The Enthusiastic Warbride by Bill Buppert

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

– Aeschylus

“War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence, or brought slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them really to be converting them.”

-Randolph Bourne

War is the health of the state.  Randolph Bourne arrived at this conclusion near the beginning of the 20th century.  Smedley Butler later wrote in War is a Racket about the baleful special interest vectors that drive us to war.  We hear again and again that we owe our freedoms to the conduct of overseas adventures in other countries whether the wresting of Spanish colonies into our possession or the invasion of Europe during the War to Save Joseph Stalin (1939-45) to the modern era of American armed dominion over the planet.  I would suggest these are poor assumptions.  The next time someone makes one of these specious claims, simply ask them how the defeat of one totalitarian regime while aiding and abetting another noxious regime made America free?  Is the Cold War representative of the halcyon days of American individualism?

Most libertarians agree that the American government is colossal, oppressive and a slayer of freedom and liberty.  There are certainly domestic influences and causes for the enormous growth in the statist tilt of American governance and concentration of power.  The metamorphosis of an agrarian republic birthed in the violent dismissal of British rule to the Sovietized monstrosity we labor under today is the result of both domestic dynamics and the creation of the national security/garrison state to project power and influence overseas.  I would submit that war is the unacknowledged silent partner of the leviathan state.

How does a militarized foreign policy create a less free nation at home?  Let’s begin with a conflict most Americans can name but few can even place a date to:  World War One.  I would recommend Niall Ferguson’s book Pity of War as a signal starting point to rip asunder the veil of historical illiteracy and propaganda that has surrounded that sordid conflict.  Woodrow Wilson, one of the worst and most evil Presidents to grace that august den of thieves in the White House, promised in 1916 to never enter the European conflict and promptly started the machinations to steer us into the conflagration and militarize American society.  The more you learn about Wilson, the more you see he is the point of origin for so much of our national grief.  I have previously mentioned the American Protective League and its un-American activities in stifling, fining and jailing dissidents against Wilson’s war. Wilson also inaugurated the Committee on Public Information, which even gave instructions for cartoonists and signed into law the Espionage and Sedition Acts. In France by 1918, half of all men between 20-32 were dead. Serbia suffered a death toll that closed on one in four of the entire population in corpse piles.

Among the many notorious achievements Wilson managed was the Americanization of a fairly decentralized and devolved society.  This was the perennial missing link in formalizing the ultimate project of the Hamiltonian ambition:  the establishment of a permanent central government for whom the individual states were mere agents and bureaucratic subsidiaries.

Continue reading

America: Dead Man Walking by Bill Buppert

The Occupy Wall Street protesters continue to cling to life despite the occupant of the Offal Office doing everything in its power to see their twisted Soviet vision of humanity wrested from imagination into life. The OWS economic illiterates and Marxoid drones are products of the statist school system who can’t get enough big government. Their pet 1% is simply slightly off-target. There is no doubt that the richest in America have the path to wealth wired for sound and these top earners exist in every country and region. Even the beloved Soviet nomenklatura of the OWS intelligentsia found a way to make money off the backs of workers but they used a political spoils system instead of the active provisioning of goods and services.

The total Federal “workforce” (I use the term charitably since they produce nothing and command everything) has hovered around 4.3-5.3 million drones since 1962 including the military.

State and local government numbers are approximately 15 million so the total DIRECT employment by government for SLAVFOR is approximately 20 million. This does not include the contractor population retained and employed by various government entities. One could then posit that about 10 percent works directly for the government and that the remainder are indirect employees. If you don’t believe you are a Federal employee, stop paying your income tax, your “real” employers will make your life miserable if not worse.

Add another million and a half for the 19,000 LEO departments polluting the fetid plain (I did not make up the last word in the link, how appropriate). These are the actual badged thuggery and not the hundreds of thousands of support ancillaries employed by every village, county and state to support the contagion that is American policing.I have spoken at length on the existential threat cops pose to humanity and will not belabor the point here.

Nor can we get a good number on how many contractors the US intelligence community employs much less the rest of the government:

Out of hundreds of agency records, for example, GAO found that almost a fifth lacked enough paperwork to prove how much a contractor was paid. Another fifth of the records were found to have either over-reported or under-reported the actual cost of the contract work.

Good luck on getting an accurate figure on the number of contractors but if one were conservative one could guess that another five million of the American working population is acting as contractors provisioning government services. This brings our grand total to nearly twenty five million adults and their families drawing from the government teat. This of course does not include the tens of millions on EBT, Socialist Security and the entire web of redistribution schemes to rich and poor alike.

Add to all of this the 2.5 trillion dollars in redistribution to pensions, national socialist healthcare, education and welfare in the coming FY in 2015. These forced redistributions go to rich and poor alike and doesn’t even account for the offense spending at the Pentagram.

I think OWS conflates private wealth with government control which is a marriage; but the real power is who sock-puppets the regulatory agencies and their police drones? The debate isn’t about wealth but government, once the latter is erased, the former is problematic. Government weaponizes the misdirection and misallocation of wealth for a living. The entire infrastructure is based on the theft of one person’s income and assets to repatriate to politically connected recipients. That is it in a nutshell. No more complicated than that.

Another sub-strata of the progressive unintelligentsia, the enviruses pride themselves on their altruistic notions of saving the planet from humans but in the end it is all about the money. Failed alternative energy programs bleeding billions, the climate circus and the endarkenment of millions of minds shuttered from logic and common sense. Look at the gross distortion of pure science after being tainted with government funding. The freed* market could deliver far better than any government funding program without the enormous overhead and bureaucracy. The enviruses like so many other progressive and conservative supplicants to the state would much rather sacrifice economic prudence for the present rapacious rewards of the trifecta of taxes, government funded debt and imposing debt without consent on the unborn.

Historically, the US is trending toward the same collapse and sclerotic paroxysms of self-destructive growth at the expense of the private sector that all fascist economies emulate in history and time. Japan is simply a bellwether of the far more catastrophic collapse the US will suffer once the can will no longer be kicked down the road.

The notion of fascism is not merely hyperbole; fascism is the vertical and horizonatl control of private firms and wealth through taxation, regulation and whatever transparent or not so transparent regimes of power employed by the national government and its vassals in the provinces.

The American economy is impossible to sustain, long live the illusion of the American Dream.

The impossible dream.

* I despise the term “free market” because like concealed carry it has the baggage of permissions by a political entity built into the assumptions. Therefore, I employ the terms freed markets and discreet carry.

Winston Churchill: Champion of the Warfare/Welfare State

I love a good turn of phrase and the proper elocution of the English language.  I find Winston Churchill to be one of the most eloquent and well-versed humans in rhetoric and literature.  I found myself in thrall of his ideas for a while enchanted by his articulation and my then-perceived notion that a well-spoken man was logical and possibly virtuous.  Speeches that rivaled the eloquence and power of the ancients in Greece and Rome (yes, I am an avid admirer of Cicero, et al). Then I discover his blood-lust for war and sheer statist proclivities through the good offices of Professor Raico.  As an avid consumer of military history, I had always been tangentially interested in Churchill in the war years and discovered over time he was a menace to humanity from his enthusiastic military disasters in WWI (Wilson’s War) to his shameful advocacy of mass murder from the air in strategic bombing to his group hugs with Stalin at Yalta and the final disgraces of madness like Operation Keelhaul to appease his fellow-travelers in the USSR.  A record of active complicity in evil that was only rivaled by our execrable and vicious FDR (RedDR in more accurate parlance).

Churchill is a statist monster.

I stumbled on Raico’s analysis in the audio collection of the book mentioned below and my opinion changed forever. Take the time to read the entire essay and the footnotes.  What you discover is that the tissue of lies and power aggrandizement that has been celebrated by the court historians has created this Sovietized West we live in today.

I pursued other lines of inquiry concerning the frenzied and plentiful deception and propaganda operations performed by the British prior to the War to Save Joseph Stalin (others call it WWII):

The massive fabrications and exaggerations in Churchill’s six-volume treatment of the aforementioned conflict. He is a splendid writer and orator and his finest hour was the Amritsar speech in 1920 condemning the UK massacre of hundreds in India. The rest is history and he condemed most of Western humanity to the surveillance state and totalitarian miasma the West is drowning in today.

This may have been the embryonic moment when I started to question every notion I had of American and European history.  I have always been something of a skeptic but the essays of James J. Martin and Harry Elmer Barnes started to remove the scales from my eyes.  I started devouring more of the “other” historians whom the court historians sniff at in disdain.  The libertarian view of history makes the lens and filter even more clear.  We tend not to get caught up in party affiliations or preemptive judgments because we know the history of the growth of the state is all about power and control and the wrestling of one faction or another through force of arms or chicanery to get the farmed animals (the people) to yield to the farmers (the state).  The history of the US as of the rest of the world is basically one long sordid story of statist farmers and ranchers purchasing or bickering over the cattle or chattel rights, to use a more quaint but appropriate term.  Whether the economically illiterate Marxoid variants of yokedom or the more sophisticated farming operations of so-called “free market” states, the modus operandi is to either force or convince the producers to subsidize the looters and parasites (taxing authorities and their clients) through taxation and incessant regulation.  It is so simple it almost seems elegant.

Once again, you will discover whatever education you received in government schools was a mass deception operation to make you a more obedient and docile tax cow calmly grazing on the government plantation.

This is merely the last section of the excerpt and I urge all the readers to peruse all the footnotes. -BB

Rethinking Churchill: The Triumph of the Welfare State

In 1945, general elections were held in Britain, and the Labour Party won a landslide victory. Clement Attlee, and his colleagues took power and created the socialist welfare state. But the socializing of Britain was probably inevitable, given the war. It was a natural outgrowth of the wartime sense of solidarity and collectivist emotion, of the feeling that the experience of war had somehow rendered class structure and hierarchy — normal features of any advanced society — obsolete and indecent. And there was a second factor — British society had already been to a large extent socialized in the war years, under Churchill himself. As Ludwig von Mises wrote:

Marching ever further on the way of interventionism, first Germany, then Great Britain and many other European countries have adopted central planning, the Hindenburg pattern of socialism. It is noteworthy that in Germany the deciding measures were not resorted to by the Nazis, but some time before Hitler seized power by Bruning … and in Great Britain not by the Labour Party but by the Tory Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill.[160]

While Churchill waged war, he allowed Attlee to head various Cabinet committees on domestic policy and devise proposals on health, unemployment, education, etc.[161] Churchill himself had already accepted the master-blueprint for the welfare state, the Beveridge Report. As he put it in a radio speech:

You must rank me and my colleagues as strong partisans of national compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave.[162]

That Mises was correct in his judgment on Churchill’s role is indicated by the conclusion of W. H. Greenleaf, in his monumental study of individualism and collectivism in modern Britain. Greenleaf states that it was Churchill who during the war years, instructed R. A. Butler to improve the education of the people and who accepted and sponsored the idea of a four-year plan for national development and the commitment to sustain full employment in the post-war period. As well he approved proposals to establish a national insurance scheme, services for housing and health, and was prepared to accept a broadening field of state enterprises. It was because of this coalition policy that Enoch Powell referred to the veritable social revolution which occurred in the years 1942–44. Aims of this kind were embodied in the Conservative declaration of policy issued by the Premier before the 1945 election.[163]

When the Tories returned to power in 1951, “Churchill chose a Government which was the least recognizably Conservative in history.”[164] There was no attempt to roll back the welfare state, and the only industry that was really reprivatized was road haulage.[165] Churchill “left the core of its [the Labour government’s] work inviolate.”[166] The “Conservative” victory functioned like Republican victories in the United States, from Eisenhower on — to consolidate socialism. Churchill even undertook to make up for “deficiencies” in the welfare programs of the previous Labour government, in housing and public works.[167] Most insidiously of all, he directed his leftist Labour Minister, Walter Monckton, to appease the unions at all costs. Churchill’s surrender to the unions, “dictated by sheer political expediency,” set the stage for the quagmire in labor relations that prevailed in Britain for the next two decades.[168]

What Churchill loved was power, and the opportunities power provided to live a life of drama and struggle and endless war.

Yet, in truth, Churchill never cared a great deal about domestic affairs, even welfarism, except as a means of attaining and keeping office. What he loved was power, and the opportunities power provided to live a life of drama and struggle and endless war.

There is a way of looking at Winston Churchill that is very tempting: that he was a deeply flawed creature, who was summoned at a critical moment to do battle with a uniquely appalling evil, and whose very flaws contributed to a glorious victory — in a way, like Merlin, in C.S. Lewis’s great Christian novel, That Hideous Strength.[169] Such a judgment would, I believe, be superficial. A candid examination of his career, I suggest, yields a different conclusion: that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.

This essay, which originally appears in The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories, is respectfully dedicated to the memory of Henry Regnery, who was, of course, not responsible for its content.

See:  http://mises.org/daily/2973

Ralph Raico is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. He is professor of European history at Buffalo State College and a specialist on the history of liberty, the liberal tradition in Europe, and the relationship between war and the rise of the state. 

Life is Hard Now: It’s Worse Once You’re a Real Helot by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: For those who bother to watch the news, all the usual suspects are aflutter at the latest nonsense issued by the First Flatulence in the Offal Office concerning the false premise of illegal immigration. Much ado about nothing and I want to offer advance condolences to every illegal who becomes an authentic branded tax cattle of the US when they get their citizenship and legal status.

Just spent a delightful weekend with Ernie Hancock and great evening with Boston T. Party at Ernie’s villa in Arizona. I spent the morning with Ernie and we recorded five hours of conversation.

I have had a great time in the media lately having been a guest on the Feens, Marc Stevens show, Ernie Hancock’s show and Brett V at School Sucks Project just in the last month. I have uploaded all of these to the Media and Interviews tab. -BB

I have zero respect for the president but not simply because it is Obama, who may be history’s greatest example of the Peter Principle but he simply follows in a long train of liberty destroyers and freedom usurpers who have worked in the Offal Office tirelessly since the political coup in 1787.

This is Bush’s fourth term after all.

The latest nonsense issuing forth from the presumed imperial residence in Mordor on the Potomac grants temporary legal status and work permits to nearly five million illegal immigrants. The number is irrelevant because the Federal government can’t possibly know the precise number of “illegals” in the country otherwise they would have fixed it long ago. It is impossible to know the number if the central government behavior in the drug war is to be used as a measure. The Grand Old Politburo is responding in predictable fashion by filling their pants and playing at righteous indignation while winking at their secret ingénue in the White House.

All the usual suspects in the brain-dead media are aflutter with studied despair and shock at the changing of the guard at the House and Senate in 2015; if the behavior of the freedom destroying nascent plantation owners from 2000-2006 when they had control of all three wretched branches of the US totalitarian enterprise is any indication, stand by for more nonsense that will make life worse for everyone but the nomeklatura.

The GOP is upbraiding the White House pied piper and his moronic Democrat rodents on the amnesty issue but the argument comes down to one clarion point: the alleged illegals aren’t paying their “fair share”. The alleged unregistered illegal residents and their families are using government services but not paying their share of the burden through taxes. Please remember that America, much like North Korea, taxes its subjects on citizenship and not location. In other words, wherever the American citizen is on Earth or otherwise (I’m certain even the NASA astronauts are taxed in suborbital space), he will be taxed as if he has the misfortune of being on ‘merikan turf. Even the national socialists in the United Kingdom haven’t done this yet.

Funny because when the top 20% of income earners in the US pay 70% of the tax burden and the lower 50% pay very close to zero, these illegals are usually at the bottom of the bracket so even if they are legalized, they still get a significant rebate on the alleged tax burden they will suffer as legitimate citizens of the empire (Gods help them). So if all five million (a silly and unsupported number, no one knows) of these aliens are granted legal rights, this is simply a means to register more tax cattle on the plantation who contribute little taxes to the farm. It affords a tremendous boost to the myriad of Federal bureaucracies and their concomitant state agencies the onus to plea for more money from the actual producers scalped for more funds to pour into the trough in DC. Sure, there are the catcalls from the intellectually-stunted sods in the Republican Party that these are simply Democratic voters but the concern for the sanctity and security of the ballot box in America is way past caring about since the very act of voting is a form of proxy violence.

Much ado about nothing.

In the end, once these “illegals” get full accreditation into the noxious and liberty –destroying enterprise that is the USA and become fully subject to every law and whim of the Federal apparatus and the monstrous police forces, they will regret ever having stepped foot on American soil.

Is Obama wrong in this decision? Of course he is but every decision he makes in the Offal Office short of resigning and setting the edifice on fire after he turns off the lights and vacates the building is wrong.

The Emperor has no clothes but they’ve all been naked since 1791. To paraphrase the great Josef Stalin, an inspiration to every American politician since FDR: “How many police armies does the American citizen command? That’s what I thought.”

Move along, citizen unless you want a wood shampoo. No questions, please.

Resist.

Non-Aggression or Non-Violence? by Chris Dates

Publisher’s Note: Chris wrote this a while ago but I think it bears repeating. Chris makes the important distinction between pacifism and the act of self-defense. Murder begins where self-defense ends which means that every time the state initiates or condones or subsidizes the murder of human being whether in war, abortion, the statist death penalty or the sadistic and rampant maiming and killing conduct by government police daily. How many times in your travels do you run into the unthinking reactionaries who condemn a religion planet-wide or think taxation is virtuous even though it is based on the creed of the criminal highwayman? How many of your friends and family think voting is fine and the tens of thousands of fellow tax cattle buried deep in the gulag system is a sure sign of law and order? Everyone I just mentioned is an entrenched and committed enemy of freedom and liberty whose collaboration runs in their DNA.

Chris rocks the proposition.

Resist. -BB

How does a person come to hold the belief of absolute nonviolence? What about this belief draws people to it? Is nonviolence the logical conclusion of non-aggression? These are the question that I have been asking myself as of late, because there is a growing number of people within the liberty movement who are latching onto the belief of absolute nonviolence. I’d like to explore this idea, and try to lay out an argument as to why I think it is not only wrong, but also dangerous to adopt this belief.

One who believes in, and adheres to, the non-aggression principle makes a fundamental moral distinction between aggressive violence, and retaliatory violence. One who adheres to a principle of nonviolence does not make the same distinction. Or, perhaps they do, but they see retaliatory violence as violence nonetheless, and therefore wrong, or immoral, or “against God” or something else. It is important to note here that I will not be discussing  non-aggression and nonviolence from a pragmatic point of view, rather I will be discussing these things from a position of principle.

The absolute pacifist paints themselves into a tough philosophical corner. In order to remain consistent they necessarily have to abandon other positions they hold in order to avoid contradictions. For instance, any concept of justice that involves any level of violence must be rejected by one who adopts this belief. It would be a contradiction to advocate for any form of justice that involves capturing and punishing a criminal; any concept of justice that condones the use of physical force to apprehend and contain a criminal must be abandoned. Likewise, any form of government that was not wholly voluntary would also have to be discarded. It may be the case that the entire concept of government will have to be abandoned if it’s not absolutely nonviolent. The only form of government that would be possible if the nonviolent position is adopted is autarchy–absolute self government.

I think it is a non-sequitur to make the jump from non-aggression to the position of absolute nonviolence. I am of the opinion that these beliefs are spawned from two completely different principles. Non-aggression does not presuppose nonviolence, as the person who holds the belief in non-aggression will violently defend the self, while the person who adheres to the belief in nonviolence will not. A person who has chosen to defend themselves using retaliatory violence necessarily believes that their own life is of higher value than a belief in nonviolence. The belief in absolute nonviolence presupposes that the concept of nonviolence is greater than the value of one’s own life. Non-aggresssion is a belief that is founded in the self, and absolute nonviolence is altruistic. This is why I claim it is illogical to jump from one belief to the other, because they are based upon two principles that could not be farther apart from each other. Any person who makes the illogical jump from non-aggression to nonviolence demonstrates a  profound misunderstanding of the principles involved. I believe that even the doubt of self defense would exhibit that same misunderstanding.

Yet, I claim this is exactly the jump that some are making. I think the focus is being placed on the wrong thing. It is true, that, in some cases, nonviolence is a perfectly reasonable tool, and I believe that these particular instances are being mistaken as nonviolence being the correct principle in all cases, but that is a clear error in reasoning. It is important to remember that one who adheres to the non-aggression principle will defend themselves because their ultimate goal is self-preservation. As I mentioned before, non-aggression is premised on the self, and if there is an instance where utilizing retaliatory violence will endanger the self, then, rationally, it ought to be abandoned in that case.

One of my favorite parts in the movie, Rob Roy is the scene where the MacGregor Clan is contemplating on what to do about the feudal landlord thugs who destroyed their home and property. Rob Roy comes to the conclusion that it is more reasonable to not retaliate, because he fears the retribution from the retaliation will be swift and ruthless. He understands that everyone is still breathing in and out, and that property that is lost can be regained except for the self, once that is lost, it’s lost forever. I would like to expand further on this point, because I think it cuts right to the heart of the matter. In this movie scene, Rob Roy demonstrates that even the concept of personal property is not of higher value than one’s own life. One cannot recreate and rebuild if one is not alive.

Continue reading

The Continuing Shame of Veterans Day by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: Another year rolls by and the gory parade begins of all the maimed and murdered young men and woman who fought overseas to prove empire and sustain the military-industrial money-laundering complex emanating for the corridors of coercive power in DC. I served most of my adult life in the Legions and like Smedley Butler left an unbeliever and disgusted with the whole wretched enterprise. Stand by for all the bad music, war fetishism, and convoluted apologia for bringing most of the troops back. I say most because no serving human in the military machine ever makes it back completely alive. Some return near whole but many return the worst for wear and haunted by the things they’ve done and witnessed in obeisance to political directives. Want to support the troops? Bring them soonest. It appears USSOCOM has approximately 7000 soldiers deployed to 84 countries (probably more if the rulers were more transparent in their machination) and active conflicts engaged and emerging in a dozen hotspots around the globe as the American empire takes its intensely violent brand of world policing to different parts of the globe. And please spare me the pathetic mewling of a lack of patriotism for failing to get excited about maiming and killing men, women and children planet-wide so the mandarins in Mordor can play macabre chess with flesh and blood human pawns.

The USSA has been at active war with the world since 1893 after the extermination campaign against American aboriginals was close to its bloody conclusion in the USA.

Please read this brilliant conversation with a Canadian veteran.

Chris Sullins wrote a very touching essay in 2009 on this subject as a fellow vet. And, yes, Jack Spirko, still hates my guts.

Any assignations of sadism on the part of some soldiers is not isolated to the US, warfare through the ages both East and West has been a stage for the psychopaths of every nation to ply their twisted trade.

Read it and weep and realize that your entire government education was a lie. -BB

“Happy Veterans Day and thank you for your service” or “thanks for protecting our freedom.”

What!  I hear this familiar refrain again and again every November.  I am appalled whenever this unthinking salutation is proffered.

I am a retired career Army officer and like USMC General Smedley Butler before me, I find these sentiments to be hogwash.

The only service rendered was to the American political power structure in the dishonorable hands of the Democrats or Republicans; the former, despite their protestations to peace, have gotten America involved in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Starting with the shameful expropriation of the Mexican territory from 1846-48 to the War of Northern Aggression from 1860-65; the United States went into hyper-colonial overdrive in 1893 in the Hawaiian Islands and has not stopped since. The entire history of American arms on Earth has been a shameful and expansionist enterprise culminating in the first ever post-WWII (the Japanese attack on American territories in the Aleutians during the War to Save Josef Stalin and the minor coastal skirmishes in Oregon) attack on American state soil in 2001 .  I am frankly astonished at the length of time it took for a substantive attack of any kind to be initiated on American soil with the breadth, ferocity and long sordid history of American mischief and mayhem abroad.

The sheer number of military expeditions the US has embarked on over time is breathtaking.  One worthy notes there have been 234 military expeditions from 1798-1993.  Another posits 159 instances of the use of United States armed forces abroad from October 1945 through December 2006. “This list does not include covert actions and numerous instances of US forces stationed abroad since World War II, in occupation forces, or for participation in mutual security organizations, base agreements, and routine military assistance or training operations.”

Good God, if I were a Martian who landed on Earth ten years ago and found myself attending government schools, to include college, and watching television for any additional cultural education,  I would not be aware of any of this.  The constant drumbeat emanating from the State is the Orwellian chorus about America making the world safe for freedom and liberty and never using force abroad except in self-defense.  The history proves otherwise.

America, next to Rome in the Western world, ranks as one of the world’s most aggressive nation states when one examines the evidence.  A country sheltered from the tempestuous and constant warring on the European continent by one ocean and the turbulence in Asia by another ocean yet it simply cannot mind its own business nor resist the temptation to maim and murder abroad for expansion of political power and control whether for mercantilist or colonial aspirations.

One can even see that the brutality practiced by American soldiers abroad is not recent but a long-standing tradition.

Afghanistan, now:

All told, five soldiers were charged with killing civilians in three separate episodes early last year. Soldiers repeatedly described Sergeant Gibbs as devising “scenarios” in which the unit would fake combat situations by detonating grenades or planting weapons near their victims. They said he even supplied “drop weapons” and grenades to make the victims appear armed. Some soldiers took pictures posing with the dead and took body parts as trophies. Sergeant Gibbs is accused of snipping fingers from victims and later using them to intimidate another soldier.

He also pulled a tooth from one man, saying in court that he had “disassociated” the bodies from being human, that taking the fingers and tooth was like removing antlers from a deer.

Sergeant Gibbs said he that was ashamed of taking the body parts, that he was “trying to be hard, a hard individual.” But he insisted that the people he took them from had posed genuine threats to him and his unit.”

Philippines, then:

“Like many of their officers, American troops also showed incredible callousness toward the Philippine civilian population.  A man named Clarence Clowe described the situation as follows in a letter he wrote to Senator Hoar.  The methods employed by American troops against civilians in an effort to find insurgent “arms and ammunition” include torture, beating, and outright killing.

At any time I am liable to be called upon to go out and bind and gag helpless prisoners, to strike them in the face, to knock them down when so bound, to bear them away from wife and children, at their very door, who are shrieking pitifully the while, or kneeling and kissing the hands of our officers, imploring mercy from those who seem not to know what it is, and then, with a crowd of soldiers, hold our helpless victim head downward in a tub of water in his own yard, or bind him hand and foot, attaching ropes to head and feet, and then lowering him into the depths of a well of water till life is well-nigh choked out, and the bitterness of a death is tasted, and our poor, gasping victims ask us for the poor boon of being finished off, in mercy to themselves.

All these things have been done at one time or another by our men, generally in cases of trying to obtain information as to the location of arms and ammunition.

Continue reading

The Imbecilic Notion of Limited Government by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: I cannot recall all the hundreds of times I have had to respond to the minarchists who crowd the libertarian ranks regaling me of their Rube Goldberg contraption that would make limited government the final solution to all the world’s political problems. Newsflash: none of it works. Fiction tends to craft a narrative framework that essays can’t get close to in communicating ideas. If you get a chance, read Eric Frank Russell’s masterpiece, “…And Then There Were None”.

MYOB! -BB

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”

– H.L. Mencken

A week until the latest slave ballots are cast and then I can stop being surrounded by the annual nonsense of voting for vandals. I can’t drive anywhere in my small burg without spying all the campaign litter cluttering the roadside trumpeting the joys of selecting either dumb or dumber to rob you, tell you what to do and wage war on everything you do or say.

Funny, it’s like all the private criminals running for office locally so they can go ”legit” but once ensconced in the elected throne, they will do what they always do; screw a figurative gun into you temple while they grab your wallet and threaten you with fining, kidnapping, caging, maiming or kill depending on your level of resistance. And, of course, they will employ their legions of attack coproaches that you and your unborn progeny pay to prowl the streets looking for new residents of the gulag.

I think I have written enough over the years about the gulag totalitarian state that everyone enjoys calling America. I’ve published a book that speaks to the imbecility of limited government and its brain-dead adherents. Mind you, I used to be paralyzed from the neck up myself and believed in the nonsense of voting, limited government and the distinct possibility that if we got just the right humans in office, we’d skip down the yellow brick road with no need for anything while politicians would spew magic fairy dust out of their asses and we’d think it was air freshener.

But, no, grown ups have discovered that all politicians are psychopaths and sociopaths; it is only the parasite class of the political nomenklatura who continue to be the nation’s largest gathering of adult toddlers outside of Hollywood.

So if you haven’t read my book, I wanted to provide the reader’s digest version of why limited government is impossible. There is no historical precedent whatsoever east or west of a statist entity arising out of the ashes of the latest secessionist movement and able to control the size it grows to as the cancer of the state metastasizes with time. None. Revolution either wholly transforms an existing government or rends chunks of an existing polity into another totalitarian aspirant in its embryonic stages squealing to grow into the abomination that is government today and has been government always.

I am technically an anarchist but the term grates me. Not only because it is weighted with historical contexts that make people fill their pants but because of the lack of specificity in definition. I am an abolitionist. Let’s clear up the semantics. Abolitionism is far clearer than the muddied nonsense of anarcho-communist, -syndicalist, -socialist and all the other Judea People’s Fronts crowding the aisles of Libertarians-R-Us. It bears an especially sharp contrast against all the other collectivisms. I am certainly 95% an-cap as a philosophical species and I also suspect I am the thinnest of libertarians.

Harness the Austrian critique to Rothbard and that distills the philosophy. I never use the term voluntaryist because I think one could be a commie and faithfully employ the term much like the IRS fiction that the income tax is voluntary. It is also mispronounced constantly. It is why you can look through all my writing and rarely if ever find me using that as an identifier. I practice linguistic specificity because as my mind ages I get more and more addled and try to keep it simple.

Abolition means that the ownership of other humans is wrong whether chattel, regulatory, tax or whatever conditions you wish to apply. It also means I possess no rights that force others to do my bidding which is why I think modern juries are a sham not only because of the behavior of robed government employees but the penalties of not complying when summoned by the King’s men to “serve” in the kangaroo courts is heavy with threat and malice for non-compliance. How appropriate though for the injustice system in the USSA.

In that very limited context, any transaction that obviates the ability to opt-out and involves coercion to action absent consent is wrong. The sole exception is the informed consent of a contract and even that must respect the Zero/Non-Aggression Principle (Z/NAP).

That being the case, any statist government is wrong and only self-governance applies.

Minarchists are the wild-eyed utopians, not abolitionists. Day after day, I am queried by the usual suspects in a panicked falsetto “…but, but who will [fill in the blank] if the government isn’t there to bully me to action or screw a gun to my temple? ANSWER ME!” It proves to me again and again that collectivism is the creed of the adult toddler.

Limited government is the impossible dream because it never happened anywhere on Earth.

Once the most apparently banal notion in a tacitly (BS) consensual document like the Constitution empowers a central government to do anything, it will metastasize like a cancer. Thought experiment: what if all the Constitution read was simply:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3] [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

That’s it.

Nothing else…nothing. In 1794. Washington would have used that as pretext to march against the tax evaders using some penumbra he deduced from a government panel (ten years before the Supremes granted themselves that right ex post facto ergo propter hoc in 1803).

Fast forward to the ICC in 1887 and then the infamous Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 and all the nonsense in between and ever since. From one sentence, the Feds, Hamilton’s merry band of Communards, would erect a huge formerly limited government apparatus to gobble up all the liberty and freedom it could consume and raising taxes along the way to fund their regulatory excesses. Of course, all of this would be attended by enforcement mechanisms for local consumption and enormous armies and navies to enforce “border protections” for extra-interstate commerce and all the justifications for leviathan government the bureaucrats would fabricate to build the monster.

Limited statist government is IMPOSSIBLE.

So if you are still dim-witted enough to go to the polls on Tuesday or worse, think the Constitution is an engine for freedom; you have some explaining to do to your children on why you insist on making their adulthood so miserable and wretched.

“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.”

– Joseph Sobran

American Policing and the Coming Civil War by Bill Buppert

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Publisher’s Note: The Canadian War Memorial and Parliament were attacked by gunmen this morning and ample evidence of the evolution of the police state in the north was on display as cops in full military regalia stomped about. No matter the cause, the usual suspects in the warden’s office known as government will further erode if not exterminate the gun rights of the Helots in Canada. Standby for news.

A number of readers have written to quibble on the notion of Civil War and I do think the USSA has been waging a “soft” CW since 1791 with the ratification of the primary plantation Convenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) in the Constitution. My observations here are a scratch speculation on the “hard” CW to come authored not by conspiracy but government malevolence and incompetence.

If you would like to continue this conversation in more depth, join our ZG forum. -BB

 

Eric Frein may be the latest installment of a tradition in the American story of outlaws like Eric Rudolph, Troy James Knapp, Jason McVean, and Robert William Fisher, who were able to elude government and its police for years in rural and urban environments. No one is calling them heroes for their misdeeds or misadventures simply Exhibit A of why the over-funded police in America tend to be a lethal clown posse in rural America. “Popcorn” Sutton provides a memorable vignette on how to make the rural trade prosper. I will leave to others to assess what the mindset of Frein may be and the various theories about why he did what he did. I suspect that Frein may be part of a growing subculture in America that despises and loathes the state of American policing today. This small subculture is not comprised of criminals per se but folks who are simply tired of living in the emerging Stasi state that is the USA.

The PSP has issued a shoot on sight now on a suspect for whom the whole story has yet to be revealed; much like the Dorner episode, innocent until proven guilt is quaint but no longer applicable. Think about that: the authorities admit the suspect will not be taken alive. The future effect of this will incentivize the “nothing to lose” proposition that American copdom is unprepared to face. Solzhenitsyn provides more instruction here that the American police state will ignore at its peril.“You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power – he’s free again.”

Is Frein a cold-blooded killer or murderous thug? Who knows and the way the system works, we may never find out. Very few people die by the rifle in America which makes this stand out but I suspect that statistic will increase in frequency instead of decrease in the future. The rifle tends to be a tool of insurrection and not mere crime.

The American police state has always been a savage enterprise enforcing unpopular or simply bad laws for decades. Try Woodrow Wilson’s infamous American Protective League on for size for a dollop of where this madness descends from. Whether the nasty business of alcohol prohibition in the early twentieth century or the other drug prohibition campaigns that succeeded it to grow the size of government, uniformed cops in all 19,000 department today from the local to the Federal level have created a formidable gulag state nicely accelerated by the strike on New York and DC in 2001.

While I think the numbers of civilians, especially innocents, murdered by the police in America is far greater than the official numbers, there is no government database (surprise!) that collates all the incidents. Those numbers are at least four times the purported 500 per annum killed since 9/11. I suspect one reason this is not done is the sheer number of corpses piled up yearly by the cops would cause a revolution that would find many lamp posts straining under the weight of hanged policeman in local burgs much like the collaborators in Vichy France after the country was liberated from the Nazi police state.

Like Frein, Dorner in California demonstrated for all to see that one determined man gunning for the cops can paralyze an entire state’s law enforcement apparatus and have them running for cover. Two incidents after the during the Dorner caper come to mind to show just how ill-advised and frightened the constabulary were of tackling an armed suspect who knew what he was about. In the case of the Dorner fiasco, the frightened police opened fire on a man driving to surf and two women delivering newspapers.

Much like the strike by al Qaeda on 9/11 in 2001, these events intentionally or accidentally set into train a cavalcade of unintended consequences and self-immolation on the part of the state. The US has formally driven itself into bankruptcy since 9/11 and the police state has helped to apply the gas to the process.

Continue reading

Voting for Vandals: The Tyrant and the Ballot by Bill Buppert

I know, I know, this close to the election, I seem to be chattering on and on about it but voting is one of the cruxes of why slave people think they’re free thanks to the ballot box.

My father passed away last year and he was a die-hard believer in voting and duly registered in the state we live in when he moved in with us. I recently drafted a letter to the county registrar asking to deregister him from the rolls and did the same for myself. Years ago, I had a tilting at windmills moment and decided to run for state senate so I registered in order to do so. The process was so repugnant and I had conversations with so many of the election illiterati in the local venues that I withdrew and thought better of it.

I would speak before my friend, Brian Miller, before he mounted the lectern so he would appears moderate in light of my unorthodox and radical views. He was running for Congress and one of the only candidates in 2010 to do so with Ron Paul’s imprimatur. I knew the end was near when I saw a loathsome Neanderthal toting a sign with George W. Bush’s visage with the legend “Do you miss me yet?”. I simply thought the entire polity was barking mad who would even participate in the electoral nonsense.

I was a big fan of Ernie Hancock’s campaign for Secretary of State in Arizona in 2006 where he urged people not to vote.

A quick review of why voting is tyrannical:

Voting is violence.

If voting could change things it would be illegal.

Candidates are behaving in the extraordinarily narrow constraints of both legal and government approved standards.

Two party systems incentivize monopoly.

Increased suffrage across sex lines and socioeconomic strata correlates to an increasing size in government.

Voting is an illusion of granting legitimacy.

Have you ever wondered why obviously tyrannical regimes like China, the USSR and Cuba hold elections even though the results are a foregone conclusion? There are only two likely answers: legitimacy and a “voice” in law enforcement. The former is obvious to the casual observer but the latter not so much.

How many times have you heard the usual suspects crow on about the importance of a voice and that you may not like the behavior of the regime but you have a choice in which creature you select to “represent” you and they carry the philosophical water?

Strip any government of its policing and law enforcement function and no one will comply with the edicts issued by the elected mandarins and in the US, the venal and corrupt executive that lords over the land like an occupying force. Whether it is the land of the free or a Russian gulag or a Chinese labor camp, cops make governments work; they are the sociopathic pointy business end of all collectivist endeavors.

I was listening to National Pinko Radio in the car this morning and the newly minted FBI Director, James Comey, was whining and complaining about the lack of transparency in new communications devices impairing his ability to spy on the polity. This latest installment of an American Lavrenty Beria and his high-tech NKVD takes the reflagging of the mission of the FBI as a national security organ very seriously. There is no liberty or freedom that will be left unexamined by this totalitarian aspirant.

It then struck me, if no one voted, what excuse would the usual collectivist apologists proffer for the excesses of government? In other words, how many times have you heard a friend or neighbor say either there ought to be a law or if you want to change it then vote a candidate in. Their a priori assumption is that a candidate must be selected to manage every aspect of their life.

This is why even totalitarian societies like the ones I described earlier do the kabuki dance of voting. It’s a sophisticated rationalization and cover for government abuse and mayhem through the simple shamanistic notion of blaming the victim because they approved the power in the first place. I’ve often described the US as a crazy patchwork quilt of the Milgram/Stanford experiment harnesses to a vast herd of Stockholm Syndrome patients. No matter how ineffective and murderous the regime, the elected psychopaths and their nomenklatura simply point at the masses of duped participants and claim the holy writ of protection by majoritarian tyranny. Sort of like the serial killer standing over the bloody corpse of his latest prey, pointing at him and caterwauling the victim made him do it.

This is the same sordid excuse you hear from the government gang of thugs known as police and law enforcement. They consistently present the reverse defense of Nuremburg to absolve them of all the crimes and mayhem they have committed as the armed agents of the state.

So to simply add to the list of why voting in a government-sponsored contest is immoral, reprehensible and just plain stupid, you remain a slave who happily and blithely slips a suggestion in the box for your next plantation owner. By doing so, all the mandarins and rulers will look serenely on as they see the next dupe upon whom they place all the blame for their psychopathic behavior.

Remember that all collectivist act like toddlers with guns and a license to kill. Don’t be surprised if your vote has lethal consequences.

Friends don’t let friends vote. Period.

Kokesh Smashes the State (In Print) by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: Michael Dean runs Freedom Feens on which I am an occasional co-host thanks to the good offices of Michael. He runs a podcasting teaching academy on the Feens by allowing a dozen co-hosts the opportunity to learn how to advance as podcast practitioners. He just released a labor of love via YouTube to show the booboise how to podcast. I recommend that my readers give it a listen. -BB

Adam Kokesh and I go back a long way and have run across each other quite often on the liberty trail at various liberty festivities we have spoken at. He and I both share a military pedigree; mine longer than his but both having served in the Legions in wartime. Adam is young (early thirties), charismatic and a fellow abolitionist.

He has been kind enough to have me on his show where we discussed coproaches.

For those new to this site, I take pains with my employment of language specificity and happen to think that the anarchist meme is so tainted with almost insurmountable bad taste and linguistic baggage that I almost exclusively use the term abolitionist outside my trusted circle of anarcho-capitalist friends and family. It removes yet another barrier of excuses folks can use to avoid the red pill.

Ten years ago, such profession of fealty to anarchy would have had many in the room look at you like you’ve got an organ in your forehead. Today, I am astonished at the number of fellow abolitionists I meet at PorcFest and other freedom venues.

He just published his book with the astonishingly original title of Freedom. It is not a book so much as a pamphlet. A 62 page book that would have been a perfect fit in the 18th century when pamphleteering was the internet communications argot of the time.

I like the size and the message, I like to compare it to an evolution grenade you throw to someone and if they spend the brief amount of time to absorb it, the book may nurture the seedbed in their head to come to grips with the possibilities of a world without totalitarian government crushing the life-force from humanity.

Like most of us pesky abolitionists, Adam is not a revolutionary so much as an evolutionary. He says so in his book: “Clearly, this is an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one.” He realizes that the long train of abuses and privation that is the basis of all government must be eradicated but knows that a violent means to do so will only get more of the same.

To use my tired old saw, Adam thinks a philosophical terraforming of the planet is in order and could be a process that will take a long time to achieve. But he wants to do something about it instead of standing on the sidelines watching the planet go up in flames…again.

Adam uses the snapshot methodology to cover a gamut of subjects from taxation to slavery to corporatism and everything in between. Bastiat wrote a tome for the ages with The Law that clocks at 67 pages and Hazlitt’s classic Economics in One Lesson clocks in at approximately 205 pages. Both of these books are classic tomes that adorn the shelf of every self-respecting abolitionist and aspiring Austrian economist.

How do I sum up Adam’s message? Point your index finger at your temple and repeat after me: “The revolution begins here.” Not a violent revolution but a wholesale revision of the viruses and software malfunctions that is your brain on government.

Adam has also figured out the electronic frontier revolution in publishing. The New York publishing cartels are dying and I suspect that the last brick and mortar bookstore, Barnes and Noble, will expire in the next 24 months following Borders to the graveyard in real book sales mediums.

His book is free to the reader and subject to no copyright restriction according to his own message.

You can get in touch with Adam here: adam@thefreedomline.com