its population tends to grow (for internal reasons as well as immigration factors), and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which it can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors. For this reason centralization is frequently progressive. States that tax and regulate their domestic economies little—liberal states—tend to defeat, and expand their territories at the expense of, nonliberal ones. This accounts for the outbreak of the “industrial revolution” in centralized England and France. It explains why in the course of the 19th century Western Europe came to dominate the rest of the world (rather than the other way around), and why this colonialism was generally progressive. Furthermore, it explains the rise of the United States to the rank of superpower in the course of the 20th century.
However, the further the process of more liberal governments defeating less liberal ones proceeds—i.e., the larger the territories, the fewer and more distant the remaining competitors, and thus the more costly international migration—the lower a government’s incentive to continue in its domestic liberalism will be. As one approaches the limit of a One World state, all possibilities of voting with one’s feet against a government disappear. Wherever one goes, the same tax and regulation structure applies. Thus relieved of the problem of emigration, a fundamental rein on the expansion of governmental power is gone. This explains the course of the 20th century: with World War I, and even more with World War II, the United States attained hegemony over Western Europe and became heir to its vast colonial empires. A decisive step in the direction of global unification, therefore, was taken with the establishment of a pax Americana. And indeed, throughout the entire period the United States, Western Europe, and most of the rest of the world have suffered from a steady and dramatic growth of government power, taxation, and regulatory expropriation.
Getting Libertarianism... Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price: $3.95 Buy New $7.95 (as of 12:25 UTC - Details) What then is the role of secession? Initially, secession is nothing more than a shifting of control over the nationalized wealth from a larger, central government to a smaller, regional one. Whether this will lead to more or less economic integration and prosperity depends on the new regional government’s policies. However, the sole fact of secession has an immediate positive impact on production, for one of the most important reasons for secession is typically the belief on the part of the secessionists that they and their territory are being exploited by others. The Slovenes felt that they were being robbed systematically by the Serbs and the Serbian-dominated central Yugoslavian government, and the Baltics resented the fact that they had to pay tribute to the Russians and the Russian-dominated government of the Soviet Union. By virtue of secession, hegemonic domestic relations are replaced by contractual—mutually beneficial—foreign relations. Instead of forced integration there is voluntary separation.
Forced integration, illustrated by such measures as busing, rent controls, antidiscrimination laws, and “free immigration,” invariably creates tension, hatred, and conflict. In contrast, voluntary separation leads to social harmony and peace. Under forced integration any mistake can be blamed on a foreign group or culture and all success claimed as one’s own, and hence there is little or no reason for any culture to learn from another. Under a regime of “separate but equal,” one must face up to the reality not only of cultural diversity but in particular of visibly distinct ranks of cultural advancement. If a secessionist people wishes to improve or maintain its position vis-á-vis a competing one, nothing but discriminative learning will help. It must imitate, assimilate, and, if possible, improve upon the skills, traits, practices, and rules characteristic of more advanced cultures, and it must avoid those characteristic of less advanced societies. Rather than promote a downward leveling of cultures as under forced integration, secession stimulates a cooperative process of cultural selection and advancement.
Moreover, although everything else depends on the new regional government’s domestic policies and although no direct relationship between size and economic integration exists, there is an important indirect connection. Just as political centralization ultimately tends to promote economic disintegration, so secession tends to advance integration and economic development. First, secession always involves the breaking away of a smaller from a larger population and is thus a vote against the principle of democracy and majoritarian ownership in favor of private, decentralized property. More importantly, secession always involves increased opportunities for interregional migration, and a secessionist government is immediately confronted with the specter of emigration. To avoid the loss of its most productive subjects, it is under increased pressure to adopt comparatively liberal domestic policies by allowing more private property and imposing a lower tax and regulation burden than its neighbors. Ultimately, with as many territories as separate households, villages, or towns, the opportunities for economically motivated emigration would be maximized, and government power over a domestic economy minimized.
Specifically, the smaller the country, the greater will be the pressure to opt for free trade rather than protectionism. All government interference with foreign trade forcibly limits the range of mutually beneficial interterritorial exchanges and thus leads to relative impoverishment, at home as well as abroad. But the smaller a territory and its internal markets, the more dramatic this effect will be. A country the size of Russia, for instance, might attain comparatively high standards of living even if it renounced all foreign trade, provided it possessed an unrestricted internal capital and consumer goods market. In contrast, if predominantly Serbian cities or counties seceded from surrounding Croatia, and if they pursued the same protectionism, this would likely spell disaster. Consider a single household as the conceivably smallest secessionist unit. By engaging in unrestricted free trade, even the smallest territory can be fully integrated into the world market and partake of every advantage of the division of labor, and its owners may well become the wealthiest people on earth. The existence of a single wealthy individual anywhere is living proof of this. On the other hand, if the same household owners decided to forego all interterritorial trade, abject poverty or death would result Accordingly, the smaller a territory and its internal markets, the more likely it is that it will opt for free trade. The Economics and Ethi... Hoppe, Hans-Hermann Check Amazon for Pricing.
Secessionism, then, and the growth of separatist and regionalist movements in Eastern and Western Europe represent not an anachronism but potentially the most progressive historical forces. Secession increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while in the course of centuries of centralization hundreds of distinct cultures were stamped out. It will end the forced integration brought about as a result of centralization, and rather than stimulating social strife and cultural leveling, it will promote the peaceful, cooperative competition of different, territorially separate cultures. In particular, it eliminates the immigration problem increasingly plaguing the countries of Western Europe as well as the United States. Now, whenever a central government permits immigration, it allows foreigners to proceed—literally on government-owned roads—to any of its residents’ doorsteps, regardless of whether these residents desire such proximity to foreigners. “Free immigration” is thus to a large extent forced integration. Secession solves this problem by letting smaller territories have their own admission standards and determine independently with whom they will associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate from a distance.
Lastly, secession promotes economic integration and development. The process of centralization has resulted in the formation of an international, American-dominated government cartel of managed migration, trade, and fiat money; ever more invasive and burdensome governments; globalized welfare-warfare statism; and economic stagnation or even declining standards of living. Secession, if it is extensive enough, could change all of this. A Europe consisting of hundreds of distinct countries, regions, and cantons, of thousands of independent free cities (such as the present-day “oddities” of Monaco, San Marino, and Andorra), with the greatly increased opportunities for economically motivated migration that would result, would be one of small, liberal governments economically integrated through free trade and an international commodity money such as gold. It would be a Europe of unparalleled economic growth and unprecedented prosperity.
The Best of Hans-Hermann Hoppe


lewrockwell--2020-08-24--The Real Reason Why Blackstone Is Courting the Pentagon

The sudden push by Wall Street ’ s largest private equity firm to heavily lobby the Pentagon and State Department for largely unspecified reasons is part of an increasingly visible conflict within the U.S. establishment regarding how to handle the Artificial Intelligence “ arms race.
” One of Wall Street ’ s largest private equity firms , the Blackstone Group , has been making a series of moves that have left mainstream analysts puzzled , with the most recent being Blackstone ’ s hire of David Urban , a Washington lobbyist with close ties to the Trump administration .
Blackstone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not surprising given that the firm ’ s CEO , Steven Schwarzman , recently donated $ 3 million to Trump ’ s re-election efforts and had previously chaired the President ’ s now-defunct Strategic and Policy Forum of “ business leaders ” and advisors .
The close ties that have developed between Schwarzman and Trump following the latter ’ s election in late 2016 have led mainstream media to describe Schwarzman as a confidant of the President .
Artificial Intelligenc ... Rouhiainen , Lasse Best Price : $ 14.65 Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blackstone ’ s hiring of David Urban was its murky reason for doing so , as the firm plans to task Urban with lobbying the Pentagon and State Department on “ issues related to military preparedness and training.
” This is odd , as CNBC noted , because Blackstone “ doesn ’ t have any publicly listed government contracts , and its known investments don ’ t appear to have direct links to the defense industry.
” However , Urban has extensive experience in dealing with both Departments in addition to his close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundraising apparatus of the Republican Party .
While media reports on Blackstone ’ s recent hire of Urban were unable to elucidate the motive behind Blackstone ’ s sudden desire to court the Pentagon and State Department , they did note that Blackstone ’ s previous hire of a Trump-connected fundraiser lobbyist , Jeff Miller , had been remarkably successful earlier this year , with Miller lobbying Congress specifically on coronavirus relief legislation like the CARES Act .
The CARES Act ultimately allowed private equity giants like Blackstone to access funds designated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts of Miller and other lobbyists hired by Blackstone as well as other private equity giants like the Carlyle Group .
Though CNBC was left looking for answers as to Blackstone ’ s sudden interest in aiding the Pentagon with “ military preparedness ” and wooing the State Department , the likely motive may be related to other recent moves made by the company , such as the hire of former Amazon and Microsoft executive Christine Feng .
Feng , who was hired by Blackstone on August 3 , previously led data and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Services ( AWS ) , which is a contractor to the U.S. intelligence community and other U.S. federal agencies .
Previously , Feng was a senior member of Microsoft ’ s Corporate Development team .
Microsoft recently won lucrative contracts for information technology ( IT ) services and cloud computing for the State Department and Pentagon , respectively .
AI Superpowers : China , ... Lee , Kai-Fu Best Price : $ 11.99 Buy New $ 14.00 According to Blackstone executives , the decision to hire Feng was made due to her “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ her experience working at Amazon and Microsoft.
” They also added that her hire was motivated by Blackstone ’ s push to “ identify new opportunities to invest and partner with innovative companies reshaping the world ” and Blackstone ’ s recent effort to “ double down ” on tech sector investments .
Notably , Feng ’ s hire came just a few months after Blackstone had hired Vincent Letteri , another tech-focused investor experienced with growth-stage tech companies , and amid a series of recent investments by Blackstone in tech firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center provider 21Vianet , among others .
It strongly appears that Blackstone ’ s recent moves , including Urban ’ s hire , are part of the firm ’ s bid to become one of the top “ innovative companies reshaping the world ” as the Artificial Intelligence ( AI ) arms race becomes a key driver in the “ reshaping ” of the global economy .
Blackstone ’ s Steven Schwarzman is a key part of the relatively tight-knit group of billionaires and influential political figures , like Henry Kissinger and Eric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ global compact on the research , introduction , and deployment of AI , ” and Schwarzman has heralded the coming age of AI as representing a “ fourth revolution ” for humanity .
Schwarzman argued for greater global collaboration on AI-driven technologies , particularly between the U.S. and China , in a July 2020 Op-Ed for Yahoo !
Finance where he wrote that the establishment of “ common governance structures ” for the research , introduction and deployment of AI is necessary if “ we are to avoid the negative consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current pace of development of AI to that of past arms races , such as those involving nuclear and biological weapons .
Per Schwarzman , these “ common governance structures ” would produce “ explicit global commitments , agreements , and eventually international laws with consequences for violation ” that relate directly to AI and its use .
Life 3.0 : Being Human ... Tegmark , Max Best Price : $ 6.00 Buy New $ 10.91 Blackstone ’ s head is convinced that these “ common governance structures ” should be built between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy investment in universities and artificial intelligence education in both countries .
For instance , Schwarzman created the Schwarzman Scholars program in 2016 where around 100-200 students from around the world pursue a Master ’ s Degree in Global Affairs at Tsinghua University in Beijing annually .
The official goal of the program , which was modeled after the Rhodes Scholars program , is to “ create a growing network of global leaders that will build strong ties between China and the rest of the world.
” The program ’ s advisors include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as former World Bank President James Wolfensohn and former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and Goldman Sachs executive Henry Paulson .
Schwarzman has also donated hundreds of millions of dollars to create an AI-focused institute at Oxford University .
Then , in the U.S. , Schwarzman gave $ 350 million to MIT , prompting the school to create the Schwarzman College of Computing , which aims to specifically “ address the global opportunities and challenges presented by the ubiquity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disciplines — and by the rise of artificial intelligence.
” MIT News later noted that “ the impulse behind the founding of the college came from trips he [ Schwarzman ] had taken to China , where he observed intensified Chinese investment in artificial intelligence , and wanted to make sure the U.S. was also on the leading edge of A.I.
” The college ’ s inauguration also featured Henry Kissinger as a speaker , where Kissinger mulled the potential impacts of AI and stated that “ AI makes it technically possible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Schmidt , the former CEO of Google , credits Schwarzman ’ s lead to invest in AI education in the U.S. and abroad as determining “ the future of American philanthropy.
” “ Steve ’ s donation triggered an arms race among all the universities to match him .
This is the next trend in philanthropy , in my view , ” Schmidt told Axios regarding Schwarzman ’ s MIT donation last May .
Schmidt also stated that his own investment in Princeton University ’ s Computer Science department had been prompted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ AI philanthropy.
” Superintelligence : Pat ... Bostrom , Nick Best Price : $ 8.67 Buy New $ 12.13 Last May , a federal commission that Schmidt chairs , called the National Security Commission on AI ( NSCAI ) , produced a document that was obtained by a FOIA request earlier this year .
One particularly important page made a point that was essentially repeated in Schwarzman ’ s July Op-Ed regarding a “ global AI compact.
” Titled “ The Importance of a US/China AI Cooperation , ” it begins with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisor to and “ great friend ” of Schmidt , about the need for “ arms control negotiation ” for AI and then states that “ the future of [ AI ] will be decided at the intersection of private enterprise and policy leaders between China and the US.
” In other words , the Schmidt-chaired NSCAI argues that the future of AI will be determined by the political leaders and business leaders of China and the U.S .
The page also adds that “ we [ The United States ] risk being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around AI are set for the rest of our lifetimes .
Apple , Amazon , Alibaba , and Microsoft will not be.
” This is particularly significant given the NSCAI is tasked with making recommendations to the federal government regarding how to move forward with AI regulations within the context of “ national security ” and its members include key members of the Pentagon , U.S. intelligence community and Silicon Valley behemoths that double as contractors to the U.S. military , U.S. intelligence or both .
One of the NSCAI ’ s interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of “ AI in diplomacy , ” suggesting that it also seeks to explore potential State Department uses for AI .
Notably , earlier this year , and a year after the aforementioned NSCAI document was written , the State Department saw key aspects of its IT infrastructure privatized and given over to NSCAI-linked companies like Microsoft .

The sudden push by Wall Street’s largest private equity firm to heavily lobby the Pentagon and State Department for largely unspecified reasons is part of an increasingly visible conflict within the U.S. establishment regarding how to handle the Artificial Intelligence “arms race.”
One of Wall Street’s largest private equity firms, the Blackstone Group, has been making a series of moves that have left mainstream analysts puzzled, with the most recent being Blackstone’s hire of David Urban, a Washington lobbyist with close ties to the Trump administration.
Blackstone’s courting of a Trump ally was not surprising given that the firm’s CEO, Steven Schwarzman, recently donated $3 million to Trump’s re-election efforts and had previously chaired the President’s now-defunct Strategic and Policy Forum of “business leaders” and advisors. The close ties that have developed between Schwarzman and Trump following the latter’s election in late 2016 have led mainstream media to describe Schwarzman as a confidant of the President. Artificial Intelligenc... Rouhiainen, Lasse Best Price: $14.65 Buy New $15.79 (as of 04:03 UTC - Details)
However, what was odd about Blackstone’s hiring of David Urban was its murky reason for doing so, as the firm plans to task Urban with lobbying the Pentagon and State Department on “issues related to military preparedness and training.” This is odd, as CNBC noted, because Blackstone “doesn’t have any publicly listed government contracts, and its known investments don’t appear to have direct links to the defense industry.” However, Urban has extensive experience in dealing with both Departments in addition to his close ties to the current administration and the fundraising apparatus of the Republican Party.
While media reports on Blackstone’s recent hire of Urban were unable to elucidate the motive behind Blackstone’s sudden desire to court the Pentagon and State Department, they did note that Blackstone’s previous hire of a Trump-connected fundraiser lobbyist, Jeff Miller, had been remarkably successful earlier this year, with Miller lobbying Congress specifically on coronavirus relief legislation like the CARES Act. The CARES Act ultimately allowed private equity giants like Blackstone to access funds designated for coronavirus relief, likely thanks to the efforts of Miller and other lobbyists hired by Blackstone as well as other private equity giants like the Carlyle Group.
Though CNBC was left looking for answers as to Blackstone’s sudden interest in aiding the Pentagon with “military preparedness” and wooing the State Department, the likely motive may be related to other recent moves made by the company, such as the hire of former Amazon and Microsoft executive Christine Feng. Feng, who was hired by Blackstone on August 3, previously led data and analytics mergers and acquisitions at Amazon Web Services (AWS), which is a contractor to the U.S. intelligence community and other U.S. federal agencies. Previously, Feng was a senior member of Microsoft’s Corporate Development team. Microsoft recently won lucrative contracts for information technology (IT) services and cloud computing for the State Department and Pentagon, respectively. AI Superpowers: China,... Lee, Kai-Fu Best Price: $11.99 Buy New $14.00 (as of 04:40 UTC - Details)
According to Blackstone executives, the decision to hire Feng was made due to her “deep relationships in Silicon Valley” and “her experience working at Amazon and Microsoft.” They also added that her hire was motivated by Blackstone’s push to “identify new opportunities to invest and partner with innovative companies reshaping the world” and Blackstone’s recent effort to “double down” on tech sector investments. Notably, Feng’s hire came just a few months after Blackstone had hired Vincent Letteri, another tech-focused investor experienced with growth-stage tech companies, and amid a series of recent investments by Blackstone in tech firms, including HealthEdge software and Chinese data center provider 21Vianet, among others.
Schwarzman’s Push for “Common Governance”
It strongly appears that Blackstone’s recent moves, including Urban’s hire, are part of the firm’s bid to become one of the top “innovative companies reshaping the world” as the Artificial Intelligence (AI) arms race becomes a key driver in the “reshaping” of the global economy. Blackstone’s Steven Schwarzman is a key part of the relatively tight-knit group of billionaires and influential political figures, like Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt, that are working to create a “global compact on the research, introduction, and deployment of AI,” and Schwarzman has heralded the coming age of AI as representing a “fourth revolution” for humanity.
Schwarzman argued for greater global collaboration on AI-driven technologies, particularly between the U.S. and China, in a July 2020 Op-Ed for Yahoo! Finance where he wrote that the establishment of “common governance structures” for the research, introduction and deployment of AI is necessary if “we are to avoid the negative consequences of AI,” ultimately comparing the current pace of development of AI to that of past arms races, such as those involving nuclear and biological weapons. Per Schwarzman, these “common governance structures” would produce “explicit global commitments, agreements, and eventually international laws with consequences for violation” that relate directly to AI and its use. Life 3.0: Being Human ... Tegmark, Max Best Price: $6.00 Buy New $10.91 (as of 04:03 UTC - Details)
Blackstone’s head is convinced that these “common governance structures” should be built between the U.S. and China, hence his heavy investment in universities and artificial intelligence education in both countries. For instance, Schwarzman created the Schwarzman Scholars program in 2016 where around 100-200 students from around the world pursue a Master’s Degree in Global Affairs at Tsinghua University in Beijing annually. The official goal of the program, which was modeled after the Rhodes Scholars program, is to “create a growing network of global leaders that will build strong ties between China and the rest of the world.” The program’s advisors include former Secretary of States Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as former World Bank President James Wolfensohn and former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and Goldman Sachs executive Henry Paulson. Schwarzman has also donated hundreds of millions of dollars to create an AI-focused institute at Oxford University.
Then, in the U.S., Schwarzman gave $350 million to MIT, prompting the school to create the Schwarzman College of Computing, which aims to specifically “address the global opportunities and challenges presented by the ubiquity of computing — across industries and academic disciplines — and by the rise of artificial intelligence.” MIT News later noted that “the impulse behind the founding of the college came from trips he [Schwarzman] had taken to China, where he observed intensified Chinese investment in artificial intelligence, and wanted to make sure the U.S. was also on the leading edge of A.I.” The college’s inauguration also featured Henry Kissinger as a speaker, where Kissinger mulled the potential impacts of AI and stated that “AI makes it technically possible, easier, to control your population.”
Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, credits Schwarzman’s lead to invest in AI education in the U.S. and abroad as determining “the future of American philanthropy.” “Steve’s donation triggered an arms race among all the universities to match him. This is the next trend in philanthropy, in my view,” Schmidt told Axios regarding Schwarzman’s MIT donation last May. Schmidt also stated that his own investment in Princeton University’s Computer Science department had been prompted by Schwarzman’s previous acts of “AI philanthropy.” Superintelligence: Pat... Bostrom, Nick Best Price: $8.67 Buy New $12.13 (as of 04:03 UTC - Details)
Last May, a federal commission that Schmidt chairs, called the National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI), produced a document that was obtained by a FOIA request earlier this year. One particularly important page made a point that was essentially repeated in Schwarzman’s July Op-Ed regarding a “global AI compact.” Titled “The Importance of a US/China AI Cooperation,” it begins with a quote from Kissinger, a key advisor to and “great friend” of Schmidt, about the need for “arms control negotiation” for AI and then states that “the future of [AI] will be decided at the intersection of private enterprise and policy leaders between China and the US.” In other words, the Schmidt-chaired NSCAI argues that the future of AI will be determined by the political leaders and business leaders of China and the U.S. The page also adds that “we [The United States] risk being left out of the discussions where norms around AI are set for the rest of our lifetimes. Apple, Amazon, Alibaba, and Microsoft will not be.”
This is particularly significant given the NSCAI is tasked with making recommendations to the federal government regarding how to move forward with AI regulations within the context of “national security” and its members include key members of the Pentagon, U.S. intelligence community and Silicon Valley behemoths that double as contractors to the U.S. military, U.S. intelligence or both. One of the NSCAI’s interests, per the FOIA-obtained document, is the use of “AI in diplomacy,” suggesting that it also seeks to explore potential State Department uses for AI. Notably, earlier this year, and a year after the aforementioned NSCAI document was written, the State Department saw key aspects of its IT infrastructure privatized and given over to NSCAI-linked companies like Microsoft.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-08-24--Glitzy Convention Conceals Emerging One-Party Tyranny

Here are a few takeaways from the Democratic Convention : • The Democrats are running on the same platform they ran on in 2016 .
• The Democrats put style above substance , flashy optics above ideas or issues .
• The Democrats think that hollow tributes to “ diversity ” and “ inclusion ” will win the election .
• The Democrats have abandoned white , working class voters opting instead for people of color .
• The Democrats have learned nothing from Hillary Clinton ’ s defeat in 2016 .
In 2016 , Democrat front-runner , Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see her support was eroding in the key Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin .
Trump won all three states with a measly 77 , 651 votes total .
All three states were expected to go Democrat but flipped to the GOP due to Clinton ’ s support for free trade and immigration policies that cost jobs and imposed unwelcome demographic changes on the working people of those states .
The Democrats and Hillary have never accepted the factual version of how the election was lost .
Instead , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Russia .
Although the Mueller Report proved that the claims of meddling were baseless , Clinton and the Dems continue to trot them out at every opportunity .
On Tuesday at the convention , Hillary again reiterated the lie that Trump stole the election .
She said : Twilight of Democracy : ... Applebaum , Anne Buy New $ 20.99 “ Vote like our lives and livelihoods are on the line , because they are .
Remember : Joe and Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose .
Take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so overwhelming Trump can ’ t sneak or steal his way to victory.
” The determination on the part of the Democrats to mischaracterize what actually happened in the election is not a trivial matter .
It suggests that deception is central to their governing style .
Party leaders do not think their supporters are entitled to know the truth but rather believe that events must be shaped in a way that best serves their overall political interests .
For Democrats , lying is not a personal failing , but an opportunity for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is from an article in The Guardian : “ Donald Trump ’ s electoral college victory rests on the shoulders of more than 200 so-called “ pivot counties ” across the US .
That is , counties that voted for Barack Obama only four years earlier .
The most decisive of these swings occurred in Pennsylvania ’ s Luzerne county , nestled in the north-east part of the state…There , voters gave Trump a nearly 20-point victory after going for Obama by almost 5 % in 2012 .
But Trump ’ s win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnitude .
His 26,000 vote plurality in Luzerne comprised almost three-fifths of his plurality in the state as a whole , and with it Pennsylvania ’ s 20 coveted electoral votes….
” ( “ The Forgotten review : Ben Bradlee Jr delivers 2020 lessons for Democrats ” , The Guardian ) Critical battleground states tilted in Trump ’ s favor because Democratic policies had decimated their communities and eviscerated their standard of living .
Author Ben Bradlee Jr. explains this phenom in his book “ The Forgotten ” which should be required reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clip from the review at the Guardian : “ The Forgotten documents the ravages of deindustrialization , lost jobs , crime and drugs .
It captures the sense of displacement tied to a changing and less monochromatic America .
Once upon a time , Luzerne was home to coal and textiles , dominated by Protestants from Wales and Catholics from Ireland and continental Europe .
Not any more .
Luzerne is poorer and smaller , for many a less recognizable place .
Not surprisingly , immigration and Nafta come in for constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forgotten : How the ... Bradlee Jr. , Ben Best Price : $ 2.99 Buy New $ 8.96 This is the real reason Hillary was defeated .
Russia had nothing to do with it .
The Dems abandoned the white working-class people who had always voted for them and began to cobble together their Rainbow coalition .
When Hillary denounced these people as “ Deplorables ” , it forced more of them to join Trump team .
The rest is history .
Here ’ s more from the same article : “ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the party stands to face the same electoral map it did in 2016 .
In fact , Ohio now looks an even tougher nut to crack .
Much as the Democratic base loathes the president , reality can not be wished away .
Luzerne would be a good place for the party to start addressing this reality.
” ( The Guardian ) The point we ’ re trying to make is that the effectiveness of the Democrat Convention can only be measured in terms of its impact on potential voters .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any effort to reach out to the people who could help them win ?
It ’ s not that complicated .
The Dems are merely abandoning the people who , they believe , will leave anyway as their globalist economic agenda becomes more apparent putting more downward pressure on overall living standards .
It ’ s worth noting , that when Obama left office in 2016 , this process was already well-underway .
According to a Gallup poll , 71 percent of the people said they were dissatisfied with the way things were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year . )
Only 27 percent said they ’ re satisfied .
So , even though Obama ’ s personal approval ratings remained high , his handling of the economy was extremely unpopular .
( except on Wall Street , of course . )
During this same period , the PEW Research Center conducted a survey titled : “ Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues , Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S ” which showed why Trump was steadily gaining on Hillary .
Here are a few excerpts from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully 75 % of those who support Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination say life for people like them has gotten worse… ” “ GOP voters who support Trump also stand out for their pessimism about the nation ’ s economy and their own financial situations : 48 % rate current economic conditions in the U.S. as “ poor .
“ Within the GOP , anger at government is heavily concentrated among Trump supporters – 50 % say they are angry at government… ” “ Among Republicans , a majority of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view the system as unfair…among Trump supporters , 67 % say trade agreements are bad thing… ” “ Half of Trump supporters ( 50 % ) say they are angry at the federal government… .
Anger at government – and politics – is much more pronounced among Trump backers than among supporters of any other presidential candidate , Republican or Democrat… ” ( “ Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues , Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S “ , PEW Research Center ) Somebody ’ s Got ta ... Martini , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New $ 10.99 So , a higher percentage of Trump supporters think they are getting screwed-over by an unfair system .
They think “ free trade ” only benefits the rich , they think the government is unresponsive to their needs , they think the system is rigged , and they ’ re really , really mad .
So , which speaker at the Democrat Convention addressed the concerns or complaints of white working-class people who now almost-universally harbor these same feelings ?
?
No one , because no one in the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues , in fact , just the opposite .
Now that the Dems have been subsumed by Wall Street and their big globalist donors , things are going to get dramatically worse for working people who will see a vicious attack on essential social services and programs as soon as the election is over .
The massive build-up of debt– by mainly Democrat Governors who deliberately drove their states into bankruptcy at the behest of Fauci ’ s Vaccine Gestapo– will now be met by a growing demand for austerity on a scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last century .
The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a permanent underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the multinational carpetbaggers .
Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow coalition while white , working class people in America ’ s heartland –with their strong sense of patriotism– will be seen as a potential threat to the emerging new order .
It ’ s clear that the Dems anticipate resistance to their plan by the contemptible way they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ racists ” .
But is it true or are the Democrats and their deep-pocket allies preemptively denigrating these people and supporting BLM rioters to head-off growing resistance to their strategy of total control through widespread mayhem , decimation of the economy and extermination of the American middle class ?
Author CJ Hopkins summed it up like this in a recent article at The Unz Review : “ What we are experiencing is not the “ return of fascism.
” It is the global capitalist empire restoring order , putting down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise in 2016 .
The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution , the fake apocalyptic plague , all the insanity of 2020 … it has been in the pipeline all along .
It has been since the moment Trump won the election .
No , it is not about Trump , the man .
It has never been about Trump , the man… GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump… not because he is a threat to the empire… , but because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is this populist resistance to its ideology that GloboCap is determined to crush , no matter how much social chaos and destruction it unleashes in the process ... ” ( “ The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution ” , CJ Hopkins , The Unz Review ) Zone 23 Hopkins , C. J .
Best Price : $ 16.72 Buy New $ 15.99 Bingo .
It is the “ populist resistance to global capitalism ” that is the defacto enemy of the Party elite , the same elites who conspired with senior-level members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DOJ and the Obama White House to spy on the Trump Campaign , infiltrate the presidential transition , and to try to topple the elected government .
And while the coup plotters have still not been brought to justice , they are now within spitting distance of their ultimate objective , which is seizing executive power and using it to crush the fledgling opposition , impose a one-party system of government , and transform America into a corporate superstate ruled by Global Capital .
Here ’ s a clip from an article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ By the end of this next planned phase of the ‘ virus ’ scare , a global reset of the world economy will be ready to launch .
This reset will be mammoth in scope , as everything we have known will be restructured .
… Those out of work in the final stage will most likely stay out of work , pushing the dependency state to new levels sought by the ruling class .
… Controlling the population will be a key component of the plan , including population size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal contact among individuals .
The elimination of normal human interaction is sought , and this is only the beginning… .
The ultimate goal is total control , and every tool in the box of the tyrants will be used to gain that control .
Restraint by the ruling class will be non-existent , as this staged reset is now going forward at a very accelerated pace.
” ( “ The Economic Insanity of This Coronavirus Pandemic Plot and the Coming Global Reset “ , Lew Rockwell ) The coup plotters have chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next phase of their operation .
All they need now is to win the election .
Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review .

Here are a few takeaways from the Democratic Convention:
The Democrats are running on the same platform they ran on in 2016. The Democrats put style above substance, flashy optics above ideas or issues. The Democrats think that hollow tributes to “diversity” and “inclusion” will win the election. The Democrats have abandoned white, working class voters opting instead for people of color. The Democrats have learned nothing from Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016.
In 2016, Democrat front-runner, Hillary Clinton lost the election because she failed to see her support was eroding in the key Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump won all three states with a measly 77, 651 votes total. All three states were expected to go Democrat but flipped to the GOP due to Clinton’s support for free trade and immigration policies that cost jobs and imposed unwelcome demographic changes on the working people of those states. The Democrats and Hillary have never accepted the factual version of how the election was lost. Instead, they fabricated a conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with Russia. Although the Mueller Report proved that the claims of meddling were baseless, Clinton and the Dems continue to trot them out at every opportunity. On Tuesday at the convention, Hillary again reiterated the lie that Trump stole the election. She said: Twilight of Democracy:... Applebaum, Anne Buy New $20.99 (as of 03:37 UTC - Details)
“Vote like our lives and livelihoods are on the line, because they are. Remember: Joe and Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me. We need numbers so overwhelming Trump can’t sneak or steal his way to victory.”
The determination on the part of the Democrats to mischaracterize what actually happened in the election is not a trivial matter. It suggests that deception is central to their governing style. Party leaders do not think their supporters are entitled to know the truth but rather believe that events must be shaped in a way that best serves their overall political interests. For Democrats, lying is not a personal failing, but an opportunity for enhancing their grip on power. This is from an article in The Guardian:
“Donald Trump’s electoral college victory rests on the shoulders of more than 200 so-called “pivot counties” across the US. That is, counties that voted for Barack Obama only four years earlier. The most decisive of these swings occurred in Pennsylvania’s Luzerne county, nestled in the north-east part of the state…There, voters gave Trump a nearly 20-point victory after going for Obama by almost 5% in 2012. But Trump’s win in Luzerne was also noteworthy for its magnitude. His 26,000 vote plurality in Luzerne comprised almost three-fifths of his plurality in the state as a whole, and with it Pennsylvania’s 20 coveted electoral votes….” (“The Forgotten review: Ben Bradlee Jr delivers 2020 lessons for Democrats”, The Guardian)
Critical battleground states tilted in Trump’s favor because Democratic policies had decimated their communities and eviscerated their standard of living. Author Ben Bradlee Jr. explains this phenom in his book “The Forgotten” which should be required reading at the DNC. Here’s a clip from the review at the Guardian:
“The Forgotten documents the ravages of deindustrialization, lost jobs, crime and drugs. It captures the sense of displacement tied to a changing and less monochromatic America. Once upon a time, Luzerne was home to coal and textiles, dominated by Protestants from Wales and Catholics from Ireland and continental Europe. Not any more. Luzerne is poorer and smaller, for many a less recognizable place. Not surprisingly, immigration and Nafta come in for constant criticism.” (The Guardian)
The Forgotten: How the... Bradlee Jr., Ben Best Price: $2.99 Buy New $8.96 (as of 04:05 UTC - Details) This is the real reason Hillary was defeated. Russia had nothing to do with it. The Dems abandoned the white working-class people who had always voted for them and began to cobble together their Rainbow coalition. When Hillary denounced these people as “Deplorables”, it forced more of them to join Trump team. The rest is history. Here’s more from the same article:
“In the absence of a recession, however, the party stands to face the same electoral map it did in 2016. In fact, Ohio now looks an even tougher nut to crack. Much as the Democratic base loathes the president, reality cannot be wished away. Luzerne would be a good place for the party to start addressing this reality.” (The Guardian)
The point we’re trying to make is that the effectiveness of the Democrat Convention can only be measured in terms of its impact on potential voters. So, why have the Dems shrugged off any effort to reach out to the people who could help them win?
It’s not that complicated. The Dems are merely abandoning the people who, they believe, will leave anyway as their globalist economic agenda becomes more apparent putting more downward pressure on overall living standards. It’s worth noting, that when Obama left office in 2016, this process was already well-underway. According to a Gallup poll, 71 percent of the people said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going. (in Obama’s last year.) Only 27 percent said they’re satisfied. So, even though Obama’s personal approval ratings remained high, his handling of the economy was extremely unpopular. (except on Wall Street, of course.)
During this same period, the PEW Research Center conducted a survey titled: “Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S” which showed why Trump was steadily gaining on Hillary. Here are a few excerpts from the report:
“Among GOP voters, fully 75% of those who support Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination say life for people like them has gotten worse…”
“GOP voters who support Trump also stand out for their pessimism about the nation’s economy and their own financial situations: 48% rate current economic conditions in the U.S. as “poor.
“Within the GOP, anger at government is heavily concentrated among Trump supporters – 50% say they are angry at government…”
“Among Republicans, a majority of those who back Trump (61%) view the system as unfair…among Trump supporters, 67% say trade agreements are bad thing…”
“Half of Trump supporters (50%) say they are angry at the federal government…. Anger at government – and politics – is much more pronounced among Trump backers than among supporters of any other presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat…” (“Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S“, PEW Research Center)
Somebody’s Gotta... Martini, Adrienne Best Price: $3.12 Buy New $10.99 (as of 04:05 UTC - Details) So, a higher percentage of Trump supporters think they are getting screwed-over by an unfair system. They think “free trade” only benefits the rich, they think the government is unresponsive to their needs, they think the system is rigged, and they’re really, really mad.
So, which speaker at the Democrat Convention addressed the concerns or complaints of white working-class people who now almost-universally harbor these same feelings??
No one, because no one in the Democrat party plans to do anything about these issues, in fact, just the opposite. Now that the Dems have been subsumed by Wall Street and their big globalist donors, things are going to get dramatically worse for working people who will see a vicious attack on essential social services and programs as soon as the election is over. The massive build-up of debt– by mainly Democrat Governors who deliberately drove their states into bankruptcy at the behest of Fauci’s Vaccine Gestapo– will now be met by a growing demand for austerity on a scale unlike anything we’ve experienced in the last century. The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a permanent underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the multinational carpetbaggers. Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow coalition while white, working class people in America’s heartland –with their strong sense of patriotism– will be seen as a potential threat to the emerging new order.
It’s clear that the Dems anticipate resistance to their plan by the contemptible way they have branded struggling workers as “white nationalists” and “racists”. But is it true or are the Democrats and their deep-pocket allies preemptively denigrating these people and supporting BLM rioters to head-off growing resistance to their strategy of total control through widespread mayhem, decimation of the economy and extermination of the American middle class? Author CJ Hopkins summed it up like this in a recent article at The Unz Review:
“What we are experiencing is not the “return of fascism.” It is the global capitalist empire restoring order, putting down the populist insurgency that took them by surprise in 2016.
The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution, the fake apocalyptic plague, all the insanity of 2020 … it has been in the pipeline all along. It has been since the moment Trump won the election. No, it is not about Trump, the man. It has never been about Trump, the man…
GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump… not because he is a threat to the empire…, but because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly aggressive “woke” ideology . It is this populist resistance to its ideology that GloboCap is determined to crush, no matter how much social chaos and destruction it unleashes in the process...” (“The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution”, CJ Hopkins, The Unz Review)
Zone 23 Hopkins, C. J. Best Price: $16.72 Buy New $15.99 (as of 11:13 UTC - Details) Bingo. It is the “populist resistance to global capitalism” that is the defacto enemy of the Party elite, the same elites who conspired with senior-level members of the Intelligence Community, the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama White House to spy on the Trump Campaign, infiltrate the presidential transition, and to try to topple the elected government. And while the coup plotters have still not been brought to justice, they are now within spitting distance of their ultimate objective, which is seizing executive power and using it to crush the fledgling opposition, impose a one-party system of government, and transform America into a corporate superstate ruled by Global Capital. Here’s a clip from an article by Gary D. Barnett at Lew Rockwell:
“By the end of this next planned phase of the ‘virus’ scare, a global reset of the world economy will be ready to launch. This reset will be mammoth in scope, as everything we have known will be restructured. … Those out of work in the final stage will most likely stay out of work, pushing the dependency state to new levels sought by the ruling class. … Controlling the population will be a key component of the plan, including population size, birth rates, movement, and personal contact among individuals. The elimination of normal human interaction is sought, and this is only the beginning…. The ultimate goal is total control, and every tool in the box of the tyrants will be used to gain that control. Restraint by the ruling class will be non-existent, as this staged reset is now going forward at a very accelerated pace.” (“The Economic Insanity of This Coronavirus Pandemic Plot and the Coming Global Reset“, Lew Rockwell)
The coup plotters have chosen the candidates they want to carry out the next phase of their operation. All they need now is to win the election.
Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.


lewrockwell--2020-08-24--Mises and Rothbard on Democracy

Mises and Rothbard on Democracy

Ludwig von Mises rejects the standard arguments for democracy .
Not for him are the alleged virtues of public deliberation .
For him , there is only one argument for democracy that is convincing .
He says that only democracy allows for a peaceful change of power .
Every government , he thinks , rests on popular consent .
If a sufficient number of people find the government no longer tolerable , it won ’ t be able to maintain itself in power .
In a democracy , people in this situation can peacefully replace the government with an opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , there is liable to be a violent revolution , because those in power and their supporters are likely to cling to power , even if their position is in the long run unsustainable .
Mises puts the argument in this way in Liberalism : Government by a handful of people—and the rulers are always as much in the minority as against those ruled as the producers of shoes are as against the consumers of shoes—depends on the consent of the governed , i.e.
, on their acceptance of the existing administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lesser evil , or as an unavoidable evil , yet they must be of the opinion that a change in the existing , situation would have no purpose .
But once the majority of the governed becomes convinced that it is necessary and possible to change the form of government and to replace the old regime and the old personnel with a new regime and new personnel , the days of the former are numbered .
The majority will have the power to carry out its wishes by force even against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long run no government can maintain itself in power if it does not have public opinion behind it , i.e.
, if those governed are not convinced that the government is good .
The force to which the government resorts in order to make refractory spirits compliant can be successfully applied only as long as the majority does not stand solidly in opposition .
There is , therefore , in every form of polity a means for making the government at least ultimately dependent on the will of the governed , viz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it is just this expedient that liberalism wants to avoid .
There can be no lasting economic improvement if the peaceful course of affairs is continually interrupted by internal struggles… .
Here is where the social function performed by democracy finds its point of application .
Democracy is that form of political constitution which makes possible the adaptation of the government to the wishes of the governed without violent struggles .
If in a democratic state the government is no longer being conducted as the majority of the population would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put into office those who are willing to work to suit the majority .
By means of elections and parliamentary arrangements , the change of government is executed smoothly and without friction , violence , or bloodshed .
There are various points at which you can challenge this argument .
For example , what if the majority of people oppose the government , but there isn ’ t a consensus backing a particular opposition group ?
( I don ’ t mean that the party in power won ’ t let popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talks about democracy assumes that elections are fair . )
But even if the argument can be challenged , it seems to have much in its favor .
Murray Rothbard raises a remarkable objection to this argument that hasn ’ t received the attention it deserves .
His book Power and Market contains a profusion of arguments , one right after the other , and this one has escaped much notice .
His argument , in brief , is that if democracy is supposed to be a substitute for violent revolution , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government that would have won out in a violent revolution .
It is most unlikely that this will happen .
If so , Mises ’ s argument fails .
Rothbard explains what he has in mind in this passage : There is , moreover , another flaw in the “ peaceful-change ” argument for democracy , this one being a grave self-contradiction that has been universally overlooked .
Those who have adopted this argument have simply used it to give a seal of approval to all democracies and have then moved on quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realized that the “ peaceful-change ” argument establishes a criterion for government before which any given democracy must pass muster .
For the argument that ballots are to substitute for bullets must be taken in a precise way : that a democratic election will yield the same result as would have occurred if the majority had had to battle the minority in violent combat .
In short , the argument implies that the election results are simply and precisely a substitute for a test of physical combat .
Here we have a criterion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results that would have been obtained through civil combat ?
If we find that democracy , or a certain form of democracy , leads systematically to results that are very wide of this “ bullet-substitute ” mark , then we must either reject democracy or give up the argument .
How , then , does democracy , either generally or in specific countries , fare when we test it against its own criterion ?
One of the essential attributes of democracy , as we have seen , is that each man has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” argument implies that each man would have counted equally in any combat test .
But is this true ?
In the first place , it is clear that physical power is not equally distributed .
In any test of combat , women , old people , sick people , and 4F ’ s would fare very badly .
On the basis of the “ peaceful-change ” argument , therefore , there is no justification whatever for giving these physically feeble groups the vote .
So , barred from voting would be all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not for literacy ( which is largely irrelevant to combat prowess ) , but for physical fitness .
Furthermore , it clearly would be necessary to give plural votes to all men who have been militarily trained ( such as soldiers and policemen ) , for it is obvious that a group of highly trained fighters could easily defeat a far more numerous group of equally robust amateurs .
Could Mises respond to this argument ?
He might have said that even if Rothbard is right that democracy isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent revolution , it ’ s close enough to merit our support , given the costs of violence .
But I ’ m sure Rothbard would have had a counter for that as well .
Murray had an amazing ability to counter any argument against him , and I ’ ve never met his match in this .
Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of David Gordon

Ludwig von Mises rejects the standard arguments for democracy. Not for him are the alleged virtues of public deliberation. For him, there is only one argument for democracy that is convincing. He says that only democracy allows for a peaceful change of power. Every government, he thinks, rests on popular consent. If a sufficient number of people find the government no longer tolerable, it won’t be able to maintain itself in power. In a democracy, people in this situation can peacefully replace the government with an opposition party more to its liking. Without democracy, there is liable to be a violent revolution, because those in power and their supporters are likely to cling to power, even if their position is in the long run unsustainable.
Mises puts the argument in this way in Liberalism:
Government by a handful of people—and the rulers are always as much in the minority as against those ruled as the producers of shoes are as against the consumers of shoes—depends on the consent of the governed, i.e., on their acceptance of the existing administration. They may see it only as the lesser evil, or as an unavoidable evil, yet they must be of the opinion that a change in the existing, situation would have no purpose. But once the majority of the governed becomes convinced that it is necessary and possible to change the form of government and to replace the old regime and the old personnel with a new regime and new personnel, the days of the former are numbered. The majority will have the power to carry out its wishes by force even against the will of the old regime. In the long run no government can maintain itself in power if it does not have public opinion behind it, i.e., if those governed are not convinced that the government is good. The force to which the government resorts in order to make refractory spirits compliant can be successfully applied only as long as the majority does not stand solidly in opposition. There is, therefore, in every form of polity a means for making the government at least ultimately dependent on the will of the governed, viz, civil war, revolution, insurrection. But it is just this expedient that liberalism wants to avoid. There can be no lasting economic improvement if the peaceful course of affairs is continually interrupted by internal struggles…. Here is where the social function performed by democracy finds its point of application. Democracy is that form of political constitution which makes possible the adaptation of the government to the wishes of the governed without violent struggles. If in a democratic state the government is no longer being conducted as the majority of the population would have it, no civil war is necessary to put into office those who are willing to work to suit the majority. By means of elections and parliamentary arrangements, the change of government is executed smoothly and without friction, violence, or bloodshed.
There are various points at which you can challenge this argument. For example, what if the majority of people oppose the government, but there isn’t a consensus backing a particular opposition group? (I don’t mean that the party in power won’t let popular opposition groups run. Mises when he talks about democracy assumes that elections are fair.) But even if the argument can be challenged, it seems to have much in its favor.
Murray Rothbard raises a remarkable objection to this argument that hasn’t received the attention it deserves. His book Power and Market contains a profusion of arguments, one right after the other, and this one has escaped much notice.
His argument, in brief, is that if democracy is supposed to be a substitute for violent revolution, then the democratic government must exactly resemble the government that would have won out in a violent revolution. It is most unlikely that this will happen. If so, Mises’s argument fails.
Rothbard explains what he has in mind in this passage:
There is, moreover, another flaw in the “peaceful-change” argument for democracy, this one being a grave self-contradiction that has been universally overlooked. Those who have adopted this argument have simply used it to give a seal of approval to all democracies and have then moved on quickly to other matters. They have not realized that the “peaceful-change” argument establishes a criterion for government before which any given democracy must pass muster. For the argument that ballots are to substitute for bullets must be taken in a precise way: that a democratic election will yield the same result as would have occurred if the majority had had to battle the minority in violent combat. In short, the argument implies that the election results are simply and precisely a substitute for a test of physical combat. Here we have a criterion for democracy: Does it really yield the results that would have been obtained through civil combat? If we find that democracy, or a certain form of democracy, leads systematically to results that are very wide of this “bullet-substitute” mark, then we must either reject democracy or give up the argument. How, then, does democracy, either generally or in specific countries, fare when we test it against its own criterion? One of the essential attributes of democracy, as we have seen, is that each man has one vote. But the “peaceful-change” argument implies that each man would have counted equally in any combat test. But is this true? In the first place, it is clear that physical power is not equally distributed. In any test of combat, women, old people, sick people, and 4F’s would fare very badly. On the basis of the “peaceful-change” argument, therefore, there is no justification whatever for giving these physically feeble groups the vote. So, barred from voting would be all citizens who could not pass a test, not for literacy (which is largely irrelevant to combat prowess), but for physical fitness. Furthermore, it clearly would be necessary to give plural votes to all men who have been militarily trained (such as soldiers and policemen), for it is obvious that a group of highly trained fighters could easily defeat a far more numerous group of equally robust amateurs.
Could Mises respond to this argument? He might have said that even if Rothbard is right that democracy isn’t a perfect substitute for the results of a violent revolution, it’s close enough to merit our support, given the costs of violence. But I’m sure Rothbard would have had a counter for that as well. Murray had an amazing ability to counter any argument against him, and I’ve never met his match in this.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of David Gordon