Of course. It is not necessary to label government with infamous names. All government is the leading cause of death.
There is an interesting book: Tax Revolt. It delineates all known tax revolts. hahaha, it lines up perfectly with history. Either governments revolt against a tribute, resulting in war, or try to exact tribute from another country, with rape, pillage, death and disease on its heals.
On a smaller scale, people do the same thing. Protesting tax, levies, tributes, robots [ corvee, service in kind], draft, you name it. Why is that? We' ll get to that a little later[1].
Who started WOII? I am not sorry to say so, but you are typically deep into the: we good guys always pardigm. No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy and the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary from a logical point of view. A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made. Alas, drunk Churchill would think differently. But really, his money masters thought differently.
In a sense, comparing the Peloponnese War, especially the part played by Athens in the Delos confederacy, it is quite clear that when government goes into the direction of forcing its people to support something, instead of the other way around, shit happens. In Athens, it meant twice the downfall of Athens. In this case: twice the downfall of the UK. [we are watching the last vestiges of it][2]
As Freeman Dyson, a former member of bomber command succinctly said with shame: the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
But ... it is logic when look at from a different perspective: This war was wanted by money interests. Since 1933, these interests have frustrated, boycotted, sabotaged any process that lifts people up from despair.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American? It is a shameful program that has made everyone dependent on big gov, grew the federal government out of proportion and set the people up to participate in the war they wanted on the wings of incessant propaganda. And many among the American people fell for it. The hate the left exudes towards those who think different is difficult to describe, but currently you can see it iteration.
When you would compare contemporary writings of Marx and Stirner, the differences could not be starker. And as usual, socialist / commie policies revolve around the perpetration of unlawfulness.
And this is why people protest taxes, levies, robots, etc. Because it IS unlawful. It is theft, often based on warped reasoning, sucking life-force from those choosing to give in. And this is why governments protests tribute. For the very same reason.
If this would have been your reason to say: stupid, I would have agreed with you.
[2] I am not a psychologist. As far as I am able to analyze things, and I have listened to many of Hitlers speeches, and read his book, and some other source material, he was quite aligned with himself, living out his design. It does not mean I judge his policies, for good or bad, it is just a observation from a human perspective.
When it comes to things he was in favor of, or against, there is much, I am reluctant to admit, I agree with. And this brings me to means and methods.
It seems to me, that he has curbed his idealism with pragmatism, and not shying away from paying in kind. He was politically savvy enough. Many of the process steps on the international arena, reminds me of what Putin is doing. Step 1, step 2, etc, careful, always trying to not escalate, while pushing through ruthlessly his own agenda, driving hard bargains.
I think it would be easy to compare the Munich 1938 agreement with the Minsk II accord. It is almost the same type of agreement and subsequent behavior from those resisting a movement against their predatory schemes.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
It explains why the current clique is vehemently anti-populist. Stalin, FDR, Churchill were no populists. They were ideologues or in the service of ideologues.
No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy (in starting the war, I assume you mean)
Yes, I know that and agree. That's not to say I agree with Hitler's actions leading to the war, including invasion of other countries.
the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Absolutely. Leveling entire cities, and firebombing entire cities especially, in both Europe and Japan -- not to mention the nukes on Hiroshima and and Nagasaki -- was not just unnecessary but breathtakingly evil.
the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary . . . A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made
Did not know that, but if so, it follows the pattern of the Japanese trying to surrender but America refusing supposedly because the Japanese insisted on keeping the Emperor as a figurehead . . . then after we dropped the two nukes we LET THEM KEEP THE EMPEROR anyway.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
Yes, that's always the way with government. Sooner or later, evil and corruption gain control of the mechanisms of Power and shit like that happens: Vile, inhumane, and simply WRONG orders are given and people who refuse are punished. That's one reason I'm an Abolitionist / Voluntaryist; the Ring of Power really MUST be destroyed because it both corrupts the innocent and ATTRACTS the corrupt to itself. It is also Hellishly addicting. And it never ends well; the relatively small ember of Power embedded in the Constitution is what grew to the tyranny we now live under.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American?
Good Lord, no. MOST American presidents have been wrecking balls, battering away at the (mostly) positive elements framed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As you know, FDR was far from the first; Woodrow Wilson (also not the first) is the one who signed off on the Federal Reserve and the income tax. And even before the avalanche of fiat those horrors unleashed to the Cabal, the US military was used as "thugs for corporate interests in Central America" (and elsewhere) as Smedley Butler put it. In War is a Racket, He confessed that:
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
Of course. It is not necessary to label government with infamous names. All government is the leading cause of death.
There is an interesting book: Tax Revolt. It delineates all known tax revolts. hahaha, it lines up perfectly with history. Either governments revolt against a tribute, resulting in war, or try to exact tribute from another country, with rape, pillage, death and disease on its heals.
On a smaller scale, people do the same thing. Protesting tax, levies, tributes, robots [ corvee, service in kind], draft, you name it. Why is that? We' ll get to that a little later[1].
Who started WOII? I am not sorry to say so, but you are typically deep into the: we good guys always pardigm. No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy and the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary from a logical point of view. A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made. Alas, drunk Churchill would think differently. But really, his money masters thought differently.
In a sense, comparing the Peloponnese War, especially the part played by Athens in the Delos confederacy, it is quite clear that when government goes into the direction of forcing its people to support something, instead of the other way around, shit happens. In Athens, it meant twice the downfall of Athens. In this case: twice the downfall of the UK. [we are watching the last vestiges of it][2]
As Freeman Dyson, a former member of bomber command succinctly said with shame: the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
But ... it is logic when look at from a different perspective: This war was wanted by money interests. Since 1933, these interests have frustrated, boycotted, sabotaged any process that lifts people up from despair.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American? It is a shameful program that has made everyone dependent on big gov, grew the federal government out of proportion and set the people up to participate in the war they wanted on the wings of incessant propaganda. And many among the American people fell for it. The hate the left exudes towards those who think different is difficult to describe, but currently you can see it iteration.
When you would compare contemporary writings of Marx and Stirner, the differences could not be starker. And as usual, socialist / commie policies revolve around the perpetration of unlawfulness.
And this is why people protest taxes, levies, robots, etc. Because it IS unlawful. It is theft, often based on warped reasoning, sucking life-force from those choosing to give in. And this is why governments protests tribute. For the very same reason.
If this would have been your reason to say: stupid, I would have agreed with you.
[2] I am not a psychologist. As far as I am able to analyze things, and I have listened to many of Hitlers speeches, and read his book, and some other source material, he was quite aligned with himself, living out his design. It does not mean I judge his policies, for good or bad, it is just a observation from a human perspective.
When it comes to things he was in favor of, or against, there is much, I am reluctant to admit, I agree with. And this brings me to means and methods.
It seems to me, that he has curbed his idealism with pragmatism, and not shying away from paying in kind. He was politically savvy enough. Many of the process steps on the international arena, reminds me of what Putin is doing. Step 1, step 2, etc, careful, always trying to not escalate, while pushing through ruthlessly his own agenda, driving hard bargains.
I think it would be easy to compare the Munich 1938 agreement with the Minsk II accord. It is almost the same type of agreement and subsequent behavior from those resisting a movement against their predatory schemes.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
It explains why the current clique is vehemently anti-populist. Stalin, FDR, Churchill were no populists. They were ideologues or in the service of ideologues.
Yes, I know that and agree. That's not to say I agree with Hitler's actions leading to the war, including invasion of other countries.
Absolutely. Leveling entire cities, and firebombing entire cities especially, in both Europe and Japan -- not to mention the nukes on Hiroshima and and Nagasaki -- was not just unnecessary but breathtakingly evil.
Did not know that, but if so, it follows the pattern of the Japanese trying to surrender but America refusing supposedly because the Japanese insisted on keeping the Emperor as a figurehead . . . then after we dropped the two nukes we LET THEM KEEP THE EMPEROR anyway.
Yes, that's always the way with government. Sooner or later, evil and corruption gain control of the mechanisms of Power and shit like that happens: Vile, inhumane, and simply WRONG orders are given and people who refuse are punished. That's one reason I'm an Abolitionist / Voluntaryist; the Ring of Power really MUST be destroyed because it both corrupts the innocent and ATTRACTS the corrupt to itself. It is also Hellishly addicting. And it never ends well; the relatively small ember of Power embedded in the Constitution is what grew to the tyranny we now live under.
Good Lord, no. MOST American presidents have been wrecking balls, battering away at the (mostly) positive elements framed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As you know, FDR was far from the first; Woodrow Wilson (also not the first) is the one who signed off on the Federal Reserve and the income tax. And even before the avalanche of fiat those horrors unleashed to the Cabal, the US military was used as "thugs for corporate interests in Central America" (and elsewhere) as Smedley Butler put it. In War is a Racket, He confessed that:
Nicely put.