Friday, October 23, 2020

The Great Facebook Purge of 2020

 https://bolenreport.com/into-the-darkness-the-great-facebook-purge-of-2020/

The “Silencing” Of America?…

How I Learned to Live in American Political Apartheid as a Banned Unperson In a Virtual Internment Camp…

I am one of the thousands of freedom advocates banned by Facebook last week.

After about ten years as a loyal Facebook user, as Admin for a half-dozen groups and enjoying the social connections it offered to my wide-spread family, a couple of days ago I was expelled from Facebook suddenly — along with my nephew, Jeff. #FacebookPurge

Communications with relatives and friends were stricken – all of them. And, suddenly, I had become a banned unperson.

All of my groups and pages were abolished, including pages for recognized exempt organizations, including churches!  When they reach out to make contact with me, or share something with me, my friends and family are learning I am been turned into a Facebook Unperson.  Photos, videos, shared memories, planned events, gone. I imagine it might feel like this to be violated. I imagine it might feel like this to be a freedom advocate in apartheid  South Africa or the happily-gone Soviet Union — singled out as a Banned Unperson.

Sometime that afternoon, I visited Facebook  I was astonished to learn that I had been terminated.

There was a link to appeal.  I immediately did so, sending a copy of my passport as requested.  Within seconds a message popped on the screen: no appeal was allowed. No review was possible. Obviously preset, the social violation dictate was final. I was terminated with extreme prejudice.

Here is that arbitrary, capricious, fully automatic, act of ultimate censorship:

Why? What had I done to be singled out?  In the Kafkaesque landscape of arbitrary social media violation, all you can do is try to piece hints and clues together – and never really know the answer.

Could it be because, along with my nephew Jeff, I was an Admin of a group with over 200,000 members called “Red Pill Crusaders”?  Perhaps my “Free Speech Crime” is that I am a strong advocate for the Right of Informed Consent, health freedom and vaccine freedom of choice?

Or was the sin that I was recently sharing the facts about  how the Americans with Disabilities Act allows people to refuse to be masked and silenced —

https://tinyurl.com/maskexemption.

Of course, it might have been my use of the hashtag #BillionBribeBiden. So while the exact crime(s) are unclear, the class of crime seems obvious: exercising my First Amendment rights.

My guess is that I was purged, at least in part…

…because I have forthrightly asserted that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the like, while “private companies” at least in name,  are not really private actors at all,  but are crony corporations favored and supported by taxpayer dollars and resources, acting under color of law, making commercial and political use of our Internet Commons while censoring political and other opinion speech as well as scientific discourse for their own self-interest, and no other reason.

Perhaps it is because I have asserted numerous times that the Telecommunications Act (“the Act”) does not allow these deep state companies to censor the speech of users of the Internet Commons.  I believe, as a libertarian and retired lawyer that the Common Law is binding on all and clearly forbids such behavior.  The Act includes infamous Section 230 which supposedly “protects” free speech while really giving the crony companies the excuse to violate free speech.

The language of the statute says that the service providers are not responsible for the content their users post…

…if they do not monitor or moderate that content, but merely act as a public utility transmitting same.  Then the law goes on to allow the companies to remove, without penalty, “pornography or other objectionable materials.”

It’s the last phrase, “other objectionable materials” that the companies choose to act as if they are allowed  to ban people, opinions, facts, science and ideas.  However, to reach that irrational conclusion they must ignore the normal rules of statutory construction.

Clearly “other objectionable materials” must be read in the context of “pornography.”  Our jurisprudence distinguishes between pornography – which is not protected speech – and political and opinion speech and scientific discourse which is protected from government censorship.  That means that it is protected from government censorship even when apparently “private” agents of state power (in this case, Facebook) engage in the censorship.  Those companies are legally “creatures of the state” operating under the corporate franchise provided by the government with powers, such as limited liability, not available to corporations that truly are private actors.  The phrase “other objectionable materials” must be read to only include non-speech such as pornography.

The Big Media corporations are instruments of, and serve, entrenched deep state power and need to be held accountable.

They must be held to respect freedom of speech or all government support and funding, advantages and protection must be withdrawn from them immediately

Remember, the First Amendment does not create the right to freedom of speech.  It merely recognizes the pre-existing natural right and forbids Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, the States and all creatures of the state acting under color of law) from “abridging the freedom of speech.”

Just a few weeks ago I pointed that out to the Federal Communications Commission, as one of the first to comment in support of President Trump’s formal Petition to the FCC asking the agency to review Section 230 and refine its enforcement to stop the censorship.  My comments are posted at the FCC web site here:  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1080792043737/Ralph%20Fucetola.pdf

Could that have provoked the FBV? Once I start to think that way, the chilling effect something like a FBV has (and is intended to have) on legitimate discourse is evident.

There is a bill pending before Congress that would change the operative words of Section 230 from “otherwise objectionable” to “otherwise unlawful” – a huge and very important difference.  You can support that change by signing the White House Petition, here:  http://www.opensourcetruth.com/free-speech-petition/ 

Do you think that my advocacy for free speech might have played a role in my banning?

Is sharing a considered opinion on a government forum punishable by FBV? Is that what the First Amendment means now? For the sake of our Republic, I sincerely hope not.

What to do next? Boycott Big Fascist Tech.  Use alternatives to it that do not censor.  I am moving my social media activities to www.Minds.com — the blockchain-friendly, completely uncensored social media — my user name is RalphFucetolaJD.

There my advocacy, my social and family contacts and the exempt organizations and churches with which I work can find refuge and freedom of speech. See you there.

The Great Facebook Purge of 2020 has freed me from… Facebook!

About that here:  http://www.opensourcetruth.com/free-from-facebook-shadow-banning-and-mind-control/

This article also posted here:  http://www.opensourcetruth.com/facebook-purge/

PS — The latest news:  the FCC has just announced it will take up the issue of enforcing Section 230.  Will that be too late for the election? Will it be too late for me and thousands of other Banned Unpersons?  We shall see… https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/fcc-moves-to-clarify-section-230-law-after-censoring-of-post-story/


Friday, September 25, 2020

Petitions to Protect Free Speech Online

      In addition to the Petition pending before the Federal Trade Commission (see my comments to that agency here:  http://www.inhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Comments-FCC-Petition-11862.pdf) The Vitamin Consultancy is pleased to present this guest blog entry regarding the also-pending White House Petition.  rf...

Sign White House Petition here:    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-social-media-censorship-and-protect-free-fair-elections

-----------------------

How to win back our Freedom in today’s Digital Battlefield

By John Hammell, President, International Advocates for Health Freedom

www.iahf.com 1-800-333-2553  jham@iahf.com Follow on Twitter: @IAHFUSA

H

ave you ever wondered why Twitter removes and/or restricts legal political content from Conservatives like President Trump or General Michael T. Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell with brazen impunity? Or why Google’s YouTube[1] and Square Space can swiftly de-platform any site like the American Frontline Doctors’ Summit[2] Press Conference that challenged the COVID-19 agenda despite having received over 2 million views? Or why Twitter[3], Facebook, Google[4], Apple and other internet computer service providers routinely win lawsuits[5] for 1st Amendment violations for censoring conservatives like Laura Loomer & Freedom Watch[6]?

All of these are examples of censorship. Censorship is a threat to free speech, and by extension, an existential threat to free and fair elections! The free-flow exchange of ideas is the bedrock of any thriving and free society. Hence the reason why our Founding Fathers acknowledged and enshrined that freedom of speech as our God-given unalienable right in the First Amendment.

Today our public town square is now Digital. But as General Michael T. Flynn astutely described in his Open Letter to America, we are in an information warfare and a battle for the soul of America where the “2% vocal minority control the 98% silent majority[7].” With less than 40 days before this historic Presidential Election, is there even enough time to win back our freedom? Are we now the SILENCED majority?

A brief history 

Back in 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to protect this nascent internet computer service industry.

Inside Section 230(c)(2), the Good Samaritan Clause granted immunity from liability unique only to interactive computer service providers who act in “good faith” when they censor content that THEY deem as “otherwise objectionable.” This liability is broad and unconditional and more recently has been used to censor lawful conservative political content and for distributing unlawful third-party content. An extensive review of legal cases reveals that these two words “otherwise objectionable” have been at the heart of BigTech’s enduring immunity protection at both State and Federal courts. (see the footnotes after the first paragraph of page 1) Also see footnoted article.[8]

That’s right, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and their PLATFORM ALLIES are legally SHREDDING the First Amendment rights guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT due to just those two words! They can legally consider anything they want to be “otherwise objectionable. And the argument of “publisher vs. platform” does not appear to negatively impact Big Tech’s immunity so that the Courts continue to garner wins for these companies.

In short, no other industry enjoys this immunity from limited liability. Not even its distinct cousin the newspaper or printed media. Who could have foreseen how businesses and government would embrace this technology and intertwine it in our daily way of life and how we communicate with each other or express ourselves?

The internet today is considered by many experts as a “new” public utility like the telephone or power grid was in the 20th century. In fact, these platforms function as the new DIGITAL Public Square when people dynamically exchange flow of ideas. That idea was foremost in the minds of the lawmakers when they crafted that statute. In theory, yes. In practice, the tolerance only goes as far as you share the vocal 2% minority liberal ideas or concepts.

And if you happen to disagree, be surprised by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms that digitally “rip out your tongue” and deny your right to free speech. On Twitter, it is called “Twitmo” and thousands of us are parolees. Repeat offenders get harsher sentences like restrictions, removal of followers, Ghost or Shadow Banned or Reply De-boosted, and the anti-person tactic of all, outright Suspension or being permanently banned! YouTube and Instagram also deploy their AI algorithms and hide content unless users use a string of certain key words in order to find content or else, they will disappear that content.

When these platforms act in concert, then you have tyranny of the minority and we become the SILENCED majority.

What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away

We have no chance in court unless we get CONGRESS to pass legislation that REFORMS section 230 of the CDA[9]  by removing those two words “Otherwise Objectionable[10]”. Of the three co-equal branches of government, only Congress has the authority to reform that complex statute.

There are several Senate bills attempting to amend Section 230:

·        Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced S. 3983 “Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritan Act” ;

·        Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) introduced S.4062 “Stopping Big Tech’s Censorship Act; and more recently,

·        Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Chairman of the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee introduced S. 4534 “Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act”.

After careful review, we noticed all three Senate bills contained language that appear to have heavy influence from Big Tech lobbyists.

As we speak, Sen. Hawley’s attempt to get his S. 3983 bill to reform 230 by unanimous consent was just blocked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Sen. Wyden was one of the sponsors of Section 230 and believes Section 230 immunity protects the (supposedly)  little guys like Antifa and BLM[11].  (I say “supposedly” because that’s the perception WE’RE supposed to have, but the REALITY is that they’re ASTROTURF (FAKE grass roots) with GIGANTIC corporate funding, that we’re not supposed to see![12]

H.R. 7808 Stop the Censorship Act of 2020

Last July 28, 2020, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) introduced HR 7808 (Stop the Censorship Act of 2020) that amends Section 230 and incorporates many of the DOJ (Department of Justice) recommendations for Section 230 Reform[13] last June 17, 2020[14].

But time is of the essence.

Why?

Since 2018, BigTech has been aware of the bi-partisan Congressional attempt to reform Section 230[15]. Proactively, they succeeded in codifying Section 230 language in the USMCA (US Mexico Canada) Trade Agreement, thereby creating a de facto global standard and ultimately protecting their immunity in the USA. And the initial draft of the US-Japan Trade Deal also contains Section 230 language and expands that immunity.

Section 230 is not a trade issue and does not belong in ANY trade agreements. Baking Section 230 language in treaties or trade agreements obstructs Congress from reforming Section 230 without jeopardizing trade agreements[16].

Fightback for FREEDOM

Upon final analysis, H.R. 7808 is the strongest bill to stop online censorship & protect our free and fair elections! But we all need to work together and help push this bill by combining the passage of this bill with this election cycle.

pass this bill has the most co-sponsors at (16).

Here is WHAT TO DO:

(1) Sign this Petition on the White House Petition Site, and urge EVERYONE YOU KNOW, everyone within your sphere of influence who SHARES your OUTRAGE at “Big Tech’s” effort to RIG our Election by using Algorithms to CENSOR, SHADOW BAN, BLOCK, and DESTROY our ability to communicate in this modern Town Square. 

We need to reach 100,000 signatures by October 18, 2020 in order for the White House to act on it within 60 days.

Stop Social Media Censorship and Protect FREE & FAIR elections!

Created September 18, 2020

Sign This Petition https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-social-media-censorship-and-protect-free-fair-elections

We The People urge President Trump to support the passage of H.R. 7808 “Stop the Censorship Act of 2020[17]by encouraging a companion Senate bill that mirrors it, and signing to law once it passes because Censorship threatens FREE & FAIR Elections.

H.R. 7808 amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230) by granting immunity to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other Social Media platforms for the removal of UNLAWFUL MATERIAL instead of “otherwise objectionable,” and provides users with options to filter.

Section 230 is also NOT a trade issue and does not belong in any trade agreements. Baking Section 230 language in trade deals will hinder Congress’ ability to reform the law without jeopardizing the agreements.

2. It is very important that a Senator sponsors a companion Senate bill to H.R. 7808 that mirrors that language. Otherwise the bill will not change the CDA (Communications Decency Act) sufficiently for our side to be able to prevail in court! (any language that WATERS DOWN the removal of the words “otherwise objectionable” defeats our efforts which is why we can’t trust the existing Senate bills on this issue, we MUST get a Senate Companion bill that directly mirrors HR 7808.

Use the passage of H.R. 7808 as a way to get more co-sponsors for H.R. 7808 by alerting all candidates and embattled incumbents in tight 2020 races[18] to embrace this as a campaign issue by co-sponsoring it. 

Help us reach out to first time candidates in Battleground House and Senate races[19] to consider acknowledging the NEED for this bill during their campaigns and if they get elected, they will PLEDGE TO COSPONSOR the bill when it is reintroduced in the next Congress, possibly with a new bill number!

You can reach your Congressmen and Senators through the Capital Switchboard at 1-877 SOB- USOB (1-877-762-8762), but to talk to a live person call their District Office via a Member search on www.congress.gov. (If you get their machine, give your name, address, phone number, and tell them you expect a call back and you want the name of the staffer handling free speech issues! Also, it really helps to write an actual letter to them!

3. Listen either Live, or as archived podcast that I’ll be doing from 6pm-7pm Pacific on "Immunize Wizely" on Republic Broadcasting Network on Saturday, September 26, 2020. This show is hosted by Ingri Cassel of www.vaclib.org and has commercial breaks, so if you hear an ad when you tune in, please be patient! (If you can’t listen live, you can always listen to the archived audio file at any time! Please forward the link when you do and everyone within your sphere of influence to help! We need 100,000 Signatures on our petition by October 18th in order to get a formal response from Trump.

 4. Email me at jham@iahf.com if you can either put me on your radio show or podcast, or if you have a connection who can put me on their radio show or archive. Encourage more people to read this article in my archived newsletters at https://ymlp.com/archive_gjbeuhgjgu.php  (To subscribe to the IAHF list, please go to www.iahf.com and use the sign up menu.) This article isn’t yet on that site but it will be the most recent one (at the top of the list) after I post it, and you will then be able to get a more precise url to give to people! If you know of any way to reach out to Dustin Nemos, or to Gary Prager of Prager U, I really need to reach them both before they get burned attempting lawsuits on this that they can’t win unless we first change the law! )

5. Get copies of this article out to everyone within your sphere of influence, email it to them and encourage them to sign our White House online petition and by taking action! Need to talk directly with me with a lead to help me get on a podcast or radio show? Call me at 1-800-333-2553 and leave a message for me to call back, I can’t always answer the phone.

6. Share this Article to any Republican in a tight race, especially in the Battle Ground States and local races, and urge them to pledge support for HR 7808 in the next Congress when it is reintroduced, possibly under a new bill number. Get this article to anyone running for Federal Office so they can become familiar with this issue and use it in their campaign! Urge them to pledge support for HR 7808 in the next Congress, (and if they get elected to the Senate, to sponsor a mirroring Companion bill to HR 7808. 

7. Support my Health Freedom work by buying sulfur and other detox products at www.sulfurforhealth.com  .I am disabled due to a serious injury, and drinking sulfur water three times a day really helps alleviate pain because all pain is some cell’s cry for oxygen! It also gives me energy needed to compensate for lost sleep caused by extreme pain and is much safer than caffeine which hammers our adrenal glands. If you appreciate my efforts to defend America, and want to just make a donation but not buy sulfur, please use this link www.paypal.me/IAHFSULFUR

Remember…the most powerful weapon in the world is a Patriotic American! In this battle for the very soul of our Republic, will you stand up to be heard? Please forward this urgent message to everyone within your sphere of influence. America is literally dangling by a thread right now, but all is not lost if we use this freedom of speech issue to full advantage! Please ACT as if everything depended on YOU while praying as if everything depended on GOD! 


[8]  List of lawsuits we’ve lost in this article https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss

[18] Contact me at jham@iahf.com for Current list of key Congressional Races we need to help or ask Steve Sargent at Digital Warriors at https://www.digitalwarriorsusa.com/ if you can’t reach me when you try, and if you can’t reach him, try me again, we’re all snowed but doing our best. Please also check my most recent newsletter at www.iahf.com archived newsletters, the one on top is most recent: https://ymlp.com/archive_gjbeuhgjgu.php

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Institute Live Stream Archive

 Dr. Rima, Dr. Reg and Counsel Ralph Spoke
At The Woodlands Lunch Forum
Re-Inaugurating the Forum Series After the Lockdown

Here is the Archive Link:

https://facebook.com/WoodlandsOnline/videos/3230794120372858/

Sunday, September 6, 2020

Nationalist Libertarianism

 


Nationalist Libertarianism

The Prolegomena to a Libertarian International Policy
Divesting Globalist Governance of Authority
To Micro-Manage Our Lives
Is the Only Path to World Peace
-----------------
This Essay
In Memory of a Peace Warrior

Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine
06 Feb 1930 - 06 Feb 2017
 

We live in a world where the promise of peace and prosperity has become a distortion used to empower globalist elites with their demonstrated eugenocidal agenda, where relations among nation-states resemble the brutal behavior of thugs – where cultural nations are plundered at will -- a true Hobbesian international order.

As the lack of intellectual viability of statism in its various racial, religious, national, international, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed, the need to articulate an alternative libertarian nationalist approach to relations among people of different cultures, and thus Nations, becomes critical. As the nation-state and its institutions (including international agencies, such as the UN) become increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, blockchain-enabled, post-singularity world, a market-oriented, cosmopolitan nationalism is urgently needed.

L. von Mises pointed the way toward such an approach with his understanding of classical liberalism’s cosmopolitanism – “nationalism does not clash with cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring peoples, but peace and friendship.”[1]

The juridical subjects of International Law, "International Actors," include nation-states (even micro-states like the Vatican), a certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN and its associated institutions (such as certain privileged NGOs and "specialized agencies"  -- WHO and FAO, for example). What are not included in this list are actual private persons, such as you and me, natural or cultural Nations, and even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.

The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from the globalist structure of international relations.

We individuals do not exist in the currently dominant statist view of international law.

In the eyes of Globalist International Actors, we real people and our associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to libertarians. Libertarians understand, taught by Mises' brilliant philosophical exposition in his master work Human Action, that there is only one set of actual actors in human affairs: individual humans.

To paraphrase Mises: only individuals think, plan and engage in Human Action. 

The belief that collective nouns such as "state" or "corporation" or "class" and the like engage in human action is a superstitious delusion that has led to much human suffering.

Any truly humane, libertarian international law must, going forward, take this grave error into account.

Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century's killing fields and nuclear incinerations. Consider the necessary role of statism in the imposition of what Lysander Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal "incapacities of women" and the King's trade monopolies.

Consider therefore the false "glories" of the State as a human institution. Consider it and condemn this most vile of accretions of a brutal past.

 

“A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it also lies; and this lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." It is a lie! ... Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

“Where there is still a people...” – that is, a natural, cultural Nation – “there the state is... hated as the evil eye, and as a sin against laws and customs.”

Even as the vicious old concepts: chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, so called,  the very concept a "sovereign" State, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must be rejected.

Then we will see the great sweep of human history as the (not always steady) advance in knowledge and enterprise. We will see the inventors, creators, entrepreneurs, as the proper subjects of human admiration, leaving behind childish fascination with bright war medals, glittering crowns and presidential pomp.

Jefferson understood the essence of libertarian foreign policy: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”. 

The natural implementation of that view is the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founders of the American Federal Republic, guaranteed by the powerful role of the original US Senate in international treaty relations and federal appointments, as ‘ambassadors of the sovereign states.’  

That glorious era of non-interventionism lasted for over a hundred years (with notable lapses regarding the indigenous nations, Mexico, Mormons, and two failed invasions of Canada). TR's reckless charge up San Juan Hill ended the policy of libertarian non-interventionism. The debacles of the Philippine conquest, and of World War One led to militant world socialism, embodied in states such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China. This resulted in unparalleled death and destruction. The USA became the not-so-reluctant World Policeman.

However, Libertarians always stand against war. Whether Thoreau asking Emerson why his friend was not in the jail cell with him for refusing to pay the Mexico War Tax, or Murray Rothbard telling my Viet Nam bound contemporaries exactly how "the coldest of all cold monsters" used selective service conscription to centrally plan the welfare/warfare state.

Whether Warren, Tucker and Spooner all decrying the uncivil war between the States to make America safe for the Federal bureaucracy or Mencken poking at the hubris of the world war warriors, libertarian-Americans stood against every war after the Rebellion of 1776; stood with every resistance to Federal Power from the Whiskey Tax Rebellion of 1791.

[1] So the very first principle of a libertarian nationalist approach to foreign affairs is Peace -- Anti-War.

Standing for peace, we stand with the victims of war, including those murdered "in our names" and those forced to pay for the carnage, "Trillions and trillions wasted..." Hon. Ron Paul


Libertarians understand that the main result of an interventionist foreign policy is death; millions of deaths... and the resulting "blow back" that brings the war back home. Do Americans really think we can escape the results of violating other people? For most of the years since the adoption of the Constitution of 1787 the Federal Republic has been at war. It is our moral responsibility as citizens to join in the call, “War no more; war never again.”

"War no more; war never again." Pope Paul VI. 

Does that mean I oppose people overthrowing tyrannies by force? No. I applaud self-determination. Americans, however, have a special obligation to keep our "coldest of cold monsters" within its assigned borders. That means bringing all the troops home. The Founders understood that a standing army spread across the globe would be an invitation to disaster. We need to respect the borders of other nations if we expect our borders to be respected.

The abandoning of the Founder’s wise non-interventionism proved this. We need to stop it. A Nation defends its borders.  An Empire ignores them. The best we could do for peace and freedom is to bring all the troops home.

[2] The second principle must be Individualism. 

There is no "collective action" and no collective guilt. No tax-funded “reparations.” There is only individual Human Action. This must be the bedrock ground of any sane approach to international relations. The universal rights of real, individual humans must be respected in international law and individuals must have standing to act internationally.

Chief among these rights is the Right of Informed Consent in all things pertaining to our bodies. As Natural Solutions Foundation founder, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine taught us, the individual's right to "Informed consent is the defining issue of the 21st Century."[2]

[3] And the third principle, Free Trade. 

Despite the mercantilist errors being spouted by some Republicans and Democrats, protectionism (with its regulations and tariffs) is simply taxation -- and we are Taxed Enough Already. Whether penalizing companies for following market forces or imposing new tariffs, it is just tax policy and the incidence of the tax will fall where all taxes fall: on production of real goods and services, paid for by the consumers. Who benefits? The Bureaucracy.

In economic science the issue was settled literally centuries ago.

First, the market price is the just price. Therefore, any government imposition that restricts the market price must be unjust.

Second, as early as the Corn Law Debates in England in the 1830s it has been conceded by all thinking economists that free trade benefits those countries that adopt it, even if other countries continue irrationally to impose protectionist policies. If you read the economic literature and do the math, you will realize that protectionism is a con.

The Nation is better off with free trade and market-created currency than it can ever be with centrally planned trade and government fiat currency.  The blockchain can enable both secure trade and non-state currency, facilitating a new era of world economic growth.  Not globalist control, but free individuals living in free Nations freely trading without government permission or fiat.

Peace -- Individualism -- Free Trade: lead to a libertarian world. 


As a practical matter, urgent steps in that direction require a wholesale planetary divesting of authority from political systems that is used to micro-manage Human Action. Every regulation abolished, every tax reduced, is a victory for humanity. The direct political program therefore must be "abolish multiple old regulations for any new one proposed" -- and the same as to taxes and bureaus.

Just as the market price is the only just price we can know[3] humans, free to act with their own property (including their bodies) as they choose, will make, on the whole, on average, the best choices. Far better than those decisions being dictated to us by a self-appointed globalist elite that will do anything to maintain power and privilege, shrinking not even from genocidal, weaponized vaccines and declared pandemics.

The existence of international libertarian organizations, such as Libertarian Parties, Mises Circles and the like is very encouraging. Here is what the libertarian protesters in Brazil are saying:


L. von Mises understood it clearly. He warned us, from his vantage point of the 20th Century, the Century of Genocide, the consequences of statist interventionism:

"Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law. The elucidation and the categorial and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race." -- L. von Mises, Human Action (Part Seven, Chapter XXXI,3)


Libertarians need to apply Mises' profound understanding to our advocacy for a peaceful world. 

Only then can we achieve human freedom, peace and prosperity. If we intend to prevent the 21st Century from becoming the Century of Eugenicide, the culling of humanity, for the supposed benefit of the globalist elite, we must demand a humane future in which individuals are free to trade and live in peaceful harmony with all other individual humans.



This essay is an updated version of a previous posting at the blog.

[1] Quote from L. von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy posted by J. Deist, https://mises.org/wire/national-conservatism-and-cosmopolitanism

[2] More on informed consent:  https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard