I took a bit of time where I cared not to pay any attention to the news. It was boring, repetitive, and far from plausible. What comes across the wires, airwaves, and printing press, still defies belief in large part, but perhaps in some measure as a consequence of the now in full swing presidential election season, it can hardly be described as boring. When Islamists took to their most useful habit and began slaughtering Jews in Israel, the informed observer had to anticipate the reaction would be sweeping. The Jewish State began a campaign of ethnic cleansing in the neighboring Palestinian territory, predictably invoking the so called Holocaust and condemning all critics as anti-Semites. This is what passes for boring in my view these days, since Jews earning enmity and then feigning surprise is as old as the Jews themselves. Things get interesting when the conflict spreads beyond the local dispute. Israel has now bombed Lebanon and Syria in pursuit of alleged militants. Though over decidedly different subject matter, Pakistan and Iran have each conducted strikes within the other's borders. American warships are in the region, supposedly with the intent of preventing precisely what we are witnessing occur nonetheless. While there, they've taken the opportunity to launch air strikes into Yemen against what have been called "Houthi Rebels". In case you haven't been keeping count, that's seven countries in some state of military conflict all within striking distance of one another. Call it 8 if you are among those who recognize Palestine as its own State. As a point of reference, though noting other countries had smaller roles, the Encyclopedia Britannica lists 9 "main combatants"  for World War I, and 8 for World War II. So, keep in mind there is a war going on between Ukraine and Russia, and that all NATO signatories are in essence undeclared combatants. With this as our frame of reference, it is hardly unreasonable to say that World War III is well underway. Despise the so-called "deep state" all you want, but at a time like this I take some comfort to know that Joe Biden is not calling the shots. Though surely preferable to think that we had some measure of control over our own government, so long as we are going to be saddled with fraudulent elections, inundated with foreign voters, and cursed with a population dumb enough to believe what it reads in the New York Times, it is a comforting thought that the people who are killing us, might at least care enough for their own survival to limit the damage as they rapidly escalate multiple armed conflicts among nuclear belligerents. I took no small amusement recently to see a social media comment in which a listener stated Trump's election would only amount to war with Iran. A narrow view if I've ever seen one. Much happens during a presidency. Wars not least of all, it might go without saying, but if in the course of a four year term, war with Iran were to be the only trouble a President got us into, that might be seen as a form of success, given the way things are going today. While, in a vacuum, war with Iran is undesirable in the extreme, and given an up or down choice of war or no war, I choose no war ten out of ten times, we do not reside in a vacuum, and such ideas are useful only as thought exercises. The question before us today is not whether or not the candidate you vote for will get us into war with Iran. The question is, whether or not the next president of the United States, will be the last to hold that once honorable title.  Will Joe Biden prove capable of navigating the ongoing World War? Will Nikki Haley show more or less enthusiasm for armed conflict than Donald Trump? Will Ron DeSantis show more fortitude in the face of Israeli coercion than he has mustered as Governor of the State of Florida?  In the end, only death is certain, though one is unlikely to lose if he bets on the perpetuation of taxes as well.  One thing commonly perceived to be among the many downsides of war is the power it tends to place in the executive branch. Presidents can literally get away with murder when it ranks among their top duties to kill large numbers of people, and when that is one's frame of reference it hardly seems sensible to fuss over more trivial abuses.  Given that World War III is upon us, it hardly seems sensible to quibble over what wars Donald Trump would or would not start. It might be seen as a very substantial upside that he is talking about ending wars, but the sane observer must note that this would be challenging in the extreme and understand that Presidents frequently break less ambitious campaign promises than this.  And so, I got to musing about what upside might be gained from a wartime Trump presidency, which went well with a story on the domestic front.  The Radical Agenda airs live every Friday at 9:30pm US Eastern. Give us a call at 217-688-1433

One may or may not be shocked to learn that I still have friends who call themselves anarchists. Not of the Molotov cocktail variety, but rather of the Murray Rothbard sort. Libertarians who take their love of liberty to the ultimate extreme and say the State ought not exist and should instead be replaced by a system of private law governed by property and contracts. I once counted myself among these types, hence the prior existing friendships, but I was forced to reconsider my ideas, largely as a consequence of immigration.  Say what you will about the merit of the ideas these folks hold, one thing I have typically found is that most are anxious for the opportunity to discuss them, and they have, for the most part, been well trained on how to do this. They have a tendency to see themselves as the most rational of creatures, and to prove this to themselves and others, their style of discussing politics tends to abide by predictable rules which are if nothing else civil.  And, though their self perception is of the eminently rational, they also tend to be preoccupied with the concept of morality. They are typically driven by a desire to be good and decent people, and to operate in a fashion typically not unbecoming a religious person, whether they happen toe believe in God or not. Some of the features here described are more universal than others. The sexual proclivities of some, of course, would be quite unbecoming to any recognizable religion, but that is a different topic than I aim to address today, and by no means universal.  Probe them long enough, and you will occasionally get them to admit this property based order looks a lot more like monarchy than anarchism. Essentially, one concludes this amounts to government by landlord. The property owner is king, and those who reside on his property are his subjects. Without the restraint of constitutions and little concern for democratic consequences, the range of potential outcomes borders on limitless, depending almost entirely upon the character of the property owner.  But even if they come to agree with this, they still tend to say it is anarchism because there is "no State".  This gives way to conversations about what "the State" is and to what extent other forms of control may exist without deriving the title. From where does the State derive its legitimacy? Or is such legitimacy even possible?  These concepts are not limited to friendly debates with civilized libertarians. So much of our failed political discourse today stems from a lack of consensus on the nature of the State and its purpose, what powers it has, and from where its authority derives. We run around in endless circles debating the merits of policies, without ever stopping to consider that the foundations of our discussion are eroding beneath us, and we wonder then why things spiral out of control and we appear to be racing towards civil war.  This evening, I intend to make a basic case for what I believe the nature of the State to be, and to make a defense of its mere existence. I do not expect this to satisfy all questions, and it will have to be returned to again and again, but I am convinced that this is actually among the most important concerns of our time, and this evening, I mean to scratch the surface. And of course, there is plenty in the news to discuss, and your calls are welcome.  Catch SurrealP0litiks every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern on Rumble or Odysee