Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Posts Tagged ‘family’

Left or Right? Stalin or Hitler? That makes no sense.

Posted by Jesse on March 15, 2009

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Fascism in America, (or will it be Socialism?)

Posted by Jesse on February 26, 2008

John T. Flynn’s classic work from 1944 on how wartime planning brought fascism to AmericaThe American Right long ago slid into the abyss.
Be sure to see Rockwell’s two latest articles:
The Frightful Face of Stimulus
It’s true that confidence in the economy is waning. But the response by Washington so far has done nothing to inspire optimism. The more they do, the greater the fears grow. There is a Victorian story about a creature who wonders why everyone is running from him, until he sees a reflection of his own frightful face. It is time for the whole of Washington to look in the mirror.
Ron Paul Has Already Won
Ron Paul’s bid for the U.S. presidency ranks among the most heroic anyone has ever undertaken. We live in emergency times, with a choice between forms of socialism or fascism. The parties’ leadership have embraced this decrepit old model, despite all evidence of the bankruptcy of statism. Ron alone dared pose a challenge. His bid has also been the most unusual in modern history. Its main energy has come not from a political machine, but from millions of volunteers, most of them young and most of them exposed to new political and economic truths for the first time.

In that sense, and in addition to garnering more primary votes than any libertarian candidate in American history, Ron has accomplished precisely what he set out to do. He has re-founded the libertarian movement on a principled basis, liberated the ideas of peace and free enterprise from monopolistic control, exposed the political apparatus for the fraud that it is, and laid the groundwork for a future flowering of liberty.

This is a follow-up article to The Reality of Red-State Fascism
Triumph of the Red-State Fascists
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
[February 26, 2008]

Every Republican I’ve spoken to is mystified that John McCain has sewn up the Republican nomination. For his entire career, he has been more statist on both domestic and foreign policy than even the typical Republican. He has been considered a “liberal,” and not in a good sense. He doesn’t share any of the values that are said to make up the Republican consensus on economics or culture or religion. His personal baggage is heavy and a mile long. He had no dedicated constituency within the party.

Of course I’m not talking to the run-of-the-mill Republican. There are vast hordes of these people” who have never read a book and vote only by the most sordid political instinct known to man. McCain is their candidate. It comes down to one thing only: the simple-minded, unthinking impression that he is a war hero and, more than anyone else, has what it takes to smash the evil foreign peoples who want to kill us. In short, he appeals to the militaristic, nationalistic impulses of the base Republican base.

The real question is why that one issue would trump every other concern alive among Republicans. How is it that imperialist nationalism has come to trump every other issue?

Murray Rothbard used to tell the story of speaking to conservative and Republican audiences in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There would be large groups gathered for various talks on economics and politics. He would give a lecture on the problem of price controls, or protectionism, or high taxes. People really liked what he had to say. They would clap, and learn from his lecture.

Then he would sit down. At some point in the course of the conference, the appointed anti-communist speaker would rise to the podium. He would decry the evil of Russia and its atheistic system of government. He would call for beefing up nuclear weapons and hint darkly of the necessity of war. He would end with an apocalyptic statement about the need for everyone to completely dedicate themselves to eradicating the communists by any means necessary. No talk of limiting or cutting government; quite the opposite.

So how would these people, who clapped for Murray, respond to the warmonger? Insanely, wildly, uncontrollably. They would stand and scream and yell and cheer, getting up on their chairs and putting their hands together high in the air. The applause would go on for five minutes and more, and the speaker would be later mauled for autographs. His books would sell wildly.

Meanwhile, poor Murray would stand there in alarm. How could these same people cheer both a call for liberty and a call for empire, and, most notably, give their hearts over to the maniacal nationalist while being merely polite to a call for the same liberty that had led this party to oppose FDR’s domestic and foreign-policy? It was experiences like these that led him to write the most important dissection of the Republican party ever to appear: The Betrayal of the American Right. It is here that Murray engages in a deep, soul-searching look at his own role in red-baiting in the 1950s. He had hoped to use the anti-communist movement to educate people about the need for freedom.

“It is clear that libertarians and Old Rightists, including myself, had made a great mistake in endorsing domestic red-baiting, a red-baiting that proved to be the major entering wedge for the complete transformation of the original right wing,” writes Murray. Instead of supporting freedom, the anti-communist movement ended up acculturating Republicans to the imperial mindset. The moral priority of crushing a foreign government trumped every other issue.

At the same time, the libertarianism of the GOP’s domestic agenda was supplanted by a belief that “big government and domestic statism were perfectly acceptable, provided that they were steeped in some sort of Burkean tradition and enjoyed a Christian framework.” Fiery individualism and radicalism were replaced by a longing for a static, controlling elite of the European sort. Liberty was washed away.

That was fifty years ago. Today the same priorities abound on the right: first, nationalism and empire, and, second, longing for order in the domestic area. The switch from anti-communist militarism to anti-Islamic imperialism was not difficult. They took a chapter out of Orwell, and merely changed the name of the enemy.

All of this laid the groundwork for McCain. Each Republican presidential contender has been worse than the last: Nixon and Reagan felt the need to endorse some libertarian themes in their campaigns, and even the two Bushes used limited government and anti-big government rhetoric. But that has evaporated, replaced now by the most virulent jingoism combined with domestic statism.

Many of my Republican friends criticize McCain as a leftist. I can see the point. But we ought not be too quick to believe that all forms of anti-libertarian ideology are leftist. We need to recognize that there is a form of non-leftist statism of a very distinct kind. It is not socialist in the traditional sense. It believes in a corporate state, combined with protectionism and belligerence in foreign policy. The right-wing predecessors here are Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler, and the name of the ideology is fascism.

For more on this, see John T. Flynn’s As We Go Marching. He listed some points of the fascist program. It is a form of social organization “in which the government acknowledges no restraint upon its powers,” is managed by the “leadership principle,” and in which “the government is organized to operate the capitalist system and enable it to function – under an immense bureaucracy.” In fascism, “militarism is used as a conscious mechanism of government spending,” and “imperialism is included as a policy inevitably flowing from militarism.” “Wherever you find a nation using all of these devices,” he wrote, “you will know that this is a fascist nation.”

Republicans are prepared to push this agenda, altered to fit the American political context, in this election. Their number one tactic to retain power is impugning the patriotism of Barack Obama. It seems like a puzzle, but an opinion piece by William Kristol in the New York Times offers a clue into the basis of the Republican campaign. He first makes a big deal out of the fact that Obama used to wear an American flag pin on his coat, but now no longer does so. He drags this up as if to accuse him of disloyalty to the American cause.

It is hard to imagine a more brainless and low-level tactic than to harp on such things. It compares only to the periodic campaigns by Republicans on the issue of flag burning, as if whether a person burns a privately owned flag has any bearing at all on the well-being of the country. But then Kristol goes further into the depths of depravity by attempting to paint Obama’s wife as guilty of treason for saying that she is proud of America “for the first time in my adult lifetime.” By citing these words, he is implying that she is an America hater.

Now, what buttons is Kristol trying to push here? It is the now familiar fascist theme: loyalty to the nation state and its wars must be the first and only test of worthiness to serve in public office. Folks, this is a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand that is very likely to mutate into a full storm. Sad to say, the Republican faithful, the same people that were stupid enough to vote for McCain, will probably go for it.

How I recall those heady days of the 1970s, when everyone said that the move of the neoconservatives into the Republican party portended a raising of the intellectual level. Quite the reverse. These people are taking things straight into the gutter, where they had already been tending since the late 1950s.

His follow previus article
The Reality of Red-State Fascism
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
[December 31, 2004]

Year’s end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.

This huge shift has not been noticed among mainstream punditry, and hence there have been few attempts to explain it – much less have libertarians thought much about what it implies. My own take is this: the Republican takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian movement into a statist one.

The remaining ideological justification was left to, and accomplished by, Washington’s kept think tanks, who have approved the turn at every crucial step. What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a clear separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward.

Let us start from 1994 and work forward. In a stunningly prescient memo, Murray N. Rothbard described the 1994 revolution against the Democrats as follows:

a massive and unprecedented public repudiation of President Clinton, his person, his personnel, his ideologies and programs, and all of his works; plus a repudiation of Clinton’s Democrat Party; and, most fundamentally, a rejection of the designs, current and proposed, of the Leviathan he heads…. what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating, regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, its arrogant ambition to control the entire society from the political center. Voters and taxpayers are no longer persuaded of a supposed rationale for American-style central planning…. On the positive side, the public is vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize government; to increase individual and community liberty; to reduce taxes, mandates, and government intrusion; to return to the cultural and social mores of pre-1960s America, and perhaps much earlier than that.</strong>

This memo also cautioned against unrelieved optimism, because, Rothbard said, two errors rear their head in most every revolution. First, the reformers do not move fast enough; instead they often experience a crisis of faith and become overwhelmed by demands that they govern “responsibly” rather than tear down the established order. Second, the reformers leave too much in place that can be used by their successors to rebuild the state they worked so hard to dismantle. This permits gains to be reversed as soon as another party takes control.

Rothbard urged dramatic cuts in spending, taxing, and regulation, and not just in the domestic area but also in the military and in foreign policy. He saw that this was crucial to any small-government program. He also urged a dismantling of the federal judiciary on grounds that it represents a clear and present danger to American liberty. He urged the young radicals who were just elected to reject gimmicks like the balanced-budget amendment and the line-item veto, in favor of genuine change. None of this happened of course. In fact, the Republican leadership and pundit class began to warn against “kamikaze missions” and speak not of bringing liberty, but rather of governing better than others.

Foreshadowing what was to come, Rothbard pointed out: “Unfortunately, the conservative public is all too often taken in by mere rhetoric and fails to weigh the actual deeds of their political icons. So the danger is that Gingrich will succeed not only in betraying, but in conning the revolutionary public into thinking that they have already won and can shut up shop and go home.” The only way to prevent this, he wrote, was to educate the public, businessmen, students, academics, journalists, and politicians about the true nature of what is going on, and about the vicious nature of the bi-partisan ruling elites.

Read the rest of this article here..

Posted in abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, Rothbard, technology, Video | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy advisors (Ivan Eland writes about NATO)

Posted by Jesse on February 21, 2008

Ron Paul: Currently, the United States maintains hundreds of thousands of troops in more than 100 foreign countries. In many cases, they are there to defend foreign borders. Maintaining such a global empire drains nearly one trillion dollars from the U.S. economy each year, while offering very little real security for the American people. What’s worse, our U.S. Border Guards are sent overseas to places like Iraq while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable.

“Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.”

Payback for NATO Expansion [July 17, 2007]
“Those of us who opposed the expansion of NATO in 1999 (admitting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic) and 2004 (Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania) warned that it would lead to problems with Russia. Those problems have arrived……. NATO has added 10 new countries. And the United States would like to add more, including Ukraine, Russia’s largest and most powerful neighbor. No wonder Russia is beginning to feel encircled.

“In the NATO Treaty, an attack on one alliance member is considered an attack on all – meaning the United States has essentially pledged to provide security for an additional 10 nations in proximity to Russia. In fact, protection from Russia is the reason these small countries wanted to join NATO in the first place. In 1999 and 2004, however, U.S. politicians thought such paper commitments would never have to be fulfilled and that expanding the alliance would help “stabilize” the former Eastern Bloc.

Only now is it becoming apparent that such U.S. security guarantees, handed out promiscuously, might someday have to be honored in a potential tangle with a strengthened, more assertive, nuclear-armed Russia. In fact, the recent surliness of the Russian bear originates from having sand kicked in its face over a number of years by this U.S. encirclement in Europe – not merely from U.S. plans to install a limited, anti-Iranian missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.”

Read the whole article here….
—————————–

Don’t miss Phillip Giraldi, also on the Ron Paul team:
Former CIA counter terrorism officer and Antiwar.com columnist Philip Giraldi discusses his information that Secretaries Rice and Gates have once again been sidelined by Vice President Cheney who remains bent on war with Iran, the truth about al Qaeda and what is to be done about them and the case of former FBI translator-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and her allegations of crimes by powerful government officials and foreign spies.

This is the MP3 interview and the transcript.

—————————–
Also of note: Isabel McDonald, communications director at FAIR, discusses how do-gooder liberals in the American media distort the truth about the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, the negative consequences for the people there, the precedent set by the NATO intervention in Serbia/Kosovo in 1999 and the general implausibility of American intervention in Africa benefiting anyone.
This is the article mentioned:
The Humanitarian Temptation: Calling for war to bring peace to Darfur

Here is the MP3 of the interview.

—————————
Advisors

Doug Bandow is a political writer and the Robert A. Taft Fellow with the American Conservative Defense Alliance. He has been widely published in leading newspapers and periodicals and is the author of several books – including, most recently, Foreign Follies. Mr. Bandow served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a senior policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign.

Philip Giraldi is a former officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who writes regularly on intelligence and foreign policy issues. Mr. Giraldi is a partner in the international security consultancy Cannistraro Associates, a contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine and a fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance.

Leon Hadar is a Washington-based global affairs analyst whose commentary on U.S. foreign policy has been published in leading newspapers and foreign policy journals. A former UN correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, he is the author Quagmire: America in the Middle East and Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East.

Ivan Eland is senior fellow and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is the author of several books, including The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed.

Charles V. Peña is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, a senior fellow with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project. Mr. Peña is the author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism. Organizations are listed for identification purposes only.

Posted in *Take Action, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Gold, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, Pro Market, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Nanny-state abuse

Posted by Jesse on February 20, 2008

Child Abuse by the Government
Government rips an autistic boy from his home because it prefers a different treatment than the one offered by the parents

“……The forced removal came after the Tseglins came to loggerheads with the government over Nate’s proper treatment. The parents are opposed to the use of psychotropic drugs and argue that Nate has had strong negative reactions to them. They point to success they’ve had with an alternative, holistic approach that focuses on diet and psychiatric counseling. The government disagreed, so it took the boy away from home and initially placed him in a group home – where he had the same negative reaction to the drugs that his parents predicted would happen.”

“……The details are complicated and discouraging. But, essentially, the parents were cut out of any decision-making regarding their son. They were given only short visits with him. After he ran away from the group home, the government transferred Nate to a mental hospital. The Tseglins say the drugs the hospital gave Nate caused him to have a “grand mal” seizure, and his health has continued to deteriorate while he languishes in a government mental facility. When they visited him over the summer, they found his face swollen. He faded in and out of consciousness and was suffering from convulsions. They believe he has been beaten and are worried about sexual abuse, given that he is housed with the criminally insane.

“…..In short, this case turns on value judgments, such as whether it is preferable for Nate to be maintained in his own home, subject to occasional physical restraint, surrounded by the love and devotion of his parents and brother, or whether Nate should be placed in a locked facility, subject to occasional physical restraint and constant chemical restraint, surrounded by strangers and a burden to the California taxpayer. … The real issue in this case is that the agency and some medical personnel believe their opinions regarding Nate’s treatment are better than the parents’ choices, and have sought the judicial intervention to override the parents’ decisions regarding their son.”

“…..In a free society, individuals and families get to make those judgments and decisions. As the Tseglins argue, “Riva has a right to raise her child, Nate, free from government interference, as long as he is not at risk of physical, sexual or emotional abuse, neglect or exploitation.”

There is more to the article here…

Posted in abortion, Constitution, Education, free market, healthcare, internet, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »