If you got an email from me saying that I had been mugged in Manila and needed dough, it was a phony, of course, and I apologize for the inconvenience.7:02 pm on November 26, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
If you got an email from me saying that I had been mugged in Manila and needed dough, it was a phony, of course, and I apologize for the inconvenience.7:02 pm on November 26, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Those who urge us to “support the troops” are completely insincere in their plea. If they truly wanted “the troops” to be “supported,” they would add the words “bring them home,” a proposition that most of the troops – as well as their families – would embrace. The message hidden within the words “support the troops” is “support the war“, a purpose that no decent, civilized person could defend.6:47 pm on November 26, 2014 Email Butler Shaffer
The more I hear the phrase “civil disobedience” in recent days, the more I am reminded of Howard Zinn’s observation that “the problem is not civil disobedience, but civil obedience.”6:33 pm on November 26, 2014
While on a recent flight, I noticed that there were signs saying how it was against federal law 1. for children under 15 to sit in an exit row, 2. to tamper with a lavatory smoke alarm, 3. for a particular exit row seat to recline, and 4. to smoke on the plane. There are certainly many more of these laws that do not appear on signs for the public to see.
Why do we have these federal laws? Although they may seem insignificant, they are gross violations of federalism, the Constitution, and the wildest dreams of the Founding Fathers. It is not enough to just oppose the TSA and the FAA. The federal government should have nothing whatsoever to do with airplanes and air travel. Thank God the industry was substantially deregulated in 1978 as concerning the price of tickets. We still need a complete and wholesale deregulation of this industry and every other industry. Don’t hold your breath waiting on the new Republican majority to even attempt to do anything.5:12 pm on November 26, 2014
On the heels of US Vice President Joseph Biden’s trip to Ukraine this week, NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, Gen. Philip Breedlove, is in Kiev today pledging increased military assistance to the US-backed government there. As the Kiev regime readies another assault on breakaway regions in the east of the country, General Breedlove announced today that:
We are going to help Ukraine’s military to increase its capacities … [to] make them ever more interoperable with our forces.
Breedlove again repeated NATO’s assertion that the Russian military is operating in east Ukraine, claiming the Russians are providing the “backbone” for the forces seeking independence from rule by Kiev.
This latest NATO assertion of Russian involvement in east Ukraine is in addition to 36 — count them — prior claims of a Russian invasion of Ukraine since February. Thirty-six invasions of Ukraine but NATO has yet to produce a definitive photograph of a Russian military presence. Either Russia’s is the most stealth army in the history of warfare or NATO operatives are misleading those they are paid to serve.
While pledging more US military assistance to its allies in western Ukraine, Breedlove also condemned Russia’s “militarization” of the Crimean peninsula, citing recent Russian possible deployments of a missile defense system to the area which recently rejoined Russia.4:52 pm on November 26, 2014 Email Daniel McAdams
Ignore what race-hustlers of various kinds tell you about what happened in Ferguson, or what it signifies. The problem isn’t “white privilege”; it’s “blue privilege.”4:33 pm on November 26, 2014 Email William Norman Grigg
More than any other airline. While in an airport recently (I think Love Field, Dallas), I noticed that Southwest Airlines employees had embroidered on their shirts something like “Southwest supports the troops.” I did not see these shirts being worn at other airports on my trip.2:34 pm on November 26, 2014
Thanks to the friend who let me know that the government naval academy in Annapolis has censored–that is, just won’t tolerate–this LRC post. A Catholic archbishop’s revolutionary discussion of re-privatizing marriage must be banned from viewing as “intolerant.”1:40 pm on November 26, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Time magazine is out with a defense of rioting, looting, and burning in Ferguson. It’s all justified thanks, of course, to “white privilege.” To Time, long a purveyor of regime myths, it’s fine if individuals imitate the State, and redistribute the wealth themselves, as well as make mini-war.11:13 am on November 26, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Writes Tim D.:
8:46 am on November 26, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I read your website regularly and was surprised to find lewrockwell.com blocked while using the WiFi at St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Brighton, MA. Trying to reach lewrockwell.com redirected me to some page that mentions the site being blocked for controversial material, whatever that means. I abruptly turned off the WiFi connection and continued reading through my phone’s service provider until the doctor was available.
As usual the “free thinking” intellectuals in MA only enjoy “free” speech when it follows their agenda.
Ukraine’s President Poroshenko is a U.S. stooge. U.S. stooges have some freedom of action, but they get pulled up short or retired when they stray too far. There is the history of U.S. advisers descending on the country after the coup. (They advised Poroshenko badly on the prosecution of the war.) There is the fact that Ukraine is in hock to the IMF. Joe Biden visited Ukraine last week and told them to form a new coalition government pronto.
Ukraine has a very serious inflation and currency problem, but Poroshenko is making war noises again. There are domestic pressures. Now, conveniently following upon Biden’s trip to Kiev, there’s a Voice of America article with the headline “Political Pressure Mounts on Poroshenko”. This can be construed as an intentional signal and pressure brought by the U.S. The VOA is fully funded by the U.S. government.7:39 am on November 26, 2014 Email Michael S. Rozeff
Human history contains innumerable episodes of violence, and frequently violence of the most sadistic and bloody kind, be it by individuals, groups, or organized bodies. Americans are not at all exceptional in this regard. It would not be at all surprising to find that every people on earth has a history of violence at some point, often bloody, extreme and bloodthirsty.
It is illusory to think that this tendency to violence has changed because it’s 2014 or because moral codes now condemn violence of various kinds. Certainly the capacity to inflict such violence is still present. Human nature contains the potential for not only violence but inflicting pain and torture for the pure pleasure of it.
The violence in the 20th century reached unheard of levels, and it continues to this day. It is an illusion to think that America is an exceptional nation in this regard, has some special moral insight or an exceptional degree of moral control over its violent tendency. Moral inhibitions shatter under the capacity of men to think up justifications and rationalize violence.
Americans at war seem or act surprised when the other side uses violence, roadside bombs and stealthy suicide attacks to blow up civilians or soldiers on patrol. Meanwhile almost no weapon or technique is absent from the American arsenal, ready even to be inflicted on or by obstreperous Americans. The researchers of death think up more and more ways to kill, and so do America’s enemies.
Americans at war seem to under-estimate the tenacity and motivations of the enemies. Americans cannot see that the other sides are just like them. It is illusion to think they are different.
Perhaps Americans think that they have a technological or manufacturing advantage that allows them to win. This has not always proven to be the case. This idea also seems to be an American illusion.6:07 pm on November 25, 2014 Email Michael S. Rozeff
Writes Jeff Deist:
3:18 pm on November 25, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I noticed this morning that just when Americans want to have an open and honest conversation about race, “comments are closed.”
Those who own private property in suburbs near Ferguson must hire private security for protection. Malls, shopping centers, and other valuables will be protected with private money. A story linked on Drudge today noted that the wealthy suburb of Clayton includes many private firms turning to private security, but apparently, private firms are being called in throughout the metro area:
Securitas, a security firm that employs 1,600 private guards around St. Louis, says it contracted out the last of its personnel two weeks ago to protect malls, banks, pharmaceutical corporations, power plants, and other large businesses, some of which are based in Clayton. To meet the demand of anticipated violence, Securitas has been making new hires, according to Garrett Cizek, the firm’s local business-development manager.
Naturally, no one, if he can afford, it will rely on government police for “protection.”
If governments were honest with you, this is what they would say about police:
Dear Citizen, we are going to tax you heavily for a police force that will focus on extracting even more revenue from you, and will exist primarily to harass motorists and other who commit petty traffic infractions. All the while, we will claim we are putting our lives on the line to protect you. But of course, we will do little to recover your stolen property, investigate thieves or those who trespass or destroy property. If you’re a small business owner who has ever had his shop broken into, you know this already. Yes, politics requires that we do investigate rapes and murders, but we’d rather not do that. Those criminals are dangerous! Let’s face it, the police force is a union shop, and is unaccountable to you, the tax payer. The police are mostly concerned with ensuring more and more government spending on huge pensions for police officers who will retire at age 45 and collect $80,000 or $90,000 per year as a retiree. All paid for by you.
You will also pay those police to issue you citations for jaywalking, opening unauthorized lemonade stands, or growing vegetables in your front yard. If you resist, we will shoot you.
Citizen, all this being said, you should know that in case any civil unrest or actual threat to your property, you’re on your own. The Supreme Court has ruled that we have no duty to protect you, and in case of any true conflagration, the police will protect the government’s property and nothing else. Smart people will hire private security for this. If you cannot afford private security, your lack of “protection” is your own fault for not wanting to pay higher taxes.
Have a nice day.
The story of modern policing is this: you’ll pay huge amounts of taxes for police who will do little for you in case of actual crime.2:57 pm on November 25, 2014 Email Ryan McMaken
Writes a friend:
12:31 pm on November 25, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I believe the Ferguson destruction (as pointed out, except for government buildings) was planned. It’s going to be used as justification for their heavy-handed, militarized presence. “See what happens when we don’t respond strongly.” So they let the city burn and they let the looters have control.
I was watching live last night until 4 in the morning. When the row of cars were set on fire, they were showing the parking lot from the air. There were about five guys on the right side of the camera shot in the parking lot, standing behind the next row of cars, but they panned away quickly. I got suspicious then. And the fire didn’t spread from the first car, down. Multiple cars, several cars away from each, were set on fire. I watched it live.
In my opinion, this just shows that the government can’t, or won’t, protect you. They look after themselves. You’re on your own.
The ongoing events in Ferguson, MO, illustrate Thomas Pynchon’s point that “if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Like the Rodney King, and Trayvon Martin cases, the killing of Michael Brown by a white Ferguson policeman provided the state and its sycophantic media an opportunity to reinforce the popular mindset that social disorder derives from the inherently divisive nature of human behavior; that violent conflict is inevitable among people; and that only the authority of the state can protect us from a “nasty, brutish, and short” fate.
From a statist perspective, Brown’s killing confirms that categories of people grounded in race, religion, gender, lifestyle, economic interests, and numerous other abstract divisions, define humanity, and make social conflict an inescapable outcome of human nature. “White man kills black man” is a sufficient statement of fact to reinforce racial explanations of violence. When a white man kills another white, or a black man kills another black, the stories will be reported – if, indeed, at all – on page 12 of your local newspaper. Neither CNN, Fox News, the NYT, WSJ, nor other loyal tribunes of the established order will devote coverage to what is an equally devastating tragedy as that experienced by Michael Brown’s family. White police officers do kill or torture white people without much attention devoted to the fact. If you doubt this, read some of Will Grigg’s thoroughly documented – often with video of the attacks – reports.
Every political system thrives on the legal use of violence. Each requires our separation into exclusive groupings who can then be manipulated into warfare with one another, thus allowing the state to coercively intervene to reconfirm its violence-based powers over us all. If you doubt this, recall as much detail as you can from last night’s events in Ferguson. Can you identify a single response from the state that did not involve violence or the threat of violence? That local thugs – caught up in the statist mindset of racially-defined conflict – were, themselves, being most destructive, was a consequence of state violence (i.e., white policeman kills black man). Such rioting was but another example of the “blowback” that arises from so-called “terrorists” reacting to the violence that inheres in American foreign policy practices.
As long as we succumb to our statist conditioning by which we define one another as “enemies” against whom the state promises to “protect” us, we shall continue to help generate the kinds of tragedies that occurred in Ferguson. If we can learn to see our problems not in terms of “white man kills black man,” but as the consequences of our embracing institutionalized violence, we may find a solution to what our thinking has created.
What if we began to see violence – a power for which the state insists upon having a legal monopoly – as the real threat to human well-being? What if events in Ferguson had begun with a report that “state employee shoots and kills young man”?11:28 am on November 25, 2014 Email Butler Shaffer
The most important details in Darren Wilson’s grand jury testimony come on pages 77-78 of the transcript. Asked if he had filled out an incident report on the shooting, Wilson explained that the “protocol” in such cases is to “contact your FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] representative and he will advise you of what to do step by step.”
When asked if he had committed his recollections to paper in a diary or journal, Wilson replied: “My statement has been written for my attorney.”
“And that’s between you and your attorney, then?” asked the exceptionally helpful prosecutor, who received an affirmative reply.
“So no one has asked you to write out a statement?” the assistant DA persisted.
“No, they haven’t,” Wilson acknowledged.
Like anybody else suspected of a crime, Wilson was presumed innocent and could not be forced to incriminate himself. Unlike a Mundane suspected of homicide, however, Wilson was given the luxury of crafting his story to fit subsequent disclosures, in consultation with a police union attorney who added the necessary melodramatic flourishes.
Thus we are told that when Wilson grabbed Brown’s forearm through the window of his SUV, “the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan.”
Although the 18-year-old Brown possessed nearly 300 pounds of unathletic girth, Wilson was no nebbish: Like Brown, he stands 6’4″ and weighs 210 pounds.2:24 am on November 25, 2014 Email William Norman Grigg
CIA counterfeit conservative William F. Buckley Jr., after completing his snitch work as FBI shill/informant at Yale, was recruited by the Agency and did his CIA stint with E. Howard Hunt (future Watergate conspirator) in Mexico.
Buckley, with intelligence community colleagues James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Priscilla Buckley, and William J. Casey, went on to found National Review magazine as the premier publication of the CIA’s synthetic “Conservative movement” replacing the non-interventionist Old Right coalition of Americans opposed to the corporate welfare-warfare state of Roosevelt and Truman.
What most Americans mistakenly regard today as the “Conservative movement” has undergone many convoluted and dramatic transformations over the past sixty years.
Perhaps the most keen observer has been the late Murray N. Rothbard, the internationally acclaimed economist and historian (and bête noir of Buckley).
How this disinformation process began is detailed in Rothbard’s engaging and insightful book, The Betrayal of the American Right.
It tells the full story of how this subversive movement at war with American liberties and the rule of law, came about.
This book is the definitive examination of how the CIA’s phony “Conservative movement” arose and deluded millions in the name of national security and state power.
“Conservatism,” since the days of Burke and Robespierre, has stood for the status quo and an apologia for tyranny.
William F. Buckley, Jr.’s entire career as a “public intellectual” was built upon one ignominious deception after another as a servitor of state power.
The synthetic “Conservative movement” he help spawn has continued unabated, growing like a cancer in the American body politic.
Buckley was a student at Yale University (Skull and Bones 1950) where he served as shill and informant for J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. One of Buckley’s Yale professors, former Trotskyist communist Willmoore Kendall (formerly of the OSS and later consultant to the CIA) was a recruiter of talent for the newly created Agency. Kendall recruited Buckley in 1951.
Kendall introduced him to former Trotskyist James Burnham (also formerly of the OSS). Burnham was consultant to the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination, the CIA’s covert action division. He was later to actively work on the CIA coup d’etat against Mossadegh in Iran.
Burnham first introduced Buckley to agent E. Howard Hunt in his Washington, D. C. apartment. Buckley then served with Hunt in Mexico where Hunt was chief of station and Buckley’s control officer. Hunt later figured as a principal in the Watergate Scandal that brought down Richard Nixon.
Hunt, in his memoirs, American Spy, (in which Buckley wrote the introduction) observes that prior to his stint in the CIA, Regnery published Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, an indictment of the supposed pervasive liberalism on that campus. The book launched Buckley’s career as spokesman for the emerging “Conservative movement” of the early 1950s. With what we now know about CIA covert recruiting on college campuses during this period, particularly Yale, Buckley’s initial book bears a new revisionist examination. (more…)7:11 pm on November 24, 2014 Email Charles Burris
At Mises.org, we’ve posted all the videos from the Costa Mesa Mises Circle in the order they were presented. Click each link for both mp3 and video versions.
2:37 pm on November 24, 2014 Email Ryan McMaken
Chuck Hegel is out as Secretary of Defense.
Hagel is the third Sec of Defense since 2011, so his tenure, while short, is not uniquely short. Nevertheless, Hagel was apparently unable to deliver the goods. And what are “the goods” for a Secretary of Defense? Historian Hunt Tooley describes the job this way:
Though these secretaries are not the gatekeepers of the warfare-welfare state (and perhaps not even the most important ones), they perform a crucial function in coordinating the collectivist, rent-seeking corporate entities with the political parties and their largely social-democratic agenda.
While hardly an advocate for anti-interventionist foreign policy, the primary criticism of Hagel in Washington has always been that he is insufficiently enthusiastic about starting wars and spending lavishly on them. His critics claimed he was anti-semitic because he refused to advocate for an open ended blank check for Israel in the middle east.1:35 pm on November 24, 2014 Email Ryan McMaken
Writes tech expert Robert Blumen:
8:08 am on November 24, 2014 Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Congratulations on the new site: it looks fantastic – a great job all around. Finally a Mises.org site that lives up to the quality of content. I look forward to exploring it more over the coming days and weeks.
Those politicians who have supported the use of American military forces and warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan have mistreated the people and societies in these countries. There is no justification for the injuries and harms that American forces have inflicted on others and none for the injuries and harms borne by the Americans who have participated in these wars. There is not a single justification for the huge resources extracted from tax-paying Americans to pay for these exceedingly costly expeditions, and no justification for the huge debts incurred that signal the extraction of taxes from future generations.
Those who instigate and direct American military attacks and otherwise support the wars invariably present justifications for what they are sponsoring and making happen. We are told that noble motives are at work behind these wars Made in America. We are told that these attacks are to root out terrorists, to prevent massacres, to maintain American freedoms, to stamp out evil, to prevent larger wars, to spread civilization, to institute democracy, to obtain national security, to protect Americans, to stop weapons of mass destruction, to secure nearby countries, to remove dictators and bad governments, and to prevent attacks on the homeland.7:24 am on November 23, 2014 Email Michael S. Rozeff
The American Empire’s goal is expansion of the regions under its dominance, seemingly without any limit. That is why the U.S. continued to push and push after the Cold War ended and that is why it pushes to this day.
The Empire’s justifications to the American people of fighting for freedom and fighting terror do not hold up under scrutiny. They do not explain the Empire’s actions. Neither do its appeals to prevent dominoes from falling or not appeasing aggressive forces.
There is yet another basic justification for the expansionary push of the American Empire, not articulated but understood, which is that if “we” good guy Americans don’t dominate some territory, then some other bad or worse guys will, like the Russians.3:42 pm on November 22, 2014 Email Michael S. Rozeff