Southern Bread Blog

It’s very easy just to laugh at the “idiot” when he raises a question that seems totally foreign to our own experience with a given subject. But, that’s a reflex we would do well to conquer. For, what happens when, later, a little research proves the idiot’s question to be more than tangential? Uninformed mockery is one of the dumbest activities to engage in. It’s rhetorical suicide. Bernanke, evidently, is not aware of this.

After Ron Paul raised questions about possible past Federal Reserve misdeeds including allegations of involvement in Watergate payoffs, Ben Bernanke answered smugly: “These specific allegations you’ve made, I think are absolutely bizarre.”

The crowd reflexively laughed at Dr. No’s perceived looniness and pundits have already depicted his concerns as “wild” and “odd.”

Well, it seems that Paul may have been onto something . . . or at the very least raised legitimate questions that deserve investigation. A few minutes on Google News produced this 1982 story from the Milwaukee Sentinel by Richard Bradee of the paper’s Washington bureau:

“Police who searched the room the Watergate burglars used found $4,200 in $100 dollar bills, all numbered in sequence. Proxmire asked the Federal Reserve Board where the money came from. As he explained in a letter to the late Rep. Wright Patman (D-Tex.), chairman of the House Banking Committee: ‘I got the biggest run-around in years. They ducked, misled, lied, and gave me the idiot treatment.’”

–David Beito, The Beacon

Rowman has a great post over at Liberty vs. Leviathan that fits well with what we talked about yesterday:

In Roe at 37, Daniel McCarthy, of The American Conservative looks at the pro-life movement in the aftermath of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and nails one of the main reasons the pro-life cause has gained so little ground since that horrible decision:

“If you want to be politically effective, you will probably have to use a major party — but you have to use it, not let it use you. Unfortunately, the people who have the purest motives, who are most habitually inclined to trust the honorable intentions of others, wind up as fodder for the likes of Scott Brown once they get involved in the bloodletting that is politics.”

And commenter Thomas goes even further and takes the position (with which I agree) that the pro-life cause will continue to make little progress as long as it’s political fortunes are tied to the GOP:

“Publius Cato has a point about the GOP on abortion. I will take this further: if the Republicans DID do anything about abortion, they would lose their #1 political issue in the depressed parts of the South and Midwest where they win by gathering 80% or so of white working class votes which don’t agree with their globalist, oligarchic (and liberal-inegalitarian) economics. They need the abortion issue to persist indefinitely or else they are done.”

While I’m not sure of his demographics, the point is that the GOP is so dependent on the pro-life vote that it can’t afford for the abortion issue to go away. Maybe that’s why there are so few cosponsors for HR 2533 – Sanctity of Life Act of 2009, authored by Ron Paul. Pro life lobby where are you?

–Rowman, Liberty vs. Leviathan

From where we left off last time, Nock then turns his attention toward the idea of the “recession” or diminution of state power, and whether or not it’s possible. In discussing this, he hits on a topic that’s truly relevant to my ongoing point on this blog. Namely, that there is no point in voting for “Democrats” or “Republicans.” The idea of left and right in politics is meaningless tripe. He puts it this way (know that when he says “recession”, he means the lessening of state control/power. He’s not talking about economic recession.):

4. Political party differentiation is a myth

There is also an impression that if actual recessions do not come about by themselves, they may be brought about by the expedient of voting one party out and another one in. This idea rests upon certain assumptions that experience has shown to be unsound; the first one being that the power of the ballot is what republican political theory makes it out to be, and that therefore the electorate has an effective choice in the matter. It is a matter of open and notorious fact that nothing like this is true.

Our nominally republican system is actually built on an imperial model, with our professional politicians standing in the place of the praetorian guards; they meet from time to time, decide what can be “got away with,” and how, and who is to do it; and the electorate votes according to their prescriptions. Under these conditions it is easy to provide the appearance of any desired concession of State power, without the reality; our history shows innumerable instances of
very easy dealing with problems in practical politics much more difficult than that. One may remark that in this connexion also the notoriously baseless assumption that party-designations connote principles, and that party-pledges imply performance. Moreover, underlying these assumptions and all others that faith in “political action” contemplates, is the assumption that the interests of the State and the interests of society are, at least theoretically, identical; whereas in theory they are directly opposed, and this opposition invariably declares itself in practice to the precise extent that
circumstances permit.

However, without pursuing these matters further at the moment, it is probably enough to observe here that in the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer- Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself.

One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State ower are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that “reorganization” of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is, in itself, quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power. This course would be strictly historical, and is furthermore to be expected as lying in the nature of things, as it so obviously does.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

I know that was a long excerpt, but I thought it was necessary since he packed so much in. He is getting here, to the heart of what I’ve tried to explain before, but have done such a lousy job of. He’s explaining that the espoused differences between the two parties are actually just different ways to obtain the same end: more state power and less social power. I think where people fall for the trick, is in the creative employment of moral language used by the candidates. So, when Mike Huckabee stands up and says that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be repealed, it’s not that what he says is “meaningless.” It’s that, he’s just not that concerned with actually doing anything about it.

Political footballs are footballs for a reason. Because they stay in play at all times. If somebody takes all the balls and throws them out of the stadium, you can’t play any more. The main concern of politicians is the management and structuring of their own position within the power structure of centralized control. This is what Nock refers to as “reorganization.” And, after that point is settled, the politician moves on to the accumulation of more control and influence inside their now established realm of influence. The morality, or lack thereof, of a certain political football such as abortion, taxes, social services, etc. is no more meaningful to the politician than what breakfast he will eat.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I distinctly remember saying that Scott Brown was just like every other politician walking the planet, and that there is no difference between the two parties. Man, it didn’t even take a month for this dude to vote for robbing us of another $15 billion dollars. And, on some stupid “jobs” bill. Those things aren’t even worth the paper they’re written on. Show me a “jobs” bill that’s ever produced a single job. He might as well have crapped $15 billion down Teddy Kennedy’s toilet.

WASHINGTON—Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) is to vote with the Democratic majority and support a crucial procedural motion on a $15 billion piece of legislation aimed at spurring job creation, an aide to the senator said Monday.

The move by Mr. Brown to break with most of his party’s members in his first ever vote in the Senate is a significant development.

–WSJ

Remember when we were kids and were taught that policemen are your friends? That, anytime you needed help you could look for that blue uniform and badge? Well, those days are long gone. Cops are no longer anyone’s friend but the State’s. It seems all they care about these days are their taxpayer funded lifetime pensions. Screw the citizens. It’s our job to pay their salary and submit to every random whim that comes out of their mouth. It’s their job to give us speeding tickets, rape our wallets and make our lives more complicated. And, this is exactly what 61 year old Minnie Carey found out when she asked a simple question to the cop who told her to move: “why?”

Four women, two of them well into middle age, were discussing funeral plans for a friend when an Atlanta police officer told them to move.

Three did but one asked “why.” In answer to her question, Minnie Carey, then 61, was handcuffed, put into a police wagon and taken to jail, where she was held for nine hours.

The Citizen Review Board found that Atlanta Police officer Brandy Dolson had violated APD policies and had falsely arrested Carey.

“I was blown away,” Carey told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “I had heard about people in the community being harassed by the police … It really didn’t shock me as much as it probably would have if I had not heard of people going to jail for no reason. I figured I was just another one.

“But I had the right to ask ‘why’ I had to move,” she said.

The Citizen Review Board – resurrected after the 2006 fatal police shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in her home – voted in a recent meeting to sustain Carey’s false arrest claim and the allegation that the officer had violated the department’s arrest policies.

–Rhonda Cook, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

It should be no surprise that this type of thing happens over time. For a moment, push all of the propaganda out of your mind and just think about this in generic terms. What happens when you give one group of people the exclusive right to use physical force over another group of people? Remember Lord Acton’s famous words about absolute power. Well, it doesn’t just corrupt politicians. It corrupts police officers in an even more base way. Policemen have, by law, a monopoly on the use of force to make us comply with virtually anything they want us to. And we, again, by law, must disarm ourselves in their presence. That type of power cannot remain un-corrupted for long.

Continuing where we left off last time:

3. The state turns misfortune into a political asset.

A third index is seen in the erection of poverty and mendicancy into a permanent political asset.
Two years ago, many of our people were in hard straits; to some extent, no doubt, through no fault
of their own, though it is now clear that in the popular view of their case, as well as in the political
view, the line between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor was not distinctly drawn.
Popular feeling ran high at the time, and the prevailing wretchedness was regarded with
undiscriminating emotion, as evidence of some general wrong done upon its victims by society at
large, rather than as the natural penalty of greed, folly or actual misdoings; which in large part it
was. The State, always instinctively “turning every contingency into a resource” for accelerating the
conversion of social power into State power, was quick to take advantage of this state of mind. All
that was needed to organize these unfortunates into an invaluable political property was to declare
the doctrine that the State owes all its citizens a living; and this was accordingly done. It
immediately precipitated an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, an enormous resource for
strengthening the State at the expense of society.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

Remember that this was written in 1935. So, when he says, “Two years ago, many of our people were in hard straits,” he means the Great Depression. He is talking here of the appropriation, by the state, of an actual state of being. They actually began, around that time, turning poverty and misfortune into political footballs to be tossed about for the purpose of vote buying and political power grabs. This, at once, has the effect of putting the lie to the notion that the state cares anything about ending poverty. Of course they don’t. Why would they want to end such a potent political tool as that. It would be like banning abortion. They never will, because as soon as they do, they would lose that issue as a way to buy votes. It’s much more valuable as a tool. Morality be damned.

This is also, so far as I’m concerned, the major flaw in the thinking that drives much of the “social gospel” movement’s leadership. I’ve posted on this before. Many, or them seek to expropriate the power of the state and apply it toward social ills, such as poverty. This can’t work, because of what we just covered. The state has no desire to end poverty. But, it does have an interest in making you think it does. That’s the whole game in and of itself. So, trying to get the right guy in office, or protesting, or whatever is just a complete waste of time. By definition, it can’t work. And, also by definition, you will always be made to think that it is working. So unless you enjoy being lied to and playing the fool, it’s a really bad idea to attempt to ally any aspect of the church with the state.

I just finished listening to Albert Jay Nock’s book, Our Enemy, The State. It was, perhaps, the finest disquisition on the inherent dangers of the state I’ve ever read. And, what’s odd is that one of the main points of the book was that government isn’t inherently bad. What’s bad is “the state.” He draws a very clear and compelling distinction between government and the state. And, even though the book was written in 1935, it reads like a modern treatise on the history of our lost liberty. In that regard, I see him very much like a 20th century John C. Calhoun. He saw what was coming by logical mandate. Knowing what he knew about the state and it’s relationship to it’s citizens, history could unfold no other way.

Let’s go through his main points:

1. State power is drawn from social power.

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it
has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from
time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be
drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with
so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a
corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

This is an interesting comment. We all know that all state money comes from only two sources: confiscation(taxes) and inflation(printing money). But, he is saying that state power is derived the same way, through a sort of confiscation of societal power. And, just as taxes result in it’s victim being financially poorer, so does the confiscation of a citizen’s “power.” And, by power he means the citizens ability to exercise his/her efforts toward solving a personal or societal ill. Take, for instance, the beauracracy involved in starting a business. There are all sorts of papers to fill out, licenses to apply for and fees/taxes to pay. In the carrying out of these exigencies, the state has placed barriers in front of you in regards to exercising your power(in this instance, your labour) to provide for your own welfare. He expounds on that next.

2. This consumption of social power by the state robs society of the will to exercise that power.

It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes
acceptable and gets itself accepted. When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was
immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by
money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million
dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too
depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only
has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular
direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has
confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get
some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a
beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to
refer him to the State’s relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising
enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way,
so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a
quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and
he should go to the State about it.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

Here, he is fleshing out his previous idea about the depletion of social power by the state as it takes on more and more activities that are considered social issues. He gives an example that is contemporary to his own time, so I’ll do the same. This phenomenon is perhaps no more clearly illustrated than what happened in Kauai, Hawaii last year. After waiting on the Department of Land and Natural Resources to fix a park road for months, the residents of the area repaired the road themselves. The DOLNR had estimated that it would cost $4 million dollars and take two years to repair the road. Instead, the area business owners and residents did it in 8 days and with only donations.

What should have never been the business of the state to begin with had paralyzed this community for months. But, why? Why would they wait for someone else to do something for them. Because of the atrophy of will that occurs when the state absconds with power that it never should have had. The more power that is accumulates to itself, the less society desires to exercise that particular power on it’s own. Even if it legally can.

Ok, so as I’ve been saying, this bread recipe is infinitely changeable. Here is the same recipe modified to be beer bread. Most of the beer bread recipes you see don’t use yeast. They just rely on the carbonation of the beer and maybe some baking powder to help it rise. This, however, is a true yeast bread, and will be much fluffier. Actually, this base recipe I’ve been giving you in the last few posts started out as a beer bread recipe, even though I’ve changed some of the quantities and instructions around, so thanks goes out to Kevin Weeks at Seriously Good for the great recipe. And, for the inspiration to experiment.

Beer Bread:

Dry Ingredients:

• 2.5 Cups of Wheat Flour
• 1 Cup of Bread Flour
• 1 TBSP of Salt

Wet Ingredients:

• 12 oz. bottle of warm beer
• 1 oz. of olive oil
• 2 tsp Instant Dry Yeast
• 2 TBSP of Honey

Instructions:

1. Mix all the dry ingredients together in a large mixing bowl. Don’t add the yeast to the dry ingredients.
2. Warm the beer by putting the bottle/can in a bowl of hot water for about 10 minutes. Longer if it came out of the fridge. You want it warm. Not hot, not cold. Warm.
3. Now add the dry yeast, oil and honey to the warm beer and stir it around with a fork vigorously until all of the honey is dissolved.
4. Now walk away and let the yeast liquid sit and fester for about 15 minutes. The yeast is going to get really active and start to party. Don’t crash it.
5. Come back and dump the liquid/yeast mix into the dry ingredients.
6. Get your hands wet with some water and begin to mix. You will get messy, but it’s worth it.
7. When everything is mixed thoroughly, flour the countertop and dump the dough out onto the flour.
8. Knead the dough for 6 minutes until smooth, adding plenty of flour as needed. Don’t skimp.
9. Now stretch and shape the dough into a ball with the seam at the bottom.
10. Clean and dry out your mixing bowl and then spray it inside with cooking spray or wipe it with oil.
11. Drop your dough ball into the bowl seam side down and shoot it with a light shot of cooking spray also.
12. Cover the bowl with plastic wrap and a hand towel and let sit for an hour until it at least doubles in size.
13. After it doubles, uncover and punch down the dough to get all the air out. Don’t punch it hard, just make sure it’s deflated good.
14. Now turn it out on the floured countertop again and knead it very lightly for about a minute. You just want to work it a little to get it back to a good shape.
15. Now, crisco the inside of a loaf pan. Use plenty of lard/crisco. You don’t want the loaf sticking to the pan. That’s a disaster.
16. Cover and let sit again for about 30 minutes. It will rise quite a bit, but don’t let it get too big where it’s ballooning out over the sides of the pan.
17. Lower your oven rack to a little below center and put the pan on the rack.
18. Set the oven to 400° F and set the timer to 30 minutes.
19. When the timer goes off the bread is done. Let it cool on a wire rack for about an hour.

Ok, so here is the full recipe/instructions for making this loaf bread from scratch. The biggest change, apart from the ingredients and prep is in the wait time for the rise. It takes a lot longer to rise since the yeast isn’t nearly as vigorous in your yeast water as it is when you by it packaged. But, just give it time and it will rise just fine.

The Scratch Version:

Dry Ingredients:

• 2 Cups of Wheat Flour
• 1/2 Cup of Bread Flour
• 1 TBSP of Salt
• 2 tsp Cocoa Powder

Wet Ingredients:

• 5 oz. room-temp Whole Milk
• 1 oz. of Vegetable Oil
• 1 TBSP Sugar

Pre-ferment:

• 1 Cup (8 oz.) of Yeast Water
• 1/2 Cup of Milled Wheat Flour
• 1/2 Cup of Bread Flour

Instructions:

1. Mix up your pre-ferment 72 hours before you plan to make your bread using the recipe above. On the day of bread making, move to step 2.
2. Mix all the dry ingredients together in a large mixing bowl and dump in your pre-ferment dough.
3. Dump the milk and oil into the mix.
4. Get your hands wet with some water and begin to mix. You will get messy, but it’s worth it.
5. When everything is mixed thoroughly, flour the countertop and dump the dough out onto the flour.
6. Knead the dough for 5 minutes until smooth, adding plenty of flour as needed. Don’t skimp.
7. Now stretch and shape the dough into a ball with the seam at the bottom.
8. Clean and dry out your mixing bowl and then spray it inside with cooking spray or wipe it with oil.
9. Drop your dough ball into the bowl seam side down and shoot it with a light shot of cooking spray also.
10. Cover the bowl with plastic wrap and a hand towel and let sit for a few hours until it at least doubles in size. Give it plenty of time. I’ve even had to leave them overnight before.
11. After it doubles, uncover and punch down the dough to get all the air out. Don’t punch it hard, just make sure it’s deflated good.
12. Now turn it out on the floured countertop again and knead it very lightly for about a minute. You just want to work it a little to get it back to a good shape.
13. Now, crisco the inside of a loaf pan. Use plenty of lard/crisco. You don’t want the loaf sticking to the pan. That’s a disaster.
14. Cover and let sit again for as long as it takes to rise again. You want it to double in size.
15. Lower your oven rack to a little below center and put the pan on the rack.
16. Set the oven to 400° F and set the timer to 30 minutes.
17. When the timer goes off the bread is done. Let it cool on a wire rack for about an hour.

Now, you’ve just made bread totally from scratch. Little House on the Prarie eat your heart out.

I guess the Obama fanboys are swallowing hard on this one: “School bombing exposes Obama’s secret war inside Pakistan.” Every day Obama seems more and more like Bush’s 3rd term. From the story:

THE discovery of three American soldiers among the dead in a suicide bombing at the opening of a girls’ school in the northwestern Pakistan town of Dir last week reignited the fears of many Pakistanis that Washington was set on invading their country.

US airstrikes in Pakistan, launched from unmanned drones, are now averaging three a week, triple the number last year. “We’re quietly seeing a geographical shift,” an intelligence officer said.

For the past month drones have pounded the tribal region of North Waziristan in apparent retaliation for the murder of seven CIA officers in Afghanistan by a Jordanian suicide bomber working with the Pakistani Taliban.

Last week America launched its first multiple drone attack, according to Pakistani security officials. Eighteen missiles were fired from eight unmanned aircraft in Dattakhel village, killing 16 people.

The discovery of the dead US soldiers revealed that America’s shadowy war in Pakistan not only involves drones but also small cadres of special operations soldiers.

When are the Democrat rank and file going to wake up and understand that the guys they put in office are just as pro-war as the Republicans. Indeed, of the major wars fought in the 20th century, only one was waged under a Republican president – the first gulf war under Daddy Bush. All the biggies were Democrat-led. Woodrow Wilson(D) got us into WWI, Franklin Roosevelt(D) got us into WWII, Harry Truman(D) nuked Japan and got us into Korea, John F. Kennedy(D) got us into Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson(D) finished the job, with a brief cameo by Richard Nixon(R). As I’ve said time and time again, there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to anything of major importance. And when it comes to America policing the world, there is absolutely no difference between a Republican president and a Democrat one. They both love the thrill of killing in the name of freedom.

On a final note, Pakistan is going just as Iraq did. We’re now seeing things like suicide bombings begin to happen. Isn’t it odd that we didn’t see any suicide bombings before the U.S. began it’s military operations there. Why do we find it odd that people would be willing to give their lives to defend their land? If some other country invaded the U.S. or began secret missions here wouldn’t we do the same?