An Anarchist looks at voting in 2016

On Twitter, there is little way to have any sort of real debate since with 140 characters maximum one can not do much else other than hurl talking points. A few have had great differences over what an anarchist or libertarian should do this election cycle. In this essay I am going to give my thoughts on the situation.

I have agreed with Butler Shaffer for decades, especially this essay, “Why I Do Not Vote”, where he points out that politics is just plain evil. That is a great essay and I encourage you to read it. In the end, Professor Shaffer makes the case that we should not vote for short term gain by voting for someone closer to our libertarian outlook. He thinks we should weaken the state by not participating and looking hopefully toward the future in the knowledge that the nation-state will fall someday.

Unfortunately Butler Shaffer’s viewpoint takes time. What if we don’t have much time left? What if this election cycle may determine if we live or die? By the non-aggression principle I may fight back against the nation-state by voting since I have been ruled by politics for over six decades and the political system aggressed against me first. So, don’t holler at me that anarchists or libertarians are not allowed to vote and remain “pure”. I can if I want to — especially if I feel I need to. Especially is nuclear war hangs in the balance.

First things first. If I choose to vote due to the importance of this election, I will do so for the first time since Reagan’s first term. And, if I so chose, I’ll only vote for the top of the ticket since that is what has me so concerned about this cycle.

If I lived in a “safe state”, then I would not vote. There are many states in the US that are going to go heavily Democratic or heavily Republican and one need not get involved in these “safe states”. These are safe places to vote third party and many libertarians do so in those states — and crow about it without mentioning that they don’t live in a battle-ground state. But I live in Florida.

I did not vote in the election where Gore lost to Bush on a recount of votes; nor have I voted here since then other than for Ron Paul in the primary. (that got me called for jury duty) But I watched and realized that Florida is a 50-50 state that can go either way in a presidential election. Florida is one of the “battle ground” states and hence you vote may well be damned important in Florida.

The election will be won by the Republican or by the Democrat. Only the naive or the deluded would say otherwise. That means you will have either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump elected as president next November. (inauguration in January) It is also true that Florida will play a huge part in deciding which one of those two will be elected president. And so, I will hold my nose and vote unless one party or the other is so far ahead as to make my effort worthless. (I’ll not go by rigged polls though)

So, who to vote for? Not third party as that does nothing but waste my time and encourage the nation-state for no purpose. I will vote Trump to stop the evil, corrupt, war-mongering, murdering Clinton. I have watched both Clintons for decades and have never seen such an evil pair. Many other agree. See here or here or here or here for just a few others that I read today expressing the same concerns.

Many don’t know that the US military has been working on small nuclear devices called “battle field nukes” or tactical nukes. The devices are so small now that Generals have said that using nukes in a war is now “thinkable”. Not to me of course, but to the General with a mind only on war — perhaps nuclear war has become thinkable.

The Empire is pushing Russia hard and we have NATO troops on the very border of Russia while we are confronting China in an area called ‘The China Sea’. Why? Do we expect to do a “regime change” in these nuclear supper powers?

The most reliable warmonger and aggressive person in the presidential race is Hillary Clinton. She has demonstrated for decades that she wants the Empire to attack and destroy countries around the world. She will attack in the Middle East and ultimately she will attack Russia,

Can an exchange of tactical nuclear weapons be kept limited? No, of course not. We almost destroyed the world via all out nuclear war on two different occasions during the cold war.

The editorial director of Antiwar.com wrote:

Take Greg Sargent, an opinion columnist with the Washington Post, who was a twinkle in his parents’ eyes when John F. Kennedy put American nukes in Turkey and the Russians responded by installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. So eager is he for a confrontation with Vladimir Putin that he tweeted this the other day. I responded with this. And he fired back with this – I must be a Trump supporter! As I told him, I hope he’s alive after the next missile crisis with Russia – which will be coming real soon after Hillary Clinton takes office.

From those on the far left to those on the far right, we see people tell us that the election of Clinton could well lead to war with Russia and that would be world war. Mankind will not survive the next world war. I realize the low information voter and especially the millennials can’t see that, but there is no fix for stupid. People who have watched Hillary Clinton for decades are very concerned that she might become president. Very concerned.

I will vote Trump to stop Clinton.

maxresdefault

Weird New Shadowban at Twitter

UPDATED 6-05-2016: see update at end of post.

 

There was a long back and forth between myself and a few others on religion on Twitter a day or so ago. We all were in agreement pretty much and certainly no one had any aggressive comments to make. I did mention the Roman Catholic Church, but not in a disparaging way as I am one myself.

Shortly after the conversation Twitter decided to ban me with their new version of a #shadowban. This one does not match all the descriptions you will get around the web so I decided to make this post to document the newest underhanded Twitter aggression which is aimed at libertarians and conservatives mainly.

I had some problems with being locked out of my account due to “automated like activity” or something like that on two occasions. That started around the time of the #FreeMIlo tweets but I was certainly not the only one posting about Milo. What really happened was the Twitter progressives just hate all the anti-Clinton tweets and re-tweets.

So, here is a description of what they have done. As far as I can tell they have come up with a new shadowban method.  At this time I can read my time line in a normal fashion. I can tweet and others can see the tweet if they follow me, but I don’t think they can find the tweet via a search. I can even re-tweet most times, but that does not always seem to work. It is as if any anti-Clinton stuff gets lost on re-tweet. I think having a link in the re-tweet has some effect.

The NEW and biggest problem is that people can put my handle @markstoval in their tweet and I will see that in my Notification time line but if I respond back to them they can not see it in their notification area. That keeps me from tweeting to someone and them seeing it unless they just happen to notice it in the main time line that moves so fast. In other words, they have killed off having any personal conversations or debates. Even a “like” does not seem to register. This appears to be the progressives idea of “free and open discourse”.

I can exchange Direct Messages but the “mail” icon will not alert anyone of the mail. The DM can be read someday in the future if you just happen to be looking in your messages. Neat eh?

And it is not just me having trouble with the Twitter double secret probation crowd:

Breitbart EXCLUSIVE: Twitter Shadowbanning ‘Real and Happening Every Day’ Says Inside Source

Many libertarians and conservatives have pointed out that @Jack is trying to run off everyone who is anywhere close to being against his true-love Hillary Clinton — but is he trying to depress the Twitter stock prices also? Was Twitter not already losing market fast enough for the company?  Anyway, it takes a real coward to invent a whole new way to ban someone. Hell, just say we don’t want your Clinton-hating ass around here no more and I’ll be gone.

Jack? What say you?

UPDATE 1: I have now found that the new and vicious shadowban has been lifted. I think this post may have had something to do with it, but others say that there may be a certain time limit on some shadowbans. Regardless, the ban was meant to stop communication between friends since nearly 3,000 followers could see my tweets in their normal time line and only the notification features and direct message feature were compromised.

 

 

no_twitter

Anarchists and borders

A friend on Twitter sent me this:

Current issues have got libertarian/anarchists totally confused. No govt = no rules, no borders, welcome to invaders, right? No.

And he was right that there has been some confusion. First, let us get out of the way that everyone who claims to be an anarchist is not necessarily an anarchist. Some would re-name the State and call it a syndicate or whatever and you would still have monopoly control by a different name. Some just use the name “libertarian” or “anarchist” to seem “cool” or gain authority. So, let us not worry about what “everyone” says and get on to the heart of the matter.

The anarcho-capitalist has to look at the world as it is now, as it would be in transition from here to anarchy, and at the world in that final state of anarchy after the state has been dispatched. Some want to take the words of Rothbard or others when they were plainly describing how a world without a state might be run and apply that to the current political situation in the USA. I don’t know it you have noticed, but there is a state in the US and it is damn powerful, intrusive, tyrannical, and out of control.

First, let us look at a world in which the state has been defeated and anarchy has replaced it. We would see an AnCap system of law, property rights, and voluntary mutual cooperation. All property would be owned by someone (or some group) and it would not be possible to legally go on to someone’s land without permission. Even privately own roads, the only kind in such a world, would be used only by the invitation of the owner. (the “owner” could be a group or business of course)

Without a state there would be no welfare or other reason to migrate other than personal preference or trying to escape some land where a state still existed. As heartless as it sounds, the migrant would need invitation from the owners to immigrate another land.

The above is overly simplistic perhaps, and there have been books written on this issue among others. But I see no reason to belabor the anarchists world in this short post since we do have a nation-state situation and not a stateless situation. The USA is the world’s most dominate and aggressive empire the world has ever seen.

So now what? What say you anarchists?

The property rights of everyone in the nation, and especially on the border, should be protected. I understand that property owners on the southern border of the US are living in a virtual hell as criminal pour over the border. If you are going to take their taxes and make them abide by your laws then protect them.

The “government owned property” like roads or parks are the jointly owned property of all legal residents. As such, the people have a right to see the laws enforced and intruders kept out.

But what about immigration?

If the nation-state is going to bribe voters with welfare and other goodies (stolen from producers) then people will pour over the borders in uncontrolled fashion. They will come illegally and be criminals the instant they step foot on US soil; and being a criminal in one area often makes one more likely to break other laws.

What to do? It is obvious that the nation-state has to control the flow of people to protect the society itself. So, close the border and stop the destruction of society. Then decide how many people you want to let in the country and have a workable method for these people to be documented and have citizenship. Let them come here legally. 

Just as Ron Paul plainly pointed out in 2012, there has to be border security if there is going to be a nation-state. Personally, I would rather see anarchy but that is not going to happen anytime soon, so we need to stop the madness of illegal immigration.

Amnesty_Seeking_Illegal_Aliens

The American “left-wing” is our real enemy

The over riding problem with American Politics is the words we use have been warped out of all recognition. Take the words “right” and “left” for instance. I put up a post on the problem called “Left, Right, and the political spectrum …” a few years back. Link here.

Karl Hess (book: Dear America; 1975):

The overall characteristic of a right-wing regime, no matter the details of difference between this one and that one, is that it reflects the concentration of power in the fewest practical hands.
.
Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing.
.
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.

The above is certainly not what modern Americans mean when they use the terms “left” and “right”. After all, the leftists regime of Stalin concentrated power in a very few hands. This is but one example of the difficulty we have communicating politically in the USA in the modern era.

I once posted that the original meaning of “liberal” was a person who held to the political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe that was committed to the ideal of limited government and individual liberty, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and free markets. The liberal believed that the government should not be involved in the actions of men at all other than to provided protection against the invasion of our natural rights, liberties, and freedoms by someone or some group. Some liberals went even further and said that there should be no government even for that task since the free market could provide defense services better than the state and without the danger of the government itself becoming the aggressor. Obviously the word “liberal” in America at least no longer means what it once did since government-loving socialists usurped the word and pretended to be “liberals”.

So, as we see, the word “liberal” and the word “left” have both undergone huge changes over time.

It has been observed that the real difference in ideologies in America today is between the authoritarian left and the libertarian right. As the state is the main enemy of mankind, then so is the authoritarian left since that world view depends on the State to force the people to follow the left’s mandates. The left-wing world view is utter state worship.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. observed:  The right (properly understood), meanwhile, according to the great classical liberal Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “stands for free, organically grown forms of life.”

The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking; a readiness to preserve traditional values (provided they are true values); a balanced view of the nature of man, seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting on the uniqueness of human beings which cannot be transformed into or treated as mere numbers or ciphers. The left is the advocate of the opposite principles; it is the enemy of diversity and the fanatical promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, paradises in which everybody is the same, envy is dead, and the enemy is either dead, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences, deviations, stratifications…. The word “one” is its symbol: one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one ritual, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms, one centralized world state.

Rockwell went on to ask if Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s description was partly out of date and wrote:

After all, who touts their allegiance to “diversity” more than the left? But the left’s version of diversity amounts to uniformity of an especially insidious kind. No one may hold a dissenting view about the desirability of “diversity” itself, of course, and “diverse” college faculties are chosen not for their diversity of viewpoints but precisely for their dreary sameness: left-liberals of all shapes and sizes. What’s more, by demanding “diversity” and proportional representation in as many institutions as possible, the left aims to make all of America exactly the same.

This call for egalitarianism is a revolt against nature as Murray Rothbard pointed out in one of his most famous essays. The left wants to impose a totalitarian sameness on the masses, but not on the enlightened ruling elite. The elite turns out to be the leading leftists themselves. Imaging that!

The left also wants to destroy all society, for society is a collection of beliefs that have stood the test of time and evolved over centuries. The left wants to make deviancy not just accepted, but they seek to promote any deviancy as the exemplar of behavior. Homosexuality must be hailed as a role model rather than just be allowed or tolerated.

As part of the mission of destroying society, the left has attacked the family and nearly destroyed it. Society and family have always gone together, so attacking both makes sense. Walter Williams, the great black economists, once observed that 100 years of slavery could not break the back of the black family, but that welfare did. The entire welfare system is an attack on the family; even to the point that the poor can not be married and live in the same house if the woman is to receive welfare to support her offspring. Williams also pointed out once that the State promises to provided for the young black woman and she chooses that promise over the young, ill-educated black man with little prospects. This, of course leads to the destruction of the family. Never fear, the white family is being destroyed in similar fashion.

On education, Kuehnelt-Leddihn put it thus:

Church schools, parochial schools, private schools, personal tutors, none is in keeping with leftist sentiments. The reasons are manifold. Not only is delight in statism involved, but also the idea of uniformity and equality — the idea that social differences in education should be eliminated and all pupils be given a chance to acquire the same knowledge, the same type of information, in the same fashion, and to the same degree. This should enable them to think in identical or at least in similar ways.

The left-wing obsession with “equality” means that the leftist needs the state to control education, finance, big business, employment, small business, private property, private clubs, and on and on. Every institution in the country must be hammered to be made to look like every other one. In the name of diversity the left mandates exact sameness.

The left sees people of different skills and endowments reap different rewards and that means the leftist demands intervention to “correct” this “inequity”. The is a recipe for ongoing and continual governmental intervention to correct this matter of human nature. Anyone from a large family will tell you that the children have their own unique personalities, likes, desires, abilities, and so on. You can not mandate equal outcomes without favoring some over others. This intervention will lead to every more brutal tyranny.

Over the decades, I have noticed that each generation of American “liberals” changes the program and shames the “liberal” generation that came before. It is an ever moving target. The “leftism” of the US Empire is a recipe for permanent war on the family, tradition, common sense, liberty, and human nature.  The modern “left” is anti-human.

 

burn-books-ban-music-hate-blacks-murder-gays-become-symbol-of-hope-and-freedome-che-guevara-620x465

US Crimes — Don’t use the Hitler Defense

article-1236933-000BD06800000258-365_470x319

 

I started blogging because I had things to say to friends on Twitter but just could not say what I wanted to in 140 characters. Now we have yet another time when I want to say something that takes more text that a tweet or two. A twit that I chose not to name is the cause of it this time.The guy was claiming that the USA is just wonderful because Pol Pot killed so many of his own people. I call this the “Hitler Defense“. Basically it is taking something that the USA does that is evil and looking around for someone or some country that has done worse. It would be hard to beat Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, or Hitler on the tyranny or murder front. That is a list of real butchers.

But if the fact some other country has done worse than the USA then —Woot! That means the USA can murder millions around the world and it don’t count!. The guy’s argument is as dumb as it gets. Anytime someone tries to defend their actions or those of their country by saying they are not as bad as the WW2 Germans are admitting they are defending evil.

America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776

List from the Link

Year-by-year Timeline of America’s Major Wars (1776-2011)

1776 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamagua Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War

1777 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War

1778 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1779 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1780 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1781 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1782 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1783 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1784 – Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War, Oconee War

1785 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1786 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1787 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1788 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1789 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1790 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1791 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1792 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1793 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1794 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1795 – Northwest Indian War

1796 – No major war

1797 – No major war

1798 – Quasi-War

1799 – Quasi-War

1800 – Quasi-War

1801 – First Barbary War

1802 – First Barbary War

1803 – First Barbary War

1804 – First Barbary War

1805 – First Barbary War

1806 – Sabine Expedition

1807 – No major war

1808 – No major war

1809 – No major war

1810 – U.S. occupies Spanish-held West Florida

1811 – Tecumseh’s War

1812 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Seminole Wars, U.S. occupies Spanish-held Amelia Island and other parts of East Florida

1813 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Peoria War, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in West Florida

1814 – War of 1812, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in Florida, Anti-piracy war

1815 – War of 1812, Second Barbary War, Anti-piracy war

1816 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1817 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1818 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1819 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1820 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1821 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)

1822 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)

1823 – Anti-piracy war, Arikara War

1824 – Anti-piracy war

1825 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1826 – No major war

1827 – Winnebago War

1828 – No major war

1829 – No major war

1830 – No major war 

1831 – Sac and Fox Indian War

1832 – Black Hawk War

1833 – Cherokee Indian War

1834 – Cherokee Indian War, Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign

1835 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War

1836 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Missouri-Iowa Border War

1837 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Osage Indian War, Buckshot War

1838 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Buckshot War, Heatherly Indian War

1839 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars

1840 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade Fiji Islands

1841 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade McKean Island, Gilbert Islands, and Samoa

1842 – Seminole Wars

1843 – U.S. forces clash with Chinese, U.S. troops invade African coast

1844 – Texas-Indian Wars

1845 – Texas-Indian Wars

1846 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars

1847 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars

1848 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War

1849 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians

1850 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, California Indian Wars, Pitt River Expedition

1851 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

1852 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

1853 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, Walker War, California Indian Wars

1854 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians

1855 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Yakima War, Winnas Expedition, Klickitat War, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

1856 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Tintic War

1857 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Utah War, Conflict in Nicaragua

1858 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Mohave War, California Indian Wars, Spokane-Coeur d’Alene-Paloos War, Utah War, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

1859 Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Pecos Expedition, Antelope Hills Expedition, Bear River Expedition, John Brown’s raid, U.S. forces launch attack against Paraguay, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1860 – Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Paiute War, Kiowa-Comanche War

1861 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign

1862 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Dakota War of 1862,

1863 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Goshute War

1864 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Snake War

1865 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Colorado War, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War

1866 – Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Franklin County War, U.S. invades Mexico, Conflict with China

1867 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, U.S. troops occupy Nicaragua and attack Taiwan

1868 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Battle of Washita River, Franklin County War

1869 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

1870 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

1871 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, Kingsley Cave Massacre, U.S. forces invade Korea

1872 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Franklin County War

1873 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Apache Wars, Cypress Hills Massacre, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1874 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Red River War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1875 – Conflict in Mexico, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Eastern Nevada, Mason County War, Colfax County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1876 – Texas-Indian Wars, Black Hills War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1877 – Texas-Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Black Hills War, Nez Perce War, Mason County War, Lincoln County War, San Elizario Salt War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1878 – Paiute Indian conflict, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Lincoln County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1879 – Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, White River War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1880 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1881 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1882 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1883 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1884 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1885 – Apache Wars, Eastern Nevada Expedition, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1886 – Apache Wars, Pleasant Valley War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1887 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1888 – U.S. show of force against Haiti, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1889 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1890 – Sioux Indian War, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Ghost Dance War, Wounded Knee, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1891 – Sioux Indian War, Ghost Dance War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1892 – Johnson County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1893 – U.S. forces invade Mexico and Hawaii

1894 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1895 – U.S. forces invade Mexico, Bannock Indian Disturbances

1896 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1897 – No major war

1898 – Spanish-American War, Battle of Leech Lake, Chippewa Indian Disturbances

1899 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1900 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1901 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1902 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1903 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1904 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1905 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1906 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1907 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1908 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1909 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1910 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1911 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1912 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1913 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, New Mexico Navajo War

1914 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1915 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico, Colorado Paiute War

1916 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1917 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S. invades Mexico

1918 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S invades Mexico

1919 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1920 – Banana Wars

1921 – Banana Wars

1922 – Banana Wars

1923 – Banana Wars, Posey War

1924 – Banana Wars

1925 – Banana Wars

1926 – Banana Wars

1927 – Banana Wars

1928 – Banana Wars

1930 – Banana Wars

1931 – Banana Wars

1932 – Banana Wars

1933 – Banana Wars

1934 – Banana Wars

1935 – No major war

1936 – No major war

1937 – No major war

1938 – No major war

1939 – No major war

1940 – No major war

1941 – World War II

1942 – World War II

1943 – Wold War II

1944 – World War II

1945 – World War II

1946 – Cold War (U.S. occupies the Philippines and South Korea)

1947 – Cold War (U.S. occupies South Korea, U.S. forces land in Greece to fight Communists)

1948 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1949 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1950 – Korean War, Jayuga Uprising

1951 – Korean War

1952 – Korean War

1953 – Korean War

1954 – Covert War in Guatemala

1955 – Vietnam War

1956 – Vietnam War

1957 – Vietnam War

1958 – Vietnam War

1959 – Vietnam War, Conflict in Haiti

1960 – Vietam War

1961 – Vietnam War

1962 – Vietnam War, Cold War (Cuban Missile Crisis; U.S. marines fight Communists in Thailand)

1963 – Vietnam War

1964 – Vietnam War

1965 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1966 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1967 – Vietnam War

1968 – Vietnam War

1969 – Vietnam War

1970 – Vietnam War

1971 – Vietnam War

1972 – Vietnam War

1973 – Vietnam War, U.S. aids Israel in Yom Kippur War

1974 – Vietnam War

1975 – Vietnam War

1976 – No major war

1977 – No major war

1978 – No major war

1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident

1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf

1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf

1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama

1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines

1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama

1991 – First Gulf War

1992 – Conflict in Iraq

1993 – Conflict in Iraq

1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti

1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1996 – Conflict in Iraq

1997 – No major war

1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan

1999 – Kosovo War

2000 – No major war

2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan

2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen

2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq

2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen

2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)

Look at that list from Washingtonsblog. Know that millions died from both fighting directly and indirectly from the destruction of civilizations. Just the genocide against the native Americans is every bit as bad as the Pol Pot regime’s crimes.

As an aside to the warmongers in America (a majority it looks like), it was Winston Churchill himself who pointed out that WW1 had settled into a stalemate and would have been over soon if it were not for the USA coming in late in the game. Without the horrific mistakes of the WW1 “peace” treaty, Germany would not have tried to re-take their land which led to WW2 and all the evil from that war. Without WW2 we would not have seen nuclear weapons and the “cold war” with the USSR. Perhaps the world would have been a much better place all around if the US had kept its troops on its own soil as the founders told us was the best policy.

Has America been a “force for peace in the world”? Are so many people delusional or just ignorant of history?

 

Trump, Right-wing Populism, and ending the Drug War

Continuing on my list of things that the common man would find appealing in a broad coalition with libertarians, we will look today at The Drug War and at Crime in the Streets.

I wrote in the original list of items that a large populist movement could agree upon the following:

7) Take Back the Streets and end the Drug War: By ending the drug war and legalizing all drugs, we can then put the police to working on stopping rape, murder, theft and other crimes against the people. To hell with the state saying what I should be allowed to ingest into my body.

It is obvious to all reasonable people that the drug war is totally lost and that Nixon was totally wrong to start the latest version of the drug war.

In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants

The fact of the matter is that outlawing drugs was unconstitutional from the beginning. Consider the prior alcohol prohibition in the United States and how it was handled.

Prohibition was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933. The constitution was amended with the 18th amendment to begin alcohol prohibition and was ended with the 21st amendment. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to an astonishing proliferation of organized crime and violence in the US. The “wet” proponents cited personal liberty, reduction in crime, and tax review as reasons for ending the horribly wrong experiment in government mandated morality.They proved to be correct in all respects. The thing to notice, especially, is that prohibiting people from consuming a drug was seen to a power that the government did not have without a constitutional amendment.

There is no difference in alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition other than the US gave up on trying to follow the Constitution and just used raw federal power to make drugs illegal. Enormous civil liberties were cast aside and the idea of the police knocking on your door at a reasonable hour and producing a court ordered warrant to search your house without destroying the place was overturned in the madness to find the “evil doers”. When the police breaks in now, you are guilty till your are proven innocent.

As the war continued, ever more tyrannical measures were taken against the entire population in the hopeless attempt to stop people from doing what they wanted to do in the privacy of their own homes. We have come to see SWAT teams break down the door at all hours of the night, murder pets, shoot the people inside for little reason and with impunity. Living right is no defense as many have died simply because the police went to the wrong address. Know this: the SWAT team is there to kill people. And they do that very thing.

We are at a point were legalizing at least some drugs would be possible in the US at a federal level and that would help enormously with the crime problem in this country. Legalization would help protect people from the militarized, out of control, trigger happy police and SWAT units. For that reason alone I think the “man in the street” and libertarians can agree on this issue. But there is more …

If the prisons were emptied of those drug offenders who are unconstitutionally convicted of using or selling drugs that the feds don’t like, then we would have the space for arresting real criminals like murderers, rapists, thieves, and all the rest of the violent criminals we don’t seem to have the manpower to pursue at the present time. There are vast, vast resources going to the “drug war” at the present time. We could save billions of dollars and still have much safer streets in this country simply be following the constitution and allowing people to buy and ingest whatever they so desired. It is also important to realize that some of the users commit crimes to support the illegal habit and with legalization the crime rate would automatically fall.

Cigarettes are legal and there is no one giving out “free samples” to get your children hooked on the product. The same will be true of any legal drug. For the sake of the children we need to stop the unconstitutional drug prohibition.

 

10-shocking-reasons-to-end-the-drug-war-and-consi-2-26288-1413326545-8_dblbig

A closer look at right wing populism and “America First”

In the last post I mentioned a list of issues to use with the “average man on the street” towards the end of the post. I would like to look a little closer at the first two in that list as they really go together in my mind. Recall that the point of all of this is to find a broad alliance to stop the tyranny that the state has become all over the West, and especially in the US Empire.

The first two issues from my list that might drive a populist campaign of unity with libertarians and perhaps even anarchists are listed here:

1) America First. A key point, and one that is being used in the present election cycle by Donald Trump with great effectiveness. The American economy is stagnating. Many cities are dying and the nation’s infrastructure is crumbling, all while we give money away to other countries and police the world at a cost of unimaginable amounts of money. Plus our foreign policy tends to make people hate us.

2) Bring all troops home. We are killing innocent men, women, and children overseas in countries that have never threatened us and have no ability to invade this country; other than by us allowing emigration of their people who would attack us via terrorism.

Number one and number two hold a lot in common, but number two probably speaks, at first at least, to the left as much as the right at this time. The anti-war left was always for bringing the troops home, but that left appears to have almost died out. However, properly explained I think the common man, perhaps even a modern progressive, can be made to see the wisdom of the “old right” and their foreign policy of non-interventionism. The ancient wisdom of “live and let live” was at the heart of the old right.

Consider the issue “America First”. Some think that is some sort of newly manufactured campaign slogan that Trump thought up or had some paid experts think up. But the “America First” crowd was originally the “old right” of the 30s to the 50s. They believed that we should keep our armies inside our own boarders are be ready to fight a defense war if need be. They believed that with an ocean on both sides of us that we really did not need to worry about an invasion but should be ready for one.

The cost of stationing fighting men and materials rises exponentially as the distance from the homeland grows. This is known by military experts and was once the topic of a long lecture hosted on C-SPAN on cable in the 80s.

How many troops do we have stationed abroad? In a story in The Nation in early 2015 it was reported that there were approximately 800 bases in foreign countries around the world. These troops cost tons of money to station overseas even when they are not actively engaged in creating new enemies by murdering innocent men, women, and children in countries that have never threatened to invade the US — and have not the least bit of ability to do so. Just having the bases costs tons of money that the state takes from all of us and that could certainly be put to better use.

How much does this overseas projection of power cost? Military spending is said to have accounted for 54% of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion in 2015. Then there is the “off budget” spending on wars and intelligence agencies which are all part of the US Empire and its determination to rule the world.The actual total amount spent on policing the world is hard to pin down exactly due to the secret nature of the more shadowy agencies.

If the USA would adopt a defensive posture for the military, bring the troops home to defend this country, and stop invading countries around the world we could fund much of item number one — fixing America itself with the savings. We could put people to work fixing the infrastructure that is in a sad, crumbing state. Saving approximately one half of all discretionary spending in a multi Trillion dollar budget would fix a lot of infrastructure and put a lot of people to work.

If we adopted a policy of non-interventionism and neutrality, we could practice the free-market capitalism that made the country rich. Instead of managing trade to benefit the well connected corporations and the ultra rich, we could let laissez-faire capitalism bring us the blessings of a really free market and not the crony-capitalism that we have practiced for decades on end. Truly free trade with other nations builds friendship and reduces the odds of any war greatly. But first we must bring home the troops and stop threatening anyone who disagrees with us on various issues.

But can we sell non-interventionism to the right wing? Certainly we can. Consider these words from Paul Gottfried:

Only a Neanderthal cave dweller would not notice that self-identified conservatives have been raging against the neoconservative foreign policy for decades, that is, the policy that Thiessen was paid richly to defend. For starters, there are numerous websites, such as this one, that have defended a more restrained engagement with the world than the one advocated by the last Republican administration and it’s unmistakably neoconservative “advisers.” Moreover, the entire Old Right, most notably Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, has been declaiming against neoconservative warmongers for generations, and before them we had George F. Kennan, Robert A. Taft, libertarians of all kinds, and the later Herbert Hoover, warning us to  avoid foreign entanglement. Yesterday I walked into my local post office in South Central Pennsylvania and listened to die-in-the-wool right-wingers, including two army veterans, screaming against further military commitments. None of my fellow residents at the post office could ever be mistaken for a leftist. In fact, they were ardent Trump-supporters, who were worried “about what’s going on in this country.” And they were most definitely immigration restrictionists, although decency prevents me from repeating their opinions on this subject.

Warmongering by the neo-cons has done more damage to this country, and the world in general, than anything I can think of. If you wonder where the hoard of Muslims flooding the western countries came from, just remember it was the neo-cons who lobbied for the destruction of every country in the middle east other than Saudi Arabia.

There are two different concepts, patriotism and liberal internationalism, at issue here.It is fine to be “patriotic” in the sense of cherishing the nation, that is, the people, land and society. It is another entirely to send American armies all over the globe to invade and array of enemies, each one said to be the  most recent incarnation of Nazi Germany.

It is time to dismantle the world wide empire and stop interventions all around the globe. It is time to put America first and let peace, prosperity, and mutual cooperation be the motto of our nation once again — just as it was in the beginning.

 

 

Murray-Rothbard-Quotes-1