lewrockwell--2020-10-30--Whether Your Vote Can Prevent a Civil War

It ’ s not like the consensus of a bunch of friends agreeing to see the same movie .
Most often , it boils down to a kinder and gentler variety of mob rule , dressed in a coat and tie .
The essence of positive values like personal liberty , wealth , opportunity , fraternity , and equality lies not in democracy , but in free minds and free markets where government becomes trivial .
Democracy focuses people ’ s thoughts on politics , not production ; on the collective , not on their own lives .
Although democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , the concept has reached cult status ; unassailable as political dogma .
It is , as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed , “ a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion.
” Most of the founders of America were more concerned with liberty than democracy .
Tocqueville saw democracy and liberty as almost polar opposites .
Democracy can work when everyone concerned knows one another , shares the same values and goals , and abhors any form of coercion .
It is the natural way of accomplishing things among small groups .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunt , John Buy New $ 18.64 But once belief in democracy becomes a political ideology , it ’ s necessarily transformed into majority rule .
And , at that point , the majority ( or even a plurality , a minority , or an individual ) can enforce their will on everyone else by claiming to represent the will of the people .
The only form of democracy that suits a free society is economic democracy in the laissez-faire form , where each person votes with his money for what he wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every individual obtain what he wants without compromising the interests of any other person .
That ’ s the polar opposite of the “ economic democracy ” of socialist pundits who have twisted the term to mean the political allocation of wealth .
But many terms in politics wind up with inverted meanings .
“ Liberal ” is certainly one of them .
The terms liberal ( left ) and conservative ( right ) define the conventional political spectrum ; the terms are floating abstractions with meanings that change with every politician .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was someone who believed in free speech , social mobility , limited government , and strict property rights .
The term has since been appropriated by those who , although sometimes still believing in limited free speech , always support strong government and weak property rights , and who see everyone as a member of a class or group .
Conservatives have always tended to believe in strong government and nationalism .
Bismarck and Metternich were archetypes .
Today ’ s conservatives are sometimes seen as defenders of economic liberty and free markets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when those concepts are perceived to coincide with the interests of big business and economic nationalism .
Drug Lord ( High Ground ... Doug Casey , John Hunt Best Price : $ 16.00 Buy New $ 18.08 Bracketing political beliefs on an illogical scale , running only from left to right , results in constrained thinking .
It is as if science were still attempting to define the elements with air , earth , water , and fire .
Politics is the theory and practice of government .
It concerns itself with how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is to say , in restricting their freedom .
It should be analyzed on that basis .
Since freedom is indivisible , it makes little sense to compartmentalize it ; but there are two basic types of freedom : social and economic .
According to the current usage , liberals tend to allow social freedom , but restrict economic freedom , while conservatives tend to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom .
An authoritarian ( they now sometimes class themselves as “ middle-of-the-roaders ” ) is one who believes both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom ?
Unfortunately , something without a name may get overlooked or , if the name is only known to a few , it may be ignored as unimportant .
That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians .
A useful chart of the political spectrum would look like this : A libertarian believes that individuals have a right to do anything that doesn ’ t impinge on the common-law rights of others , namely force or fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Gamma rat , which bears a little explanation .
Some years ago , scientists experimenting with rats categorized the vast majority of their subjects as Beta rats .
These are basically followers who get the Alpha rats ’ leftovers .
The Alpha rats establish territories , claim the choicest mates , and generally lord it over the Betas .
This pretty well-corresponded with the way the researchers thought the world worked .
Speculator ( High Groun ... Hunt , John Best Price : $ 6.35 Buy New $ 18.00 But they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rat as well : the Gamma .
This creature staked out a territory and chose the pick of the litter for a mate , like the Alpha , but didn ’ t attempt to dominate the Betas .
A go-along-get-along rat .
A libertarian rat , if you will .
My guess , mixed with a dollop of hope , is that as society becomes more repressive , more Gamma people will tune in to the problem and drop out as a solution .
No , they won ’ t turn into middle-aged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in remote communes .
Rather , they will structure their lives so that the government—which is to say taxes , regulations , and inflation—is a non-factor .
Suppose they gave a war and nobody came ?
Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted , gave a tax and nobody paid , or imposed a regulation and nobody obeyed it ?
Libertarian beliefs have a strong following among Americans , but the Libertarian Party has never gained much prominence , possibly because the type of people who might support it have better things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if they believe in voting , they tend to feel they are “ wasting ” their vote on someone who can ’ t win .
But voting is itself another part of the problem .
None of the Above At least 95 % of incumbents in Congress typically retain office .
That is a higher proportion than in the Supreme Soviet of the defunct USSR , and a lower turnover rate than in Britain ’ s hereditary House of Lords where people lose their seats only by dying .
The political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like all systems which grow old and large , become moribund and corrupt .
The conventional wisdom holds a decline in voter turnout is a sign of apathy .
But it may also be a sign of a renaissance in personal responsibility .
It could be people saying , “ I won ’ t be fooled again , and I won ’ t lend power to them.
” Politics has always been a way of redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who are politically favored .
As H.L .
Mencken observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than an advance auction on stolen goods , a process few would support if they saw its true nature .
Surviving Fedcoin : How ... Doug Casey Best Price : $ 9.95 Buy New $ 30.00 Protesters in the 1960s had their flaws , but they were quite correct when they said , “ If you ’ re not part of the solution , you ’ re part of the problem.
” If politics is the problem , what is the solution ?
I have an answer that may appeal to you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to stop actively encouraging it .
Many Americans have intuitively recognized that government is the problem and have stopped voting .
There are at least five reasons many people do not vote : • Voting in a political election is unethical .
The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force .
If you disapprove of those things , then you shouldn ’ t participate in them , even indirectly .
• Voting compromises your privacy .
It gets your name in another government computer database .
• Voting , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats .
Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time .
• Voting encourages politicians .
A vote against one candidate—a major , and quite understandable , reason why many people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent .
And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils , the lesser of two evils is still evil .
It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode .
But , statistically , one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach .
That ’ s entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want , not what you want , once they are in office .
Some of these thoughts may impress you as vaguely “ unpatriotic ” ; that is certainly not my intention .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place it once was , either .
The United States has evolved from the land of the free and the home of the brave to something more closely resembling the land of entitlements and the home of whining lawsuit filers .
The founding ideas of the country , which were highly libertarian , have been thoroughly distorted .
What passes for tradition today is something against which the Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution .
This sorry , scary state of affairs is one reason some people emphasize the importance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system ” and “ making your voice heard , ” to ensure that “ the bad guys ” don ’ t get in .
They seem to think that increasing the number of voters will improve the quality of their choices .
This argument compels many sincere people , who otherwise wouldn ’ t dream of coercing their neighbors , to take part in the political process .
But it only feeds power to people in politics and government , validating their existence and making them more powerful in the process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of it , psychologically if not monetarily .
Politics gives people a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves and so has special appeal for those who can not find satisfaction within themselves .
We cluck in amazement at the enthusiasm shown at Hitler ’ s giant rallies but figure what goes on here , today , is different .
Well , it ’ s never quite the same .
But the mindless sloganeering , the cult of the personality , and a certainty of the masses that “ their ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make them better are identical .
And even if the favored candidate doesn ’ t help them , then at least he ’ ll keep others from getting too much .
Politics is the institutionalization of envy , a vice which proclaims “ You ’ ve got something I want , and if I can ’ t get one , I ’ ll take yours .
And if I can ’ t have yours , I ’ ll destroy it so you can ’ t have it either.
” Participating in politics is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key to getting “ rubes ” ( i.e.
, voters ) to vote and “ marks ” ( i.e.
, contributors ) to give is to talk in generalities while sounding specific and looking sincere and thoughtful , yet decisive .
Vapid , venal party hacks can be shaped , like Silly Putty , into salable candidates .
People like to kid themselves that they are voting for either “ the man ” or “ the ideas.
” But few “ ideas ” are more than slogans artfully packaged to push the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” doesn ’ t help much either since these guys are more diligently programmed , posed , and rehearsed than any actor .
This is probably more true today than it ’ s ever been since elections are now won on television , and television is not a forum for expressing complex ideas and philosophies .
It lends itself to slogans and glib people who look and talk like game show hosts .
People with really “ new ideas ” wouldn ’ t dream of introducing them to politics because they know ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seconds .
I ’ m not intimating , incidentally , that people disinvolve themselves from their communities , social groups , or other voluntary organizations ; just the opposite since those relationships are the lifeblood of society .
But the political process , or government , is not synonymous with society or even complementary to it .
Government is a dead hand on society .
So where does that leave us for the election coming up in a few days ?
It ’ s likely to be the most important one in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1860 .
Unfortunately , no matter how you vote , it ’ s unlikely to head off what history likely has in store for us .
Something wicked this way comes .
The Best of Doug Casey

Democracy is vastly overrated.
It’s not like the consensus of a bunch of friends agreeing to see the same movie. Most often, it boils down to a kinder and gentler variety of mob rule, dressed in a coat and tie. The essence of positive values like personal liberty, wealth, opportunity, fraternity, and equality lies not in democracy, but in free minds and free markets where government becomes trivial. Democracy focuses people’s thoughts on politics, not production; on the collective, not on their own lives.
Although democracy is just one way to structure a state, the concept has reached cult status; unassailable as political dogma. It is, as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed, “a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion.” Most of the founders of America were more concerned with liberty than democracy. Tocqueville saw democracy and liberty as almost polar opposites.
Democracy can work when everyone concerned knows one another, shares the same values and goals, and abhors any form of coercion. It is the natural way of accomplishing things among small groups. Assassin: Book 3 of th... Hunt, John Buy New $18.64 (as of 07:05 UTC - Details)
But once belief in democracy becomes a political ideology, it’s necessarily transformed into majority rule. And, at that point, the majority (or even a plurality, a minority, or an individual) can enforce their will on everyone else by claiming to represent the will of the people.
The only form of democracy that suits a free society is economic democracy in the laissez-faire form, where each person votes with his money for what he wants in the marketplace. Only then can every individual obtain what he wants without compromising the interests of any other person. That’s the polar opposite of the “economic democracy” of socialist pundits who have twisted the term to mean the political allocation of wealth.
But many terms in politics wind up with inverted meanings. “Liberal” is certainly one of them.
The Spectrum of Politics
The terms liberal (left) and conservative (right) define the conventional political spectrum; the terms are floating abstractions with meanings that change with every politician.
In the 19th century, a liberal was someone who believed in free speech, social mobility, limited government, and strict property rights. The term has since been appropriated by those who, although sometimes still believing in limited free speech, always support strong government and weak property rights, and who see everyone as a member of a class or group.
Conservatives have always tended to believe in strong government and nationalism. Bismarck and Metternich were archetypes. Today’s conservatives are sometimes seen as defenders of economic liberty and free markets, although that is mostly true only when those concepts are perceived to coincide with the interests of big business and economic nationalism. Drug Lord (High Ground... Doug Casey, John Hunt Best Price: $16.00 Buy New $18.08 (as of 05:55 UTC - Details)
Bracketing political beliefs on an illogical scale, running only from left to right, results in constrained thinking. It is as if science were still attempting to define the elements with air, earth, water, and fire.
Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people, which is to say, in restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis. Since freedom is indivisible, it makes little sense to compartmentalize it; but there are two basic types of freedom: social and economic.
According to the current usage, liberals tend to allow social freedom, but restrict economic freedom, while conservatives tend to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom. An authoritarian (they now sometimes class themselves as “middle-of-the-roaders”) is one who believes both types of freedom should be restricted.
But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom? Unfortunately, something without a name may get overlooked or, if the name is only known to a few, it may be ignored as unimportant. That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians.
A useful chart of the political spectrum would look like this:
A libertarian believes that individuals have a right to do anything that doesn’t impinge on the common-law rights of others, namely force or fraud. Libertarians are the human equivalent of the Gamma rat, which bears a little explanation.
Some years ago, scientists experimenting with rats categorized the vast majority of their subjects as Beta rats. These are basically followers who get the Alpha rats’ leftovers. The Alpha rats establish territories, claim the choicest mates, and generally lord it over the Betas. This pretty well-corresponded with the way the researchers thought the world worked. Speculator (High Groun... Hunt, John Best Price: $6.35 Buy New $18.00 (as of 10:10 UTC - Details)
But they were surprised to find a third type of rat as well: the Gamma. This creature staked out a territory and chose the pick of the litter for a mate, like the Alpha, but didn’t attempt to dominate the Betas. A go-along-get-along rat. A libertarian rat, if you will.
My guess, mixed with a dollop of hope, is that as society becomes more repressive, more Gamma people will tune in to the problem and drop out as a solution. No, they won’t turn into middle-aged hippies practicing basket weaving and bead stringing in remote communes. Rather, they will structure their lives so that the government—which is to say taxes, regulations, and inflation—is a non-factor. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted, gave a tax and nobody paid, or imposed a regulation and nobody obeyed it?
Libertarian beliefs have a strong following among Americans, but the Libertarian Party has never gained much prominence, possibly because the type of people who might support it have better things to do with their time than vote. And if they believe in voting, they tend to feel they are “wasting” their vote on someone who can’t win. But voting is itself another part of the problem.
None of the Above
At least 95% of incumbents in Congress typically retain office. That is a higher proportion than in the Supreme Soviet of the defunct USSR, and a lower turnover rate than in Britain’s hereditary House of Lords where people lose their seats only by dying.
The political system in the United States has, like all systems which grow old and large, become moribund and corrupt.
The conventional wisdom holds a decline in voter turnout is a sign of apathy. But it may also be a sign of a renaissance in personal responsibility. It could be people saying, “I won’t be fooled again, and I won’t lend power to them.”
Politics has always been a way of redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who are politically favored. As H.L. Mencken observed, every election amounts to no more than an advance auction on stolen goods, a process few would support if they saw its true nature. Surviving Fedcoin: How... Doug Casey Best Price: $9.95 Buy New $30.00 (as of 06:55 UTC - Details)
Protesters in the 1960s had their flaws, but they were quite correct when they said, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” If politics is the problem, what is the solution? I have an answer that may appeal to you.
The first step in solving the problem is to stop actively encouraging it.
Many Americans have intuitively recognized that government is the problem and have stopped voting. There are at least five reasons many people do not vote:
Voting in a political election is unethical. The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force. If you disapprove of those things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.
Voting compromises your privacy. It gets your name in another government computer database.
Voting, as well as registering, entails hanging around government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time.
Voting encourages politicians. A vote against one candidate—a major, and quite understandable, reason why many people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent. And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society.
Your vote doesn’t count. Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode. But, statistically, one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. That’s entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are in office.
Some of these thoughts may impress you as vaguely “unpatriotic”; that is certainly not my intention. But, unfortunately, America isn’t the place it once was, either. The United States has evolved from the land of the free and the home of the brave to something more closely resembling the land of entitlements and the home of whining lawsuit filers.
The founding ideas of the country, which were highly libertarian, have been thoroughly distorted. What passes for tradition today is something against which the Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution.
This sorry, scary state of affairs is one reason some people emphasize the importance of joining the process, “working within the system” and “making your voice heard,” to ensure that “the bad guys” don’t get in. They seem to think that increasing the number of voters will improve the quality of their choices.
This argument compels many sincere people, who otherwise wouldn’t dream of coercing their neighbors, to take part in the political process. But it only feeds power to people in politics and government, validating their existence and making them more powerful in the process.
Of course, everybody involved gets something out of it, psychologically if not monetarily. Politics gives people a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves and so has special appeal for those who cannot find satisfaction within themselves.
We cluck in amazement at the enthusiasm shown at Hitler’s giant rallies but figure what goes on here, today, is different. Well, it’s never quite the same. But the mindless sloganeering, the cult of the personality, and a certainty of the masses that “their” candidate will kiss their personal lives and make them better are identical.
And even if the favored candidate doesn’t help them, then at least he’ll keep others from getting too much. Politics is the institutionalization of envy, a vice which proclaims “You’ve got something I want, and if I can’t get one, I’ll take yours. And if I can’t have yours, I’ll destroy it so you can’t have it either.” Participating in politics is an act of ethical bankruptcy.
The key to getting “rubes” (i.e., voters) to vote and “marks” (i.e., contributors) to give is to talk in generalities while sounding specific and looking sincere and thoughtful, yet decisive. Vapid, venal party hacks can be shaped, like Silly Putty, into salable candidates. People like to kid themselves that they are voting for either “the man” or “the ideas.” But few “ideas” are more than slogans artfully packaged to push the right buttons. Voting for “the man” doesn’t help much either since these guys are more diligently programmed, posed, and rehearsed than any actor.
This is probably more true today than it’s ever been since elections are now won on television, and television is not a forum for expressing complex ideas and philosophies. It lends itself to slogans and glib people who look and talk like game show hosts. People with really “new ideas” wouldn’t dream of introducing them to politics because they know ideas can’t be explained in 60 seconds.
I’m not intimating, incidentally, that people disinvolve themselves from their communities, social groups, or other voluntary organizations; just the opposite since those relationships are the lifeblood of society. But the political process, or government, is not synonymous with society or even complementary to it. Government is a dead hand on society.
So where does that leave us for the election coming up in a few days?
It’s likely to be the most important one in the country’s history, including that of 1860. Unfortunately, no matter how you vote, it’s unlikely to head off what history likely has in store for us. Something wicked this way comes.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-10-30--I’m Really Sorry Redux

I’m Really Sorry Redux

A few years ago , after reading a brillig academic article about how those who believe in conspiracy theories might be inclined toward unethical actions and petty crimes , my conscience got the best of me and I made a public confession .
I had been accused of being a conspiratorial thinker , and I knew I had once committed an unethical act , one that might be called a petty crime .
The article made me feel guilty and I felt a strong need to admit my transgression , which I did .
It felt so good to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been proud of me .
In recent days , however , I have seen many mainstream corporate media articles , not just academic studies , warning about deluded people who believe in conspiracy theories and how their erroneous beliefs are messing up the upcoming election and the authorities ’ responses to Covid-19 and a lot of other important stuff like the Lockdown .
That old devil guilt has revisited me .
I don ’ t want to mess anything up for the authorities .
Let me , however , be clear at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theories .
The North Face Women & r ... Buy New $ 109.00 They are different from the conspiracy theories of George W. Bush , Colin Powell , Barack Obama , Hilary Clinton , Joseph Biden , Donald Trump , the World Health Organization people , and other such luminaries , concerning events such as the attack of September 11 , 2011 , weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , the ongoing war on terror , the prosecution of Julian Assange , Russian-gate , the need for dramatically increased censorship , the Lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These people ’ s conspiracy theories have nothing to do with petty crime , for their handiwork is grand indeed .
They are big people , and very smart .
In any case , I don ’ t know what small stuff they might be up to when not killing so many people all around the world .
I remember how that academic article that I had read was “ backed up by science , ” which was very reassuring , and that it wasn ’ t referring to big people like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were from illustrious universities , meant little people like me , who have concluded that the U.S. national security state conspired to kill President Kennedy , to take one nutty example , and are inclined to take to the dark side and pilfer M & Ms from candy counters and stuff like that .
We are very gullible and prone to pettiness and mass delusions was the authors ’ point because the internet has scrambled our brains .
They were saying we tend to believe weird shit like there ’ s a government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climb trees and take pictures of you inside your house .
That Building 7 at the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition .
Or the really wacked-out thought that all conspiracies take place behind our backs since they can ’ t take place in front of our backs since our backs are back and not front .
Or that Sirhan Sirhan did not assassinate Senator Robert Kennedy .
That Donald Trump is actually Liberace ’ s illegitimate son and Queen Elizabeth his mother .
Or that the war on terror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq , among other countries .
Crazy stuff like there ’ s a government plot to place signs near low doorways warning “ Watch Your Head , ” so people will literally try to do that and smash their clueless brains to smithereens and die as part of a population control program .
As we know , all these nutty conspiracy beliefs are of equal value and validity , and to even harbor the thought that the CIA ’ s 1967 secret Dispatch – Doc 1035-960 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to counter and discredit the claims of conspiracy theorists – might be involved in all these articles I ’ ve been reading is to risk further accusations of being wacked-out and in need of examining one ’ s proclivity toward everyday crimes .
So I won ’ t go there .
I ’ m feeling guilty enough .
Columbia Women ’ s ... Buy New $ 59.96 So bless me , folks , for I have sinned .
For the second time in the past few years I have stolen and eaten the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last week , I again found myself in my local co-op grocery market .
You might wonder where I had been looking for myself when I found myself there , staring into bins of dried fruit , but let ’ s just say I had been around .
When you ’ re lost and wacked-out , you never know where you are or why you believe what you believe , and so you can find yourself in strange places .
Years ago my good friend went to California to find himself , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself in a mirror and was really his step-brother ’ s illegitimate uncle .
He and my other friends used to always tell me that I tended to do everything ass backwards , even think ass-backwards , and when I said , “ Of course , I do , so do you .
What ’ s wrong with that ?
” they looked at me as if I had flipped .
When I asked them if they could do things ass forward , our friendships ended .
I found myself alone .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bulk bins , trying to decide what dried fruit to buy .
They all looked good .
It was a tough choice , sort of like staring at forty different tubes of toothpaste on the store shelf and wondering which to buy or if the one advertised for women would work for a man since men must have different teeth .
The comparison is not exactly apt , I guess , for you can ’ t test the toothpastes , but the fruit looked so delicious .
So , when no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mangoes , then the apricots , and finally the figs .
I thought I saw the store manager see me when I took the figs because I was so enjoying the fruits of my crime that I let my guard down and was facing in his direction with my mask off .
This was really stupid of me , since the same thing happened the last time and I was paranoid afterward .
I know , I know – when you keep repeating something that doesn ’ t work , they say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when I couldn ’ t afford such expensive fruit and went to orgies just to eat the grapes .
Even then I thought people were watching me .
When I was leaving the store , my heart was pounding .
I kept glancing over my shoulder .
I decided to replace the orange day-glow mask I had used in the store with another I carried .
Flesh colored – to blend in .
An old lady on a walker seemed to be following me , but I ditched her by circling the block @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As I was close to home , I thought of my narrow escape and the brilliance of the study that connected my conspiratorial thinking to my criminal activity with the fruit .
I also couldn ’ t help thinking how the figs had reminded me of my latest conspiracy theory , but one supported by sources as confidential and reliable as those referenced by The New York Times or The Washington Post .
In addition , like those devotees of truth and confidentiality , I will never reveal my sources .
They can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Muck Boots Hale Multi- ... Buy New $ 69.92 Here is what they told me .
It bears repeating .
Legend has it that Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity while sitting in a garden , watching apples fall perpendicularly to the ground .
However , this is not true .
I have learned from my confidential sources that his nickname was Isaac “ Fig ” Newton and that those who claim the Fig Newton cookie was named after Newton , Massachusetts are involved in a great cover-up .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that when Isaac was a child , he was so fond of figs that his mother had to warn him against eating too many , for as you probably know , figs , like prunes , are filled with fiber and possess a laxative quality .
Isaac was defecating so much and so often that his mother was alarmed .
But a mother ’ s panic at a child ’ s toilet habits can be a source of insight years later .
So it was that years later it was Isaac ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him his great insight into gravity .
Reflecting back on his childhood , he realized that shit always went down , never up ( there were no electric fans in those days , so no one would say that it went up when “ shit hit the fan ” like they ’ re saying about this year ’ s election ) .
He remembered his mother ’ s loving words when as a boy he would tell his mom he had to “ take a shit , ” she would always remind him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than take , so he should “ give a shit.
” Alas , it was Isaac ’ s chore to take the family potty out behind the house where it was emptied down into a deep hole about six feet under .
Thus , the adult Isaac came to call his discovery gravity , after the grave .
He scientifically proved what everyone already knew : that everything and everyone goes down , eventually .
Not the most uplifting news , I grant you , but I have reliable sources for that also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty of this inclination toward low-level “ crime , ” as the professors so brilliantly explicated .
No doubt , it is connected to my conspiratorial and paranoid mindset .
I hope that much is clear .
Sometimes I just can ’ t resist the forbidden fruit .
Although not an apple , it seems to give me insight into the knowledge of good and evil , and who is following whom .
MOERDENG Women ’ s ... Buy New $ 55.24 For some reason , I suspect those brillig academics and mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elite criminals who conspire to invade countries , kill millions , blame it on others , and conduct vast propaganda campaigns .
Those are crimes against humanity , and are beyond the purview of work aimed at showing how sick everyday people are who suspect that their leaders are big-time criminals .
These writers are following their bosses .
Unlike Isaac , they don ’ t give a shit .
They are full of it .
I ’ m not really sorry .
I got that ass-backwards .
The Best of Edward @

A few years ago, after reading a brillig academic article about how those who believe in conspiracy theories might be inclined toward unethical actions and petty crimes, my conscience got the best of me and I made a public confession. I had been accused of being a conspiratorial thinker, and I knew I had once committed an unethical act, one that might be called a petty crime. The article made me feel guilty and I felt a strong need to admit my transgression, which I did. It felt so good to come clean in public. Oprah would have been proud of me.
In recent days, however, I have seen many mainstream corporate media articles, not just academic studies, warning about deluded people who believe in conspiracy theories and how their erroneous beliefs are messing up the upcoming election and the authorities’ responses to Covid-19 and a lot of other important stuff like the Lockdown. That old devil guilt has revisited me. I don’t want to mess anything up for the authorities.
Let me, however, be clear at the outset what I mean by my conspiracy theories. The North Face Women&r... Buy New $109.00 (as of 05:20 UTC - Details)
They are different from the conspiracy theories of George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Donald Trump, the World Health Organization people, and other such luminaries, concerning events such as the attack of September 11, 2011, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the ongoing war on terror, the prosecution of Julian Assange, Russian-gate, the need for dramatically increased censorship, the Lockdown, the Great Reset, etc. These people’s conspiracy theories have nothing to do with petty crime, for their handiwork is grand indeed. They are big people, and very smart. In any case, I don’t know what small stuff they might be up to when not killing so many people all around the world.
I remember how that academic article that I had read was “backed up by science,” which was very reassuring, and that it wasn’t referring to big people like the aforementioned. The distinguished authors, who were from illustrious universities, meant little people like me, who have concluded that the U.S. national security state conspired to kill President Kennedy, to take one nutty example, and are inclined to take to the dark side and pilfer M&Ms from candy counters and stuff like that. We are very gullible and prone to pettiness and mass delusions was the authors’ point because the internet has scrambled our brains.
They were saying we tend to believe weird shit like there’s a government spy program that involves electronic squirrels that climb trees and take pictures of you inside your house. That Building 7 at the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Or the really wacked-out thought that all conspiracies take place behind our backs since they can’t take place in front of our backs since our backs are back and not front. Or that Sirhan Sirhan did not assassinate Senator Robert Kennedy. That Donald Trump is actually Liberace’s illegitimate son and Queen Elizabeth his mother. Or that the war on terror was a preplanned government plot devised to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, among other countries. Crazy stuff like there’s a government plot to place signs near low doorways warning “Watch Your Head,” so people will literally try to do that and smash their clueless brains to smithereens and die as part of a population control program.
As we know, all these nutty conspiracy beliefs are of equal value and validity, and to even harbor the thought that the CIA’s 1967 secret Dispatch – Doc 1035-960, showing their employees and media accomplices how to counter and discredit the claims of conspiracy theorists – might be involved in all these articles I’ve been reading is to risk further accusations of being wacked-out and in need of examining one’s proclivity toward everyday crimes. So I won’t go there. I’m feeling guilty enough. Columbia Women’s... Buy New $59.96 (as of 05:20 UTC - Details)
So bless me, folks, for I have sinned. For the second time in the past few years I have stolen and eaten the forbidden fruit. Let me confess.
Last week, I again found myself in my local co-op grocery market. You might wonder where I had been looking for myself when I found myself there, staring into bins of dried fruit, but let’s just say I had been around. When you’re lost and wacked-out, you never know where you are or why you believe what you believe, and so you can find yourself in strange places. Years ago my good friend went to California to find himself, and when he returned he said he found himself in a mirror and was really his step-brother’s illegitimate uncle. He and my other friends used to always tell me that I tended to do everything ass backwards, even think ass-backwards, and when I said, “Of course, I do, so do you. What’s wrong with that?” they looked at me as if I had flipped. When I asked them if they could do things ass forward, our friendships ended. I found myself alone.
In the co-op market I was standing over the bulk bins, trying to decide what dried fruit to buy. They all looked good. It was a tough choice, sort of like staring at forty different tubes of toothpaste on the store shelf and wondering which to buy or if the one advertised for women would work for a man since men must have different teeth. The comparison is not exactly apt, I guess, for you can’t test the toothpastes, but the fruit looked so delicious. So, when no one was looking, I first tried the mangoes, then the apricots, and finally the figs. I thought I saw the store manager see me when I took the figs because I was so enjoying the fruits of my crime that I let my guard down and was facing in his direction with my mask off. This was really stupid of me, since the same thing happened the last time and I was paranoid afterward. I know, I know – when you keep repeating something that doesn’t work, they say that’s insane. But I remembered when I couldn’t afford such expensive fruit and went to orgies just to eat the grapes. Even then I thought people were watching me.
When I was leaving the store, my heart was pounding. I kept glancing over my shoulder. I decided to replace the orange day-glow mask I had used in the store with another I carried. Flesh colored – to blend in. An old lady on a walker seemed to be following me, but I ditched her by circling the block two-and-a-half times, my lucky number. As I was close to home, I thought of my narrow escape and the brilliance of the study that connected my conspiratorial thinking to my criminal activity with the fruit.
I also couldn’t help thinking how the figs had reminded me of my latest conspiracy theory, but one supported by sources as confidential and reliable as those referenced by The New York Times or The Washington Post. In addition, like those devotees of truth and confidentiality, I will never reveal my sources. They can torture me and I won’t. Muck Boots Hale Multi-... Buy New $69.92 (as of 05:20 UTC - Details)
Here is what they told me. It bears repeating.
Legend has it that Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity while sitting in a garden, watching apples fall perpendicularly to the ground. However, this is not true. I have learned from my confidential sources that his nickname was Isaac “Fig” Newton and that those who claim the Fig Newton cookie was named after Newton, Massachusetts are involved in a great cover-up. That’s nothing new.
My sources tell me that when Isaac was a child, he was so fond of figs that his mother had to warn him against eating too many, for as you probably know, figs, like prunes, are filled with fiber and possess a laxative quality. Isaac was defecating so much and so often that his mother was alarmed. But a mother’s panic at a child’s toilet habits can be a source of insight years later.
So it was that years later it was Isaac’s experience on the potty that gave him his great insight into gravity. Reflecting back on his childhood, he realized that shit always went down, never up (there were no electric fans in those days, so no one would say that it went up when “shit hit the fan” like they’re saying about this year’s election). He remembered his mother’s loving words when as a boy he would tell his mom he had to “take a shit,” she would always remind him that it was always better to give than take, so he should “give a shit.”
Alas, it was Isaac’s chore to take the family potty out behind the house where it was emptied down into a deep hole about six feet under. Thus, the adult Isaac came to call his discovery gravity, after the grave. He scientifically proved what everyone already knew: that everything and everyone goes down, eventually. Not the most uplifting news, I grant you, but I have reliable sources for that also.
So I readily admit I am guilty of this inclination toward low-level “crime,” as the professors so brilliantly explicated. No doubt, it is connected to my conspiratorial and paranoid mindset. I hope that much is clear. Sometimes I just can’t resist the forbidden fruit. Although not an apple, it seems to give me insight into the knowledge of good and evil, and who is following whom. MOERDENG Women’s... Buy New $55.24 (as of 05:20 UTC - Details)
For some reason, I suspect those brillig academics and mainstream corporate journalists will not be writing about the elite criminals who conspire to invade countries, kill millions, blame it on others, and conduct vast propaganda campaigns. Those are crimes against humanity, and are beyond the purview of work aimed at showing how sick everyday people are who suspect that their leaders are big-time criminals.
These writers are following their bosses. Unlike Isaac, they don’t give a shit.
They are full of it.
I’m not really sorry. I got that ass-backwards.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
The Best of Edward Curtin


lewrockwell--2020-10-30--Will the Presidential Election Bring Chaos and an Irredeemably Torn American Political Fabric?

The widespread use of mail-in voting in this presidential election makes it unlikely that a winner will be declared on election night unless it is Biden .
The reason is that polls indicate that a majority of Democrat voters intend to vote by mail .
As long as the ballots are postmarked by November 3 ( election day ) , they are considered valid .
As mail-in votes will be delivered after November 3 , unless one candidate wins the in-person vote by a landslide , the outcome will not be known until days later .
If the outcome seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the media , which is uniformly against Trump , days to make propaganda that Trump is stealing the election ( with Putin ’ s help ) .
Rioting and looting will be encouraged in cities under Democrat control in order to create more chaos and charges against Trump .
If enough confusion can be sown , an “ investigation ” can be demanded and/or Democrats can demand the outcome be put in the hands of the House of Representatives where the Democrats have a majority .
It is entirely possible that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This , of course , would be more than an attack on Trump .
It would be an attack on the Constitution .
Trump 2020 Keep Americ ... Best Price : $ 16.12 Buy New $ 20.99 There is circumstantial evidence that more than opportunism is involved and that this scenario is an orchestrated plot to prevent a second Trump term .
It is highly unusual for an anti-establishment candidate to be elected president .
Such people are carefully kept out of the ranks of presidential candidates .
Even slightly anti-establishment presidents such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwelcome in Washington .
If you have forgotten Trump ’ s inaugural address , listen to it .
Such a challenge to the Establishment is unprecedented in its boldness and recklessness .
Who could be behind such a plot to interfere so blatently in the presidential election ?
The global elite for one and the Deep State for another .
The global elite want an end to national sovereignty and governments accountable to the people and is opposed to national states being made great again .
Donald Trump - Advance ... Buy New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want any risk of being made accountable or having its budget and power impaired by a president who wants to normalize relations with Russia , a necessary enemy .
The global elite and Deep State are powerful and largely invisible forces with which Trump must contend .
Trump has his deplorables , but they are largely people who have been dispossessed by global capitalism and the Deep State .
Trump ’ s allies do not control the public forums .
Biden ’ s do .
Therefore , facts can be ignored and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repetition—as we have seen on numerous occasions .
Donald J. Trump Signat ... Buy New $ 49.95 The audacity is unprecedented with which Hillary Clinton and the Obama regime Department of Justice , FBI , and CIA moved against President Trump , first attempting to frame him with their concocted “ Russiagate ” plot and then with false charges that he attempted to bribe the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden & Son .
It could be done because the US media has been captured by the CIA and the Democrat Party and serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The exclusiveness of One Voice now extends to social media where Twitter and Facebook ban alternative views to the official ones .
Internet search engines , such as Google , make dissenting views difficult to find , a practice that has spread to Amazon ’ s book monopoly that refuses to make available challenges to the controlled explanations that serve the agendas of the global elite and Deep State .
The definite proof that the “ Covid pandemic , ” for example , is serving an agenda is the banning of alternative explanations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and TV media .
We are very close to Big Brother ’ s world of totally controlled information .
MAGA Hat Make America ... Buy New $ 11.39 So how do Trump and the “ Trump Deplorables ” protest if the election is stolen from them ?
They are not organized for violence , and they are demonized as racists and misogynists .
This is not a strong position .
If Trump loses or the election is stolen from him , it is likely that he will be indicted on false charges in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future American political candidates that representing the people instead of the Establishment is not tolerated .
Washington is long experienced in teaching foreign governments this lesson—Hondurus , Venezuela , Ecuador , Bolivia—and is bringing the lesson home to America .
As for the Red States , they will be cut out of the federal budget , and the remaining jobs will be moved out of those areas .
In this election , the Establishment is playing for keeps .
If the Establishment wins , Americans lose .
NOTE : Trump ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s events are sparsely attended .
Yet polls show Biden with a 7 % lead .
Clearly , campaign event attendance and the polls do not correspond .
This raises a question : Are the polls faked in order to support the case that a Trump win is the result of fraud ?
The question will be : “ how can Trump have won when he was 7 points behind in the race ?
” The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

The widespread use of mail-in voting in this presidential election makes it unlikely that a winner will be declared on election night unless it is Biden. The reason is that polls indicate that a majority of Democrat voters intend to vote by mail. As long as the ballots are postmarked by November 3 (election day), they are considered valid. As mail-in votes will be delivered after November 3, unless one candidate wins the in-person vote by a landslide, the outcome will not be known until days later.
If the outcome seems favorable to Trump, this gives Democrats and the media, which is uniformly against Trump, days to make propaganda that Trump is stealing the election (with Putin’s help). Rioting and looting will be encouraged in cities under Democrat control in order to create more chaos and charges against Trump. If enough confusion can be sown, an “investigation” can be demanded and/or Democrats can demand the outcome be put in the hands of the House of Representatives where the Democrats have a majority. It is entirely possible that Trump can win and be denied inauguration.
This, of course, would be more than an attack on Trump. It would be an attack on the Constitution. Trump 2020 Keep Americ... Best Price: $16.12 Buy New $20.99 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details)
There is circumstantial evidence that more than opportunism is involved and that this scenario is an orchestrated plot to prevent a second Trump term.
It is highly unusual for an anti-establishment candidate to be elected president. Such people are carefully kept out of the ranks of presidential candidates. Even slightly anti-establishment presidents such as Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are unwelcome in Washington. If you have forgotten Trump’s inaugural address, listen to it. Such a challenge to the Establishment is unprecedented in its boldness and recklessness.
Who could be behind such a plot to interfere so blatently in the presidential election? The global elite for one and the Deep State for another. The global elite want an end to national sovereignty and governments accountable to the people and is opposed to national states being made great again. Donald Trump - Advance... Buy New $44.99 (as of 05:12 UTC - Details)
The Deep State doesn’t want any risk of being made accountable or having its budget and power impaired by a president who wants to normalize relations with Russia, a necessary enemy. The global elite and Deep State are powerful and largely invisible forces with which Trump must contend.
Trump has his deplorables, but they are largely people who have been dispossessed by global capitalism and the Deep State. Trump’s allies do not control the public forums. Biden’s do. Therefore, facts can be ignored and “truth” can be established by repetition—as we have seen on numerous occasions.
Donald J. Trump Signat... Buy New $49.95 (as of 03:36 UTC - Details) The audacity is unprecedented with which Hillary Clinton and the Obama regime Department of Justice, FBI, and CIA moved against President Trump, first attempting to frame him with their concocted “Russiagate” plot and then with false charges that he attempted to bribe the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden & Son. It could be done because the US media has been captured by the CIA and the Democrat Party and serves them as a Ministry of Propaganda. The exclusiveness of One Voice now extends to social media where Twitter and Facebook ban alternative views to the official ones. Internet search engines, such as Google, make dissenting views difficult to find, a practice that has spread to Amazon’s book monopoly that refuses to make available challenges to the controlled explanations that serve the agendas of the global elite and Deep State.
The definite proof that the “Covid pandemic,” for example, is serving an agenda is the banning of alternative explanations on social media as well as print and TV media. We are very close to Big Brother’s world of totally controlled information.
MAGA Hat Make America ... Buy New $11.39 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details) So how do Trump and the “Trump Deplorables” protest if the election is stolen from them? They are not organized for violence, and they are demonized as racists and misogynists. This is not a strong position.
If Trump loses or the election is stolen from him, it is likely that he will be indicted on false charges in order to complete the lesson for all future American political candidates that representing the people instead of the Establishment is not tolerated. Washington is long experienced in teaching foreign governments this lesson—Hondurus, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia—and is bringing the lesson home to America.
As for the Red States, they will be cut out of the federal budget, and the remaining jobs will be moved out of those areas.
In this election, the Establishment is playing for keeps. If the Establishment wins, Americans lose.
NOTE: Trump’s campaign events are heavily attended. Biden’s events are sparsely attended. Yet polls show Biden with a 7% lead. Clearly, campaign event attendance and the polls do not correspond. This raises a question: Are the polls faked in order to support the case that a Trump win is the result of fraud? The question will be: “how can Trump have won when he was 7 points behind in the race?”
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts


lewrockwell--2020-10-30--How to Limit Social Media’s Power Without Growing Government

Censorship by private companies is a topic that divides free marketers but has suddenly become important in the wake of Twitter and Facebook ’ s recent attempts to squash a New York Post story alleging corruption in the Biden family .
Last year , economist James Miller argued that just as the power company can ’ t turn off your electricity for being a Trump supporter , social media companies shouldn ’ t be able to silence you for your political opinions .
Others have argued that companies can silence whomever they like because it ’ s their company .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that reform would actually reduce government intervention by narrowing something called Section 230 immunity .
First , what free marketers agree on : regulation of speech by government is both unconstitutional and a very bad idea .
From 1949 to 1987 , the so-called fairness doctrine was used to utterly silence the Right—Rush Limbaugh was a salesman for the Kansas City Royals until Reagan finally repealed the rule , and Murray Rothbard famously could fit the entire libertarian movement in a living room .
The doctrine ’ s repeal opened the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News , and now content from the Mises Institute to Praeger University to the Babylon Bee .
Given that the vast majority of federal workers remain partisan Democrats—the “ Deep State , ” if you will , hasn ’ t changed its colors .
Reimposing regulation of speech likely means a return to socialist domination of speech .
HATE : Why We Should Re ... Strossen , Nadine Best Price : $ 9.35 Buy New $ 11.00 However , actual solutions being proposed involve not more regulation , but less .
In particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to online platforms in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act .
This was a special immunity from liability for user-posted content so long as the company was acting as a platform open to all comers—think “ common carrier ” rules like with the phone company .
Ironically , an original selling point of Section 230 was to prevent censorship by creating a safe harbor so companies could let people express themselves online .
And that ’ s how Section 230 worked for the first twenty years , on the understanding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a publisher with the same liability exposure as , say , a newspaper .
From a business perspective , this platform-publisher distinction was existential for social media companies .
Because liability exposure would mean either ruinous lawsuits for crazy things users say , or it would require an army of content-moderating lawyers to meticulously preapprove the 500 million tweets per day that are sent on Twitter .
This meant , up until 2016 , that social media companies were very careful to maintain a hands-off policy , allowing essentially all legal speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shield .
This started changing in 2016 , as progressive pressure was brought against social media companies for the sin of giving voice to conservatives during the Brexit referendum , followed soon after by Donald Trump ’ s election victory .
Meanwhile , individual judges increasingly interpreted 230 more broadly as permitting censorship at will .
In fact , European regulators actually started requiring censorship for any speech individual regulators personally regarded as too right-wing .
This , unfortunately , built a broad censorship capability in social media companies .
The Coddling of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Price : $ 12.68 Buy New $ 13.39 Given the existential importance of the shield , social media companies started gradually demonetizing users so they couldn ’ t earn money on their channels .
They moved on to outright bans , again starting gradually by banning intentionally provocative users like former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolos and Alex Jones of Infowars , and now on to increasingly mainstream users , including , last week , the largest conservative newspaper in the US , the New York Post .
Because a divided Congress won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowing 230 immunities so that egregious censorship becomes , once again , a bad choice for social media .
Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas has openly wished for a test case so the court can do this , while market-friendly FCC director Ajit Pai has proposed rules narrowing 230 immunities back to what they used to be .
These solutions highlight that social media censorship isn ’ t a binary question of market versus regulation , rather it ’ s a question of an existing government intervention now being used to censor rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pure free market position would be repealing 230 altogether , so that Twitter or Facebook face the same liability as the New York Post or , indeed , as you and I .
The alternative to reforming 230 , of course , is to leave it to the market .
After all , MySpace was the dominant platform until Facebook came along .
Unfortunately , the market isn ’ t as competitive as it used to be .
Conservative-friendly social media startups such as Gab and Parler have faced a gauntlet of harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bank accounts or payment accounts to being denied essential services like web hosting or hacker protection .
Given the recent explosion in corporate “ wokeness , ” this harassment isn ’ t going away , and in fact is likely to increase .
Power Shift ?
Political ... Best Price : $ 27.95 Buy New $ 44.63 Beyond harassment and the natural network effects of social media , there are other anticompetitive tactics that hobble new entrants .
Facebook itself rose by “ scraping ” user information from MySpace , something it now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have copied this anticompetitive strategy .
Meanwhile , Facebook in particular buys promising competitors like Instagram or WhatsApp , essentially buying an insurance policy against future competition .
As a result , the competitive landscape in social media has changed markedly from the MySpace era .
Of course , regulators could punish these strategies with aggressive antitrust , but , again , that brings government uncomfortably close to patrolling speech , so it ’ s playing with fire .
At this point , there is broad consensus that censorship is problematic—not only among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans think tech has too much influence on political discourse—just 6 percent think too little .
Progressives would never tolerate being silenced by a roomful of activists on Twitter or Facebook , and neither should we .
Doing what we can to help narrow Section 230 immunities back to a free speech interpretation could solve this while actually reducing government involvement in speech .
Naïvely throwing up our hands and hoping some free speech startup someday survives the woke gauntlet is equivalent to quitting the field of ideas while the other side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of Peter St. Onge

Censorship by private companies is a topic that divides free marketers but has suddenly become important in the wake of Twitter and Facebook’s recent attempts to squash a New York Post story alleging corruption in the Biden family. Last year, economist James Miller argued that just as the power company can’t turn off your electricity for being a Trump supporter, social media companies shouldn’t be able to silence you for your political opinions. Others have argued that companies can silence whomever they like because it’s their company. This is a red herring that misses the fact that reform would actually reduce government intervention by narrowing something called Section 230 immunity.
First, what free marketers agree on: regulation of speech by government is both unconstitutional and a very bad idea. From 1949 to 1987, the so-called fairness doctrine was used to utterly silence the Right—Rush Limbaugh was a salesman for the Kansas City Royals until Reagan finally repealed the rule, and Murray Rothbard famously could fit the entire libertarian movement in a living room. The doctrine’s repeal opened the floodgates for talk radio, then Fox News, and now content from the Mises Institute to Praeger University to the Babylon Bee. Given that the vast majority of federal workers remain partisan Democrats—the “Deep State,” if you will, hasn’t changed its colors. Reimposing regulation of speech likely means a return to socialist domination of speech. HATE: Why We Should Re... Strossen, Nadine Best Price: $9.35 Buy New $11.00 (as of 05:59 UTC - Details)
However, actual solutions being proposed involve not more regulation, but less. In particular, narrowing an immunity that was granted to online platforms in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This was a special immunity from liability for user-posted content so long as the company was acting as a platform open to all comers—think “common carrier” rules like with the phone company.
Ironically, an original selling point of Section 230 was to prevent censorship by creating a safe harbor so companies could let people express themselves online. And that’s how Section 230 worked for the first twenty years, on the understanding that active censorship would convert an online platform into a publisher with the same liability exposure as, say, a newspaper.
From a business perspective, this platform-publisher distinction was existential for social media companies. Because liability exposure would mean either ruinous lawsuits for crazy things users say, or it would require an army of content-moderating lawyers to meticulously preapprove the 500 million tweets per day that are sent on Twitter. This meant, up until 2016, that social media companies were very careful to maintain a hands-off policy, allowing essentially all legal speech so they wouldn’t lose that shield.
This started changing in 2016, as progressive pressure was brought against social media companies for the sin of giving voice to conservatives during the Brexit referendum, followed soon after by Donald Trump’s election victory. Meanwhile, individual judges increasingly interpreted 230 more broadly as permitting censorship at will. In fact, European regulators actually started requiring censorship for any speech individual regulators personally regarded as too right-wing. This, unfortunately, built a broad censorship capability in social media companies. The Coddling of the Am... Haidt, Jonathan Best Price: $12.68 Buy New $13.39 (as of 02:43 UTC - Details)
Given the existential importance of the shield, social media companies started gradually demonetizing users so they couldn’t earn money on their channels. They moved on to outright bans, again starting gradually by banning intentionally provocative users like former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolos and Alex Jones of Infowars, and now on to increasingly mainstream users, including, last week, the largest conservative newspaper in the US, the New York Post.
Because a divided Congress won’t rewrite 230, practical reform involves narrowing 230 immunities so that egregious censorship becomes, once again, a bad choice for social media. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas has openly wished for a test case so the court can do this, while market-friendly FCC director Ajit Pai has proposed rules narrowing 230 immunities back to what they used to be.
These solutions highlight that social media censorship isn’t a binary question of market versus regulation, rather it’s a question of an existing government intervention now being used to censor rather than give voice. Indeed, the pure free market position would be repealing 230 altogether, so that Twitter or Facebook face the same liability as the New York Post or, indeed, as you and I.
The alternative to reforming 230, of course, is to leave it to the market. After all, MySpace was the dominant platform until Facebook came along. Unfortunately, the market isn’t as competitive as it used to be. Conservative-friendly social media startups such as Gab and Parler have faced a gauntlet of harassment and choke points, from being denied bank accounts or payment accounts to being denied essential services like web hosting or hacker protection. Given the recent explosion in corporate “wokeness,” this harassment isn’t going away, and in fact is likely to increase. Power Shift? Political... Best Price: $27.95 Buy New $44.63 (as of 05:22 UTC - Details)
Beyond harassment and the natural network effects of social media, there are other anticompetitive tactics that hobble new entrants. Facebook itself rose by “scraping” user information from MySpace, something it now forbids, and other social media companies have copied this anticompetitive strategy. Meanwhile, Facebook in particular buys promising competitors like Instagram or WhatsApp, essentially buying an insurance policy against future competition. As a result, the competitive landscape in social media has changed markedly from the MySpace era. Of course, regulators could punish these strategies with aggressive antitrust, but, again, that brings government uncomfortably close to patrolling speech, so it’s playing with fire.
At this point, there is broad consensus that censorship is problematic—not only among libertarians and conservatives. Fully 76 percent of Americans think tech has too much influence on political discourse—just 6 percent think too little. Progressives would never tolerate being silenced by a roomful of activists on Twitter or Facebook, and neither should we.
Doing what we can to help narrow Section 230 immunities back to a free speech interpretation could solve this while actually reducing government involvement in speech. Naïvely throwing up our hands and hoping some free speech startup someday survives the woke gauntlet is equivalent to quitting the field of ideas while the other side is very much on the march.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of Peter St. Onge


lewrockwell--2020-10-30--Putin’s Long Game Strategy on Nuclear Missiles in Europe May Well Pay Off Because Cold War Treaties

Putin’s Long Game Strategy on Nuclear Missiles in Europe May Well Pay Off Because Cold War Treaties Completely Ignored China

In announcing a new variation of his long-held proposal for a moratorium on intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe , Russia ’ s president seeks to repeat history , turning an anticipated US/NATO “ no ” into an eventual “ yes.
” In a bold new proposal , Russian President Vladimir Putin has expanded on his existing offer of a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear forces on European soil by suggesting that Russia and the US/NATO engage in so-called “ verification measures ” ( a euphemism for on-site inspections ) “ regarding the Aegis Ashore systems equipped with Mk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Europe and the 9M729 missiles at Russian military facilities in the Kaliningrad Region.
” Such verification activities would help “ confirm the absence from the facilities , encompassed by the agreements , of ground-launched intermediate and shorter range missiles as well as weapons whose parameters and classification have remained a controversy between the two parties ( Russia ’ s missile 9M729 ) .
” While it is unlikely either the US or NATO would agree to this proposal , by introducing verification into the negotiation mix , Putin has breathed life into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the prospects of an INF-free Europe , but also a global INF ban that could see the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces ( INF ) Treaty reborn as a multilateral arms control agreement .
SCORPION KING : America ... Ritter , Scott Best Price : $ 22.80 Buy New $ 22.82 The Mk 41 and the 9M729 have been at the center of controversy between the US and Russia , with both sides claiming that they constituted violations of the landmark 1987 INF Treaty .
Indeed , Russia ’ s unwillingness to admit that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceeding the permissible range ( something Russia vehemently denies to this day ) served as the foundational argument cited by the US in withdrawing from the INF Treaty in August 2019 .
For its part , Russia long maintained that the Mk 41 Aegis Ashore system was a violation of the INF Treaty , as it was designed to launch both SM-3 surface-to-air missiles and Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles from aboard US naval warships .
The US claims that the Mk 41 Aegis Ashore is only intended to be used in an anti-ballistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the US in effect turned a permitted weapon ( the seal-launched cruise missile ) into a prohibited one ( a ground-launched cruise missile , banned by the INF Treaty . )
While the US denied that the Mk 41 Aegis Ashore had this capability , the fact that a Mk 41 was used to launch a Tomahawk cruise missile only weeks after the expiration of the INF Treaty underscored the validity of Russia ’ s claims .
The expiration of the INF Treaty has been viewed by Russia as a fundamentally destabilizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his statement regarding the new INF proposal .
“ We believe , ” Putin noted , “ that the United States ’ pullout from the INF Treaty , which resulted in its termination , was a serious mistake that exacerbated the risks of a missile weapons race , growth of the confrontation potential and slide into uncontrolled escalation .
In view of the lingering Russia-NATO tensions , the new threats to pan-European security are obvious.
” In short , Russia believes that any reintroduction of once-banned INF weapons into Europe by the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the height of the Cold War when US Pershing II missiles could destroy Moscow within nine minutes of being launched , and Soviet SS-20 missiles could annihilate all of Europe .
The possibility of a mistake activating the hair-trigger alert status of either side ’ s INF arsenal served as the primary impetus for the INF Treaty , which banned all such weapons .
War with Russia ?
: From ... Cohen , Stephen F. Best Price : $ 8.99 Buy New $ 8.50 While the US has , to date , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe , the presence of two Mk 41 Aegis Ashore sites on NATO soil ( one in Romania , the other in Poland ) have raised concerns in Russia that both could be secretly armed with cruise missiles , thereby putting Russia ’ s strategic nuclear deterrence at risk of a preemptive US nuclear first strike .
Likewise , Russia ’ s recent deployment of Iskander short-range ballistic missiles into its westernmost exclave at Kaliningrad raised concerns within NATO that it could have secretly deployed 9M729 missiles as well .
Putin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian missile sites in Kaliningrad in exchange for Russian inspections of the two NATO Mk 41 Aegis Ashore sites in Romania and Poland .
Moreover , according to Putin , Russia is prepared to “ refrain from deploying the 9M729 missiles in its European territory further on , but on the condition of reciprocal steps by the NATO countries , which will rule out the deployment in Europe of weapons that were outlawed under the INF Treaty.
” There is little chance of the Russian proposal being accepted by either the US or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US/NATO-Russian relations are at an all-time low , with little if any basis for the kind of trust and confidence that underpin critical arms control agreements of this nature .
Moreover , there is the issue of verification of other potential 9M729 deployment sites in European Russia ( i.e.
, the region west of the Ural mountains ) , as well as the potential for Russia to rapidly redeploy permitted 9M729 systems from permitted Asian bases back to Europe in a time of crisis .
Any verification regime which sought to encompass the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem , while limiting Russia to inspections of two fixed installations , would be unbalanced and as such unacceptable to Russia .
THE FIGHT FOR INFLUENC ... Schultz , Ralph Buy New $ 21.95 In many ways , Putin ’ s proposal is like one made by Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev when , in 1985 , he suggested limiting Soviet SS-20 intermediate-range missiles to bases in Asia .
It should be noted that Gorbachev prefaced his proposal with a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of additional INF systems in Europe .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was replaced by a total ban on INF systems , later codified into the INF Treaty .
The current situation between the US/NATO and Russia regarding INF is complicated by the fact that the US claims to have withdrawn from the INF Treaty not only because of allegations of Russian noncompliance regarding the 9M729 missile , but also because the treaty , as written , was a bilateral agreement which did not take into account China ’ s INF systems .
Indeed , the US ’ plans regarding the reintroduction of INF systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Asia , with Europe a distant afterthought .
The reality is that to make Putin ’ s proposal on a verifiable moratorium on INF weapons in Europe viable , there will need to be a global ban , or heavily structured limitation , on INF systems that includes China .
Here we find perhaps the most important part of Putin ’ s new proposal : “ We are calling upon all parties concerned to explore ways of maintaining stability and preventing missile crises ‘ in a world without the INF Treaty ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open to joint work along these lines.
” Putin appears to recognize the reality that there can not be meaningful US-Russian nuclear arms control without factoring in China .
China has a vested interest in INF weapons , given that the bulk of its nuclear arsenal consists of weapons that fall into this category .
But China will also be facing a new threat in the form of newly-deployed US INF weapons in the Pacific , and as such may be open to negotiations with both the US and Russia on how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons .
The fact that trilateral INF talks between Russia , the US and China would be seen as a logical first step for any broader strategic arms reduction agreement should not escape anyone , and it is here that Putin ’ s proposal must be assessed , not as a quick fix to a limited problem , but rather the opening gambit toward a solution to the larger problem of controlling the strategic nuclear forces of Russia , China and the US .
The statements , views and opinions expressed in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do not necessarily represent those of RT .

In announcing a new variation of his long-held proposal for a moratorium on intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe, Russia’s president seeks to repeat history, turning an anticipated US/NATO “no” into an eventual “yes.”
In a bold new proposal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has expanded on his existing offer of a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear forces on European soil by suggesting that Russia and the US/NATO engage in so-called “verification measures” (a euphemism for on-site inspections) “regarding the Aegis Ashore systems equipped with Mk 41 launchers at US and NATO bases in Europe and the 9M729 missiles at Russian military facilities in the Kaliningrad Region.”
Such verification activities would help “confirm the absence from the facilities, encompassed by the agreements, of ground-launched intermediate and shorter range missiles as well as weapons whose parameters and classification have remained a controversy between the two parties (Russia’s missile 9M729).” While it is unlikely either the US or NATO would agree to this proposal, by introducing verification into the negotiation mix, Putin has breathed life into the moribund moratorium concept, keeping alive both the prospects of an INF-free Europe, but also a global INF ban that could see the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty reborn as a multilateral arms control agreement. SCORPION KING: America... Ritter, Scott Best Price: $22.80 Buy New $22.82 (as of 06:04 UTC - Details)
The Mk 41 and the 9M729 have been at the center of controversy between the US and Russia, with both sides claiming that they constituted violations of the landmark 1987 INF Treaty. Indeed, Russia’s unwillingness to admit that the 9M729 missile violated that treaty by exceeding the permissible range (something Russia vehemently denies to this day) served as the foundational argument cited by the US in withdrawing from the INF Treaty in August 2019.
For its part, Russia long maintained that the Mk 41 Aegis Ashore system was a violation of the INF Treaty, as it was designed to launch both SM-3 surface-to-air missiles and Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles from aboard US naval warships. The US claims that the Mk 41 Aegis Ashore is only intended to be used in an anti-ballistic missile role. However, Russia claimed that the US in effect turned a permitted weapon (the seal-launched cruise missile) into a prohibited one (a ground-launched cruise missile, banned by the INF Treaty.) While the US denied that the Mk 41 Aegis Ashore had this capability, the fact that a Mk 41 was used to launch a Tomahawk cruise missile only weeks after the expiration of the INF Treaty underscored the validity of Russia’s claims.
The expiration of the INF Treaty has been viewed by Russia as a fundamentally destabilizing act, something President Putin noted in his statement regarding the new INF proposal. “We believe,” Putin noted, “that the United States’ pullout from the INF Treaty, which resulted in its termination, was a serious mistake that exacerbated the risks of a missile weapons race, growth of the confrontation potential and slide into uncontrolled escalation. In view of the lingering Russia-NATO tensions, the new threats to pan-European security are obvious.”
In short, Russia believes that any reintroduction of once-banned INF weapons into Europe by the US and/or NATO would take both sides back to the height of the Cold War when US Pershing II missiles could destroy Moscow within nine minutes of being launched, and Soviet SS-20 missiles could annihilate all of Europe. The possibility of a mistake activating the hair-trigger alert status of either side’s INF arsenal served as the primary impetus for the INF Treaty, which banned all such weapons. War with Russia?: From... Cohen, Stephen F. Best Price: $8.99 Buy New $8.50 (as of 02:15 UTC - Details)
While the US has, to date, eschewed the redeployment of INF weapons to Europe, the presence of two Mk 41 Aegis Ashore sites on NATO soil (one in Romania, the other in Poland) have raised concerns in Russia that both could be secretly armed with cruise missiles, thereby putting Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence at risk of a preemptive US nuclear first strike.
Likewise, Russia’s recent deployment of Iskander short-range ballistic missiles into its westernmost exclave at Kaliningrad raised concerns within NATO that it could have secretly deployed 9M729 missiles as well. Putin’s proposal would allow for NATO inspections of Russian missile sites in Kaliningrad in exchange for Russian inspections of the two NATO Mk 41 Aegis Ashore sites in Romania and Poland. Moreover, according to Putin, Russia is prepared to “refrain from deploying the 9M729 missiles in its European territory further on, but on the condition of reciprocal steps by the NATO countries, which will rule out the deployment in Europe of weapons that were outlawed under the INF Treaty.”
There is little chance of the Russian proposal being accepted by either the US or NATO. The simple fact is that US/NATO-Russian relations are at an all-time low, with little if any basis for the kind of trust and confidence that underpin critical arms control agreements of this nature. Moreover, there is the issue of verification of other potential 9M729 deployment sites in European Russia (i.e., the region west of the Ural mountains), as well as the potential for Russia to rapidly redeploy permitted 9M729 systems from permitted Asian bases back to Europe in a time of crisis. Any verification regime which sought to encompass the scope and scale of such a compliance problem, while limiting Russia to inspections of two fixed installations, would be unbalanced and as such unacceptable to Russia.
THE FIGHT FOR INFLUENC... Schultz, Ralph Buy New $21.95 (as of 05:22 UTC - Details) In many ways, Putin’s proposal is like one made by Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev when, in 1985, he suggested limiting Soviet SS-20 intermediate-range missiles to bases in Asia. It should be noted that Gorbachev prefaced his proposal with a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of additional INF systems in Europe. In the end, the Asian-only SS-20 deployment scheme was replaced by a total ban on INF systems, later codified into the INF Treaty.
The current situation between the US/NATO and Russia regarding INF is complicated by the fact that the US claims to have withdrawn from the INF Treaty not only because of allegations of Russian noncompliance regarding the 9M729 missile, but also because the treaty, as written, was a bilateral agreement which did not take into account China’s INF systems.
Indeed, the US’ plans regarding the reintroduction of INF systems is currently singularly focused on confronting China in Asia, with Europe a distant afterthought. The reality is that to make Putin’s proposal on a verifiable moratorium on INF weapons in Europe viable, there will need to be a global ban, or heavily structured limitation, on INF systems that includes China.
Here we find perhaps the most important part of Putin’s new proposal: “We are calling upon all parties concerned to explore ways of maintaining stability and preventing missile crises ‘in a world without the INF Treaty’ regarding the Asia-Pacific Region. We are open to joint work along these lines.” Putin appears to recognize the reality that there cannot be meaningful US-Russian nuclear arms control without factoring in China.
China has a vested interest in INF weapons, given that the bulk of its nuclear arsenal consists of weapons that fall into this category. But China will also be facing a new threat in the form of newly-deployed US INF weapons in the Pacific, and as such may be open to negotiations with both the US and Russia on how to engender stability by limiting and/or eliminating these weapons. The fact that trilateral INF talks between Russia, the US and China would be seen as a logical first step for any broader strategic arms reduction agreement should not escape anyone, and it is here that Putin’s proposal must be assessed, not as a quick fix to a limited problem, but rather the opening gambit toward a solution to the larger problem of controlling the strategic nuclear forces of Russia, China and the US.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


lewrockwell--2020-10-30--Left’s Post-Election Agenda: More Riots, ‘Truth Commissions,’ Other Punishment

You hear it every day .
Someone says , “ I just want the election to be over , ” hoping out loud that things will somehow “ return to normal ” once the 2020 vote ends .
But it won ’ t .
The left already has plans to ensure that .
By “ return to normal , ” of course , we refer to an America not so riven by politics that families and neighbors no longer talk to each other because of the deep political divide .
An America where people again become friendly and human , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and schools reopen , and suspicion of others ’ political motives fade into the deep background .
Sounds great , the fabled tolerant America of yore .
But , sorry , whether Donald Trump wins or loses , the left has other plans .
And “ normal ” isn ’ t part of them .
In fact , even if Trump wins in a landslide and Republicans win both chambers of Congress on his coattails , the left already has plans for “ Trump II : The Disruption.
” No , this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years of non-stop interference with Trump ’ s presidency by the Democrats , we know it ’ s a hard reality .
Balaclava Ski Mask - W ... Buy New $ 16.95 Here ’ s more evidence : A group called “ Shutdown DC ” vows street action , regardless of the outcome : We can ’ t anticipate exactly how Trump and his enablers will try to attack democracy ( although we have been gaming out a number of different scenarios ) , but we know that the stakes are too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait .
That ’ s why we ’ re making plans to be in the streets before the polls even close , ready to adapt and respond to whatever comes our way .
Get that ?
“ In the streets before the polls even close , ” means mass intimidation and instilling public fear .
The left ’ s imagined bogeyman ?
A Trump “ coup , ” which , of course , in their fevered imaginations means any Trump victory at all .
“ Trump has shown that he will stop at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump will not leave office without mass mobilization and direct action , ” the group says .
Expect riots .
The plans are very specific , sketching out activities even by date .
Using online organization tools , the idea is to forge loose “ affinity groups ” that will be free to take more “ high risk action.
” As the Federalist ’ s Joy Pullmann , who dug up all this , noted : “ What kinds of actions these might be are stated in a ‘ Strategic framework for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sketches out their plans for rioting and attacking American institutions and life until Joe Biden is installed as president .
It claims if Trump declares victory that will mark ‘ the start of the coup.
’ “ In other words , a Trump victory will be a “ coup.
” So much for your right to vote .
Mysuntown Unisex Winte ... Buy New $ 19.99 William L. Gensert in the American Thinker gives a colorful , but sadly accurate , preview of the chaos to come : After the polls close , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets to prevent Trump from declaring victory and to prosecute ‘ will of the people ’ riots as a supposed organic reaction to Trump having stolen the election under the auspices of Vladimir Putin and white supremacists .
Their ululations of ‘ COUP ’ will be shrill and frequent — projection lives loudly within the left .
Their deployment will be open-ended as Twitter and Facebook shut down all opposition on their platforms and Google tweaks algorithms to give only results approved by the rebellion .
Lest you think this is will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even the supposed “ mainstream ” Democrats have plans to make Republicans miserable , especially if the GOP wins .

You hear it every day. Someone says, “I just want the election to be over,” hoping out loud that things will somehow “return to normal” once the 2020 vote ends. But it won’t. The left already has plans to ensure that.
By “return to normal,” of course, we refer to an America not so riven by politics that families and neighbors no longer talk to each other because of the deep political divide. An America where people again become friendly and human, politics recede in importance, the economy and schools reopen, and suspicion of others’ political motives fade into the deep background.
Sounds great, the fabled tolerant America of yore. But, sorry, whether Donald Trump wins or loses, the left has other plans.
And “normal” isn’t part of them. In fact, even if Trump wins in a landslide and Republicans win both chambers of Congress on his coattails, the left already has plans for “Trump II: The Disruption.”
No, this isn’t some dystopic fantasy. After four years of non-stop interference with Trump’s presidency by the Democrats, we know it’s a hard reality. Balaclava Ski Mask - W... Buy New $16.95 (as of 05:23 UTC - Details)
Here’s more evidence: A group called “Shutdown DC” vows street action, regardless of the outcome:
We can’t anticipate exactly how Trump and his enablers will try to attack democracy (although we have been gaming out a number of different scenarios), but we know that the stakes are too high to sit on the sidelines and wait. That’s why we’re making plans to be in the streets before the polls even close, ready to adapt and respond to whatever comes our way.
Get that? “In the streets before the polls even close,” means mass intimidation and instilling public fear. The left’s imagined bogeyman? A Trump “coup,” which, of course, in their fevered imaginations means any Trump victory at all.
“Trump has shown that he will stop at nothing to maintain his grip on power. Trump will not leave office without mass mobilization and direct action,” the group says. Expect riots.
The plans are very specific, sketching out activities even by date. Using online organization tools, the idea is to forge loose “affinity groups” that will be free to take more “high risk action.”
As the Federalist’s Joy Pullmann, who dug up all this, noted: “What kinds of actions these might be are stated in a ‘Strategic framework for action following the 2020 election’ that sketches out their plans for rioting and attacking American institutions and life until Joe Biden is installed as president. It claims if Trump declares victory that will mark ‘the start of the coup.’ “
In other words, a Trump victory will be a “coup.” So much for your right to vote. Mysuntown Unisex Winte... Buy New $19.99 (as of 06:11 UTC - Details)
William L. Gensert in the American Thinker gives a colorful, but sadly accurate, preview of the chaos to come:
After the polls close, they will conduct a mass mobilization in the streets to prevent Trump from declaring victory and to prosecute ‘will of the people’ riots as a supposed organic reaction to Trump having stolen the election under the auspices of Vladimir Putin and white supremacists. Their ululations of ‘COUP’ will be shrill and frequent — projection lives loudly within the left. Their deployment will be open-ended as Twitter and Facebook shut down all opposition on their platforms and Google tweaks algorithms to give only results approved by the rebellion.
Riots. No matter what.
Lest you think this is will happen at the fringes, think again. Even the supposed “mainstream” Democrats have plans to make Republicans miserable, especially if the GOP wins.
Read the Whole Article