The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep.70 Are we all grifters now?

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses grifting.  What is it, is there an alternative and what are the implications if it exists? Grifting is an accusation which one will encounter if one spends enough time online or oneself is online.  It is not only "unrespectable proles" but even Glen Greenwald (although he may be an unrespectable prole anyways) gets this accusation thrown at him from time to time.  Dave Rubin and many people further to the right of him get this accusation thrown at them.  What are the incentive structures of producing content?  Why isn't this accusation thrown at more established corporate and mainstream media organizations such as CNN or NBC? Rachel Maddow reportedly gets 30 million per year for her show on MSNBC, Wolf Blitzer at 5 million, Shephard Smith at 15 million and Megyn Kelly gets reportedly 23 million.  Aren't they much more profitable then Glen Greenwald, Alex Berenson, Thaddeus Russel, Ron Paul or Jordan Peterson's substack column and youtube channel let alone Alex Jones who has been banished from almost the entire mainstream internet?  If grifting is a problem a critique ought to acknowledge the difference  between big money grifters and the small money grifters.  Glen Greenwald and Thaddeus Russel for all their intelligence and capability seem to be in the wrong business if grifting is the goal compared to Megyn Kelly and Rachel Maddow.

 

If the problem does exist what ought to replace it?  Public funding of media seems to produce content which is not only of an agenda it is increasingly considered bad by large segments of the population according to survey data.   NPR in the US is almost entirely watched by voters of the democratic party and to many is insufferable to listen to or watch.  Organizations like the BBC are in a parallel situation increasingly and as Peter Hitchens describes with its recent shows twist history and smear Brits. The problem with a good portion of publicly funded content, especially on controversial subjects, is easily recognized in other societies and is what Anglo-Americans would call propaganda if it wasn't their own government doing it.  The managerial elite and their supporters clearly dominate and watch organizations such as the BBC and NPR and if they alienate them too much would clearly lose the support of its backers leaving them in  a position which might be worse then Glen Greenwald or Michael Tracey's substack column. The primary benefit of the mass patron model is decentralized support as long as one doesn't ban people from using the means of exchange  and banning "unregulated" means of exchange like crypto.  It seems like everyone is in a way beholden to some sort of patron but one has to examine who exactly makes bank and who exactly gets by comfortably.  What is to be made of those who produce content for no money? Are they just "attention seekers" who like to here themselves talk? Is it not the case that the Marxist dream is a kind of profit free production of content?   Aren't we all grifters by some definition and is there any significance to that accusation as its usually applied?  

 

 

 

 

Ep 69: Borders, War and Physical Removal Part 2. Towards an ideal system of borders and relations.

in part 2 the mindcrime liberty show lays out what an ideal system of borders, conflict and relations would look like.    We continue to defend Hans Hoppe's  view of realistic libertarianism from characterological and emotive attacks and try to sketch out a possible future or ideal system.  The outline would consist of thousands of Lichtenstein's of various internal rules and mores all respecting each others property.  A world of a thousand Lichtenstein's all respecting one another's properties may be considered utopian but a one world state seems utopian at best and dystopian in practice.  Property doesn't require something like universal love to implement and is a rather realistic and constrained starting point. Interestingly, if one de-bundles the state as it would be done in certain societies some unlikely defenders of borders may arise including notably trade unions.  In certain other societies a self defense culture may arise as well. 

 We stress, like Hoppe, the primacy of borders as an extension of property and without the existence of it no theft can occur. Without property there is no theft. Without borders and property there is no foreign aggression to speak of because there is no such thing as a foreign land.   Without borders there is no localism and instead its centralized monocultural universalism. Borders and property's role in a free peaceful productive cooperative society ought not to be discounted even if some of the existing borders may be considered illegitimate.  

Ep 68: Borders, War and Physical removal. Part 1 Mainstream Incoherence.

The mindcrime liberty show discusses why most modern political theorists have an emotive incoherence and hypocrisy towards borders. With the rise of Donald Trump the libertarian movement split over the issue which ironically blew up in reverse with the shutdown. Many, but not all, "open border" therapeutic liberals (sadly some "libertarians" included) suddenly got rather friendly towards borders or at least less outraged at them for this rather politically correct usage of them. Internal borders in the EU and the US were actually erected! This recent issue notwithstanding we discuss why borders of some kind are necessary for all sorts of issues including something interesting which Glen Greenwald stated after the fall of Kabul: Leave Afghanistan for the Afghans. This has a very different vibe towards the politically correct crowd if someone said leave Sweden to the Swedes or leave Florida to the current Floridians. Why would Glen Greenwald state that statement even for the Afghanistan issue? When it comes to war without borders there is no such thing as territorial aggression or invasion. In the leadup to WWII both Stalin and Hitler operated "without borders" to their respective neighbors including Poland and the Baltic states. Most historical colonialist and empire builders, which the left hates, operated "without borders." The US government and its forces have operated without borders. Julian Assange for many years used the Ecuadorian border inside of the embassy to protect himself from Anglo-American prosecution. Hence its quite clear that without some admission of borders many of these socio political positions held by liberals, progressives, liberal libertarians and leftists make no sense. Libertarians like Hoppe can philosophically defend them merely as an extension of property rights to some degree but if one denies the existence of property/border then what does "foreign" aggression or "theft" or "invasions" actually mean? If no borders exist there is no such thing as as "foreign" aggression or invasion. There is no such thing as different clouds rather its one giant cloud. Are certain socio-ethnic groups (say smaller clouds) entitled to stay on their land? What happens when they can't defend it from a superior power? It could be power explains the what, when and why of when borders gets defended but most political theorists have a rather emotive incoherence when it comes to borders.

War and immigration are clearly linked and many mass movements of persons/groups occur after, during and before wars. As David Friedman argues if one lives in a good society one experiences immigration toward it and if one lives in a bad society one experiences emigration. This was obviously the case in West Berlin. This is also the case with the USA and its southern neighbors. Immigration done in large scale is a form of invasion as Hoppe argues. The left of course views certain immigration movements (say the settlement of North America by Europeans) as a kind of invasion. The story itself in that case is not as straightforward as they make it seem and the imperial Aztecs or Incas didn't care too much for their neighbors either! The left acted very much like and if not worse then Andrew Jackson and Marx held a rather low view or certain groups too! Mao didn't care that much for the borders of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea which was carved out by US/UN/ROC troops and still defended to this day and as mentioned above Stalin physically removed and concentrated all sorts of ethnic groups around.

We also discuss the strange relationship that many liberals and leftist have with the philosophy they usually hold which is something like internationalism and universalism. Both seem to imply that their ideas (be they feminism, liberalism, 15 percent tax rate or democracy) must be in charge throughout the world. If one set of ideas is in charge everywhere there can be no competition or regional diversity in any significant area. It seems that what they (say John Dewey, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, the Neocons, Marx and John S Mill) really want is a one world democratic state of some kind. In that society there can be no exile or "better" place to move if its been entirely homogenized.

We discuss these issues and many more in this episode. Part 2 coming next week.

Article we reference on the left case against open borders. American Affairs not current affairs as we incorrectly said. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

Marxism is as alien as Capitalisms article. Marx actually referred to indigenous peoples like the Native Americans, Scottish highlanders, and Basques, along with hunter-gather societies and native tribes in the colonial era generally, as “non-historical peoples.”

https://attackthesystem.com/2020/08/17/revolution-and-american-indians-marxism-is-as-alien-to-my-culture-as-capitalism-2/

Ep 67 To Trust or Not to Trust the Experts? #iatrogenics #Predictions

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what is an expert, do they exist and whether we should trust them if they do? Are experts merely an extension of a ruling class/ruling mantra in order to keep them in power? Are Michel Foucault and Thomas Kuhn right about science?  On some areas they might be.

We at the Mindcrime Liberty Show hold that you can best demonstrate expertise in fields/activities which have a physical good and some amount of skin in the game.  For example carpenters have to build structures that work.  One could philosophically quibble with what "work" means but in a way one knows what works and doesn't.  Chefs and bakers make food which tastes good and doesn't make one sick.  Again, one could quibble with taste and to some extent sickness but there is some standard that can be demonstrated.  Helicopter mechanics and manufacturers have to build relatively safe and reliable helicopters.  As Nassim Taleb points out, there is a statistical relationship between helicopter mechanics who must fly on the helicopter at random and the helicopters safety record.  So if one combines a testable product with skin in the game its quite clear that there are experts.  There also probably can be experts in fields like literature, history or film.  One is merely knowledgeable about known knowledge about a given topic and subfield using relatively known standards.

The problem occurs in areas outside of these narrow yet important areas, and of course in the gray zone middle. For one thing, social science prediction and computer modelling has no real testable proposition per se other than the future lived reality against their respective model and past data.  Even if the past data is correct, if the future doesn't meet the modelers predicted outcome (lets say an election forecast or death forecast if no one is wearing a mask) then is the data/modeler wrong or was there some additional missed variable?  Or are certain phenomena just unknowable or un-understandable? There obviously isn't any skin in the game or testable product outside of what the future is when it comes to most social science.   The limitations in many social sciences are quite clear.  Some of the more hard sciences it’s also unclear as well.  What exactly counts as evidence and what isn't evidence. Can layman or renegades interpret the texts or only certain accredited institutions?  In that past year and counting one particular hard science has taken over.  

 As far as doctors and various other medical professionals themselves are concerned, are they experts?  It is quite clear that in the past doctors and various other medical "experts" have behaved badly on behalf of their patients.  The patients at times have gotten sicker while in hospitals than outside of hospitals -  everybody should read up on the phenomena of iatrogenics or harm done by the healer.  Furthermore, clinics and hospitals themselves have a political ideology behind them which is quite clear to many of the founders of these organizations.   The rise of mass hospitals occurred at the same time as the rise of mass schooling, mass prisons and mass armies.  Mass hospitals are a very modern institution for better or worse.  Hospitals themselves are drab prison like buildings with mostly hideous utilitarian architecture.  Doctors (like educators) are some of the least criticized authorities and are generally viewed by most "normies" as being trustworthy and only operating on behalf of the greater good which is clearly demonstrably false. 

We at the Mindcrime Liberty Show  hold that doctors probably can cure broken legs and bones but then again there is more or less a physical product to show the results.   When it comes to other procedures such as preventing a contagious disease which was probably created by them in a lab (but for political and career reasons won't say anything...i.e. they are not merely operating out of pure good) what would "success" look like?  Its relatively easy to spot a working helicopter or a good cook but what exactly is a good empirical epidemiologists?  

It seems as if to the mainstream if the cases or deaths go up the vaccines, masks and mandates all work! If these numbers go down they work too!  One can see this quite well with Tom Woods (https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/) which may explain the opposite phenomona but then again where is the testable product and might there be a missing variable (let’s say natural immunity)? Or maybe Alex Berenson is right and virus gonna virus?  Its not entirely clear what the answer is but the American Medical establishment has stated that if one spreads misinformation based on the acceptable narrative they will lose their license.   To quote Upton Sinclair- It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. https://www.fsmb.org/advocacy/news-releases/fsmb-spreading-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-may-put-medical-license-at-risk/ 

Ep 66: What is art and why is SJW art bad?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses what is art and why SJW art is bad with Don.   What makes good movies, books and art?   What is the purpose of art in general?  What is the purpose of SJW art? To further the egalitarian agenda?   Why is most of the latest Hollywood films and shows quite terrible and full of cheesy and idiotic plots, characters and themes.   Was older art better then current art?  What are some of the most egregious SJW films and comics?  

Ep. 65: Is the Taliban's victory a win or defeat for the West?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses the Taliban's victory and most likely the multi nation coalition dominated by the US leaving Afghanistan.  We at the Mindcrime liberty show argue it is a victory.  It is a victory for Ron Paul, Scott Horton, Glen Greenwald, Julian Assange and Peter Hitchens.   It is a huge loss for arms contractors, neocons, hawkish liberals/progressives, imperial feminists and "Wilsonites" who want to export democracy abroad.   This war also exposes some pesky problems for anti war culturally left wing people in a way that is much different then the Vietnam war.  The Taliban are very much a socially conservative group which brings certain groups to the front of line in advocacy for war at this point.   This defeat also exposes a lot of phoney left wing/liberal anti war people like Stephen Colbert as well as the corporate media at large who peddled all the lies and half truths to get the West involved.  

Ep. 64 Is Anarchism progressive or reactionary? Is the state inevitable w/Keith Preston?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses the topic of anarchism and whether its a progressive (ie progress oriented ideology in the  Alasdair MacIntyre framework) or is a reactionary, bleak or tragic one?  Why have there been so many failures in the grand sense in the past 70 or so years ranging from various wars to create liberal states in eastern Europe and the middle east to the failure of almost all major ideological projects on grand terms?  Does anyone actually have a plan on the left or the right which can work or are we all Francis "Fukuyamists" or "Pinkerites" now? Do anarchists of  left, right and individualists stripes believe that modernity and industrialization has been worth the cost. Did the state create modernity?  Did the enlightenment or modernity grow the state and state power?  Were people more free in the past then they are in late "capitalist" industrialized "statist" mass democratic societies? Is Stephen Pinker and Francis Fukuyama  right and that liberal democracy has brought about the end of history?  If that is the case why is there so much unrest and does the unrest translate into any actual plan other then catharsis?  Are anarchists the only ideology left standing and what does that anarchism actually entail?  If anarchists goal is to abolish the state why hasn't the state been abolished and what are the chances that it actually gets abolished?  Is this a 2000 year plus problem that dates back to Babylon?  What would the character of a post state society look like?  Progressive or reactionary of some variety? 

Ep. 63: Men, Women and Society in the 21st Century w/Natty.

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses men, woman and society in the 21st century with guest Natty who has been active in various men's rights movements.  What are the roles of men and woman? How and when did they change?  Why are family courts such kangaroo courts for men?  What is the future for men and boys in society?   Is there any case for optimism in formal society? What is feminism? Has anything changed at the very top?  

Ep 62 MacIntyre vs Marx. Why the left will fail on its own terms.

The mindcrime liberty show discusses  MacIntyre and his book After Virtue. In After Virtue MacIntyre outlines an argument which ends up as one of the best  arguments against Marxism and the left generally.  If the current society, which most Marxists and leftists reside in ie the "West," is so impoverished, wretched and terrible as so many Marxists and leftists claim it is and full of various "isms" and "problematic" historical persons and institutions how will a better society emerge out of this impoverished mess which they claim the existing west is? One can dispute who is and isn't in the west but some phenomena like that clearly exists.   The third wordlist might be able to make an argument or some uncontacted group but those groups are increasingly far between.  Certain "western" ideas have went almost everywhere including some form of Marxism which itself a "western" idea.   Marx, Hegel, Kant and Engels are all they themselves are part of historical Western civilization for better or worse. Most Marxists interpret these kinds of arguments as "ad hominem" but if most of them are part of the managerial class then why would they be the ones to actually do it?   They either can claim that the current society and its past isn't as bad as they claim it is or they become as described by MacIntyre  the spectre of "pessimistic Marxists" and in a sense as MacIntyre describes ceases to be a Marxist.  "Conservative" socialists are no socialists at all!  If one is skeptical of man or the society writ large  one in  some sense cannot advocate a utopian poltiical program because one doesn't think there is actually a "tolerable" poltiical institution.   Anarchism of some variety might exist as a tolerable political institution but the contents of said anarchism will be disputed and to bring in another point which MacIntyre makes there is no way to actually determine which argument is "correct" other than of course naked power (a la Nietzche).   Although MacIntyre  is no "anarcho capitalist" or right libertarian he does use Robert Nozick as an equal to John Rawls in one of the later chapters of After Virtue.  Capitalism, even in its corrupted form which Murray Rothbard wouldn't recognize as being such, does exist in some diluted way or another and of course the enemies of it clearly describe the existing society as such.  Capitalism (ie private property, family and competition between firms and the "anarchy" of production) is one of the central elements of the West and fits what Thomas Sowell describes the constrained or tragic view which is very much skeptical of "progress."   Finally in a related point MacIntyre makes, which most Marxists interpret as ad hominem,  is with respect to virtues themselves and how to be a "better person." If one is going to build a better society one is going to need virtuous and courageous persons and for the most part Marxists undermine the virtues or are outright skeptical of them promising a society free from want and pain. 

Ep 61: The errors and blind spots of Historians. What can we know? W/Terminal Philosophy.

The Mindcrime liberty show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss what can actually be known about history.   How does issues of epistemology, propaganda and  interpretation effect history?  How much of history, especially which is relevant, is merely lost to history and unknown? What can we know about the ancient Egyptians, Spartans or even say Alexander the Great? How much of written accounts do we actually have? Of the phenomena we do have information and text available what is missing?  What perspectives is one getting?    Is the student of history only getting the "NY times version" or elite version of history?  If one merely relied only official reports and the NY Times' to understand the recent American elections or the war in Iraq  one would be getting quite an air brushed and one sided version of history.  It isn't hard to expand this analogy to past events and one would be left with doubts about what can known.    At least Societies in the "west" for all their censorship have a tradition of "openness" to some degree but on the contrary how does one know about closed societies such as a North Korea or the former Soviet Union?  What can actually be known about history and with what confidence?  Is philosophy a better guide than history?