So how long did it take for a movement called “libertarians for Trump” to realize that they are dealing with a politician? What is it about certain libertarians that they simply refuse to accept historical facts about the nature of politicians, and aspiring politicians once they are in power? The phrase “fool me once, shame on you…” does not even apply here, as these libertarians allow themselves to be fooled time and time again. Continue Reading
Only a couple of weeks before Donald Trump takes a 4 year seat in the White House. Yet we are to wonder if nothing cataclysmic will happen before that happens, as, despite Trump’s promises to strengthen ties with Russia, the United States has now sent 100s of tanks and trucks to Eastern Europe, close to the Russian border, allegedly to “protect” the area from a “Crimean-style annexation.”
Never mind the referendum in Crimea that clearly showed inhabitants’ support for ties with Russia after a Russia-hostile coup took place in Kiev. Never mind that such a situation does not even apply in the smallest degree to any other country in Europe. Never mind that it will only be a few weeks before Donald Trump will take over the reigns from Obama. This all smacks of something sinister happening. Will we see an “incident” occurring just before Trump takes over, that would serve as an excuse for genuine conflict? To potentially force Trump to accept “reality” of a conflict between the U.S. and Russia and thus sabotage his intentions for peaceful relations? Continue Reading
You may kill or be killed for the state.
You may destroy or be destroyed for the state.
You may maim or be maimed for the state.
But you may not choose to take medical marijuana, because the state won’t allow it. And take your children away if you proceed to do so anyway.
The state de facto owns your body.
You are a slave.
Wake up and see reality.
Can there be any doubt now that Donald Trump is a fascist?
Apparently there is doubt at Reason Mag that virtually all current mainstream politicians are fascists at heart. This despite their love for aggressive wars, imperialistic foreign policy, centralized economic policies that especially benefit big corporations and other special interests, a love for more and more surveillance of the population and a militaristic police state, cult-of-personality level president-worship, a desire to disarm the population, an ever-growing state apparatus in general, and other clear indicators. And this goes for virtually all mainstream politicians, because virtually all of them, left and right, support the above.
The only difference between them and Trump is that Trump dares to focus on the group of people that, by and large, spawns most terrorists and therefore national security threats. It is certainly generalistic, and collectivistic of Trump to cast doubt on the whole muslim community for what an extremist minority of them do. But at least he is not avoiding the elephant in the room entirely out of political correctness like the rest of them do. How stupid can you be, or how despicably hypocritical, to generate a continuous stream of muslim terrorists by waging endless wars on the Middle East and bombing people, after decades of propping up and supporting oppressive puppet regimes, and with unwavering, uncritical support for Israel, and then to pretend that there is no threat to be expected from people who adhere to the islamic religion?
This is not bigotry. This is a realistic assessment. What makes politicians despicable is not that they are ‘bigoted’ if they make such assessments, but that it is politicians themselves whom have largely created this problem, and continue to exacerbate it, with their foreign policy past and present.
It is easy to call Donald Trump a “bad person” based on some of the evidence used in the Reason piece. But as usual with Reason Magazine, this is simply a bunch of hypocritical bullshit disguised as a reasonable and ‘factual’ piece from a ‘libertarian point of view.’ It is sin by omission.
Because, from a libertarian point of view, a politician is by very definition a bad person, for the endless stream of lies, dishonesty, moral corruption, law-sanctioned criminality (aka criminal behavior that is law-sanctioned because the behavior is exhibited by government personnel), pro-fascist domestic policies, and other disreputable characteristics. Donald Trump would be no exception to any of this.
What he does seem to be an exception to, is that at least he is honest about all the shitty things he would want to do.
I understand, between the lines, from the likes of Peter Suderman, that politicians are kinder, nicer, more morally acceptable people if only they cover their immoral lard with sprinkles of dishonest sugar dust. Apparently he likes shit sandwiches so long as they look and smell like donuts.
After all, we can call the likes of Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama “civil” in comparison to Trump. But how many people are now DEAD because of the three current or previous presidents? How many civil and especially libertarian rights have they wiped their asses with? How many more did they wish they could violate (the second amendment being one example)? How many bombs have they dropped? How about torture? The Patriot Act? Rendition? Warrantless searches? No knock raids? The war on drugs? Executive decision making on executions without so much as a trial? The list goes on and on eternally of the various policies, agendas and rights violations that presidents – and politicians in general – impose on the people. That’s what they do. That’s why we’re libertarians.
But hey, they’re nice about it, aren’t they? They smile at you. They listen to you as if they care about your opinion. They shake your hands and kiss your babies.
And then they turn around and screw you. Because they’re politicians. Because they’re government. They’re the state. Because they get away with it.
There have been all kinds of soft or hard ways in which governments have always been bigoted to specific sets of people, mostly through laws. Whether it was women, blacks, gays, or simply freedom-loving individuals in general. Leftist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for right-wing people, and Rightist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for left-wing people. Both camps refuse to hide their contempt for libertarians. In the culture war, white heterosexual men are often talked about as one step up from Nazi’s by virtually all the groups that are somehow “oppressed” even today as a black man is president and a woman is one of the two main candidates for the next presidency, and as anyone on college campus who so much as sneezes politically incorrect is pressured and intimidated out of his position.
So is a bigoted politician really anything new? No. But an honest one may be. Trump simply says what he really thinks. He is refusing to don the mask that politicians usually wear to hide their contempt for societal groups, and to hide their fascistic fantasies.
I would never vote for someone like Trump, because a powermad statist is a powermad statist. But call me a fool: i have at least more respect and more admiration for an honest scumbag than for a lying and deceitful scumbag, who pretends he is making love to you when he is really sodomizing you.
Reason magazine is simply showing off its preference for meaningless and deceitful social justice platitudes out of the mouth of people no less evil, as proven by their votes and actions, than Trump.
Because social justice platitudes matter to politically correct, progressive faux-libertarians such as those at Reason.
“It is interesting to remember that terrorism is not bad for everybody. For the Pentagon, Nine-Eleven was a windfall, providing wars and new drones; for NSA, a massive expansion in its powers; for Israel and AIPAC, the destruction of Israel’s arch-enemy, Iraq; for the arms manufacturers, hundreds of billions; for the federal government in general, near-dictatorship and, for jihadists, the involvement of the US in crippling and endless wars. Which is what they wanted. Everybody profited except the American public.” — Fred Reed
Those with political power cause the sentiment that justifies terrorism to those willing to use it. Those with political power are not the ones victimized by terrorism. Those with political power profit politically and economically from terrorist attacks.
Never trust those with political power. War is the health of the state.
Trump responded to McCain’s comment that Trump “brought out the crazies” at a recent conference speech, by hilariously mocking McCain’s status as a “war hero”.
“He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Apparently the supposed libertarian Matt Welch at Reason.org takes umbrage at that statement. When captured and held prisoner in a war, Welch feels resistance makes a “hero”. But is a mass murderer who is rebellious toward prison guards a “hero”? Is a killer who resists arrest a “hero”?
Welch seems to suggest that an inveterate war monger as well as inveterate mocker and insulter of other people (see here, here, here, here and here for examples) deserves decent treatment rather than mockery, and he suggests that the mere act of resistance and being rebellious while held prisoner makes one a hero. I find this laughable. While such actions and behavior can certainly earn one a reputation of being tough, heroic is in another ball park altogether.
In order to be a hero, one’s action must be able to be classified as being morally righteous, or at the very least morally acceptable. But McCain was a soldier in an illegal and immoral war (the war in Vietnam), in a country the United State had no business being in. His actions of killing people were the result of aggression, not defense. You don’t go half way around the world to some third world country to “defend yourself.”
Did McCain fight for his country? In the way that this stupid euphemism is generally used, yes he has. Did he put his life on the line? Yes he did.
But the first applies also to war criminal nationalists who don’t question the morality of the war they participate in, not merely genuine war heroes that genuinely are fighting to defend their countries against aggression. And the second applies also to criminals the moment they choose to engage a line of ‘work’ that may result in a confrontation with the police. So these things mean little when deciding the heroic status of a person.
Does Welch realize that he is basically engaging in a form of nationalism, by calling McCain a ‘hero’? Does he care? Or is he merely spouting the usual Beltway ‘libertarian’ crap that enables him to come across as ‘reasonable’ to the establishment?
Because it begs the question: why would a libertarian even care that some GOP moron insults another GOP moron, about his status as a “hero” in what was an immoral and illegal war.
Matt Welch cares, while real libertarians are simply shrugging their shoulders at the sight of one evil, authoritarian statist insulting another.
There have been many reasons for libertarians not to be too high on Rand Paul. But when even Barack Obama is more peaceful in any foreign policy decision that Rand would like, it really is time to call a spade a spade. I don’t hold out much hope that all libertarians will finally realize he is bad news, but that would say more about those libertarians than about Rand Paul.
Anyway, a nuclear deal has been made with Iran, but Rand Paul doesn’t like it. He prefers treating Iran with animosity. He couldn’t be farther removed from his father’s vision of foreign policy.
The libertarian position on Iran isn’t that difficult:
1: Iran is a sovereign nation and America doesn’t get to rule over its decision making. Anyone that thinks it should prefers to see America as an empire. Rand Paul obviously does so.
2: Even if Iran was developing a nuclear weapon; SO WHAT? How many of those does the U.S. have? The U.S. is also the only nation in the world ever to have used them. Yet Rand Paul thinks the U.S. is the nation to lecture other nations on whether or not they deserve to develop nuclear weapons. The arrogance of this is stunning. It is to be expected of the usual war hawks. Rand Paul is now one of them.
There is no more mistaking it: Rand Paul is an interventionist plain and simple; he is proving that by his stance on Iran as well as other regions like in the Russia/Ukraine conflict or when it comes to Israel and ISIS. Foreign intervention will always be the reason for big budgets, for creating new enemies and for more control domestically.
Personally i take no libertarian seriously that still stands behind Rand Paul, no matter the reputation of the former. The simple fact is that even Obama is now better on this issue than Rand Paul is. In fact, the wretched socialist Bernie Sanders is much, much better on foreign policy than Rand Paul is, and more believable in his opposition to the domestic police state.
For those libertarians who claim that foreign policy, especially war, is the single most important issue for libertarians, their credibility is completely shot when they insist on endorsing Rand over Bernie Sanders. Rand Paul is in no meaningful way the same as his father, politically speaking. Libertarians really need to get over that.
I have no love lost for Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul (as the reader may have noticed), who i find to be unreliable, untrustworthy and even at best merely lukewarm. This shouldn’t detract from the fact that even as inconsequential or even counterproductive as Rand was likely going to be for true libertarians, this wouldn’t deter the more obvious and blatant political fascists from attacking someone that pays tribute to a modicum of freedom even if through lip service.
And so New Jersey meathead Chris Christie bursts into a tirade about Rand Paul’s apparent lack of warmongering neocon intentions.
Gee, i wonder how this corrupt bucket of trash juice felt about Ron Paul when Paul the elder ran for president?
In an article in the newspaper The Independent, Andrej Illarionov claims that sanctions against Russia have only helped Putin rather than hindered him, and that Putin is looking to “reclaim” Finland as part of the Russian empire. In order to stop this from happening, Illarionov believes military action is necessary.
The first bit of delicious nonsense from Illarionov is this:
“The West’s leaders seem, from what they say, entirely to have forgotten that there are some leaders in the world who want to conquer other countries.”
No shit? Really? And here i was thinking that United States foreign policy, with the help of its many lapdogs in Europe and elsewhere, have been showing this belief pretty darn well in just the last 12 years alone.
As a matter of fact, judging by the many invasions and wars, and failed intentions to do more of this in places like Syria, one would wonder exactly which leaders want to conquer which countries. Can you say American nationalistic blindspot by an ‘patriotic’ immigrant? Or should we just call it self-serving neocon hypocrisy?
But hypocrisy is the least of the problems of this senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
No, rather than mere economic sanctions, themselves libertarian in no way at all, Illarionov thinks using tanks, troops and fighter planes is appropriate. And who knows, even nukes:
“We must offer resistance by all means available,” he said. “I’m not a bloodthirsty person, but there is sometimes no other way than military power to stop an opponent. The only answer to pure aggression is demonstrating willingness to offer a collective defence.”
Look, it is easy to once again underline that he is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, which is supposed to be libertarian, but is there really a need to keep underlining what a sham that organization is in its libertarian so-called credentials, after past articles trying to make the libertarian case for the military draft, or the libertarian case for expanding gun background checks?
Yes, yes, these “cases” were opposed by other people working for Cato, but the fact that people coming up with this horrible, anti-libertarian crap were employed by Cato to begin with says a lot.
But anyway, the point is that Cato has employed yet another piece of statist trash that has nothing to do with any kind of libertarian thinking. Let’s analyze the above quote.
First of all, Illarionov says that we must offer resistance by all means available. Now, it is certainly possible that he is being hyperbolic, but would this change the fact that the perception he creates is that truly all options, including nuclear missiles, should be on the table?
Second of all: resistance to what? Illarionov asserts as a paranoid that Putin wants to annex Finland at some point, and feels we should take action on the basis of this assertion. Isn’t it interesting that this claim comes only after Putin’s actions regarding Crimea, of which plenty of things have been said already to show that within the realm of real-politics, his actions were at least partially justified? A new cold war has started over Putin’s actions over Crimea, and Illarionov happily piles on with assertions about Putin’s supposed desire to violently annex Finland.
Third of all, why is Russia an “opponent”? An opponent in what? Global hegemony? Is Ukraine or Crimea the United States’ business? Accepting for argument’s sakes that Putin really would like to annex Finland; is Finland any of the United States’ business? How is any of this the U.S.’s business? So even if Illarionov is correct, what the hell is libertarian about Illarionov’s proposals? Illarionov is arguing from a neoconservative and interventionist viewpoint, plain and simple. From the point of view of American empire; of the U.S. as the world police. Not only is he not a libertarian; he is not a constitutionalist either; he is not even a small government conservative. He loves the state and how it can, and should in his view, throw its military weight around in the world.
It would be different if this non-contribution to the U.S.’s population was an open neocon and not employed by Cato, because then, at least, he could easily be ignored by libertarians everywhere as just another in a long line of garden variety war mongers. But he is employed by Cato; and Cato does pretend to be a libertarian think tank.
And therefore, as libertarians, we have a duty to condemn this man, and the ‘libertarian’ employer that hired this war monger, in no uncertain terms.
How many strikes should libertarians give the Cato Institute?
H/T: Daniel McAdams at the Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity