Stockman: "After March 15 Everything Will Grind To A Halt" | Zero Hedge

Two weeks after David Stockman warned that "the market is apparently pricing in a huge Trump stimulus. But if you just look at the real world out there, the only thing that's going to happen is a fiscal bloodbath and a White House train wreck like never before in U.S. history" and exclaimed that, when looking at markets, "what's going on today is complete insanity" he is back with another interview, this time with Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog in which he, once again warns, that a giant fiscal bloodbatch is coming soon, and urges listeners to pay especially close attention to the March 15, 2017 debt ceiling deadling, at which point everything could "grind to a halt."

As Greg Hunter writes, former Reagan Administration White House Budget Director David Stockman says financial pain is a mathematical certainty. Stockman explains, “I think we are likely to have more of a fiscal bloodbath rather than fiscal stimulus.  Unfortunately for Donald Trump, not only did the public vote the establishment out, they left on his doorstep the inheritance of 30 years of debt build-up and a fiscal policy that’s been really reckless in the extreme.  People would like to think he’s the second coming of Ronald Reagan and we are going to have morning in America.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it looks that promising because Trump is inheriting a mess that pales into insignificance what we had to deal with in January of 1981 when I joined the Reagan White House as Budget Director.”

So, can the Trump bump in the stock market keep going? Stockman, who wrote a book titled “Trumped” predicting a Trump victory in 2016, says, “I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance in the hot place that’s going to happen. This is delusional.  This is the greatest suckers’ rally of all time.  It is based on pure hopium and not any analysis at all as what it will take to push through a big tax cut.  Donald Trump is in a trap.  Today the debt is $20 trillion.  It’s 106% of GDP. . . .Trump is inheriting a built-in deficit of $10 trillion over the next decade under current policies that are built in.  Yet, he wants more defense spending, not less.  He wants drastic sweeping tax cuts for corporations and individuals.  He wants to spend more money on border security and law enforcement.  He’s going to do more for the veterans.  He wants this big trillion dollar infrastructure program.  You put all that together and it’s madness.  It doesn’t even begin to add up, and it won’t happen when you are struggling with the $10 trillion of debt that’s coming down the pike and the $20 trillion that’s already on the books.”

Then, Stockman drops this bomb and says:

“I think what people are missing is this date, March 15^th 2017.  That’s the day that this debt ceiling holiday that Obama and Boehner put together right before the last election in October of 2015.  That holiday expires.  The debt ceiling will freeze in at $20 trillion.  It will then be law.  It will be a hard stop.  The Treasury will have roughly $200 billion in cash.  We are burning cash at a $75 billion a month rate.  By summer, they will be out of cash.  Then we will be in the mother of all debt ceiling crises.  Everything will grind to a halt.  I think we will have a government shutdown.  There will not be Obama Care repeal and replace.  There will be no tax cut.  There will be no infrastructure stimulus.  There will be just one giant fiscal bloodbath over a debt ceiling that has to be increased and no one wants to vote for.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-26/stockman-after-march-15-everything-will-grind-halt

Interesting week for Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump - The Unz Review

Putin’s latest move

I don’t follow the western corporate media so I don’t really know how much coverage this development has received in the West, but in Russia and the Ukraine the big news is the decision by Russia to begin recognizing official Novorussian documents such as passports, driver licenses, school and college diplomas, etc. The Russians were pretty specific in the way the made the announcement. They said that it was a temporary measure dictated by humanitarian considerations. They have a point. Until now, the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics had to travel to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine to try to get their documents. Which, considering how the Ukronazis consider anybody from the Donbass was not only futile, but sometimes dangerous. This decision makes perfect sense practically. But, of course, it has a far-reaching symbolic dimension too. The timing is also crucial: by recognizing the documents issued by the DNR and LNR authorities, the Russians have de facto “semi-recognized” the authorities which issued them and that is just a fairly short step away from recognizing these republics.

Right now, the Kremlin is vehemently denying any such thoughts. But all the Kremlin-affiliated commentators are rather blunt about what this really means. According to them, the message for the junta in Kiev is simple: if you attack Novorussia or if you officially ditch the Minks agreements we will immediately recognize these two republics. And, once that happens, it’s over for the Ukronazis, these republics will be gone just like South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Of course, nobody will officially recognize the independence of these republics, but neither will anybody do anything meaningful about it. And, let’s be honest, the Russian authorities couldn’t care less about what western politicians or their corporate media have to say: they already heard it all and it’s not like they could be demonized much futher.

The next logical move would be to move the Russian border control from the Russian border to the line of contact. Or not. If the Russians don’t do it, this might be a sign that they support the official position of the Republics which is that they want to liberate the totality of the Doentsk and Lugansk regions. By the way, the Russian Border Guards are elite and highly militarized forces whose presence on the line of contact would in no way prevent a Novorussian (counter-)attack against the Ukronazi forces. So the decision about where to deploy them would have a primarily political dimension and no real military consequences.

Right now the Ukronazis have basically gone officially on record in declaring that they never intended to abide by the terms of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. Here is what Anton Gerashchenko, a special adviser to the Minister of internal Affairs of Ukraine and a member of the Board of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine openly declared on Ukrainian national TV: (emphasis added).

Let’s immediately say that the Minsk Agreements were not implemented from the day there were signed in Febuary 2015. This was a temporary measure on the side of the Ukraine and, I will be honest, a deliberate deception. Remember that the first Minsk Agreement was signed following the military disaster near Ialovaisk when we had no forces to defend the front from Donetsk to Mariupol. The second Mink Agreement was signed following the treacherous Russian aggression on Debaltsevo and the formationm of the “Debaltsevo Cauldron”. These agreements are not international agreements or anything else.

Needless to say, NOBODY in the West paid any attention to this statement, and why would they, after all, their line has always been that Russia is not abiding by the Minsk Agreement, even if Russia is not even a party to them (Russia is only a witness and guarantor). And if a senior Ukronazi official says otherwise, who cares?!

This amazing admission by Gerashchenko is only the latest in a series of steps taken and statements made by various Ukronazis to the effect that “we are done negotiating and from now on, we will solve this problem by force”. So far, the “force” applied has been primarily in the form of a total blockade of the Donbass which included the prevention of a large amount of vitally needed coal to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine from the Donbass even though this shipment had already been paid for. Officially Poroshenko does not condone this blockade, but in practice he is either unwilling or unable to prevent or stop it. Another sign that the Independent Banderastan is falling apart.

There is a strong feeling in Russia that Poroshenko is powerless and that the Ukronazi crazies are up to no good. Clearly, nobody in the Ukronazis elites has any intention of actually implementing the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. That, by the way, might be a dangerous approach for a number of reasons:

First, these agreements were endorsed by the UNSC and every country out there, at least as far as I know. So Gerashchenko is wrong – the Minsk Agreements are binding under international law.

Second, the Ukrainian authorities recently found and released a document showing that Yanukovich had made an official request for a Russian intervention in the Ukraine. They wanted to show that he was a traitor. But in the process, they also showed that the last legitimate president of the Ukraine had made a legal request for a Russian intervention which might well mean that, at least in legal terms, any subsequent Russian intervention in the Ukraine would be 100% legal.

Even better, Yanukovich is still in Russia. And, from a legal point of view, you could make the case that he is still the legitimate president of the Ukraine. If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?

Right now, the Russians are making no such legalistic statements. But you can be sure that they have already aligned all their ducks in a neat row just in case they do decide to openly intervene in this civil war.

How realistic is the possibility of a Russian recognition of the breakaway republics or an overt Russian intervention in the Ukraine?

I think that it all depends on what the Ukronazis crazies do. If they really attack Novorussia I expect the Kremlin to recognize the DNR and LRN. A Russian intervention? I doubt it, but only because I believe that the DNR/LNR can handle a Nazi attack. So the only question for me is how long Poroshenko will stay in power and what the real crazies will do once they overthrow him. Right now this mostly depends on the US but since the US elites are locked in a desperate struggle for power, I don’t see the Trump Administration taking any dramatic decisions anyway, not in the Ukraine, not elsewhere. At least not as long as there is a question mark as to who is really in charge in the White House. Everybody is waiting for the outcome of that struggle, including Moscow and Kiev.

Trump – all words, no action, but good words

In the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the “fake news” (which in “Trumpese” means CNN & Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the “DC swamp”.

Furthermore, by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time around and that is how he might win again.

The Neocons and the US ‘Deep State’ have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye. If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what could happen next.

I strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama’s betrayal of all his campaign promises only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the ‘deep state’ was not going to let him take action or threaten him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support of “their guy” against the “bastards in DC”. Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don’t exactly imagine the cops going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters the latter will easily defeat the former. The “basket of deplorables” are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.

There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the people and declares that the “DC swamp” is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don’t mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the “DC swamp” can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would remind any “DC swamp” members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that. Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own people?

Donald Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in “enemy territory” controlled by the “deplorables”, something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.

This week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump – he won’t have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank God for small favors…

I can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state, but I am not holding my breath.

Tonight I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war. I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard. Only time will tell.

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/interesting-week-for-vladimir-putin-and-donald-trump/

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' - BBC News

Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.

This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

From his lab at the University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

"The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results."

You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies' findings.

Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.

"It's worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity," says Dr Errington.

Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

Marcus Munafo is one of them. Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.

"I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it's me, maybe I didn't run my study well, maybe I'm not cut out to be a scientist."

The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo's science, but with the way the scientific literature had been "tidied up" to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

"What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened," he says.

"The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.

"What I think of as high-risk, high-return results."

The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."

She says it's about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

"Everyone has to take a share of the blame," she argues. "The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes."

For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.

It's introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.

"Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper," says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.

"It is a big problem, but it's something the journals can't tackle on their own. It's going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers."

But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.

"The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process."

Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper's central hypothesis before publication.

"Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don't know if the facts out there actually represent what's happening in biology or not."

Without knowing whether the published scientific literature is built on solid foundations or sand, he argues, we're wasting both time and money.

"It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments. It's a regrettable situation, but I'm afraid that's the situation we find ourselves in."

You can listen to Tom Feilden's report and the further discussion on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778?SThisFB

A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right - Full Text

In libertarian circles, I sense the discussion over the Alt. Right has reached a high point. Instigating this conversation perhaps was National Policy Institute Head Richard Spencer’s appearance near or at the International Students for Liberty Conference a week or so ago.

Frankly, I’m concerned by the growing anti-intellectualism and lack of research by a lot of libertarians regarding the beliefs of the Alt. Right. Many of them, I sense, have not taken so much as an hour reading a single Alt. Right essay or listening to an Alt. Right speech. I hear all sorts of insults thrown toward men such as Spencer and others, but I have been thoroughly unimpressed by the critiques, if any, made of what they say or believe.

The movement has been around long enough and is diverse enough to warrant better descriptions than “white supremacists” and “Neo-Nazis.”

To that end, I wanted to explore the 16 Points Of The Alt. Right as written by Vox Day. My hope is that even if libertarians do not agree with them, at the very least they understand what their core beliefs are. I appreciate the fact that the Alt. Right has a somewhat vague definition, but it would be hard to deny the influence Vox Day has in defining and shaping it.

My analysis is in bold italics.

A Libertarian Analysis Of The 16 Points of The Alt. Right

1.       The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

So far, so good. Nothing wrong with this.

2.      The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

The question is, in what ways is it an alternative to libertarianism? Unlike the Alternative Right, libertarianism pertains to a narrowly defined scope of politics; the use of force. Outside of that, it has no prescribed moral, ethical, spiritual, religious, or cultural beliefs. Libertarianism by itself is not a complete moral theory, yet it also does not claim to be one.

3.      The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

The first part is fine. The second part is a bit subjective, but the concept itself is a sound one. As long as your interpretation of reality, cultural tradition, and lessons of history are accurate.

4.      The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

Libertarians can disagree or agree with this, but this has nothing to do with libertarianism, per se. It is a description, not prescription.

5.      The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

The fundamental question to be asked is what does nationalism look like when implemented? Is it carried out peacefully or, if done violently, in the face of unjust coercion and aggression by enemies?

The answer matters, because if nationalism is in accordance with the natural order, then it will not require the state to enforce it; it would only require the state get out of the way and let people voluntarily form a homogeneous nation. There is nothing wrong with violently resisting state efforts to undermine voluntary nationalism or the formation of a nation. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with violently opposing unjust efforts by people attempting to carry out a nationalist policy against peaceful people or create an artificial nation.

As long as nationalism is descriptive (this is how it is), and not prescriptive (this is how it must be no matter what), then it does not violate libertarianism.

I also insist that whoever condemns the Alt. Right for nationalism remain consistent by condemning all forms of nationalism. This means any person of any ethnic group in any part of the world wishing to preserve their nation or national identity is inherently unlibertarian – of course, I would demand to know why that is the case.

Additionally, this would logically dictate that multiculturalism is the natural state of human relations and the de facto libertarian stance. Any homgenuous nation would be considered an unfree society.  If it is unlibertarian to promote a national identity and form a nation, the two pillars of nationalism, then people must exist within a multi-ethnic, multi-national environment. There is simply no escaping this conclusion.

6.      The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Agreed, assuming this refers to globalism as a political concept, i.e. world government and centralization of political authority. Other forms of globalism that are the natural result of modern technology and voluntary human action are another matter. One could split hairs over Vox Day’s definition, but I feel no need to do so. The globalists he refers to are obviously not libertarians or pro-freedom.

7.      The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

One hundred percent agree. Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.

8.     The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

This point is outside the purview of libertarian philosophy. Because of that, I feel no need to comment on it.

9.      The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

This is merely pointing out reality: race and culture matter. People associate with others based on preferences. Politics are one of them, but it is at the bottom tier compared to language, ethnicity, culture, and religion. It is why the libertarian movement could never be a real movement. It lacks these primary values.

10.  The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Non-interventionism, anti-imperialism, anti-war. Nothing to complain about here, unless you’re Jeffrey Tucker and think the Deep State hellbent on a war with Russia is preferable to “Neo-Nazis” who want to avoid further empire-building exercises.

11.   The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

 It also equals censorship.

12.  The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

No point in commenting on this one.

13.  The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

Here is perhaps the greatest area of contention between libertarians and Alt. Right leaders such as Vox Day. He recently had a debate with Bob Murphy, hosted on Tom Woods’ show. To be entirely frank, I am not totally convinced either way. I obviously support the concept of free trade, but I do not believe libertarians or Austrian economists have sufficiently addressed some of the problems Vox Day has observed – if so, I haven’t come across them, yet.

I would add that nations can and have survived harmful protectionist trade policies. Other political stances such as open borders are far more destructive (see Germanic Migration). I’ll take a country with a protectionist trade policy but with secure borders over a country that has open trade and open borders – which also happens to be the policy of Hillary Clinton.

14.  The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Anyone who thinks this is racist, is racist. If you oppose this, then you must logically oppose white men proactively promoting the continuation of their own race through procreation and their opposition to state-imposed policies openly intended to achieve their race’s demographic decline and dispossession. Libertarians do not need to champion this cause, but it is absurd to think they are forbidden from doing so because of the Non-Aggression Principle.

15.   The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

Please read the first sentence. Done? Do it again. And again, this time slowly. Now tell me how the Alt. Right is founded on the idea of white supremacy.

16.  The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

Once more, please explain how any of this is white supremacy or hateful. It’s only hateful if you believe that whites should be held to separate moral and ethical standards than every other race or ethnic group. Of course, if you believe that, wouldn’t that imply white supremacy?

So, aside from free trade and perhaps some elements of nationalism, much of what comprises the Alt. Right ideology is outside of libertarianism; it neither contradicts it nor agrees with it. The goals of the Alt. Right are not mutually exclusive of those in libertarianism.

Whatever the case, I see many similar values between the two movements. The areas of disagreement, in my opinion, are secondary and not fundamental components. There is room for friendly dispute.

It is my sincere hope that both sides can engage in thoughtful conversations and work together when mutually beneficial against common enemies. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, it has become self-evident that the Alt. Right, whatever its flaws, is trying to preserve the only kind of civilization in which libertarianism can exist at all.

A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right | The Anarchist Notebook

Vox Popoli: A libertarian take on the Alt-Right

A libertarian take on the Alt-Right

The Anarchist Notebook reviews the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:

Aside from free trade and perhaps some elements of nationalism, much of what comprises the Alt. Right ideology is outside of libertarianism; it neither contradicts it nor agrees with it. The goals of the Alt. Right are not mutually exclusive of those in libertarianism.

Whatever the case, I see many similar values between the two movements. The areas of disagreement, in my opinion, are secondary and not fundamental components. There is room for friendly dispute.

It is my sincere hope that both sides can engage in thoughtful conversations and work together when mutually beneficial against common enemies. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, it has become self-evident that the Alt. Right, whatever its flaws, is trying to preserve the only kind of civilization in which libertarianism can exist at all.

While I tend to consider the Alt-Right political philosophy to be more post-libertarian than alibertarian, I do agree that libertarianism would require an Alt-Right-compatible foundation to even begin to be a practical possibility.

I found it interesting to observe that while he didn't find my anti-free trade arguments in the Tom Woods-hosted debate with Bob Murphy to be convincing, he did pick up that Murphy - and other libertarians and free traders - have come up with no answers whatsoever to the problems I, and others, particularly Ian Fletcher, have raised.

I was frankly a little mystified to see that a number of people actually concluded that Bob Murphy won that debate, when all he produced was the same free trade boilerplate that we've all known for decades. He didn't even begin to address the substantive differences between theory and practice cited. But I suppose it is difficult for people to relinquish their grasp on defining elements of their intellectual identity, which is why it's necessary for libertarians to cautiously examine the Alt-Right philosophy before they can seriously consider accepting it.

The core conflict between libertarianism and the Alt-Right is that the Alt-Right is perfectly willing to crush individual liberties if that is necessary to preserve Western civilization and the European nations. And that is something that libertarians are going to have to accept if they are going to remain intellectually relevant in any way, because for all that the nation-state is a necessary evil, it is to be vastly preferred to the multinational state or the global state.

And those are the three options on offer at present.

I expect most libertarians to eventually gravitate to the Alt-Right, simply because the latter is both viable and coherent, while the former is not. I hope you will note that I don't say that with contempt, but rather, with regret.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-libertarian-take-on-alt-right.html?m=1

Vox Popoli: Breaking the circle of lies - in Sweden

Breaking the circle of lies

This is why it is always VITAL to tell the truth one observes when it violates the establishment Narrative:

A Swedish detective who has triggered a row by blaming violent crime on migrants has gone one step further and accused politicians of turning a blind eye to the problem because of 'political correctness'.

Earlier this month Peter Springare, who has spent more than 40 years in the police, aired his anger on social media when he was told not to record the ethnicity of violent crime suspects. Springare, 61, who is based in the central city of Orebro, wrote: 'Countries representing the weekly crimes: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden.

'Half of the suspects, we can't be sure because they don't have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they're lying about your nationality and identity.'

Prosecutors launched an inquiry, suggesting he had incited racial hatred, but later dropped the charges.  Now Springare has told The Sunday Times: 'The highest and most extreme violence - rapes and shooting - is dominated by criminal immigrants. "This is a different criminality that is tougher and rawer. It is not what we would call ordinary Swedish crime. This is a different animal."

In his Facebook post Springare wrote: 'I'm so f***ing tired. What I will write here below, is not politically correct. But I don't care. What I'm going to promote you all taxpayers is prohibited to peddle for us state employees. Here we go; this I've handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment.

'Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher... what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.'

Springare said he was due to retire soon and therefore no longer feared the disciplinary proceedings which might be brought against a younger officer for disobeying their superiors and raising the issue.

The Narrative depends upon silence. This is why those who know the truth are threatened with retribution, and those who dare to tell the truth about it are attacked with such vehemence.

The Circle of Lies is when the Narrative is established by the media, who then quote those who support the Narrative in order to attack those who question the Narrative. We saw it when they attacked Trump for questioning the Narrative about Sweden, and quoted Swedish politicians who had no idea what possible problem with immigration was being referred to. Now they're lying about this Swedish policeman, whose observations offer support for the God-Emperor's comments.

And it's lies all the way down. Because what they sell isn't just fake news, it is a false Narrative.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/breaking-circle-of-lies.html?m=1

Full text article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4260908/Swedish-policeman-blames-migrants-violent-crime.html

Extinction 2200 - Vox Popoli

Half of all species will reportedly be threatened by extinction by 2200.

One in five species on Earth now faces extinction, and that will rise to 50% by the end of the century unless urgent action is taken. That is the stark view of the world’s leading biologists, ecologists and economists who will gather on Monday to determine the social and economic changes needed to save the planet’s biosphere.

“The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” say the organisers of the Biological Extinction conference held at the Vatican this week.

Threatened creatures such as the tiger or rhino may make occasional headlines, but little attention is paid to the eradication of most other life forms, they argue. But as the conference will hear, these animals and plants provide us with our food and medicine. They purify our water and air while also absorbing carbon emissions from our cars and factories, regenerating soil, and providing us with aesthetic inspiration.

“Rich western countries are now siphoning up the planet’s resources and destroying its ecosystems at an unprecedented rate,” said biologist Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University in California. “We want to build highways across the Serengeti to get more rare earth minerals for our cellphones. We grab all the fish from the sea, wreck the coral reefs and put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have triggered a major extinction event. The question is: how do we stop it?”

Meanwhile other academics celebrated the demise of the white race and encouraged open immigration to increase the population of those rich western countries now siphoning up the planet's resources and destroying its ecosystems at an unprecedented race.

As, in Zimbabwe, politicians dined on rare rhino steak.

If white people aren't supposed to care about their own extinction, why should they care about the extinction of any other species?

“[Africa’s] population is likely to go from roughly one billion now to around 4 billion,” said Dasgupta. “Can you imagine what tensions there are going to be there, especially with climate change coming and hitting the continent more than anywhere else? What do you think is going to happen when the arid regions spread, and a hundred million Africans try to swim across the Mediterranean? It is terrifying.”

Sooner or later, Europeans are going to sink the ships. You see, multiculturalism and Western do-gooderism comes at a price that is simply too high for civilization to pay.

Vox Popoli: Extinction 2200