Archives for category: Reform and Revolution

These United States have endured three reboots.

The first (and fledgling) republican federation rebooted under the Constitution of 1787.

The second republic rebooted to a nation-state with the Civil War and Reconstruction, 1860-65.

The nationalist republic rebooted to neo-empire in a series of ratcheting acts (Spanish-American War; Progressive advancement of the administrative state; World War I; Great Depression and the New Deal; World War II) finalizing with the formation of the national security state.

So now we are due for another such restarting, grand revision, and we are about on schedule. You can smell it in the air. And see its necessity on a variety of spreadsheets, not all of them financial — but the debt hangeth like a Damoclean blade strung up on the slenderest of threads, over our heads. Some reset, great or evil or heroic or messy, is coming, perhaps soon.

What’ll it be?

Democrats say Republicans are fascists, Republicans say Democrats are commies: so the safe bet is technocratic totalitarianism, with commie and fascist elements.

Could be something else though. But anything else will take bloodshed, which I doubt Americans really have much stomach for. They’d rather stay home and be stamped by the Mark of the Beast — for COVID.

twv

Unlike “Democrats,” I have no desire to increase the ease of voting in a quasi-democracy such as ours. I don’t see any evidence of better quality voting with laxer ballot-box access. And since there is no natural right to vote, increasing voter participation has at best a merely tangential relationship to rights. Further, since voting is inherently illusory, it requires careful reasoning to resist being fooled by what you are doing when you do vote — so increasing the number of dupes voting is no boon in my book. And yes, it seems likely that increasing the number of voters from the pool of lazy, uninterested voters would increase the number of fools voting.

I would prefer if most of today’s common voting techniques were set back at least 40 years, before networked voting machines and, frankly, before any kind of mechanical or electronic voting. We know and have known for years that computerized voting machines and their software, provided mostly by military-industrial complex contractors, are horrendously insecure. This has been repeatedly shown. Yet Americans, witlessly, yawn and forget.

We want a system where it is hard to commit fraud, either by gaming or rigging the system. Old-fashioned precinct-only voting — with explicitly requested absentee ballots — are fine for this, so long as there are no computerized voting machines and digital-only ballots.

Returning to privately printed ballots, as was done in Jacksonian times — perhaps with color-paper partisan ballots — might make sense. The color coding might make recounts easier. There should probably be separate ballots for every level of government.

There are, actually, many ways I can conceive of to make a secret ballot secure.

But if people want remote, Internet-based voting (mail-in balloting being idiotic), then let that be their option, only make it public. Open. Not secret!

That would give the voter a choice: open voting online . . . with secret voting at the precinct. Eminently rational.

twv

Do you think Jesus was libertarian?

…as answered on Quora….

The man whom Christians call Jesus Christ, whom Muslims call Isa, and for whom skeptical historians have been scouring ancient histories and the dust of the archeological record to get an objective fix upon, is a puzzling figure. Many contradictory things are imputed to him. Is he the Prince of Peace — or did he come not to bring peace but a sword? Arguments abound.

I was raised a Christian, but soon after I ceased believing in Christian dogma I found myself distancing myself from America’s statist dogmas, too — indeed, within three years of my apostasy I became a libertarian. Which is a kind of political apostasy, really. And, since that time, over forty years ago, I have witnessed religion and politics echoing each others’ concerns, myths, methods and madness.

But was Jesus a libertarian? No. Another Quoran answered this simply: he was a monarchist. Libertarian ideas may have been percolating in the background of political life and philosophy, but they had not boiled over yet, certainly not into the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul or elsewhere during the first century of the current era.

We could end the discussion there, but…

I have recently come to be more than half-convinced by Ralph Ellis, author of many books, including King Jesus and Jesus, King of Edessa — convinced of something relevant to the question: the Historical Jesus whose discovery has eluded our academic scholars is not really so elusive after all. He can be found in the pages of Josephus’s histories, identified by various names, “Jesus of Gamala” being the most prominent.

The parallels between the dramatis personae of the Jewish revolt that Josephus wrote about in The Jewish Wars and the cast of characters of the New Testament are astounding, and after carefully sorting through the peculiar pesher techniques of the rabbis who wrote the Talmud, and some obscure references in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents, Mr. Ellis has uncovered what he believes is the historical man behind the myths: King Manu VI of Edessa, known as “Izates” and “Izas” (hence our “Jesus”): this was a real, world-historic figure, descended from Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, and Parthian royalty, leader of the “fourth sect of Judaism” (the Nazarenes/Nazarites), and instigator of a tax revolt with the uber-ambitious, ultimate aim of becoming emperor of Rome.

Josephus, argues Ellis, secretly wrote the gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts to obscure the real history and thereby cook up a version of Judaism (Christianity, what Ellis calls “Simple Judaism”) that would allow the counter-revolutionaries Vespasian and Titus to rule somewhat peaceably.

Slyly jiggering with Jesus of Gamala’s revolutionary statements (particularly about taxes), Josephus — whom Ellis describes as the Flavians’ paid propagandist — made Jesus seem peaceful and almost Rome-friendly. Jesus of Gamala was not, of course. He was ultra-political, a king who was trying to become what Vespasian became, perhaps more. But the Jesus of the Gospels was depicted as less threatening to imperial power: “render unto Caesar” and all.

The key to Josephus’s psy-op was placing his characters back in time two score years, with the grand denouement in the short epoch of Pontius Pilate’s procutorship.

But what about liberty? What Josephus writes of the Nazarenes/Nazarites in the eighteenth book of The Antiquities of the Jews is interesting:

These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans.

While Josephus’s “Jesus of Gamala” was hardly a libertarian, we individualists might wish to learn something from the cult, what with its resistance to established authority and its “inviolable attachment to liberty.”

twv

France will fall — I have been saying this for ages, but “fall” is too autumnal.

France will likely become an Islamic state, filled with murderous purges and genocide and, in the end, tyranny, especially including against French women. Houellebacq’s Submission scenario is rosy compared to what’s coming.

Here is the latest, from The Daily Mail:

Emmanuel Macron has threatened to punish generals who signed an open letter warning that the country is heading for ‘civil war’ because of radical Islam.

Twenty retired generals, as well as several serving soldiers, signed the letter which warned that failure to act against the ‘suburban hordes’ — a reference to the predominantly immigrant population of the housing estates which surround French cities – will lead to deaths ‘in the thousands.’

“French generals who called for military rule if President Macron cannot stop ‘Islamists’ from ‘disintegrating society’ will be punished, government declares,” DailyMail.com, April 26, 2021, updated April 27, 2021

It is absolutely vital to the functioning of a republic for the military to stay out of everyday politics. On the top level, of course, that old custom is often merely honored in the breach in America and elsewhere. But the military is warning, in this case, of something else absolutely central to the functioning of a republic: a cultural commitment to the rule of law amongst the citizenry. In France, and in America, mob rule is becoming all too common. Several major factions in France — long known for political crowd action — go beyond protest. But in America we hear little of it, except when some Muslim manages to kill dozens of people at a time. But there is also antifa violence, and then there is the Yellow Vest movement. But here across the Atlantic, we know little of all this.

Of course, in America we have our BLM/antifa riots, we have milquetoast protests mirroring the Yellow Vests (including the milquetoast and likely false-flag event of January 6), and we have a much smaller Muslim population, which so far limits its members to the occasional spree murder event. But it is all much worse in France.

But caution. The gods may be chortling. There is a sort of poetic justice to the nature of the French predicament. The country has the continent’s largest Muslim immigrant population. And it is considered “right-wing” even to worry or warn about the dangers therein. But note: it was right-wingers who insisted on the Algerian occupation. France would not have the huge Muslim influx were it not for right-wingers and their foreign adventurism.

This is why “right-wingers” cannot be trusted. Like left-wingers, their preoccupations are dangerous and their lust for extending power tends to lead to mass murder in the end.

twv

“Cops are taking selfies with the terrorists,” tweeted Timothy Burke. Another Twitterer quipped, “White privilege is . . . Being part of the mob while taking a selfie with the cops.”

After citing these two tweets, Heavy noted a third: “To be fair, you could see a cop doing the right thing to de-escalate by saying ‘all right, you can take your selfie now get the hell out.’” 

That last thought is reminiscent of Paul Jacob’s Andy Griffith reference at Common Sense

The protest-turned-invasion of the Capitol was, all in all, not very violent. One woman was shot and killed as she advanced upon police within the building. No one else was. The other listed deaths were outside the trespass event, on the streets.

Were the trespassers “terrorists”?

Well, terrorists are those who use violence upon civilians to gain some political effect. The breaking-and-entering incursion into where Congress works was illegal, and “violent” in the sense that breaking glass is violent, and marching into property without the owners’ permission is violent. So: not-very-violent. The woman shot was not brandishing a weapon. The oft-cited deaths outside the Capitol building turn out to be mostly . . . irrelevant. But, and this is key: this riot was turned against the government directly, not against the citizenry. Insurrectionists would be a better term, but even that is a bit much, since it is obvious that they just wanted to “make a statement,” not take over the government. The various riots over the summer lasted weeks, months. This lasted a few hours.

Now, is this general low-key quality of the whole affair — as exemplified by the selfie moment — an example of “white privilege”? That seems a little off. The protesters-turned-trespassers had no beef with the police. So the “privilege” consisted in not being a threat. Sounds like the wages of peace rather than the perks of privilege.

Their beef was with the machinery of vote counts and the whole system that they think stole the election for Biden over their candidate, the current president.

Most people in media and on the Democrat side — and many, many Republicans — say “there’s no evidence for a stolen election.” While it is possible that the election itself wasn’t stolen (I’ll abide by evidence rationally presented) to say “no evidence” is off. There’s a lot of evidence of voting schemes and ballot abuse. It’s just that the system isn’t set up to deal with it in the time allotted by the Constitution.

The proper time to deal with election fraud is before and while it is happening — definitely not a few weeks before inauguration. Even of a Manchurian Candidate.

twv

In the past, I have warned that when the insiders — or, more properly, our overlords — take away cash, replacing it with digital fiat currency, freedom would be over.

The end of “democratic liberty,” such as it is, would be at hand.

That is coming soon, under cover of COVID, to be pushed as a saving measure by the new Democrat administration.

The rationale will be the same as the lockdowns: save the pensioners!

For Social Security and private pensions both are in the process of being destroyed.

Of course you saw this coming, as secular debt accumulation.

But you looked the other way.

You won’t look away from the next step, though. You will turn on your neighbors, in fear.

The new totalitarianism is almost in place.

Your compliance is appreciated by your overlords. Your compliance is the source of their power. You, the mask-wearing public, are the enemies of freedom.


In free fall, you feel fine. On the sidewalk, you’re a blot, and feel nothing any longer.

Mocking the possibility of a terminus on the way down is what fools do. The “we owe it to ourselves” counsel regarding debt accumulation has been the classic free fall folly — and one that is quite out-of-date, for we are now can see how the higher-ups and insiders plan on handling the conversion of financial systems.

The old dollar system is going to die. It will be replaced by a digital currency as if right out of the Book of the Revelation. The death of cash, which insiders are plotting (and is why it was absolutely necessary to get Trump out of the White House), will spell the loss of the last bit of liberty in society.

In the future, only criminals will be free.

And criminal freedom is not liberty.


On the other hand, as Catherine Austin Fitts admits in a recent much-shared video, the technology for an international digital fiat currency is not ready. And the idea that the U.S. Government could manage such a transition seems laughable.

Which is why, I guess, I assume it will not be the U.S. Treasury or the Federal Reserve that takes the lead on the project.

Till then, there is Bitcoin and many private digital fiat currencies. I am sure our overlords are watching these closely. For clues on how to do it, and what not to do.

My friends have all been gung-ho on the eleutherian possibilities of Bitcoin, but I expect Bitcoin to be cracked down upon big time should the new, cashless worldwide currency replacement actually occur. Let me just say, Bitcoin users: get used to riding on trains. For expect a last train ride in a boxcar, cramped.

twv

There have been a lot of conflicting stories in the news, online, and in rumor, about the fires that have afflicted Washington and Oregon (as well as California) this month. So I talked to someone who was in the thick of it — not burning anything down, but trying to prevent that.

Watch on YouTube, Bitchute and Brighteon:

LocoFoco Netcast #22 . . . talking to “Palmer Road Defender.”

It is also available via podcatcher and at SoundCloud:

I wrote about the fires on September 10, and speculated on the possibility of terroristic arson.

twv

My choice of a lit match as a logo for the podcast may seem eerie now.

“most if not all of the fires appear to have been human-caused”

I smell the smoke. My dog does, too, and he goes outside on barking fits more often, and longer, these last few days.

Yes, I live amid the trees of the Pacific Northwest. And all around me, even by the Pacific Ocean, there are fires. Multiple fires. A sister of mine has been forced to abandon her house in Oregon. Refugees for fires are filling up hotels and motels in many, many counties. Whole communities have been destroyed.

It’s like the California hellscape.

Meanwhile, the reporting is predictable:

What was already a historic, horrifying start to the 2020 fire season out West is continuing to get worse. Amid unprecedented weather conditions linked to climate change, numerous fast-moving heat and wind-fueled wildfires in multiple western states have in recent days burned hundreds of thousands of acres, besieged countless communities, blanketed the region with hazardous smoke, and in the case of one fire in California, necessitated multiple dramatic helicopter rescues of groups of fire-encircled campers.

Chas Danner and Matt Stieb, “The West Coast Wildfire Season Is Getting Worse,” New York Magazine Intelligencer, September 9, 2020.

“Unprecedented” is — by the Law of the Precedented Unprecedent — a misnomer. There are plenty of precedents, in terms of the weather and in terms of the fires. More ominously, more malign forces are at work, as can be seen by this sentence about my state, The Evergreen State:

Unfortunately, most if not all of the fires appear to have been human-caused. More acres burned in 24 hours than the state had seen in 12 fire seasons combined, according to Governor Jay Inslee.

Ibid., emphasis added.

Notice how human causation is mentioned, but terrorism by persons suspected but specifically unknown gets no mention.

I posted about the possibility of terroristic arson on Facebook tonight. In lieu of a long essay here, I’ll just present my posts as images. Especially since there’s a high likelihood that I will be de-platformed soon.

And so begins my campaign on Facebook to alert my friends to a major event.
I may have started here on LocoFoco.us, a Facebook (hereinafter Fb) page James Gill and I run. Why Fb says Mr. Gill posted this I don’t know, for I definitely wrote that!
Carrying on the conversation, with James Gill and our friend Daniel joining.

And then I wrapped up the night with a general essay on the nature of how to not be fooled by the psy-ops of our Archons:

Whether Fb will de-platform me soon, or by Fb at some planned future deluge of de-platformings, as specified by Daniel, above, I do not know, of course. This is the reason I post these conjectures and musings here. Part of what we are dealing with is a vast left-wing conspiracy. And Hillary Clinton, who dubbed the campaigns against her and her husband a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” is part of it. But maybe not a very big part.

What is relevant is the freak-out over Trump’s election in 2016, and the absolute panic that the insiders are in that someone who is as outsider as he could have risen to the top.

I still often muse that this may have happened in a large, secret war between Deep State factions, with a Pentagon faction having chosen Trump and the intelligence wing choosing the pedophile faction (Democrats). But that sounds so QAnon that I hate even to broach it.

But my sniffer tells me that is the case.

We may soon see. Or civilization may fall. Either way, it will be interesting.

twv

The photo, taken from Facebook, shows the red-head holding a baby goat in her arms, smiling. 

A big, lovely grin; cheerful, charming. 

She appears to have a great life ahead of her, backed up by wealthy New York City professional parents — her mother an architect, her father a child psychiatrist. You might think she has every reason to smile.

But no.

You see, she faces criminal charges. 

“Clara Kraebber, 20, is one of eight people arrested Friday night after a roiling, three-hour rampage that police say caused at least $100,000 in damage from Foley Square up to 24th Street,” reports the New York Post.*

Six years earlier she had been quoted in the New York Times explaining her participation in a Manhattan rally held in solidarity with the Ferguson, Missouri, protests. “We don’t have much political power right now, being youths, but this is something we can do.” The Post identifies the Ferguson cause célèbre as “police-brutality casualty Michael Brown,” not mentioning that the “hands up”/“don’t shoot” meme that spurred the protests was false witness by a bystander, that Mr. Brown had been recorded earlier in the day committing a crime, and that multiple official investigations had concluded Brown had attacked the officer who shot him.

Not police brutality at all. The protests which drew Ms. Kraebber into a life of woke criminality were based on untruths. 

So if you want to shift blame onto someone else for her wilding vandalism, shift the blame to all those who, to this day, repeat the lie about an innocent Michael Brown.

A good girl gone bad because adults prefer their ideological narrative to the truth.

She could actually go to jail. Is she paying for your sins?

twv

* “Every city, every town, burn the precinct to the ground!” the group [had] chanted as it moved up Lafayette Street while busting the plate glass facades of banks, Starbucks and Duane-Reades,” the Post tells us.

The Dirty Open Secret of Socialism was “proletarisation” — the process by which artisans, independent contractors, professionals, entrepreneurs would be forced to work for wages:

In order that the “Socialist evolution” may be realized, it is necessary that industry and capital should be concentrated in a few hands, and, on the other hand, that there should be a great mass of wage‐​earners, increasingly wretched and deprived of all personal property. Such is the process as determined by Marx and Engels in the “Communist Manifesto,” and confirmed by the Erfurt Congress in 1891.

But this phenomenon does not appear if the “artisan” works in isolated independence; neither does it appear if those who carry on small industries, working in their own houses, have not been previously absorbed in the proletariat crowd of workmen employed in the great industries; not does it appear if the small proprietor preserves his love of individual property. The prophesied social evolution miscarries; the heralded paradise of the socialization of all the means of production and exchange vanishes. Democracy and Socialism are antagonistic.

Have I invented and formulated this proposition for polemical purposes? It comes from a Socialist, Herr Werner Sombart.

“What should be the attitude of socialism with regard to the masses which have not yet fallen into the ranks of the proletariat, such as the lower middle class (petite bourgeoisie) and of that part of the population which may perhaps never exhibit any tendency to inclusion in the proletariat? Should the object of the proletariat be essentially proletarian or should it be democratic? If it become democratic, what becomes of its programme? Is it to be socialism or democracy? The fundamental contention is expressed in the opposition between these two points of view.”

Bernstein published a series of articles in 1905 under the title, “Will Social Democracy Become Popular?”

In order to obtain recruits for the Socialist army it is necessary to “proletariarise” those who carry on small industries as well as small trades, and the owners of small properties, all of whom display elements of resistance to the socialization of the means of production. The movement of concentration, which does not take place naturally, must be obtained by force, in order to arrive at the catastrophe foretold by Karl Marx, as “on the one hand a few large industrial establishments and on the other the masses who possess nothing at all, the former absorbing the latter without their being able to offer resistance.”

In order to reach this point, the simplicity and ignorance of the very persons is to be exploited whom it is proposed to ruin, and of their representatives in Parliament. And legislation is to be carried out on the lines of social insurance and regulation of labour, in such a manner as to annihilate the small men, to overburden them with general expenses and risks, to close their shops and businesses and to try by artificial means to bring about the concentration of industries to which economic liberty fails to lend itself.

Werner Sombart frankly recognizes this when he says that “a good system of workmen’s legislation is a weapon of the highest order for proprietors of undertakings on a large scale, wherewith to ruin the small men and disembarrass themselves of their competition.

M. E. Vandervelde also demands this factitious concentration. “We must, he says, “wish for, and even foster by legislative measures, the passing of the degenerate forms of individual production into the superior forms of production in common.”

Yves Guyot, Socialistic Fallacies (1910).

While there are elements of this at work today — leaders of the dirigiste state often conspire against independent contractors, as recently shown in California, with Assembly Bill 5, largely because independent contractors tend to be . . . independent — this is not the big move today.

The Dirty Open Secret of Woke Progressivism is the political-cultural necessity always to increase the number of people dependent upon subsidy — and the reliance upon those not proletarised and not made dependents.

For remember: old-time socialism was seen as everyone working for a central authority and receiving “just wages” for their work, whatever that could mean.

Today’s wokester progressives don’t like work much, and demand, instead, to give people stuff for free. Production is not really a big part of their system. It’s just the secret thing they tend to despise. Their ideal job is not even a tech job, it’s a government job: easy, great benefits, early retirement, and you get to boss other people (preferably cis-white males) around.

This makes their schemes completely reliant upon taxpayers, of course. And this entails, in economic terms, reliance upon the proletarians in the market but mainly upon the successful artisans, independent contractors, professionals, and entrepreneurs — and of course the despised hyper-“privileged” owners of land and capital (those who make their living by rent and profit).

Now, older progressives and “progressive conservatives” (really, conservative-minded progressives) once honored the contributors; they extolled those who succeeded and thus serve not only as vanguards of market progress but also as benefactors via charity and even (or, especially) via state redistribution.

Today’s progressives have taken from the socialists not the programs of centralized economic management (boring!) so much as the socialist hatred and envy for the productive who materially serve as benefactors — but offend by being successful when others are not. “The Top One Percent,” for example.

This puzzles conservatives, even enrages them, since it is the essence of conservatism to honor the productive, the achievers, and benefactors, to advance gratefulness. They see in today’s progressives nothing but ingrates.

They are correct. Progressives in the modern vein are indeed ingrates; they promote a system that cannot work, and offends against common sense by lacking gratitude, honor, or aspiration. They are moochers by nature. They are to be despised. As soon as the old pro-productivity element in progressivism goes, there is nothing left good in progressives. Even their desire to help becomes greed and envy and hatred.

We could talk and argue with the progressives who were technocrats, and with progressives who leaned conservatives and thought they were conservative.

It is much harder to argue with the new sort, just as it was nearly impossible to argue with socialists, real socialists.

For they have accepted unsustainable social attitudes as well as an unworkable system. They have embraced systemic anti-sociality.

What do I mean? Well, consult Oscar Wilde, whose embrace of an “individualistic” anti-property quasi-socialism entailed a complete rejection of the altruistic sentiment so common under the capitalism of his day, and who, deep down, seemed to hate capitalism because it required too much attention to others’ needs!

Yes, this new form of progressivism is inherently anti-social.

Oh, sure, a few social groups are fixated upon — you know, as Victims to be honored, secretly pitied, and formally subsidized and promoted. But with this victim cultism comes a target class, for subsidizing some must come at the expense of the non-victims and non-oppressors, who are (or were) the vast majority.

While libertarian theorists will look at woke-progressive demands as unworkable and indeed crazy, conservatives will judge progressive attitudes as ungrateful and uncivilized. And what of old-time progressives and socialists? They will be puzzled by the moral perversity, though unable quite to put their fingers on the problem, since they themselves have so many sub rosa fixations and assumptions that are embarrassing to be made public or even conscious, and which, in fact, gave rise to the new mobbing losers.

But most old progressives I know fall in line with the new woke progressivism of, say, the Squad — the Millennial Democrats in Congress. Old-time progressives have been flirting with socialistic critiques of freedom for so long, and are so addicted to redistribution and regulation that they have nothing left to defend themselves from the agendas of the wokester-barbarian horde.

This is the cultural contradiction of the time. It is fun to watch. It can be great fun to scorn the new ingrates and utopians in their “protest” mobs. But their danger is real.

All-too-real.

Now, I can see why many old-time progressive-symp libertarians (the beltway types) might think this period cannot last, that it’ll just fizzle. Meh, they say. Typical Gen X judgment.

And they are right to understand that woke-progressive ingrate redistributionism is doomed. No doubt. The current woke-progressive program and integral attitudes cannot be sustained.

But it may not necessarily fizzle. It could be an explosion. Or implosion.

The devastation could be vast.

twv