The Narcosaurus

Charles Burris observed:

It’s all about drugs.  It has always been all about drugs.  Researcher Peter Dale Scott has convinced me that the “deep politics” reality of our foreign policy with the Third World since the end of World War II has been narco-centric, behind the Cold War/War on Terror public facade or rationale.  We clearly see this in revelations of AIG, Goldman Sachs, and the bailouts, which have begun to expose the Narcosaurus as never before.

As Larry Chin observed:

“AIG’s involvement to US covert operations stretches back to World War II, in its roots as C.V. Starr, the  intelligence-related proprietary founded by OSS agent Cornelius Vander Starr. The Starr proprietary was connected to CIA/OSS figures Paul Helliwell and Tommy Corcoran. The notorious CIA fronts  connected to C.V. Starr, including Civil Air Transport, Sea Supply, and Air America/Pacific Corp were exposed by Peter Dale Scott in his book Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina.  It is also a huge financial “pass-through”, whose counter-parties include Goldman Sachs and (not surprisingly) the same major financial institutions that are the top recipients of  the US government’s TARP bailout.”

“It is no surprise that Barack Obama is the top recipient of AIG funds. AIG’s money also lines the pockets of other members of the Obama administration, and prominent members of Congress, including Senator Christopher Dodd, who has been accused of a sweetheart deal aiding AIG.”

For more on intelligence asset Barack Obama’s Wall Street connection, see Charles Gasparino’s book, Bought and Paid For:  The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street.

I think this is a topic that should be widely discussed, but if one does you are going to be called a “Kook” and  a “Conspiracy buff”.

 

Thanksgiving

Butler Shaffer:

Thanksgiving is the one holiday that has been the most difficult for the statists to corrupt into a warmongering celebration of political systems. Memorial Day (what was called “Decoration Day” in my youth), July 4th (previously known as “Independence Day”), Labor Day, and Veterans Day (what was originally called “Armistice Day” with its anti-war implications) were long ago transformed into state-worship. Even Christmas — celebrating the birth of the “prince of peace” — has been conscripted into the cause, with Santa Claus appearing in his new red, white, and blue uniform.

It would be great to live in a society that honored peace, prosperity, and mutual cooperation. I doubt I will ever see that in America. More is the pity.

Murray Rothbard was ever optimistic over the chances for peace, freedom, and liberty during his lifetime. I hope he was right.

Isolationism?

The media and others jump all over Ron Paul about his views of non-interventionism.  Why is that? Would they consider the founders of the US isolationists? Non-intervention means voluntary cooperation, free trade, and peaceful friendship. That is being a good world citizen.

Many people jump all over Ron Paul who understands what the freedom means and how it is to be safeguarded.

The Broccoli Test

The National Review pointed out:

During oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s health-insurance mandate, the Obama administration’s lawyer, Beth Brinkmann, was asked whether a federal law requiring all Americans to eat broccoli would be constitutional.

“It depends,” she replied. But she could certainly envision cases where it would be.

That makes her only slightly less certain than Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan, who was asked the same question during her confirmation hearings. Kagan, who will help decide the fate of Obamacare’s mandate, had no doubts that a broccoli mandate would be constitutional.

We have judges that can see no limits to governmental authority at all. Here we have judges that think the government could force you to eat a food if it deemed that appropriate. Once upon a time, the government thought you would have to change the constitution to outlaw alcohol, but that was when the words written on the paper actually meant something.

The central government is out of control. Time to end it.

 

An Enemy of the State

This review is from: An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard

I first heard of Murray Rothbard in 1970 when I was a high-school student researching the Depression. My kid brother pulled Rothbard’s “America’s Great Depression” off the shelf of our local public library and suggested I might find it useful.

I was at the age where I was exploring a variety of political perspectives, from John Kenneth Galbraith to Ayn Rand, but I soon recognized that Rothbard was unique.

It was only in the late ’70s, as a graduate student at Stanford, that I actually had a chance to meet Rothbard in person. At the time, the national libertarian movement (the Cato Institute, the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Institute for Humane Studies, etc.) had, for various reasons, come to be based in the San Francisco Bay Area, near Stanford, and I had a chance to meet not only Rothabrd but a number of other leading figures in the movement, including Justin Raimondo, the author of this biography of Rothbard.

I was thus peripherally involved in some of the incidents described in this book — for example, I was a member of the “Radical Caucus,” founded by Rainmondo and led by Rothbard. I can therefore testify that, as far as my personal knowledge is concerned, Raimondo has reported accurately, even where he himself differed from Rothbard (for example, on the 1984 Presidential campaign, when Rothbard and I were on the opposite side from Raimondo).

Above all, Raimondo paints an accurate picture of Rothbard as a person: Rothbard was joyously ebullient, voraciously curious, and, while politically passionate, always a gentleman. Over the years, I myself differed from Rothbard on a number of issues — ranging from intellectual property law to policy in Central America — but I know of no case in which Rothbard ever behaved in a dishonorable manner.

Rothbard reoriented the thinking of those in our generation who had a serious interest in issues of political philosophy and government. He differed from other advocates of individual rights and limited government in that he combined a rigorously logical understanding of the structure of human rights with an unflinchingly detailed empirical understanding of human history.

He taught us three central lessons:

1. Government — all governments everywhere — exists to enable some human beings to control and manipulate other human beings. While an occasional purpose of government is to interfere with others’ private lives and control their ideas and/or values, the overarching purpose of government is to enable some people to live at the expense of others via taxation, forced labor, etc.

2. The history of humankind is therefore the record of the struggle between Liberty and Power, between those humans who simply wish to be left alone to live their lives in peace and those who wish to control other human beings. Historians who portray the past as primarily consensus rather than conflict or as the inevitable triumph of impersonal, progressive social forces are lying apologists for tyranny.

3. War is, above all, the means by which government expands its power, not simply by seizing the population and territory of other states but, more importantly, as a means of intensifying and deepening its control of its own populace — curtailing civil liberties, whipping up nationalist hysteria, increasing the burden of taxation, etc. You cannot favor individual rights, private property, and free markets and also favor war.

Of course, these lessons were, to a large degree, as Rothbard himself recognized, simply a matter of relearning the lessons of the radical liberals of the nineteenth century, of the Jeffersonian wing of the American founding, and of the founding libertarians (such as John Lilburne and the American Roger Williams) of the seventeenth-century English Revolution. But Rothbard presented these lessons in a clearer and more straightforward manner, backed by a wealth of historical understanding, than ever before.

For those of us previously exposed to the “conservatism” of William F. Buckley and his “New Right” circle (Buckley actually advocated, in his own words, a “totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores…” to pursue the war against international Communism!) or the “laissez-faire capitalism” of Ayn Rand (who argued that government was basically legitimate but that government somehow always ended up mysteriously diverted from its legitimate purpose), Rothbard came as a clarifying thunderclap out of the blue.

The Randians did not much care about history (Rand’s “history” of philosophy was a cartoonish caricature) and the “conservatives” had little interest in either rigorous thinking or critical history. Rothbard, on the contrary, demanded that we pursue a serious study of economic theory, of the ethics of natural rights, and of the actual events of Western history.

In 1965, Rothbard predicted the collapse of the Soviet empire: based on his knowledge as an economist, he recognized that socialism could not succeed, and, using his knowledge of intellectual history, he predicted that the ideas of Locke and Jefferson, would, in the end, defeat the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

In the final years of his life, after the Soviet Empire had been swept into the dustbin of history, Rothbard correctly foresaw that the struggle over American imperialism would become the primary focus of world affairs, as is now clear to everyone in the wake of the “Bush doctrine” and the American attempt to conquer the Mideast.

As Raimondo discusses in detail, Rothbard pursued a variety of political alliances over the years, always with the goal of advancing his central aim, the freedom of the individual human being. Building on the great legacy of Western liberalism, Rothbard has left us an overarching framework, a powerful set of intellectual tools, for understanding the process of domination and exploitation, and ultimately, for bringing about the triumph of human freedom.

It is now up to us to further hone those tools and to learn to apply them to strip away the mask of Power and restore the natural rights of human beings both here in America and throughout the world.

State collapse

Back in ’00 a writer posted;

“Who are you?” a prisoner of the Khiam jail in South Lebanon asked the stranger who was unlocking his cell. “What has happened? Where are the guards?” Not waiting for an answer, he tore out of the cell to look for his family, which he had not seen in the ten years he had been held there without charges. He was one of 140 freed this week as the South Lebanon Army lost control of the region and headed for the border to the cheers of the Lebanese people.

I don’t know if the story was true or if it was allegory. But it was true that in an instant a state had collapsed and 22 years of military occupation came to an end. How could it happen? The combined forces of a government failed and a whole territory was suddenly free of the grip of an imperial power.

In the history of political philosophy only a few writers have tried to explain the dynamics of state collapse. Etienne de la Boetie wrote Discourse on Voluntary Servitude in the 1550s and concluded that  “in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it.” Let us hope he was correct.

Fred Reed writes

Fred Reed wrote the other day:

All indicators point downward, I tell you. On the lobotomy box the other night I stumbled on what seemed to be sock puppets standing behind rostrums and hypnotically intoning “The American People, the American People, the American People.”

Puzzled, I speculated that it might be a convention of performing autistics, but soon understood that it it was a debate among Republican candidates for the presidency. Why use people, I wondered? We could do it as well in software. Computer graphics, small recorded vocabulary, narcotic rhythm. Easy.

Fred is always funny; and I enjoy his material. But on this point he sure does hit the nail on the head.

He finished off with:

I couldn’t take it. Before Ron Paul began to speak I went out for a gallon of Padre Kino red and an IV drip. I thought it might hold me over until I figured out how to become an aardvark.

After all, Ron Paul is tiresomely predictable. He would say hateful anti-American things. You know, we should get out of damn fool wars, pick the military leech off the back of the republic, dismantle an empire that bankrupts the US, and end our perpetual state of martial priapism against Iran. Completely unelectable. A commie, I figure.

Great stuff!