Blog

The War In Afghanistan Is Over, But Its Economy Is Collapsing

2021 12 16 08 15

While the Washington D.C. ruling class lectures the world about morality and human rights.

They’re witnessing a sharp rise in cases of malnutrition here and across the country, with both mothers and young infants in particular unable to get enough food. The UN has warned that one million children are at risk of dying due to starvation over the coming months. International support, which propped up the previous government, was withdrawn after the Taliban takeover in August, whilst the country’s foreign reserves, totaling around $10bn, have been frozen – chiefly by the United States.”

 122230228 measuremalnutrition

“There’s no space inside,” shouts a beleaguered hospital worker as he tries to push back a frantic crowd of mothers and babies hoping to receive nutrition packs.

“It’s like this every day,” he yells out to us over their heads, “it’s been like this for the last four or five months… It was bad last year too, but not like this.”

The war in Afghanistan is over, but its economy is collapsing and at this hospital, in the remote, central province of Ghor, they’re struggling to cope with the fallout.

International support, which propped up the previous government, was withdrawn after the Taliban takeover in August, whilst the country’s foreign reserves, totaling around $10bn, have been frozen – chiefly by the United States.

Afghanistan has seen unemployment and food prices soar, whilst the value of its currency is plummeting and banks have set limits on cash withdrawals.

more here

H/T Joshua Landis

 

Afghanistan Is Now Facing Mass Starvation

Sharyn Alfonsi: Some of the humanitarian workers we spoke to said that the country is on the verge of its worst humanitarian crisis ever. Do you believe that to be true?

Dr. Qalandar Ebad: We are on the edge of this crisis. Everyone knows that the funds are freezed by the international community. I think they can unfreeze the funds for the health sector of Afghanistan. It is very important for the need of the time.

Sharyn Alfonsi: The international community has spoken pretty clearly and said, they’re “not gonna unfreeze funds unless there’s a guarantee that all girls will be educated in Afghanistan.” Is the Taliban willing to consider any kind of movement in that area?

More here

h/T Geopolitics and Empire

 

The Ron Paul Revolution: A Ten Year Retrospective

Join Dr. Ron Paul and Tom Woods, plus very special guest Glenn Greenwald in Texas for an event you won’t want to miss! Ron Paul’s two campaigns for president (2008 and 2012) were watershed moments for liberty-minded people around the world. The “Ron Paul Revolution”—centered around his undiluted message of peace, property, and markets—changed the way millions thought about the American empire and the American financial system. Dr. Paul’s focus on central banking and foreign policy caught politicians and pundits off guard, forcing them to scramble for explanations of our Middle East policy and Soviet-style central planning at the Fed. Politics in America has not been the same since the “Giuliani moment” and “End the Fed.” Like the Tea Party and Bernie Bros. movements which followed, the Ron Paul Revolution was both a political and cultural phenomenon. It also helped launch the career of Senator Rand Paul. Today, the lasting effects of the Ron Paul Revolution are evident but mixed. The country seems less free and less secure than ever, divided along vicious partisan lines. So what can we learn from the Revolution to help us going forward, and what role do Paul’s prescriptions play in a landscape of progressives and populists? Where do we go from here, when peace and sanity seem impossible? This is an event you don’t want to miss, as we’ll consider the past but with an eye toward a more hopeful future! Tom Woods will provide his perspective on the Ron Paul Revolution 10 years later, and Daniel McAdams will present the case for recognizing a “Ron Paul Doctrine.” Our very special guest, journalist Glenn Greenwald, will speak remotely on the critical importance of independent media. Tentative Schedule (all times CST) 9:20 a.m. – Jeff Deist: Welcome and opening remarks 9:30 a.m. – Daniel McAdams: “The Ron Paul Doctrine” 10:00 a.m. – Tom Woods: Introduction of Glenn Greenwald 10:05 a.m. – Glenn Greenwald (remote from Brazil): “The Critical Need for Independent Media” 11:15 a.m. – Lydia Mashburn: “End the Fed! How Ron Paul Made Monetary Policy an Issue” 11:35 a.m. – Tom Woods: “Lessons from the Revolution” 12:15 p.m. – Live filming of The Ron Paul Liberty Report with Dr. Paul and Daniel McAdams: “A Retrospective on the Ron Paul Movement” 12:45 p.m. – Dr. Ron Paul

 

Joe Norman On Why Localism Is Coming

https bucketeer e05bbc84 baa3 437e 9518 adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com public images 097d2712 8dff 4c08 8baa 9de2324925ee 612x408

We don’t need “the global village”; we need a “globe of villages”.

And when I say need here I don’t mean it in an ethical, or moral, or aesthetic sense. I mean it in the most practical sense: in order to survive we must re-localize.

The global village idea is a non-starter. It misses that complex adaptive systems of a certain class typically have a characteristic scale. That is, a certain size at which they necessarily are realized. Nearly every adult human being you will ever meet will be between five and seven feet tall. And you will not find a land mammal larger than an elephant. Simply, a bigger elephant can’t exist — it would collapse on itself.

So it is with the village. You can’t just inflate it to arbitrary proportions and get the same kind of thing, or expect to get something that works at all, that doesn’t collapse on itself. In attempting to create a massive village, you destroy everything that makes something a “village” to begin with.

But it’s not just the “global village” that won’t work. It’s all of the global designs that those with large-scale agendas are trying to shove us into. They won’t work because they can’t work — something that would dissuade their architects if they understood it.

The essence of life is patterns that persist in the face of fluctuations.

The demand for a global order is often framed in a way that acknowledges this simple truth: for instance calls that we must act in unison at the global scale to combat climate change.

The problem is that most of our problems are not global, but much more local. And the danger of committing to a global order to address the large problems, are the constraints that make it impossible to address the smaller-but-no-less-crucial ones. Locally, we must be free to address problems that arise, including those that that no one foresaw. If we are over-constrained by a large-scale design we will not be able to do that.

And this is why localism is coming, whether we want it or not. And we can do this the easy way, or the hard way.

Problems don’t come in a single size: some are very small, some are very large, and crucially, many are in-between. Libertarians recognize the very-small; those who demand a global order recognize the very-large; the medium-sized problems demand that we act as local communities — relatively free from the demands of a global order but in a way that coordinates local actors for addressing threats to local sociocultural persistence.

More here

Why A Citizen Contract Is Better Than A Consitution

2021 11 29 08 31

From their state most people demand – at least – protection of life, liberty and property. In exchange, they are willing to pay for it. So why not put the relationship between citizen and state on a purely contractual basis? Such a Citizen Contract would offer much better protection than any kind of constitution, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, because the contract cannot be changed unilaterally by one side. Constitutions are changed, even against the will of the people concerned, provided there is a respective majority. Secondly, because the Contract Citizens would have a better legal standing. Both sides would be contractual parties on an equal legal footing. As with any other service provider, citizens could sue or withhold payments to the state if they believed that the contract was not being properly fulfilled. Thirdly, because other parties would not be able to interfere with this contractual relationship. Citizens would know that they couldn’t change the content of the contracts of fellow citizens, neither through government nor parliament, and therefore would respect each other’s different views and assessments. The state would eventually morph from having a demigod and uber-father status, to having the status of a mere service-provider.

More here

 

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest