Against ‘Eminent Domain’ Land Robbery

Elia Kazan’s Wild River

There are not many Hollywood movies that can be called openly libertarian. There are occasional movies that might be called closet libertarian. Think of this review as outing one of them.

Wild River was a financial flop, unlike most of Kazan’s other films in the 1950’s: A Streetcar Named DesireOn the Waterfront, and East of Eden. It received little attention at the time, and it has not been revived as a cult classic, unlike Kazan’s A Face in the Crowd (1957). I think this is because the film’s theme is too foreign for modern film reviewers.

It is the story of the building of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s system of dams. It takes place in the mid-1930’s. It begins with newsreel footage of a flood on the Tennessee River.

Montgomery Clift plays a TVA bureaucrat whose job is to persuade an 80-year-old matriarch to sell her island in the middle of the river. She had refused so far, despite the arguments of previous bureaucrats. The TVA is running out of time to clear the land of trees. It does not want to evict her by force . . . yet. It would be bad publicity. Ethics has nothing to do with the TVA’s reticence to foreclose and evict.

The matriarch is played by Jo Van Fleet, who made a career of playing women decades her senior. Her scene as the dying mother of Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke is memorable. Her less known scene as an Italian matriarch in The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight has this classic line: “If it’s not in the Daily News, there wasn’t no murder.” But nothing she did matches her role as Ella Garth.

In one scene in the film, the bureaucrat tries to persuade her that the dams will bring progress, including electricity. She is buying none of it. She sees this as the destruction of her way of life. Finally, she challenges him: “You can get me off by force, I reckon. It won’t take much force, but it will take some.” [Ed., defunct link deleted.]

Later in the film, she stages a scene for the bureaucrat. It is not clear to him or the viewer at first exactly what is going on. She has a confrontation with a black man, one of dozens who do all the work on her island, which is a low-income plantation.

She confronts the man. She says she wants to buy his dog. He refuses to sell. She offers him $15, which in the rural South in the Great Depression was a lot of money. He refuses. She asks him if the price is fair. He says the dog is not worth much, but he refuses to sell.

Then she ups the ante. She tells him that she is going to take his dog, so he might as well take her money. He still refuses.

She then tells the bureaucrat that this is what ownership is all about. She walks away, having made her point.

I have never seen property rights defended any more clearly on screen. She initially comes off as a die-hard remnant of the ante-bellum South. But it is clear at the end of this staged confrontation that race is not the issue for her, nor is power. It is the right to say “no” when someone says he is going to buy your property.

The uncredited actor who plays the dog’s owner was Robert Earl Jones, James Earl Jones’ father. Also uncredited is Bruce Dern, in his first movie role. He plays the familiar Bruce Dern character: a sniveling slimeball bully. He was typecast early in his career.

It is worth noting that a quarter century later, Mel Gibson starred in The River (1984), a movie about a family farmer trying to make a living at the edge of a Tennessee river, which periodically floods the region. You mean the TVA had not solved the flooding problem after all? You mean that farmers buy low-priced land that occasionally floods, because that is all they can afford? You mean that people take risks if the price is right? At least everyone had electricity. It makes declaring bankruptcy more comfortable.

February 3, 2009

From LRC, here.

Corona: We TOLD You So!

Descent Into Public Health Totalitarianism

The unspeakable stain of the Covid tyranny requires the very opposite of the “pandemic amnesty” that the craven poltroons at the Atlantic magazine suggested recently. That’s because the precedent was such a grave affront to constitutional liberty and capitalist prosperity that those responsible should be exposed, hounded and shamed, and prosecuted where warranted, so that future power-grabbers will forever be reminded that tyranny cannot be imposed with impunity.

From the very beginning of the pandemic, there were legions of pedigreed epidemiologists and other scientists—many of who later signed the Great Barrington Declaration—who correctly held that viruses cannot be extinguished via draconian quarantines and other clumsy one-size-fits-all public health interventions; and that when it came to corona-viruses in particular, it was doubtful whether even vaccines—which had never been successful with coronaviruses—could defeat the latter’s natural propensity to mutate and spread.

In a word, from its earliest days, there was no reason for a sweeping intervention by the public health apparatus at all. Nor for the coercive one-size-fits all, state-driven mobilization of quarantines, lockdowns, testing, masking, distancing, surveilling, snitching and ultimately mandated mass vaxxing with experimental drugs developed under a dangerous multi-ten billion government subsidy scheme called Operation Warp Speed, followed by an open-ended Emergency Use authorization that shielded the pharma companies from any and all liabilities.

That truth from the earliest days was especially the case because in addition to decades of scientific knowledge about the proper management of virus based pandemics, there existed the screaming real time evidence from the stranded Diamond Princess cruise ship. The 3,711 souls (2,666 passengers and 1,045 crew) aboard skewed heavily to the elderly, but the survival rate known in mid-March 2020 was 99.7% overall, and 100% for those under 70 years of age. In short, just 0.19% of an elderly skewed population had succumbed to the virus. So the facts which were known to the White House (or certainly should have been) made absolutely clear that the Covid was no Black Plague type threat. Full stop.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

Don’t Jewish ‘Orthodox’ Enemies of the Temple Feel a Bit Self-Conscious on Chanuka?!

If Avi Shafran Had Been Around In Maccabbean Times

(The shameful original article.)

(December, 164 BCE) — After Antiochus IV recaptured Jerusalem in the 168 BCE Judean War, the Jewish High Priesthood, headed by Menelaus, ordered that from then on, entering the Temple Mount area be strictly forbidden to traditional Jews, and on the authority of Antiochus IV, he outlawed Jewish religious rites and traditions, and the Temple service was replaced with a syncretic Greek-Jewish cult that included worship of Zeus.

The Mount — Judaism’s most sacred site, and toward which Jews the world over face when they pray — is where the ancient Jewish temple, the center of the faith and Jewish life, still stands. However, it was until recently administered by the Hellenist party, a Greek endowment run by the Seleucid Empire.

Antiochus IV and Menelaus’s enactments have remained the status quo for the last four years, until this past December, when unknown activists have asserted, in opposition to the Priesthood’s position and rulings by the most revered Hellenist authorities, that ascending the Mount is permitted after immersion in a ritual bath.

For years, we Jews have made the choice to not disrupt the Priesthood’s oversight. Hellenist authorities and Seleucid administrators agreed that Jews would be permitted to pray and worship in their own towns, as long as they also offered some sacrifice to the Greek pantheon. Hellenists would continue to have effective control of the now-Greek edifices atop the Mount. The compound would be open for visits by non-Greeks, but not for prayer.

Aside from Jewish religious objection to Jews entering the complex, there is a secular, political curb in place as well. By Seleucid law, non-Hellenists may go up to the Temple Mount to visit, but not to pray or conduct rites.

From a purely reasonable perspective, a prohibition against praying at a religious site — not to mention Jews praying at their faith’s holiest one — might seem puzzling. Indeed, there are some voices today in 164 BCE demanding that Judea not only occupy the site but raze all trace of foreign worship and cleanse the Jewish temple, which had already been rebuilt after being destroyed by the Babylonians centuries earlier.

The religious reasons for the prohibition are complex. To enter such a holy place, Jewish law requires any Jewish man or woman who has had contact with or been under the same roof as a deceased person to undergo a purification ritual that involves, among other things, a perfectly red heifer that has never been worked in any way — in other words, something exceedingly rare. In Jewish thought, the “red heifer” ritual is considered the ultimate example of an imponderable law but is binding all the same. (These unknown activists make dubious claims about halachic dispensations regarding the community conducting the Temple service even when everyone is impure, and how the laws just described only apply to specific places on the Temple Mount, but we flat out refuse to believe such rumors.)

Judea’s political leaders also feel that, to maintain the peace and demonstrate goodwill toward Hellenists, Greco-pagan worship on the Mount should not be disturbed. And so the decrees of Menelaus and Antiochus IV have been honored over the years.

Lately, Jewish nationalists bent on affirming the Jewish connection to the Mount have retaken the site, some trying to ignore the prohibition on non-Greek prayer. This year, visits to the site by Jews, exceeded 30,000.

Some of the visitors may have been motivated entirely by religious feelings, their souls pining to stand where their ancestors have prayed for hundreds of years. Others seem motivated more by nationalistic feelings than religious ones, by a desire to demonstrate Judea’s ultimate jurisdiction over the Temple Mount.

The latter is a provocation without a justification. It is also a gift to Hellenist extremists the world over who loathe Jews and search for anything they can portray as insulting.

The retaking of the Temple Mount is yet another provocation.

Thankfully, Menelaus and his party have requested of the King’s Regent Lysias to summon more armies to quell this nascent Jewish rebellion and restore the status quo on the Temple Mount. We Pray for their success.

Some nationalist Jews might be bristle at the old regime’s return. But Jews whose religious convictions are not entangled with nationalistic sentiments believe it not only wrong as an issue of Torah law to ascend the Mount, but wrong as well to goad or incite other peoples or religions. They — we — continue to pray, in synagogues distant form Jerusalem, that God himself will usher in the era when, in the metaphorical words of Isaiah, “a wolf and a lamb shall graze together,” when global peace and unity of purpose among all people will reign.

(Rabbi Avi Shafran is a shameful quisling, who if he were around at the time of the Maccabees, would have opposed everything they stood for and accomplished. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of traditional Jews or Mosaic Law.)

From Rabbi Avi Grossman, here.

Corona Narrative Believers ‘Don’t Have Much Time’ To Answer Questions…

Dialogue with a Narrative Believer

Responses to My First 10 Questions!

Much to my glad surprise, one narrative believer 1 was plucky enough to respond to 30 Questions for a Narrative Believer!

Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass
30 Questions for a Narrative Believer
Do you (or did you) believe the COVID narrative? If so, would you be willing to answer some questions? All I ask is that you honestly engage with the questions. I promise to listen attentively and respectfully. Your responses may help me and many others answer questions of historic importance…
Read more

While I received numerous responses from narrative skeptics (which I plan to share later—I’m still trying to find time to read them all), this has been my first (so far) from someone who identifies as pro-lockdown, pro–social distancing, pro-masking, pro–school closures, and pro-vaxx (although against mandates and vaxxports).


  1. I apologize to the participant for the use of “narrative believer,” which some have interpreted as pejorative. I have asked everyone who has expressed this objection (including him) to please help me come up with a noninflammatory, succinct term that describes those who accepted the COVID story being told by mainstream media, governments, pharmaceutical corporations, and agencies profiting from this ever-fluctuating and yet perfectly synchronized narrative. I am open to suggestions. Meanwhile, I have used this term in the title of this piece so people understand it includes responses to 30 Questions for a Narrative Believer.

Continue reading…

From Margaret Anna Alice, here.

העולם כים זועף, וזה כל פרי החיים: להתענג על עמל התורה

יוסף חיים שוואקי – חזור בך | Yosef Chaim Shwekey – Chazor Becha

Jul 11, 2019

לאחר שנתיים של שקט יחסי, משחרר הערב לראשונה יוסף חיים שוואקי סינגל חדש, סוחף ומרגש – “חזור בך” – אותו הלחין נח פלאי ועיבד יואלי דיקמן – על מילים הנוגעים לכל בן ישיבה בימי הנעורים וראוי שידע בעל פה, מכתביו של מרן החזון איש זי”ע.

את המילים לשיר בחר פלאי בעודו יושב בבית הכנסת השכונתי המתרוקן בשעת ליל מאוחרת, קורא את ‘קובץ אגרות חינוך’ של מרן החזון איש זי”ע ומגלה מכתב אותו כתב מרן זי”ע לבחור שעזב את הישיבה, ובו כתוב “נדמה לך כי המבקשים שקידתך בתורה הם כמבקשים רעתך חלילה, והטוב אשר בעיניך הוא לבלות הזמן בבטלה והוללות, ואינך שם לב לא לגורלך הנחתך לבור ועם הארץ ולא לצער אביך ואמך יחיו. (….) ואני קורא לך: חזור בך בן אדם, חזור בך בן אדם, כי מחר תתחרט מאשר היום תשחק, וימי הנעורים חיש יעבורו והעולם כים זועף, וזה כל פרי החיים להתענג על עמל התורה, עמל שיש לו יתרון לנצח”.

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.