. . . in Texas. How sad. Have Texans no compassion for children?4:43 pm on June 19, 2018 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
2:22 pm on June 19, 2018
How artificial outrage is created by media to serve statist ends.
Because of their introspective soul-searching depth, some of the most powerful and illuminating writing in literature are memoirs. I particularly have in mind the famous Confessions of St. Augustine and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the panoramic autobiographies by Henry Adams and Albert Jay Nock. I would like to nominate author and publisher Ron Unz for a chair in this select pantheon. In three concise candid confessions to his readers he painstakingly traces the torturous path of how he has undergone a dramatic change of consciousness, resulting in unbridled skepticism of supposedly settled ironclad truths put forth by establishment media and academia of central orthodoxies of 20th century history. His journey becomes our journey, we share his angst and elation at truths uncovered.
First, in John McCain: When “Tokyo Rose” Ran for President: What Was John McCain’s True Wartime Record in Vietnam? Unz laid bare the raw unseasonable truth concerning the “maverick” neocon warmonger, the thuggish brute John McCain.
Second, in his recent article, Our Great Purge of the 1940’s, he describes how he methodically uncovered the cold reality concerning the revisionist critics of Franklin “Duplicitous” Roosevelt and the New Deal leading up to WWII.
In his latest article, Unz traces his passive nonchalant sleepwalking through history and how he was powerfully smacked, jarred and awoken to the disturbing truths surrounding the savage events of November 22, 1963 — the murder of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas and the subsequent cover-up. Everything massively changed on that day in terms of government structure (open and covert), subsequent foreign and domestic policies, societal attitudes and perceptions — everything. The demographic attitudinal polling studies of that generational cohort demonstrates this.
In the pre-PC days of studying and cataloging the history of the world, historians designated the initials BC and AD to signify or divide history. In modern American history one would not be off the mark in signifying the dividing line as the era before 11-22-63 and after 11-22-63. JFK was definitely not Jesus Christ, but the full story of his tragic violent death and the shattering impact of its consequences has still not been fully written.2:32 am on June 19, 2018 Email Charles Burris
Trump orders Pentagon to create another branch of the military. As if the Empire needed any more.
[Trump’s] directive will task the Defense Department to begin the process of establishing the ‘Space Force’ as the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces. “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space,” Trump said.
But what about those of us who have better things to do than obsess about America not dominating every aspect of the known physical universe? Why do we have to pay for your sense of inadequacy and insecurity? Why do future generations (who will be stuck with the bill for all of this) have to pay for it? And of course the rationale involves the usual paranoia about…you guessed it:
The president framed space as a national security issue, saying he does not want “China and Russia and other countries leading us.”4:16 pm on June 18, 2018 Email Dale Steinreich
. . . every time it arrests and jails someone for DUI, drug possession, car theft, burglary, peeping tomism, murder, and all other crimes. For some strange reason the Lying Media Scum (LMS) and their dimwitted Hollywood comrades are pretending that this only happens when illegal aliens break our immigration laws (and then commit further crimes here, including violent ones). Not to mention how the Bush/Obama administration killed over half a million Muslims. Talk about family separation. This fact highlights what a buffoon Laura Bush is, who is in the news today condemning Trump for “separating families” by enforcing U.S. immigration law, a law that her husband took an oath to uphold and enforce.10:06 am on June 18, 2018 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
The Bilderberg official web site is here. It explains the goals and funding of this organization, which is a foundation. It provides general information about who attends, but no names of this year’s participants. They are selected by the Steering Committee.
The latter critical function involves behind-the-scenes considerations that we can hypothesize are at work. The Committee may solicit prospects and then run them by key people before that year’s list of attendees is finalized. It is likely that consensus dominates this important facet of the process, as opposed to voting; but that consensus is probably skewed to the input of the most powerful people. The key people are probably those now in key positions in government and finance, primarily within Europe and America, or those who held such positions in past years. The Steering Committee probably solicits suggestions from a fairly wide circle of people before drawing up a list for a given year. The list of attendees will be responsive to what are seen as popular and pressing concerns about which attendees want to know more. Those who are invited to make presentations will include those thought to be best in a position to provide new and useful ideas and frameworks.
The Bilderberg meeting is a forum for presenting points of view frankly and in private about matters of world governance. The private conversations help powerful and busy people with large responsibilities to form concepts and frameworks for understanding and dealing with issues they may encounter or be able to affect. The Meeting is something like any academic meeting. Such meetings involve both presentations and lots of private interactions, discussions and gossip in which people meet other people.
For detailed easily available information about the Bilderberg agenda that emerges over the years, see this source which draws from Daniel Estulin’s book “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group”. According to this source, the overriding Bilderberg goal is “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.”
A Bilderberg press release provides us with this year’s topics. They are
1. Populism in Europe
2. The inequality challenge
3. The future of work
4. Artificial intelligence
5. The US before midterms
6. Free trade
7. US world leadership
9. Quantum computing
10. Saudi Arabia and Iran
11. The “post-truth” world
12. Current events
This list alerts us to the current worries and concerns of the Bilderberg powerful. It clearly reveals the supra-national and worldwide perspective of the Bilderberg meeting, with topics ranging over Europe, the U.S., Russia, the Middle East, and the world, as well as global economic issues. European populism heads the list, and it most directly challenges the one-world, one-government concept because populism and nationalism are making a comeback. Inequality is a related challenge, the connection being that restive masses are more receptive to populist appeals. These two Bilderberg concerns (#1 and #2) tie in directly to the income-generating power of the masses, which is covered in topics #3 and #4. The powerful are worried about unemployment and how to fund social welfare schemes to pacify the masses.
Next come three topics related to Donald Trump (#5, #6 and #7), but it would have been terribly gauche to have simply made him a topic. Although European leaders and EU proponents would like Europe with one voice to play a decisive role in world government, they recognize that the U.S. predominates. Besides, about one-third of Bilderberg attendees come from North America, so that these topics are important to them. Trump’s world leadership has moved in an America-centric direction, with trade being a key Trump issue; this is bound to horrify the Bilderberg elites. They are no doubt hoping for a repudiation of Trump in the mid-term elections, but if the European elections are any indication, they’re not going to get it.
Russia is a topic this year. It could be a topic every year because of its position with respect to Europe. Why an interest in quantum computing? Maybe it’s a concern about cryptography or military applications, because this technology will soon make standard computing obsolete. The “post-truth” world is a nod in the direction of how a world government is to face an age in which truth is out of philosophical fashion, in which verities are said to have no moorings in reason or custom, in which religion is seen as superstition, in which families are superfluous, and in which morality can’t seem to find any foundations. If the masses increasingly do not believe in anything, why should they believe in a world government and how can they be controlled?9:12 am on June 18, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff
The biggest ever gay pride parade just took place in Israel. “The Tel Aviv Municipality said over 250,000 people celebrated at the city’s 20th Gay Pride Parade, an event that draws people from around the world to party at the Israeli beach city that has built an image of an oasis of tolerance for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.” Tel Aviv claims to be the world’s “most gay-friendly city.” “Tens of thousands of tourists visit Israel for Tel Aviv’s pride week each year.”
Now, I don’t care if you are L, G, B, T, I, or Q, just so long as your actions are peaceful, voluntary, and don’t aggress against the person or property of others. My point in posting this is because many conservative Christians (of which I am one) are always talking about Israel, Israel, Israel being such a great country. They ignore gay pride events like this while at the same time strongly condemning gay pride events in the United States. I have news for my brethren: the country of Israel and the government of Israel are just as corrupt as the country of the United States and the government of the United States.6:43 am on June 18, 2018 Email Laurence M. Vance
The tradition of the West is embodied in the Great Conversation that began in the dawn of history and that continues to the present day. Whatever the merits of other civilizations in other respects, no civilization is like that of the West in this respect. No other civilization can claim that its defining characteristic is a dialogue of this sort. No dialogue in any other civilization can compare with that of the West in the number of great works of the mind that have contributed to this Dialogue. The Spirit of Western Civilization is the spirit of inquiry. Its dominant element is the Logos. Nothing is to remain undiscussed. Everyone is to speak his mind. No proposition is to be left unexamined.
Robert Maynard Hutchins, The Great Conversation: The Substance of a Liberal Education.
Logos is an ancient Greek term. It means reason as expressed in human speech. The Greeks believed reason to be the controlling principle in an orderly, harmonious universe (cosmos).
The faculties of reason (conceptual thought) and language (propositional speech) are what distinguish human beings from other creatures.
Accordingly, man is described as “the rational animal.” As philosopher Mortimer Adler points out in his book, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes:
. . . man is the only talking, the only naming, declaring or questioning, affirming or denying, the only arguing, agreeing or disagreeing, the only discursive animal.
Philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand develops this idea further in her book, For the New Intellectual:
Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food, and the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch – or build a cyclotron – without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
But to think is an act of choice . . . Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival – so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is the question ‘to think or not to think.’
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think – not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment . . . Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality.
Human beings are capable of abstract thought, the transcendence of their immediate environment, and the emancipation from the perpetual present.
In one of the most important books of the 20th Century, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, historian Carroll Quigley elaborates on this crucial idea of abstraction: (more…)9:59 am on June 17, 2018 Email Charles Burris
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 3:05 PM
To: walter block
Walter: I have one question: the following is, I think, a fair summary of Hoppe’s argument (one accepted by both you and Murray).
Argumentation ethics argues the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied in discourse.
while it is certainly better than evoking natural rights, which are a total myth that cannot be demonstrated to exist, why do you think it provides a foundation for libertarianism? it seems to me that at best, it says that NAP can’t be rejected in discourse. but can’t one be a libertarian without engaging in discourse about it. e.g. you could just live your life as a libertarian (which is what i do, as best i can) and simply not discuss it at all (personally, i prefer to discuss theoretical physics) in which case it’s necessary to provide another justification for libertarians (i justify it – to myself of course, since i don’t discuss it – as being most compatible with my psychological disposition). that has been perfectly adequate to me. R
Dear R: I regard my friend Hans Hoppe as one of the most gifted libertarian theoreticians not only now actively writing, but in all of recorded history. In my view, his argumentation ethics is one of the many jewels in his crown. I not only think it provides a foundation for libertarianism, I think it provides the very best foundation for libertarianism now available to us, thanks to him.
You are quite right that one can be “a libertarian without engaging in discourse about it…” All one need do is live according to the non aggression principle. However, Hans demonstrates that the only way to JUSTIFY a philosophical principle is through discourse. And that therefore those who argue against libertarianism engage in a performative contradiction, since arguing implies adherence to the NAP.
Here is a bibliography on this issue:12:18 pm on June 16, 2018 Email Walter E. Block
Here are two powerful expose’ articles from The Spectator describing what has been the real hidden agenda of the Left in the aftermath of the collapse of Marxism/Leninism in the Soviet Union: Marxism didn’t die. It’s alive and well and living among us, and As the left surges back, Marxism’s bloody legacy is covered up.
Out of this understanding came Eurocommunism, through which the continent’s communists sidled back into the democratic and anti-Stalinist left, just as Soviet power vanished from the earth. It was and remains amazing just how little this new trend cares about once huge issues such as nationalisation and state control. It is, as David Aaronovitch’s old comrade pointed out all those years ago, much more interested in sex, in more ways than one. It will cheerfully see the railways privatised, as long as childhood is nationalised, lifelong marriage is made obsolete, Christianity and patriotism are disempowered and defeated, borders are flung wide, and education becomes a mechanism for enforcing egalitarianism.
People in the West seldom knew just how interested the old Eastern bloc communist regimes also were in these cultural and moral objectives. The communists loathed lasting Christian marriage and mistrusted all private life. They vigorously promoted abortion and easy divorce. I will always recall, one dark Moscow afternoon, finding a statue to the frightful Pavlik Morozov, whom Soviet children were taught to worship because he had betrayed his parents to the party. If you knew what it represented, it was a bit like stumbling across a graven image of Moloch.
Épater le bourgeois (shock the middle classes) has been the revolutionary rallying cry of the Left in the cultural war against Judeo-Christian morality and the nuclear family for well over a hundred years.
It lies at the epicenter of Modernism, Marxism, Fascism, National Socialism, Feminism, Progressivism, Environmentalism, and Homosexualism.10:06 am on June 15, 2018 Email Charles Burris
What’s the Best Way to Promote Liberty?
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Article for your critique
Good morning, I am passing on an article a friend of mine, and cohost of my radio show Patriots Lament, posted today, if you care to or have time, I would appreciate your comments/critique of it. Thanks.
Dear J: I disagree with this view, one that Leonard Read offered too. I think we need do more than live good personal lives in order to promote liberty. Who are the two people who converted more people to libertarianism than anyone else? Which two stood head and shoulders over all others in promoting liberty – at least in terms of mass conversions? They are of course Ron Paul and Ayn Rand. The former has lead an exemplary personal life. The latter, not so much, at least not in traditional terms. If the best way to promote liberty were by living a good personal life, then Ayn Rand could never be mentioned in this regard. (Of course, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises promoted liberty quite a bit too, but not, mainly, through mass conversions. Their contribution was in other directions).6:57 pm on June 14, 2018 Email Walter E. Block
Many headlines question Trump’s triumph in Singapore, unreasonably so. Petty minds are at work who are paid to create stories, and stories always have conflict as a central element. If there is no conflict, the pundits imagine it. This is why fake news is not news but a form of entertainment. Besides, the audience for anti-Trump material is large.
The media belittle Trump’s accomplishment in countless petty ways, but they’ll soon be forgotten as they go on to the next concocted story. Trump will be remembered when they are long forgotten.
The big picture is that Trump outfoxed China. Trump broke the ice. He broke a frozen situation in Korea that favored China and its erstwhile ally, North Korea. China is trying to act as if it was critical in this movement, because China wants to hold North Korea in its sphere of economic and political influence. However, a united Korea stands like a united Vietnam as a stopping point for Chinese pretensions to project its power beyond its borders. Trump’s agreement with Kim signals the blocking of China and a limit to Chinese hegemony over its neighbors, and that is a major accomplishment for the U.S. strategy toward China.
The big picture is that in Singapore Trump and Kim furthered a peace process that began on May 10, 2017 when the newly-elected Moon made peace with North Korea a priority. Other steps have been taken during the past year, including meetings between Moon and Kim. The Singapore Agreement is yet another step that keeps the momentum of this process going. Hypercritical media comments and questions about the latest summit ignore or miss the big picture, which is that it is part of a stepwise process. This involves discovery by all sides of what can be done and invention of ways to do it, all embedded in a complex situation that involves neighbors like China and Japan who also have interests in the region. Trump’s approach was to endorse a general framework, and that’s sensible because the discovery-invention process takes a lot of time and dickering. Both sides retained flexibility through this lean approach.
Cold War and post-Cold War warriors who remain outspoken and influential in Washington did not succeed in getting their way with North Korea, after decades of trying. The situation threatened to come to open war. Trump has postponed that day and opened up the opportunity to make sure that that day never arrives. This is a major accomplishment and triumph.
The deal is not done, and Trump knows it. His followup remarks have been open and frank concerning how matters can change as time passes. Trump unfroze the untenable situation created by his predecessors. Kim, Moon and Trump will now have to keep doing that by concrete steps such as Trump’s calling for a halt to joint war games with South Korea.9:59 pm on June 13, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:22 AM
Subject: Caesar Chavez
Though your analysis of B’s question is consistent with principle and logical, it seems to me there is another possibility—the spraying of the field while workers are present could indeed be a tort, but one that the farmer can get away with because he knows the workers will not or cannot take him to court over it. In other words, the workers do not consent contractually to the spraying, but they acquiesce in it for reasons of their own, just as subjects in a State acquiesce in its various oppressions, because they believe themselves unable to prevent them, and likely to be more greviously harmed if they try.
I don’t think one can know in a specific case which alternative applies without careful investigation, and every case could be different. But that is what juries are for. In a free society it would be much easier for the farm workers to take the employer to court, and the jury would be well instructed in its rights and responsibilities (and even more so if the jury is itself professional).. S6:08 pm on June 13, 2018 Email Walter E. Block
Cesar Chavez saves workers from being poisoned. He’s a hero?
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:37 PM
Subject: Migrant farm workers
Dear Prof. Block,
Recently, I had an interesting encounter which I would like you to help me assess in light of our common views on libertarianism.
Last week I attended an accepted college student day with my daughter at the University of Wyoming. (I note as an aside that my daughter made it clear to me that she was not interested in studying economics in college, and therefore she did not follow up on your generous invitation from last year to apply to study with you at Loyola.)
At the college event, we met the parents of an accepted student from California. Both the parents (and their parents as well) had been migrant farm workers from Mexico who eventually became naturalized citizens to the United States. The parents that I met said that they had started at a young age working in California vineyards picking grapes for both domestic consumption and export. They indicated that while picking grapes, the fields were often sprayed with pesticides from the air, even as the farm workers were working in the fields. They said that many of the workers would emerge with blisters and rashes on their arms from the poisonous chemicals. They credited Cesar Chavez and California legislators with eliminating the practice of spraying fields that would expose farm workers to this hazard (and also outlawing younger children from working in the fields).9:43 pm on June 12, 2018 Email Walter E. Block
9:38 am on June 12, 2018
Email Charles Burris
In addition to Ron Unz’s important article re-published today at LRC, American Pravda: Our Great Purge of the 1940s, here are two other valuable pieces detailing Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s spiteful revenge and vindictive determination to vilify, silence, and destroy his critics, here and here.
Nobel Prizes have been influenced by the affections and peculiarities of this and the last century, but let that not prevent the next peace prize from being awarded to three deserving men: Kim Jong Un, Moon Jae-in and Donald Trump. Obama’s prize was for a speech. Trump’s will be for a deed, if the prize is to mean anything at all. There will be sniping and worse emanating from the angry left in media and entertainment, many members of which have been entirely unable to see Trump as anything but some sort of grotesque monster and throwback, lacking in every department imaginable, not even a caricature but a Mr. Hyde or Dorian Gray portrait.
Trump’s agenda includes peace as a major objective, and he has brought his own methods to the presidency to achieve it with success. If North Korean peace arrives and the pact is fulfilled over the next few years, new possibilities for peace arise in other regions of the world. With Kim and Moon, Trump has now created options for resolving or alleviating relations with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Russia and China.
Trump has outflanked and disarmed his critics. Robert De Niro may as well beat his head against the wall. Trump’s win is our win. It measurably gives him the power to extend the gains for peace. Trump’s modus operandi includes gaining independence of action which translates into political power and influence, that is, a capacity to move in new political directions. He has achieved credible independence by such actions as withdrawing from the TPP, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, imposing tariffs, standing up to the media, and standing up to the G-7. His blunt talk is another key component of his method.
How well can Trump exploit the new configuration of political forces that he has helped create? That remains to be seen. There are downsides as well as upsides, there are pitfalls of many kinds, and there are opposing forces, so that worldwide peace is not an immediate prospect.
It should not be difficult to bring Russia back into reasonable relations with the U.S. Trump has already launched that effort and alluded to accepting Crimean annexation as a fait accompli. Iran seems a tough nut to crack, but the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is very intelligent and articulate, has already clarified Iran’s position on Israel. He has shrewdly suggested a referendum, which is a democratic device. This in no way whatsoever resolves the key issues, but it at least shows a desire to address those issues in a peaceful way. Syria presents a picture of divided U.S. policies. On the one hand, Trump has stated he wants out; on the other hand, Mattis says withdrawal is a strategic blunder; but this seems to be part of jockeying toward a political redrawing of Syria’s map. Peace and disentanglement of the U.S. have no clear roadmap in other regions such as Afghanistan and Yemen, although the Taliban and the Afghan government have had a three-day truce, unobserved by the Islamic State. How to deal with growing military strength of China and its pressuring of its neighbors, such as Vietnam, is yet another challenge.
The inherent difficulty of a policy of peace through U.S. strength is that the state’s power will be misused, such as by attempts to create peace by: making war, removing dictators, controlling weapons buildups, installing democracies, nation-building, securing pipeline routes, maintaining dollar hegemony, and securing a favored nation. Peace among states has to be a limited concept. It cannot be transformed into the goal of unlimited security without endangering peace. Peace in a world of states means no war between two states or among several. It does not mean securing peace within every state. It does not mean removing every threat to peace.
In the past 24 years, under Clinton, Bush and Obama, the U.S. misused its power egregiously in one war after another. Trump is moving in a different direction. However, there is no guarantee that he will not himself misuse his power, and we already can find instances of that. Future presidents of our country and leaders of other states face the same dangers and temptations to misuse power. What can change that? At a minimum, what would help is a clearly understood non-aggression ethos that is backed up by a clear understanding of self-defense and its limits. No state and no non-state organization should believe in its right to either preventive or preemptive war. The rights of both secession and revolution should be clarified. Economic extortion by means of political-military threats should be seen clearly as aggressive acts. The necessity to the peace of private property and its clear definitions and boundaries needs constantly to be emphasized. A peace ethos draws significantly from the libertarian ethos.9:08 am on June 12, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff
Ron Unz’s American Pravda: Our Great Purge of the 1940s,is one of the most important articles published in years. Brilliantly and dispassionately composed, it deserves to go viral with the widest possible readership. I strongly urge you share it with family, friends, and colleagues — particularly younger readers. The author, in the most disinterested and reflective manner, describes his honest search for that illusive intangible thing called historical truth, and catalogs the obstacles, from past eras and the present, which have been erected by establishment elites and their court intellectuals and servitors in academia and the mainstream media. After almost fifty years on a similar quest for the holy grail of historical truth, many of the poignant descriptions of the long forgotten persons and seminal books he discusses have become well known to me. But there are generations who, for many reasons outlined in his piece, are not aware of these pioneering heroic individuals who spoke truth to power. Here are some of their courageous works: here, here, here, and here.1:22 am on June 12, 2018 Email Charles Burris
See below for a list of my upcoming public speeches. If you live in these cities (Las Vegas, New Orleans, Auburn Al, NYC) or are visiting them while I’m there, please consider joining me at these events.
I never thought there could be an actual debate as a libertarian gathering concerning Murray Rothbard’s overwhelmingly excellent and magnificent contribution to our philosophy (it is not for nothing that he is properly known as “Mr. Libertarian), but, evidently, I thought wrong.
Another note: my friend Tim Moen, leader of the LP of Canada, has threatened to “spank” me in our debate.6:14 pm on June 11, 2018 Email Walter E. Block
At the not-so-tony-“Tony” Awards show in –where else — Hollywood. These Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton/Communism lovers, who are supposed to be so educated, articulate, and talented (so they endlessly tell us with all their “awards” shows), are so ignorant as to be completely incapable of anything but shouting obscenities, taking pictures of themselves with a “severed head” of the president, etc. They wildly applaud each other for such antics while giving themselves little gold trophies, and then go on to the next x-rated rant. It’s about the level of manners and sophistication of most of their movies, by the way. No wonder so many people think of “cinema” as being a combination of “sin” and “enema.”2:33 pm on June 11, 2018 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
. . . have ganged up on one of their own, Angela Alioto, the author of their “sanctuary city” law and current mayoral candidate, because she wants to exclude illegal aliens who have committed violent felonies. Tucker Carlson exposes these haters of human civilization.10:52 am on June 11, 2018 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
9:45 am on June 11, 2018
Email Charles Burris
Part 1 of 3
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 11:53 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: homesteading question
Someone asked me a question, claiming it seems silly that someone would have the right to claim a parcel of land, work it, and then abandon it – and yet it would remain theirs for eternity – presumably this would be potential wealth taken out of the stock available means for future generations or others to develop for their best use value.
I know you have dealt with this in the past I’m just having trouble finding the best source. If it isn’t too terribly inconvenient would you point me in the right direction… to the right essay(s) or books on this. Best, E
Beside issues and substance, there exists another aspect of G-7 meetings; and that is the realm of the ethos of G-7, its prevailing tendency, its spirit. The men and women at these meetings rarely get along with one another deep down, but they paper it over. They deem themselves the masters and governors of the industrialized world. The G-7 comes across as stuffy, controlling, manipulative, self-satisfied, hypocritical, elitist, arrogant, snobby and socialistic.
Against this background, Trump is a blast! He’s the outsider, from another world altogether than the political. He doesn’t mind breaking through the fake reserve and unity of these meetings. In fact, he wants to shake them up to achieve his own aims.
It was great to hear Trump go completely against the G-7 grain before the meeting even began by suggesting that Russia should have been included. He went on to use the tariff issue as a wedge to suggest that the goal should be zero tariffs, industry subsidies and interference with trade by all the G-7 members. Imagine that, each country no longer catering to its domestic agricultural interests. Break down the rigid status quo, Trump demands, even if it takes a “leader” actually risking position and power by standing up against domestic interests. At the end, Trump retracted his endorsement of the G-7’s final joint statement! Make our day, Donald.
The Trump way to get at the substance is to shake up the ethos. Trump has just got done shaking up the insufferable socialist elite ethos of the G-7. Politicians rule by the image of holding things together at the top. Trump challenges complacency. The G-7, like the EU, has the peculiar character of smothering and stultifying those in its grip. Endless rules and bureaucracy, bureaucracy and rules, stretch into the eternal future in a sea of crises demanding evermore control. This is the free world?? The windows need to be opened, doors unlocked and access to fresh air and movement created. That’s what Trump is doing, and it leads away from the prospect of a rigid world government. Trump is shaking up the new world order, making it the old world order. He is doing this constantly and on many fronts.9:27 am on June 10, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff
4:50 pm on June 9, 2018
Email Charles Burris
I call your attention to this fascinating article in The Guardian: Dames, detectives and dope: why we still love hardboiled crime — As political corruption, violence and gender politics gain fresh relevance, pulp noir is attracting new voices and audiences, giving the gumshoe a 21st-century reboot. It puts forth the idea that journalist and publisher H. L. Mencken pioneered a brand new genre — the hardboiled detective story. So who was this Mencken guy? Later this literary format was transposed to the cinema as film noir.