lewrockwell--2020-01-24--Blame Leviathan, Not Us

Blame Leviathan, Not Us

Finally !
The Twitterverse is actually chiding a racist who happens to be black !
Eric Adams is not only a black supremacist but a politician , too—and a particularly pointless one at that ( pardon the redundancy ) : he ’ s president of the Borough of Brooklyn in New York City .
Yes , that would be the same City already cursed with more “ public servants ” than rats per square mile .
So what does the “ borough president ” —and there are five of ‘ em , one each for Manhattan , Queens , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do in that toxic stew ?
Not much , as even Pravda—er , the New York Daily News acknowledged : “ Useless wastes , ” it complained in 2009 .
“ Borough presidents don ’ t do much except spend tax money.
” And how !
Eleven years ago , the Big Apple ’ s subjects were paying these parasitic “ presidents ” $ 150,000 annually while also “ provid [ ing ] them with a car and driver ” —both “ car ” and “ driver ” should be plural— as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ” who earn [ ed ] between $ 35,000 and $ 136,420 ” in 2014 ; “ administrative managers ” at anywhere from $ 60,000 to $ 124,353 per year ; and “ administrative staff analysts ” ( $ 49,492 to $ 109,664 ) .
I shudder at how the wages for these sinecures must have escalated over the last decade .
All this for leeches who “ were stripped of most of their authority years ago , but whose positions remain nonetheless ” in the Marxist insanity that is New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose pampered but powerless politicians are preferable to pampered but powerful ones .
Halestorm -- A Novel of ... Becky Akers Check Amazon for Pricing .
At any rate , ol ’ Eric is Amerika ’ s answer to Megs and Prince Harry : a worthless , utterly indulged freeloader who ought to be on his knees , thanking the taxpayers who foot his bills .
Instead , he publicly castigates them .
On “ Monday at the National Action Networks ’ MLK Day celebration in Harlem , ” he denounced white newcomers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ are not only high-jacking your [ i.e.
, his audience ’ s ] apartments and displacing your living arrangements , … they displace your conversations and said that things that are important to you are no longer important and they decide what ’ s important and what ’ s not important.
” Do I detect a contender here with Pelosi for the title of “ Most Inarticulate Tyrant ” ?
But when he continued , he was clear enough that the Daily News admitted , “ Adams ’ s remarks were striking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nope , he was beyond explicit : “ ‘ Go back to Iowa !
You go back to Ohio !
New York City belongs to the people that [ were ] here and made New York City what it is , ’ Adams , an ex-cop , said to applause .
‘ I know I ’ m a New Yorker .
I protected [ sic for ‘ without even the pretence of a warrant , I stopped and frisked other black men in ’ ] this city .
I have a right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city is run.
’ ” Oh , the megalomania of Our Rulers !
Since when does beating people senseless give cops “ a right to put my voice in how a city is run ” ?
And why should a city be “ run ” ?
Why can ’ t residents manage their own lives under the gentle but efficacious “ invisible hand ” of voluntary association and transactions ?
Thank Heaven this vainglorious , prodigal bigot was “ [ c ] alled out for the comments on Twitter… ” “ [ M @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his remarks were unnecessarily divisive and uncomfortably close to xenophobic diatribes aimed at new immigrants.
” Whoa !
For once , Progressives aren ’ t excusing hate-speech despite the speaker ’ s black identity and their open season on whites .
Do you suppose Hell has frozen over , too ?
“ ‘ I guess we should look to relocate the Statue of Liberty , ’ read one typical response .
‘ Don ’ t want to give anyone the impression we want anymore [ sic ] out of towners .
Good way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ King.
’ … Some questioned whether Iowa was ‘ the new dog whistle for white people , ’ while others pointed out that New York has long prided itself on being an international city that welcomes newcomers from all over.
” Yet even as the media reports such scoldings , it covers for Eric by interpreting his tirade as a condemnation of “ gentrification.
” So do his accomplices in official crime : “ Mayor de Blasio ’ s office gave muted criticism of the beep ’ s remarks .
‘ The mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was said , but the borough president voiced a very real frustration , ” spokeswoman Freddi Goldstein said in a statement .
‘ We need to improve affordability in this city to ensure New Yorkers can stay in the city they love… ” That ’ s so rich it ’ s nauseating .
The reason “ affordability ” ain ’ t is the City ’ s stratospheric taxes on real estate : “ The property tax is New York City ’ s largest source of revenue .
It is projected to generate $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or 44 percent of all City tax revenues and about twice as much as the second largest source , the local personal income tax.
” Indeed .
A single building—the Trump Plaza , say , on Manhattan ’ s posh Upper East Side , with 175 apartments— pays a jaw-dropping $ 3,857,237 in taxes every year .
That means each apartment coughs up an average of $ 22,041 per annum in addition to a mortgage and its portion of shared expenses ( salaries for the doormen and porters , electricity to light the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York ’ s political greedballs routinely vilify residents for craving decent housing and the developers and landlords supplying it as the cause of the City ’ s extortionate prices .
Do inordinate taxes on co-ops , condos , and rentals confine Adams ’ audience to lower-priced , dilapidated neighborhoods ?
Yep .
Demagogues can blame white New Yorkers and their alleged racism for hiking rents all they like , but the true culprit is government .
Ditto for a contretemps last week at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport , when Tara Houska , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her hair in long braids , ” suffered an assault from the Thieves and Sexual Assailants .
Ms. Houska is “ an attorney and indigenous rights activist ” —that ’ s “ American Indian racist ” in plain English—and thus more sophisticated and glib than ex-cop Adams ; ergo , her charging Whitey with the TSA ’ s depravity has earned plaudits rather than reprimands .
It seems when Tara was “ Going through @ TSA … the agent said she needed to pat down my braids.
” I don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hair , but lengthy locks fascinate these deviants as much as they do free-lance ones .
The TSA regularly harasses female passengers by combing through their tresses ; Tara ’ s magnificent plaits must have sounded a siren ’ s song to them .
And so the TSA ’ s thuggette “ pulled them behind my shoulders , laughed & said ‘ giddyup !
’ as she snapped my braids like reins.
” Abducting Arnold -- A No ... Becky Akers Check Amazon for Pricing .
That ’ s deeply offensive , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Tara ’ s reaction was equally objectionable .
Like many black women who ’ ve endured this outrage , she imputes it not to the TSA ’ s systemic evil but to the “ blonde ” groper ’ s bias ( “ This kind of racism is not something that is new to our people , ” Houska [ said ] … “ This is just one small incident but it ’ s reflective of a larger culture ” ) .
“ My hair is part of my spirit , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Native woman .
I am angry , humiliated .
Your ‘ fun ’ hurt.
” Pssst , Tara : most women , Native or not , prize their hair , nor do they appreciate strangers ’ rummaging through it .
You are neither special nor alone in that sentiment .
But Tara ’ s not a smug “ activist ” for nothing .
She decreed this a “ # TeachingMoment ” in which she can lecture us—as if we rather than the TSA abused her ( thank me , dear reader , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All these little microaggressions add up , and we should be treating each other with respect across the board.
” Worse , like most of the TSA ’ s prey , she was waaaaay too willing to grant the agency ’ s right to search her in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment ; Tara ’ s quarrel—a losing one—lies with how the TSA ’ s degenerates chose to conduct that search : “ It ’ s TSA and so it ’ s invasive no matter what — it ’ s their job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s part of safety and I get that , … That said , it was dehumanizing and just really disrespectful .
It was kind of humiliating , to be honest , as a person but also as an indigenous person.
” Absolutely it was .
But put the blame squarely where it belongs : on the anti-Constitutional TSA .
This white girl has tired of Leviathan ’ s atrocities being laid at her door .
The Best of Becky Akers

Finally! The Twitterverse is actually chiding a racist who happens to be black!
Eric Adams is not only a black supremacist but a politician, too—and a particularly pointless one at that (pardon the redundancy): he’s president of the Borough of Brooklyn in New York City. Yes, that would be the same City already cursed with more “public servants” than rats per square mile. So what does the “borough president”—and there are five of ‘em, one each for Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island—find to do in that toxic stew? Not much, as even Pravda—er, the New York Daily News acknowledged: “Useless wastes,” it complained in 2009. “Borough presidents don’t do much except spend tax money.”
And how! Eleven years ago, the Big Apple’s subjects were paying these parasitic “presidents” $150,000 annually while also “provid[ing] them with a car and driver”—both “car” and “driver” should be plural— as well as staffs: “assistants to the president” who earn[ed] between $35,000 and $136,420” in 2014; “administrative managers” at anywhere from $60,000 to $124,353 per year; and “administrative staff analysts” ($49,492 to $109,664). I shudder at how the wages for these sinecures must have escalated over the last decade.
All this for leeches who “were stripped of most of their authority years ago, but whose positions remain nonetheless” in the Marxist insanity that is New York’s government. Still, I suppose pampered but powerless politicians are preferable to pampered but powerful ones. Halestorm--A Novel of ... Akers, Becky Buy New $2.99 (as of 11:05 UTC - Details)
At any rate, ol’ Eric is Amerika’s answer to Megs and Prince Harry: a worthless, utterly indulged freeloader who ought to be on his knees, thanking the taxpayers who foot his bills.
Instead, he publicly castigates them. On “Monday at the National Action Networks’ MLK Day celebration in Harlem,” he denounced white newcomers to New York City because they “‘are not only high-jacking your [i.e., his audience’s] apartments and displacing your living arrangements, … they displace your conversations and said that things that are important to you are no longer important and they decide what’s important and what’s not important.”
Do I detect a contender here with Pelosi for the title of “Most Inarticulate Tyrant”?
But when he continued, he was clear enough that the Daily News admitted, “Adams’s remarks were striking for his all but explicitly racial tone.” Nope, he was beyond explicit: “‘Go back to Iowa! You go back to Ohio! New York City belongs to the people that [were] here and made New York City what it is,’ Adams, an ex-cop, said to applause. ‘I know I’m a New Yorker. I protected [sic for ‘without even the pretence of a warrant, I stopped and frisked other black men in’] this city. I have a right to put my voice in how this city is run.’”
Oh, the megalomania of Our Rulers! Since when does beating people senseless give cops “a right to put my voice in how a city is run”? And why should a city be “run”? Why can’t residents manage their own lives under the gentle but efficacious “invisible hand” of voluntary association and transactions?
Thank Heaven this vainglorious, prodigal bigot was “[c]alled out for the comments on Twitter…” “[M]any on social media said that his remarks were unnecessarily divisive and uncomfortably close to xenophobic diatribes aimed at new immigrants.” Whoa! For once, Progressives aren’t excusing hate-speech despite the speaker’s black identity and their open season on whites. Do you suppose Hell has frozen over, too?
“‘I guess we should look to relocate the Statue of Liberty,’ read one typical response. ‘Don’t want to give anyone the impression we want anymore [sic] out of towners. Good way to honor the spirit of Martin Luther King.’ … Some questioned whether Iowa was ‘the new dog whistle for white people,’ while others pointed out that New York has long prided itself on being an international city that welcomes newcomers from all over.”
Yet even as the media reports such scoldings, it covers for Eric by interpreting his tirade as a condemnation of “gentrification.” So do his accomplices in official crime: “Mayor de Blasio’s office gave muted criticism of the beep’s remarks. ‘The mayor doesn’t agree with how it was said, but the borough president voiced a very real frustration,” spokeswoman Freddi Goldstein said in a statement. ‘We need to improve affordability in this city to ensure New Yorkers can stay in the city they love…”
That’s so rich it’s nauseating. The reason “affordability” ain’t is the City’s stratospheric taxes on real estate: “The property tax is New York City’s largest source of revenue. It is projected to generate $24 billion in fiscal year 2017, or 44 percent of all City tax revenues and about twice as much as the second largest source, the local personal income tax.”
Indeed. A single building—the Trump Plaza, say, on Manhattan’s posh Upper East Side, with 175 apartments— pays a jaw-dropping $3,857,237 in taxes every year. That means each apartment coughs up an average of $22,041 per annum in addition to a mortgage and its portion of shared expenses (salaries for the doormen and porters, electricity to light the halls, etc.) Yet New York’s political greedballs routinely vilify residents for craving decent housing and the developers and landlords supplying it as the cause of the City’s extortionate prices.
Do inordinate taxes on co-ops, condos, and rentals confine Adams’ audience to lower-priced, dilapidated neighborhoods? Yep. Demagogues can blame white New Yorkers and their alleged racism for hiking rents all they like, but the true culprit is government.
Ditto for a contretemps last week at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, when Tara Houska, a “Native American traveler” with “her hair in long braids,” suffered an assault from the Thieves and Sexual Assailants. Ms. Houska is “an attorney and indigenous rights activist”—that’s “American Indian racist” in plain English—and thus more sophisticated and glib than ex-cop Adams; ergo, her charging Whitey with the TSA’s depravity has earned plaudits rather than reprimands.
It seems when Tara was “Going through @TSA … the agent said she needed to pat down my braids.”
I don’t know what it is with the TSA and hair, but lengthy locks fascinate these deviants as much as they do free-lance ones. The TSA regularly harasses female passengers by combing through their tresses; Tara’s magnificent plaits must have sounded a siren’s song to them. And so the TSA’s thuggette “pulled them behind my shoulders, laughed & said ‘giddyup!’ as she snapped my braids like reins.” Abducting Arnold--A No... Akers, Becky Buy New $2.99 (as of 10:30 UTC - Details)
That’s deeply offensive, as the TSA’s gate-rape always is. But Tara’s reaction was equally objectionable. Like many black women who’ve endured this outrage, she imputes it not to the TSA’s systemic evil but to the “blonde” groper’s bias (“This kind of racism is not something that is new to our people,” Houska [said]…“This is just one small incident but it’s reflective of a larger culture”). “My hair is part of my spirit,” she huffed. “I am a Native woman. I am angry, humiliated. Your ‘fun’ hurt.”
Pssst, Tara: most women, Native or not, prize their hair, nor do they appreciate strangers’ rummaging through it. You are neither special nor alone in that sentiment.
But Tara’s not a smug “activist” for nothing. She decreed this a “#TeachingMoment” in which she can lecture us—as if we rather than the TSA abused her (thank me, dear reader, for mercifully condensing her harangue): “All these little microaggressions add up, and we should be treating each other with respect across the board.” Worse, like most of the TSA’s prey, she was waaaaay too willing to grant the agency’s right to search her in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment; Tara’s quarrel—a losing one—lies with how the TSA’s degenerates chose to conduct that search: “It’s TSA and so it’s invasive no matter what — it’s their job to sometimes pat you down and it’s part of safety and I get that,… That said, it was dehumanizing and just really disrespectful. It was kind of humiliating, to be honest, as a person but also as an indigenous person.”
Absolutely it was. But put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the anti-Constitutional TSA. This white girl has tired of Leviathan’s atrocities being laid at her door.
The Best of Becky Akers


lewrockwell--2020-01-24--Neil McCaffrey and the Conservative Book Club

For those of us who remember the American conservative movement in its earlier manifestation , the recently published articles and correspondence of Neil McCaffrey make for stimulating reading .
For those who don ’ t recall McCaffrey ( 1925-1994 ) , it might be mentioned that he was the founder of the Conservative Book Club , the owner of the conservative press Arlington House between 1964 and 1988 , and a longtime friend and correspondent of Bill Buckley ’ s .
A native New Yorker who worked as an editor at Doubleday , McCaffrey left behind a promising career at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his two lifetime passions , popularizing conservative ideas and fighting for traditional Catholic beliefs .
In his case , as his published letters indicate , the two were often intertwined .
Although several of his authors and close friends , like Victor Gold , Victor Lasky , and Will Herberg , were Jewish , McCaffrey never hesitated to take on Jewish critics of Christian influence in America and engage them in polite but firm debate .
He was also unsparing in going after “ civil libertarians ” whose real interest seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and religious memories from American civil society .
The Vanishing Traditio ... Buy New $ 22.95 At the same time , McCaffrey could be cutting in his remarks about the anti-American tendencies on the Catholic Right .
His correspondence with contributors to the magazine Triumph in the 1960s make clear his skepticism about certain tendencies that he found there , particularly selective appeals to papal authority .
McCaffrey was amused by how some would change their loyalties as soon as the Bishop of Rome made a pronouncement they didn ’ t approve of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jesuit Francisco Suarez on the natural limits of papal power : “ Suarez was asked whether a pope could be a schismatic .
His response must have struck contemporaries as another exercise in dry Scholastic speculation , but it hits us today like the kick of a mule .
Yes , he said , if a pope moves too radically to change Catholic tradition.
” McCaffrey also assumed that just as often as not , modern popes would move toward “ modern aberrations , ” leaving traditionalists in the Church unhappy .
Neil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in responding to an overly zealous Catholic convert , Bill Marshner ( who was my close friend at Yale graduate school in the mid-1960s ) , regarding Bill ’ s ritualistic practice of invoking “ Catholic social doctrine.
” According to McCaffrey : “ I think we should be chaste in using a term like Christian economics , lest we accord to it a place of honor beside that other eminent discipline , Christian mathematics.
” Like his close friend Bill Buckley , however , McCaffrey hoped that “ the new Mass ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would return to its Tridentine Latin form .
“ In time , ” he wrote , “ I think this experiment will be recognized as the failure it is , and some future pope will restore the Mass in its classic form.
” Considering all his other preoccupations , including the raising of six children ( his son Roger seems to have continued most of his father ’ s battles ) , it is remarkable how attuned Neil was to what was happening in the American conservative movement .
His steady correspondence with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a few miles apart within the New York metropolitan area , is remarkable given how unreservedly McCaffrey addresses the recipient of his missives .
He offered his frank judgments about prospective reviewers and columnists , and he occasionally corrected Buckley ’ s statements in National Review about Catholic moral theology .
The Best of Paul Gottfried

For those of us who remember the American conservative movement in its earlier manifestation, the recently published articles and correspondence of Neil McCaffrey make for stimulating reading.
For those who don’t recall McCaffrey (1925-1994), it might be mentioned that he was the founder of the Conservative Book Club, the owner of the conservative press Arlington House between 1964 and 1988, and a longtime friend and correspondent of Bill Buckley’s. A native New Yorker who worked as an editor at Doubleday, McCaffrey left behind a promising career at a leading commercial press to devote himself to his two lifetime passions, popularizing conservative ideas and fighting for traditional Catholic beliefs.
In his case, as his published letters indicate, the two were often intertwined. Although several of his authors and close friends, like Victor Gold, Victor Lasky, and Will Herberg, were Jewish, McCaffrey never hesitated to take on Jewish critics of Christian influence in America and engage them in polite but firm debate. He was also unsparing in going after “civil libertarians” whose real interest seemed to be in removing any traditional religious symbols and religious memories from American civil society.
The Vanishing Traditio... Buy New $22.95 (as of 10:15 UTC - Details) At the same time, McCaffrey could be cutting in his remarks about the anti-American tendencies on the Catholic Right. His correspondence with contributors to the magazine Triumph in the 1960s make clear his skepticism about certain tendencies that he found there, particularly selective appeals to papal authority. McCaffrey was amused by how some would change their loyalties as soon as the Bishop of Rome made a pronouncement they didn’t approve of. He famously quoted the 16th-century Spanish Jesuit Francisco Suarez on the natural limits of papal power: “Suarez was asked whether a pope could be a schismatic. His response must have struck contemporaries as another exercise in dry Scholastic speculation, but it hits us today like the kick of a mule. Yes, he said, if a pope moves too radically to change Catholic tradition.”
McCaffrey also assumed that just as often as not, modern popes would move toward “modern aberrations,” leaving traditionalists in the Church unhappy. Neil may have been at his sarcastic best in responding to an overly zealous Catholic convert, Bill Marshner (who was my close friend at Yale graduate school in the mid-1960s), regarding Bill’s ritualistic practice of invoking “Catholic social doctrine.” According to McCaffrey: “I think we should be chaste in using a term like Christian economics, lest we accord to it a place of honor beside that other eminent discipline, Christian mathematics.”
Like his close friend Bill Buckley, however, McCaffrey hoped that “the new Mass” would be dropped and that the Church would return to its Tridentine Latin form. “In time,” he wrote, “I think this experiment will be recognized as the failure it is, and some future pope will restore the Mass in its classic form.”
Considering all his other preoccupations, including the raising of six children (his son Roger seems to have continued most of his father’s battles), it is remarkable how attuned Neil was to what was happening in the American conservative movement. His steady correspondence with Buckley, although the two were usually only a few miles apart within the New York metropolitan area, is remarkable given how unreservedly McCaffrey addresses the recipient of his missives. He offered his frank judgments about prospective reviewers and columnists, and he occasionally corrected Buckley’s statements in National Review about Catholic moral theology.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Paul Gottfried


lewrockwell--2020-01-24--Making Sense of Russia’s New Cabinet

Making Sense of Russia’s New Cabinet

Yesterday evening , 21 January , the composition of Russia ’ s new cabinet was announced to the nation and the world .
Russian state television was caught as unawares as any of us in the broad public when the names of the departing ministers , the names and biographical details of arriving ministers and the few changes in reporting lines were released to the wire services .
Their correspondents hastened to find Duma members , think tank celebrities and others whom they hoped could make sense of the changes for their viewers .
Eventually , late in the night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest seismic wave in Russian politics means .
I will try to present the generalities here .
I will not go into detailed examination of each minister , because such micro-investigation is neither my specialty , nor is it likely to interest an international readership for whom ‘ which way the wind is blowing ’ is quite sufficient .
Of course , in the past week , even the contours of political change have appeared inscrutable to Western media who could only fall back on the assumptions that whatever Putin is up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flurry of articles following Mr. Putin ’ s address to the bicameral legislature a week ago which sought to portray the constitutional changes he promised as serving only one purpose : to perpetuate his dominance and control over Russian politics after his presidential term ends in 2024 .
That was so despite the fact that nothing whatsoever in his proposed reforms would facilitate the stated objective and despite the fact that the changes , which diminish his power when implemented , would come four years before he has to relinquish his office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Russia and Putin are beginning to change their minds .
The New York Times ’ “ Morning Briefing ” today told its online subscribers : Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Surely the confusion in the minds of the Russian public , as well as domestic and foreign political observers , over how to understand all the changes and prospective changes in Russia ’ s federal government was not by accident , but by design .
The intention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his close assistant in these reforms within his presidential administration , was surely to conflate two very different political disruptions : first , the introduction of constitutional reforms that rebalance the power sharing between executive , legislative and judicial branches of the federal government ; and second , the change of cabinet to remove ineffectual and unpopular ministers , to bring in fresh blood from among the most successful administrative and technical talent operating at the higher levels of the federal government and groomed for succession these past several years .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : to lay the groundwork for the Duma elections scheduled to be held in September 2021 .
They will likely generate more excitement in the public and will be more consequential than would otherwise be the case .
As for the proposed constitutional changes , I believe they serve a very clearly defined purpose : to prepare Russia for the post-Putin era by introducing checks and balances that will prevent any one branch of government , meaning the executive , from ‘ running away with the show ’ and changing the vector of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world as the result of the unforeseeable popularity and electoral victory by a candidate to the presidency put up by the Opposition , or even by factions within the Ruling Party and other ‘ Duma parties ’ in 2024 and thereafter .
Commentators have often speculated on whom Putin was grooming as his successor .
We now have the answer : no one .
And this is a wise approach to the issue , because no one in Russia would be capable of filling the shoes of Vladimir Putin , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political phenomenon .
And so the shoes to be filled in 2024 and thereafter have been downsized via the power sharing provisions of the proposed constitutional reforms .
Now let us turn our attention to the new cabinet of ministers which Mr. Putin convened and welcomed last night .
In the past few days , many have asked why Putin prompted Dimitri Medvedev and his ministers to resign a week ago .
One of my fellow panelists in a Turkish international English television ( TRT World ) program yesterday devoted to Putin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medvedev was , in effect , forced out because he is so unpopular in the country .
See this .
Indeed , unpopular he was , but that is not a new development .
Rather , I believe the fate of Dimitri Medvedev and his cabinet was decided in the presidential administration back in December when the weak results on implementation of the president ’ s high priority National Projects during 2019 came in and when it also became clear that GDP growth during the year had been anemic , trailing rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government shake-up was already in the cards from that moment .
Medvedev ’ s loss of popularity in the past couple of years also surely may be attributed to the focused attacks directed at him by the anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny , who uncovered compromising material relating to the prime minister ’ s personal wealth and also to the unseemly abuse of rights to government transport and other resources by his wife .
Nonetheless , his being sidelined at present does not necessarily exclude his return to positions of power in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tenure as president , Medvedev showed himself to be the most outgoing , the most friendly to the West of all Russian and Soviet heads of state in the last hundred years or more .
It was a very regrettable mistake by Western leaders that his initiative to begin talks on revising the security architecture of Europe was spurned , and that he was intentionally misled about NATO intentions in Libya when the UN , with Russian support , voted to allow military intervention for humanitarian purposes .
Personal unpopularity or battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reappoint several members of the outgoing cabinet .
The first rule pertains to Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky , who is guilty of graphomania and has been filling a whole library shelf with his overly nationalistic and simplistic histories while in office .
Moreover , he got embroiled in quite controversial issues of what is permitted as artistic expression , making many enemies .
Then there was the non-reappointment of Vitaly Mutko who had been the Sports Minister until 2016 and carried all the baggage of Russia ’ s shame over doping , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mutko had been ‘ kicked upstairs ’ to a deputy premiership more for the sake of defying Western allegations against him than because of any personal merit justifying his new position .
Clearly it was time to move on and reward others more worthy .
As for Minister of Health Dr. Veronika Skvortsova , who was omnipresent in the country overseeing a vast reform program to bring quality health care to the rural population and also raise the level of diagnosis and early treatment for cardiovascular and oncological illnesses everywhere , the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by the task and needed to pass the baton to someone else .
In my two essays on the planned constitutional reforms over the past week , I expressed the optimistic hope that President Putin would use the occasion of appointing a new cabinet to take the first step towards power sharing with the Duma .
Specifically , I suggested that he might bring into the cabinet parliamentarians from the minority parties in the Duma , allotting to them portfolios in the more innocent domains such as labor , social welfare and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government and thereby consolidating the Russian political landscape .
Reviewing the list of new ministers in the incoming cabinet , it is clear that quite the opposite has happened : the cabinet has been de-politicized .
To be sure , nearly all members of the cabinet are members of the United Russia party .
But they are what we may call just card-carrying members , whereas the former prime minister Dimitri Medvedev was and remains the head of United Russia .
The new cabinet members are concentrated in the ‘ economic block ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ministries , the two areas that rank very high in the fulfillment of President Putin ’ s pledges to the nation to raise living standards through fulfillment of his National Projects .
They are what the Russians call хозяйственники or управленцы , which we may translate as highly competent managers with proven success in getting things done .
Technocrats , by another name .
One or two come from the administration of Moscow mayor Sobyanin , who oversees the country ’ s most successful municipality .
One or two come from among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Federal Tax Service , which is a model of technological innovation and efficiency .
At the same time , the most experienced and successful ministers from the Medvedev cabinet have been kept on in their posts .
In particular , I point to Anton Siluanov at Finance , Sergei Lavrov at the Foreign Ministry , Sergei Shoigu at Defense , Alexander Novak at Energy .
While Siluanov has been stripped of his rank as first deputy prime minister , he received moral compensation by being assigned the additional responsibility for State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removal from the deputy prime minister list as resulting from the ambitions of PM Mikhail Mishustin , who is himself a very experienced financial expert , to have free hands in this domain .
Now we will have to wait till just after the September 2021 Duma elections to see to what extent Mr. Putin intends to bring the lower house of parliament into the middle of national policy making by granting them seats in the cabinet .

Yesterday evening, 21 January, the composition of Russia’s new cabinet was announced to the nation and the world. Russian state television was caught as unawares as any of us in the broad public when the names of the departing ministers, the names and biographical details of arriving ministers and the few changes in reporting lines were released to the wire services. Their correspondents hastened to find Duma members, think tank celebrities and others whom they hoped could make sense of the changes for their viewers.
Eventually, late in the night, a picture emerged of what the latest seismic wave in Russian politics means. I will try to present the generalities here. I will not go into detailed examination of each minister, because such micro-investigation is neither my specialty, nor is it likely to interest an international readership for whom ‘which way the wind is blowing’ is quite sufficient.
Of course, in the past week, even the contours of political change have appeared inscrutable to Western media who could only fall back on the assumptions that whatever Putin is up to cannot be good. Hence, the flurry of articles following Mr. Putin’s address to the bicameral legislature a week ago which sought to portray the constitutional changes he promised as serving only one purpose: to perpetuate his dominance and control over Russian politics after his presidential term ends in 2024. That was so despite the fact that nothing whatsoever in his proposed reforms would facilitate the stated objective and despite the fact that the changes, which diminish his power when implemented, would come four years before he has to relinquish his office.
However, even the harshest critics of Russia and Putin are beginning to change their minds.
The New York Times’ “Morning Briefing” today told its online subscribers:
Quote
On social media, our correspondent writes from Moscow, Russian political analysts “have put forward so many different theories that they paint a picture of a nation in collective befuddlement.” Case in point: Mr. Putin’s announcement prompted a string of high-level resignations and unexpected appointments. Yet the new cabinet, announced on Tuesday, includes the most prominent members of the last one. Background: Many analysts initially thought that the constitutional changes were intended to allow Mr. Putin, 67, to take up a powerful role when his second presidential term expires in 2024. Now they aren’t so sure. Unquote
Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) Surely the confusion in the minds of the Russian public, as well as domestic and foreign political observers, over how to understand all the changes and prospective changes in Russia’s federal government was not by accident, but by design. The intention of Mr. Putin and of Sergei Kiriyenko, his close assistant in these reforms within his presidential administration, was surely to conflate two very different political disruptions: first, the introduction of constitutional reforms that rebalance the power sharing between executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government; and second, the change of cabinet to remove ineffectual and unpopular ministers, to bring in fresh blood from among the most successful administrative and technical talent operating at the higher levels of the federal government and groomed for succession these past several years. Both very separate measures share one common feature: to lay the groundwork for the Duma elections scheduled to be held in September 2021. They will likely generate more excitement in the public and will be more consequential than would otherwise be the case.
As for the proposed constitutional changes, I believe they serve a very clearly defined purpose: to prepare Russia for the post-Putin era by introducing checks and balances that will prevent any one branch of government, meaning the executive, from ‘running away with the show’ and changing the vector of Russia’s development and its orientation in the world as the result of the unforeseeable popularity and electoral victory by a candidate to the presidency put up by the Opposition, or even by factions within the Ruling Party and other ‘Duma parties’ in 2024 and thereafter.
Commentators have often speculated on whom Putin was grooming as his successor. We now have the answer: no one. And this is a wise approach to the issue, because no one in Russia would be capable of filling the shoes of Vladimir Putin, who is a once in a hundred years political phenomenon. And so the shoes to be filled in 2024 and thereafter have been downsized via the power sharing provisions of the proposed constitutional reforms.
Now let us turn our attention to the new cabinet of ministers which Mr. Putin convened and welcomed last night.
In the past few days, many have asked why Putin prompted Dimitri Medvedev and his ministers to resign a week ago. One of my fellow panelists in a Turkish international English television (TRT World) program yesterday devoted to Putin’s announced reforms offered the explanation that Medvedev was, in effect, forced out because he is so unpopular in the country. See this.
Indeed, unpopular he was, but that is not a new development. Rather, I believe the fate of Dimitri Medvedev and his cabinet was decided in the presidential administration back in December when the weak results on implementation of the president’s high priority National Projects during 2019 came in and when it also became clear that GDP growth during the year had been anemic, trailing rather than matching or exceeding global trends. A government shake-up was already in the cards from that moment.
Medvedev’s loss of popularity in the past couple of years also surely may be attributed to the focused attacks directed at him by the anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny, who uncovered compromising material relating to the prime minister’s personal wealth and also to the unseemly abuse of rights to government transport and other resources by his wife. Nonetheless, his being sidelined at present does not necessarily exclude his return to positions of power in the future.
It must be remembered that during his tenure as president, Medvedev showed himself to be the most outgoing, the most friendly to the West of all Russian and Soviet heads of state in the last hundred years or more. It was a very regrettable mistake by Western leaders that his initiative to begin talks on revising the security architecture of Europe was spurned, and that he was intentionally misled about NATO intentions in Libya when the UN, with Russian support, voted to allow military intervention for humanitarian purposes.
Personal unpopularity or battle fatigue may explain the decision not to reappoint several members of the outgoing cabinet. The first rule pertains to Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, who is guilty of graphomania and has been filling a whole library shelf with his overly nationalistic and simplistic histories while in office. Moreover, he got embroiled in quite controversial issues of what is permitted as artistic expression, making many enemies.
Then there was the non-reappointment of Vitaly Mutko who had been the Sports Minister until 2016 and carried all the baggage of Russia’s shame over doping, of its strained relations with FIFA. Mutko had been ‘kicked upstairs’ to a deputy premiership more for the sake of defying Western allegations against him than because of any personal merit justifying his new position. Clearly it was time to move on and reward others more worthy. As for Minister of Health Dr. Veronika Skvortsova, who was omnipresent in the country overseeing a vast reform program to bring quality health care to the rural population and also raise the level of diagnosis and early treatment for cardiovascular and oncological illnesses everywhere, the best guess is that she was simply worn down by the task and needed to pass the baton to someone else.
In my two essays on the planned constitutional reforms over the past week, I expressed the optimistic hope that President Putin would use the occasion of appointing a new cabinet to take the first step towards power sharing with the Duma. Specifically, I suggested that he might bring into the cabinet parliamentarians from the minority parties in the Duma, allotting to them portfolios in the more innocent domains such as labor, social welfare and culture, in effect forming a coalition government and thereby consolidating the Russian political landscape.
Reviewing the list of new ministers in the incoming cabinet, it is clear that quite the opposite has happened: the cabinet has been de-politicized. To be sure, nearly all members of the cabinet are members of the United Russia party. But they are what we may call just card-carrying members, whereas the former prime minister Dimitri Medvedev was and remains the head of United Russia.
The new cabinet members are concentrated in the ‘economic block’ and in the ‘social block’ of ministries, the two areas that rank very high in the fulfillment of President Putin’s pledges to the nation to raise living standards through fulfillment of his National Projects. They are what the Russians call хозяйственники or управленцы, which we may translate as highly competent managers with proven success in getting things done. Technocrats, by another name. One or two come from the administration of Moscow mayor Sobyanin, who oversees the country’s most successful municipality. One or two come from among the Prime Minister’s former colleagues in the Federal Tax Service, which is a model of technological innovation and efficiency.
At the same time, the most experienced and successful ministers from the Medvedev cabinet have been kept on in their posts. In particular, I point to Anton Siluanov at Finance, Sergei Lavrov at the Foreign Ministry, Sergei Shoigu at Defense, Alexander Novak at Energy. While Siluanov has been stripped of his rank as first deputy prime minister, he received moral compensation by being assigned the additional responsibility for State Property. I explain Siluanov’s removal from the deputy prime minister list as resulting from the ambitions of PM Mikhail Mishustin, who is himself a very experienced financial expert, to have free hands in this domain.
Now we will have to wait till just after the September 2021 Duma elections to see to what extent Mr. Putin intends to bring the lower house of parliament into the middle of national policy making by granting them seats in the cabinet.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.


lewrockwell--2020-01-24--A Failed Impeachment Still Serves Dems

A Failed Impeachment Still Serves Dems

In yesterday ’ s column , “ Making Sense of the Impeachment Charges , ” I pointed out that the three impeachments of presidents by the House of Representatives were political acts .
Only in the case of Bill Clinton was there a real offense .
Clinton did lie under oath .
However , the Senate did not regard lying about a sexual affair as rising to the level of a “ high crime ” and refused to convict .
Unless enough Republican Senators can be threatened by the FBI or bribed by the military/security complex , the Republican Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know this .
The question is why did the Democrats go for impeachment ?
An obvious answer is to throw enough mud in hopes that some of it sticks and reduces Trump ’ s reelection chances .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 That is a likely reason .
Another reason that we don ’ t hear much about is that a number of prominant Democrats are under investigation by the Department of Justice for felonies committed in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation could easily produce indictments of such prominant Democrats as Hillary Clinton .
Trump ’ s conviction in the Senate could stop indictments from the Barr-Durham investigation , but even a failed impeachment can be used as a shield against indictments .
Democrats can claim that charges against them are just political payback for their impeachment of Trump .
Much of the public would believe it .
With the country already split by Russiagate and the impeachment , indictments of Democrats would further spread disunity .
Republicans are less inclined to encourage disunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans arguing that as impeachment failed , the party is well-positioned and should not split the country by indicting highly placed Democrats .
In this way even a failed impeachment serves the Democrats .
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

In yesterday’s column, “Making Sense of the Impeachment Charges,” I pointed out that the three impeachments of presidents by the House of Representatives were political acts. Only in the case of Bill Clinton was there a real offense. Clinton did lie under oath. However, the Senate did not regard lying about a sexual affair as rising to the level of a “high crime” and refused to convict. Unless enough Republican Senators can be threatened by the FBI or bribed by the military/security complex, the Republican Senate will not convict Trump.
The Democrats know this. The question is why did the Democrats go for impeachment? An obvious answer is to throw enough mud in hopes that some of it sticks and reduces Trump’s reelection chances. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
That is a likely reason. Another reason that we don’t hear much about is that a number of prominant Democrats are under investigation by the Department of Justice for felonies committed in their orchestration of the Russiagate hoax. This investigation could easily produce indictments of such prominant Democrats as Hillary Clinton. Trump’s conviction in the Senate could stop indictments from the Barr-Durham investigation, but even a failed impeachment can be used as a shield against indictments. Democrats can claim that charges against them are just political payback for their impeachment of Trump.
Much of the public would believe it. With the country already split by Russiagate and the impeachment, indictments of Democrats would further spread disunity. Republicans are less inclined to encourage disunity than Democrats. I can hear many Republicans arguing that as impeachment failed, the party is well-positioned and should not split the country by indicting highly placed Democrats. In this way even a failed impeachment serves the Democrats.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts


lewrockwell--2020-01-24--Hillary Puts Bernie into Her Basket of Deplorables

“ Nobody likes him , nobody wants to work with him , he got nothing done .
He was a career politician.
” So says Hillary Clinton of her former Senate colleague and 2016 rival for the Democratic nomination , Bernie Sanders .
“ It ’ s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
” Does that assessment still hold with Sanders now running strong in Iowa , New Hampshire and Nevada , and having emerged , according to The New York Times , as “ the dominant liberal force in the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does , ” said Clinton , who left open the possibility she might not support Sanders if he became the nominee .
In her interview with The Hollywood Reporter to promote a documentary that premieres Saturday at the Sundance Film Festival , Clinton also tore into Bernie ’ s backers .
The Death of the West : ... Patrick J. Buchanan Check Amazon for Pricing .
“ It is not only him .
It ’ s the culture around him .
It ’ s his leadership team .
It ’ s his prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors , particularly the women , ” said Clinton .
“ It should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted ( he ) seems to be very much supporting it.
” From her own words , Clinton regards Sanders as a nasty man running a misogynistic campaign and a political phony whose achievements are nonexistent and who lacks the temperament to be president .
As Clinton describes Sanders , he seems to fit nicely into her Trumpian “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Clinton ’ s attack , The New York Times put it on Page 1 .
This comes one week after Elizabeth Warren , at the end of the last debate , confronted Sanders , who had denied ever telling her a woman could not win the presidency .
“ I think you just called me a liar on national TV , ” said Warren , twice .
Sanders assuredly had .
He then accused Warren of lying .
This is “ a part of a pattern , ” says Clinton , noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not qualified to be president .
What is Hillary up to ?
She is “ hellbent on stopping Sanders , ” says Obama strategist David Axelrod .
The bad blood between Bernie and two leading women in the Democratic Party calls to mind the battle between Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater , which did not end well for the Republican Party in 1964 .
While the eventual GOP nominee , Goldwater , lost in a 44-state landslide to Lyndon Johnson , the liberal Republican establishment that Rockefeller led would never again be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is difficult to see how this acrimony inside the Democratic Party — over the character , record , ideology and alleged sexism of Sen. Bernie Sanders — ends well for the Democrats .
Already , Bernie ’ s backers believe the DNC “ rigged ” the nomination in 2016 by feigning neutrality while secretly aiding Clinton .
If Sanders now fails in the first primaries and loses his last chance for the Democratic nomination because of the Clinton-Warren ’ s attacks , it is difficult to see how Bernie ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie backing Biden , the raison d ’ etre of the liberal-radical wing of the party to whom Sanders is a hero is that the Democratic establishment consistently sells out progressive values .
Sanders ’ crowd consists of true believers , a trademark of whom is militancy .
Such folks often prefer defeat behind a principled leader to victory for a corporatist Democrat they regard as the enemy within .
Churchill , Hitler , and ... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price : $ 9.48 Buy New $ 14.00 Assume Bernie defeats Warren in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then goes on to win the nomination .
Would women , a majority of whom vote Democratic , and who are indispensable to party victory , surge to the polls to install a president whom Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren describe as a sexist who ruined their own presidential hopes ?
Would Democratic women come out to vote for a candidate who was responsible , in two successive presidential elections , for keeping the glass ceiling firmly intact over the heads of the Democratic Party ’ s leading female candidates ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ten days before the Iowa caucuses , the great unifier of the Democratic Party remains Donald Trump .
But now , with Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada and South Carolina dead ahead , the Democrats ’ focus is becoming : Who should replace Trump ?
The rival claims of the constituent elements inside the party are rising to the fore .
And what they reveal is a Democratic Party that is a coalition of groups that seem to be dividing along the lines of ideology , politics , race , class and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic constituents in presidential elections : African Americans .
They are 13 % of the electorate but a fourth of the national Democratic vote .
Yet , of the six candidates for the nomination on stage in the last debate , not one was African American .
Not one was Hispanic or Asian .
Four were white men , and two were white women .
The lone outsider rising in the polls is another white man , a multibillionaire who is willing to spend a billion dollars to buy the presidential nomination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Shop all books by Pat Buchanan
“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician.” So says Hillary Clinton of her former Senate colleague and 2016 rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders.
Her assessment of Sanders’ populist-socialist agenda?
“It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
Does that assessment still hold with Sanders now running strong in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, and having emerged, according to The New York Times, as “the dominant liberal force in the 2020 race”?
“Yes, it does,” said Clinton, who left open the possibility she might not support Sanders if he became the nominee.
In her interview with The Hollywood Reporter to promote a documentary that premieres Saturday at the Sundance Film Festival, Clinton also tore into Bernie’s backers.
“It is not only him. It’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women,” said Clinton. “It should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted (he) seems to be very much supporting it.”
From her own words, Clinton regards Sanders as a nasty man running a misogynistic campaign and a political phony whose achievements are nonexistent and who lacks the temperament to be president.
As Clinton describes Sanders, he seems to fit nicely into her Trumpian “basket of deplorables.” Reflecting the significance of Clinton’s attack, The New York Times put it on Page 1.
This comes one week after Elizabeth Warren, at the end of the last debate, confronted Sanders, who had denied ever telling her a woman could not win the presidency.
“I think you just called me a liar on national TV,” said Warren, twice. Sanders assuredly had. He then accused Warren of lying.
This is “a part of a pattern,” says Clinton, noting that Sanders said in 2016 that she was not qualified to be president.
What is Hillary up to? She is “hellbent on stopping Sanders,” says Obama strategist David Axelrod.
The bad blood between Bernie and two leading women in the Democratic Party calls to mind the battle between Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater, which did not end well for the Republican Party in 1964.
While the eventual GOP nominee, Goldwater, lost in a 44-state landslide to Lyndon Johnson, the liberal Republican establishment that Rockefeller led would never again be able to nominate one of its own.
It is difficult to see how this acrimony inside the Democratic Party — over the character, record, ideology and alleged sexism of Sen. Bernie Sanders — ends well for the Democrats.
Already, Bernie’s backers believe the DNC “rigged” the nomination in 2016 by feigning neutrality while secretly aiding Clinton. If Sanders now fails in the first primaries and loses his last chance for the Democratic nomination because of the Clinton-Warren’s attacks, it is difficult to see how Bernie’s backers enthusiastically support Warren.
As for Bernie backing Biden, the raison d’etre of the liberal-radical wing of the party to whom Sanders is a hero is that the Democratic establishment consistently sells out progressive values.
Sanders’ crowd consists of true believers, a trademark of whom is militancy. Such folks often prefer defeat behind a principled leader to victory for a corporatist Democrat they regard as the enemy within. Churchill, Hitler, and... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $9.48 Buy New $14.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Assume Bernie defeats Warren in Iowa, bests Biden in New Hampshire, and then goes on to win the nomination. Would women, a majority of whom vote Democratic, and who are indispensable to party victory, surge to the polls to install a president whom Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren describe as a sexist who ruined their own presidential hopes?
Would Democratic women come out to vote for a candidate who was responsible, in two successive presidential elections, for keeping the glass ceiling firmly intact over the heads of the Democratic Party’s leading female candidates? Bernie has made some bad enemies.
Ten days before the Iowa caucuses, the great unifier of the Democratic Party remains Donald Trump. But now, with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina dead ahead, the Democrats’ focus is becoming: Who should replace Trump?
The rival claims of the constituent elements inside the party are rising to the fore. And what they reveal is a Democratic Party that is a coalition of groups that seem to be dividing along the lines of ideology, politics, race, class and culture.
Consider the most loyal of Democratic constituents in presidential elections: African Americans. They are 13% of the electorate but a fourth of the national Democratic vote.
Yet, of the six candidates for the nomination on stage in the last debate, not one was African American. Not one was Hispanic or Asian. Four were white men, and two were white women.
The lone outsider rising in the polls is another white man, a multibillionaire who is willing to spend a billion dollars to buy the presidential nomination of the party of the common man.
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan


lewrockwell--2020-01-24--Impeachment Week: It’s OK To Be Bored; Not OK To Be White

It ’ s weeks like this that make me wish I had a job and didn ’ t have to stay home watching TV .
With the impeachment nonsense dragging into its 56th month , I have some random observations , only a few of which have anything to do with impeachment .
1 ) As tempting as it must be for Republican senators to make a headlong rush to the TV cameras at the conclusion of the day ’ s festivities , they would be well advised to say this , and only this , each night : Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress did NOT address today : — Repairing our highways , bridges and border with a major infrastructure bill .
— Ensuring that all Americans can get jobs by cutting off the deluge of cheap foreign labor .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 — Fixing the disaster of Obamacare , so that all Americans have access to quality health care ( by activating the same mechanisms that give them quality food , housing and iPhones : the free market , contract law and occasional government subsidies ) .
— @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointless , expensive military deployments around the globe , so we can FINALLY address the hellfires in our own hemisphere .
— Ending the opioid crisis by declaring war on Mexican drug cartels and building a wall .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should attach electrodes to the testicles of every Republican and blast him the moment he ( OR SHE ! )
diverges from the script .
2 ) The person I really feel sorry for is Nancy Pelosi .
I assume she ’ s weeping uncontrollably as she watches her chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerry Nadler waddles to the mic .
3 ) Every day since forever , The New York Times has run a column about how white people are getting on African Americans ’ last nerve .
On Monday of this week , it was “ How Much Racism Do You Face Every Day ?
”

It’s weeks like this that make me wish I had a job and didn’t have to stay home watching TV. With the impeachment nonsense dragging into its 56th month, I have some random observations, only a few of which have anything to do with impeachment.
1) As tempting as it must be for Republican senators to make a headlong rush to the TV cameras at the conclusion of the day’s festivities, they would be well advised to say this, and only this, each night:
Here are the vital issues the United States Congress did NOT address today:
— Repairing our highways, bridges and border with a major infrastructure bill.
— Ensuring that all Americans can get jobs by cutting off the deluge of cheap foreign labor. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
— Providing the public with quality services by not inviting the rest of the world to come partake of government benefits meant for Americans.
— Fixing the disaster of Obamacare, so that all Americans have access to quality health care (by activating the same mechanisms that give them quality food, housing and iPhones: the free market, contract law and occasional government subsidies).
— Passing a bill to defund all the pointless, expensive military deployments around the globe, so we can FINALLY address the hellfires in our own hemisphere.
— Ending the opioid crisis by declaring war on Mexican drug cartels and building a wall.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should attach electrodes to the testicles of every Republican and blast him the moment he (OR SHE!) diverges from the script.
2) The person I really feel sorry for is Nancy Pelosi. I assume she’s weeping uncontrollably as she watches her chances of holding the speakership dwindle every time Jerry Nadler waddles to the mic.
True, you “go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want,” as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.
3) Every day since forever, The New York Times has run a column about how white people are getting on African Americans’ last nerve.
On Monday of this week, it was “How Much Racism Do You Face Every Day?”
Average for black teenager: 5x a day.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-24--On MLK Day 2020: The Mythmaking Continued…on Steroids

The following excerpts summarize what he added and illustrate the point that , despite his claims about being a friend of Dr. King , their paths only crossed for the purpose of collaborating on Huie ’ s book .
No “ friend ” would betray the other as Huie did , in framing James Earl Ray — allowing the real culprits to remain free — then attempting to rationalize King ’ s murder as he did in the new epilogue of the reissued book , with the dozens of lies still intact : I was a friend of Reverend King @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We first met in 1956 .
In May , 1965 , less than three years before his death , he wrote an introduction to my book Three Lives for Mississippi .
Our names appeared together on that book in every major language .
The book was published in the United States by the New York Herald Tribune and was serialized by the Herald Tribune , the Chicago Sun-Times , and about forty other newspapers belonging to the Herald Tribune Syndicate .
[ .
.
. ]
When Reverend King was murdered , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as the reporter whom he admired .
.
.
that I paid Ray and his lawyers $ 40,000 on their promise to help me to establish the truth [ sic ] .
I carried out my contract with Ray to the letter [ sic ] .
And he , at first , tried to give me what he had promised .
Then he began lying , and I proved to him that he was lying .
And despite his lies , I established and published the truth in 1968-70 [ sic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] .
Now , because Americans .
.
.
particularly young Americans .
.
.
need the truth to save themselves from being hoodwinked [ sic – ibid ] , I have added this prologue and reissued He Slew the Dreamer .
I have also added an epilogue which refutes the more recent lies being told mostly for the profit of the liars [ sic – ibid. ]
.
Who is “ hoodwinking ” whom ?
He must have been very frightened that his own numerous lies might be exposed if the HSCA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to republish his book with even more deceitful bluster was intended to help prevent that outcome .
[ 1 ] The “ lies ” he accused Ray of ( mostly to protect others who had assisted him in his escape from prison or during his travels through Canada , the U.S. and Mexico ; others were in response to information that Ray had told his attorney , which he considered confidential , that was leaked to Huie ) were nothing compared to the scurrilous deceits Huie was writing — and the cover-up plot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The following rather insightful excerpts come from the new “ Epilogue ” : Of all the men in America , Hoover was the one least likely to be tolerant of Reverend King ’ s sexual content .
In addition to being anti-Negro , Hoover considered himself to be a devout Christian .
Apparently he was a celibate and he may have been a latent homosexual .
So a black reverend troublemaker receiving the Nobel Peace Prize while practicing adultry .
.
.
this was enough to drive Hoover up the wall !
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reverend King to the point where he suggested that he kill himself , why didn ’ t Hoover have him killed ?
Especially since having him killed would have been easy ?
[ .
.
. ]
Why didn ’ t Hoover have him killed ?
The only reasonable answer is that Hoover was not a murderer .
Whatever he was and whatever illegal actions he may have arranged at presidential direction , none of his detractors has produced evidence , or even suggested prior to 1977 , that Hoover ever arranged the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he arranged the death of Reverend King at a time when police and press were watching .
.
.
and that he employed an unreliable escaped convict as trigger man .
.
.
this is to suggest that Hoover was stupid as well as vindictive ( Emphasis added ] .
[ After recounting some of Dr. King ’ s partying incidents , he continued : ] But considering his obscenity and profanity in Bimini , isn ’ t it possible he had lost his faith .
.
.
that he , too [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had concluded that he didn ’ t believe anything .
.
.
and that what he was expressing was a death wish ?
Isn ’ t it possible that as he stood there on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel , asking a singer to sing “ Precious Lord , Take My Hand and Lead Me Home , ” he was welcoming what Jame Earl Ray was preparing to give him from the dirty bathroom in Bessie Brewer ’ s flophouse ?
With a “ friend ” like William Bradford Huie , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these words he completed the circle of betrayal he had begun when he set forth on his mission to frame James Earl Ray .
His tacit acknowledgement that Hoover had merely been following “ presidential direction ” all along ( in various and sundry “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” ) further tightened that circle .
But it was within the last paragraphs of that epilogue which revealed his ultimate betrayal : They can , and should , be interpreted as unambiguous assertions , not only that Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but indirectly justifying ( explicitly to the reader and implicitly to himself ) his own actions in facilitating the cover-up , thus the crime itself .
It was the ultimate perfidy that exposed his own duplicity : In self-righteously , judgmentally , condemning Dr. King for his personal behaviors , he rationalized the need for King to be murdered .
In his own novelist-oriented mindset , he explained to the American public why they , too , needed to accept the notion that King ’ s murder was a “ justified kill @ @

Civil Rights Leaders Memorialize Martin Luther King’s Birthday Last Year
Given the known fact that many current-day leaders of the civil rights campaign harbor doubts (while some have no doubts as to the proven fallacies) about the “official” story, they must have conflicted thoughts as to their participation in the twice-annual memorials to his life and legendary accomplishments. Does the desire to honor his legacy at the site where he was killed connote an implicit acceptance of the mythology about how he became a martyr? Other newspapers from across the country and around the world will also deal with this “disconnect” one way or another.
Deconstructing the Official Mythology: Starting With the Original Sources
It is safe to say that the vast majority will choose the easy course: to repeat the “same old” story originally concocted by the novelist William Bradford Huie in his three articles published in Look magazine in 1968-69 and his 1970 book He Slew the Dreamer (though originally “He” was supposed to be “They”, a canard he used to solicit the cooperation of the subject of his book: the accused assassin James Earl Ray).
Who REALLY Killed Mart... Nelson, Phillip F. Best Price: $17.34 Buy New $15.43 (as of 10:02 UTC - Details) But Huie’s story was clearly commissioned by the FBI, in advance, as a means to convince an entire nation that Ray was the assassin, in the process casting him just as the assassin’s profile described him: “An uneducated, poor, southern White man, who hated Blacks and Martin Luther King especially; who stalked Dr. King for weeks before murdering him in Memphis.” Huie, following Hoover’s directive, succeeded in creating this meme despite the fact that, according to many credible people including Dr. King’s own family and several associates, Ray was not a racist, nor did he hate or stalk King. Even the HSCA found that Ray was not a racist, one of the only accomplishments of that corrupted “investigation.”
In my book Who Really Killed Martin Luther King Jr. — The Case Against Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, I have proven that Huie’s book (used by the FBI, DOJ and the HSCA to support their faux “investigations”) is filled with brazen lies, half-truths and concocted “events” that never happened. It is the sum total of this irrefutable evidence that proves Huie’s mission was defined for him by the men (Hoover, Tolson, DeLoach and Sullivan) and entity (FBI) from whom he obviously got his orders.
There is no other realistic and plausible explanation for why Huie did what he did: What else could possibly explain why he went out of his way to concoct a story that was built on a foundation of now-provable lies? (thanks to the internet, which makes once extremely difficult access to old newspapers and previously-classified FBI and HSCA documents now readily accessible).
And after Huie’s story was published in book form in 1970, he still wasn’t done. In 1977, after the Church Committee’s report came out in 1975-76 chronicling the FBI’s outrageous harassment of Dr. King for decades before his assassination — when many people, especially Blacks, began suspecting a continuing FBI role in his final “neutralization” — Huie republished the book under a new title: Did the FBI Kill Martin Luther King? The chapters were not changed, but he added a new introduction and epilogue.
Between the original and later editions of Huie’s book, two other FBI-commissioned books, recycling and adding to his lies, were published (Gerold Frank’s An American Death . . ., and George McMillan’s The Making of an Assassin . . . ), all of which became the foundation for — and the “bibles” quoted by the HSCA and the national media — the official version of what has been exposed as another “great” American Myth.
Since then, in practically every decade, new offerings have joined those fictional accounts, including those by Gerald Posner, Hamilton Sides, Pate McMichael, Larry Hancock and Stuart Wexler, (and numerous others of lesser note). Each of them add more fodder to the now-severely addled official story that almost no one believes, but many accept merely because it is so often repeated — and relentlessly pushed by the MSM — as per the aphorism by Joseph Goebbels about lies eventually becoming “truths.”
MLK to his “Friend” (From the Grave): Et tu, Bradford?
Huie’s repackaged original book, with a new Introduction and Epilogue intended to refute the swirling scuttlebutt — and head off the fear that it might evolve into “urban legend” — of public animus towards the FBI that had been triggered by the 1975-76 Church Committee’s revelations (and retitled to encourage previous purchasers to buy it again).
The following excerpts summarize what he added and illustrate the point that, despite his claims about being a friend of Dr. King, their paths only crossed for the purpose of collaborating on Huie’s book. No “friend” would betray the other as Huie did, in framing James Earl Ray — allowing the real culprits to remain free — then attempting to rationalize King’s murder as he did in the new epilogue of the reissued book, with the dozens of lies still intact:
I was a friend of Reverend King, and he was my friend. We first met in 1956. In May, 1965, less than three years before his death, he wrote an introduction to my book Three Lives for Mississippi. Our names appeared together on that book in every major language. The book was published in the United States by the New York Herald Tribune and was serialized by the Herald Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and about forty other newspapers belonging to the Herald Tribune Syndicate. [ . . . ] When Reverend King was murdered, it was as his friend . . . and as the reporter whom he admired . . . that I paid Ray and his lawyers $40,000 on their promise to help me to establish the truth [sic]. I carried out my contract with Ray to the letter [sic]. And he, at first, tried to give me what he had promised. Then he began lying, and I proved to him that he was lying. And despite his lies, I established and published the truth in 1968-70 [sic, sic and sic — see note below]. Now, because Americans . . . particularly young Americans . . . need the truth to save themselves from being hoodwinked [sic – ibid], I have added this prologue and reissued He Slew the Dreamer. I have also added an epilogue which refutes the more recent lies being told mostly for the profit of the liars [sic – ibid.].
Who is “hoodwinking” whom? He must have been very frightened that his own numerous lies might be exposed if the HSCA investigation was aggressively pursued and his decision to republish his book with even more deceitful bluster was intended to help prevent that outcome. [1]
The “lies” he accused Ray of (mostly to protect others who had assisted him in his escape from prison or during his travels through Canada, the U.S. and Mexico; others were in response to information that Ray had told his attorney, which he considered confidential, that was leaked to Huie) were nothing compared to the scurrilous deceits Huie was writing — and the cover-up plot he was executing — about Ray.
The following rather insightful excerpts come from the new “Epilogue”:
Of all the men in America, Hoover was the one least likely to be tolerant of Reverend King’s sexual content. In addition to being anti-Negro, Hoover considered himself to be a devout Christian. Apparently he was a celibate and he may have been a latent homosexual. So a black reverend troublemaker receiving the Nobel Peace Prize while practicing adultry . . . this was enough to drive Hoover up the wall! Then the question becomes: since Hoover despised Reverend King to the point where he suggested that he kill himself, why didn’t Hoover have him killed? Especially since having him killed would have been easy? [ . . . ] Why didn’t Hoover have him killed? The only reasonable answer is that Hoover was not a murderer. Whatever he was and whatever illegal actions he may have arranged at presidential direction, none of his detractors has produced evidence, or even suggested prior to 1977, that Hoover ever arranged the death of anyone. To suggest that he arranged the death of Reverend King at a time when police and press were watching . . . and that he employed an unreliable escaped convict as trigger man . . . this is to suggest that Hoover was stupid as well as vindictive (Emphasis added]. [After recounting some of Dr. King’s partying incidents, he continued:] But considering his obscenity and profanity in Bimini, isn’t it possible he had lost his faith . . . that he, too [like Adam Clayton Powell Jr.], had concluded that he didn’t believe anything . . . and that what he was expressing was a death wish? Isn’t it possible that as he stood there on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, asking a singer to sing “Precious Lord, Take My Hand and Lead Me Home,” he was welcoming what Jame Earl Ray was preparing to give him from the dirty bathroom in Bessie Brewer’s flophouse?
With a “friend” like William Bradford Huie, Dr. King certainly needed no enemies. With these words he completed the circle of betrayal he had begun when he set forth on his mission to frame James Earl Ray. His tacit acknowledgement that Hoover had merely been following “presidential direction” all along (in various and sundry “high crimes and misdemeanors”) further tightened that circle.
But it was within the last paragraphs of that epilogue which revealed his ultimate betrayal: They can, and should, be interpreted as unambiguous assertions, not only that Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to die at an assassin’s hand, but indirectly justifying (explicitly to the reader and implicitly to himself) his own actions in facilitating the cover-up, thus the crime itself.
It was the ultimate perfidy that exposed his own duplicity: In self-righteously, judgmentally, condemning Dr. King for his personal behaviors, he rationalized the need for King to be murdered. In his own novelist-oriented mindset, he explained to the American public why they, too, needed to accept the notion that King’s murder was a “justified kill.”
Endnotes:
[1] However, he needn’t have worried about that, since many other people were put to work to derail the possibility that the HSCA “investigation” would be effective, including getting congressional leaders to fire the original (agressive and determined) director and his staff, then replacing them with people willing to conduct a much more passive and “token” review of the previous (i.e. “tainted”) FBI investigation. The new director, Robert Blakey, made few real attempts to discover truths and allowed the CIA and FBI to manipulate the direction and dampen the resolve of the committee members and staff. In fact, much of their work consisted of trying to prove Ray acquired his funding from bank robberies that the local authorities had already eliminated both James and his brothers as suspects.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
The Best of Phillip F. Nelson


A Frustrating Book

Return of the Strong Gods : Nationalism , Populism , and the Future of the West , R. R. Reno If I could apply only one word to my feelings while reading this book , it would be “ frustrating.
” Reno does a reasonably good job of describing the current situation in the West – the dissolving society , the loss of meaning , the ever-increasing extremisms that come with the ever-increasing fragmentation and individualism found in society .
Reno does a less than adequate job of pointing to the causes , looking at the root during a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and known to be lost by many thinkers many years before .
He does an even worse job of parsing out the benefits of voluntary and free actions when compared to the purposeful , planned destruction of societal norms .
A few examples of his insight to the current situation with which I agree – demonstrating a little healthy bite along the way : Return of the Strong G ... R. R. Reno Best Price : $ 15.95 Buy New $ 19.25 He finds the roots of this destruction in the post-war period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even post-World War I ; Reno ’ s focus is post-World War II and the work of Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek ( among a few others ) : And in this one statement , many of my frustrations with Reno ’ s work are brought to the fore .
Let ’ s start with the timing : World War II marked the end of a thirty-year war that represented , according to Jacques Barzun , the suicide of the West .
The suicide can be dated to the summer of 1914 – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point : the assassination of the Archduke , the shelling of Belgrade by Austria-Hungary , the Russian mobilization , or the German declaration of war .
Of course , none of these were accidental occurrences : many leaders of the West were planning for – and even hoping for – this war .
Yet suicide doesn ’ t just happen in a day – one doesn ’ t just wake up one morning and think “ today is the day.
” Suicide is the culmination of many years of sickness , illness , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this sickness in The Cost of the Enlightenment , pointing to the cost of reason and individualism without God .
To point to the philosophies that came after World War II is to point to the fruit of the tree and not the root of the tree .
That there has been a destruction of cultural norms , there is no doubt .
This has been by design .
Reno gives strong evidence connecting this to the thought of Popper , and one can certainly see this through the fruit of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reno also points to libertarianism as a culprit , although libertarianism as properly understood – not as popularly advertised by ( so-called ) friends and enemies alike – has nothing to say on such matters .
Lew Rockwell has made this quite clear in his recent book Against the Left : A Rothbardian Libertarianism , when he writes : There is no libertarian goal to mold people to some ideology ; it does not view the family as an enemy – in fact , it finds in the family the foundation for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , a number of so-called libertarians ignore these essential points.
” Returning to Reno : here again , one can point to the effects of World War One , and the cultural destruction that was a result of that war .
As Ajamian offered : Further , it is difficult to comment on the cultural destruction of the West without at least mentioning Antonio Gramsci .
He was the one to point to the necessity of destroying the culture of the West if communism was to advance – in other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never violently unite against their proletarian neighbors .
Second , comparing the cultural deregulation to the market deregulation since that time : WHAT MARKET DEREGULATION ?
OK , now that I got my yelling out of the way… : the federal register only grows , it doesn ’ t shrink .
To the extent that there is growing frustration in the masses toward “ the market , ” the roots of it can be found in central banking and government bailouts , not in any non-existent “ deregulation.
” Look at any chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrase , but can ’ t think of a better one right now ) : the lines bend significantly to the favor of the wealthy beginning in the early 1970s – perfectly coincident with Nixon ’ s closing of the gold window , thereby freeing the Fed from any last hint of monetary discipline .
Yet it isn ’ t just coincidence , it is also correlation : those connected to the state and the central bank get first access to this fiat .
To develop this further is beyond my purpose in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : recall the anger in the broad population in 2008 when the government bailed out the banks , passed TARP , etc .
Something like 90 % -plus of the letters and calls into congress were against these actions .
And you know the history : they were bailed out and the rich got unfairly richer – this followed by ( the healthy manifestation of ) The Tea Party , the sit-ins against Wall Street , etc .
Don ’ t tell me about market deregulation .
It is a tired argument offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider the reality of government intervention in the market .
Enough of my venting of frustration .
I do agree with Reno regarding the atomization of society , the loss of cultural norms , the necessity of transcendent and metaphysical values .
Unlike Reno ’ s portrayal , there are proponents of this to be found in the free-market and libertarian community .
As I mentioned before , Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard wrote often enough about this reality and the necessity of tradition , family , and community when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post on this book , I will examine Reno ’ s prescription for a cure – within the context of his diagnosis and compared to my diagnosis and prescription .
The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West, R. R. Reno
If I could apply only one word to my feelings while reading this book, it would be “frustrating.” Reno does a reasonably good job of describing the current situation in the West – the dissolving society, the loss of meaning, the ever-increasing extremisms that come with the ever-increasing fragmentation and individualism found in society.
Reno does a less than adequate job of pointing to the causes, looking at the root during a time when the West was already lost, and known to be lost by many thinkers many years before. He does an even worse job of parsing out the benefits of voluntary and free actions when compared to the purposeful, planned destruction of societal norms.
A few examples of his insight to the current situation with which I agree – demonstrating a little healthy bite along the way: Return of the Strong G... R. R. Reno Best Price: $15.95 Buy New $19.25 (as of 09:53 UTC - Details)
… it is a sign of nuance when a member of our chattering class compares Trump to the Spanish strongman Francisco Franco rather than to Hitler. … A uniquely Western anti-Western multiculturalism deprives people of their cultural inheritance. … Borders are porous, even the one that separates men from women.
He finds the roots of this destruction in the post-war period – not post the French Revolution or even post-World War I; Reno’s focus is post-World War II and the work of Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek (among a few others):
…the postwar left fixed its attention on moral freedom and cultural deregulation, seeing them as natural extensions of the antiauthoritarian imperative, while the postwar right focused on economic freedom and market deregulation for similar anti-totalitarian reasons.
And in this one statement, many of my frustrations with Reno’s work are brought to the fore.
Let’s start with the timing: World War II marked the end of a thirty-year war that represented, according to Jacques Barzun, the suicide of the West. The suicide can be dated to the summer of 1914 – and you can choose your own starting point: the assassination of the Archduke, the shelling of Belgrade by Austria-Hungary, the Russian mobilization, or the German declaration of war. Of course, none of these were accidental occurrences: many leaders of the West were planning for – and even hoping for – this war.
Yet suicide doesn’t just happen in a day – one doesn’t just wake up one morning and think “today is the day.” Suicide is the culmination of many years of sickness, illness, tragedy. Daniel Ajamian examined the roots of this sickness in The Cost of the Enlightenment, pointing to the cost of reason and individualism without God. To point to the philosophies that came after World War II is to point to the fruit of the tree and not the root of the tree.
That there has been a destruction of cultural norms, there is no doubt. This has been by design. Reno gives strong evidence connecting this to the thought of Popper, and one can certainly see this through the fruit of his very wealthy follower, George Soros.
Reno also points to libertarianism as a culprit, although libertarianism as properly understood – not as popularly advertised by (so-called) friends and enemies alike – has nothing to say on such matters. Lew Rockwell has made this quite clear in his recent book Against the Left: A Rothbardian Libertarianism, when he writes:
If we get rid of the State – and that is a big if – we have accomplished our goal as libertarians.
There is no libertarian goal to mold people to some ideology; it does not view the family as an enemy – in fact, it finds in the family the foundation for a decent society. Rockwell suggests: “Unfortunately, a number of so-called libertarians ignore these essential points.”
Returning to Reno: here again, one can point to the effects of World War One, and the cultural destruction that was a result of that war. As Ajamian offered:
…family life broken, careers ended, government allowance in the place of productive work, and a tide of egalitarianism; in other words, the perfect cultural soil for the expansion of monopoly state power.
Further, it is difficult to comment on the cultural destruction of the West without at least mentioning Antonio Gramsci. He was the one to point to the necessity of destroying the culture of the West if communism was to advance – in other words, the workers of the western world would never violently unite against their proletarian neighbors.
Second, comparing the cultural deregulation to the market deregulation since that time: WHAT MARKET DEREGULATION? OK, now that I got my yelling out of the way…: the federal register only grows, it doesn’t shrink. To the extent that there is growing frustration in the masses toward “the market,” the roots of it can be found in central banking and government bailouts, not in any non-existent “deregulation.”
Look at any chart on wealth inequality (I hate the phrase, but can’t think of a better one right now): the lines bend significantly to the favor of the wealthy beginning in the early 1970s – perfectly coincident with Nixon’s closing of the gold window, thereby freeing the Fed from any last hint of monetary discipline.
Yet it isn’t just coincidence, it is also correlation: those connected to the state and the central bank get first access to this fiat. To develop this further is beyond my purpose in this review.
As to government bailouts: recall the anger in the broad population in 2008 when the government bailed out the banks, passed TARP, etc. Something like 90%-plus of the letters and calls into congress were against these actions. And you know the history: they were bailed out and the rich got unfairly richer – this followed by (the healthy manifestation of) The Tea Party, the sit-ins against Wall Street, etc.
Don’t tell me about market deregulation. It is a tired argument offered by those ignorant of or unwilling to consider the reality of government intervention in the market.
Conclusion
Enough of my venting of frustration. I do agree with Reno regarding the atomization of society, the loss of cultural norms, the necessity of transcendent and metaphysical values. Unlike Reno’s portrayal, there are proponents of this to be found in the free-market and libertarian community. As I mentioned before, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard wrote often enough about this reality and the necessity of tradition, family, and community when it comes to human liberty.
In my next post on this book, I will examine Reno’s prescription for a cure – within the context of his diagnosis and compared to my diagnosis and prescription.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
The Best of Bionic Mosquito