John Locke & Adam Smith
John Locke is a figure of economic history. He is one of the godfathers of Austrian Economics. He lived from August 29, 1632 until October 28, 1704. He died when he was 72 years old. He was born in Wrington, Somsertet England and died in Essex, England. Locke was a famous philosopher and British empricist too. Both of his parents were Puritans. He was right on many issues and wrong on others. Some point to Locke as inspiring the American Revolution with his ideals, but others view that the Revolution as a revolutionary shift from political and social issues between British and American vaues. Locke was of the establishment in England of course. He was a founding investor in the Bank of England. This bank was created back in 1694 that funded imperialism. However, until its 1714 defeat, with the death of Queen Anne, a powerful ``national party'' opposed to imperialism still existed in England. This party rallied around the political figures of Jonathan Swift and English patriot Robert Harley. Harley's parliamentary faction launched a series of bold economic and political initiatives, which directly counter to the imperialist design. They wanted to limited interest rates to 4%, they wanted to form a Public Accounts Commission of the House of Commons to investigate corrupt practices of the City of London financial district and its agents in government, and some want the bank to be under public authority. Some desired these solutions to give low cost credit to improve farming, construct homes plus factories, and end the money monopoly of the Bank of England. John Locke disagreed with capping interest rates as found his 1691 booklet, which was in favor of usury. Locke believed that no government interference in the economy was a necessity in order for true economic development to be a reality. In history, this hasn't occured. He believed that buying and selling is a source of wealth instead of production. Locke wanted savings to be cut by 25% of more after the economic crisis of 1695 in England. Locke wasn't a real representation of American values. Locke's preamble stated: ``that we may avoid erecting a numerous democracy;'' Locke's ``constitution'' established the eight lords proprietors as a hereditary nobility, with absolute control over their serfs, called ``leet-men.'' Also, Locke believed in slavery and British imperialism that tons of Americans even back in he 1700's strongly opposed both slavery & imperialism. From 1672-74, Locke served as secretary of King Charles II's Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations (at the same time profiting from personal investments in trade with the Bahamas). Locke was heavily opposed by the British National Party. This National Party opposed imperialism in England. It was again organized around the political figures of Jonathan Swift and English patriot Robert Harley. Harley's parliamentary faction launched a series of bold economic and political initiatives directly counter to the imperialist design. John Locke believed that the government's major purpose was to maintain personal property, yet government should be bigger than that.
The government should be created by the people not by a select oligarchy. Its role is multifaceted in contributing to the arts (as promoted to his credit by Benjamin Franklin. I don't agree with him joining the Hell Fire Club though), science, economic development, and other realms pertaining to the general welfare of the people not just the perservation of property. All humans have inalienable rights. This rights can't be taken away since they derive not from the state, but from the hand of God. The inalienable rights which the Declaration asserted were the Leibnizian "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Locke was so much an oligarch that he believed in crushing help to the poor, he supported child labor (called the working school in his mind), and didn't want real education to the young. Locke believe in Aristole's tabula rasa falsehood or the concept that the human mind is just like paper being without any ideas (and only by experience or by the human senses can human develop their mind). In other words, Locke argued that man is motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Leibniz disagreeed with this view since morality among man doesn't make a man a robot, but a thinking creature with a lot of instrintic value. Leibniz wrote that the human soul isn't empty, but can be awaken on numerous occasions. He believed that the human mind has innate creative power being more skilled than the beasts or animals. He worte that since: "...men become more skilled by finding a thousand new dexterities, whereas deer and hares of the present day do not become more cunning than those of past time.'' He adds ironically: ``This is why it is so easy for men to entrap brutes and so easy for simple empirics to make mistakes.'' The Founding Fathers used Leibniz's views and others to form the Declaration of Independence. It originally had an indictment of King George III for his promotion of slavery against black people (that part of the Constitution was eliminated). Bernard Mandeville promoted laissez faire policies and that vice (plus others evils) were necessary foundations of a propserous state, which I don't subscribe to at all. Bernard was a Dutch doctor who was a suspected member of the Hell Fire Club. Sir Francis Dashwood once headed the oraganization. The Hell Fire Club's membership engaged in gluttony, drunkenness, and orgies and practiced the "Do As Thou Wilt" satanic philosophy that later inspired Aleister Crowley. Mandeville became a champion of this influential underground network of upper class hedonists through his poem The Grumbling Hive which was published in 1705 and it was released again as part of his book The Fable of the Bees in 1714 . Mandeville believed that: "private vice makes public virtue." This is contrary to the moral principle that you don't mix good and evil to promote virtue. The group Adam Smith's 1776 "Wealth of Nations" promoted laissez faire economics as well. Smith believed in a strong national defense, but the work believed that private entereneurs can do almost any commercial transaction that they desired without government interference whatsoever. Smith's promotion of self interest ignores the commandment of Jesus Christ of having concern for God first and your fellow human beings second. The Constitution says that Congress promotes economic growth by regulating currency, having post offices, having legitimate taxes, and other parts of internal infrastructure in a country. So, John Locke & Adam Smith were a slick decpetion in not only promoting a faulty economic system, but their doctrines contradict the American creed of liberty, justice, and true equality for all people.
The government should be created by the people not by a select oligarchy. Its role is multifaceted in contributing to the arts (as promoted to his credit by Benjamin Franklin. I don't agree with him joining the Hell Fire Club though), science, economic development, and other realms pertaining to the general welfare of the people not just the perservation of property. All humans have inalienable rights. This rights can't be taken away since they derive not from the state, but from the hand of God. The inalienable rights which the Declaration asserted were the Leibnizian "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Locke was so much an oligarch that he believed in crushing help to the poor, he supported child labor (called the working school in his mind), and didn't want real education to the young. Locke believe in Aristole's tabula rasa falsehood or the concept that the human mind is just like paper being without any ideas (and only by experience or by the human senses can human develop their mind). In other words, Locke argued that man is motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Leibniz disagreeed with this view since morality among man doesn't make a man a robot, but a thinking creature with a lot of instrintic value. Leibniz wrote that the human soul isn't empty, but can be awaken on numerous occasions. He believed that the human mind has innate creative power being more skilled than the beasts or animals. He worte that since: "...men become more skilled by finding a thousand new dexterities, whereas deer and hares of the present day do not become more cunning than those of past time.'' He adds ironically: ``This is why it is so easy for men to entrap brutes and so easy for simple empirics to make mistakes.'' The Founding Fathers used Leibniz's views and others to form the Declaration of Independence. It originally had an indictment of King George III for his promotion of slavery against black people (that part of the Constitution was eliminated). Bernard Mandeville promoted laissez faire policies and that vice (plus others evils) were necessary foundations of a propserous state, which I don't subscribe to at all. Bernard was a Dutch doctor who was a suspected member of the Hell Fire Club. Sir Francis Dashwood once headed the oraganization. The Hell Fire Club's membership engaged in gluttony, drunkenness, and orgies and practiced the "Do As Thou Wilt" satanic philosophy that later inspired Aleister Crowley. Mandeville became a champion of this influential underground network of upper class hedonists through his poem The Grumbling Hive which was published in 1705 and it was released again as part of his book The Fable of the Bees in 1714 . Mandeville believed that: "private vice makes public virtue." This is contrary to the moral principle that you don't mix good and evil to promote virtue. The group Adam Smith's 1776 "Wealth of Nations" promoted laissez faire economics as well. Smith believed in a strong national defense, but the work believed that private entereneurs can do almost any commercial transaction that they desired without government interference whatsoever. Smith's promotion of self interest ignores the commandment of Jesus Christ of having concern for God first and your fellow human beings second. The Constitution says that Congress promotes economic growth by regulating currency, having post offices, having legitimate taxes, and other parts of internal infrastructure in a country. So, John Locke & Adam Smith were a slick decpetion in not only promoting a faulty economic system, but their doctrines contradict the American creed of liberty, justice, and true equality for all people.
People already know about the opium wars. This was about the British pushing recreational drug usage of opium onto the Chinese people. The drugs were used as a means to promote British imperialism. In midnight of July 1, 1997, Hongkong was restored to China from Britian. The remember the event and date very well. I saw the transfer on ABC News television when I was about to go into the 8th grade of middle school (after I've finished the 7th grade). The British seizure or Hongkong was a big crime of the British Empire. The British Empire took over India, and used India to flood China with Opium. The British used the Royal Navy to flood China with opium in order to loot China's resources. Even Ted Koppel once in Nightline admitted that before 1921 that the British Empire was the world's leading drug trafficker in the 19th century. Abusers with opium can damage their immune system and their body. Ironicaly, some in the Royal family used opium from the royal apothecracy at Balmoral. It caused higher infant mortality rates. That is why the Emperor of China in 1729 banned the import of China, except in small amounts as licensed for medicine. By 1700, a stronger Imperial decree was issued prohibited both the smoking of opium and it importation. Even Confucianism condemned strongly the use of drugs like opium. The British Empire have its roots from the British East India Company (which some believed have influence from the Venetian bloodlines). The BEIC grew in 1600 and was a spin off of the Levant Company. The Company traded in India and by 1815 it governed most of India directly or indirectly. It imposed land taxes in India. Lord Palmerston justified the evil opium wars by promoting the British demand for "free trade." Bengal was apart of the BEIC's opium monopoly system. Lord Palmerston and Queen Victoria ruled India in imperialism in the 1800's. The British Empire adopted Adam Smith's "globalization" extreme laissez faire economy philosophy. This is contrary to the American System wherefore Henry Carey fought for projects to build Asia up via railroads. Some feel if Carey's designs were meet, then all of Asia would develop as dramatically as Japan did. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that breakthroughs in science and technology can improve human survival and stabilize population growth. There is not only value in human labor, but human creativity in order to benefit the whole world economically, morally, politically, and spiritually. Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, followed this belief, that human behavior was best ordered by each man following his hedonistic desires to their lawful conclusion. He argued that opium was a legitimate product, the same as any other commodity, that the objective laws of the ``invisible hand'' must be allowed to determine all economic activity, and anything which stood in the way, such as national governments, were an obstacle which must be removed. Adam Smith of course supported British colonialism. In the other side of the Left/Right paradigm, Karl Marx supported British colonialism. Man is more than a political animal as taught by Aristole. He or she is a functioning being with high intellectual and great value. Marx called Carey a Russophile for not wanting an alliance with British Empire. This is shocking stuff, but it proves that Karl Marx was a puppet of the elite. Marx's supporters claimed that later on in the 1800's, Karl Marx opposed colonialism and imperialism though. The British Empire supported an extreme form of globalization that isn't true capitalism, but a promotion of an old oligarchy (or centralizing wealth and industry into a few hands). Karl Marx wasn't an independent freedom fighter since his ideology has been promoted for thousands of years by Illuminists. Marx supported the Opium war and as a racist wrote that the Chinese people had a disposition for opium. He was racist against his own people (via his book entitled the Jewish ____) being very satanic. Carey found that the British Empire preven industrial development among India, banning exports of machinery from England to India, and refusing to develop India's rich iron and coal desposits. Along with oppressive taxation, India suffered economically. Carey describes how in 1813, British ``free trade'' removed tariffs on cloth imported into India, ``but with the restriction on the export of machinery and artisans maintained in full force.'' Within twenty years, Indian cloth manufacturing was completely wiped out. The British invaded China in violation of China's sovereignity of rejecting the legalization of opium. The first Opium looted and destroyed the Emperor's Summer Palace from 1856-1860. Later, China had choas and warring Taiping and Triad ganga. Sun Yat-sen tried to create a Republic in the early 1900's, but China wasn't strongly united. So, the lesson here is that national sovereignity, nationalism, and true economic policies are superior to the evil policies of Empire & imperialism.
The Volker Fund is named after the libertarian William Volker. He was an German immigrant who give $10 million to worthy causes. Much of his fortune was given anonymously to avoid public scrutiny. Many Austrian School and Chicago School leaders were initially sponsored by the William Volker Fund (they include Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Aaron Director – and even the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, Rousas J. Rushdoony). This William Volker Fund was active from 1932 to 1965. They promoted free market economics. They were key in developing the modern libertarian movement in the United States. William Volker made funds to give unto the first Mont Pelerin Society meeting in 1947. Aaron Director was the famous professor in the University of Chicago Law School that played a central role in forming the Chicago school of economics. So, this fund promoted the Hegelian dialteic of conflict between laissez capitalism and socialism and the synthesis is a merging of the 2 extremes. Another level of thinking is that these economics systems have been ruled by European elites not by Americans. Dominionists (like Howard Phillips, who was apart of the TCC or the Conservative Caucus. The TCC have tied to the USCWF or the Council for World Freedom) and other people ironicaly support the agenda of the William Volker Fund. The Council for World Freedom is of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL), a worldwide Fascist network comprised of former Nazis and Nazi collaborators. The U.S. branch of the World Anti-Communist League was funded by Texas oil billionaires Nelson Bunker Hunt and Herbert William Hunt. The WACL have ties to the Council on National Policy as well.
Using solely gold as a currency is wrong on many levels. There is nothing with using gold for financial purposes, but not as a sole currency in American society. I definitely opposed the gold currency greatly since late 2009 and now in early 2010. William Jenning Bryan is famous for saying that: "...You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold..." Many means of exchange have been successful in the past like salt, tally sticks, shells, paper, etc. The question is who controls the supply and what he is doing with it. Inflation and deflation can be radically extreme even if gold was the currency in a nation. We do know that hyperinflation and too much deflation can be harmful for the economy since these things can either print too much money with high interest rates or constrict money so much that poverty is surely to occur. Gold money have been tied with deflation. The controller of the system or the elite keep gold scare. Therefore, global gold output is insufficient to keep up with economic growth, and this can decline the amount of money in circulation compared to total output of production. The elite control most of the gold of the money anyway and can recieve profits from it in high value if it was the sole currency in a nation. The Rockefellers even aided Ludwig von Mises when he came into the U.S. in 1940 with a grant. Some people promote gold as a means to tie it to the 9/11 truth movement. There is one reality in history that you can have interest free money plus this have built up the great resources of America for centuries. Franklin's Colonial Scrip, Washington's Continental (even though this was inflated into oblivion, if we take the money supply out of the hands of the bankers, please don't give it to some career politicians) and of course Abe Lincoln's Greenbacks are examples of this. Lincoln threw 30% interest gold out of the window plus using interest free Greenback to fund the Union side of the war. Gold can be a store of value, but it has been exploited by manipulation and it can't be used to compensate the growth of the whole population. That is why some independent monetary reform groups want to invest in interest free money now. Using interest free money on production and other solutions can be done to built up the economy too.
The exposure of Austrian Economics is bigger than a economic disagreement, but it's a political disagreement as well. As for the government, Austrians believe that government is going bad because the essence of government is that it can make no beneficial improvement in society especially from the federal level. I don't agree with that. Government has been corrupted by many reasons. One is that private corporate interests have infiltrated and taken over the government to enact bad policies spanning many years and decades like the derivatives, etc. Privatization (or allowing select corporations run completely the resources of a nation) is just as much of a threat in U.S. society as is totalitarian government. It isn't a coincidence that some in the Austrian Economic crowd want most if not all welfare plus health care to get cut since some of them believe in the Malthusian lie that society should not care about those disadvantaged unless charity or religious organizations alone help them out. The problem with this argument is that not everyone is religious who is poor and that charity has a finite reach toward ending poverty. A comprehensive, constructive approach in alleviating poverty is a much better solution than advancing a limited prescription. If you want something done, you should reform government not end it. This isn't socialism since socialism is the government seizing or stealing markets arbitrarily for control. Ironically, Fabian Socialism was funded by the British global elite back in the early 1900's not to benefit the common man, but to give crumbs to people while giving out covert authoritarianism at the same time. This is really about allowing the government to promote the General Welfare of the people. Government was meant to be formed by the people to enrich the common standard of living among society. Regulation is not Socialism!! Socialism deals with the government stealing or seizing markets in an illegitimate fashion that cripples all forms of private enterprise (or the government controlling all forms of the means of production). I don't agree with that. Derivatives where banned and made illegal until President Ronald Reagan (maybe forced or pressured) wrote them into existence again since the early 1980s, which was the first seeds for the problems we're having now. To make a long story short, economic growth came in the 1940's to the early 1970's that was consistent. The monetarist policy of ending the Bretton Woods System came about in 1971 via President Richard Nixon. There was the oil embargo that caused high inflation in the early 1970's, in the late 1970's, and early 1980's. Paul Volker raised the FED prime rate to 23%. This caused much of the destruction of the industrial base of the United States. Ronald Reagan was elected, because people were disgusted with Jimmy Carter's policies. Reagan came in and deregulated services and expanded the deficit. His supporters claimed that he expanded GDP, but the poverty rate didn't radically decline in the timespan of Reagan's administration. Bill Clinton had a surplus in the economy (although Clinton made the mistake of passing NAFTA that contributes to the exporting of jobs overseas without legitimate compensation to the workers who had their jobs depleted) and George W. Bush expanded the debt as well. According to Webster Tarpley, the U.S. standard of living declined by 2/3 in the past 4 decades. Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and their political puppets are responsible for these economic tribulations not the poor or most Americans for that matter. The ironic thing is that the Fabian Socialists and the cartel capitalists have been funded by the same people via the Rockefeller Foundation. Friedrich von Hayek spoke out against nationalism. Now, I believe in nationalism and I'm sure Ron Paul agrees with it. So, why are Austrian economists allying with a man that don't agree with nationalism. Hayek is a big proponent of Austrian Economics who lives a live long time from 1899 to 1992. He tutored David Rockefeller in the 1930's. Isn't it interesting that the Rockefellers have influence in the University of Chicago, which is a despository of radical unbribled, unrelegated capitalism. The big picture is that government have been infiltrated by big corporate interests in order to try to control socieities globally.
The Federal Reserve contributed to the financial problems in America. The international bankers own the 6 major gigantic media companies that dominate the U.S. mainstream media. The FED hold a huge amount of our debt. Now U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is warning that the U.S. national debt could balloon to more than 100% of GDP by the year 2020. U.S. owes money from foreign countries too. The Federal Reserve is a private entity that can manipulate interest rates in America. Economic abuse caused the Great Depression too. The Federal Reserve went into more control over the economy being unelected. There has been high inflation in the 1970's and recently now. Even Milton Friedman (who was awarded the Nobel Preace Prize in economics) admitted in his book "Free to Choose on pg. 254) that: "..."Inflation occurs when the quantity of money rises appreciably more rapidly than [economic] output, and the more rapid the rise in the quantity of money per unit of output, the greater the rate of inflation. There is probably no other proposition in economics that is as well established as this one." So, this means that unlike Austrian School followers, inflation doesn't equate printing new money. Inflation is when the increase in the money supply exeeds the increase in economic output. This is an established economic law that even I knew about. It seems like the economic populist movement is gaining ground. Some extremists want to call us socialists, but we are not. We just moved beyond the paradigm of Mises and Keynes (who was a eugenicist). Not to mention that means of production among the government and private enterpise has been stagnated for over 30 years. That is why many people want to make free enterprise fair instead of just laissez-faire. Many monetary reformers want a debt free Greenback style money system. Their names include Ellen Brown, Richard C. Cook, Byron Dale, Stephen Zarlenga, and the makers of “The Money Masters” documentary (and the recently-released sequel, “The Secret of Oz”). There is no god like entity of the free market alone helping the economy out since the economy is a very complex situation needed a multifaceted approach to create the necessary reforms (that can increase Real & Potential GDP, lower unemployment, increase the aggregate demand, increase the aggregate supply, and improve our standard of living). Sometimes government intervention (like the Glass-Steagall Act being repealed 1999 that once prevented Wall Street bankers to act as casino gamblers with their derivatives) and some regulations are needed to build up the country. This doesn't mean that every regulation is good. The common disinformation mantra is that Barack Obama is a socialist, Marxist, or Muslim. He isn't a socialist, a Muslim, or a Marxist. He is a corportaist or he's allowing money to come into the corporations and just wish that the corporations would trickle down the wealth into the hands of the people. This isn't occuring massively at all. SOCIALISM is WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SEIZES THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. George Soros has been exposed too. Soros is a CFR member and a Bilderberger. He is the founder of the Soros Fund Management. In 1970 he co-founded the Quantum Fund with Jim Rogers, which created the bulk of the Soros fortune. " Jim Rogers is in the alternative media circuit. George Soros is known to speculate against the dollar. Soros promotes China without calling China to reform its religious liberty and political freedom problems. Schiff proposes the market should dictate our money supply and interest rates; he enthusiastically declares "lets crucify humanity on a cross of gold." So, we shouldn't allow everything in the economy to collapse and follow a false cross of gold like some fascists do. That's why most of the truth/ patriot radio is not telling many of those things, because they are into the Austrian School of economics
Economic information is certainly coming in. I've had a revolutionary change in thinking in terms of domestic economic affairs indeed. Some people want no control over the monetary system. Historically, we know that caused recessions, high inflation, and depressions for centuries in the Earth. Too much governmental control and too little governmental regulation have been a deteriment in any endeavor to improve the economic situation in the USA. Therefore, a better solution would be economic reforms like auditing the FED, making Congress regulate our money supply, and resist the urge of the privatization of all of our economic systems. We shouldn't have select, private bankers control the FED. Webster Tarpley is right to point out that: "...We must end a system where unelected, unaccountable cliques of bankers and financiers loyal to names like Morgan, Rockefeller, and Mellon set interest rates and money supply behind closed doors, leading to de-industrialization, mass impoverishment, and a world economic and financial depression of incalculable severity. The Fed helped cause the crash of 1929, did nothing to stop the banking panic of 1932-33, and is the main cause of the $1.5 QUADRILLION derivatives crisis which is devastating the world...." People should get rid of the criminals in government as well. Notice how the neo cons wanted limited government, except for the military and the prison system. They feel that the government can't run a post office effeciently, the war machine and the criminal system run by the government can be run greatly. The truth is that reforming government and getting rid of corrupt government is better than the anarchist view of eliminating all forms of government (which will cause choas and poverty, that some globalists want to develop a feudal society). I believe that the government existing ought to do more than just protect property rights or protect liberties of citizens. It has a role to promote the general welfare of people wherefore the standard of living of humanity is improved upon. This sense of compassion and expanding the improvement of society in dealing with housing, education, our health, our education, and our other means of survival are crucial goals that we should all share.
We know other controversies with Ron Paul. One of Ron Paul’s Midland County coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign called Randy Gray. He’s 29 year old resident of Midland, Michigan. Gray is apart of the KKK, so he’s a racist and shown bigotry toward other groups of people too like immigrants, etc. He is pictured with Ron Paul. To be fair, Ron Paul probably doesn’t know that Gray is a racist. Beyond that, the goal in improving our nation should be to have re-industrialization, economic modernization, full employment, and rising standards of living for all people. Wealth is influenced by many factors like the efficiency of producing goods dedicated to many aims like infrastructure, transportation, and other components. These actions were a preeminent part and parcel of dedicated leaders like Governor Winthrop of the Massachussetts Bay Colony that instituted a sovereign currency & advanced industry, Benjamin Franklin that founded the modern post office system in America, or even George Washington organizing his infrastructure projects. These are the historical facts that the extremists (whether they are radical Austrian or Keynesian economists) don't want you to know. This economic system is apart of the American System that trailblazed the function of the capabilities residing in our country.
*P.S. Ron Paul is an unique man. He is right on many issues like being opposed to a draft, wanting individual liberties, disagreeing with the Patriot Act, and desiring Second Amendment rights. Yet, I disagree with Ron Paul the most on economic issues. Paul seems to reject the economic populism that made this American nation once of the most potent economcially viable countries in human history. Of course, Paul accepts the flawed economic system called Austrian Economics. This philosophy teaches that most if not all government intervention in the economy is wrong and that we should have the free markets have supreme authority on economic policies. It's a distorted and simplistic view since legitimate regulation and real reforms that sometimes involve government intervention aren't evil. It's purely necessary to build up the standard of living, our housing, and other components of our domestic atmosphere. What we have in the economy is the heavy influence of a Wall Street oligarchy. An oligarchy is a power base that makes a select group of people to control the majority of power (pertaining to money, wealth, political power, etc.). They allow the Federal Reserve to be privately run banking system (of a fractional reserve system) that inflates money and can deflate earning to allow folks to be kicked out of their own homes, etc. These banking elite are unelected people that isn't even representative of a elected, free republic. So, the bankers issue public debt to control the government and businesses (in a monopoly system). Now, the Austrian School doesn't work totally since free markets alone can't prevent a privately ruled police and armies from oppressing, harming, and enslaving people. Also, even the privatized Federal Reserve has enacted corrupt financial policies that Paul ironically oppose. A real policy isn't given the corporations the power to run government, but it's giving the people the power to run the government. Private banking cartels shouldn't run our society at all. Ron Paul is against mostly the government having the right to promote the general welfare of the people. Ron Paul is against parts of the 14th Amendment because it doesn't punish a child for other people's actions. He doesn't want any federal government policy to help the poor, to help victims of natural disasters, senior citizens, and health care. Ron Paul wanted all public education banned back in 1988. Ron Paul justifies this view by saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for this. This is false on many levels. The real reason that this approach is false is that the Constitution always have provisions in it to allow Congress to pass laws to make the nation a more perfect union. In other parts of the Constitution, new laws to help people is perfectly legal and has existed centuries ago. Even Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the government the right to levy taxes, build roads, have commerce among the states (plus foreign lands), promote sciences & the arts, etc. So, Ron Paul doesn't mention that the government has a constitutional right to promote progress, science, and infrastructure in many arenas. Ron Paul is against meaningful policies to even regulate environmental corruption. Even if you disagree with man-made global warming, you should be for environmental protection. He wants to end welfare to stop illegal immigration, but people will surely be in the streets if that occurs. A better solution is to offer compassion toward illegal immigrants and offer a real pathway where immigrants are given citizenship in a flexible, real way (and to allow illegal immigrants to be punished via fines, etc. before they get an opportunity for citizenship). Paul has a civil rights issue. Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Ron Paul opposes the Voting Rights Act, he is accused of calling Dr. King slurs, and authored racist newsletters before. Don Black is the founder of Stormfront, which is a racist site. Don Black is a neo-Nazi that is a major supporter and campaign contributor of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign. Ron Paul's views are similar to Ronald Reagan's opinions. He voted against a resolution to call for the criticism of genocide of Darfur and he was against the Armenian Genocide Resolution Bill. He claims to be against foreign interventionism, but he supports business interventionism in the affairs of Third World nations. He also believes in foreign military intervention in the war of Afghanistan. So, it's best for me to be independent and not adhere to the Democrats or the Republicans.
We know other controversies with Ron Paul. One of Ron Paul’s Midland County coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign called Randy Gray. He’s 29 year old resident of Midland, Michigan. Gray is apart of the KKK, so he’s a racist and shown bigotry toward other groups of people too like immigrants, etc. He is pictured with Ron Paul. To be fair, Ron Paul probably doesn’t know that Gray is a racist. Beyond that, the goal in improving our nation should be to have re-industrialization, economic modernization, full employment, and rising standards of living for all people. Wealth is influenced by many factors like the efficiency of producing goods dedicated to many aims like infrastructure, transportation, and other components. These actions were a preeminent part and parcel of dedicated leaders like Governor Winthrop of the Massachussetts Bay Colony that instituted a sovereign currency & advanced industry, Benjamin Franklin that founded the modern post office system in America, or even George Washington organizing his infrastructure projects. These are the historical facts that the extremists (whether they are radical Austrian or Keynesian economists) don't want you to know. This economic system is apart of the American System that trailblazed the function of the capabilities residing in our country.
*P.S. Ron Paul is an unique man. He is right on many issues like being opposed to a draft, wanting individual liberties, disagreeing with the Patriot Act, and desiring Second Amendment rights. Yet, I disagree with Ron Paul the most on economic issues. Paul seems to reject the economic populism that made this American nation once of the most potent economcially viable countries in human history. Of course, Paul accepts the flawed economic system called Austrian Economics. This philosophy teaches that most if not all government intervention in the economy is wrong and that we should have the free markets have supreme authority on economic policies. It's a distorted and simplistic view since legitimate regulation and real reforms that sometimes involve government intervention aren't evil. It's purely necessary to build up the standard of living, our housing, and other components of our domestic atmosphere. What we have in the economy is the heavy influence of a Wall Street oligarchy. An oligarchy is a power base that makes a select group of people to control the majority of power (pertaining to money, wealth, political power, etc.). They allow the Federal Reserve to be privately run banking system (of a fractional reserve system) that inflates money and can deflate earning to allow folks to be kicked out of their own homes, etc. These banking elite are unelected people that isn't even representative of a elected, free republic. So, the bankers issue public debt to control the government and businesses (in a monopoly system). Now, the Austrian School doesn't work totally since free markets alone can't prevent a privately ruled police and armies from oppressing, harming, and enslaving people. Also, even the privatized Federal Reserve has enacted corrupt financial policies that Paul ironically oppose. A real policy isn't given the corporations the power to run government, but it's giving the people the power to run the government. Private banking cartels shouldn't run our society at all. Ron Paul is against mostly the government having the right to promote the general welfare of the people. Ron Paul is against parts of the 14th Amendment because it doesn't punish a child for other people's actions. He doesn't want any federal government policy to help the poor, to help victims of natural disasters, senior citizens, and health care. Ron Paul wanted all public education banned back in 1988. Ron Paul justifies this view by saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for this. This is false on many levels. The real reason that this approach is false is that the Constitution always have provisions in it to allow Congress to pass laws to make the nation a more perfect union. In other parts of the Constitution, new laws to help people is perfectly legal and has existed centuries ago. Even Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the government the right to levy taxes, build roads, have commerce among the states (plus foreign lands), promote sciences & the arts, etc. So, Ron Paul doesn't mention that the government has a constitutional right to promote progress, science, and infrastructure in many arenas. Ron Paul is against meaningful policies to even regulate environmental corruption. Even if you disagree with man-made global warming, you should be for environmental protection. He wants to end welfare to stop illegal immigration, but people will surely be in the streets if that occurs. A better solution is to offer compassion toward illegal immigrants and offer a real pathway where immigrants are given citizenship in a flexible, real way (and to allow illegal immigrants to be punished via fines, etc. before they get an opportunity for citizenship). Paul has a civil rights issue. Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Ron Paul opposes the Voting Rights Act, he is accused of calling Dr. King slurs, and authored racist newsletters before. Don Black is the founder of Stormfront, which is a racist site. Don Black is a neo-Nazi that is a major supporter and campaign contributor of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign. Ron Paul's views are similar to Ronald Reagan's opinions. He voted against a resolution to call for the criticism of genocide of Darfur and he was against the Armenian Genocide Resolution Bill. He claims to be against foreign interventionism, but he supports business interventionism in the affairs of Third World nations. He also believes in foreign military intervention in the war of Afghanistan. So, it's best for me to be independent and not adhere to the Democrats or the Republicans.
Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger is a controversial figure in world history. Kissinger was an Establishment agent in the 20th to 21st centuries. He was born in Feurth, Germany on May 27, 1923. He was Jewish and came into America in 1938 as a refugee from the Nazis. He served in U.S. Army ironically from 1943 to 1946. This allowed him to gain U.S. citizenship. His native tongue was German. So, he was placed in a counterintelligent unit. After, WWII ended when he was only 22 years old, he was made the military administrator or the ruler of the German town of Bernsheim. He was 24 in 1947. In that year, he entered Harvard University. There, his personal tutor was Professor William Yandell Elliott of the Government Department. Elliott was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford in the 1920's. He (via his lecturers and published writings) admired H.G. Wells' Illuminist blueprint for an Anglo-American world world government. Elliot was a racist neo-Confederate who viewed the U.S. Constitution along with the concept of democracy with veiled contempt. He worked with the Rockfeller and Harriman families during his decades as a Harvard professor. Elliot recruited influential figurers like Vietnam hawk McGeorge Bundy, Samuel Huntington (who was a "Clash of Civilizations" advocate), and "Arc of Crisis" mastermind Zbigniew Brzezinski. Kissinger graduated from Harvard, summa cum laude, in 1950 and received his Ph.D. in 1954. In 1951 he was put on the Harvard payroll as the executive director of Professor Elliot's new Harvard International Seminars. These seminars were founded by the Rockefellers, the CIA, and the Ford Foundaiton. They carried members who were young foreing and domestic diplomats, politicans, and journalists. A year later, Kissinger found the publication called "Conference." This was done to promote his seminars. $26,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation and continued assistance from the Ford Foundation aided Conference. He worked in Harvard and joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1955. It was headed by John J. McCloy back then. Kissinger wrote aobut nuclear affairs in his book entitled, "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy." He wrote that he wanted a limited nuclear war if necessary. Nelson Rockfeller groomed Henry Kissinger to work in politics as well. He was a Rockfeller puppet for the rest of his life. When President John F. Kennedy was in office, Kennedy found out that Kissinger was advocating the use of limited nuclear weapons, (perhaps attempting to test the thesis of his CFR book). This was during the Berlin crisis and JFK fired Kissinger. Kissinger was a consultant to McGeorge Bundy (the special assistant for National Security Affairs). Richard Nixon made clear their intention to hire Kissinger as the National Security Advisor in their new administrations, which is just another example of how foreign policy of the United States remained outside of the democratic process and under Establishment control. In his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens goes into great detail to reveal the fact that Henry Kissinger was almost single-handedly responsible for the breakdown of the peace talks in Paris between North and South Vietnam in 1968. Kissinger wanted a Republican administration since the Democrats under Hubert Humphrey wanted a peace plank. Kissinger made the South to back away from peace talks. Every time the North made a concession the Nixon team urged the South to demand even further concessions, and promised them that a Nixon administration could achieve more favorable terms for the South if they would but stall and wait until after the election. When Kissinger was in the Nixon White House in 1969, he wanted to allow Western domination in the Third World (even if by military/CIA back coups, eugenics, population control, etc.) and play China & Russia against each other (so the corporate elite via the Rockefeller Chase Manhattan Bank can weap monetary benefit from both nations via trade, technology transfers, etc.). Kissinger is famous for the support of the illegal attacks in Cambodia. The United States illegallly bombed Cambodia as early as March of 1969 according to Blum's book entitled, "Killing Hope." The Vietnam War according to Blum described about how China sold several thousand tons of steel to the US military in South Vietnam to help in the building of Air Force and Army bases.. What this proved is that China and America had connections for a long time even in the early 1970's that was military in orientation. The United States supported General Lon Nol and Sirik Matak of Cambodia when Prince Sihanouk was removed from power in March 18, 1970 (as he was in a trip in the Soviet Union). On April 30, 1970, only weeks after the coup, American troops invaded Cambodia to assist General Lon Nol, and to fight against the Communists that seemed to come from all sides. As Blum records, the invasion was met with a huge protest from the peace movement in the United States, and four members of Kissinger's NSC, including the above-mentioned Roger Morris, resigned in protest. The civil war in Camboida lead to the dictator Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. These actions prolonged the Vietnam War and destroyed Sihanouk's regime in Cambodia. Ironically, it would be the Vietnamese Communists that would strop Pol Pot's genocide. Kissinger and others supported the CIA backed coup of Chile in 1971. In 2010, Kissinger is still alive promoting the new world order overtly as he has done decades ago.
Henry Kissinger is a controversial figure in world history. Kissinger was an Establishment agent in the 20th to 21st centuries. He was born in Feurth, Germany on May 27, 1923. He was Jewish and came into America in 1938 as a refugee from the Nazis. He served in U.S. Army ironically from 1943 to 1946. This allowed him to gain U.S. citizenship. His native tongue was German. So, he was placed in a counterintelligent unit. After, WWII ended when he was only 22 years old, he was made the military administrator or the ruler of the German town of Bernsheim. He was 24 in 1947. In that year, he entered Harvard University. There, his personal tutor was Professor William Yandell Elliott of the Government Department. Elliott was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford in the 1920's. He (via his lecturers and published writings) admired H.G. Wells' Illuminist blueprint for an Anglo-American world world government. Elliot was a racist neo-Confederate who viewed the U.S. Constitution along with the concept of democracy with veiled contempt. He worked with the Rockfeller and Harriman families during his decades as a Harvard professor. Elliot recruited influential figurers like Vietnam hawk McGeorge Bundy, Samuel Huntington (who was a "Clash of Civilizations" advocate), and "Arc of Crisis" mastermind Zbigniew Brzezinski. Kissinger graduated from Harvard, summa cum laude, in 1950 and received his Ph.D. in 1954. In 1951 he was put on the Harvard payroll as the executive director of Professor Elliot's new Harvard International Seminars. These seminars were founded by the Rockefellers, the CIA, and the Ford Foundaiton. They carried members who were young foreing and domestic diplomats, politicans, and journalists. A year later, Kissinger found the publication called "Conference." This was done to promote his seminars. $26,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation and continued assistance from the Ford Foundation aided Conference. He worked in Harvard and joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1955. It was headed by John J. McCloy back then. Kissinger wrote aobut nuclear affairs in his book entitled, "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy." He wrote that he wanted a limited nuclear war if necessary. Nelson Rockfeller groomed Henry Kissinger to work in politics as well. He was a Rockfeller puppet for the rest of his life. When President John F. Kennedy was in office, Kennedy found out that Kissinger was advocating the use of limited nuclear weapons, (perhaps attempting to test the thesis of his CFR book). This was during the Berlin crisis and JFK fired Kissinger. Kissinger was a consultant to McGeorge Bundy (the special assistant for National Security Affairs). Richard Nixon made clear their intention to hire Kissinger as the National Security Advisor in their new administrations, which is just another example of how foreign policy of the United States remained outside of the democratic process and under Establishment control. In his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens goes into great detail to reveal the fact that Henry Kissinger was almost single-handedly responsible for the breakdown of the peace talks in Paris between North and South Vietnam in 1968. Kissinger wanted a Republican administration since the Democrats under Hubert Humphrey wanted a peace plank. Kissinger made the South to back away from peace talks. Every time the North made a concession the Nixon team urged the South to demand even further concessions, and promised them that a Nixon administration could achieve more favorable terms for the South if they would but stall and wait until after the election. When Kissinger was in the Nixon White House in 1969, he wanted to allow Western domination in the Third World (even if by military/CIA back coups, eugenics, population control, etc.) and play China & Russia against each other (so the corporate elite via the Rockefeller Chase Manhattan Bank can weap monetary benefit from both nations via trade, technology transfers, etc.). Kissinger is famous for the support of the illegal attacks in Cambodia. The United States illegallly bombed Cambodia as early as March of 1969 according to Blum's book entitled, "Killing Hope." The Vietnam War according to Blum described about how China sold several thousand tons of steel to the US military in South Vietnam to help in the building of Air Force and Army bases.. What this proved is that China and America had connections for a long time even in the early 1970's that was military in orientation. The United States supported General Lon Nol and Sirik Matak of Cambodia when Prince Sihanouk was removed from power in March 18, 1970 (as he was in a trip in the Soviet Union). On April 30, 1970, only weeks after the coup, American troops invaded Cambodia to assist General Lon Nol, and to fight against the Communists that seemed to come from all sides. As Blum records, the invasion was met with a huge protest from the peace movement in the United States, and four members of Kissinger's NSC, including the above-mentioned Roger Morris, resigned in protest. The civil war in Camboida lead to the dictator Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. These actions prolonged the Vietnam War and destroyed Sihanouk's regime in Cambodia. Ironically, it would be the Vietnamese Communists that would strop Pol Pot's genocide. Kissinger and others supported the CIA backed coup of Chile in 1971. In 2010, Kissinger is still alive promoting the new world order overtly as he has done decades ago.
Henry Kissinger gave the go ahead for terrorist attack on U.S. soil in 1976. There are declassified documents released by the National Security Archive today, former secretary of State and longtime Bilderberger Henry Kissinger rescinder instructions that would have prevented one of the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil before September 11, 2001 (from occuring). Kissinger meet with General Augusto Pinochet in June 8, 1976. On September 21, 1976, a car bomb exploded in downtown Washington, D.C. It killed a former minister in the Chilean Allende government and his assistant and signifying a major terrorist attack the likes of which had not been experienced on U.S. soil before. The perpetrators were quickely identified as agents of the Pinochet regime. They were out to assassinate the figureheads of rival regimes all over the world. As it turns out, the string of attacks known as the Condor Murders, was apart of a longtime covert operation by several South American intelligence agnecies. It consists of international assassinations of dissidents and other enemies of fascist dictators. Although, initially instructions were sent to US ambassadors in South America to warn military leaders of a "series of international murders" likely to occur word came down from the State Department only 5 days before the incident in Washington. It states that the Secretary Kissinger has instructed "that no further action be taken on this matter." In other words, Kissinger overruled the first instruction namely to order the ambassadors to warn the South American heads of state of likely attacks on their persons, replacing it with the instruction to effectively keep silent about them and by extension allowing the attack in Washington to move forward unhindered. The TPR or the Public Record online publication mentions that: "the instructions effectively ended efforts by senior State Department officials to deliver a diplomatic demarche, approved by Kissinger only 3 weeks earlier, to express "our deep concern" over "plans for the assassination of subversives, politicans, and prominent figures both within the national borders of certain Southern Cone countries and abroad." Aimed at the heads of state of Chile, Argentina, and Uruguary, the demarche was never delivered according to the TPR. According to Peter Kornbluh, author of The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and accountability, this latest revelation is “the missing piece of the historical puzzle on Kissinger’s role in the action, and inaction, of the U.S. government after learning of Condor assassination plots.” Only 2 years after the assassination of former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier in Washington, a cable was sent from Robert White (the U.S. ambassador to Paraguary) to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. This showed a conversation White had with the chief of Staff of Paraguay's armed forced. During the interchange, the General had told White that the South American intelligence chiefs were involvedi n Operation Condor. The cable mentioned how: "...“(kept) in touch with one another through a U.S. Communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone which cover(ed) all of Latin America..." The Professor of political science at Long Island University and chief expert on Operation Condor, J. Patrice McSherry sums up the U.S. involvement in the series of assassiantions as follows: "...U.S. military and intelligence officials supported and collaborated with Condor as a secret partner or sponsor.” That indeed seems to be the case. Not only does the Anglo-American establishment sponsor terrorist attacks abroad, it apparently does not shy away from allowing them to proceed within the U.S. It has been widely suspected that Operation Condor (as the killing spree has been called) was supervised by the U.S. intelligence services. This is the lastest declassified instruction issued by Kissinger provided definitive proof. Ironically, on September 11, 2002, Chilean human rights lawyers filed a criminal case against both Kissinger and Pinochet for their involvement in Operation Condor. The very same day that the worst terrorist attacks in the history of the United States occured (it was created in likewise suspicious circumstances). The attacks were accomodated by the U.S. intelligence community, and it points to an international conspiracy of geopolitical strategists, aiming to subdue sovereign nations before absording them into an international syndicate of robber-barons, commonly known as the new world order.
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment