Nestle joins the “plant based burger” movement

In the end, this is all being cooked up (literally) by the people trying to drive the beef industry out of business. You know what we have to do, people. Suck it up and start eating more steaks.
A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewOu rah! What a great way to fight a war. lol — jtl, 419
by Jazz Shaw at Hot Air

 

First, it was Burger King. Next came Chick-fil-A. Then it was Little Ceaser’s. Companies have inexplicably been signing on to use laboratory-grown, plant-based “meat” substitutes in everything from burgers to sausage. And now, joining the parade is Nestle. Wait a minute… Nestle makes burgers? I thought they did hot chocolate. (CNBC)

 

Nestle is looking to take a bite of the growing U.S. plant-based burger market.

Through its Sweet Earth brand, which it acquired in 2017, the global food giant will launch its Awesome Burger in the fall. The vegan meat substitute will be available at grocery stores, restaurants and universities.

Sweet Earth founders Brian and Kelly Swette said they began developing their own plant-based burger several years ago — before nearly every restaurant chain announced a plant-based option and Beyond Meat went public.

Okay, so Sweet Earth Foods is a brand that Nestle bought to expand their portfolio. You can take a look at this particular horror show at their site. They’re prominently advertising the “Awesome Burger” as coming soon. I’ll give them credit. The actual burger part of the sandwich does kinda sorta look like a real hamburger if you don’t stare at it too closely. But still… not quite. Take a look for yourself. (Click on image for full-size picture.)

See what I mean? As I said, it sort of looks like meat, but there are weird gaps in the patty. It looks fairly juicy, but keep in mind that this is an advertising photo and those things rarely look like what actually comes out of the package and winds up on your plate. If you’re not familiar with the process, take a gander at this report on how photographers make the food look so delicious. The list of secret tricks includes, but is not limited to, glue, sponges, tampons, shoe polish, and motor oil.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits Of course, now that I think about it, would you rather eat something made of tampons, shoe polish and glue or “soy DNA injected into genetically engineered yeast that’s then fermented?” (That’s literally a company description of the impossible beef and how they design it in the lab.) Might come down to a coin toss if you ask me.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)  So this particular nightmare is spreading faster than I’d ever imagined it would. Whether you’re going into a restaurant and placing an order with your nifty new AI-controlled robot waiter or picking up something at the grocery store to cook at home, you’ll need to be on your guard. I think they’re still required to tell you that you’re purchasing some sort of Frankenplant composite, but labels can be tricky. Be sure to ask first.

In the end, this is all being cooked up (literally) by the people trying to drive the beef industry out of business. You know what we have to do, people. Suck it up and start eating more steaks.

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Standing Army vs. Militia

lewrockwell.com

The Ratification Debate: A Standing Army vs. the Militia

By Murray N. Rothbard via LewRockwell.com

[This passage is excerpted from Murray N. Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty, vol. 5, The New Republic: 1784–1791.] 

One of the most important aspects of the proposed Constitution was its authorization for a permanent national standing army, a striking contrast to the simple reserve constituting the state militia. The standing army was a particular objection of the Antifederalists, who, in the liberal antimilitary tradition, believed such an army to be inimical to the liberty of the American people. In contrast, the ex-Continental Army officers, particularly the higher officers, yearned for the power, the pelf, and the prestige that would come to them once again, and this time permanently, should there be a standing army. The leading and most aristocratic ex-army officers were cohesively organized in the ultra-reactionary and militaristic Society of the Cincinnati, which looked for a European-type army established, preferably led by a hereditary officer caste. The ex-Continental Army officers and particularly their upper strata in the convention, eagerly welcomed and fought for the proposed Constitution as their long-awaited conduit to a caste status in a standing army. Elbridge Gerry, indeed, feared the power of the Cincinnati, and this was one of the reasons why Gerry (and George Mason) opposed the popular election of the president at the convention:

The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union and acting in concert to delude them into any appointment…. such a Society of men existed in the Order of the Cincinnati. They were respectable, United, and influential.1

The ex-officer and Cincinnati support of the Constitution played a definite role in Pennsylvania. Ten delegates to the state convention were members of the Cincinnati, and all were Federalists; furthermore, of the ex-army officers among the delegates above the rank of captain, sixteen out of seventeen were Federalists. This, of course, combined nicely with the bulk of the wealthy and educated being in favor of the Constitution.

Professor Benton has done a study of the men of the ex-Continental Army officers in Pennsylvania. Of the top generals in the state, all—Arthur St. Clair, Richard Butler, Josiah Harmar, Anthony Wayne, Lewis Nicola—were all Cincinnatians, and Nicola and Wayne were such ultra-Federalists that they wanted George Washington to become King. More importantly, Benton analyzed a sample list of forty-four ex-Continental Army officers above the rank of major (comprising 41 percent of the total number), and fifty-five state militia officers of the same ranks (13 percent of the total number). Together, this comprised 19 percent of the total number of officers. Of the forty-four Continental officers, every single one was a Federalist, and thirty-two were members of the Cincinnati; in contrast, of the fifty-five high militia officers, only twenty-three were Federalist, thirty-two were Antifederalist, and only three chose to join the Cincinnati. Here is a clear contrast between the arch-federalism of the Continental officers and the absence of this trend among the far less militarily inclined officers of the state militia who were, furthermore, much less likely to acquire leading roles in a federal standing army.2

Despite the fact that the outcome of the convention was a foregone conclusion, the Antifederalists, led by the eminent radicals Robert Whitehill, William Findley, and John Smilie, put up a valiant struggle. The lengthy debate lasted from November 21 until December 15, the Federalists being unsurprisingly led by James Wilson. The Antifederalists denounced the Constitution as illegally eliminating the federation of sovereign states on behalf of a consolidated, tyrannical, and aristocratic national government; this absolute national power being funded by an unrestricted taxing power, the creation of a national standing army, supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the absence of a bill of rights. John Smilie trenchantly declared that “in a free Government there never will be Need of standing Armies, for it depends on the Confidence of the People. If it does not so depend, it is not free…. The [Constitutional] Convention knew this was not a free government; otherwise, they would not have asked the powers of the purse and sword [taxes and standing armies].” Smilie and Robert Whitehill effectively rebutted Wilson’s paradoxical sophistry that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the people retain all their liberties anyway, and dangerous because the very delineation of rights might restrict these and other unaccounted for rights. Said Smilie:

So loosely, so inaccurately are the powers which are enumerated in this constitution defined, that it will be impossible … to ascertain the limits of authority, and to declare when government has degenerated into oppression. In that event the contest will arise between the people and the rulers: “You have exceeded the powers of your office, you have oppressed us,” will be the language of the suffering citizen. The answer of the government will be short—“We have not exceeded our power; you have no test by which you can prove it.”… It will be impracticable to stop the progress of tyranny…. At present there is no security even for the rights of conscience … every principle of a bill of rights, every stipulation for the most sacred and invaluable privileges of man, are left at the mercy of government.

Robert Whitehill added: “I will agree that a bill of rights may be a dangerous instrument, but it is to the view and projects of the aspiring ruler, and not the liberties of the citizen.” Whitehill also eloquently summed up the liberal views of the Antifederalists on the menacing nature of political power: “Sir, we know that it is the nature of power to seek its own augmentation, and thus the loss of liberty is the necessary consequence of a loose or extravagant delegation of authority. National freedom has been, and will be the sacrifice of ambition and power, and it is our duty to employ the present opportunity in stipulating such restrictions as are best calculated to protect us from oppression and slavery.”

Of the Federalists, only the enthusiastic Benjamin Rush was indecent enough to let slip the admission that the Constitution was a national government that ultimately eliminated the states. The other Federalists knew that it was not polite to admit in public, and their public position was to subtly deny that a national government was intended or implied in the Constitution. Wilson, however, was franker than the Federalist leaders in the other states, and while not going so far as to proclaim national government and suppression of the states, hailed the Constitution as eliminating the sovereignty of the states. Wilson then demagogically masked his cause in the mantle of “The People”; only The People were sovereign, he opined, and this was established in the Constitution. Where this led was clearly in the direction of plebiscitary tyranny, as Wilson declared: “The Supreme Power must be vested somewhere, but where so naturally as in the Supreme Head chosen by the free Suffrages of the People mediately or immediately.” In short, The People became mystically transmitted into the president.

William Findley astutely replied that Wilson’s argument—setting up The People against the states—was a straw man: of course sovereignty of the states ultimately depended upon the people of the various states. And Smilie quoted from the Pennsylvania Constitution: “That all power [is] originally inherent in, and consequently derived from the people.”

At the end of the debate the Antifederalists tried at the very least to impose a list of fifteen amendments—basically a bill of rights—as a price of ratifying the Constitution, and to induce the convention to adjourn to give the public time to study the Constitution and the proposed amendments. This was the first suggestion of Antifederalists of insisting upon amendments to check the central government if the Constitution could not be defeated at the convention. The Federalists, however, had no time for this. They brushed the proposal aside and ratified the Constitution on December 12 by 46-23. The Federalists, with their characteristic hostility to keeping the public accurately informed, moved from the start to keep the record of the convention debates from the public. Alexander J. Dallas, editor of The Pennsylvania Herald, was prevented by Federalist pressure from printing the complete records in the paper. Full records were also kept by one Thomas Lloyd, an ardent Federalist; Lloyd was purportedly bribed by Federalist delegates at the convention to scuttle his original plan to publish the complete debates and was instructed to publish only the edifying speeches of the two Federalist leaders James Wilson and Thomas McKean.

The dauntless radicals refused to give up the fight, and the Antifederal delegates prepared a lengthy Address of the Minority to explain their position in Pennsylvania and other states. The Federalists postal authorities did their best to ban the Address from the mail. The Address repeated and elaborated the charge that the Constitution established a consolidated national government of absolute power; it particularly elaborated an incisive libertarian analysis of the dangers of national militarism:

The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature.

First, the personal liberty of every man probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind; and to death itself, by the sentence of a court martial….

Secondly, the rights of conscience may be violated, as there is no exemption of those persons who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. … This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war, and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description … the rights of conscience were held sacred….

Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty…. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency…. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose …

The address concluded with a trenchant analysis of the new centralized dispensation:

The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it will be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department: judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious. Like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them…. its establishment will annihilate the state governments, and produce one consolidated government that will eventually and speedily issue in the supremacy of despotism.

The Antifederalists, furthermore, bitter at the haste of ratification, stepped up a campaign to get the legislature to repudiate the actions of the convention. As Samuel Bryan, Benjamin Workman, and William Findley waged the attack in the press, the Antifederals of Franklin County also urged this course upon the legislature, and during the month of March 1788, over 5,000 people signed petitions to the legislature to repudiate the Constitution. John Smilie was accused by the Federalists of inciting people to armed rebellion against the Constitution in western Fayette County and Pittsburgh. At the end of December 1787, in radical Cumberland County the Federalists in the town

of Carlisle tried to hold a public celebration and bonfire in honor of ratification, but a radical mob intervened to give battle. The mob threw a copy of the hated Constitution into the fire and shouted “Damnation to the 46 members, and long live the virtuous 23.” The next day, as the Federalists celebrated, the radicals paraded and burned effigies of James Wilson and Chief Justice McKean. At the behest of the vindictive McKean, seven of the leading rioters were arrested; finally, in late February 1788, the government agreed to release the prisoners and close the proceedings. Nearly 1,500 men paraded to the jail in celebration and hailed the liberation of their radical comrades. The fiery Antifederalist agitation resulted in the last effort of radicals in Pennsylvania: the Harrisburg convention of September 1788. While George Bryan had developed the idea of such a convention by February, the movement for a convention began in Cumberland County, where a meeting called a county convention to insist on amendments to the Constitution. The radical convention met at Harrisburg on September 3, with thirty-three representatives from all but five scattered counties in the state, and led by Bryan, Whitehill, and Smilie. But by this point enough states had ratified for the Constitution to take effect, and all thought of overturning ratification had disappeared. The radicals mildly confined themselves to petitioning for amendments that would restrict the powers of the central government. In doing so, they overrode a young farmer of Fayette County, a brilliant associate of Smiley, Albert Gallatin, future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who urged Pennsylvania to push for amendments at a second constitutional convention. It was young Gallatin’s first appearance in the political scene. The radicals, however, failed even to induce the Pennsylvania legislature to seriously propose amendments to the Constitution.3

1.Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1961), pp. 38–40. [Editor’s remarks] For more on the Society of the Cincinnati, see Murray N. Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, vol. 4 (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1979), pp. 1518–26, 404–12.

2.William A. Benton, “Pennsylvania Revolutionary Officers and the Federal Constitution,” Pennsylvania History (October 1964): 419–35. Benton’s broader interpretation of these facts differ considerably from the above; he rather naïvely attributes the pro-Constitution outlook of the army officers to their superior insight and broader outlook.

3.[Editor’s footnote] Jackson T. Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781–1788 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), pp. 147, 250; Robert L. Brunhouse, The Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776–1790 (Harrisburg: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1942), pp. 208–15; Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787–1788, ed. John McMaster and Frederick Stone (Lancaster: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1888), pp. 14–15, 250, 255–56, 161, 480, 557–58; R. Carter Pittman, “Jasper Yeates’s Notes on the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 1787,” William and Mary Quarterly (April 1965): 308.

The Best of Murray N. Rothbard      

FOLLOW LAND AND LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL, INC. ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual. This is the ideal squeal to A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  Although the ecological principles remain the same, what was originally known as “The Savory Grazing Method” now answers to a multitude of different names: ranching for profit, holistic management, managed grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, etc. Land & Livestock International, Inc. uses “Restoration Grazing” under its “Managing the Ranch as a Business” program.” No mater what you call it, this summary and synopsis will guide you step by step through the process and teach you how to use it as it was originally intended. No more excuses for failing to complete your grazing plans.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Waco

The Lessons of Waco

By Ron Paul, MD via LewRockwell.com


April 19 was the 28th anniversary of one of the most shameful episodes in modern American history: the massacre of 76 innocent men, women, and children by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) in a military-style assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

The assault followed a botched raid on the Davidian compound (staged at a time that it would distract attention from an ATF sexual harassment scandal) and a two-month standoff between the Davidians and the agency. The ATF used CS tear gas against the Dravidians, even though the gas was banned by an international treaty the US agreed to just months before the assault. So, if the assault had occurred on foreign soil as part of a military operation, it would have been a war crime.

Waco illustrates the dangers to our lives and liberties posed by a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. Eventually the deadly tools of the military-industrial complex will be brought home and used against US citizens.

In the 28 years since Waco, the military-industrial complex’s role in domestic law enforcement has grown. This is largely thanks to the Section 1033 program that provides military-grade equipment to local law enforcement. The people will not be safe from militarized law enforcement until Section 1033 is repealed and the military-industrial complex is dismantled.

The initial raid on the Branch Davidian compound was justified by claims the Davidians were violating unconstitutional gun laws. Infringements on the Second Amendment empower the federal police state. This is one reason why all those who value liberty must oppose all gun control laws, such as those currently being advocated by President Joe Biden and his congressional allies.

Last week, the ATF helped further Biden’s anti-Second Amendment agenda by issuing a proposed regulation regarding pistols fitted with stabilizers, thus allowing the agency to harass more gun owners.

Also last week, the Department of Justice unveiled model red flag legislation to encourage more states to adopt these laws. Red flag laws allow law enforcement to seize an individual’s firearms based on an allegation the individual may turn violent. Not surprisingly, allowing police to show up at a person’s home and demand he surrender his firearms can lead to violence. Expanding red flag laws will violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights, disregard due process, and lead to police being in more violent encounters.

David Chipman, President Biden’s nominee to head the ATF, is a former ATF agent turned gun control lobbyist. Mr. Chipman is an outspoken defender of the ATF’s actions at Waco. In addition to supporting red flag laws, he wants the ATF to arrest Americans who cannot buy a firearm because they failed a federal background check. The background check produces many false positives. Chipman’s proposal would lead to the arresting of many innocent Americans. This would not bother Chipman since he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that law-abiding gun owners are potential criminals.

The Waco massacre is proof that, as the late libertarian Karl Hess put it, “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.” Those of us who understand this must continue to spread the truth about the true nature of the welfare-warfare-regulatory state. Key to regaining our liberty is making government officials abide by the same rules against the initiation of violence that apply to private citizens.

The Best of Ron Paul, MD

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

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

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Bareback Yomama

The title of this brief article is something we are already over 4 months into at this point. Anyone who can’t figure that out just ain’t paying attention.  Browse at this on https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com  Won’t take you long and it will be a good primer for upcoming articles. Posted 6/2 Al

Barack Obama’s Third Term via revisedhistory

Posted on

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

A few years back I picked up a book at a used book sale that was one of the best investments I ever made. It was Stanley Kurtz’s book about the life of Barack Obama, called Radical-in-Chief. Kurtz showed how that, from his earliest days, Obama had been schooled and trained and taught how to think like a radical socialist. By the time he grew up he was incapable of any other kind of thought. He is living proof that if the twig is bent to the left the tree will grow into a socialist monstrosity.

Many astute writers have noted that the Harris/Biden Regime is nothing more than Obama’s third term as president, the third term being “unofficial” naturally. But even though it is “unofficial” Obama just can’t resist bragging about it.

An article on Breitbart for June 1st by Charlie Spiering noted that: “President Barack Obama said in an interview published Tuesday his former Vice President Joe Biden was finishing the work he began to redistribute wealth through programs like Obamacare. ‘I think that what we’re seeing now is Joe and the administration are essentially finishing the job’ he said.” And he commented on how ninety percent of the folks who were in his administration are still there “building on the policies we talked about.” I submit, what more evidence do you need? For those who might be interested, the book Radical-in-Chief is still available in limited quantities at Amazon and also at Barnes and Noble. It’s worth getting if you can.

Originally, Hillary was supposed to take over Obama’s third term and cement this country into part of the world socialist milieu but she was so unpopular no one could stomach her and so the Trump administration ended up becoming a major speed bump on the road to the New World Order. The people that inhabited the Deep State realized that Trump was not going to play their game and so they spent his entire four years in office trying to overthrow his administration in one way or another. No other president has been subject to the kind of harassment Trump was This alone should show you that he was not “one of the boys.”

Yet, everything the Deep State tried to unseat him failed–until they got to the November, 2020 election By that time they had designed a plan they felt was foolproof–targeted election fraud in certain key areas that would be just enough to tip the scales in Biden’s favor in states he needed to win the election.

They did it, and it seemed to be working.

But, now, with Arizona taking the lead, some states are planning on doing forensic audits of their ballots because, as usual, the Deep State operatives, in their haste to give Biden the victory so Obama’s socialist remake of the country could continue, have overdone it. What’s more, some of them even bragged about it on video.

My most recent article The Deep Rig detailed some of this, which I will go into in some future articles.

Share this:

:)

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

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

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Culture War

Why Conservatives Will Never Win the Culture War

By Atilla Mert Sulker via LewRockwell.com

Paul Gottfried recently published a piece in the Chronicles blog, addressing Mark Levin’s charge that “Joe Biden is the most racist president in the Oval Office since Woodrow Wilson.” Of Levin’s rant, Gottfried said the following:

“Only two points in this rant seem even minimally true. One, Woodrow Wilson was a zealous “scientific” racialist who segregated the federal civil service. By 1913 this crusader for democracy abroad had imposed segregated facilities on all departments of the federal government. Two, Biden has rushed to racialize every crisis or disagreement with his Republican opponents. He has accused them and other white Americans—suspected of being Republican—of systemic racism and has even tried to turn a new voter identification requirement in Georgia into an extreme form of Jim Crow. This stunt was already prefigured in Biden’s warning to a Democratic audience in 2009 when he said of Republicans “they gonna put y’all back in chains.” Joe is certainly the most racially polarizing president in American history, surpassing even Barack Obama, but there is no evidence I’ve seen suggesting he is a white racist.”

I should (unsurprisingly) note that I am no fan of Joe Biden. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the racial pandering of Democrats like Biden – in an effort to garner black votes – has only harmed blacks in the long run. This makes itself manifest in a number of ways – failed welfare state policies, the breaking up of families, the encouraging of riots that have harmed black business owners, and much more. But this is another discussion.

Is Biden a racist? Unless one can read his mind, it is hard to tell. Perhaps he is. Or perhaps he is just a political opportunist. He is surely a demagogue.

But Levin’s rant underscores something far more profound – namely, a strategic failure on the part of Conservative Inc. Con. Inc. darlings like Levin think that via adopting the rhetoric and ideas of the left, they can fight the left. To the contrary, by doing so, they are implicitly handing victory to the left by doing exactly what the left wants – normalizing everything that conservatives once deemed as being associated with those “on the other side of the culture war.”

Allow me to explain, beginning with Levin’s rant:

Conservatives (rightly) complain that the left calls them out as “racists” anytime conservatives don’t agree with critical race theory, racial quotas in universities, and a host of other claptraps. Conservatives clearly point out that there is a problem with leftists painting a false reality – i.e., what justifies calling people racist simply because they are not woke?

But whose idea was it that the antidote to this is to just call the other side racist? In fact, would this not only make matters worse? Now, conservatives are, in effect, normalizing Americans calling each other racist in both private and public discourse. How is this not empowering those who want to instill a culture of hating America and scorning the past? Conservatives are boxing themselves into a perpetual defensive position, in which they must keep qualifying that they are not racist, and gradually denounce everything in their country’s past, in the process.

But it does not end here.

Sean Hannity recently hosted “firebrand conservative” Caitlyn (Bruce?) Jenner, who is running for governor of California. (Hannity strangely starts off by stating “I just have such respect for athletes.” Did he forget about Kaepernick already?) Was it not only a mere five years ago that conservatives were denouncing Jenner? Now, all of a sudden, they are trying to make Jenner their own.

Sure, now the line has been blurred between the two genders. Sure, now transgenderism is becoming normalized, with conservatives being part of the effort. Sure, we have tainted our culture in the process. But, hey! Caitlyn is a “conservative!” She supports “lower taxes.” So, the conservatives’ argument goes.

I could expound a litany of other examples:

E.g., (When #MeToo was popular) Con. Inc. readily using sexual assault allegations leveled against liberal politicians (many of them clearly guilty, of course!) to bring down their careers, irrespective of the merit of the allegations. So much for Con. Inc. hating cancel culture.

Or perhaps Charlie Kirk’s promotion of “Lady Maga?”

You want to fight the left? Adopt their tactics and ridicule them, don’t adopt their ideas!

What is the overarching theme here? All of these happenings are subservient to the idea of “conservative wokeism,” i.e., adopting the left’s ideas as your own in an attempt to win the culture war. This outlines an extremely ineffective way of fighting the left – it is really just a normalization of everything conservatives ought to stand against. The left does not care whether transgenderism or cancel culture is of a “conservative” or progressive flavor. All they care about is the rapid dissipation of Western traditions and anything deemed “normal.”

Historian Brion McClanahan notes:

“The left’s game is cancel culture, and it’s a game in which conservatives will always be playing defense. You cannot play the left’s game on their field and by their rules and hope for success. Charges of racism are emotional, not intellectual, and are used—successfully—to change the narrative.”

By readily calling people racists, conservatives are further breeding societal distrust (i.e., “everything is racist now”) and opening a can of worms that will lead to the pulling down of more statues, the renaming of more buildings, etc. By readily declaring “sexual assault” at the sight of mere allegations, they are normalizing cancel culture (which will come back to bite conservatives). By trying to somehow incorporate transgenderism with conservatism – frankly, they are no longer conservatives, in my view.

So how should conservatives fight the left? Easy answer – ridicule them, mock them, but don’t legitimize their ideas. E.g., as I’ve said in a previous article, suppose the woke campus police try to enforce a mandatory LGBT training on students for their “implicit biases.” One could sarcastically go along with this narrative, in an attempt to ridicule it, by saying “Why aren’t you voicing your concern for the rights of aromantic people? Why is this minority never represented? Therefore, why are you perpetuating hate and exclusivity?” In this example, the conservative pretends to support the leftist, in an effort to delegitimize the leftist. A conservative should not instead form their own “conservative” variety of a diversity training, in response.

In a sense, this sort of delegitimization draws upon the left’s tactics of cancelling anything they deem inappropriate. Keep in mind that the left does not care to debate or argue, it seeks to destroy. Thus, conservatives should not cross swords with leftists, and expect a fruitful discussion to come out of it. To have any chance of winning the culture war, conservatives must fight like leftists, not sound like leftists – adopt their tactics, but not their ideas. There is a big difference.

Yes, the left is merciless and won’t end its perpetual smear campaign. But “conservative wokeism” sounds about as dumb as “big government conservatism” or “compassionate conservatism.” Conservatives cannot fight fire with fire. For at the end of the day, the whole house burns down.

The Best of Atilla Mert Sulker

Buyer Assistance:

Land and Livestock International, Inc. is in a position to assist the buyer in purchasing ranches anywhere in the Western United States and Northern Mexico. Pre – purchase services include help with due diligence, estimates of carrying capacity and potential for improvement, cash flow projections, etc. Post purchase services include everything from part time consulting to complete turn-key management.

We are not licensed real estate brokers nor are we licensed appraisers. We work only for the buyer for a negotiated fee.

Contact us at info@landandlivestockinternational.com or through our web site at www.landandlivestockinternational.com 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Siege Tactics

Flyover-Press.com

Again, the phenomenon of a government directing its violence onto the population it theoretically exists to protect is not an overnight development.

US National Security State Imports Siege Tactics From Iraq for a New ‘War on Domestic Terror’

By Ben Bartee

The Deep State has big plans for a very particular demographic among the US citizenry.

The terminologies tossed into the word salad vary (“domestic extremist,” “homegrown terrorist,” “right-wing fanatics,” “bitter clingers,”) but they all mean more or less the same thing: the conservative, Christian, gun-owning, mostly white, non-compliant remnants of the Middle America middle class.

Operating in lockstep, the apparatuses of the Deep State intelligence community/military-industrial complex—have set sights squarely on uncooperative “libertarian” elements inside the US.

How precisely are “libertarian extremists” — or whatever buzzword de jour the corporate media has weaponized at the moment — defined? Unsurprisingly, loosely and conveniently, however the Deep State wishes…

View original post 1,266 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How About Secession From Oregon To Idaho?

This brief article will give you a little idea of why the secession issue is not really dead. It’s not even dormant. Al

revisedhistory

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Think the question of secession is dead? Think again. Contrary to the fond wishes of most leftists and even many who tell us they are “conservatives” this question is not going away anytime soon. I was laughed at back in the 1990s for writing about secession back then. Many so-called “conservatives” I knew snickered behind my back about what I wrote. I wonder if they are still doing that. I don’t hear from any of them anymore–not that I miss the lack of contact.

But, whether they still laugh or not, the secession question still continues to arise. Just yesterday, 5/19, I read an article on https://www.theepochtimes.com by Jack Phillips entitled Oregon Counties Vote to Secede Into Idaho.

Mr. Phillips observed that: “Several counties in Oregon on May 18 voted to consider joining the state of Idaho, which…

View original post 396 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Let Them Eat Grasshoppers!

The folks in this country engaged in ranching and farming are under assault. To begin to find out how read the latest on https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com

revisedhistory

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors Confederate Society of America

Recently on the internet I saw an article stating that people should get to the point where they started eating grasshoppers and other insects. The proponents of our learning to consume creeping wildlife seemed to feel this would be good for us and for the planet. The article was so far out I did not even save it.. The idea of trudging into my back yard in search of various creepy crawlers for breakfast did not appeal to me and I doubt it will appeal to any sane person.

But, thinking in this direction seems to be something indirectly being considered by the more wild and frenzied among the climate change crowd. And the Harris/Biden Regime is catering, again, indirectly, to this mindset.

An article on the New American website for April 28th by James Murphy notes the…

View original post 428 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

No Wonder We Have Problems When Church Pastors Speak Out Against Anti-Abortion Bills

It seems today we have too many Christians apologizing to the Devil’s minions for offending them rather than resisting and exposing them for the evil they do.

revisedhistory

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many wonder why we have some of the problems we have in this country. They feel that a country like ours that has a mostly Christian background should not be beset with the situation we seem to find ourselves in. Yet we are, and part of the problem seems to stem from the fact that many who claim to speak for the Lord are actually promoting ideas that have no warrant whatever from the Holy Scriptures.

Researcher Kit Daniels recently had and article on http://www.infowars.com in which he stated that: “A group of pro-choice church pastors are protesting pro-life bills expected to pass in Texas. One Presbyterian pastor in particular claimed Texas Senate Bill 8 could expose pastors to legal liability if they recommend abortions…Senate Bill 8 and its companion bill, HB 1515, would ban abortions when a…

View original post 395 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Spying and Lying

Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it?

Land & Livestock International, Inc.

Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it?

More Government Spying and Lying

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Shop all books by Judge Napolitano

Twice last week, the federal government’s unconstitutional spying on ordinary Americans was exposed. One of these revelations was made by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who wrote that the FBI is still using warrantless spying in criminal cases, notwithstanding the Constitution and federal laws. The other revelation was a surprise even to those of us who monitor these things — the United States Postal Service acknowledged that it has been spying on Americans.

Here is the backstory.

The modern American security state — the parts of the federal government that spy on Americans and do not change on account of elections — received an enormous shot in the arm in 1978 when Congress…

View original post 1,243 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Spying and Lying

Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it?

More Government Spying and Lying

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Shop all books by Judge Napolitano

Twice last week, the federal government’s unconstitutional spying on ordinary Americans was exposed. One of these revelations was made by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who wrote that the FBI is still using warrantless spying in criminal cases, notwithstanding the Constitution and federal laws. The other revelation was a surprise even to those of us who monitor these things — the United States Postal Service acknowledged that it has been spying on Americans.

Here is the backstory.

The modern American security state — the parts of the federal government that spy on Americans and do not change on account of elections — received an enormous shot in the arm in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That naively misguided and profoundly unconstitutional law was sold to Congress as a way to control the security state’s spying in the aftermath of Watergate. Watergate had revealed that President Richard M. Nixon used the FBI and the CIA to spy on real and imagined domestic political adversaries.

FISA set up a secret court that authorized domestic spying by issuing warrants not based on probable cause of crime, as the Constitution requires, but on probable cause of communicating with foreign agents. Never mind that communications about noncriminal matters are protected speech; the FISA court issued tens of thousands of these warrants.

As the security state’s appetite for spying grew more voracious, its agents and lawyers persuaded the FISA court to lower the bar for issuing a surveillance warrant from communicating with a foreign agent to communicating with a foreign person, and to expand the scope of those warrants to include Americans who have communicated with other Americans who have communicated with foreign people. Under this procedure, if I call my cousins in Florence and then you call me, all of your calls could be surveilled.

Jealous of the ease with which America’s spies can obtain warrants from the FISA court, the FBI persuaded its friends on Capitol Hill to enact legislation that gives the FBI a peek at data the security state gathers — if it meets certain standards — to see if any of it pertains to criminal matters. Each one of these FBI peeks at raw intelligence data is known as a “share.”

All of this was done in utter disregard of the Fourth Amendment requirements that no search warrants shall be issued without showing under oath probable cause of crime and that all warrants shall specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

If an FBI agent sees evidence of a nonnational security crime on one of the shares, the agent will try to use it in a criminal prosecution, even though he acquired it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If federal prosecutors want to introduce evidence from the share at trial, they need to find another source for it, as no judge will admit raw intelligence data obtained without a warrant in a criminal case.

After 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency — the 60,000-person strong branch of the military that quarterbacks domestic spying — to capture every keystroke on every computer and the contents of every phone call in America. All presidents since Bush — even President Donald Trump, who was personally victimized by this spying — have continued the practice of universal, suspicionless, warrantless spying.

The NSA sharing data with the FBI is deeply troubling because it violates both the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The intentional use of FISA to obtain data about an American for nonnational security-related criminal activity is itself a criminal act as it constitutes a planned and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment by electronic means — otherwise known as hacking.

Last week, the chief judge of the FISA court revealed that for 2019 the FBI reported just one instance of sharing, even though Department of Justice auditors found 91 instances. And that number is far lower than the true number of shares since — inexplicably –- the DOJ counts all shares performed by one agent as one share, even though the agent may have accessed the data of more than one American.

In August 2019, one FBI agent accessed the raw intelligence data of 16,000 Americans in order to find criminal evidence about seven of them. The FBI reported that as one share.

Also last week, the USPS revealed that its postal inspectors have been monitoring social media at random, looking for troublemakers. Since social media is publicly posted, you and I can read it at will. But the Fourth Amendment requires that the government have “articulable suspicion” about the person whose social media is being surveilled before it begins its surveillance — even surveillance of publicly available materials. This is to prevent fishing expeditions.

What articulable suspicions did the Postal Service have before its police began their surveillance? What conceivable threat to the postal mails is manifested in texts and emails (other than that the latter are infinitely faster and profoundly more efficient)? None and none.

All this shows just how corrupted America’s security state has become under presidents of both parties. From counting 16,000 as if it were one, to hacking the texts and emails of people without articulable suspicion or probable cause, to orchestrating end runs around the Fourth Amendment, to lying to federal judges about all this — we see the tactics of the East German Stasi and Soviet KGB have been reborn on this side of the Atlantic.

Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it?

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc. (Protecting Liberty through Private Firearms Ownership)  

“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” – Jeff Cooper

Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first.

In Warren v. District of Columbia the court ruled, and the Supreme Court upheld, that “(T)he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specify persons arises.” Because the complaint did not allege a relationship “beyond that found in general police responses to crimes,” the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The bottom line is that your local police are not legally obligated to protect you, the average citizen. In addition to the Warren case, there are hundreds of court rulings which state that cops are not legally responsible for protecting individual citizens. For example, see Zelig v. County of Los Angeles.

The government can’t protect you as you saw on September 11, 2001 as well as during the Washington, DC area “sniper” rampage and the plethora of active shooter events that we have had since.

In fact, the government could very well be our greatest fear, due to its propensity to murder people because of their ideas (See Ruby Ridge, ID and Waco, TX).

A simple internet or youtube.com search of “the police state” or “police brutality” will reveal literally thousands of violent crimes (from assault to cold blooded murder) committed by the State’s costumed emissaries of officially sanctioned violence (aka The Police State) against harmless and innocent people.

So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU It is your duty and personal responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones.

This responsibility is a natural right given to us by God as human beings and guaranteed to us as individuals by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc. offers professional weapons and tactics training that will make the difference. Instructed by experienced combat veterans—guys that have “been there and done that.” It offers private instruction at its privately owned range and mobile training teams are available. All interactions are confidential and discrete.

Contact: You can contact us via email at editor@flyover-press.com or through any of the contact or email links on our Web Site at www.flyover-press.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment