Month: October 2015

Crony Capitalism with a Human Face


Left-wing academics always blame capitalism as the root of all problems of the world today from poverty to war, from racism to patriarchy. They had use capitalism as a synonym of free markets and property rights. Left-libertarians tend to oppose that but I don’t think much people is listening to that. There had historically attempts to reform capitalism some even talk about capitalism with a human face to referring to a form of capitalism that is not global corporate structure of profit but few on the left had defended these models. When Hillary Clinton in the last debate defended capitalism against Bernie Sanders she mentions the capitalism of small business but this isn’t the kind of capitalism that her husband defended. In the 90s the Clintons embraced supposed third way that was neither capitalism neither socialist but I think took the worst elements of both and lastly never took the form of social democracy but it was a form of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is maybe the essence of crony capitalism meaning the marriage between big government and big business with a cut of social services. For the primaries she try to portray herself as a progressive but there are a lot of doubts about the convictions of her statements.

But is Bernie Sanders really different, yes he says he is socialist but a model like the New Deal was born to save capitalism and wants a New New Deal. He is in favor of massive military industrial complex. I recognized that Sanders is one of the few politicians that had the courage to call himself a socialist in United States and contrary to Hillary, Sanders positions with the exception of foreign policy are the same as when he was a young radical. But there is not a real thought about thinking beyond capitalism even the Green Party which in its platform said they to abolish corporate capitalism, they also support another of New Deal called the Green New Deal.

What about the GOP? Libertarians blame the GOP for giving a bad name to capitalism. I once found on Green Party page a comment like that “If the GOP were smart, they would nominate Hillary. She agrees with most of their wretched policies but also is electable”. I suppose that despite the rhetoric the GOP and Democratic Party stand for more or less the same kind of corporatism. After all are neocons really defenders of free markets, I think no one in their right mind could say that. Maybe Hillary Clinton is crony capitalism with a human face.

Refugee cities

I wrote a piece for Medium arguing that refugee cities could help solve the European refugee crisis. Long story short, more immigration would be best, but is politically impossible. Next best solution, build new cities on uninhabited Greek island. There is already funding. All Greece needs to do is get out of the way. Here’s a sample.

With that in mind, innovative solutions are required. Accepting more refugees is appealing on humanitarian grounds but objectionable to traditionalists in many countries throughout Europe, and to workers who have seen no wage growth and few new employment opportunities since the financial crisis of 2008. One pioneering solution, which several groups and individuals are advocating, is to create a semi-autonomous city in the Mediterranean for refugees. Importantly, the refugees would be allowed to work and own property and businesses, producing value and thus ensuring the city did not become a giant refugee camp. At the same time, refugees would be prevented from entering the rest of Europe, making the city politically acceptable.

Mike Church is off XM, go sign up for his new online radio channel

Just listened to the King Dude’s final broadcast on Sirius XM, the company has parted ways with the longest-running host on satellite radio, and given the morning show on the Patriot network to Breitbart’s Steve Bannon, who wants to be a mouthpiece for a “nationalist” movement. Breitbart’s Falange has outmaneuvered the Carlist King Dude (Mike being, as a good Louisianan, affectionate toward the Bourbons).

Over the last two years, his show has become more Catholic and less what you might call a typical conservative talk show. And this morning he made no apologies for that, saying,

“What began two years ago and culminates today is the future of Western civilization, and the future of Western civilization as it expresses itself in broadcast media and in civil government. What’s being denied now, and I will continue to carry this on, and will not change one solitary iota, is the order of our discussion in political and civil affairs is backwards. The order that we have placed it in in the last two years is correct.”

“It has been my great pleasure and eternal joy to reverse that order … The order you’ve heard it here on this show is correct. It’s not my order. … The order everyone else has put them in is incorrect. Putting them in order is the proper thing to do, it’s the humble thing to do. For those who say [we] should have stuck with the Constitution talk, we never stopped.”

You can listen to the whole final show here.

Mike posted a note to his fan page from a listener that reads:

Before Mike Church:
Was a Republican
Listened to Rush
Listened to Levin
Read Fiction Primarily
Voted for and Loved W
Chanted USA, USA, USA
Did not listen to Mike Church

After Listening to Mike Church:
Read and follow Dr. Kevin Gutzman
Read and follow Tom Woods
Read and follow Brad Birzer
Follow The Paul’s
Am now a Libertarian
Little [r]epublican
Don’t listen to Rush
Don’t listen to Levin
Don’t watch, listen to or read the news
Read History and about our Founders
Anti War
Don’t chant USA
Am more of a gentleman
More Informed

This is why Mike and his show are important, and why you should support his new venture. Read the comments here too. I don’t think it’s putting it too strongly to say he’s the only talk radio host who cares about the souls of his listeners. If you don’t know his whole story, read Michael Brendan Dougherty’s 2011 profile, and his recent interview with David Simpson at the Saint Benedict Center.

Also, I should mention my gratitude to Paul DeMilio, Mike’s producer, for being tireless, encouraging, and flexible during the times I’ve been in studio as a guest or filling in. Sirius is lucky to have him.

Mike’s new Internet-based channel launches November 11, stay tuned and see details here. In order for this to work, he needs more subscribers, so I encourage you to sign up for a Founders Pass.

I’ll continue to do Our Man in Mordor biweekly on Wednesdays at 11 on the new network, and look for some of Mike’s columns, both at OnePeterFive and the Daily Caller. Onward!

A response to Leon Wolf re: Donald Trump

Ever since Donald Trump decided to upend the Republican Establishment with his presidential run, the pusillanimous underbelly of the political elites has been on full display.

Acela Corridor talking heads despise the Donald. Liberals hate his courting of the poor working class. Conservative intellectuals dismiss him as a showman hypocrite without principle.

It’s all great fun to watch. Donald Trump had topped the Republican primary polls for three months straight, and show no signs of slowing down. Political know-it-alls are baffled by his success. Trump is everything they resent: rich, white, successful, straight-talkin’, and politically-incorrect.

Even professional right-leaning commentators are beginning to wonder how the Reign of Trump ends. Leon Wolf, the newly-annointed editor of, is no Trump acolyte. He doesn’t believe the Donald is “a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word” and questions whether the businessman “believes literally anything.” Like most Republican faithful, he’s getting tired of The Apprentice: White House Edition, and wants GOP primary voters to settle on a “serious” candidate.

He poses this question to readers: “Is there anything Trump might do or say that would cause you to stop supporting him?”


Jim Webb, Tulsi Gabbard and the Future of the Democratic Party

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb speaks at an event at the public library in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Thursday, April 9, 2015. Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley are both in Iowa, trying to establish themselves as the alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

There has been for a long time a problem for identity in the Democratic Party since the days that George McGovern, the liberalism that he promote was found repulsive but a lot of people in Middle America. Jimmy Carter southern populism was consider weak on foreign policy. Bill Clinton won on a neoliberal platform of corporativism and hawkish foreign policy. The Bush years made some liberals consider an alliance with libertarians against neoconservative republicans in that years the name of Brian Schweitzer sound strongly as an antiwar, anti-tax, pro-gun rights ans pro-privacy kind of candidate but when the 2008 primaries come both Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson who were somehow close to that ideal do very badly in the elections. Civil libertarians like Russ Feingold and Mark Udall had lost their seats and the Democratic Party has embraced identity politics as their main credo. The party hasn’t completely rejected neoliberalism or liberal interventionism but their main issues are cultural not economical.

Jim Webb has supposed to change that. Having been a Vietnam War veteran and Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. He became the antiwar hero of 2006 becoming a Democratic senator from Virginia. He’s by no standard a pacifist, even some neocon publications respect his positions on foreign policy. But he is still the most thoughtful democrat when it comes to international relations. He wants American foreign policy to focus more on China than the Middle East but at the same time he understands the that the current conflicts are product of the implicit alliance between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. On economics he is a populist who wants more government intervention but I don’t think to the level of the dreams of Bernie Sanders. On gun rights he is closer to the position of Bernie Sanders that is shared both by people in rural areas and military families. He has issues with affirmative action and while is not for open borders with the time has been more supportive of immigration reform. He’s not a environmentalist and supports coal.

The reactions to his performance at the debate had been mixed from some praising to some criticism. I don’t think really that debates were the reason why is doing so badly. He is after all is one of the few democrats which focus on the possibility for the party to regain white voters from rural areas that had been abandoned  by the party for their insensitivity toward cultural issues while the majority of the party is focusing on identity politics for only relying on minorities. Jim Antle argue that if Jim Webb left the Democratic Party for McGovern then he leave the Republican Party for Bush, now he is man without party. I disagree, I think that actually one of recent figures of the Democratic Party, a young congresswoman that in a lot of positions is closer to Webb than any of the old rural democrats. Tulsi Gabbard is a rising star congresswoman representing Hawaii, she is of Samoan descent and is the only Hindu American in Congress. One would think than in the party of identity politics she would be a progressive queen but like Webb she is a former veteran who on foreign policy sounds very independent even questioned the Iran Deal. Webb was saying that debates were rigged while Gabbard was calling for more debates. Webb had been praised from National Review, Gabbard too. A devout Hare Krishna and a surfer, the socially conservative positions of his relatives get her in problems in democratic primaries. Jim Webb wants to run as an independent but maybe he could work with democrats while a fresh face like Tulsi Gabbard would advance the cause of realism and independence inside the Democratic Party. I’m a non-interventionist but I think the realist challenge in foreign policy of people like Jim Webb on hawks like Hillary Clinton still could help define the future of the Democratic Party. Webb is a warrior which is still could have a last fight against a totalitarian leader.

(Image source)