Ms. Anonymous writes,
Everyone is going crazy with the mask tyranny, including churches.
Boy, don’t get me going. The mandates from Parson Goat to muzzle ourselves are soooo anti-Scriptural. First, aren’t Christians called to promulgate truth? Why are churches, then, cooperating with and promoting the gigantic lie that is COVID19? Second, matters that aren’t specifically addressed in the Bible are left to the individual’s conscience. Why, then, are churches enforcing the State’s unconstitutional and illegal orders? Why are they siding with those congregants who cower behind their masks rather than boldly trusting the Lord to preserve their health against the rest of us?
Forgive me for interrupting Ms. A, who’s
…been pushing back in various ways, but when a new blanket mask order from our Parish Council came down last week, I’d had enough. I’m trying to live in peace, but circumstances make it difficult. … I looked up the actual Public Health Order, which, it ends up, contradicts the council’s new rules. None of them had consulted the actual order. I wrote this email to our Parish Council, pastor, and bishop last week, and so far have stopped them in their tracks. They just don’t know any better. Please re-publish it, if you think your church-going readers could use the same idea. They should consult the actual order from their county, and perhaps get a little breathing room for awhile. The churches may be going above and beyond what is “required.”
Dear Parish Council, et alia:
I am writing to alert you that you are not in compliance with the Boulder County Public Health Order 2020-04 (signed June 29, 2020), which is more lenient than what you are voting to impose on our congregation as a blanket mask mandate during First Amendment-protected religious services.
Additionally, the Boulder Co. Order is a set of guidelines, not statutory law, because it was not voted on, nor passed by the Colorado Legislature, nor any other legislative body.
Where did your mask order come from, if not the county nor a legislature?
Please see the text of the Boulder Co. Health Order, which requires “facial coverings in public where social distancing cannot be maintained” (page 1); provides exemptions for “any person whose health would be inhibited by wearing a Face Covering” (page 4); and “does not require any child aged twelve (12) years or younger to wear a Face Covering. … In addition, this Order advises that children under age three years should not wear a Face Covering due to the risk of suffocation” (page 5).
I pray those of you suffering under Parson Goat’s skewed theology may enjoy Ms. A’s success, should you adapt her letter to your church’s circumstances.10:40 am on July 9, 2020 Email Becky Akers
When David Forsyth invited me back to chat with him for another podcast, he mentioned that he was sick of COVID19 and instead wanted to discuss my novel, Abducting Arnold. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, and I think David did, too, as we escaped to the 18th century and a Revolutionary America that prized liberty—prized it so much, in fact, that farmers and shopkeepers endured the trauma of war in the midst of an epidemic of smallpox. So far as I know, not a single person posted a sign anywhere hectoring folks to keep their anti-social distance or wear a mask.
If you require a vacation from the hysteria, nonsense and contempt for freedom engulfing our silly times, join us!10:04 am on July 9, 2020 Email Becky Akers
Chaz Donovan in Ohio “won’t wear a mask.” He understands that doing so “is a symbol of submission to the State. It’s theatre.” So when Ohio’s fuhrer, Gov. Mike DeWack–sorry, DeWine, ordered serfs in 7 counties to muzzle themselves this week, our correspondent
…informed the Governor on Twitter I would not be following his pieces of advice (that he pretends have the force of law). I’m in Hamilton County. I won’t wear a mask. Period. This is a mass experiment in social control, among other things. Another “conservative” Republican Governor. Conserving what, exactly? Most certainly not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
DeWack is not only a little turd in sore need of a horsewhipping, he’s a slow learner. He tried this despotism once before; Ohioans defied him.
Meanwhile, a sheriff in one of the affected counties refuses to enforce this decree. And a heroic representative in the state’s legislature, Vito Natale, continues battling DeWack’s dictatorship; Natale advises Ohioans not to submit to testing for COVID19—which, in light of contaminated kits and a “positive” result if the victim has ever suffered the common cold, is extremely sensible counsel in addition to its friendliness to freedom. Ironically, Natale, who’s more libertarian, is ostensibly a Rethuglican, as is DeWack, who’s actually a totalitarian.
Nor is Natale DeWack’s only problem: Rethuglicans throughout Ohio are excoriating him. Hopefully, some are heating the tar while others fetch feathers.9:44 am on July 9, 2020 Email Becky Akers
China has finally allowed some state-run churches to reopen, but, notes Bitter Winter, “only those who commit to endorsing patriotism are permitted to open their doors to congregations.” Governments demanded that on the reopening day, “churches must promote patriotism, raise the national flag, sing the country’s anthem, and tell believers ‘moving stories about China’s battle with the pandemic.'”
Thanks for this to M.T., who comments: “In China, even government-run churches have to be forced to engage in state worship. In America, churches do it voluntarily—and enthusiastically.” What an indictment of American Christianity.8:58 pm on July 8, 2020 Email Laurence M. Vance
For many decades I have been fascinated with esoteric and gnostic political religions and their tremendous impact upon Western civilization. It is one of the major topics I have discussed in various articles/blogs here at LRC — including those here, here, here, here.
The mythos of the lost continent of Atlantis was at the seminal core of how Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime made use of ancient mysticism and occultism to manufacture a new Germanic mythology, the religion of National Socialism, that combined ancient legends and esoteric cosmologies with cutting-edge theories of genetic science, in their quest to create an Aryan super race.
The study of the construction of pseudo-secular gnostic religions has been one of the principal obsessions of my life since I heard Gerhart Niemeyer of Notre Dame lecture on it in 1975 at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s Western Summer School at Thomas Aquinas College. Niemeyer was a keen student of Eric Voegelin on these matters, as was Murray Rothbard.
I believe understanding this 2000 year battle between orthodox Roman Catholic Christianity and Gnosticism is the ultimate key to unlocking the history of the previous two millennia.
Christianity and the West have been at war for hundreds of years with a succession of gnostic political religions and mass movements seeking to impose brutal elite rule and mastery of their subject peoples. These sinister efforts have been responsible for untold death, destruction, and misery. Over one hundred million persons alone perished in the 20th Century as a result of these murderous totalitarian regimes. The subject of gnosticism is one of the most important and impactful areas of study in world history, with tremendous consequences both ancient and modern few non-initiates can fathom.
It has fascinated a wide range of dedicated scholars with which LRC readers are familiar such as James Billington, Michael Burleigh, Murray Rothbard, Henri de Lubac, Thomas Molnar, John Gray, Terry Melanson, Peter M. Burfeind, and F. A. Hayek, who have intensely discussed and debated the concepts of totalitarianism and political religions to describe such insidious phenomena as National Socialism and Communism, as well as their heretical predecessors.
This is the penultimate menace that Western Civilization, and especially the United States, faces today. This is what has motivated the destructive riotous mobs of thugs and looters in the streets, the craven willfully ignorant “cancel culture” corporatists, the seditious professoriat in court academia, and the prestitutes in the establishment regime media.7:29 pm on July 8, 2020 Email Charles Burris
Tim isn’t the only one having fun (aside from his headache) with muzzles. “From the get go,” Herman Mayfarth has
refused to wear a “doctor costume,” opting for “Arab terrorist” instead.
I’m fairly certain “Arab terrorist” is politically incorrect (though how else one would refer to Ilhan Omar beats me), so two points for that alone!
Yesterday, I walked into a local industrial hardware store wearing a black full head mask … accessorized by a black t-shirt with ‘Allahu Akbar’ in white Arabic script. No one batted an eyeball.
One interesting result involves buying alcoholic beverages. Most of the clerks just let it pass, but I have been “carded” (I am 70 years of age), and two clerks have demanded that I remove the mask. Yes! Once the mask comes off, it stays off. The clerks are happy, and so am I. 🙂
Speaking of imbibing, Mr. M also reports,
Another insanity from the Gabbin’ Nuisance in Sacramento, is that bars here in the People’s Republic of California are now allowed to be open, provided they serve food with all alcoholic beverages.
I guess shuttering the hospitality industry for months on end didn’t demolish it to Gabbin’s satisfaction. Hence, the diktat to provide “free” food.
Evidently, a mandatory plate of nachos with your IPA can somehow magically protect you from the “killer virus.” I have no idea how anyone can eat or drink while wearing the sacramental “face covering,” though.
And “sacramental” it is, the symbol of an anti-faith that fervently venerates the State. Not only does Parson Goat genuflect before the altar of Public Health as he follows Leviathan rather than the Lord, so do the Masked Morons. As Mr. Anonymous puts it: “To me, people who obediently wear face diapers are like the people who bowed down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol in Daniel 3.”
Indeed. Yo, Morons: remember that Daniel 2 describes a “rock” that “was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.” Beware that you’re not kneeling nearby—indeed, you’ll want all the anti-social distancing you can get—when that Rock demolishes your false god.
7:04 pm on July 8, 2020 Email Becky Akers
Bill Martin sends a story with the scintillating headline, “SHOCKER: CDC admits COVID-19 ‘positive result’ just means you’ve previously contracted the ‘common cold’.”
Nor does that headline exaggerate: here’s the confession from the CDC’s own website:
… a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.
Lockdowns and closures and hysteria and vaccines over the common cold! I bet all you Masked Morons are feeling supremely stupid right about now.3:33 pm on July 8, 2020 Email Becky Akers
From the plandemic’s start, the clergy’s uniform response to it has astounded not only me but most of you, based on the emails I receive. How was it that churches of all denominations and even across the Great Schism between Protestant and Catholic reacted identically, regardless of their traditions, varying understandings and emphases on Scripture, histories, and cultures? How could a Greek Orthodox church in Buffalo close the same week as a Southern Baptist one in Mobile while both parroted, “We’re shutting our doors because we love our neighbors and to honor Our Rulers per Romans 13”?
This becomes even more suspicious when we look at other faiths—faiths that oppose Christianity. Specifically, Judaism. Yes, I know: the collectivists often speak of our “Judeo-Christian heritage.” But the fact is that Jesus Christ is Christianity’s raison d’etre. We believe He is precisely Who He claimed to be, the one and only Son of God. Judaism utterly rejects this central tenet. The two faiths differ from one another more than night does day.
And yet synagogues behaved exactly as churches did when Leviathan enforced house-arrest this past March.
Dina, a Jewish congregant, tells me that her temple closed as quickly and irrationally then as churches did:
…my synagogue, which typically has a large crowd on Friday but rarely more than [10 adults] on Saturday … immediately stopped our services[. We] have been getting weekly letters from our well-meaning rabbi to basically bend over and follow the government’s orders. (Ok he didn’t say that, but it’s what it amounts to.) I was shocked and angry–why stop Saturday services? Just because the mayor told us to? There would be 10 of us in a HUGE building!
Like Christians using the brain God gave us, Dina immediately saw through this absurdity: “I am SO thoroughly disgusted by our synagogue’s bowing to the authorities–I’ve written a letter to our rabbi and another one to our board and rabbi.” In them she rehearsed the stunningly low levels of both infections and fatalities that so many of us have presented to Parson Goat. She also pointed out that the rabbi hadn’t cancelled services during previous bouts of flu and that anyone fearful or sick could refrain from meeting while the rest of the congregation assembled.
Eerily, Dina’s cleric dismissed her very sensible protest just as Parson Goat did ours. In this case, the rabbi’s two answering sentences ignored the substance of her comments while hoping she stays well. Which is better than my (former) pastor, who accused me of “harshness” and “ruining our friendship” when I objected to closing our church.
Meanwhile, Dina draws a frightening analogy between the current hysteria and a previous one:
We are Jews! Why would we immediately bend to a government recommendation [to suspend worship]–which was not a law or even a public health order at that point? I could already see shades of Nazi Germany. … Sequestering a certain population for “the common good,” based on “science,” then prohibiting interaction in society unless acceptable status is proven–and outliers identified by having a mark/tattoo/biometric chip. How is that different? It’s not! So … where are all the Jews? Why aren’t we speaking up? Why are we submitting like blind sheep? …
Dina, we may as well ask that of all the serfs, regardless of their beliefs or ethnicity.
…if everything at synagogue is discussed as if only one narrative is true, or synagogue policies are so insane or restrictive that I find them intolerable and supportive of a tyrannical government, I will stop attending—and go somewhere that supports freedom of thought and action. Lack of freedom affects everyone–and we Jews most of all. … Just last week, rioters were setting things on fire, looting, etc., in NY. But the police instead target[ed] Jewish moms in the park with their kids. …
The Nazis required Jews to go to ghettos, and get ID’d with a yellow star—separated and ID/tattooed so they wouldn’t contaminate the pure Aryans—all in the name of science and for the greater good of the group. … I’d like to know what the difference in that scenario is, and the one that Gates and Fauci and their ilk are proposing with their contact tracing, vaccines, and biometric tattoos as proof of immunity–if one wants to go out into society and interact. There is no difference. Especially because it’s all based on lies. …
And regarding [my temple’s] stopping our services before it was even mandated? Just because a mayor said we had to? …I feel like saying, “REALLY? We are Jews and we are going to bend over to government so easily? Didn’t we learn anything in the Holocaust?” … We could take some lessons from these pastors that are being assaulted by the police for no reason. … I don’t want to be a sheep that willingly goes to slaughter.
…When my chiropractor … heard me say my synagogue stopped meeting–The first thing out of his mouth was, “I can’t believe the Jews would accept this so easily!” I had nothing to say because I couldn’t believe it either.
The virus is not the true issue. It’s a distraction from what’s really going on while everyone is sequestered and glued to their propaganda boxes. There are many parallels to 1930s Germany.
Yep. And foremost among them is the diabolical determination to destroy freedom. As Michael Alford, another of LRC’s readers, concludes,
Liberty in God’s economy has always been predicated upon righteousness. God gives liberty so that people can serve Him and when people use that liberty as a cloak for maliciousness, God withdraws His liberty.
Which explains the USSA’s hurtle toward totalitarianism as well as any account I’ve seen.
2:55 pm on July 8, 2020 Email Becky Akers
Seattle conducts diversity training for its white employees. Available evidence tells us that it will not change the attitudes of the people enrolled.
One study reaching that conclusion is Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. “Why diversity programs fail: and what works better.” Harvard Business Review 94.7-8 (2016).
Another study reaching that conclusion is Lai et al. “Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: II. Intervention Effectiveness Across Time.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General © 2016 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 145, No. 8, 1001–1016.
A more recent study with similar negative results is Chang, et al. “The mixed effects of online diversity training.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, (PNAS) April 16, 2019 116 (16) 7778-7783. See also this summary.
Experimental psychologists have been trying hard for years to find ways to alter people’s attitudes, preferences and behavior with respect to race, gender, multiculturalism, stereotypes, egalitarian values, affirmative action, religion, caste, and biases. As their failures in diversity training suggest, they haven’t succeeded.
People’s attitudes and preferences show at best a highly transitory change (not even a few days) as a result of training. This failure is consistent with evidence that infants form social group preferences in their first year and that preferences in three-year olds remain stable as they develop further. To put it bluntly, God didn’t create a race of wimps whose bases for behavior are highly malleable and manipulable.
On a continuing basis, Americans are being exposed to a mass experiment in diversity training. It revolves around charges of systemic racism, white supremacy, and racial oppression. White people are accused of being complicit in a mass crime; they are being told that they must be held accountable to “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color”. They are being told that capitalism is wrong and socialism is right, that the family is wrong, that policing is wrong, and that America is wrong. Some of this sounds like Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
But if people’s preferences are rather impervious to such hectoring, this experiment is going to fail. There will be chaos, but it will fail just as CHAZ/CHOP failed. Americans are not going to change their preferences, attitudes and beliefs in the directions that BLM and antifa want or insist upon or demand. People do not change under such pressures. Pulling down statues will prove to be futile. If anything, as in diversity training, these efforts and methods will backfire.
BLM’s and antifa’s methods won’t work, but they also are building their activities on an untenable foundation. The American system is not built upon oppression by race, as they suppose. America was not built upon slavery, as they suppose. America was not built upon patriarchal oppression, as they suppose. There is therefore nothing in the first place to dismantle or uproot from these distorted perspectives.12:26 pm on July 8, 2020 Email Michael S. Rozeff
Responding to No Wonder Masked Morons Can’t Reason, David Sarosi
consider[s] a school bus filled with kids being driven by someone with a mask on and low O2/high CO2 levels. Not that parents who send their kids to government day prisons actually care about them. But a point I make whenever the subject of masks comes up.
You might suppose that this impending danger would prod Leviathan’s lackeys to remove their kids from the educational gulag and discard their muzzles. But have you noticed that the Masked Morons are impervious to common sense? Whether it’s their years of brainwashing in those same schools, their hours upon hours before the TV, their Progressive religion, or the primacy they give emotion over rationality, these serfs cannot follow a logical argument, much less act on it.9:50 am on July 8, 2020 Email Becky Akers
I had to go to Wal-mart the other day and decided to try and display the absurdity of the mask orders and the store’s enforcement of them by going overboard. I wore a balaclava with a respirator and tinted ski goggles over the top. My entire head was covered so that no one could even see my eyes. I didn’t see anyone even bat an eye except for one Walmart employee and a middle aged couple who stopped me to voice approval of my taking it all seriously.
And these imbeciles vote. No wonder the country’s in such dire straits.
Worse, I commented on that to a few people I know and most of them thought it was reasonable that no one noticed and that I wasn’t kicked out of the store.
9:23 am on July 8, 2020 Email Becky Akers
…no one should ever be allowed to walk around a store with their entire head completely covered and not even eyes visible. That stands even more so in July in a summer when most cities have been severely vandalized by masked thugs. …
Also, even with less than 15 minutes total wearing the masks I was still short of breath and had a headache by the time I walked out of the store. I freely admit that I am not in great shape but I’ve always been able to walk for longer than 15 minutes without suffering any ill effects. I also mentioned that to a couple friends who have been defending masks and their only response was that I shouldn’t have worn the respirator and I would have been able to breathe.
I had the great opportunity to interview Pat Buchanan yesterday. We discussed a wide range of topics including:
-The Geneva Summit
-Ayn Rand and individualism
-The Culture War
Before publishing the interview in full in a few weeks, I plan on sending out some pieces of the interview via my libertarian/ conservative newsletter. Make sure to subscribe through the link below. You don’t want to miss this!
8:35 am on July 8, 2020 Email Atilla Mert Sulker
From: Sergey Fedorov
Re: question on applied Libertarian theory
Dear Professor Block,
Hope you are doing well and stay safe.
I have two questions on libertarian theory – if you have a minute to reply (or refer to your answer in a specific published article), I would be grateful.
1. You, as well as many other libertarian philosophers, explicitly oppose international usage of military force. But international arena is a sort of anarchy (self-emergent order). And we know that, assuming anarchy, division of labor will lead to specialization, including emergence of security agencies. So why is it wrong if a capable state intervenes by military force on behalf of others? (Let us ignore here any public choice and economic implications.)
To make a real-life example, what if China attacks Taiwan, and Taiwan asks for US military help? Clearly US has no obligation here, but at the same time non-intervening would mean not only violation of property rights and overriding free choice of Taiwanese people, but quite likely mass-murders.
And if we agree that international intervention for protection against violence is acceptable, specialization requires to possess military capital and technology.
2. What is your view in regard of ownership rights over kids (I refer to kids in a proper socio-biological sense, not arbitrary legal definition; say, anyone would agree that 6 year old human being is a “kid”)? Assuming a kid has at least one parent who is capable and willing to act as a parent. It is clear that a kid is not able to be fully responsible for him/herself. And historically, prior to modern era, families treated kids as a kind of property. If we do not state a proper self-ownership of a kid, who owns him/her and to what extent?
It seems intuitively clear that any direct violence against the kid is violation of NAP (unless we assume full ownership rights of parents over kids). But what about cases of deliberate carelessness that endangers a kid? For example, a kid walks into a window, parents see that and do nothing.
Two sum up, this question is twofold: a) what is the “thin” libertarian position regarding property rights here?
b) would you in principle admit that in some cases, including those not being of direct violence (physical abuse), external intervention may be justified (in anarchy, perhaps, by security agencies or by community, in the current world – by public agencies backed up by the government)?
Why I ask the second one is because many libertarians oppose vaccination – and while it is clear that vaccination for adults must be voluntary, it is not so clear in case of kids.
Sergey Fedorov2:23 am on July 8, 2020 Email Walter E. Block
From: Sergey Fedorov
Subject: question on applied Libertarian theory
Dear Professor Block,
I have read your old article (1993) on drug legalization and wanted to ask your opinion on a somewhat related matter from a libertarian perspective and also a value-free economics.
Please forgive me for a relatively long exposition, but if cut short to a couple of sentences, it will sound trivial.
There are three parts below. Intro and two separate questions. I will really appreciate your opinion. I will also appreciate you being direct. I am Russian, I can understand and accept “Come on, that’s crap”.
As much as drugs are criminalized by the state, so – in most countries – explicitly commercial sex between consenting adults is. By ‘explicitly commercial’ I mean the one premised upon direct monetary exchange between involved parties. This criminalization, surprisingly, is not confined to religious or secular totalitarian societies that from the outset deny human freedom as a core value, but is common in ‘civilized’ world.
Unlike with the drugs (opinions on which widely vary), most people – perhaps with exception of religious fanatics – consider consensual sex between adults to have a positive utility. Unlike drugs that are criminalized per se, consensual sex between adults is as such perfectly legal in the most of ‘civilized’ world. While it can be debated whether most people consider ‘free sex’ as something rather commendable or rather a weakness, society is generally accepting such behavior.
Yet, the very introduction of media of exchange into this exchange magically makes it both illegal and largely condemned, at least publicly.
My question is twofold. It is evident that libertarian theory has no possible objections to any voluntary act of trade that does not violate property rights of third parties (which means that only voluntary slaves who transferred the title over their bodies may not be allowed to take part). But,
1. I wonder why libertarians seem to avoid the topic altogether. Okay, it might be challenging for those who are, for example, practicing Christians, and that is fine. But no one speaks or writes on it, despite that laws criminalizing sex trade are both praxeologically wrong and practically silly and inhumane (they also increase crime and foster violence against women in sex trade). They also constitute on the major assaults of state against people, denying one’s property rights over own body.
2. From a purely economic perspective, since sex is an economic good, that is naturally scarce and has demand for it, monetizing its market increases social welfare, as happens with any other market. What we have now is a largely barter economy of sex, when parties, being unable – at least legally – to make transaction directly to mutual benefit, are forced to look for a ‘package deal’ with related double coincident of wants problem. In the extreme case there is the institute of marriage that is promoted in society and essentially amounts to a fraudulent and internally inconsistent slavery contract that aims to secure long term stream of payments in exchange for a promise of accommodating sexual needs (not only and not necessarily, of course, but at its core that’s about it). Otherwise there are various socially acceptable substitutes, which separate an equivalent (i.e. normally not in cash) payment and service in time. This process inevitably has terrible transaction costs and results in permanent mismatch of supply and demand. The best possible – given constraints – solution is simply to do the same thing what we do elsewhere. Introduce common medium of exchange.
Religious beliefs set aside, the best thing that could be done with sexual relationships is commercialization. A large chunk of problems (social like women left struggling to support children or men who have no time for mating games, demographic imbalance of genders, psychological like frustration inherent in most long-term relationships and economic – inability of men and women to access desired partner due to inflated demands brought about by barter nature of exchange) can be solved by this move.
Yet, apparently no one suggest this.
Sergey2:21 am on July 8, 2020 Email Walter E. Block
Subject: Libertarian resistance to big business.
Hi Walter and Michael,
My county (mostly rural with some suburbs) is facing the unholy amalgamation of local government and big business. See this.
There are obvious environmental impacts (acres upon acres of wetlands that spill into my neighborhood). Also, my county is giving Wegmans heaps of monetary incentive.
Is there a coherent libertarian resistance? Is getting the EPA or Army Corp of Engineers involved an acceptable route? I have some libertarian ideas in mind, but I would love to hear your thoughts, if you have time.
P.S.: Run for county government as a libertarian Republican (more likely to be elected) or a Libertarian? Democrat is out in this very red county.2:19 am on July 8, 2020 Email Walter E. Block
I saw a car with an old Trump/Pence bumper sticker today. Above their names it said: “Grow Business, Shrink Government.” Shrink government? Before the coronavirus nonsense even started, Trump had shrunk nothing. He in fact added over a trillion dollars to the national debt. That large military he likes is expensive. Sorry Trumpers, doing away with a few Obama regulations does not equate to shrinking the government.2:44 pm on July 7, 2020 Email Laurence M. Vance
If the NFL goes ahead with current plans to play two national anthems, it may be the beginning of the end of the league, predicts Whitlock. I’ll have to see it to believe it.
OT: by the way, one of the grand quid pro quos of American life seems to be Average Joe and Jill cons (so common in the South) sacrificing the country for college football and the progs in return getting their Marxist universities. Poor Tucker, con socialist he is, a couple weeks ago asked his audience rhetorically why taxpayers are still footing the bill for Marxist state schools. He then blushed and quickly left the subject, seeming to realize he had gone too far in that cons would find the idea of de-funding state schools as “extreme” as de-funding police departments.
Today is the release date of my latest book, The Problem with Lincoln (Regnery). When I start doing radio interviews (first one this morning), an obvious question will be why I wrote another one, after The Real Lincoln was published in 2002.
There are (at least) three parts to the answer: First, on page 132 of The Problem with Lincoln I quote historian Ira Cardiff, author of The Deification of Lincoln (1943) as concluding that “Americans are not at all interested in the truth about Lincoln . . . . They desire a supernatural Lincoln, a Lincoln with none of the faults or frailties of the common man . . . a biography of Lincoln which told the truth about him would probably have great difficulty finding a publisher.” That was written in 1943.
Since the Lincoln myth is the ideological cornerstone of the American state, the foundation of its “treasury of virtue,” as Robert Penn Warren called it in The Legacy of the Civil War, it’s important that at least some Americans are not deluded by fantasies, myths, and superstitions about their own government.
Second, according to one account, more than 16,000 hagiographies have been published about Lincoln over the generations which is obviously why, as Ira Cardiff said, most Americans believe in a “supernatural” Lincoln (and by implication, a supernatural government in Washington). In the interest of offering Americans a fair and balanced view of their own history, I believe that two or three books on Lincoln that seek the truth about American history and attempt to portray the man as the cunning and conniving politician that he was, as opposed to the secular saint that he was made out to be by the Republican Party propaganda machine, is warranted. (It is not at all unusual for academic “Lincoln scholars” to write numerous books about different aspects of their subject, by the way).
Third, there has been some very good and interesting research on Lincoln and his war published over the past eighteen years that I utilize in The Problem with Lincoln. Writing another book after eighteen years of additional research, reading, writing, and debating the subject makes this a very different book.
For those of you who pick up the book, please feel free to let the Amazon.com comment section know what you think of it.
9:59 am on July 7, 2020 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
It is really hard to take them seriously. “The Red Chinese are already killing our people through exports of fentanyl.” I guess that Americans who overdose on fentanyl aren’t responsible for being drug addicts. It is all China’s fault. Americans are just stupid. Hey, perhaps some Chinese came over here and injected them with fentanyl. And Mr. Conservative, which U.S. ports are the Chinese using to export fentanyl into the country? What products are they hiding it in? And how do you know these things?
N.B.: I don’t hate Trump and am no apologist for “Red” China.5:09 pm on July 6, 2020 Email Laurence M. Vance