MM Video: Is Cliven Bundy an American Patriot?

The Tea Party in Italy

So, not long ago it was brought to my attention that there is a (small but fervent) “Tea Party” in, of all places, the Republic of Italy. This caught my interest immediately, both because Italy would be one of the last places I would have expected such a group to exist and because I have a (many would say unhealthy) fascination with the libertarian crowd who are probably, I would say, the real backbone of any coherent message the Tea Party might have. I know, many people are scared of libertarianism (many readers here are I know) but, as I have talked about before, libertarianism always seemed to me to have something rather medieval about it and, all in all, I find the high middle ages pretty tough to beat. Anyway, who would have expected to see a Tea Party in modern Italy of all places? I had heard, of course, of some likeminded groups in the United Kingdom which would seem to make more sense than in non-English-speaking countries. Well, that is to say, as much sense as one could expect from British people supporting a group of conservatives and libertarians who took the name of their movement from an attack on a British company but, there’s no need to go into that.

Pointed toward the face book page for the Italian Tea Party, I must admit I was surprised to see so many American flags on display. I was downright stunned to see a Confederate flag on display (causing me to question whether Italians are aware of the connotations it has on this side of the pond) but in all honesty I could not help but feel a slight surge of pride to see the Texas flag displayed as well. Okay, admittedly, when it comes to Texas and Texans our pride surges fairly easily but they didn’t choose the Massachusetts flag, the South Carolina flag or the Idaho flag did they? Nope, it was the Lone Star of Texas and so that may have made me a bit partial even at first glance. In all seriousness though, I was in fact a bit troubled by how lonely the Italian tricolor looked amongst this rather American-dominated vexillogical display. I was also struck by how plain and empty the solitary Italian tricolor looked without the Savoy royal crest in the center. Surely an Italian Tea Party would be supporters of the old Kingdom of Italy and their former Royal Family?

I know many people at this point will be wondering how I could ask such a question. Libertarians, by and large, are not known for their monarchist sympathies. In America of course they have led the way in the revival of bashing poor old King George III and cheering American Revolutionary republicanism. “The Founders” are sacrosanct to most of them. However, when I was first told that there was a Tea Party in Italy, or as it was put to me, that there were actually libertarians in Italy, the first thought that occurred to me was that these people must surely be ardent admirers of the House of Savoy. After all, more often than not, the one thing more than any other that the Savoy monarchy is often attacked for is exactly what most hard-core libertarians uphold as the greatest virtue: self-interest. Since this is something the House of Savoy has long been accused of, I naturally assumed libertarians would salute them on the same basis. Now, perhaps I have more of a libertarian streak than I would like to admit but I never really understood the outrage directed at the Italian monarchy on the basis of acting in their own self-interest.

Usually, in my experience, this often involves the Italian participation in World War I which was around the time that Italian political leaders first began to toss around the phrase “sacred egotism” or ‘sacred self-interest’. The self-righteous attitude adopted by many toward the Kingdom of Italy in this regard, frankly always stunk of rank hypocrisy to me. After all, how many nations involved in World War I were not motivated by self-interest? Belgium was not certainly but who else? Perhaps Russia, certainly as concerns the Russian Empire it did not turn out to be in the interests of Russia to charge into war on behalf of Serbia. But Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Great Britain, Ottoman Turkey, Japan etc all had self-interested reasons for getting involved. And, again, I am not criticizing them for that in and of itself. Do we not expect governments to act in the best interests of their people? Perhaps the Italians were simply a little more honest about it. I never understood why the Kingdom of Italy was so often criticized for her territorial demands by countries who gained far, far more vast territorial concessions out of the conflict. It does not seem dastardly to me for a country that makes the supreme sacrifice of war to expect to have something to show for it when it is over. Great Britain and France added greatly to their colonial empires by the war and the Royal Houses of Serbia and Romania each gained far more territory from the conflict than Italy did despite the fact that each were conquered by the Central Powers during the course of it.

Whenever someone ridicules the House of Savoy for always acting only in their own best interests, surely Italian libertarians should join the monarchists in leaping to their defense. Of course, when this attack is usually made, it is divorced from the nation at large; that is to say, the Savoy kings are usually accused of acting in the interests of the monarchy and their dynasty rather than the nation as a whole. I would say that is untrue simply as it stands, however, a case could be made that many countries would have been better off if their monarchs had followed their own self-interest rather than listening to what was advocated as the “greater good”. After all, King Louis XVI of France had great reservations about intervening in the American War for Independence because he feared that it would encourage revolution against his own monarchy by aiding the enemies of another. However, his advisors convinced him that it would be in the best interests of France to see Great Britain humbled in North America. That ultimately didn’t work out well for the Bourbon monarchy or France as a whole which got the Revolution, the Reign of Terror and all the rest. German Kaiser Wilhelm II had similar reservations about helping Lenin get back to Russia, fearing that communist revolution could spread to Germany and threaten the House of Hohenzollern if it gained a foothold in Russia. For similar reasons he was prevailed upon that it would be better for Germany to get Russia out of the war no matter the method. Well, Germany lost the war anyway and the Kaiser lost his throne in the process.

There was also a time when the Savoy monarchy was criticized in the same way for being champions of free trade, something else prized by most libertarians, doing business with countries others thought should be off-limits. The first minister of the first King of Italy was well known for his acceptance of the profit motive and his pragmatic saying that, “Free institutions tend to make people richer” and that his efforts were not about destroying the old order at all. Cavour tried to reassure the class that had, over great periods of time, risen to the top by saying, “You will see gentlemen, how reforms carried out in time, instead of weakening authority, reinforce it; instead of precipitating revolution, they prevent it.” Indeed, one could look back all the way to Renaissance Italy and see in the incredible success of the city-states such as Genoa and Venice a clear example of the profit motive at work. How else could one perpetually flooded city founded by refugees rise to become the dominant economic and naval power of the eastern Mediterranean? What else made Genoa the economic center of western Europe? Italian Tea Party members of all people should recognize that profit is not a dirty word nor is acting in your own self-interest inherently wicked. They probably already do but they should apply those principles to the republic vs. monarchy debate as well.

Tea Party supporters and libertarians tend to be zealous individualists and this was precisely the argument used by HM King Victor Emmanuel III in denouncing the idea of republicanism. The Italians, he said, were too individualistic for republicanism to ever be successful in Italy. Yet, many libertarians and certainly most Tea Party people seem to think that republicanism is the only way. This, as we have pointed out before here, is quite absurd when one gives it more than a second of thought. Why should the benefits of private ownership over public ownership apply to everything except the highest office in the land? If the individual always does better than the collective, why do so many still insist on collectivism rather than individualism when it comes to the sovereign? If a parcel of land becomes worthless under public ownership but becomes profitable under private ownership, the same rule should apply for the country as a whole.

When a King does what is in his own best interests the country naturally tends to do better. When a collection of politicians, all claiming to represent the interests of the people, naturally do what is in their own best interest instead, all of their interests conflicting with each other, you get disaster. Or, you get the state of the Italian republic as it is today. Given the state Italy (and many others) is in today, I think some libertarianism, in any amount, would probably do them some good as far as their economy goes. For basically at least the last 90 years Italy has had a socialistic, state-run economy. Today we are witnessing the result of that so a little competition and respect for private property might be something they would want to at least consider.

These people are, obviously, republicans but it is just as obvious that they shouldn’t be. Keeping in mind that the first republican government in Italy since unification was the Italian Social(ist) Republic of Mussolini, what has the republic given to Italy? Looking today we see a Communist Party member as President, a Prime Minister who has totally sold-out Italian sovereignty and independence to the European Union and who is simply their tool in Rome, we have a system that squashes creativity, innovation and industry of any kind and which has delivered corruption, economic collapse, a divided populace and a state enslaved by the bonds of debt to foreign agents. I would also remind the people of the Tea Party, Italian libertarians and all Italian republicans that this, aside from the anti-democratic aspects, is exactly what their hero Giuseppe Mazzini wanted. He wanted a “United States of Europe” in which the Italian republic was simply one minor member among many. It is no exaggeration to say that the Kingdom of Italy represented the only system which proudly and strongly stood for independence, not dependence on some foreign power or international organization. Even anti-monarchy historians have considered it praiseworthy that the era of the republic has made Italy content with mediocrity and second or third-rate power status. All those who desire true freedom, real independence and the pursuit of success should embrace the monarchist alternative.

Concerning Congressman Paul

As a politician, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is really one-of-a-kind. He possesses many qualities almost unrecognizable amongst his fellow politicians. For one thing, he is consistent (a positive phenomenon amongst the political class). He was saying the exact same things about the Constitution, the Federal Reserve, states’ rights and foreign policy thirty years ago that he is saying now. After all of that time he is the only politician who, I would say, truly and sincerely believes the things he talks about and the principles he advocates. Ron Paul is also the only one who has been telling the truth about the Federal Reserve system, he saw the current crisis coming a very long time ago and he is the one politician who I would put my money on being sincerely devoted to the Constitution above all else. Part of the reason his sincerity can be believed is that he has held to his principles and said things that are, frankly, politically suicidal and widely unpopular. This includes his statement that federal integration laws were unconstitutional all the way to his assertion that there should be no federal laws against drug use. He is one-of-a-kind.

Naturally, a politician is still a politician and because Ron Paul is such a rarity many people tend to forget this. Most of those who like Ron Paul positively worship him and react with extreme emotion to any criticism or even any insufficiently effusive praise of the man. However, I will risk that to point out what those of us in Texas have long known. He is not perfect. I know it will not matter to his worshippers but I will say nonetheless that he is probably as close as any politician I have ever seen to being perfectly sincere and honest but, I am sorry, he is not totally pristine. For example, Ron Paul proudly says that he has never voted for any “pork barrel” projects or earmarks or that sort of stuff. As far as I know, he is being honest in saying that. Technically. However, he is being a bit disingenuous as he has inserted pork barrel projects into bills, knowing they would pass in any event and then vote against them so that his district will get their share of government goodies, thanks to him, while “technically” his hands remain clean since he voted against it. He is by no means the only politician to pull this trick but when he is otherwise so honest and consistent it stands out with him all the more.

The problem, though, is that as much as I like most of what Ron Paul says and as far and above the rest of the denizens of Congress I think he is, the fact is that he could never be elected President of the United States nor could he ever win a Republican Party primary. There are a number of reasons for this, and I am not saying it is right or fair or anything like that, I am simply pointing out the facts of the matter. There are simply too many voting blocks that would never vote for him. There is a reason why most politicians are not like Ron Paul, they have learned that you have to be a little dishonest and inconsistent to get ahead. You have to say things you don’t believe or change what you “believe” in order to appeal to different groups. That is why they win and Ron Paul does not. This is unfortunate because in some cases (but not all) it is the very things I like best about Ron Paul that would prevent him from ever winning national office or even the chance of running for that office. Let us take a look at a few examples of this.

African-Americans will never vote for Ron Paul. That should be no great surprise. For decades almost the entire African-American population has voted overwhelming for the Democrat Party and will not consider ever voting for anyone else. In the last few decades African-American loyalty to the Democrat Party has been a consistent 80-90%. There are also more African-Americans on some form of government assistance than any other group and Ron Paul wants to get rid of all such programs. So, African-Americans will *never* vote for Ron Paul. Similarly, Hispanics have been pretty loyal Democrat voters, not to the extent of some others, but they would never cross the aisle to vote for Ron Paul either. Ron Paul wants to pull American troops out of their bases around the world and deploy them to the U.S.-Mexican border, he wants to cut off all aid and assistance going to illegal aliens (predominately from Mexico) and end other programs that would ensure Hispanics would never vote for Ron Paul. He has also said secession is something that should not be taboo and that really upsets Hispanics these days, especially when it concerns Texas.

Moving on, Jewish-Americans would never support Ron Paul. This is not often talked about but it is the State of Israel that receives more foreign aid from the United States than any other foreign power and Ron Paul wants to cut off all foreign aid. The Jewish-American population is not going to like that idea nor would they ever vote for someone who thinks it is okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons and is opposed to the United States intervening militarily in the Middle East (or any other part of the world). Jews would never vote for Ron Paul. Also on the religious front, conservative Christians would never vote for Ron Paul. Although he shares many of their values, he does not believe the government has any place in regulating morality. Ron Paul has said, because of his strict interpretation of the Constitution and states’ rights, if the states want to legalize drugs, prostitution or gay marriage he would do nothing to oppose them. He has stated on many occasions that the government should not be about enforcing any sort of public morality and conservative Christians would never vote for someone who is okay with narcotics and prostitution being legal, no matter what the reason is. Those are mostly Protestants but likewise the Catholic Bishops would never support a candidate who wanted to put troops on the border and end social welfare programs as well as opposing the regulating of values issue. Christian conservatives would never vote for Ron Paul.

The people who pride themselves on being the knowledgeable ones concerning the economy and foreign policy would, likewise, never vote for Ron Paul. On the economic front, there are many people on Wall Street, the economic think tanks and the like, who would never vote for someone who wants to tie the economy to the gold standard. No matter how much sense it might make, they would never agree to limiting the growth of the U.S. economy to the amount of gold the country could acquire. They would probably also wet their pants over the abolition of the Federal Reserve and most federal economic regulations. Then there is the issue of foreign policy wherein Paul breaks ranks with most of his fellow GOP members. Their disagreement usually stems from their contradictory point of view. They think it would be injurious to American security and American interests for the U.S. to pull out from her many bases around the world and effectively adopt an isolationist foreign policy. Ron Paul believes that this would ultimately make the United States safer, that Islamic terrorists would not attack the U.S. if we did not maintain bases in their countries and ally with foreign leaders they oppose. Switzerland is often held up as an example; they engage in no foreign alliances and no one bothers them.

One may agree or disagree with Ron Paul on that point (the majority would disagree as the U.S. has never really been isolationist) but the actual practicality of it is never discussed. To some extent, I agree with Ron Paul on this issue, but only to an extent. However, I have never heard him address it beyond the talking points of the “military-industrial complex”, “bring our troops home” and ending the “American empire”. Agree or disagree, the fact is that the U.S. has signed many treaties and alliances with foreign powers and those are not things America could easily walk away from. My problem when it comes to blaming American intervention for anything in general is that one never knows where to neatly begin or they never address the myriad different possible scenarios in which things could have gone worse rather than better without American involvement. But not of that matters now. Right now the U.S. has obligations to numerous countries around the world and if America were to withdraw support from so many different countries, whether it was Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia or any other there would be dramatic and immediate consequences.

The United States is now a nation of minorities, more multicultural than at any other time in her history, and for every nation that would be affected by American isolationism there would be at least one ethnic group that would not be voting for Ron Paul. In the past such might not have been the case, but it is now. Personally, I would have no qualms about telling Europe to start footing the bill for their own security or to tell any nation that opposes American interests they can no longer count on American foreign aid or American forces to save their hides when they get in trouble. I would feel bad about leaving Japan in the lurch since the U.S. is the one that nuked the fighting spirit out of the Japanese almost completely but, even then, many already see the wind shifting and are speaking out in favor of being the ally of Red China rather than the unreliable Americans. That points to the problem of who would fill the vacuum left by an American withdrawal around the world. It would certainly not be the old colonial powers of Great Britain or France but would be Red China and perhaps some coalition of Muslim theocracies led by Iran on one side and a new “Islamic Republic of Arabia” on the other.

Good or bad, right or wrong, all of these are reasons why Ron Paul has never been elected to national office and will never be elected to national office. He simply doesn’t fit the current political system. At times he is also too honest such as when he said it was wrong for the U.S. to have killed Osama bin Laden. He made a very high-sounding argument to back that up, but when I heard it my eyes rolled in my head and I said, ‘there goes his chance of ever getting elected’. Even if another politician felt that way (and many Democrats do) they would certainly never say so publicly, especially so close to the ten year anniversary of 9-11. So, Ron Paul is a rare bird indeed, one of the most admirable politicians in the American government today and one of the painfully few who is consistent, principled and sincere. I have often stated that I would like to see him be President of the Republic of Texas but he has about as much chance of achieving that as he does of becoming President of the United States.

The Election Results Are In

It has been quite an evening for politics in the "Great Republic". The GOP has come storming back after being declared DOA only two years ago. Picking up fewer than expected Senate seats but more House seats than even many of the most optimistic forecasts there is now no doubt that the Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives and have a much larger presence in the Senate. Anger over the socialist policies of Obama sparked a massive conservative turn-out and the regime of Nancy Pelosi is most definitely over. Here at home Governor Rick Perry was reelected yet again after being our Governor for the last 10 years -a state record. That came as no real surprise though. In La Florida the Democrats quite simply got spanked. In general Republicans were the big winners. However, dramatic as the results have been, and with all the Tea Party talk on both sides I cannot help but see this as, to some extent at least, still a victory or at least not a defeat for the established political machine. It was certainly no sweeping victory for the "Tea Party candidates".

The most prominent faces of the Tea Party have been mostly a list of defeats. To be sure there was victories like Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, but Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware, McMahon lost in Connecticut, Paladino lost in New York, Tancredo lost in Colorado and Sharron Angle lost in Nevada. The northeast remains liberal Democrat, California remains liberal Democrat but middle America and the deep south are firmly in a sea of Republican red once more. The loss of O'Donnell and Angle stand out particularly because of their core support coming from the Tea Party and the fact that the GOP were against the both of them and they ended up losing. Whether it was because of their own failings, a lack of political support from their own parties or due to the media war waged against them is anybody's guess but despite all of the Republican crowing tonight I cannot believe that, in light of such losses as Angle, O'Donnell and possibly Miller in Alaska (results not in yet at this time but early reports were not too favorable), I cannot imagine the Tea Party people being too overjoyed tonight.

In any event, as someone who follows yet despises politics I can say it has been a very, very "colorful" campaign season. Illegal-alien maids, "Aqua-Buddha", "Taliban Dan", the WWE, The Rent Is Too Damn High Party, the weekend Waffen-SS candidate and allegations of witchcraft -I don't think I have ever been through an election quite like this one and I am very glad it is over and I won't have to see anymore of those horrific commercials anymore.

In parting, I offer this as a swan song for Christine O'Donnell...

Tax Day Tea Parties

Today is income tax day in the United States and "Tea Parties" are being held all across the country in protest of the expanding power of the federal government, the unprecedented federal spending and the huge tax increases that are on the way. The protests are drawing inspiration from the (rather silly) Boston Tea Party which was one of the events leading up to the American Revolution. Although I am of the Tory persuasion (in terms of the American Revolution not the modern political parties) I am fully supportive of these tea parties. Many of the protestors are flying Revolutionary War flags, particularly the rattlesnake "Don't Tread on Me" design. Having nothing of the sort in my flag cabinet I graced my flag pole with the nearest thing I had; the Grand Union flag which was used by the Continental Army prior to the declaration of independence (hence the Union Jack in the canton).

The Obama administration has instructed the Department of Homeland Security to keep a close eye on the protests even though they are completely peaceful. However, in my home state anyway I have heard more than a few sane, normal people who have said that it might come to that for the ruling elites to pay attention and finally change their ways. At the same time, my home state of Texas is passing a resolution to reassert our sovereignty and to emphasize the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution which states that any power not specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the states -something the federal government seems to constantly forget. Every election the party out of power promises to remedy the mistakes of the previous administration only to do the same or worse as soon as they get into power. In the last election it was the Democrats who were crying about the rampant spending and power accumulation of the Bush administration. Now that Obama is in office he is spending even more than any administration in American history and keeping all of the powers Bush claimed for the executive branch.

To put the tax issue in terms monarchists might be able to identify with I will say that the current situation here is the opposite of what happened in the English Civil War. Then it was the Roundheads who were opposing taxation, however, the money King Charles I wanted was to fund the operation of the government and to pay for the military (due to the war in Scotland mostly). I can assure everyone that no one involved in these tea parties would protest paying taxes to support our military. In fact, the military budget is one thing that Obama has cut funding for. What these protests are about are the tax dollars going to bail out private companies and then expand government control over them or any of the myriad pork projects that tax dollars have been allocated for such as studying why pigs stink, paying for tattoo removal and looking into the uses of wood (I only wish I were joking). If things keep on as they are going, if the Obama administration continues to refer to its domestic opponants as "terrorists" while refusing to use that term to refer to the fanatics who have attacked us and killed thousands of people things are going to get worse and I would say that civil violence and even challenges to the Union itself would not be impossible. If things get worse I would say, in my own state, it would not be impossible for the state to hold a referendum on leaving the union and resuming our independence as the Republic of Texas.

Jacobins in the USA

Does the current economic crisis have anything to teach us about the long struggle between monarchy and republicanism? When ACORN is shuttling professional protestors to the homes of AIG execs to threaten them, when protestors in Britain are vandalizing RBS offices and when French workers are taking their bosses hostage I have to wonder if we are seeing the fruits of the romanticization of the French revolutionaries, English roundheads and their ilk. However, very few people pose the common sense question (other than at least one or two right-wing radio hosts I of heard) which should have been asked about the French Revolution or almost any other.

Did the death of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette fill the stomachs of any starving Frenchmen? No. The same is true over and over again. The wealthy members of society in the US and Europe who are being punished by their governments through socialism, taking what they have through taxes to give it to others; is making the wealthy poor going to make any poor people rich? This is the culmination of the revolutionary mentality that was seen so vividly in the French Revolution and the destruction of the monarchy as a 'necessary symbolic act'. I think about it every time I hear President Obama talking about "fairness" in the economy. Thinking of the world and society in terms of "fairness" is one of the major traps of the revolutionary agenda.

I am reminded often lately of the criminal "trial" and regicide of the great King Charles I of Britain. After remaining silent through most of the ordeal because, as a monarch, he refused to recognize any court as being competent to sit in judgement on him, King Charles I gave a very eloquent, honest, insightful and today politically incorrect statement about what it was he was fighting for. Parliament or rather the radical roundheads insisted that they were fighting for the "rights" of the people to have a voice in government (which they quickly forgot as soon as the King was dead) but King Charles stated very honestly that having a part in government was basically nothing to do with the people. A subject and a sovereign are two totally different things according to Charles. The great King said that he was fighting for by fighting for his own royal absolute rights was the absolute right of every person of his dominions to what was truly and legitimately their own. Be it a crown, be it property or be it a bonus it was about no one being able to take away what was rightfully yours.

With the demonic Bolshevik revolution, the march forward of socialism but all going back to the French Revolution in its roots, this is exactly what the enemies of civilization have been fighting against. They encourage jealousy, covetousness and envy so that one will want to tear down those who have in order to fight over the scraps while the revolutionaries rise to power on the bloody path the people clear for them. King Charles, defenders of property rights, the sanctity of vested rights, all of this which is often associated with monarchy is about making people, not free, not democratic but independent which is the surest form of freedom there is. The revolutionaries, on the other hand, the Bolsheviks and their compatriots of other names, might give all sorts of "freedoms" and talk about rights and fairness and democracy all they like but their ultimate goal is a massive political machine under their control which makes everyone dependent on government -robbing them of their independence and thus making everyone a slave just as surely as if they were all wearing shackles.

Whenever royal rights, royal powers and the like are taken away the revolutionary information services never ask the question about who is going to be taking over these powers or what independence we all lose when the monarch loses his or her independence to rule.