[Prof. Hoppe,] You have written in your new book, Der Wettbewerb der Gauner (“The Competition of Crooks”), that “We don’t need a European super state, which the European Union is seeking to establish … but rather a Europe and world consisting of hundreds or even thousands of tiny Liechtensteins and Singapores.” Such a trend is not apparent at the moment, rather the opposite. Do things first have to get even worse – politically and economically – , before they get better again?
Unfortunately, I’m afraid so. Before that we’ll probably have to experience national bankruptcy spreading through Portugal, Spain, Italy and ultimately on to Germany. Only then, I fear, will it become clear to everyone what many people already suspect now: that the EU is nothing but a gigantic machinery of income and wealth redistribution, from Germany and the Netherlands to Greece, Spain, Portugal, and so on. But that’s not all. It will also become clear that the same insanity, the same mess, exists even within each individual country: redistribution from Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg to Bremen and Berlin, from Little Town A to Little Village B, from one company or industry to another, from Smith to Jones and so on – and always following the same perverse pattern: redistribution from the more productive countries, regions, places, companies and individuals to those that are less productive or not productive at all. Bankruptcy will bring all of this to light in a dramatic fashion.
And perhaps then, finally, will come the realization that democracy – in whose name all these dirty tricks have been done – is nothing more than an especially insidious form of communism, and that the politicians who have wrought this immoral and economic madness and who have thereby enriched themselves personally (never, of course, being liable for the damages they have caused!), are nothing more than a despicable bunch of communist crooks.
More than a decade after George W Bush launched it, the “war on terror” was supposed to be winding down. US military occupation of Iraq has ended and Nato is looking for a way out of Afghanistan, even as the carnage continues. But another war – the undeclared drone war that has already killed thousands – is now being relentlessly escalated.
From Pakistan to Somalia, CIA-controlled pilotless aircraft rain down Hellfire missiles on an ever-expanding hit list of terrorist suspects – they have already killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians in the process.
Julian Assange has lost his extradition appeal, meaning he’s closer than ever to being sent to Sweden to face trumped up charges of sexual assault. He’s not giving up, however. See this video discussion of his legal strategy:
Also, this week marks the end of the second year Bradley Manning has spent in military prison. Kevin Zeese discusses Manning’s struggle for a fair trial here:
That’s what Lew Rockwell calls Ted Cruz, the Ron and Rand Paul-endorsed candidate for Senate in Texas, after he refuses to endorse Ron Paul for president. Watch Cruz’s nauseating political babble:
Cruz says two things in this response. First, he claims he’ll fight for liberty no matter what. Second, he says he’ll support whatever nominee Republican voters choose.
In other words, even though he claims that he won’t be another “go-along-get-along politician,” he’s too cowardly to support Ron Paul and he’s perfectly willing to support the war mongering fascist Mitt Romney if a bunch of Republicans tell him to.
But this shouldn’t be surprising. As Tom Woods pointed out to Rand Paul (see 12:37 in this video) as a guest host on the Peter Schiff Show, Ted Cruz initially endorsed that paragon of libertarianism, Rick Perry. See for yourself:
So when it comes to endorsing a Bush clone, Cruz is enthusiastic and unequivocal. But when it comes to endorsing a true and principled defender of liberty, Cruz is going to let a majority vote determine who he should support. Even if that candidate should happen to be the architect of Obamacare, a thorough-going Keynesian, and a fierce advocate of war with Iran.
the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are.” He said, “Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”
Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job – in fact, he had asked for it – but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so – if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start – was there any sense in starting it? “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it” …
He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favour, and answerable only to his august Boss.
Imagine the firestorm that would have erupted if Tucker said anything about Greene’s race.
Anyways, Tucker and Megyn Kelly are right. Warren obviously represented herself as Cherokee to advance her career; it worked; and she’s lying about it now.
The left views society through the lens of cultural Marxism. Privileged white men, in this view, oppress women and minorities to maintain their privilege. It’s the modern version of the old Marxist view that privileged capitalists oppress workers to maintain bourgeois privilege.
Cultural Marxists are constantly on the look out for events that confirm their preexisting worldview. Unfortunately for them, their worldview is delusional, and events that are consistent with it are few and far between. They tend to latch on to certain cases, therefore, before it’s clear what actually happened. That’s how the Trayvon Martin case–where a Hispanic man shot a black man–became a symbol of white racism in America. And it’s also how these ten cases and hundredsof others like them, in McInnes’ words, “fuck it up for those of us living in the real world.”
The website Watching America publishes English translations of foreign language editorials about the United States. You’ll find, unsurprisingly, that writers around the world interpret global events much differently than American writers. My first translation for the site, an article on anti-Americanism in Europe by University of Vienna Professor Margit Reiter, has just been posted. She writes, in part, that
Following the motto, “he who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind,” American policies of recent decades were above all held responsible for the attacks. That is to say, all of America’s political transgressions were listed — not just American policy in the Middle East, which one could legitimately discuss in this context, but also each and every sin the United States has ever committed, past and present. Behind this interpretation was the conviction that the Americans were “ultimately to blame” for the attacks. The roles of victim and perpetrator were, in this way, reversed. With the impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, these criticisms of America gained strength. The image of the U.S. in all of Europe massively deteriorated (which was reflected in all opinion polls). George W. Bush was branded “public enemy number one,” and he took his place among the most unpopular U.S. presidents in history from the Austrian perspective (alongside Wilson, Roosevelt and Reagan).
