The European Union – A Land With No Demonym

Demonym

July 13, 2017

Allan Stevo

“This item first appeared at LewRockwell.com on May 22, 2017.”

A demonym or gentilic is a word used to describe a resident or native of a place. Americans come from America. Italians come from Italy. Slovaks come from Slovakia, and Europeans come from Europe. But who comes from the European Union?

“Europeans” is what the European Commission would like us to call their subjects, but the last time I checked, the borders of the European Union were not colinear with the borders of Europe.

Since Switzerland, Norway, and Russia are not part of the European Union, a resident of Geneva, Oslo, or Moscow is certainly European, though not a resident of the European Union. For the sake of clarity, Europe and the European Union should not share a demonym.

Additionally, using the same demonym confuses that which is nearly timeless with that which is short-lived and temporary. Allowing the same demonym to be used offers the insinuation that a temporary political entity like the European Union deserves to co-opt the name of a diverse set of cultures of people who have made the continent of Europe their own over many centuries of work, struggle, and experimentation. After all, political entities are merely temporary – even the great Holy Roman Empire is no more. Cultures are more long lasting. And continents are nearly timeless.

Once Greece finally leaves the EU experiment and Brexit finally becomes a reality, will the Greek people, at the spearhead of European culture in ancient times, or the British people, at the spearhead of European culture in modern times suddenly cease to be European? Of course not. Will they be sued in some international court of law if they continue to allow the word “European” used for any non-EU activity? Of course not. Though if it were a trademark, it would feel a lot like trademark infringement that the EU is guilty of with its duplicative demonym.

If I were running a makeshift group of bureaucrats like the European Commission, who claimed great authority, but who could be brought down by a single unfavorable election in a major member state like France or Germany, then I too might want to encourage people to confuse my existence with more timeless concepts like a culture or continent. However, that doesn’t mean any one of us have to play along with that silly game.

George Orwell wrote in 1984, “All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers.”

I don’t really know what these Eurocrats have up their sleeves, but they can’t fool me into calling the residents of their rapidly shrinking political unit by the same name as the people who have had the most pronounced positive impact on the world over the past 500 years.

Nope. You can’t fool me with that trick.

I sat down to brainstorm some ideas and this is what I came up with.

Unionite
EU-er
A subject of Brussels
A subject of Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg
Eurese
Euroite
Eurotian
Euronian
Eurite (sounds like “you’re right”)
Eulander
Eutopian
Eurak (like Slovak, sounds like “you rock”)
Citeuon (CITizen of the EUropean uniON)

I think EU-er & Eutopian are my favorite so far. How about you? What word would you want to start using to describe an inhabitant of the European Union?

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Photo credit: gymnazija.geps.si

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

July 4 Is Not About The Constitution, It’s About The Declaration Of Independence

Getting it Wrong

July 11, 2017

Allan Stevo

This piece first appeared at Target Liberty as “#FakeUnderstanding Does the New York Times Even Know What the 4th of July Holiday Celebrates?”

Some people are not sophisticated enough to know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The editorial board of the New York Times has proven itself to be among them, as they chose last weekend to insist upon their love for the wrong founding document – the US Constitution.

Constitution Day is September 17. Independence Day is July 4. The difference in meaning between the two are vast – one based on the decentralization of power, the other based on the concentration of power.

Nor is July 4 a day to celebrate the American flag (June 14); it is practically the opposite of a day devoted t
o central governments and the flags that represent those governments. In fact, based on the revolutionary principles at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, July 4 is the least logical day of the year to fly an American flag. Nor is it a day to celebrate war or those who fought and died in them, for that we have the official bank holidays of Memorial Day (last Monday in May), Veterans Day (November 11), and the less officially celebrated Armed Forces Day (third Saturday in May) VE Day (May 8), VJ Day (September 2), A Date Which Will Live In Infamy (December 7), and D Day (June 6).

As much as some people like to confound distinct concepts, July 4 is not about some amorphous blend of Americana, it is about the Declaration of Independence, decentralized power, and ultimately the individual freedom at the root of the American experiment.

In a “print-only section” issued the weekend before July 4, in which its editors proudly stated that the dramatic four page double-fold-out with hand drawn images of George Washington and Donald Trump and specially selected neo-colonial typography is only “the fourth special section published by the New York Times Magazine,” a magazine started in 1896, are contained a lot of ideas about the Constitution that are a far cry from the Declaration of Independence. Contrary to the spirit of the holiday, bigger government and centralized power is what the editors chose to focus on.

The annotated special section depicts the Constitution of 1787 as a blueprint intended to bring about exactly the kind of government America had until the January 20, 2017 inauguration.

It is a partisan reading of the Constitution that can even make a goose-stepping New York Times reader proud of the crusty old thing. We learn in this special section that the Second Amendment wasn’t intended to allow people to keep and bear arms. We learn that the founding fathers would have praised attempts by the executive branch to legislate internationally on global warming (yes, these self-proclaimed defenders of science actually make this twisted argument, going so far as invoking the rebellious, decentralizing author of the Declaration of Independence – Thomas Jefferson in what appears to be support of the Paris Climate Accord). We are even presented the wisdom of a partisan hack who oversaw the failure of Detroit for 52 years as a congressman – John Conyers is shockingly presented as an authority on the foreign emoluments clause.

The special section’s dramatic form is a beautiful homage to the US Constitution – a document that deserves more homage than it gets, but the details of the presentation are out of line with Independence Day.

While the Declaration of Independence is written in the spirit of devolution of power, the Constitution is a document of enslavement under central authority. Yes, following the Constitution today would bring us a government far better than the one we have. Trump heads a government that daily violates the Constitution. Some, including me, hope presidential attention will be paid to constitutional issues that have long gone ignored. The tyrannical federal courts already are giving greater heed to it, but government remains a far cry from perfection.

It was in the spirit of centralization that the Constitution was written. The un-amended version – without the Bill of Rights, added three years after its ratification – is an especially tyrannical document.

In the spirit of centralization, King George III pursued a bloody campaign instead of letting the colonists secede. In the spirit of centralization, the tax protest remembered as the Whiskey Rebellion was put down by some of the founding fathers shortly after taking power.

In the spirit of centralization, the Union pursued the bloody war between the north and the south. It was in the spirit of 1776, the spirit of decentralization, the spirit of July 4, that the rebel states seceded from the Union in 1860.

In the spirit of centralization there is a Federal Reserve Bank. In the spirit of centralization there is an income tax. In the spirit of centralization the war to end all wars was fought. And then another. A Cold War too. A more decentralized land would have never troubled itself with such nonsense.

Constitution Day in the United States is September 17. It remembers a document that brought greater tyranny to our land.

Independence Day is July 4.

The political climate of one is far different than the other. The political climate of the Declaration of 1776 is far different than the Constitution of 1787.

It is true to the climate of 1776 that America remains so free. It is over-reliance on the climate of 1787 by which America has become so unfree.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Photo credit: occasionalplanet.org

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Review: How To Win America, By Walter Block

July 8, 2017

Walter Block

“This review of How to Win America by Allan Stevo was originally run at The Journal of Prices & Markets.”

Review of books about Ron Paul

Ron Paul, in addition to being a doctor, a politician, a leader of the libertarian movement, is also a heavily published author. He has written the following books: Paul (1981, 1983A, 1983B, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1991, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2008A, 2008B, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; Paul and Lehrman, 1982, 2012; Rangel and Paul, 2006). And when I say “written” I mean “written.” That is, he wrote them himself, in sharp contrast to the volumes authored by many famous people, which were really penned, so to speak, by professional writers and editors.

However the present review will leave all of those volumes untouched. Instead, it is dedicated to a very different oeuvre: books about Ron Paul, written by other authors. To wit, I will discuss the following books that have been written not by, but about, Ron Paul: 1. Alford, 2013; 2. Block, 2012A; 3. Doherty, 2012; 4. Haddad and Marsh, 2008; 5. Hammond, 2012; 6. Richardson, 2008; 7. Rink, 2011; 8. Stevo, 2012.

1. Alford, 2013

I highly recommend this book, as I do all others on this list. However, to some extent, this really is not a book at all. If I had to characterize it, it would be almost as a picture post card; the photographs are that good. Not one telling friends and relatives about a wonderful vacation, but relating to all and sundry what a wonderful person Ron Paul is, and how important and wonderful was his candidacy of 2012. Alternatively, this book could take its place amongst coffee table books which specialize in photography.

The title of the book is Swindled: How the GOP Cheated Ron Paul and Lost Themselves the Election. I don’t say this is a mis-labeling. But the actual book is a bit less angry than the title might indicate. Don’t get me wrong. Alford is clearly upset with the injustice perpetrated on Dr. Paul and makes this case in masterfully compelling manner. There is no question about that. But, there are so many pages in this book with a picture of a baby wearing a “T” shirt in support of Ron, or a photograph of our hero giving a speech to a large audience and other events that will warm the cockles of a libertarian’s heart. For example, on p. 39 we are treated to a view of the rear of Dr. Paul lecturing to people in what appears to be an ice rink, and the caption reads: “The next day, he rallied the troops, numbering over 3,000 in Houston.” On page 51 we see a photo of an enthusiastic rally of mostly young people for the Congressman in Louisiana. I know it is a cliché, but I cannot resist: these pictures alone are worth the entire price of admission, and there is practically one on every page. They are numerous, they are uplifting, they are inspirational, at least to me, and, I suspect, to all fellow admirers of Ron Paul as well.

Despite the niceness of this offering, there is quite a bit of justified anger in it as well. Let me give but one example. On p. 75 we see depicted one of the most outrageous reportorial events of the entire campaign: the Minnesota non-binding caucus of February 7, where the first and third place finishers were mentioned, but not the one in between. States Alford of this disgraceful scandal, “Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who won second place with 27% of the vote?” To ask this is to answer it.

2. Block, 2012A

True confession: I have a man crush on Ron Paul. I dearly love him. This book illustrates those feelings of mine. This volume is my love letter to Dr. Paul. How’s that for a fast review?

3. Doherty, 2012

I have already written a review of the Doherty book (Block, 2012B), so I shall be mercifully brief here also. All I want to say is that of all eight books about Ron Paul, this one has sold the most copies. Amazon Best Sellers Rank places this volume at #316,103 in books sold. It is my fervent hope that Doherty’s effort, and my review of all these books, will help focus attention on some others of those on this list, since they are also very important. They all merit a wider audience, including my own, if you will forgive this bit of shameless self-promotion.

4. Haddad and Marsh, 2008

This deserves, almost, to be considered a book by Ron Paul, not about him. It was edited, not authored by people other than himself (I was sorely tempted to capitalize this word, but have successfully resisted, as you can see, gentle reader). Thus, I count it, barely, as a book about and not by him. Why? It consists almost entirely of quotes, 166 in all, crammed into 318 magnificent pages, from Ron Paul. They are organized in alphabetical order, and range from abortion to bureaucrat to civil liberties to debt to economics to the fed at the outset, and on toward the end of the alphabet concluding with Viet Nam, War on drugs, and young people.

However, the 11- page introduction to the book constitutes a very, very good contribution to the bibliography of Ron Paul.

On the negative side, these editors are guilty of one small typographical error. They inform us (p. xii) that Congressman Paul was born in 1923. His actual year of birth was in 1936. Apart from this minor glitch this is a handy reference of a book. All Ron Paul admirers will want to have this volume on their bookshelves (that applies to all the books reviewed in this essay). If you want a short pithy statement from Ron Paul on any one of numerous topics, this is the place to find it. This publication contains no fewer than 656 footnotes. Haddad and Marsh have certainly done their homework, and I for one am grateful to them for it. So will you be.

5. Hammond, 2012

The title of this excellent book (Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis) is somewhat misleading. It implies that an actual debate is to take place between Ron Paul and Paul Krugman. If we can infer from this that an interaction of this sort is fair-minded or offers a roughly equally strong discussion of both sides, this demonstrates that the title does not accurately indicate the contents of this book. For instead of an even-handed explication of both sides, it is a veritable bashing of the latter based on the views of the former. And this is very welcome. For Krugman’s views and contributions to public policy are incorrect, evil and malicious, while Paul’s are the very opposite. Thus this volume is a very welcome addition to the literature. In it we see Krugman being hammered as he so richly deserves, and Paul takes on the role of the smiter, one he plays very well in the hands of Hammond. But I misspeak. What is written above makes it sound as if Hammond’s contribution is limited to a mere marshaling of Paul’s arguments. Not so, not so. It cannot be denied that there is a fair bit of precisely that in the small (104 page) volume. But our author contributes quite a bit more than that to the well-deserved intellectual evisceration of Krugman.

Paul’s triumph over Krugman is a bit astounding, at least for those overly concerned with credentialism. For the Texas Congressman is “merely” a physician and a politician. He has no formal education in economics at all. In the other corner of this particular boxing ring stands a man replete with a B.A. in economics from the prestigious Yale University, a Ph.D. in economics from the equally prestigious MIT, who is a professor of economics at the equally prestigious Princeton University. In 2008 Krugman won the even more prestigious Nobel Prize in economics, and writes columns as an eminence grise for perhaps the leading newspaper in the world, the New York Times. Yet, when they meet in the middle of the ring, the former, with a little help from Hammond, scores a knockout blow against the latter, in perhaps the most unequal intellectual “debate” that ever took place. An evisceration is more like it.

Paul KO’s Krugman on the Dot-Com bubble (chapter 1), the housing bubble (chapter 2), the Fed and interest rates (chapter 3), inflation (chapter 4). This book is a tour de force of the Austrian economics of Paul over the Keynesianism of Krugman. Hammond’s volume demonstrates that Robert P. Murphy (2010) is no better than a(n intellectual) child molester. Krugman would not stand a chance in the ring with Murphy, and the latter is a bully for even challenging him (http://krugmandebate.com/).

Other highlights of this book include the story of how Hammond himself came to adopt Austrian or praxeological economics. The usual suspects are indicted: Mises, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Woods. As well, his 137 notes at the back of the book offer invaluable links to this very one-sided “debate.”

I have two quarrels with this magnificent book. One, Hammond (pp. 55-56) castigates “revisionist analysis.” This is nothing more than a poor word choice. I think a better way to describe Krugman’s “disingenuousness” might have been “pusillanimous” or, better yet, “downright lie.” Revisionism has made such an important contribution to libertarian historical analysis as to make this statement of Hammond’s almost an error. More seriously, this author relies too heavily on prediction, the bête noir of logical positivism. However, Hammond and I both very much appreciate that Austrians have been far better predictors than orthodox or Keynesian economists (Block, 2010A). However, this author should have made it clear that this was not due to Austrian praxeology per se, but rather thymology, or history (Mises, 1969, 1978).

I am grasping at straws here to find any shortcomings at all in this very important contribution to Austrian economics. (Hammond’s appendix is reminiscent of Haddad and Marsh’s entire book in that it contains a wealth of information in quotation format of Mr. Paul’s warnings for the future, if the Fed maintains its pernicious policies.)

6. Rink, 2011

The full title of this book is “Ron Paul: Father of the Tea Party.” Yes, this is true enough. But this is hardly what historians 500 years from now will remember Dr. Paul for. Instead, they will see him as one of the leading Austrian economists of his time, and perhaps the most successful libertarian proponent up until the early 21st century.

That slight apart, this is an excellent biography of Ron Paul. I am tempted to repeat it word for word, right here and now, so compelling did I find it, but that would never do of course. I might run afoul of copyright, and the editor of this journal has given me a strict word limit. Instead, just let me focus on but one element of this magnificent book: the election of Dr. Paul in 1996 for the 105th session of congress, which was covered in Rink’s chapter 14. This really had me at the edge of my seat. Rink recounts the fascinating David and Goliath story of how Ron first beat out Democrat turned Republican Greg Laughlin for the GOP nomination and then sprinted past Democrat “Lefty” Morales in the general election. If you are not up on your feet cheering for Mr. Paul when you read this, you have a heart of stone, at least where liberty and sound economics are concerned. And this is only one of the many scintillatingly-told episodes in Ron’s life.

I have some minor reservations about this book. While it features numerous quotes and a very good index, there are no citations. Historians and other biographers who want to dig deeper into this material and use the present book as a launching pad, will be disappointed. Sometimes, it is difficult to determine who is saying precisely what. On other occasions the statements attributed to Dr. Paul do not sound to my ear as if he would ever had said any such thing. For example, on p. 125 Ron supposedly says of the drug war “I had never advocated legalization.” Does that sound like Dr. No to you, gentle reader? Not to me. But without a cite, it is difficult to get to the bottom of this issue. A very different statement of Rink’s (p. 211) has far more of the ring of truth for me: “Pandering to the Party-base was not on Paul’s agenda. As he had previously demonstrated in the Republican debates, he was willing to state his true beliefs no matter who was listening.” This certainly undermines the oft-made claim of his bitter critics that the Congressman was “pandering” to anyone. “Pandering,” and “Ron Paul,” do not belong in the same sentence as far as I am concerned.

Here are some other attributions to Ron that do not ring true (p. 107): “After the speech, he (Ron Paul) was looking at me and shaking his head. He wasn’t blaming me. He spoke to a huge crowd! But that didn’t matter to him. The only thing that mattered to him was the television coverage…” this statement was made by Eric Dondero, as of 1998 Dr. Paul’s “travel secretary and ‘advance man,’” (p. 102) but later estranged from him. I would have liked to see Rink at least query the claim that Ron cared only about television coverage.

Here is Rink (p. 121):

Paul reached out to DeLay to help him get in touch with Armey and the rest of the Republican delegation from Texas. Before announcing his candidacy, he hopped a jet to Washington, DC, with high hopes for a productive meeting. He assumed the Republicans would be interested in the possibility of using his candidacy to increase their number, perhaps offering him financial support and endorsements in his bid to defeat the Democrat.

“A court-ordered redistricting was coming up in Texas, and I told them, ‘If you guys help protect my interests in this, I can gain this seat for you,’” he recalled.

This is Ron Paul? Talking about protecting his interests? Who, precisely, is making this latter statement? Dondero? Paul? I think the former, but I cannot be certain, based on the text. If Dr. Paul were really interested in protecting his own interests, methinks he would have more likely stayed in Lake Jackson practicing medicine, and writing books about the free market and investing in gold. I would have liked some reaction from Rink at this point at this seeming false note.

Another whine on my part; there is a typo on p. 117, “Reigns” should be reins.”

But let me end this review on a positive note. I had to dig deep to find any flaws at all in this marvelous book. The picture on p. 102 (there are many, many other very good ones) is to die for. It features four of my all-time heroes. But I am not going to tell you who they are. Go get this book and see for yourself. That’s an order! Ok, ok, I can’t resist. They are Bert Blumert, Lew Rockwell, David Gordon and Murray Rothbard. What a fearsome foursome, at least to the bad guys.

7. Richardson

Want to get your dander up? Then read this book. Although her voice is cool, calm and collected, Richardson’s outrage at the unfair treatment accorded Ron Paul can be read practically between each and every line in the book. Let me give you just a small taste of this (pp. 62-63):

“The Nashville Tennessean omitted Ron Paul from its Feb 3 voter’s guide, but covered all the other candidates and their positions.

“The Birmingham News, one of Alabama’s largest newspapers, omitted Ron Paul from its extensive voter’s guide on Sunday, Feb. 3.

“The evening before Super Tuesday, the Associated Press ran an in-depth article detailing the candidates’ final efforts before the big day. All the candidates except Ron Paul, that is.”

Now, of course, I knew that the media had all along been mistreating Congressman Paul and his candidacy for president. But I was not as fully aware of each jot and tittle of this injustice until reading Richardson. Her chapters 9-10 alone are worth the full price of admission in this regard. There, she details even more the ill treatment accorded Dr. Paul by such worthies as the entrenched GOP, Fox News and the neoconservatives.

Richardson sets several tasks for herself in this book and accomplishes them all, superlatively. First she asks (p. 1): “Who are these people?” She describes them as follows: “They came from the far reaches of the political spectrum, crossing age and cultural boundaries to surprise their fellow Americans and confound the media elite. They rocketed the ‘Asterisk Candidate’ to the top of straw polls across the country and campaign polls across the Internet. They all but took his promotion out of the hands of his presidential campaign staff, raising record-breaking millions of dollars in single days, renting the largest blimp in North American to tout his candidacy, and purchasing full-page ads in newspapers before the first primary was held… all independent of the official campaign.”

She continues: “Who are these people? That’s easy. They’re collect students. Grandparents. Veterans. Professionals. Retirees. Democrats. Republicans. Constitutionalists. Libertarians. Right-wing conservatives. Flaming liberals. Business owners. Doctors. Lawyers. Christians. Agnostics. Atheists. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.” All this is just from Richardson’s first page. I’d quote the rest of the book, too, were the editor of this Journal not breathing down my neck not to do so, rotten kid that he is. In addition she later notes, these people put up yard signs of their own manufacture; they hung banners on highway overpasses; they stood in the rain to cheer on their man; they wrote letters to the editor protesting the unfair treatment accorded Ron. They did all this with little or no support from the official Paul campaign. A high point of this book is Richardson’s numerous interviews with several of these very people.

Second, she demonstrates in minute detail just how scurrilously the Congressman was treated. There is a continual litany of the media saying a given indication was important, e.g., straw polls, and then when Dr. Paul does well in them, such criteria are deemed irrelevant. These stories, and the outraged way Richardson tells them, make the blood boil of all red-blooded Ron Paul supporters.

But this book is by no means limited to litany of injustices perpetuated on our man. Her take on substantive issues is as sure-footed as any devoted libertarian would wish. Her renditions of Dr. Paul on war, taxes, economics, immigration, abortion, guns, education, health care, and many more, serve as a good an introduction to the Ron Paul philosophy, as good as any ever written.

I have but one criticism of this excellent book. Richardson’s contribution to it ends on p. 132. The volume ends on p. 191. Why the difference? From page 133 until the close of the book there are two appendices which reprint two of Congressman Paul’s speeches. These of course were superlative. They are well worth intensive study. However, they are available electronically. I would have appreciated hearing more from this new important contributor to the freedom movement, Richardson. Or, if she had no more to say, the book should have ended on p. 132.

Let me end on a note that will prove to be controversial, but really should not be. First, I note that Richardson is a woman. That alone is somewhat surprising, given the disproportionate number of females in the libertarian movement. Notice of this fact will no doubt be seen as an indication of a denigration of females. Well, let those who object to this make the most of it. Here comes an even more politically incorrect insight. Based on the picture of her that appears on the back cover of her book, this lady is one of the most beautiful women not merely in our movement, nor only in the U.S., but on the entire planet. Does it deprecate women in general or their intellects to merely mention such a fact? Not at all. Facts are facts. Merely because a bunch of harridan feminists might object to this one being noted does not render it untrue or improper. Nor is it a put-down. Looks and talent; the one has nothing to do with the other. But, as a book reviewer, I feel obligated to report on anything of potential interest to the reader, and this certainly qualifies.

8. Stevo, 2012

The Stevo book is somewhat a departure from all the others in this review. It, virtually alone, is devoted not to biography, nor to libertarian principles, nor to the Ron Paul debates but rather solely to strategy. And here, I confess, lies a bit of a weakness of mine. I feel on solid ground when it comes to Austrian economics or libertarian theory, but the best strategy for the Austro-libertarian movement has always been a bit of a mystery to me. If I have any views on this it is “different strokes for different folks.” What will work for some people, will not work for others. Let us take two illustrative examples. Who are the two most successful leaders of the freedom movement in terms of converting massive numbers of people to our banner? Obviously, they are Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. They and only they were able to fill stadiums full of people for the cause of liberty. And yet these two people had virtually the opposite personalities and characters, and thus their strategies were entirely different. Ayn Rand personified an attitude of “in your face,” while Ron Paul pursued a much more low key strategy. So, in my view, there is no one right viewpoint to take on this issue.

What is Stevo’s contribution to this matter? The first two words of the title of this book are “How to.” Well said. This is indeed a “how to” book. How to do what? To elect Ron Paul president of the U.S., of course. The volume is now a bit dated in that it offers a plan to win the 2012 election, and it is now 2013. It would have been equally “irrelevant” had it been aimed at 2008, or even 2016 or thereafter. That is, it is not irrelevant at all, nor is it merely of antiquarian interest. It is rather chock-full of crucial information for any election of any libertarian at any time or place. If I had to sum this book up in a short phrase it would be “applying common sense with the benefit of vast experience to the challenge of electing libertarians.”

Yes, Stevo make the case in behalf of Ron Paul. He does so with verve and insight. But he spends very few pages on this labor of love. If that is your main interest, do not read this book. However, if you want to become a far more effective supporter of candidates like Ron Paul, if you want to use your time to this end more efficiently, then, again, don’t read it. Instead, devour it. Peruse it over and over again until you fully grasp its message.

What, then, is its message?

He states (pp. 10-11): “1. Ask pro-peace Democrats that you personally know to vote Republican in the primaries for Ron Paul and make sure that those who agree to vote for Ron Paul actually show up on election day. 2. Work the rest of your ‘social precinct.’ 3. Activate your own network of Ron Paul supporters.”

In this brief review I cannot fully convey the myriad of hints, suggestions, and advice Stevo gives. They all have the ring of truth. In sports, the key to success is to “keep your eye on the ball.” This author is asking all of us to keep our eyes on the political ball, so as to better promote the Ron Paul type candidacy. He does not allow himself, or us, to be deflected for even a moment from this one goal. In short, he is unswerving, intent, monomaniacal, bless him.

I content myself with but a few examples of this marvelous work. He warns of the “neutralizer” (p. 180) someone who may well be a Paul supporter, but with enthusiasts like this we might well prefer actual enemies. Stevo mentions a man in a V for Vendetta mask who completely hijacked a libertarian event, and cost our movement valuable television coverage. Costumes like this are perfectly all right; at a Star Trek convention, the purpose of which is not to elect a president. But if that is the goal, we would be better of “being clean” for Ron, dressing and acting much like Mormon missionaries.

Here is yet another gem (p. 122): “Just like anyone with ideas revolutionarily different from the status quo, Ron Paul generates his fair share of contempt. You don’t need to worry about convincing his haters to love him That’s futile and doesn’t matter in an election. In an election you want to focus on the people who are already sympathetic to his ideas. The one with the most votes wins, not the one with the fewest enemies.”

No book can be all bad that severely rebukes traitors to the libertarian cause such as David Boaz. Says Stevo of this imposter: “Ultimately, anyone who says ‘Ron Paul is the wrong messenger’ betrays his own lack of belief in personal choice.” However, I think Stevo lets Boaz off too lightly when he implies the latter is merely a “defeatist” or “downer.” I know Boaz, personally, and he is none of these things. Instead, Boaz is upbeat and optimistic — about the issues he supports. No, “traitor” is far more accurate (Block, 2010B). It is one thing for a Paul Krugman, or a Giuliani, or a Sean Hannity to attack Ron Paul. Such people are well known to be enemies of liberty. But Boaz has been long associated with the libertarian movement. He is the vice president of the Cato Institute, an organization linked in the public mind with free enterprise. Boaz (1997) has even had the effrontery to write a book with the “L” word in its title. For him to denigrate Ron Paul as the “wrong messenger” for liberty is an unforgiveable stab in the back. Ok, ok, not unforgiveable. Were Boaz to publicly apologize for this act of his and beg forgiveness, it would be granted by many libertarians, me certainly included. But, of course, he has done no such thing.

When I first read Stevo’s advice on Krugman, ignore him, it is a waste of time to attack him, his mind is already made up, set in stone, there is no chance of ever changing his mind, I disagreed with the author of this book. My thought was that it is good to take on the most famous, prestigious and articulate of the many enemies of human freedom. Even if Krugman himself remains obdurate, he can still be taken down a peg or two in the eyes of his followers, and potential ones too. Stevo’s point was rather problematic for me, as I am a professor accustomed to criticizing precisely scholars such as Krugman.

But then I remembered Stevo’s advice about narrowing our focus, keeping our eyes on the ball: Ron Paul for president, or, more generally, electing principled libertarians. Will refuting Krugman help do this? Not bloody likely. It would be the rare voter who would even understand such an intellectual battle. What of Hammond (2012) who offers us a “debate” between Krugman and Paul, and my very positive review of that book? Am I committing a logical contradiction? Not a bit of it. Not every book praising Ron Paul and his candidacy has to be narrowly focused on that one goal as does Stevo (2012). Hammond (2012), and my strong support for it, is thus not incompatible with Stevo’s far more limited goal, and my championing of that, too.

It is unusual for a book review such as this to even mention an acknowledgements section, let alone praise it. I shall risk all in breaking this tradition. Stevo mentions some four dozen people and organizations. I had never before even heard of most of them. Why do I mention this? This is because it is notable that a person such as me who has been deeply involved in libertarianism since about 1964 is ignorant of an entirely different strand of our movement. This could not be the case were we not growing by leaps and bounds, and these few pages at the very end of his book make this case in spades.

I end this review on a rather charming note. Stevo (p. 3) makes a reference to Murray N. Rothbard as a “historian.” I have never before seen such a description of my friend Murray. I am far more accustomed to seeing him referred to as an economist, ethicist, logician, strategist, even as “Mr. Libertarian.” I do not at all quarrel with this description. Lord knows, if Rothbard’s contribution was solely limited to history, he would well deserve such an appellation. It is only testimony to his gigantic contribution that this description would even be slightly remarkable.

Conclusion

These books, all of them put together, have been written, almost, as if by one very erudite person. Or, perhaps, a better way to put this is that they have seemingly been created as if by several co authors, planning out a major collaborative project. What I am getting at here is that there is very little substantive overlap amongst them. For the most part, they cover different aspects of the Ron Paul phenomenon. Of course, there is but one exception to this rule: the love for Dr. Paul and what he stands for exudes from almost every page of each of these publications. One would have to be very hard-hearted not to appreciate the admiration and respect that each of these authors has for the Congressman’s rEVOLution.

There is of course some incompatibility. One author inveighs against even mentioning Krugman. But virtually the entirely of another’s book concerns that particular fraudulent economist. However, this is the only bit of contrariness I was able to discern in my perusal of this entire oeuvre; perhaps the exception proves the rule.

It is my fervent opinion that this is an important set of books. If what Ron Paul stands for is to be promoted, it cannot be done, only, via his own publications. It is important that those of us who are his students, his admirers, also make a contribution to his efforts. Writing books about Mr. Paul and his philosophy is certainly one way to do just that.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Slovak Hockey Great Marian Hossa Falls Victim To “The Gunk”

Hossa

June 27, 2017

Allan Stevo

“This item first appeared at 52 Weeks in Slovakia on June 26, 2017.”

I received a shocking news alert from the Chicago Sun Times: “Marian Hossa out for 2017-18 season; skin disorder could end career”

That was not the most shocking part. The article went on to talk about how Hossa – a slovak born hockey legend in the NHL – had contracted a progressive skin condition that was being fought with medicine that was becoming increasingly debilitating and increasingly ineffective.

After going on to talk about the mysterious skin condition, the last paragraph of the article reads:

Hossa wouldn’t be the first player to retire early because of such an allergy. “The Gunk,” as it was known in the 1970s and 1980s, affected many players, and drove former Hawks and North Stars defenseman Tom Reid out of the game in 1978.

That was a little freaky. What is the gunk? It took a little doing but I finally found a semi-authoritative mention of the gunk at Locker Room Doctor run by Dr. Mike Evans of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto in a piece entitled “The Gunk: a Virulent Oozing Rash”

They called it the plague and the creeping crud, but mostly it was known, and feared, as the gunk: a virulent oozing rash that afflicted players across hockey in the late 1970s and into the ’80s, forcing several of them out of the game altogether. “It’s a mystery,” was the diagnosis of Montreal Canadiens coach Scotty Bowman. Doctors called it contact dermatitis, but even they were largely baffled by what exactly they were dealing with. “We don’t know what’s going on completely,” investigating dermatologist Dr. William Schorr confessed in 1976. By then, an estimated 70 NHL players were suffering, along with uncounted others in junior and minor leagues.

The NHL decided it wasn’t concerned enough by the outbreak to mount its own investigation. “It’s the type of thing the individual clubs themselves would have to be involved in,” executive director Brian O’Neill said while Dr. Schorr puzzled over symptoms. By 1979, the U.S. Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta was getting ready to start a study.

No word on where that went. Back in the rinks, most cases of the rash resembled psoriasis, sometimes in its later stages oozing a yellow pus. Often it started on the hands before spreading wherever the player’s body came in contact with his equipment. Was dirty old gear to blame, dyes, detergents, tanning agents from leather? Theories abounded. A nervous condition related to the anxiety of scoring droughts and playoff pressures? A reaction to Zamboni fumes? Fibreglass from sticks? As dermatologists treating players agreed that the rash wasn’t communicable, team trainers struggled to curb it while doing their best to minister to its victims with cortisone-based ointments.

Canadiens centreman Jacques Lemaire ended up spending a week in hospital in the early ’70s. “They had me bathing in lotion,” he told the Times. “They had to put me on sleeping pills every night, the itching was so bad.”

A dermatologist was able to help cure Clark Gillies of the New York Islanders. “He said it was something to do with bleach and detergent and the nylon in the equipment,” he said. Meditation soothed another Islander, defenceman Jean Potvin, when nothing else would. “I know I was a lot more relaxed and I never had any of I again. I have to think it’s a nerve symptom.”

None had it worse than Tom Reid. A defenceman who started his career with the Chicago Black Hawks, he went on to ply the blueline for ten years as a Minnesota North Star before finding himself gunked out of the game in 1978.

“It was a gradual thing,” he says. “It started about the size of a dime on my arm. Then it got bigger. It went down my side and it just started to spread. As soon as I was off the ice, in two weeks it was gone. If I came back to the ice, play a few games, it would come right back again.”
“We changed equipment. They covered me in creams, they covered the equipment. I changed underwear, t-shirt, after the warm-up, at the end of every period — it just got worse.”

He was getting pills, injections of steroids. He spent 11 days in hospital to start off the 1975-76 season. At one point, he said at the time, he was getting 30 shots a day to help in the relief effort.

“It was pretty painful. It was at the point where my whole side was just pus. They couldn’t figure out what it was. I’d be wrapping towels around my body, which helped — the problem was when I had to take the towels off. I couldn’t sleep — for a while I was sleeping sitting upright in a wooden chair. It got to the point by the end where they couldn’t give me any more cortisone. I had to retire.”

It was ten years later before doctors came up with anything resembling an answer to the gunk mystery — too late for Reid’s career. In 1988, a member of the Edmonton Oilers’ medical staff helped identify one of the causes: the use of formaldehyde in the manufacture of equipment as a way of preventing mildew and maintaining colour.

“Once we figured out that was the problem, we had a good, quick solution to it,” Dr. Don Groot said in 2000. This (surprisingly specific) one: the addition of a cup of powdered milk to the second rinse cycle of a wash, he said, seemed to do away with both the formaldehyde and the gunk it bred.

Hossa, a beloved veteran hockey player on a multimillion dollar contract is certainly getting the most expensive cutting edge medicine money can buy. Sometimes that’s a problem. Auto-immune diseases are a great example of that.

Managing auto immune diseases effectively is beyond the grasp of the mainstream medical community at this time. Sometimes it works, often it does not.

Mainstream doctors throw steroids at any skin oddity they are unsure of. It begins with steroid creams and moves into pills or injections. By chance these things might work. Or perhaps they have zero effect and the body and the disease are just cycling independent of the treatment – even a broken clock is right twice a day. And while there’s a chance that may work, there’s almost a guarantee that enough steroid use will produce significant side effects.

Eventually the doctor may determine there are further systemic issues at play and more drugs get thrown at the patient and their non-responsive illness – drugs that are experimental for all uses, drugs that are experimental for this use, and drugs that are certainly experimental for you. You might end up with challenging chemotherapy medicines like methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, mercaptopurine, or mitoxantrone being used for autoimmune conditions, or even biotherapy drugs like rituximab, infliximab, or natalizumab. But don’t worry, the doctor says – we’ll give you a much lower dose than a cancer patient would get. He might add, we don’t exactly know how it works but it sometimes show excellent results. That’s sort of the broken clock theory of medicine again; I’m surprised by how often I hear it from doctors. We also don’t know how placebos or homeopathics work but they sometimes work. That’s no reason to randomly use placebos or homeopathics but at least they don’t have toxic side effects.

Dealing with what appears to have been a troubling period with an autoimmune disease of my own about five years ago, nothing worked but dietary changes. I say “appears” because I was never able to find a doctor able to give a conclusive diagnosis, nor did I ultimately care enough to hear a diagnosis to push doctors to take a wild guess. Going through that process myself and with others, it appeared to me pretty quickly that autoimmune concerns and their accompanying skin conditions are a near mystery for the medical community.

So, while visiting doctors I turned to people like Dr Mercola and Mark Sisson for advice, people who plenty of main stream doctors might call quacks. I took their advice on a body gone haywire. I took the advice of others and did a lot of experimentation on myself to figure out what worked and what didn’t and to eventually solve this problem. Sisson, like Hossa was once an elite athlete with a great burden of health concerns. He now helps people who were in his situation to get beyond those health concerns. Both he and Mercola have astute minds and keep well read on the latest studies.

That being said, I don’t imagine Hossa has anything to learn from me on this matter. The champion player if he is diligent enough about his own health has certainly had his diet analyzed by the Mercolas of the world. My guess though, and it’s a reasonable guess, that surrounded by high priced doctors, he probably has been steered away from “experimental treatments” that don’t come from the Journal of the American Medical Association write ups or Big Pharma’s labs. Certainly he’s encouraged by high priced doctors to do all the experimenting he wants as long as Pfizer or Eli Lilly developed the product. It’s more likely that a doctor will prescribe an experimental and dangerous pharmaceutical than to ask you to speak to a nutritionist about methodically adjusting your diet and seeing what works.

The instructions of Hippocrates, the father of medicine, from 431 B.C. on diet “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food,” is either “too experimental” or quackery for many doctors. Meanwhile, with the air of authority that accompanies a white jacket and stethoscope, sometimes even the rich and famous can be led down a bad path by doctors.

A more comforting thought than the fact that Hossa is not getting the full breath of treatment options presented to him, is that the whole issue of his “skin condition” is being overhyped. That is my hope. There is much more advantage to the Chicago Blackhawks if Hossa is deemed physically unfit to play rather than opting to retire.

If Hossa retires, the Chicago Blackhawks are at a tremendous disadvantage under the NHL’s salary cap rules. If he continues on with the team on long term injured reserve, the Blackhawks under the salary cap rules, just scored a huge victory off the ice. In such a situation they have a greater likelihood of replacing the nearly irreplaceable Hossa, who is one of the premier two-way players in the game.

“Absolutely reeks of cap circumvention” writes one suspicious Blackhawks fan.

Marian Hossa, born in Stará Ľubovňa, Czechoslovakia (located in the Prešov region of present-day Slovakia, 20 miles east of the High Tatras, 10 miles south of the Polish border) is one of the most popular and successful Slovak ice hockey players. Hossa comes from an ice hockey-loving family, with his father, František Hossa, and a younger brother, Marcel Hossa, both being professional hockey players representing Slovakia in the World Championships and Winter Olympics. Although Marian Hossa has represented Slovakia in numerous World Championships and Winter Olympics, he remains medal-less – a distinction we are eager to see him part with. Marian Hossa was drafted by the Ottawa Senators in 1997 as his first NHL team and spent 7 seasons with the team. Later on he played for Atlanta Trashers, Pittsburgh Penguins, Detroid Red Wings and the Chicago Blackhawks. He won three Stanley Cup championships in Chicago (2009-10, 2012-13 and 2014-15), the highest team honor in hockey. Hossa has been a hero to young Slovaks, Chicagoans, Americans, and hockey aficionados for years.

All of us here at 52 Weeks in Slovakia wish the hero godspeed in his recovery!

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Photo credit: hokejonline.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mail Bag: We Want More Oblatky !!

Oblatky Iron

June 23, 2017

Allan Stevo

“This item first appeared at 52 Weeks in Slovakia on June 21, 2017.”

A new reader and newsletter subscriber writes in asking for information on finding year round oblatky / oplatky and on tips for making his own at home:

Great to find you. Just spent the last several days in Chicago visiting Czech relatives. Disappointed to see so many Czech restaurants closed now. Ended up at Warsaw Polish Buffet. Anywhere you know my wife can buy a Oplatky Griddle Iron at a reasonable price? Also where the original Oplatky can be bought year round? Seams that most places only make it at Christmas time. We got the original in Czechoslovakia freshly made daily warm in chocolate and Vanilla and it was wonderful.
Thank you for your time.

-Larry

Larry,
I totally agree with you. It’s almost like every time you turn around in Chicago another classic middle European Restaurant is closing down. How often I hear my elders long for the old days when they could get delicious meals that were practically as good as anyone in the family could make. It takes a lot of skill to run a kitchen like that and it seems like the tight margins of the restaurant marketplace aren’t supportive of such a large number of places like that. Thankfully a few good ones still exist.

As for your question on oblatky, finding those Czech made spa town style oblatky in the US is nearly impossible. Oblatky has a long and established history around the region. The kind you describe with a filling between the wafers is a tradition common to the Czech spa towns, a special treat that can traditionally be found in those places – perhaps akin to saltwater taffy as a specialty found on a trip to an eastern seaboard town with a boardwalk, fresh squeaky cheese curd on a trip through Wisconsin, scrapple as part of a visit into the lands of the “Pennsylvania Dutch,” or finding a fresh baked Kringle in places that Scandinavians settled.

Unfortunately we were unable to find an online store for the original Czech product that would ship the oblatky to the US. Here are some links for the Czech producers of oblatky. It may be possible to contact them directly and ask to special order them. Kolonáda is one of the most popular companies that produces traditional oblatky, widely sold across the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Karlovarské oplatky are produced in the city of Karlove Vary, well known for its famous spas. Luhačovice is also a popular spa town with its own oblatky producing company.

What we were able to find though is a company in Sacramento that uses the same traditional recipe to bake the oplatky. You can select different flavors and have them shipped right to your doorstep. Their website and online store can be found here.

As for the issue of the oplatky iron, some of the irons can be found in online stores such as eBay or Amazon under the name of “Pizzelle Irons.” Pizzelle is the Italian word for oplatky. There are irons with different designs available and the price range varies from $30 to over $100.

We’d love to hear how that process goes for you. And if you decide it’s time for America to have another year round oblatky maker or importer – write us so that we can share the details of your new company in these pages. Thank you for reading and thank you for writing in Larry.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Photo credit: PeritoBurrito

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Review: The Bitcoin Manifesto, By Becky Akers

Yay, Cryptocurrency!

June 22, 2017

Becky Akers

“This review of The Bitcoin Manifesto by Allan Stevo was originally run at LewRockwell.com on June 8, 2017.”

Those with the patience of Job may wait for the monster that stole their freedom to return it, but we of lesser faith must take practical steps to eliminate Leviathan from our lives. For example, we can patronize doctors who accept cash rather than enrolling in Obummercare; we can look to sites like GoFundMe instead of banks for financial help; and we can use cryptocurrencies in lieu of FRNs.

To that end, Allan Stevo has published an inspiring defence of the oft-maligned Bitcoin. The Bitcoin Manifesto argues that entrepreneurs should work to improve cryptocurrency while also cautioning against Bitcoin’s limitations. Speaking of cryptocurrencies in general, Allan told me that they

will change finance the way the internet has changed commerce and the movement of information. Bitcoin is one cryptocurrency, it has first-to-market advantage but there are many other alternatives working hard to supplant it. The dominant brand name might not be Bitcoin but this industry will cause banking 20 years from now to be unrecognizable to us today – much like freer competition in telephonics brought us from the Western Electric 500 to the iPhone in under 25 years. …

Three billion people in the world are unbanked. Bitcoin changes that. Banking as we today know it must comply with strict regulation. Bitcoin makes every person a potential international, borderless investor and banker. This is the ultimate challenge to the established banking interests.”

And the sooner we get rid of those oppressive and oppressing “interests,” the better. You can wait for the State to do so (good luck, sucker!), or you can respond to Allan’s impassioned cry for entrepreneurs to come together around cryptocurrencies.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized

How To Buy Bitcoin

This month’s 52 Weeks in Slovakia series on Bratislava, Bitcoin, and the tech sector is being done in connection with the launch of a new book by Allan Stevo – The Bitcoin Manifesto.

How To Buy Bitcoin

June 21, 2017

Allan Stevo

“This item first appeared at 52 Weeks in Slovakia on June 19, 2017.”

Immediately after it opened in 2013, I worked as the head market maker at the innovative New York Bitcoin Center at 40 Broad Street, next-door to the New York Stock Exchange. People could come there and trade the electronic currency face to face. This was a popular method of trading, since it allowed a gathering place for people to interact with other humans, which is not necessary for Bitcoin transactions, and generally uncommon, but which allows for the development of rapport, the establishment of social circles that otherwise might not exist in the Bitcoin space, a personalized information exchange, and relationship building, all of which for some people, are necessary ingredients in order to do business.

This month, we are releasing the book “The Bitcoin Manifesto,” a collection of writings on Bitcoin that explains some of the very important aspects of the technology without relying on much of the pointless fluff that some of its adherents talk about or the baseless attacks that some of its opponents commonly resort to.

Upon hearing about the release of the book, a reader of 52 Weeks in Slovakia wrote to ask a question I hear all the time. “How do I buy Bitcoin?”

“Allan, I’m interested in buying some Bitcoins, though I wish I had done this a few years or even a few months ago. How do I do this? I don’t think I can do it through my brokerage account.
-Jon”

Simple, common question, that I appreciate him asking. Here are a few options on how to buy Bitcoin:

1. Wall Street – Believe it or not, you can actually invest in a Bitcoin product through a brokerage account – GBTC, or the Bitcoin Investment Trust. You can find its price listed at a place like Yahoo Finance. It is similar to an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF), but is not fully in compliance with the rule required to be an ETF. By not trying to be an ETF, but by simply seeking to be a standardized, consumer friendly investment vehicle for Bitcoin, they beat their competitors to the marketplace by at least three and a half years as of the writing of this piece. When you buy GBTC, you are buying shares in a company’s Bitcoin Investment Trust. Based on the Bitcoin holdings of that trust, you are purchasing the equivalent of about 0.1 Bitcoin with each share you buy. This trades at a significant premium to the actual price of Bitcoin, and there are fees involved (2% annual “administration and safekeeping fee”). The tremendous upside to this is that it allows for someone with non technical Bitcoin knowledge to easily speculate on the price of Bitcoin. This is a huge upside. You can probably log into your brokerage account right now and be long GBTC in minutes. Additionally they can be held in some IRAs and 401ks. If you want the closest thing to a Bitcoin purchase that conforms with a Wall Street investment product, this is your option. Check out Grayscale’s FAQ page for more about them. They additionally have a similar investment product that deals with the much talked about Bitcoin competitor called Ethereum. If you want to get in right now, GBTC might be a smart, more familiar way to start while you are learning the finer points of some of the other investment options around Bitcoin.

2. Bitcoin ATMs & Bankomats – You can google “Bitcoin ATM near me” or “Bitcoin ATM” and your zip code or “Bitcoin ATM” and the name of the place where you are. You are likely to be pleasantly surprised to see how quickly you can take possession of actual Bitcoin. You are far more likely to find this in a big city, but Bitcoin ATMs are in a surprising number of places – including Bratislava Slovakia. Bratislava is home to several and was home to the first permanent installed Bitcoin ATM in Europe. With a Bitcoin ATM, you walk up with your local currency, you walk away with Bitcoin. Or you walk up with Bitcoin, you walk away with local currency. Sometimes the machine may ask identifying questions or take a picture, because of the “know your customer” banking laws in some localities, other times a Bitcoin ATM may require not a single piece of information – the fact that you showed up with valid local currency being all the only qualification to do business. This tends to be the quickest way to own actual Bitcoin.

3. Bitcoin Exchanges – You can purchase from an exchange like CoinBase or Kraken, and many others. Like setting up any other brokerage account you will contact the exchange, provide some amount of personal information, go through some type of background check and approval process, and fund your account by transferring money to the exchange. Once that is done you can trade Bitcoin with a Bitcoin Exchange much like you would be able to trade stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Unless you plan to move in and out of Bitcoin with great regularity as a day trader, it is best to move the Bitcoin to your personal wallet, far away from the responsibility of trusting an exchange with your Bitcoin. While the most well respected exchanges have extensive security in place, it is worth remembering that the more third parties you expose your Bitcoin to, the more you are exposing your Bitcoin to a security breach. If you have your Bitcoin sitting at an exchange, you are trusting that exchange to safeguard your Bitcoin. Also, you are trusting that exchange to be functioning well enough to provide you access to that Bitcoin when you most need it. Weeks ago, as Bitcoin rallied in price, one of the exchanges closed down for hours as customers were trying to take profit on their Bitcoin trades and sell them for their local currency. With startup quality software development budgets that are a far cry from the trillion dollar Wall Street trading environment, it makes sense that the software at Bitcoin exchanges may be a little buggy, especially when massive amount of traffic inundates the trading platform. Paradoxically, this is when you most need the platform to be functioning in top condition. While a personal wallet may not help you sell the Bitcoin any more quickly, it gives you additional options since the Bitcoin is under your control rather than behind the paywall of an exchange that can at any moment need to shut down because traffic is too great. If Bitcoin drops $1,000 tomorrow or rallies $1,000, you are going to have more options if the Bitcoin sits in your personal wallet. A personal wallet means that you store those Bitcoin on your phone, computer, or in various offline forms of “cold storage.” Keep in mind as well that exchanges, being more established than a regular joe selling a Bitcoin here or there, are going to need to comply with the regulatory environment in the place they are domiciled and their customers are domiciled. Some Bitcoin exchanges will not want to deal with you if you give them a New York State address, because of the high level of government imposed regulation there. There is no surer way to be denied service with many Bitcoin companies than to provide a New York State address. The government imposed BitLicense which has decimated Bitcoin ventures in New York State has proven too much for some startups to want to deal with. This has been very pleasing to the established banks and financial institutions who support the regulatory environment of New York State and helps keep away competition. If your cousin lives in New Jersey and you live in New York, you might be a little safer from the bureaucrats if you ask your cousin to list his address as your own for purposes of opening up a Bitcoin trading account. The Bay Area (around the Northern California city of San Francisco) remains a prominent Bitcoin hub. However, California too is now beginning to move in the direction of stiff regulation akin to New York. For the same reason, some exchanges will not want to deal with you if you claim to be in the US at all, which is unfortunate, because the business of this developing industry has been chased out of the US to some extent. Regulations surrounding an American banking customer are so extensive and their punishments so severe that many foreign financial institutions want nothing to do with anyone providing a home address or banking address in the United States. Coinbase, at this time has no problem fielding both of those requests.

4. Person to person – The best way to get into Bitcoin is to sit down in a face to face conversation with someone you trust or someone who comes highly recommended. They are likely to give you the necessary time and steer you through all possible problems. By buying Bitcoin from a mentor like that who will introduce you to Bitcoin, you’ll likely be an expert in the cryptocurrency space in under a month. In the absence of a personal recommendation, you can look someone up on “local Bitcoins.” Though it carries risks, this I find to be the best of the options listed here because of the face-to-face attention you are likely to get. Of course people will be offered varying degrees of quality in their customer service experience. The Bitcoin community lends itself to this level of assistance though – it being a maker culture, built on evangelizing to newbies in order to facilitate understanding. As long as you can always live by the millennia old cautionary phrase – caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) – I most recommend this fourth option of the four listed here, because of the tremendous learning that is likely to happen if you find the right person.

Thank you as always Jon, for reading, and thank you for your question.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Photo credit: Fortune.com

Posted in Uncategorized

Review: How To Win America, By Becky Akers

June 20, 2017

Becky Akers

“This review of How to Win America by Allan Stevo was originally run at LewRockwell.com on March 14, 2012.”

By Allan Stevo. CreateSpace, 2012. [$3.99 Kindle, $12.68 paperback — but that’s negotiable: “At the author’s request, in order to increase the distribution of this title, the price of this edition has been set lower than usual for a text of this nature.” Likewise, Thomas Paine devoted his profits from Common Sense to General George Washington’s hungry, cash-strapped troops.

I didn’t want to read, let alone review, this book.

It’s about the nuts and bolts — in fact, one chapter even bears that title — of political campaigning. Specifically, campaigning for Ron Paul so that he wins the Republican primary.

But I’m an anarchist, with no faith in politics or the State and indeed, an intense hatred of both. Author Allan Stevo describes folks like me perfectly on page 38: we “generally dismiss the role of government as a circus and a waste of time and energy.” We love liberty with every fiber of our being; some of us, including me, even find political theory and philosophy fascinating. But the down-and-dirty, how-to-win machinations? No thanks. They exemplify everything we loathe about the State, its lies and manipulations.

By page 13, Allan Stevo had transformed my reluctance to raving enthusiasm. Indeed, I’d go so far as to insist that this is one of the most important texts friends of freedom can read in the next few months. And it is incredibly empowering, too, because Mr. Stevo’s central idea is that our efforts, not those of the official Ron Paul Campaign or even of the good doctor himself, let alone the corporate media (or lack thereof), will crown him victor at the Republican Convention this August.

And that, in Mr. Stevo’s opinion, is more essential than Dr. Paul’s ultimately winning the presidential election. Why? Because “America is a place where neighbors rarely speak openly about politics, and when they do, it is usually only to repeat media sound bites. An Obama/Paul race will change that. Two differing ideologies will Clash [sic]. One for greater individual freedom. The other for more government. This competition of ideas will not occur with other Republican candidates, since they are ideologically aligned with President Obama when it comes to the power of the individual over the power of the state.” [p. 2]

Mr. Stevo believes the echoes of Dr. Paul’s debate with Obummer will reverberate for decades: “These two men will face off and provide America with two different choices for what the future holds. America will have the opportunity to decisively choose which of those paths [to — sic] take. Never in my life have I been able to experience America the way America will look come autumn of 2012 as economic conditions worsen and Americans look to two very different philosophies to explain the cause and correction of the nation’s problems.” [p. 2-3]

But given the mainstream’s studiously ignoring or venomously savaging Dr. Paul, how can he win the Republican nomination? Mr. Stevo provides the answer — a relatively obvious and simple but explosively brilliant one — from his experience as both a worker on campaigns and as a candidate himself (he ran for the US House of Representatives in Illinois’ tenth district during 2005). He advocates “reaching across the aisle” to Democratic friends via “social media” and asking them to register as Republicans — I know: ugh! But it’s only for the primary — then vote for the only guy in either party firmly and consistently working against the Amerikan Empire.

After all, he points out, “Ron Paul is the lone pro-peace vote for president and his party affiliation doesn’t change that fact.” [p.13] (Besides, voting for Dr. P will infuriate the “real” Republicans, the Newts and Mitts and neocons and fascists, which is a fine goal in itself.) Ergo, he suggests “writ[ing your Democratic] … Facebook friends to try to open up dialogues of understanding, and ultimately asking them to register Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul. I hope you will write your friends through email or any other social network you use. These people are what I will refer to as your u2018social precinct’…”

Mr. Stevo theorizes that “social precincts” are far more valuable and viable than the geographic precincts they are superseding, especially for Ron Paul’s internet-savvy fans. He discusses the use of precincts in Chicago, whose politics he has studied and in which he’s participated for over 20 years, and shows how our “social,” online ones trump them: “What Americans today are lacking in relationships with their neighbors, they are making up for in relationships online at a distance,” he writes [p 40]. And you can very effectively “work” this precinct for liberty, following the three-part strategy he outlines in his book:

Step I. Communicate with your friend.

Step II. Get a promise from him to vote for Ron Paul.

Step III. Make sure he gets out to vote for Ron Paul.*

*The third step is twofold:

A. See to it that your friend is registered properly in his state to vote for Ron Paul.

B. See to it that your friend gets out to the polling place or caucusing location to vote for Ron Paul on election day.

Intriguingly, Mr. Stevo contrasts the influence each of us wields over friends and family with his efforts on phone-banks during various campaigns. Though he invested dozens of hours calling strangers and asking them to vote for Dr. P, he wonders if any of them actually did; he compares that with his proven success in requesting friends do so and urges us to follow suit. (This isn’t an either/or proposition; as he explains later, we should milk our “social precincts” fully and then volunteer our efforts on the larger campaign.)

It’s no wonder Mr. Stevo convinces so many of his friends to pull the lever for peace and liberty: he’s conciliatory and diplomatic. His attitude, even towards those with whom he disagrees, is collaborative: Both I and my socialist, Big-Government Democratic friends crave peace, and Ron Paul is the only candidate we can count on to give it to us. Therefore, I am presenting my buddy with something he very much wants — he just doesn’t realize it’s out there. Or if he does, no one has yet given him the opportunity to to vote for it. So I am not a pest, I am a chum explaining how together we can achieve what we want.

Effective spokesmen for liberty and its champion, Dr. P, don’t argue with friends who reject our message. We simply move on to those who agree and welcome it.

Mr. Stevo also recommends wisely using the limited hours until June 26 (the date of Utah’s primary, the last before the convention). He cautions against wasting time on the pursuits so many of us erroneously rate “important,” such as participating in online polls or commenting on websites denouncing Dr. Paul. These don’t guarantee any votes, he points out: our efforts are better spent educating our “social precincts.”

You’ve got to love an author so devoted to liberty’s ascension that he pleads on page 74 (out of 215), “…please stop reading this book now. Please put it down, and get to work.” [Original emphasis.] I didn’t obey and lay the book aside because of its easy, friendly style and charm (despite the many typos plaguing such a hastily written and published manuscript). Still, I breezed through the whole thing in a few hours.

You can, too. I strongly echo one reviewer’s advice on Amazon: not only should you immediately read Mr. Stevo’s book, you should “Buy several copies, distribute them amongst your friends!”

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized

Review: How To Win America, By Murray Sabrin

June 19, 2017

Murray Sabrin

“This review of How to Win America by Allan Stevo was originally run at MurraySabrin.com on April 9, 2012.”

Allan Stevo has written an comprehensive campaign blueprint for liberty candidates. Stevo lays out practical advice for Ron Paul supporters and future liberty candidates who believe winning elections will help restore freedom in America. Unfortunately, it was published too late for this presidential cycle. Stevo’s primer may have had a greater impact this year if it was published in mid-2011.

According to Allan Stevo, 32 year old writer and former ­­congressional candidate, and author of How to Win America for Ron Paul and the Cause of Freedom in 2012, which was published in January of this year (while a free e book is available here) winning elections is more likely if voters at the grassroots level work “the plan.” Stevo lays out “the plan” to elect Ron Paul in 2012. He explains why Ron Paul should win, could win and how it is up to his supporters to make that happen by working what he calls their “social precincts.” The first part of How to win America…. lays out the nuts-and-bolts of winning the votes of individuals who will go to the polls and select the GOP presidential nominee and liberty candidates in general. As Stevo writes on page 74:

“If you are convinced, if you are moved to action, please stop reading this book now. Please put it down, and get to work. Come back and read the rest when you need a little inspiration or would like a tip. Don’t read it if you simply have nothing better to do, please. If you have nothing better to do, I’d like you to be out following the plan. We follow that plan and we will be the clear winners at the end of the primaries. Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate, well-positioned to win the Great Debate.”

Despite Stevo’s optimistic assessment in January about Ron Paul becoming the GOP presidential nominee, the fact that the Texas congressman is not the leading GOP presidential contender at this time after spending tens of millions of dollars to convince primary voters that his message of limited government, individual liberty, sound money and an noninterventionist foreign policy is right for America, speaks volumes about GOP voters and missed opportunities throughout the campaign. In addition, there is ample evidence that the mainstream media played a role in marginalizing Dr. Paul’s campaign as early as last August’s Ames, Iowa straw poll which he nearly won, yet the media focused its coverage on former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty who came in a disappointing third and soon dropped out of the race.

Although Stevo downplays the role of the media’s effects on the presidential primaries, the bias of so-called journalists during the two dozen debates came though crystal clear, not only with their superficial questions at times and ignoring Ron Paul during the debates as much as possible,(who could forget the 89 seconds CBS gave the congressman in one of the debates), but their nightly newscasts rarely gave him equal time with the other candidates, implying his “unelectability.” In other words, was there a concerted effort to ignore presidential candidate Ron Paul and therefore silence his message of peace, freedom and limited government? To ask the question, is to answer it.

However, Ron Paul’s campaign spokespersons should have jumped all over the media for repeating this mantra, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the more the talking heads said it, the more the public believed it and the more voters perceived that voting for the Texas congressman was a “wasted” vote. In short, Paul campaign’s media folks should have pounced on television and cable producers and editors and called them out for their disingenious reporting. For the media, Ron Paul has been a “third party’ candidate in the GOP primary, especially inasmuch as he has been the only candidate who has been asked about running as a third party candidate in November.

In another vein, the GOP establishment did not want Ron Paul—to put it mildly–to be the presidential standard bearer. To guarantee that Ron Paul would not get any momentum in the primaries, the January Iowa caucus was the firewall. If Ron Paul had won what in effect was the Iowa beauty contest kicking off the primary season, the media could not have ignored this phenomenon (wanna bet?). But if Ron Paul had won the Iowa caucuses and rolled into New Hampshire the following week and knocked off Romney or come in a close second, he could have claimed a “victory” just like Bill Clinton did in 1992, when he proclaimed himself the “comeback” kid even though he lost the primary to Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas.

What if? We will never know the answer to these questions, but there is enough anecdotal information that the vote counters (GOP party officials) have been less than honest in counting the votes for Ron Paul throughout the primaries. Moreover, when the time came to select delegates at local GOP caucuses to choose individuals to attend state conventions where the state GOP would select delegates to the national convention in Tampa, more shenanigans occurred to prevent Ron Paul supporters from becoming delegates.

What now? Should Ron Paul run as an independent candidate in 2012 to carry his message of liberty to the American people in November, because a Obama-Romney race would be choice of a Democratic welfare-warfare state versus a Republican welfare-warfare state? If Ron Paul believes the American people deserve to have a choice in November and that the GOP is part of the problem along with the Democrats, then Ron Paul just might jump at the opportunity not only to reshape the political landscape in America by creating a pro-liberty political movement in contrast to the Washington Party in DC comprised of two wings, the Democrats and Republicans.

A Ron Paul independent presidential campaign in the fall would be exciting, a huge boost to the liberty movement, and would provide the American people with a real choice instead of listening to the big government nominees, Obama and Romney, continue the charade that there is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. In addition, Ron Paul does not owe any loyalty to the GOP or its nominee, because of the egregious treatment of the mild mannered physician from Texas by the political hacks who run the GOP throughout the country. Moreover,, electing Romany or reelecting Obama would maintain the status quo in America. That means the welfare-warfare state continues, a triumph of crony capitalism.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized

The Groundbreaking Technology That Will Link Bratislava And Vienna

67172704 - monorail futuristic train in a tunnel. 3d renderingThis month’s 52 Weeks in Slovakia series on Bratislava, Bitcoin, and the tech sector is being done in connection with the launch of a new book by Allan Stevo – The Bitcoin Manifesto.

Hyperloop

June 18, 2017

Allan Stevo

“This item first appeared at 52 Weeks in Slovakia on June 17, 2017.”

As I’ve written previously, in the piece “The First in Europe” about Bitcoin ATMs – sometimes cutting edge technologies find their way into less established markets before finding their way to world class cities. This is the nature of trendiness, establishment sensibilities, and orthodoxy. Fringe cities are more open to fringe trends. Establishment cities are slower to adopt fringe trends. When those trends are adopted in establishment places, by establishment people, it is a sign that the trend has “made it,” at which point it ceases to be so cutting edge.

The non-establishment places and people get to serve as guinea pigs for the others, feeling out the trends that may come their way, in time they will eventually be “promoted” to acceptance by establishment places and people if they work well enough.

An invention known as a Hyperloop is one example, a theoretical idea that is believed to be able to transport people in less than 1/10th the time of a normal train – it has come under fire by some because its “inventor” Elon Musk proposed it in an August 12, 2013 white paper rather than prototyping it for the world to see and have proven.

The first five pages of the 57 page white paper entitled “Hyperloop Alpha,” are intended for a non technical audience and make for excellent reading.

Regardless of criticism, Musk’s white paper has launched an industry that is much larger than the author of the paper, and it was done without Musk having to spend his time prototyping the idea.

In theory, one hour of travel with an express train becomes as little as 5 minutes of travel with a Hyperloop.

Some think that the transportation technology promises to be so effective that a Hyperloop will one day circle the equator and transportation networks – Hyperloops and otherwise – will branch out from hubs along the equator.

As Digital Trends points out “There are of course drawbacks. Most notably, moving through a tube at such high speeds precludes large turns or changes in elevation. As a result, the system is optimal for straightforward trips across relatively level terrain.”

While many are interested, two companies have led the way in developing the technology – Hyperloop One and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies.

What is an entrepreneur to do? Is he going to pay Tokyo real estate prices to house a prototype or make Londoners into guinea pigs or use New Yorkers to test the prototype in the hometown of the most prominent international media for all the world to see every hiccup?

No. Those people don’t want to have what’s truly cutting edge. They only want to feel like they have what’s cutting edge. Being guinea pigs has its advantages, but it mostly has its disadvantages, especially when it comes to technology. Being the first city with a Hyperloop is probably far worse than being the third city. The only likely advantage – a subsidized cost of travel. When all is said and done your city ends up littered with an aging piece of machinery that may or may not work, and which will definitely not work as well as the third or the eighth city to have that technology built. For a moment in time though, your corner of the world becomes cutting edge, a center of the world in the area of that one technology. It also becomes a part of history – a place that was willing to entertain the upstart and give the cutting edge a chance to prove their merits to the established interests of the world.

Bratislava and Vienna – two very close capital cities, with daily commuters back and forth, a common border, relatively flat terrain, and some level of international attention, have exhibited a willingness to be guinea pigs, to try something that feels like it could be significant. They will be home to the first Hyperloop connecting two cities. It will be built by Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. Budapest will be included as well and Brno and Prague look like they will follow. The company is laying the groundwork for this technology to connect Central European cities with Bratislava as the hub.

HTT is a California based company, whose CEO has commented “We would love to see LA to San Francisco, but our primary goal is to build the Hyperloop.” The entrenched political and cultural establishment of California isn’t likely to be the site of a revolutionary transportation technology like the Hyperloop. It’s more likely to be home to something far more established and far less effective that feels cutting edge.

While the state of California is spending a projected phase one cost of $68 billion on one of the world’s slowest and most expensive high speed rail lines, which will travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco, in contrast Bratislava will have a new technology which mile-per-mile costs 1/10 as much to build (even by California prices) and is being privately funded.

Yes, that’s right.

Where will the hub of the first intercity operation of the amazing cutting edge technology called Hyperloop be housed ?

Bratislava, Slovakia.

Sometimes it pays to be an upstart.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time traveling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Photo credit: Digital Trends

Posted in Uncategorized