On March 20th, 2021, Police charged a white, cis-gendered male with causing the unlawful death of 8 people connected to massage parlors, 6 of whom are of Asian decent. As might be expected, everyone from President Biden to the local mainstream media commentator jumped on the opportunity to frame the dispute as one about a white male using his racist beliefs to justify killing innocent people of color.
However, all the evidence so far, leaves one scratching their head as to how they could conclude that the motivating factor in this incident was racism. This is yet another example of cultural Marxism in action, and an effort by government to fan the flames of fear in its effort to consolidate power.
This video may contain copyrighted content. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator(s) to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
CHILDREN’S PRIVACY NOTICE
This video is NOT targeted to viewers under the age of 13. I do not collect, use, or disclose information from children on any platform where this video is hosted.
You’re not really married until the government has officially sanctioned it with a marriage license. Right? States around the world seek to regulate marriage and the family, but why might this be? Are the state’s objectives as noble as we’ve been told? Or does government have a direct incentive to undermine marriage and the family? In this video, I argue that it’s the latter.
This is the third video in my series, Defending Traditional Marriage.
Schacht, R., & Kramer, K. L. (2019). Are We Monogamous? A Review of the Evolution of Pair-Bonding in Humans and Its Contemporary Variation Cross-Culturally. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00230
Coombs, R. H. (1991). Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review. Family Relations, 40(1), 97. doi: 10.2307/585665
Engels, F. (1942). The origin of the family, private property and the state: in the light of the researches of Lewis H. Morgan. New York: Internat. Publ.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
At the request of one of my Over Achiever Tier Patrons, this video examines the Sovereign Citizen Movement and how their ideology compares to Anarcho-Capitalism. While sovereign citizens are correct in their assessment that the state is inherently illegitimate, their efforts to assert their sovereignty through legal loopholes and appeals to the founding documents of the United States are unlikely to effect real change in the long run.
Download the FoneMe app and send me a free message by using promo code:
2cents
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
Robert Reich of Inequality Media would like you to believe that the reason the national debt is growing is because the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes. Not only is Reich ignorant of Hauser’s Law and the other realities pertaining to how much the government can hope to collect in tax revenues, but he also seems ignorant of the fact that under the Federal Reserve system, the government literally has to keep going into debt.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
For the first video of 2019, we’re reviewing the DC Comics blockbuster Aquaman. I loved this movie. Not only is it action packed with a great story line, but Amber Heard’s performance makes the film both sexy and a stunning success.
However, much like Black Panther, Aquaman presents the Kingdom of Atlantis as an impossibly advanced society. There is no way a kingdom which is ruled by a hereditary monarchy, where the monarch is chosen in ritual combat, would advance and prosper for thousands of years.
Aquaman is yet another reason to get people thinking about how prosperity and advancement comes from free interaction and free markets.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
For the second video in this series, I discuss Cornelius Vanderbilt and his activities in New York’s steamboat industry in the early 1800s. Some people like KnowledgeHub claim that Vanderbilt was one of the infamous “Robber Barons.” However, the facts show that Vanderbilt was in fact a savvy business owner who was competing against state enforced monopolies. In this case, that monopoly was Robert Fulton’s Steamboat Monopoly.
Entrepreneurs and American Economic Growth Cornelius (Commodore) Vanderbilt. (2017, May 23). Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://legacy.voteview.com/vanderb2.htm
Sourced from the University of Georgia.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
It’s Tempting to Think We Have all the Answers to Every Problem
There’s a certain assumption that is lurking within all forms of statism. It is the notion that society would be wonderful if everyone just did things the way a particular person thinks they should be done. Pick your poison. It doesn’t matter if we’re discussing Communism, Fascism, or Constitutional Republicanism. They have different ideas of how society should be run, to be sure, but all of them are championed by vocal persons who believe that they and their particular group of supporters should be given the authority to dictate how others should behave.
Most of us have thoughts like this every single day without realizing it. Perhaps it’s a liberal who hears a news story about yet another school shooting and says to herself, “This country would be so much of a better place if we just outlawed guns.” Perhaps it’s a conservative who hears about a teenage gang that was arrested for property damage and says to himself, “Those kids wouldn’t be behaving that way if they’d just been forced to go to church on Sunday.” While the thoughts we have are radically different, everyone has their own opinions about what kinds of behaviors or lack thereof would make society a better place.
However, while each of us may think society would be a better place if certain behaviors were outlawed, each of us also engages in behaviors that someone else thinks ought to be outlawed. Are you religious. There are people who think society would be better if religion was done away with. Do you smoke tobacco? There are people actively pushing for the banning of tobacco products. Do you play video games? At least 15 countries already put partial or complete bans on video games.
This exposes the hypocritical nature of all forms of statism. Statists support the use of government intervention when they are the benefactors of such interventions, but they speak vehemently about freedom and the unjust nature of government actions when they are the targets of such interventions. As I’ve said many times before, the same government that has the power to give you everything you want is a government that has the power to take everything that you have. The question no statist ever wants to answer is why the government inherently has the authority to do the things they want it to do, but not the things they don’t want it to do.
The beauty of libertarianism is that even if lack of government intervention means that people will engage in undesirable behaviors, they’ll also be forced to face the consequences of those behaviors. If you think people ought not engage in a certain behavior, presumably it’s because you think it will have negative consequences on them or on the people they associate with. However, if that’s true, then when those negative consequences come to fruition, they won’t be able to depend on government handouts to compensate for their bad decisions, and the people they associate with will be free to dissociate from them.
This is a short article, but one that I don’t believe requires much more explanation. Even if you think society would be better if you had the power to control other people’s behavior, it’s important to realize that the sword cuts both ways. The moment government intervention is used to quell a perceived bad behavior, it opens the door to more government intervention towards a different behavior that you have no problem with, but that someone else opposes just as passionately.
I don’t pretend to have tackled every point of discussion when it comes to the issues of freedom and government in such a short article, but this is a point of discussion that I don’t believe receives enough attention. If you support the initiation of force by government under the presumption that it will make society a better place, how do you justify why you and your supporters reserve the right to do this, but supporters of other forms of government do not?
And that is my 2 cents. Take it for what it’s worth.
In part one of this new series, I explain the difference between a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. This video is in part a response to Knowledge Hub’s video, “The Age When Capitalism Went Too Far,” but more broadly addresses the issue of regulatory capture and how the government interferes in free market operations.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
The Federal Reserve of the United States is the Biggest Scam in History
Ever since President Trump’s tax cuts made it through Congress several months ago, I’ve heard many Republican commentators talking about how much they have helped the economy. Even whitehouse.gov couldn’t pass up the opportunity to put out a short summary explaining just how the tax cuts are going to, “Provide tremendous relief for the middle class and small business” (“President Donald J. Trump Achieved the Biggest Tax Cuts”, para. 1). However, well it’s true that tax cuts improve the health of the economy in principle, the current political system combined with the worldwide scam that is the Federal Reserve of the United States ensures that both tax cuts and tax hikes ultimately have the same effect on the economy.
Allow me to explain. It ought to seem fairly straightforward that when citizens are allowed to keep more of their own money, they tend to spend more on non-essential goods and services than they otherwise would have. This creates demand in industries that may not have been there if tax rates were higher and so creates job opportunities. Sounds pretty good right?
Well, the problem is that most citizens don’t see beyond the surface rhetoric that takes place between the two political parties. If your only source of information is the mainstream media, it would seem that Democrats want to increase taxes in order to fund more government programs, and Republicans want to cut taxes in order to stimulate economic growth as was described above. However, what’s more important to consider is the government’s budget itself, not simply what tax cuts or tax hikes are passed.
As I’ve written and spoken about before, it doesn’t matter who sits in the White House or Congress. Spending only goes in one direction. Up. And the Trump administration is no exception to this rule. This means that the U.S. is still engaging in deficit spending. So if taxes aren’t going up to cover the interest and principle payments on U.S. Treasury securities, how are they being paid off?
If you’re interested in a detailed explanation of how the Federal Reserve Banking System works, I recommend Mike Maloney’s video linked below.
However, to sum it up. The U.S. can pay off it’s debt in two ways. The first is to increase taxes and use the additional revenue to pay down the debt. The second is to have the Federal Reserve inflate the currency through the issuance of additional treasury securities and pay off older securities with the newly created money. While both these methods are always used simultaneously to some degree, the former might be cast as the Democrats’ preferred method while the latter might be cast as the Republicans’ preferred method.
However, both methods, at the end of the day, end up having the same effect on the economy. If taxes are increased, citizens will become more frugal with the money that they pocket, knowing they won’t have as much to spend on that big screen television or brand-new sports car. This decreases demand in the economy and may lead to layoffs and economic decline. No one wants to advocate for this to happen right?
However, what of inflating the currency? Well, if the currency is inflated, in the short term it may look like the tax cuts are having a positive effect on the economy because citizens believe they can be more cavalier with how they spend their money. Demand is increased and economic growth follows. However, while it will take time for the effects to show, the new money that the government printed to finance its debt will seep its way into the economy, devaluing the U.S. dollar.
As the people realize that the dollar is less valuable than it was before, prices will rise and investors who thought that the tax cuts meant new economic opportunity will begin to reverse course. They will attempt to save their assets as they see that their newly saved tax credits cannot take them as far as they initially believed. As with the effect of tax hikes, this type of economic decline is caused by the government stealing wealth from its citizens. The citizens simply did not feel the theft as forcefully because no currency was actually taken out of their pockets. It was simply devalued by inflation.
The economist John Maynard Keynes once said, “By this means the government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft” (Keynes, para. 1). While I’m not a fan of Keynes’ economic philosophy, he was certainly correct on this point. Due to the fact that very few people understand the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, most people don’t realize that under the current system, balancing the budget is impossible.
For this reason, there is fundamentally no difference between tax cuts and tax hikes. Both will have the same effect in the long run. As always, this political debate between Republicans and Democrats is nothing but a sham designed to stop the people from seeing what the state is doing. Confiscating their hard-earned wealth and taking away their freedoms. It’s what the government does and will continue to do until the people wake up.
And that is my 2 cents. Take it for what it’s worth.
In this month’s patrons exclusive video, I discuss the topic of Islam and why leftists seem so in love with it. Islam is not known for being friendly to feminism, LGBTQ+ issues, and other progressive causes. However, as a totalitarian ideology, progressives and Muslims are united in the desire for an all-powerful state. I’ve taken the time to briefly describe what I believe is the quickest and most effective way to debunk Islam.
This video is a portion of my monthly patrons exclusive video for October 2018. The full video can be viewed by pledging at least $1 per month to the channel on Patreon:
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Harassment Notice:
The views and opinions expressed in this video are strictly my own and are not intended to harass, demean, or otherwise attack persons of any religious faith or political viewpoint. I explicitly condemn any all harassment or violence perpetrated against others simply for holding particular religious or political viewpoints.
My 2 Cents 