A Conservative

A Conservative.

WHY I AM ONE

The bizarre bohemian bilge that plagues conventionally left-wing schools of thought, whether from Marx or Rawls or Chomsky, is just not for me. For the most part anyways. Since I’ve become more (this is an understatement; I have gone much farther than, say, Glenn Beck) of a libertarian (a classical liberal while socialists are usually just reverse reactionaries), I’ve learned to make some exceptions. This has tended to be more on the level of semi-reluctant tolerance than on that of open-armed embrace. Continue reading

One Year Later at PTPOL

One Year Later at PTPOL.

Well, this blog has been registered at WordPress.com for one year now. It took a while to get it off the ground, but it hit the ground running. (How’s that for a mixed – and contradictory – metaphor, by the way?) Click here to learn more about the blog, and here to learn a little bit about it’s author.

140 posts, 6,602 views, 482 comments, 200 WordPress likes, 192 Facebook likes, 54 followers on WordPress, 1150 followers on Twitter.

Not bad for an amateur one-man team, right? Well, its the readers that are more to thank. Without them there really is no point in writing.

Continue reading

There is, However, Another Way of Looking at, or for, Socialism.

There is, However, Another Way of Looking at, or for, Socialism.

Hey all, it’s been ten days since my last post (but I’ve got more than 30 drafts, some of which I will discard, others may be outdated, yet a decent amount of which I hope to post in the near future). I’ve been somewhat busy with researching environmental organizations and “green” energy subsidies. I won’t bore you with any of the details (yet?), but I’d like to share some of my general observations.

The pattern I have seen develop for the different types of energy, as well as their advocates, is that, Continue reading

Pearl Harbor! Why?

Pearl Harbor! Why?.

World War Two, the last war in which the United States declared its entry in accordance to the Constitution (as in Congress says there is a war and prescribes specifically who against and why, not the UN, not NATO, not the international community, not the president on his own, not the president with Congress making a law giving itself the authority to turn a blind eye ). The Second World War. Not a just war, at least as it pertains to United States entry, but at least a technically “legal” one.

What were the reasons for going to war? There are likely several theories (one of which I formulated myself, but make no claims to being the first). One of them listed here is generally accepted but rests on very shaky ground. Another (also listed) is conventional wisdom, is true even, but relies on circular logic, and the next three I have listed are more plausible but get less play in mainstream circles. They might even be considered conspiratorial. Even more so for the last theory. Until, that is, they are compared to theories that blame the Illuminati or the Jews or the Reptilians among us, which, sorry to tell you, are not listed here.

1. Adolf Hitler was a madman and the Roosevelt Administration and Congress were far sighted enough to realize that if the United States did not go to war (using Germany’s ally, Japan as a pretext), there would be no stopping der Führer from his designs of world conquest. You mainly read this one or very similar ones in the comments section on websites.

This is all so very sensational, and equally absurd. Hitler still had to face down the mighty Soviets (it is true the Soviets suffered the worst losses of the war but they had not yet begun to fight), and his empire was far from a stable one. It remains possible that FDR and company thought Hitler was going to subjugate the entire world, but those arguing this case are likely just projecting pure motives on a man who is their hero for reasons other than his foreign policy. Let me be blunt: Franklin Delano Roosevelt was no hero. He was an effective leader, and by that I mean a tyrant, but not a hero. His administration was probably one of the least transparent, most dishonest, administrations in history, and while some think that his ends were good and therefore all of this is justified, my opinion is that neither his means nor his ends were all that noble.

2. The United States went to war with Japan because Japan provoked the United States. Another mainstream (but less exaggerated) explanation.

This is true on the surface because the declaration of war, in point of fact, did indeed come after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But it is far more accurate to say that Japan went to war with the United States because the United States provoked Japan. Japan made war first by attacking Pearl Harbor (this day 71 years ago), and the United States had little choice but to either lose face and back off from its provocations of Japan or double down and go to war. The same choice that the Japanese faced as a result of the embargoes and sanctions placed on them by the United States and other Western powers. Needless to say, rather than dishonor themselves by relinquishing their conquests Japan chose instead to attack United States soil, shifting the pressure to someone else. Predictably enough, the United States followed suit. This theory still begs the original question. Why?

3. The United States was doing the bidding of other Western Powers, specifically Anglo-Dutch economic interests, and deliberately provoked Japan to war in order to help the governments, economic interests, and allies of Great Britain and Holland (and the Dutch government in exile) to maintain their colonial and petroleum holdings in Southeast Asia. I like to think of this theory as my own, but it doesn’t seem like it would be that hard for anyone to see the connections.

This sounds awfully conspiratorial, but it follows the same trend of many later US interventions (at least three with Iran, four with Iraq, and two with Libya). The events leading up to Pearl Harbor are compatible with this theory, but don’t necessarily prove it.

4. The United States was doing the bidding of Great Britain, just as it had clearly done it World War One, and was brought in as an ally against Germany, but because Germany had no clear quarrel (at least not one worth it for them to declare war over) with us, needed a pretext and used Japan’s attacks (which were provoked, perhaps deliberately) for one. This is LaRouche type of stuff, but again, it is not hard to see the connections. In my humble opinion, the assertion that World War One was entered by the United States as a favor to Great Britain is beyond reproach (not to mention that it dovetails rather nicely with the passing of the Federal Reserve and Liberty Bond acts, which greatly aided the attempts by the United States to bail out Great Britain after the war, but those might just be convenient coincidences).

Another one with questionable merit at first glance, but again borne out by the US foreign policy trends. United States involvement in World War One was largely the result of the pleading of Great Britain. It is also consistent with Germany’s response to US declaration of War on Japan. In World War Two, Germany avoided declaring war on the United States until after the United States declared war on Japan. But they did declare war first (between Germany and the US). Why would Germany do something so ill-advised? One possible answer is hubris. There is probably some truth to that but it still seems to be missing something. Another possibility is that Germany knew that the United States going to war with Japan was little more than a pretext for war with Germany. According to this line of thinking, war with the United States was inevitable. Why delay it any further? By the same token, if the United States had never gone to war with Japan, it may be that the Germans would never had declared war on the United States.

5. The United States was doing the bidding of the USSR, and drew Japan into war with itself so the Soviets would only have to fight on one front, that of Germany. This theory seems to come originally from Waldo Heinrichs (died 1959), from which work I do not know.

Again I will point to trends. The Yalta Conference (which destroyed the entire British excuse for declaring war on Germany, the liberation of Eastern Europe), the events resulting from Japanese surrender and Allied Occupation of Japan (more communist footholds in Kuomintang/nationalist China resulting in Mao’s Peoples’ Republic of China and the death of 70 million people, diplomatic tensions between mainland China and the US over the Republic of China/Taiwan even in the present day, the Korean War as well as the North’s current criminally insane dictatorship, the Viet Nam War, the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, and the Khmer Rouge’s murder of  2 million in Cambodia, but who’s counting?), and the disgustingly warm Anglo-American-Soviet relations at almost all levels (civil government, military, academia, labor , and even big business) prior to, and at times even during, the Cold War, are consistent with this theory.

6. Japan was the pretext for US involvement in World War Two, but the reason for entering the war at all was to provide a form of public works based economic stimulus, the intention either being recovery from the Great Depression (which was rooted in World War One involvement) or distraction from it (and the domestic policies that deepened and broadened it). Regardless of what was intended by this Keynesian experiment, it seems only to have succeeded in the latter. This argument is usually, but not always made in a retroactive way. As though the “fact” that World War Two led to economic recovery is another reason to justify involvement.

I do not know how strong of a theory this is in terms of the thoughts going through the heads of the Roosevelt Administration and the Democratic Congress. Surely military Keynesianism, whether espoused by Keynes himself or not, was a predictable outcome of a world war even prior to the war. There is no reason that peaceful and wartime spending should have different effects, or that world leaders wouldn’t be aware of that fact. And as Keynes was advocating the former since the 1920s and was taken seriously by the British and American governments in the 1930s, it is not a stretch to think that any stimulative spending, including war, could be motivated by or rationalized on Keynesian ideas.

If someone has alternative theories that they have heard or discovered, or reasons why any of the ones listed above are complete  nonsense, I would love to hear from them. I am temporarily revoking Godwin’s law (actually it is a “law” modeled after the immutable laws of physics, but for the sake of having fun I’ll treat it as a prohibition that has been lifted) for just this post, so fire away.

I have consulted Wikipedia, and yes, my memory of events, for the material facts, and beyond that only this piece.

I have written about some of these things and related matters herehere, and here as well. There will be more to come, including a post on energy independence, which is finished and just needs an opportune moment in which to be showcased.

Funding for AXED: the End of Green Starting to Get on Pace

Funding for AXED: the End of Green Starting to Get on Pace.

AXED -- Kicktraq Mini

The project raised $7,492 on Wednesday, moving our average amount needed per day till the end of the project from about $2,500 to about $1,500. We are confident we can raise the $13,599 needed to reach our goal in the next week. If you are reading this on Thanksgiving, and/or plan on shopping till you drop on Black Friday, please save this link to the project somewhere you will see it over the weekend and donate $1, $5, $100, or whatever you can afford. This is an independent, grassroots effort and I can attest to the abilities of all of the individuals involved.

If you have a problem with the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, malaria in Africa, bed bugs in major cities, US dependence on foreign oil, United Nations treaties and initiatives, takings of private property, restrictions on your ranching/agricultural and hunting rights, your tax dollars going to waste on the pet projects of special interest groups with an often anti-industrial, anti-economic, anti-autonomy, anti-liberty, and/or anti-human bent, then get involved; this film will not disappoint.

FREE GIVEAWAY PROMOTIONAL, PHASE SIX

Anyone who reblogs this (or related posts) on any blog platform will receive a free copy of the finished product when it arrives (slated for Earth Day 2013). Those using a platform other than WordPress will need to contact me and let me know at hank@axedthemovie.com. I have 20 DVDs to give away and 2 of them have already been claimed. Those that pledge have the chance at additional rewards.

Press Release for AXED: the End of Green

Press Release for AXED: the End of Green.

For Immediate Release

Three Weeks Left in Kickstarter Campaign to Fund AXED: the End of Green, a Film About Counteracting the Effects of Green Radicalism

The Film

Billings, MT – November 8, 2012 – AXED: The End of Green is an innovative new documentary from award-winning independent filmmaker Jeffrey D. King. It is currently in the fundraising stage and has been pledged some $17,282 from 153 backers so far. The team is ramping up their efforts for the final push and Mr. King is enthusiastic that he can reach his $50,000 goal by his November 30th, 1:59 AM EST deadline, especially now that the election is behind us. But not without more help from backers. He will not receive a dime unless the project is fully funded, to $50,000, the minimum needed to produce this film.

The subject has been touched on before, but Jeffrey and his crew maintain that their claim that this film will help effect the end of the green movement should not come as a surprise. While people like Al Gore and Lisa Jackson and things like Solyndra and Climategate have been conservative fodder many times over, these are seen by the makers of AXED as mere branches and blossoms on the tree that is the modern environmental movement. They instead seek to hack deep down to the roots and expose and cut off things at their source. Hence AXED. Not all by themselves, as they hope their film “will serve as a catalyst, a rallying point, for people concerned about abuses by the green movement in both government and the media, as well as to educate those not yet fully aware of what is going on around them. All that is really needed to bring this dangerous movement to its knee’s is a well timed, well placed, and well delivered blow. What better time than now? What better place than here? What better medium than film?” to quote J. D.

The Message

Rather than slosh together a few nature scenes, economic statistics, and interviews, the film will pay attention to quality and detail, which are key to keeping the audience engaged. To this they need the right team, sufficient funding, and a plan both cohesive and comprehensive. But this is just the technical side of things. What are the actual points the film is trying to make? We have asked one member of his marketing team to give us a few of them. Here’s what he has to say:

“The green movement has failed at it’s stated and/or publicly acknowledged objectives. What many of the more sincere ones, who are the bulk of the movement but tend to be low in the ranks – this is a fairly standard arrangement in top-down movements – neglect is that economic growth, private property rights, and bottom-up, decentralized modes of organization and governance are actually all conducive to a healthy, clean environment, and not the other way around as maintained by many on the left. This is even more the case when these things are in combination. The benefits are multiplied. So when their goals are to save the environment and yet they fail exceedingly to do so, in many cases making things worse or creating new problems, no amount of political power they have accrued and policies they have implemented can be cited as evidence in their favor.”

“The green movement has succeeded in co-opting the coercive power of government to achieve specific policies. But these policies do not help the environment, per se. What they accomplish in the main is to tie up resources, tie up jobs, tie up growth, and tie up our liberties. These things are not conducive to helping the environment and so can and often do cancel out the supposed benefits of the policies, if there even were any. Most rank-and-file greens don’t seem to know this. They are well-meaning but easily manipulated. But I honestly think that the higher-ups do know it, yet it remains of little concern to them because their real intentions inevitably have little to do with clean air, clean water, or clean energy. Raw power is their motive. It is a hard thing for those who make it to the top to remain pure, to enact policies that some how don’t increase their power. It is a rare person in such a position that does not seek to use corrupt means to magnify it. I take a few pages from Hayek on this: the worst rise to the top, but also Lord Acton: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But there is an upside:

“Free Markets work! They are essentially an amalgamation of voluntary exchanges between individuals and groups of individuals. Things that can be exchanged are goods and services, which can include anything and everything that can possibly be traded for something else. Such exchanges would not occur if they were not beneficial to all the parties involved. Not unless coercion or fraud is a factor, but these things would are to be discouraged, prohibited even. Neither of these is present in a consistent free market system, by definition. And just how is such a system conducive to preservation of the environment? Because it is not in anyone’s best interest (in a system which discourages coercion and fraud) to pollute or erode or use up because the consumer will do his business elsewhere, once he realizes how detrimental it is to him in the long run. The facts can not be hidden from him if he has the initiative and faculties to uncover them and seek out alternatives, and there are no state-sanctioned roadblocks in his way. That’s what competition is! We do not have truly free markets these days.”

“Federalism works! It is a system of interlocking voluntary compacts on various levels of jurisdiction. It does not root out all problems by itself but it keeps the powers that be jealous for the loyalty of their shared or potential individual members. Ideally, like any other form of competition, the main beneficiary is the consumer, i.e., the citizen. The more levels of federalism there are the more competition, which is why when we essentially only have two levels vying for the hearts and minds of the people, one of them is at the mercy of the other, and they are both as far away from the individual as possible, the products, these jurisdictions, are greatly diminished in quality. We have not had true federalism for close to a century, some would say more. It has been eroding since the day the Constitution was ratified.”

So instead of just decrying the problems that they see, they will offer up solutions and ways to take charge so the that same problems do not arise again.

The Perks

Backers for the project can pledge any amount of $1 or more. Backers who pledge $5 or more will be credited in the film. Backers who give an amount of $25 or greater will not only star in the credits, they will receive special thank-you gifts in the mail. What these gifts are depends on the specific amount, at intervals of $25, $42, $60, $125, $250, $500, $750, $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, and $10,000. As a sort of extra incentive,  the gifts handed out for amounts of $1,000 or more, have a limit of how many of these gifts can be claimed. First come first served on those, but there is no limit for the other rewards.

The Producer-Director

Jeffrey D. King (J. D.) is a 21 year old independent filmmaker from the Big Hole area of Montana. There he grew up in a ranching community and became familiar with many of the subjects the film will delve into. Growing up under the Big Sky gave him not just a love for the world around him, the environment, but also a love for freedom. His previous film (Crying Wolf, 2011), about the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, was the 2012 winner of the SAICFF “Best Creation” Jubilee Award. He was a self-taught filmmaker from a young age. An ambitious and passionate young man with a hunger for the truth, he has a B.S.B.A. in Business Management from Thomas Edison State College and makes his living making commercials and promotional videos. He currently resides around Billings, Montana.

For more information about AXED: The End of Green, contact Jeffrey at jd@axedthemovie.comor Hank at hank@axedthemovie.com

The AXED: The End of Green Kickstarter funding campaign can be found at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jking/axed