Category: Uncategorized

The infamous White Slaver, inveterate Rebel and uncompromising resister of Northern Aggression has his own blog. Visit it. The name alone is a classic.

Jamsco asks: Hey Vox, I have a polite question. What is your definition of Socialist as in “total socialist distribution” with regards to the policies of the democrats? I assume that you aren’t against all taxation (perhaps I’m wrong.) However, It seems like you and other commenters here use socialist to mean “those who believe in more taxation than me.” As you know, I’ve been called a socialist here because I don’t think that requiring that people be taxed for public school funds is wrong. At the very least, I don’t think that most (95%?) Americans would consider me to be socialist based on this fact.

A socialist is one who believes that the collective society, through the mechanism of the government, has a fundamental underlying claim on all private property that supersedes the rights of the nominal owner. I am not against all taxation, although I am against all income taxation for Constitutional, legal, historical and economic reasons.

Now, there are a variety of socialists. A Marxian socialist believes that society hold the underlying right to property on the basis of prior expropriation of stored labor, a Christian socialist believes that society holds it because only the government can achieve equitable distribution of societal wealth. But the reasons why are irrelevant to me as all of them are, in my view, anathema. Most modern Democrats are what I personally consider to be Santa Socialists, because they have no idea why government holds this underlying right, nor do they necessarily even understand that it is required to by their lights, all they care about is that property is taken from one party and distributed to another. In short, if you are a forced distributionist, you are some variant of socialist.

What makes you a socialist, even if a very weak one, is that you fail to understand that the reason does not matter. If the government has the right to seize private property, be it 1 percent or 100 percent, at will, then the justification is irrelevant. Whether it is for schools or personal prostitutes, all that matters is that government rights trump private property rights.

A pure socialist, of course, would require that 100 percent of all private property be confiscated, then distributed according to the judgment of those charged with managing the central distribution. The reason one seldom sees pure socialism at work is because it tends to fail very, very quickly. But whether you believe in 100 percent confiscation or ten percent, you’re simply quibbling about the degree.

It’s rather like the old joke. A man offers a woman one million dollars to have sex with him. She accepts. He then offers her a dollar, to which she reacts angrily. “What kind of woman do you think I am!” “We’ve already established that,” he replies. “Now we’re just negotiating over the price.” Most Americans today are weak socialists at a minimum, simply because they cannot imagine a truly free market society, with free association and voluntary government.

To the police I’m sayin f— you punk,

Readin my rights and s—, it’s all junk.

Pullin out a silly club, so you stand

With a fake-ass badge and a gun in your hand.

But take off the gun so you can see what’s up,

And we’ll go at it punk, and I’ma f— you up

This has been the great success of the drug war. To undermine respect for the law and create general hatred of the police. Most of my law-abiding upper middle-class friends and I now have more regard for lower-class criminals than we do for the police – at least they don’t operate under color of law. The local sheriff happily cooperates with revenue agency thefts built on blatant fraud, the local police commit highway robbery* and then affect to be surprised when the citizenry begins to regard them as nothing but a gang of thugs, more part of the problem than the solution.

It’s not just a few bad apples. It is endemic corruption designed into an extra-legal system. There’s nothing inherently virtuous about the police, they are merely a tool. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that the particular order they are being used to uphold is not a form compatible with individual freedom, the common law or the American Constitution.

*Local police in these small towns made millions of dollars in profits by trolling the interstate highways and stopping travelers with out of state tags. The police typically claimed some traffic infraction, asked permission to search the car and got it, found no drugs but some cash, then brought in a drug sniffing dog, and after getting it to “alert,” seized all the travelers’ money.

Let’s get one thing straight. I consider the Democrats to be the party of lies. They have to lie, because no one who is both sane and self-responsible is ever going to vote for a program of total socialist distribution unless they are on welfare or a government employee. But Republicans have clearly begun to learn from their counterparts, not only the politicians but the commentators too.

Witness the recent words of Mrs. Hagelin writing of Bill Bennet on WND: Yes, the situation in Iraq is messy, Bennett said in a magnificent, powerful speech he gave in November to Heritage Foundation members. And yes, President Bush and his aides sometimes have seemed reluctant to defend their actions. “But let’s be clear on this,” he said that day. “In the issue that matters most – our survival, the civilized world’s survival, the spread of democracy, the war against terrorism and radical Islam – the president is right and his critics wrong.”

Now remember, this is from a column claiming to set the record straight. So, let’s review the assertions:

1. The situation is messy, yes.

2. Bennett’s speech was magnificent and powerful. I wasn’t there, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. 2/2.

3. The issue that matters most is our survival. Hmmm. Well, I believe that history illustrates that Franklin was correct in saying those who value security over freedom will have neither. The administration has argued that we must accept some sacrifice of liberty in order to ensure our security, which is a dubious argument that has been used since Marius and Sulla began the destruction of the Roman republic. Strike one.

4. The president is defending the civilized world. The three greatest threats to the civilized world at this time are the global ambitions of the United Nations, the coming breakdown of central banking and the global jihad. President Bush is an advocate of the first two and refuses to address the third. Strike two.

5. “the spread of democracy” We don’t have a democracy, we have (or had) a republic. We’re preventing democratic rule in Iraq. Strike three.

6. The president is right about the war on terrorism. And he’s guaranteeing Arafat’s survival? Not really a strike, not really a hit. Call it a ball.

7. The president is right about radical Islam. Let’s see, everyone else and his brother knows that the difference between the global jihadists and the so-called moderates is mostly one of degree. But the only problem is that “the religion of peace” has been “hijacked”. Right, tell it to the Ummayids and the Abbasids, the caliphs and their names boasting of martial prowess. Strike four.

Four and one-half incorrect assertions in seven is setting the record straight? I suppose that depends upon what the meaning of is, is. What with their rampant and unsupported assertions of secret second-term plans, secret war strategy and now a secret war against “radical Islam”, I’m beginning to wonder if conservative supporters of the current administration aren’t becoming entirely delusional.

In case anyone is interested, the Northern Alliance radio show will be taking callers during the interview from 2-3 Central next Saturday. The number is 651-688-3131, and be sure to let them know that you’re a Vox Popoli regular or Vox Volk or whatever the appropriate noun might happen to be.

Clearly we need a name and a t-shirt. We’ve already got the flag, of course.

JN writes: The last time I checked, there has been no second attack on the US mainland. Pres Bush must be doing something right, even Libya has turned in their nukes. He is a believer, why do you dislike him so? Would you prefer Hanoi John Kerry? Patriotic men have always rallied around the president during war time, what your problem, Bub? Don’t give me that Libertarian business either, we both know, there is not a libertarian candidate that is credible. Swallow your pride, and get behind your President. Pride was Satan’s problem, don’t let it get you!

I didn’t say the president was doing everything wrong, only that the jury is still out on whether he will be successful in confronting the current enemy, the global jihad. I don’t personally dislike him, but I dislike his dishonesty, many of the people with whom he has surrounded himself as well as his ready willingness to embrace the new world order of the UN-supremacist movement.

I will not rally around any president who refuses to obey the Constitution, of any party. The “patriot” argument has been used by every totalitarian leader since the dawn of recorded history; Americans are free and owe allegiance to no man. And, as usual, the truth is inadvertantly revealed in the attack on exogenous credibility. The pursuit of power trumps all. Others can abandon their principles if they wish, I’ll stand by mine.

There would be very little change if those who refused to accept the status quo paid any attention to those who only think in terms of the pragmatic and the immediate. The Republican Party, like every party in the history of politics, will eventually die. Probably later than sooner, but to argue as if it is some eternal constant is to deny both logic and probability. I don’t care who wins in 2004, I’m far more concerned about laying the groundwork for 2040.

Larkin Rose has released his video on the Section 861 argument against the fraudulent federal income tax scam. It’s a big download and the traffic is pretty heavy so you may wish to wait a day or two. Then again, you may want to DL it before the IRS starts threatening the hosting server, as you know they will.

I haven’t seen it yet, so I have no opinion on it. But anything that helps expose the scam to more people is a good thing. I’ll be interested to hear reviews of it, from both those who agree and disagree with Rose’s case.

A captain writes: Great article! What you described in the Clausewitz quote what we in the military call the “decisive point”. Not sure if we have one. Hmmmpf. I think somebody forgot about that.

And the Original Cyberpunk recommends a Ralph Peters article which tends to support my statement about Iran as the operations center of the global jihad against the West: ON Saturday, Iranian agents ambushed an American convoy on the road between Mosul and Akre in Iraq. The attack did not go as planned: Our troops responded sharply, killing two Iranians, wounding a third and capturing two more.

They were carrying their identity documents. And you haven’t heard a word about it. The administration doesn’t want to admit how much American blood Teheran has on its hands.

I would say that sounds rather like an administration that is not paying any attention to the military dictum I cited this morning, wouldn’t you?

GS writes: The first sentence in your article is a direct contradiction to everything else you wrote. Which way is it? If there was sufficient cause for the American military to invade Iraq why were we not told:

1. There is no evidence linking Iraq with 9-11.*

2. Iraq’s WMD programs probably had been dismantled by 1998.

3. Any involvement in Iraq would grow into a regional conflict with Iran as the centerpiece.

4. Us and our allies will have to accept more terrorism on our own soil(s). Spain found this out the hard way. So did we in 1995 and 2001.

5. Our republican form of government is a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept. How in the world are we going to install such a concept of government on people who hate both Jews and Christians? That’s like asking Americans to accept an Ayatollah as supreme dictator. Not likely to be popular.

6. Iraq will likely spiral out of control with someone worse that Sadaam eventually coming to power.

7. Our constitutional liberties will be continuously assaulted – even while we preach freedom to the rest of the world. Abominations like the Patriot Act, CAPPS II, biometric ID cards and police-state-like tracking of anybody who travels, etc., etc., etc., – all in the name of security of coarse, will become commonplace.

I agree with much of what GS says here. Still, none of it changes the fact that Iraq repeatedly violated a cease-fire agreement. That is perfectly adequate justification for a declaration of war, and has served as such for many a historical war. The fact that the Bush administration did not choose to declare war on that basis – did not declare war at all, of course – does not eliminate the existence of the justification. Of course, being justified and being optimal are two entirely different things. Indeed, this failure to make a solid case, not only for a declared war against global jihad but even against Iraq, is one of the reasons that I suspect George Bush’s handling of the war will be considered to be incompetent by future military strategists.

* There’s evidence linking him with OK City, however, as well as significant support for terrorists. Then again, we haven’t exactly been invading the Palestinian Authority over the latter and it has far more direct links with al-Qaida than Hussein ever did.

From the Pioneer Press: “It was just devastating,” said Marlys Lundeen, her feet in gravel where her patio used to be. “Somebody owes us.”

Let me get this straight. Somebody offers to buy your house. Since the house is going to be destroyed to make way for a new strip mall, you ask if you can remove things from the house. Permission granted, your greed runs amok, you go nuts and rip out air conditioners, moldings, flooring, cabinetry and skylights. You do this with your very own hands. And then, the sale falls apart. Whose fault is it that you now own a half-ruined house?

Nobody owes you anything, lady. YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF! I’d feel bad about being so amused by this, if it weren’t for the all-too-typical attitude expressed here. The lesson: if it sounds too good to be true, it surely is.