The Plot to Kill Stalin from 1953

After watching the whole 90 minutes, I am beginning to understand modern American politics a bit better.

Watching the ads is almost as interesting as the story. Then they advertised the improving availability of energy. Now we are actually trying to make our energy supplies as unreliable as possible.

A society based upon the opinion of civilians

This is from Winston Churchill, found as the opening words of Daniel Hannan’s wonderful How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters:

“There are few words which are used more loosely than the word “Civilization.” What does it mean? It means a society based upon the opinion of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the conditions of camps and warfare, of riot and tyranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained. That is Civilization—and in its soil grow continually freedom, comfort, and culture. When Civilization reigns, in any country, a wider and less harassed life is afforded to the masses of the people. The traditions of the past are cherished, and the inheritance bequeathed to us by former wise or valiant men becomes a rich estate to be enjoyed and used by all.”

There is no culture like our Western civilisation and if it disappears it will not come back for a thousand years. None of the alternatives looking to be the replacement for our way of life will be anything other than tyranny and slavery for the vast bulk of the population. And if you don’t think our way of life is at risk, you are either completely clueless or think the past is a guarantor of the future. The totalitarian enemy is there at every turn, both outside the citadel and within. Let me just take this from (Lizzie) Beare from a previous thread, because it really is depressing how politically naive so many supposedly intelligent people are.

The ‘right’ circumstances for another ‘purge’ are upon us now; from the left. It is starting under the ‘Antifa’ thugs when ordinary people going about their business are called fascist/and or are subject to physical violence for simply attending a talk by a reputable clinical psychologist or a very clever gay young man making jokes. You see it when a prominent TV conservative is physically attacked on his way into a venue. You see it when the recently deposed Australian Prime Minister is punched in the face by a gay activist. You also see it when a man of J3wish-Yemini background tries to collect signatures at a rally supposedly in support of refugee immigration into Australia and a big loon not just yells but roars ‘Fascist’ at him three times virtually spitting in his face; simply because that J3wish man wearing a J#wish skull-cap is collecting signatures for a petition to recognize that white South African farmers facing a violent racist slow extinction are worthy of consideration as refugees. You see it when people are ‘reported’ and ‘punished’ for disagreement with current thought-police mandated thinking and you see it when the media and other cultural outlets self-censor. It is bred in our schools and our universities, this new fascism, and should be roundly called out for what it is, along with all of the other mind and thought control that political correctness is putting up for our little left Stalins of the day to play lawfare with against those who resist.

Yes, there is ‘scale’ required to see how distant some history may be to the current generation. But that’s why it’s called history. All high school children should study the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Nazi Holocaust, and Revolution of Mao in China with its later abysmal Cultural Revolution, plus the French-influenced Communism in Vietnam that ‘flowered’ in the Year Zero of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. A simple week on each would do it if necessary. And if schools are not doing it, then do it around the dinner table with your children. The lesson of history is that communist and other totalitarian societies always end with economic misery, gulags, secret police, a population turned upon itself, and eventually, piles of bodies.

What on earth is in the history curriculum today now that Marxists control it and teach the teachers?

Socialists are totalitarians. The leaders of socialist movements want what is best for the leaders of socialist movements, and the rest of you be damned. Fools every one.

And for good measure, go see The Death of Stalin, a tragic story told in a lighthearted way. Being miseducated for the most part, most won’t know who Beria was, but the movie gets the politics right. You also need to know something about the doctors’ plot to get some of the jokes. An exceptionally good movie about life in a totalitarian state, which our socialist friends continue to shield their eyes and ears from all knowledge of.

Socialist parties are filled with totalitarians

We’ve been to see The Death of Stalin and I could not recommend it more. A tragic story told in a lighthearted way. I am so old I remembered every one of the main protagonists, knew who they were and each had a very high recognition factor. And by some coincidence, this is just now the first item at Instapundit:

TODAY IS THE 124th ANNIVERSARY OF NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV’S BIRTH: Khrushchev was all too willing to assist with Stalin’s infamous purges and was Stalin’s enforcer in Ukraine.   But at least later in life, he came to understand that Stalin was a dangerous maniac. After Stalin’s death, he emerged (hands bloodied) as the Soviet Union’s leader from 1953 to 1964 and pursued a policy of De-Stalinization.

Khrushchev’s grip on power was never as tight as Stalin’s.  On the night of his ouster (engineered by Leonid Brezhnev), he is reported to have told a friend:

“I’m old and tired. Let them cope by themselves. I’ve done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn’t suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That’s my contribution. I won’t put up a fight.”

Khrushchev is famous for having told a room full of Western ambassadors, “WE WILL BURY YOU!” Instead, he is buried at Novodevichy Cemetery. Brezhnev refused him a state funeral or Kremlin burial. To Brezhnev, he was just an annoying squish.  Take a look at his monument at the cemetery. It’s in black and white–a fitting metaphor for the man.

Unless you know – really know – that socialist parties are filled with totalitarians trying to find their way to the levers of power, you will not know enough to keep an eye out for your political safety. Even then you can never be sure, but that is where you yourself must start.

The conspiracy to make Tim Kaine president

I’ve always known this to be true: Comey: I Announced The Hillary Investigation Because Polls Showed Her Ahead.

The question is why would he do it? And the answer is that Obama and Comey were trying to craft an election outcome in which Hillary would be elected but would then have to resign, or at the very minimum step aside and then resign, because of the scandal related to her email servers. When it comes to Tim Kaine, you need to bear this in mind:

In November of 2005, during Obama’s first year in the Senate, Obama campaigned for Kaine in the Virginia gubernatorial race. Just over a year later, in February of 2007—as the Los Angeles Times reports—Kaine became the first statewide elected Democrat outside of Illinois to support Obama’s presidential bid against the Democratic heir apparent, Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons are not exactly known for their short memories. So how is it that someone who was among the first to break ranks with Hillary in 2007 was rewarded with the top prize that she could grant in 2016? Could it be that Clinton decided that the largely unknown Kaine was such a big political asset that she should let bygones by bygones? Or could it be that Clinton, who has tied herself to Obama and is highly dependent on his help in turning out the Democratic base, was told whom to pick?

They needed Hillary to win but needed a reason to then be able to push her aside.

So here is the wonderful irony. Donald Trump is President because of Obama and Comey, just as Hillary has so often said. And if you think this is all new, see my post from November 1, 2016: Raisin’ Kaine to the highest office in the land. Found here as well: I’ve worked out how it ends published three days later. Both posts are found in my blog diary of the 2016 election: The Art of the Impossible.

Comey says it. Hillary says it. But no one but them, and perhaps now you, understands what went on and how it all worked out.

ADDENDUM: I have taken in the following ten points from an earlier post on this issue titled What really happened. This is what I think really happened spelled out in sequential order.

1) Obama hates Hillary.

2) Tim Kaine is not just from the Obama side of the Democratic Party but was one of the first of the Democrats to defect to Obama in 2007. She would have hated Kaine to an infinite degree. Hillary would never ever under ordinary circumstances have chosen him for her Vice President, even assuming he would be a great campaign asset which he most assuredly was not.

3) However, she can only run for president if she is not under indictment for the undoubtedly illegal use of an insecure server. Hillary was therefore compelled to choose someone who she would never have chosen as her Vice Presidential candidate.

4) Obama’s aim was to be succeeded by someone with his own agenda to carry on where he had left off.

5) Hillary wanted to be president, but not necessarily serve as president. She is a sick woman which can hardly be denied. She might not have lasted a year before her illnesses would have forced her to resign.

6) But in any case, just in case she was reluctant to give up the presidency once she had it, the evidence of illegal activity could be used to impeach her if she chose to battle on, or at the very least, force her to stand aside and allow the Vice President to take over.

7) Comey had begun the original investigation, which was extraordinary enough. But since it is necessary for Hillary to win if Kaine was to become president, Comey – under instruction – says on his own bat that she has no case to answer.

8) Hillary then moves to the front and looks set to win the election. But now there is no means to force her from office if she doesn’t want to go. So suddenly 650,000 classified emails are found on Weiner’s laptop leading Comey – under instruction from Obama – to open the investigation again.

9) But then, to everyone’s astonishment on the Democrat side of politics, Trump begins to move ahead in the last week of the election, throwing the result into doubt. The investigation against Hillary therefore needs to be shut down immediately. Comey therefore declares that they FBI has gone through the 650,000 emails and states there is nothing there to prosecute.

10) But by then it is too late and Trump gathers just enough momentum due to the various scandals that have surrounded Hillary to win the election.

 

Live from Syria

Is the use of gas by Syria against its own population a vital American interest?

Australian Philosophy Department – Monty Python version

 

Here are the words:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
’bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
And Hobbes was fond of his dram

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
“I drink, therefore I am.”

John Stuart Mill on free speech

Reprinted from Instapundit.

A MUST-READ FOR POTENTIAL SNOWFLAKES: All Minus One, a beautifully illustrated and smartly abridged version of John Stuart Mill’s arguments for free speech in “On Liberty,” is just out at Heterodox Academy, which hopes it will become required reading for students before they enter college. Here’s a conversation about Mill — and why he’s more relevant than ever — with Richard Reeves, the Mills biographer who edited this book together with Jonathan Haidt.

ALL MINUS ONE
John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech Illustrated

Heterodox Academy has produced a new book based on John Stuart Mill’s famous essay On Liberty to make it accessible for the 21st century. Here’s what makes our edition special:

1) It’s just the second chapter (out of 5), because that chapter gives the best arguments ever made for the importance of free speech and viewpoint diversity;

2) We have reduced that chapter by 50% to remove repetitions and historical references that would be obscure today, producing a very readable 7000 word essay;

3) Editors Richard Reeves (a biographer of Mill) and Jon Haidt (a social psychologist) have written a brief introduction to link Mill and his time to the issues of our time, and

4) Artist Dave Cicirelli has created 16 gorgeous original illustrations that amplify the power of Mill’s metaphors and arguments.

If you would like to order a copy you can find our where at the link.

And for what it’s worth, John Stuart Mill also wrote the best economics book ever published, and for which there is a modern version as well if these are the kinds of things that interest you.

 

Public spending lowers economic growth

Another article for all you Keynesians out there: More Government Spending = Weaker Economic Performance. And the article notes this as well:

  • The OECD admitted in one study that “a reduction in the size of the government could increase long-term GDP by about 10%, with much larger effects in some countries.”
  • The OECD admitted in another study that “a cut in the tax-to-GDP ratio by 10 percentage points of GDP (accompanied by a deficit-neutral cut in transfers) may increase annual growth by ½ to 1 percentage points.”
  • The OECD admitted in a different study that “an increase of about one percentage point in the tax pressure (or, equivalently one half of a percentage point in government consumption, taken as a proxy for government size)…could be associated with a direct reduction of about 0.3 per cent in output per capita. If the investment effect is taken into account, the overall reduction would be about 0.6-0.7 per cent.”

Why this might be you will never understand if you start from Y=C+I+G, but that’s all you are going to find in any macro text anywhere in the world.