Seceding From Socialism


In his great classic, Socialism, Ludwig von Mises observed that socialists always employed the dual strategy of 1) nationalizing as much industry and property as possible; and 2) “destructionism,” defined as “destroying the social order which is based on private ownership.”  Destructionism can be achieved through the welfare state, progressive taxation, onerous taxation, and regulation and regimentation of private industry.  It is a form of economic sabotage.

There is also a third necessity in order for socialists to achieve their goal of a government “planned” society:  the centralization of power and the elimination of all possible exits. As Mises wrote in another of his classics, Omnipotent Government, “[T]he adversaries of the trend toward more government control describe their opposition as a fight against . . . centralization.  It is conceived as a contest of states’ rights versus the central power.”  This, of course, is what the “Brexit” vote in Great Britain was all about.

The proponents of totalitarian government control, whether they call themselves socialists or something else, have always attacked decentralization, states’ rights, federalism, and all other means of the devolution of power in society.  Adolf Hitler bemoaned “the struggle between federalism and states rights” in Mein Kampf and promised that the “National Socialists [i.e. , Nazis] would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether” (Mein Kampf, 1998 Houghton Mifflin edition, p. 565).

American history has been one long march toward more and more centralized governmental power and less and less freedom as a consequence.  It began with Alexander Hamilton’s proposal at the constitutional convention for a “permanent president” who would appoint all state governors who would have veto power over all state legislation.  His plan failed after being tarred by the Jeffersonians as essentially the British empire without Great Britain.

The “Civil War” created a great centralization of political power and effectively turned all states, North, and South, into mere appendages of Washington, D.C.  This trend was perpetually strengthened by all subsequent wars as war is always and everywhere the health of the state.

Franklin D. Roosevelt even proposed effectively abolishing the states altogether as political entities as a means of eliminating all opposition to his grandiose, socialistic plans for America.  As described by Frank Chodorov in The Income Tax: Root of All Evil (page 82).

Read the Remainder at LEW Rockwell


Texas News: “Why not Texit?” Texas Nationalist Look to the Brexit Vote For Inspiration


Daniel Miller and others draw parallels with what they call Britain’s ill-suited relationship with Europe and frustration in Lone Star state with US government

How closely is Daniel Miller tracking the news ahead of the referendum about whether Britain should leave the European Union? “Hourly!” he grins. The Sun’s recent editorial calling for the UK’s departure got him quite excited.

Miller, though, is not from London or Liverpool. He hails from Longview, Texas, and we are talking in a cafe in the bleakly industrial Gulf coast town of Port Arthur, some 5,000 miles from Westminster.

Culturally, too, we are a long way from Europe. Heck, we are even a long way from Dallas. But the referendum matters deeply to Miller and like-minded Texans. As the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, which wants Texas to secede from the United States, he is hoping for a Leave vote that he believes will ripple all the way from Austria to Austin.

“There are a lot of people asking, if Brexit why not Texit?” he says. “I do talk with some folks over there on a pretty regular basis that are involved in Ukip and the Conservative party.”

The night before we met, Miller addressed a local Tea Party group, drawing parallels between Brexit and Texit, which the TNM is pushing as a hashtag. In Miller’s telling, Britain’s relationship with Europe was a marriage of convenience between ill-suited partners that has become stormy and ripe for divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, with too much sovereignty ceded to an ineffective central bureaucracy and too much hard-earned money sent elsewhere.

“Sound familiar?” he asked the audience. “Nigel Farage, you guys ever heard of him? Look him up on YouTube – trust me, you will enjoy.”

The arguments are fundamentally identical, he insists. “You could take ‘Britain’ out and replace it with ‘Texas’. You could take ‘EU’ out and replace it with ‘US’. You could take ‘Brussels’ out and replace it with ‘Washington DC’. You could give you guys a nice Texas drawl and no one would know any different. So much of it is exactly the same.”

The TNM, based in this humid corner of south-east Texas near the Louisiana border, is the most prominent and best organised of the groups that want the Lone Star state to go it alone, and plausibly asserts that the issue is growing in popularity and gathering more mainstream credibility (or at least, less mainstream ridicule).

Miller, 42, is a polished advocate who grew up in a politically active household and became frustrated by what he sees as the shackles of a federal government that are stopping Texas from reaching its full potential.

Buoyed by the rearguard action at the battle of the Alamo, Texas toiled to free itself from Mexican rule and was an independent nation from 1836 to 1845. But its fiercely solitary spirit did not fade when it became part of the union. Texas Independence Day, 2 March, is still an annual state holiday. In 2003 a state law was passed requiring schoolchildren to pledge allegiance daily to the Texas flag as well as the US flag.

“We come from a heritage of people that carved an empire out of a wilderness. The fact of the matter is that Texas has always been rough. When people first moved to Texas and settled here, you were independent or you died,” Miller says.

In 1997 a member of a separatist group, the Republic of Texas, was killed in a shootout with police after a standoff in the mountains of west Texas.

The current body calling itself the Republic of Texas believes that Texas never actually ceded its sovereignty to the United States when it joined the union (some prefer the term annexed) in 1845. “The great deception can be undone – stay tuned,” their website states. They run a parallel system of government, with Republic of Texas identity cards and coins.

The TNM, meanwhile, seeks secession through political avenues and calls for the people of Texas to decide via a referendum. Miller claims that the group has 260,000 supporters. It has fans in Russia among mischief-makers who would relish the break-up of the United States.

It also has advocates in the Texas Republican party, even though removing one of the biggest and most reliably red states from the US would make it far easier for the Democrats to win presidential elections.

Shortly after Obama’s re-election, the White House was forced to respond to a Texit petition that garnered more than 125,000 votes. The answer was no.

Another petition drive last year to put the matter to a non-binding vote did not gather enough signatures, but secession was debated at the party convention in Dallas last month, a notable moment even though it narrowly failed to make it to a floor vote.

Jeff Sadighi, a TNM backer, wants “Texas solutions” on hot-button issues such as gun rights, marriage equality and, perhaps above all, immigration and border control. “The bottom line is, the federal government due to their legal structures can only offer one size fits all solutions,” the 54-year-old says. “People in Massachusetts aren’t going to approach challenges the same way we are.”

What would the country of Texas be like? “I don’t think we’ll have checkpoints at the border with Louisiana,” Miller deadpans. “Trump may have to move his wall a little further north.”

There are no plans for rival flotillas to clash along the Rio Grande or the bayous of Houston.

But as efforts to lobby Texas lawmakers to put the matter to a vote continue ahead of next year’s legislative session, Miller is eagerly awaiting this month’s verdict in what he sees as a kindred nation.

“At a cultural and spiritual level there are a lot of similarities. A fiercely independent spirit. Keep calm and carry on. The stoicism. There’s a sense that when you’re pushed, you don’t just crumple like yesterday’s newspaper, you stand up for what you believe in,” he says. “We are easygoing, we are friendly, but when our core values and principles are threatened, we don’t take kindly to it.”

Read the Original Article at The Guardian

RKBA News: British MP Murdered with “Homemade” Gun, Knife


A British Labor MP has been murdered when she intervened in an altercation between two men, one of whom has been reported to have mental issues.  Witnesses at the scene reported that the gun used appeared “homemade”.  A knife was also used.  The MP was reportedly shot three times and stabbed several times.  From

An eyewitness report given to the BBC said that Cox was attacked after becoming involved in an altercation between two men.

“There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag,” the witness said.

The gun was “homemade” and large, according to multiple reports.


“It looked like a gun from, I don’t know, the First World War or a makeshift, handmade gun. It’s not sort of like the kind of gun you see normally.”


 Another witness told Sky that a man in white, dirty baseball cap
had been jostling with the MP before pulling out a gun. The gun
was “homemade,” according to multiple reports. 

Given the  low level of firearms awareness in the U.K., I have doubts about the witnesses ability to discern whether the gun was homemade or not.  On the other hand, homemade guns are fairly common in the U.K. because factory made guns are so tightly controlled.  A third possibility is that the gun was modified from a factory long gun or a replica or blank firing gun.

That a British MP was murdered by a mentally ill man who had a gun and a knife in his bag illustrates the failure of gun control in England and Wales.

The only previous MP who was shot was in 1812, when the Prime Minister, spencer Percival was assassinated in 1812. From

Serious attacks are rare, although that doesn’t make them much less frightening. They have been an infrequent, out-of-the-blue shock since the shooting of Spencer Perceval, the only Prime Minister to have been assassinated, in 1812.

That was with a .50 caliber  muzzleloading single shot pistol, which is not even being considered by gun control advocates. There were no percussion caps invented at the time, so it was likely a flintlock.  Not a single MP was shot during the entire history of modern firearms before “gun control” was instituted in England and the Wales.

It will be interesting to see actual pictures of the weapons used.  They often appear in the UK press.  I have not seen any pictures of the weapons yet.

Update: A single witness alleged that the attacker yelled “Britain First”. There were several people nearby when the attack occurred.  Area residents say the attacker never showed any interest in politics.  It seems more likely that the witness’ prejudice are in action here, instead of the attacker’s.

The campaigns to keep the UK in the EU or to leave it have been suspended, but the referendum will take place as scheduled.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land