Archive for the “War and Interventionism” Category

On July the 4th, I took part in a second Tea Party - this one on “Independence Day.” I had the chance to speak twice - once at the bandstand on the Common and once at Christopher Columbus park, by the water. Here is the speech I gave at the first gathering (at the second, I recounted the Austrian theory of the business cycle):

Address to the Boston July 4th Tea Party

When the ink dried on the document whose two hundred and thirty-third birthday we are celebrating today, there were no shouts of triumph, or sighs of relief. In declaring themselves “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES,” the colonies were describing a political reality that had not yet come to pass. The tax revolt had turned violent only a year before, and the war was far from over. Many American subjects of the British monarch still hoped for an eventual reconciliation with the Crown. Doubts lingered, both domestically and in foreign lands, as to the future success of the rebels, and even as to the justice of their cause.

The Declaration of Independence was a political statement to the doubters world-over, that this cause would not and could not be extinguished; but it was also a sort of personal pep-talk by men whose goals the successful fulfillment of which was in no way certain. In writing these words, our Founders hoped to change the future, and to leave evidence of their rational free will stamped forever on the fortunes of mankind. In the days leading up to its adoption, self-doubts were conquered and the Continental Congress committed the States to what the Empire would consider an unpardonable act: that of outright secession.

Like any creation of the written word, the Declaration was designed to be read. It was published on broadsides that were posted in village and town squares. George Washington was sent a copy to read to the troops in the field. This philosophical treatise on the rights of man was also a piece of war propaganda that may never be equaled in its persuasiveness, for it sought only to tell the truth. The truth was a list of grievances, a record of the affronts to basic human rights that were then and are now the inevitable result of arbitrary rule by an unaccountable legislative body, under the supervision of a complicit and unworthy executive. It was a litany of abuses designed to inflame the passions of readers and incite the will to live freely amongst the people. And because the founding fathers believed that violence was an evil justified only in the most extreme circumstances, they sought to submit evidence to the court of international public opinion and gain allies for their fledgling nation-states. Their words are a subtly-crafted appeal to the universally-recognized human right to self-defense, which they invoke with reference to natural law. They said to their government, and to tyrants all around the world:

We are free men. Our ability to reason and to choose is not the creation of government, but is a gift to each one of us from our Creator. We are given our free will because we are intended to use it, and because its use by peaceful men creates wealth and prosperity for all. Our bodies belong to us, we have a right to rule ourselves, and the fruits of our labors will be ours to dispose of voluntarily.

The basic tenets of American society were merely the logical consequences of a philosophy that posited free-will, the aspect of our existence that separates us from all other animals, as the most important good known to man. Even life itself pales beside the peaceful exercise of one’s rational abilities, because in the absence of the latter, man becomes simply an automaton. Without freedom, a person becomes a means to another person’s end – he is a slave. The Founders recognized that freedom was a birthright, and that to allow individuals the chance to be fully human, the divine spark of creativity within each of us should be allowed its maximum range.

But philosophers do not make revolutions. The 56 signers, the 5 drafters, and the even the one courageous man who affixed his name to the first mass-produced copy, were merely the representatives of thousands of anonymous individuals who had long before begun planting the seeds of open rebellion. The Founders elegantly justified their decision to resist the “tyranny of irritated ministers,” but it fell to the great mass of people to take those words and make them a reality. Without previous small acts of resistance by everyday people against their own government, the Declaration would have been just a piece of paper, and its words would have been just the fanciful ruminations of dreamers.

As long as there are masses of oppressed men and women, there will always be leaders who gravitate to the front of the crowds. These leaders are not the bravest, nor the most selfless. They are the ones for whom freedom far outweighs the pleasures of a comfortable existence, the ones who are unafraid to say openly what many of their peers now say in their hearts, the ones who are willing to sacrifice not only their fortunes, but even the last few shreds of freedom that are always offered to the ambitious by the corrupt and all-powerful. Leaders are persons of principle, who seek after what others call a hopeless ideal. They are those who, despite their own self-doubt, believe that men will do what is right, when they see it done by the unafraid. They do not compromise, and they would rather spend their last day in a cage that they have voluntarily chosen, than in a world of injustice that is chosen only in the sense that men have come to accept it.

It is time to begin speaking openly of resistance once again. We have many role models to whom we can look for inspiration and guidance, among them Thoreau, Gandhi, and King. We are very fortunate that the internet has made communications virtually instantaneous, for this development will make it much harder for governments violently to oppress their own people. To the extent that the internet remains free, we can all hear the stories of brave freedom-fighters across the world, as they are written. As we write this new chapter in American history, our brothers and sisters around the world will hear it told, and they will support us. A world-wide movement for freedom is now possible. The young people everywhere know that tyranny is bad – and now they must learn what tyranny is:

Tyranny is a government that relieves you of your right to choose your destiny, and enslaves you for your own good.

Tyranny is a government that ignores its own legitimizing document, and thereby becomes itself unlawful.

When the time comes, we will know it. When the final act of injustice breaks through to the conscience of my generation, acts of civil resistance will begin. What restrictive law or oppressive tax is the spark that sets the world ablaze is anyone’s guess – but we all know for sure that it will involve the use of government force against people who are unable to defend themselves. When the government resorts to violence against its own people, tapping into the brute nature of man in order to preserve its existence, we must then resort to violence’s opposite – the peaceful withdrawal of our support, and voluntary submission to the injustice we seek to abolish. Together, when the masses extend the hand of peace to their oppressors, we will wean them from force, and help them rediscover the blessings of freedom.

May the truth conquer falsehood; and may all men and women be assured of their life, secure in their liberty, and free peacefully to pursue their own happiness. Long live the united States of America!

July 4, 2009

On Saturday, I trekked out to Worcester to attend a meeting of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly. The Assembly bills itself as “the Republican wing of the Republican Party,” and so I hoped that I could reach a few people who actually believe in individual liberty and minimal government. I happen to believe (along with Peter Schiff) that the rapidly-growing movement of young libertarians will do best not to attack the system by way of a third party, but by taking over one of the two existing parties, both of which are corrupt to the core and stand for no principles except self-aggrandizement and the expansion of government control over the lives of individuals. Here is my address, in full:

Address to the Massachusetts Republican Assembly

I would like to thank Sandi Martinez for inviting me to address you today. Although I was born and raised in Boston, I have only recently gotten involved in Massachusetts politics. I am very grateful to Sandi for welcoming me into her network of friends and colleagues. I am here today to tell you who I am and why I am running for city council in Boston – but first I should tell you what I am not.

I am not a Republican.

Like about half of registered voters in Massachusetts, I am unenrolled. I have never been attracted to the idea of top-down political organizations. My mother is a Democrat, and my father mostly ignored the electoral process, which he saw as ineffectual and meaningless. I first became affiliated with a party in December of 2007. At the time, I was a student of orchestral conducting in Cleveland. When I came home for the Christmas holiday, I went down to Boston City Hall and registered as a Republican, so that I could request an absentee ballot for the upcoming presidential primary.

After 8 years of George W. Bush’s reign – after endless imperial entanglements and thousands of senseless deaths; after domestic spying, secret prisons, torture, and a brazen disregard for civil liberties and the Rule of Law – marking that little “R” next to my name was a bitter pill for me to swallow.

I knew that most of my life-long friends and associates would think I was crazy – wasn’t there ANY Democrat of whom I could approve? I grew up in Jamaica Plain, by the way, a neighborhood in Boston where many young progressives and leftists settled down to raise kids, when they retired from active radicalism. My parents were both more conservative in certain ways than those of my friends, but some of my friend’s parents were (and are) fairly committed Marxists. So, by voting for a Republican, I was making myself into somewhat of a loner at holiday parties.

What could have possessed me? Why had I suddenly taken such a keen interest in politics? Even thought I didn’t fully realize it then, I had not only discovered a candidate who spoke the truth unflinchingly. I had begun the process of finding a new way of seeing the world – a philosophy more than anything. When that ballot came in the mail, and I voted for president, it was the first time in my life that I was proud to support a political candidate. Even though I did not agree with this man on every single issue, I finally felt that my vote mattered. Even if he were eventually to lose, I would know that I had done what was right – by clinging to the truth.

*     *     *     *     *

The truth is what is missing from our national dialogue. Today, there is a gaping void in American politics, and the party that can fill this void will attract young people by the millions. To fill this void, we must build a new party of liberty; and to fill this void effectively, we must show not just where, but why, we differ with the policies of BOTH mainstream parties, as they are currently constituted.

There is no immutable law of existence that says we can have only two official party lines and an anti-competitive duopoly over government policy. For a clue as to where our nation’s problems lie, we must examine the respects not in which these two mega-parties differ, but rather the ways in which they are the same. For not only do liberals and conservatives agree on forests of government intervention programs (choosing rather to debate the trees); but the single most important issue facing Americans today is not even a matter of mention. As we slide further into depression, and as the government’s control over our economic and personal lives becomes increasingly draconian, an opposition party that differs with the establishment in degree, but not in principle, will be incapable of offering Americans an authentic alternative.

At the same time, the Republican Party is in disarray. It is an all-but-powerless minority in Congress; it opposes a tremendously popular and charismatic executive with a mandate for vaguely-worded but distinctly collectivist change; and here in New England, it is out of touch with the population, and increasingly unable to affect the direction of our ship of state.

By adopting a principled stand against the status quo; by giving a clear and explicit voice to the frustration of millions of men and women – not just in this country, but all over the world; by finally making the case for freedom in its deepest and most radical incarnation – we will not only restore Republicans to relevancy in Massachusetts, we may also avoid the need for a new revolution.

How will we do this?

The Massachusetts Republican Party must return to its principles, and state these principles in universal terms. It must distinguish itself from the Democrats (and from the “neoconservatives”) in key areas, and refuse to compromise. It must tell the truth, and stick to it, even if it means losing elections. Above all, it must believe in freedom, instead of just paying it lip-service. And, in order for anyone to take the party seriously – as an organization that is sincere in its drive to limit government to its constitutionally-defined role – it should unite behind a leader who represents this ideal, and has represented it long before doing so became cool. There is only one politician with the record, the grass-roots following, and the principled integrity to lead a resurgent Republican party – he is Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul differs from mainstream Republicans and Democrats in three key areas: foreign policy, monetary and fiscal policy, and individual rights.

It was Dr. Paul’s anti-war message that attracted me to the Republican Party. Regardless of what you believe are the root causes of anti-American terrorism, it cannot be denied that our government administers a world-wide empire that is resented by many foreigners – whose only direct interaction with the United States comes in the form of guns, bombs, and military occupation. World War II is over, and yet we still have troops in Germany; the Cold War is over, and yet we still keep troops in Asia; we have a network of bases all throughout the Middle East, and we pay hundreds of billions of dollars a year to hobble and dilute our military’s effectiveness, through these examples of imperial overstretch. The bottom line is that we cannot afford to pay for the empire. Our nation is broke, our national debt has doubled over that past ten years, and our creditors are losing confidence in the once-mighty dollar. The sooner we end the wars, the sooner we dismantle the empire, and the sooner our fighting men and women return home, the better. Our founding fathers advocated a strong national defense, but they also warned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy. A close reading of history will show that most of the monsters we currently face were created or radicalized by our own meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Ron Paul is a true anti-war activist, for he opposes not just the current wars, but all future use of the military that is not directly tied to self-defence.

With regard to individual rights, it is clear that both major parties agree that freedoms are merely privileges bestowed upon us at the whim of the government, and which can therefore be abridged whenever it is felt to be necessary or expedient. The conservatives want to regulate our personal habits and lifestyle choices, while the liberals advocate a brand of economic collectivism that makes a mockery of private property and contract law. The “neo-cons” and “neoliberals” have stripped us of our 4th-amendent rights to privacy; they force us to exercise our 1st-amendment rights in “free speech zones”; they are progressively weakening our 2nd-amendment right to defend ourselves; and they are inching toward “preventive detention” for American citizens who have committed no crime, but are simply deemed “dangerous” by the U.S. government. The executive branch is out of control, and its powers continue to grow under this new administration. In short, our individual protections against tyrannical government are hanging by a thread. It is time that Republicans not only defended economic freedom (to the extent that they still do), but also made a radical call for individual rights in the tradition of our founders. This will require an end to the paternalistic nanny-state that has grown up over the past 100 years, and a willingness to let all peaceful men lead their lives however they wish, even if we find some of their choices to be personally offensive. Real freedom would mean an end to the drug wars, to the legislation of morality, and to attempts to force conformity on a nation that is individualistic to the very core. We must remember that “a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” The proper role of government is not to give us things, but to protect what God has given us; and to make sure that we are free to earn anything else we want through honest efforts and productive pursuits.

Monetary policy is an undiscovered issue in American politics, one waiting to be seized upon by the people and by any party that would make a credible claim to represent the interests of the people. As the depression worsens, as unemployment rises, as the socialist distortions in our economy intensify, the defenders of free-markets will face what could be an existential battle against those who would task the government with planning our future prosperity. Americans are largely unaware of what the Federal Reserve has done to our economic system, and it is probably not realistic to expect a majority of citizens suddenly to take an interest in Austrian economics. But the truth has a funny way of spreading, when a tireless minority refuses to accept the establishment lies. The Federal Reserve is the cause of the business cycle – it was Fed policy that created and sustained bubbles in the housing and stock markets, and which led to this foreseeable and inevitable bust. Since 1913, Fed-fueled inflation has devalued the savings of hard-working Americans and decimated the middle class. The Fed encourages deficit spending, rampant consumer debt, and big government entitlement programs. As Dr. Paul said in 1983, “there is no other power greater than the power over money – the power to create and contract the money supply.” This power is the single most destructive force in America today, and as we and our neighbors become poorer, the Fed will increasingly feel the weight of public scrutiny. The party that opposes the Fed, and that advocates for a return to a free-market monetary system, will have powerful and truthful ammunition to use in the upcoming election cycles.

*     *     *     *     *

I am running for office in Boston because I believe that the truth must be defended, now more than ever. I ask for your support in my efforts, and I hope that you will consider the views of the many young libertarians who are now searching for political organizations to help them – or at least not to get in their way. By following the example of the only real leader we Americans have, the Republicans can redeem their party’s reputation, and restore its honor. If the Massachusetts Republican Party will make peace, monetary reform, and personal freedom the bedrock of their efforts toward a renewed relevancy, then I would be the first one in line down at city hall on Monday morning, ready to register my support for them as well. And this time, I would proud to represent this grand old party – for I would be a Ron Paul Republican.

June 20, 2009

A bill was introduced last month that would create an 8-member commission to study, among other things,

• “The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.”
• “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

This bill would require that a final “report” be submitted to Congress no later than 2 years after the passage of the act. Do you think that the eight wise men just might find a “fair and reasonable” way for the government to confiscate more of our wealth, by taking from us a part of our very lives, instead of just a part of our money? For those of you who may be shrugging your shoulders and thinking, “What’s the big deal?” - I only ask you to remember that you are the owner of your body, not the state. A mandatory period of “national service” is no different - in principle - than a military draft. If you were a draft protester in the 1970’s, or if you are an anti-war activist now, don’t be fooled by the government’s supposedly good intentions in this particular case. Don’t think that, once you give the government the power to treat its citizens merely as means - pawns to be directed according to centralized social engineering plans - you will be able to limit the government’s power only to those ends that you think are justified or worthwhile. Principles matter, and this is why - occasionally - free people have taken the time to write them down.

Involuntary servitude is no less involuntary, just because the state is the master. If you know anyone who escaped to the U.S. from the former USSR, ask them their opinion of a system in which the state is the master of its subjects. As for me - I will never submit to a draft, and I will never be a domestic slave.

Dr. Paul’s most concise, clearly-reasoned and simply-organized public argument against the central bank to date. Also the first time I have heard him utter the admittedly simplistic but catchy phrase that has been adopted by the sound money movement as their slogan (and that is rumored to be the title of an upcoming book by Dr. Paul). Props also for the snazzy tie!

After the usual introductory platitudes, the first point of substance that Obama makes in his speech is: “[I]t is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”

So true! By understanding the past, we might be able more intelligently to determine the best actions to take in the present. So how exactly did we arrive at this moment? According to Obama, the culprits behind the financial collapse are apparently:

1. Our failure to find “new sources of energy” (as opposed to imported oil).
2. The rising costs of health care, and the delaying of “reform.”
3. Schools that “do not prepare” our children to compete in a “global economy.”

What a coincidence! Energy policy, heath care reform, and education just happen to be the three areas in which Obama wants to increase the amount of direct control the federal government exerts over our lives, and ones that have been pushed by Democratic special interests for years now! Isn’t justice poetic? And though Obama’s grammar it not terribly exact, he seems to imply that failing to solve these “challenges” was what led us into “spend[ing] more money, and pil[ing] up more debt.” Furthermore, by some complex logic that he apparently feels no need to elucidate, these three bogeymen (energy, health care and education) are somehow related (inversely?) to tax cuts (which he refers to as “transfer[s] [of] wealth to the wealthy”), deregulation, and what has come to be known as “predatory lending.” Funny, I can’t remember any regressive taxes being enacted under the Bush administration (unless, that is, he means the rampant inflation which began under Bush and will continue under his successor). With every passing year, the congress regulates more and more of our daily affairs. I won’t even get into the ultimate causes of lax lending standards (I’m happy to leave that task to best-selling author Tom Woods).

It’s hard for me to write a coherent response to Obama, since his speech is such a jumbled pastiche of cliches and unrelated Democratic Party talking points. But as he continues, saying that the way to “jumpstart” our economy is to get the banks lending again, and to “invest” in this magic trio of issues that his propaganda apparatus will soon transform into the latest blueprint for supporter indoctrination, I just have to ask: When exactly did the government become this benevolent force for positivism with regard to the economy? When did it become the government’s job to “invest” in our future? When did presidents begin having an “economic agenda” - a collectivist regimen into which we puny individuals are now forced to fit ourselves, as best we can?

To me, these sorts of Obamunist phrases would sound more appropriate in a description of life under a socialist system of economic organization. The U.S. government now claims the right to “invest” our money (which it will of course have to take from productive individuals, leaving them with less money to invest according to their own determinations of relative profitability, a determination which the government can entirely disregard - for why bother about profit margins when shortfalls can be recouped through taxation, infinite borrowing, and money-creation?). The U.S. government asserts the moral duty to determine how wealth is “distributed” (turning the concept of taxation from one concerning what portion of our earnings we - by our passive consent - allow the technocrats to take, but rather what portion of our earnings they - in their infallible wisdom - allow us to keep). The U.S. government, by gradually taking greater control over the banking system and over what’s left of the nation’s industrial (read = productive) sectors, endorses the view that central planners should administer our livelihood and plan our prosperity (reducing the formerly free individual to a charge under the care of a paternalistic regime, from cradle to grave).

In doing all this, our leaders fall prey to a sort of short-sighted arrogance: they believe that they can solve all of our immediate problems from a boardroom in Washington, and forget that there will be future problems that will only become more acute in a society that is no longer full of the innovative, independent efforts of entrepreneurs, but whose efforts will instead be clumsily directed toward one or two short-term policy goals. As Hayek is prescient enough to note in The Constitution of Liberty, even if the planners are the most intelligent and well-intentioned beings that society currently has to offer us, “to make the best available knowledge at any given moment the compulsory standard for all future endeavor may well be the most certain way to prevent new knowledge from emerging.” As Mises makes clear in “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism,” once the government attempts to plan a single piece of what was formerly a self-ordering system of free enterprise, the resultant side effects must lead to yet another intervention, and so on, until the entire system is under the direct control of a central authority.

The most dangerous trend in America today is not the brazen and shameless wholesale adoption of policies which, just a generation ago, would have been seen as treasonous and un-American. More worrisome still is the accompanying loss, on the part of the average American, of the belief that individual action can mean anything - the bewildered acceptance of this new reality, in which the citizen’s job is merely to choose which faction of the ruling class will take his money, control his livelihood, and issue him orders. We keep hearing the word “plan” repeated over and over, and we have largely come to accept, if not the associated policies, then at least the underlying philosophical principle. We no longer try to provide ourselves with what we want, but have come to rely on the government to give us what it decides we need.

In his comprehensive analysis of the political economy of the major communist regimes, Janos Kornai says that “one important ingredient in the official [socialist] ideology consists of the basic promises made by the party to the population when it comes to power.” Kornai notes that classical socialism often emerged in a country that had been poor and backward before the revolution. Although it would be a bit far-fetched to compare the present-day USA to the largely pre-industrial countries like Czarist Russia or Republican China, the massive national debt of the USA could certainly qualify us as poor. Our industrial infrastructure is certainly backward, after years of the market-distorting inflationary actions of the Federal Reserve System. Kornai’s hypothetical pre-communist state is intent on “concentrating resources on stimulating growth and making sacrifices on behalf” of this goal. Sound familiar? The people are bombarded with “reassurance” and told that “mobilization for work” will ensure a “promising future.”

What is the primary promise? According to Kornai, the “first and perhaps most important factor to provide is jobs. There is to be full employment, if not at once, then in the foreseeable future. Everyone able to work has a constitutional right to work.” Or, in the phraseology of the plan Obama sets forth in this speech, “It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.”

Obama claims not to be hampered by any sort of “ideology.” Perhaps that is how he can say with a straight face that he doesn’t “believe in bigger government” after ramming through the most imbalanced budget in history and raising the national debt to an unprecedented $11 trillion. And since he apparently holds no political principles whatsoever, if we are to construct even a basic idea of what sort of institutional framework free individuals will have to work within over the next 8 years (if case you didn’t notice, presidents no longer serve 4-year terms), we must examine his promises instead.

Aside from his assurance that he will act “boldly and wisely,” are there any specific commitments made by Obama in this speech? Well, of course he promises to “save or create 3.5 million jobs.” As I have noted several times previously, this vacuous phrase is an intellectually dishonest evasion, reminiscent of Soviet doublespeak that assured shoeless, starving peasants that production quotas for shoes and foodstuffs were being constantly over-fulfilled. More than “90%” of these jobs are planned for the private sector - so you can be sure, at least, that he’ll create around 350,000 new government jobs that do not produce anything of value, and must be paid for by new taxes on the productive sectors of society. And we’ll engage in the sorts of public works projects that failed to end the Great Depression, and which have mired present-day Japan in a recession lasting over a decade.

Next, Obama ticks off the hand-outs to various constituencies that he is attempting to bribe with goodies. This is a typical tactic of the political class, and one that allows them to perpetuate their power with little effort: take our money away, and give it back to interested parties that together form a majority of voters, thus ensuring their support in future elections. He resumes the platitudes by telling us that all this new spending with be subject to strict oversight. Yeah, we’ve heard that one before.

On to the nitty gritties of the financial crisis. According to Obama, “the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy.” And for that reason, the government is “creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.” What Obama doesn’t seem to realize is that credit is really another word for savings - capital that is not being used by its owner and can thus be lent. To the central bankers tasked with implementing Obama’s policies, however, credit will simply mean fiat money created out of thin air. This “credit” will either re-inflate an old bubble (which is what Obama apparently wants, judging by his plan to “help” homeowners) or lead to the creation of a new one. The government cannot create savings, and by funding all these new government programs, and keeping interest rates artificially low, it will simply prevent individuals from saving as well. The Austrian theory of the business cycle tells us what will happen next (hint = bust).

The way Obama paints it (even though his plan for instituting a command economy is “not about helping banks” but about helping “people”), the American Dream is based upon the profligate consumer spending that fiat bank credit enables. Without bank credit, apparently, that “young family” will never be able to buy a home.  The “builder” of that home will never be able to afford a car.  He implies that a family unable to afford a home, or a worker unable to afford a car, are both moral problems that government somehow must solve.

It used to be that Americans had a culture that prized self-reliance and thrift. There was a time, not too long ago, when the conventional wisdom said that if one cannot afford something, one should not buy it - and certainly not that one is entitled to it.  A president who propagates the idea that even those who cannot afford a particular luxury of life still somehow deserve to posses it, or that the government must ensure that they have it, is paving the road to an ideological climate in which each person believes he should have the things he “needs.” Is it really possible that an American president is calling for an economic system in which a central government judges for us who “needs” what, who “deserves” to have what and - worst of all - who should pay for these subsidized luxuries?

Obama is fond of making competitive comparisons between the U.S. and other countries: We can’t let other countries “out-teach” us. We should feel ashamed that hybrid cars have batteries made in Korea. He will not let American car companies fail. Besides stoking nationalist sentiments (always a popular pastime of demagogic leaders in terrible economic times), the implicit and unquestioned assumption underlying these sorts of statements is that countries, and not individuals, are the entities that “compete” with each other for success in markets, industry and production. This of course leads directly to the conclusion that national production should be centrally planned.

A faint outline of Obama’s ideology is beginning to emerge. In addition to his views on the redistribution of wealth, and the moral duty of government to determine which classes of citizens deserve special treatment, he is willing to do “whatever proves necessary” to achieve his grand vision. He is focused on results, and restrictions on the means to his goals must be damned. He is unwilling to let principles (or the Rule of Law) get in the way of actions. Easy for him to say, since he won’t suffer the consequence of his actions, and since, as the most powerful man in the world, he no longer needs the principles that used to protect the liberty of regular Americans like you and me. He sees his budget not as “simply numbers on a page or laundry lists of programs” but as “a vision for America – as a blueprint for our future.” He has a plan to reshape America, in a way that only he can, that only government can. He is a man of “big ideas.” He believes that government not only has the solutions, but IS the solution. Like many a socialist before him, he is almost completely oblivious to the mundane economic realities that will make his ideas impossible to realize. Let us hope that his pride is not as big as his ambitions.

Yesterday, around 10 in the morning, I was sitting at my desk listening to the local public radio station, 90.3 WCPN.  Cleveland’s NPR-affiliate carries “The Diane Rehm Show,” a current events talk show.  A few years ago, I would have thought that this program provided a fairly balanced commentary on the news of the day. After all, it explores both “liberal” and “conservative” view points! Rehm’s production formula is to take a hot-button issue and to discuss it with a panel of guests including at least one member of the media, and two or three “experts,” representing ostensibly opposed political or ideological viewpoints. For example, today’s 10 AM show was on the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” which Obama signed into law this afternoon. The guests included: a reporter from the Wall Street Journal; Biden’s “Chief Economist,” there to spout the official Obamunist doctrine; and representatives of two “think tanks,” the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation (supposedly liberal and conservative, respectively). I didn’t bother to listen to today’s show, since I was fairly certain that both “experts” would differ only in the degree to which they approved of government intervention into the economic life of its citizens, and I’ve already heard more than enough Keynesian shlock from representatives of the executive branch, both under Bush and Obama.

Yesterday’s show was entitled “Update on Afghanistan.” The topic was Obama’s recent decision to send at least 17,000 more troops into Iran’s eastern neighbor. The guests included two members of the media and two think tank wisdom-propagators: one from the “Center for Strategic and International Studies” and the other from the “Center for a New American Security.” For some reason, I sensed that both of these guests would be shameless apologists for America’s next imperial nation-building exercise. So, I decided to call. After about twenty busy signals, I got through, and ended up being one of the four callers who were allowed to speak during the hour-long show. You can listen to my comments by using the widget below. You can also download an audio file of the entire show here.

Another principled anti-war caller, “John in Raleigh, North Carolina,” was allowed to speak at 41:54. I was pleased that - on a show seemingly devoted to making plausible but fallacious arguments in support of continued acts of violence and intervention on the part of the American government against innocent individuals across the globe - at least two out of four callers made a case for peace.

Since I was not allowed to respond to either of the two “experts” who took issue with my argument, I will do so here. My basic points were:

1. How many occupations will the American people have to pay for, before it is clear to us that we cannot force our values on other civilizations?. When will the wars end?
2. The risk of “terrorism” cannot be used a justification for an interventionist foreign policy, since our “terrorist” enemies only antagonize us due to our long and continuous practice of meddling in middle eastern affairs.
3. The U.S. government is out of touch with the American people, who want an end to the empire and to misguided nation-building efforts.

Karin von Hippel, Co-Director of the “CSIS Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project,” author of Democracy by Force (Cambridge, 2000), and a self-billed “expert” on the “root causes of terrorism,” had these two things to say, in response to my comments:

1. While acknowledging that Americans, Europeans and Canadians are increasingly against their governments’ attempts forcefully to reshape the politics of large swaths of the Earth’s surface, Karin tells us that she is sure that our government can in fact, through the use of violence, “build a basic democracy” in Afghanistan. And best of all, we can do it “without killing large numbers of people.”

   Karin, would you like to tell us what “large numbers of people” means? Is there any qualitative moral distinction between killing one innocent civilian and killing thousands? And even if there is a difference, what makes you think that our presence in Afghanistan will be any less destructive than in Iraq, where U.S. foreign policy has killed, maimed, and starved hundreds of thousands of innocents over the past two decades? Also, you might want to bone up on your political science. Even if we could reshape Afghan society, a “democracy” is simply a system within which majorities are able to rule through the voting process. They can easily go totalitarian (e.g. USA), if a large portion of the population buys into a fallacious belief system (i.e. socialism). I think you’ll be pretty disappointed when the people you’ve just beaten into submission end up voting an anti-American government into power. Why would the Afghan people be anti-American, when we’ve just bombed the crap out of them for several years? Hmm, give me a second on that one…

2. “Success” in Afghanistan requires a “much smarter” use of violence, that will allow us to “do it” in a way that “respects our traditions.”

   What would be really smart would be for dogmatic interventionists to read a little history about the Soviets’ intervention into Afghanistan, and how the protracted and costly occupation contributed to the downfall of the USSR. Or, if they read a statistical analysis of suicide terrorism since 1980, they would also see that it is not the source, degree, quality, or particular justification for violence that offends those people against whom it it is used - but rather the fact that force of this kind reduces the victim to a mere means in the schemes of another man (or woman). Coercion denies the existence of the victim’s capacity for rational thought (i.e. the ability to figure out what ends he himself would like to pursue) and his free will (his ability then to make decisions that will lead him to those ends). Before Americans go around occupying the lands of strangers, we might do well to consider how we felt, when we lived under what we came to realize was a foreign occupation (i.e the reign of King George and a tyrannical British parliament). The revolutionaries of America’s war for independence were “insurgents” who at first used guerrilla tactics.

   Additional research would also reveal that the American “tradition,” until about the time of the Spanish-American war, consisted of a system of government in which the chief executive lacked the authority to move thousands of armed men about the world on a whim, without seeking approval from the legislature, and without regard to the will of the people he supposedly serves. Traditionally, America was supposed not to be an empire, but rather a strong and independent republic that maintained “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” We were supposed to be a beacon of economic and political freedom toward which the oppressed peoples of the world could look for inspiration - we weren’t supposed to cram this light down people’s throats.

John Nagl, a retired army officer, life member of the Council on Foreign Relations, President of the “Center for New American Security,” and a seasoned establishment apologist, did an excellent job of encapsulating the two most parroted justifications for interventionism, designed to appeal to “liberals” and “conservatives,” respectively. Although seemingly plausible, and playing off of normal human emotions, these two arguments are fallacies and are easily refuted:

1. John, drawing upon his real-life experience in the army, says that “there are worse things than wars” and that one of these things is the Taliban, members of which “throw acid in the faces of little girls for daring to go to school.” He makes the additional point that there are members of the armed services who are willing to “put their lives on the line to keep that from happening.”

   Focusing first on the purely moral aspect of this question: it cannot be denied that heinous crimes are committed daily, around the world, both by individuals and by governments. If there were some non-coercive means by which we could prevent the mistreatment of women in the Middle East (or of certain ethnic groups in Africa), it might even make sense, in a way, to use money that has been coerced from U.S. taxpayers to fund an effort towards that goal. But there is not. Even if it were possible to “defeat” the Taliban and to force onto a foreign society the values and customs that took centuries to evolve in our civilization, it would require the senseless killings of thousands of innocent individuals. The means to the “cure” would be far more destructive and immoral than the disease itself. And now, we would be spreading this disease - showing ourselves to be no better than those we claim the right to lecture. No matter how evil certain members of the Taliban may be, they are nothing compared to the U.S. government - the gargantuan empire that dominates the world. When John says that certain individuals are willing to take personal risks to aid certain Afghan people, that should not imply that the rest of us should be forced to support and pay for their actions. And, in terms of campaign contributions, members of the U.S. military seem to be a segment of the U.S. population that is overwhelmingly in favor of non-intervention, at least judging by which presidential candidate they supported.

   Lefties - remember what the U.S. did in Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc? Do you really think that this time things will be different? Or that this time our power will be “smarter?” Do you really believe that this war in Afghanistan is not about special interests and corporate profits, but about making an altruistic sacrifice, so that little girls can go to school? It’s time to wake up from the humanitarian’s dream of forcing freedom on the world. Its time to recognize that we can’t create peace by making war. The only people who live in peace are those who are free (and freedom, all throughout history, has meant more power for the individual and less for the “collective,” i.e. the government). The only people who are free are those who continuously create freedom, for themselves. It is not our duty to save the oppressed. We must simply show the way.

2. Next, John throws out some red meat for “conservatives.” He says that “instability” in the Afganistan/Pakistan region threatens American “national security.” What kind of a threat? Why, a terrorist “strike on the United States,” of course. John is willing to “do an awful lot” to prevent an attack, or to make one less likely. We’ve got to get them over there, or else they’ll get us over here, in other words.

   This argument has been refuted so many times that I can’t believe it is still being made. John is sadly misinformed on the topic of terrorism. Careful studies have shown that suicide terrorism, such as that we experienced on 9/11, is invariably the result of a perceived or actual occupation of the perpetrators’ lands by a foreign, usually democratic, government. The definition of occupation includes the support of puppet governments that act as proxies for foreign domination. John should read “Dying to Win” by Robert Pape. If he did, he would come to realize that a small group of backwards religious zealots, who inhabit an impoverished strip of mountainous land in the Middle East, would not really be all that interested in killing American citizens, if we weren’t over there in the first place. Even of they DID hate us because we are (increasingly less) free, they would not intentionally provoke our ire, because our government could nuke them into oblivion, and they wouldn’t be able to keep little girls out of school anymore. The source of the American problem with terrorism is our interventionist foreign policy. Back in the days when America was a republic and not an empire, we were respected by people all around the world. And by increasing the extent of our attacks, by fighting yet another foreign war, we will stoke the fires of anti-imperial sentiment, and make a future attack on American civilians more likely. In fact, if we keep doing what we’re doing, another attack will be not a possibility, but a certainty.

   Righties - a true conservative is for small government and individual freedom. A true conservative understands that economic and political freedom form an indivisible unit, and that a leviathan imperial state apparatus - like the one that is in charge of the United States - is more destructive to the American way of life than any loosely organized foreign threat could possibly be. A government that is large and well-funded enough to police the world and send troops to 130 countries is one that has the power to take your private property and restrict your consitutional rights. If we were really concerned with “national security,” we’d dismantle the empire, allow our military to adopt a truly defensive posture, cut spending, and reduce the size of government.
   

Ironically, these two imperial enthusiasts completely ignore the most compelling reason for ending the American Empire’s interventionist foreign policy. I’ll say it again - WE ARE BROKE. We can’t afford half a trillion dollars a year spent overseas, on destructive activities. We can’t afford any more debt to the Chinese. We can’t afford the eventual destruction of the dollar. For heaven’s sake, are all these policy wonks so completely uninformed? Can they not see how dire the economic situation is? Can they not understand that we are destroying what’s left of our liberty and prosperity at home, while foolishly attempting to spread our values onto people who aren’t interested? Why would foreign peoples want to emulate us, anyway? Why would ANY country want to be like us, when the whole world can see how badly we’ve screwed up - how rapidly we took the ideals that inspired the revolutionaries of the past two centuries, and buried them beneath the crushing weight of authoritarian government and central economic planning?

Several people were arrested today, outside the Israeli consulate in Boston, after gathering to protest the IDF’s invasion of the Gaza strip. They chanted “Stop Israeli war crimes; let Gaza live.” I watched a video that is posted on the website of the Boston Globe, and it appears that one or more of the protesters may have engaged in acts of violence that, however minor, cannot be condoned by anyone who believes in truly peaceful forms of protest. But what is a peaceful protester to do, when confronted with domestic and foreign governments that consistently ignore the will of their own citizens? What can we as Americans do, to aid the innocents being killed in far-flung corners of the globe?

Two friends of my family attended an “anti-war” protest in downtown Boston on December 31, in response to the escalating violence in Gaza. I had the chance to interview one of them about her experience. She told me that she wanted to take a stand against the violence, and that she was hoping to find a group of people holding signs with a “peace and justice kind of message” - “stop the bombing, and start negotiations.” She wanted to do something to “stop the insanity” of what goes on [in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza] and hopefully to see the issues of both sides equitably addressed.

On arrival, she was disappointed to find that the crowd of protesters, instead of being united against violence, was divided into two factions engaged in a war of words, holding signs that read:

“Hamas = Fascism.”
“Israel kills babies.”

She felt sad, and hopeless - she realized, looking from across the street at the hostilities taking place, that she didn’t want to go over there. She’s wasn’t interested in the rhetoric of either militant Zionists or Palestinians, because “there’s never going to be peace if people just keep choosing sides.”

War, like monetary policy, is an issue that I feel could unite “radicals” of the left and right, if only they could agree on a shared principle that would bind them together. Insomuch as non-violence (in its full political implications) is a synonym for non-intervention, I think that the anti-war left and right may soon find some common ground.

Individuals don’t make “war” - governments do. As Americans, if we truly wish not to support war, we must stop supporting a government that makes war, and cease aiding foreign governments who do. It seems to me that standing on the sidewalk in Boston holding a “Peace and Justice” sign is about as likely to affect the policies of the Israeli government (or of the democratically-elected leaders of Hamas) as standing on the sidewalk in Cleveland holding an “End the Fed” sign is likely to affect the policies of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. We cannot expect entities which are not accountable to us to, and which don’t share our religious or economic interests to listen to our puny demands. So, with what option are we left?

We must no longer cooperate with our (and other’s) oppressors.

We Americans, at least theoretically, can hold our own elected representatives accountable for their actions. So we need to ask ourselves: what has the U.S. government’s role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict been? For many years now, the U.S. taxpayer has been footing the bill for generous U.S. aid to Israel (and to Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and many other dubious regimes). Has our money been well spent? Has it brought the region any closer to peace? I see no evidence that it has.

The problem with allowing the U.S. government to intervene in the affairs of other nations, is that no proper line can be drawn between aid that will help, and aid that will hurt. Many Americans - even after all the destruction our government wrought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. - still seem to think that our country has a moral duty to prevent injustice abroad. They believe that the latest intervention will be the peaceful exception to the general rule of mayhem and destruction. It is certainly true that had, for example, the U.S. sent thousands of troops into Rwanda, a mass slaughter of innocents might have been prevented. But if you give the government authority to intervene in Africa, then you’re also given it carte blanche to, say, starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Based on recent events, can Americans trust our government to obey our wishes? Did the congress listen to its constituents when they were overwhelmingly against the bailout? Has the war in Iraq ended, even though it’s been 2 years now since we supposedly “sent a message” to our “representatives” in Washington? Wake up, Americans. We control our government’s policies about as much as the people of Iran control theirs. If we want peace, we will soon have to demand it - we’ll have to put our money where our mouths are.

Here is my advice to liberals and conservatives who want to end the conflict in the Middle East. Stop funding the conflict. Stop voting for candidates who lick the boots of AIPAC and support Israel unconditionally. In order to be consistent and impartial, take a stand against ALL U.S. aid to foreign governments - governments which are NOT accountable to you, and which exist NOT to further the interests of Americans, but (rightfully) what they perceive as the interests of their own citizens. Does it make sense for our secular government to get involved in a centuries-old religious war, halfway across the world? Our taxes certainly haven’t brought this region one iota closer to peace, and haven’t helped enhance America’s security. Continued intervention will get us only one thing for certain: enemies. The U.S. doesn’t need any more of those. Plus, we’re broke, so we can’t afford to make them anyway. Does anyone remember the advice of Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

“Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

And if the government won’t listen to us, it will be time to withdraw our support of it.

To read an excellent anti-war article by former CIA counterterrorism expert Michael Scheuer, click here. Scheuer’s book, Imperial Hubris, makes a powerul case for why America’s interventionist foreign policy has resulted in blowback - unintended (but predictable) negative consequences.

The Army Times once again proves to be a great source for information concerning fascist developments in the United States. An article posted on December 9 outlines several recent recommendations by the Center for National Policy, a “bipartisan think tank” - including “requiring every American youth to serve the nation in mandatory national service — with military duties as one option.” Here’s a particularly delicious literary morsel from the Times article:

The report says its recommendations are aimed at increasing the pool of volunteers to fill the ranks, something a mandatory national service program could accomplish by making military service an option that people otherwise might never consider.

I take issue with the categorization of “mandatory” service as “voluntary” - but what the hey: they’re just two words with completely opposite meanings. What was that concept from George Orwell’s 1984: A Novel…that involved the deliberate pairing of diametrically opposed concepts and the use of tortured intellectual gyrations somehow to meld them together? Oh yeah: doublethink. Maybe truth really is the first casualty of war, or in this case the preparations therefor.

Read the Army Times article “Report suggests radical personnel changes.”
Download the full CNP “report” here: “Agility Across the Spectrum: A Future Force Blueprint.”

Obama has already called for a “civilian national security force” and, as I’ve already pointed out, he and his transition team seem to be unsure as to whether their new “national service programs” should be mandatory or voluntary. It has always been the job of “think tanks” like this one to come up with the intellectual justifications for policies that are initially unpopular with the public, and thus present a problem for policy-makers who would prefer to maintain the illusion that they form part of a representative form of government. Often, the controversial developments are sneaked in under the blanket of more legitimate-sounding reforms (such as, in this case, an end to the army’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy). Check out the CNP’s website - funny how they make no mention in their press release of what is clearly the most revolutionary idea contained within the report.

Here’s a quote from the report:

“What is needed is for such service to be mandatory and to encompass a wide spectrum of activities, from community–oriented work to military service. Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics has articulated perhaps the most specific plan towards this end. Dr. Sabato argues for a constitutional amendment requiring a period of mandatory service to be completed at anytime between the ages of 18 and 26 in fields ranging from public to private and civilian to military.”

Why would a constitutional amendment be necessary? Because slavery and involuntary servitude are currently unconstitutional, as per the Thirteenth Amendment. Could it happen? It’s entirely possible. There’s a lot of talk in Ohio these days about current attempts to call a constitutional convention. The purpose of said convention is ostensibly to enact an amendment requiring the Federal government to balance its budget. But, as constitutional scholars will point out, if state legislatures call such a convention, they can only suggest the topic(s) of discussion, and have no power over the ultimate outcome.

Here is a video clip of the man cited by the CNP in their report:

This Sabato guy is a bit frightening - a “bill of responsibilities”? Is he joking? The constitution was written to restrict the power of the government, and to protect the rights of the individual - not the other way around! Sabato has no business calling himself a constitutional scholar if he doesn’t recognize and respect this clearly-evident truth.

Yesterday, thousands of people gathered in 39 cities to protest the Federal Reserve System. I was honored to address the protesters in Cleveland’s Willard Park, before we marched to the Fed building. This coordinated effort received scant attention in the press, so I am reproducing my speech here. A video will be up shortly, on youtube and embedded on this website. A more easy-to-read and printable pdf file can be downloaded here.

We need a leader.

Good afternoon, friends and fellow patriots:

I want to thank the organizers of this event for their hard work. The people who are most critical to the success of a movement are not those who stand in front of the crowds, but rather those who work behind the scenes: the men and women who donate what little free time they have to spare – sending emails, planning meetings, writing press releases, drafting letters to the editor, making signs – all without knowing whether their efforts will bear fruit, whether their calls for justice will be heard. I want to thank CitizenPete, Laura, Grant, Maryanne, Aleksandra – and all the other people who put time and energy into making this event happen, and whom I haven’t yet had a chance to meet.

I was advised to keep my remarks as short as possible, so I won’t recount the long and sordid history of the banking cartel whose existence we are gathered here to protest. Time is short, and every day our cause becomes more urgent. We are perched on the edge of a catastrophic financial collapse, and a close reading of history shows us that it is in times of universal calamity that our freedoms are most in danger. When the people are poor, when they are scared or confused, when they have lost things that they counted on and that gave them comfort, when they no longer believe that they can work independently to improve their own and their children’s lives, they become willing to accept the yoke of collectivism. It is only when people feel powerless that they ask their government to give them a savior. It is only when they have no hope that they begin to worship hope itself.

I believe that it is no longer possible for us to rescue the American Dream by way of the ballot box. Just as the Fed has a monopoly over banking policy and money creation, special interests have a monopoly over our political system. The trappings of democracy still exist, but where there is no real choice, there is no real freedom. We live in a sham republic; we labor under the threadbare illusion of political self-determination. The two soulless parties care only about maintaining the status quo, and the increasingly rare voices of reason (from both the left and the right) are effectively shut out of the public discourse. The media functions merely to distract the public from their worsening plight; our broken education system ignores the most crucial spheres of knowledge; and even the internet (the last bastion of free speech) is currently under attack by those who would “protect” it or “regulate” it in the name of the “common good.”

It is time to begin working outside the system. Today is a first step in that direction. Together, we are petitioning our oppressors, seeking redress for the grievances of the American people. And should the almighty monetary and political scientists refuse to hear our cries, it will be more obvious than ever that intellectual arrogance and a love of power have blinded them to a reality seen by all who bother to look: their system of fiat money and credit manipulation has failed. Their faith in the ability of man to plan a top-down socialist utopia was unfounded, and indeed foolish. I am not a conspiracy theorist – but when I hear the pitiful rationalizations of men like Paulson and Bernanke, I can only conclude that they have lost their minds, or that they are purposefully driving the American economy into the ground. Perhaps they’ve repeated the same lies so often that they themselves now believe them. But we can no longer allow insane or hopelessly delusional men to wield dictatorial power over our economic life. For when these men fail, and they will fail utterly, they will take the rest of us down with them.

What has the Fed to do with all this? What’s so bad about bankers and their printing presses?

Every day, innocent men, woman and children are being murdered in the Middle East and elsewhere, killed by bombs, tanks and guns that our government bought with fiat money, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve System. The politicians and the war-mongers don’t have the decency to ask American taxpayers for money, because they know that the people don’t want war. The people of the U.S. and the people of Iraq, the people of Russia and the people of Georgia, the people of Israel and the people of Palestine all want the same thing: we want peace!

Every day, honest, industrious and hopeful American workers are setting aside what little surplus earnings they have, so that they can afford a decent education and a better future for their kids. And every day, their savings are being stolen from them, as the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy devalues the dollar. Our money has lost 95% of its purchasing power since 1913, and yet the bankers still openly claim to be inflation-fighters! Our masters don’t have the guts to steal from us openly, and so they do it behind closed doors, like thieves in the night.

Every day, all over the western world, middle- and working-class people are losing their homes. Small and large businesses are going broke; laborers are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their dignity, their dreams. Americans have become addicted to debt, dependent on the Fed’s credit to fund our artificially high standard of living. We don’t remember what it is to save. We don’t remember what it is to work. We’ve lost confidence in the way of life that we invented; we’ve been bamboozled into accepting a reality in which the government plans the economy and exerts increasing control over the rest of our lives. And as we suffer, as we struggle to stay afloat, as we search for answers, the bankers impudently inform us that this crisis is just a normal part of the “business cycle.” They wanted socialist control, we gave it to them, and now that their efforts have proved to be a dismal failure, they point their fingers at capitalism, “greed,” and other abstract bogeymen – anything to divert the blame from themselves.

Time and time again, when the party comes to an end, when the bubbles of speculation burst, when the people wake up from the false dream of easy prosperity, the crooked politicians are more than happy to “rescue” these banker criminals. We the people lose everything, and they make off with the wealth that we created. How much more of this are we willing to take? Are we really going to wait for things to get even worse? What final indignity will make it clear that we have no option but to stand up and fight back? They have whipped us with inflation, driving us to work longer hours for less pay. They have beaten us with bailouts, rubbing salt in our wounds by forcing us to look on as the irresponsible and the dishonest are rewarded, and we are given nothing for our efforts. They have stolen the fruits of our labor, and used the wealth we produced to murder innocents and to terrorize us, their own brothers. They have made slaves of the American people: Americans, the proud descendents of men who brought the light of economic and political freedom to the world. We can’t go on like this. Poverty and prosperity are no longer the salient issues; this is about whether we want to remain human: after they break our backs, they will want to break our spirits.

The banks have proven themselves incapable of doing their job. The Fed has shown itself unworthy of its supposed mandate. Our government has ignored the will of the people one too many times. We are now justified in using our collective might to send a message, loud and clear, to those who would rule us. We will rid ourselves of this tyranny, “like a horse shaking off flies.” It is one thing to stand outside of their den of depravity, to hold signs, to shout slogans. It is another thing entirely to use our intellectual capabilities to destroy this system once and for all. They have made life hard for us. Now we will make life hard for them.

Here is what we must do:

• Non-violence: We must categorically renounce the use of force. We must respect the life, liberty, and property of our adversaries. We must treat them the way we wish they would treat us – as conscious and rational beings, worthy of kindness and respect. It is the system we oppose, and not those unhappy individuals who have the misfortune to be a part of it. No matter how evil the consequences of their actions may be, we must never feel that we are better than they are. So, when we protest, we will do so peacefully. When we expose their crimes, we will be as polite as possible. And if, in growing frustration over their own failures, they lash out and attack us, we will submit, through an act of conscious strength. Our spiritual power, our belief in the truth, is what will draw newcomers to our cause. This is what Jesus meant when he advised the reformers of his day to “love their enemies.” If you would convert a man to the path of justice, if you would show him the error of his ways, then love him, and he will no longer wish to do evil.

• Non-cooperation: Second, each of us, as individuals, must no longer support a system to which we are morally opposed. If we are to be taken seriously, both by our adversaries and our potential allies, there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that we mean what we say. That is, we must adopt a manner of living that reflects our philosophy of freedom, and our advocacy of sound money. In our everyday lives, to the fullest extent possible, we must not cooperate with our oppressors. This will be difficult. We are tightly bound by the bonds of banking, fiat money and debt. But if we continue to enjoy the benefits of the system we oppose, we are hypocrites, and our cries for justice will be empty. This is what Gandhi meant when he said that you “must be the change you want to see in the world.” If you want others to change, then you yourself must be willing to change as well.

• Sacrifice: Third, we must conquer our self-doubt and be willing to make painful sacrifices. We cannot expect to achieve our goal without incurring a good deal of pain. I’m not talking about money; I’m not talking about time. If things continue along the present course, we will soon be facing physical violence and even more insidious forms of psychological warfare. Many of you know how it feels not to receive the support of your friends and family – to be looked at as eccentric, or even crazy. Many of you know the frustration of trying to help people who won’t wake up – because they still don’t want to. Let me be as clear as possible: some of us will need to sacrifice not only money, not only our time, but our most precious dreams, all so that others may continue to dream in ages yet to come. We didn’t ask for this trial, and we may not live to see our efforts bear fruit. Therefore, we must be comfortable acting for the sake of others, not ourselves. Words are no longer enough. Tolstoy said that words are always intended for men, but that deeds can be done only for God. For me, truth is God, and God is truth. What Tolstoy meant was that the power to sacrifice does not come from within our selves, but from a belief in something greater, something boundless and infinite.

• Coordination: Last, we must unite in a single movement, behind a single philosophy, under a single leader. We must become an army, albeit a peaceful one. We are all free individuals here. But today, in order to protect our freedom, we must become interlocking parts in a larger whole. We must be a system of men who are (for the time being) centrally-directed. Only as a united force will our voices be heard. As Dr. King said, “When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery.” Well, we’re the slaves; we can finally see our chains; and we’re starting to get together. The movement is taking shape: A plurality of Americans opposes this senseless state of perpetual war. The great masses don’t particularly care for the erosion of our civil liberties. Most people feel uncomfortable foisting our debilitating debt onto future generations. And, whether they know it yet or not, no educated, decent person can love a monetary system that is a tool for totalitarians. The philosophy is clear, and it is one that most Americans already share, even without realizing it! Call it what you like: non-violence, individualism, liberty, Christianity – stripped down, all these words are merely different facets of the same precious jewel. Our belief emanates from the most universal principle of all time. Our philosophy boils down to a single unifying rule. How ironic it is that this rule is a golden one.

And that is why today, from out of this crowd, or from out of one of the many crowds like this one, gathered today across our anxious and expectant land, I ask that the leader of this movement step forward, and make himself known to all. I ask him to accept the burden that has been placed upon him. I ask him to believe in himself, to be the man that the world needs in this hour of peril. We are not asking for a savior, for we are going to save ourselves. We are not asking for a tyrant to take the old one’s place, because we are going to fight of our own free will. I began my remarks by thanking the many revolutionaries that toil in relative obscurity - but the fact is, we must have a person to speak for us, to BE THE CHANGE WE WANT TO SEE. The organizers are essential, and the great gathering of believers is more important still – but we can do nothing without a person on whom to focus the righteous energy we will soon unleash.

Where is our leader? Where is the one who will die for an idea? Where is the one who will sacrifice his ambitions to ensure that the holy fire of truth is not extinguished? Who will defer his dreams for the sake of others? Who will believe so deeply in this cause that he becomes the cause itself? And who will lose any remaining shred of self-doubt, by giving up his self entirely? We need a leader, and we need a leader today. His love will show us how to live, and his faith will set us free.

“We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda.“

-Barack Obama.

Hey lefties - remember when you used to sit around a campfire, get stoned, sing about peace and love, and actually believe in the power and promise of non-violence? If you still do, don’t vote for Barack Obama.