Learning About the State

What we’ve seen in the last week is the state at work — and by the state, I do not mean a particular set of leaders. If we watch carefully, we can gain insight into what the state is and why our fundamental problem extends far above and below the political party system.

The moment is complicated by the upcoming election, so some people are distracted by the circus of McCain vs. Obama and all the characters associated with that silly little battle. What they are looking at is really the veneer. It is a covering designed to prevent you from seeing what the state is and why it matters.

The party system and the elections lead us to believe that we live under conditions that Martin Van Creveld calls the personal state. (I’m relying here on his important book The Rise and Decline of the State.) This is the ancient form of the state under which all the resources the state owns are the personal property of the king or ruler. The ruler is the state. If he dies, the state dies with him.

It is very much in the interest of democracy to perpetuate this idea that we are living in a personal state. This way all credit for the well-being of the nation falls to one person or persons. They are elected. If things go badly, people are encouraged to blame these elected officials and vote them out of office. New people are given a new chance to do better.

But the truth is that the personal state is long gone from history in the developed world. In the 17th century, we begin to see the emergence of the impersonal state. Under this approach, the ruler does not use his own resources. He is a manager. If he dies, nothing changes. The state itself takes on a permanent form. It is not elected. It is hired and lives on regardless of the changes at the top.

The United States has never hosted a personal state. The president was always to be the manager and overseer of a tiny state that ruled with the permission of the people and the lower orders of government: the people and government are one, and this would serve as a check on power. Of course this was a mistake, a reflection of the naïveté of the classical-liberal position.

In time, the United States took on all the features of an impersonal nation-state. It developed a permanent bureaucracy, especially after the tragic end of the “spoils system.” It developed a money machine and monopolized and created its own currency. It began to host its own unelected military that was a “professional” fighting force and not a citizen militia. It became home to a million hangers-on who made the state their careers and their source of economic security.

Today, the state embodies all the worst features of the unaccountable, impersonal leviathan that had been the goal of every bad-guy political dreamer in world history. We can see this in operation during the financial meltdown. The people making the decisions and conducting policy were not elected by anyone. They report to no one. They are the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Fed, and each represents certain private-sector interests among the financial elite. They conduct their policies based on their private assessment of what is good for those they represent, and they do it in cooperation with the permanently entrenched bureaucracy and financial managers who rule the country.

Only after the plans were in place and announced did the impersonal state approach the personal part of the state for codification and confirmation, which the personal state was glad to grant with conditions. We can also see this at work in the political parties. McCain and Obama were quick to endorse the entire bailout [following the 2008 financial crisis] on the grounds that it is a national emergency, so, of course, they must set aside their partisan differences.

They always set aside their partisan differences! This is the way the impersonal state works. It is not the people we elect who are in charge. They are only the human face on the machine. If they don’t know this before the election, they quickly discover it after the election. They find themselves on a conveyor belt of tasks and photo-ops and duties. These consume them completely. They are in awe of the operation of the state and feel immediately powerless to do anything about it.

The same goes for those whom the new president hires to run his cabinet departments. So far as the permanent bureaucracy is concerned, they don’t even need to know the name of the new secretary, except to make up silly jingles and use his or her name in jokes. The new hires might start silly new programs or make perfunctory changes, but the permanent class that runs the department knows that it only needs — if it disagrees — to wait out their tenure until things get back to normal. They know that they are the gears of the engine and that the supposed driver is just the temporary front man.

In this sense, who wins or who doesn’t win the election doesn’t matter nearly as much as we are led to believe. It’s true that Bush started a war when he didn’t have to. Someone else might have done better. It is also true that Obama could fire up a range of new regulations and programs and that McCain could start ever more wars.

It is also true that even without a sitting president and without a Congress, the state would function pretty much as it does today. That’s a frightening-but-true statement.

And yet there is no reason to despair. In some ways, impersonal states are just as vulnerable as personal ones, sometimes even more so, since they rule without ideological conviction. The state always and everywhere constitutes a tiny minority of the population, Murray Rothbard argues. It is outnumbered by the people many times over. For this reason, it must rely on a false consciousness to sustain its rule.

This is why Mises writes that

In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail and cut the ground from under the tyrant’s feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters.

Van Creveld himself says that the state can ultimately be done in by both ideological and technological forces that race past the state and its ossified ways. The impersonal state relies most strongly on a changeless setting in which to manage its affairs. We live in times of incredible change. And state crises like the Wall Street meltdown can open up cracks in the official climate of opinion.

There is another point we learn from these observations: working within the machinery of a political party is a futile path for serious change. Real change comes from working in the world of enterprise and ideas.Author:

Contact Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.

Letting Democrats Steal This Election is Real Appeasement

You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”

― Winston Churchill, to Neville Chamberlain.

What if President Trump’s team really does have the goods to prove a massive voter fraud on the part of the Democrats? Then what should we do? How far should we be willing to go? Should we let ourselves be cowed by the threat of leftist violence in the streets — by the prospect of 2020’s riots multiplied by 10 or 20? To answer that, let’s stop and consider history.

I’m not usually someone to talk about “appeasement.” That’s typically the card played by some armchair strategist neoconservative. He whips it out when he’s trying to gin up a useless, stupid war with Iraq/Libya/Syria/the magical land of Equestria. He’ll wield the threat that some seedy, impoverished dictator 4,000 miles away is a threat to “American freedom.”

Such people like to pretend that in every potential foreign conflict, we face another Hitler. And all who oppose the use of force get cast in the role of arch-appeaser Neville Chamberlain. It’s as if we’re forever stuck in the autumn of 1938, with Hitler demanding pieces of Czechoslovakia from its sworn military allies, Britain and France.

It’s Always Either Fall 1938 or Summer 1914

In a piece of bitter irony, the actual appeasers who enabled Hitler’s rearmament and bloodless conquest of his neighbors themselves had got stuck in a moment of history. Having witnessed the great powers sleepwalk into the futile First World War, they seemed forever haunted by August 1914. So they sought peace at any price — and thereby guaranteed that Adolph Hitler, not they, would choose the time of the inevitable clash between him and the democracies.

But sometimes a threat really is a present danger. And I don’t want to blindly react against the neocons the same way they did against the appeasers. That would make me one of those generals always fighting the last battle, not the present one.

If indeed a wide conspiracy of Democrat politicians and electoral officials accomplished vote fraud on the massive scale alleged by Sidney PowellJenna Ellis, and Rudolph Giuliani, that fact alone should sober us. It ought to appall us, of course. To fill us with righteous outrage, and patriotic resolve. But will it?

Civil Peace at Any Price

I’m not certain. I think some Republicans eager to silence the president’s team want to just shove Trump aside, and restore the GOP to its recent historic role as designated loser. As long as they control the party’s mechanisms, cash its checks, and keep out “dangerous” populists like Donald Trump, they’re happy. They want to be the first-string players on the Washington Generals, whose job it is to go out there and lose gracefully to the Harlem Globetrotters.

On one occasion when the Generals got out of hand and actually won, the whole crowed booed and jeered them. They almost needed security to escort them out of the building. In other words, it was a lot like the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump. The “fundamental transformation” of America which Barack Obama had promised hit a speed bump. So his backers threw a tantrum that lasted four long years.

People unafraid to annul the last presidential election, who tried to steal this one, are coldly and deadly serious about holding onto power.

And they did more than that. They massively abused their power to cripple and sabotage the presidency itself. The brilliant political scientist Angelo Codavilla is worth reading here. He writes that Trump’s win threatened to derail America morphing into a permanent oligarchy. And the oligarchs wouldn’t put up with that, which is why they mobilized the Deep State to destroy him and his team, by any means necessary.

What Will They Do to Us?

And now we see how far they proved themselves willing to go. Do we really want to find out how much further they’ll dare to take things? People unafraid to annul the last presidential election, if they really tried to steal this one, are coldly and deadly serious about holding onto power. They’re willing to imprison innocent men like General Mike Flynn, and Kyle Rittenhouse, and David Daleiden. To persecute innocent citizens like Brett KavanaughNicholas Sandmann, and Mark Judge. To close all our churches, open our borders, create new farcical states, and pack the Supreme Court with flunkies. What will they do to us and our cities if we try to resist them now?

I think a lot of Republicans consider this, and cower. In their heart of hearts they know that U.S. elites, allied with foreign billionaires and social engineers eager to start the Great Reset, will literally stop at nothing. And that frightens them, as it should.

Feeding Our Allies to the Crocodiles

But what divides a courageous man from a coward isn’t the absence of fear, when the situation merits it. It’s how he responds to fear. Does he blindly choose surrender over a struggle? Does he trade all his liberty for a little short-term safety? More to the point, does he throw to the crocodiles the allies who have already fought for him, in the hope he’ll be eaten last?

That’s what we’d be doing to Donald Trump and his team, if we silenced legitimate questions about the conduct of this past election. And it’s what Great Britain convinced its ally France to do to the people of Czechoslovakia, when it cut the shameful Munich deal with Hitler.

The Real Tragedy of Munich

I’m finishing a powerful work of historical scholarship on just how foolish that surrender really was. The Bell of Treason, by P.E. Caquet, is gripping but painful reading. It tells the story of the Munich deal from a viewpoint we rarely hear it: that of the Czechs. Instead of focusing on the fears of the French or the British, it shows us the steely resolve, and tragic patriotic fervor, of the liberty-loving Czechs. They could never believe that their allies would throw them under the bus. Nor did the German generals who plotted to overthrow Hitler rather than start a war they couldn’t win.

And that’s the point: The Germans were far too weak to win a war in 1938. They had fewer tanks than France, and most of them were inferior. They were incapable of blowing up Allied tanks, but vulnerable to their shells. The Luftwaffe at the time was more hype than reality. The U-boats that would later devastate British shipping still hadn’t been built.

Meanwhile the Czech military was almost half as strong as Germany’s. It had solid, realistic plans for resisting until the French could bail it out. English and French appeasers warned against massive German bombing of their cities — which wouldn’t even be possible for two more years. Powerful Czech fortresses guarded its mountainous borders. Poland was still unconquered, and posed a threat to the German rear. The Soviet Union hadn’t yet switched to ally itself with Hitler, and might have intervened.

Letting Your Enemy Set the Schedule

In every way, the prospects of a war against Nazi Germany were better in 1938 than they’d prove in 1940, when Germany finally chose the moment to blitzkrieg its way into France. The much stronger Panzers that would roll then into Paris were made … in factories taken over from the Czechs, after Hitler’s bloodless conquest.

With all this in mind, I’d like my fellow patriots to consider: If this vote fraud was real, and leading Democrats are really so disdainful of democracy, is the time for taking extraordinary means to stop them now? Or once they fully control the U.S. military, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the IRS and the Secret Service? Once the last flickers of free speech have flickered out on social media, and the last cable network switched sides, as Fox News just did? Once courts have essentially nullified the Second Amendment, and millions of our timid neighbors have dutifully turned in their guns? Once ANTIFA expands into every American city?

Just read this catalog of tyrannical, punitive measures prominent Trump opponents have called for even before the election has been settled.

John Zmirak, The Stream

Ayn Rand: The Sanction of the Victim

The “sanction of the victim” is the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the “sin” of creating values.

Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”

Every kind of ethnic group is enormously sensitive to any slight. If one made a derogatory remark about the Kurds of Iran, dozens of voices would leap to their defense. But no one speaks out for businessmen, when they are attacked and insulted by everyone as a matter of routine. What causes this overwhelming injustice? The businessmen’s own policies: their betrayal of their own values, their appeasement of enemies, their compromises—all of which add up to an air of moral cowardice. Add to it the fact that businessmen are creating and supporting their own destroyers.

The sources and centers of today’s philosophical corruption are the universities . . . It is the businessmen’s money that supports American universities—not merely in the form of taxes and government handouts, but much worse: in the form of voluntary, private contributions, donations, endowments, etc. In preparation for this lecture, I tried to do some research on the nature and amounts of such contributions. I had to give it up: it is too complex and too vast a field for the efforts of one person. To untangle it now would require a major research project and, probably, years of work. All I can say is only that millions and millions and millions of dollars are being donated to universities by big business enterprises every year, and that the donors have no idea of what their money is being spent on or whom it is supporting. What is certain is only the fact that some of the worst anti-business, anti-capitalism propaganda has been financed by businessmen in such projects.

Money is a great power—because, in a free or even a semi-free society, it is a frozen form of productive energy. And, therefore, the spending of money is a grave responsibility. Contrary to the altruists and the advocates of the so-called “academic freedom,” it is a moral crime to give money to support ideas with which you disagree; it means: ideas which you consider wrong, false, evil. It is a moral crime to give money to support your own destroyers. Yet that is what businessmen are doing with such reckless irresponsibility.

Compulsory Education as Social Control

“Schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.”

Libertarian perspectives on education are important particularly insofar as both the necessity and historical inevitability of compulsory, state‐run schooling are today simply taken for granted by almost everyone, regardless of political affiliation or philosophy. In taking this system for granted, its proponents have given credibility to the insidious notion that it is somehow non‐ideological, or ideologically neutral, or occupying a space somehow “outside” of ideology. It is not. Rather, compulsory, state‐run schooling is heavily laden with controversial and indeed authoritarian ideological commitments and balanced on a series of tendentious premises. Much of this ideological foundation was “invented by the state when it began a new programme of social control through mass compulsory education.”  

Rather than undertaking to trace the history of compulsory government schooling, here we will be concerned with this: the ideological content of this system, and its important role as a means of social control.

“School,” writes John Taylor Gatto in Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling , “is a twelve‐​year jail sentence where bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned.” Gatto identifies seven universal lessons that “constitute a national curriculum”: confusion, class position, indifference, emotional dependency, intellectual dependency, conditional self‐​esteem, and surveillance. Gatto, himself an award‐​winning schoolteacher, is famous for arguing that schools, quite contrary to popular belief, are designed to retard the process of genuine education by frustrating students’ natural curiosities, inculcating a self‐​destructive dependence on supposed superiors, and promoting the unnatural sequestration of the old and the young, among other things. Gatto confronts his reader with a disturbing truth: “that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.” And priming the student to meekly acquiesce to those in command may well be the primary function of government schools.

Compulsory schooling, mandated and run by the government, was and remains a distinctly martial phenomenon—which is to say that it is justified, if at all, on military grounds and maintains the characteristic features of military regimentation. In urging authorities to institute compulsory schooling, Martin Luther contended that if government has the power to conscript people into military service, then surely it has the right and the obligation to compel schooling. Cultural anthropologist Ayşe Gül Altınay observes the importance of universal compulsory military service and universal compulsory education in the “early years of nation‐state formation,” as well as the “close link in the way these two institutions were perceived.”  Just as the military was regarded as a school, so did the government school take on “a nationalizing and militarizing role.” If the citizens of the modern nation‐state, this new, all‐embracing institution, were to be properly “filled with a military spirit in time of peace,” then universal compulsory education would have to be at the heart of this project, for the psychological predicates of such a spirit require constant and careful tuning.  American government schools unleash a barrage of propaganda on students from kindergarten on, compelling children to sing patriotic songs, to pledge allegiance to the flag, and to learn war‐sanctifying myths about the U.S. government’s role in the world. In so subjecting children, we are, as Tolstoy said, “debauching them in our patriotism,” poisoning their impressionable minds against, and ruling out the possibility of, peace. The citizen the modern state seeks to create, if it can, is one who will accept and carry out without question even the cruelest, most inhumane orders. Because conscience and capacity for critical thinking are, of course, natural obstacles to the creation of such a citizen, they are the attributes to be extirpated by government schooling.

It is probably no coincidence that John Dewey, one of the great apostles of compulsory government schooling, also confidently trumpeted “the social possibilities of war,” seeing in it, as did so many progressives of the time, a path to comprehensive social transformation, to be helmed, of course, by qualified experts. 

 Through the infrastructure and social regimentation of war, the state could control the economy for the public benefit. War would, he argued, “throw[] into relief the public aspect of every social enterprise,” harnessing science for the common good by accelerating the “systematic utilization of the scientific expert.”  Dewey’s authoritarian political philosophy assumed social control and then skipped ahead the question of “what kind of social control was desirable and for what ends.” In Democracy and Education, Dewey correctly notes that “the movement for a state‐supported education” coincided with the rising tide of nationalism in Europe. Still sore and tending to their wounds following the Napoleonic Wars, the German territories turned to state‐provided education, making it central to the goal of developing “the patriotic citizen and soldier,” loyal to the national state. Rather than attending to the personal development of the individual, government education would be “a process of disciplinary training.” The individual would be subordinate, absorbed in “the ‘organic’ character of the state.”

Dewey and similar progressive champions of comprehensive, authoritarian social control have been the subjects of much‐​needed historical revision. Influential historian Michael Katz, for example, noted the “darker side to the social thought” of progressives like Dewey, citing “subtle and sophisticated” attempts to foster social control and manipulation. Charles A. Tesconi and Van Cleve Morris argue that Dewey represents an “ideology [that] leads to the type of homogeneity necessary to bureautechnocracy and contributes to the decline of the person.” Progressive reformers were famously contemptuous of immigrants, their cultures and religious practices; they advocated not only compulsory schooling but mandatory attendance in government schools, attempting to outlaw attendance in private or religious schools, which provided havens for minority cultures and religions. Compulsory schooling would prove a powerful and useful tool in the hands of the modern state, cultivating a uniform language and culture by coercively eradicating alternatives. One of compulsory schooling’s primary purposes has been to inure the young early and often to strict regimentation and authoritarianism, to root out the very kind of natural inquisitiveness that leads to learning. Libertarian education theorists, on the other hand, have tended to emphasize the collaborative participation of the student, concerned to avoid impeding the spirit of excitement and inquisitiveness that leads to comprehension of a deep and lasting kind. 9 It is precisely difference and experimentation that the government schooling bureaucracy is designed to preclude. As Paul Goodman argued in Compulsory Miseducation, the more we get of formal schooling under present conditions, the less education we will get, with an “invested intellectual class” doing “positive damage to the young.” Goodman suggests (what is radical but perhaps should not be) that even the complete absence of school should be preferred to the “intrinsically worthless and spirit‐​breaking” government schooling status quo.

The work of Max Stirner anticipates many of the arguments in favor of active, self‐directed learning, as opposed to pedagogical approaches that treat the student as the passive recipient of the teacher’s knowledge and expertise. For Stirner, education as it exists is fundamentally manipulative, “calculated to produce feelings in us, instead of leaving their production to ourselves however they may turn out.” As Stirner scholar John F. Welsh explains, Stirner sees education (and the process of socialization more generally) as teaching self‐renunciation, as inverting the relationship between the individual and the object of his studies; rather than dissecting and digesting the object “as an active subject,” the individual is relegated to a position of passivity, made inferior to something external and alien to him.

The liberal and proto‐anarchist William Godwin propounded a similar view in his criticism of Rousseau’s theory of education: “[Rousseau’s] whole system of education is a series of tricks, a puppet‐show exhibition, of which the master holds the wires, and the scholar is never to suspect in what manner they are moved.” Godwin argues in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice that a compulsory government‐owned and -operated education system should be opposed “on account of its obvious alliance with national government,” which alliance he sees as more formidable and dangerous even than the old alliance of church and state. For Godwin, a state education apparatus will inevitably serve to fortify old prejudices, to encourage and solidify mindless deference to entrenched institutions (and, he says, men in handsome coats). Godwin furthermore worries that reliance on the state for their education will put people in a position of “perpetual pupillage,” imparting the dependent mentality of a child who must be looked after. We should instead “incite men to act for themselves.”

Writing in 1937, M.L. Jacks, Director of Oxford University’s Department of Education, remarked on “the progressive assumption by the State of a parent’s responsibilities,” where the school is no longer a place in which lessons are to be learned, but in which life is to be lived. The teacher, here, is not in the place of the parent; he is rather himself the parent. Today, it is difficult to imagine a group more contemptuous of parents and the parent‐​child relationship than government teachers’ unions. Merely to suggest the idea that parents ought to have meaningful choices as regards the education of their children is to invite the asperity of government school teachers. The very notion of choice is received as a personal insult; why this should be the case is not at all clear, unless of course teachers believe that they should not have to compete, that competition is beneath them and parents should simply accept, in quiet submission, the school to which the government and their ZIP code assign them. How very ungrateful of parents to want to compare service providers, as they would in any other context. Teachers unions have effectively insulated government schools from the assessments or feedback of parents, hindering at every opportunity the chance to introduce choice and accountability. This posture of hostility to the voice of parents is much less about uniquely evil motives than it is about concrete material incentives: when interest groups are allowed to use public policy and the law to protect themselves from the pressures of competition, they will do just that. Concerned observers can hardly fault them, but we can and should criticize the perverse system of incentives that leads to such dismal results for parents and students. Allowing parents some meaningful choice in education is thought dangerous and impermissible because it undermines the state’s monopoly control over the process, curricula, personnel, and the buildings themselves. Subjects simply are not supposed to have the temerity to question the state’s prerogative to be at the center of education delivery.

In the education debate, as in others, libertarians are frequently treated by the “reasonable center” as unserious, bewitched by a radical ideology and so incapable of understanding or making serious policy arguments. If historians and other scholars have acknowledged the dark ideological underpinnings of the government education system, politicians and public policy professionals rarely do. An increase in popular understanding of this ideology of control and cultural homogeneity is important if libertarians are to turn people’s attention to voluntary and cooperative education alternatives.

David S. D’Amato, libertarianism.org

The Left’s Way: Violence, Fraud, and Intimidation

A revealing incident took place in Wayne County, Michigan last week. What happened is highly instructive, because it exposes the left’s modus operandi. It is important that we learn from it and take measures to prevent its recurrence, because if we don’t, this country will fall into the hands of brutal leftist totalitarians.

In Wayne County two Republican members of the county’s Board of Canvassers, Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, initially refused to certify the results of the obviously fraud-ridden election. Wayne County, by the way, includes the city of Detroit which has been continuously controlled by corrupt Democrats since 1962. Not surprisingly, Detroit has been known to suffer from election irregularities for many years. In this election, among other concerns, around 70 percent of Wayne County precincts were found to be “out of balance,” which means that the number of ballots cast did not match the number of people who signed in to vote.

The refusal to certify this vote with its glaring irregularities made the two honest officials an immediate target of intimidation and blackmail. Within minutes of their decision, death threats began pouring in. “The [death] threats have been made against myself, my daughter and my husband,” Monica Palmer told Detroit Free Press. The threats that Monica Palmer referred to in this statement were conveyed to her privately. But there was more to come publicly so that the whole world could see just how brazen and vicious the American political left is.

In the contentious public meeting that followed the standoff, Palmer and Hartmann were abused and bullied by a succession of Democrat operatives. Astonishingly, in that meeting, which was broadcast on Zoom, Democrats made statements that contained threats of potentially deadly violence against the two board members and their families.

One of the oafs who used this tactic was a man by the name Abraham Aiyash. Aiyash is a hard left activist who had just been elected to the Michigan House of Representatives. He hails from Michigan’s deeply blue District 4 where he received nearly 90 percent of the vote. Prior to his election he worked as a trainer of community organizers. This is how a former co-worked described Aiyash in a Twitter post:

“I’ve worked closely with @AbrahamAiyash with his time working with @MichiganUnited, his job was training the next generation of organizers. Michigan should be proud to have such a fighter and a progressive champion in the state house, I know I am proud to call him a friend.”

At the Wayne County election certification meeting, this “progressive champion” set the scene by accusing Monika Palmer of racism:

“You are standing here today telling folks that Black Detroit should not have their votes counted. And know the facts. You are certainly showing that you are a racist. You may say that you are not. You may claim that you are not. But let’s be very clear. Your words today and your actions today made it clear that you are okay with silencing the votes of an eighty-percent African-American city.”

Having accused and convicted Palmer of racism – which is apparently the worst charge that a person, living or dead, can face these days – Aiyash made his move:

“And what that tells us is you Miss Monica Palmer from Grosse Pointe Woods, which has a history of racism, uh, deciding to enable and continue to perpetuate the racist history of this country.”

Threats and intimidation: Abraham Aiyash publicly accused Monika Palmer of being a racist who wants to disenfranchise the black people of Detroit. He then revealed the name of her children’s school and asked her to think what will happen when they come face to face with their “black classmates”

Notice how deliberately Aiyash announced Palmer’s name and the area of her residence. This was completely unnecessary as those present at the meeting were doubtless already aware of these facts. To understand what this man did and why, we need to remember the context in which he made his statement

In the last six months we have watched terror unleashed in this country under the guise of anti-racism by the left and its militant organs BLM and Antifa. Apart from the unprecedented destruction of property, the crazed leftists have assaulted, beaten and brutalized scores of people, allegedly because of racism. To designate someone a racist in a high-stakes election meeting is to set them up as a candidate for retribution. To declare publicly that someone is a racist who intends to disenfranchise the whole black population of Detroit makes that person a target for potentially deadly violence.

Abraham Aiyash, however, did not stop with Monika Palmer. He continued further:

“And I want you to think about what that means to your kids – who probably go to [name of the school] – and when they see all their black classmates…”

The Democrat wretch named the school that Palmer’s children attend and then invited their “black classmates” to bully and abuse them.

This is obvious intimidation and blackmail. What Aiyash essentially said was this: “Either you will go along with us and certify this fraudulent election, or you and your family will be targeted for violence at home and in school.”

But the leftists were still not done. Aiyash was followed by one Ned Staebler, who serves as Vice-President for Economic Development at Wayne State University. Lest you have any doubt where he stands politically, his Twitter name reads: “Ned BLACK LIVES MATTER Staebler.”

Like so many Democrats today, Staebler is an unhinged individual who espouses extreme views. This is what he wrote to Trump’s supporters in December 2016, barely a month after Trump’s first presidential victory: “If you support Trump you are OK with bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia and a foreign power undermining our democracy. Own it.”

During the Wayne County canvassers meeting last week, Staebler launched a fiery rant that set up Palmer and Hartmann as sitting ducks for leftist vengeance. This is what he said:

“I just want to let you know that the Trump stink, the stain of racism that you, William Hartmann and Monica Palmer, have just covered yourself in is going to follow you throughout history. Your grandchildren are going to think of you like Bull Connor or George Wallace. Monica Palmer and William Hartmann will forever be known in south-eastern Michigan as two racists who did something so unprecedented that they disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Black voters in the city of Detroit…”

Vitriolic: Ned Staebler publicly called the Wayne Country canvassers Monica Palmer and William Hartmann “racists” who are without “a shred of human decency.” He said that thanks to Twitter “millions of people around the world” now know their names.

Notice the number of times Staebler says their names in connection with the term racist. This is deliberate. He continued:

“Just know when you try to sleep tonight, that millions of people around the world now on Twitter know the name Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, as two people completely racist and without an understanding of what integrity means or a shred of human decency. The law is not on your side, history won’t be on your side, your conscience will not be on your side, and lord knows when you go to meet your maker your soul is going to be very, very warm.”

Note the code words Staebler uses to turn the two canvassers into targets for BLM and Antifa terror: “racist,” “black voters,” “disenfranchise.” Also disturbing are the ominous references to “your maker” and to “your soul,” which obviously refer to posthumous existence.

Now put yourself in the shoes of these two people. Imagine you were having to decide whether or not to certify the vote in this situation. How would you feel if the left’s ire was about to come down on you and your children? I venture to say that most people could not withstand this kind of pressure and intimidation. It is no surprise, therefore, that the two commissioners changed their mind and went along with the left’s demands.

An article in the Detroit Metro Times reported their change of mind this way:

“All eyes were on Wayne County on Tuesday evening as the county’s election board, deadlocked in an unprecedented partisan vote, initially declined to certify Detroit’s election results — only to quickly reverse course after concerned citizens called them out during the meeting’s public comment.”

The report is only partially correct. The two Republicans did, indeed, reverse their position, but not because they were “called out.” They reversed because they and their families would have been assaulted if they hadn’t. Most of us would likely do the same if faced with this level of danger and intimidation.

Note: Since their vote to certify, Palmer and Hartmann tried to rescind their vote by affidavit. Whether they will be successful or what will happen to them remains to be seen.

Regardless of the final outcome in Michigan, what we have seen there is the essence of the hard left’s approach. This is exactly the way they take over governments and countries. It is never done in an honest, transparent way, but through lies, intimidation, blackmail and violence.

In the weeks ahead this scenario will unfold up and down the US. Wherever decisions regarding this election will have to be made, the left will threaten and intimidate officials on all levels: local, state and federal. Every public official in favor of a meaningful audit or recount will be immediately marked for intimidation and violence. Sadly, in the present environment this threat is all too real. It is likely that in most cases the targeted officials will cave. Given the circumstances it would be difficult to blame them.

In a few days some of the legal cases will start making their way to the Supreme Court. Tremendous pressure will be put on those members who may be inclined to rule in favor of electoral integrity. Just put yourself, for example, in the shoes of the newly appointed Amy Coney Barrett. Should she vote in left’s disfavor, she and her family would immediately become the targets of a nationwide campaign of hatred. For a mother of seven children this would not be an easy situation to handle. Her house would be besieged, and the members of the Barrett family would face harassment – or worse – wherever they go.

If we do not want to fall under the rule of the violent totalitarians of the hard left, it is imperative to confound their tactic of getting their way through intimidation and violence. There are two lines along which this problem must be tackled simultaneously. First, those officials who will be making election-related rulings must be given meaningful guarantees of security for themselves, their families and their property. They must know that they will be provided with whatever protection is necessary to keep them and their own safe.

Second, our government must take a strong stand against all forms of harassment. People like Abraham Aiyash and Ned Staebler should be charged with intimidation and incitement of violence against public officials. They will no doubt claim that this was not their intention but given today’s violent climate, they knew exactly what they were doing. They publicly painted Monika Palmer and William Hartmann as two inveterate racists and disenfranchisers of black people and then doxed them. In our current milieu this kind of tarring makes people prey for the left’s Brown Shirt organs – BLM and Antifa. Such intimidation should not be tolerated in the United States of America and those who attempt it should feel the iron fist of the law.

Vasko Kohlmayer, Lewrockwell.com

Don’t Confuse Interference with Love

A reader emails that her best friend is unhappy in her marriage. She writes, “It really pains me to see her this way. I think she’s sort of looking for someone to tell her to leave him. Is it my place to do this? If I don’t speak up, who will?”

Dear reader, here are some words to live by: Never volunteer an opinion about another’s choice of romantic partner. It doesn’t matter if you’re right. It doesn’t matter how much you care. It doesn’t matter that a wrong marital choice is about the biggest mistake one can make. Unless asked (and that’s rare), stay out!

Though it’s obvious to you that she’s not happy, apparently she’s still getting something out of the relationship. You don’t know what that is, and it might not make sense, but to her it does. And until or unless she’s ready to say, “I’m unhappy. I’m getting out of this marriage,” you’re not in a position to support her in making that decision.

Think about how you would feel if someone offered you support for something you didn’t see as a problem. Let’s say you’re really happy about a new promotion or a new business you’re starting. Do you really want somebody to gently pat you on the back and say, “There, there, I’m here for you if you need me.” I’d feel insulted, patronized — anything but supported.

To support someone assumes that the help was requested. Of course, you shouldn’t be a phony by pretending to approve of something with which you don’t agree. And you don’t have to. All you have to approve of is the fact that she’s still happy enough to stay married. You say you’re convinced that she’s giving cues that she’s not happy, so I’m going to give your perceptive skills the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re right. But I’m still not changing my position. Until she states that “I’m unhappy and I want to do something about it,” you don’t have the green light to offer help.

I maintain that major life decisions should not be advised. In the absence of outright physical abuse, you can’t tell your friend to do something as huge as leaving her husband. The most you can do is to ask her if she’s happy and encourage her to consider her options. Just be there for her. Any more will damage your friendship.

People make this mistake all the time. They feel that if they care, they should somehow fix things. In the abstract, they usually understand that they can’t “fix” someone else’s problems, but they still feel the need to try. I think this is part of what you’re feeling right now. Fight this feeling! You can generally encourage her to not sacrifice her happiness for anybody by being a good example yourself.

I’m a fan of Star Trek. The stories reveal a lot of truth about human nature and human dilemmas. If you’ve seen the show, you know that these humans of the future are bound by a standard of non-intervention called The Prime Directive. According to this principle, it’s wrong to interfere in the lives of other species on other planets, even if you possess knowledge or technology that could help them. Of course, some of the best episodes were based squarely on the principle’s violation. But The Prime Directive applies equally to our everyday existence here on this planet. Just because you think you know what’s better for somebody doesn’t mean you should tell them what to do. Staying out is actually the more caring thing, because it respects the fact that your friend has a mind of her own.

You can support her in a life decision without explicitly endorsing a choice. You can love her, but you don’t have to live her life for her. Love and care are not excuses for being presumptuous and controlling.

Michael J. Hurd

Atlas Shrugged

The arrogant pricks who talk of a dystopian “reset” of the entire world — all with a hybrid of collectivist Marxism and fascism, as if the world hasn’t seen those horrors many times before … How tragic it has come to this.

Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” provides the actual reset for everything as you know it — the basis for freedom in philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics); human nature (psychology); as well as in government. Galt’s speech alone, in the climax of the novel, will tell you everything you need to know to better understand what happened to America.

It’s almost tempting to say it’s too late now. But, especially if you grasp the implications of Rand’s ideas, you’ll realize it’s never too late. Man has free will. He always has, and he always will. The essence of free will is the ability to think. Each and every one of us will always enjoy that capacity. To conquer tyranny, all we have to do is THINK. Rational ideas are precious in this quest.

Tyrants understand. That’s why first and foremost, they go after your media, your schools — and your minds. The last pillar to fall, in our once free and glorious society, will be free speech. We’re almost there. But the fight is never over; not so long as we think.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

If you haven’t read “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand, read it. If you’ve already read it, read it again. A/D

The Slippery Slope: How the Left Slowly Lulled America to Destruction

This time is different.”

For millions of Americans, there has been a sense of dread and angst associated with the 2020 election.  For years conservatives and independents have felt a gnawing sensation that the core values of country have been changing.  Politics was once relegated to the disagreements of a few percentages of the marginal tax rate or the size of social welfare programs. Despite differences, there was always a common foundation among Americans about the basics of civil liberties, free expression, and rule of law.  For at least a decade, that common foundation has come under attack.  Small fissures in the bedrock of our pillars of liberty have suddenly become deep ravines of civil invasions. It has been coming for some time.  Like the proverbial frog in the cooking pot, we have been lulled into a sense of complacency by the slowly increased heat of tyranny.   Only now are we sensing that we may be doomed.

For the past decade or so, the left has been creating an authoritarian roadmap.  Democratic party operatives, like an effective sieging army, have been testing the defenses of our constitution, rule of law, and cultural institutions to see what violations they could get away with.  The process is the same every time:  The attack on our liberties starts small and is tested in a place or at a level meant not to raise alarms.  If no consequences arise from the violation, then each new violation became more bold and aggressive. Aided by an election and COVID, the process accelerated in in 2020 culminating in events not thought to be possible in the US: locking us in our homes, burning down our cities, brazenly rigging our elections, and shutting down even our expression of dissent.   Even more shocking, despite executing on a laundry list of tyranny that would bring a tear of pride to Mao’s eye, they have faced no consequences.   Only now is society realizing the kind of heat it is in. 

We can now see the tyrannical road map that has weaponized the administrative state, suppressed our freedom of expression, removed our civil rights, and destroyed our democracy.  It is important to review how we got here.   The following are examples of how left broke down our pillars of liberty and constitution:

Weaponization of the administrative state:

The weaponization of the administrative state started in earnest under Obama.  After the Tea Party swept control of congress away from Obama, the IRS targeted their funding sources and effectively shut down the movement. Diligent congressmen like Jordan & Gowdy worked hard to expose the scandal, but the Obama administration took another shocking measure of using the DOJ to sandbag an investigation it was likely to be complicit in. Ultimately the investigation accomplished two things: showed liberals a roadmap for administrative oppression of political rivals, and assured them that they would face no consequences. The consequence free environment for tyranny was reaffirmed by Trump’s AG Sessions, who vowed not to litigate the past.

Emboldened by the lack of consequence, the liberal administrative state concocted the Russiagate scandal.  It swayed the 2018 election and decreased support for Trump’s measures.  More importantly, the key figures have not only not been prosecuted, they have become wealthy celebrities of the press.  Liberals now know that they can fully weaponize the administrative state and be rewarded for it.

Suppression of our freedom of speech:

Since I can remember, freedom of speech has been the most celebrated and foundational pillar of what it is to be an American.  The radical idea that you can express dissent with your rulers without consequence is without a doubt one of the key components of American exceptionalism.  Liberals had to tread gingerly at first to destroy it. They introduced the concept of hate speech was created and confined it to only the most heinous racial insults that were universally rejected by civilized society.  We have been aware of its gradual expansion to include anything college professors and their woke minions disagree with, but it seemed confined to college campuses.  Recently those collage grads have come into positions of power, especially in the youthful management suites of tech companies. They began to enforce speech and opinion laws on their own employees, like the Google engineer who circulated an unapproved opinion.

In the past year, the gatekeepers of modern speech – those same tech titans – have cracked down on everyone using their universal information utilities.  Liberal politicians have taken the baton and run with it. Recent hearings meant to address their brazen modern book burning practices showed senators like Chris Coons asking for more limitation of speech on their platforms.  The left will not be out-Stalined by industry…

While our free expression of conservative views has been under assault by fascist politicians and their corporatist allies, the free speech rights of the left have been expanded to include violent riots and property damage.  If you had told anyone that roving bands of socialist activists would be allowed to burn down cities without any consequence like in Venezuela or 1930’s Germany, no one would have believed it.  But it was actually worse, because those who defend themselves against the violence are the ones who face prosecution.  There have been no consequences for this unprecedented trampling of our freedom of expression or the left’s Brownshirt version of political expression.

Removal of our civil rights:

COVID offered a unique opportunity for the left to test the mettle of our basic constitutional rights.  We have been able to watch the erosion of our rights first hand in rapid time.  Liberal politicians have rapidly learned that there is no limit to what they can do to us if they declare “emergency”.  We now have proof of their fascist intensions.

We are 10 months into understanding the disease and for a variety of reasons the mortality has declined by 85% to and is less than that of the flu in a large part of the population.  Most of the scientific community has now come out against lockdowns, including the WHO.  A week after the election, a top journal reported a study that lockdowns may actually increase the spread of the disease. What has been the reaction?  Much more draconian lockdowns.  Liberal governors are putting forward laws that would make Stalin embarrassed – going so far as to tell people the volume of discourse and how many family members they can invite over for dinner.  For an extra dose humiliation and dominance posturing, they openly disregard their own rules and call their whims “essential”.   The roadmap is clear, any declaration of emergency, no matter how thin, allows them to rule without limitation.  The Reichtag Fire part of the roadmap works like a charm:

Destruction of our Democracy:

But what about elections?  Isn’t that the ultimate judgement in the US democracy – that we can vote the bums out if they overstep?  It seems they have that roadmap in place too.

In the “safe space” of liberal overreach that is California, the democratic machine perfected the art of ballot harvesting.  During the election of 2018, in the reliably Republican territory of Orange county, voters saw their republican candidates win expected victories for Congress… and then slowly watched their victories drain away after election day.  Votes kept coming in that overwhelmingly went for the democratic candidate until the gap was closed and the victory effectively reversed.  Harvesting occurs when democratic operatives canvass neighborhoods and collect votes for their preferred candidate.  COVID gave them the opportunity to roll the practice out on a national scale.  Republicans saw it happen in orange county.  They knew it was coming. Trump said it was going to happen… and no one did anything.  As predicted, the harvest was good this year for the democrats and spectacular voting leads on election night were surgically closed by ballot harvesting operations in liberal districts.

For the past ten years, each consequence-free tyrannical step, irrespective of the immediate impact of that act, was a victory for the left.  It created a new path forward on an authoritarian road map.  We had a fleeting hope of stopping the progression when Trump promised to lock up Hilary for her crimes, but it never came to pass. When the reigns of power are passed to Biden & Harris, nothing will be there to stop them.  It is highly likely that there will never be a Republican voted in for president again. Tyranny is on the verge of reaching a boiling point in our nation.  We all sense it.  Let’s hope it isn’t too late.

Emery Jones

Trump Lawyers Unveil Massive Election Fraud

Backdated ballots, overcounting, blocked inspections, dishonest vote counting systems, and more.

President Trump’s campaign lawyers, led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, held a contentious press conference Thursday at the Republican National Committee in Washington, DC. They outlined their evidence to date of what Giuliani described as a pattern of massive election fraud, which they plan to submit to courts in key battleground states where lawsuits have been or will be filed. Sidney Powell, who is a member of Trump’s legal team, and the Trump campaign’s senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis also spoke. Their central message was that, but for the rampant fraud and use of highly suspicious vote counting software systems, Trump would have won the election by a wide margin and that they had the evidence to prove it. They also accused the media of covering up the truth because of their hatred for President Trump.

Giuliani said that, based on his experience prosecuting some of the most dangerous criminals in the world, “I know crimes. I can smell them.” And criminal activity is what he is convinced occurred on a wide scale in this year’s presidential election.

Giuliani denounced what he called a centralized plan orchestrated by the Democratic Party to execute acts of voter fraud in big cities controlled by Democrats that have a long history of voter fraud. He cited Philadelphia as a prime example. Giuliani reminded the media attendees of Joe Biden’s own Freudian slip during the campaign when he boasted about having the most “extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in history.”

The common pattern of voter fraud detected by Trump’s legal team includes the counting of votes of out of state residents, “over voting” in which 150, 200 or even 300 percent of the registered voters in a precinct had supposedly “voted,” intimidation of voters, and preventing inspectors from closely observing the counting of mail-in ballots.

In addition, Sidney Powell described how a vote counting software system used in various states to count votes in this year’s election had its roots in communist Venezuela. The late Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez allegedly obtained and used the software to make sure that he would always win his fake elections. Venezuela’s current dictator Nicholas Maduro has continued to use it. “One of its most characteristic features is its ability to flip votes. It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden,” Powell said. Powell went on to explain that when the software algorithms were overwhelmed by Trump’s initial large leads in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, causing the machines to shut down, big spikes of Biden votes suddenly appeared in the form of newly created or tampered mail-in ballots. That was evidently the Democrats’ “insurance” plan.

Jenna Ellis told the assembled reporters that “What you’ve heard now is basically an opening statement. This is what you can expect to see when we get to court to actually have a full trial on the merit, to actually show this evidence in court and prove our case.”

To back up his claims of election fraud with hard evidence, Giuliani referred to sworn affidavits submitted by American citizens who witnessed or were asked to participate in various criminal acts. One affidavit was submitted by an election worker in Michigan who swore that she was instructed by her supervisor to illegally backdate absentee ballots. She also said that she was instructed not to look for any of the signatures on absentee ballots and not to look for disqualifying deficiencies in the ballots. An affidavit also claimed that workers were instructed not to request photo ID from Michigan voters, contrary to state law requirements.

Giuliani mentioned an affidavit claiming that workers in Pennsylvania had been instructed to randomly assign ballots lacking names to someone, which resulted in thousands of voters in Pittsburgh seeking to vote who were told that votes had already been cast by others in their names.

Giuliani’s team had gathered over a thousand affidavits overall in various battleground states – including about 220 in Michigan alone – as well as other evidence that Giuliani said he was not free to disclose at this time.

In Pennsylvania, Giuliani said that election officials had violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause because counties applied different standards for vote counting and inspection as well as whether to allow mistakes in mail-in ballots to be cured.

Giuliani said that there were significant irregularities in Wisconsin, where as many as 100,000 illegal votes were allegedly cast as a result of misuse of the ballot mail-in process. This may be enough to overturn the press’s call that Biden had won in Wisconsin. Trump’s legal team is also about to file a major lawsuit in Georgia.

Al Gore took more than five weeks before he finally conceded the 2000 election to George W. Bush, and that was only after the Supreme Court ruled against his attempt to keep pressing for vote recounts in Florida. To date, it is less than three weeks since Election Day. The Electoral College votes on December 14th to formally cast their votes for president and vice president and make the projected election result official. Until then, the Trump campaign has every legal right to challenge in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, what it believes was a fraudulent election.

If Trump’s lawyers lack enough evidence to overturn the projected election result, so be it. At least the defects of universal mail-in voting and the danger in relying on foreign-affiliated voter software system companies to count this nation’s votes will be exposed to help ensure the integrity of future elections.

Joseph Klein, Front Page Magazine

Hungarian PM Orban: George Soros is One of the Most Corrupt People in the World

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán called out globalist oligarch George Soros in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday, identifying the Hungarian-born financier as “one of the most corrupt people in the world.

Orbán pointed to Soros as a key figure in the push to sanction Hungary and Poland within the European Union. Liberal countries have sought to crack down on the central European nations for their tough approach to immigration, political correctness, gender ideology and globalism.javascript:window[“$iceContent”]

George Soros is threatening Hungary and Poland,” PM Orbán said. “George Soros is one of the most corrupt people in the world; he has plenty of politicians in his pocket who now want to blackmail Hungary and Poland for access to EU funds.

Soros recently penned an op-ed demanding that EU member states exclude Hungary and Poland from budgetary proceedings in the European Parliament. This defies any claim that the political union has in regards to democracy, tacitly silencing two longtime members of the EU that have as many rights within the body as any other nation.

Soros is pushing for the European Parliament to dictate the EU’s annual budget with a two-thirds majority. Previously, unanimous consent was required from the EU’s 27 member states.https://fa936f3079dacaea27d593d62558097b.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

Hungary enacted ‘Stop Soros’ legislation in 2018, preventing the globalist billionaire from utilizing his network of dubious NGO’s to assist and abet illegal immigration and human smuggling into the country. Soros then went on to move his Open Society Foundations from Budapest to Berlin, being unwilling to pay additional taxes required of foreign political interference groups enacted by the Hungarian government.

Richard Moorhead, Big League Politics