Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
Patriot Purge Article1/31/2022 James Markis
In early November, Tucker Carlson announced the release of his three-part documentary, Patriot Purge, detailing the true nature of the January 6th “Insurrection”. Ever since the riot at the Capitol took place last January, the mainstream media has peddled lies and conspiracies about how it was an organized insurrection by Trump supporters, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, and President Trump himself. Carlson, to a hail of controversy and attempts to “cancel” him, was determined to uncover the truth of that winter day in Washington D.C. He begins Part 1 of the documentary by highlighting the similarities of Bush with the War on Terror against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and what was now being portrayed as a Domestic War on Terror against Trump supporters who attempted to overthrow the U.S. government by walking into the Capitol unarmed. Carlson interviews Ali Alexander who, along with Alex Jones, was portrayed as the lead insurrectionist urging people to enter the Capitol and murder members of Congress as well as Vice President Mike Pence. Alexander and Jones are shown on video directing people away from the Capitol building and towards their government-approved place of protest. Part 1 also connects how for months the mainstream media encouraged massive rioting and burning of major American cities and how common American citizens felt that was the proper response to anger at the system. Carlson also highlights the role of the FBI in the event, as multiple people who were supposed “insurrectionists” and was leading the charge into the Capitol on video, were FBI informants. The FBI was looking for a reason to destroy Trump supporters, and thus this false-flag operation was carried out to turn what was a peaceful protest into a supposed insurrection. Part 2 of the documentary highlights the abuses of the FBI further, with the breaking into the home of an Alaskan couple who supposedly stole Speaker Pelosi’s laptop. The FBI was completely wrong on this being the couple, but Carlson’s interview with them highlights the violations of the law committed by the FBI in both their search and seizure of items. The most eye-opening aspect of the interview was when it was revealed the FBI took a copy of the Declaration of Independence from the couple as evidence of “radical beliefs”. Carlson also interviews a DEA agent who was forced out of their job, as well as a Fort Bragg female commander who was deemed a domestic terrorist. The role of the FBI in the actual January 6th event, as well as their subsequent attacks on law-abiding, patriotic Americans, was the most disturbing part of the documentary until you watch part 3. Part 3 of the documentary highlights the inhumane treatment these “terrorists” faced and are currently facing in prison. Prisoners were held in solitary confinement for days on end, could not receive legal aid, and faced treatment previously only known to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Dick Barnett of Arkansas, who took the famous photo with his feet on Pelosi’s desk, is interviewed by Carlson and highlights the terrible treatment and abuses that he suffered while in prison. He is still forced to wear an ankle bracelet and faces years in jail for his actions on January 6th. Finally, Carlson concludes the documentary with the most solemn part of the day, the death of Ashli Babbitt. A veteran of the United States armed forces, Babbitt was shot at point-blank range in the Capitol with no warning, by a Capitol police officer who was known to be trigger happy, and even left his gun unattended in the bathroom once. Babbitt was unarmed and not attacking anybody, she was simply trying to enter through a broken glass window. The Capitol Hill Police Officer faced no repercussions for the shooting. Carlson interviewed Babbitt’s husband and her mother, and it is clear from the interview she was not a terrorist or extremist, but instead, a patriotic American who voted for Donald Trump. Overall, Patriot Purge offers the true story of what happened on January 6th in Washington D.C. and how it was anything but the insurrection that the media claims. It was a riot at the Capitol, with the urging and planning not of Trump supporters, but of FBI informants, who then, in turn, violated the Constitutional and human rights of those same supporters, including murdering one of them. Carlson does a phenomenal job in this portrayal, and although the left tries its best, he will once again not be canceled for telling the truth.
Back to Blog
Libertarianism is Not Anti-Moralism1/31/2022 Paul Keenan
In his article, “Are Libertarians Conservatives?” our BCR President Tom Sarrouf argued that libertarianism is inherently self-contradictory, due to its alleged opposition to moralism. Here is the core of Sarrouf’s argument: [...] “the problem for the libertarians is that they haven’t quite grasped the notion that libertarianism is a moral position.” Libertarians are moralists! Just think about what they say: “The government ought not legislate morality; it is wrong for the government to legislate morality; the government ought not limit my autonomy to do what I want to do with my own free choice so long as I do not hurt anyone else.” These are clearly moral claims, and they represent the core of the libertarian position. The problem lies in the fact that they believe that the government ought not legislate morality. It misunderstands this key point: all laws legislate some morality, even something as seemingly banal as which side of the road people drive on; if no law is posited on that point, people will die. Indeed, to create a law, one must make the moral argument that we ought to have such a law. And so the error in the libertarian argument is that the conclusion of that argument is to seek the obfuscation of all moral claims and instantiations of morality in law and society, even though they begin from a premise that is moral; in short, it is a contradiction. If libertarians claimed that the government “ought not legislate morality,” they would indeed be guilty of the contradiction highlighted. However, this is simply not the libertarian claim. Sarrouf more accurately summarizes the libertarian claim in the phrase “the government ought not limit my autonomy to do what I want to do with my own free choice so long as I do not hurt anyone else.” This is, of course, a moral claim. It is a demand that the government follow the same moral rules that we recognize as binding when applied to any other organization. There may be libertarians out there in the world who do claim to oppose “legislating morality.” There are incoherent followers of every political ideology. But no prominent libertarian thinker, from Hayek to Friedman to Nozick to Rothbard to Rand, would ever assent to that claim. The following example may help to elucidate the libertarian moral position: It is immoral to lie. That does not mean that if someone lies it would be justified to kill them. The fact that someone has acted immorally does not permit any and every punishment. Ordinary moral intuitions tell us that the response to an immoral act should be proportionate to the severity of the act. It is immoral to respond to a small moral infraction—lying—with a much grander moral infraction—murder. It may be justified to use violence to prevent greater violence: neutralizing a potential mass shooter is indeed a heroic act. A libertarian recognizes that every law is backed by the threat of violence. For many laws, this threat of violence is justified, and morally good. Using violence when necessary to prevent murder, theft, rape, slavery, and so on, is of course morally justified. Using violence to prevent someone from smoking pot is ridiculous and immoral. Libertarianism does not rely on any particular moral foundation, like, say, Aristotelianism or Utilitarianism or Kantianism: there are libertarians who identify with each and every one of these strains of thought, and still come to the same conclusions about the desirability of state violence. Whether one is Christian, or Buddhist, or an atheist, so long as one applies their moral rules consistently to the state, it is not hard to come to libertarian conclusions. |