Things NFL Players Could Do Than Kneeling

I originally wasn't going to waste energy on this episode of conservative political correctness however a tweet from Anarcho-Capitalist rapper Eric July got me thinking.

Eric July  @EricDJuly

2d

"It's not about disrespecting, it's about the injustice" The fact that you have to explain this at a massive level, shows it's not working

July is 100% correct here, the whole kneeling thing isn't working for what Kapernick and others are opposing. In general I've never felt that protesting accomplishes much of anything other than making oneself a target for government or political enemies. If Kapernick and other players really want to make an actual difference when it comes to government goon squad abuse here's what they should do.

1. Support Gun Rights and Self Defense

Athletes should know that they're a much higher target for crimes (both government and private) given their high public profiles and wealth. So arming themselves should really be a no-brainer. However it shouldn't be enough to be armed themselves they should go into neighborhoods and teach about gun rights and usage. There is a great guy named Maj Toure who runs the organization Black Guns Matter . Toure's organization is decided to introducing if not reintroducing gun rights to black neighborhoods. Athletes should absolutely be backing Toure's project and if not they should be doing something on their own.


2. Support Self and Community/Neighborhood Defense

Anarcho-Captialists know government security is a joke and harms people more than it helps. Not to mention that it has been ruled that government security has no obligation to protect you. So this is an area that should be promoted.

The Black Panthers while an awful left-socialist and racist group did three things right; they exercised their right to carry firearms, patrolled their neighborhoods and filmed cops. The result of this was that cops were significantly more "civil" when Black Panther patrols were around.

Also reaching out to organizations like CopBlock and Photography is Not A Crime is a must. Given that the media, no matter if it's the local or the national they are stenographers for the police. These two organizations are one of the best when it comes to documenting government security abuse. 

3. Stop caring on what the opposition thinks

Like communists, cop supporters cannot be reasoned with. There is no reason to attempt to win these people over they will always hate you even if you choose to lick the boots. Their criticisms only exist to distract you from the real problem, they have no interest in changing their line of thinking.


There is no guarantee that any of this will work or change anything but it's more productive than taking a knee.

Middle American Radicals?

An interesting article in National Journal goes into discussing the ideological makeup of those who support Trump. For those of us who activitly pay attention to politics one can agree that most of Trump support stems from Pat Buchanan style paleoconservatism. These are considered radical voices in US politics but I have to disagree with that sentiment. Being a radical in regards to politics is supporting positions outside the mainstream. Which from the naked eye yes it appears that those voters are radical but from a liberty perspective they're really not.

When you look at people like Pat Buchanan who is widely considered the face of US paleoconservative thought. The three main tenants of paleoconservative thought are economic nationalism, supporting the drug war and immigration controls. All three of these positions are not voluntary as they require men with badges and guns to enforce. Those who support them don't trust the market to come to these positions or regard the market as to slow to adopt them. For the non-political they would see this as ironic that those who are under the banner of conservative would take an anti-free market stance. However paleoconservatism was never about the free market, just less socialist than the left's economic ideas.

Using men with guns and badges to enforce a particular way of thinking, conducting one's self or business isn't radical. In the US and in pretty much most of the world this is the norm. To consider that way of thinking to be radical is absurd. When you really look at elections what is it really about? It's about getting a politician or group of them to use men with guns and badges to enforce a particular way of life. It's not radical, it's statist and the difference between the supporters of the various presidential candidates is which version of statism that they want to force on everyone else.

The basic differences between Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians

Credit goes to Lawerence Vance of lewrockwell.com for posting it on his blog

Libertarian: The government's sole function is the protection of private property. There are very few persons who adhere to this philosophy. A few with this philosophy waste much of their time trying to convince others to believe the same. They won't succeed.

Conservative: The government needs to be all powerful, and to support our morality and way of life. Nothing is beyond its grasp. Government power is god given through the constitution, the 10 commandments, and biblical scripture. No other proof is necessary. This is the white-man's burden.

Liberal: The government needs to take from anyone who has more that someone else and make us all equal. We need the government to take care of the young, the old, and middle aged and to promote love between one another. This we know from our heart.

Social Collectivism is still alive and well

As everyone knows Sonia Sotomayor is now a Supreme Court Justice. Right on cue liberals cheered while conservatives and libertarians jeered. This was of course expected with a Democratic majority in congress and as far as the ideological makeup goes there wasn't much change. With the single exception being that Sotomayor sides with the police more than Souter ever did.

Liberal groups and supporters cheered because they feel that they have a lock on the Hispanic vote. Buchanan-type conservatives try to revamp the case for use of the Southern Strategy and other right-populist themes in order to take back Washington. In both cases, both are wrong. For awhile both conservatives and liberals have forgotten the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

When did character translate to group? Last time I checked people where individuals not groups, what my neighbor does to his body does not affect me. Why is it assumed by liberals that putting Sotomayor on the top court will automatically translate to votes? Why do a small group of conservatives think that Sotomayor's personal views are the views of every Hispanic in the country? It's not just the Sotomayor appointment it's also illegal immigration and affirmative action among other issues. The illegal immigration debate has brought out alot of racial and social collectivist thought out and it's pathetic. Sometimes one can't tell if it's debate or just ridiculous name calling and race baiting. It seems that the individual is lost on the partisans and for them it's easier to group people together and scream at their opponent.

In my opinion collectivism is a taught and natural behavior at the same time. Sometimes people naturally won't associate with others that are not like them. Look at High School for a nice example of that. In the taught aspect, those who teach collectivism may use crime statistics, voting data, religion, race and other trait that a person belongs to (typically through no fault of his or her own) in order to paint said group a certain way. Can social collectivism be overcome? Yes it can. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not.

Libertarians must take a stand on illegal immigration

While I didn't seem to think that the illegal immigration debate wouldn't come up till after Sotomayor was nominated or not it seems that Obama is intent in doing some serious multitasking. Libertarians for the most part are divided on this issue but this division will come back to bite us if we don't put up a common front.

As most of us know the illegal immigration debate is divided into the following groups:

1. Grant amnesty, keep immigration flowing

2. No amnesty, restrict immigration 2a. no immigrants period 2b. no immigration from non-white countries

3. No amnesty, keep immigration flowing but eliminate the red tape

Conservatives who fall in the second category are attempting to paint Libertarians as apart of the open borders left. I saw a video from the Cato Institute that had Jim Harper discussing on how our immigration policy should be structured and the Fox News anchor tried to pin him in the same league is Nancy Pelosi. Interesting enough Sarah Palin said before the election that she didn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants but that barely made a peep among conservative voices.

The stereotype that Libertarians don't believe in the rule of law has been used like a billy club by conservatives especially on this issue. We have to get the message out there that we support a third option in the illegal immigration debate. Contrary to what the left and right tell say more people would support the third option than the first or second. It's not like we don't have a voice in the media who supports the third option. Lou Dobbs of CNN is on tape saying that he is very pro-legal immigration but is against amnesty, he is someone we can work with despite being an economic protectionist.

During the height of the swine flu "scare" the national party issued a statement for Obama to close the border with Mexico until the "scare" had passed. I didn't think much of it until I got an email from the local libertarian group that the national party was supporting xenophobia. I had emailed them back supporting national's decision to do that because at the time it was a national security issue, never got a response back by the way. I can understand why some Libertarians would see this move xenophobic since xenophobia and bigotry is very anti-liberty but we also should remember that complaining about bigots only gives them legitimacy. Sadly the left has yet to learn this lesson. Yes there is no denying the fact that racist and/or anti-immigrant groups (neo-nazis, kkk, coalition of conservative citizens, minutemen, etc) have used the illegal immigration debate as a cover to spread their bigotry. There is no denying of this fact but in addition to acknowledging them keeping the issue open only makes their cause stronger. If and when illegal immigration is solved the correct way these groups won't have anything to stand on (for the time being) and will self expose their true colors when they no longer have a banner to hide behind.

The illegal immigration issue is another great chance for us to inject our influence into the Republicans and/or the Democrats. We cannot let the ultra nationalist Paleoconservatives, other anti-legal immigrant groups and the pro-amnesty left win this fight. We must stand for liberty and the rule of law.

Just a reminder: Politics isn't nice

Normally I am a person who sticks to the issues and typically ignores petty fights unless it really somehow connects to an issue. With all the left and right wing whinnying something has to be said.

Politics isn't a nice game and nor will it ever will be. Not to say however that everyone in politics is a complete asshole it's just a game that one must go into with hard nerves. Do people want a decent political process that is just focused on issues? Yes. Will it ever happen? No. The 2008 Presidential election most likely marked the death for nice guy politics, they say nice guys finish last and that nice guy was John McCain. Even his supporters didn't like the fact that he didn't come down on Obama like a hammer.

It's very rarely that I ever agree with Big Government Social Conservatives but they are right in the fact that majority of people need thicker skin. Some may view this as agreeing with bigots, racists and anti-Semites, when in fact that's not it at all. For example I am of Hispanic descent and people like cold warrior Pat Buchanan use Judge Sotomayor as a vehicle (in addition use the illegal immigration debate) to criticize all Hispanics in his typical racial collectivist fashion. For the record his views on race hold about just as much water as Nancy Pelosi's views on taxes. It human nature to defend oneself from personal attacks but in politics you have to keep your eye on the prize and not be distracted by petty insults and attacks. I'm sure most of your parents have taught you or for your parental readers you have taught your kids to be the bigger person and walk away. If I may borrow a line from Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Political Bullies typically win when you engage them with the same petty insults instead of facts.

Currently now conservatives are up in a fury over Letterman's retarded joke about Palin and her daughter. I'll say right off the bat that this was another thing that when I heard about it I shrugged my shoulders and went on with my life. Letterman has been trumpeted as a liberal shill since the election I personally don't know nor do I care since I don't watch Letterman or much TV at all for that matter. Conservatives say this is the conservative equivalent of the Don Imus episode and the liberal reactions to it which isn't true since Imus's attack was at private citizens while Palin is a politician, a national figure and has made her family somewhat public. Some say that Imus isn't a conservative either but that's another argument for another day. From what I have read Palin seemed to be the bigger woman in this whole ordeal by just ignoring Letterman and leaving at that. I commend Palin for this because I am sure as a Governor she has better and more important things to do. What astounded me is the reaction from conservative pundits everywhere behaved like liberals and called for Letterman's head. I though conservatives had thicker skin but it seems that the incident has dyed down and won't be continuing for weeks on end like other gaffs from various national figures public and private.

While there hasn't been a major incident that has gotten liberals riled up as far as I know anyway. Some conservative pundits are accusing the nut jobs who killed Dr. Tiller and the shooter at the Holocaust Museum of being liberals. This hasn't though made much noise on the news networks just among liberal sites. Although one thing that has been going on and off has been those who criticize Obama are racists. Like Conservatives, Liberals must learn to roll with the punches, besides it's better to point and laugh at idiots and let their ownstupidty from both left or right expose themselves than to engage them.