“Arrival,” Market Anarchy, and the Kardashev Scale

So, apparently the Oscars were held last night.

I don’t really pay attention to what happens in Hollywood, but I like films (who doesn’t). I particularly enjoyed the murky tone and feeling of Arrival, which won an Oscar in the category of “Best Sound Editing.”

–There are no spoilers in this article–

The film employs an overarching plot device in order to tell a very intimate story of loss, personal conflict, and discovery. In this respect, it is very similar in construction to other recent films like Interstellar [2014] and Moon [2009].

Of course the overarching plot in Arrival is first contact with extraterrestrials, who arrive on Earth in 12 separate, but identical spacecraft. Even though the film itself is about first contact with aliens, the  movie’s overall message has nothing to do with aliens, and instead grapples with questions of determinism and the Sapir-Worf Hypothesis.

However, I wanted to use Arrival to discuss my theory that mankind’s use of government is merely an evolutionary stage in our development as a species–one that we either will, or must outgrow in order to continue our existence.

While the alien species does seem to be organized in some general way, it is not apparent in the film whether if that organization is governmental. There is nothing in the film to suggest that it is. I would argue that interstellar travel would effectively be impossible unless human civilization can shed itself from the yoke of government. Continue reading ““Arrival,” Market Anarchy, and the Kardashev Scale”

Homeschooling is counter to “progressive values”

So leftists are freaking out about the confirmation of Betsy DeVos, even though it is they who gave us the Department of Education under Jimmy Carter. Now they say they’re going to homeschool, and not pay their taxes, and secede, all as ways to rebel against Beltway rule over their lives. Isn’t that rich?

They’re making faux intellectual pronouncements about the evils of the current administration on constitutional grounds. Remember, these are the same people who say the Founders are just a bunch of “dead rich white guys” and that the U.S. Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” And yet, we’re supposed to believe they’re all of a sudden originalists who care two wits about history and federalism. Puh-leez.

They’re melting down about executive overreach, even though it is they who have fostered and celebrated it for the last 8 years. Hell, they’ve been cheering it on under every Democrat administration since Woodrow Wilson. It’s a goliath of their own making. I mean, centralization is a key tenet of their ideology. So who they really should be angry with is the face they see in the mirror.

The left’s new-found “resistance” not only highlights their misplaced outrage, but it also illustrates their cognitive dissonance. This is why their call to the highly decentralized homeschool movement is so curious to me. My claim is bold: that leftists, generally speaking, are unable to homeschool successfully because they lack the philosophical tools necessary to pull it off. I’m not saying they’re stupid; rather, their beliefs are just too divergent.

Sure, there are liberal folks who can succeed at homeschooling, but the difference is that they’re already doing it. They’re not jumping on a trendy bandwagon as reactionary zealots.

I firmly believe the overwhelming majority of current homeschooling families all share a basic principle. From the urban mom who wants to break away from large classroom sizes or standardized testing; to the libertarian who sees public schools as agents of the government and, thus, impediments to learning; to the Christian who seeks a religious-centered education model, these homeschoolers all want to be left alone.

Whether liberal or conservative, “one article of faith unites all homeschoolers: that homeschooling should be unregulated,” explains political scientist Rob Reich in The Civic Perils of Homeschooling. “Homeschoolers of all stripes believe that they alone should decide how their children are educated.” Gasp.

Homeschooling is about autonomy, self-determination, and nonconformity. It’s individualized and unique, different from family to family, even child to child. It’s not one-size-fits-all, so the less interference, the better. But if you subscribe to a belief system that says government is daddy, these are all foreign concepts to you.

Homeschoolers want to raise their kids how they see fit, to teach their students what they want and when they want, and to not be meddled with by bureaucratic busybodies and education “professionals” who often do not have their children’s best interests at heart. Homeschoolers believe parents are the primary teachers in a child’s life, and that families can and should be passing on their worldview to their kids.

“Oh, just let the ‘experts’ handle it,” counter the self-important educrats. “After all, y’all are too stupid to know what’s best for yourselves, much less the children.”

“In a country increasingly separated by cultural chasms,”  writes Dana Goldstein in Slate, ” … should we really encourage children to trust only their parents or those hand-selected by them, and to mistrust civic life and public institutions?” She adds that “teaching children at home violates progressive values.” I concur.

Homeschooling is personal secession to the statist system. But because leftists have been worshipping at the altar of the Prussian education model and defending this dying institution so passionately for so long, the independence of homeschooling would be an utterly alien concept to them.

Moreover, homeschooling is about nurturing authentic civil discourse, not the indoctrination and regurgitation of cultural Marxism. It’s about diving into diversity of view points, not racial, gender, and LGBT “diversity” edicts pushed by the social-justice authorities.

The very civic duty of which Goldstein speaks is supposed to be steeped in inquiry, challenging the status quo, holding government accountable, resisting public overreach, and protecting the private sphere. So, how can citizens be expected to accomplish this heavy task if their lacking in history, logic, and debate skills, or are kept in the dark about opposing beliefs or subject matter that may “trigger” them?

Homeschooling bucks the whole idea that kids are a grand social-engineering experiment and public schools are the utopian petri dish. This is why homeschooling is at its essence shocking to statist sensibilities, which are more in line with group rights and the “greater good.” Homeschooling is unapologetically personalized and equips kids to be innovators and leaders, if they so choose, not cogs in a wheel or part of the mob.

Homeschooling is not egalitarian. It doesn’t push some illusory notion of “equality.” Homeschooling is about free association and meritocracy, not governmentally mandated integration, identity politics, and anti-competition quotas. When you come from an ideology in which nearly six-in-10 people are of the opinion that socialism has a “positive impact on society,” how can leftists expect that homeschooling will work for them?

Furthermore, homeschooling is about education, not schooling. Most folks have trouble breaking away from the brick-and-mortar model when they first start at it. Eventually, though, the shackles of old habits are broken because parents soon discover the freedom and fulfillment that is innate in home education.

It’s about choice and customization. Classical. Montessori. Charlotte Mason. Waldorf. Multiple Intelligences. Unschool. Or an eclectic mix of some or all of these methods. But when you’re a statist who’s used to imposing your will on others through governmental force and cultural coercion, freedom is not your strong suit.

Homeschooling is also a venue for life-long learning and redeeming your own miseducation as a parent. But that means you must be open-minded and willing to learn about topics with which you disagree or may deny even exist. Again, not a strength of the progressives.

Unfortunately, if leftists don’t heed my warnings, they’ll surely ruin homeschooling either by default or by design. In predictable fashion, they’ll clamor for increased regulation, centralized control, and governmental subsidization, and sue Christian co-ops for their religious “intolerance” and other homeschool communities for their lacking “diversity” stats. After all, “co-opt and destroy” is typically their modus operandi.

But my hope is that this is just another example of hysterical hype from the left. Similar to them not keeping their promise of moving to Canada after Trump won the election, these social-justice statists simply won’t make good on their impassioned proclamations. All emotion and no principle: now there’s a progressive value you can count on.

Source: Dissident Mama

Identity Politics, Marxism, and the Individual

After writing Friday’s critique of a local community roundtable, I’ve had a few days to further develop my thoughts on the ideas presented by the panel.

For the purposes of this article, I’ve keyed into the Marxist rhetoric veiled behind the organizers’ assertions of white supremacy in law enforcement. “Cultural Marxism” is a severely loaded term that has been used to describe the sentiment that I discuss below. I will not use it describe the ideas presented here. I use “Marxism” to describe the panel’s tendency to define their issues with an “Us vs. Them” mentality.

An objective evaluation of the panel’s topic: “Police and Community Trust,” boils down to perspective. Advocates of liberty and decentralization would see society as consisting of billions of individuals interacting and adapting to their own personal circumstances.

In contrast, Marxists see society through the lens of class struggle and conflict. To a Marxist, an individual’s identity is formed based on which class they belong to. Classes are defined based on their relationship to the means of production.

The panel’s Marxist evaluation of police relations is just a proverbial brick in the looming wall of identity politics, which, in of itself, is a troubling development that has overtaken the American political landscape.

In a recent articleLiberty Weekly touched on the role that democracy has played in establishing political polarity in the United States.

While our country is officially a constitutional democratic republic, many of the republican safeguards built into the constitution have gradually been eroded over the years. (Think 17th Amendment, universal suffrage, etc.)

One of the biggest developments in the establishment of identity politics is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which, through Supreme Court jurisprudence, subsequently applied the majority of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Bill of Rights was only ever meant to apply to the “General”–or Federal Government.

Over the last 150 years, 14th Amendment jurisprudence has universally imposed policy over all 50 States. By mandating that every citizen in every state must conform to one policy, the Equal Protections Clause has effectively politicized every aspect of American life.

In order to justify this centralized policy, the Left crucifies decentralization and states’ rights as a tool of white supremacy. Far more frequently, however, the states have used their power to fight against racist policies enacted by the Federal Government (think fugitive slave acts). In fact, president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis denounced northern states’ use of nullification (the main tool of state action against the Federal Government) in his farewell address to congress.

Moreover, with more centralized power, the Federal Government has the ability to do more harm than the states ever could. Once that Legislation is in place, it is more difficult to change at the federal level than at the state.

Identity politics and Marxism are antithetical to personal liberty. Viewing people merely as members of their class, and not as individuals crushes preexisting natural rights and individual liberty and is often used as a tool to argue for asinine ideas such as reparations.

It is heartbreaking that 150 years after the end of the American Civil War, the United States is still recovering from the evils of slavery. While Friday’s panelists would attribute this struggle to institutional white supremacy, I would assert that the divisiveness of their tactics do not further the interests of love, peace, and understanding.

In contrast to Friday’s panel, I would assert that the evils in our society are not caused by institutional white supremacy as much as they are promulgated by the immoral, monopolized use of force.

That is not to say that Friday’s panelists do not have legitimate criticisms to make. Yet, we know that liberty and the free market bring people together more than separating them by class.

Folks of Color definitely deserve the same liberty as the rest of us, but we all need much, much, more of it!

Thank you very much for stopping by Liberty Weekly this Sunday. I look forward to a great (but busy) week ahead!

Source: Liberty Weekly

SJW Roundtable: My Experience with Community Organizers in the Twin Cities

This afternoon, I was obligated to attend a town hall event about police-community relations in the Twin Cities metro area.

You can imagine the type of crowd in attendance.

The first group of panelists was made up of local prosecutors who urged an adversarial audience that they were doing all they could to hold officers accountable for immoral and criminal conduct including but not limited to: officer brutality, untruthful police reports, and racial profiling.

Needless to say, this round of panelists was not very well received, but for all intents and purposes seemed like honest men who are combating an overburdened, corrupt system. That was my impression at least, reality may be different.

The keynote speaker, Michael W. Quinn, was a Minneapolis Police Sergeant and is currently CEO of The International Ethics and Leadership Training Bureau LLC.  Quinn’s book Walking with the Devil: The Police Code of Silence was featured on Cop Block in a 2014 feature. I’ve linked Cop Block’s review below.


Mr. Quinn had a lot to say about his unique approach to training officers, mainly by focusing on protecting people’s rights as opposed to making arrests. He also trains police officers to mutually assure ethical behavior by implementing an acountabilibuddy system making an officer’s partner acountabilibuddyable for unethical conduct.If you are interested in reading raw, real stories from the beat, grab a copy through my amazon affiliate link here:

The final panel was made up of local community leaders, a public defender, a civil rights attorney, and a criminal justice professor. The panel was titled: “Police and Community Trust.” The panel’s affinity for the ideas presented by Black Lives Matter and the NAACP quickly filled the room, which was very receptive to their rhetoric.

In Contra Krugman fashion, I will leave my critiques of what was said until I’ve summed up their arguments objectively.

First on the docket was the idea that trust between law enforcement and minority communities implies some kind of level footing. In the minds of the panelists, this level footing required law enforcement to wholly admit that police activity is an institutional instrument of white supremacy that must be eradicated and followed by reparations of some sort in order to bring about equality.

Ideally, most of the panelists desired to abolish the police and seek alternative methods of keeping communities safe. Their ideas to this point were to create “safe spaces” to which individuals in need could go to be safe from both their attackers and the police. Other, less radical ideas from the panel were to require police officers to purchase their own liability insurance, or to require police officers to actually live in the neighborhoods that they serve.

Moreover, the panel was pervaded by this sense of frustration and a desire for revolution. They likened themselves to an occupied populace in wartime. They drew quite a few references to slavery (surprise), and asserted that slavery was still going on–mainly perpetrated by police.

One of the panelists expressed that he is “beyond ‘let’s figure it out’” and that “the economics aren’t equal.” Most strikingly, it was declared that “we’re at war” and that “President #45 is committing state terrorism against people of color.” (They refuse to say Trump’s name).

Now, while minorities have plenty to complain about (mostly problems caused by government), this astounding conglomeration of half-baked Marxist propaganda is laughably childish. Obviously, our society is beyond thoughtful dialogue. I couldn’t imagine trying to bring alternative ideas to their attention, especially after the above statements were made.

To begin with, how would reparations work? Who would get the money, and where would it come from? Would the reparations even be money? How could you justify the morality of stealing wealth from an innocent and vaguely defined group of people who personally had nothing to do with events of the distant, or more recent past? Would it even work? What do people do with unearned helicopter money? Most of the people who are morally culpable for this issues are dead now.

Secondly, they completely failed to mention the war on drugs, and the role it played in bringing about mass incarceration and the complete, cyclical destruction of inner-city communities.

At one point the minimum wage was mentioned, but predictably, they wanted it raised. As Milton Friedman said the minimum wage is the most racist law on the books. He describes this cycle of poverty below.

(While Mr. Friedman is flawed on some topics, he is astute on several matters including occupational licensure and the minimum wage)


At some point in their psychogenic Marxist fugue, the panelists actually touched on some compelling ideas. Chief among them: abolishing the police!

However, their alternatives were pathetic, unimaginative and would probably result in street justice akin to localized purge-style anarchy that normal people are afraid of. Of course, as Ancaps, we know that private security agencies are the solution that they are looking for.

For instance, private, for-profit security agencies like the Detroit Threat Management Center have had amazing results keeping neighborhoods safe in Detroit’s most dangerous areas where traditional police won’t go. In 20 years of operation, the agency has had ZERO court dates, ZERO officers killed, and ZERO clients injured or killed.

HOW have these panelists never heard of these guys!? More importantly, how have YOU never heard of these guys?

Tom Woods did a great episode on these charitable, profit-based heroes. You’d better check them out.


Well, that concludes my review of this afternoon’s panel. Believe it or not, this kind of rhetoric is fostered and pervaded by law schools across the country.

God help us all.

Thanks for reading Liberty Weekly! I hope you all have a great weekend. Don’t be afraid to tell me what you think in the comments below.

Source: Liberty Weekly

Episode 40 – The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar – Murray N. Rothbard – Audiobook – Part 1 of 2

itunes pic
Now that we have finished the 3-part audiobook version of Murray Rothbard’s “What Has Government Done To Our Money?”, we move on to the companion piece “The Case For A 100 Percent Gold Dollar”. Presented in two parts, this book take the history of money’s origins that you just learned and applies the lessons to advocate for a free-market money that will likely, organically rest on a foundation of gold and silver.

The former “Read Rothbard Podcast” where we talk about movies from an anarcho-capitalist perspective will be re-launched as “the Actual Anarchy Podcast”.

Look for more audiobook versions of a Murray Rothbard books and articles posting on Fridays each week.

The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar
by Murray N. Rothbard
Part 1 of 2

Rothbard not only argues for the gold standard; he shows how it can be restored in a practical, step-by-step plan. No other system will stop the seemingly endless monetary inflation of the Federal Reserve system. He also makes his strongest case against fractional reserve banking. This essay was written in 1962 and this edition includes Rothbard’s sweeping introduction from 1991, in which he argues that the true gold standard is more viable than ever.

Narrated by Jeff Riggenbach.

Sourced from: https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money-2

To purchase from Amazon: http://amzn.to/2iK0yau

Presented by:

Read Rothbard is comprised of a small group of voluntaryists who are fans of Murray N. Rothbard. We curate content on the www.ReadRothbard.com site including books, lectures, articles, speeches, and we make a weekly podcast based on his free-market approach to economics. Our focus is on education and how advancement in technology improves the living standards of the average person.

The Read Rothbard Podcast is all about Maximum Freedom. We look at movies and current events from a Rothbardian Anarchist perspective. If it’s voluntary, we’re cool with it. If it’s not, then it violated the Non-Aggression Principle and Property Rights – the core tenants of Libertarian Theory – and hence – human freedom.

Website: http://www.ReadRothbard.com
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-read-rothbard-podcast/id1166745868
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/m/Ii45fhytlsiwkw6cbgzbxi6ahmi?t=The_Read_Rothbard_Podcast
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/readrothbardclub
Twitter: https://twitter.com/read_rothbard
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/145447582@N05/xB4583
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ReadRothbard

Murray Rothbard, Murray N Rothbard, Read Rothbard, Anarchy, Anarchism, Free-Market, Anarcho-Capitalism, News and Events, Podcast, Laissez-Faire, Voluntaryist, Voluntaryism, Non-Aggression Principle, NAP, Libertarian, Libertarianism, Economics, Austrian Economics,
Source: The Read Rothbard Podcast

Thoughtcrime Thursdays: “I am Colossus”–Meshuggah and Leviathan Government

Welcome to the first installment of Thoughtcrime Thursdays on Liberty Weekly! Intended as a reflection on the miasma of current political affairs, the focus of this weekly column is to plunge headlong into the depths of fictional dystopia.

The column’s title, Thoughtcrime Thursdays is a direct reference to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four, a seminal novel in the literary sub genre of dystopian fiction.  Together, we shall celebrate thoughtcrime (or crimethink) by exploring works of the imagination that are meant as a critique of real-world affairs.

Today, we will be exploring the cavernous depths of Meshuggah’s “I am Colossus,” the first track off of their 2012 masterpiece Koloss. 

Aided by the sheer brutality of their sound, Meshuggah are able to immerse the listener into the cold depths of the shadow government in a way that no other genre could allow. With this track, the band subjects its victims to a terrifying aural barrage that is doubly effective against those unfamiliar with its genre’s abrasive nature.

The song’s title “I am Colossus” seeks to personify government as an ancient horror, akin to an Elder God of Lovecraftian ilk. With this theme in mind, the opening stanza evokes a shudder:

I’m the great Leviathan, insatiable colossus
Titanic engulfer of lives, I reward you, absorb you
I’m the monstrous mouth that hungers for your awe
Immense construction of lies. I own you, disown you

Right away we see the Leviathan government as an insatiable, titanic maw, built upon lies told to the people.  These analogies draw remarkable similarities with Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State, where the State is revealed as a very old, predatory system of violence and coercion.

From Anatomy of the State, we know that the State “hungers for the awe” of its citizens. Rothbard writes: “. . . the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.”

I am life. I’m death. You empower me
I’m a mammoth king evoked, conjured by your dreams
Summoned by your fears. You need me, you feed me
I’m the imposing giant. Infallible dictator
My rules apply to all. You’ll heed me, bleed for me
I am life. I’m death. I decide your fate
You empower me. You’d even kill for me

The second section of the song hammers home the inescapably of government. Government is a “mammoth king” created from the dreams of men to ward off his fears–an “imposing giant” whose “rules apply to all.” It is a constant that is always there from beginning to end. Over the history of civilization, billions of people have killed or been killed by their governments–a term coined by R. J. Rummel as “democide.”

Guzzling down your dreams – the tears of unheard pleas I drink,
Imbibe with such delight the fear that floods your temporal shell
Raging red rivers and streams – the kingdom of my shadow
Where dread of man in endless night revives my every cell
To those who doubt – your wounds will never heal
To those who question my creation – I’m not real

Randolph Bourne famously wrote: “War is the Health of the State.” For those who live under the yoke of oppressive regimes, the misery is palpable–for tyrannical government, its a lifeblood which greases the cogs of the machine. This stanza suggests the State’s role in that process.

As to the last two lines of this stanza, the State punishes dissidents, but to those who don’t believe the State should exist, we know it is imaginary.

I am pain. I am grief. I’m the things you fear
I’m the lie whispered into your ear
I’m the great Leviathan. I’m dominance and greed
You imagined me, so I was conceived
I am life. I’m death. You belong to me
Call me what I am. I am colossus

The final stanza of the song contains its most chilling imagery, specifically, that of the narrator whispering lies into the ear of the listener. As we all know, the government lies all the time. The “great Leviathan,” is of course built on lies, power, and greed.

An important point can be made through the song’s conclusion. It is that, if government is created by us, we can have power over it by realizing it for what it is. Although the lyrics may not expressly hint at this interpretation, I would assert that the first step in becoming free is to see the walls of your cage.

With that, the song concludes.

I would stand by my interpretation of the song, however “I am Colossus” may very well just be about some Lovecraftian monster, as my wife tells me. Who knows?!

If you are brave enough, I’ve linked the official music video below. For best viewing pleasure, crank up the volume and watch in the dark!



Thank you for joining Liberty Weekly for the maiden voyage of Thoughtcrime Thursdays, which will return next week with a book review of Russian dystopian novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

*The lyrics for this article were gathered from www.darklyrics.com*

Source: Liberty Weekly

The resentment of the feminist artist

The National Museum of Women in the Arts recently finished an exhibit entitled “No Man’s Land”. As the blog Goodbye, America puts it:

Female artists all seem to focus their works on the female body. For a slice of the female demographic that hates objectification, they sure have a weird way of expressing their resentment.

Personally, I’m disappointed both in the extent of resentment in contemporary feminist art, and the fact that the museum held the exhibit in the first place.

I visited the museum when it first opened. Its first exhibit was “Picturing Mary: Woman, Mother, Idea”. It was a beautiful discussion of how Mary was portrayed throughout history. Here’s a detail from “Virgin and Child” by Elisabetta Sirani (1663).

I remember being in the museum’s gift shop buying something from the exhibit. The female cashier clearly gave me the impression that she did not want to deal with me.

Something tells me that the most recent exhibit reflects more accurately her worldview than the first one.




The post The resentment of the feminist artist appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool

The Madness of Sanity

What is the point of trying to remain sane when the world has gone mad?

The madness of post-9/11 America was bad enough before the 2016 election. However, ever since the American electorate decided not to coronate Hillary Clinton as its first queen, the left has spun itself into levels of delusion the likes of which the most imaginative cynic could not have contemplated.

To stay sane in times like these not only feel like a neverending battle, but a losing one as well. To provide some context on where I’m coming from, I would like to highlight a couple of examples.

Seeing peace where there is none

To begin, let’s look at one aspect of the shocked reaction among so many on the left to Trump’s comments about violence occurring in Sweden.

This is what Trump said at a recent rally:

”We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible,”

In response, CNN created a video in which it claims that “there were no reported terror attacks in Sweden on Friday”. But Trump didn’t say anything about terror attacks. Trump then tweeted where he received the information:


In response to Trump’s remarks, the left went nuts, but none more than former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt:


A New York Times article provided Bildt an opportunity to expand on his reaction to Trump’s remarks:

“We are used to seeing the president of the U.S. as one of the most well-informed persons in the world, also well aware of the importance of what he says,” Carl Bildt, a former prime minister of Sweden, said by email on Monday. “And then, suddenly, we see him engaging in misinformation and slander against a truly friendly country, obviously relying on sources of a quality that at best could be described as dubious.”

I honestly don’t know what makes Bidlt look more clueless: calling Trump’s remarks misinformed while riots continued to occur in Sweden, or his characterizing previous American presidents as well-informed. After all, it was in his country where Barack Obama, who became the first president in American history to have been at war during his entire time in office, and whose foreign policies contributed to the very refugee problem Sweden is currently struggling with, received the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to statistics analyzed by the Sydsvenskan newspaper, Malmo has a “murder index” of 3.4 when homicides for one hundred thousand inhabitants are taken into account, a “a very high figure” according to the report.

This compares to bigger but less dangerous cities in western Europe like Paris (1.8), London (1.3), Copenhagen (1.1) and Berlin (1.0).

Having recorded 11 murders in 2016, Malmo is easily the most dangerous city in the entire Nordic region.

Mass riots, torching of vehicles and sexual assaults have become routine in Malmo and other cities since Sweden opened its doors to mass immigration. The influx of new migrants as a result of the refugee crisis has only made the situation worse.

The situation in Sweden is so dire that even some Somali immigrants are considering returning home, saying that areas of some Swedish cities are more dangerous than their notorious homeland.

Malmo is the perfect example of what happens when mass immigration is allowed to swamp a city. Malmo is now known as “Sweden’s Chicago”.

43% of the population are from a foreign background, with the largest contingent of immigrants coming from Iraq.

When political leaders speak as if none of these horrible things have happened, is it any wonder that the nightmares continue?

I’m still with her

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller found a website that posts articles as if Hillary Clinton actually won the election:

Liberals seeking refuge from reality now have a fake news website where they can pretend to live in a world where Hillary Clinton is president.

“Approval ratings for President Clinton hit 89 percent,” “Confused by fake news, Redditers think Trump is president” and “DOJ considers charging Trump with treason” are just a few headlines featured on HillaryBeatTrump.org, a satirical news site devoted to covering stories from an alternate universe where Hillary won last November’s election.

The site describes its purpose thusly:

In the midst of a Constitutional crisis, this is our response.

Long live the true president,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

While this site can be rightfully mocked, there are some others who have responded far differently:






How does one interact with people who would rather live in their fantasy world, rather than deal with the world as it is?

What do we do?

When the world feels like it has gone this mad for this long, it would be easy, and frankly understandable, to give up hope that some form of sanity can ever be recovered. I confess that over the past few years, there have been several times where I found it extremely difficult to be optimistic about the future. As Professor CJ of the Dangerous History podcast puts it, we seem to be entering into a new Dark Age.

However, I’ve come to the realization that it is dangerous to your soul to live without hope. Without hope, why is there any reason for living? But that thought leads to a natural question: how do we live with hope while dealing with the madness surrounding us?

Simply put, we need to make sure that Truth is the most important thing in our lives. If we interact with others the same way we ourselves want to be treated, honestly and respectfully, that will reinforce those virtues in the little worlds in which we live.

A critical element of the Truth is to recognize that what we see is not everything that exists. To paraphrase Hamlet, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in anyone’s philosophy. Everything, both natural and supernatural, came from something, or rather, someone, and that someone is God.

Furthermore, to know that only God exists, but His Son came so that we may be with Him throughout eternity, can only lead his followers to act with strength and courage. After all, Jesus was cruelly beaten and killed on a cross, the most gruesome torture instrument the Romans could conceive of. And yet he rose from the dead. If death can not keep him down, what can? And if people follow his lead, what is there for them to be afraid of?

Regardless of whatever happens in this nutty world, Truth shall always exist. It will not change. It will not be conquered by some mere creature. It will always be there.

If we always remember this, we might, just might, get out of this world alive.

And sane.


The post The Madness of Sanity appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool

“A New Hope” for the Political Left?

In continuing with this week’s earlier Star Wars theme, there may be a little “new hope” for those on the Left. (See what I did there?)

Although the Left’s general consensus remains the same (“we lost the election, we’d better not lose again“), their talk of #Calexit, Vermont secession,  and “sanctuary cities,”  embraces some of the ideas expressed by Lew Rockwell in a Feb. 21, 2017 article:

“How about we call it quits? No more federal fiefdoms, no more forcing 320 million people into a single mold, no more dictating to everyone from the central state.”

In the last week, I’ve had several conversations with friends on the Left who have been very receptive to federalist arguments. Specifically, they are attracted to the thought that, if given the power, several states would be free to institute the big-government reforms that they want.

Although this isn’t the ideal Rothbardian/Ron Paul conversion that we are looking for, it is a little silver lining in the looming dark cloud of national (global) democratized politics.

Some of my friends have even realized that, with more power, it would be easier for liberties to be destroyed at the federal level rather than the states. This is huge (and may or may not be attributable to just how much the Left distrusts Trump).

Many minds in Liberty Weekly’s corner of the movement have been less than optimistic about our chances of getting through to the Left. In the above linked article, Lew Rockwell is clearly exasperated with the Left (aren’t we all?). Tom Woods has also recently lamented the Left in several episodes. Surely, if the Left was still in power, they would continue to embrace it.

In general, the feeling of watching the Left grapple with decentralization is akin to watching a lame younger sibling discover your favorite bands.

From a libertarian outlook, secession and federalism have an immediate role to play going forward, but we must recognize how democracy (mob rule) has brought us to this point in history.

Our Founding Fathers had a deep-set distrust of democratic rule and the “tyranny of the majority.” This lack of faith was baked (imperfectly), into the foundation of the Constitution. Examples of these republican safeguards are/were: the electoral college and the indirect election of senators (pre-17th Amendment).

Hans Herman Hoppe takes this mistrust of democracy further with his fundamental work, Democracy, the God that Failed. The thrust of his argument being: democracy equates to public ownership of the government. As libertarians, we know that public ownership doesn’t work because of the socialist calculation problem asserted by Mises.

Democracy has had a powerful hand in shaping the intense political polarity that exists in this country. As a result of centralized politics and democratization, almost every single aspect of American life has been politicized. Americans cannot work, travel, eat, die(!), or even go to the bathroom without being confronted by political issues.

Jeff Deist has articulated this point here, here, and here, much better than  I can. For your reading pleasure, here are some of his quotes on the subject:

“The case against democracy is being made right in front of our eyes.”

“Democracy was always a bad idea, one that encourages mindless majoritarianism, political pandering , theft, redistribution, war, and an entitlement mentality among supposedly noble voters.”

I’ll cap today’s article by further quoting Jeff Deist:

“The future of liberty is decentralized, and will be led by smaller breakaway nations and regions where real self-determination and real consensus is not an illusion. Jefferson and Hoppe were right about democracy, but it took Trump and Brexit to show the world how quickly elites abandon it when they don’t prevail.”

Lefties probably won’t ever agree with us, but with decentralization, they won’t have to.

Thank you for reading Liberty Weekly for today! Don’t be afraid to let yourself be heard in the comments.


Source: Liberty Weekly

Tinfoil Hats, Doomsday Prepping, and The Financial Collapse

Over the summer, I attended Freedom Fest in Las Vegas with Students for Liberty. The event itself was soaked in mainstream-LP rhetoric, but not necessarily well attended by those sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism.

Before one of the events, we were talking about Peter Schiff and the Austrian school (my buddies were from the neoclassical and Chicago schools). Their main critique of the Austrians was that “the Austrian school has predicted 7 of the last 3 financial crises.”

Obviously, those in the liberty movement have spoken of the “great collapse” that is supposed to bring an end to the era of central banking and fiat currency. This is something that Ron Paul has said repeatedly, along with names like Peter Schiff, James Rickards, David Stockman, and pretty much everyone associated with the Mises Institute.

All of this rhetoric can scare a person, and might be completely unbelievable if the predictions of collapse weren’t in fact the logical  conclusion of Austrian theory.

While I recognize that, according to Austrian theory, the collapse is inevitable, it is a hard thing to believe. Do I believe the collapse will happen? Yes. Do I warn people in my personal life? Depends. Would I bet my life on the collapse? I don’t know.  Who can predict the future?

Just short of selling all my assets and investing in cypto-currencies, commodities, and emerging markets, what steps am I willing to take to prepare (or even profit from) the collapse?

If the Austrian alarmists are correct about the collapse, James Rickards explains in his book The Road to Ruin, how the United States and global governments will lock down the financial system and replace the world’s reserve currencies with the SDR (Special Drawing Rights). This is to be followed by an Orwellian nightmare of global governance.

So, what do we do in the meantime? If you aren’t willing to hedge fund your entire investment portfolio (it is always smart to keep at least some wealth in commodities), maybe prepping is a legitimate hobby to take up? It certainly is less risky.

*Queue the tinfoil hat memes*

Yes, yes, we all know that some people on National Geographic’s Doomsday Preppers are some real nutjobs. But reality TV shows tend to cast some rather unique individuals. The truth is that a lot of normal people prep.

For instance, most members of the LDS Church prep as a part of their faith. In fact, a few years ago the LDS Church began advising members to pay off their debts and to create contingency preps for themselves and those in their communities.

And yes, Mormons are mostly normal people.

If India’s recent attempt to eradicate paper money is any hint of what we may see in the future, ATMs will be locked down, and Rickards predicts that the government will seize people’s assets. Hopefully demonetization will  be a boon to crypto-currencies or, better yet, the re-establishment of the gold standard.

Every prep should begin with some firearms and ammunition, but beyond the usual food, water, survival and tactical gear, it might be wise to keep some physical gold or fiat government monopoly money–which might only be worth anything in the initial shock. But hey, if worse  comes to worst, you could always use it as kindling or toilet paper.

So, with that all being said, what do you think of prepping? Is it only for tinfoil hat people, or is there some legitimacy in it? Let me know in the comments!

Thanks for stopping by to read Liberty Weekly for today, and I hope to see you back tomorrow.


Source: Liberty Weekly