Select Samizdat Voices from Mises.Org has many articles that is worth the time of thinking, working, fighting Christians.

People who actually have decided to obey Jesus Christ, and expand His Kingdom on Earth, as it is in heaven.

Instead of shivering in terror in some corner, desperately hoping for some Rapture Escape from the work at hand.

Or, more likely, that The Better People kills them last lets them keep their jobs if they obey and submit and grovel quickly enough.

Below: language corruption, the hatred of democracy, sacrificing children in the name of ALL the government gunmen, and the corruption of economics.

Article: The Language Vandals
by Jeff Deist

—<Quote begins>—

Language is a critical tool for communication among humans; we cry “watch out” when a speeding car hurtles toward a pedestrian. We also think of language as a cognitive tool for society at large, since all human learning is closely tied to how we learn and process language.

Yet sometimes we forget language is also an important social and cultural institution. And like all institutions, it is subject to corruption, in the form of capture by elites with agendas quite contrary to those of average people. Since language shapes our understanding of all human interactions, academics from all disciplines—but particularly social scientists—ought to pay more attention to linguistic corruption. When language becomes politicized, managed, and policed, we ought to notice, and we ought to fight back.

I make this very point in an upcoming article titled “Evolution or Corruption: The Imposition of Political Language in the West Today,” which will be published this fall in the Italian journal Etica e politica (put out by the University of Trieste Department of Philosophy). The article argues that top-down impositions, rather than natural evolution, often drive changes in language. It analogizes the linguistic “marketplace” with the market for goods and services. Impositions are akin to central planning, while evolution is akin to spontaneous order in the marketplace. The former occurs when elites in politics, media, journalism, and academia attempt to influence both the words we use and the meaning of those words. This is invariably in service of a statist agenda, just as economic interventions serve preferred interests at the expense of overall wealth and efficiency. The constant use and repetition of the word “gender” (a term relating to grammar) when we should use “sex” is one obvious example of imposed, corrupted language in service of a political agenda (trans). By contrast, the Middle English “whilst” sounds odd to our ear today—having naturally evolved into “while” without obvious or heavy-handed direction.

—<Quote ends>—

Article: Turns Out the Elites Like the Administrative State Better than Democracy
by William L. Anderson

—<Quote begins>—

If there is a mantra among progressive American political and media elites, it would be “our democracy,” usually preceded by what they believe to be a threat from the Right. For example, progressives deemed the recent reversal of Roe “a threat to our democracy” because it removed laws regulating abortion from Supreme Court jurisdiction and returned the issue to democratically elected legislatures.

It would seem inconsistent to invoke the democratic electoral process to deal with a contentious issue like abortion, but progressives are nothing if not inconsistent. But even in challenging logic on political issues, progressives at least try to stick to the language of democracy, and especially the language of “our democracy.”

However, occasionally progressive elites demonstrate their contempt for democracy because they realize that the democratic process is not going to have the desired progressive results because voters and their representatives do not want to knowingly harm themselves.

Recently, the New York Times, in a progressive moment of truth, reacted to the US Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the court ruled that because carbon dioxide is not among the pollutants regulated by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Environmental Protection Agency could not enforce CO2 emissions rules for electric power plants.

In its 6–3 ruling, the SCOTUS indicated that Congress was free to pass legislation to regulate carbon dioxide but that the EPA was not free to simply add it to its list of regulated power plant emissions on its own. In other words, the high court declared that democratically elected members of the US House and Senate are free to write (and pass) any anti–climate change legislation they choose. This is what the ancients once called democracy.

Not surprisingly, the NYT went ballistic, and in so doing exposed the progressive mentality, with its affinity for rule by “experts.” Declared the newspaper’s editorial board:

Thursday’s ruling also has consequences far beyond environmental regulation. It threatens the ability of federal agencies to issue rules of any kind, including the regulations that ensure the safety of food, medicines and other consumer products, that protect workers from injuries and that prevent financial panics.

The ruling did no such thing. Instead, the court said that federal regulatory agencies are not free to create and enforce rules outside of their statutory authority. The EPA had simply declared itself the official power plant CO2 emissions regulator under the Obama administration despite the fact that Democrats had a supermajority in the US Senate and a huge majority in the House and theoretically could have passed a law giving new regulatory powers to the EPA. That Congress did not do so is instructive.

In other words, this was an extralegal power grab but one approved by elites because, well, elites know more than everyone else.

—<Quote ends>—

Article: Don’t Let Them Claim Uvalde’s Police Failure Was Just a Local Problem
by Ryan McMaken

—<Quote begins>—

One remarkable aspect of the coverage of the Uvalde shooting is how quickly the narrative has gone from one of praising police heroics to one of exposing complete, total, and shameful failure on the part of the law enforcement agents. Simultaneously, the excuses made by police apologists have repeatedly changed as well. 

Among these excuses has been the claim that the Uvalde police were just a small-town force, and that with better funding—they always call for more funding—then police won’t make these “mistakes.” It is also claimed that larger, state and federal police personnel would never have the same problems.

Thanks to the report released this week by the Texas Department of public safety, we now know that a majority of law enforcement officers at the Uvalde massacre were from state and federal agencies, and the total number of law enforcement personnel numbered a remarkable 376 officers. Yet, even as these “first responders” continued to amass personnel and equipment, they chose to prioritize officer safety over the safety of children. 

Clearly, the excuses offered about an “underfunded” and undersized local police force hold no water. The presence of dozens of well-armed state troopers and federal officers did not lead to immediate action against a single untrained gunman. This was a systemwide failure of law enforcement. Yet, unfortunately, the narrative over the behavior of law enforcement at Uvalde has zeroed in making excuses based on the idea it’s all entirely the fault of a small number of local officials. 

Nearly 400 Law Enforcement Officers at Uvalde

This was no matter of a small police force being overwhelmed by events. According to the Texas Tribune, the state’s report on Uvalde: 

reveals for the first time that the overwhelming majority of responders were federal and state law enforcement: 149 were U.S. Border Patrol, and 91 were state police — whose responsibilities include responding to “mass attacks in public places.” There were 25 Uvalde police officers and 16 sheriff’s deputies. [School district police chief Pete] Arredondo’s school police force accounted for five of the officers on the scene. The rest of the force was made up of neighboring county law enforcement, U.S. marshals and federal Drug Enforcement Administration officers.

In total, 376 law enforcement officers were at the scene. 

Not all of these officers were present from early on in the incident. But within minutes, armed police officers showed up and choose to not take action against the gunman. Soon, more weapons, and protective hear arrived. And police still chose to do nothing. As victims bled to death in the classroom with the gunman, dozens of federal, state, and local personnel were standing around in a grim “comedy” of errors. No one took responsibility or took action for more than an hour. By far, the most enthusiastic action from police could be witnessed in how officers harassed, attacked, cuffed and generally mistreated the parents of dying children at the scene. 

So, let’s dispense with the claims that the reason the police stood around in Uvalde was because this was a police force of country bumpkins who “lacked training.” It took the presence of nearly 300 state and federal officers before officers on the scene chose to take action—more than an hour later. This was against a single untrained gunman with a weapon no more powerful than what the police themselves possessed. 

—<Quote ends>—

Progressives with guns – against a single, real-deal criminal – are as much cowards as progressive without political power at this moment in time.

And I’m sure you know that the police are Democratic to the core. Just like the corporate tycoons, the media tech-heads, and the rest of the Ruling Class.

Democrats lead, Republicans follow… and Christians beg their Betters to be left alone in their dying ghettos.

Something that ain’t going to happen, by the way: Our Betters need to get their entertainment somehow!

How else can the Pious Powerful Ones truly enjoy their power, except at the expense of the Morally Inferior Powerless People – that is, believing Christian commoner trash?

—<Quote begins>—

Article: How to Teach Austrian Economics in the Current Political Atmosphere
by William L. Anderson

—<Quote begins>—

A search of social media, progressive politicians’ latest utterings, and a sampling of Krugman’s columns can find all of the above focused on economic thinking, and especially an economics built from what Ludwig von Mises called wertfreiheit, or value-free analysis. One of the hard lessons I had to learn in my thirty-plus years of being on college faculties was that every English, history, and philosophy professor knew infinitely more about economics than I ever could (they see economists as shills for corporations), and they also see every transaction, every price, and every aspect of production as strictly moral choices.

It does not work to reason with people like this about the details of a price system, since everyone knows that prices are arbitrary numbers created by profit-seeking capitalists seeking to unjustly rob the community. (The only time I have seen progressives insist that markets operate solely on independent entities of supply and demand is their insistence that Joe Biden’s actions have had absolutely no effect upon gasoline prices.)

Unfortunately, the penchant for turning economics into woke moral theater is infecting economics departments, too, as the semiconservative nature of many departments is being exchanged for leftist domination. Moreover, one can depend on this trend continuing, as leftists hire only leftists, and as that process continues, graduate programs in economics will reflect the hard-left viewpoints.

—<Quote ends>—

“Leftists hire only leftists.”

Remember that bit.

Especially when The Right Sort cry and wail about disgusting commoners and the wrong kinds of discrimination.

When Christians demand that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, things will get mighty interesting. But not before.

I know, I know: “The Righteous Elite has the right to discriminate against anyone with Inferior Beliefs, or the Wrong Class Perspectives.”

When Christians get serious about their beliefs, are willing to pay the price for the public victory of their beliefs, and pointedly discriminate on the basis of their morality — instead of cringing and begging and licking the boot of their Contemptuous Progressive Ever-Moralizing Betters — things will start to change.

But not a second before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.