Imagine if a staffer of a conservative presidential candidate welcomed political violence and called for mainstream media to be dragged “out by their hair and light them on fire in the streets.”
Field organizer for Bernie Sanders Kyle Jurek was caught on an undercover video threatening that “Cities will burn” if Sanders doesn’t win the Democratic nomination. Jurek was also caught telling undercover journalists, “There is a reason why Stalin had gulags,” justifying forced re-education camps to ensure that Trump supporters are taught not to be a “Nazi.”
Jurek was exposed by Project Veritas. Here are a couple of the shocking clips:
BREAKING: @BernieSanders “free education” policies to “teach you how to not be a f**king nazi.”; 'There is a reason Stalin had Gulags'; 'Expect violent reaction' for speech. If Bernie doesn't get nomination "Milwaukee will burn"
Just imagine what the mainstream media would say if this was an @realDonaldTrump staffer threatening to go inside @MSNBC studios and drag pundits out by their hair and light them on fire in the streets.
Jurek might not be alone. According to the Washington Examiner, “Two Iowa field directors for Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign locked their Twitter accounts” after Jurek was outed. At least one of those organizers has worked with Jurek in some capacity in the past, identifying Jurek as a top-tier organizer.
Jurek deleted his Twitter account yesterday afternoon.
As journalist Andy Ngo discovered, 38-year-old Jurek was also arrested last week in Iowa and charged with drunk driving and possessing drug paraphernalia. Jurek has a history of advocating for Antifa-like political violence. He was recorded in a separate occasion justifying political violence.
Antifa, a domestic terrorist group, uses street violence as a means to an end. We’re in a climate where “social justice” activists (and increasingly, political operatives) are comfortable flirting with violence and anarchy as a means to achieve their end goals.
While the behavior of one person doesn’t reflect the whole party nor the presidential candidate, the trend in favor of open violence as a consequence for not getting one’s political way is dangerous for any republic.
For longtime civil rights activist Jeffrey Imm, the normalization of political violence as a rational response is a mirror reflection of how terrorists think. Imm spoke with Clarion Project on the disturbing trend of political violence.
“There are thousands if not millions of pro-violence troubled individuals using politics a a medium to express their hate and rage against others with impunity, [and] gaining approval from fellow troubled individuals. They believe hate gives their lives meaning.”
For conservatives, it’s increasingly frustrating to see the media ignore the open embrace of political violence by some members of society. After the 2016 elections, mainstream media predicted the conservative Right would turn to political violence but in fact the opposite has happened.
The lack of accountability to people taking to the streets and turning to brutality to achieve a political goal has been encouraged by the same media factory that is now on the target list of violent extremists like Jurek.
For Americans on the front lines working to challenge the Antifa-inspired political violence, the threat doesn’t just stop with the violence itself. Antifa also is very comfortable doxxing people it decides to single out, releasing personal information and targeting families.
If Antifa’s political violence is becoming the new norm for political operatives, the question is, what comes next and where will it stop?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2020-01-17 09:14:582020-01-17 09:16:17‘Light Them On Fire’: Bernie Sanders Organizer Wants Political Violence
It’s become quite apparent that in his admiration for establishing a one-world government administered by a new world order, America is an object of hate for Pope Francis.
The handwriting was on the wall at least two years ago when yet another article from Eugenio Scalfari revealed that the pontiff has so little regard for the United States that he actually thinks we should simply give up our national sovereignty and submit to a new world order.
Maybe the Dems can nominate Pope Francis for their party’s candidate for president. He can assume presidential powers and then dissolve the U.S.A. After all, it seems like he’s got experience doing the same thing with the Church.
The old atheist Italian journalist says that in 2017, Pope Francis called him shortly after the G-20 summit and demanded to see him at four o’clock that afternoon. According to Scalfari, Francis had become agitated about the United States and other nations commanding such power in the world.
Pope Francis told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica that the United States of America has “a distorted vision of the world,” and Americans must be ruled by a world government as soon as possible, “for their own good.”
Now that’s an incredible statement to make, and as the article continued, the disrespect for the idea of national sovereignty mounted. European nations also came under the papal displeasure: “I also thought many times to this problem and came to the conclusion that, not only but also for this reason, Europe must take as soon as possible a federal structure.”
There is without a doubt an extreme dislike with this pope of anything that strikes of nationalism, meaning national sovereignty. Since America seems to lead the world in the area of national pride, the United States is never passed over in the papal condemnations of national sovereignty.
Somewhere, somehow, he has in his head that the idea of individual nations is bad because that translates into immigrants being mistreated, and among rich nations — the First-World nations — poverty escalates and the poor are taken advantage of.
That’s what he thinks, and so the solution for him is to introduce a one-world government, ruled by a single new world order, so all immigrants can get a fair shake out of life.
Last week the reports came out that Pope Francis thinks national pride, touted by political conservatives, is the beginning of Nazism reappearing. He said to an international group of specialists in penal law: “And I must confess to you that when I hear a speech [by] someone responsible for order or for a government, I think of speeches by Hitler in 1934, 1936,” adding, “They are inadmissible behaviors in the rule of law and generally accompany racist prejudices and contempt for socially marginalized groups.”
“It is no coincidence that in these times, emblems and actions typical of Nazism reappear, which, with its persecutions against Jews, gypsies and people of homosexual orientation, represents the negative model par excellence of a culture of waste and hatred,” he continued.
Pope Francis has drunk the Kool-Aid of the Left.
So there it is, perfectly framed by this pontificate: Immigrants and homosexuals need to be protected classes, and sovereign nations must give way to those who do not respect borders and those who reject natural law. And nations, now bordering on embracing Nazism, must surrender their independence because it is the will of God. For their own good, the nations of the world, especially the powerful ones, must pass out of existence, surrender themselves and abolish their borders for their own good.
When Americans are chanting “USA!” at sporting events or political rallies for Republicans, in Pope Francis’ head, that apparently rings as Sieg Heil!
This is dangerous, dangerous stuff. For the occupant of the throne of Peter to be outwardly demonizing nations — especially the leading nation which defeated the Nazis — as Nazis themselves, a line has been crossed from which there is no coming back.
To then turn around and underscore that part of what makes a person a modern-day Nazi is to not go along with the homosexual agenda and resist the evil, this is beyond the pale and must be called out.
Pope Francis has moved into territory that no pope has ever transgressed. He is transferring the mission of the Church from the salvation of souls to the foundation of a one-world government.
What precisely the role of the Church itself would be in that new world order still seems vague, but one thing is clear. Francis never criticizes Islamic nations. He never tells them to clean up their act and stop throwing homosexuals off roofs. He never has a word of criticism for their brutality of FGM (female gential mutilation) or sponsorship of world terror, or torture or forcing people in their nations to convert or have their heads cut off.
Yet he has no problem with hiding behind the Italian military surrounding the walls of the Vatican, protecting him from that same Muslim threat.
This pontificate is a political disaster, one gone completely off the rails.
Serious questions need to be asked about all this: homosexual men, many of whom are either abusers or covered up abuse placed into powerful posts; the theft of hundreds of millions of euros; constant lies and denials of repeated press reports; and multiple appointments of enemies of Christ to high-visibility positions within the Church. And now hurling accusations at political conservatives that their love of country makes them “Nazis,” and opposing the gay agenda means conservatives want homosexuals marched off to gas chambers.
This is outrageous. Francis hates America because America represents everything his twisted political worldview stands in opposition to.
This increased marxist view has been brewing in the Church for decades, and far from being ascendant is now practically the status quo. Love of the homosexual agenda, illegal immigrants, the abolition of nations and Islam’s “favored son” status is what Francis will be remembered for.
The Vatican has yet to comment on the Scalfari interview about Francis reportedly saying America should willingly surrender itself to a one-world government. And actually, no comment is needed. We’ve heard enough.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-11-19 11:48:102019-11-19 13:45:29VIDEO: The Vortex — Francis HATES America! He has drunk all the Kool-Aid.
Polylogism is the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos. – Ludwig von Mises
The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own brand.
Until the middle of the 19th century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to each other only because we can appeal to something common to all of us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowledge of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.
Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual cooperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of different logical structures or a logical structure different from our own.
Yet, in the course of the 19th century this undeniable fact has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the “proletarian philosopher” Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker’s class position. What thinking produces is not truth but “ideologies.” This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the “bourgeois” origin of the physicists.
The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by “bourgeois” economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries’ ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.
Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only “ideological” statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that “the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple.” The proletarian logic is not “ideology” but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency. One of their champions, Professor Mannheim, tries to demonstrate that there exists a group of men, the “unattached intellectuals,” who are equipped with the gift of grasping truth without falling prey to ideological errors. Of course, Professor Mannheim is convinced that he is the foremost of these “unattached intellectuals.” You simply cannot refute him. If you disagree with him, you only prove thereby that you yourself are not one of this elite of “unattached intellectuals” and that your utterances are ideological nonsense.
Polylogism and the Nazis
The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correctness of their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of polylogism, prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they concocted their own brand of polylogism. The logical structure of mind, they say, is different with different nations and races. Every race or nation has its own logic and therefore its own economics, mathematics, physics, and so on. But, no less inconsistently than Professor Mannheim, Professor Tirala, his counterpart as champion of Aryan epistemology, declares that the only true, correct, and perennial logic and science are those of the Aryans. In the eyes of the Marxians Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois; in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews. One of the foremost goals of the Nazis is to free the Aryan soul from the pollution of the Western philosophies of Descartes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. They are in search of arteigen German science, that is, of a science adequate to the racial character of the Germans.
We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man’s mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result. We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects produced by traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we know that such damage may restrict or completely destroy the mental abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.
Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the Jews or the British. It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ricardian theory of comparative cost or the Einstein theory of relativity by unmasking the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning inferences are made which—although correct from the viewpoint of non-Aryan logic—are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And, finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan inferences must lead to. But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody. The garrulous champion of racism and Aryan polylogism, Professor Tirala, does not say a word about the difference between Aryan and non-Aryan logic. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever, has never entered into details.
Polylogism has a peculiar method of dealing with dissenting views. If its supporters fail to unmask the background of an opponent, they simply brand him a traitor. Both Marxians and Nazis know only two categories of adversaries. The aliens—whether members of a nonproletarian class or of a non-Aryan race—are wrong because they are aliens; the opponents of proletarian or Aryan origin are wrong because they are traitors. Thus they lightly dispose of the unpleasant fact that there is dissension among the members of what they call their own class or race.
The Nazis contrast German economics with Jewish and Anglo-Saxon economics. But what they call German economics differs not at all from some trends in foreign economics. It developed out of the teachings of the Genevese Sismondi and of the French and British socialists. Some of the older representatives of this alleged German economics merely imported foreign thought into Germany. Frederick List brought the ideas of Alexander Hamilton to Germany, Hildebrand and Brentano brought the ideas of early British socialism. Arteigen German economics is almost identical with contemporary trends in other countries, e.g., with American Institutionalism.
On the other hand, what the Nazis call Western economics and therefore artfremd is to a great extent an achievement of men to whom even the Nazis cannot deny the term German. Nazi economists wasted much time in searching the genealogical tree of Carl Menger for Jewish ancestors; they did not succeed. It is nonsensical to explain the conflict between economic theory, on the one hand, and Institutionalism and historical empiricism, on the other hand, as a racial or national conflict.
Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) taught in Vienna and New York and served as a close adviser to the Foundation for Economic Education. He is considered the leading theorist of the Austrian School of the 20th century.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/swastikas-906653_640.jpg426640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-29 19:03:332019-01-29 19:03:35What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx
PHILADELPHIA, PA /PRNewswire/ — What would America look like under Socialism? Startup Company, Diogenes Games says they don’t know, but developed a satirical version of Monopoly to find out. They call it SOCIALISM: The Game.
The small startup is proud to announce the commencement of a Kickstarter campaign to promote their parody tabletop game “SOCIALISM”.
A hilarious sendup of the classic board game Monopoly, SOCIALISM: The Game has a radically different goal than the original – the object of the game is to achieve total fairness and equality through the renting and selling of property under a modern, progressive, and populist public policy. The game is over when everyone has $300or less, and uses caricatures of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to replace the game’s original mascot, Rich Uncle Pennybags.
“We discovered that our game was a fun way to hypothesize what might happen if trends in public policy, trends that have recently entered mainstream political debate, were extrapolated to their logical conclusions in the capitalistic world of Hasbro’s real estate trading game Monopoly,” said John Elliott, CEO and founder of Diogenes Games.
Elliott says the results “aren’t pretty,” but thinks that they just might change the way people think about campaigns, elections, and politics in general. One of the ways the game accomplishes this is through an “enlightened” rulebook that contains sarcastic-yet-realistic changes:
There’s no more “banker” – all dealings are with the Federal Directorate of Redistributive Services
You don’t “go to jail,” you “go to rehab”
You don’t have title cards, you are granted a public “concession” to manage a property
No more hotels; public “housing towers” are the highest and best use
Chance and Community Chest? Nope. “Fat Chance” and “Communism Chest”
The “Fat Chance” and “Communism Chest” cards also reflect the satirical nature of the game, with gems like “Advance to income tax” and “Bernout! Power grid fails on a cloudy windless day. Flick the lights off, pay the player on your right $100 for a black market generator.”
After months of development, design, and play testing, the game is currently in production and is expected to ship in June, if not sooner.
This has been a banner year for North Korea and its partner, the Islamic Republic of Iran. They have demonstrated the failure of the JCPOA, UN Res. 2231 and “tougher” March 2, 2016 UN sanctions to deter, let alone stop, provocative violations by both Iranian and North Korean ballistic missile development and nuclear tests in North Korea. As if to underline this brazen defiance of international efforts, North Korean released on March 27, 2016 a propaganda video, “Last Chance,” proclaiming its armament prowess culminating in a fictional ICBM attack on Washington, DC. Watch the “Last Chance” video:
“If the American imperialists provoke us a bit, we will not hesitate to slap them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike,” the video’s Korean-language subtitles said. “The United States must choose! It’s up to you whether the nation called the United States exists on this planet or not.”
This may sound like bluster, but only part of it is. In fact, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) can incinerate the American city of its choice. …It will not have that ability for about a half decade, South Korea estimates. Other nations think longer.
Perhaps not that long, if you listen to US intelligence ballistic missile defense commanders and independent experts. We wrote about the failure of the US interceptor program in the March 2016 New English Review article, “Can Our Ballistic Missile Defense System Shield Us from Rogue Regime ICBMs?” We noted the US failed to successfully test an effective kill vehicle against the North Korean ICBM threat. The only defense we have according to remarks by the Obama White House are “tougher sanctions.”
North Korean Submarine Missile Launch, April 23, 2016. Source: AP
The Chronicle of North Korean Missile and Nuclear Test Provocations since February 2016
In March and April 2016, North Korea conducted tests of ballistic missiles and made preparations for a possible fifth nuclear test, rattling South Korea, Japan, the US and the UN. On March 17th, North Korea launched two ballistic missiles from its west coast into the China Sea. March 21st, North Korea fired five short range missiles east of the Korean Peninsula that splashed down 124 miles in the Sea of Japan. A test of a BM25 Musudan medium-range missile blew up on the birthday of grandfather Kim il-Sung, founder of the hermit state, on April 15th. That was preceded on April 13th by analysis of digital satellite imagery from 38 North. That confirmed preparations for a possible fifth nuclear test were advancing at the Punggye-ri underground test site. On April 23rd Kim’s grandson Jong-un peered through a pair of binoculars while allegedly a submarine launched missile flew a fraction of its 300km range, 30 kilometers or 18 miles. On April 28th, North Korea failed to launch not one but two 1,800 mile range Musudan missiles within less than an hour from the port of Wonsan directed at either Japan or the US territory of Guam. Both missiles failed to rise more than 200 meters from the launching pad. This makes three Musudan missile launch failures in less than two weeks in April 2016 alone. Because of the intensity of North Korean violations of missile tests sanctions, the UN Security Council, at the request of the US, held discussions. China’s UN Ambassador Lieu Jieyi said he was looking to the Council for a “response.” Analysis of digital imagery from North Korea detected preparations for a possible fifth nuclear test at the underground Punggye-ri site, possibly timed to coincide with the Seventh Party Congress, the first in several decades, scheduled for May 6, 2016. That prompted South Korean President Park Geun-hye to comment, following the announcement of Pyongyang’s missile launch failures, “signs for an imminent nuclear test by North Korea are being detected ahead of the Seventh Party Congress.”
The North Koreans announced on April 24th via Ri Su-yong, their representative at the UN in Manhattan, a willingness to stop a projected fifth nuclear test in exchange for cancelling the annual joint Key Resolve 2016 maneuvers. Those began March 3rd composed of 300,000 South Korean, 17,000 US and small detachments of Australian and New Zealand troops. Pointedly, Su-yong said in the BBC report, “If they believe they can actually frustrate us with sanctions, they are totally mistaken.”
Kim Jong-Un gave orders to the Military on March 3rd to develop nuclear warheads as standby national defense. These declarations were repeated as part of a “preemptive nuclear strike of justice” in response to the March 2nd UN Sanctions to address the provocative nuclear and missile test actions of the DPRK. That meant it was time to review the credibility of both strategic and tactical nuclear threats by the North Koreans. Those were stepped up in the wake of January 6, 2016 fourth nuclear test and the February 7th space launch at the Sohae site of a second satellite in a polar orbit circling the U.S. every 95 minutes.
Illustration of Possible North Korea Nuclear Weapon in a Satellite. Source: Greg Groesch, Washington Times
North Korean EMP Threat by Satellite or Ship-Borne Means
The payloads of both satellites, less than 200 kg., indicate they are primarily for observational purposes. Some analysts, like Dr. Peter Pry, formerly with the CIA, executive director of the Congressional chartered Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, speculate that these North Korean satellites may demonstrate a future atomic weapon satellite threat. The satellites according to the World Net Daily G-2 Forum report “the KMS 3-2 and KMS 4 – are orbiting at an altitude of 300 miles, with trajectories that put them daily over the U.S. KMS 3-2 was launched in December 2012 and KMS 4 was launched Feb. 7.” Pry suggested that the January 2016, fourth nuclear test by North Korea may have achieved a single stage hydrogen bomb capability sufficient to generate gamma radiation to produce an EMP effect. Both David Albright of the Washington, DC Institute for International Security and Science and Former Reagan era defense official Dr. Stephen Bryen in our January New English Reviewarticle suggested that the January 6th North Korean nuclear test may have resulted in a boosted fission device suitable for development of nuclear warheads. We wrote:
By advancing its warhead technology while refining its missiles, Pyongyang could eventually threaten the U.S. mainland and American allies South Korea and Japan. Pentagon officials had said last year that North Korea likely had the capability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon.
This latest nuclear test, the fourth since 1996 according to nuclear inspection experts, probably produced a yield in the range of 6 to 9 kilotons, below that of a Hiroshima type bomb, 11 plus kilotons. Nonetheless, if missiles fitted with miniaturized nuclear warheads are launched against urban targets, they could produce significant casualties from blast and radiation effects.
Ambassador R. James Woolsey and Dr. Pry in an April 24, 2016, Washington Times opinion article further deepened the concerns over the nuclear weapon in a satellite EMP Threat:
In 2013, a publicity photo by state media of North Korea’s KSM-3 satellite interior shows a shock absorber cage, allegedly for an earth observation camera but suitable for a small nuclear weapon. North Korea recently conducted another illegal missile test demonstrating a re-entry vehicle and heat shield. Technologically, such an EMP attack is easy — since the weapon detonates at high-altitude, in space, no shock absorbers, heat shield, or vehicle for atmospheric re-entry is necessary. Since the radius of the EMP is enormous, thousands of kilometers, accuracy matters little. Almost any nuclear weapon will do.
Moreover, North Korea probably has nuclear weapons specially designed, not to make a big explosion, but to emit lots of gamma rays to generate high-frequency EMP. Russian generals warned US EMP Congressional Commissioners in 2004 that Russian EMP nuclear warhead designs were leaked “accidentally” to North Korea. Unemployed Russian scientists allegedly found work in North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
Such an EMP nuclear warhead could resemble an Enhanced Radiation Warhead (ERW, also called a Neutron Bomb), a technology dating to the 1950s, deployed by the U.S. in the 1980s as the W48 ERW artillery shell, weighing less than 100 pounds.
However, both Iran and North Korea may have other ship-borne capabilities of launching provocative threats against US, South Korea and Japan. The co-authors wrote about the Russian developed K-Club cruise missile in a container system that could be used by both Iranian and North Korean commercial vessels capable of hitting US targets in our vulnerable Gulf of Mexico. Equipped with a low yield nuclear warhead of the type that Ambassador Woolsey and Dr. Pry suggest, North Korea might be capable of producing a devastating EMP effect.
North Korean Mobile Rocket Artillery. Source: 38 North JHU SAIS
North Korean Tactical Nuclear Threat
38 North in a March 15, 2016 analysis drew attention to North Korean development of rocket boosted artillery equipped with low-yield tactical nuclear warheads that might trigger US military action if fired at South Korea. The author noted:
The question is whether the Kim regime believes that nuclear weapons can be used for something other than survival. The answer, unfortunately, may well be that North Korea believes employing nuclear-armed artillery, rockets, landmines or anything else that would result in low-yield nuclear detonations against localized targets in South Korea will not trigger massive alliance retaliation.
North Korea’s early use of even one low-yield nuclear device may be sufficient to trigger a full-scale US or alliance invasion. Therefore, North Korean employment of tactical nuclear weapons would pose a greater risk of miscalculation and conflict escalation on the Korean peninsula.
Increasing concern over North Korean Nuclear Warheads and ICBM Development
On March 8th, Kim Jong-un was shown in pictures with a silvery spherical device, which might have been a propaganda promotion of a possible warhead. There is increasing evidence reflected in a CNNreport about the event. Experts in both the US and South Korea believe that the DPRK may have that capability:
David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security told CNN’s Brian Todd that his group thinks the North Koreans had probably already miniaturized a warhead.
A South Korean Defense White Paper from 2014 also noted that its neighbor’s ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons seemed, at the time, “to have reached a considerable level.”
Karl Dewey, a proliferation expert with IHS Jane’s said the photos suggest that North Korea fit something onto a KN-08 ballistic missile.
“And it is possible that the silver sphere is a simple atomic bomb. But it is not a hydrogen bomb, also known as a thermonuclear bomb,” he said, explaining that a thermonuclear device probably would be a different shape because of its two stages.
Admiral William Gortney of the US Northern Command, concerned about ballistic missile defense, believes the North Koreans may have successfully miniaturized nuclear warheads to fit on its growing inventory of missiles. He was cited speaking before Congress in a CNNreport on intelligence information:
It’s the prudent decision on my part to assume that [North Korea] has the capability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon and put it on an ICBM.
The development of an advanced version of the KN-8, the KN-14, was the subject of a Bill Gertz intelligence report in the Washington Free Beacon. The KN-14 was first displayed publicly in 2012:
Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center who has studied the two missiles’ Chinese launchers, said Russia has estimated the KN-14 could have a range between 5,000 and 6,200 miles.
From the far northern corner of North Korea, [6,300-mile] range is sufficient for the KN-14 potentially to reach Chicago or Toronto.
North Korean missile analyst Scott LaFoy, writing in NKNews.com, said the KN-08 shown in October 2015 appears similar to the Russian SSN-18 submarine-launched ballistic missile.
Note this comment from Adm. Gortney about the KN-14:
I agree with the intel community that we assess, they have the weapons, the ability to miniaturize those weapons, and they have the ability to put them on a rocket that can reach US homelands.
China is the supplier of the mobile launchers for the intermediate range Musudan, the K-08 and K-14 longer range ballistic missiles. This despite both the US and China behind the alleged tougher UN sanctions released on Match 2nd. Gertz noted:
The Obama administration has not taken action against China for its significant contribution to the KN-08 and KN-14, namely the Chinese-made transporter erector launchers that carry the missile and appear to have been exported in violation of United Nations sanctions.
North Korean Cargo Vessel Jin Teng, Subic Bay Philippines, March 4, 2016. Source: Associated Press
The apparent failure of US Sanctions to stop North Korean – Iran Joint Development
Claudia Rosett wrote an April 26, 2016 Wall Street Journal opinion article, “The Failure of Sanctions Against North Korea.” The bottom line is the sanctions look like the proverbial Swiss cheese. No surprise there, given the failure to stop the Iran nuclear deal. Further, Rosett discloses the US has sanctions against Iranians involved with North Korean missile testing. That means our government believes that Tehran and Pyongyang are cooperatively developing nuclear warheads to fit on missiles that North Korea may be shipping via its merchant fleet to Iran.
North Korea has also threatened a fifth nuclear test, the second one this year, perhaps timed to coincide with the seventh party congress on May 6th. So what did President Obama threaten in the wake of the April 26 announcement from North Korea? According to Reuters, “The United States warned …it would consider “other” options, which could include new sanctions or security steps, if North Korea continued nuclear and ballistic missile testing.”
Note what Rosett wrote:
In the latest push to stop North Korea’s rogue nuclear and missile programs, the United Nations Security Council on March 2 passed a sanctions resolution widely hailed as the toughest in decades. U.S. UN Ambassador Samantha Power said “this resolution is so comprehensive, there are many provisions that leave no gap, no window.” But when it comes to North Korea’s merchant shipping ventures, these sanctions are a sieve.
These ships may be carrying legitimate cargo. But they have links to two rogue states that have cooperated for years on weapons smuggling and missile development. North Korea, which carried out its fourth illicit nuclear test this January, was caught proliferating nuclear technology to Iran’s mascot state, Syria, in 2007. The Iran nuclear deal implemented in January hasn’t stopped Iranian arms smuggling.
Both countries continue to defy U.N. sanctions by testing ballistic missiles. In January, the U.S. Treasury Department designated Sayyed Javad Musavi, a senior official in Iran’s missile program, for working “directly with North Korean officials in Iran” and overseeing Iranian missile technicians who in recent years “traveled to North Korea to work on an 80-ton rocket booster being developed by the North Korean government.”
Against this background, a pattern of North Korea-flagged ships visiting Iran should raise questions. While U.N. sanctions now require all member states to inspect cargoes of North Korea-flagged ships, this means that Iran is in charge of any such inspections at its own ports. When I asked Treasury if these North Korea-flagged ships are cause for concern, a spokesperson replied, “Treasury does not comment on the activity of entities that are not designated.”
North Korea and Iran have been joint partners in developing nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles capable of reaching the U.S. by the start of the next decade. Since March 2014, the co-authors and Shoshana and Stephen Bryen argued in July 2015 what better place to conduct those developments than in the hermit state of North Korea? Assessments by the U.S. Northern Command, South Korean, U.S. intelligence and independent experts have confirmed the likely development of nuclear warheads and the technical feasibility of fitting them to ICBMs within the next half decade.
What investigative journalist Claudia Rosett has revealed are the significant loopholes in U.S. and UN sanctions that have enabled the joint development projects of both countries to continue unabated.
For decades I have said America’s number one national security threat is the Islamic ideology. Now in April 2016 as I have became a bit wiser about the ‘Big Picture’ of our world and how an elite few liberals control much of the world events, I feel there is a need to update my national security threat analysis.
Of course the Islamic ideology is dangerous and a threat to the entire world, but the question we must ask ourselves is how is Islam allowed to thrive in America despite many intelligent people understanding it can and likely will destroy the world.
Liberals in America, currently being led by America’s worst U.S. President (Obama), and by far the President who hates America and what it has stood for since it’s birth are the leading forces behind why the violent ideology of Islam is allowed to grow, flourish, and be accepted into all areas of Americans lives.
There are several definitions of a liberal, but my definition is the one you will never hear our media or politicians use. “Liberals in America are everything but American. Liberals are traitors to this great country and are the cause behind America’s destruction from within. Although many U.S. liberals were born here, they do not uphold basic American values and for this reason they are America’s number one threat to our nation security, our country’s survival, and the future of our children”.
There are a dozen or so legitimate counter-terrorism professionals in America. There are hundreds of self appointed fake counter-terrorism professionals in America who have fooled the American public into believing they know Islamic based terrorism issues inside and out. A few of the fakes include all major media people who pose as journalists, such as O’Reilly and Hannity. More such fakes are senior law enforcement officials at all levels of our government. Finally the leading fakes are Christian and Jewish leaders who pose as religious heads close to God and who by the very nature of their ‘jobs’ feel they understand Islam and Islamic based terrorism better than all others. Thankfully we do have a handful of Christian and Jewish leaders who truly understand the threat of Islam, but they are out numbered by a ration of 1000 to 1!.
Counter-terrorism professionals have proven over and over and over that the Islamic ideology is dangerous, violent, a threat to the entire world, and it’s poison has entrenched all corners of the world and America. Then why has the Islamic ideology, Islamic terrorists, Islamic supporters, and Islamic Centers been allowed to thrive and multiply in America? The answer is that liberals (American traitors) allow it to thrive. Liberals believe that the Islamic scholars and Jihadists throughout the world will give them a break when it comes to enforcing Sharia law in America, such as beheadings, being set on fire, rape of women, and death for the most minute obscure failings of human beings.
Liberals are very wrong of course. When Islam dominates America, there will be no safe zones for liberals or for any person who does not give their 100% allegiance to Islam.
Liberals are the people who advocate allowing illegal (criminals) to enter America, allowing mosques to advocate and promote violence, and even child marriages in America.
Liberals are the ones who advocate refugees who have not been properly vetted to come into our country by the hundreds of thousands.
Liberals are the one’s who give Islamic terrorist organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MANA, and all mosques in America tax free non profit status.
Liberals are the one’s who allow the school text books of our children to be drafted by Islamic terrorists from such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Liberals are the people who allow Islamic terrorists from GITMO to be freed and allowed once again to target and kill our troops worldwide.
Liberals are the people who support Islamic based terrorists before they will American service members who have fought for America.
Liberals are the people who fight major wars using minor league rules and tactics.
Liberals are the people who voted an American traitor into office as our President.
Liberals are the people who support anti-Americans such as H. Clinton and a Socialist/Communist B. Sanders as possibly our next President.
Liberals are the people who will NEVER acknowledge that Islam is anything other than a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a few.
Abe Lincoln, one of America’s greatest Presidents (the 1st President from the Republican Party) said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”.
Will Patriotic Americans defeat the liberals who are posing as Americans in America? Will true Americans save America before liberals destroy us forever? My answer is we could, but Americans have been so brainwashed by liberal thought for decades, that it is unlikely we can reverse the dangerous course of destruction we are on.
TIP OF THE DAY: “Black Lives Matter is a Propaganda tool of liberals and Islamic based terrorist groups”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/democrat-party-islamic-state-logos.jpg358640Dave Gaubatzhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDave Gaubatz2016-04-10 09:57:382016-04-10 09:59:06Which Group Poses the Gravest National Security Threat to America?
We all know how the game of Capitalist Monopoly works: one player wins and the rest lose, at least until the next round. But what if you are a permanent loser? That is unfair. The most obvious solution to this crisis is to remake the rules in your favor.
Brilliant minds among the loser community have made repeated attempts to make new rules that would allow them to become winners. They mostly ended up with appointing one of the players to be a dictator (usually themselves), who promises to redistribute everything on the board equally so that everyone wins. The dictator appoints assistants and together they become the government. For this plan to work, the government must forcibly take over all the property on the game board. Thus the government becomes a monopolist and the sole big winner. All the others become perpetual lesser winners: equal among themselves, but not equal to the government and its officials. Let’s broadly describe it as Socialist Monopoly.
But not all the state-run rental properties on the board are equal, so the game goes on. Now the selection of winners becomes wholly dependent on a player’s personal relationship with the government. Those who are not the relatives or good friends with the government, become losers. The latter can still stay in the game by participating in an intricate system of bribes, kickbacks, and exchange of favors. Those unwilling to play by these rules become the ultimate losers and are despised by everybody. Usually they are the people who would previously win in Capitalist Monopoly.
When all the redistribution has been completed, Socialist Monopoly becomes a really boring and tedious game. The government deflects the growing dissatisfaction by adding a new rule: all players must blame the former winners of Capitalist Monopoly for sabotage and obstructionism. After all the said former winners quit and leave the table, the interest in the game is sustained with the help of cheap vodka, which also helps to suppress mutual resentment and hatred. The game ends when all players, including the government, lose all motivation to go on, or fall under the table into a puddle of their own vomit, whichever comes first.
The most common explanation for the failures of Socialist Monopoly is that the brilliant minds of the loser community simply haven’t got it right yet. This gives everyone hope that someday there will appear a sharper, more brilliant loser who will get it right.
And so the dream lives on, about a game where everyone can be an equal winner while still being able to enjoy the game without ending up hating everyone else, sending the most successful players to jail, and falling under the table in a drunken stupor.
Thus, the efforts to reinvent Capitalist Monopoly never stop. Below are just some failed examples. Will you take the challenge and create a game of Socialist Monopoly that actually works?
SAN ANTONIO, Texas /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — NAVGTR CORP. — Young voters turned out in droves to support Bernie Sanders in San Antonio. A mock Iowa caucus was held at the Penny Arcade Expo South (PAXS), a gaming festival drawing tens of thousands.
The caucus event was titled, “Decision 2016: Vote on Game ‘War of Awards’ or Donald Trump,” organized by the National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers (NAVGTR) for the Official PAXS panel schedule.
A 450-seat room was packed with 332 caucus-goers, clearly dominated by Democratic voters with only 24 self-declared Republican voters. “All night there was a clear enthusiasm gap between those who were willing to climb over people in their rows of seats and those who chose to sit and watch impartially,” said academy president Thomas Allen. “The plan was to clear half the room of chairs to have a large open space, but time was working against us.”
Among the caucus-goers, about 73 people voted publicly for the presidential candidates. Forty-two Bernie Sanders supporters flooded the voting floor, while four and three people stood for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, respectively.
Among Republicans, Ted Cruz won with 8 votes. Rand Paul was a close second with 7 votes. Marco Rubio held in the top three with 5 votes. Jeb Bush received two votes. Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump received 1 vote each.
Game players also expressed who they thought should win the industry D.I.C.E. and Game Developers Choice Awards. The crowd established fan-favorite front-runners such as “The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt” for Achievement in Character (DICE), “Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain” for Game Design (GDC), “Undertale” for Innovation (GDC), and “Ori and the Blind Forest” developer Moon Studios for Best Debut (GDC).
In the final vote, “Fallout 4” won Game of the Year with an estimated 32 votes. Even among gamers, supporters were therefore more able to consolidate top-tier votes behind Bernie Sanders than any one video game:
Presenters included Larry Asberry Jr., Vanessa Fernandez, Colby Sites, Justen Andrews, Geoff Mendicino, and George Wood.
The National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers announces its own nominations February 9. Entries have been extended to a February 1 deadline. NAVGTR will caucus again at South by Southwest (SXSW) and the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) Networking Event on March 15, 2016. Subscribe at navgtr.org for updates.
During the early years of Communism in the 1920s and 30s, the evil was being spread worldwide as the Blessed Mother had predicted at Fatima in 1917. Communist parties were being formed in various European countries and in American cities as well. They were already attempting to upset the political and cultural order.
Alice von Hildebrand
But what only a very small number of people knew was that the top dogs of Communism had already released the hounds on the Church. The carefully organized plan was to recruit young men who were loyal Communists and get them placed in seminaries. This was carried out by various agents during the 1920s and 30s.
Fast forward 30 years to the 1960s, and the fruits were beginning to be seen. Learned, dedicated, faithful men and women in the Church were looking around and fretting, not sure from what framework they should understand the demolition of the Faith they were witnessing. At one point, Pope Paul VI even said that it appeared the Church was in auto-demolition.
One of those deeply distressed was a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, the brilliant theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand. He and his wife Alice were sitting down one day with a friend, a woman by the name of Bella Dodd. Bella Dodd had been received back into the Catholic Church by Abp. Fulton Sheen in April of 1952.
This particular day, von Hildebrand was lamenting the state of affairs in the Church and said “It seems like the Church has been infiltrated.” To the shock of both Dietrich and Alice, Bella Dodd, former Communist agent, confessed that it had been infiltrated — and she had been one of the Communists ordered to organize it.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/communists-in-catholic-church.jpg310640Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2016-01-31 05:33:022017-12-11 12:09:57VIDEO: INFILTRATION -- Thousands of young Communists have infiltrated Catholic seminaries
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ – Hands down Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders is leading in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, which may have Hillary Clinton’s team on the edge of their seat. Nonetheless, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) remains abundant with support from a political committee Americans Socially United that started this time a year ago before he announced his official candidacy for the presidential race.
Americans Socially United Director Cary Lee Peterson talks with PoliWatch about 2016 PAC activities leading to Primary Election.
The pro-Sanders PAC had scrutiny for its stance in September from a political journalist, which led to a convoluted state of opinion about the PAC and why it chose to support Bernie Sanders’ run for presidency. They’ve since restructured and are aiming back at the media with a political satire comic placed on a digital billboard in New York Times Square, a secondary jab since their first media billboard blitz in New York Times Square last April.
Americans Socially United chief director Cary Lee Peterson comments, “We were there this time a year ago. We’re still here now. You don’t like it, go start your own PAC or join a campaign committee of another candidate; we’re here and going nowhere.”
The billboard ad displays a character that portrays Bernie Sanders as a super hero flying into the scene amongst other 2016 presidential candidates with a caption that says ‘I see through you’. Ironically this billboard ad holds a handful of hidden messages that only the creators can describe.
PoliWatch spoke with pro-Bernie Sanders billboard comic artist Harrison Wood (41), currently a Las Vegas radio personality and freelancer of independent comic book series Thunder Frogs, who stated “I like what he [Bernie Sanders] stands for and I am happy to contribute to the 2016 presidential election campaigns. Every candidate out there deserves an opportunity to prove themselves and I’m glad I can use my talent to be involved in some way.”
ASU director Cary Peterson tells PoliWatch that the comic billboard ad is only the beginning of a series of political satire stokes at 2016 U.S. presidential candidates. At the end of the day the art of the pen is mightier than the sword.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/americans-socially-united-pac.jpg338640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-01-26 08:29:142016-01-26 08:30:02Notorious Pro-Bernie Sanders PAC Strikes Back with Political Satire Comic Series
North Korea briefly reclaimed the global press’ attention again by claiming to have tested a hydrogen bomb. While coverage focused on whether that was an exaggeration, the press missed a much more important question: Was this test only for Kim Jong-Un or was it also for the Iranian regime?
Last May, an Iranian opposition group that has accurately identified hidden nuclear sites in the past reported that it had specific intelligence about North Korean nuclear and missile experts secretly visiting Iran. Intelligence analyst Ilana Freedman said in January 2014 that her sources said a relocation of major parts of Iran’s nuclear program to North Korea began as early as December 2012.
For Iran, it is best to let the North Koreans put the finishing touches on the most provocative nuclear and missile work. Whereas the Iranian regime does suffer from sanctions and must always keep the 2009 Green Revolution in the back of its mind, North Korea thrives off isolation and international provocation.
North Korea has nothing to lose and can only gain by such an arrangement. Kim Jong-Un’s regime has already crossed the nuclear pariah threshold, so it might as well let its Iranian allies take the lucrative deal offered by the West. It has been content to spend $1.1-$3.2 billion each year on it. Plus, the deal puts Iran in a moreadvantageous position and its economic improvements can help it invest more in North Korea’s activity.
The good news is that this latest test—North Korea’s fourth— does not appear to be more powerful than its last one, indicating no significant advance in technology. RAND Corporation analyst Bruce Bennett says North Korea is still working on the “basics” of a nuclear fission bomb.
It is hard for some to accept that an Islamist theocracy like that in Iran would work with a cultish communist dictatorship like North Korea, but there is nothing in either one’s ideology that would prevent such cooperation. In fact, North Korea’s success in building a nuclear arsenal actually encourages Iran to see nuclear weapons as a key lesson for the Islamic Revolution.
“The entire world may well consider North Korea a failed state, but from the view point of [Iran], North Korea is a success story and a role model: A state which remains true to its revolutionary beliefs and defies the Global Arrogance,” Ali Alfoneh, an expert on the Iranian regime, told the Washington Free Beacon.
Given the spotty record of U.S. intelligence assessments (to say the least), the West must operate under the assumption that there isn’t an Iranian WMD problem and a North Korean WMD problem, but an Iranian-North Korean WMD problem.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a previous nuclear Test made by North Korea. Photo: Video screenshot.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/North-Korean-Nuclear-Test-HP.gif320640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-01-14 16:12:262016-01-14 16:12:26When North Korea Tests a Nuke, Assume It's Iran's as Well
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Statue-of-Liberty-e1451904331963.jpg364640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2016-01-04 05:46:532016-01-04 11:19:50What is the Predominant Refugee Group in your State?
We Shouldn’t Use a Term Coined by the System’s Enemies!
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could simply invent new terms to replace the words that seem to cause more heat than light? For example, I have written before of my qualms about using the word capitalism to describe the free-market economy. The word was coined by capitalism’s enemies to describe the system that they rejected.
Red Plenty, a marvelous book by Francis Spufford, offers an important perspective on our discussion of terms. The book is a must-read for fans of free markets. It combines elements from the actual history of the use of mathematics to try to plan the Soviet economy, fictional dialogue and some fictional characters, and Spufford’s excellent understanding of the economics of capitalism and socialism to create an incredibly readable account of the attempt to engineer a world of abundance in the former Soviet Union.
In the senior seminar I teach, we recently read a section of the book that deals with how the Soviet planning process actually worked. That section got me thinking about the terms capitalism and socialism again. The term capitalism suggests a system built around capital and its interests, while the word socialism suggests one built around society and its interests. Notice how these connotations beg some questions from the start.
Is it really true, for example, that capitalism is centered around capital and its interests? Is it really capitalists who benefit the most from capitalism? And on the other side: have existing socialist economies ever served the interests of society as a whole? Could socialism, in theory, do so? Do both of these names make assumptions about each of the two types of economies that reflect the biases of capitalism’s critics and socialism’s defenders?
Of course, capital does play a crucial role in capitalism. The private ownership of capital (the means of production) is a defining characteristic of a free-market economy, especially in comparison to socialism. And the ability to engage in economic calculation provided by the money prices of the market is crucial for the owners of capital to know how best to deploy it. So in those senses, capitalism is about capital.
But notice that nowhere in the previous paragraph is it claimed that the primary beneficiaries of capitalism are the capitalists! What is missing is an answer to the question of why the capitalists continually have to figure out how best to deploy their capital. The answer is because they are constantly trying to provide what consumers want using the least valuable resources possible.
Sure, the capitalists reap profits by doing so. But those profits result from the mutually beneficial exchanges capitalists have with consumers.
The main beneficiaries from capitalism are not the capitalists, but all of us in our role as consumers. Competition among the owners of private capital is all about responding to consumers’ wants. And consumers benefit from this arrangement through more, better, and cheaper goods. If we want a name for the free-market economy that indicates who its primary beneficiaries are, we should reappropriate the term consumerism.
But “consumerism” is only half of the story. It’s easy enough to show through the standard arguments that socialism doesn’t work for the benefit of society as a whole. We know from the socialist-calculation debate that eliminating the market altogether in favor of planning can’t work. But what about all of those countries, like the Soviet Union, that claimed to be planning their economies?
As we see in Red Plenty, the truth was that central planning served as a kind of myth around which economic activity could be oriented. Everyone acted as if there were a plan, but the actual way resources got allocated and shuffled around was much more complicated. In Red Plenty, we meet two characters who help us see this.
First is Cherkuskin, the middleman who trades on relationships and friendships to help producers get the goods they need to meet their centrally planned targets. Cherkuskin is the personification of what Ayn Rand called “the aristocracy of pull.” His power comes from whom he knows and what he can get them to do for you. When producers don’t have enough to fulfill their quotas because of the inability of the plan to allocate rationally or to respond to unexpected change, the Cherkuskins come into play and move resources around to help them — and to profit handsomely in the process. Underneath “the plan” was the black market that did a great deal to ensure that Soviet-style economies were minimally functional.
The other character is Maksim Maksimovich Mokhov, a high-ranking bureaucrat in the planning agency. Faced with the news of the destruction of a crucial machine, Mokhov has to figure out how to rebalance the plan given that one factory will either need a new machine or fail to produce the output that other factories need. Spufford gives us terrific imagery of Mokhov sliding around on his wheeled chair, abacus in hand, going from file to file using technology primitive by even the 1962 standard of that chapter of the book, attempting to reallocate resources with the flick of an eraser and the scratch of a pencil.
Both Cherkuskin and Mokhov are, functionally, substitutes for what the price system does under capitalism, and inferior substitutes at that.
But what’s most interesting is that neither of them cares one whit about the consumer. Cherkuskin is all about making sure that producers get what they need to fulfill the plan, never pausing to consider what the costs were for consumers. Mokhov describes consumers as a “shortage sink” because they are the end of the line, and if they don’t get what they want, no one else relies on them for further output. It was more important to balance out production than to worry if consumers got exactly what they needed.
What Spufford so nicely illustrates here is how real-world socialism, and not capitalism, put the needs of “capital” first and the wants of consumers last. In a world where producing more stuff, regardless of its value, was the path to plenty, ensuring that production continued according to the plan and that producers got what they needed were the central tasks. And the black market middlemen like Cherkuskin could make a real ruble or two doing so.
But unlike the profits of market capitalists, Cherkuskin’s rubles came at the expense of the consumer rather than reflecting mutual benefit. A system where consumers are just the folks who are expected to absorb the errors of the plan is hardly one geared to the interests of society as a whole. And a system where capital is ultimately the servant of consumers is misleadingly named if we call it capitalism.
It’s a difficult battle to get people to change the names they’ve long used for free markets and (supposedly) planned economies. Even if we don’t win that battle, it’s still important for us to point out how the terms capitalism and socialism really do give a false impression of how markets and planning work. If we want to know who really benefits from markets, a quick look around the abundance that is the typical American household will answer that question quite clearly.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Karl-Marx-e1449750024408.png331640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-10 07:22:322015-12-10 07:46:32'Capitalism' Is the Wrong Word by Steven Horwitz
It can be pretty depressing to witness more and more Americans protesting in favor of oppression and against liberty. Yes indeed, increasing numbers of Sovereign citizens want the government boot-heel on their necks or the lash on their backsides. A primary root of this trend can be traced directly to the mega, one size fits all, government school system. For over fifty years, government school educators have been used to fundamentally change America. This has been accomplished by systematically lowering some standards and eliminating others altogether.
American history courses have been degenerated to nothing more than anti United States of America propaganda dogma. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers are mere mentions without credible or in depth study. The education system or more appropriately, the dens of indoctrination are wasting an average of $15 thousand dollars per student in cities like Detroit, where at least a forty percent literacy rate is not uncommon at many schools.
So now, America is lumbering along with at least two generations of students who believe that the communist inspired concept of the common good trumping individual rights or rational self-interest is the way to go. That is why bigoted progressive political marxists like Hillary Clinton openly state that “they’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Another indication of Americans preferring in this case indirect oppression over liberty, whether self-induced or directly from the government, was a recent episode of Late Night hosted by progressive host Stephen Colbert. His guest that particular Friday night was Ohio governor John Kasich. He is a moderately conservative republican who has overseen the Buckeye States successful economic recovery. He also eliminated the Ohio budgetary deficit and increased economic activity has fostered a two or three billion dollar surplus.
But the major focus of Colbert’s interest was presenting nagging questions about the voters of Ohio choosing not to approve the legalization of marijuana for medicinal or recreational use. That is indicative of the progressive elitist democrats and some rino republicans want Americans to have. In other words, they would prefer that we light up and not focus on concrete issues like illegal immigration, or higher gasoline taxes coming in 2017 for Michigan residents. The progressives don’t want us to remember that president Obama has not made one concrete decision that would benefit America economically, morally, militarily, constitutionally, environmentally, or educationally.
When one reads the numerous quotes of the founding fathers, it is quite apparent that they were concerned about the possibility of the United States evolving from the land of the free and home of the brave, into the land of the dominated and home of the cowardly. Neither you or I can accurately tell how many times we have heard that according to certain pols, Americans support gun control and gender neutral bathrooms for example. Many other such wedge issues on the progressive agenda ae promoting illegal immigration, false allegations of racism and supposedly hating the poor.
Those wedge issues have a certain prominence because people have been dumbed down to a lower level of thinking politically, morally and economically. If Americans were properly schooled on the benefits of our constitution and economics, along with virtue, I seriously doubt that the federal government would be so bloated and working to implode our nation on behalf of the United Nations and muslims.
Properly informed or schooled Americans would not entertain the fool-hearty concept that one is xenophobic because they simply want people to obey our laws and immigrate into the United States legally. Also, perhaps American voters would not have twice elected an individual who literally wants to bring tens of thousands of American hating muslims into our country to try and change our American culture into a bastion of rights inhibiting sharia law.
In order to rescue the United States from utter ruin, we must make genuine efforts to teach Christian virtues, real United States history, critical thinking, real math, etc. to the up and coming generations. If not, our beloved republic will simply end up slip, slipping away. Despite the current troubles and travails throughout the land I am still optimistic that America the beautiful will be truly great again. Our cities will once again be undimmed by human tears. She will of course soon reestablish a closer walk with the one who shed His grace upon her and benefit from His Providential guidance.
Do you believe?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/alinsky-obama-marx-e1447411773498.jpg406640Ron Edwardshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRon Edwards2015-11-13 05:50:252015-11-13 05:50:25The Alinsky Affect Taking Hold in America
This week the Communist sympathizers from the Pensacola Yacht Club set sail from Pensacola, Florida (imagine that) to meet up with Commodore Jose M. Diaz Escrich, a former member of Fidel Castro’s Communist Navy and leader in his Communist Maritime forces.
The Pensacola News Journal on writing about this wonderful send off did not include the former Communist Navy Captains last name, but that’s okay nobody hides from the Senior Chief……I found it.
Escrich, one of Fidel Castro’ s closest military friends, was born on December 21, 1946 in the port city of Santiago de Cuba. He entered into the formerly free Naval Academy of Cuba when he was 16 and worked for more than 25 years in the Communist Cuban Navy.
His duties included tracking down and arresting people trying to flee to Key West, Miami and other Florida cities to free themselves from the chains and bondage of Communism.
When the sailors from the Pensacola Yacht Club Show up in Havana Cuba the Castro – Communist Cuban Ministry of Tourism, will be on hand to recognize the participants’ efforts with gifts of flowers flown in from North Korea.
I wish the Pensacola Yacht Club leadership much success with their mission to bring American dollars to the Communist Island to aid and assist in the continued efforts of Fidel and Raul Castro to oppress their people.
If you would like to contact the Cuban Ministry of Tourism and ask about all the tourists that have disappeared over the years the contact information is listed below. I called them up and they got irritated when I asked if I could speak to Fidel.
I am now on the Cuban Communist Party leadership most wanted list of not welcome with a potential shot at becoming a political prisoner for free speech.
Happy Trails…… The Pensacola Yacht Club is not too happy with me either but they can kiss my free, red blooded, American, flag waving, hamburger eating, apple pie filled you know what.
For those readers wishing to contact the Cuban Ministry you may do so using these links;
Plaza de la Revolucion Calle 3ra. N? 6 entre G y F. El vedado HAVANA,CUBA
Tel.: 0053 7 8327535, 8345283, 8365269
UPDATE: Who sponsored the Pensacola Yacht Club sail boat race to Communist Cuba?
The Pensacola Yacht Club have almost concluded their sail boat race to the port of Havana in the Communist controlled island of Cuba.
The trophies will be presented to the winner’s of this race by Commodore José Miguel Díaz Escrich of the Communist Cuban Navy (retired) .
Commodore Escrich worked his way up through the ranks to Commander in Castro’s Communist Navy working with anti-submarine ships and maritime legal issues…. rounding up dissidents trying to flee Cuba to freedom.
The Commodore then returned to the classroom in Cuba, first as a professor at the Communist Naval academy, then as a master’s degree student-candidate at the highest level in the naval academy of the former Soviet Union. How sweet is that ?
Returning to Cuba after four years, he worked in Naval Base Operations on the General Staff, focusing on international maritime and legal issues otherwise known as “Arresting and hunting down Cubans trying to flee the country”.
After 25 years in the Communist Cuban Navy, Commander Escrich then created the Club Náutico Internacional Hemingway de Cuba (Hemingway International Yacht Club of Cuba)
The Pensacola Yacht Clubs latest port of call.
Fidel Castro and Ernest Hemingway met and fished together in a 1960 Hemingway game fishing tournament, celebrated at the Barlovento Tourist Residence, later named Marina Hemingway. Thus the name of the Marina.
This is also where the American – Communist and author Hemingway presented the Communist Cuban dictator with several trophies. Three photographs of Ernest Hemingway hang in the yacht club’s office today, including one of Hemingway and his boat, Pilar, dated 27 May 1950.
Perhaps the Pensacola Yacht Club sailors will get a tour and pose for pictures also with the new crowd of Communists running the marina.
So the Pensacola Yacht Club have sanctioned, embraced and met with a former member of Castro’s Communist maritime forces whose job it was to capture and arrest fellow Cubans fleeing to safety in Florida. They are soon meeting this Communist to receive trophies and break bread with people that have to date arrested and imprisoned 114 political prisoners for wanting only to be free.
To ensure this event was a success (excluding the bad storm that blew in the following start of the sail boat race) the following companies are listed as sponsors to the Pensacola Yacht Club’s sail boat race to Communist Cuba:
There are currently 114 political prisoners held in Cuban prisons for speaking out against oppression and servitude. Some of which are in jail because of the Cuban naval forces led by Commodore Escrish the new friend of the Pensacola Yacht Club and its leadership.
Perhaps the companies I listed above would now like to offer sponsorship to the political prisoners held in Castro’s gulags next time around and now disassociate itself from the Pensacola Yacht Club, a team that affords hospitality and salutations to a member of Fidel Castro’s Communist Naval forces to satisfy what ? Who knows the answer to that…perhaps they can figure it out.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pensicola-yacht-club.jpg427640Geoff Rosshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeoff Ross2015-11-01 05:49:412015-11-02 15:46:35Florida: Pensacola Yacht Club Embraces former Cuban Communist Naval Officer