The Quiet American - A Libertarian Review

This movie (1) is set in Vietnam during the 1950's when the French colonists were fighting the Ho Chi Mihn's Communist forces. Thomas Fowler--a British journalist in his 50s--is a correspondent for the London Times, covering the conflict. He meets a young American aid worker--Alden Pyle--who immediately falls in love with the former's Vietnamese mistress Phuong.

Although it seems that Phuong is in love with the older Fowler, she above all else desires to marry a Westerner so that she may move to their country with them. The problem is that Fowler is already married; and because his wife is a devout Catholic, he has not been able to divorce her and marry Phuong. This lead to Phuong leaving Fowler for Pyle, who she will be able to marry and then move to the U.S. with.

While all of this is going on, a "third power" (not French and not Communist) arises in Vietnam in the person of a General The. Pyle lets it be known that he supports this man and his cause since he believes that colonialism is not the answer to the problems in Vietnam, but Communism is not either. This seemingly noble idea runs into the fact that since the new general's rise to prominence, there has been an increase in atrocities (more like terror attacks) throughout the country that the West is blaming on the Communist forces. Fowler soon discovers that the "third power" The is behind these attacks, with American aide, in hopes of acquiring even more aid from the U.S.

Fowler then finds out that Pyle is not truly an aide worker, but really a CIA undercover operative sent to the country to find such a "third power" and assist in the rise of it, by means of the aforementioned terrorist attacks. Thus, Pyle had been complicit (directly or indirectly) in all of the killings of innocents that had been taking place. Once he finds this out, he agrees to assist his Vietnamese contacts assassinate Pyle.

The movie ends with Pyle getting stabbed and killed, and then Phuong returning to Fowler, who promises her that he "will never leave" Vietnam or her.

Links

1. http://www.amazon.com/The-Quiet-American-Michael-Caine/dp/B00005JLXB
2. https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=gladio+b - For more on the staging of terrorist attacks in foreign countries by the CIA in the furtherance of their objectives, please research "Gladio B"

The Wisdom of Laotse - A Libertarian Review

I shall first discuss the layout of this book--the 1948 Modern Library edition (1). The editor has kept the original Laotse text at the beginning of each chapter; however, he then usually includes related writings on the topics by Laotse's greatest disciple, Chuangtse. These additional writings are very useful in expounding the ideas of Laotse, and in a manner than any regular layman can readily comprehend. This is not to say that all of Laotse's writings are hard to grasp, but they tend to be quite philosophical and may require many re-readings to fully comprehend.

The main tenant of Taoism is that all things in the universe originated from the same source, what the authors term "the Tao". The authors then spend the rest of the book spelling out the implications of this. Some of the main ideas expressed are as follows (in no particular order):

• Life and death is a natural cycle; thus, do not mourn one's passing
• All distinctions in the world are arbitrary; they result from differing viewpoints
• The world is in a constant state of change; worldly things are temporary in nature
• Worldly desires tend to lead to the destruction of character/one's self
• Inaction--allowing natural forces to take place--is how to realize one's highest self 
• Be like water; benefit all, compete with none (be humble)
• Laissez Faire in government allows the citizenry to reach their fullest potential

While much of the book expounds the Taoist world view, the authors also take the time to highlight the differences between their belief system and that of the Confucians. The Confucians' creed boils down to "humanity and justice" in all human interaction, including that of the state. Both of our authors show the reader why this is the wrong course to take--though it sounds quite noble in its intentions--and why Taoism is to be much preferred.

Libertarian Take-away

Murray Rothbard claimed that Laotse was the first libertarian (1). The reader of this book will be quick to find out why. Not only does the main tenant of Taoism--inaction--conform to the libertarian principle of the non-aggression principle, but many of Laotse's subsequent teachings also directly relate to that of libertarianism. For instance, Laotse greatly stresses the harm that "humanity and justice" practiced by the state must always lead to; while extolling the effects that a policy of Laissez Faire in state affairs would result in. He sums this idea up by asking the pertinent question of, "if one cannot take care of himself, how can he take care of the world?". He also touches upon the destructive and immoral nature of war and all forms of violence, going so far  as to say that "the violent man dies a violent death". These are but two of many such nuggets of wisdom that the libertarian will find in this gold mine of a book. This book is highly recommended not only as additional ammunition in the libertarian reader's arsenal, but also due to the positive effects it can have on altering the way the reader looks at the world.


Links 

1. http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Laotse-Modern-Library/dp/B000EETKIA
2. https://mises.org/library/ancient-chinese-libertarian-tradition 
3.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotse
4.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_Zhou

The Americanization of Emily - A Libertarian Review

This is a very powerful film (Link 1) about the realities of war. It is a drama, with its various dialogues about war, a comedy, with many downright outrageous scenes, and also romantic, with Charlie and Emily's relationship.

Set in the months before and including D-Day, Charlie is a "Dog Robber" for an American admiral of the Navy--someone who must see to it that the admiral is very well fed and taken care of during the war. The setting is in London, far removed from any battlefront. Emily is one of Charlie's drivers and initially finds him very distasteful since he both is chauvinistic as well as not remorseful in getting to enjoy many of the items that the average British citizen has not been allowed to eat or possess during the war. However, she eventually warms up to him after attending one of the parties that he set up for the admiral. From then on, the two fall madly in love with each other.

The two are seemingly quite different. Emily is quite proud of being a war widow and having a father, brother, and cousins that have also died in war. On the other hand, Charlie believes that there is nothing to be proud of in regards to a soldier's death; that it is truly living that one should admire and respect. This conflict comes to a head when Charlie is sent to film  a live movie of the invasion of Normandy and believes that he will be able to avoid actually taking part. Emily believes that it is cruel and very dishonorable to wish to avoid the invasion while thousands of other soldiers will not be so fortunate. It is then that Emily breaks off their relationship.

After it is believed that Charlie dies on Omaha Beach, Emily comes around to Charlie's feelings about war. She lets it be known that she no longer is proud of death during war.

Throughout the film, there are several scenes that contain bitter criticism of war and how it is perpetuated. The most important of these is when Charlie meets Emily's mother (Link 2). During the exchange between Charlie and the mother, Charlie states that it is the public that are most to blame for continual war--not the generals and politicians at whom the finger is often pointed. He explains that it is the people and their glorification of war that makes it palatable to the public at large. For a current example of this, one only needs to look at how members of the U.S. military are treated--and often worshiped--by the average American.  This is the main message of the film. To put it another way, war will never truly end so long as it is seen as honorable to fight and die for one's country.

It can clearly be seen that the world today--especially in America--is not even close to this philosophy. However, if more and more people begin to see war for what is truly is (Links 3-5), then we may one day achieve this noblest of ideals.

Links

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MUd06J-F4w&spfreload=10
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reUstMn4bM8&spfreload=10
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk&list=PLfZW33CKLKfuIrh0abieHTVYlxZV22zgE
4. http://ronpaulinstitute.org/
5. http://antiwar.com/

My Dinner with Andre - A Libertarian Review

I recently watched this very unique film (See link 4 below), and found much value in it.

Granted, the first thirty minutes is hard to get through--as it consists of Andre describing his wild journeys to Wally--but what follows is well worth the temporary pain. I nearly stopped watching it myself, but was urged on from what I had seen in a great YouTube clip (Link 1) from the film.

The conversation then shifts to a long exchange over what both characters believe to be the deeper meaning of life. Throughout this conversation, there are numerous claims advanced by both characters--especially Andre--that the viewer will no doubt find quite thought-provoking. The following statements from Andre are the ones I found to be the most valuable, in no particular order:

• Going through life on autopilot--by habit alone--is NOT truly living; instead, some degree of mindfullness should be used in all aspects of life
• habit leads to a dearth of true feeling and thought
• comfort can lull you into a false sense of security
• Most human contact is indirect and superficial; we must instead attempt to truly get to know the other person
• See the whole person, not only what/who you wish to see
• people are constantly told about what is wrong with the world; try instead to provide them with solutions (link 3)
• work to live, do not live to work

Another scene from the film (link 2)--one that will have libertarians salivating from the mouth--is when Andre poses a question about reality. He asks whether it is truly a kind of self-made matrix and that the people are going through life as drones, not even realizing that they created their own "prison". He then says that one of his friends stopped reading and watching the news in order to extricate himself from this matrix.

What I found to be the motif of this most interesting film is that in order to get the most out of life, one must take the time to look around and smell the roses, as opposed to thoughtlessly moving from one task to another. If one is always moving as fast as they can to get from A to B, they are not truly living. Awareness of life is the key to truly enjoying it.


Links:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl9wjhXqC98
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JLWyPxt7g
3. https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=solutions
4. Full Movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rc40jtqVVk&spfreload=10&hd=1

The Islamist "Problem"

The following post was originally my response to an email from my father.

Dad,

First of all, I think a discussion on this topic would be better since it is such a lengthy email and a topic with several different points. However, I will give a brief run-down of my thoughts on the matter.

Simply put, I believe that Mr. Wilders is wildly exaggerating the Islamist threat. He is using fear-mongering tactics very reminiscent to those used during the Cold War against Communism. As you well know, Americans were told again and again that Communism and its adherents would infiltrate each country and take them over--leading to the total destruction of liberty and a return to a world with conditions unseen since the middle ages.

This obviously did not happen due to multiple factors, some of which are also directly applicable to the Islamist threat. One important reason why Islam will not take over the world is that only a small percentage of professed Muslims desire to be ruled in a theocratic sort of way (ala a caliphate). This is evidenced by the fact that out of all of the Middle Eastern countries, Iran is the only one that is truly theocratic (and even it is becoming freer and more Westernized every year). Also, although ISIS is indeed seeking to establish a caliphate, they are not supported by ANY country on earth--or even Al Qaeda, for the matter--which should be a telling sign that there is not a mass Muslim conspiracy to form an all-encompassing Islamist caliphate. The real reason why they now hate America and its Western allies is because they are constantly occupying and bombing countries (and innocent women and children) over there. These terrorist organizations provide the best outlet for people whose entire families and fortunes have been destroyed by Westerners to exact revenge upon them. Would it be any different if the same thing was happening to Americans in our country? I think not.

As for Israel being the supposed lone beacon of human rights and democracy in the Middle East, it is quite interesting that about 90% of all Palestinian casualties in the recent conflict in Gaza were women and children, and also that Israel bombed schools, hospitals, power plants, and water treatment facilities--does that sound like a government that was respecting non-combatants? Granted, Hamas (the government of Gaza) used its civilians as cannon fodder to curry worldwide support, but should a so-called civilized country with such an elite military be committing such atrocities in response to the firing of unguided and very inaccurate rockets? Additionally, the Palestinians have stated repeatedly that they only seek a state of their own--nothing more. How is a people supposed to react when their land is given away to mostly foreigners by Western countries (Sykes-Picot Treaty) then that new country constantly blockading the most basic of items from entering the country and also settling in their segregated areas thus forcing them to move yet again?

Is it not interesting that the country that supposedly wants to annihilate Israel--Iran--has the second largest Jewish population in that region (second only to Israel itself)? Could it be that the propaganda machine of the West wants its people to think this?

Lastly, the issue of Muslim immigration into Europe is very real, but should be looked at through a historical lens. It is true that Muslim populations are increasing at a much faster rate than that of the native Europeans (mostly due to birth rates); however, is this really to be feared? Take a look into the history of America and its various waves of different immigrants. Were people also fearful and hateful towards the Irish, the Germans, the Japanese, etc? How did these fears play out? Did any of the supposed fears of these groups taking over America pan out? Furthermore, what makes Muslims so different from these groups? Was it not feared that Catholics would follow the papacy over the US government? Did that come to pass?

In summation, politics is driven by fear-mongering. If you take a look at the headlines today, the media is telling us that we should fear Putin and the Russians, ISIS, Assad, ebola, etc. Also, taking a look throughout history--especially leading up to the major wars--fear was always central in entering wars and taking away all of our liberties and freedom.

So no, I am not scared of this Islamist threat and I believe Mr. Wilders nothing more than a typical fear-mongering politician seeking even more power and resources to advance his own agenda, and that he has no concern for any of his constituents' freedoms, but is seeking powers that will only lead to the destruction of the small number of those that remain.

X