Note: The author, Hugh Turley, is one of the 3 leading experts on the Vince Foster murder. We became friends while I was hosting a talk show on DC's WWRC. Since the earliest news reports, Hugh, "confidential informant" Patrick Knowlton and attorney John H. Clarke, have diligently followed and exposed every aspect of the murder, including the failures, harassment and duplicity of Park Police, FBI, coroners, forensic "experts", Senators, Congressmen, reporters and the news media. While sordid and convoluted, their combined diligence resulted in revelations and vindications. However, with insufficient media exposure and a surplus of public apathy, this heinous crime, the perpetrators and a united government-media cover-up hiding in plane sight, remains a criminal obfuscation of the truth to this day.
Brian Wilson
"The cover-up of the murder of a White House official is a crime against society and the American people. The cover-up of the murder of Vince Foster should concern both Democrats and Republicans...
The proof of the cover-up is found in Ken Starr’s report on the death of Vince Foster. The U.S. Court of Appeals that appointed Starr ordered him to include evidence of the cover-up, over his objection, in his own report, as an appendix. It is stated in the appendix to the report, “the FBI concealed the true facts surrounding Mr. Foster’s death” and “the FBI obstructed justice in this matter.”
The news of this historic appendix to the Independent Counsel’s report has been suppressed by the news media since 1997 when it was made public. It is available at university libraries and online atFBIcover-up.com."
Article here.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Thought for the Day: Power
Power does not self-generate. It is the toxic amalgam of a strain of deleterious human failings. Government itself is the manifestation of immoral force administered by liars, thieves and sociopaths. At best, it is the pavement of good intentions. If power doesn't corrupt, why has their never been an uncorrupted government? Since Government is merely a magnet for the socially reprehensible and criminally insane, sane people should be rejecting nonsense like "elections" and working instead to dispel any form of "government" - for their own safety and welfare.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
The Cult of Ignorance
We have fallen into the bad and unquestioned habit of thinking that our educational system is broken, but it is working on all cylinders. What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like "critical thinking," "diversity," "ways of knowing," "social justice," and "cultural competence."
A most excellent piece. Read it here.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Conundrum:
Free people are not equal.
Equal people are not free.
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one,
you'll probably never need one again.
you'll probably never need one again.
The definition of the word Conundrum is: Something that is puzzling or confusing.
Here are six conundrums of socialism:
In the United States of America:
1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.
These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Funny how that works. And here's another one worth considering...
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?
What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
Think about it.....
And Last but not least:
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
Am I the only one missing something?
Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
h/t Waddy Moffetts
Monday, April 18, 2016
How it happened...
I was not born an anarchist. Like everyone else of my time and place I was born into a culture pervaded by statism and unquestioning acceptance of the state’s existence and of most if not all of its activities, including, of course, its blessed wars. I did not become an anarchist later because of an encounter, whether personal or literary, in which I suddenly saw the light. I had no Pauline road-to-Damascus experience. Instead, anarchism crept up on me, almost against my will, because I understood full-well that adopting such an ideology would entail my colleague’s, friends’, and relatives’ consignment of me to the lunatic fringe. Besides, as a well-trained social scientist, I was familiar with a variety of objections and challenges to anarchism having to do with both its desirability and its feasibility.
Eventually, however, little by little I seamlessly made the transition to anarchism as my adopted ideology, completing my journey perhaps fifteen or twenty years ago. This outcome occurred not because I had found leading expositions of the doctrine compelling. I had read Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” and David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom," but neither persuaded me to make the leap. Nor did any of the other works along similar lines that I read. I understood, of course, that states perform many actions that they ought not to perform and that they perform actions that might be desirable very badly – after all, economic history and political economy were my research and teaching specialties. But, for me, concluding that states ought not to exist at all required a more compelling reason.
What finally pushed me over the brink had little to do with pondering the glories that had sprung or someday might spring from the operation of a stateless social order. I was not so much drawn to statelessness as I was revolted by the state. After decades of dealing with, researching, writing about, and consulting in regard to the state, learning more and more about what states actually do and how they actually do it, I was completely disgusted by the putrid pretense of their foundational justifications, by the sheer fraudulence of what they purport to be doing and how they purport to be doing it, by the moral impudence with which state leaders and functionaries treat the human beings subject to their control as if those persons were nothing but soft clay figurines to be squeezed into new shapes and pushed here and there on the state’s chess board. Most of all, I was repelled by the psychotic, steely-eyed indifference with which state leaders and functionaries slaughter innocent people abroad by the millions and ruin the lives of their own subjects by the scores of millions for no decent reason whatsoever (e.g., the war on drugs).
Yes, I came to understand why state activities so generally fail to achieve their ostensible objectives but, more important, I also came to understand that the ostensible objectives are generally mere window dressing for the actual objectives the state leaders and their chief supporters and running dogs seek, which boil down in nearly all cases to transferring enormous amounts of income and wealth to persons the state favors and to bullying nearly everyone outside the state’s inner sanctum for the simple pleasure of pushing them around. Having repeatedly opened up the cesspool that is the state and witnessed its stinking contents, I no longer wanted anything to do with it, and my allegiance to it evaporated once and for all.
None of this matters in the least so far as the state’s devotion to taxing and bullying me is concerned. But I take some solace in the fact that however subject my body and my bank account may be to the dictates of the evil creatures who preside over the vile institutions that form the state, my soul no longer belongs to them. I wish they would resign, make all feasible restitution to those they have wronged, and seek honest employment, but until they do so, they can, so far as I care, go straight to hell.
h-t Robt Higgs
Eventually, however, little by little I seamlessly made the transition to anarchism as my adopted ideology, completing my journey perhaps fifteen or twenty years ago. This outcome occurred not because I had found leading expositions of the doctrine compelling. I had read Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” and David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom," but neither persuaded me to make the leap. Nor did any of the other works along similar lines that I read. I understood, of course, that states perform many actions that they ought not to perform and that they perform actions that might be desirable very badly – after all, economic history and political economy were my research and teaching specialties. But, for me, concluding that states ought not to exist at all required a more compelling reason.
What finally pushed me over the brink had little to do with pondering the glories that had sprung or someday might spring from the operation of a stateless social order. I was not so much drawn to statelessness as I was revolted by the state. After decades of dealing with, researching, writing about, and consulting in regard to the state, learning more and more about what states actually do and how they actually do it, I was completely disgusted by the putrid pretense of their foundational justifications, by the sheer fraudulence of what they purport to be doing and how they purport to be doing it, by the moral impudence with which state leaders and functionaries treat the human beings subject to their control as if those persons were nothing but soft clay figurines to be squeezed into new shapes and pushed here and there on the state’s chess board. Most of all, I was repelled by the psychotic, steely-eyed indifference with which state leaders and functionaries slaughter innocent people abroad by the millions and ruin the lives of their own subjects by the scores of millions for no decent reason whatsoever (e.g., the war on drugs).
Yes, I came to understand why state activities so generally fail to achieve their ostensible objectives but, more important, I also came to understand that the ostensible objectives are generally mere window dressing for the actual objectives the state leaders and their chief supporters and running dogs seek, which boil down in nearly all cases to transferring enormous amounts of income and wealth to persons the state favors and to bullying nearly everyone outside the state’s inner sanctum for the simple pleasure of pushing them around. Having repeatedly opened up the cesspool that is the state and witnessed its stinking contents, I no longer wanted anything to do with it, and my allegiance to it evaporated once and for all.
None of this matters in the least so far as the state’s devotion to taxing and bullying me is concerned. But I take some solace in the fact that however subject my body and my bank account may be to the dictates of the evil creatures who preside over the vile institutions that form the state, my soul no longer belongs to them. I wish they would resign, make all feasible restitution to those they have wronged, and seek honest employment, but until they do so, they can, so far as I care, go straight to hell.
h-t Robt Higgs
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Anarchism - Another perspective
When using the word “anarchism,” I don’t mean it as a blueprint for some utopia. I mean it as an ideal, or a standard of human relations that can guide us in trying to make a better world. This standard is simply that *voluntary* human relations are the opposite of power relations, and that communities are best organized by voluntary relations. That is, relations among equals, and not between rulers and subjects.
The word ‘anarchy’ itself comes from the Greek word “anarkhos”, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘ rulers.’ To the extent that a community replaces power relations with voluntary ones, it moves closer to the ideal.
If human nature is violent and destructive, then anarchism is a fantasy at best, and violence and chaos at worst. But if human nature is ingenious and cooperative, then anarchy is the *ONLY* way that humanity can thrive, and the way we *DID* thrive for a quarter of a million years. In fact, if we define ‘liberty’ as the absence of domination, then we see that ‘liberty’ is just another word for anarchism.
How would an anarchist world work? Don’t ask me. *THAT* is for the individuals of the world to decide. The idea that some people can tell others how to live is the opposite of anarchism.
For 6,000 years, more and more of the world’s population has lived under domination. Even under this burden, communities *everywhere* have adapted brilliantly, and made as fit a way of life as possible for themselves. If this adaptive brilliance were freed from domination, people would create ways of living that work better than anything we’ve seen for ages! ‘Anarchism’ simply means that they should be free to do so.
If all of this seems impossible, we must ask: “Why?” No one has ever tried to abolish domination, so this judgement cannot be based on historical experience. In fact, the *feeling* that domination is inevitable comes from domestication. Any animal trainer knows that the animal must understand who is in charge and that there’s *no* alternative. We’ve lived under human domestication for hundreds of generations now, so naturally we’re brought up knowing who is in charge and that there’s no alternative. But that is *PRECISELY* domestication: to accept our *captivity* and learn to live under the yoke!
The first and most important step is to believe that we *CAN* be free, and that we have *EVERY* right to throw off the yoke! The feeling that we are powerless, or that our nature is something other than ingenious and cooperative is domination’s most powerful tool against us!
- Chris Chew/FB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)