Lots of startling changes yesterday. Russia announced, apparently, a gold-backed or gold-related ruble. I haven’t had time to think about all the implications. Information is hard to come by, because the US blocks Russian news in order to control the Ukraine narrative and war propaganda. The Bretton Woods system collapsed when the West seized Russian central bank reserves, and it seems that the gold ruble adds to the end of the US dollar as world reserve currency under Bretton Woods. The implications could be vast, and the Washington idiots might very well wish they had left the Russians alone. I told them over and over that Russia had had enough of them, but the arrogant idiots didn’t listen. The sanctions, it seems, have brought about regime change in the West, reducing its power and influence.
Another big development is that apparently Ukraine has agreed to be a neutral country, no NATO, no foreign bases, no nuclear weapons, and accepts eastern Ukraine gong its own way. We will see if US puppet Zelensky is permitted to sign what Ukraine has agreed. Meanwhile, Russia has stopped its assault on Kiev, and is focused on clearing the remaining Nazi militias out of the Donbass region. I think the low-intelligence governments in Poland and Romania will get the message, and the US missile bases in those countries will be closed before too long.
These are major developments with many large implications. The World Economic Forum’s “reset” has likely been replaced by a Russian-Chinese reset.
Present generations of Americans will not recognize their country. Rivers, mountains, streets, schools, public spaces, even towns are losing their names and acquiring new politically correct names. Normally, this is what outside conquerors do to a country, but we are doing it to ourselves. A country that destroys its own monuments and history is lost.
My conclusion is that the days of the West are over. The West is drowning in accumulated mistakes and degeneracy. The moral fiber in the leadership ranks is gone.
While U.S. presidential elections are held every four years, U.S. senators serve a six-year term, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives are elected every two years. A midterm election is an election where the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are up for election, but the president is not. These elections always occur two years after a presidential election. As they gear up for the midterm elections in November, Democrats have three problems: a historical problem, a retirement problem, and an image problem.
The Democratic brand
Historically, the political party of the president does poorly in the midterm elections. Since 1946, the average midterm loss for the president’s party is 25 seats. Democratic presidents Harry Truman and Bill Clinton both began their first term with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, only to see Republicans take control after the midterm elections. Republican president Dwight Eisenhower likewise began his first term with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, only to see Democrats take control after the midterm elections. Democrat Barack Obama presided over a devastating loss of Democrats in the House in his first midterm election and in the Senate in his second midterm election. Republican president George W. Bush lost his Republican majority in both Houses of Congress during his second midterm election. Republican Donald Trump saw his Republican majority in Congress evaporate when Republicans suffered a crushing defeat in the House in the midterm elections of 2018. According to the American Presidency Project, only two presidents — Bill Clinton (1998) and George W. Bush (2002) — have seen their party gain House seats in a midterm election.The libertarian brand is known for its simple, consistent, and principled perspective on the issues. [Click to Tweet]
Democrats also have a retirement problem. As of the end of 2021, one Democratic senator and 19 Democratic House members have announced that they will not be seeking reelection. Democrats are currently tied with Republicans in the Senate and only have a nine-seat majority in the House. This is troubling for Democrats because congressional incumbents had a 96 percent win rate in the 2020 election. Thirty-eight states had a 100 percent win rate in congressional races.
Indeed, wide name recognition, usually coupled with coffers full of cash, means that few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of Congress winning reelection. Even though Democratic voters now outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points — the largest Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012 — some Democratic strategists are already predicting a shellacking in the midterm elections. According to Gallup, “President Biden has lost more public support during his first several months in office than any U.S. president since World War II.”
But what Democrats really have right now is an image problem. The Democrats have always been the party of liberalism, progressivism, collectivism, socialism, paternalism, abortion on demand (at taxpayer expense for low-income women), organized labor, public education, universal health care, higher taxes on “the rich,” anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, the welfare state, environmentalism, government-funded child care, increased government regulation of the economy and society, income-transfer programs, and alternative lifestyles. However, over the past few years, the Democratic Party has also embraced the social-justice movement, defunding the police, the transgender movement, critical race theory, cancel culture, wokeism, and, most recently, lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates.
The Democrats last year were also embroiled in an intra-party feud over a bipartisan infrastructure bill and the size, scope, and cost of a massive legislative package of social spending priorities. Then they suffered humiliating losses in the “off-year” state elections in Virginia and New Jersey. In analyzing why they lost the Virginia governor’s race, Democratic Party strategists — as pointed out by David Siders, national political correspondent for Politico — discovered that “the Democratic Party’s entire brand was a wreck.” According to Douglas Schoen, a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton, “It’s clear that Americans are turning against a Democratic Party that they feel has become more attuned to the priorities of progressives and less focused on addressing the concerns and frustrations of the broader American electorate.”
The New York Times editorial board even opined: “A national Democratic Party that talks up progressive policies at the expense of bipartisan ideas, and that dwells on Donald Trump at the expense of forward-looking ideas, is at risk of becoming a marginal Democratic Party appealing only to the left.” New York Times columnist Ezra Klein has said that Democrats need to recognize that swing-state voters “are not liberals, are not woke and do not see the world in the way that the people who staff and donate to Democratic campaigns do.” “I think what we have to do as a party is battle the damage to the Democratic brand,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Jamie Harrison.
Speaking on PBS NewsHour, longtime Democratic strategist James Carville blamed “stupid wokeness” for his party’s disaster in the off-year elections. He termed the “defund the police” idea “lunacy” and suggested that progressive Democrats “need to go to a woke detox center” and “get rid of this left-wing nonsense, this claptrap I hear.”
The Republican brand
Before examining the libertarian brand — which is far and away the best alternative to the Democratic brand — it might be a good idea to briefly look at the Republican brand. This is because most Americans believe that the Republican Party is the polar opposite of the Democratic Party, at least on most issues. Republicans have cultivated this image and maintained this façade by using libertarian rhetoric. The truth, however, is that Republicans are philosophically not much different from Democrats, regardless of how often and how loud they recite their conservative mantra about the Constitution, federalism, the free market, limited government, traditional values, free enterprise, a balanced budget, individual freedom, free trade, property rights, and a strong national defense.
Republicans believe that some Americans should be forced to pay for the health care of other Americans through Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans support refundable tax credits that give some Americans tax refunds of money paid in by other Americans. Republicans support the government taking money from those who work and giving it to those who don’t by means of unemployment benefits. Republicans support federal subsidies to certain occupations and sectors of society. Republicans believe that some Americans should be forced to pay for the education of the children of other Americans. Republicans support the government taking money out of the pockets of Americans who “have” and giving it to other Americans who “have not” via Social Security, WIC, TANF, SSI, food stamps, and Section 8 rent subsidies.
In a nutshell, although Republicans may disagree with Democrats on the amount, they believe that the government should take money from some Americans and redistribute it to other Americans. They have no philosophical objection to government income-transfer programs. No one should ever think that the objections of the Republican brand to the size, nature, scope, and efficiency of government programs is based on any real principles.
The libertarian brand
Contrary to the Democratic and Republican brands, the libertarian brand (not necessarily the Libertarian Party) is intellectually rigorous, moral but not moralist, philosophically consistent, simple without being simplistic, and a bulwark of liberty, property, and peace. “Libertarianism,” as concisely stated by Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger, “is a political philosophy that holds that a person should be free to do whatever he wants in life, as long as his conduct is peaceful.” This means that, in a libertarian society:
people are free to engage in any economic enterprise or activity of their choosing without license, permission, restriction, interference, or regulation from government as long as they don’t commit violence against others, violate their property rights, or defraud them.
people are free to accumulate as much wealth as they can as long as they do it peaceably and without committing fraud.
buyers and sellers are free to exchange with each other for mutual gain any product of their choosing for any price, without any interference from the government.
charity, relief, and philanthropy are entirely voluntary activities.
people are free to pursue happiness in their own way, provided that they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others.
people are free to live their lives any way they choose as long as their conduct is peaceful.
the voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults is none of the government’s business.
The libertarian brand is known for its simple, consistent, and principled perspective on the issues.
Welfare. All welfare programs should be abolished, from food stamps to job training to unemployment compensation. All charity should be private and voluntary.
Education. All public schools should be closed. Education should be completely separated from the state. All schools should be privately operated and privately funded.
Gun control. All gun control laws should be eliminated, the ATF should be abolished, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) should be shut down. Every American has the natural right to possess any weapon on his own property or the property of anyone else that allows such weapons.
Free trade. All Americans should be able to freely engage in commerce with foreigners without being hindered by tariffs, quotas, barriers, regulations, restrictions, or dumping rules. Free trade needs no trade organizations, trade agreements, or trade treaties.
The free market. The free market is not truly free unless it is completely free of government regulation and interference. Laissez faire is natural, just, and moral.
The minimum wage. The minimum wage should be eliminated. All wages and benefits should be negotiated between employers and employees without any interference whatsoever from the government.
Medicaid and Medicare. Both programs should be abolished. The government should have nothing to do with health care and no American should be forced to pay for the health care of any other American.
Social Security. Not only should Social Security not be saved for future generations, it should be eliminated for current beneficiaries. It is immoral to take money from those who work and give it to those who don’t — even if the government does the taking.
Victimless crimes. Because every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim who has suffered measurable harm to his person or measurable damages to his property, there should be no laws against prostitution, gambling, pornography, or drug possession, use, and distribution — unless such actions involve violations of the personal or property rights of others.
Foreign aid. No country should receive foreign aid from the U.S. government in any amount, at any time, or for any reason. Like domestic charity, foreign charity — including for disaster relief — should be entirely private and voluntary.
The income tax. The income tax doesn’t need to be reformed or made flatter, fairer, or simpler; it needs to be abolished. All Americans are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor and spend their money as they see fit.
Family leave. Government should not mandate that any company provide paid or unpaid family. All benefits should be negotiated between employers and employees without any interference whatsoever from the government.
Farm subsidies. Not only should the government not subsidize farmers (or any other sector of the economy), it should have nothing to do with agriculture. Farming should be treated as any other business.
Foreign policy. The United States should remain neutral and not intervene militarily or otherwise in any country. All U.S. bases on foreign soil should be closed, and all U.S. troops should be brought home. The military should only be used for defensive purposes and should never fight foreign wars.
Anti-discrimination laws. Since discrimination — against anyone, on any basis, and for any reason — is not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence, the government should never prohibit it, seek to prevent it, or punish anyone for doing it.
The Constitution. The federal government should strictly follow the Constitution. Although others may say this, only libertarians have the courage to point out that this would entail a 95 percent cut in the federal budget.
These libertarian principles and perspectives are unchangeable and nonnegotiable. They cannot be compromised without doing irreparable harm to libertarianism.
Harming the brand
Democratic and Republican smears of libertarians are common and to be expected. Libertarians are said to be naïve and utopian. They lack compassion for the poor. They are isolationists. They are libertines and hedonists. They don’t believe in moral absolutes. They disdain organized religion and reject traditional values. They are materialistic. They celebrate greed and selfishness. These are all misconceptions, fallacies, caricatures, or falsehoods.
Some individual libertarians might be, believe, or do some of these things — just like some Democrats and Republicans might also — but they have nothing to do with libertarianism qua libertarianism. Libertarianism has nothing to do with one’s lifestyle, tastes, vices, sexual practices, traditions, values, religion, social attitudes, or cultural norms. Libertarianism is not “rugged individualism,” “unrestrained freedom of speech,” “survival of the fittest,” “unfettered capitalism,” “every man for himself,” or “dog eat dog.” Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy, nihilism, relativism, antinomianism, or hedonism.
The libertarian brand should be associated with individual liberty, private property, peaceful activity, voluntary interaction, laissez faire, personal freedom, financial privacy, individual responsibility, free enterprise, free markets, free speech, free thought, free association, freedom of conscience, and a free society.
Unfortunately, it is often libertarians themselves who harm the libertarian brand. Some libertarians have simplistically defined libertarianism as socially liberal and economically conservative. Others have implied that libertarianism is a particular social attitude or lifestyle. Some insist that libertarians must be in favor of same-sex marriage and abortion. Others maintain that libertarianism is incompatible with religion. Some supported the draconian government response to the COVID-19 “pandemic” in the name of “public health.” Others have defended U.S. military actions overseas in the name of “national security.” Some are nostalgic for Ronald Reagan, even considering him to be “an honorary libertarian.” Others have called for a universal basic income.
There is one issue, though, that most libertarians who deviate from libertarianism have in common: support for “school choice”; i.e., government-funded vouchers for students to use to pay for education at a school of their parents’ choice. Vouchers are touted as a way to rescue children from dangerous and failing public schools and put them in private schools where they can be educated instead of indoctrinated. Although I am not the least bit interested in defending public education, there is nothing libertarian about government educational vouchers. There is nothing special about the business of education that necessitates that the government be involved in it. Parents have the choice right now where and how to educate their children. The fact that they may not have the money to pay for their choice does not mean that the taxpayers should pay for it. Giving one group of Americans the choice of where to spend other Americans’ money to educate their children is immoral and unjust. If vouchers were used for anything but education, they would be denounced as an income-transfer program and a subsidy to private industry. Once government vouchers for education are deemed to be acceptable, no reasonable or logical argument can be made against the government’s providing vouchers for other services. Education should be completely separated from the state.
A plea
Libertarianism need not and should not be fused with any personal preference, school of aesthetics, or extraneous ideology. It should not be complicated by imposing a slate of approved opinions on top of the core teaching of our philosophy. We simply need plain old libertarianism, with no labels, no caveats, and no apologies. Libertarians need to be consistent and present a united front against statism in all its forms.
Chuck Todd began with the latest NBC poll — taken between March 18-22 of this year — in which 71% of respondents said that the United States was headed in the wrong direction. Todd said that number, along with the corresponding low number (22%) who believed America was on the right track, could spell a lot of trouble for Democrats going into November’s midterms.” [Fox News]
So what? DemComs control the media, and most Americans have shown through their response to COVID fascism that “gullible and weak” are rather kind words to describe them.
What’s to stop DemComs from creating a crisis to stop elections from happening in November if it continues to look like they will be slaughtered at the ballot box? They are not “Democrats.” They are a horrific hybrid of Marxist, fascist, green nutjobs who are capable of anything–and who know from recent experience they can get away with literally anything.
And even if Republicans win: Do you seriously think Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney are going to restore American freedom?
“How did you go bankrupt?” Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.” –
Isn’t the point of the Oscars at least to PRETEND that Communist celebrities are not all barbarians?
Hollywood produces TRASH and then acts like TRASH. What’s the surprise?
As a reader wrote: “This is what happens when low-grade individuals take over the culture. We sure have sunk a long way.”
Yes, THESE woke, pious, sophisticated celebrities are the people you rely on to tell you how to vote, how to think, how to educate and raise your children, how to manage your medical care, how to understand economics, how to interpret ethics and how to ascertain the nature of reality. Quite the role models, aren’t they?
Earlier today I posted my take on the economic and military developments on the Russian front. Based on news reports, I envisioned a gold ruble dethroning the US dollar and collapsing the Bretton Woods system which has enabled the US and its financial sector to exploit the world. I wrote at the time that the Western news blackout on reporting from Russia in order for Washington to control the narrative left actual facts hard to ascertain. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/03/29/the-western-world-has-had-its-run/
During today a little more information has reached me. The information has caused me to develop concerns that the Russians are not sophisticated enough to see that they can bring down the Bretton Woods system and dethrone the US dollar by creating a gold ruble, and in conjunction with China’s gold Yuan, create a bloc that rules financially. I think all the Russians are doing is fixing the price of gold inside Russia so Russians fearing the sanctions don’t desert the ruble and flee into gold. Possibly the internal gold/ruble price fix can develop into a broad system, but why give the enemy warning and time to prepare roadblocks? Is the conclusion that the Russians don’t have a clue?
Russian economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American economists who trained them to be servants of Washington’s empire, and now they hold senior positions. Consequently, Russian national assets were looted, and Russia was left exposed to Western sanctions and other punitive measures. Here we have a case of a superior military power disarmed by its own intellectuals.
It is absolutely incredible that the Kremlin has relied on anti-Russian de facto Western-agents like Alexei Kudrin, Elvira Nabiulina, and Anatoly Chubais. These three serve not Russia but the oligarchs and the pro-western Atlanticist Integrationists. They can’t help it and are not really traitors, just American brainwashed poor souls. Their obvious replacement is Sergei Glazyev, who at least partially understands what Russia must do. But he is demonized by the West and although the Kremlin keeps him around is wary of him. Until recently, the Kremlin has favored those of whom the West approves. These people are seen as Russia’s entry into the West.
Russia will never be able to successfully protected itself from the West as long as the Kremlin is constrained by the desire of elites to be part of the West. This constraint, in my view, will result in nuclear war. Washington will push and push against a government that has elements who desire to be part of the West until that final red line is crossed. Then the world blows up. Washington’s idea is that pressure will collapse the leadership that values Russian sovereignty, and Washington will install a puppet as in Ukraine.
As for the reporting on the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, it is extremely strange that the Victor of the conflict is making concessions to the Loser. This is an indication that the Kremlin itself has been affected by the West’s psyops operation against Russia. The Kremlin is on the verge of making peace partially on Ukraine’s terms in order to shut down the West’s psyops campaign against Russia.
To repeat myself. As I have said many times, my goal is to prevent nuclear war. But nuclear war is what Washington and its European puppet states are driving us toward. To avoid kicking the can down the street, Russia should sign no agreement unless it contains Ukraine’s acceptance that Crimea and Donbass are not part of Ukraine. It is unclear that Washington will allow its puppet Zelensky to sign the agreement, or keep it if it is signed. Washington will continue to cause problems for Russia. Russia should consider if Ukraine can be trusted to keep any agreement when Ukraine refused to keep the Minsk agreement. Western Ukraine is likely to remain a US puppet, so how can Ukraine be neutral in fact? Russia should keep in mind that she is the victor, not Ukraine, and not accept an agreement for the sake of peace, or the trouble will reappear. Ukraine is losing the conflict and perhaps just wants to save as much of itself as it can. There were guarantors of the Minsk agreement, and they did nothing.
Putin and Lavrov have said many times that it was a mistake to trust the West. So why repeat the mistake again?
I think the only successful agreement would be one in which Ukraine allies with Russia and looks to Russia for protection. Unclear how Ukraine can be in the EU and be neutral. Austria is a neutral country and a EU member. Did Austria participate in the sanctions against Russia? After the treaty, would Ukraine participate in future sanctions against Russia?
Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries. It has never been part of the West. Russia must reclaim Ukraine, if not by conquest then by diplomacy. Whether conquest or diplomacy, Russia must deal decisively with Ukraine NOW, and leave no room for the reappearance of the issue.
The Kremlin made its fundamental strategic error in 2014 when the Kremlin refused the request of the Donbass Russians to be reunited with Russia. The Kremlin was afraid of offending the West beyond its reunification with Crimea and afraid of confirming Western propaganda that Putin was rebuilding the Soviet Empire. From this amazing stupid blunder by the Kremlin came 8 years of Ukrainian shelling of the Donbass Russians, massive loads of Western weapons delivered to Ukraine, massive propaganda against Putin and Russia, protests by Russian patriots within Russia at the Kremlin’s acceptance of the Ukrainian Nazis killing Russian people in Donbass, thus setting the stage for the present Western psyops against Russia. And, as I predicted, required more decisive action from Russia than was needed in 2014 by honoring the Donbass request.
The question before the world is: Will Washington’s exploitative empire over the world prevail because Russia and China and India haven’t a clue?
Because Russia has elites who had rather be part of the West than sovereign?
Will the naivete of Russia and China result in the encouraged West crossing red lines that end in nuclear war?
What the Kremlin’s go-slow war, so-anxious-to-negotiate persona has done is to defeat the image of Russia as a military power. Here is Bloomberg News: Russia’s cease fire and pullback from Kiev came because “Putin is simply looking to cut his losses after a month-long invasion that failed to take a major city and reportedly cost him thousands of dead soldiers.”
In other words, Putin is begging Ukraine for mercy and will make concessions for an end of the conflict.
Whatever the actual facts are, the impression created by the presstitutes among Western peoples is that what Putin has accomplished is a demonstration of Russian military weakness. This belief will result in more provocations against Russia and end in nuclear war.
And I repeat: IT is not a President. It’s a demented, goofball puppet. It’s not an “administration”; it’s a regime. It’s not a presidency; it’s a disgrace and an unprecedented travesty. Treat it with NO respect and grant it ZERO authority.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 