‘Threat to Democracy’

Reports are all over the MSM that Biden met with a group of historians who warned him that the right is a “threat to democracy.” This so-called panel of historians is nothing more than a collection of Marxists who are intent on getting rid of the US government.

They called the right in general, and specifically Donald Trump, a “threat to Democracy” that must be stopped. Now how do you think a government will handle a group of people whose leaders think that their political rivals are a threat to the very existence of the nation’s government? What exactly do you think is being advocated in these closed door meetings? For that, we have to know who these historian advisors are.

Who are these historians? There is Sean Wilentz, who is a hardcore Marxist. He was one of the witnesses who testified to Congress on Clinton’s behalf during his impeachment trial. He was one of the leaders of the Trump resistance. He said of Trump’s election:  “America, once a beacon to all the world, Reagan’s shining city, will more closely resemble Putin’s Moscow.”

In fact, Princeton University hosted a conference on American socialism in 1984 to celebrate Princeton Alumnus Norman, who was the Socialist Party’s candidate for president no fewer than six times. Wilentz (then 33 years old) was one of the organizers. One of the attendees was Elena Kagan, a student of Milentz who wrote her senior thesis on the Socialist Party in New York City during the Progressive era. Chants Democratic, the first book written by Milentz, features quotes from Karl Marx’s Das Kapital on its second page.

Or perhaps we could take a look at Allida Black. She was an advisor to HRC during her years as SecState who describes herself as “always grateful for HRC.” A hardcore lesbian feminist, she has been solid in the HRC camp, and one of her biggest fans.

There is also Anne Applebaum, who while attending Yale had communist Wolfgang Leonhard as a professor. Applebaum then put the polish on in 1985 by travelling to Leningrad to study as an exchange student. She created Democracy Lab, a website focusing on countries in transition to, or away from, democracy. She was she was one of the first American journalists to push the Russia collusion hoax, and wrote that Russian support for Trump was part of a wider Russian political campaign designed to destabilize the West. She is married to a member of the EU parliament.

This is a panel made up of people who are globalist, one world government advocates, who see themselves as being movers and shakers, as part of the elite group who will lead the world. They will crush anyone who gets in their way.

That is why they are calling you a threat. You are their enemy. They are telling you that they are your enemy. Believe them. A saying during the Vietnam war was “What if they threw a war and no one came?” The new question should be “When they throw a war and only one side shows up, what do you get?”

The answer? Genocide. We know that the US military isn’t fit to fight other countries. You know what it IS good for? One hint:

Free versus controlled

A free market economy is one where the market itself decides what is bought and sold. There is no control whatsoever- the people who comprise the market are the ones who make the decisions. Each seller and each buyer are free to chose, and this means that it is possible for each person to succeed or fail based upon the results of this decision.

By distributing the decisions, the power, and the wealth amongst all of the people in the economy, freedoms are maximized. A pure market economy means however, that people will fail because of poor decisions. The enemies of a free market will point to these failures as examples of the general failures of the market economy itself.

The problem with Socialism and Communism is this: they are centrally planned economies where legislators decide what is bought and sold, as well as who does the buying and selling. At its most extreme, the entire population falls under central control. That is the point of a centrally controlled economy: control.

The problem with a controlled economy is not just about the control and the lack of freedom that results. Those who are in charge of a centrally planned economy inevitably use that power and control to route more power, money, and control to their own personal benefit.

The problem is that people will find ways to circumvent that control, and there will always be some sort of free market present. Even in the old Soviet Union, there was a robust black market. To sell on the black market was to sell “on the left” or “nalyevo.” These black marketeers were by definition criminals under Soviet rule, becoming quite rich in the process. The fall of the Soviet government removed what little constraints were placed upon them, and these black market free marketeers became powerful criminal syndicates. They are the ones who are now raping the computer systems of American companies through ransomware.

Of course the US has become more and more of a controlled economy as time has gone on, and this process has been accelerating ever since the Civil War. Antebellum, the Union was exactly that- a union of states, each of which maintaining its identity. People in the Union would, when asked where they were from, would reply, “I am a Virginian,” or perhaps “I am a Pennsylvanian.” The war changed all of that. Once the war was over, the states lost most of their power and a new, powerful Federal government took its place. People began to say “I am an American.”

The robber barons of the railroad industry demanded that the newly powerful Federal government step in and protect them from States’ attempts to restrain their powers and profits. So in 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission was established, becoming the first Federal agency to control economic activity. The US began taking steps towards central control of the economy. The old saying goes, “When legislation decides what is to be bought and sold, the first thing that is bought and sold are the legislators.”

As interstate and international businesses became more and more wealthy, they became more powerful. (The golden rule of history is that the ones with the gold make the rules.) A never ending stream of government regulations is passed at the behest of the people and businesses that have the money and power, and this is used to rig the game. People don’t control their businesses, the government does.

The irony here is that the game being rigged is then pointed to by Socialists as the reason why the economy needs more regulation, more control, and less of a free market. This is how suckers push for Socialism.

That’s where we are. People are dissatisfied that they are being kept from success. Some because they are lazy and want success handed to them. Others because they see regulation and larger competitors are set against them. So one group pushes for more power to be granted to the very people who caused the problem in the first place, because they have been promised handouts that are impossible to deliver.

The two groups cannot be reconciled. At its heart, our current problems began in the 1860s. Many people falsely believe that the Civil War was about slavery. That is hogwash. Slavery was about the northern businesses, mostly centered around manufacturing and based in large cities, attempting to control the businesses in the south, centered around agriculture and smaller cities.

Less than fifty years after the war ended, the government got all of the power it needed when it was granted the power to tax income.

It’s hard to pinpoint when the nation that was envisioned by the founders died. Perhaps it was in 1860, or even 1865. Perhaps it was in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment that authorized an income tax. Perhaps it was later that year, with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which eliminated the states from having a voice in the National government.

I sometimes wonder where historians of the future will decide to place the death of the union. Maybe they won’t remember it at all, perhaps our nation will just be a footnote or a single paragraph in some history books 250 years from now, and even then only to mention our greatest achievement, landing a man on the moon. I won’t be here to see it, and neither will this nation.

Not a Fig Leaf

According to the New York Times, the American Revolution was “less as a glorious liberty struggle than as a hyper-violent civil war that divided virtually every segment of colonial society against itself, and left many African Americans and Native Americans worse off, and less free.”

Of course it was a violent civil war. Most wars ARE violent. The British Empire was the most powerful military in the world. England had acquired territory all over the world through conquest and they weren’t nice about it. As ugly as you think American history was, British history was even worse.

The indigenous people in the areas colonized by the British were treated little better than cattle. The modus operandi was to capture some of the natives, give them some military training, then place them under the command of British officers and use them to control the remainder of the local population.

The wars that resulted were horrific. The American Revolution was no different. The homes of tax collectors were burned to the ground. Politicians were tarred and feathered. There was much cruelty and a lot of killing on both sides.

The concept that had existed for hundreds of years was that royalty owned the land, along with everything and everyone who lived upon it. Then along came Thomas Paine. Now Paine was not as popular at the time as he should have been, but he made a great impression on the Founding Fathers with his treatise Common Sense, published on February 4, 1776. (pdf warning)

In Common Sense, he declared and proposed that “in America the
law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in
free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no
other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at
the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered
among the people whose right it is.”

Paine himself was greatly influenced by John Locke, who himself rejected the divine right of kings to rule. He believed that all humans when born live in their natural state- free to do as they please. In this “state of nature,” humans are entirely free. But this freedom is not a state of complete license, because it is set within the bounds of the law of nature. It is a state of equality, which is itself a central element of Locke’s account. According to this philosphy, there is no natural hierarchy among humans. Each person is naturally free and equal under the law of nature, subject only to the will of their creator.

Each person, moreover, is required to enforce as well as to obey this law. It is this duty that gives to humans the right to punish offenders. But in such a state of nature, it is obvious that placing the right to punish in each person’s hands may lead to injustice and violence. This can be remedied if humans enter into a contract with each other to recognize by common consent a civil government with the power to enforce the law of nature among the citizens of that state. Although any contract is legitimate as long as it does not infringe upon the law of nature, it often happens that a contract can be enforced only if there is some higher human authority to require compliance with it. It is a primary function of society to set up the framework in which legitimate contracts, freely entered into, may be enforced, a state of affairs much more difficult to guarantee in the state of nature and outside civil society.

As you can see, this idea is the central core that the Declaration of Independence was based upon:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Locke also thought that property was important to the natural state. Each person, according to Locke, has property in his own person—that is, each person literally owns his own body. Other people may not use a person’s body for any purpose without his permission. But one can acquire property beyond one’s own body through labor. By mixing one’s labor with objects in the world, one acquires a right to the fruits of that work. If one’s labor turns a barren field into crops or a pile of wood into a house, then the valuable product of that labor, the crops or the house, becomes one’s property.

For this reason, the communists HATE Locke with a burning passion. Communism says that each person’s labor belongs to everyone. This means that people have no rights to their own body, their labor, and therefore no right to the fruits of that labor. Instead, you and everything you produce are community property. So they are trying to rewrite history to discredit him. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

So you can see that the authors of our founding documents were not in favor of slavery. However, since slavery had been a part of the British past for several hundred years, they also knew that a new nation would never receive support from those whose livelihoods depended on slavery. The new nation would be dead before it even began. Even Foote realized this when he said:

a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more
converts than reason.

As a compromise, slavery would have to remain for the time being.

The fact that the US didn’t have a ideologically pure beginning doesn’t invalidate any of the ideas that it was based upon, nor does it mean that the entire nation should be dismantled, nor is the declaration “a philosophical fig leaf hung over a grubby battle to defend white liberty grounded in slavery and Native dispossession” as the New York Times asserts that it is. (They even warped the quote “a Republic, if you can keep it” quote.

So as we enter the early stages of the collapse and latest version of American civil war, remember the foundations of the First American Civil war and hope that whatever the results, at least one nation that values the natural rights of man survives.

Lynch mobs

Andrew Branca talks about the intimidation of the jury in the Chauvin trial, and he made some points that struck a chord with me. First, let me start with the relevant quote from the esteemed Mr. Branca:

If it cannot be expected that Chauvin can get any fairer a trial elsewhere in Minnesota than he can in the rage-mob surrounded Hennepin County Courthouse, the solution consistent with the “justice” any of us would want for ourselves or anyone we care about is not to compel him to endure an unfair trial where he is.

That is the point- if a person who is accused of a crime cannot receive a fair and impartial trial under the law, then the law has become nothing more than a codified lynch mob, and we can forget about calling our legal system a “justice system” because there will be no justice of any kind to be had.

The whole point of a trial is that the evidence is heard- both for and against- and then a jury decides whether or not the person is guilty of a crime. If we are to decide that a person is to be punished before the trial is even held, thereby making the trial a mere formality, then why bother with the trial at all?

Is that really what people, especially black people, in this country want? Are we to return to the days of lynch mobs? I fear for the times, the trials, and the tribulations to come. We are truly seeing the end of this republic, of very civilization itself, at least on the North American continent.

What comes next will be horrific.


The quote that used to grace the top of this blog was from George Orwell’s 1984. It went like this:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

There are those who are fighting the good fight and are trying to prevent our history from being erased, those who are trying to push back. I hope to be counted among them, even in some small part.