Digital currency is certainly one of the wonders of the usury universe.
When securing a Gov- backed home loan you are borrowing your own
money since you are told all your life that it’s your Government.

The money is created digitally or “magically” as you say, and the Gov
could loan it to you without interest, as the collateral for the loan is the
house itself, but that would offend the bankers who control the Gov
and determine policy.

Consequently, the money is routed through a bank or mortgage company
and they have the privilege of loaning you the money at an interest rate
chosen by the Federal Reserve. The home buyer is privileged to pay back
the loan over 30 years, and will pay off two or three times the original
cost of the house, depending on the interest rate.

The banks’ only cost is likely a few hours clerical and processing labor, and
a minimal time spent bundling and selling a package of loans to investors.
The house buyer, also identified as the debt-slave, can only break even if the
house value appreciates enough to equal the usury.

I apologize for spelling your name wrong.

From your original comment, copied verbatim: “NONE of the politicians represent me and they certainly do NOT speak for me.”

None. As in, not one. Not one politician represents you nor do they speak for you. Pretty plain, yet now you are qualifying that by saying that no current AND federal politician fits that description. What about current state politicians? Do they or do they not represent you? Did past politicians represent you? What about future ones? You’ve already told us that county employees and elected officials (local politicians and bureaucrats) represent you because you vote in county elections.

This appears to be a sliding scale in which you have decided that up to a certain point, politicians represent you but after that, they don’t. Can you explain your reasoning in producing such a postulation? What is the cutoff point? Where do you draw the line? How did you arrive at that?

It appears to be inconsistent and untenable to me.

“Nor is it to excoriate her for having once been a subscriber to the Birdman’s Weekly Letter, and then, after a few issues, blocking my mail to her.”

Ahhhhh, now we get to the real heart of the matter, that is, your outburst stems from an attitude of pique because she quit reading your postings after only a few issues. In other words, she decided that what you wrote wasn’t worth her time and you resent her for that. To be honest, after reading your lengthy diatribe here, I would probably not even bother to consider subscribing.

I do not consider myself a libertarian, but I must admit that, according to your description, if I was, I would be a “stupid” one. I am perfectly OK in my own skin holding to my own beliefs, many of which you have laid out in detail. I do not need to explain further.

“For example, one can use lies, illusions or other stratagems to ‘force’ someone to do something he would otherwise never do; and while such an act would not be judged as ‘using force’ by stupid libertarians, it is nonetheless unethical.

Unethical, yes. Absolutely. I agree. However, I would not call it force, but theft, because it is taking something away from a person who is not willing to give it up. I addressed this issue in a recent blog post, “Theft by Any Other Name”, in which I made this statement. You can find it by clicking the link at the top.

“Theft, boiled down to its essence, is the act of taking something by one person (group of persons) which rightfully belongs to somebody else, without their consent. If you want something which is not yours and you take it, even if the rightful owner does not want to give it up, then you are a thief. It does not matter what is taken, if it is taken against the will of the owner, then it is theft. It does not matter whether the item in question is real, monetary, intellectual, psychological, or sexual. A schoolgirl’s gossip which destroys the reputation of a classmate is just as much an act of theft as a street gang extorting cash from a terrified pedestrian, the dispossession of the world’s poor by genteel, suave members of a multi-national bank sitting in a C-suite boardroom, or the mulcting of citizens by governments through taxation.”

In the end, it does not matter whether one is a “thick” or “thin” libertarian, a “smart” or “stupid” one, or even a libertarian at all. The only thing which matters is that we do not use our power and “authority” to take anything from someone else which they are not willing to give up. Every sin, every wrong, can be boiled down to one thing: theft–whether it is on a grand scale or close to home. We can choose within ourselves to abandon this practice by treating others with the respect and dignity they have been given because they are human beings created in the Image of God.

Thou shalt not steal! This applies to far more than property and our world would be far better off if more people would recognize it.

“…NONE of them speak for me and NONE of them “represent” me.”

Mr. Andro, are you a voter? Do you vote to choose a “leader” who WILL represent you in Washington or your state capitol? The only way you can be honest in saying that none of them speak for you and none of them represent you is to refuse to vote for any of them. Any of them, all the way from the president down to the local dog-catcher.

I have not voted since 2004 and will never vote again. I can truly say that they do not represent me. Can you?

Voting is nothing more than choosing whose hand holds the club with which you are beaten. It does nothing to stop the beatings.

most cops are decent people

Most cops are people that left school as dumb as when they entered. They have no identifiable skill set so seek out policing or military that many times leads to policing as a way to survive by being the Judas in the society. How many scientists, engineers, doctors, plumbers, electricians, etc decide to ditch their skills to harass the citizenry for made up crimes? It takes a real looser to decide to make his life’s work the use of force while denying the use of force to the average person.

Think this through for yourself. The legislatures invent laws out of nothing. The cops ‘enforce’ those laws with no regard for their effect on the society or efficacy; they are brain dead order followers, just like the military.

The entire criminal justice system is designed to transfer wealth from the working population to the controllers and cops are the first line of the fraud. Here’s how the scam works. Laws are written so that self defense is denied to average people obviously counter to the 2nd amendment. Cop unions are all in on keeping the population defenseless so they can fraudulently claim that the cops are defending the citizenry. If everyone was armed and dangerous, the criminal population would get buried, not coddled in prison. There would be no need for useless street cops. I make the distinction between street cops and investigators, forensics people, etc that are actually needed, but even they are only needed because the laws are designed to make everyone a waiting victim because the criminals know, with a high degree of certainty, that their target is unarmed and defenseless thanks to ‘law’.

Street cops can not possibly protect the population for the simple reason that they aren’t next to the victim when a criminal decides to strike. They show up after the fact with a clipboard to file some paperwork. Should they apprehend a criminal, the system will release him to commit more crimes; a revolving door. While all this is going on, cops get tremendous salaries and benefits. Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, parole officers, guards, wardens, for profit prisons, etc all make a ton of money by not protecting the citizenry from the criminal element. Crime becomes background noise that everyone expects because the whole system is corrupt.

The money is made by not protecting the citizenry. The slogan on many police cars is something to the effect of ‘To Protect and To Serve’, a blatant lie. These squad cars are used to harass the driving public for the made up crimes of speeding, coasting through a stop sign and other ‘offenses’ that can’t identify a victim either a person or property damage. The intent is to invent crimes for profit.

The drug laws have been around since 1971. The prisons were full of pot smokers, mostly black, and today there are pot corporations and the gov’t gets tremendous income from them. The pot laws were and are wrong, as are all ‘drug laws’ since they were invented to criminalize personal vice. There were already sufficient laws against theft, burglary, etc. Smoking pot, snorting cocaine, shooting heroin hurts no one but the person stupid enough to use drugs. The reason the drug laws exist is to further control the population and transfer wealth, nothing more.

When push comes to shove, new laws will be written to collect the guns from the citizenry and the brain dead cops will follow orders. That’s who you are defending.

Anarcho-Capitalists would say it is never morally justified to initiate violence or the threat of violence against the innocent. When people hear this, they think well, of course. But they don’t actually believe it because that would mean that you can’t have one group of people calling themselves the government, telling all the other people, We are going to take this percent of your income this year, and if you don’t agree to it, we are going to put you in jail. If you resist sufficiently, we are going to kill you. In fact, if you resist sufficiently paying a parking ticket, we reserve the right to kill you. If you sufficiently resist paying your library fine, we reserve the right to kill you.
Lew Rockwell

Rockaboatus wrote a factually correct article that didn’t try to hide the criminal intent of the gov’t. This should be obvious to everyone but it apparently is not.

The part missing is how those that support the criminals in gov’t hide behind ‘I’m just doing my job’ and other rationalizations for moral corruption. No one should work for any branch of gov’t since doing so is helping keep that mafia alive. Real honest services should be run by the private sector.

Policing, in particular, is one gigantic swindle. They protect and serve those that sign their paycheck. They prey upon the citizenry using the ridiculous laws passed by the professional criminal class as an excuse. YouTube is full of videos that show cops completely out of control.

Watching videos that come out of China clearly shows that what they need is weaponry in the hands of the citizenry to shoot their cops. That place is going to explode soon. Once the US economy really takes a hit is when the Fed Gov will largely mimic the tactics China is facing now. The difference is that the US citizenry is well armed.

“We have no one to blame but ourselves. In the end, we get the kind of leaders we deserve.”

This has been before and will be again.

First Samuel 8 lays it out in excruciating detail what happens when people allow tyrannical rulers and refuse to take responsibility for themselves. It also forecasts the future.

“And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

We, the People. Puffed up, arrogant, demanding. We can have anything we want because we have chosen it for ourselves in a democratic fashion in which everyone can say what the truth is and whichever version garners the most votes, wins.

We, the People. Creators of the government we have today. We never learn. In just a few short months, we will go to the polls to determine whether Trump or Biden will represent us, never considering that both are in the same camp as those who want to make slaves out of all of us.

We, the People. Constantly crying out for more, more, more, with all of it being paid for either with funny money or someone else footing the bill. We never think about what that is doing to our own well-being.

We, the People. Set up as the sovereign ruler, yet never acknowledging that we have tried to displace the One True Sovereign, God, Who simply laughs at our feeble efforts. (Psalm 2)

“Will the American people wake up? It would be nice to think so, but I suspect they will do so only after they have lost all their modern comforts, pensions, 401k savings, their homes, and are driven into extreme poverty. Hardship and adversity have a way of sobering us up. They will awaken from their slumber only when it’s too late. Even though the signs of national decline were evident many years prior, most Americans are unable to discern that the U.S. is a dying empire and will reach its end as all empires throughout history have done.”

I agree. All that we are concerned with is our paycheck, our stock market profits, our social standing, our comfortable lifestyle. Yet, in the end, all that is meaningless and will count for nothing IF we do nothing at all to speak out about the evil which threatens to destroy us all.

Stand up, speak out, be noticed! Be prepared to lose what you have for the sake of the truth. It is not yours anyway, but has simply been entrusted to your care and can be taken away from you at a moment’s notice.

It’s more likely, I suspect, that the Vietnam War was about JFK and then LBJ demonstrating to the US electorate that they were not “soft on communism”.

if those nukes are used, Israel will reciprocate in an incredibly nasty way

If those nukes are used there won’t be an Israel to reciprocate.

“Israel wanted Gaza. They may not even keep Israel.”

Not bad, Ted. Now all we have to do is wait to see if your analysis proves to be true. I strongly hope that it does.

I do not dispute your assertion or history. Where there’s smoke, there’s (generally) fire, which means that the Roma would not have become known as “gypsies, tramps, and thieves” unless there was some base for the belief.

What I contend is that their criminality has always been steady. People who deal with them know what they are getting. The recent spike in criminal behavior, then, must arise from a different source and, in searching for that source, we find there is only one variable–the very recent introduction into Europe of millions of people, young unmarried men particularly, from Africa and the Arab countries of the Middle East.

“Anyone who has been to Paris lately has seen the ethnic composition of the city change from European to African and Mideastern. Immigration has brought waves of crime and street violence. Criminals – pickpockets, purse snatchers, burglars, beggars – infest all of southern Europe. The Riviera has become crime ridden. Gypsies (also known as Roma) are high on the criminality list. Many Roma hail from Romania. Police can’t do much about their thievery because of lingering wartime guilt and because many criminals are under 16.”

One problem with this bit of “guilt by association” is that the country of Romania is not African nor middle-Eastern. It is, in fact, solidly European and, as far as I know, always has been. It should not have been introduced into the argument at all and probably would not have been except for the close similarity between the words “Roma” and “Romania”. Actually, the Roma or Romani people originated in northern India and migrated to Europe a thousand or more years ago where they have lived ever since. They are Europeans, plain and simple, and have large numbers in many other countries of Europe.

Are the police in Paris hobbled by “lingering wartime guilt” and not able to “do much about their thievery” because of it? I find this really strange as I was not aware that Parisians or those from the Riviera had any “wartime guilt” at all, lingering or otherwise. I presume that the author is referring to the Second World War, but where is the evidence that the French live in a state of negative emotional trauma due to their part in said war? The Germans, yes, I can understand that because they have had their collective face rubbed in the stinking shit for the last 75 years, but the French? And because they are “guilt-ridden” by the memory of past events, they find themselves unable to do anything at all about an explosive burst of criminal activity which is occurring now due to a massive influx of people, not from Romania, but from Africa and middle-Eastern countries?

This is not to excuse the Roma. They carry the stigma and name of being thieves (maybe true, maybe not) but that has been known for a long, long time. While they may be “gypsies, tramps, and thieves” and may very well be part of this criminal activity, the blame for the current spike should not be laid at their feet.

Come on, Mr. Margolis, get real. You can do better than this.

I always urge caution when invoking comparisons between our corruptions and ideological extremes and those of the McCarthy era. Hyperbole and exaggeration never serve one’s understanding or one’s argument.

Patrick Lawrence references the “corruptions and ideological extremes” that existed during the McCarthy era. As proven by the Venona transcripts and the opening of the Soviet archives in 1995, McCarthy grossly underestimated the extent of communist penetration in the United States government:

The messages show that the U.S. and other nations were targeted in major espionage campaigns by the Soviet Union as early as 1942. Among those identified are Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie, a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin, a section head in the Office of Strategic Services.

The Venona transcripts identified approximately 349 Americans whom were identified as establishing a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence – and the Venona transcripts only decrypted a small percentage of Soviet era messages:

• 1942 1.8%
• 1943 15.0%
• 1944 49.0%
• 1945 1.5%

The Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, housed at one time or another between fifteen and twenty Soviet spies. Duncan Lee, Donald Wheeler, Jane Foster Zlatowski, and Maurice Halperin passed information to Moscow. The War Production Board, the Board of Economic Warfare, the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and the Office of War Information, included at least half a dozen Soviet sources each among their employees.

McCarty was hated not because of any “corruptions and ideological extremes,” but because of his exposure of a dark and evil communist conspiracy that dominated the U.S. and continues to dominate the U.S. today – only today the communists are referenced as Zionist-globalists; globalists who only support Jewish nationalism and globalism everywhere else.

See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

The liberal authoritarians now in command of the nation’s major institutions, the House of Representatives among the only exceptions.

The House of Representatives is an exception . . . really? The same House of Representatives that:

1. Introduced a bill that would designate student protesters “Terrorists” and add them to the “No Fly List” (with zero judicial oversight) for protesting Israel. See https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/senate-bill-seeks-to-place-campus-protests-on-no-fly-list/.

2. Introduced a bill that would revoke federally-supported student loans and deny federally-supported loan relief. See id.

3. Introduced a bill that would send any person charged and convicted for illegal activity on a college campus after October 7, 2024 to Gaza for at least six months. See https://nypost.com/2024/05/08/us-news/college-anti-israel-agitators-could-be-sent-to-gaza-under-new-house-gop-bill/

4. Passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act to silence critics of Israel. See https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64428

The liberal authoritarians now in command of the nation’s major institutions, the House of Representatives among the only exceptions, have just signaled they are quite prepared to act at least as undemocratically as the House Un–American Activities crowd, the FBI and the rest of the national-security state did during the 1950s to preserve their political hegemony.

First, apparently, “the House Un–American Activities crowd” failed “to preserve their political hegemony” since the Zionist-globalists now rule the U.S.

Second, a question for Mr. Lawrence: Did you ever speak as harshly against the House Un–American Activities crowd (“HUAC”) when the HUAC investigated Fascists and Nazis under the direction of Soviet agent Rep. Sam Dickstein (D-NY)? See http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/12/28/liberals-getting-back-touch-authoritarian-roots/

I am impressed! Ted Rall actually can make a case for decency and reason despite how his opposition to the other side. In this, he is absolutely right and I commend him for the courage to write and publish this.

No one, from Donald Trump all the way down to a minor traffic ticket, should have to go through the abuse which the legal system imposes. No one. Not even Donald Trump.

Mr. Rall, I have done my share of criticizing your articles in the past, but in this case, I am squarely in your corner. Thank you.

“You’re not even big dumb.”

I could be insulted by such a stupid comment, but I’ll “vote” to let it go.

“Not voting means even less than voting. They love it when you don’t vote, it makes it easier for them to cheat and to manipulate and massage, and to pretend they’re legitimate.”

What is this supposed to mean? Apparently, according to your logic, marking your X in the box provided for you warns “them” (whoever they are) that you are watching them cheat, manipulate, and massage. Realistically, what it means is that even though you are watching them cheat, manipulate, and massage, you still give them your approval, assent, and support. Not only are they pretending to be legitimate but, by voting, you are enabling that behavior which makes you a part of the delusion and fraud.

On the other hand, by refusing to participate, I am showing “them” that, not only am I onto their game of pretend but that I do not approve of it nor will I play it. You watch them and signal your support. I watch them and let them know that I do not.

The only way to win is to not play the game.

“However, ballots are hardly the only way to vote,…”

I agree. Ballots are hardly the only way to vote and I have shown you a different way which you do not like. OK, no problem. You vote your way, I’ll vote mine.

“Demo-Krato”, people-power, does not in the conniving mind mean the power handed equally to people. It means the power of the people willing and able to form and apply it to whatever it needs applying to.”

In the conniving mind, it means the power to cheat, manipulate, and massage the minds and spirits of the masses of people so that they “vote” for a particular candidate, policy, or program. It means convincing a majority of the populace to choose who will “represent” them and be the face of the machine which holds the club with which they are beaten. People-power! Power to the people!! Please don’t delude yourself.

———————————-

“Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.”
― John Adams

“The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed, regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of “authority” is to accept that the choice is the master’s alone to make, which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave.”
—Larken Rose

“The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people.”
—Aldous Huxley

“The most dangerous enemy of truth and freedom, the solid unmoving cattle of the majority. Oh, God, the terrible tyranny of the majority.”
—Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

You do not understand what I am saying so I will make it crystal clear. I do not give a damn who runs or who is elected or who makes the laws and rules.

A political system is evil from beginning to end because it is based on theft, force, and violence. Anyone, including yourself, who participates in an evil system is perpetuating evil. Trying to do good by engaging in evil is a contradiction and, ultimately, is a dead-end. It is a delusion.

There is no other way to describe it. I will not be a part of it.

You can vote for your choice and maybe your choice will win, but you will not be making my choices for me. I have already made my decision and it is to withdraw my support from the system. If enough people do that, what is in place will collapse and, as far as I am concerned, it could not happen soon enough.

The standard mantra is to “vote for the lesser of two evils”. This guarantees that evil will win and grow larger and more prevalent in politics. Since politics is downstream of culture and society, what this means is that both culture and society are becoming progressively evil. No amount of posturing by politicians nor their supporters will ever change that. Any positive change MUST BEGIN within the individual and work its way out from that.

BTW, if you vote for a candidate and he/she/it wins, then you are at least somewhat responsible for what they do after the election.

What do you mean, there is no alternative?

Sure there is, simply refuse to participate in the farce any longer. Don’t vote for any of the candidates, at all levels. Withdraw from The System and do not support it any longer. Your vote is an endorsement of the status quo.

Don’t vote. It encourages them.

If voting made a difference, it would be outlawed.

Voting is nothing more than choosing whose hand holds the club with which you are beaten. It does nothing to stop the beatings.

Voting is nothing more than choosing whose hand holds the club with which you are beaten. It does nothing to stop the beatings.

Until now, the Jews have been able to shut down most criticism. The Gaza War has opened them up to new criticism.

Interesting theory, but we do not have the proof that Epstein was blackmailing anyone, and certainly not proof of wider conspiracies.

It is hard to see how the Trump campaign can survive every news story about him calling him a convicted felon. But I am eagerly awaiting the public reaction.

I wrote that Ted Rall should keep his account open until he had received the money since he had mentioned the bank would not return the funds IF he closed the account.

“Obviously, closing the account is the right move. But if you close your account, the bank said, they have no way to return the stolen money.”

I also wrote that, as soon as he received the money, he should close the account permanently and never transact with the bank again.

It may be that the bank would assess a monthly fee on his account if he did not maintain a minimum amount, but a few dollars/month would be a small price to pay in bringing the balance down to a token amount. Paying $30 per month for six months, even a year, would be a lot better than keeping $2000 in the account so as to avoid paying the fee. Do the math. In the meantime, he would be moving heaven and earth to get the matter resolved, not to the bank’s satisfaction, but his own.

Two steps forward, one step back. Often the winning strategy.

Donald Trump obviously pushed the idea that the military’s purpose is to protect America, but it doesn’t really seem like that idea ever got through as a complete thought in the minds of most Americans.

Anglin once again giving his fantasy of what he wants Donald Trump to be rather than what Donald Trump actually is. Trump has said many times that he believes the purpose of the US military is to steal resources from the rest of the world and to defend Israel. He just wants to dispense with the lies and pretense of doing it in the name of human rights or whatever and just openly loot everyone instead (“just take the oil” in his words). He has also stated that he wants America’s “allies” to pay more in tribute to the USA for their “defense.”

It is interesting that the article points out that most immigrants to France come from three North African countries, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, all of which had felt the boot of French militaristic colonialism for decades until they threw off the yoke. Algeria is the prime example. Now, these same societies (and others like them who also suffered under French rule) are kicking France in the balls.

Karma. What goes around comes around. As you give, receive.

I have no sympathy for France. It deserves what it is getting.

Voting is only choosing whose hand holds the club with which you are beaten. It does nothing at all to stop the beatings.

All of it aided and abetted by politicians who promise to give everything to everybody in return for a temporary gig in the marble halls of power.

Monopolies cannot happen without government support. They require that all competitors be greatly restricted or put out of business through the imposition of legal force. True capitalism (free-market capitalism) has never been allowed to operate anywhere. It is too easy for those with money to gain an advantage by buying off the politicians who make the rules and the bureaucrats who administer them.

America is not a capitalist country, it’s a monopolistic country, and the banking industry is proof positive. Along with healthcare. What a dump.

(btw. Earth isn’t a globe)

Technically true, in that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn’t what you meant.

How stupid do you have to be?

Funny, I was just about to ask you that same question…

Excellent job revealing yourself as a shill or a moron (actually the two are not mutually exclusive)

The forward thinking solution is threefold: (1) ban private banking entirely. Have all Americans and business keep an account at the Fed. Require all payments be made from your Fed account to another Fed account; (2) ban checks; (3) ban cash.

The beauty of this is you require all economic transactions take place through a government monitored Fed account.

People who would not have Fed accounts? Illegals, undocumented, criminal enterprises, drug dealers, etc. To double down on security, make the Fed accounts totally transparent to the IRS.

Apropos the clip of Tucker Carlson linked above, I saw him on C-SPAN on that very morning when he appeared live on Washington Journal. I despised him then for his slanderous assault on Pat Buchanan and for the cowardice of his conformity with the (((neocon))) agenda, of which his employer, the Weekly Standard, run by Irving Kristol’s worthless and weaselly son Billy, was a leading proponent in those days.

Until Carlson acquires enough integrity to confess his dishonesty or stupidity or both and publicly begs Buchanan’s pardon for attacking him so cravenly, I shall never fully trust anything that that prissy little boy says. I am grateful to him for interviewing Putin and for raising a few issues that the (((Establishment))) wants no one to mention, but he remains too slick by half. There remains serious reason to doubt whether he is truly on our side—the White side.

“Until Carlson acquires enough integrity to confess his dishonesty or stupidity or both and publicly begs Buchanan’s pardon for attacking him so cravenly, I shall never fully trust anything that that prissy little boy says.”

Can forgiveness be truly granted until and unless confession of wrong has been admitted and repented of? I sincerely doubt it and this is why I am holding Carlson and others (Musk, etc.) at arm’s length, refusing to blindly accept what they say, wondering if they are really being honest. When they come out publicly and say without equivocation, “I was wrong.”, then I will reconsider.

Yet how can he not see that Trump and the GOP have nothing in common
with America First principles. The very issues that got Buchanan and Sobran attacked by their inferiors Trump holds in spades to the very opposite of what Pat held.

I don’t see where he endorses Cheetohead in the article. If you’ve read Wallace’s blog for any time you would realize that he has few illusions about Trump and is indeed thoroughly blackpilled on empty promises of the God-Emperor of Grift; having nothing but contempt for the GOP establishment epitomized by the farcial senator from SC, who the author names as ‘Lady G’. Wallace, a southerner, was the first one I’ve seen to bring up the amazing quote by Rev. R. L. Dabney (Stonewall Jackson’s chaplain) penned in 1870 in response to the emergence of feminism:

This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

I’ve never read a more accurate summary of “conservatism”, whether it’s the GOP, the Tories, or any other so-called conservative organization that is allowed to exist by the oligarchial cryptocracy which has ruled over the wreck of what was once known as ‘Christendom’ or well over a century. Dabney was a prophet, unheeded in his own day – much less anytime after (when maybe something could have been done). Obviously, with the advantage of hindsight, it’s evident that the creature so aptly described by Dabney has assumed its final suppine position. The system is by now immutable to change except by overthrow, which is why we’re back around to the question of Что делать? (What is to be done?). Instead of trying to work within a rigged polity, Wallace should become one of the ‘Chadimirs’ mentioned in the substack article linked in my previous. Only when the stake is pounded through the utterly rotten heart of the usury-machine (the Empire of Lies’ ring of power, or Satan ex machina) can some fresh blood arise to rebuild from what remains of the civilization.

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.” — G.K. Chesterton

Essentially what Dabney wrote before him and it is quite probable that Chesterton simply expanded on Dabney. The fact of the matter is that both are correct and that anyone who thinks that simply being “Conservative” in their politics will win the day is incredibly short-sighted. Conservatism never wins, it only supports and defends what has already gone before it–liberalism.

This brings up Robert Conquest’s three laws of politics, especially the second:

1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

There is no organization which remains EXPLICITLY right-wing forever, although the John Birch Society tries. New faces and new blood are brought in to maintain and grow the membership and influence, but these bring in new ideas and new ways of thinking, many of which trend to the left, thus moving the entire organization leftward. Once the founder and Old Guard die or pass off the torch of leadership to others less rigorous, the trend becomes obvious and unstoppable.

However, leftward movement is limited and eventually comes up against a wall against which it cannot move beyond: the reality of natural law. Once this point is reached, nothing remains except for the entire system to break down and collapse, reverting once more to a “conservative” position from which the whole cycle begins again.

An endless cycle from conservatism to liberalism to destruction to conservatism to liberalism…ad infinitum.

Human nature does not change. We never learn.

I do not share that “Generally speaking, public opinion on the Right is trending in the right direction on almost all of our key issues” ( spending time with many Americans on the non left for the past
60 yrs makes me only more blackpilled )

I do not share that “We have come along way during the past 25 yrs. That the metapolitical battle
is close to being won” ( spend time with Americans across the spectrum of support and one can see
this is only true among very few brave, intelligent folks.)

I do not see many of the numbers and sources he cites as encouraging
as he holds them to be. Many of the gatekeepers he cites as coming in our direction
reveal a misreading of their reality.

The Republican party is the fake right or fake conservative party in America. This only worsens by the day. There is no conservative opposition in America today. There were more conservative Democrats
during the 60s and 70s as well as more people in America First/Buchanan wing of the GOP than today by a long shot. Buchanan got 37% in Feb 1992 NH GOP primary. What Trump and others have done to the populist right would make the impossible today just due to superficiality and propaganda from the “right” never mind the left. There were more local conservative Democrats in many American geographies during the 60s and 70s than there are pushing the GOP from within. This has always been the case since at least the 40s and germinating before. He is just repeating the same error thinking that this is improving. Starting a new party would yield better potential long term results than hoping against hope within the present system. And even the new party approach would be tough sledding of course. The Right must critique fully Trump and the GOP. That is clearly not done in this essay. Your arguments get closer to that approach. I wish you both well

Trump controls , for the most part, the Republican party-certainly at much of the
grassroots and populist levels. He has ‘perfected’ the ruse as DeSantis and others have done at the State levels.

Hunter Wallace does a very admirable job of distinguishing Buchanan, Sobran and
Francis from the impostors.

Yet how can he not see that Trump and the GOP have nothing in common
with America First principles. The very issues that got Buchanan and Sobran attacked
by their inferiors Trump holds in spades to the very opposite of what Pat held.

This essay contains many good details but it is terribly naive and blind to the reality
of American politics, the Republican party and Donald Trump

Trump has ‘perfected’ the Republican Ruse to campaign as a conservative and
govern as a liberal. All Aboard.

“This essay contains many good details but it is terribly naive and blind to the reality
of American politics, the Republican party and Donald Trump.”

Terribly naive. I agree, but that may be due to the fact that the author was barely 20 years old at the time of 9/11 and only has a few gray hairs. Give him another 20 or so years to sort all the BS out and you will probably see that he has sharpened his pencil considerably.

There is a Pennsylvania Dutch saying. “We are too soon oldt and too late schmart.”

Patience, my friend, usually fixes everything.

So, there is an easy solution to your problem. Don’t close your bank account. Simply reduce the amount in it to a token level and leave it active. Then open an account at another financial institution. I would suggest a credit union, not a bank.

If the account is open and active, the bank would have somewhere to deposit the funds. Once that was done, withdraw everything and close the account permanently. Never do business with that entity again.

I wonder if this battle is lost. There are anti-racists who say all Whites are inherently White supremacists. You may have to accept it, and move on.

If UCLA trains a bunch a incompetent Black physicians to treat Black women, then I hope they stick to Black women, and not mistreat the rest of us.

Encouraging people to study is a risky business…..

..but a necessary one, I hope you’ll agree.

WhyTF are we seeing an Article based on ASS/U/MPTIONS regarding a Fatal Incident involving a Head of State?

This isn’t a Gossip Blog, is it?

Too Soon.

IMO, Flight should have been cancelled and returned due to Foul Weather.

Don’t waste our Time…

This isn’t really a blank slate issue. Even if Blacks were born with blank slates, and then corrupted by fatherlessness, rap music, illegal drugs, White envy, or anything else, I would still want criminals off the streets.

The Jews could not control us if we were a moral and virtuous people.

The general thrust of this article, and the book, is sound.

The Leviathan state has taken on a life of its own, and the credentialed midwits staffing it have incentives that make the interests of the credentialed class diverge from the people that class allegedly serves.

As personal identity has been destroyed by the progressive secular state and its war upon family, community, and social obligation, an individual’s sole remaining identity is that of cog in the machine – the average person is now controlled by the machine by virtue of being terrified of losing her/her place in the machin(ery) of society; i.e. within the state bureaucracy or mega-corporation.

Also, the thesis that the latest degenerate outrage pushed by the Jews (trannyism, CovID tyranny, climate ‘crisis’ tyranny) is never opposed within the system because these issues provide the players within the system with opportunities to increase power/wealth is sound.

Liberalism and the nanny state have destroyed any sense of personal responsibility or social obligation in the average ‘adult’ citizen – these are foreign concepts for the vast majority of citizens, including most of those staffing Leviathan.

We have ever expanding definitions of racism, anti-semitism, and various phobias. To some, all White are inherently racist. To others, a racist is anyone who is not anti-racist, and anti-racism requires a bunch of beliefs that Sailer does not subscribe to.

If these definitions become accepted, then most or all of those here are racists and anti-semites.

What say we expose some myths about politics?

Gary North: The vast majority of conservatives — I would guess 80% — are just like this woman. They are intellectually lazy. They have no respect for ideas. They have no intention of sacrificing either time or money to become better informed. They just want to feel superior. They spend their spare time ranting to other ill-informed people on the multibillionaire wokesters’ social media platforms. In the great conflicts of life, they are bystanders. They do not have the strength of character to be winners. They think ranting is a substitute for thinking. They expect victory to be handed to them on a silver platter. –

https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/03/in-essenceit-always-wasand-still-isa.html?m=0

Brilliant article, and fascinating how a comedic chorus of boilerplate antisemites show up to dump on it, apparently on cue.

100% agree

As I was reading the article, in the back of my mind, I’m thinking, ‘hmmm, no mention of jews in a TUR article? I’ll bet it doesn’t take more than a few comments for the cocksucking retarded nazi cunts to show up and crap all over it.’

And as if on cue, there they were.

It’s always the same BS. When all you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Let’s keep things simple shall we. There is no left or right in America, there are just elite rulers.
Politics is an entertaining game to play, and lucrative to boot.
Fact is that the great unwashed love this game, just look at the behavior of grown ass people at political rallies. On average we do have the government we deserve.

This is good advice, not just for the JQ, but for any divisive topic. The problem with it is that, if people learn and study, they may not come to the same understanding you do. There is always the possibility that they might arrive at a different conclusion. Encouraging people to study is a risky business.

You can’t beat something with nothing, but they try.

My problem with the “comedic chorus of boilerplate antisemites” is that their rhetoric is always and constantly negative, critical, and condescending, but never advances any rational and logical argument as to why others should listen to them. It is always and forever “The Jew”, a continuous finger-pointing exercise.

Blaming someone else for your problems is nothing more than an evasion of personal responsibility, which is ironic, since so much of the rhetoric emanating from people of this sort appears to be an appeal to the sovereign individualist mentality which, if adhered to consistently, would demand that personal responsibility be first and foremost.

Vitriolic, vindictive hatred appears to be the stock in trade. They are stuck. This will never change until the attitude changes.

Brilliant article, and fascinating how a comedic chorus of boilerplate antisemites show up to dump on it, apparently on cue. I suspect they are representatives of the ruling class with a purpose of making the good and wise look dirty, an example of the manipulation of public opinion that the article describes.

Reading this was like eating a delicious salad after fasting for a week. An excellent synopsis for Auron MacIntyre’s – The Total State.

I’m looking forward to a complete read, thanks a bunch.

I look forward to and anticipate the day when the political state of Israel simply is wiped out and disappears. At that point, there will be millions and millions of American Christians, raised in the tradition of Scofield and Hagee, who will have lost their entire direction in life. When that happens, their world will have come to an end and they will wipe the sh*t out of their eyes, wondering what they are to do now.

We need to be there to help them through the transition. Do unto others as you want done unto you. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Etc., etc.

It will be a beautiful day. I hope I am here to see it.

Your boss can’t fire you because of the color of your skin. He can’t get rid of you because he doesn’t like your religion. Federal law protects you against employment discrimination based on your sex, race, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, genetic information or (if you are over 40) age.

Should he be able to deprive you of your ability to pay your rent because you’re a Democrat? Or a Republican? Of course not — yet he can.

It’s time to add another protected class to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: political expression.

Yeah, let’s add another distinction to the class which we call human beings. This time, we will say that anyone who works for us can never be fired regardless as to how much the viewpoints they advocate differ from those of our own. In spite of the fact that we pay their salary, they can say whatever they want and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Maybe it’s time to get rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Most American Churches are State owned institutions, if they appose the official narrative they will quickly forfeit their tax exempt status.
Until recently most of them had an American flag up front displaying their allegiance.
It’s been the so called dead traditional denominations that have had a social conscious and spoken up against obvious injustices.
Another major problem is that Christians are taught that God ultimately decides who their political leaders and royals will be, and even if that leader is obviously evil it is because God is accomplishing some obscure thing that will eventually reveal itself to be part of his perfect plan etc.
So better to go along to get along, something akin to Mystery Babylon the Mother of all Harlots.

“So better to go along to get along,…”

This says it all about the nature of modern day American Christians and it applies even more if there is money involved, whether large or small sums.

Voting for the lesser of two evils applies here as well and this is the preferred course of many who believe that they are in tune with God’s Will in opposing and resisting evil. Especially if blessings flow into my bank account because of my action.

That was a lot of work to dox someone. In case you do not get to the end, here is a spoiler:

Keeperman made an argument characteristic of “human biodiversity” proponents: “I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that black players get called for more fouls because black players do in fact commit more fouls.”

Keeperman added: “Before calling me a racist, at least hear me out.”

I guess a normie would be afraid to say something like that.

King George III and gave it to King George I.

LOL, I like that!
I am so stealing it 🙂

The Abolition of Man.

If more people had read C.S. Lewis and taken to heart what he wrote, we would not be in this situation where we are contemplating the End of Humanity in favor of The Machine.

Keep in mind that only a small percentage of the population in colonial America wrested power away from King George III and gave it to King George I.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that the collapse will have to come before sufficient numbers will support my ponderings. I am OK with that. There will come a time (probably after I leave this world) when people will simply wipe the sh*t out of their eyes and ask, “What do we do now?” At that point I (or someone like me) will be there to say, “This is the way. Walk ye in it.” And they will because they have no other choice except annihilation and extermination.

As far as a NEW constitution, I am in favor of none. Scrap the existing constitution. Do not replace it. Lysander Spooner. Gary Barnett for Precedent!

The current system cannot be corrected. It has gone too far and must be scrapped. As far as junking the Constitution, my mentor on that subject is Lysander Spooner. I have never signed it nor agreed to it, therefore it is not a contract and because it is not a contract, it is not binding on me.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-no-treason-no-vi-the-constitution-of-no-authority-1870

https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/lysander-spooner

“Each man has the natural right to acquire all he honestly can, and to enjoy and dispose of all that he honestly acquires; and the protection of these rights is all that any one has a right to ask of government in relation to them. It is all that he can have, consistently with the equal rights of others. If government give any individual more than this, it can do it only by taking it from others. It, therefore, in doing so, only robs one of a portion of his natural, just, and equal rights, in order to give to another more than his natural, just, and equal rights. To do this, is of the very essence of tyranny. And whether it be done by majorities, or minorities, by the sword, the statute, or the judicial decision, it is equally and purely usurpation, despotism, and oppression.”

“Labor is one of the means, which every man has a natural right to employ for the acquisition of property. But in order that a man may enjoy his natural right to labor, and to acquire all the property that he honestly can by it, it is indispensable that he enjoy fully and freely his natural right to make contracts; for it is only by contract that he can procure capital on which to bestow his labor. And in order that he may obtain capital on the best possible terms, it is indispensable that his natural right of contract be entirely unrestricted by any arbitrary legislation; also that all the contracts he makes be held obligatory fully to the extent, and only to the extent, to which, according to natural law, they can be binding.” — Lysander Spooner

Personally I think trying to correct the system is a waste of time. It is too rotten to bother.

The system is too rotten to be saved but not yet rotten enough to provoke a real revolution.

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

Capitalism, in the truest sense of the word, will continue and I will be right there defending it and cheering it on.

“Freedom” in the economic sense has a long history – before the United States of America was a lawyers’ paradise of economic freedom, the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (medieval Germany, basically) was also a lawyers’ paradise of “Deutsche Freiheit” (German freedom). So yeah I think this could go on for a while. I believe it is dishonest currency through the Fed and the fiscal bankruptcy of the U.S. government that is the source of much of this cronyism and moral rot.

Ted, I’m concerned my dog might be a Hamas terrorist. He farted while CNN was showing Netanyahu giving a speech. Such disrespect cannot be allowed. Should I report him to the appropriate authorities or should I try and interrogate him myself? If I report him I’m concerned the probable military response might endanger my family. This has me in a quandary. I love my dog but such blatant antisemitism cannot be allowed to stand.

There are laws which dictate that people cannot wear masks when they enter banks, but when the insanity named COVID hit, banks were among the most vocal in demanding that everyone wear them. It is a mystery to me why some “enterprising” criminals did not take advantage of the situation by wearing full-face ski masks while robbing the joints.

You speak about “freedom and self-government” and Abraham Lincoln in the same sentence?

Decline and fall. It is not pleasant to live in such a time as ours, but it is, as the Chinese are credited with saying (or was it the Arabs?) interesting. Let us not, as we accept our fate, lose sight of the optimism within the apparent pessimism.

Needs repeating, and often, at that.

As comforting as it is to see so many here conscious of the realities of our political world, such consciousness typically carries with it the hard realization that most of us seem powerless to affect meaningful change in the ominous status quo, a realization that often leads to pessimistic despair.

I’m pleased to see Lawrence speak of America as a ‘late stage empire’, comparing it to other such polities that have gone before as a means of allowing us to see the greater historical picture: the collapse of the American regime will invariably result in that of Israel, the parasite that has afflicted us for all too long.

It’s a hard road ahead, but one that must be traveled to reach a more promising destination.

“Any constructive criticism and suggestions for this project are welcomed.”

Three suggestions:

1. Take your website offline until you finish it.
2. While you are working on it, make sure that links are set. At first, all I saw was one small page of rhetoric and had to hunt to find the Project Page. For those who haven’t located it yet, here is the link: https://www.mccarthyplan.com/project-page
3. Don’t promote that you have worked for politicians. That is an immediate red flag in some quarters. Besides, it does not look good on your resume.

There. Mr. McCarthy, you see how easy that is.

Now, as to your list of things to accomplish, if I wanted to, I could pick that apart all day long, but your proclamations are safe from my criticism…for the most part. However, I will go after the one which I found to be the worst, #24, as copied below.

“Any philosophy, mystery school or religion, publicly promoted, that regards those that do not adhere to its doctrine or beliefs, as being less than fully human and not worthy of full respect as a fellow human being, may be criminalized.”

Please define what you mean by “publicly promoted”. That could be a conversation between as few as two persons. Do you really want to go down that road?

Let me get this straight. If you hold to a philosophy, teaching of a mystery school (I had to look that up and will not promote it), or religion which tends to denigrate and look down upon other human beings because they do not fully subscribe to your doctrines and beliefs, is subject to prosecution and punishment.

Wow! The world is going to need more prison cells. Or guillotines.

In other words, you will not be allowed to say what you really think about many of your fellow human travelers. If enacted and enforced rigorously, it would immediately take out at least half, probably more, of the commenters on The Unz Review. I would be included as well because I preach a philosophy of anarchy and individual sovereignty which has nothing good to say about politicians, bureaucrats, and statists of all types.

Now, whether you think that others are your equals, above your station, or well below it, is a matter of personal opinion and you should be able to express that opinion as you wish. It does not mean that you are correct in your beliefs, but you do have the right to talk about them without fear of punishment by law.

Somehow Simons was able to book the biggest profits for himself. I am waiting for his secrets to be revealed. It seems a little fishy.

I would agree with one caveat. It is not capitalism itself which is being destroyed, but corrupted capitalism, crony capitalism. This has been my point through the entire conversation.

Capitalism, in the truest sense of the word, will continue and I will be right there defending it and cheering it on.

“Supposing I am now POTUS.”

Suppose you are. Are you incorruptible? Even if you are, there are limits to what you can do in the highest echelons of power.
.

Getting a Grip:

1. You can create an Anti-Corruption Commission answerable only to the President. I agree. Where would you draw the members from? How would you determine they were not already corrupted? Would they not have to be incorruptible as well?

2. You can investigate everyone in your closest circle. I agree. However, if (when) someone was determined to be corrupt according to your A-CC, you could only fire them and recommend that the “Justice” Dept. prosecute and punish them. You do not have the power or authority to do that.

3. Your commission can investigate any number of individuals and recommend them for prosecution, but reality is that, as soon as it became evident what was happening, the entire system would close ranks around them and your investigation would be shut out. Furthermore, since Congress (a very corrupt institution) controls the purse strings, it could easily shut off the money supply with which your commission pays its bills and the whole thing would grind to an immediate halt.

4. You can recommend, but you cannot decapitate.

Solving Corruption:

1. ALL government departments? ALL corrupt elements? ALL punished harshly? To do this, you would have to be God. You are not.

2. His BOSS is even more corrupt than he is and would have already been sacked.

3. Which Fortune 500 CEO’s? Salaries vary widely between corporations. Besides, throwing more money at the problem will not solve the problem. It will only make it more attractive to those who are corruptible.

Solving Influence:

1. You cannot (legitimately) outlaw anything. Only the Congress can do that according to the US Constitution. You do have a “bully pulpit”, but little power beyond that.

2. Ditto.

3. This is the one item I would wholeheartedly concur with and endorse. This could be done by the White House without consent by Congress or the judges. Go for it! And if Congress votes to cut your budget because of it, cut fat elsewhere to keep it going. Maybe your “inner circle” will have to take a pay cut.

4. You do not have the authority to do this. All you can do is to veto every single bill which comes to your desk for a signature. You could, if you are incorruptible and willing to stick to your guns, make this a reality. However, you would have to have the solid backing of the vast majority of the electorate in order to make this happen. Otherwise, you run the risk of being “Epsteined”.

5. Don’t the voters already have that power? Why do they need the President to tell them to boot someone out of office. The reality is that they won’t because, by and large, most of them are corrupt themselves and only interested in what they can get from the government. All at the expense of someone else, who is just as corrupt and just as dedicated to his cause.

When Hell freezes over, you (POTUS) will be able to bring this about. Until then, we have to be content with the knowledge that no one, no one, gets to be President unless he (she) is part of the System, who will work with the System, who benefits from the System, and who will not buck the System.

Nevertheless, good comment. I appreciate your input.

Doesn’t this undercut your contention that when there is no new territory to conquer, capitalist societies turn on themselves?

I reviewed our thread. And yes you have a point. I should have been clearer and less confusing. I append the first 3 paragraphs of post #160 below. I began by using “resources” and ended sloppily with “territory”.

I should have been consistent and kept with “resources”. Thanks for pointing it out.

You put forth a persuasive argument. But I would like to hear your thoughts on the inherent tendency of Capitalism to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.

When a Capitalist economy is young, and there is much resources to exploit (imagine a young USA), then Capitalism works great. Capitalism thrives on greed and the profit motive. The effect is new things are invented, more goods are produced and everyone benefits (except for those poor guys huddled in their teepees in the reservations)

But when the expansions reach the limit, and there in no new territory to ingest, that same greed turns inwards, and the segments of society start to feed on each other instead. Is this not why the 1% in the USA continues to prosper while the rest get progressively poorer?

“But my underlying premise is that the physical limitations of the West coast was not the limits of the US control. It went further West across the Pacific, southwards to Latin America, and eventually all across the world.”

“Of course they soon found out that control of physical territory is so….passé.”

Doesn’t this undercut your contention that when there is no new territory to conquer, capitalist societies turn on themselves? When the physical expansion westward was halted by the Pacific Ocean, America came up with expansions which were not physical at all, but social, political, financial, and militaristic in nature. In other words, what the mind can conceive, the body can achieve.

If this is true, then there is really no limit to what man can achieve as there is no limit to what man’s mind can dream up. There is no limit to human expansion because man is not limited to the physical but can produce solutions to overcome what appear to be impassable limitations.

If only we were left alone to achieve what we can think about.

“What is essential, concrete and irreducible is human effort, ie labour. That labour has use value, eg growing food, or exchange value, what can be purchased by that labour which the worker cannot produce himself.”

Really now, isn’t that a pretty good description of economy? Aren’t all economies based on human effort?

And is this all there is? A person should only expect what he can either produce himself or trade with others for what he needs? Or maybe a person should be satisfied with ONLY what he can produce himself or trade with another in the same predicament? Who is going to ensure that everyone stays in their “class” and doesn’t take more than their “fair share”?

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Tried numerous times throughout history. Always ended in failure.

“You will eat bugs and you will be happy.” Will be tried. Will fail.

And what is wrong with a broker in Chicago buying wheat from a rancher in Kansas, selling it to a mill in New England which grinds it into flour so that a bakery in New York City can produce bagels to satisfy a hungry customer? Everyone who participates in these transactions “profits” by giving up something they value for something which they perceive has greater value and it is all done in a voluntary manner. No one is forced. No one is deprived. Everyone benefits from their labor and, in this way, the whole of society is lifted up and made more prosperous.

What is wrong with this? Please be specific with your answer.

One more thing. When you reply (if you do), spare me the emotional, hysterical Marxist crap. It doesn’t help your argument one bit.

OK, so we’ve both done our best at explaining our positions. Let’s talk about solutions, lasting solutions.

For me, it begins with one thing–End the FED, then audit it. Or Audit the FED, then end it. No more funny money, no more targeted inflation, no more currency manipulation, no more juicing the economy so certain politicians can look good. That for starters.

The demise of the FED would result in the end of many, many other three-letter agencies: FBI, CIA, DEA, DOT, DOE, IRS, CDC, HUD, etc., and some four-letter ones: USDA, NASA, i.e. All of them overgrown, bloated bureaucracies which are more concerned with their continuation than with their service to the people who pay their salaries. Note also that the DOD would be drastically cut back and pared down with all overseas bases closed and the troops returned home.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” — Lewis Carroll, from Alice in Wonderland

At the same time, this “killing” of the Beast would mean a drastic decline in revenue for the various states which would then be forced to cut back their own budgets. Localities would follow suit. If they tried to raise taxes sufficiently to make up the shortfall, the “good” citizens would probably rise up and throw the rascals out. The closer to the people that governments are, the easier they are to control by the populace.

All of this could be accomplished through one action: the abolition of the FED and central banking. All it would take to do this is political courage. Since this is extremely scarce or virtually non-existent, I don’t expect it to happen…until the day comes when money either becomes worthless or unobtainable and everything crashes down because of it.

Through all this, there will be individual people who will simply decide to “opt out” of the system known as government, politics, and law–all of which employ force, fraud, and often violence to sustain themselves. As the situation deteriorates, more and more people will find an escape, like John Galt, to make their own way in a state of relative freedom.

Am I wrong? Dreaming? Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but I think not.

Is there anything better? Do you have an alternative proposal?

GPL lost? Yes, most open source software besides linux has a BSD-like license. But linux is the biggest and most important software project today. Most of the servers run linux. It is essential. Without linux, where would we be? Years behind.

I think your grasp of post-Breton Woods US economic history is a lot better than your grasp of 19th century American history:

After North American West was won, the USA turned its attention to Latin America…. resulting in the Monroe Doctrine

This is just plain wrong. Monroe articulated this strategy in 1823, before the west was won. The event that catalyzed this policy was not westward expansion by the United States but the independence of Spanish colonies throughout the new world in the wake of the napoleonic wars and the American revolution.

In 1823, railroads had not yet been built across the continent, and both California and Texas were still part of Mexico. The Mormons, a tiny sect of less than a dozen people, had yet to establish their church, let alone trek west where they would found both Salt Lake City and Las Vegas. The American frontier in the lower 48 was not really closed until the early 20th century – for example, North Dakota did not have the 60,000 voters necessary for statehood in 1900. Alaska is today still a frontier with much virgin land, the last state where the indigenous outnumber whites in the countryside.

“Capitalism is about capital ie money,”

So far, so good. However, if this is true, then it is also true that everyone who has any money, seeks to acquire money, manages said money in such a way so as to produce more money, or puts that money to work so as to provide personal benefit, is a capitalist. It does not matter the quantity of the money. It could be one dollar or one hundred gazillion dollars. Capitalism is about…money.

Yes, this is in the purest sense of the word. I prefer purity rather than muddiness, especially when we are discussing economics and politics which cause so much trouble everywhere.

As I said earlier above, and I repeat myself,

“That being said, if the above definition is true, then it is certain that every single individual on this planet is a capitalist in some form or another.”

Sorry, man, you can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to be a capitalist, start living without money.

That account is exaggerated, but I do not think that anyone else foresaw: (1) that copyright law could be used to force source code disclosures; and (2) open source software could co-exist with commercial products.

The idea of truly free software given to the world for humanitarian purposes would not exist without Stallman.

That is only true if you adopt Stallman’s peculiar definition of “free”. There is lots of free software that has nothing to do with him.

It is to Stallman’s credit that he stuck up for his friend Minsky.