Strangling The Formation of Aristocracy

Sovereign Man put up a little piece on Estonia's refreshing tax regime, a tiny bit of which got me thinking:

Plus there’s no estate tax– the Estonian government isn’t looking for its ‘fair share’ when you die. There’s no gift tax or wealth tax either. It’s Paul Krugman’s worst nightmare.

It just seems to me that an enlightened leader of men wants people to have estates. These estates are assets for the country at large, and successful transmission of private estates and their betterment through time allow countries to have better assets, more innovation, etc... Dynasties do fall, eventually, but this should not be an excuse to destroy them in the name of some so-called democracy- rather the conditions should be such that there is competition, so that if a particularly prestigious one falls, there shall be others to take over, preferably without bloodshed.

See, this is how we figure out who can actually rule a country. If you have multiple, ongoing, multi-generational concerns in a country, then you've got a higher chance to find someone competent. This would never do in our so-called democracy, so every attempt is made to destroy estates, for obviously these would be the first places from which a legitimate alternate authority could be found.

It should be obvious, given idiotic things like Common Core, that people like Bill Gates just don't fit the bill here. There isn't anything that smacks of multi-generational sense coming out of him.

A Papal Mimic No Doubt

A church, brought to you by people who clearly don't know what a church is:

What is that? Bubbles? There are more pictures at the link. Nothing about this design works. It is completely devoid of life. It is, essentially, an IKEA coffin.

The Wrong Kind of Memories: The Wrong Kind of Thought

There is a certain subsection of society for whom the entertainment industry has provided most of their life examples. In other words, instead of having real world experiences which brought them to understand this or that particular thing, they've got a particular episode of Seinfeld that made an impression on them stuck in the back of their mind. I suspect the people most effected like this are believers in gender as a social construct, and people who appear to be concerned about how many roles and what types go to women/minorities/gays/dolphins/or whoever they happen to be identifying with at the time.

In some ways, you can short circuit these people, because they probably only need leftist television to consume in their free hours, rather than the promised leftist utopia that the old left was always promising, but never came. There is only ever more revolution, and revolution is theft, so eventually there are a lot of poor revolutionaries with nothing left to steal. But if utopia is coming home from your food service industry job, nuking some GMO popcorn, and watching a bunch of ninety-eight pound women beat down men large enough to be linebackers..., well, things get easier for the purveyors of the utopia product.

It is doubtful, barring some unforeseen and prolonged absence of entertainment, particular of the kind that reinforces demonstrably false conclusions, that discourse alone shall prevail.

The Mercenary Corporatist State: A Militarized Border Coming Soon To A Neighborhood Near You!

Jack Spiriko (hopefully in this podcast) just provided me with some understanding.
He points out most of these so-called children are single young men who are almost certainly in debt to the cartels. You don't get shuttled through Mexico for free, and poor families in chaotic countries are unlikely to be able to pay.

Jack suggests, and I think it highly likely, that these young men will be in the employ of the cartels. This is an army.

I have been looking at this whole idea of Gazafication, and wondering how exactly it will be employed.

You might be able to find earlier blog posts where I was actually hopeful about corporations like the one formerly known as Blackwater, because I was rather unthinkingly free market. I am still free market today, but now I realize how joined at the hip corporations are with the government, and vice versa.

Israeli politicians enjoy the ability to interfere massively with Israeli life, thanks to holding a bunch of Palestinians in what amount to an open air prison. Some of these Palestinians are fond of sensational but tactically and strategically pointless violence. Whenever the politicians need overt control, they can seize it under the pretext of protecting the people.

Meanwhile, the mercenary corporations have their own set of incentives. Their clients are politicians, but a mercenary corporation is not fond of the idea of destroying itself in total war. It is worth noting the last clear period of mercenary war- the Italian city states. The mercenaries benefit by manning strong defensive positions and engaging in relatively little war.

If things go the way I am thinking, we will see violence break out as these young men go to work for the cartels. Eventually we will see a concentration of them in poor parts of various cities- these spaces will become the equivalent to Gaza. Militarized borders, drones, etc...- much of this stuff will come to American cities, and it will generally come with American citizens asking for it, because they will make people feel safe.

The people most in trouble are those who are already here and/or U.S. citizens who live in a predominantly Spanish speaking neighborhood because these young men will be inundating those neighborhoods first. If Compton is any indication, they will likely displace African Americans as well. When the mercenary solution is suggested and deployed, it will be to protect the upper middle class, and may even be mostly private- in the sense that if things get bad enough, I'm sure even the average HOA will buy protection from MercCorp.

That said, there will still be a U.S. military. The MercCorps don't want the cost of training their own soldiers- they like picking from the cream of the crop, after the U.S. taxpayer has sunk thousands of dollars in training into them. So there will always be a low grade crisis that culminate in operations like the one Israel is currently prosecuting in Gaza, to the purpose of shaping and maintaining whatever agenda is on the politicians' mind.

Israel started out as, and continues to be, a socialist country. They have figured out that a constant state of war contributes to the socialist agenda, since most of the productive people continue to produce and be docile to their chief enemy, the government, out of fear of the Palestinians.

Some Proof Ukraine Fighters Were Using International Flights As Human Shields Before MH17

Zero Hedge is claiming there are multiple reports that Ukrainian fighter jets were hiding behind MH17.
Additionally, there a video in which a young lady explains that they were doing this from June 18, 2014.

A policy in place before MH17 went down. The Kiev government chose to attack the Eastern Ukrainians and they further chose to endanger international flights.

New Lows In Reportage: Forgetting To Point Out Ukraine Fighter Planes Bomb Eastern Ukraine Cities

This morning I heard a news piece on the radio in which it was stated that Eastern Ukrainians had brought down two Ukrainian fighter planes, but it was treated like these Ukrainian fighter planes were just sauntering around, minding their own business. Now, I have been really disappointed of late, as to the level of discourse, intelligence, etc- America is a lonely place for someone with my interests, but has it really sunk to this point where the media assumes it can put this kind of crap out without it entering into the mind of the people that maybe, just maybe, the planes were up to no good?

The level of propaganda may have reached the point where they subvert comment systems. I never got a full resolution on it, but I did find myself banned on a site, and when I emailed the owner of the site, he professed not to even know how to ban anyone. When I looked at my Disqus account, I found comments in which I tried to correct these annoyingly ridiculous anti-Russian sentiments were what got me banned.

It feels massively weird to realize Putin may be the only sane person running a country these days, and that he may well be responsible for keeping us at peace as long as we have been.

Meanwhile, this starts to feel like a set up. Russia sells gas to Europe. The United States has a lot of gas. It would be nice if they'd just lower the price and sell it to us, but they've got a nifty idea- create enmity between Russia and Europe and then sell gas to the Europeans. I think Hilary Clinton rather shamelessly promotes this as something Europe needs to do as an 'alternative energy strategy,' because Putin (and by implication Gazprom) doesn't deserve their business.

If you bring it back down to private property, and the fact that local defenders are far more likely to be defending their homes and family than military forces that travel to an area, then the idea that Kiev is sending fighter planes to the eastern cities should concern you and make you assume the people there are defending themselves. If someone comes with guns to your home and you fight back, you are trying to defend yourself. This is why the S.W.A.T. teams in America shouldn't be raiding people's houses like they do nowadays. It makes no sense to be forced to give up your right to defend yourself just because someone allegedly shouted 'Police!' right before they began their home invasion. People other than the actual police can say that. Additionally, the police are just flat out not supposed to be doing this, but then I suppose it is completely laughable to mention the Constitution at this point.

Once good and evil were ascribed to actions and we would be exhorted to strive for good and avoid evil. Now good and evil are to people in a manner consistent with the perceived best interests in whoever is powerful enough to push the news agencies around.

Homesteading Independence

Practically speaking, I can't pull oil out of the ground, and things like mineral rights are a convention of our government's interpretation of property rights. The homesteading concept of property rights seems to suggest the property is what is homesteaded. In most cases, that means the surface of the land, wells, etc... When air travel became the rage, the courts sort of rudely decided upon some arbitrary rules so that airlines wouldn't have to deal with individual land owners. This is considered a violation of the homesteading principles, since particular farmers, for instance, could prove the planes flying overhead were causing damage to their livestock. So this is the government saying some damages against others are acceptable, if they like your sort of business enough. People don't like corporations being considered people in this country, but what we should be upset about is how often they are considered better than people.

Anyway, the flip side of this argument is that you can very reasonably assume that, despite the grand tradition of mineral rights and such, that one could assume that as long as the current homesteaded properties of the people aren't damaged in any way, whoever can do so has the right to do so.

So, I can see a framework for understanding property that would allow a people looking for independence to sweet talk the multinationals and let them take a lot of oil out of the ground while also allowing for the local shop owner's property rights to be protected. The danger is that once a deal is in place, if the multinationals do damage someone else's property, will appropriate restitution be made, or will excuses, like the excuses made for the airline industry become law?