The U.S., being a government and therefore illegitimate, has nothing but illegitimate laws, one of which is the public accommodation law (42 U.S. Code § 2000a – Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation). It reads in its section (a): “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
When Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of the Red Hen restaurant, ejected Sarah Sanders, the White House Press Secretary, she violated this statute. This was an anti-Trump action coming from the Left.
Maxine Waters speaks for the Left as one of their leaders. Maxine gets a 90% social liberal rating from the ADA; and she gets a 96-98% progressive score, so it’s safe to say she stands tall among Leftists. Maxine Waters wants to see even more of this spurning of anyone in the Trump administration.
Maxine represents the Left. From the Left, the decline in civility, in language, and in argumentation has been shocking. The rise in hatred and anger concerning Trump and his policies have been extraordinary ever since Trump assumed office.
If we were to collect in one place all of the exceedingly hostile anti-Trump remarks emanating from celebrities, Peter Fonda, Robert De Niro and Kathy Griffin being examples, we would find a hundred or more, these too coming from the Left. They spur on violence. All that remains is outright leftist violence, and that’s on the horizon.
Refusing to serve Sanders breaks a law that Leftists have previously revered. Leftists have not suddenly realized that libertarians are correct in being against the public accommodation law. They have not suddenly realized that this law violates private property rights. They have not suddenly become champions of freedom.
Maxine, to her credit, voted against the Iraq War. Now her interest is in regaining power in the White House. Now she reviles Trump because his agenda goes directly against her agenda, so much so that she is going against a cherished focal point of her own anti-discrimination position, the public accommodation law. She is willing to sacrifice her self-professed moral standard of non-discrimination embodied in law. For what? To hound Trump from office? To weaken his power? Is her support of law-breaking consistent with the democracy she herself supports? Why would Maxine urge people on to harass Trump officials? Is harassment an appropriate democratic method according to Leftist standards?
Violating the public accommodation law is itself relatively minor, although Maxine wants to see such violations broadened and deepened. Its broader meaning and symbolism is more important. What it implies is more important. Maxine Waters urges the abandonment of the supposed democratic ideal of debate in the public arena followed by elections. The “resistance” of Maxine Waters means the disintegration of common courtesy and culture into confusion and chaos. It means that elections are not the only thing that count in gaining and wielding power. Extra-legal methods count. Ultimately, it means that violence in many forms will count. Democracy leaves rules behind and descends into power struggles. The behavior of FBI officials in the last election was a covert example. Maxine should not be surprised if someone assaults the person and property of Trump officials, burns swastikas on their lawns, tosses dead animals in their cars, befouls their water, sends them bombs and poisons, or paints their buildings with graffiti. There are many ways to harass people. That’s what she is calling for: “…these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them…”10:20 am on June 25, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff
A division of the American Library Association has voted to remove Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from a major children’s book award over concerns with how the early-to-mid 20th century author portrayed blacks and Native Americans. The Association for Library Service to Children’s board made the unanimous decision Saturday at a meeting in New Orleans. The name has been changed to the Children’s Literature Legacy Award. The association says the work of Wilder — best known for her “Little House on the Prairie” novels — “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values.”
Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books were essentially ghost written by her daughter Rose Wilder Lane, at one time the highest paid woman author in America. This is a well documented fact no doubt well known to these leftist librarians. This Orwellian name change is, in essence, a backhanded campaign against not her mother, but against Lane and the values she stood for. It is not the first of such reprehensible attacks.
The Little House books champion individualism, self-reliance, loyalty to the nuclear family and community. These are forbidden values today’s progressives abhor.
Earlier this year in a diatribe condemning Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books before the American Booksellers Association Winter Institute in Memphis a Pulitzer Prize-Winner Claims ‘Super-White’ Children’s Books Ruined His Youth.
The speech was directed against “white people, white supremacist racists,” and their enablers. It focused especially on authors and publishers Díaz considers to be responsible for the “erasure” of young minority readers by their “relentless, underlying whiteness.” In an embarrassing moment for publishing and bookselling, he received a standing ovation.
This rant by the controversial author Junot Diaz (who was recently accused of several instances of sexual misconduct) before an audience of publishing professionals, booksellers, and librarians perhaps provided the spark that ignited in the award’s name change inferno.
The racism smear is a spurious excuse for the name change. Along with Ayn Rand and Isabel Paterson, Lane was one of the founders of the modern American libertarian movement in the 1940s. And like her colleague Rand, Rose Wilder Lane was a determined enemy of all collectivism, including the virulent variety of biological collectivism known as racism.
As the Wikipedia entry on Lane notes:
4:30 pm on June 24, 2018 Email Charles Burris
During World War II, Lane enjoyed a new phase in her writing career. From 1942 to 1945, she wrote a weekly column for The Pittsburgh Courier, at the time, the most widely read African-American newspaper. Lane combined advocacy of laissez faire capitalism and anti-racism. The views she expressed on race were similar to those of Zora Neale Hurston, a fellow individualist and writer who was black. Her columns emphasized the arbitrariness of racial categories and stressed the centrality of the individual. Instead of indulging in what she referred to as the “ridiculous, idiotic and tragic fallacy of race, [by] which a minority of the earth’s population has deluded itself during the past century”, Lane believed it was time for all Americans – black and white – to “renounce their race”. Judging by skin color was comparable to the Communists who assigned guilt or virtue on the basis of class. In Lane’s view, the fallacies of race and class hearkened to the “old English-feudal ‘class’ distinction.” She further believed that the collectivists, including those who embraced President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, were to blame for filling “young minds with fantasies of ‘races’ and ‘classes’ and ‘the masses,’ all controlled by pagan gods, named Economic Determinism or Society or Government.”
Government. For further details, read his book, The American Deep State: Big
6:53 am on June 24, 2018 Email Charles Burris
Lew, one of the most disturbing and challenging books to the court historian status quo regarding the crucial period between the First and Second World Wars is Stephen Koch, Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, The Free Press/Macmillian, Inc., 1994 (republished as Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Münzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals, Enigma Books, 2004).
Professor Koch meticulously details the manipulation by the Soviets’ master propagandist Willi Münzenberg of thousands of European and American progressive intellectuals in the inner-war period of the 1920s and 1930s by his vast publishing network and interlocking front organizations under the covert direction of the Communist International (Comintern) and the Soviet secret services of the NKVD and the GRU. He particularly concentrates upon the intellectual elite that fell under Münzenberg’s sway in this cultural war against the West. This includes such eminent persons as Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Andre’ Malraux, Andre’ Gide, Pablo Picasso, Dorothy Parker, George Grosz, Lincoln Steffens, John Dos Passos, Bertolt Brecht, Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammett and Sidney and Beatrice Webb.
This volume shatters myth after historical myth of this critical period.
Münzenberg, Koch states, “developed what may well be the leading moral illusion of the twentieth century: the notion that in the modern age the principal arena of the moral life, the true realm of good and evil, is political.” The notion that — the ethical is the political — and that the highest form of ethical expression was “anti-fascism,” — with the Soviet Union as the publicly-identified, ideologically most dedicated opponent of fascism, thus holding the moral high ground. This myth was actually built upon the basest of lies.
This duplicitous legacy of Willi Münzenberg continues today with our establishment regime media and court intelligentsia’s amoral war against truth in the guise of “fake news,” disinformation and deceit. They too have their bi-coastal cohort of celebrity idiots and narcissistic fools in Hollywood and New York echoing this specious group-think. (more…)9:27 pm on June 22, 2018 Email Charles Burris
5:40 pm on June 22, 2018 Email Charles Burris
The eulogies are rolling in on Fox News. They range from grotesquely effusive to delusionally worshipful. He was “brilliant,” he was a “genius” but always few details as to why.8:35 pm on June 21, 2018
The Kiwanis club is rolling out a national campaign to designate the third Thursday of each month as Thumbs-Up Thursday, where you are to give the “thumbs up” sign to every cop you see. And of course Thumbs-Up Thursdays are just the beginning:
Another component is Blue Monday which will kick off in the fall. It encourages citizens to use the first Monday of the month to thank a cop.
Some sixty organizations are considering a lawsuit against the far-left race-hustling/slander factory known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (a.k.a. Soviet Poverty Lie Center). This gang of communistic ideologues that does nothing for poverty, sits on an endowment in the Caymans reportedly worth hundreds of millions, and hates the South, may actually have to begin practicing law to defend itself.8:31 am on June 20, 2018 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
Here is a first for the military. Quadruplets in Michigan all plan to be in the military by this fall. One is already in the Marine Corps. The other three are headed to the Air National Guard, the Navy, and the Air Force. And an adopted sibling will be joining the Marine Corps.
I would consider myself a failure as a father if all of my children joined the military. Actually, I would consider myself a failure if even one of them joined. Why? Start reading here.9:01 pm on June 19, 2018 Email Laurence M. Vance
2:22 pm on June 19, 2018
How artificial outrage is created by media to serve statist ends.
Because of their introspective soul-searching depth, some of the most powerful and illuminating writing in literature are memoirs. I particularly have in mind the famous Confessions of St. Augustine and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the panoramic autobiographies by Henry Adams and Albert Jay Nock. I would like to nominate author and publisher Ron Unz for a chair in this select pantheon. In three concise candid confessions to his readers he painstakingly traces the torturous path of how he has undergone a dramatic change of consciousness, resulting in unbridled skepticism of supposedly settled ironclad truths put forth by establishment media and academia of central orthodoxies of 20th century history. His journey becomes our journey, we share his angst and elation at truths uncovered.
First, in John McCain: When “Tokyo Rose” Ran for President: What Was John McCain’s True Wartime Record in Vietnam? Unz laid bare the raw unseasonable truth concerning the “maverick” neocon warmonger, the thuggish brute John McCain.
Second, in his recent article, Our Great Purge of the 1940’s, he describes how he methodically uncovered the cold reality concerning the revisionist critics of Franklin “Duplicitous” Roosevelt and the New Deal leading up to WWII.
In his latest article, Unz traces his passive nonchalant sleepwalking through history and how he was powerfully smacked, jarred and awoken to the disturbing truths surrounding the savage events of November 22, 1963 — the murder of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas and the subsequent cover-up. Everything massively changed on that day in terms of government structure (open and covert), subsequent foreign and domestic policies, societal attitudes and perceptions — everything. The demographic attitudinal polling studies of that generational cohort demonstrates this.
In the pre-PC days of studying and cataloging the history of the world, historians designated the initials BC and AD to signify or divide history. In modern American history one would not be off the mark in signifying the dividing line as the era before 11-22-63 and after 11-22-63. JFK was definitely not Jesus Christ, but the full story of his tragic violent death and the shattering impact of its consequences has still not been fully written.2:32 am on June 19, 2018 Email Charles Burris
Trump orders Pentagon to create another branch of the military. As if the Empire needed any more.
[Trump’s] directive will task the Defense Department to begin the process of establishing the ‘Space Force’ as the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces. “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space,” Trump said.
But what about those of us who have better things to do than obsess about America not dominating every aspect of the known physical universe? Why do we have to pay for your sense of inadequacy and insecurity? Why do future generations (who will be stuck with the bill for all of this) have to pay for it? And of course the rationale involves the usual paranoia about…you guessed it:
The president framed space as a national security issue, saying he does not want “China and Russia and other countries leading us.”4:16 pm on June 18, 2018 Email Dale Steinreich
. . . every time it arrests and jails someone for DUI, drug possession, car theft, burglary, peeping tomism, murder, and all other crimes. For some strange reason the Lying Media Scum (LMS) and their dimwitted Hollywood comrades are pretending that this only happens when illegal aliens break our immigration laws (and then commit further crimes here, including violent ones). Not to mention how the Bush/Obama administration killed over half a million Muslims. Talk about family separation. This fact highlights what a buffoon Laura Bush is, who is in the news today condemning Trump for “separating families” by enforcing U.S. immigration law, a law that her husband took an oath to uphold and enforce.10:06 am on June 18, 2018 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
The Bilderberg official web site is here. It explains the goals and funding of this organization, which is a foundation. It provides general information about who attends, but no names of this year’s participants. They are selected by the Steering Committee.
The latter critical function involves behind-the-scenes considerations that we can hypothesize are at work. The Committee may solicit prospects and then run them by key people before that year’s list of attendees is finalized. It is likely that consensus dominates this important facet of the process, as opposed to voting; but that consensus is probably skewed to the input of the most powerful people. The key people are probably those now in key positions in government and finance, primarily within Europe and America, or those who held such positions in past years. The Steering Committee probably solicits suggestions from a fairly wide circle of people before drawing up a list for a given year. The list of attendees will be responsive to what are seen as popular and pressing concerns about which attendees want to know more. Those who are invited to make presentations will include those thought to be best in a position to provide new and useful ideas and frameworks.
The Bilderberg meeting is a forum for presenting points of view frankly and in private about matters of world governance. The private conversations help powerful and busy people with large responsibilities to form concepts and frameworks for understanding and dealing with issues they may encounter or be able to affect. The Meeting is something like any academic meeting. Such meetings involve both presentations and lots of private interactions, discussions and gossip in which people meet other people.
For detailed easily available information about the Bilderberg agenda that emerges over the years, see this source which draws from Daniel Estulin’s book “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group”. According to this source, the overriding Bilderberg goal is “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.”
A Bilderberg press release provides us with this year’s topics. They are
1. Populism in Europe
2. The inequality challenge
3. The future of work
4. Artificial intelligence
5. The US before midterms
6. Free trade
7. US world leadership
9. Quantum computing
10. Saudi Arabia and Iran
11. The “post-truth” world
12. Current events
This list alerts us to the current worries and concerns of the Bilderberg powerful. It clearly reveals the supra-national and worldwide perspective of the Bilderberg meeting, with topics ranging over Europe, the U.S., Russia, the Middle East, and the world, as well as global economic issues. European populism heads the list, and it most directly challenges the one-world, one-government concept because populism and nationalism are making a comeback. Inequality is a related challenge, the connection being that restive masses are more receptive to populist appeals. These two Bilderberg concerns (#1 and #2) tie in directly to the income-generating power of the masses, which is covered in topics #3 and #4. The powerful are worried about unemployment and how to fund social welfare schemes to pacify the masses.
Next come three topics related to Donald Trump (#5, #6 and #7), but it would have been terribly gauche to have simply made him a topic. Although European leaders and EU proponents would like Europe with one voice to play a decisive role in world government, they recognize that the U.S. predominates. Besides, about one-third of Bilderberg attendees come from North America, so that these topics are important to them. Trump’s world leadership has moved in an America-centric direction, with trade being a key Trump issue; this is bound to horrify the Bilderberg elites. They are no doubt hoping for a repudiation of Trump in the mid-term elections, but if the European elections are any indication, they’re not going to get it.
Russia is a topic this year. It could be a topic every year because of its position with respect to Europe. Why an interest in quantum computing? Maybe it’s a concern about cryptography or military applications, because this technology will soon make standard computing obsolete. The “post-truth” world is a nod in the direction of how a world government is to face an age in which truth is out of philosophical fashion, in which verities are said to have no moorings in reason or custom, in which religion is seen as superstition, in which families are superfluous, and in which morality can’t seem to find any foundations. If the masses increasingly do not believe in anything, why should they believe in a world government and how can they be controlled?9:12 am on June 18, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff
The biggest ever gay pride parade just took place in Israel. “The Tel Aviv Municipality said over 250,000 people celebrated at the city’s 20th Gay Pride Parade, an event that draws people from around the world to party at the Israeli beach city that has built an image of an oasis of tolerance for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.” Tel Aviv claims to be the world’s “most gay-friendly city.” “Tens of thousands of tourists visit Israel for Tel Aviv’s pride week each year.”
Now, I don’t care if you are L, G, B, T, I, or Q, just so long as your actions are peaceful, voluntary, and don’t aggress against the person or property of others. My point in posting this is because many conservative Christians (of which I am one) are always talking about Israel, Israel, Israel being such a great country. They ignore gay pride events like this while at the same time strongly condemning gay pride events in the United States. I have news for my brethren: the country of Israel and the government of Israel are just as corrupt as the country of the United States and the government of the United States.6:43 am on June 18, 2018 Email Laurence M. Vance
The tradition of the West is embodied in the Great Conversation that began in the dawn of history and that continues to the present day. Whatever the merits of other civilizations in other respects, no civilization is like that of the West in this respect. No other civilization can claim that its defining characteristic is a dialogue of this sort. No dialogue in any other civilization can compare with that of the West in the number of great works of the mind that have contributed to this Dialogue. The Spirit of Western Civilization is the spirit of inquiry. Its dominant element is the Logos. Nothing is to remain undiscussed. Everyone is to speak his mind. No proposition is to be left unexamined.
Robert Maynard Hutchins, The Great Conversation: The Substance of a Liberal Education.
Logos is an ancient Greek term. It means reason as expressed in human speech. The Greeks believed reason to be the controlling principle in an orderly, harmonious universe (cosmos).
The faculties of reason (conceptual thought) and language (propositional speech) are what distinguish human beings from other creatures.
Accordingly, man is described as “the rational animal.” As philosopher Mortimer Adler points out in his book, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes:
. . . man is the only talking, the only naming, declaring or questioning, affirming or denying, the only arguing, agreeing or disagreeing, the only discursive animal.
Philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand develops this idea further in her book, For the New Intellectual:
Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food, and the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch – or build a cyclotron – without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
But to think is an act of choice . . . Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival – so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is the question ‘to think or not to think.’
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think – not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment . . . Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality.
Human beings are capable of abstract thought, the transcendence of their immediate environment, and the emancipation from the perpetual present.
In one of the most important books of the 20th Century, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, historian Carroll Quigley elaborates on this crucial idea of abstraction: (more…)9:59 am on June 17, 2018 Email Charles Burris
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 3:05 PM
To: walter block
Walter: I have one question: the following is, I think, a fair summary of Hoppe’s argument (one accepted by both you and Murray).
Argumentation ethics argues the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied in discourse.
while it is certainly better than evoking natural rights, which are a total myth that cannot be demonstrated to exist, why do you think it provides a foundation for libertarianism? it seems to me that at best, it says that NAP can’t be rejected in discourse. but can’t one be a libertarian without engaging in discourse about it. e.g. you could just live your life as a libertarian (which is what i do, as best i can) and simply not discuss it at all (personally, i prefer to discuss theoretical physics) in which case it’s necessary to provide another justification for libertarians (i justify it – to myself of course, since i don’t discuss it – as being most compatible with my psychological disposition). that has been perfectly adequate to me. R
Dear R: I regard my friend Hans Hoppe as one of the most gifted libertarian theoreticians not only now actively writing, but in all of recorded history. In my view, his argumentation ethics is one of the many jewels in his crown. I not only think it provides a foundation for libertarianism, I think it provides the very best foundation for libertarianism now available to us, thanks to him.
You are quite right that one can be “a libertarian without engaging in discourse about it…” All one need do is live according to the non aggression principle. However, Hans demonstrates that the only way to JUSTIFY a philosophical principle is through discourse. And that therefore those who argue against libertarianism engage in a performative contradiction, since arguing implies adherence to the NAP.
Here is a bibliography on this issue:12:18 pm on June 16, 2018 Email Walter E. Block