Evidence of life, by the Pacific Ocean, November 28, 2019.

A stopped clock may be right twice a day, but a stopped military clock is right only once per day.


Just a reminder: the Russia investigation “was a nothing,” as my father used to say. No evidence advanced to show that any American solicited aid from Russia, and no evidence that the meagre “interference” on social media by a bunch of Russians affected any outcome, not so much as one vote:

There is no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.

. . . There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge, and that the nature of the [allegedly Russian] scheme was that the [Russian] defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on virtual private network [VPN] here in the United States so if anybody traced it back to that first jump, they appeared to be Americans.

Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, as recorded by CNBC, February 18, 1018.

The build-up to the final indictments in the Mueller Probe was relentlessly breathless, saying that Trump was doomed. And then? Nothing. Zip. Nada. All we had were pathetic prosecutions, the most ludicrous being of the named Russian “hackers.”

It is worth mentioning that the United States regularly intrudes on other countries’ elections far more thoroughly and effectively. The clutched pearls of the anti-Trumpers is so disingenuous.

And remember, one of the more recent elections that the U.S. Government interfered in was in the Ukraine.

So, naturally, as if led by an invisible hand with a wicked wit, Democrats, Deep State operatives, and the corporate media have pushed a bizarre Ukraine “interference” and “quid pro quo” and “bribery” allegation against the president for allegedly soliciting Ukrainians to “interfere” in our elections by investigating Joe Biden, Trump’s “political competitor.”

This is worth remembering as we gear up for the great fizzle that seems imminent regarding impeachment.


Although we do learn some of our history from hoaxes, we learn far more of it from sources that are unabashedly fictional. Rather than our quest for ammunition or enlightenment, it is our yearning for entertainment that most often leads us astray. A 2001 study, for instance, found that nearly two-thirds of high school students surveyed based their understanding of the Vietnam War on the movie Forrest Gump. The same pattern might hold for the First Thanksgiving if only Hollywood found it more interesting.

Robert Tracy McKenzie, The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning from History (2013) .

The “freedom of assumption” lies at the heart of human ontology, and it is our consideration of non-facts that make us who we are, and even allows us to act:

Dale Jacquette, Alexius Meinong, The Shepherd of Non-Being (2015).

Note to praxeologists and “objectivists”: our values are determined by fancy as well as facts.

Meinong’s innovation is very similar to George Santayana’s doctrine of essences — which Santayana referred to as “promiscuous” in that the objects of our thought require no existence to be meaningful.

And from this line of reasoning we can see where the Ontological Argument fails.

This was my Thanksgiving message on Facebook, expressing my gratefulness for all the important objects of consciousness that do not exist.


The Fourth Estate relentlessly pushes political power, but has no interest in uncovering the truth for our benefit. If the journalists/papers/news channels were really interested in Story they would be all over some of the biggest stories of our time. But their interest in Story is circumscribed by their interest in partisan power-mongering. What they offer, instead, is Ideological Narrative. Not quite the same thing. Because of this, they are easily influenced by the CIA and the rest of the Deep State, and side with it.

Off Reddit.

And they have no interest in ‘protecting women’ or #metoo or anything even slightly noble . . . if it disrupts their narratives of expanding secular power and the subjugation of a free people.


As I understand the current impeachment case, it seems to have problems:

1. Neither the infamous quid or the notorious quo of the quid pro quo actually occurred — at best the case has it that Trump wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for a promise to investigate the corruption of the Bidens, but the aid was eventually given and the investigation did not happen.

2. The Ukrainian president was most interested in a meeting with Trump, and appears not to have realized at the time of negotiations that aid was on hold. Negotiating for meetings is trivial b.s. not worthy of review by Congress. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying in a deposition, not for his special White House hotel grift.

3. Testimony from the prime witness has Trump explicitly denying, upon a request for clarification, the withholding of aid as a negotiating tactic.

4. Rep. Schiff and the pro-Deep State press (CNN, MSNBC, et al.) continually characterizes what Trump wanted as ‘investigating a political rival’ and not as investigating obvious and frank and even boasted-about [‘well, son-of-a-bitch’] corruption on the part Joe Biden and his son.

5. The continual denials of any evidence for Biden wrong-doing by Democrats and the Deep State press, is mere stonewalling and denial — lying.

6 The principle of the Double Effect is at play here: we expect more than one motive to go into any complicated maneuver like the disputed Ukraine negotiation. Since investigating corruption is entirely legitimate, that provides more than enough cover even to get what Trump may have wanted regarding his ‘political rival’ Biden.

7. The irony of charging Trump with trying to get foreign powers to help get dirt on a political opponent is PRECISELY what Hillary Clinton did with the Russian Dossier — how pot-and-kettle can they get?

8. And as for the sheer horror of investigating a political rival, that is what Barack Obama did to Trump’s campaign. Quite clearly.

9. The whistleblower heard nothing himself — it was all hearsay, and after the testimonies, that ‘heard said’ turns out to be mere unheard suspicion.

10. It is obvious from the very words and grimaces of testifying Deep State operatives that what they really objected to was that their beloved ‘interagency consensus’ was being derailed by the new president’s very different approach. Anyone with an ounce of skepticism about the FBI, CIA and ‘the interagency’ should not give one vermin patootie for their commitment to their policies — they are not supposed to be in charge. Why any American would be sympathetic to this crowd of professional liars and incompetents I don’t know.

There is more, but this is enough to make me utterly incredulous about the charges, which seem weaker and more indicting of the side marshaling the indictments than of Trump.


Talk about ‘interfering in our elections’! This story is out there, but does not seem to be getting much play:

The story seems interesting, anyway:

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota-5th) was recruited by a foreign government, received funding from a foreign government, and passed sensitive information through intermediaries to Iran, a Florida court has been told, as The Jerusalem Post confirmed.
Speaking to the Post, the office of the Congresswoman denied the allegations.
The claims came during testimony by Kuwati-born Canadian businessman Alan Bender, who was giving evidence in the trial of Sheikh Khalid bin Hamad al-Thani. The Qatari emir’s brother stands accused of ordering his American bodyguard to murder two people, and of holding an American citizen hostage. His deposition, obtained by Al Arabiya English, was authenticated by the attorney for the plaintiffs, according to the publication.
Speaking from Toronto by video link, Bender told the Florida District Court that he met with Qatar’s Secretary to the Emir for Security Affairs Mohammad bin Ahmed bin Abdullah al-Masnad and two other senior Qatari officials.
According to his sworn deposition, the three officials told him: “If it wasn’t for our cash, Ilhan Omar would be just another black Somali refugee in America collecting welfare and serving tables on weekends.”Bender testified that the officials asked him to recruit American politicians and journalists as Qatari assets, and that when he objected, was told that several prominent figures were already on the payroll. Omar was described as the “jewel in the crown,” he said.

Donna Rachel Edmunds, “Ilhan Omar denies being ‘Qatari asset,’ witness confirms Jerusalem Post report,” Jerusalem Post, November 28, 2019.

But, that being said, if these accusations prove true, many crimes may have been made in all this. But not treason, since America is fighting no declared wars.


It is well known that the title Benjamin R. Tucker gave to Steven T. Byington’s translation of Max Stirner’s great German work, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, is far from a perfect analog of the original. The Ego and Its Own does not suggest the original meanings in anything like its fullness. That being the case, what would be a better title? Something, I think, like

  • The Self-Owner and His Property
  • The Self-Owned Self
  • The Properties of the Self-Owned Self
  • Oneself as Owned Self
  • The Self’s Own Liberated Property

A lot of self-help book titles come to mind:

  • Disowning Servility
  • De-Slaving the Self
  • Freer Selves Self-Owning
  • Taking Ownership of Oneself

And perhaps more scholarly visions could hail from the title:

  • Selfism from Max Stirner to Jack Woodford
  • The Properties of Property and the Ownership of Self
  • Oneself as Self–Proprietie: The Ownership of Personhood

And one that I’m working on:

The Self and Its Aptness

A friend suggests “aptitude” is a better word than “aptness,” but the primary definitions of “aptitude” scuttle the intended meaning, and so is not apt.


The above squibs have all been culled from my personal and professional Facebook page, from the last few days’ postings. The photo at top is something I snapped at Long Beach Peninsula today, a bright, sunny, cold day: seagull prints in the sand.

For libertarian economics, what do property rights include?

as answered on Quora:

I hate to pick at nits, but I do not think there is such a thing as “libertarian economics.” But I assume that the questioner really means “economic policy,” and is right to think that libertarians have a distinct policy. But any such policy is also a matter of law (libertarians, even of a hard-core private law variety hold to a rule of law) so the question becomes, What property rights are included under libertarian legal and economic policy?

Well, this turns out to be a big subject.

There are some differences of opinion, in part because the libertarian camp is a bit broader than usually let on by its most insistent advocates. But what defines libertarians is the way they themselves define liberty: as the freedom that all can share by being seen in the negative: a freedom from initiated coercion, or force. (Freedoms-to, in Isaiah Berlin’s formulation, are not the focus of libertarian principles.)

And for libertarians, liberty starts with the individual. Though it can be defined politically, as selfgovernment, it is often, perhaps usually (following Locke and the Levellers) defined in property terms. Liberty entails selfownership. To own one’s self means to own one’s own body. And like all property this entails excludability. In other words, self-defense.

So, already, at this most fundamental level, chattel slavery is prohibited. One cannot own others against their will, unless that other has committed some crime and his enslavement is repayment. Slavery is commonly thought to be not an acceptable kind of ownership, and slaves not legitimate property. Though Libertarians argue about the legitimacy of selling themselves into slavery.

Certainly, the chattel slavery that was the basis of 17th-, 18th- and 19th-century American economy is not legitimate property according to libertarianism. Libertarians were almost all abolitionists, in the mid-19th century, before the Civil War.

The basic conception of justice that libertarians hold has been called the entitlement, or proprietary theory of justice. As formulated by Robert Nozick, a property holding is just if it was justly acquired and justly transferred. To be justly acquired, it cannot be wrested from another. Hence the idea of self-ownership, and the idea of a first-come/finders-keepers ethic of property acquisition. This is the fairly logical outcome of the attempt to find a basic rule that would minimize conflict. Only scarce resources can be owned. So free goods (in the economic sense, as defined by economist Carl Menger and other early marginalists) are not subject to ownership.

This leads to problems of some common resources, such as air (non-economic on the surface of the planet, outside our nose and lungs) and oceans (lots of water there). Libertarians tend to evade or disagree or remain puzzled by these resources, and how property rights could possibly be applied in these resource pools. (Nevertheless, much work has been done, and should be looked up.)

But not to problems of land. I know of few libertarians who go the Georgist route, thinking that land may not be owned — but there used to be many of these, including the young Herbert Spencer and the individualist Joseph Hiam Levy, an able fin-de siècle economist (see his debates with Auberon Herbert and Benjamin R. Tucker.)

Intellectual property rights attorney Stephan Kinsella argues that intellectual property is a misnomer. He extends the analysis of Murray Rothbard, who thought that laws against “libel and slander” were unsupportable because one cannot own one’s reputation. Kinsella makes the point that patent and copyright law are both monopolistic “protections” (intrusions, interventions) of the State, and could not possibly arise in a society that takes the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP — really just a formalization of the principle of universalizble negative freedom) seriously, consistently.

So:

a. property in one’s own person, by which we mean “body”;

b. property in land and other scarce resources that no one else has owned, and which you have appropriated by some widespread or locally apt convention; and

c. property in scarce resources that one has purchased, by contract and without duress.

Libertarians these days almost univocally reject the Lockean idea that possible-to-own resources that have not been appropriated are “owned in common.” This notion is at best a fiction. At worst an imposition. Non-privatized property is seen as UN-OWNED. And property rights theorists are beginning to understand the importance of “ceasing-to-own” as a category. That is, not only must property rights require justice in acquisition and transferance, but also in maintenance. Just as one may lose property, in a physical sense, one can abandon it, in a normative sense. This puts the property into the category of un-owned. If you leave your car on the side of the road, and never return, it is abandoned. The road owner usually appropriates it, but since, today, all automobile titles are tightly regulated by the states, and most roads are State-owned, the states tend to assume ownership. This would not be the case in a libertarian society. Law and custom would look very different. And would have to include rules about disowned property, inadvertent or deliberate, and regard it as un-owned, allowing for a new appropriation.

Other cases of property abandonment? Littering, pollution, and (in the realm of self-ownership) body abandonment upon inadvertent death as well as intended death (suicide). (Would a consequence of this perspective be that suicide is often a form of littering, and, unless measures were made in advance by the would-be suicide, many acts of suicide would be rightly preventable, by coercion, as defense of the property the corpse is intentionally being abandoned upon?)

According to Murray Rothbard, there can be no “public property.” All property must be private. F. A. Hayek demurred from this, arguing that what we are really talking about is “several property,” which would include ownership by groups, in some corporate or even informal capacity. (Randy Barnett explains the seemingly archaic term in this way: “The term ‘several property’ makes it clearer that jurisdiction to use resources is dispersed among the ‘several’ — meaning ‘diverse, many numerous, distinct, particular or separate’ persons and associations that comprise a society, rather than being rooted in a monolithic centralized institution.”) The rule of law defends several property, which would allow for any forms of property now considered “public.”

Philosopher Roderick Long has discussed a public property element in a free society as configured around by the NAP. This subject is still under debate among libertarians.

All property comes down to the right to exclude and the right to control. Several property is private chiefly in the sense of de-priving others of its use. Where you cannot forcibly exclude others (understood as self defense), there is no property. Where you cannot control the thing ostensibly owned (without initiating force), it is not property. I believe Kinsella’s arguments against intellectual property flow directly from these considerations.

No wonder, then, that one proposed alternative to the term “libertarianism” is “propertarianism” — no other school of thought takes property rights as seriously libertarians do, or see them as so fundamental.

Note: There is a whole school of economics devoted to property rights discussion. Many of these economists are libertarians or near-libertarians. Richard Stroup, for example, has proffered a basic rubric for property rights: “For markets to work . . . rights to each important resource must be clearly defined, easily defended against invasion, and divestible (transferable) by owners on terms agreeable to buyer and seller. Well-functioning markets, in short, require ‘3-D’ property rights.” Again, the 3-D property rights require

  1. Definability — clarity in boundaries;
  2. Defense — ability to be maintained;
  3. Divestibility — capacity for ownership cessation by the property holder.

This latter includes divestment by gift, divestment by exchange (giving on condition of receiving something), and inadvertent abandonment (loss by inattention) and purposive abandonment (essentially, gift to the unowned state, gift to “whoever will appropriate from an unowned state” or assault upon others, if the property abandoned is specifically disutile or inutile to all).

Libertarian economic policy rests on conceptions of property rights, centered on individual self-ownership and extending outwards to natural resources and produced goods. Many kinds of several property are allowed, but the society would not be de facto libertarian if there were extensive black markets in stolen goods of whatever kind, or if the state (or similar institutions) appropriated by decree all sorts of un-owned and dis-owned property, or engaged in mass expropriation (taxes) or piecemeal expropriation outside the court system, or in contravention of the NAP.

A few months ago we had occasion to remember an Obama Era scandal: the notorious “tan suit” brouhaha.

But why would we memorialize this idiocy? For Whataboutism’s sake.

It is probably the favorite ism of our time, Whataboutism.

It’s inane, sure, and an ugly, silly term, but it does insert a modicum of reciprocal thinking into our relentlessly partisan, cordoned-off political culture.

Yahoo News provides the story of that fateful day in late August, 2014:

In addition to being generally panned by fashion experts, Obama’s light-hued look, worn to a White House briefing, scandalized cable news pundits. Lou Dobbs called it “shocking,” while Republican congressman Peter King said it represented POTUS’s “lack of seriousness” in the wake of recent ISIS attacks.

Who are the people who were upset by this? The Yahoo story names some names, sure, but let’s break the complainers into their categories:

  1. The Professionally Upset, people who get noticed by being noticeably upset;
  2. Opposite Partisans, folks who find occasion to be vexed by anything slightly out-of-the-ordinary of the Other Side;
  3. Fashionistas, the folks who think their taste in fashion should dominate the culture;
  4. Sour Grumps, who just like complaining about every innovation;
  5. Racists, who in this case could be called Suitists.

I much prefer to judge politicians by what they do, and by the apparent content of their character. But as for a tan suit:

“Let me start off by saying that I was sorely tempted to wear a tan suit today for my last press conference, but Michelle, whose fashion sense is little better than mine, tells me that’s not appropriate in January,” he quipped while wearing a standard navy suit to his final White House briefing in January 2017.

Mark Twain and Tom Wolfe wore white suits — even out of season. Black men can wear yellow, purple, red and many another odd color and “get away with it” — that is, they can wear these colors and not look like goobers. And as for Obama’s preference, admit it: he looked great in it. When I start wearing suits again (you know, to acclimate friends for my final outfit), it will be some shade of brown.

But then, my interest in fashion is largely anthropological, not devotional. I guess I am just not that into suitist thinking.

twv

Regarding reactions to the impeachment biz, we see two realities clash. I read my Democrat and beltway libertarian friends’ posts about how it is all a knock-down case and that if anything’s impeachable it’s the horrifying (!) conduct of Donald Trump … in those phone calls, apparently.

What?

You see, I have trouble wrapping my head around it. I look at the testimony so far and see a big nothing. I don’t see a crime. Not even in the Bidens’ obvious corruption, sans more evidence. What I see, mainly, is a minor mess of he-said/they-said interpretations.

But up front and foremost is what we have witnessed since Trump first announced his candidacy: the revulsion of the people who love big government against a man who has the wrong style.

Now, Trump’s style ain’t mine, not my cup of tea — I enjoy his tweets and his antics and how he annoys all the right people, sure, but I would never man the barricades for him, and his policies are all over the map. He seems like a character, and an odd one at that. But why the hate?

My conjecture: This is all about sexual selection standards, not policy — since his political ideas are familiar, and were the norm just a generation ago, even eight years ago. My attitude is almost certainly the result of my grudging tolerance of ideas once customary, but never mine, and my utter incredulity at ‘new’ ideas that Trump haters take as gospel.

But policy issue preference seems to have little to do with rational appraisal. It is tribal affiliation that counts, and since we are talking about our support or opposition to leaders, it is about standards of honor, which are bound up with sex. That is what matters — as it must in human animals. It is not our brains but our pudenda that carry most weight.

I am something of an alien in this regard, because while I find the honor standards of the Reagan-Bush-Trump crowd silly and off-putting, I judge the standards and the style of all the smoothies (you know, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Pete Buttigieg, your average tv news reader) as luciferian. Each side is committed to their respective styles and the policies that have come to be associated with those styles, and judge accordingly. I am such an outlier, here, because to me what is paramount in politics is policy. And here I have little sympathy for the Trumpians, and none for the anti-Trumpians.

While Democrats and Republicans concern themselves with the inanities of the Ukraine negotiations regarding corruption inquiries and foreign aid, I see

  • America’s idiotic longest war in Afghanistan going nowhere slow;
  • incoherent meddling regarding Syria, Turkey and Iran;
  • a horrible war in Yemen that most Americans know nothing about and care even less;
  • brinksmanship with Russia for no good reason;
  • over-extension everywhere, and at the expense of undermining the American and world financial system;

and so much more. Why Americans allow themselves to be distracted with nonsense like the Ukraine brouhaha when actual warcrimes and atrocities and possibly catastrophic stressors loom on the horizon like the return of the Eldritch gods . . . I shake my head.

That Americans of both parties cannot even work up even passing attention to important matters strikes me lunatic, mad, even evil.

Which brings us to the cream of the jest: Democrats now embracing the permanent government of the military industrial complex.

Of the CIA and NSA.

Of unelected bureaucrats as heroes, even.

It has been bitterly hilarious watching my ‘anti-war’ leftist friends of the early aughts become the look-the-other-way Obama worshipers of the teens, and now scorners of Tulsi Gabbard as ‘Russian agent.’ There is no seriousness here, just pose. They now would rather be seen as fantasists supporting ‘socialism.’

Republicans have never much impressed me. This is obvious from my past comments, if now quite old. George W. Bush I loathed to spluttering point; his father I hated when I could bear to think about him; Reagan I regarded as the coward who set up the current trap; and Nixon, O Nixon!

But Democrats? Never before have so many self-identified smart people embraced folly and evil for reasons so stupid and vile.

But we are all creatures of the memes we embrace. And maybe I should see it as refreshing that the Democratic Party has adopted the quiddity we once saw as conservative: the Democrats now make up The Stupid Party.

twv

N.B. I look at what I wrote, above, and now note a slight disingenuous feint on my part. I have known why Democrats must hate Trump. I have written about it before. It is meme magic. Symbolism. But I float the Sex Style theory, here, to explain the meme magic and the powerful mythic symbolism.

For your WTF Files, in case you had not seen this particular ‘Q&A’ segment from Down Under in other videos:

It features a grand and revelatory rant by Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-American feminist lunatic with fake red hair. ‘How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us, and stop raping us? … How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?’

Note the follow-up questions that need answers. Unasked and unanswered.

Note especially that she does not inquire how many rapists were killed in the past by actually patriarchal society, not today’s fantasied one. Until the rise of liberal society in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the death penalty for even small infractions was common. We live in the societies that grew out of those harsher times. By inadvertent breeding, there are almost certainly less rapists today than there would be otherwise had not those bloody-minded patriarchs killed all those stupid, criminal young men before they could sire children, by rape or by seduction or by whoring or by conjugal relations.

But she’s against that — well, at least the State’s death penalty — suggesting, instead, that women should directly kill their rapists, something I am OK with in self-defense but not as revenge. Women just need guns.

I expect she and I would get along swimmingly, heh. Maybe she will join the ranks of women with firearms.

Now, this video’s commentary is helpful and droll. But it is Eltahawy’s racist and sexist rantings that take center state here, and include a classic riff: decorum and manners were invented by white men, you see, only for the benefit of white men, no one else. ‘Marginal voices’ are further marginalized by manners . . . or so her argument appears to run.

An absurd idea, but it should be responded to rationally, as absurd as it is.

Which I will leave for another time.

But most absurd of all? Eltahawy’s advice to straight men: don’t seek just sexual intimacy with women. ‘Be queerer. Be more bisexual. Be less cis-gendered. . . . Just fuck it all up and be free!’

This reminds me of the Sixties, when hippies told us to take LSD: tune in, turn on, drop out. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

As an answer to problems of violence in society, it is ridiculous.

As, I am afraid, is Mona Eltahawy.

Mona Eltahawy, radical feminist.


By the way, it is not OK to be white — why, the Australian Parliament says so, and so, obviously, does the BBC! You see, it is racist to say “it is ‘OK’ to ‘be white.’”

And the bare majority that balked at affirming this merest ‘white race’ acceptability status does not mean it thinks it is GREAT to be white. Oh, no:

Australia’s Senate has narrowly defeated a motion condemning “anti-white racism,” by just three votes.

Pauline Hanson, the leader of Australia’s far-right One Nation party, wanted backing for her motion which stated “it is OK to be white.”

It also spoke of the “deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilisation.”

Critics have dismissed it as another stunt by Ms Hanson, who last year hit the headlines for wearing a burka.

Yet a number of ruling party politicians backed the motion.

It’s OK to be white’ bill defeated in Australian Senate,” BBC News, October 15, 2018.

You see the BBC’s implicit bias. “Yet” — despite the fact that the measure came from someone on “the far right” (obviously evil!) and that some unnamed “critics” have “dismissed” the proposed motion — “a number of” mainstream pols “backed the motion”! Horrors.

So what is implied by being scandalized by the statement?

They, the scandalized, mean either (a) they think it is bad (somehow) to be white or (b) that they think people of darker hue are too weak, witless or ‘triggered’ to be able to handle white people affirming a basic level of human acceptability. In either case, either they are racists against whites and believe that whites must be put down, as a normative matter for reasons unspecified, or they are racists against non-whites by thinking that they are so inherently inferior that only by putting whites down can non-whites achieve their own ‘OK’-or-better status.

Another possibility? These white anti-white racists are just really, really stupid . . . so lacking in any philosophical understanding of the case against racism that they become racists themselves, adopting a witless knee-jerk hyper-piety about what one may say about race and racism. Yes. They are that idiotic. That ill-educated. They are intellectual simpletons who should not be anywhere near power.

I lean to this latter explanation.

A brindle (striped) Great Dane; it’s OK, rest assured.

Speaking ahead of the vote, Ms Hanson said “people have a right to be proud of their cultural background, whether they are black, white or brindle.”

“If we cannot agree on this, I think it’s safe to say anti-white racism is well and truly rife in our society,” she added.

’It’s OK to be white’ bill defeated in Australian Senate ,” BBC News, October 15, 2018.

Now, do we need to have pride in our racial or cultural backgrounds? I am dubious. But we should certainly be unashamed of what was not our responsibility and, further, that which we cannot change.

And anti-white racism is “rife.” It is understandable when coming from non-whites. Negative racism expressed outwards hardly requires much explanation. But anti-white racism by whites is exceptional. We used to resort to the ‘self-hating’ concept to explain such things, but I do not think hate is what we should focus upon. It’s about color, the color red. As in “a red” or “pinko.”

Yes, this is all about the confusions of leftists, of communists, of socialists.

These ideologues are confused. Their inherent collectivism makes them so. And their long-standing pretense of ‘being liberal’ is key to their befuddlement. You see, they think of their anti-racism as leftist. It isn’t. It hails from liberalism. And they aren’t liberals. They yearn for socialism of some sort. So they are utterly unable to articulate a case against racism that is not collectivist . . . and their collectivism inevitably reëmerges in another for, a topsy turvy racism.

And yes, it is OK to be any color or coloring of human — so long as we are talking skin color. The liberal-individualist case for human rights and ‘dignity’ [too often, admittedly, undefined in our discourse*] does not depend upon racial categories. The fact that this ‘it is OK to be white’ meme triggers anyone is a sign that liberal civilization has not passed on its basic ideas from one generation to the next.


* I have spent a lot of time thinking about rights. But dignity? Not so much.

We are not supposed to doubt what the elites tell us. This imperative is enforced. They ridicule us — and we ridicule each other — when we express doubt, or indeed any deeply contrary opinion, about what they tell us.

For example, we are supposed to think it is just accidental that the major media outlets that sat on the Jeffrey Epstein pedo-sex slave story for years then mock as ‘conspiracy theorists’ anyone who doubts their credulous/credulity-stretching story that Epstein killed himself.

And we are CERTAINLY not supposed to then wonder if ‘Pizzagate’ is as ridiculous as elitist opinion leaders have said it is. How could we believe that our illustrious elitists (who have admitted to engaging in pagan blood rites, though they assure us it is only performance art) would also engage in the rape and murder of children? Unthinkable!

I do not know the truth about Epstein, or, for that matter, the Clintons and John Podesta and their creepy emails published onto Wikileaks.

Though I think I know something about pizza.

I also do not know that much about NSA General Michael Aquino who got the Temple of Set recognized as an official religion within the U.S. Government (allowing, I am told, chaplain services in the military). Is this all just nonsense? And why would you worship Set instead of Osiris? I mean, if you have to go back to ancient Egypt for your religion?

I know almost nothing. But it is difficult not to suspect a whole heckuva lot when we catch major media sources conspiring to keep the truth from us — and who go all the way to vindictively lash out at mere suspects for revealing the truth.

By the way, ABC’s suppressed Epstein story was said to have exposed Bill Clinton in a big way.

Just how weird does this get?

Are we hearing about this now because, in the deepest corridors of the Deep State, some deep secrets about UFOs had been threatened by the Podesta/Clinton agenda of disclosure? Or is it all coming out in an as-yet incomprehensible jumble merely because the truth, whatever it is, is almost too hard to understand . . . or keep secret?

Yes, the Epstein story may be linked, in some shady way, to the UFO story.
But we know almost nothing because that has been what we are supposed to know. Nothing. Or the opposite of the truth.

Yet UFOs likely have nothing to do with it. Ufologists often leap for evidence where evidence is lacking. Of course, when evidence is routinely suppressed, we are all find ourselves in an epistemic pickle.

Consider what William Casey is alleged to have said to Ronald Reagan — that success, for the CIA, would be when everything Americans think they know is the opposite of the truth. What did he mean? Well, the source for this now-infamous quotation says this:

Casey expressed astonishment when reporting the huge percentage of CIA ‘intelligence’ that was, and almost certainly still is, based on open sources, and he was absolutely serious when he said that the agency would be successful when everything the American people believed was false.  Though not explicitly said at that time, it was made clear in other contexts during my two years in the West Wing in the highest level meetings that the pretext for this mentality was the claim that in a Cold War era when communications were essentially instantaneous, the vast majority of “the enemy’s” — then the Soviet Union’s — “intelligence” was also based on open press and media sources, so the most efficient way to lie to the Soviets was to lie in the U.S. and allied media, which meant the American public believing the lies was considered a kind of ‘collateral damage.’

Barbara Honegger, November 25, 2014.

This I do believe. Its implications are many, but one stands out: If the source for the CIA’s information is open, particularly from major media, but CIA uses said media for disinformation purposes, U.S. intelligence operatives are always in danger of finding themselves with their heads so far up their own assets that they themselves could not tell truth from their own lies.

How is the world ruled and led to war? Diplomats lie to journalists and believe these lies when they see them in print.

Karl Kraus

I am involved in a new podcast. It has only debuted on SoundCloud, so far, but it will roll out to the usual podcast publishers, such as iTunes and Stitcher and Google Play.

Note, “I am involved” means that I facilitate. This is Paul Jacob’s show. In 1999 he began making radio spots, and kept them going for a decade. I was at Liberty magazine at the time, and knew nothing of them, but one does catch up eventually. Which Paul has done — “catch up” — by re-entering the audio/video realm with this new project.

SoundCloud is a superior hosting platform for audio, and I have been using it myself for a long time, if in an excessively humble way. Stay tuned for more podcast projects from me.

The second of Paul’s podcasts put up on the audio streaming service.
Last weekend’s episode of “This Week in Common Sense.”

Which is the more complicated: for a right-wing person to understand a left-wing person or for a left-wing person to understand a right-wing person?

as answered on Quora:

It should be easier for a left-winger to understand right-wingers, rather than vice versa — based on a quick glance at the two ideological approaches.

Why? Well, the most sense I can make out of the left/right duality is this: the right emphasizes defense of self or in-group from the threat of other or out-group; the left emphasizes defense of others from self or out-groups from in-group.

By leftists’ very nature, you would think being open to new thoughts and alien (“outside”) ideas would entail more sympathy for rightists than rightists would have for them. And that was once the case.

Not any longer. Few leftists today can pass an ideological Turing test — but most non-leftists can.

This has been noted for some time, including by careful psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt.

What happened? The left captured the commanding heights of the culture, particularly major media, entertainment, and academic institutions. Everybody is more than familiar with leftist arguments. But leftists, em-bubbled in their institutional safe spaces, have been coddled. And they are therefore, to an astounding degree, pathetically and witlessly unaware of arguments against their positions.

Further, the types of people who adopt ideas based on social status have inverted. When I was young, it was late adopters who were “conservative,” and early adopters who dared buck trends who were leftist.

Nowadays, those people who by nature are culturally conservative adopt not traditional morality and politics but “progressive” morality and politics — because they are at the cultural center. And many of the folks prone to be early adopters now flock to perceived anti-leftist dogmas and positions.

It is quite hilarious.

Of course, both of the human propensities I identify as “left” and “right” are necessary and good for life in an extended order of civilization. But the vices of both — at the extremes, where sacrifices are insisted upon and ritually made — are quite dangerous:

right-wing vice: sacrifice of others to self, other groups to in-group and its hierarchies

left-wing vice: sacrifice of self to others, in-group to out-groups

We will see if our civilization will figure this out. And we will get over this stupid squabble between two necessary human propensities.

twv


N.B. The illustration for this post is of two covers of a great book by a Catholic theologian. In it, he invited readers to go beyond the mere aping of another’s way of thought, but to “pass over” to theirs. And then come back, with greater understanding. “Passing over and coming back, it seems, is the spiritual adventure of our time.” This has not proved to be true. In politics, it has definitely not been the case, otherwise more folks could pass an ideological Turing test. John Scribner Dunne was not talking politics, of course — his interest was in religion and spirituality — but it is curious to see the political crowd most apt to decry dogma and boast of being ‘spiritual but not religious’ fail utterly to avoid dogma and foreswear spirituality.

My biggest political heresy might be this: I don’t believe that fascists are more evil than socialists.

Epistle [rough draft]

And so, my leftist friends, comes the reason you are uncomfortable when I talk politics: I don’t believe that because you SAY you have your heart in the right place and want to help ”the poor” or “the workers” or “the marginalized,” that means that you DO have your heart in the right place. Wanting to help A and B and C does not absolve you of your willingness to marginalize, exploit or even kill D and E and F. A modern “democratic socialist” is pretty much in the same camp as a fascist or Nazi in this regard. They just have different groups to back and different groups to attack.

Furthermore, intentions don’t matter as much as everybody seems to think. You may embrace Ideology X at time T1 or T2. And you think you do so for good reasons. But ideologies do not work out as planned. At times T3, T4 . . . Tn the plans and procedures take a turn. We know how socialisms of all stripes work, now. We know where greater government — total State — goes.

It doesn’t go to sweetness and light. 

Besides, it is a myth that Nazis and fascists had malign intent all around and socialists had (and have) benign intent all around. Do you think that fascists thought of themselves as “bad people” in the heyday of Mussolini’s brand-spanking new alternative to liberalism, or that the Nazis thought they were against civilization? No. They thought themselves good people just like anybody else does. Further, I have never met a socialist who did not want to dispossess the ”wealthy” (defined somehow) and thought that this should be done by decreasing state power. So no matter who socialists say they want to help, they quickly and quite vindictively begin their expropriation agenda when they get power. And when their programs inevitably fail to live up to predictions, then decisions must be made: double down on socialism or move back from socialism. It’s “liquidation of the Kulaks” or its a retreat to some muddier, more limited system like multi-party “democracy.”

So, my leftist friends, what reason do we have to trust that you will give up power? The moment Donald Trump got elected, the talk switched to impeachment. There has been an impeachment movement from before he took the oath of office.

I am not saying this to defend Trump, or even say he’s not a fascist (though I think that’s absurd — but I could be wrong). I’m saying you NeverTrumpers and impeachment-from-the-getgo folks have tipped your hand. You will not accept defeat from your utopian dreams, you will not accept the republican form of governance. When you say things like “Trump will not step down if he loses the next election, you seem to be projecting your own itch for never-e ding power onto someone you do not like, who offends your sensibilities.

This makes you evil.

Sure, you can repent. But you cannot do that while you support impeachment for silly, murky or partisan reasons. You can choose not to be evil. But you have to give up a commitment to ever-growing state power.

That is, you can choose NOT to act like socialists and fascists. You can relinquish your one-party rule hankerings.

But I don’t think you will. And if you don’t, that makes you no better than a brownshirt or a blackshirt.

I am not one of those anti-leftist theorists who think that the moral particularism that fascists and some right-wingers wear on sleeve is any better than your fake universalism.

And it it fake. That’s the key. I have spent much of my adult life thinking about just how fake it is.

I suppose I should write books about this, but the fake universalists who call themselves “socialists” won’t read such books. I mean, there have been very persuasive books in this vein already, by folks such as Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Thomas Sowell, et al. And most leftists have never opened masterworks like The Man versus the State (“too confrontational!”) and A Plea for Liberty (“what? who?”) and Socialism (“too long”) and The Road to Serfdom (“debunked!”) and The Fatal Conceit (“we’re still here, so it can’t be fatal!”) — or hundreds of others with titles like The Vision of the Anointed (“Tom’s an ‘Uncle Tom’ ha ha!”).

So, yes: I do not believe that fascists are worse than socialists, racists worse than communists. I suspect that the latter ideologues of these two pairs might be worse than the former. One reason is that socialism and communism are inherently dishonest, and in The Lie is the foundation of evil.

Which is why leftists these days concentrate on “hate” more than dishonesty. For it distracts us from where all ‘socialisms’ go wrong: in the unfolding of plans for concentrated control, and their inevitable end (if not abandoned) misery and death.

twv