I want to start off by making sure everyone understands that United States Attorney General Bill Barr is a major player for the Republican establishment.
He will do what he can to protect that establishment. This is different from being a classical liberal, which is how he likes to present himself.
That said, at the same time, he is very smart and learned and his observations on modern-day lefty Democrats are spot on.
AG Barr: Democrats are now the "Rousseauian Revolutionary Party that believes in tearing down the system"
"They're not interested in compromise. They're not interested in [a] dialectic exchange of views. They're interested in total victory...It's a substitute for religion." pic.twitter.com/92Gx7GZFBo
During a recent interview with Reason magazine, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen told Zuri Davis, "We need change, and I'm glad [the protests] are getting the attention."
But it is difficult to understand what Jorgensen will accomplish with this stance.
She went on to mouth some libertarian talking points, "But their answer is more government," she says, and "big government is what got us here to begin with."
But Jorgensen's vague statement that big government is not the answer, when not going into details, can certainly mislead many into thinking that libertarianism is in favor of the BLM defund the police demands which happen to be closely tied to their anti-capitalist position.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about official BLM, which is run by Marxists or some grassroots version. The fundamental premise of both is that somehow there is "systemic" racism in the country. Which as far as I can tell is an absurd claim. It is a claim rooted in PostModernism and Critical Theory identity politics that is about as far as you can get from libertarianism. Official or grassroots, BLM is a Marxist front.
A real libertarian position would not be to pretend to be in alignment with the BLM movement. What the hell is that going to accomplish other than indicating that libertarianism is joining the echo chamber designed by the Marxists?
The libertarian position should indicate that BLM is a movement going in a wrong direction. That blacks have been screwed by government because of poor quality education in public schools and that it should be ended. By minimum wage laws which make it impossible for low-skilled urban youth to get that first job. In other words, blacks should not look for government aid and police replaced by "community workers" but rather for the opportunity to advance uninhibited by government.
Government should get out of the way.
This should be the message Jorgensen should deliver when the topic of BLM is brought up. Not only being discussed by her when she is talking on libertarian podcasts.
Jorgensen often says things in a manner, where if you understand libertarianism, you get she is implying end minimum wages, etc. But she is not saying them in a straightforward manner. She is slick about her presentation to blacks that really will really mislead into giving the impression that she does indeed support the wrong-direction BLM movement.
That is, she sounds like a politician trying to capture votes as though she is going to win the presidency rather than using her position as Libertarian Party presidential nominee to introduce the masses to real hardcore libertarianism.
I will be impressed if Jorgensen shows up at a BLM protest with a sign that reads:
BLM Capitalist Hate is Not the Answer, Libertarianism Is The Best Thing That Could Happen to the Black Community
A sign like this would undoubtedly clarify the libertarian position.
Mikhaila Peterson told The Sun her dad caught coronavirus in a Serbian hospital.
"He was put on a whole bunch of, kind of preemptively, he was put on anti-virals and things," Mikhaila Peterson said.
"I don't know if that was necessary, because his symptoms weren't that bad -- he didn't have a cough, he had a mild fever, but they just put him on everything.
Mikhaila also said her father is suffering from pneumonia, the second time this year he has fought the illness.
"And so now we've had a step back in his recovery. Life is just not good, things are not good right now," she said.
What is worse, it turns out one of the antibiotics he was given does not work well with those recovering from Benzodiazepine use.
"He'll get better, but he's definitely taken a step back and it's just really unfortunate... it's been a disaster."
By Adam Dick In a Friday Reason article by Zuri Davis, Davis discusses a conversation she had the day before with Libertarian Party presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen. It was interesting to see Davis recount in the article that Jorgensen expressed approval of mask mandates for government buildings.
Davis writes:
The conversation then shifts to the COVID-19 pandemic.
'We're all adults, and it shouldn't be against the law to be stupid,' Jorgensen says.
Jorgensen notes that with personal freedom comes responsibility. While she doesn't support mask mandates ('unless we're talking about a government building') or even a forced vaccine in the event that one is developed, Jorgensen sees private companies enacting mask policies as a sign that most Americans are taking the pandemic seriously.
Sometime soon you may find yourself approaching a government building, whether to exercise in a city’s recreation center, attend an event at a government-owned venue, attend classes at a government school, obtain official government documents, observe or speak at a meeting of elected or appointed government officials, discuss an important matter with government employees or office holders, participate in a court proceeding, or do whatever else. When you see a sign on the front door saying “Mask Required,” or when a guard tells you to put on a mask or leave, you can think of Jorgensen nodding in approval. The above originally appeared at the Ron Paul Institute.
Hating Humanity Won’t Get You Canceled
By Walter Block
Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” So pronounced David M. Graber in 1989. In case it wasn’t clear he was serious, he added that he was “not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value—to me—than another human body, or a billion of them.”
Who is this guy? Some uneducated drunk mouthing off at a bar? No. He’s a scientist with a doctorate in biology from the University of California, Berkeley (that figures). He was employed as chief scientist of the Pacific West Region for the U.S. National Park Service for more than three decades. He is a published author in refereed journals. The article I’m quoting—a review of Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature”—was published in the Los Angeles Times.
Why was Mr. Graber so eager for masses of human beings to drop dead? Because, he wrote, “human happiness” is “not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line—at about a billion years ago, maybe half that—we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.”
All we have to do to cease being a “cancer” on the planet is turn the clock back half a billion years—roughly 1,000 times the span since Homo sapiens emerged—and Mr. Graber will get off our case. True, that would mean no airplanes, polio vaccines, metals, dentistry, Mozart, air-conditioning, plans to go to Mars. But who needs those things anyway? It is more important that we again become part of nature, as we were, happily, eons ago.
I was initially going to post some thoughts today on how to deal with raving lunatic mask Nazis but that will have to wait.
I just became aware of this superb effort by Peggy Hall, who went before Orange County, California Board of Supervisors in an attempt to get the mask mandate repealed in that county.
Below is what she said before the Board (One minute and 5 seconds)
The mandatory masks order in Orange County was repealed the following day.
Be sure to visit her site. The work she is doing is very important right now.
The radical left continues its aggressive attacks from every direction.
In its latest move, the radical leftist New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced she will attempt to dissolve the National Rifle Association.
In a news release Thursday morning, James alleged that current and former NRA leadership "instituted a culture of self-dealing mismanagement" benefiting themselves, family, friends and favored vendors, leading the organization to lose more than $63 million in three years.
"The NRA's influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets," James said.
At the same time, in Washington, DC, the radical leftist in that district, Attorney General Karl Racine sued the NRA. She alleged the foundation's board allowed the NRA to raid the foundation's reserves in order to address the NRA's cash flow problems, and fund lavish expenses of its leadership.
In a statement to CNN, NRA President Carolyn Meadows called the New York suit a "baseless premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend. It's a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda."
CNN notes the lawsuit "marks an ambitious attempt by James to end one of the nation's most influential interest groups, one that has increasingly played an outsized role in Republican politics."
The NRA has not been a stalwart in terms of protecting gun owners. They leak in the direction of siding with the state. That said, this move by two radical lefty attorney generals against the NRA is shocking and must be objected to by every person who desires freedom and supports free debate.
If NRA members have a concern about how NRA management handles money, that should be a problem handled between members and the executives. Perhaps membership even wants executive leadership changed but it is an outrage for a lefty attorney general to attempt to dissolve the organization.
This smacks of the radical leftist tactic of destroying enemies.
They don't want debate. They don't want to provide others with opportunities for civilized attempts at persuading people.
They want power and are determined to destroy anyone in the way.
They are not going to stop here.
Liberty is fast slipping away in this country and it does not appear enough people care, or have the courage, to turn the tide. They have not studied history. They do not know the tyranny that could come. They will not recognize it until we only have tapeworm available for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
In the end, yes, tapeworm is the only thing statists will deliver when they have full control.
First, they came for the NRA, then they came for the guns. You are a fool if you think this is not the plan.
At the post, Squatting on the Squatter, Mark A. in the comments raises some interesting questions:
This brings to mind some interesting questions about a PPS legal system. Did the original owner abandon the property? If not, what if the squatter legitimately thought the property was abandoned? Further suppose the squatter had been living in the house for some time before the original owner realized it?
I don't think it takes much fact changing before PPS law would side with the squatter as legitimate owner.
It is the recognition of private property and the respect for others to do what they want on their own property. That is all.
This would have nothing to do with a squatter who "legitimately thought the property was abandoned."
The original owner of the property sets the rules on his property and the owner could say, "I will not actively use the property for some time but will return to it." It would remain, under respect for private property ruled by owners, the property of the original owner.
Further, just because the squatter had been living in the house for some time before the original owner realized it does not transfer the property to the squatter. The rules of the original owner hold.
Indeed, even if the original property owner was aware of the squatter but did not relinquish ownership of the property, the owner could remove the squatter at any point in time the owner chooses.
Nowhere in my post did I hint about dying on any hill. Indeed, I said the exact opposite:
Given the level of oppression, it is obvious we can't go into full resistance mode everywhere we go but we should resist to the degree we can unless it gets us into serious trouble.
But if it only causes trouble for them (some agent of the state or self-appointed agent of the state), then go for it.
The idea of resistance, the way I see it, is to advance the decent life and eliminate the obstacles of tyranny.
General Patton understood this even when it came to war:
No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.
Now, I am not talking about shooting anyone, that makes no sense, but it also means there is no reason that we put ourselves in a situation where we die on a hill.
And nowhere did I suggest that other forms of resistance not be practiced. However, I did make clear that those who don't wear masks may come up against random objections (and worse) at any time. This makes mask resistance a perfect dry run on learning how to resist in one-on-one situations:
The mask-wearing edicts are a relatively minor burden for those of us who aren't required to wear masks all day, but we don't know what is coming down the road in terms of future tyranny. It is very important to learn now how to deal with different situations for the future when the stakes might be much higher.
The resistance to masks is a dry run for us.
We are learning who reacts to us and how easy or difficult it is to get what we want.
The freedom of assembly is an important concept if we respect that idea from a libertarian perspective but it is not the kind of concept we can support that is going to bring us into direct contact on a random basis with individuals the way the lack of mask-wearing will. It is far from the same kind of dry run that mask resistance will give us.
And the type of resistance we will be getting for not wearing a mask, the one-on-one confrontations, are just the kind of confrontations we need to study, prepare for and learn how to deal with.
Then there was this:
Thanks. Wenzel sidestepped that private property owners may legit arbitrarily oblige guest masking/not as condition of entry. Overlooked that many libertarians espouse masks. Gave no tools nor attention to challenging _government_ mandates, the only tyranny and relevant issue.
First, I made clear throughout the post that my discussion was referring to state edicts and mini-agents of the state. In the current environment, most private owners who are mandating masks are doing so based on the statist edicts--to be in good with the state or avoid confrontation with the state and in some cases posing as a "good" citizen. Corporations may also mandate masks because of statist liability laws.
It is important, perhaps more important than dealing with the state itself, to learn how to deal with these mini-agents that the government flips. Using the private sector and individuals citizens has always been a key method of oppression by tyrants---force the people to police themselves by fear and threat.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with objecting to a request from a private property owner to be exempt from a mask-wearing request. There is nothing to "sidestep," we are blasting away at the government, if the private owner continues to refuse an objection then we must either comply with the mask-wearing or leave. There is no private property violation.
I repeat again, this is about learning how to deal with oppression if it gets worse. If, say, price controls are imposed some businesses may follow the letter of the government edicts. Others may be willing to take a couple of dollars under the table. There is absolutely nothing wrong to poke and probe at such time to see if there is opportunity existing beyond the price control edicts.
It is the same with masks. We can poke and probe to see where there is private sector flexibility. I frequent a number of private businesses where I keep my mask under my nose. They look the other way. If I didn't test, I would never know that this freedom is granted me. No business in the current environment is going to post a sign saying, "We look the other way if you wear your mask under your nose." How are you going to know if you don't probe?
There are other situations where the businesses are much stricter, I still poke and probe but in the end if I am not able to make a breakthrough, I either resign myself to the situation and wear the mask including over my nose or go somewhere else.
There is nothing anti-libertarian about any of this.
And the point that some libertarians may want to wear masks has nothing to do with the resistance. If they willing want to expose themselves to human gaseous waste, no sound libertarian will object. The resistance is about being forced by the state to inhale human gaseous waste.
As far as my not providing any tools, I did write:
Right now, I am thinking about responses that can work against raving lunatics, difficult employees in stores, etc. I have some thoughts and will try them out and report back.
In fact, I originally planned to write today about how to deal with screaming maniacs. I have some unique ideas but because I am responding to this today that post will be put up tomorrow.
I know for a fact how Oprah looked down on a very decent, let's call him a low-blue collar level black working man and she probably didn't even realize it.
Oprah had regular interactions with this man when she lived in Chicago.
I know this man quite well, and while he did his job to pay the rent, he would be able to talk philosophy way over Oprah's head.
But what was her view of the man who certainly knew his way around Chicago? She treated him as though he was a total clueless dumb ass. She lived in the Water Tower apartment complex in the city at the time and Bloomingdales was in an urban mall directly across the street on Michigan Avenue.
She wanted him to pick something up for him at the store and proceeded to give him extremely detailed directions on how to get to Bloomingdales in the mall THAT WAS ACROSS THE STREET.
He also has a very good sense of humor and played along by asking really stupid questions like "Is that the mall that has the Victoria Secret in it?"
So Oprah just know that when you are making your snap judgments about people, even black people, people are laughing behind you back at your obtuseness.
Maybe you should spend more time working on yourself.
The United States was once thought of as the country with rugged individuals.
You left such individuals alone and they left you alone. The country was filled with such men and women.
They appear to be mostly gone from America now.
Stunningly few think or act for themselves.
Governments in many parts of the land have ordered mask-wearing to "battle" a virus that is about as deadly to the average American under 80 as hay fever.
The mask-wearing order has resulted in near 100% compliance in such areas as California.
It is a sign of cowering submission to the state. With an added bonus of neighbors, and other busybodies, backing up the state orders with rants and rages for the few of us who do not wear masks.
We are the Resistance. There does not appear to be many of us but it is important that, when we can, we signal to the world our defiance of this tyranny. The ember for freedom must not be allowed to die out. Let the state rest uneasy knowing there are at least a few of us and that we will agitate and they don't know when that agitation could blow up into thousands, maybe more.
Given the level of oppression, it is obvious we can't go into full resistance mode everywhere we go but we should resist to the degree we can unless it gets us into serious trouble.
But if it only causes trouble for them (some agent of the state or self-appointed agent of the state), then go for it. I am currently agitating a retail chain where the company, headquartered in Dallas, has admitted that their approach by local employees to me about a mask was "less than optimal" and that the chain will launch new training for all employees. Agitation success! (I am still in the agitation process with this chain so I will reveal more later).
But aside from these agitations which are unlikely to mean a lot given that we are way outnumbered, there is another very important reason to resist and agitate.
The mask-wearing edicts are a relatively minor burden for those of us who aren't required to wear masks all day, but we don't know what is coming down the road in terms of future tyranny. It is very important to learn now how to deal with different situations for the future when the stakes might be much higher.
The resistance to masks is a dry run for us.
We are learning who reacts to us and how easy or difficult it is to get what we want.
For some, it is only a couple of words that back them away, "I have a medical condition."
For others, they will go into a near panic attack if we rebuff their demand to put on a mask and some will just be obnoxiously difficult because they have a tiny bit of power.
I have held for a very long-time the view that in sales there is a response for every objection.
The same should apply to the mask edicts.
At times, I have thought for a very long-time about the right approach to different situations. Usually, something eventually comes to me. (I could tell you stories).
Right now, I am thinking about responses that can work against raving lunatics, difficult employees in stores, etc. I have some thoughts and will try them out and report back.
But these resistance exercises are not so much for the current mask order but what might come next. We will all need to be ready, but few will be.
A couple of observations: As I test and probe what happens in different situations, I have noticed this. While riding in my office elevator, I have occasionally been on with lawyers who are heavily masked. I don't know them personally, but they are dressed like lawyers and get off on floors which house law offices. Anyway, they sometimes do seem agitated that I don't have a mask on, judging by the way they stand, body language and such. But the lawyers never challenge me, I am not sure why exactly, because plenty of others do, but I suspect they know the legal consequences of challenging someone.
This is just an observation. It may never come in handy but then again someday it may come in very handy.
Here's another observation. This Sunday, I had brunch in the North Beach section of San Francisco.
Most of the restaurants are open for outside dining so I didn't come close to wearing a mask.
After the meal, the waiter brought over the check, and I gave him my debit card to pay with. He then came back to me and said that I had to go inside to enter my pin in the machine.
I knew this was going to be fun.
Toward the back of the restaurant was either the owner (or maybe manager), he told me I couldn't come in the restaurant without a mask. I told him I didn't have one.
This confused him for a minute and then he said, "I need your pin for the card. What is your pin?"
My response, "I am not going to give you my pin."
His response: "There is no risk. I can't use the pin without your card."
My response: "You think there is no risk for me from giving out my pin, I don't think there is any risk of me catching COVID from coming into an empty restaurant."
He tried a couple more times, but I had the upper hand. He let me in without the mask to enter the pin.
Lesson learned: It is the age-old law. Always try to position so you get what you want done first and then you can negotiate everything else on your terms.
If you wonder how bad things can get, listen to this excellent Jordan Peterson clip:
Practice resistance, practice dealing with mini-agents of the state as they try to oppress. Some day what you learn could be very valuable for a decent life or even your survival.
CDC director Robert Redfield dropped some bombshell news during a talk he gave two weeks ago. But despite its significance, hardly anyone knows about the sickening bit of data he let slip:
“We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from Covid. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose, that are above excess, than we had as background, than we are seeing deaths from Covid.”
Look, either the statist central planning health rulers are mental midgets or they are evil.
I warned about this possibility months ago back in March:
Suicide Attempts Could Increase By 58,500 Per Month During the Lockdown
Fearmongers are building all kinds of models to predict doom from COVID-19 with barely any facts, so let's build our own model, about the lockdown, using facts.
The current lockdown is certainly a period of enormous stress on many people. I know of one mom and pop business near me that has already closed for good and the owner of a local convenience store tells me his business is down by 80%.
On top of this, we have enormous swaths of individuals on lockdown inside their homes and apartments without having in-person contact with others. This is certainly is not good for those on the stress edge. Tragically, Emily Owen, a 19-year-old, is one of the first to be confirmed dead because of a suicide attempt related to the lockdown.
It could be argued that this period may be more stressful than during the period of the 1929 stock market crash...
This was not hard to figure out but there was no one out there back in March concerned about suicides when I gave this warning.
Now, the idiot (or worse) Redfield says the solution is that masks are key for reopening of schools.
First, as I have stated before, I am highly suspicious of masks being worn for extended periods of time. They obviously result in human gaseous waste being inhaled back into the body, this can't be good. We may not know the ramifications of this for years. Second, youth are the least likely to experience significant problems from catching the virus. It is idiotic to make them wear masks. If a teacher is at high risk, she should stay home. If a teacher with a low risk for a severe consequence from infection is concerned she should quit or wear a mask.
Senator Rand Paul, angered by Dr. Anthony Fauci having lavished praise on New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo for his response to the coronavirus pandemic while studiously ignoring Florida GOP Governor Ron DeSantis’ much more successful response, fired off a tweet targeting Fauci, notes The Daily Wire.
FL and NY have an identical number of per capita coronavirus infections but FL has 5X less per capita deaths. Will Dr. Fauci be praising @GovRonDeSantis’ response to the pandemic? Will he point out that @NYGovCuomo’s response allowed a fivefold greater per capita death rate?
Things are getting crazed across America. I have already reported on some of my mad encounters when not wearing a mask. Now this stuff.
The mask Nazis are everywhere.
Murray Sabrin reports in an email from Fort Lee, NJ:
Florence and I were walking back to our co-op this evening when a woman who had already passed us in a mask in front of the building turned, approached us and made a large coughing sound screaming "wear a mask". We both were not wearing a mask.
We walked into the lobby (wearing our masks as per the Board's mandate) and asked the front door men who she was. We then walked out to where the confrontation took place and saw her again and she started screaming at us...again for not wearing a mask. I let her know in no uncertain terms what I thought of her. We followed her into the lobby and she refused to tell one of the doormen where she was going. The doorman concluded she was visiting a shareholder on the 27th floor. He said he would "take care of it."
I hope the co-op management bans her from the building. Unfortunately, we did not use our Iphone to video the confrontation.
This is the society public officials have created, people berating us for wanting to get fresh air.
