From http://christianinfobomb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14058&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=37b5dc10df8e29f286e3e4c531b1411e
Solution out of a problem. Socialism and Austrian school of economics and the opposition between those two lead to this "syntheses" as you earlier saw it was called.
Synthesis is a solution from thesis and anti-thesis. ( problem > reaction > solution) or the Masonic Ordo ab chao ( Order out of chaos)
So that's all Hegelian, and we know Hayek was into heavy, radical Hegelian Dialect. So there you go. Cannot be coincidence!!!
The Austrian school of economics therfore is just a dupe!! It's just a reactionary movement, like Hayek even admits that. Reactionaries where also Trotsky and his followers. So now it makes sense why Hayek is so contradictionary about issues, cause his heart is somewhere else, the Austrian school was just a dialectic towards Socialism, while the funders of both system where the same and so it lead to the real goal...the Middle Way or Third Way!!And i was heavily into researching this one and found out who attended these groups. Now you see from a totally different perspective and road where i end up here!!
Sorry libertarians, you got duped, as most of you are in Austrian School of economics and so Hayek and the rest of that club.
So there you go, the Rockefellers where/are behind funding Fabian Socialism and the Keynesian School of Economics since the start, behind the opposition to it since the start of the Austrian School of Economics and the Chicago School in the US, and they are behind the Third Way, or Middle Way. ( Communitarism) ....wich is the synthesis of these two mentioned opposing schools.
FDR was a freemason, 33 degree. He might have done the right thing for the econonomy, outside that, it doesn't matter, nomatter what system of your choice, you ARE being conned anyway!
There does not exist true opposition, at least nowhere mainstream, even the alternative media and groups are neckdeep in the very choices presented by them by the same oblicharchs who funded it all.
But you cannot make me believe that Ron Paul is not aware of this or Alex jones for that matter.
So what does it matter, there's one common denominator right now:the Third Way, and Fabian socialists, Austrian economics, they are all united there.So The Third Way seems the synthesis.
-Flying Dutch
________________________________________
ok, let's make a short summary of what we saw above:
So what you have is rivaling groups, in wich many followers likely genuinly believe their system.
So many still untill today stuck to that.
What i see is that both Economic schools have some truth. Logically, cause propaganda always need a core of truth to be believable to the masses.
Austrian schools says:
1. We're spending too much, we have too high deficits, there's too much fiat currency creation without value representing it, wich undermine our currency.
Conclusion:that part of Austrian economics is true.
Keynesian or Socialists say:
2. ok, but if the economy goes bad we need to stimulate it especially to not end up in a deflationary spiral / cycle.
You cannot leave thing up to market economics alone, and we cannot just let people be without welfare, unemployment bennefits, so without any kind of social network.
Conclusions:that part of the Keynesians is true.
Then we have the Middle Way, Third Way ( Communitarism):
3. Mix a bit of both systems.
Conclusion: it doens't really matter, same people are behind all these groups, who funded it into existance.
Secondly, non of these systems, neither the mix of both have any solutions for certain economic social problems and all supposed good intentions aside, oblichargs run them all, aristocracy founded them all. It's all controlled revolution, it's all Trotskyite, reactionary, Hegelian or Machiavellian if you like.
So what do you see in Obama's policy untill now? He has Austrian economist as advisors, in his team, he's also of the Third Way and he's a Socialist aswell, this translated in:
1. Continuation, increasingly in excessive spending of the US goverment.
2. But no meaningdfull social programmes for people being foreclosed, except bankers get unlimited money.
The Oblichargy that funded all these economic schools into existance are behind the throne of Obama, George Soros and also people like Bzigniew Brezinski and Goldman Sachs / J.P Morgan. so Wallstreet runs Obama.
Despte being socialist, wich only translated in excessive spending, none of it goes to any real social programmes to help people, but most social programmes are rather fascistic Socialism, about control.The rest of the technocratic side of his policy is "Austrian". So derivatives kept into existance, nothing done about that source of out financial crsisis, wich is a direct result of Austrian economcs wich don't want derivatives regulated as we saw earlier in this thread.
It's a bit the worst of both world under Obama as far as i'm concerned. The only "Socialism" that exist under Obama is rather translated in to control pushed by the oblichargs that are running him. Socialism without the benefits, without the cookies for the people. Corporatism rules over goverment, so any socialism that is witnessed in Obama's policy is subject to Corporatism of Oblichargs.
You could also say:
The succes of unregulatedCapitalism and freemarket economy lead to succes of some opportunistic manipulating soiopathic / psychopathic families that became dominant according the "fittest of survival", so Darwinist principals, cause that's why unregulated freemarket capitalism does, and that on it's turn lead to a total Corporate domination because of nobody restoring any regulation.
So the end of this system is simular as Communism, except that there the State runs everything, while in this system the Corporate power runs the goverment on top of it. And even Communism is indirectly created by the same people, cause they funded Mao Zedong into China, and Communism was run from Wallstreet & London.
Obama seems to reflect exactly how the system is. He has no idea's no backbone, everything he knows or is told are existing theories of manipulators that are his advisors. Obama grew up in the Chicago School of Economics, so basicly is grown up in the very system his advisors where already in and the funders of that system have given in. So Obama is acreated man in economics and politics.
Ofcourse if he would have a better idea, and implement the rules, that summary i did earlier about what the solutions would be, nobody would live very long and healthy in politics or economics.
Just like the different systems of politics, all false choices, are the economic schools on their turn the economic equivalent related to those political streamings and so reflections of those false political choices.
It also means that wether Ron Paul is genuine or not, for any real change he's a lame duck.
Not just a lame duck, but all his followers, many of the truth movement are all pushed into some false choice that doesn't work, and So automatically they support one created branche of the very New World Order they oppose.
Then i don't know about F.D.R, who Tarpley and LaRouche like. Outside a few shady things, you can look at his functionality of his economic vision. I think he did do some sound economic policies. and maybe that is really what we need right now, it seems so.
At the same time, he just as good could be part of the very dialectic and NWO, but the moment was right for a certain direction or the US had to grow and boost the economy to become imperialist from WWII on, wich happened.
So it rather seems to me that wether FDR was into that game or not, he did the right thing economically, although he was opposed and therefore there was no recovery in the 1930s immediatly, but the economic boost that came for the US has a clear purpose of the oblichargy running behind the scene to abuse the US and her infrastructure for their NWO and manipulation schemes.
______________
Well, i think that's pretty wild Ron Paul!! No right on housing and healthcare...say what? And you talk about justice, constitutional rights, decent society? Healthcare and housing are the most basic elementary thing of any civilised society, a society who doens't cover all people for that, is not civilised, nomatter how high income or other performances.
So it's the first prtiority of any decent society to provide healthcare and housing, even the Bible shows that!!!
I think this is extremely warped to say healthcare and housing is not a right of citizens...certainly when the same person says that according to the Constitution a person has the right on property and that having proerty or not stands or falls with liberty or tyranny.
well nice if you have the right on property if you don't have a house or healthcare!!!
haha.....Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, well but you've no right on housing and healthcare. How you like them apples????A little contradictionary, how can you fullfill those phrases if you say housing and healthcare, basic elementary things are no right?Even the msot poor society builts houses and tries to built healthcare first before anything else, even before education.
Most of these countries do economically better then the US and have all lower healthcare budgets, while the national income per capita is higher then in the US and growing faster. Norway is just one good example of a better healthcare system, Same could be said about Denmark or my own country...although my country is going freemarket more and more wich already leads to bad consequences.
Some say that a few countries have long waitinglist, well, that might be a bad side effect, but how is it that 5% of US citizens, only wealthy people consume 50% of the healthcare budget and 47 million uninsured. Better waiting, then no care and be ensured of maybe dying or getting terribly ill!!That costs society also more by the way, it's not efficient to let people become ill or die.
-Flying Dutch
__________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment