Turn Out the Lights and Lock the Door: I Hear the Fat Lady Singing

…racial lawlessness, glorification of every sexual weirdity anyone can imagine, hostility to Christianity (but not to Judaism or Islam), phony charges of rape, compulsory Ritalin-ingestion, grotesque affirmative action in the hiring of cops and firemen, attacks on academic standards, little boys dragged from school in handcuffs for drawing a soldier, the anti-gun crusade, the truffle-hound search for “stereotypes” and discrimination, and the denigration of masculinity and every aspect of white European culture.

Did Fred miss anything? — jtl, 419

Fred On Everything Scurrilous Commentary by Fred Reed

Breitbart: A white man in Baltimore was sitting in his car when two female er, teens got into a fight. To continue this enterprise they climbed atop his car, perhaps mistaking it for a tree. He got out and asked them to take their dispute somewhere else, whereupon fifty er, teens beat him nearly to death, leaving him with $200,000-$400,000 in medical bills. The daily grind. Life as usual. If fifty whites similarly beat an er, teen, cities would burn and the media would go crazy. In this case, silence will prevail. American-Africans can do no wrong. But something is wrong in America..

We read over and over of the Culture Wars, and the War between the Sexes, of Red States and Blue States, as if these were amusing disputes between parents and adolescents in a sitcom. Methinks something far uglier and more dangerous brews.

Almost daily, friends send me links to accounts of what seem to them, and to me, lunacy, usually accompanied by notes expressing incredulity and—this will matter one day–anger. The stories deal with things utterly repugnant to much of the country, especially the South and West, the blue collar, the military, and much of the Mid-West: racial lawlessness, glorification of every sexual weirdity anyone can imagine, hostility to Christianity (but not to Judaism or Islam), phony charges of rape, compulsory Ritalin-ingestion, grotesque affirmative action in the hiring of cops and firemen, attacks on academic standards, little boys dragged from school in handcuffs for drawing a soldier, the anti-gun crusade, the truffle-hound search for “stereotypes” and discrimination, and the denigration of masculinity and every aspect of white European culture.

And, always, always, the suppression of news of the unending vicious attacks by er, teens, on whites. This latter goes beyond bias into undeclared censorship. Er, teens can loot, burn, and rape, and not much happens to them, but if you are white and say “nigger” in an email, you lose your job.

We have two countries that do not like each other at all.

This can’t last. A large part of America loathes these things and wants no part of them or of the country that enforces them. We see two utterly incompatible views of the world, one found chiefly among the Northeastern “elite,” academia, the upper middle class, the media, the Left Coast, and the other found in the rest of the country. With breathtaking imprecison, I call them the Center and the Seaboard.

“In April 2013, then-eighth-grader Jared Marcum was suspended from Logan Middle School in West Vriginia after refusing to take off an NRA t-shrt he wore that day. His mother is now suing the Logan County Board of Education.” To much of the country, assuredly including me, the National Rifle Association is a perfectly legitimate group, shooting an enjoyable sport, and Jared’s t-shirt none of anyone’s damned business.

I grew up in an America where kids had guns, hunted deer, slaughtered beer cans, and a first rifle was, like a girl’s first bra, a step into adulthood. Nobody shot anybody. Had home-invaders entered our houses at night, we would have made an exception, and potential home-invaders knew it. Guns didn’t kill, we knew from observation; people did. We had never known a gun to jump up and kill someone without human intervention.

By contrast, the Seaboard believes that people don’t kill; guns do. (Actually they know better but they also know who usually does the killing, and they aren’t going to go there.) People who own guns, they believe, are crazed killers, gun nuts, and if we just outlaw guns, killing will stop. Two countries.

But below the furor over guns, or any of the specific furors, lies a profounder difference. The Seaboard has the collective mentality of a hive. It believes in central planning and the imposition of values. Everything–morals, attitudes, curricula, security, everything–should be decided by a government embodying the Seaboard’s values. By contrast, the Center believes that things should be decided as locallly as possible. This translates to “Leave me the hell alone.”

In particular, the Seboard recoils at the idea of self-defense which it finds frightening, macho, and mentally unbalanced. If attacked by fifty er, teens—well, that doesn’t really happen, the New York Times says so, and anyway it only happens to other people, and if someone crawls in your window at three a.m., well, it only happens to other people. The New York Times says so.

The Center has, not always consciously, a pool-hall understanding of life, a recognition that bad things can happen, a depression and horrific “civil unrest,” cancer, losing a job with no other in sight, plague, getting the hell beaten ouf of you for no reason, riots, or civil war. “Life’s a bitch, and then you die.”

To the Eloi of the faculty lounges, this is loony-bin fantasy, but they have never been in a schoolyard fight–not yet. It is a blue-collar concepation. Truck drivers and carpenters live closer to the bone, closer to the edge. They know that men exist who will crush your face with a pool cue just to watch you bleed (see leading photo above), or torch your city and loot the stores. And they know they can’t depend on a hostile government to protect them.

To people not raised in Ivy hothouses, the Seaboard seems an inexplicable pack of milquetoasts. The men, if such they be, fear the women, and the women fear everything, are offended by everything else, and expect the world to be concerned about their petty disturbances. You know, microaggressions, hurtful words, hate speech, dirty jokes, men who look at their tits, rape–which excites them so much that they they invent it. This is especially true of the female young.

They rule the United States.

College girls displaying hairy armpits, a form of resistance to oppression. Note that they are ugly as mud walls. Attractive girls may have other things to do. College kids used to be occasionally silly because they were practicing to be adults and didn’t have the hang of it. Now they prepare for a lifetime in the tenth grade.

Consider a couple of examples of Seaboard girlisms pandered to by the nominal adults of the universities. First, we have “triggering.” This means that when, as happened at Columbia, a female (always a female) reads in Ovid of the rape of Leda by the swan, it is a “triggering event,” bringing back traumatic memories of sexual assaults, mostly imagined, and making the girls feel “unsafe.” Got it. Unsafe in an Ivy classoom. Bring back the swooning couch. What quivering little darlings.

From Inside Higher Ed: “Trigger warnings, which are common in blogs but also have begun to appear on college and university syllabuses, are supposed to signal to readers that forthcoming material may be uncomfortable or upsetting. Trigger warned-subject matter – in literature, films or other texts – usually relates to sexual assault and other kinds of violence, racism, and the like, and advocates say students have a right to know of sensitive material in advance.”

Case Two: Again at Columbia, we have one Sara Grace Powell, who was distressed because the Butler Library is named for an (Ugh!) man, presumably one Mr. Butler. Quoth Sara,“Butler is an extremely charged space — the names emblazoned on the stone facade are, for me, a stimulant for resistance.” Oh. Why not inductance or capacitance? Daddy of course pays her tuition.

What will these creatures do it if ever rains hard?

Milquetoasts and Fauntleroys seldom admit that they are milquetoasts and Fauntleroys, but it is evident in their behavior, and this is a salient strain in Seaboard life. They are afraid of Moslems and er, teens, but the Moslems and er, teens are not afraid of them. They don’t give a damn. Gordon Liddy, in his highly readable book Will, made the point that if your response to provocation is wildly disproportionate and unpredictable, no one will fuck with you. Yep. This is why reporters are afraid of Moslems, and governments are afraid of blacks. Journalists know that Moslems will not hesitiate to kill them and their families if they criticize what’s-his-name, and governments know that blacks will burn whole cities if provoked. Both groups get their way.

Any girl who feels “unsafe” on reading classical poetry belongs in an asylum (some would argue that at Columbia she already is) or else she is engaging in forever-thirteen passive-aggressive rebellion against professors confused with her fther. She obviously has no interest in Ovid.

The conversion of young women into pathetic whining goo-goos is entirely the work of the Seaboard. The women of the Center, who I grew up with, and married, and fathered, are as tough as boot soles when the need arises. The idea of a woman saying, “Oh…oh …Ovid said rape two thousand years ago and I feel so…so unsafe!” Poor widdle fings. I assume that real women laugh.

Sara, the face of the declining birth rate, chilly, prissy, sexless, prudish, censorious, and adolescent. A likely spinster librarian. Would you date her on a dare?

It is easy to parody these twits–I choose my vowel carefully–but they represent a class whose rule does not bode well for the country–helpless, self-absorbed, sheltered–aye, there’s the worst of it–and desirous of forcing their values on everyone else. Arrayed against them is the Center, increasingly very angry but not organized and not sure what to do. The only solution I can imagine is for the Center to call the Seaboard’s bluff and set their own standards locally, the Seaboard be damned. We could call it “freedom.” Will this happen? I hope.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

BookCoverImageMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Posted in Culture War, Social & Economic Collapse, Social and Cultural Desruction | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Anti-Libertarian Outrage –

by via LewRockwell.com

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute“Those people who owned slaves in the pre-Civil War U.S. were guilty of the crime of kidnapping.”

Professor Walter Block, Human Rights Review, July-Sept. 2002, p. 55

Combat Shooter's HandbookMost readers of LewRockwell.com are probably aware of the facts that: 1) A New York Times reporter maliciously libeled Professor Walter Block in a hit piece on Senator Rand Paul by claiming that Professor Block, who has supported Senator Paul, supposedly said that slavery was “not so bad”; 2) The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfitsthat Professor Block sued the New York Times for libel; 3) an establishment judge (the only kind) ruled against Professor Block; and 4) Professor Block has appealed the judge’s outlandish ruling.

It is not surprising that an establishment Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian Viewgovernment lawyer in a black robe would support the views of “the” establishment government propaganda rag in its quest to discredit and smear an ever-so-slightly anti-establishment politician, Senator Rand Paul, by libeling one of his academic supporters.  What is surprising is how the federal The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle, did not even bother to document or support with evidence his dismissive A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual statement that “Perceptions about Block’s notion of race related issues were largely fueled and published by Block himself,” as he dismissed the lawsuit.  He either made no attempt to determine what Professor Block actually said, or he intentionally and dishonestly ignored it.

What Professor Block said to the New York Times hatchet man “reporter” was that, philosophically speaking, there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary slavery.  An example of the former is indentured servitude.  About half of all the European immigrants to the original thirteen American colonies were indentured servants.  These were mostly poor youth who, in return for passage to America, voluntarily contracted to work for a number of years for the person or business that paid for their voyage.  After the period of indentured servitude expired (five years, for example), he was usually given a stipend and became an accepted member of American society with no further work obligations to his previous “employer.”  This is the kind of “slavery” that Professor Block, with tongue in cheek, said “was not so bad” compared to real, involuntary slavery.  It was a voluntary work contract that was very different from real slavery, which involved the crime of kidnapping, and much worse.   At no time has Professor Block ever said that slavery was anything but a moral abomination and an economic drag on the rest of society – the long-standing view of all libertarians.

It does not take much brain power to discern this distinction between voluntary and involuntary servitude.  Thus, it is impossible to believe that either the New York Times “reporter” and his editors, or Lemelle, did not understand it.  Moreover, the judge’s snide comment that “perceptions” about Professor Block’s “notion of race related issues” are “fueled and published by Block himself” is unequivocally false, as anyone who has spent even a few minutes reading Professor Block’s writings on the subject would conclude.

Professor Block has published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, for example, on the subject of reparations for slavery.  Like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and various other black political activists, Professor Block is on record as being in favor of reparations for slavery – as long as a black person today can prove that his ancestor(s) was/were indeed enslaved, and as long as the reparation can somehow be paid by the descendants of the slave owner(s), not the general taxpaying public.

It would have taken Lemelle or the New York Times only a minute or two to do an internet search and find Professor Block saying such things as “those people who owned slaves in the pre-Civil War U.S. were guilty of the crime of kidnapping” (Walter Block, “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, July-Sept. 2002, p. 55).  Calling slavery “the crime of kidnapping” cannot be construed by anyone as consistent with saying that is was “not so bad.”  Or, “Were justice fully done in 1865 these people [i.e., slave owners] would have been incarcerated, and that part of the value of their holdings attributed to slave labor would have been turned over to ex-slaves.”

Once again in the same publication, Professor Block wrote that in “a regime of justice the farms would [in the present day] be in the hands of the great grandchildren of slaves” instead of the descendants of the slave owners.  He then goes on to say that he personally favors a policy that would “return these specific lands to those blacks in the present day who can prove their ancestors were forced to work on these plantations . . .”    He, goes even further, writing on page 56 that: “Were justice to have reigned [in 1865], the product of their [i.e., the slaves] entire output would have been given to them, [and] none of it would have remained in the slave masters’ hands.”

In the Spring 2001 issue of the Journal of Markets and Morality (pp. 83-93), Professor Block wrote that “Full compensation [for slavery] might even have contemplated enslaving these former masters to the newly-freed slaves – a sort of poetic justice” (p. 89).  Contrary to the lying New York Times, Professor Block is on record as saying that slavery was so bad that its demise justified enslaving the former slave masters as a form of compensation for the crime.

Professor Block’s lawyer surely must have made Lemelle (I don’t call him “Judge Lemelle” since the ill-mannered judge himself did not use the language of “Professor Block,” “Dr. Block,” or even “Mr. Block,” but just “Block”) aware of all of this.  He chose not only to ignore it, but to lie about it and claim that Professor Block’s writings show exactly the opposite of what they do in fact show.

As despicable as Lemelle and the New York Times have been in this sordid affair, Professor Block’s employer, Loyola University-New Orleans president Kevin Wildes, was even sleazier and more immoral in his handling of the libeling of one of his faculty members.  And he is a Catholic priest.  Like almost all modern-day Jesuits, Kevin Wildes conducts himself more like a cultural Marxist ideologue hiding behind a priest’s collar than a holy man.  University presidents these days have small armies of assistants, assistant vice presidents, deans, assistant deans, assistants to the assistants, etc.  They also conscript faculty in myriad faculty committees to do the work that all the highly-paid assistants and assistant-to-the-assistants are unwilling or unable to do.  Rather than asking at least one of his subordinates to look into the New York Times smearing of one of his faculty members – or better yet, talking to Professor Block himself about it — Kevin Wildes immediately condemned Professor Block on his university Web site.  His fellow Jesuits at Loyola University-New Orleans then recruited some of their more feeble-minded students to pile on with ignorant and hateful comments on the university Web site condemning Professor Block, who they had never met and whose writings they had never read.  (This is a good illustration of what much of the business of American universities in the social sciences and the humanities is about today:  producing infantile-minded, politically-correct, left-wing ideologues and blabbermouths in the image of Kevin Wildes and his ilk).

Professor Block has appealed Lemelle’s ruling to another government lawyer in a black robe.  One thing this whole sorry episode shows is that there is nothing the statist establishment in America hates and fears more than a well-educated libertarian with a word processor and internet access.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteAll unclassified Army and Marine Cops manuals and correspondence courses are products of the US Federal Government. They are NOT subject to copyright and can be freely copied and redistributed.

The Marine Corps Institute (MCI) develops correspondence courses for Marines with all kinds of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) on all manner of subjects. This is one of those courses.

The print is relatively small because that is the way it was in the original and this is an exact reproduction. Also, as a tribute to the individual (and a touch of reality), you will notice that the editorial pencil marks and underlined passages that were put there by the Marine that took this course. They were intentionally left in the reproduction.

This version of the course was authorized in September of 1984. With the exception the development of Infrared technology, it contains information and techniques that have changed very little since the Vietnam war. These battle proven tactics are as valid today as they were in Quang Nam province in 1968.

They will maintain their validity during the upcoming inevitable event of total economic, political and social collapse. Yours for freedom in our lifetimes. jtl, 419

Posted in Slavery | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Faking it

It’s hardly the first time professional academics and professional journalists huddled together with professional politicians to produce amateurish results.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Indeed. Back in my academic years, I had an office suit-mate that held her PhD in Wildlife Management. One day she told me how she ended up there. She started her academic career doing research in (some field of) sociology.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)During her Masters research, she was actually asked to “fabricate data” that would statistically support the hypothesis. That’s when she changed her major but I’m not sure she associated herself with a much better class of people. — jtl, 419

by Ben Crystal via Personal Liberty

lying politician conceptPoliticians pursue power. Whether in a free society or one ruled by Democrats, the pursuit of authority defines nearly everyone who seeks to wield it. That, of course, creates a permanent political class made up almost entirely of people who can’t The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)be trusted. Therefore, scientists and the media are both supposed to pursue truth, both for truth’s own sake and as a counter to the control-at-all-costs politicians. Knowledge is power, after all. But when politicians, academics and media are all united in the common pursuit of power, then no one is left to pursue truth.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewSo you’ll pardon me if I’m not stunned to learn that another “groundbreaking study” has turned out to be as valid as an Obamacare promise. First published in Science magazine, the work by Columbia University professor Donald P. Green, Ph.D., and graduate student Michael LaCour  Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfitsdocumented a sociological experiment in which canvassers attempted to talk people into A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manualabandoning support for California’s Proposition 8 barring legal recognition of same-sex marriage and pro-life policies. Green’s and LaCour’s findings revealed that canvassers who have a personal stake in legalizing marriage equality and/or abortion could alter the subject’s attitude toward those topics.

The media repeated the revelations at the tops of their lungs. Here was academic proof that just a few minutes a day needling Great Aunt Esther could swing her into the leftward column. Finally, science provided a way to crush those stodgy old homophobes once and for all. One teensy little problem: Green’s and LaCour’s “groundbreaking study” was bogus. Despite hitting the media last December with all the fanfare of a Led Zeppelin reunion tour, their “work” was as short on facts as it was long on hype. As of Wednesday morning, it had been formally retracted due to academic malfeasance on the part of co-author LaCour.

I’ll leave the moral issues surrounding marriage equality for another column, mostly because they’re tangential to the growing crisis of American academics and journalists willingly subjugating themselves to politicians. To be honest, the idea that someone would conduct a study on the effects of repeatedly needling Great Aunt Esther is nearly as silly as concocting such a study. You shouldn’t need a months-long academic experiment — real or otherwise — to tell you to stop bothering Great Aunt Esther. But the saga of Green and LaCour isn’t new. It’s hardly the first time professional academics and professional journalists huddled together with professional politicians to produce amateurish results.

We shouldn’t be surprised at the disintegration of yet another liberal pseudo-scientific-turned-pseudo-journalism snipe hunt. The left has been using academia, journalism and often both in concert since Karl Marx was just another spoiled rich kid backpacking his way through Europe on his old man’s nickel. We can put the Green/LaCour fabrication up on the shelf with “Hands up, don’t shoot,” “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” “What difference does it make?” and whatever they’re calling “global warming” this year.

Sadly, we also shouldn’t be surprised the MSM that baked up this piping-hot serving of crow now refuse to eat it. Exposure of the Green/LaCour fraud made hardly a ripple compared to the tsunami the release caused back in December. Left-leaning commentators have already cued up the “taking liberties with the facts doesn’t undo the Greater Truth” narrative. Green himself told one reporter: “Maybe the thing to convey … would be something to the effect that just because the data don’t exist to demonstrate the effectiveness of this method of changing minds doesn’t mean the hypothesis is false.”

Actually, “Dr.” Green, the only relevant “thing to convey” is that yet another liberal invented yet another lie to push yet another leftist ideal.

It’s disturbingly familiar refrain. Other than writing what I expect will be a check with more zeroes than a “Ready for Hillary” coffee klatsch, Rolling Stone suffered no lasting effects from its spectacular self-immolation over the University of Virginia rape hoax. George Stephanopoulos remains employed at ABC “News” despite his personal, financial and not-just-a-little-bit-creepy entanglements with the Clinton family and their money trough — er, “Global Foundation.” Perpetually embattled NBC, including its idiot stepchild MSNBC, has been caught fudging the facts so frequently that the disgrace of talking hairdo Brian Williams didn’t really hurt its cache, mostly because it had none left to damage.

Scientists faked data to advance politics; and the media not only failed to spot the fraud, they gleefully advanced it. In that pipeline, there’s no room for the truth. Consequently, there’s no room for us. When academics and journalists all willingly kneel before politicians, we the people lose big.

Think I’m overstating the case? Perhaps. But the same day Green and LaCour were forced to retract a study published with all the hype of a campaign kickoff, President Obama told the graduating class of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy that “denying” or “refusing to deal with” so-called “climate change” constitutes a “dereliction of duty.”

–Ben Crystal

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History and The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

10 Rules for Dealing With Cops

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)by at Flex Your Rights via LewRockwell.com

I can hardly believe it’s been five years since we released 10 Rules for Dealing with Police! But you wouldn’t know it from the way people react when they see it for the first time.The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)

Luckily, when I heard about this local event hosted by renowned DC community activist Kymone Freeman, I was able to pull together a camera crew to capture it. (Runtime: 2:38)

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Because of the efforts of local activists and educators of all stripes, know-your-rights events like these routinely happen all around the country. So if you’ve ever wanted to organize your own local event – there’s never been a better time to do it!

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewTo help get you started, I’ve updated our 10 Rules for Hosting a Great Know-Your-Rights Event. This includes tips for picking a great venue. (Hint: Smaller is better than too big.) It also explains why you should always invite a local criminal defense attorney. (They’re the best at audience Q&A.)

Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsWhether you’re an experienced know-your-rights event pro or just getting started, thank you for bringing the power of knowledge to the people!

The Best of Steve Silverman A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual

 

 

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History  and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Jack Booted Government Thug Watch, Police State | Tagged | Leave a comment

Popular Radio Host and Guest Censored by Radio Station Over Vaccines

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)Who would throw out a perfectly good Gary Null interview? Gary Null, PhD, age 70By Heather Callaghan via Activist Post

Gary Null has been a popular, longtime radio host with the longest running health talk show which airs on Progressive Radio Network. He has authored and directed dozens upon dozens of books and documentaries.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)A few weeks ago, he was asked as an honored guest on Bonnie Faulkner’s show, Guns and Butter which talks about the politics of economics and airs on Pacifica KPFA public radio stations. In the spirit of truth, Bonnie wanted listeners to hear the other side of the vaccine talk, not the “case closed” version. The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)What you’re not being told about vaccines. And specifically SB277, the California bill to mandate vaccines for virtually all Californian school children. Who better to ask then Null, an alternative health expert, medical activist and Pacifica veteran?

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewWhen it came time to air, however, they were told they weren’t allowed – or rather, they were outright censored and the show was cut – the first time for Guns and Butter in over 11 years. But Bonnie could not let this breach of truth rest…

 Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsBonnie went on the Gary Null Show and they did a “reverse interview.” Bonnie then interviewed Gary and they both shared the Sound Cloud file to their listeners. Listen to the banned talk with updated information on SB277 and the censorship here, while you read what happened next…

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualDownload https://soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/vaccines-what-youre-not-being-told-part-one-gary-null-320 An excerpt from KPFA’s mission:

Over the years we’ve advanced the discussions and told the truth about historical moments of political impasse, racial tensions and economic inequality.

But not if it’s politically incorrect or goes against what’s popular, eh? Not very public radio-y of them… Listeners did not donate to have hard-hitting info yanked from their ears.

To make matters worse, KPFA Program Director, Laura Prives, publicly declared [bottom of page] her reasons for the cut and aired her ignorance as a result. It is clear that she must have done a lazy Google search as she is quoting directly from propagandist Website Quackwatch run by anti-alternative therapy psychiatrist Stephen Barrett – always somehow #1 on Google. Or maybe she found Null’s Wikipedia entry which is only a harsh, heavily skewed rehash of…Quackwatch. Without knowing anything about Null’s work, she declares he has no credentials, has unsound theories and his work is only a vehicle to hawk products.

She says the station has a “serious responsibility to provide its listeners with accurate, science-based information on public health, most especially on issues that could potentially cause harm to people.” She says it’s not censorship but “protecting the airwaves from mis-information and from people who stand to profit by offering dubious remedies to sick and vulnerable listeners.” !!! Because pharmaceutical companies who have the media on a short leashnever do that…

A sharp, lengthy response from Null includes assertions such as:

Lewis Hill [founder] would have been appalled at the blatant censorship imposed upon Bonnie Faulkner and myself, especially in light of the California senate’s recent passage of a bill that destroys Californians’ freedom of health choices for their children. Had I been allowed the opportunity to present the independent science opposing Big Pharma’s spurious claims for vaccine efficacy and safety, there might have been enough support from KPFA listeners to have delayed or thwarted the bill’s sponsors from passing it.

In the spirit of uncensored info-sharing, Guns and Butter blog also shared the following resource links:

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.Recent posts by Heather Callaghan:

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes from the three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in vaccines | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders=Preferential Treatment for Homosexuals

By essentially saying they’d trust homosexuals with Boy Scouts but not normal men with Girl Scouts, Gates and his fellow travelers have gone beyond equality — they’re implying that homosexuals are superior to straight men.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsGates is a fag and a despicable pervert. — jtl, 419

Written by  Selwyn Duke at The New American

Fresh off making people’s eyes roll with a ban on water-gun play fights, the Boy Scouts of America has found an even better way to lose members: propose that homosexuals be allowed to serve as Boy Scout troop leaders.Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute

Wow, what could possibly go wrong?

The suggestion came from Boy Scouts of America (BSA) president Robert Gates, a former defense secretary with a history of taking the offense Combat Shooter's Handbookagainst tradition. As Pentagon chief he effected the elimination of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, thus allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military; and placed female officers aboard cramped submarines. Now he’s telling the BSA they must get with the times, saying at the organization’s annual meeting in Atlanta, “We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.” My, what spirit. Had the Founding Fathers shared it, we’d still be British subjects.Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

The problem is that “the world as it is” is detached from reality and reason. And here’s reality: What Gates proposes — in the name of equality for homosexuals — amounts to preferential treatment for them. After all, if having homosexuals as Boy Scout troop leaders poses no problems, why not allow normal men to be Girl Scout troop leaders? What’s the difference? Are homosexuals immune to sexual temptation?The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)

By essentially saying they’d trust homosexuals with Boy Scouts but not normal men with Girl Scouts, Gates and his fellow travelers have gone beyond equality — they’re implying that homosexuals are superior to straight men. And by saying they’ll ignore the danger of sexual temptation with homosexuals in the BSA while holding normal men to the traditional standard, they’re effecting a double standard that favors homosexuals.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen such bias, either. When Gene Robinson left his wife and children to be with his homosexual lover, the decision was not only called “brave” by some, but he was rewarded years later by being elected an Episcopalian bishop in 2003. Now, question: If a straight man left his family and violated his marriage vows to be with his mistress, would he be called brave or a dog? Would he be elected bishop or likened to Beelzebub? In both cases the men are attracted to someone else more than to their wives. But in one case it’s called adultery — in the other it’s called liberation.

(By the way, Robinson just can’t help being brave; last year he announced he was “divorcing” his “husband.”)

What’s going on here? Disconnected from Truth and governed by emotion, we now operate not on principles but prejudice. It’s not what you do — it’s what you are. If you’re a white male college professor who renders a politically incorrect analysis of racial differences, your university condemns you and says your remarks have no place in “civil discourse”; if you’re a black female college professor with a criminal record who taunted a white rape victim and made vulgar, bigoted comments, your university defends your right to free speech and proceeds with its plan to retain your services.

So we’d never risk letting straight men take Girl Scouts on camping trips, but homosexuals and Boy Scouts? Hey, if you want to make an omelet of so-called Equality™, you have to break a few eggs. Of course, leftists will say that homosexuality and pedophilia are entirely different phenomena — pedophiles are a distinct group — and that most child molesters are heterosexual. Yet the contradiction invariably goes unnoticed. If pedophiles are a group unto themselves, how can you label any of them “heterosexual”? And if most are the latter, it follows that some of the remainder would be homosexual. Ergo, there are homosexual child molesters.

Yet there’s another factor. Many scouts are in fact adolescents (onset of male puberty occurs on average at age 11). And if it’s not unfathomable that a normal man could find a developing teen girl a temptation, is it radical to assume a homosexual could find teens boys so? Note that history provides many examples of men routinely taking child brides (Islam’s Mohammed comes to mind); likewise, from ancient Athens and Sparta to today’s “chickenhawks,” homosexuality has long been intertwined with pederasty.

Continuing with the double standards, leftists believe homosexuals are being singled out by the BSA. But think about it: An organization has no more way of knowing a person is a homosexual than that he’s an adulterer or fornicator — assuming he keeps his behavior private. And would the BSA accept an “open” adulterer or fornicator, someone who wore his anomalous sexual behavior on his shirtsleeve, as a troop leader? It’s inconceivable. So leftists not only want homosexuals to be able to advertise their sexuality, but also to be free from the consequences any other group would suffer for doing so.

Equality?

Returning to Gates, it’s ironic he was defense secretary as his specialty seems to be waving a white flag. He said at the BSA meeting that his organization cannot “ignore the social, political and juridical changes taking place in our country.” Perhaps he’d rather live on his knees than die on his feet, but he’s not supposed to ignore them — he’s supposed to fight them. Dealing with “the world as it is” sometimes means rejecting it. Otherwise, we’re simply people who’d accept human sacrifice in medieval Aztec times, slavery in slave times, and gas chambers in Nazi times.

Gates also said that ignoring the homosexual agenda could mean the end of the BSA “as a national movement.” But the BSA has already suffered and lost millions of dollars due to sexual abuse, and I can’t imagine anything that would cause parents to flee the organization more than the prospect of a homosexual scout leader camping with their sons.

Gates warned that we cannot ignore the times and “put our heads in the sand.” Americans ought to tell him — and the homosexual agenda — to go pound sand.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

 

Posted in Fags | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Radical Feminism

Murray Rothbard called “women’s lib” (aka radical feminism) the “ugly girl’s movement.” — jtl, 419

by Paul Joseph Watson editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

As you can see from this video, feminists are nice, polite people. They won’t violently scream at and attack you if you disagree with them at all….

WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

Check out our WebSite Check out our e-Store Combat Shooter's Handbook Combat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

Posted in Radical Feminism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Memorial Day Is A Hoax

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps… I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteI certainly don’t aim to put myself in the same category as Smedley Butler but that was almost exactly my experience too.  The only nit I have to pick is that…well, I just wish these guys would stop confusing “capitalism” with “fascism.” The garage innovator is a capitalist. Big Banking is fascist. — jtl, 419

Thanks for Dying for the Power Elite

By at PaulCraigRoberts.org via LewRockwell.comThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsMemorial Day commemorates soldiers killed in war. We are told that the war dead died for us and our freedom. US Marine General Smedley Butler challenged this view. He said that our soldiers died for the profits of the bankers, Wall Street, Standard Oil, and the United Fruit Company. Here is an excerpt from a speech that he gave in 1933:WCombat Shooter's Handbookar is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Most American soldiers died fighting foes who posed no threat to the United States. Our soldiers died for secret agendas of which they knew nothing. Capitalists hid their self-interests behind the flag, and our boys died for the One Percent’s bottom line.

Jade Helm, an exercise that pits the US military against the US public, is scheduled to run July 15 through September 15. What is the secret agenda behind Jade Helm?

The Soviet Union was a partial check on capitalist looting in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. However, with the Soviet collapse capitalist looting intensified during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes.

Neoliberal Globalization is now looting its own constituent parts and the planet itself. Americans, Greeks, Irish, British, Italians, Ukrainians, Iraqis, Libyans, Argentinians, the Spanish and Portuguese are being looted of their savings, pensions, social services, and job opportunities, and the planet is being turned into a wasteland by capitalists sucking the last penny out of the environment. As Claudia von Werlhof writes, predatory capitalism is consuming the globe. We need a memorial day to commemorate the victims of neoliberal globalization. All of us are its victims, and in the end the capitalists also.

The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteAll unclassified Army and Marine Cops manuals and correspondence courses are products of the US Federal Government. They are NOT subject to copyright and can be freely copied and redistributed.

The Marine Corps Institute (MCI) develops correspondence courses for Marines with all kinds of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) on all manner of subjects. This is one of those courses.

The print is relatively small because that is the way it was in the original and this is an exact reproduction. Also, as a tribute to the individual (and a touch of reality), you will notice that the editorial pencil marks and underlined passages that were put there by the Marine that took this course. They were intentionally left in the reproduction.

This version of the course was authorized in September of 1984. With the exception the development of Infrared technology, it contains information and techniques that have changed very little since the Vietnam war. These battle proven tactics are as valid today as they were in Quang Nam province in 1968.

They will maintain their validity during the upcoming inevitable event of total economic, political and social collapse. Yours for freedom in our lifetimes. jtl, 419

Posted in Government Corruption, Government Propaganda, The Warfare State | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hey Grimes, what’s up dude?

Almost since day 1, it has always been a tradition at FlyoverPress to republish “Hey Grimes” each Memorial Day. Gary Lynn Grimes was a pure and honorable man. His story is tragic but, more than that, it is representative of a generation betrayed.  

Notice that the original was written in 2002—during the Slick Willie days. In the next to the last paragraph, I lament the (then) current condition in America. Can it possibly deteriorate in the next as many years as much as it has deteriorated in the last? Is this what Grimes died for?

Y’all have a safe and fun Memorial Day weekend and, if you speak with the Supreme Commandant, don’t forget to put in a word for me and old Grimes. – jtl, 419

by Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

19 Nov 02

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother. Shakespeare, Henry IV, Act IV, Scene 3

Hey Grimes, what’s up? How are things going for you up there in Valhalla? With Memorial Day coming, I thought I’d drop you a line. I don’t talk about it much, but there has not been a single day in over 32 years that I haven’t thought about you.

I remember the first time we met. It was in Staging Battalion at Camp Pendleton. At the ripe old age of 24, I was a good deal older than average. You’ve heard of the generation gap? Well, I was the gap. I had little in common with the guys of my rank, with whom I was allowed to socialize. But, although you were still very young, you were different–an enthusiastic, bubbling, peached faced kid from Amarillo, TX. Remember our big plans for me to teach you to ride bulls and bareback horses when we got back to the world?

Boy, what a couple of dreamers!

When we got in country, you went to 5th Marines and I went to 2nd Battalion, 11th Marines. Since my Battalion and your Regimental Headquarters were both at An Hoa, we had several chances to see each other and renew our friendship. Any time that you were there, you always made a point of finding me, as I did you when I would pass through.

I’ll never forget the last time I saw you. It was about a month before we were due to rotate. You had been out with a CAP unit and showed up at my hooch wearing a flight suit and sporting a 45 in a shoulder holster. I didn’t ask where you got the flight suit and shoulder holster–just figured that you had traded some air-winger an AK (or something) for them. I’ll never forget the last conversation we had.

“Hey Grimes, what’s up dude?”

“Man, I’m being MedEvaced to Japan!”

I checked you out. You seemed to have all your appendages and didn’t seem to have any extra holes. “MedEvaced? What for?”

“Man, I’m eat up with parasites.”

“Parasites! Man that’s great!!! By the time they get you to Japan and get you cleaned up, it’ll be time to rotate.”

We knew that you had it made so we celebrated. As I recall, we snuck out into Duc Duc and captured a couple of liters of Gook banana rum. What a night! The next morning I sent you off. “See ya back in the world dude!”

When rotation day came and I got on the freedom bird, I was fully expecting to see you in a few days. The first morning back on Okinawa, I ran into Piasaki. Remember him? He was a mutual friend that had gone through Staging Battalion with us. That’s another conversation I’ll never forget.

“Hey man, did you know that Grimes is dead?”

“Naw, bullshit, Grimes ain’t dead.”

“Yea, he is too.”

“No he ain’t. I saw him less than a month ago and he was being MedEvaced to Japan.”

“I’m telling you he’s dead. I kicked his body the next morning. I was part of the relief force that got too them right after daylight. The VC overran his CAP unit and killed them all. It looked like Grimes had been one of the last left fighting. He had about 30 AK rounds point blank in his chest.”

I refused to believe it. I just came home and tried to bury it. I never made any attempt to contact you or your family–guess I didn’t want to believe it. Then finally, in 1983, I went to the wall and there you were—Panel 09W, Line 52, Gary Lynn Grimes. Born 01 June 1949 in Amarillo, Texas. Died 13 June 1970 in Quang Nam, South Vietnam. I cried.

It has only been just recently that I located your family. They are still in Amarillo and, from what little I know, seem to be doing well. Although I have your parents’ and brother’s addresses and phone numbers, I have still made no attempt to contact any of them. That is a wrong that terribly needs to be righted and, I promise, I will…someday…

As far as what’s going on in the world, you wouldn’t believe what they’ve done to our country. Remember all those greasy headed hippies that we used to hate so much? Well, they’re all grown up now and are in control of all our major institutions and all levels of government—everything from Congress to law enforcement to the public schools. Hell, one of them even became President. They are stealing our property, murdering our citizens, and generally making a mockery out of the Constitution—all under the color of law. What a mess! Oh well, hopefully, there’ll be plenty of time to fill you in on the details of all that later.

So, how’s it going for you? I suspect that promotions come pretty slow up there–after all, you are amongst the cream of the cream. But, knowing you, I’d bet that you are at least a Battalion Sergeant Major by now. When the Supreme Commandant decides to cut me a new set of orders, I’m hoping He’ll consider me worthy of joining you. Maybe you’ll have room for a good Company First Sergeant in your outfit.

Hope to see you up there dude!

Semper Fi

LaBaume, Jimmy T, Cpl USMC

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies

American journalists and pundits rely upon vigorous free speech, but are not reliable supporters of it. They both instruct and reflect their fickle audience. … It’s easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat.

I usually make it a point to watch the Communist Broadcasting System’s (CBS) evening news. Some of my colleagues ask, why? The standard answer is, for a reason similar to why the military conducts intelligence operations–to keep up with what the enemy is up to.

And indeed, it is very easy–once you catch on to how they operate. They even communicate clandestinely — with facial expressions and body language. Watch any of the “anchors” closely (and especially during the closing story). If the report is about something that is NOT politically correct, he/she will have a look of disgust on his face when he says “good night.” Conversely, he/she will beam with joy when the event meets his/her PC standards. In either case, you have been sent a message. — jtl, 419

by Ken White via Popehat

American journalists and pundits rely upon vigorous free speech, but are not reliable supporters of it. They both instruct and reflect their fickle audience.

It’s easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat. Those have become more common in the wake of both tumultuous events (like the violence questionably attributed to the “Innocence of Muslims” video, or Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” contest) and mundane ones (like fraternity brothers recorded indulging in racist chants).

But it’s harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.

Fortunately, this ain’t rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media’s pro-censorship tropes. I’ve collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I’ll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes.

When you see the media using these tropes, ask yourself: what normative message is the author advancing, and does it have any basis in law?

Trope One: “Hate Speech”

Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.

In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.

“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.

This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.

When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”

Trope Two: “Like shouting fire in a crowded theater”

Example: ” There is no freedom to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Prof. Thane Rosenbaum, Daily Beast, January 30, 2014.

Nearly 100 years ago Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., voting to uphold the Espionage Act conviction of a man who wrote and circulated anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, said”[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

That flourish — now usually shortened to “shout fire in a crowded theater” — is the media’s go-to trope to support the proposition that some speech is illegal. But it’s empty rhetoric. I previously explained at length how Holmes said it in the context of the Supreme Court’s strong wartime pro-censorship push and subsequently retreated from it. That history illustrates its insidious nature. Holmes cynically used the phrase as a rhetorical device to justify jailing people for anti-war advocacy, an activity that is now (and was soon thereafter) unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. It’s an old tool, but still useful, versatile enough to be invoked as a generic argument for censorship whenever one is needed. But it’s null-content, because all it says is some speech can be banned — which, as we’ll see in the next trope, is not controversial. The phrase does not advance a discussion of which speech falls outside of the protection of the First Amendment.

Trope Three: “Not all speech is protected”

Example: “Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.” Ann Coulter, Townhall, August 2, 2001.

Example: “Not all speech is protected if there is hate speech and it is intended to ridicule another religion,” he said. “I don’t believe it is a free speech matter.” Archbishop Paul Coakley, quoted on FoxNews.com, August 8, 2014.

The media routinely prefaces free speech discussions with the bland and inarguable statement “not all speech is protected.” That’s true. In fact it’s not in serious dispute. The problem is that the media routinely invokes this trope to imply that the proposed First Amendment exception it is about to discuss is plausible or constitutional because other exceptions already exist. Not so. Though First Amendment analysis can be complicated at the margins, the core exceptions to First Amendment protection are well-known and well-established. The Supreme Court — in the course of rejecting a proposed new exception — articulated them recently:

“From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amendment has “permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382-383. These “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)–including obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254-255 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-449 (1969) (per curiam), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949)–are “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942).

The observation “not all speech is protected” adds nothing to a discussion because it offers no mechanism for determining whether the speech at issue falls into a traditional exception or not.

To see what I mean, consider the utility of equivalent rhetoric. You’ve been bitten by an unfamiliar snake, and you’d like to know if you need treatment.

You: Doctor, was the snake that bit me poisonous?
Doctor: Actually snakes are usually venomous. Though some are both venomous and poisonous.
You: Great. What about this snake here? I caught it in a bag for you to look at.
Doctor: There are both harmless and venomous snakes in North America.
You: Yes, thank you. Which is this?
Doctor: That snake has rings!
You: Yes. Yes it does.
Doctor: Some venomous snakes have rings.
You: Is there anyone else on duty I could see?

Trope Four: “Line between free speech and [questioned expression]”

Example: “Texas Shooting Sheds Light On Murkiness Between Free, Hate Speech.” NPR.com Headline, May 5, 2015.
Example: “Texas attack refocuses attention on fine line between free speech and hate speech.” LA Times Headline, May 4, 2015.

Journalists and pundits talking about free speech disputes love to frame their stories as being about “the line between free speech and X,” where X is the controversial expression in question.

This trope can be invoked accurately when there is a legally meaningful line separating protected speech and the type of speech called out. For instance, “the line between free speech and true threats” isn’t misleading because “true threats” are an actual category of unprotected speech and there’s a line between them and protected speech.

Too often, though, the “line” is invoked to imply a nonexistent legal distinction. The “line between free speech and hate speech” rhetoric from the examples above is misleading and meaningless because, as noted in Trope One, “hate speech” is not a legal thing. “The line between free speech and bullying” — another recently popular line — is another example. It implies, falsely, that there is a legally meaningful category of speech called “bullying” that lies outside of First Amendment protections. In fact there isn’t — there are traditional exceptions to free speech (true threats, for instance) and some of that conduct could sometimes be described as “bullying,” but that’s not the same thing.

“The line between free speech and X” is often the rhetorical equivalent to “the line between vegetables and rutabagas”: the author doesn’t have a coherent argument that rutabagas aren’t vegetables, but doesn’t like rutabagas and thinks you shouldn’t either.

Trope Five: “Balancing free speech and [social value]”

Example: “The incident raised heated questions about race relations — and how to balance free speech with protection from discrimination and harassment.” Washington Post, March 3, 2015.

The media’s love of “balancing” stories is a variation on its love of “line between” stories, only more misleading.

“Balancing,” when used as a colloquial description of how courts decide whether speech is protected, is almost always wrong. American courts don’t weigh the value of speech against the harm it does. When speech falls into an established exception to the First Amendment, as discussed above, no balancing is necessary; it can be restricted. When it doesn’t, balancing of its “value” against other interests is almost always prohibited. As the Supreme Court recently said in rejecting the government’s request to create new categories of unprotected speech through balancing:

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).

Courts occasionally engage in something that faintly resembles “balancing” when they apply different levels of scrutiny to speech restrictions. For instance, the Supreme Court said that Congress could prohibit the burning of draft cards because the government had a substantial interest in the draft system and the law was narrowly addressed to that legitimate interest, and aimed only at the non-communicative element of the conduct (destroying the card) and not the communicative aspect (doing so to protest the draft). But that analysis doesn’t purport to assign a value to the speech. It considers only whether the government has a sufficiently compelling interest in its goal. Moreover, there’s very good reason to doubt that the Supreme Court would ever approve a speech restriction that is content-based — that is, premised on dislike of the speech — no matter how strong the government’s interest. The Court has repeatedly rejected calls to do just that, and a focus on the content of disfavored speech (when it’s not within an established exception) is almost certainly fatal to the proposed restriction.

Trope Six: “This isn’t free speech, it’s [category]”

Example: “It’s not free speech. It’s bullying and intimidation. It’s a horror show.” Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, February 17, 2015.

The First Amendment is, in a way, categorical: there are well-defined categories of speech that are not protected, as I discussed above. But media commentators often abuse categorical thinking by inventing new categories of speech outside the First Amendment. “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech.” “This isn’t free speech, it’s discrimination.”

The trope can be used correctly — “this isn’t free speech, it’s an unprotected death threat.” But usually it’s not. Usually it’s invoked as shorthand for “I don’t want to address First Amendment analysis so I’m just going to say in conclusory fashion that it doesn’t apply at all.”

Our response to the trope should always be the same — does this supported not-speech category exist, and is it one that’s actually outside the First Amendment?

Trope Seven: “Fighting words”

Example: “There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.” McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015.

No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be “fighting words.”

In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit “fighting words” — “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the “fighting words” doctrine survives — that’s in serious doubt — it’s limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The “which by their very utterance inflict injury” language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

That’s almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope.

Trope Eight: “[Professor] explained . . . .”

Example: “The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, [Professor] Szmer said.”

The media loves to quote a professor to support a viewpoint. This is intellectually neutral: it can be good or bad, depending on the honesty and qualifications of the professor selected.

Quoting professors about law is particularly risky, if your aim is an accurate and informative discussion of free speech law. If you call a physics professor and ask them what will happen if you drop your pencil, and why, he or she will say “it will fall, because of gravity.” There is a relatively low chance that the professor will tell you “well, maybe nothing will happen” because he or she harbors the belief that the current gravitic regime is unfair and otherwise problematical. But when you call a professor of law, or political science, or journalism, and ask them a question about whether some controversial speech is protected by the First Amendment, there is an unacceptably high probability that you will get a quote expressing what the professor thinks the law ought to be. Sometimes the professor will flag a statement as an argumentative one, sometimes not. Moreover, some professors . . . . how can one put this delicately? Some law professors’ views on how a court is likely to rule on an issue are untainted by exposure to actual courts.

Many professors will give you a sober, accurate and well-informed assessment of how a court would likely approach a given free speech situation. The trick is separating those professors from ones who are out of their field or mere advocates.

Trope Nine: “This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing.”

Example: “‘The way we interpret the constitution is always changing. The supreme court can change the rules, and does do so,’ he said.” The Guardian, quoting Eric Posner, May 6, 2015.

When existing American law clearly protects questioned speech, the media sometimes resorts to finding someone to say “the law can change, and maybe it should.”

Yes, American law can change. Constitutional interpretation can change in breathtaking ways inside a generation.

But the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about “harmful” words. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are universally reviled and held up as an example of the worst sort of speech; the Court found their speech protected by a margin of 8-1. The Court struck down an overbroad law prohibiting “crush videos” of animals being killed by the same margin. There is no sign of any movement towards the proposition that speech may be restricted because it is hurtful or disfavored — the sort of speech that provokes this banal media observation that law changes.

Pointers to more tropes are always welcomed, as are particularly good examples.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

BookCoverImageMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Posted in Freedom of Speech and the Press, Government Propaganda | Tagged , , | Leave a comment