Tag Archives: Politics

Dropping the Mask of Ecofascism

Mises Daily: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 by

These days, explicit arguments in favor of fascism and the ideology of unlimited state power are, how shall I put this, ineffective at convincing the masses. Though people still adore the fascist ideology of the boundless power of the state and its fusion of public and private business, this is only so long as it is not given its proper name. These days, people prefer their fascism to be cloaked in disingenuous and deceptive language that disguises its true nature. All those old slogans about the supreme state and the suppression of the individual to the collective are so early 20th century! Far better to have your leaders pay lip service to “freedom” and “human rights” as they coercively mold you into a docile little manikin fit for their desired bureaucratic utopia.

Modern authoritarian movements tend to adopt the strategy of avoiding talking about or even hinting at the coercion they will adopt to deal with those opposed to the supreme rule of the all-powerful state apparatus. They deny that they are fascist movements and instead adopt a slew of fanciful euphemisms for the coercive policies they propose to inflict on their brutalized subjects. You silly fool! They are not robbing people — they are just “asking them to pay their fair share.” They are not micromanaging people’s lives — they are just “looking after their health and welfare.” They are not silencing dissent — they are just “ensuring tolerance” and fighting “hate.” They are not trespassing against private property — they are just “managing the economy.” They are not enslaving people — they are just “encouraging volunteerism.” Didn’t you realize?

Of course, every so often, a modern fascist movement develops such a degree of hubris that it decides to dispense with all the euphemisms and denials and openly display the coercive means underlying its ambitions. After all, surely the poor rubes in the population must have figured it out anyway! Why not just level with them for a moment and have a little chuckle?

For those of you that haven’t already heard, the ecofascist movement is currently having a bit of a heart-to-heart with the population of this kind, and they are letting us have a quick peek at the ol’ mailed fist under the velvet glove. You see, having achieved all of this wonderful “consensus,” they are now ready to drop the mask a little bit, and have a bit of a giggle about the fact that, well yeah, they really are a pretty violent bunch.

Exhibit A: The “No Pressure” Short Film

The new ecofascist short film “No Pressure” created by director Richard Curtis for the 10:10 “carbon reduction”[1] campaign is a beautiful example of the environmentalist movement dropping its pleasant-looking mask and joking about its true authoritarian nature. The film shows several sketches in which supporters of an environmental program to cut carbon-dioxide emissions explode people into a bloody mess when they decline to participate. After telling their hapless targets that there is “no pressure” to take part, the environmental organizers press a magic button, and presto, another dissenter liquidated — literally. The film ends, having murdered eight people (including two children) in four separate sketches, with these ominous words:

cut your carbon by 10%

no pressure

The video, which (of course) was funded with money stolen from British taxpayers, has now been removed from its previous home by its creators after some members of the public found the “joke” to be offensive. But the real joke is on the environmentalist movement. The ecofascists are learning the hard way that people do not like to be confronted by the realities of coercion in modern authoritarian ideologies. They want their fascism with nice cuddly slogans, and plenty of euphemisms. Jokes about killing dissenters, it turns out, are only funny when you are not actually touting an authoritarian ideology that uses coercion as its central tool.

Exhibit B: The Greenpeace Skinhead-Thug-in-Training Video

Here is another ecofascist advertisement, this time created by those cuddly loveable fascists at Greenpeace. The video shows an angry and menacing child, dressed up and lighted to look like a young hooded skinhead thug,[2] as he angrily lists a litany of alleged environmental outcomes that will destroy his future, if adults fail to act. After going through the litany of environmentalist propaganda, he tells us, in a menacing tone and with plenty of scowling looks,

[W]e’re not just talking about the future. We’re talking about my future. But this is no surprise. You adults have known about this for years. And though you could have done something about it, you haven’t. You can say “It’s not my problem”; you can say “I won’t be around in fifty years”; but from now on, you can’t say “I didn’t know.” Starting today, the lines are drawn: you have to choose sides. Either you’re for my future, or you’re against it. You’re a friend, or you’re an enemy. I may just be a kid today, but tomorrow will be different. This is the last time I’ll be talking to you adults. You had your chance to fix this problem, now we have ours. We won’t be cute, we won’t be patronized, we will not be denied our future.

Greenpeace Skinhead-Thug-in-Training Video

Watching this video, I can’t help but think of myself replying in my best talking-to-a-baby voice, saying “What a gorgeous little ecofascist you are! Yes you are! Yes you are!”

But I guess that would be patronizing, and according to the video, this young man will not be patronized. Oh yes, and in case you didn’t quite understand the thinly veiled message, he may just be a kid today, but tomorrow, he will be a full-grown ecofascist hoodie-wearing skinhead thug, and you, dear viewer, will be his enemy.[3]

Exhibit C: The “Planet Slayer” Game

Some more ecofascist propaganda, this time designed directly for young children. The Planet Slayer game features, among other things, a cartoon pig game used to calculate carbon-dioxide emissions. It helpfully informs children when they should die in order to ensure they do not use more than their “fair share” of the planet. Other helpful information for children includes some harsh words against “cultural imperialism” (i.e., the free choice of people in other countries to adopt certain products and practices from Western countries) and this helpful instruction: “Organise and socialise comrades. Together we can save the world!”

If Men Were Angels

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Tu Ne Cede Malis

Mises Daily: Friday, October 15, 2010 by

[Excerpted from “If Men Were Angels,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2007.]

In The Federalist No. 51, arguably the most important one of all, James Madison wrote in defense of a proposed national constitution that would establish a structure of “checks and balances between the different departments” of the government and, as a result, constrain the government’s oppression of the public. In making his argument, Madison penned the following paragraph, which comes close to being a short course in political science:

The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[1]

The passage that refers to the angels is a rhetorical masterpiece, so memorable that it has become almost a cliché. In Madison’s argument, however, it does more than emphasize that human nature is something less than angelic. It also serves as a springboard that propels Madison directly into a consideration of “framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” which is “but the greatest of all reflections on human nature.”

In short, it moves Madison directly to a consideration of government as we have known it for the past several thousand years — a monopoly operating ultimately by threat or actual use of violence, making rules for and extracting tribute from the residents of the territory it controls. Henceforth, for clarity, I refer to this all-too-familiar type of organization as “the state.”

Perhaps everyone will agree that if we were all angels, no state would be necessary, and if angels were the governors, they would require neither internal nor external constraints to ensure that they governed justly. In terms of Table 1, we would be indifferent between the two cells in the first row.

Table 1 — Madison’s Model
No state State
Men are angels OK OK
Men are not angels Not conceivable Best conceivable

In Madison’s mind, the no-state option was inconceivable, for reasons he expressed obliquely when he wrote:

In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.[2]

Thus, Madison, apparently following Locke, believed that individuals would not choose to remain in a stateless condition and would submit to the authority of a state in order to attain greater security of person and property. Countless other thinkers over the years have reasoned likewise, as Mancur Olson did in his final book when he concluded, “If a population acts to serve its common interest, it will never choose anarchy.”[3]

Disorder, Liberty, and the State

Nothing is more common than the assumption that without a state, a society will fall necessarily and immediately into violent disorder; indeed, anarchy and chaos are often used as synonyms. The Random House Dictionary gives the following four definitions for anarchy:

  1. a state of society without government or law
  2. political and social disorder due to absence of governmental control
  3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society
  4. confusion; chaos; disorder

Suppose, however, that the situation described by the third definition were not merely an ideal, but a genuine possibility, perhaps even a historically instantiated condition.

Locke, Madison, Olson, and nearly everybody else, of course, have concluded from their theoretical deliberations that the stateless option cannot exist — at least, not for long — because its deficiencies make it so manifestly inferior to life in a society under a state. The alleged absence of significant historical examples of large, stateless societies during the past several thousand years buttresses these theory-based conclusions: just as “the poor we have always with us,” so except among primitive peoples, society and the state are taken to have always coexisted.

One need not spend much time, however, to find theoretical arguments — some of them worked out in great detail and at considerable length[4] — about why and how a stateless society could work successfully. Moreover, researchers have adduced historical examples of large stateless societies, ranging from the ancient Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley[5] to Somalia during the greater part of the past decade and a half.[6] Given the enormous literature that has accumulated on stateless societies in theory and in actual operation, we may conclude that, if nothing else, such societies are conceivable.[7]

In this light, both cells in the second row of Madison’s model must be seen as live options, whose most likely outcomes are, I suggest, as indicated in the More Realistic Model shown in Table 2:

Table 2 — More Realistic Model
No state State
Men are angels OK OK
Men are not angels Bad situation Worse situation

Although I admit that the outcome in a stateless society will be bad, because not only are people not angels, but many of them are irredeemably vicious in the extreme, I conjecture that the outcome in a society under a state will be worse, indeed much worse, because, first, the most vicious people in society will tend to gain control of the state[8] and, second, by virtue of this control over the state’s powerful engines of death and destruction, they will wreak vastly more harm than they ever could have caused outside the state.[9] It is unfortunate that some individuals commit crimes, but it is stunningly worse when such criminally inclined individuals wield state powers.

Lest anyone protest that the state’s true “function” or “duty” or “end” is, as Locke, Madison, and countless others have argued, to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, the evidence of history clearly shows that, as a rule, real states do not behave accordingly. The idea that states actually function along such lines or that they strive to carry out such a duty or to achieve such an end resides in the realm of wishful thinking.

“It is unfortunate that some individuals commit crimes, but it is stunningly worse when such criminally inclined individuals wield state powers.”

Although some states in their own self-interest may at some times protect some residents of their territories (other than the state’s own functionaries), such protection is at best highly unreliable and all too often nothing but a solemn farce. Moreover, it is invariably mixed with crimes against the very people the state purports to protect, because the state cannot even exist without committing the crimes of extortion and robbery, which states call taxation;[10] and as a rule, this existential state crime is but the merest beginning of its assaults on the lives, liberties, and property of its resident population.

In the United States, for example, the state at one time or another during recent decades has confined millions of persons in dreadful steel cages because they had the temerity to engage in the wholly voluntary buying and selling or the mere possession of officially disapproved products. Compounding these state crimes (of kidnapping and unjust confinement) with impudence, state officials brazenly claim credit for their assaults on the victims of their so-called War on Drugs.

State functionaries have yet to explain how their rampant unprovoked crimes comport with the archetype described and justified in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. In vain do many of us yearn for relief from the state’s duplicitous cruelty: Where is the state of nature when we really need it?

An Application of the Precautionary Principle

In pondering the suitability of the More Realistic Model, we might well apply the precautionary principle, which has been much discussed (and nearly always misapplied) in recent years in relation to environmental policy. This principle holds that if an action or policy might cause great, irreparable harm, then, notwithstanding a lack of scientific consensus, those who support the action or policy should shoulder the burden of proof. In applying this principle to the state’s establishment and operation, the state’s supporters would appear to stagger under a burden of proof they cannot support with either logic or evidence.

Everyone can see the immense harm the state causes day in and day out, not to mention its periodic orgies of mass death and destruction. In the past century alone, states caused hundreds of millions of deaths, not to the combatants on both sides of the many wars they launched, whose casualties loom large enough, but to “their own” populations, whom they have chosen to shoot, bomb, shell, hack, stab, beat, gas, starve, work to death, and otherwise obliterate in ways too grotesque to contemplate calmly.[11]

Yet, almost incomprehensibly, people fear that without the state’s supposedly all-important protection, society will lapse into disorder and people will suffer grave harm. Even an analyst so astute as Olson, who speaks frankly of “governments and all the good and bad things they do,” proceeds immediately to contrast “the horrible anarchies that emerge in their absence,”[12] although he gives no examples or citations to support his characterization of anarchy. But the state’s harms — “the bad things they do” — are here and now, undeniable, immense, and horrifying, whereas the harms allegedly to be suffered without the state are specters of the mind and almost entirely conjectural.

This debate would not appear to be evenly matched. Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in robbery, destruction, murder, and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine nonstate chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that nonstate actors seem incapable of causing. Nor, to my knowledge, does any historical example attest to such large-scale nonstate mayhem. With regard to large-scale death and destruction, no person, group, or private organization can even begin to compare to the state, which is easily the greatest instrument of destruction known to man.

All nonstate threats to life, liberty, and property appear to be relatively petty and therefore can be dealt with. Only states can pose truly massive threats, and sooner or later the horrors with which they menace mankind invariably come to pass.

The lesson of the precautionary principle is plain: Because people are vile and corruptible, the state, which holds by far the greatest potential for harm and tends to be captured by the worst of the worst, is much too risky for anyone to justify its continuation. To tolerate it is not simply to play with fire, but to chance the total destruction of the human race.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. He is the 2007 recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Cause of Liberty. Send him mail. See Robert Higgs’s article archives.

This article is excerpted from “If Men Were Angels: The Basic Analytics of the State versus Self-Government,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol 21, no. 4 (Winter 2007): pp. 55–68.Download PDF

You can subscribe to future articles by Robert Higgs via this RSS feed.


[1] James Madison, “The Federalist No. 51,” The Federalist (New York: Modern Library), p. 337.

[2] Ibid., p. 340.

[3] Mancur Olson, Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p. 65.

[4] See, e.g., Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, rev. ed. (New York: Collier Books, 1978); and David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, 2nd ed. (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1989).

[5] Thomas J. Thompson, “An Ancient Stateless Civilization: Bronze Age India and the State in History,” Independent Review, vol. 10 (Winter 2006), pp. 365–384.Download PDF

[6] Robert Higgs, Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society, (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2004), pp. 374, 376; Yummi Kim, “Stateless in Somalia and Loving It,” Mises Daily, February 21, 2006.

[7] For a far-reaching compendium on the entire subject, see Edward P. Stringham, Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2007).

[8] Frierich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), pp. 134–152; F.G. Bailey, Humbuggery and Manipulation: The Art of Leadership (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988); and Higgs, Against Leviathan, pp. 33–56.

[9] Higgs, Against Leviathan, pp. 101–105.

[10] Albert Nock, “The Criminality of the State,” American Mercury (March 1939).

[11] R.J. Rummel’s latest estimate of twentieth-century democide stands at 262 million persons; the details are available at his Web site.

[12] Olson, Power and Prosperity, p. 66 (emphasis added).

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Tyranny’s Last Stand: The Tipping Point is Here

From: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/10/tyrannys-last-stand-tipping-point-is.html

Michael Edwards
Activist Post

In Malcolm Gladwell‘s provocative book The Tipping Point, he gives many examples of how seemingly small, insignificant decisions can radiate to cause an eventual wave of change that overtakes the prevailing modes of behavior.  He clearly extrapolates how the silent leaders of society — not the ones on TV, or the ones we appoint — set trends through their singular ability to recognize an underlying need, or change of direction.  It can be as simple as a clothing style, a type of cuisine, a new travel destination . . . or the need to change the world’s political course.  I believe there are signs that The Tipping Point for free humanity has been reached; from here on out, there will be an open dialogue between the forces of tyranny and the forces of freedom.

The idea that in order to recognize tyranny, you must force it to act as such is very much the case right now.  Humanity is rebelling worldwide to the dictates of Elite overlords and petty bureaucrats alike.  The small, silent statements of resistance have reached a classic tipping point.  Whether it is tax rebellion, free speech, freedom of religion, the freedom to speak out against endless war, women’s rights in oppressive regimes, or the freedom to grow one’s own food in peace, the small defeats and victories have become a sustained chorus of resistance to ever-increasing forces of control.  This chorus has coalesced from the choirs of different nations, different genders, different political affiliations, different races, and different socioeconomic positions.  This is the ultimate sign of a true tipping point:  critical mass has been reached.

The modern pantheon of enemies has now been identified, along with their demiurges, by even the most common of men. The enemies are the banking consortium; the global Elite born and bred from mega-wealth; the academics and economists who disconnect ideas from reality; and the scientific and military minds who are so compartmentalized by design that they rarely know what sort of dictatorship to which they are making their contributions. These are the groups that every man, woman, and child recognizes instinctively, because they are the same personalities encountered in our childhood. Until this point, these dictators have had the smugness to assume that the ones they view as the weak would cower forever.

These tyrants have vastly underestimated the power of numbers and the exponential factors by which simple numbers can increase to create a tipping point that can cause an overnight Sea change. The few who had the most courage, while enduring mass ridicule, have spoken out for decades against a coming full spectrum tyranny.  These natural leaders are now raising their voices even louder and more urgently.  Some of these pioneers have withdrawn from their previous missions in acknowledgment of The Tipping Point; many have decided to redouble their efforts.  Regardless, little by little their collective audience has grown; whether in stadiums, or on Web sites, or in home discussion groups; the numbers have swelled, prompting a massive fear response from tyrants who know (with their instincts) when an uprising is taking place.

So now we see tyranny emerging in its most blatant form: citizen spies; government COINTELPRO operations against peaceful assembly; technological surveillance of every stripe, and the jackbooted common thug promoted to the top of the class in order to enforce an increasingly regimented society where thought is an actual liability.

The good news is that it is already too late for the forces of tyranny; they have had their reign for long enough — The Tipping Point has been reached.  The previous fence-straddlers — even from the mainstream media — are now sounding the alarm.  And true patriots everywhere who have seen the writing on the wall for a long time coming are now sounding the charge.  Tyranny has been fatally weakened by its continual pursuit of the lowest common denominator.  All that remains is a hollow shell without the substance to counter a new Humanity tipping toward unbridled freedom.

Other Articles From Michael Edwards:
Is Military Spending Saving Or Enslaving?
The Cybersecurity Directive Goes Viral
Activism in the Age of Tyranny and Terror
The Ultimate Betrayal: Police and Military Working Together to Oppress Americans

Statism Left, Right, and Center

by Murray N. Rothbard

Reprinted from Libertarian Review, 1979

“Left,” “Right,” and “center” have increasingly become meaningless categories. Libertarians know that their creed can and does attract people from all parts of the old, obsolete ideological spectrum. As consistent adherents of individual liberty in all aspects of life, we can attract liberals by our devotion to civil liberty and a noninterventionist foreign policy, and conservatives by our adherence to property rights and the free market. But what about the other side of the coin? What about authoritarianism and statism across the board?

For a long while it has been clear that statists, right, left, and center, have been growing more and more alike – that their common devotion to the State has transcended their minor differences in style. In the last decade, all of them have been coagulating into the center, until the differences among “responsible” conservatives, right-wing Social Democrats, neoconservatives, and even such democratic socialists as John Kenneth Galbraith and Robert Heilbroner, have become increasingly difficult to fathom.

The common creed central to all these groupings is support for, and aggrandizement of, the American State, at home and abroad. Abroad, this means support for ever-greater military budgets, for FBI and CIA terrorism, for a foreign policy of global intervention, and absolute backing for the State of Israel. Domestically there are variations, but a general agreement holds that government should not undertake more than it can achieve: in short, a continued, but more efficiently streamlined welfare state. All this is bolstered by an antilibertarian policy on personal freedom, advancing the notion, for either religious or secular reasons, that the State is the proper vehicle for coercively imposing what these people believe to be correct moral principles.

This coalition of statists has been fusing for some years; but recently a new outburst of candor has let many cats out of the proverbial bag. It all began in the summer 1978 issue of the socialist magazine Dissent, edited by ex-Trotskyist Irving Howe. A lead article by the best-selling economist Robert Heilbroner says flat out that socialists should no longer try to peddle the nostrum that central planning in the socialist world of the future will be conjoined with personal freedom, with civil liberties and freedom of speech.

No, says Heilbroner, socialists must face the fact that socialism will have to be authoritarian in order to enforce the dictates of central planning, and will have to be grounded on a “collective morality” enforced upon the public. In short, we cannot, in Heilbroner’s words, have “a socialist cake with bourgeois icing,” – that is, with the preservation of personal freedom.

An intriguing reaction to the Heilbroner piece comes from the right wing. For years, a controversy once raged amidst the intellectual circles on the right between the “traditionalists,” who made no pretense about interest in liberty or individual rights; the libertarians, who have long since abandoned the right wing; and the “fusionists,” led by the late Frank Meyer, who tried to fuse the two positions into a unified amalgam. Both the “trads” and libertarians realized early that the two positions were not only inconsistent but diametrically opposed.

In recent years, the trads have been winning out over the fusionists in the conservative camp, as the conservatives have sidled up more eagerly to power. Now, Dale Vree, a regular columnist for National Review, takes the opportunity to hail the Heilbroner article and to call for a mighty right-left coalition on behalf of statism (“Against Socialist Fusionism,” National Review, December 8, 1978, p. 1547). He also slaps at the fusionists by pointing out that the “socialist fusionists,” those trying to fuse economic collectivism with cultural individualism, necessarily suffer from the same inconsistencies as their counterparts on the right wing, who have tried to join economic individualism with cultural collectivism.

Vree writes,

Heilbroner is also saying what many contributors to NR have said over the last quarter century: you can’t have both freedom and virtue. Take note, traditionalists. Despite his dissonant terminology, Heilbroner is interested in the same thing you’re interested in: virtue.”

But Vree’s enthusiasm for the authoritarian socialist does not stop there. He is also intrigued with the Heilbroner view that a socialist culture must “foster the primacy of the collectivity” rather than the “primacy of the individual.” Moreover, he is happy to applaud Heilbroner’s lauding of the alleged “moral” and “spiritual” focus of socialism as against “bourgeois materialism.” Vree quotes Heilbroner, “Bourgeois culture is focused on the material achievement of the individual. Socialist culture must focus on his or her moral or spiritual achievement.” Vree then adds, “There is a traditional ring to that statement.” And how!

He then applauds Heilbroner’s decrying capitalism because it has “no sense of ‘the good'” and permits “consenting adults” to do anything they please. Reacting in horror from this picture of freedom and diversity, Vree writes, “But, Heilbroner says alluringly, because a socialist society must have a sense of “‘the good’ not everything will be permitted.”

To Vree, it is impossible “to have economic collectivism along with cultural individualism” or vice versa, and so he is happy, like his left-wing counterpart Heilbroner, to opt for collectivism across the board. He concludes by noting the fusion of “right-wing” and “left-wing” libertarianism, and then he calls for a counterfusion on behalf of statism:

Several mavericks have been busy fusing right-wing libertarianism with left-wing libertarianism (anarchism). If the writings of such different socialists as Robert Heilbroner, Christopher Lasch, Morris Janowitz, Midge Decter, and Daniel Bell are indicative of a tendency, we may see the rise of a socialist traditionalist fusionism. One wonders if America contains any “Tory Socialists” on the right side of its aisle who will go out to embrace them.

The whopping error in that paragraph is that one doesn’t have to wonder for a moment.

The Buckleys, the Burnhams and their ilk have been scrambling for such an embrace for a long time – at least in practice. All that is left is the open and candid admission that this is what has been going on.

A new polarization, a new ideological spectrum, is fast taking shape. Big government, coercion, statism – or individual rights, liberty, and voluntarism, across the board, in every facet of American life.

The lines are getting drawn with increasing clarity. Statism vs. liberty. Us or them.

Reprinted from Mises.org.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School, founder of modern libertarianism, and academic vice president of the Mises Institute. He was also editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and appointed Lew as his literary executor.

The Best of Murray Rothbard

The “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Prospects for Liberty

I have to say I agree with this writer. American/Christian exceptionalism has no place in our nation. The attitude christians seem to take against muslims, hispanics and others who have as much right to have the kind of life they choose as any of us, is despicable and completely contrary to The Gospel of The Kingdom.

Muslims did not crash planes into the twin towers on 9/11. a group of radicals did. Hate is a very scary thing. You see the scripture implies that what we hate is what we ourselves become.

As Americans, but especially as believers, we need to welcome the foreigner. In part because we are strangers in a foriegn land ourselves-we are not of this world. More importantly because Scripture commands that the foreigner among us is be treated fairly and kindly. E

by Jacob Huebert on August 19, 2010
The furor over the “Ground Zero Mosque” (which is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero) doesn’t make me very optimistic about the prospects for liberty.
As a libertarian and just a live-and-let-live kind of guy, I can’t imagine caring much about, let alone vocally protesting, what someone is building two blocks away from me.

Yet apparently many of my fellow Americans are such busybodies that they’ll whine for weeks about something being built hundreds or thousands of miles away from them, in a city where they don’t live and probably won’t even visit. And many of the complainers are among the Tea Party set whom we are occasionally told are “libertarian,” even though they seem to hate Muslims and Mexicans and love war at least as much as they hate the federal government and love liberty.

Jonah Goldberg claims that the conservatives who object “mostly” recognize that the Muslims have a legal right to build their center. But what I hear on talk radio makes me doubt this. A common argument there seems to be that since “liberals” don’t care about the constitution or property rights in general, they aren’t entitled to invoke them now — as though liberals somehow have the power to waive Muslims’ rights.

In any event, even if Goldberg is correct, it’s hard to imagine that the spirit of liberty resides in the sort of people who get so worked up over this sort of thing. The ease with which they’ve been distracted by this issue suggests that reducing government isn’t going to be their top priority once their team is back in control in Washington.

Jacob Huebert is an attorney, a law professor, and the author of Libertarianism Today (Praeger 2010).

Jacob Huebert
View all posts by Jacob Huebert
Jacobs website

Coast Guard and Obama Administration Betrays the People and Country it is Sworn to Protect


An aircraft releases Corexit oil dispersant over the Gulf

The Gulf oil disaster has finally shown us the mentality of certain people and corporations as we see fully demonstrated in the above picture. What we see is extremely low altitude Chemtrail spraying in the Gulf. And of course it’s considered safe as are all extremely dangerous chemicals and heavy metals by the government and the corporations that use them. This spraying of Corexit is certified by the EPA as being a safe hell to breathe in though early on in the disaster it was reported that the EPA warned BP not to use it.

Over 40% of adults living within ten miles of the coast said they have
experienced direct exposure to the oil spill or clean-up effort. Within
this group, nearly 40% reported physical symptoms of skin irritations
and respiratory problems, which they attributed to the oil spill.

Colombia University

Someone or a group of some ones should probably be shot for what they have done to the southern United States with Corexit for it is doubtful that any medical protocol, no matter how brilliantly designed, is going to be able to protect the animals, plants and people in a wide region around the Gulf of Mexico. Corexit is an agent that has been shown to break down lipid membranes, which cover and protect human skin and cover each and every human cell and absolutely no one on the planet has every worked with this kind of toxicity before.

Over one-third of parents report that their children
have experienced either physical symptoms or mental
health distress as a consequence of the oil spill.
Colombia University

Human skin and cell membranes are composed of a thin layer of lipids and Corexit, by nature, breaks down these organized barriers into smaller individual molecules allowing the barrier to become permeable to pathogens. The skin irritation could be caused by prolonged exposure to these chemicals and could break down the ability of the body to fight off infection and on a cellular level interfere with the health and respiration of the cells.

My prediction is that we will be dealing with the
impacts of this spill for several decades to come and
it will outlive me. I won’t be here to see the recovery.
Dr. Ed Cake
Biological Oceanographer

The fact that it can cause rupture of red blood cells indicates that it can severely damage cell membranes. Cell membranes consist of a mixture of lipids (about 30%), proteins (about 50%), cholesterol, and some carbohydrates. A key portion of the membrane is the lipid bilayer that consists of phospholipids. Any disruption of this lipid bilayer is likely to cause dysfunction of the membrane that lead to membrane rupture (as is known to be the case with red blood cells and corexit), increased cell mebrane permeability (allowing toxins to penetrate the cell), and disrupted cell-cell communication causing overall organism disfunction and possible death. Since corexit has been designed to disrupt and disperse lipids/oils, exposure of the body’s cells to this chemical through inhalation, skin absorption, or ingestion is likely to cause severe organ disfunction.

We are beginning to get reports as far as 800 miles north of the coast in Missouri of wide-scale damage to plant life that can only be coming from one source – dispersed airborne oil. Oil toxicity is one hugely damning thing but oil mixed and dispersed with Corexit is quite another.

Dispersants have never been applied on this scale, leaving
environmental scientists guessing about the consequences.
Popular Science.

There is great concern that the dispersant BP used so widely will do more harm than the oil itself that leaked into the Gulf. The corporate monster British Petroleum chose to “cover their trail” by releasing disturbingly excessive amounts of Corexit onto the area of the spill. By dispersing the oil, BP and the Americans who own it hoped to reduce the scope of the devastation, at least in terms of diminishing their financial liabilities since the amount of measurable oil they can be fined for is thereby reduced.

The EPA asked BP to stop using Corexit, which is banned in
18 countries due to its toxicity, but the oil transnational refused.

The Coast Guard routinely approved BP requests to use thousands of gallons of the chemical per day to break up the oil in the Gulf, despite a federal directive to use the dispersant rarely, the investigators said. The Coast Guard approved 74 waivers over a 48-day period after the Environmental Protection Agency order. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., released a letter Saturday that said instead of complying with the EPA restriction, “BP often carpet-bombed the ocean with these chemicals and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it.”

Back at the end of June Yobie Benjamin, writing for the San Francisco Chronicle, was reporting about a mysterious disease that has stricken crops in Mississippi. “It seems like damage brought by the oil gusher has spread way beyond the ocean, coastal areas and beaches. Collateral damage now appears to include agricultural damage far into inland Mississippi.” The disease has caused widespread damage to plants from weeds to farmed organic and conventionally grown crops.

800 miles from the Gulf Coast we are seeing this.

On July 20th I got a letter from a woman living in Missouri who wanted to let me know that the wild vines that are on her property were dying and look like rusted lace. She started noticing these around June 22nd and they continue to die especially after a rain. Also now other leaves are dying and seem to have holes and brown spots in them. Leaves from hickory trees, poison ivy and basically almost all other vegetation seem to have this. She has lived on this property for 14 years and has never seen anything like this. She felt sure that this is from the oil spill and the chemicals used. “I really do feel that it is from the rain.”

More than a third report children with new rashes or breathing
problems, or who are nervous, fearful or “very sad” since the
spill began. And even though the gusher of oil has been stanched,
almost a quarter of residents still fear that they will have to move.
National Center for Disaster Preparedness

By the beginning of August cries have started, “Where is all the oil?” It seems they have only made the devastation much worse with the use of 2 million gallons of dispersant. No one knows how light or severe the long-term effects will be but it’s beginning to look like we can assume the worst even up to and including the possibility of impacting the Gulf currents, which will have great impacts on the weather in the North Atlantic and Europe. It makes sense that the currents would be altered by changing the viscosity of the water and we do have the first reports of the stalling of the Gulf Loop Current.

Dr. Gianluigi Zangari, an Italian physicist at the Frascati National Laboratories in Italy notes that the effects of this stall have begun to spread to the Gulf Stream. This is because the Loop Current is a crucial element of the Gulf Stream itself and why it is commonly referred to as the “main engine” of the Stream. If worst case scenarios come to pass hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, will be wishing certain people, governmental organizations and corporations never existed.

Researchers at Tulane say it appears they’ve detected a Corexit fingerprint in the orange blobs found lodged in the bodies of tiny blue crab larvae collected from marshes that stretch from Texas to Florida so we can begin to assume that the toxic blueprint of this particular oil disaster will be enormous; the effects will be measured for many years or decades to come. Corexit is banned in the United Kingdom but was approved for use in the Gulf of Mexico by the Environmental Protection Agency. Oil dispersants trap oil and hold it in globules in the water instead of allowing it to rise to the surface where it can evaporate or be more easily collected. By keeping the oil away from the surface and therefore away from the shore, BP is minimizing its costs of cleaning up oil that reaches the shore and minimizing the amount of the fines that can be imposed upon them.

Chemist Kim Anderson of Oregon State University in Corvallis heads a team tracking how much of the worst toxins in the oil – organic chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – have been dumped in the water by the spill. They’ll be measured at four sites off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Earlier samples from Louisiana alone showed that by June 7, concentrations of the toxic chemicals had risen 40 times higher than levels on May 1, although the water looked clear of oil.

Keith Ouchley, the biologist who leads the Nature Conservancy in Louisiana said, “What we don’t know are the biological impacts that occur as that oil is dispersed through the deep water columns under the ocean’s surface. We don’t know what it is doing or affecting today or in the future. There is very little experience with this scale of spill at these depths in such a biologically productive system as this.”

The greatest concern, added Ouchley, is what impact the undersea oil concentrations could have on the billions of tiny larval fish, shrimp and other organisms that are at the bottom of the whole marine food chain – and we may not know that for many years. And it’s the same for the health effects on adults and the future for many children in the northern Gulf.

Click for PDF of Mercury sensitivity map

No one in the Gulf is calculating the damage or the threat accurately for residents there are already under heavy attack from mercury-polluting smokestacks. The government has never admitted the true dangers of this heavy metal, which is a potent neurotoxin. Add the exposure to a large percentage of the local population due to mercury-containing dental amalgam, and now it’s almost flu season meaning the government is going to want to swoop into the area with its mercury-containing vaccines.

One 33-year-old woman said that upon seeking medical advice at a clinic, she was told she had scabies. Hours later, she was told by an area hospital that she had a staph infection. The woman was treated with a shot of penicillin and Elimite cream, a topical agent for the treatment of scabies mite infestations, and an oral antibiotic. In addition to the lesions, the woman reported aching bones, weight loss, stomach pains, inflammation in her leg and sties developing in her eyes. No consideration is given to toxin exposures from the Corexit mixed with the oil.

The active ingredient of the toxic chemical dispersant, which is up to 60% by volume, being sprayed by BP to fight the Gulf oil spill is a neurotoxin pesticide that is acutely toxic to both human and aquatic life, causes cancer, causes damage to internal organs such as the liver and kidneys simply by absorbing it through the skin and may cause reproductive side effects.

In fact the neurotoxin pesticide that is lethal to 50% of life in concentrations as little as 2.6 parts per million has been banned for use in the UK since 1998 because it failed the UK’s “Rocky shore test” which assures that the dispersant does not cause a “significant deleterious ecological change” – or to put that in laymen’s terms, it can kill off the entire food chain. But since the American government feels threatened by its own people, and takes great pride in treating us cruelly while lying about so many things, it comes as no surprise that they would create the greatest gas chamber the world has ever known for its own people.

Corexit has earned the highest EPA warning label for toxicity, which means the effects of the toxic chemicals to the eye are corrosive resulting in irreversible destruction of ocular tissue and other tissue with corneal involvement along with burning that can persist for more than 21 days. Effects to human skin are corrosive resulting in tissue destruction into the dermis and/or scarring. Yet you will be astonished to see at the end of this chapter that the company who makes Corexit says it’s no more toxic than chocolate or ice cream. I kid you not!

Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and according to a literature review performed by the group, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Corexit was later linked with widespread long-lasting health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. While writing Sound Truth and Corporate Myths, Dr. Riki Ott uncovered Exxon’s clinical data showing 6,722 workers, out of a total of 11,000, reported upper respiratory illnesses. In 2003, a Yale grad student, Annie O’Neill, conducted a pilot study that showed roughly one-third of these workers continued to suffer symptoms of chemical exposure.


%d bloggers like this: