Archive for month: January, 2024

Members of the ruling class of certain states have sent troops to Texas in case a civil war breaks out with the federal ruling class. Lines have been drawn and the naive slaves are already siding with which master they want to be ruled by. The rulers of multiple states began sending personnel and resources months ago to combat increased migrant encounters at the United States-Mexico border, with one state saying “nothing is off the table” as tensions threaten to boil over between Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Biden administration. CIVIL WAR? Two Members Of The Ruling Are Fighting Joe Biden Gives Governor Greg Abbott A 24 Hour Ultimatum As The Border Standoff Intensifies Don’t forget that neither Abbott nor Biden will be fighting each other physically during this war if it goes that far. Both sociopaths will require others to obey their commands and go to war for them. On Thursday, 25 Republican governors backed Abbott and “Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself” against what he has referred to as a migrant “invasion” of his state. Some believe the situation is escalating towards a civil war, and the mainstream media’s use of the term seems to be exacerbating the idea. The joint statement by the conservative governors reads: “We stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border. We do it in part because the Biden Administration is refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books and is illegally allowing mass parole across America of migrants who entered our country illegally.” Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders deployed 80 Arkansas National Guard soldiers between June 24 through August 5. There could be more going down south in the future. “Governor Sanders supports Governor Abbott’s efforts to secure the southern border and nothing is off the table to assist Texas with their efforts to combat Biden’s failure,” Sanders spokesperson Alexa Henning told Newsweek via email on Thursday. “She will continue to raise concern about the humanitarian and security crisis, human trafficking, and drug trafficking that is affecting every state in the nation due to the Biden administration’s disastrous open border policies.” -Newsweek Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, one of the 25 who signed the letter, told Newsmax on Thursday: “I mean right now you’ve got the federal agents who are cutting the wire and then you’ve got the Texas National Guard on orders to put up wire, this is a powder keg worth of tension. It’s a very weird situation, we certainly stand with Texas on the right to defend themselves.”

Is another civil war inevitable? Texas is defying tyrant Joe Biden’s orders and installing more razor wire along the border after declaring the migrant crisis and “invasion.” Texas has invoked the “right” to defend itself. Are we about to witness the federal government vs. Texas over an invasion of illegal immigrants? The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday in favor of tyrant Joe Biden. The decision was said to “allow” federal agents to remove the razor wire placed on the border by the state of Texas. This is an ongoing dispute with Texas over whether the Border Patrol has the legal authority to cut concertina wire installed by Texas on the banks of the Rio Grande. The day after the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security demanded Texas give it “full access” to the border by January 26th, according to a letter obtained by CNN. Governor Abbott is correct. https://t.co/tyfEhjGWOc — Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) January 24, 2024 Other smaller ruling classes are taking sides. Oklahoma stands with Texas. https://t.co/67VzVEfEv1 — Governor Kevin Stitt (@GovStitt) January 24, 2024 According to a report by ZeroHedge , the situation in Texas has come to a boiling point at Eagle Pass, where the Texas National Guard has taken control of a local park that illegal immigrants use as a landing zone after crossing the Rio Grande. The state has placed razor wire along miles of the river to block entry to the US – which the Supreme Court just allowed the Biden administration to remove while a legal battle plays out in a lower court. At the White House, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Mr. Biden has the authority to nationalize the Texas National Guard and order them to desist. But he said Mr. Biden has made no such determination. The high court’s ruling was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three Democratic appointees in erasing a lower court injunction that had blocked the feds from cutting wire except in emergency cases . –Washington Times Texas is proving that you can disobey your master and rule yourself but those in power in the state still want to be a master over Texans. Ruling classes are going to do one thing: rule. This just shows that if we really wanted to be free, we could all just stand up, refuse to pay the ruling class, and use voluntary action and logical mental processes to remove them from power.

This article was originally published by Conner O’Keeffe at The Mises Institute.  The situation in the Middle East is growing more and more dangerous for the Americans stationed there. Two Navy SEALs are dead after being lost at sea off the coast of Somalia while searching a boat that was allegedly carrying weapons bound for Yemen. And many US troops have suffered concussions and other brain injuries in rocket attacks in Iraq and Syria. President Joe Biden and his advisors are reportedly convinced that it is only a matter of time before US troops are killed directly. The Biden administration also suggests American deaths will give them no choice but to carry out direct attacks against Iran—the exact approach Biden himself has admitted isn’t working against Yemen. But the danger is greater than Biden is letting on. In 1996, the Israeli government conducted a military operation across its northern border in Lebanon. The campaign, called Operation Grapes of Wrath, aimed to defeat the militant group Hezbollah. The Israeli strategy will sound familiar to anyone who has been following the war in Gaza. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) dropped leaflets warning the people of numerous south Lebanese villages to evacuate by the following afternoon. Shortly after the deadline, Israel began shelling and bombing homes, ambulances, and all other sorts of civilian infrastructure within the villages. The shelling was met with international criticism, to which the Israeli spokesperson responded, “We gave the residents advance warning to clear out so as not to get hurt. All those who remain there, do so at their own risk because we assume they’re connected with Hezbollah.” But that excuse was later revealed to be a lie. The IDF was deliberately striking civilian targets in an attempt to “cause a flow of civilians north, toward Beirut [the capital], thus applying pressure on Syria and Lebanon to restrain Hezbollah,” in the words of the Israeli Air Force. That strategy was upended on April 18, 1996, when Israeli forces shelled a United Nations facility outside of the village of Qana that was full of local civilians. The optics of a direct strike on women and children sheltering from the violence was too much. Israel entered into talks and, a week later, agreed to a ceasefire. In the end, 154 Lebanese civilians were dead and 351 were wounded. About two thousand miles away in Germany, a graduate student from Egypt watched the carnage closely. Days after the Qana strikes, twenty-seven-year-old Muhammad Atta signed “his last will and testament” to symbolize, in the words of Scott Horton, “his willingness to die in the fight against those he blamed for the war.” And who did he blame? The United States. Atta and his peers, later known as the Hamburg cell, were convinced that Grapes of Wrath would never have happened without all the money and equipment supplied by the US government. The following year, Atta and his best friend traveled to Afghanistan to volunteer their services to Osama bin Laden. As Horton reflects, “Their potential must have been obvious to al Qaeda; upper-middle-class graduate students studying engineering in Germany would have easy access to the United States.” Four years later, Muhammad Atta led the team of hijackers that killed almost three thousand Americans on September 11, 2001. He personally flew the first plane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Now, over twenty years later, militants in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria have already demonstrated that they, too, blame the United States for the manner in which Israel is waging its war in Gaza. And because the level of civilian death is so much higher in this war—with almost ten thousand children killed so far—that ought to worry us. When libertarians say what’s happening in the Middle East is not our war or that our involvement goes against America’s interest, it’s not that we’re complaining that there isn’t much to gain. It’s because we recognize how much the American people have to lose.

This article was originally published by Ryan McMacken at The Mises Institute.  Spreading civilization and human rights has long been used as an excuse for state-building through colonialism and imperialism. This idea dates back at least to early Spanish and colonial efforts in the New World, and the rationale was initially employed as just one of many. The importance of the conquest-spreads-civilization claim increased, however, as liberalism gained ground in Europe in the nineteenth century. Liberals were more skeptical of the benefits of imperialism, so, as political scientist Lea Ypi notes: “During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, the purpose of colonial rule was declared to be the ‘civilizing mission’ of the West to educate barbarian peoples .” The residents of these colonies were deemed to be “unsuited to setting up or administering a commonwealth both legitimate and ordered in human and civil terms.” The implied conclusion was that it was necessary that the European rules “take over [the natives’] administration, and set up new officers and governors on their behalf, or even give them new masters, so long as this could be proved to be in their interest.”1 That last caveat would become important to late colonial rationales: colonial rule was said to be in the interests of the natives themselves, who were incapable of proper and legitimate self-government. The British adopted these Spanish notions as their own in later centuries, and by the nineteenth century, we find John Stuart Mill claiming that “barbarians” were incapable of administering a respectable legal regime, and thus “nations which are still barbarous have not got beyond the period during which it is likely to be for their benefit that they should be conquered and held in subjection by foreigners.”2 The old empires have largely disappeared but this thinking has certainly not disappeared. Today, the same thinking takes the form of support for humanitarian intervention both internationally and domestically. Just as the traditional imperialists assumed the residents of the colonies were too “backward” to be capable of enlightened self-government, modern internationalists and progressives assume that the old colonial metropoles still must serve as enforcers of human rights across the globe. Moreover, at the domestic level, the same rationale is employed to oppose decentralization or secession for separatist groups. The old imperialist mentality still prevails: self-determination and political independence must be opposed in the name of protecting human rights. The “Civilizing Mission” of Empire By the early twentieth century, the idea of the civilizing mission became a dominant mode of thinking for imperialists. The British imagined they were civilizing the backward Catholic Irish. The Russian colonizers in Siberia saw themselves as the “benevolent civilizer[s] of Asia.” British colonies in Africa and Asia were cast as outposts of civilized European culture in a sea of primitives. The Americans, not content with their own civilizing mission in North America, did the same in Puerto Rico where American reformers sought to replace Puerto Rico’s “backward” and “patriarchal” culture with a “‘rational’ North American one.”3 In Algeria, the ultimate goal was to bring the blessings of French culture and government to all Algerians via government schools. The locals who embraced French culture were labeled the évolués—literally, the “evolved ones.” Among the imperial powers, rule by the metropole’s central state became intimately intertwined with what the elites saw as humanitarianism. Imperialists warned that without the metropole’s oversight, residents of the colonies would slaughter each other, or be constantly at war. Imperialists thus cast themselves as instruments of peace and safety for vulnerable minority populations. Ann Laura Stoler describes how, “appeals regarding moral uplift, compassionate charity, appreciation of cultural diversity, and protection” of women and children from aggressive men “were woven into the very weft of empire. —[they were] how control over …markets, land, and labor were justified…”4 Alleged humanitarian efforts thus often consisted of the imperial powers protecting the colonized populations from themselves. Alan Lester and Fae Dussart note: “Appeals for the protection of indigenous peoples against white and even British men … were also intrinsic to the legitimation of Britain’s governance of newly colonized spaces.”5 Imperialists developed informal litmus tests designed to “prove” that various groups of barbarians were ripe for colonization.  Many imperialists insisted that the metropole must take control in areas where the local governments are not legitimate states.  Legitimate states, not surprisingly, are only those states that meet various criteria determined by the metropoles themselves. As Ypi puts it, the “legitimate-state theory” rests on the idea that the claim to political independence “is conditional upon the satisfaction of a number of internal and external conditions.”6 Depending on the time and place that the theory is invoked, these conditions include “the ability to guarantee the rule of law, to protect basic human rights, and to provide sufficient opportunities for citizens’ democratic participation”7 among others. If the locals don’t implement this “particular way of delivering justice,” then “agents who fail in that task could arguably be colonized.”8 Certainly, any colony that could not demonstrate it would do all this on its own must naturally  continue to be colonized  indefinitely. The ruling imperialists often suggested that true sovereignty to various colonies would be granted  some day.   Which  day—and under what conditions—was never specified. (For an example, we can look to the idea of “trusteeship” for the Indian tribes in the United States.) Neo-Colonialism and  The “Responsibility to Protect” Neo-Colonialism and The “Responsibility to Protect”
This impulse to impose proper enlightened values on retrograde local populations has never gone away. It lives on in the modern concept of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P), a decades-old concept, which was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005. This doctrine states that the “international community”—vaguely defined—has the responsibility to intervene in any country where there are human rights abuses such as “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity.” What exactly qualify as crimes against humanity? That is to be decided by the “international community,” which is practice means the United States and its allies. The metropole-colony relationship still exists. Except now, it is all much less formal. The de facto metropoles are the elites in Washington, London, Brussels, etc. The de facto colonies are the “homophobic” African countries like Uganda, the “rogue states” like Syria, and any state too small and weak to assert its own independence in the face of the next Western “humanitarian” intervention. Having familiarized themselves with imperial propaganda, many historians and critics of colonialism have long viewed R2P with suspicion. They recognize humanitarian intervention under R2P is simply the latest manifestation of the “civilizing mission.” Or, as Siddharth Mallavarapu notes, the lack of specifics and restraining language in R2P resolutions means that R2P advocates have “been rather unsuccessful in assuaging deeper and well-founded historical suspicions, especially among decolonized states, about the motivations of major Western powers in the international system.” The suspicion is “well-founded” because in practice R2P provides a justification for major powers to ignore local sovereignty. R2P was used to justify the 2012 NATO war against Libya (which was really just an excuse for expanding European geopolitical influence in the region). This “humanitarian” intervention was strenuously opposed by the BRICS countries and by much of the Global South where anti-colonial activists denounced NATO’s interpretation of R2P as “a return to old imperial mode[s] of domination.”9 These critics of R2P have (correctly) observed that, in practice, R2P is likely to be used as a means of justifying intervention by Western powers into the domestic affairs of postcolonial states. For example, we could note that the US’s long military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan could easily be justified under the R2P doctrine. Moreover, in practice, the provisions of R2P are employed selectively to expand the prerogatives of the most powerful states. This is done with little regard for the disastrous side effects that generally accompany “humanitarian” bombing campaigns and other military interventions. [Read More: “Humanitarian Interventions Are Killing National Sovereignty — And That’s a Bad Thing” by Ryan McMaken] The fact that modern humanitarian interventions often end in bloodbaths and poverty for the local populations is simply the continuation of traditional colonialism. When we add up the human cost of the Scramble for Africa, American westward expansion, the Russian conquest of Siberia, the French annexation of Algeria, and the long march of the British empire, it is hardly self-evident that this was all “worth it” to bring enlightenment to the provincials. Indeed, many classical liberals—such as the great Richard Cobden—have long denied that such policies were  ever  worth it. Ludwig von Mises was a typical liberal in this regard when he wrote in the 1920s: No chapter of history is steeped further in blood than the history of colonialism. Blood was shed uselessly and senselessly. Flourishing lands were laid waste; whole peoples destroyed and exterminated. All this can in no way be extenuated or justified. The dominion of Europeans in Africa and in important parts of Asia is absolute. It stands in the sharpest contrast to all the principles of liberalism and democracy, and there can be no doubt that we must strive for its abolition. It is also notable that Mises wasn’t fooled by the claim that the imperialists are spreading peace and civilization. Mises writes: Attempts have been made to extenuate and gloss over the true motive of colonial policy with the excuse that its sole object was to make it possible for primitive peoples to share in the blessings of European civilization. . . . Could there be a more doleful proof of the sterility of European civilization than that it can be spread by no other means than fire and sword? The humanitarian excuse for increasing regime power over retrograde locals has domestic applications as well. In the United States, we often see the humanitarian excuse applied to deny self-determination to state and local governments. We are often told that only the central government in Washington is qualified to make final rulings—via the Supreme Court—as to what constitutes the “correct” interpretation of human rights. Local interpretations are considered suspect, and null and void if in conflict with the value of the metropole. (A British imperialist would understand this reasoning well.) Humanitarianism is similarly invoked whenever secession is mentioned. Secession cannot be tolerated, many anti-secessionists tell us, because we have the Supreme Court and the White House to impose “humanitarian” and enlightened rule in all parts of the country. Those state legislatures or city councils who choose not to rule in line with the rulings of the Washington elite have rendered themselves threats to human rights, and thus have given up their right to self-government. In other words, the modern anti-secessionist view frequently amounts to little more than an application of the “legitimate-state theory” to domestic state-building. A similar trend is at work in the nascent state of the European Union where the central bureaucracy threatens and lectures the member states of Hungary and Poland about being insufficiently progressive and “democratic.” The state-builders and centralizers will insist that this is all necessary to protect human rights in Europe. The cynics, however, would point out that it is probably not a coincidence that humanitarianism always seems to “require” more centralized state power and less self-determination for the locals. The cynics might suspect that the  real  goal all along was to increase the size, scope, and power of the states that are forever invoking human rights as an excuse to intervene.  There are, no doubt, some true believers out there who really believe that the de facto metropoles of the world are nearly always enlightened and progressive, while the natives of the de facto colonies are backward and reactionary. But, on the whole, the cynics are probably right.

This article was originally published by Ethan Huff at Natural News.  We are officially entering year four of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “pandemic,” and year three of Operation Warp Speed. Tens of millions of people are now sick or dead due to getting “vaccinated,” and below is a quick summary of the evidence that has been gathered thus far exposing the sham known as COVID “vaccination:” 1) Doctors don’t rely on science in prescribing COVID jabs; they are told to simply trust the FDA and CDC Since every last trace of post-marketing safety data on COVID jabs is being kept under lock and key, America’s physicians cannot even access it to determine whether or not the shots are safe for their patients. As such, doctors have no choice but to “trust the science” and do what they are told. “They are essentially told: ‘Do what we tell you to do, do not question authority or we will take away your license,’” writes investigator Steve Kirsch about the matter. 2) CDC can’t conduct post-marketing safety assessment because data is hidden Not only doctors but also the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is having to take wild guesses in the dark about COVID jab safety because it, too, does not have access to any of the data because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will not provide it from the manufacturer. “The CDC could ask states for vaccination records tied to death records, but they don’t want to even ask because if they did a safety analysis, it could be discovered in a FOIA request,” Kirsch says. “The CDC basically has no interest whatsoever in verifying what the actual safety data is. When I offered to show them the NZ data before I published it (so they would finally have record-level data), they declined to look at it.” 3) Health authorities patently refuse to release anonymized record-level patient data for independent researchers to analyze Even local public health authorities are being denied access to pertinent data about COVID jabs that would allow them to conduct a proper assessment of it in accordance with the law. 4) Medical community showing no interest in data transparency The establishment continues to get away with hiding the truth about COVID jabs because the medical community is doing absolutely nothing to force its hand in calling for full data transparency. “Time-series cohort analyses can be easily produced by health authorities and published for everyone to see,” Kirsch writes. “These would show safety signals and do not jeopardize patient privacy. These are always kept hidden.” (Related: Back in December, a genomics scientist lost $200,000 worth of research after the government of New Zealand obtained an injunction to block the sharing of leaked COVID injection health data.) 5) Reasonable requests made to health authorities receive no response Whenever someone tries to ask for relevant data on COVID jabs, public health authorities almost uniformly ignore or deny such requests. 6) U.S. Medicare data clearly shows increased mortality due to COVID jabs One thing we do know is that excess deaths noticeably increased all around the world after the launch of Operation Warp Speed. U.S. Medicare data clearly shows this, and yet public health authorities remain in denial about it. 7) Independent studies show as many as one death per 800 shots Despite government claims that COVID injections are “safe and effective,” independent research such as the kind compiled by researcher Denis Rancourt found that, on average, one person dies for every 800 injections given. 8) Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from COVID jabs Try as they might to hide the truth, survey data clearly shows that upwards of hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from COVID injections, which is comparable to the number of people who supposedly died from the “virus.” The latest news about the fallout from Operation Warp Speed can be found at Genocide.news.