The Evil of American Exceptionalism

As always with this blog, the thing that got me started on this post came from a short exchange on Twitter with an old internet friend. We were discussing the US and its belief in its own “exceptionalism”. The limits of Twitter make it hard to fully express yourself, and so I use this blog sometimes to expand on my thoughts for my Twitter buddies. This is one of those times.

American exceptionalism is the claim of a special and unique character of the nation-state called the United States as a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and liberty. I have often heard some people say that God himself favors the US because the US is uniquely “good”. Because of this “special goodness” the people of America believe that any action the US does in foreign lands is justified.

Murray Rothbard once observed that the nation-state is a band of thieves writ large. American “exceptionalism” is the idea that the motivation of the state excuses all actions — writ large. This evil idea has been used to excuse all manner of evil actions in foreign policy.

The United States has military bases around the world and is at continual war, both overt and secret, the world over. The US Empire uses its military might to bully other states into doing whatever the US wants. If the leader of a given state does not go along with the Empire’s wishes then “regime change” is in order.

When we consider morality and ethics, we see that any rule must apply to everyone in all situations to be valid. The US government in the 1960s went nuts when it was discovered that the old USSR had put nuclear weapons in Cuba. The “Cuban Missile Crisis” was explained to the US public that it was all about the evil acts of the communist USSR. But the fact was that the US Empire put nuclear weapons on the boarder of the USSR first and aimed them right at Moscow. The agreement that defused the crisis was that the USSR would remove the nuclear weapons from Cuba and the USA would remove the nuclear weapons from the Turkey.

In the USA the whole Cuban missile crisis was presented as a Russian aggression. The USA was said to have every right to put nukes close to Moscow and to do that was no provocation whatsoever; but the Russians did not have the same right and for them to do the same thing as the US did was an evil provocation of war — American Exceptionalism in a nutshell.

There have been only a few years in the history of the US when the US was not at war, or threatening war against some other nation. We must include the “Indian Wars” and all of those secret wars of the CIA and others or one might think the US takes a few years off from killing women and children once in a while. There are also all the proxy wars where the Empire uses the local troops but does the funding and arming of the aggressor. A good example of this sort of war is when the US made Iraq invade Iran.

The US even overthrew the first democratically elected president in Iran in 1952 and installed the Shaw of Iran. The Shaw was a brutal dictator who depended upon American military might to keep his people enslaved. What “exceptionalism” justified that US action? When Iran overthrew the Shaw in a great uprising, the US called Iran “evil” and they became our enemy; but somehow the Media never mentioned the fact that the US started it all.

, October 18, 2013 wrote:

A new study shows our noble crusade to “liberate” Iraq killed half a million people. It is impossible to even imagine such a crime: the mind shuts down in the face of those numbers. I can’t even visualize half a million dead bodies – can you? And that doesn’t take into account the sanctions, which killed hundreds of thousands more, mostly old people and children. Nor does it include the number we killed in the first Gulf war – we’re surely up to a solid million dead by now.

Getting away with this is what we call “American exceptionalism.” God (or Nature) punishes evil, eventually – but not us. We’re the exception.

But are we?

Of course the US can not get away with killing millions of women and children decade after decade. There will come a reckoning. The reckoning may already be upon us. The nation’s leaders think that they are bound by no moral or ethical law. Washington’s unrestrained and reckless hubris will destroy us all.

It is easy to see the utter evil of the US as a radical libertarian, but the “common man” has trouble seeing that both of the major parties engage in this wanton aggression against innocent foreign people continually. The Empire also aggresses against the citizens of the US itself. Many commoners think that it is the “other party” that does all the evil. Oh my lord, none so blind as those who will not see.

US military bases:


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 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.


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.




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.


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.