Changing Political Regimes?

In 48 countries simultaneously , there are very large demonstrations challenging the political regime of the state .
The supremacy of the democratic model , accepted by almost everyone at the end of the 20th century , is now being called into question .
For Thierry Meyssan , no constitutional system will solve today ’ s problems , which are primarily the consequence of values and behaviour .
On several continents , 48 peoples are currently rising up against their governments .
A movement of such magnitude has never been observed on a planetary scale .
After the period of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contestation of political systems and are imagining the emergence of new forms of government .
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw both the triumph of the use of elections and the enlargement of the electoral bodies ( free men , the poor , women , ethnic minorities , etc. )
.
The development of the middle classes gave more people time to take an interest in politics .
It has encouraged debate and helped to soften social mores .
The nascent means of communication gave the opportunity to participate in public life to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presidents are not elected in response to social struggles , but because they can be elected today .
In the past , automatic successions were favoured , usually hereditary , but not always .
It was in fact impossible for everyone to be informed of public affairs and to give their opinion quickly .
Before Our Very Eyes , ... Thierry Meyssan Best Price : $ 20.52 Buy New $ 17.94 Stupidly we have assimilated the sociological transformation of societies and this technical progress to a choice of regime : democracy .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a state of mind , an ideal : “ the government of the People , by the People and for the People , ” as Abraham Lincoln put it .
We soon realized that democratic institutions are no better than others .
They enlarge the number of the privileged , but in the end , they allow a majority to exploit a minority .
So we designed all kinds of laws to improve that system .
We equated the separation of powers with the protection of minorities .
However , the democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find that their opinions are no longer taken into account .
This is not due to the institutions , which have changed little in terms of substance , but to the way they are used .
Furthermore , after we have convinced ourselves , with Winston Churchill , that “ Democracy is a bad system , but it is the least bad of all systems ” , we realize that each political regime must respond to the concerns of people who are different according to their history , their culture ; that what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there or at another time .
We must be wary of vocabulary in politics .
The meaning of words changes over time .
They are often introduced with good intentions and misused with bad ones .
We confuse our ideas with the words we use to express them , but which others use to betray them .
I will therefore clarify in this text what I mean by the most important ones .
We need to re-examine the question of our governance .
Not in the fashion of Emmanuel Macron , who contrasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to end the debate before it has begun .
These two words cover realities of a different order .
Democracy refers to a regime in which the greatest number of people participate .
It is opposed to oligarchy , where power is exercised by a few .
On the contrary , if we no longer talk about the number of people involved in the decision , but about how the decision is made , dictatorship refers to a regime where the leader , a military commander , may have to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
It is opposed to parliamentarianism .
The legitimacy of the Republic First and foremost , we must ask the question of legitimacy , that is , why do we recognize the government , and then the state , as being so useful that we accept their authority ?
We are obeying a government that we believe is serving our interests .
This is the idea of a “ republic ” in the Roman sense .
Thus , the kings of France patiently constructed the idea of “ general interest ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17th century onwards and from the experience of Oliver Cromwell .
Today , the United Kingdom and the United States are the only countries where it is claimed that there is no general interest , but only a sum – as high as possible – of disparate and contradictory interests .
The British suspect a priori that anyone who speaks of the general interest wants to restore Oliver Cromwell ’ s bloody Republican regime .
The United States wants every federal state to be republican ( i.e .
serving the interests of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not want the federal state – which they distrust – to be republican ( because , they believe , it can not serve the interests of all the components of this immigrant nation ) .
This is why a candidate in the USA does not present a programme setting out his vision of society as in the rest of the world , but a list of interest groups that support him .
The Anglo-Saxon thinking seems strange to me , but it is theirs .
I will continue my reflections with those peoples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest .
For them , all political regimes are acceptable , as long as they serve the general interest , which unfortunately is no longer generally the case in our democracies .
The problem is that no constitution can guarantee this service .
It is a practice , nothing more .
The question then arises as to the qualities necessary for the proper functioning of a political regime , whether democratic or not .
As early as the 16th century , Machiavelli had answered this question by stating the principle of “ virtue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in any way understand a moral of any kind , but a form of disinterestedness that allows one to take care of the general interest without seeking personal profit ; a quality that almost all Western political personnel seem to lack today .
Machiavelli is often cited as the thinker of trickery in politics and described as a manipulator .
Certainly , he was not a naive man , but a man who taught both the prince how to use his power to triumph over his enemies and how not to abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to develop virtue , but we know what made it disappear : we no longer have any respect for those who have money , we no longer have any respect for those who devote themselves to the general interest .
Worse still , when we find someone who devotes himself to the general interest , we think a priori that he is rich .
However , if we remember virtuous politicians , we know that they were only rich if they had inherited a fortune or earned money before entering politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sharp ’ s work and the experience of colourful revolutions show us that , whatever political regime governs us , we always have the leaders we deserve .
No regime can last without the support of its people .
Therefore , we are collectively responsible for the lack of virtue of our leaders .
Even more than changing our institutions , we must therefore change ourselves and no longer consider others according to the thickness of their wallets , but first and foremost according to their virtue .
To virtue , the French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not a moral or religious matter , nor was it a matter of any social welfare , but the brotherhood of arms of the soldiers of the second year .
They had volunteered to save the country from the Prussian invasion , in the face of a professional army .
Among themselves , they no longer differentiated between the aristocracy and the Third State , realizing their ideal of equality .
And they were victorious .
9/11 - the big lie Thierry Meyssan Best Price : $ 10.31 Buy New $ 77.74 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anthem of the French Republic as well as that of the Soviet Revolution in its early days ( before the Gulag ) .
Its refrain is misunderstood today : To arms , citizens , Form your battalions , Let ’ s march , let ’ s march !
That impure blood Water our furrows !
It is wrongly interpreted as if we were going to water our furrows with the blood of our enemies .
But the blood of the tyrant ’ s soldiers can only poison our land .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impure blood ” of the People is opposed to the “ blue blood ” of the officers of the Prussian Empire .
It is the exaltation of the supreme sacrifice that founds the brotherhood of arms of the Revolutionaries .
The brotherhood of arms of the People corresponds to the virtue of the rulers .
The two answer each other .
Today we are living in a period not unlike that of the French Revolution : society is once again divided into orders .
On the one hand , there are leaders chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social morality through the media , and finally a third state that is being pushed back with tear gas and rubber bullets .
But there is no reason at the moment to die for the fatherland in the face of the interests represented by the thousand business leaders meeting in Davos .
In any case , people everywhere are looking for new forms of governance , in line with their history and aspirations .
The Best of Thierry Meyssan

In 48 countries simultaneously, there are very large demonstrations challenging the political regime of the state. The supremacy of the democratic model, accepted by almost everyone at the end of the 20th century, is now being called into question. For Thierry Meyssan, no constitutional system will solve today’s problems, which are primarily the consequence of values and behaviour.
On several continents, 48 peoples are currently rising up against their governments. A movement of such magnitude has never been observed on a planetary scale. After the period of financial globalization, we are witnessing a contestation of political systems and are imagining the emergence of new forms of government.
The “supremacy” of democracy
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw both the triumph of the use of elections and the enlargement of the electoral bodies (free men, the poor, women, ethnic minorities, etc.).
The development of the middle classes gave more people time to take an interest in politics. It has encouraged debate and helped to soften social mores.
The nascent means of communication gave the opportunity to participate in public life to those who wanted to do so. Presidents are not elected in response to social struggles, but because they can be elected today. In the past, automatic successions were favoured, usually hereditary, but not always. It was in fact impossible for everyone to be informed of public affairs and to give their opinion quickly. Before Our Very Eyes,... Meyssan, Thierry Best Price: $29.44 Buy New $24.97 (as of 05:40 UTC - Details)
Stupidly we have assimilated the sociological transformation of societies and this technical progress to a choice of regime: democracy. Now, democracy is not a law, but a state of mind, an ideal: “the government of the People, by the People and for the People,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.
We soon realized that democratic institutions are no better than others. They enlarge the number of the privileged, but in the end, they allow a majority to exploit a minority. So we designed all kinds of laws to improve that system. We equated the separation of powers with the protection of minorities.
However, the democratic model no longer works. Many citizens find that their opinions are no longer taken into account. This is not due to the institutions, which have changed little in terms of substance, but to the way they are used.
Furthermore, after we have convinced ourselves, with Winston Churchill, that “Democracy is a bad system, but it is the least bad of all systems”, we realize that each political regime must respond to the concerns of people who are different according to their history, their culture; that what is good here will not be good there or at another time.
We must be wary of vocabulary in politics. The meaning of words changes over time. They are often introduced with good intentions and misused with bad ones. We confuse our ideas with the words we use to express them, but which others use to betray them. I will therefore clarify in this text what I mean by the most important ones.
We need to re-examine the question of our governance. Not in the fashion of Emmanuel Macron, who contrasts “democracy” and “dictatorship” in order to end the debate before it has begun. These two words cover realities of a different order. Democracy refers to a regime in which the greatest number of people participate. It is opposed to oligarchy, where power is exercised by a few. On the contrary, if we no longer talk about the number of people involved in the decision, but about how the decision is made, dictatorship refers to a regime where the leader, a military commander, may have to make his decision without being able to debate it. It is opposed to parliamentarianism.
The legitimacy of the Republic
First and foremost, we must ask the question of legitimacy, that is, why do we recognize the government, and then the state, as being so useful that we accept their authority?
We are obeying a government that we believe is serving our interests. This is the idea of a “republic” in the Roman sense. Thus, the kings of France patiently constructed the idea of “general interest” to which the Anglo-Saxons were opposed from the 17th century onwards and from the experience of Oliver Cromwell. Today, the United Kingdom and the United States are the only countries where it is claimed that there is no general interest, but only a sum – as high as possible – of disparate and contradictory interests.
The British suspect a priori that anyone who speaks of the general interest wants to restore Oliver Cromwell’s bloody Republican regime. The United States wants every federal state to be republican (i.e. serving the interests of the local population), but they do not want the federal state – which they distrust – to be republican (because, they believe, it cannot serve the interests of all the components of this immigrant nation). This is why a candidate in the USA does not present a programme setting out his vision of society as in the rest of the world, but a list of interest groups that support him.
The Anglo-Saxon thinking seems strange to me, but it is theirs. I will continue my reflections with those peoples who accept the idea of the general interest. For them, all political regimes are acceptable, as long as they serve the general interest, which unfortunately is no longer generally the case in our democracies. The problem is that no constitution can guarantee this service. It is a practice, nothing more.
Republican virtue
The question then arises as to the qualities necessary for the proper functioning of a political regime, whether democratic or not. As early as the 16th century, Machiavelli had answered this question by stating the principle of “virtue”. By virtue, one should not in any way understand a moral of any kind, but a form of disinterestedness that allows one to take care of the general interest without seeking personal profit; a quality that almost all Western political personnel seem to lack today.
Machiavelli is often cited as the thinker of trickery in politics and described as a manipulator. Certainly, he was not a naive man, but a man who taught both the prince how to use his power to triumph over his enemies and how not to abuse his power.
We do not know how to develop virtue, but we know what made it disappear: we no longer have any respect for those who have money, we no longer have any respect for those who devote themselves to the general interest. Worse still, when we find someone who devotes himself to the general interest, we think a priori that he is rich. However, if we remember virtuous politicians, we know that they were only rich if they had inherited a fortune or earned money before entering politics, so they were generally not.
Gene Sharp’s work and the experience of colourful revolutions show us that, whatever political regime governs us, we always have the leaders we deserve. No regime can last without the support of its people.
Therefore, we are collectively responsible for the lack of virtue of our leaders. Even more than changing our institutions, we must therefore change ourselves and no longer consider others according to the thickness of their wallets, but first and foremost according to their virtue.
Revolutionary Brotherhood
To virtue, the French Revolution added brotherhood. Again, this was not a moral or religious matter, nor was it a matter of any social welfare, but the brotherhood of arms of the soldiers of the second year. They had volunteered to save the country from the Prussian invasion, in the face of a professional army. Among themselves, they no longer differentiated between the aristocracy and the Third State, realizing their ideal of equality. And they were victorious. 9/11 - the big lie Meyssan, Thierry Best Price: $7.89 Buy New $54.80 (as of 07:40 UTC - Details)
Their anthem, La Marseillaise, became the anthem of the French Republic as well as that of the Soviet Revolution in its early days (before the Gulag). Its refrain is misunderstood today:
To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let’s march, let’s march!
That impure blood
Water our furrows!
It is wrongly interpreted as if we were going to water our furrows with the blood of our enemies. But the blood of the tyrant’s soldiers can only poison our land. In the imagination of the time, the “impure blood” of the People is opposed to the “blue blood” of the officers of the Prussian Empire. It is the exaltation of the supreme sacrifice that founds the brotherhood of arms of the Revolutionaries.
The brotherhood of arms of the People corresponds to the virtue of the rulers. The two answer each other.
What’s next?
Today we are living in a period not unlike that of the French Revolution: society is once again divided into orders. On the one hand, there are leaders chosen from birth, then clerics dispensing their social morality through the media, and finally a third state that is being pushed back with tear gas and rubber bullets. But there is no reason at the moment to die for the fatherland in the face of the interests represented by the thousand business leaders meeting in Davos.
In any case, people everywhere are looking for new forms of governance, in line with their history and aspirations.
The Best of Thierry Meyssan


lewrockwell--2020-01-30--The Roots of U.S. Hatred Toward Iran

The Roots of U.S. Hatred Toward Iran

A question that naturally arises but one that the mainstream press never asks is : What is the reason for the deep-seated hatred that the U.S. national-security state has toward Iran ?
No , the answer doesn ’ t begin with the fact that Iranian revolutionaries took American diplomats hostage during the Iranian revolution in 1979 , which is what the mainstream press often asserts .
The U.S. hatred for Iran stretches back even further than that .
In fact , to understand the hatred that the Pentagon , the CIA , and the NSA have for Iran , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the founding of the United States .
When the delegates met at the Constitution Convention , it was for the purpose of modifying the Articles of Confederation , a type of governmental system under which Americans had been operating for 13 years .
Under the Articles , the federal government ’ s powers were so weak that it didn ’ t even have the power to tax .
That was the way our American ancestors wanted it .
The last thing they wanted was a type of governmental system where the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that had been wielded by the government against which they had revolted in 1776 .
Rather than simply modify the Articles of Confederation , however , the Constitutional Convention proposed a different type of governmental system , one called a limited-government republic .
Under this type of governmental structure , the federal government would wield more powers but they would be limited to those enumerated in the document itself .
Americans were leery of the deal , concerned that federal officials , including democratically elected ones , would begin wielding and exercising despotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t happen because the powers enumerated in the Constitution were few and limited and didn ’ t include dictatorial powers .
To emphasize their concern , however , Americans demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights , which expressly restricted the ability of U.S. officials to exercise despotic powers .
Under America ’ s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic , there was no Pentagon , military-industrial complex , foreign military bases , CIA , NSA , coups , foreign aid , alliances with dictatorial regimes , or regime-change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Americans had been told that the Constitution was going to bring into existence those things , they would have summarily rejected the deal and continue operating under the Articles .
A limited-government republic was the governmental system under which American people operated for more than a century .
Yes , there was a basic army whose primary purpose was to wage war against Native Americans but its size was extremely limited .
Why did American oppose “ standing armies , ” the term they used for big and permanent military-intelligence establishments ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably lead to the destruction of the liberty and well-being of the citizenry .
Notwithstanding slavery , the Mexican War , and the Civil War , the American people experienced more than 100 years of relative liberty , peace , and prosperity , in large part because there was no big military-intelligence establishment that was bankrupting the nation through ever-increasing spending , taxes , and monetary debasement .
The situation changed after World War II , when America ’ s federal governmental system was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is inherent to totalitarian regimes .
That ’ s how Americans got the Pentagon , the military-industrial complex , the CIA , and the NSA , agencies with vast , omnipotent , dark-side powers that would end up changing the nature of American society .
The rational for the conversion was the threat that Soviet Union and “ godless communism ” supposedly posed to the United States .
U.S. officials maintained that that although the Nazi threat was now over , the American people could not rest because they now faced a danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany .
Ironically , the Soviet Union had been a partner and ally of the United States in the war against Nazi Germany .
Since the Soviet Union and the communists wielded omnipotent powers and did not have to concern themselves with constitutional restraints , U.S. officials maintained that the only way the United States could prevail in this new “ Cold War ” was to adopt the same type of governmental structure as the Soviets , one that consisted of a vast military-intelligence establishment with omnipotent , dark-side powers , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference .
In 1953 , the CIA brought some of its new powers to bear .
The democratically elected prime minister of Iran , a man named Mohammad Mossadegh , nationalized British oil interests in the country .
The British lacked the ability to get their oil fields back and so they enlisted the assistance of the CIA .
To help the British get their oil interests back , the CIA presented its plan for regime change to President Truman , who rejected it .
After President Eisenhower assumed office , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA ’ s rationale that Mossadegh was leaning toward communism and the Soviet Union and , therefore , posed a threat to U.S. “ national security , ” the principal term in the lexicon of a national-security state form of governmental structure .
Exercising some of its new omnipotent , dark-side powers , the CIA orchestrated a coup that ended up destroying Iran ’ s experiment with democracy .
The coup removed Mossadegh from power and replaced him with the Shah of Iran , one of the most vicious and brutal dictators in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unelected Shah would remain in power for the rest of his life , the CIA helped him to establish and train an internal police force called the SAVAK , which specialized in the arts of indefinite detention , torture , oppression , and state-sponsored terror .
None of that tyranny mattered to the Pentagon and the CIA , however .
What mattered to them was that the Shah was “ a friend ” of the United States , one who would do the bidding of the U.S. government in the United Nations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Iranian people had had enough of this U.S.-installed , U.S.-trained , and U.S.-supported tyranny , terror , and oppression .
That ’ s when they revolted against the Shah .
Unfortunately , however , the Iranian people were unable to restore the democratically elected system that the CIA had destroyed in 1953 .
The Iranian people ended up with a theocratic dictatorship that proved to be just as tyrannical as that of the Shah .
The CIA and the Pentagon have never forgiven the Iranian people for what they did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran.
” As far as the U.S. national-security establishment was concerned , the Iranian people had no legitimate authority to remove him from office .
Thus , ever since the Iranian revolution , the CIA and the Pentagon have been dead-set on regime change , never giving up their hope of reinstalling another Shah into power in Iran , one that would be “ a friend ” of the U.S. government .
In fact , soon after the Iranian revolution in 1979 , U.S. officials began supporting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That war ended up lasting several years , killing an untold number of Iranian people , with the full support of the Pentagon and the CIA .
Ironically , the U.S .national-security establishment would ending up turning against their partner and ally Saddam Hussein and targeting him for regime change , which would ultimately lead to perpetual death , destruction , violence , and mayhem in that country .
Today , some 67 years after the CIA ’ s coup in Iran and some 41 years after the Iranian revolution , the hatred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Iranian people and the obsession for regime change go unabated , as reflected by the recent exercise of one of the dark-side powers that came with the federal government ’ s conversion to a national-security state — the power to conduct state-sponsored assassinations against people , both foreign and domestic , who ostensibly pose a threat to “ national security.
” The worst mistake Americans have ever made was to permit the federal government to be converted into a national-security state .
The best thing Americans today could ever do is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land .
As our American ancestors understood so well , a free , peaceful , prosperous , and harmonious nation can not exist under a national-security state form of governmental structure , one where government officials wield and exercise totalitarian , sordid , dark-side powers .
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation .
The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger

Português
A question that naturally arises but one that the mainstream press never asks is: What is the reason for the deep-seated hatred that the U.S. national-security state has toward Iran?
No, the answer doesn’t begin with the fact that Iranian revolutionaries took American diplomats hostage during the Iranian revolution in 1979, which is what the mainstream press often asserts. The U.S. hatred for Iran stretches back even further than that.
In fact, to understand the hatred that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA have for Iran, it is actually necessary to go back to the founding of the United States.
When the delegates met at the Constitution Convention, it was for the purpose of modifying the Articles of Confederation, a type of governmental system under which Americans had been operating for 13 years. Under the Articles, the federal government’s powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax.
That was the way our American ancestors wanted it. The last thing they wanted was a type of governmental system where the federal government wielded the same types of omnipotent powers that had been wielded by the government against which they had revolted in 1776.
A limited-government republic
Rather than simply modify the Articles of Confederation, however, the Constitutional Convention proposed a different type of governmental system, one called a limited-government republic. Under this type of governmental structure, the federal government would wield more powers but they would be limited to those enumerated in the document itself.
Americans were leery of the deal, concerned that federal officials, including democratically elected ones, would begin wielding and exercising despotic powers. They were assured that that couldn’t happen because the powers enumerated in the Constitution were few and limited and didn’t include dictatorial powers. To emphasize their concern, however, Americans demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which expressly restricted the ability of U.S. officials to exercise despotic powers.
Under America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic, there was no Pentagon, military-industrial complex, foreign military bases, CIA, NSA, coups, foreign aid, alliances with dictatorial regimes, or regime-change invasions and occupations. In fact, if Americans had been told that the Constitution was going to bring into existence those things, they would have summarily rejected the deal and continue operating under the Articles.
A limited-government republic was the governmental system under which American people operated for more than a century. Yes, there was a basic army whose primary purpose was to wage war against Native Americans but its size was extremely limited.
Why did American oppose “standing armies,” the term they used for big and permanent military-intelligence establishments? Because they were convinced that standing armies inevitably lead to the destruction of the liberty and well-being of the citizenry.
Notwithstanding slavery, the Mexican War, and the Civil War, the American people experienced more than 100 years of relative liberty, peace, and prosperity, in large part because there was no big military-intelligence establishment that was bankrupting the nation through ever-increasing spending, taxes, and monetary debasement.
The conversion to a national-security state
The situation changed after World War II, when America’s federal governmental system was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a type of governmental system that is inherent to totalitarian regimes. That’s how Americans got the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA, agencies with vast, omnipotent, dark-side powers that would end up changing the nature of American society.
The rational for the conversion was the threat that Soviet Union and “godless communism” supposedly posed to the United States. U.S. officials maintained that that although the Nazi threat was now over, the American people could not rest because they now faced a danger that was supposedly even bigger than Nazi Germany. Ironically, the Soviet Union had been a partner and ally of the United States in the war against Nazi Germany.
Since the Soviet Union and the communists wielded omnipotent powers and did not have to concern themselves with constitutional restraints, U.S. officials maintained that the only way the United States could prevail in this new “Cold War” was to adopt the same type of governmental structure as the Soviets, one that consisted of a vast military-intelligence establishment with omnipotent, dark-side powers, including the power to conduct state-sponsored assassinations without judicial interference.
The CIA’s coup in Iran
In 1953, the CIA brought some of its new powers to bear. The democratically elected prime minister of Iran, a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalized British oil interests in the country. The British lacked the ability to get their oil fields back and so they enlisted the assistance of the CIA.
To help the British get their oil interests back, the CIA presented its plan for regime change to President Truman, who rejected it. After President Eisenhower assumed office, however, he approved the plan based on the CIA’s rationale that Mossadegh was leaning toward communism and the Soviet Union and, therefore, posed a threat to U.S. “national security,” the principal term in the lexicon of a national-security state form of governmental structure.
Exercising some of its new omnipotent, dark-side powers, the CIA orchestrated a coup that ended up destroying Iran’s experiment with democracy. The coup removed Mossadegh from power and replaced him with the Shah of Iran, one of the most vicious and brutal dictators in the world. To ensure that the unelected Shah would remain in power for the rest of his life, the CIA helped him to establish and train an internal police force called the SAVAK, which specialized in the arts of indefinite detention, torture, oppression, and state-sponsored terror.
None of that tyranny mattered to the Pentagon and the CIA, however. What mattered to them was that the Shah was “a friend” of the United States, one who would do the bidding of the U.S. government in the United Nations and in other international affairs.
The Iranian revolution
In 1979, the Iranian people had had enough of this U.S.-installed, U.S.-trained, and U.S.-supported tyranny, terror, and oppression. That’s when they revolted against the Shah.
Unfortunately, however, the Iranian people were unable to restore the democratically elected system that the CIA had destroyed in 1953. The Iranian people ended up with a theocratic dictatorship that proved to be just as tyrannical as that of the Shah.
The CIA and the Pentagon have never forgiven the Iranian people for what they did. The Shah was “our man in Iran.” As far as the U.S. national-security establishment was concerned, the Iranian people had no legitimate authority to remove him from office.
Thus, ever since the Iranian revolution, the CIA and the Pentagon have been dead-set on regime change, never giving up their hope of reinstalling another Shah into power in Iran, one that would be “a friend” of the U.S. government.
In fact, soon after the Iranian revolution in 1979, U.S. officials began supporting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in a war that he initiated against Iran. That war ended up lasting several years, killing an untold number of Iranian people, with the full support of the Pentagon and the CIA.
Ironically, the U.S .national-security establishment would ending up turning against their partner and ally Saddam Hussein and targeting him for regime change, which would ultimately lead to perpetual death, destruction, violence, and mayhem in that country.
Today, some 67 years after the CIA’s coup in Iran and some 41 years after the Iranian revolution, the hatred that the CIA and the Pentagon bear for the Iranian people and the obsession for regime change go unabated, as reflected by the recent exercise of one of the dark-side powers that came with the federal government’s conversion to a national-security state — the power to conduct state-sponsored assassinations against people, both foreign and domestic, who ostensibly pose a threat to “national security.”
The solution
The worst mistake Americans have ever made was to permit the federal government to be converted into a national-security state. The best thing Americans today could ever do is to restore a limited-government republic to our land. As our American ancestors understood so well, a free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious nation cannot exist under a national-security state form of governmental structure, one where government officials wield and exercise totalitarian, sordid, dark-side powers.
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.
The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger


lewrockwell--2020-01-30--Gold Would Explode With a Bernie Sanders Presidency

Bernie Sanders has gained in the polls of late and only trails Joe Biden by about three percentage points , according to the latest Fox News poll .
On top of that , Sanders matches up against President Trump .
He leads 48 % to 42 % in a head-to-head matchup .
Peter Schiff told Fox Business that said a Sanders presidency would be an economic disaster for the US , but it would be good for gold .
In fact , Peter said gold could rise to $ 2,000 before the election if the market thinks Sanders is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders presidency would look like .
How an Economy Grows a ... Peter D. Schiff , Andre ... Best Price : $ 5.01 Buy New $ 7.53 What a Sanders win means is much bigger government deficits , and much more money printing by the Fed because there is no way to finance all of the spending that will happen with tax hikes on the rich .
We ’ ll get tax hikes on the rich , but they ’ re not going to provide the revenue to pay for the programs.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cross $ 1 trillion in fiscal 2020 .
That ’ s only happened four times in US history , all in the wake of the 2008 crash .
Peter said the budget deficits would get even bigger with Sanders in the White House .
There is gon na be no Republican opposition to the deficits that would finance the spending because after all , the Republicans didn ’ t object to record deficits under Trump when the economy was supposedly the greatest ever .
The deficits could be three or four trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be off the charts.
” As far as coronavirus , Peter echoed what he said on RT Boom Bust last week : markets have bigger things to worry about .
He told Fox Business gold was rallying before the outbreak and that it is “ not why ” the price is going up now , even though metals are considered a safe-haven buy .
Peter said even though the Fed has paused rate cuts , for the time being , he thinks the central bank will ultimately cut all the way back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance sheet will “ explode to a much higher than the four-and-a-half trillion that they tapered from.
” And a Sanders presidency would do nothing but exacerbate this and speed up the dollar ’ s demise .

Bernie Sanders has gained in the polls of late and only trails Joe Biden by about three percentage points, according to the latest Fox News poll. On top of that, Sanders matches up against President Trump. He leads 48% to 42% in a head-to-head matchup.
Peter Schiff told Fox Business that said a Sanders presidency would be an economic disaster for the US, but it would be good for gold.
If Sanders becomes president in 2020, the price of gold will be well above $2,000 on the day after election night.”
In fact, Peter said gold could rise to $2,000 before the election if the market thinks Sanders is going to win.
Peter projected what a Sanders presidency would look like. How an Economy Grows a... Schiff, Andrew J. Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $7.20 (as of 11:05 UTC - Details)
What a Sanders win means is much bigger government deficits, and much more money printing by the Fed because there is no way to finance all of the spending that will happen with tax hikes on the rich. We’ll get tax hikes on the rich, but they’re not going to provide the revenue to pay for the programs.”
The federal budget deficit is on track to cross $1 trillion in fiscal 2020. That’s only happened four times in US history, all in the wake of the 2008 crash. Peter said the budget deficits would get even bigger with Sanders in the White House.
There is gonna be no Republican opposition to the deficits that would finance the spending because after all, the Republicans didn’t object to record deficits under Trump when the economy was supposedly the greatest ever. The deficits could be three or four trillion dollars a year and the money printing will be off the charts.”
As far as coronavirus, Peter echoed what he said on RT Boom Bust last week: markets have bigger things to worry about. He told Fox Business gold was rallying before the outbreak and that it is “not why” the price is going up now, even though metals are considered a safe-haven buy.
Peter said even though the Fed has paused rate cuts, for the time being, he thinks the central bank will ultimately cut all the way back to zero and the Fed’s balance sheet will “explode to a much higher than the four-and-a-half trillion that they tapered from.”
And a Sanders presidency would do nothing but exacerbate this and speed up the dollar’s demise.
There’s no way the dollar’s reserve status will survive a Sanders presidency. America is going to be a much, much poorer nation. Our standard of living is going to implode, but the money printing is going to be crazy.”
Reprinted from SchiffGold.com.


lewrockwell--2020-01-30--What the Elites at Davos Are Really Up to

International Man : It ’ s that time of the year when a bunch of out-of-touch , self-anointed elites gather at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
It ’ s where they discuss the big issues of the day .
The most influential world leaders attend , as do the CEOs of the largest companies , leaders in the mainstream media , and top academics .
Central bankers attend too , along with a wide assortment of celebrities .
What do you make of Davos and the people who attend it ?
Doug Casey : Davos is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ elite.
” The usual suspects , and almost uniformly horrible people .
These people form a subculture .
They ’ re all members , or hangers-on , of various Deep States .
They prefer to associate with other people they consider to be peers .
If it turns out you don ’ t share their worldview , you won ’ t get invited back .
It ’ s basically a love fest for the international ruling class .
They like to get together , hang out , and schmooze , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if they don ’ t know each other personally .
Talking about “ important ” issues with other “ important ” people gives meaning to their lives .
That ’ s the essence of what goes on at Davos and similar conclaves .
Now , I know the conspiracy types say , “ These people have gotten together to conspire against all of us little people.
” And some of that undoubtedly happens .
That ’ s nothing new .
In The Wealth of Nations , Adam Smith pointed out that whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they always conspire against the public .
Of course .
That ’ s human nature .
It ’ s normal .
What do you expect ?
But it ’ s not a conspiracy .
The fact is that people with the same education , worldview , and economic status tend to think alike .
And tend to help one another .
It ’ s not some kind of conspiracy , any more than is a meeting of a local Lion ’ s Club .
A couple of years ago , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elitist and globalist conference event in New York .
It was made up of exactly the same people who show up at Davos and conferences like it .
I found that I didn ’ t like them .
And I strongly suspect they didn ’ t like me , even though I was on my best behavior .
But that ’ s nothing new .
I occasionally get invited to dinner parties in Aspen , with the same kind of people .
But usually not more than once .
Why might that be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I say what I think .
And that ’ s usually at odds with what the Masters of the Universe think .
International Man : In previous years , we ’ ve seen the people at Davos promote various themes that later became policy .
For example , negative interest rates , the abolition of cash , and promoting mass migration were all hot topics at Davos before governments around the world started implementing them .
What is going on here ?
Doug Casey : These people are the self-righteous epitome of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to free minds and free markets .
They are , however , in a position to influence the policies of the governments that control much of the world ’ s economy .
And they do .
It doesn ’ t matter how much money and power they have ; humans are genetically wired to want more .
Now that , in itself , is not a bad thing .
In fact , it ’ s a good thing .
It ’ s responsible for taking humanity from beating on earth with sticks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem is that these people are not just willing , but anxious , to use coercion—the State—to get what they want .
They camouflage their intentions with massive virtue signaling .
For some time , they ’ ve directed their attention to fixing the planet .
In fact , the bigshots at Davos aren ’ t going to fix anything , except maybe a few elections .
They don ’ t even understand the problems .
But it ’ s not hard to understand their motives .
Everybody , including the African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wants to be a bigshot .
That ’ s true even if you only hang out at the local bar or the local Rotary Club .
If you ’ re running with the big dogs , however , you probably want to be a bigshot at Davos .
In years past , mass migration was a major subject for them .
Not the migration of Europeans to the Americas in the 19th century , however .
Those were mobile , aggressive , opportunity-seeking people who wanted to leave stagnant and repressive cultures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the way of state support .
Very unlike the migrants coming to Europe today , who aren ’ t being attracted by opportunity so much as welfare benefits and the soft life .
They know Western Europe is a massive welfare state that provides free food , housing , medical care , schooling , and living expenses to all comers .
Today ’ s migrants are mostly unskilled , poorly educated , and many have a bad attitude .
They—justifiably—hold their new host countries in contempt .
The question arises why—since they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t being welcomed by places like Saudi Arabia , the UAE , Qatar , or Brunei , which are wealthy Muslim countries .
Globalistan : How the G ... Pepe Escobar Best Price : $ 18.02 Buy New $ 23.75 There was a massive surge of migrants to Europe in 2015 .
But that was , I believe , just an overture to what ’ s coming .
What we ’ re talking about here is the migration of millions of people of different languages , different races , different religions , different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you ’ re an alien and you ’ re 1 out of 100 , or 1,000 , or even 10,000 , you ’ re a curiosity , an interesting outsider .
And you ’ d have to integrate into the new society .
But an influx of millions of migrants can only destroy the old culture .
And guarantee antagonism—especially when the locals are forced to pay for it .
It ’ s comparable to what happened 1,600 years ago with the migration of the Germanic barbarians into the Roman Empire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The migration policies popular with the Davos crowd are creating minor chaos now , but world-class chaos is in the wings over the next decade .
The population of Africa is growing by tens of millions per year while the population of Europe is collapsing .
It will be interesting to watch London transform into Lagos North , as Paris starts looking like Kinshasa .
Another item that ’ s always on their agenda is central bank monetary policies .
I ’ ll make a bet that Modern Monetary Theory ( MMT ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MMT amounts to the basically unlimited creation of currency units to finance whatever governments want .
It ’ s essentially Keynesianism on steroids .
It seems inevitable because all the major governments are actually bankrupt .
And the Deep State—Davos types—would far prefer to see things financed with inflation than taxes , because that could take stock markets much higher .
And make corporate bailouts much easier .
The Best of Doug Casey

International Man: It’s that time of the year when a bunch of out-of-touch, self-anointed elites gather at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
It’s where they discuss the big issues of the day. The most influential world leaders attend, as do the CEOs of the largest companies, leaders in the mainstream media, and top academics. Central bankers attend too, along with a wide assortment of celebrities.
What do you make of Davos and the people who attend it?
Doug Casey: Davos is an “invitation only” event for the “elite.” The usual suspects, and almost uniformly horrible people. These people form a subculture. They’re all members, or hangers-on, of various Deep States. They prefer to associate with other people they consider to be peers. If it turns out you don’t share their worldview, you won’t get invited back.
It’s basically a love fest for the international ruling class. They like to get together, hang out, and schmooze, because they all know about each other, even if they don’t know each other personally. Talking about “important” issues with other “important” people gives meaning to their lives. That’s the essence of what goes on at Davos and similar conclaves.
Now, I know the conspiracy types say, “These people have gotten together to conspire against all of us little people.” And some of that undoubtedly happens. That’s nothing new. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith pointed out that whenever people in the same business get together, they always conspire against the public. Of course. That’s human nature. It’s normal. What do you expect?
But it’s not a conspiracy. The fact is that people with the same education, worldview, and economic status tend to think alike. And tend to help one another. It’s not some kind of conspiracy, any more than is a meeting of a local Lion’s Club.
A couple of years ago, I was mistakenly invited to attend a similar very elitist and globalist conference event in New York. It was made up of exactly the same people who show up at Davos and conferences like it.
I found that I didn’t like them. And I strongly suspect they didn’t like me, even though I was on my best behavior. But that’s nothing new. I occasionally get invited to dinner parties in Aspen, with the same kind of people. But usually not more than once. Why might that be? Well, as you know, I say what I think. And that’s usually at odds with what the Masters of the Universe think.
International Man: In previous years, we’ve seen the people at Davos promote various themes that later became policy.
For example, negative interest rates, the abolition of cash, and promoting mass migration were all hot topics at Davos before governments around the world started implementing them.
What is going on here?
Doug Casey: These people are the self-righteous epitome of the Establishment. They’re absolutely opposed to free minds and free markets. They are, however, in a position to influence the policies of the governments that control much of the world’s economy. And they do. It doesn’t matter how much money and power they have; humans are genetically wired to want more. Now that, in itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing. It’s responsible for taking humanity from beating on earth with sticks to sending rockets to the other planets.
The problem is that these people are not just willing, but anxious, to use coercion—the State—to get what they want. They camouflage their intentions with massive virtue signaling. For some time, they’ve directed their attention to fixing the planet.
In fact, the bigshots at Davos aren’t going to fix anything, except maybe a few elections. They don’t even understand the problems. But it’s not hard to understand their motives. Everybody, including the African goatherder with flies buzzing around his face, wants to be a bigshot. That’s true even if you only hang out at the local bar or the local Rotary Club. If you’re running with the big dogs, however, you probably want to be a bigshot at Davos.
In years past, mass migration was a major subject for them. Not the migration of Europeans to the Americas in the 19th century, however. Those were mobile, aggressive, opportunity-seeking people who wanted to leave stagnant and repressive cultures for personal freedom. They had zero in the way of state support.
Very unlike the migrants coming to Europe today, who aren’t being attracted by opportunity so much as welfare benefits and the soft life. They know Western Europe is a massive welfare state that provides free food, housing, medical care, schooling, and living expenses to all comers.
Today’s migrants are mostly unskilled, poorly educated, and many have a bad attitude. They—justifiably—hold their new host countries in contempt. The question arises why—since they’re almost all Muslims—they aren’t being welcomed by places like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, or Brunei, which are wealthy Muslim countries. Globalistan: How the G... Pepe Escobar Best Price: $17.22 Buy New $20.83 (as of 07:20 UTC - Details)
There was a massive surge of migrants to Europe in 2015. But that was, I believe, just an overture to what’s coming. What we’re talking about here is the migration of millions of people of different languages, different races, different religions, different cultures, and different modes of living. If you’re an alien and you’re 1 out of 100, or 1,000, or even 10,000, you’re a curiosity, an interesting outsider. And you’d have to integrate into the new society. But an influx of millions of migrants can only destroy the old culture. And guarantee antagonism—especially when the locals are forced to pay for it.
It’s comparable to what happened 1,600 years ago with the migration of the Germanic barbarians into the Roman Empire. But potentially much more serious. The migration policies popular with the Davos crowd are creating minor chaos now, but world-class chaos is in the wings over the next decade. The population of Africa is growing by tens of millions per year while the population of Europe is collapsing. It will be interesting to watch London transform into Lagos North, as Paris starts looking like Kinshasa.
Another item that’s always on their agenda is central bank monetary policies. I’ll make a bet that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is very much in the cards. MMT amounts to the basically unlimited creation of currency units to finance whatever governments want. It’s essentially Keynesianism on steroids. It seems inevitable because all the major governments are actually bankrupt. And the Deep State—Davos types—would far prefer to see things financed with inflation than taxes, because that could take stock markets much higher. And make corporate bailouts much easier.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-01-30--‘Racist’ Trump Supporters Should Lose Their Vote, Says NBC

Once again , the mainstream media is pushing the repugnant race card , suggesting that Trump supporters are a bunch of knuckle-dragging xenophobes whose only reason for wanting a wall on the Mexican border is because they suffer an aversion to people with different skin color than them .
What exactly do White Americans – who opened the floodgates to immigration in 1965 – need to do these days to prove they are not natural born racists ?
Cancel their monthly subscription to Town and Country ?
Stop walking their dogs , which are , of course , four-legged vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop attending their evening yoga class , the unsuspecting breeding grounds for white supremacists ?
Somehow I suspect that even if White people took to burning effigies of Ku Klux Klan members on their manicured front lawns that would not even put a stop to the ugly rumors .
Let ’ s just face it , the only thing that will finally stop the slanderous slurs is if all White Americans publicly denounce their support of the biggest race-hater of them all , Donald J. Trump .
And should they refuse the itinerant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it for them .
Just ask Noah Berlatsky , occasional columnist for MSNBC , whose latest piece was crowned with the zinger of a headline , ‘ Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution .
Can they be stopped ?
’ Nice leading question there , but the premise that precedes it , that Trump voters are “ motivated by racism , ” is just one more election-season deceit .
Berlatsky ’ s article opens with the conclusion that Donald Trump “ ran an openly racist campaign for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rallying slogan “ Make America Great Again ” is actually code that can be translated into “ America was greater when white people ’ s power was more sweeping and more secure.
” Yet nowhere in any of Trump ’ s numerous campaign utterances or even Tweets has he ever singled out America ’ s White population as the intended sole beneficiary of his plans to remake the U.S. economy .
In fact , just the opposite .
As Trump has made it his goal to return some of the shine to America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with penalties and public scorn if they relocate their production operations overseas , the unemployment rate among Blacks now stands at 5.9 % , down from 7.5 % at the start of his presidency .
At the same time , the employment rate among Hispanics is at historic highs .
At this point , the Democrats will invariably mention Trump ’ s promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border , a promise that arguably won the real estate developer the White House in 2016 .
Yet Trump , the Democrats argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted to an unsavory truth that even Hispanics living in America agree with : “ When Mexico sends its people , they ’ re not sending their best…They ’ re sending people that have lots of problems , and they ’ re bringing those problems with us .
They ’ re bringing drugs .
They ’ re bringing crime .
They ’ re rapists .
And some , I assume , are good people.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , that all Mexicans are rapists or criminals .
He was arguing that of the many who do make it across the border a disproportionate number do fit the description .
At this point , it needs to be asked why the Democrats deign to show so much care and compassion for those illegals breaching America ’ s border on a daily basis , at the very same time Democratic strongholds , like California and New York , are already bursting at the seams with tent cities and grinding poverty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a British tourist to San Francisco , the one-time crown gem of the increasingly tarnished , Democratic-controlled Golden State : “ I can ’ t understand how anyone can live in a place where their everyday trip to get groceries or go to work includes a multitude of beggars asking for spare change or a meal.
” Considering that the Democrats can ’ t even take care of their own burgeoning problems in their primary constituencies , what is the real motivation behind their proposals to open the U.S. border and abolish U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
After all , these are the very same people who screamed ‘ not in my backyard !
’ when Trump threatened to send all apprehended illegals to the so-called ‘ sanctuary cities ’ .
Nancy Pelosi skirted the periphery of racism when she called the idea “ disrespectful.
” Would their sham benevolence have anything to do with securing more Democratic voters , or guaranteeing that the Republican Party eventually goes the way of the dinosaurs ?
Was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo motivated by pure compassion when he signed legislation granting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who may now cast a ‘ legal ’ vote under New York ’ s notoriously loose voting laws ?
Now Democrats are demanding the elimination Voter ID rules , declaring them racist against minorities .
This is one of the ways Berlatsky proposes to end so-called “ racist voting ” now purportedly contaminating U.S. politics .
It ’ s no secret that Hispanic Americans traditionally vote Democratic , and if that tendency were to change tomorrow you can bet that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be camped out daily at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to finish the project .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 In the final analysis , the Democrat ’ s groundless assertion that Trump supporters are kneejerk racists disintegrates when it is remembered that up to 10 million former Obama supporters – many of them White – switched allegiances to the Trump camp in the 2016 presidential election .
Are we really expected to believe that all of those Americans suddenly became hardcore racists with the arrival of the evil ‘ orange man ’ and his pledge to build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The far more logical explanation for this massive change in political sentiment is that Trump ’ s plan to remedy America ’ s dangerously porous borders , thereby enhancing the security of all Americans , regardless of skin color , was a welcomed idea across the board .
Nevertheless , the real danger is that the Democrats , entranced by the cult of political correctness and an out-of-control cancel culture , will attempt by some extreme measures to identify and ban so-called ‘ racist Trump supporters ’ who are just regular Americans looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a well-guarded country that protects the rights of all its citizens regardless of skin color .
Banning undesirable Trump voters from the ballet box may eventually become as easy as censoring right-leaning Twitter users .
Clearly , the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the mistake of branding Trump supports “ deplorables ” – to quote Hillary Clinton – and have only worsened their present position by calling these same voters , many of them former Obama supporters , “ racist.
” Such a gross simplification and misunderstanding of the current American political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats stand very little chance of beating Trump at the ballot box .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

Once again, the mainstream media is pushing the repugnant race card, suggesting that Trump supporters are a bunch of knuckle-dragging xenophobes whose only reason for wanting a wall on the Mexican border is because they suffer an aversion to people with different skin color than them.
What exactly do White Americans – who opened the floodgates to immigration in 1965 – need to do these days to prove they are not natural born racists? Cancel their monthly subscription to Town and Country? Stop walking their dogs, which are, of course, four-legged vehicles of “racial segregation,” or stop attending their evening yoga class, the unsuspecting breeding grounds for white supremacists? Somehow I suspect that even if White people took to burning effigies of Ku Klux Klan members on their manicured front lawns that would not even put a stop to the ugly rumors. Let’s just face it, the only thing that will finally stop the slanderous slurs is if all White Americans publicly denounce their support of the biggest race-hater of them all, Donald J. Trump. And should they refuse the itinerant Liberal Inquisition will be only too happy to do it for them.
Just ask Noah Berlatsky, occasional columnist for MSNBC, whose latest piece was crowned with the zinger of a headline, ‘Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?’ Nice leading question there, but the premise that precedes it, that Trump voters are “motivated by racism,” is just one more election-season deceit.
Leftists are angry.
Usually at their own life choices, but “racism, sexism, and social injustice” sounds better. — Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) December 18, 2019
Berlatsky’s article opens with the conclusion that Donald Trump “ran an openly racist campaign for president,” and that his popular rallying slogan “Make America Great Again” is actually code that can be translated into “America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure.” Yet nowhere in any of Trump’s numerous campaign utterances or even Tweets has he ever singled out America’s White population as the intended sole beneficiary of his plans to remake the U.S. economy. In fact, just the opposite. As Trump has made it his goal to return some of the shine to America’s industrial Rustbelt, threatening companies with penalties and public scorn if they relocate their production operations overseas, the unemployment rate among Blacks now stands at 5.9%, down from 7.5% at the start of his presidency. At the same time, the employment rate among Hispanics is at historic highs.
It was exactly three years ago today, January 20, 2017, that I was sworn into office. So appropriate that today is also MLK jr DAY. African-American Unemployment is the LOWEST in the history of our Country, by far. Also, best Poverty, Youth, and Employment numbers, ever. Great! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2020
At this point, the Democrats will invariably mention Trump’s promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, a promise that arguably won the real estate developer the White House in 2016. Yet Trump, the Democrats argue, is an unrepentant racist because he admitted to an unsavory truth that even Hispanics living in America agree with: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
Trump was not arguing, of course, that all Mexicans are rapists or criminals. He was arguing that of the many who do make it across the border a disproportionate number do fit the description.
At this point, it needs to be asked why the Democrats deign to show so much care and compassion for those illegals breaching America’s border on a daily basis, at the very same time Democratic strongholds, like California and New York, are already bursting at the seams with tent cities and grinding poverty. Suffice it to consider a comment by a British tourist to San Francisco, the one-time crown gem of the increasingly tarnished, Democratic-controlled Golden State: “I can’t understand how anyone can live in a place where their everyday trip to get groceries or go to work includes a multitude of beggars asking for spare change or a meal.”
Considering that the Democrats can’t even take care of their own burgeoning problems in their primary constituencies, what is the real motivation behind their proposals to open the U.S. border and abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? After all, these are the very same people who screamed ‘not in my backyard!’ when Trump threatened to send all apprehended illegals to the so-called ‘sanctuary cities’. Nancy Pelosi skirted the periphery of racism when she called the idea “disrespectful.”
Just out: The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities. We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or its poor management & high taxes! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 14, 2019
Would their sham benevolence have anything to do with securing more Democratic voters, or guaranteeing that the Republican Party eventually goes the way of the dinosaurs? Was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo motivated by pure compassion when he signed legislation granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, who may now cast a ‘legal’ vote under New York’s notoriously loose voting laws? Now Democrats are demanding the elimination Voter ID rules, declaring them racist against minorities. This is one of the ways Berlatsky proposes to end so-called “racist voting” now purportedly contaminating U.S. politics.
It’s no secret that Hispanic Americans traditionally vote Democratic, and if that tendency were to change tomorrow you can bet that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be camped out daily at the Mexican border, demanding the necessary funds to finish the project. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
In the final analysis, the Democrat’s groundless assertion that Trump supporters are kneejerk racists disintegrates when it is remembered that up to 10 million former Obama supporters – many of them White – switched allegiances to the Trump camp in the 2016 presidential election. Are we really expected to believe that all of those Americans suddenly became hardcore racists with the arrival of the evil ‘orange man’ and his pledge to build a wall? That sounds highly unlikely. The far more logical explanation for this massive change in political sentiment is that Trump’s plan to remedy America’s dangerously porous borders, thereby enhancing the security of all Americans, regardless of skin color, was a welcomed idea across the board.
Nevertheless, the real danger is that the Democrats, entranced by the cult of political correctness and an out-of-control cancel culture, will attempt by some extreme measures to identify and ban so-called ‘racist Trump supporters’ who are just regular Americans looking for a leader who will provide them with a well-guarded country that protects the rights of all its citizens regardless of skin color. Banning undesirable Trump voters from the ballet box may eventually become as easy as censoring right-leaning Twitter users.
Clearly, the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the mistake of branding Trump supports “deplorables” – to quote Hillary Clinton – and have only worsened their present position by calling these same voters, many of them former Obama supporters, “racist.” Such a gross simplification and misunderstanding of the current American political realities goes far at explaining why the Democrats stand very little chance of beating Trump at the ballot box.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


lewrockwell--2020-01-30--Fed’s Core Mission Now Includes Climate Change

The Fed , ECB , Bank of England , and Bank of Japan have now embraced climate change as part of their mission .
It ’ s bad enough that central bankers are clueless about inflation.They now want their hands in another thing they do not understand and can not control even if they did.Fed ’ s Core Mission Change Lael Brainard , Chair of the Fed ’ s Committee on Financial Stability , says Climate Change Matters for Monetary Policy and Financial Stability .
So how does climate change fit into the work of the Federal Reserve ?
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial system , the Federal Reserve needs to analyze and adapt to important changes to the economy and financial system .
This is no less true for climate change than it was for globalization or the information technology revolution .
To fulfill our core responsibilities , it will be important for the Federal Reserve to study the implications of climate change for the economy and the financial system and to adapt our work accordingly .
Brainard was just one of the speakers at the Fed ’ s Economics of Climate Change summit last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tim Ball PhD Check Amazon for Pricing .
Mary Daly , San Francisco Fed president has this Q & A in her presentation .
Q : Why is the San Francisco Fed hosting a climate conference ?
Why this ?
Why now ?
A : The answer is simple .
It ’ s essential to achieving our mission .
The challenges posed by a string of recent natural disasters and the potential hit to the economy from slowing overseas growth “ should be better addressed by government with fiscal policy and structural policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Japan is prone to big typhoons and earthquakes , Kuroda highlighted the risks related to climate change as an example of new issues central banks must deal with in maintaining financial stability .
“ Climate-related risk differs from other risks in that its relatively long-term impact means the effects will last longer than other financial risks , and the impact is far less predictable , ” he said .
“ It is therefore necessary to thoroughly investigate and analyze the impact of climate-related risk.
” The Bank of England hopped on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a Climate Change Warning from BoE Chief Mark Carney .
The world will face irreversible heating unless firms shift their priorities soon , the outgoing head of the Bank of England has told the BBC .
He said leading pension fund analysis “ is that if you add up the policies of all of companies out there , they are consistent with warming of 3.7-3.8C ” .
Scientists say the risks associated with an increase of 4C include a nine metre rise in sea levels – affecting up to 760 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and serious food supply problems .
“ Now $ 120tn worth of balance sheets of banks and asset managers are wanting this disclosure [ of investments in fossil fuels ] .
But it ’ s not moving fast enough.
” ECB in on the Climate Change Act The Financial Times reports Christine Lagarde Wants Key Role for Climate Change in ECB Review .
Consider this Open Letter to ECB head Christine Lagarde from the European Parliament .
During your hearing at the European Parliament , you rightly pledged to make sure the ECB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the core of the understanding of its mission.
” As academics , civil society and trade union leaders , entrepreneurs and citizens deeply concerned by climate change , we believe that the most powerful financial institution in Europe can not just sit passively as we witness a growing environmental crisis .
Climate change not only imperils life-sustaining processes , it also threatens the financial stability , real economy and jobs .
It has been estimated that without mitigation efforts , physical risks related to climate change could result in losses of up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global financial assets .
Nonetheless , Germany ’ s Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann , who also sits on the on the ECB ’ s governing council , understands the silliness of the move .
Weidmann says that he would view “ very critically ” any attempt to redirect a central bank ’ s actions towards climate change , such as favouring the purchase of green bonds as part of a quantitative easing programme .
Weidmann is guaranteed to be overruled .
Please consider Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures The key to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for temperature , fires , Winters , growing seasons , and sea level , all cherry picked for maximum impact .
To decide who wins the blue ribbon , first let ’ s do a simulation .
The above Alarming Map shows what might be left of Florida when the sea level rises by 10 meters .
The Deliberate Corrupt ... Tim Ball Check Amazon for Pricing .
Caney said 9 meters but the average elevation of Florida is allegedly only 6 feet .
The highest elevation is only 312 feet .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blue Ribbon because people can understand the concept of Florida being three feet underwater .
In contrast , no one understands $ 24 trillion .
Besides , that estimates will soon be $ 250 trillion or higher due to Fearmongering Inflation .
None of the above tops AOC who says World Will End in 12 Years : Here ’ s What to Do About It Here ’ s a lesson for you climate fearmongers : Never put a time frame on your prediction that is shorter than your expected life or you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best of Michael Shedlock

The Fed, ECB, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan have now embraced climate change as part of their mission. It’s bad enough that central bankers are clueless about inflation.They now want their hands in another thing they do not understand and cannot control even if they did.Fed’s Core Mission Change
Lael Brainard, Chair of the Fed’s Committee on Financial Stability, says Climate Change Matters for Monetary Policy and Financial Stability.
So how does climate change fit into the work of the Federal Reserve? To support a strong economy and a stable financial system, the Federal Reserve needs to analyze and adapt to important changes to the economy and financial system. This is no less true for climate change than it was for globalization or the information technology revolution. To fulfill our core responsibilities, it will be important for the Federal Reserve to study the implications of climate change for the economy and the financial system and to adapt our work accordingly.
Climate Change Essential to Achieving Mission
Brainard was just one of the speakers at the Fed’s Economics of Climate Change summit last November.
Mary Daly, San Francisco Fed president has this Q&A in her presentation.
Q: Why is the San Francisco Fed hosting a climate conference? Why this? Why now?
A: The answer is simple. It’s essential to achieving our mission.
Bank of Japan Warns of Climate Change Risks
Japan Times reports Bank of Japan Gov. Haruhiko Kuroda Warns of Climate Change Risks.
The challenges posed by a string of recent natural disasters and the potential hit to the economy from slowing overseas growth “should be better addressed by government with fiscal policy and structural policies,” Kuroda said at a seminar. As Japan is prone to big typhoons and earthquakes, Kuroda highlighted the risks related to climate change as an example of new issues central banks must deal with in maintaining financial stability. “Climate-related risk differs from other risks in that its relatively long-term impact means the effects will last longer than other financial risks, and the impact is far less predictable,” he said. “It is therefore necessary to thoroughly investigate and analyze the impact of climate-related risk.”
Bank of England Climate Change Warning
The Bank of England hopped on the climate change bandwagon on December 30, with a Climate Change Warning from BoE Chief Mark Carney.
The world will face irreversible heating unless firms shift their priorities soon, the outgoing head of the Bank of England has told the BBC. He said leading pension fund analysis “is that if you add up the policies of all of companies out there, they are consistent with warming of 3.7-3.8C”. Scientists say the risks associated with an increase of 4C include a nine metre rise in sea levels – affecting up to 760 million people – searing heatwaves and droughts, and serious food supply problems. “Now $120tn worth of balance sheets of banks and asset managers are wanting this disclosure [of investments in fossil fuels]. But it’s not moving fast enough.”
ECB in on the Climate Change Act
The Financial Times reports Christine Lagarde Wants Key Role for Climate Change in ECB Review.
Consider this Open Letter to ECB head Christine Lagarde from the European Parliament.
During your hearing at the European Parliament, you rightly pledged to make sure the ECB puts the “protection of the environment at the core of the understanding of its mission.” As academics, civil society and trade union leaders, entrepreneurs and citizens deeply concerned by climate change, we believe that the most powerful financial institution in Europe cannot just sit passively as we witness a growing environmental crisis. Climate change not only imperils life-sustaining processes, it also threatens the financial stability, real economy and jobs. It has been estimated that without mitigation efforts, physical risks related to climate change could result in losses of up to $24 trillion of the value of global financial assets.
Wow. $24 Trillion at risk.
Nonetheless, Germany’s Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann, who also sits on the on the ECB’s governing council, understands the silliness of the move.
Weidmann says that he would view “very critically” any attempt to redirect a central bank’s actions towards climate change, such as favouring the purchase of green bonds as part of a quantitative easing programme.
Weidmann is guaranteed to be overruled.
Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures
Please consider Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures
The key to understanding the fraud is a changing timeline for temperature, fires, Winters, growing seasons, and sea level, all cherry picked for maximum impact.
Central Bank Fearmongering Blue Ribbon Contenders
European Parliament: $24 Trillion in Damages Bank of England: 9 Meter rise in seal level (29.53 feet).
To decide who wins the blue ribbon, first let’s do a simulation.
10 Meter Rise in Seal Level
Mercy!
The above Alarming Map shows what might be left of Florida when the sea level rises by 10 meters. The Deliberate Corrupt... Ball, Tim Buy New $9.95 (as of 12:25 UTC - Details)
Caney said 9 meters but the average elevation of Florida is allegedly only 6 feet. The highest elevation is only 312 feet.
Mark Carney Wins Fearmongering Blue Ribbon
I give Mark Carney the Central Bank fearmongering Blue Ribbon because people can understand the concept of Florida being three feet underwater.
In contrast, no one understands $24 trillion. Besides, that estimates will soon be $250 trillion or higher due to Fearmongering Inflation.
Fearmongering Lesson
None of the above tops AOC who says World Will End in 12 Years: Here’s What to Do About It
Here’s a lesson for you climate fearmongers: Never put a time frame on your prediction that is shorter than your expected life or you will be ridiculed until you die.
Reprinted with permission from Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis.
The Best of Michael Shedlock


Loathing Liberty

Did you know that “ white people are willing to die rather than be connected to or finance policies that they believe are giving resources to people they view as undeserving ” ?
Neither did I. I didn ’ t even experience an “ Aha !
” -moment , though I should have since I ’ m white .
I must thank Jonathan Capehart , an “ opinion writer ” at the Washington Post , for ferreting out sentiments so unsuspected I swear he imagined them .
I ’ d return the favor , assigning beliefs to him based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know a person—preferably in depth—before guessing at his thoughts .
And even then I ’ m often wrong .
Yet Mr. Capehart not only reads our minds but fearlessly lumps white folks together , as if our Creator didn ’ t differentiate each human being from all others with unique experiences , impressions , talents and foibles .
Hmmm .
Do you suppose ol ’ Capehart ’ s a bigot ?
Naaaawwww : not only does a major daily that routinely and smugly condemns such evil publish his blather , but even better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we all know “ ‘ ethnic minorit [ ies ] … can not be racist or sexist… ’ ” He ’ s also won a Pulitzer , which may explain his complacent condemnation of hundreds of millions of people he ’ s never polled , met , or even talked with .
Or perhaps he prattles his nonsense because he can—and does—blame it on a professor with notions as noxious as his : “ Jonathan M. Metzl is the Frederick B. Rentschler II professor of sociology and psychiatry at Vanderbilt University … .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a prominent expert on gun violence and mental illness.
” You needn ’ t display a Pulitzer on your shelf to deduce Metzl ’ s decided and overwhelming bias .
He titled one of his books ( WARNING : GAG ALERT ) , Dying of Whiteness : How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America ’ s Heartland .
Why would anyone read such tripe ?
Yet our buddy Capehart not only ploughed through it , he approvingly interviewed the author .
These two cretins have built careers on castigating Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are neither original nor clever as they spout the usual Marxist malice .
But they do point to something that inspires much of Progressives ’ anti-white fervor .
They hate our skin , certainly , but even more they hate what they assume we represent : America and the ideals of liberty and individuality she once espoused .
Oh , the irony !
A few of us still revere liberty ( as does an equally tiny remnant of blacks ) , but most have sold their freedom for Leviathan ’ s pottage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much as they do humor .
Dying of Whiteness , Capehart enthuses , “ chillingly shows how white identity permeates present-day policymaking making outside of Washington.
” That would be news to all the white taxpayers financing the welfare-state , in which , “ [ a ] t 41.6 percent , blacks were more likely to participate … , ” according to that Progressive god , the federal government .
“ The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent , Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent , and ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 13.2 percent.
” But we ’ ve only scratched the surface of the duo ’ s lies and distortions .
Capehart continues : “ Metzl opens the book recounting his conversation with a man he refers to as Trevor , a 41-year-old Tennessee man who was dying from liver damage and who was adamantly opposed to the Affordable Care Act , also known as Obamacare.
” Ahem .
Remember that the writer of this botched sentence has a Pulitzer to his credit .
But back to Trevor , who ’ s about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ ‘ Ain ’ t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it .
I would rather die.
’ Trevor tells Metzl in the book before explaining why.
” ( What was the Pulitzer Committee thinking ?
I ’ ve read bureaucrats who write more euphoniously than this . )
“ ‘ We don ’ t need any more government in our lives .
And in any case , no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.
’ ” Well .
You can imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outraged our two socialists—so completely that they grotesquely ( and deliberately ? )
misunderstand .
Metzl claimed , “ That was a quote I heard a lot .
… The idea was that even if this program might benefit me , I ’ m not gon na support a program that might also benefit by his estimation undeserving immigrants or minorities … Part of the jumping-off point of the book is how powerful is this idea about what it means to be white in America and this idea that basically to be white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ sic for ‘ thievery via government ’ ] of other groups.
’ ” You Marxist moron , Trevor isn ’ t talking about “ what it means to be white in America ” but about what it once meant to be American , regardless of color .
Thrillingly , he demonstrates virtues so rare they ’ re nigh obsolete , such as autonomy : he ’ d “ rather die ” than succumb to Obummercare .
He worries not about how “ the program ” might “ benefit ” him , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; rather , he abhors its chokehold on liberty .
Bravo , Trevor , bravo !
Next , consider his courage .
Trevor doesn ’ t lightly choose death over slavery : he is fatally ill from “ liver damage.
” But when he dies , at least he ’ ll do so independently of socialized medicine ( and likely bankrupt , since Leviathan ’ s interference in this market has inflated prices higher than Metzl ’ s ego ) .
Living—and dying—free is a concept so far above Capehart and Metzl , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little minds have ever dreamed , that they can not begin to fathom it .
Even Trevor ’ s cri de coeur , “ We don ’ t need any more government in our lives , ” can ’ t rouse them from their Marxist muck .
Speaking of which : “ Metzl ’ s book , ” Capehart babbles , “ focuses on health care in Tennessee , gun rights in Missouri and budget cuts in Kansas .
With each example , he shows how white identity played a role in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tragedy ” ?
Even Goebbels must be shaking his head at such hamfisted propaganda .
No surprise that “ each example ” provides a soapbox for Metzl to demand more and stronger government .
Finally , Trevor hungers for justice—real justice , too , not Progressives ’ “ social ” imposter .
He craves a country where men keep what they earn ( “ And in any case , no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.
” We might wish that Trevor hadn ’ t generalized so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll forgive this inaccuracy ) .
Trevor ’ s a throwback to an earlier America , where everyone pulled his own weight and sought to help his neighbors rather than sponge off them .
Trevor ’ s a hero ; we need a country full of folks with his backbone and devotion to liberty , regardless of color .
Whereas even one Capehart or Metzl is waaaay too many .
The Best of Becky Akers

Did you know that “white people are willing to die rather than be connected to or finance policies that they believe are giving resources to people they view as undeserving”?
Neither did I. I didn’t even experience an “Aha!”-moment, though I should have since I’m white. I must thank Jonathan Capehart, an “opinion writer” at the Washington Post, for ferreting out sentiments so unsuspected I swear he imagined them.
I’d return the favor, assigning beliefs to him based on his color, but I like to know a person—preferably in depth—before guessing at his thoughts. And even then I’m often wrong. Yet Mr. Capehart not only reads our minds but fearlessly lumps white folks together, as if our Creator didn’t differentiate each human being from all others with unique experiences, impressions, talents and foibles.
Hmmm. Do you suppose ol’ Capehart’s a bigot? Naaaawwww: not only does a major daily that routinely and smugly condemns such evil publish his blather, but even better, he’s black, and we all know “‘ethnic minorit[ies]…cannot be racist or sexist…’”
He’s also won a Pulitzer, which may explain his complacent condemnation of hundreds of millions of people he’s never polled, met, or even talked with. Or perhaps he prattles his nonsense because he can—and does—blame it on a professor with notions as noxious as his: “Jonathan M. Metzl is the Frederick B. Rentschler II professor of sociology and psychiatry at Vanderbilt University … . He is the author of several books and a prominent expert on gun violence and mental illness.” You needn’t display a Pulitzer on your shelf to deduce Metzl’s decided and overwhelming bias. He titled one of his books (WARNING: GAG ALERT), Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America’s Heartland. Why would anyone read such tripe? Yet our buddy Capehart not only ploughed through it, he approvingly interviewed the author.
These two cretins have built careers on castigating Americans of British and European descent. They are neither original nor clever as they spout the usual Marxist malice. But they do point to something that inspires much of Progressives’ anti-white fervor. They hate our skin, certainly, but even more they hate what they assume we represent: America and the ideals of liberty and individuality she once espoused.
Oh, the irony! A few of us still revere liberty (as does an equally tiny remnant of blacks), but most have sold their freedom for Leviathan’s pottage. Alas, Marxists appreciate irony about as much as they do humor.
Dying of Whiteness, Capehart enthuses, “chillingly shows how white identity permeates present-day policymaking making outside of Washington.” That would be news to all the white taxpayers financing the welfare-state, in which, “[a]t 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate …,” according to that Progressive god, the federal government. “The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent, and”—bringing up the rear—“non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.”
But we’ve only scratched the surface of the duo’s lies and distortions. Capehart continues: “Metzl opens the book recounting his conversation with a man he refers to as Trevor, a 41-year-old Tennessee man who was dying from liver damage and who was adamantly opposed to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.”
Ahem. Remember that the writer of this botched sentence has a Pulitzer to his credit.
But back to Trevor, who’s about to redeem the whole sorry mess: “‘Ain’t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it. I would rather die.’ Trevor tells Metzl in the book before explaining why.” (What was the Pulitzer Committee thinking? I’ve read bureaucrats who write more euphoniously than this.) “‘We don’t need any more government in our lives. And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.’”
Well. You can imagine how Trevor’s thirst for freedom outraged our two socialists—so completely that they grotesquely (and deliberately?) misunderstand. Metzl claimed, “That was a quote I heard a lot. … The idea was that even if this program might benefit me, I’m not gonna support a program that might also benefit by his estimation undeserving immigrants or minorities … Part of the jumping-off point of the book is how powerful is this idea about what it means to be white in America and this idea that basically to be white means to have to block the advances [sic for ‘thievery via government’] of other groups.’”
You Marxist moron, Trevor isn’t talking about “what it means to be white in America” but about what it once meant to be American, regardless of color. Thrillingly, he demonstrates virtues so rare they’re nigh obsolete, such as autonomy: he’d “rather die” than succumb to Obummercare. He worries not about how “the program” might “benefit” him, as far too many of his compatriots do; rather, he abhors its chokehold on liberty. Bravo, Trevor, bravo!
Next, consider his courage. Trevor doesn’t lightly choose death over slavery: he is fatally ill from “liver damage.” But when he dies, at least he’ll do so independently of socialized medicine (and likely bankrupt, since Leviathan’s interference in this market has inflated prices higher than Metzl’s ego).
Living—and dying—free is a concept so far above Capehart and Metzl, so much nobler than anything their diseased little minds have ever dreamed, that they cannot begin to fathom it. Even Trevor’s cri de coeur, “We don’t need any more government in our lives,” can’t rouse them from their Marxist muck.
Speaking of which: “Metzl’s book,” Capehart babbles, “focuses on health care in Tennessee, gun rights in Missouri and budget cuts in Kansas. With each example, he shows how white identity played a role in the tragedy that befell each state.” “Tragedy”? Even Goebbels must be shaking his head at such hamfisted propaganda. No surprise that “each example” provides a soapbox for Metzl to demand more and stronger government.
Finally, Trevor hungers for justice—real justice, too, not Progressives’ “social” imposter. He craves a country where men keep what they earn (“And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.” We might wish that Trevor hadn’t generalized so sweepingly—after all, most Mexicans support themselves—but we’ll forgive this inaccuracy). Trevor’s a throwback to an earlier America, where everyone pulled his own weight and sought to help his neighbors rather than sponge off them.
Trevor’s a hero; we need a country full of folks with his backbone and devotion to liberty, regardless of color. Whereas even one Capehart or Metzl is waaaay too many.
The Best of Becky Akers