Tag: politics

The Narrative is Shifting: Foreign Policy Course Corrections Ahead

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/regenerative-farming-just-went-mainstream-heres-why-it-matters

Whether you are a “farmer” growing food or not is not important. The underlying message in this article is that significant changes which become known do not usually happen overnight but occur as a result of hard work over a long period of time by dedicated individuals. The author explains the process quite well.

This can be favorably related to Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) recent bill introduced into the House to require the US to withdraw from NATO. A companion bill, S2152, by Mike Lee (R-UT) can also be seen in this light. Slow, gradual progress is the order of the day, eventually producing enough weight and momentum to push the idea forward to success.

A society, large or small, rarely changes direction dramatically and sharply as a discontinuous event. Instead, like a supertanker or aircraft carrier, the change of course begins with the unseen turning of a rudder, overlooked by nearly everyone until the new direction becomes obvious.

The very fact that these two bills, along with the recent release of the National Security Strategy (NSS) by the White House detailing foreign policy changes show that there is some significant movement underway which most people will not see nor recognize until it bursts onto the scene, perhaps in a cataclysmic manner, akin to a dam bursting and the subsequent release of a large amount of water resulting in the destruction of everything downstream caught in its path.

The system we have lived with and under for decades is giving way and a new one is about to be implemented. It is important to keep in mind that neither of these above-referenced bills are guaranteed passage, however, both add to the weight and pressure building on the existing structure which is trying to maintain the status quo.

Do not discount the significance of Massie’s bill.

The Concept of Justice in an Unjust World

Roger Mitchell7 Comments

I subscribe to Doug Casey’s communique and regularly receive articles which I always read intently, sometimes more than once, and from which I usually learn something, even if nothing more than to buttress and bolster my own viewpoint. The most recent one did just that, commenting on the system in American society which we call “justice”, and proposing a logical, well-reasoned solution to the problem. I have reprinted it here in verbatim and added nothing. If you want to see the original, click on the link below. For the record, I am in complete agreement with Casey’s argument.

Doug Casey on the Failures of the Justice System and a Viable Solution

justic1e.jpg

International Man: What is the role of a justice system in a society, and what should the State have to do with it?

Doug Casey: In my view, what really holds a society together isn’t the laws enacted by legislatures or dictators, but peer pressure, social opprobrium, and moral approbation. In general, society is pretty self-regulating. It’s why people pay their bills at restaurants even though there’s not a cop at the door. Criminals are the exception, not the rule—although, it must be said, they naturally gravitate towards the government.

When somebody commits a crime, there’s a trial to determine what harm has been done, who should be compensated, and so forth. Courts determine these things. But I would argue that the state is not a necessary part of any of this. Society, like markets, tends to be self-ordering.

With a minimal “night watchman” sort of state like that described by Ayn Rand, the proper role of government is simply to defend you from force and fraud. This implies an army to defend you from force external to your society, a police force to defend you from force within your society, and a court system to allow the adjudication of disputes without resorting to force.

I could live in a society like that—it would be a vast improvement over what we have now. A proper court system, with either arbitrators or judges and juries system, would be part of it. But I’d go on to argue that juries and courts should be privatized.

International Man: What would a privatized justice system look like? Would it have juries?

Doug Casey: There might be either arbitrators, or juries, or both. The jury should be composed of independent thinkers who aren’t easily swayed by rhetoric or pressured by groupthink. Today, however, they’re just random people who aren’t clever enough to avoid jury duty.

In theory, juries can counter the tremendous power of judges. Judges today are either elected or appointed. If elected, they have to campaign like any other politician and are subject to the same perverse incentives any other politician is. If they are appointed, it can be even worse. Appointees are often just collecting political favors. While they’re allegedly more independent, in many ways, they’re even less accountable.

In theory, a jury is a good counterbalance to the power of the judge. You need some way to weigh the facts and decide who’s in the right. But the way juries work in the US today is far from optimal. It used to be that a jury could easily overturn any law. The process was called jury nullification, and it was an effective way for the common people to keep legislators under control. Today, however, it’s really a dead letter.

Today’s juries amount to a form of involuntary servitude. You get your notice for jury duty, and you either have to serve, whether you want to or not or come up with excuses the state will deign to accept. Most productive people feel that they have more urgent priorities in their lives than helping decide court cases that can go on for months. So the type of people who end up serving on juries these days generally have nothing better to do or for whom the trivial fee they pay is good money. Hardly the kind of person who should decide weighty matters, perhaps even life and death.

In addition, many trials center on highly technical concepts, and forms of evidence, that people rounded up from the highways and byways are simply unqualified to interpret.

Worse, there’s the jury selection process called voir dire. The notion is to give the attorneys of both sides the opportunity to remove a few individuals from the jury who might be biased against their case, thus ensuring a more unbiased jury. But in practice, it’s an interrogation process by which lawyers try to ensure they get a jury that will believe whatever they tell them. This usually means that anyone exhibiting the least bit of independent thinking or is prone to value justice over law enforcement will get removed and never serve on a jury.

The result is that the quality of juries today is several standard deviations below what it should be. Any intelligent person has opinions, and in this day of the Internet, almost any person’s opinions are easy to find out. No matter which way your opinions line up, one side or the other isn’t going to like them in any case, so you won’t make it past voir dire. Both the prosecution and defense like to see malleable jurors with easily influenced minds. As a result, the typical juror has no opinions other than those on the weather, sports, and American Idol. People who think in concepts are weeded out as troublemakers.

This process makes a shambles of the concept of a “jury of your peers.”The type of people they rope into jury duty wouldn’t likely be the peers of anyone now reading this. If I were facing a trial, I’d much rather be tried by twelve people randomly selected out of a phone book than by the type of people who get selected for jury duty.

If we’re to have juries, they ought to be truly juries of our peers—people who can understand you and the facts pertaining to your case. But we’re far from an ideal system. It’s worse than arbitrary; given that most of those employed by the justice system work for the state, and that it’s the state vs. an individual in so many cases, there’s a huge inherent bias on top of the whole problem with today’s stacked juries.

International Man: What is an ideal justice system in your perspective?

Doug Casey: It would be a more equitable system if judges and jurors were professionals who had to compete with each other on the basis of their proven records of intelligence, fairness, speed, and low cost. The victim and the accused would mutually agree on the judge and jury or arbitrators.

Separating justice and state would help eliminate the state’s ability to prosecute phony, made-up crimes, especially crimes with no victims. There needs to be an actual victim to press charges if the state can’t be party to a case. That alone would eliminate the wasted resources and trashed lives resulting from the US’s various wars against victimless crimes. No one could be criminally prosecuted for having unorthodox sexual preferences, using unpopular drugs, drinking on Sunday, or smoking in a private establishment. Or for evading taxes. It might surprise Americans to know that tax evasion is a civil, not a criminal, matter in most countries.

Most legal actions focus on matters of tort and breach of contract. It’s important to keep the laws simple and few, so ignorance of the law is impossible. Ideally, just two great laws:

1. Do all that you say you’re going to do.

2. Don’t aggress against other people or their property.

The point is that justice has to do with righting actual wrongs that have been done to people, not enforcing laws and exacting arbitrary punishments. Today justice means enforcing the will of politicians and bureaucrats. A proper system of justice would focus on making the victim whole, not arbitrarily punishing the aggressor.

With privatized justice, someone would accuse another, both sides would choose an arbitrator (professional or otherwise), and those two arbitrators would agree on a third to make sure there were no tied votes. They would look at all the facts—not just the arbitrary subset of facts allowed by legal precedent and state machinations. That decision would not be about punishing anyone but about making the harmed party whole again.

The key concepts are justice and restitution, not punishment. Punishment, if you actually think about it, rarely serves any useful purpose; it just gives vent to base and reactive emotions. It may set a “good example” to deter future miscreants, but it definitely sets a bad example for society as a whole by institutionalizing and justifying cruelty.

International Man: Is there any hope for the current justice system?

Doug Casey: The whole system is highly politicized, which is only natural for something run by the state. Unfortunately, as the country increasingly looks to government as a solution—your only choice being to choose between so-called “right” and “left” politics. That’s going to make the current legal system even more dysfunctional in every way I can think of.

International Man: What are the implications of this for investors and businesses?

Doug Casey: I see people being convicted under ridiculous applications of the securities laws, tax laws, and more. The only area where things are becoming more rational and freer is the area of drug laws. It’s becoming clear to even the dimmest legislators and jurists that they’re as stupid and destructive as were those against alcohol during Prohibition.

In fact, almost all the administrative laws of the myriad of three- and four-letter agencies—ATF, FTC, EPA, SEC, FDA, etc., etc.—create bogus and even nonsensical “crimes.” Even if you aren’t convicted, if you’re targeted, it can cost you hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in legal fees, plus time, lost business, and damaged reputation. The system has become rapacious and Kafkaesque. And as the state grabs more and more power with each passing crisis, the risk of attention from state operatives increases, even for innocent and honest­ people. The trend is accelerating in a negative direction. If history is any guide, things will get worse until we reach a genuine crisis. That’s bad news for anyone with any wealth, especially if they have unpopular political views.

That has very serious implications. Not just for people in business and investors, but society itself. This is one reason I’m so bearish on the prospects of the current world order; not only are there decades-long distortions in the economy that have to be liquidated, but the whole legal system is rotten to the core. It needs to be scrapped—someone needs to push the reset button and restore justice as its guiding principle—and that, too, is a distortion that can’t be corrected easily or painlessly.

Unfortunately, it seems as if it’s the very worst people who have their fingers on “The Great Reset” button.

The Smell of Blood Money

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Whoohoo! Happy days are here again.

Europe To Spend $100BN It Doesn’t Have, To Buy Weapons America Doesn’t Have, To Arm Soldiers Ukraine Now Lacks

This is the headline of an article on ZeroHedge which attempts to explain what happened in Washington yesterday between Donald Trump and the seven dwarves of Europe1 in their discussion of the situation in Ukraine.

Here’s what Trump had to say after the meeting.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I had a very good meeting with distinguished guests, President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of Ukraine, President Emmanuel Macron,
of France, President Alexander Stubb, of Finland, Prime Minister
Giorgia Meloni, of Italy, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, of the United
Kingdom, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Friedrich Merz, President of the European Commission, Ursula
von der Leyen, and Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, in
the White House, which ended in a further meeting in the Oval
Office. During the meeting we discussed Security Guarantees for
Ukraine, which Guarantees would be provided by the various
European Countries, with a coordination with the United States
of America. Everyone is very happy about the possibility of
PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I
called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a
meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin
and President Zelenskyy. After that meeting takes place, we will
have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself.
Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been
going on for almost four years. Vice President JD Vance,
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve
Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine. Thank you for
your attention to this matter!

Yes, he should be happy and quite proud of himself because, just a few minutes later he said this in response to a question from a reporter.

“We’re not giving anything. We’re selling weapons,”

Spoken like a true hero and peacemaker, a very compassionate, loving way to make the stakeholders of the military-industrial complex (MIC) extremely happy. And richer than ever. Yes, the sale of weapons is really what counts in this matter. BLM! Bottom Lines Matter! The war in Ukraine can eventually be brought to an end–someday–AFTER we have milked this cash cow for as much as we can get out of it. Did it ever cross his mind that while he’s raking in the dough along with his cronies (partners-in-crime) that average, everyday people in Ukraine are being mercilessly slaughtered?

The fact of the matter is that Donald (Colonel Bombast) Trump could end the war in Ukraine in one day, just as he promised he would while on the campaign trail. All he would have to do is to declare that the US would no longer write any more checks to Ukraine, it would no longer allow US weapons to be transferred to Ukraine (whether they were given or paid for), it would no longer use its intelligence “services” to coordinate and work with Ukraine, it would immediately drop the sanctions imposed on Russia, and demand that the EU follow in lockstep with his directive.

Boom! End of war. But he won’t do that. We all heard that, right? “We’re not giving anything. We’re selling weapons.”

Ain’t it grand?

  1. Starmer (UK), Macron (France), Merz (Germany), Meloni (Italy), Stubb (Finland), Rutte (NATO), and the smallest of them all, Ukraine’s own, Vlad Zelenskiy, plus the fairy godmother, Ursula von der Leyen, the head honcho of the European Commission, who can’t resist the temptation to keep the war going at any cost. ↩︎

Can Moral Obligations be Mandated by Law?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

I’m going to give Donald Trump a little respite and breather in this post and address something more philosophical and germane to human nature.

I hardly ever watch Fox News and if by some chance I do, it is for never more than a moment or two before I quit, usually out of disgust by whatever clap the commentator is waxing eloquent about. Self-determined and proclaimed moralism is not just a religion of the Left, the so-called conservative Right is also shot through with it.

Nevertheless, a few days ago, I sat down with my wife and watched a segment of news, Laura Ingraham’s interview with Holly (last name unknown), as she was recovering from a severe beating she had endured at the hands of an out-of-control mob in Cincinnati, Ohio. The resultant bruises from the blows she had received were still quite visible, although it appeared that she was well on the road to physical healing.

Holly exuded an air of calmness and patience, and I did not notice any display of anger or rage on her part, which might have been justifiable considering everything she had been through. In fact, she openly expressed an interest, not in revenge and punishment, but reconciliation and understanding to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to another person. This is an admirable stance. I respect her for it and I said something to that effect to my wife when the segment was over.

“I like her. She is already famous and this will benefit her immensely. The black mob and the Cincinnati officials have not done themselves any good, but Holly will become an important, highly sought-after person, perhaps running for political office or accepting an offer to become a TV news personality of her own.”

Or something like that. As I said, it was a few days ago and my memory is not what it used to be.

There was, however, something that Holly said which I disagree with and it has to do with the moral responsibility of the onlookers, many of whom were actively taking videos, but did not call 911 or the legal authorities to intervene to bring the melee to an end. In essence, she said that this practice ought to be illegal and these people punished according to law. Philosophically, I think she is wrong and, on this, I am going to invoke Walter Block, he of “Defending the Undefendable” fame (infamy?) While it is certain that the inactions of the many people who watched Holly take a “beatdown” were reprehensible and morally despicable, they should not be considered criminal and punishable.

“Every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime.”

I have my own differences of opinion with Walter Block, among them his favorable treatment of abortion on demand and his shrill, unwavering support of the nation of Israel, despite the undeniable fact that the ones who suffer the most (unborn babies, already born babies in Gaza) are destroyed outright by people who are more powerful than they are. In these, I find his position on libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) inconsistent and untenable, and I have written numerous times about his position on abortion. See here and here for examples.1 Still, I find his arguments about people who are repugnant and despicable to be compelling and I cannot, to be consistent with my own philosophy, find any good reason to overturn it, at least, legally. There are moral arguments to be made here, but they ought to be presented to those who are the “active sinners” and not against Block, et alia, who only defend their right to live in such a way.

As it relates to Holly and the mob, numerous questions arise.

  1. Did certain people refuse or neglect to call 911?
  2. Was this refusal/inaction morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and/or selfish?
  3. Should people be punished because they are morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and selfish?
  4. If so, what charges should be brought against them? What should be the prescribed punishment? Would these be based on principles of reason and truth or pure emotion, public will, and political pandering?
  5. Could prosecution under the law ever be considered as running afoul of a person’s religious beliefs, i.e., that everything is pre-ordained and to interfere is going against God’s will, therefore, personally detrimental? Does civil “responsibility” ever trump spiritual submission to one’s higher power? If so, what would it look like and where are the limits, if any?
  6. Etc., etc., etc…..ad infinitum.

More importantly, this argument falls into the philosophical arena known as “positive” law, which basically seeks to make people good by virtue of legislation. I am strongly opposed to the notion as I understand that only God can make people good and that only through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and the life-altering influence of the Holy Spirit. Confession of sin, repentance, and change for the better cannot be legislated nor made mandatory, ordered, and enforced, it must be voluntary and freely sought. The first sentence in the description of positive law in Wikipedia (yes, I am citing Wikipedia) describes it quite well and flows with my own version.

“Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

In our relevant case, Holly would like to see a government mandated ordinance which obliges and specifies an action, such action being that people who see someone being beaten would be compelled by law to make an attempt to correct the situation in some way. Whether this means getting physically involved as Holly did or simply dialing 911 and alerting the officials while maintaining a safe distance really does not matter. The important thing to remember is that action MUST be taken under threat of punishment, i.e., “You will DO good, dammit, whether you want to or not. It is The Law. Doing nothing is not allowed. After all, your brother’s (sister’s) life, health, and well-being are at stake.”2

With all due respect to Holly and the millions of like-minded people around the world, whether to become involved or not is a moral issue, one to be decided solely within the conscience of an individual who knows what is right and what is wrong. It is not, ought not be, a legal issue with sanctions imposed for lack of activity in the event of a traumatic event. To attempt to make it a legal matter would only open up a subjectively interpreted can of worms and do nothing at all to change human behavior.3 “Love your neighbor as you love yourself…” is the operative phrase here which carries the thought of personal self-sacrifice on behalf of your neighbor, even at the risk of your own life and Holly’s action showed this explicitly. However, this is not the same as loving your neighbor under compulsion because you are afraid of the trouble that a disinterested third party might inflict on you if you don’t. The two are worlds apart.

What is really astounding to me are the vast numbers of people (finger-pointing is not necessary, you know them) who are willing to castigate and condemn the bystanders in Cincinnati, yet who do or say absolutely nothing to stop the aggressive actions of the Israeli State against the impoverished, helpless population of Gaza. Where is the outcry from those who think that ‘There outta be a law’? Why do we laud and support Holly in her drive to make human inaction illegal, yet criminalize human action (anti-semitic speech, BDS, street protests, etc.) when it infringes on our own pet issues? The only answer I can come up with is that people are, generally speaking, driven by emotion, but recoil at the thought of applying consistency of thought and action, i.e., reason and repentance, to their own daily lives. The fact that the current situation in Gaza is shot through with religious overtones does nothing to alleviate the situation and, in my opinion, actually makes it more difficult to resolve through rational discourse. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Only it doesn’t. The beatdowns continue, and will, until morally upright people from all walks of life stop expecting someone else to solve these problems via brute force and become actively involved in them personally, abandoning the idea that man-made laws can overcome and correct the evil-ridden apathy which afflicts human nature.

  1. BC (Before Covid), I was writing essays and articles on abortion, an issue about which I have strongly held beliefs. For instance, I would have no problem at all with prosecuting the “doctors and nurses” who perform them, charging them with first-degree murder and punishing them severely if convicted. I am ambivalent about bringing such charges against women who abort for various reasons which are too numerous and complex to mention here. You can access the postings here. When Covid hit, I made the decision to focus on that as I believed it was the greater and more pressing threat to our lives and liberties. Now that Covid is receding into the rearview mirror (not necessarily over), I may again pick up the thread to preserve innocent, unborn human life. ↩︎
  2. This brings to mind the tragic case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was stabbed numerous times and raped as she lay dying in New York City in 1964. At the time, the New York Times claimed that 37 people had witnessed the incident from their apartment windows but did nothing to stop it with the exception of one man who shouted, “Leave that girl alone!”, but did not go to her aid. The Times assertion has since been debunked and it is not known how many (few) people actually witnessed the crime, but the story stuck and still resonates today. The incident resembles what is known as the Bystander Effect and was a strong impetus to the development of the 911 system we have today. ↩︎
  3. Given the prevalence of mobile smart phones today, it would be possible for a zealous prosecutor to geo-locate every single phone which was in the vicinity at the time, identify who owned the phone, and charge them with the crime of “not calling 911 in an emergency”. Untold numbers of people could have their lives turned upside down and wrecked under such a scenario, especially if the prosecutor was prone to using these instances as stepping-stones to higher office, which many are prone to do. ↩︎

Epstein Revisited: Random Thoughts on the Debacle

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

“Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later.” –1 Timothy 5:24

Jeffrey Epstein is gone, so it is said, and he has been preceded by widespread judgment about his evident sins. There are those whose sins have not yet been made evident, but their time is coming. Those sins may be covered up and secreted away for a time, but sooner or later, the evidence will be brought into the light. They cannot be hidden forever.

How do these people sleep at night? With everything that is going on in the current Epstein saga, it would seem that they must be frantic, wondering how and when their own “sins” are going to be exposed for the whole world to see. This explains why there is so much time, effort, and expense being implemented to keep the whole affair under very tight wraps.

Donald Trump and his administration have lit a fire which will not be easily extinguished. My opinion is that it will not be, but will burn and burn until the whole landscape is scorched and blackened. Blatantly and deliberately lying about everything to do with this does nothing except add more fuel to the fire. Refusing to allow “transparency” to do its work does nothing except make people more curious and generates what might be called a feeding frenzy. Call it the Streisand Effect.

“The Streisand Effect, also known as the Barbra Streisand Syndrome, refers to the phenomenon where attempts to suppress, hide, or censor information result in increased public attention and dissemination of that information. The term originated from an incident in 2003 when Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for publishing an aerial photograph of her Malibu home, which inadvertently drew far more attention to the image than it would have otherwise received.”

“The effect is often attributed to psychological reactance, where people become more motivated to seek out information that is deliberately hidden or restricted. This phenomenon has been observed in various contexts, including legal battles, online censorship, and corporate attempts to manage public perception. For example, when companies or individuals try to remove content from the internet, it often leads to the content becoming more widely shared and discussed.”

“Other notable examples include the case of Sci-Hub, where the founder’s efforts to make academic papers freely available led to increased attention and support for the platform despite legal challenges. Similarly, attempts by organizations like the Church of Scientology to censor information about Tom Cruise resulted in greater public interest and dissemination of the content.”

“The Streisand Effect highlights the challenges of controlling information in the digital age, where the act of suppression can often amplify the very information it seeks to conceal.” — from a Brave AI search

No amount of frantic shoveling is going to bury this monster. Trump and his team would be better off if they just simply told the truth and let the chips fall where they would. The chances of this happening, of course, are slim to none, as these people, their associates, acquaintances, and handlers have no knowledge about the timeless wisdom which encourages people to,

“Confess your sins to one another…so that you may be healed.” — James 5:16

Who is the big winner in all this? Not Trump, Bondi, Bongino, nor Patel. They are tarnished forever. However, there is one person who appears (at least to me) likely to benefit greatly from this debacle and the visible rending of the MAGA movement: Thomas Massie. Remember how Trump vowed to “primary” Massie because of his resistance to the “Big, Beautiful Bill”? If Massie plays this right, he can parlay the anger, antipathy, and feeling of betrayal against Trump into another landslide victory. All he has to do is keep the incident openly in front of his constituents and encourage the “backsliders” to join with him. Between now and the 2026 primary, this will (should) play a “yuuuge” part in Massie’s campaign.

It was only a year ago that Kamala Harris was attacked from all sides because she did not call out Joe Biden’s obvious (evident) mental deterioration and take action to remove him from the office. How long will it be before J.D. Vance is roasted for the same “sin”, because it is clearly evident that Trump is rapidly losing it. He cannot maintain a coherent narrative or program, constantly changes his story or policy for no good reason, and appears to be increasingly schizophrenic. Trump is becoming completely unhinged and Vance, for the good of the country and the world, will have to step in, sooner or later, and guide him off the stage–calmly and quietly if possible, but forcefully if necessary.

If the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2026, impeachment proceedings against Trump will almost certainly follow and the likelihood that he will be run out of office increases dramatically. Vance, by acting pre-emptively could eliminate this possibility and set himself up in good shape for a 2028 presidential run. I have no doubt, politics being politics1, that he has considered this.

In spite of all this, many people will continue on with their worship and adulation of Trump, believing fervently that he is The Answer to all the problems which face themselves and America. What will it take to bring them to a point where they are able to see the light, to wash the mud out of their eyes, to confess their sins of idolatry? I do not know, but I suspect it will not be pleasant nor wealth-generating.

These are interesting times. May you prosper and succeed even as you live in them.

  1. I describe politics as the practice of getting what you want by manipulating other people and is always at their expense, to their detriment, which is an adaptation of this quote by Frederic Bastiat–“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.” — https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2024/10/19/the-practice-of-politics-continued/ See also here. ↩︎

Politics, Contradiction, and Lies

Roger Mitchell6 Comments

“In every other science one saw at least a more or less adequate degree of congruence between theory and practice, reason and experience; only in politics was there an eternal contradiction between the dominant doctrines and the state of the world. It is this very contradiction that true science seeks to avoid, by adjusting the theory to the nature of things, while false science seeks to save itself by torturing facts in order to force-fit them into accredited systems.” —Karl Ludwig von Haller, Restoration of Political Science, Preliminary Discourse. (Emphasis mine)

Remember Covid? Writing in 1816, Haller presciently and accurately described the method by which false science was used to impose the narrative on an unsuspecting population. It cannot be emphasized enough that the lies, social manipulation, division, ostracization, and emotional distress caused by irrational fear were all driven by a false science designed for only one purpose: control over the many by a few for a pre-designed agenda. It cannot be denied that the perpetrators of the Covid scam tortured the facts so as to force-fit them into their desired system of total control over all–worldwide.

And money. Boatloads of money. More money than they could ever need or spend. All gained at the expense of the average, common, everyday Joe.

Four years on, there are still those who are clinging tightly to this “false science”, who will not relinquish their hold on it–either because they hope to gain from it by perpetuating it, or because they are afraid to admit they were gulled and bought into it. I see the latter occasionally, on sidewalks, in shops, at events, who have their face masks firmly in place, advertising to the world that they are still gripped by the notion, the false science, that a thin, porous piece of cloth will actually keep them from contracting a virus.

(I am tempted at times to walk up to them and ask them if they are trying to keep their chin warm, but I don’t. It might be like poking a stick into a hornet’s nest. Better left alone. Besides, I am aware of the sage advice in Proverbs 26:4 which tells me not to answer a fool according to his folly. Or as The Message puts it, “Don’t respond to the stupidity of a fool; you’ll only look foolish yourself.”)

Nevertheless, Haller’s point is that in every science based on observation and adjustment, facts count and when theory is not consistent with the facts, then the theory must be adjusted. It is only in the “science” of politics that this does not hold, instead the facts themselves are twisted to fit the theory. It does not matter what the theory is, who promotes it, nor its end purpose, the promoters and adherents of the theory are not at all reticent nor ashamed to push their own version of the “science” to achieve their goal, which is, of course, getting what they want at the expense of everyone else. Anthony Fauci even alluded to himself as “The Science” and baldly asserted that to disagree with him was an assault on science.

The unfortunate reality in all this is that the vast majority of people, across the full spectrum of society, believe that the only way to make things “work”, according to their own preferred belief system, is to engage in politics, twisting and distorting the facts to make themselves look better and their antagonists look worse. What is really sad is the fact, undistorted and wholly reliable, that people fail to learn from their past mistakes, especially in politics. They will swallow virtually any lie so long as it appears to come from an authority which proclaims to have the ability to “save” them from risk, catastrophe, and danger, and in their acceptance of the lie, they attempt to work the world over to bring it to life, to add it into the pantheon of truth.

People never learn, but then someone like von Haller pops up and sheds a little bit of light on the subject.

There is hope.

The Practice of Politics: Continued

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

This was first published as a reply to a comment seen on an article by Donald Jeffries at his Substack. I like Donald Jeffries. He has become, without his knowledge, one of my most-beloved mentors. I have a few others: John Waters, Elizabeth Nickson, Caitlin Johnstone, Edward Curtin, etc., from whom I am learning, not so much about facts and opinions, but how to write lucidly and comprehensively about things that matter. More than anything else, I am learning how to be unafraid in the telling of the truth. If this resonates with you, please leave a comment.

https://donaldjeffries.substack.com/p/the-orwellian-doctors-of-disinformation

I describe politics as the practice of getting what you want by manipulating other people and is always at their expense, to their detriment, which is an adaptation of this quote by Frederic Bastiat–“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.”

Most people consider “politics” as having to do with government, law, the State, but most never, ever think about the way that they practice it on a daily basis. For instance, Billy Joel’s waitress in his hit song, Piano Man, made a habit of and living from “…practicing politics as the businessmen (her customers) slowly get stoned.”

Government is only the official recognition that politics is practiced everywhere, at all levels of society, by an overwhelming majority of people, both large and small, who endeavor to get what they want at the expense of everyone else, using every possible means at their disposal. Sometimes they get busted and learn, correcting their ways but, more often than not, they protest that their actions are really only for the benefit of those around them and the good of society. Like supporting the Military-Industrial Complex because it has a factory in their home state or loudly backing the genocidal catastrophes which the “most-favored” nation in the history of the world, Israel, practices on its weaker neighbors.

How do you correct this problem. Quite simple. Vote. Vote harder. Vote more often. Vote until the right people are put into office and all the scheming, conniving, rascally scoundrels are turned out into the street or thrown into a maximum-security prison. Yes, that ought to do it and so many are faithful to the concept, never realizing that voting is an attempt to force others to behave the way that you want them to. Getting what you want at someone else’s expense, to their detriment. Politics.

For those who haven’t already caught on, the paragraph immediately above is sarcastic. The only way to correct the practice of politics is to address the sin within yourself AND to take action to eliminate it from your own life. All of us are guilty. All of us have to change our course. As a succinct example of what I am advocating, I offer another paraphrase from an even greater man than Frederic Bastiat.

“Love your neighbors, don’t kill them.”

Should Christians be Involved in Politics?

Roger Mitchell10 Comments

The question in the title arises from a meeting at a local church on the same subject. My wife asked me to go with her, so I did, and when the pastor asked for discussion on the topic, I gave them my opinion. After just a few minutes, I was told by some unknown person to, in essence, sit down and shut up. Which I did, then sat through an extended period in which the entire rest of the group explained all the reasons why Christians ought to be involved. None of them asked me for any further explanation. After an hour or so, I just got up and walked out. I will never go back.

Politics. Before answering the question, it should be important to understand what politics actually is. If you do not know what politics is, then you cannot answer the question. Most people associate politics with government, as in this definition, taken from Merriam-Webster:

a: the art or science of government

b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

Now, I do not dispute the description, but the word “politics” is multi-faceted (as admitted by Merriam-Webster) and can have many different meanings and connotations. During my comments at the session, I mentioned the saying that, “Politics is a dirty business”, and asked them if Christians should be involved in dirty business. To my surprise, a lot of people nodded their heads affirmatively, which only shows that they simply do not know what the “dirty business of politics” is all about. But then, American Christians, at least the modern kind, have never been known for their acumen and understanding of the way the real world works.

I also brought up a line from Billy Joel’s song, Piano Man, which should be familiar–“And the waitress is practicing politics as the businessmen slowly get stoned…”, and explained that politics, outside the government angle, is nothing more than the manipulation of people for personal gain, which, if true, ought to provoke outrage on the part of Christians toward the practice. It was at this point that I was quite unceremoniously booted from the floor and the rest is history.

“Politics is the practice of getting what you want by manipulating other people and is always at their expense, to their detriment.” (My own description of politics. Click the link, scroll down until you find it.)

Unfortunately, politics, even in government is manipulation of some people by other people, all with one purpose (usually unspoken) in mind: control and power. Control and power. Virtually everyone is consumed with gaining power over others so that their behavior and actions can be controlled. Christians usually bring up the subject of “morality” and the dire need to make people behave the way they ought to, that is, in the manner that Christians think they ought to, because, you know, the country is diving headlong into the sewer of “immorality” and needs to be rescued. Or else, there will be hell to pay. Of course! There always is. Whether anyone else wants their version of morality or not is irrelevant. It must be done! We must get involved! We must vote! Vote! Vote! Vote for the lesser of two evils, even if that means the System as a whole becomes more evil, which mechanism is really a rear-guard action that does nothing to stop the onslaught of evil, but only slows it down a little. In the end, evil wins.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it.” — H.L. Mencken

“Voting is nothing more than choosing whose hand holds the club with which you are beaten. It does nothing to stop the beatings.” — another of my own quotes. You can quote me on that.

Should Christians be involved in politics? If politics is a “dirty business” and the manipulation of people for personal benefit, then the answer is an unqualified “No, they should not.” This comports with the message of the Gospel of Jesus to keep oneself unspoiled from the world and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. However, as Christians, we are also enjoined to act as leavening agents to affect the world condition in which we find ourselves so that the entire structure is bettered by our actions. This seeming contradiction can be resolved in only one way–by determining where and in whom we place our trust and faith. As Christians, we are enjoined to have trust and faith in God alone, yet we continue to disregard this advice in preference to putting our trust and faith in man-made institutions, especially the modern form of government, that is, the totalitarian State, which encompasses and controls everything. As Christians, we have sold our souls for a pot of message, and it is coming back to bite us as a very bad case of acid reflux and dysentery. If we continue to gorge ourselves on this feast, it will kill us.

Belief and participation in the world system lead to death. This is a fact we must face and recognize as truth. Yet, knowing this, we still labor under the illusion that we can sway and impact “politics” in a positive way, for the better, if we join in, work with, and merge into the prevailing protocol. We think that we can “clean up” politics and The System if we just engage it and add our voice to the cacophony, yet we fail to understand that, in doing so, we soil ourselves and reinforce the message that men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.

At heart, we refuse to trust God. We would rather trust government. We would rather be practitioners of “the lesser of two evils” than turning away from evil entirely. We would rather beggar our neighbor through the application of law than to love our neighbor in service to him. We prefer to think we are holy because we go to church on Sunday morning and practice all the “accepted” perfunctory deeds that are expected, yet we do not know that our lives are as filthy rags in His sight. Yes, indeed, and I am the greatest of sinners, to paraphrase the apostle Paul.

What, then, shall be done? How, then, shall we live? Well, there is nothing to do except to change myself into and in conformance with His likeness, to become holy as He is holy, to accept that there is no other name except His by which I am saved. This alone brings freedom. It is the only path to life. Nothing else will work. Everything else will fail.

You can rationalize all you want. You can make all the excuses you want. You can delude yourselves until the chickens come home to roost. In the end, you are only deceiving yourself. There is only one way. Everything else will fail.

Everything else will fail.

A Potential Blessing from Hurricane Helene

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Faith in government is a religion.

Since the birth of the nation-state, at the least, and the Enlightenment, many people have sought after and promoted the idea that government (State) is the highest form of authority and power. They have attempted to build systems to bring everyone into the system, which would become all-encompassing or to dispossess and destroy those who refused to bow before that authority. The Soviet Union (1917-1989) is the premier example of such a system.

Religion is inevitable. Everyone has a religion, even those deluded souls who claim that they don’t, because religion is nothing more than a belief system which informs and directs a lifestyle. Everyone believes in something and, at the very apex of that belief is something (someone) which is viewed as the most supreme. God, in other words. Those who believed (many still do) in the Soviet Union’s Marxist principles held it up as the highest pinnacle of achievement that man could reach. The total State was to become everything and everything was to become the State’s property.

In the United States, government has been constantly growing ever since the birth of the nation in 1787, when the Constitution was signed after a successful rebellion against the Crown of Britain. Americans, of all stripes, have continuously advocated for, worked for, voted for, and accepted a government which could become all things to all people. Today, of course, after nearly 250 years of incessant grasping for power, the US government has become a monstrosity which threatens to out-do the now-defunct Soviet Union. It has, for want of a better description, nearly achieved the status of God in the eyes of its followers, adherents, and groupies.

Circumstances, however, have a way of destroying people’s faith in government. For instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, which devastated much of the southeast, especially in the rural areas of Appalachia, there have emerged reports that the federal government is actively blocking and prohibiting private endeavors from helping and assisting those hardest-hit. Many have lost everything they owned. Many more are literally without food or good water, yet FEMA, the federal agency tasked with working to restore society after a disaster occurs, has admitted that it is broke, out of money, and unable to perform its tasks and responsibilities.

Broke! With the modern ability to move a decimal point on a computer screen, push a button, and inject trillions of dollars into the economy on a whim, how can FEMA be broke? The obvious answer is that the money is available, but the powers-that-be have decided not to use it. In this situation, the real intent is not just to ignore the plight of those harmed, but to actively and deliberately destroy any and all opposing forces, however small, which would seek to take action on their own—WITHOUT the blessing of the State. This is a deliberate attempt to eliminate competition to the State and to force everyone to become totally dependent on the State.

The State gives and the State takes away. Blessed be the Name of the State!

The major problem with this is that the blatant contempt which is shown causes individual people to change the way they view government. People used to see government as “good” and necessary to the smooth functioning of society, but that attitude is rapidly changing and the response to Helene has probably given it a huge push forward. Those in Appalachia who clamored for decades for government “assistance” when they didn’t need it are now finding out that it is nowhere to be found when they are desperate.

Civil government is losing the trust of its citizens and with that loss, its authority to rule. Trust in anything must be built up over time and is based on the perception of reliability, but if it is once lost, it is almost never regained and the whole relationship changes. What was once given freely will now be withheld. Governments collapse and disappear because of the widespread loss of trust its citizens give it and it is quite possible that this one will not survive. Hurricane Helene may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If so, it will be seen in history. If not, it has added measurably to the load.

Who do people turn to now? When it is evident that their god has failed them, they change their religion. Many people will transfer their trust and faith in government and the State to some other authority which will be someone they are at least somewhat familiar with—Jesus Christ. This is, after all, the Bible Belt. They will take this message to heart:

“IF My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, AND turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” — 2nd Chronicles 7:14, emphasis mine.

This is a conditional promise. If, then. Time will tell what happens in the hearts and minds of men and history will record the result.