Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational
Wednesday, July 30, 2025
Monday, July 28, 2025
Sunday, July 27, 2025
America’s Syrian Civil War by Ron Paul
"Syria’s descent into mayhem and violence is another tragic reminder that Washington’s neocons are very good at undermining and overthrowing governments abroad that refuse to “play ball” according to DC rules, but when it comes to actually bringing anything of value from the chaos they create they are hopelessly incompetent. In Syria the damage is done, and future generations will continue to suffer from the cruel folly of those convinced they know how to run everyone else’s lives."
Energy Transition as a Tool for Fascist Capitalism by Finn Andreen
https://mises.org/mises-wire/energy-transition-tool-fascist-capitalism
Considering the importance of energy in any economy and, in particular, the shocking costs associated with the so-called “energy transition” for the European economies, it seems necessary to review the situation.
First, energy and electricity prices have been rising in the EU for several years, sometimes manyfold, because of the ongoing implementation of EU Green Deal, the EU 2030 goals, and Net Zero for 2050 plans, combined with other also purely political factors. It is estimated that the net zero and energy transition policy in Europe today represents up to 40 percent of many electricity bills of Europeans who already have difficulty making ends meet.
The “Polycrisis” Is Now the Excuse for Interventionism
In “Turning the European Green Deal into Reality” (2023) from Strategic Perspectives—an EU-centered, climate-focused policy think tank driving effective climate action and the transition to net-zero emissions in Europe—the following is claimed:
EU decision-makers have put Europe on an irreversible decarbonisation trajectory. On a continent with limited gas and oil resources, Europeans have no interest in going back to the pre-war status quo.
What hubris of the “anointed” (to use Thomas Sowell’s expression) is necessary by an unelected globalist think tank, to subjectively assert such a direction on behalf of all the European peoples. This, unfortunately, is the norm. Further, the executive summary states that, not only climate change is driving energy transition now, because it is a “polycrisis”:
The COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the cost of living crisis, as well as industrial competition from the US and China, have not lowered the importance of the European climate agenda. On the contrary, the European Green Deal has proven to be a unifying solution to the multiple crises facing Europe, including economic recovery from the pandemic, climate change, high dependency on energy from Russia and competition on net-zero technologies from China and the US.
Since the climate change mantra alone might not be that convincing anymore, additional reasons, or causes, are being touted. Massive public spending is supposedly needed in order to save and transform the entire economic fabric of European societies, not only because of CO2, but also because of the pandemic, Russia, the cost of living, and industrial competition. This was also the argumentation line pushed by the Draghi plan, with which the EU is enamored.
Anything goes in order to justify more public spending and further centralization of power in Brussels. What they obviously will not mention is that these crises have all been generated and created by the disastrous actions or the disastrous inaction (depending on the case) of the European political class. It is yet another example of why it is so important to understand causality in economics:
It seems counterintuitive to believe that an agent responsible for social problems should also be the one to solve those problems. The only reason this flawed logic continues to be accepted is because of errors of causality. The real causes for economic problems are not well understood by the general public and are often confused with its consequences.
The Cost for Saving Europe is Never High Enough
The World Economic Forum has for decades pushed for action against “climate change” and the need for energy transition away from fossil fuels, with its globalist rants in Davos and elsewhere. WEF wrote the following in 2022, as always, trying to scare as many people as possible into compliance with the ruling minority:
Barely a week goes by without a new report on the price the world will have to pay if it does not cut emissions rapidly. But what is the price of it actually putting the technology in place to make those massive reductions?
The answer is that the price tag is mind-boggling. When it comes to Europe, they explain:
The cost of switching to clean energy by 2050 will be $5.3 trillion, according to a new report from low-carbon research specialist BloombergNEF. This staggering figure represents 25% of the entire yearly GDP of the EU (2025).
Even the crazed WEF knows this enormous level of spending—at roughly $200 billion per year for 25 years—may not happen. But this clearly shows the absolutely insane plans that the Western financial and political oligarchy has for Europe. The WEF and other globalist institutions like the EU are constantly reminding everybody that spending is not going fast enough. The EU document “Delivering the EU Green Deal - Progress towards targets” summarized it as follows:
This report provides a comprehensive assessment of progress towards the European Green Deal (EGD), the European Union’s transformative agenda for achieving climate neutrality by 2050. […] The study shows that significant achievement has been delivered so far but progress needs to accelerate in many areas. As of mid-2024, 32 of the 154 targets are currently “on track” and 64 are identified as “acceleration needed” meaning that more progress is needed to meet the targets on time. Furthermore, 15 of the targets are found to be “not progressing” or “regressing”, and for 43 of the targets no data is currently available.”
The June 2025 report called “The State of Europe’s Climate Investment” from the Institute for Climate Economics—an influential French think tank focusing on climate change mitigation—quantified the gap for 2030:
In 2023, climate investments in the EU reached 498 billion euros, well below the 842 billion euros needed on average each year to meet the 2030 EU climate targets, leaving a 344 billion euros gap.
The report brazenly states that those sums are needed every year in order to fulfill the unscientific and arbitrarily-set EU 2030 goals (that have recently changed!), which are based on fuzzy and variable threats regarding the rise of CO2 and global warming. The EU’s 2030 climate and industrial policy objectives include reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. This is supported by the European Green Deal and the 2030 Climate Target Plan, which aim to make the EU the first climate-neutral continent.
The Complicated Question of Who Pays?
While the huge costs associated with the energy transition plans are mentioned rather casually in the quotes above from government agencies and NGOs, and without much background provided, the question of who pays is a fundamental but complicated one. Not only are the sums for the societal transformation involved so significant that a few simple sources of financing are not possible, but it is also a complicated process because the market itself is complex.
Thus, the overall system cost (not just who pays upfront) has been studied in detail by the globalist planners. Well-designed policies (like carbon pricing) aim to make costs diffused and as spread-out as possible, in the form of less-easily-detectable externalities. But the globalist planners do not seem to care about the real impact on European societies, as long as it furthers their power grab.
The globalist energy transition is being financed by a combination of direct corporate investment (leveraged or cushioned by public spending), substantial EU and national public expenditure, and significant cost pass-through to energy consumers and taxpayers. The distinction between “company cost” and “public cost” is often artificial or intentionally blurred, because company investments frequently rely on public support (subsidies, guarantees, carbon price signals). And public spending often aims to leverage private capital, as has been clear from the Letta plan that is one of the documents guiding Brussels. As the report clearly states: “it will be necessary to direct all energy towards the financial support of the transition, channeling all necessary public and private resources towards this goal… The initial priority should be to mobilize private capital.”
While companies invest and government agencies spend, a significant portion of the cost ultimately flows down to citizens as consumers, as seen above (through impacts on their bills) and taxpayers (having to fund subsidies and infrastructure either by new taxes or by redirection of existing tax receipts). A lot is therefore done in terms of EU and think tank marketing and communication (i.e., sophisticated propaganda), in order to massage the European public into accepting higher costs, firstly on energy and electricity, but ultimately on the prices of most goods. It is implied that it is for their own good (to save the world). Also, most of the public investment is now debt-financed, pushing costs onto future taxpayers, making the current public opinion accept the programs more easily. Indeed, today’s majority is composed of the future grandparents of those who will suffer the longer-term social and economic consequences of these policies.
Calling It Out: Globalist Fascist Capitalism
What has been described above is massive interventionism pushed to the point of fascist capitalism—when banks, enterprises, and state interests become intertwined, driven by the globalist project in a coercive and corrupt relationship of dependency. Freedom—both political and economic—is the obvious victim, as more and more Europeans are starting to realize.
What is not clear is the actual added value to European societies by these massive spending programs. Not only will the direct cost of doing business in Europe increase generally, but they will inevitably create distortions in the European economies, favoring certain sectors and regions at the expense of others, whatever the stated efforts by the globalist planners to spread the costs evenly. Some clever entrepreneurs are of course benefitting handsomely. Some sectors—like renewable energy, batteries, building renovation, AI, and EVs—are getting a significant boost, while other sectors and businesses that are considered unimportant or negative in terms of energy transition will suffer.
Since the European market has little natural demand for this energy transformation or the goods associated with it, then the social and economic utility of this plan can be seriously questioned. Overall, these programs will burden European societies with even more costs—and completely unnecessary costs at that—in an environment of strong competition from other parts of the world, such as the US and China.
These massive spending plans have been implemented now for several years and cannot be stopped; the political will to resist them and the economic incentive to embrace them are simply too strong. The Europeans obviously do not have much (if any) say in the matter, since these decisions are taken top-down and undemocratically from the Western oligarchy represented by the European Commission and the European Council. There is hardly a single political party in Europe that is voicing opposition to these plans, because that would be political suicide when the spigot is turned on.
As if the current dismal economic environment in Europe were not enough, these policies are going to saddle Europeans with even more debt for the foreseeable future, not to mention price inflation, price discoordination, and distortions in the structure or production. It will create artificial growth for a while, but make European companies even less competitive than before. This is a long-term recipe for continued European decline.
Human Reason as the Foundation of Civilization by Wanjiru Njoya
https://mises.org/mises-wire/human- reason-foundation-civilization
Free market capitalism is often mistakenly associated with sinister One World globalists and “open borders” liberals who care nothing for national identity and would happily replace the white people who built Western civilization with a global, “raceless” population sourced through mass immigration. To reject these globalist machinations, nationalists have resorted to promoting white ethnonationalism and European exceptionalism, encouraging white people to take pride in what they see as the unique civilizational attributes of the white race. Ludwig von Mises was a great defender of Western civilization, and saw free market capitalism as essential to sustain this civilization, but he eschewed both the identikit globalists and the ethnonationalists of all races.
In Human Action, Mises depicts Western Civilization as inseparably linked to economic science. He does not see economic progress as merely a coincidental result or fortuitous outcome of the great Western civilization, but as an essential component of that civilization—Western civilization was able to spring into existence precisely because of sound economic science, and would perish without it. While he recognizes that peoples of the white race are the creators of Western civilization, he does not see the white race, in itself, as a necessary condition of civilization—he rejects the notion that countries without a white population have no hope of ever achieving the same great heights as the West. In his view, the science of economics works the same way regardless of the race of people applying it, just as the force of gravity applies in the same way to men of all races. Economics is a science of means and ends, meaning that those who choose the wrong means will always fail in their efforts to achieve their desired goal. Mises cautions that if Western society rejects sound economics, failure will inevitably follow:
It must be emphasized that the destiny of modern civilization as developed by the white peoples in the last two hundred years is inseparably linked with the fate of economic science. This civilization was able to spring into existence because the peoples were dominated by ideas which were the application of the teachings of economics to the problems of economic policy. It will and must perish if the nations continue to pursue the course which they entered upon under the spell of doctrines rejecting economic thinking.
To Mises, human reason and human action are the foundations of civilization. It is reason that enables man to understand the importance of property rights and the division of labor which are essential to the economic progress that permits man to move beyond a primitive existence. This holds true no matter what the racial composition of the population may be. There are no economically sound arguments to justify race-craft of any kind, because the laws of economics do not vary based on race. Those who say the West was built by white people through the exploitation of other races are completely wrong. The West was built on property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange. Thus, Mises explains that economic progress is essential to, and a precondition for, civilization. Those who yearn to keep their civilization, but abandon the pursuit of sound economics, will fail to achieve their goal. As Mises explains:
The natural condition of man is extreme poverty and insecurity. It is romantic nonsense to lament the passing of the happy days of primitive barbarism. In a state of savagery the complainants would either not have reached the age of manhood, or if they had, they would have lacked the opportunities and amenities provided by civilization. Jean Jacques Rousseau and Frederick Engels, if they had lived in the primitive state which they describe with nostalgic yearning, would not have enjoyed the leisure required for their studies and for the writing of their books.
In emphasizing that division of labor and a society based on cooperation and trade is essential to civilization, Mises did not mean that civilization is entirely attributable to economic theories. He acknowledged that, “There are many sources both of success and of error”; the science of economics is not the only science that explains the human condition, and economics cannot provide a complete explanation for why some nations are rich while others remain poor. There are many aspects of human nature that lie beyond the frame of reference for the economist, and are left to the study of human psychology or sociology. In other work, such as his book Liberalism, he explores some of these non-economic factors. Similarly, in “Nations by Consent” Murray Rothbard warns libertarians against forgetting the importance of community, of nationhood, and of belonging to a people.
However, in explaining the essential role of economics in laying the foundations of civilization, he emphasizes that ethnic loyalties and ties of racial kinship are causal factors of civilization only to the extent that they encourage cooperation and the division of labor. Mises observes that,
We may call consciousness of kind, sense of community, or sense of belonging together the acknowledgment of the fact that all other human beings are potential collaborators in the struggle for survival because they are capable of recognizing the mutual benefits of cooperation, while the animals lack this faculty.
Collaboration and cooperation are necessary; kinship on its own does not suffice. For example, no one can fault African tribes for lacking a strong sense of tribal kinship, but this alone has never brought them economic progress. The point is that, without sound economics, nations will always remain mired in poverty no matter how strong their ethnic bonds, and no matter what other admirable social and cultural qualities they may have. Again, this is not to argue that ethnicity and kinship are not important, but that racial bonds of loyalty are not, in themselves, the foundation of civilization.
Therefore, attempts to achieve a higher level of civilization, while at the same time rejecting individual liberty and dismantling the protection of private property, will inevitably fail. Without private property rights, any means adopted in hope of achieving economic success is incapable of yielding the desired result. This is not due to an inherent lack of reasoning ability among particular races, but due to error, folly, and ignorance of basic economics. Mises explains,
[Ethnologists] are utterly mistaken in contending that these other races have been guided in their activities by motives other than those which have actuated the white race. The Asiatics and the Africans no less than the peoples of European descent have been eager to struggle successfully for survival and to use reason as the foremost weapon in these endeavors. They have sought to get rid of the beasts of prey and of disease, to prevent famines and to raise the productivity of labor. There can be no doubt that in the pursuit of these aims they have been less successful than the whites. The proof is that they are eager to profit from all achievements of the West.
Taking the example of African peoples who are beguiled by communism and utterly convinced of their magical ability to make communism yield progress and prosperity, their stated goal remains that of achieving economic progress. The problem is not that they have no interest in being civilized. The problem is that the means they have selected—communism—will not and cannot lead to their desired goal. They are beguiled by Marxist thinkers to believe that communism has never really been tried, and that this time – under the guidance of communitarian African philosophies – they will finally bring about true and prosperous communism. In this they have demonstrably failed. Mises distinguishes between this type of failure to choose the correct means that will lead to the desired goal, and inherent inability to reason:
The North American Indians lacked the ingenuity to invent the wheel. The inhabitants of the Alps were not keen enough to construct skis which would have rendered their hard life much more agreeable. Such shortcomings were not due to a mentality different from those of the races which had long since used wheels and skis; they were failures, even when judged from the point of view of the Indians and the Alpine mountaineers.
Indeed, this is why people learn from others—they see that others have succeeded where they failed, and from this they deduce that those who succeeded must have employed superior methods to their own. It is basic common sense. Mises insisted that reason is a universal human condition. Although he acknowledged the association between Western civilization and white peoples (“It is vain to deny that up to now certain races have contributed nothing or very little to the development of civilization and can, in this sense, be called inferior”) he did not attribute this to an innate racial inferiority that could not be overcome. Similarly, he did not attribute the genius of white men to an innate racial superiority. He observed that,
We do not know what causes the inborn differences in human abilities. Science is at a loss to explain why Newton and Mozart were full of creative genius and why most people are not. But it is by all means an unsatisfactory answer to say that a genius owes his greatness to his ancestry or to his race. The question is precisely why such a man differs from his brothers and from the other members of his race.
The rejection of reason that has taken over institutions of the West is, therefore, a grave threat to Western civilization. The lesson to derive from Mises is that civilizational failure assuredly attends all who reject reason, regardless of their motivations and regardless of their race.
.jpg)
.png)
Saturday, July 26, 2025
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
I am a free speech absolutist
Friday, July 25, 2025
The paleolibertarian rights Anti-Semitic problem
The more I look at Lew Rockwell's blog the more I feel like I am looking at a Hamas media organization. At times seeming like the mecha of the anti-Isreal/Anti-Jewish right. Or should I say the Left mascarrading as the libertarian right. It is clear that the paleolibertarians; or ex paleos those of the anti Beltway position are really some of the most antisemitic people in this world.
This saddens me as their is no link between being anti the UniParty as some call the mainstream and siding against God's Chasen People as explained in The Holy Bible. I am pro-Isreal, anti-Hamas, Hezbullah and so forth while holding very much paleolibertarian leaning domestic policies. Isreal is fighting a legitimate and moral war against groups which seek to eliminate Jews from the world.
The non aggression principle allows for the sort of defensive force being used by Isreal against people that have and had threatened before hand to aggress against them. So I fully support Israel politically because of this. However, more importantly Ted Cruz was right on Tucker when he said the Bible says those whom bless Isreal will be blessed and those that curse Isreal will be cursed.
My being a Born Again Child of God comes before any political anything including my defense of liberty. So, if having to side agaibst Israel is required to be a libertarian I disown the political label.
Thursday, July 24, 2025
NARly Christian Nationalism - IT’S A PROBLEM - check links below
• Goshians and Politics: The Paradigm is C...