Prepper, The New "er" - Deriding Survivalism

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Image Source: CreativeUncut.com - "Survivalist"

You have all heard it before, the disparaging “birther”, “truther”, “bagger”, and now added to this impressive mass media lexicon is “prepper.”  While it may not seem immediately pejorative and I doubt many who are in fact preparing for the worst lose any sleep over being called a readier than most i.e. smart, this MSM nomenclature is typical of a system which harbors some incredible disdain for individual planning.  In the end the fact that being a prepper is self-proclaimed is just icing on the cake for them.

            Reuters today gives their take on it.  Evidently they believe this “subculture” never used to be our culture, there was no mention that this is in fact a movement of rediscovery not something wildly new.  Jim Forsyth of Reuters never reminded his readers that not so long ago we were mostly agrarian and self reliant, that this was prudent and normal behavior. 

The most interesting angle Forsyth took was the beneighted comparison of individualist movements and Christian fundamentalism as he harkened back to the gullible Millerites of the 19^th Century whom followed Joseph Miller and his belief in the immenent 2^nd coming of Christ. 

Forsyth’s article was peppered with ecclesiastical language meant to tie preppers with Christian occultism.  Using language like: “guiding light of the prepper movement”, J.W. Rawles book was described as the “prepper’s Bible”, “Glenn Beck seems to preach prepper’s message”, he interviewed Cathy Gutierrez an expert on “end-times beliefs”, and eventually in a seemingly back handed defense claimed preppers are at least not setting a date for the collapse like Harold Camping the crazed radio preacher of recent comic infamy. 

There was an interesting omission in this piece as well, the topic of guns even after a series of record setting months in nationwide gun sales.  Moreover, Forsyth claims it is not necessarily that preppers are afraid of terrorism, societal collapse, or an environmental cataclysm, but that they are “worried about no government.”  Really? 

Most preppers that I have run into would probably put government as concern #1 just above the Golden Horde in a serious meltdown, hence their rural domiciles.  There is nothing that gives me the willies more than some do-gooder FEMA agent corralling me into a camp “for my own good”, but hey that might just be me.

            In the end those whom are self-reliant, prepared and sleeping well at night knowing their future is a little more secure no matter what may happen are hardly bothered by this type of drive by journalism, just ask GreeneWave.com’s Prepper Don, but the effect is to downplay the danger of collapse.  Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.  Forsyth gave no examples of times when humanity should have been prepared, but weren’t - so here you go:

Irish Famine (1740 – 1741) – Central planning for potatoes led to 1 million deaths

Taiping Rebellion, China (1852 – 1870) – 100 million deaths

Weimar Germany (1918 – 1919) – Hyperinflation gave rise to Nazi Germany

Soviet Famine (1932 – 1933) – 6 million deaths

          Granted these are associated with big government or monetary mismanagement so here are some Mother Nature signature disasters, nice list can be found here:

Chinese Floods (1931) – Estimates of nearly 2.5 million deaths

Tangshan Earthquake, China (1976) – Estimates as high as 800,000

Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004) – Estimates as high as 310,000 deaths

Haitian Earthquake (2010) – Estimates as high as 316,000 deaths

          While much of these deaths were do to the immediate disaster many occurred through starvation and disease without access to needed supplies.  No list is complete without man-made disasters, which can poison populations and cripple local economies:

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, USA (2010) - $60 - $100 billion

Chernobyl, Ukrain (1986) –  €235 billion over 30 years

Three Mile Island, USA - $1 billion

Fukushima, Japan (2011) – Full magnitude of radiation and cost TBD

           In nearly all the aforementioned cases government was shown to be clearly inept and often to blame for policy decisions, timeliness of response, the lack of oversight, management of fallout and holding those responsible accountable.  Why try and malign people who are attempting to make sure they don't weigh too heavily on a government trying to help its citizens in a time of panic and disaster?  It would seem to me that we need to praise these individuals for taking a large burden off the state.  When the SHTF the best policy is the one you develop on your own.

Brazen Racism at Occupy Phoenix

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


The Tea Party has been consistently accused of racism and without substantial evidence.  This is an example of some of the most vitriolic rhetoric out there, but don't expect what you are about to see to characterize (nor should it) the Occupy "X" movement that is spreading nationally and around the world.   

Will this evidence show the left and the right that racism is a benighted feature of both sides of the political spectrum?  Doubtful... Regardless I have a lot more to show from Occupy Phoenix, coming soon...

Occupy Wall St. is 3 Years Late

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


Is Occupy Wall Street a new Tea Party?  The simple answer, no.

"Eat the Greed!"
Two things are certain, neither the rich or the greedy will ever go away so what do we do from here?

          If anything else, Occupy Wall Street is unfashionably late to the protest party.  It seems frustratingly clear that this part of the occupation is merely transient.  While I don't want to gloss over the libertarian streak clearly evident in signs protesting America's wars, police abuses and bailouts, many in the Occupy Wall Street crowd have been protesting the age old vice "greed" as if it has just reared its ugly head.  In this case their protest is about as productive as protesting lust.


          To ignore that big government (a frequent target in Tea Party demonstrations) and Wall Street (the target of this protest) collude to our detriment is to sacrifice an opportunity to point a public finger in the right direction.  This is not a failure of capitalism, but of brazen corporatism!  Washington and Wall Street created this mess by appropriating and creating nearly $13 trillion of our money in order to buttress teetering financial institutions.


          Ben Bernanke, one of the architects of the 2008 bailouts, has now admitted the recovery is "close to faultering."  Evidently their plan has failed leaving us with a debased currency, stratospheric debt and intolerable unemployment.  Much of the Occupy Wall Street is a reaction to this failure, not to the cause.  The occupiers are seeking ends not a return to restraint.  They see Wall Street getting theirs and they want in.  They are concerned about unemployment, lack of benefits and Wall Street's exorbitant bonus structure not the close relationship between elected officials and CEOs.  The opprobrium being foisted on Wall Street, is justified, but many are not seeing the forrest for the trees.


          In short, much of Occupy Wall St. are 3 years late.  The real protest should have taken place in front of the Department of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the White House and the FDIC.  If these elements of Occupy Wall Street are sated with more government spending in the form of free college tuition, universal health care and a living wage in the form of a Restoring the American Deal Act, watch the movement dissolve as quickly as it arose.


          There are highlights in the Occupy X movement, however.  Occupy Chicago has camped in front of the Federal Reserve for 11 days and there seems to be a mix of conservative and liberal elements.  Occupy Boston melodically chanted "fuck the Fed" to the beat of drums.

          It is possible, given these recent ancillary developments, there merely has been a strong effort by traditional organizations to re-inject themselves into relevancy before the elections.  It has been reported that labor unions have thrown their weight behind Occupy Wall Street.  Maybe it's the name Wall Street itself, which calls for the traditional left to come out and try to continue where they left off, but given the new direction and the new focus on the Federal Reserve these protests may turn out to be quite different.  Lets hope they are.

Want to know exactly who we're up against, who we should be protesting?  Click here.

Free To Die? Yeah!

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt from the movie
Fight Club.  Image Source: FoxMovies.com

"On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

- Tyler Durden, Fight Club

          A few days ago I linked to the bizarre reaction of the CNN/Tea Party Debate crowd to Wolf Blitzer's question of Ron Paul (R-TX), what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care?  Paul's reaction was unremarkably honest as usual, "that is what freedom is all about - taking your own risks."  Blitzer followed up, as if the conclusion wasn't already clear to everyone, "society should just let him die?"  To this, the audience cheered "Yeah!"  (and so Topher Morrison records what thousands of writers have already covered since Monday)

          Words have meaning.  At a certain point when their definitions become obfuscated by emotion and ignorance we cease to be able to use them effectively.   

So·ci·e·ty (noun)

        A community of people living in a particular country or region and having

        shared customs, laws and organizations.

Mr. Blitzer knowingly used the word society to bind our laws (compulsory rules) and by extension our government (agent of compulsion) with both customs and organizations of which do not necessarily have anything to do with law or government.  Furthermore, Mr. Blitzer by utilizing this rhetorical sleight of hand damned both customs and organizations to undue ineptitude without concern or debate!  

          Milliseconds later, the audience after not musing on these facts as audiences invariably do not and in reactionary mob rage, embarrassed themselves in front of God and country.  Essentially the American public heard: "Yeah, society (our customs, laws, and organizations) should not help this man!"  

          To the contrary, Dr. Paul briefly touched on the fact that society, properly defined, engenders thousands of charities, private organizations, foundations, research groups, doctors, friends, families, etc. which may be able to lend a hand, when and if, this situation arises.  The headlines, however, were not about Mr. Blitzer's pillaging of the English language, nor were they about Paul's measured response, but about the Tea Party's naked gaff.   

          Paul Krugman wrote about this today in the New York Times and proffered a new theory (at least to me) about F.A. Hayek, the esteemed economist with veritable super powers within the libertarian and conservative circles Dr. Paul frequents.  Mr. Krugman posited that Hayek "supports" (Krugman's words) a "comprehensive system of social insurance" (Hayek's words) when Hayek merely claimed the "the case for...social insurance is very strong."  Hayek after writting "Road to Serfdom" (from which these quotes were pulled) in an interview with two socialist economists Krueger and Merriam from the University of Chicago, clarified his position on social insurance: "It might well be made optional, which is not in contradiction to its being government assisted, but why it needs to be made compulsory I do not see in the least [my emphasis added]."

          Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Barack Obama's new Affordable Health Care (snore...) Act are all riddled with mandates and obligations, not to mention more pages than anyone would care to read.  To put it kindly, it is at this point government ceases to be a help and begins to be a burden.  Krugman cannot afford to use Hayek in support of the current paradigm on these grounds.  Considering all the directives stemming from Washington and with all the love and largesse our government showers upon us it is amazing the rest of American society continues to feel charity is needed at all.

          In the end Mr. Blitzer's question centered on a 30-year-old man who made the decision not to insure against future travesty, a right he theoretically exercised and if not helped out would undoubtedly pay dearly for.  Yet Paul Krugman like many liberals and progressives tirelessly proffer the red herring: "So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care?"

          Two things Krugman obviously refuses to understand: insurance is by definition to insure against future calamity; if you are already sick (preexisting condition) you can't possibly expect to get coverage, other options must be sought or created.  Moreover, insurance doesn't necessarily save lives, nor does it lower costs immediately or in the long term and most importantly not one insurance company, hospital or government for that matter promises an endless amount of care and for the obvious reason stated succinctly by Mr. Tyler Durden.

          The reaction by the Tea Party Expressers is why the original Tea Party vied for representative government rather than direct democracy.  We need professional leaders, men and women who can see passed the distortions, understand how to improve liberty and guard against tyranny mild or aggressive.  The most important reasons why we need these sentinels of liberty is to consistently remind Americans, with a cool head, that while life is a right and that government was erected to protect it, our government is not here to perpetuate it.  As far as nature is concerned, we are all star dust; it is up to us to remain human for as long as possible. 

(This article is way longer than I expected, I'm sorry.)

Libertarians and Conservatives, Who Understands the US?

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

A friend of mine asked me a couple of days ago: what is the difference between a libertarian and a Republican (or conservative).  I offered him a simple critique: while Republicans may deride big government at home, at least publicly, they applaud military adventurism abroad and reinforcing traditional values at home.  Libertarians on the other hand are consistent in their advocacy of liberty from government intervention in all arenas.

           We were talking about Ron Paul (R-TX) at the time and my friend was very confused (as is Rush Limbaugh) about why Ron Paul would run as a Republican, "He's not going to win" he assured me.  I reminded my friend that I had heard that more than once, but also reminded him that, albeit Ron Paul hasn't come close to winning the presidency, he has greatly influenced American politics.  

          Additionally, Congressman Paul has infused the GOP with a viral dose of libertarianism, which has set brush fires in the minds of millions of young conservatives (and popular progressives) which will no doubt spread in the coming years.  Ron Paul sparked the modern day Tea Party movement (which he receives little credit for) a fact some conservatives would love to bury.  

          He has shattered campaign fundraising records with spontaneously ordered (how wildly appropriate!) moneybombs, the most famous of which occurred on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party with 58,407 individual donations in one day, which undeniably anticipated the popular movement.  Since 2008 Ron Paul has doubled his political visibility, almost won the '10 Iowa Straw Poll, brought two sons into politics and launched one, Rand Paul (an ostensible libertarian), into a higher office than Ron Paul ever attained!

          While there has been much written on the difference between conservatives and libertarians Ron Paul has exemplified those differences.  He has shown libertarians labor towards a fixed set of philosophical principles while Republicans tend to favor pragmatic principles informed by charismatic leaders and the varying political winds.   

          My friend reminded me of as much: "[Republicans] don't want to hear some of that stuff", referring to Dr. Paul's more controversial positions.  This is because unlike libertarians, Republicans (very much like Democrats) are often swayed by demagoguery, according to Ron Paul in his recent book Liberty Defined:

"...[these] demagogues seek influence and political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, and expectations of the public.  They do not enlighten; they browbeat and play rhetorical games." 

          Paul showed in Monday's CNN/Tea Party debate he wasn't afraid to offend the prejudices of neo-conized Tea Partiers when he claimed 9/11 was in part a likely result of over 900 bases (that we know of) in 130 countries around the world.  He argued that 9/11 was arguably blowback from clandestine operations and overt intervention throughout the Middle East over the last 60+ years not merely because our culture is antithetical to fundamentalist Islam as Rick Santorum suggested - something conservatives in the audience expected to hear.  Dr. Paul even went further, admonishing the crowd, "...if your not annoyed by this there is something wrong!" 

          Libertarians are an international bread, whereas Republicans are found only within the United States.  They believe the Constitution was meant to extend beyond our borders as it defends "persons" not merely "citizens."  Not only can one find libertarian strains within left wing and right wing circles here in the US they are found internationally, albeit mostly in English speaking countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

          A Gallup poll (above) shows to me the most important synthesizing characteristic of the libertarian ideology.  Whereas Republicans and Democrats believe respectively that "big government" or "big business" are the biggest threats to the United States it is the libertarian who understands how the collusion of both these vested interests including, to a much smaller degree "big labor", threatens to our country.  Big government enables big business to buy political favor and cut down competition through regulation, barriers to entry and subsidies, which collectively raise prices, unemployment, profits and impoverishes the middle and lower classes. 

          Similarly, libertarians like Ron Paul understand like political winds the value of goods and services extend from the human mind alone!  Prices aren't set in some ivory tower at Harvard or Stanford and planes, trains, gold, bottled water and iPods don't have an inherent value besides what social needs and circumstance dictate.  Money is (or should be) the viewed the same way.  Why do we allow a few people like Ben Bernanke and a dark consortium of private member mega-banks whom run the Federal Reserve to dictate the worth of the dollars we hold in our hand?  For the same reason we don't allow them to decree what the tomatoes in our garden are worth.  

          It would seem in a democratic society, one that professes to have a free market, that the people should dictate the price of our currency transparently through Congress in accordance with the Constitution!  Never mind the standard on which the money is based (gold, silver, toenail clippings, etc.) libertarians want abolish this financial dictatorship, Republicans are coming around (a little) and 74% of Americans want it audited.  All signs the libertarian drum beat is being heard and felt.   

Image Source: Kevin Middleton at
RedBubble.com

          Lastly, there is something very special about libertarians and Ron Paul that America doesn't fully understand.  Ron Paul wants to put the "States" back into the United States of America!  Ask yourself an honest question: who is my state legislator?  Who is my state senator?  Who cares is probably the next question!  With so many decisions going on in Washington DC all eyes are now refocused on that humid swamp passed on long ago for greener more temperate pastures.  

          Many refer with derision to our 50 states enacting their own laws as a patchwork, a hodgepodge or a mishmash of different laws, but that was the original beauty of America.  In a phrase coined by Lord Bryce and popularized by Justice Louis Brandeis the separate states are seen as "laboratories of democracy" giving the United States a competition not only in the free market, but also in the market of governments, which generated fresh new ideas for public problems and therefore competed for citizens!  After 1913 when states legislators no longer elected Senators to serve as their ambassadors to Washington DC "senators became substantially less responsive to the policy interests of the state legislature."

          Besides the controversial legalization of drugs, dismantling of the FDA, EPA, CIA, FAA, etc. which bog down most debates over the libertarian ideology and Ron Paul's campaign there lies the magic we have lost in this country, respect for reason, life, liberty, property and most all limited government. 

          

RON PAUL SOUTH CAROLINA GOP DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com
5/6/11


"We don't have the 1st Amendment to talk about the weather!" - Ron Paul


Since FoxNews (outside of Andrew Napolitano and Neil Cavuto) rarely covers Ron Paul as aggressively as independent or alternative media we scoured the internet in search for some ripe highlights from the FoxNews GOP debate in South Carolina - in order to keep things fair and balanced of course. 


Ron Paul addresses everything from heroin to militarism in this short 16 min video reaping both applause and laughter from his southern audience.

Confederates in the Attic - Really?

Reason's Crier
by Topher Morrison

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Unlike many people I harbor a guilty pleasure while watching the Rachel Maddow show.  I enjoy the occasional cocktail she concocts if only because I wish I had a show in which I had an excuse to drink and drink well for that matter.  I find extraordinary eloquence in her perlocution, I enjoy her enthusiastic sarcasm and subsequent pause as if she's waiting for a laugh track that never comes.  She has a wonderful knack for talking right passed the debate by supplying her own self-contained argument albeit through abandoning the basic tenants of the opposition, but it is this frequently employed stratagem which allows Maddow to frame such an advantageous position.  There are rarely concessions in her take-no-prisoners approach to any exchange, therefore I find her to be a deft political pundit.

However, once her arguments are integrated with the facts  her self aggrandizing tirades are instantly dealt with as any pathogen would be within a body of truth.  


In Maddow's world:

- Nullification was used to support slavery and thereby claims only a nefarious history e.g. espoused by the likes of John C. Calhoun, vice-president of the Confederacy.


- The "nullification cause inspired a lot of anti-US militancy" ostensibly leading the South to war against the North.


- Nullification advocates "downplay" the Civil War being about slavery.


- "Confederate politics" are in fashion again 150 years after it lost on those ideas. 


- [Melissa Harris-Perry] Submits that confederate ideas moved out of the South during reconstruction and only thereafter the Civil War did it become a part of the national fabric.


- [Melissa Harris-Perry] In regards to the resurgence of these principles we would be "foolish to imagine this is uncorrelated with having an African-American president."


- [Melissa Harris-Perry] Having an African-American president brings up unresolved political baggage i.e. nullification, currencies based on gold/silver, etc. derived from the "confederate mindset."


- Derided are states who are "flexing their tenth amendment muscles, flexing their state sovereignty muscles, flirting with secession..." 


-  [Melissa Harris-Perry] posits that opposition to the recent Health Care Reform is based on an "others" i.e. latino immigrants, African-Americans, etc. anxiety where [white] people are made to believe they are going to be taken advantage of by minorities. 


- Almost out of nowhere Maddow concludes with: "There has never been a moment in US history where we would not have been better off with a bigger vocabulary for talking about class."


In the real world:


- The battle of Fort Sumter, which officially kicked off the Civil War is merely one event in a long chain of crises and confrontations between the North and South of which many rarely centered around the issue of slavery. 


- Abraham Lincoln heralded as the "Great Emancipator" used nullification to justify not returning slaves to the South after escaping to the North.


- Nullification has been used to extricate our states from the costly and futile drug war, however, Maddow's overtly Liberal audience wouldn't see too much red meat in the phrase “These neo-confederates are trying to destroy the union by refusing to comply with the drug war! Beware!!” 


- Nullification has also been used by half the states in the Union and is championed by the ACLU to reject Bush’s 2005 Real ID act.  Again no red meat there.


- While she did mention nullification of new "Food Safety" laws (as if simply pronouncing the contrived title forestalls the debate over its substance) she conveniently omits the fact that the recent "Food Safety and Modernization Act" passed by Congress creates yet another branch of government called the Food Safety Administration (FSA).  Isn't the FDA and USDA charged with the safety of our food and drugs?  Apparently more government is needed. 


- Maddow also avoids the fact that the 10th Amendment Center also advocates nullification of TSA pat downs and body scans which is definitely a sore subject for most Americans.  Maddow served herself well by avoiding that prickly issue, claiming that "Nullifiers want to inhibit the government from sticking their hands down your kids pants and radiating you with unknown amounts of radiation."  Wouldn't garner a whole lot of sympathy for her derisive argument. 


- In a classic Straw Man approach Maddow and Harris-Perry obfuscate the fact that principles of state sovriegnty, sound money, small central government (versus nationalist government), nullification of law, and secession from tyranny are part of our national tradition since the Revolution not merely that of the Confederacy which only thereafter bled into the national fabric.  


- Nullification is just one more weapon in the arsenal of freedom and something which our own jury system is charged with exercising if they deem state or federal laws to be unconstitutional.  Repeated repudiation of a given law by juries nullifies that law - this is constitutional. 


- The slave trade and its institutionalization in the South was deplorable, but to say the Civil War was predominantly focused on this issue is false.  The emancipation proclamation was delivered only well into the civil war, it had a strategic purpose for the North and is evidenced in the fact that over 1/2 a million slaves in Northern border states were not freed because of it until those states passed legislation to that effect.  The civil war was about the enlarging role of central government at the detriment of state government (this included the slave issue adding to the complexity of the debate), tariffs were an issue (what a surprise Americans fighting over taxes), a central banking system, standing armies, etc.  A significant shift from traditional mores was occurring in the 1860s some positive, but most negative in directions thereby leading to the Civil War.


It is in our best interest to emancipate ourselves from our oversimplified vision of American history and reclaim the truth about the Civil War and its legacy in American politics. 


For a southern libertarian view on the South and its secessionists tendencies here is the Southern Avenger.