This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: It's Not About Obama...

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution gained general victory against the empire’s sovereign, Czar Nicholas Romanov II, a monarchal ruler widely considered despotic and inhumane in his treatment of the Russian citizenry.  After the dethroned Romanov family was summarily executed by former members of the military, the Bolshevik rampage continued against the remnants of the “White Russians”, culminating in a bloody civil war.  In the minds of the common populace, the communist propaganda was legitimate.  The people had been terribly oppressed, and the world war in Europe was draining any hope of prosperity they had left.  The Russians were ready for an abrupt and even violent change in their political leadership. 

However, unbeknownst to them, a great upheaval was about to be supplied for them.  Their anger and rage, their revolutionary spirit, was about to be exploited to produce vast gains for international interests and create a massive experiment in collectivist tyranny that would span decades and claim millions of innocent lives. 

That’s right, in case you’ve never read a real history book with concrete facts, the Russian revolution was an almost entirely fabricated event.  International financial interests, known today as “globalists” with no patriotic ties to any particular nation, supplied the funding, the philosophy, and even the leadership of the Bolshevik uprising against Nicholas II:

 

 

Now, does this mean I support the tyranny of czarism?  No.  Does this mean I support the despotic actions of the Romanov dynasty?  No.  My point is that an immoral government was used by globalists to rally the downtrodden people around an even more immoral and destructive government which the money men had full control over.  The elitists gauge the revolutionary fervor of a particular society, and, when they believe the time is ripe, they co-opt that revolution by installing their own leadership and creating their own events. 

In my view, the American Revolution was a startling wake up call for the globalists.  The concept of centralized monarchy and godlike rulers was dead.  Common people were ready to fight for the right to participate in their own political systems, and as the American patriots proved, they could win.  The elites responded, cleverly, with events like the French Revolution.  They tested the waters for public discontent, then, manhandled revolutions into being when the moment was right.  If a revolt was about to occur, fine; as long as the globalists controlled the outcome, revolution could serve their interests.    

This strategy is used even today.  One merely need examine the escalation of the so-called “Arab Spring” to see that globalists manipulate legitimate social anger over legitimate oppression in order to create a rebellion that they can dictate.  The destabilization of Syria being perhaps the most blatant act of fabricated insurgency by international financiers in history.

Though brutal and bloody, revolution is actually a very natural human act of balance which counters the unnatural and engineered functions of centralization.  Human beings are not meant to be “ruled”.  The spirit of individualism, inherent in every person from the moment of birth, strikes hard against the visible construction of any cage.  We are designed to rebel.  It is a fact of our existence. 

Only an oblivious fool would try to deny that America is on the verge of revolution today.  Public discontent politically, socially, and economically, is at an apex not seen in decades.  The White House under the presidency of Barack Obama is in a shambles, sweltering in a sweaty sauna of corruption and scandal.  The revelation of Nixon’s Watergate is a joke compared to the Benghazi conspiracy of covertly funded Syrian insurgency and false flag treason against a U.S. diplomat, the IRS persecution of conservative opposition, the wiretapping and privacy invasion of mainstream journalists, the admission of assassination initiatives against American citizens, etc, etc.  Truly, whether you consider yourself on the “right”, or the “left”, if you have any sense of conscience or honor, Barack Obama is a monster of epic proportions.

That said, I challenge you to question whether or not Obama is the real danger, or just a boogeyman being used to control YOUR sense of rebellion?  

The American citizenry is ready to snap.  I can feel it, and I think many others out there can feel it too.  A fight is inevitable.  The question is, what will be the form of that fight, and who will ultimately determine the outcome?  There is a lot of talk in the Liberty Movement today concerning “solutions” which I believe, according to historical reference, are perfect examples of controlled opposition.  After several years working in the movement, I’ve heard it all…

Military Coup

The idea of military coup against the Obama Administration is alluring for several reasons.  For one, it comforts those people who fear personal sacrifice or direct conflict.  There are many out there, even in the Liberty Movement, who are desperate to avoid confrontation.  They don’t want to lose their property, they don’t want to lose their job security, they don’t want to enter into combat, and they certainly don’t want to lose their lives in the process.  These fears are understandable, but ultimately irrelevant.

The military coup concept feeds into the apprehensions of the common activist by giving them a false “way out”.  If “patriotic” generals within the military rise up against the Obama regime and wrest power from its clutches, then average citizens will be spared the heartbreak and terror of fighting for themselves.  They will not have to devise their own strategies, their own structures, or their own end solutions.  They merely have to sit back, allow military factions to defeat the “evil usurper”, and then enjoy whatever government the leaders of the coup devise.  Surely, anything would be better than to continue under the rule of a communist thug…

I would point out, however, that this is NOT what the Founding Fathers did, which is one of the reasons why they were so successful.  Revolutionary leadership was maintained by citizens, not a cadre of military elites, and the aftermath of victory was managed by those chosen by the people to lead, not those chosen by generals. The war was fought by regular men, living regular lives, in support of beloved families.  It was exactly because those men had everything to lose that they were driven so completely to succeed.  They were fighting for their homes, and their principles.  Not for political power. 

I would also point out that most military brass hold views consistent with Neo-Conservative or even Neo-Liberal ideologies, both of which are slightly different versions of the same globalist religion.  They may preach to us about their grand designs for freedom, but in reality, many of them are seeking to co-opt our resolve and use it to foment a controlled and homogenized uprising that will end in the same tyranny that we originally hoped to defeat.     

A military coup is not a silver bullet solution to our problems.  It may appear to be easier, but there will never be true freedom for any of us without tangible sacrifice.  This battle is ours.  Beware of anyone who strolls out of nowhere and offers to fight it for you.

March On Washington D.C.

Our problems will not be solved by military coup exactly because Barack Obama is not the primary source of our problems.  He is a middle-man, a mascot, a salesman for the collectivist dictatorship, and nothing more.  Getting rid of him in the wrong way will only exacerbate our dilemma. 

Because our fight is with a globalist element that uses government as a tool, rather than a seat of power, removing one abusive president will change nothing.  This is why the “March on Washington” idea is strategic idiocy at its most dangerous and cliché.  I can’t tell you how many times over the years I have heard chest beating activists wail in anger, wondering “why, oh why!” we don’t all simply “take up arms” and march to the capital.  Well, here are few good reasons…

First, how many successful revolutions began with a march on a government center?  I can’t think of any.  But, I can think of a few military campaigns that were thwarted by dumb marches led by thoughtless leaders.  What about the battles of Lexington and Concord, in which Lt. Colonel Francis Smith of the British Army under the direction of General Thomas Gage led 700 regulars into a wasp’s nest of colonials who proceeded to wipe them out and fully launch the revolution with the American people clearly established in the eyes of the world as the defenders, and the British as the aggressors? 

What about the ill conceived Confederate march on Fort Sumter which painted them as dangerous aggressors against the North, haunting the southern campaigns throughout the Civil War, and has even been partly attributed as a reason for their eventual defeat?

What about the hubris driven march of George Armstrong Custer, right into the mouth of enemy territory, on ground which the enemy was vastly more familiar, and against a force of far greater strength?  That didn’t end so well either…

No one with any legitimate combat sense would ever suggest that a REVERSE Lexington is a good idea for the Liberty Movement today, and, no one with any understanding of asymmetric warfare would condescend to lead thousands of patriots into D.C., into what amounts to an elongated kill box, or an immediate surrender.  The message sent during such a campaign would be “hey, we’re gullible, please kill us”, or, “hey, we’re pansies, please take our weapons and lock us away without a fight”.  In either case, we lose, and all in the name of an ill conceived attack on a bunch of paid cronies and a puppet president, rather than the men behind the curtain.  Dumb.  Very dumb…         

Rely On Opposing Party Leadership

The Republican Party is an embarrassment to many conservatives, but not for the reasons that should be most embarrassing.  Sadly, many Americans only care about belonging to the “winning side”, rather than the right side.  Currently, Republican excuses for consistent losses revolve around the fantasy of “changing demographics” and “a disconnection from the more moderate and liberal public”.  These scapegoats have nothing to do with the disintegration of the Republican Party. 

In truth, the Republican establishment continues to degrade not because it does not appeal to some imaginary growing faction of budding American socialists, but because it no longer appeals to conservatives and constitutionalists.  The Neo-Con leadership of the backwards party continuously supports nearly identical legislative actions to the hated Obama paradigm.  Unfortunately, there are still some naïve people out there who hope against hope that the GOP will rise up and defeat the Democratic stronghold, all while the GOP openly energizes Democratic policies.

Consider that both Republicans and Democrats strong armed the American public into massive banker bailouts which have so far produced no real jobs, and no tangible recovery, but have created perhaps the largest stock bubble the world has ever seen.

Consider the “Safe Act” legislation of New York, which imposes draconian restrictions on the 2nd Amendment; long held as a Republican line in the sand.  Yet, 11 Republicans voted YES in line with Democrats to pass the bill.

Consider that many Neo-Con Republicans attacked the filibuster against anti-gun rights legislation in the Senate as if the move was “outlandish”.

Consider that the wire tapping of the Obama Administration is merely an extension of the wire tapping used by the Bush Administration under FISA and the Patriot Act. 

Consider the expansion of executive assassination and rendition powers under the NDAA, which are widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

Consider that the AUMF, the resolution which is often used to justify the further passage of NDAA provisions for treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants”, was established under George W. Bush, and is defended to this day by many Republicans despite the abuses of Barack Obama. 

Consider that provisions within the latest immigration legislation that call for biometric ID’s as well as tracking of U.S. citizens are supported by both Democrats and Republicans. 

Consider that John McCain, often labeled a “die-hard Republican” and hero to islamophobes everywhere, has now personally visited with Syrian insurgents openly working with Al Qaeda to overthrow the Assad government.  These are the same insurgents that have been accused of false flag chemical weapons attacks which were then blamed on Assad, and the same insurgents that have a penchant for severing the heads and eating the raw hearts of their prisoners in front of video cameras.  For all the talk of Obama being secretly supportive of Islamic terrorism, the Republicans seem to be just as friendly. 

I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear; there is no light at the end of the election tunnel in the Republican Party.  The Neo-Cons and the Neo-Libs have the same objective, total centralization and the dissolution of U.S. sovereignty.  Both parties are merely continuing the perpetual game of good-cop vs. bad-cop, switching roles every decade or so to keep the public confused and dependent on the system rather than enforcing their own solutions.  Barack Obama is nothing more than a fulcrum point - a useful piece of leverage meant to push Americans from one fake initiative to the next, or to divide us completely.  Our fight is not with Obama, it is with ALL globalists who obstruct our liberty, regardless of what party they are affiliated with.  If we allow the debate, and the battle, to be framed around the superficial Obama presidency, then we have allowed ourselves to be co-opted, and any revolutionary action we take afterwards will end exactly like the fabricated Bolshevik rebellion; it won’t mean a damn thing.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:11 | 3609310 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

Coming soon to a theater near you

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:29 | 3609342 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Like the army brass is going to jeoporadize their 6 figure pensions and cush MIC consulting jobs to lift a finger to helped the unwashed masses.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:53 | 3609382 runningman18
runningman18's picture

They would not act to help the masses, but they would act to co-opt the revolutionary fervor of the masses for the benefit of the elites.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:40 | 3609479 economics9698
economics9698's picture

The only thing that will return power to the people is a return to gold as money.  As long as there is central banking politicians have no reason to listen to the public.

 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 05:36 | 3609694 WestVillageIdiot
WestVillageIdiot's picture

Oh my god, I just read the article for this thread.

Come on ZHers.  This is the biggest piece of shit history hack piece I have ever seen on Zerohedge.  I can't believe nobody blew this POS to bits in the first few comments.  WTF is going on tonight?

The Bolsheviks DID NOT overthrow the Tsar.  They did not achieve "general victory" in 1917 like is stated here.  I can't believe I am reading this on ZH. 

In February (by the Russian calendar) 1917 the Tsar abdicated to the Provisional Government, led (I use that term loosely) by Kerensky.  It wasn't until October 1917 (November on our calendar) that the Bolsheviks staged their coup d'etat against the Provisional Government.  This was an event that very few people in Russia even knew had taken place.  The coup's success was only made possible by the monumental failures of the Provisional Government, and their mishandling of the war.

The Bolshevik victory was far from certain.  The Bolshevik's half-assed coup succeeded mainly because Russia was such a basket case.

I'm not going to go into the full incident of the Bolshevik move on Petrograd but this article is a royal piece of shit.  Somebody needs to explain how it got any face time on ZH.  The Bolsheviks did murder the Romanovs.  That is true.  The rest of this is just stupidity.  I did not watch the video.  I could not justify watching it when the article started with such colossal misstatements of fact. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:08 | 3609710 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Be that as it may, I think you lost the whole point of the article in your rush to make a correction of the historical facts. Unless I'm misreading here (which is always possible since I'm only on cup #1 of morning coffee)....the primary idea being conveyed was the Bolshevik revolution was an engineered event designed to bring about a system of government useful to the elites. Whether it was the Boslheviks or the Provisional Government who ultimately overthrew the Tsar is significant from a strict historical perspective, but not so much in terms of the idea being presented in the article.

Sort of like dismissing an entire article discussing the victory of the American Revolution after the surrender of Cornwallis in Yorktown......because it wasn't Conrwallis himself who actually surrendered to Washington.

*Disclaimer: I did not watch the video, so there may be something therein which presents a better context for dismissal of the article.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:20 | 3609716 WestVillageIdiot
WestVillageIdiot's picture

The point of the article was to prove that the Bolsheviks were part of a master plan of domination and control.  That could be the case.  I don't know.  I just don't understand how somebody could make such a sweeping generalization when they don't even understand the history behind the event that is supposed to back their theory.

My point is all about the credibility of the author.  If the person can't take an hour to do a little leg work then all of their pontificating needs to be thrown in the garbage can. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:21 | 3609791 duo
duo's picture

But wasn't Vladmir Olinov (Lenin) smuggled into Russia through Germany (from Switzerland) by Western bankers to tip the balance of the Bolsheviks over the Menshiviks (who wanted change also, but less violently)?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:44 | 3609834 ratso
ratso's picture

Brandon Smith is writing pure crap dressed in historical disinformation.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:53 | 3609845 runningman18
runningman18's picture

The frothing ad hominem attacks from some of the posters against this article only make me want to read it again, to be honest.  I haven't seen an intelligent criticism yet.  In most cases, the writers that are directly over the target seem to catch the most flak, or troll swarms...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:25 | 3609907 Manthong
Manthong's picture

It’s not about Obama but my complaint is that you can’t get the Irish-Kenyan out of your face..

It seems he is everywhere.

I’m just waiting for the huge Stalin and Mao like posters strung from every building of size across the country.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:28 | 3609914 runningman18
runningman18's picture

True.  The cult-like Obama worship propaganda crossed the line a long time ago.  But, that's a product of the establishment too, just like Obama himself.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:56 | 3609851 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Why does ZH continue to promote this shit?

The whole world is divided between producers and parasites.  The left is nothing but thugs and parasites, never has been, never will be.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:05 | 3609875 WestVillageIdiot
WestVillageIdiot's picture

The Bolsheviks in general, and Lenin in particular, are more a symbol of zealotry moving from religion to politics.  Their bible was written by Marx.  Lenin was merely one of the early high priests of politics. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:42 | 3609952 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

If you aren't Russian I think u should keep quiet.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:11 | 3610070 LongPAU
LongPAU's picture

Lol.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:23 | 3610108 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

Because only a Russian can grasp history?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:42 | 3609953 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

If you aren't Russian I think u should keep quiet.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:12 | 3610071 LongPAU
LongPAU's picture

Rotfl.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:34 | 3609812 runningman18
runningman18's picture

WestVillageIdiot would do well to read "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution" by Anthony Sutton.  All the documented facts that debunk his rather uneducated theories on the communist overthrow in Russia are there.  Acting indignant and throwing a hissy fit about the article doesn't make up for a backwards education.  Every statement within Smith's piece is correct.    

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:59 | 3609861 WestVillageIdiot
WestVillageIdiot's picture

Thanks for the laugh.  The Bolsheviks had nothing to do with February 1917.  Lenin was still in Switzerland.  They were a tiny party. 

Of course big money had an interest in the overthrow of the Tsar.  The Germans most certainly wanted a government in Russia that would remove Russia from the war.  That is why Lenin, along with many others, was shipped back in to Russia.  The Germans hoped that one of the many parasites on that train would infect Russia.  As history showed, Lenin was the most powerful of the viruses sent back in to the body of Russia.

You state that every part of Smith's writing is accurate.  His first sentence is, "In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution gained general victory against the empire’s sovereign, Czar Nicholas Romanov II".  That, right out of the gate, is wrong. 

Peddle your wrath, and sanctimony, on somebody else. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:03 | 3609870 runningman18
runningman18's picture

The abdication WAS a victory for the Bolsheviks, and the Wall Street interests that backed them.  You still aren't seeing the big picture.  You should really read Anthony Sutton's book and educate yourself further. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:57 | 3610245 illyia
illyia's picture

Rearranging chairs on the Titanic this morning?

The correct answer is: "The only way to win is to not play."

The parasites only live because the host allows them. Stop feeding the corp/gov/banksters and they will die.

There are lots of other things to do rather than feed the beast.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 10:22 | 3610332 runningman18
runningman18's picture

Of course, any parasite must first be identified before it can be removed...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 10:24 | 3610337 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Well, WestVillageIdiot, you are right about one thing. You are a fucking idiot.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 16:08 | 3611394 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

@WestVillageIdiot,

Sorry, I'm not biting.  Regardless of historical errors that may be present regarding an event of almost 100 years ago, his fundamental theme of 'Regime Change in the USA cum USSA' is valid. 

Yours is an attempt of re-direction via sophistry.  You're doing the VERY thing that Brandon is talking about:  Take control by re-framing/redefining the argument.  And to clutter the blog with "noise".  Nice try, no cigar.

 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:37 | 3609731 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

Ace, you have it exactly right... and you should watch the video. It is worthwhile for the added context. The details of how the change in government occurred are irrelevant to me other than there was a change of government that occurred to the benefit of global financial interested, funded by global financial interests and trained by global financial interests (as you may recall, the Romanov Tsar opposed the financial globalists gaining too much power... so he and his family were murdered). It reminds me of how a Libyan central bank, tied to the BIS, was set up in Benghazi long before Libya was captured and Gadhafi murdered. This makes it VERY obvious what is going on. Libya as Russia was a globalist conquest and mass murder ... same for Iraq and Afghanistan.

IMO, good never comes from evil acts and honestly it is hard to tell one evil psychopath from another, regardless of their label or rhe corporation they represent. It is unfortunate however that evil rules the world and good must endure and resists the temptation to use evil to combat evil... as we are apparently being driven to do. A violent revolution only plays into the hands of the psychopaths. They need us more than we need them and there are many more of us than them. To beat them we just have to deny them and be willing to sacrifice any desire to become them.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:49 | 3609738 WestVillageIdiot
WestVillageIdiot's picture

You do realize that Tsar Nicholas II abdicated voluntarily, but only after sending hundreds of thousands of his subjects to slaughter in a war that made no sense for said subjects.  He was not killed until a year and a half after his abdication.  I just don't see how that fits the narrative that is being put forward.

What was Tsar Nicholas' wealth?  Where did that come from?  In a poor country he was certainly not poor.  Let's not pull a Lincoln on this bastard and turn him into a saint after his demise. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:04 | 3609758 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

  Somebody needs to explain how it got any face time on ZH///

somebody needs get up to speed with how things really work on ZH... a 'guest author' posts a load o tripe... the punters swoop in with the necessary corrective\antidote ... a cacophony of debate ensues... it's what made ZH... ahh...ZH. Your point is well taken... but Brandon's is too.

Everybody's a winner. \till the threadjack sockpuppets moved in here... on a fulltime basis\

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:16 | 3610087 LongPAU
LongPAU's picture

Like a high-brow Fark sans drama then. Got it, thanks.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:25 | 3610117 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

WVI, I've attacked Smith's pieces before on certain points (esp about 911), but he's largely on target here and goes to lengths to explain that he is no supporter of the royals. So I'm not sure why you're still bitching.

I'm glad to see you correcting an error, but as others are noting, that error is somewhat trivial compared to the overall truth he's quite clearly communicating.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:32 | 3610138 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

I might also add that he's on target w/the noting (finally) that the elite belong to a religion. He will not say luciferianism--I have yet to see Smith say this, but he's getting closer: I would also point out that most military brass hold views consistent with Neo-Conservative or even Neo-Liberal ideologies, both of which are slightly different versions of the same globalist religion.


Fri, 05/31/2013 - 01:29 | 3612777 pslater
pslater's picture

Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" if you want to know what really happened in Russia in 1917.  Documented research without hyperbole.

The banking interests own the sytem - we are all serfs at some level....

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:44 | 3609735 SelfGov
SelfGov's picture

Agreed.

Brandon can put a good narrative together but the facts almost always escape him.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:20 | 3609788 runningman18
runningman18's picture

Where is the mistatement?  The Tsar advocated in the wake of the uprising in the hopes of saving his family from the Bolsheviks, which obviously didn't work.  The coup was well underway, and the monarchy knew it.  You act as if the Bolsheviks just came out of nowhere after abdication.  The reality is that the organization of the overthrow had been brewing for years, and Wall Street interests were involved.  Just because they didn't teach you these facts in your high shool textbook doesn't make them any less relevant.  Read a book, brother.  Learn beyond what the mainstream has taught you...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:02 | 3609869 WestVillageIdiot
WestVillageIdiot's picture

The "overthrow had been brewing for years".  Thanks for such insight.  Since Lenin's own brother was executed for trying to kill a Tsar this is pretty easy to figure out.  Did Wall Street figure in to the actions of Lenin's brother? 

The Tsars were miserable tyrants.  I hate to see them made out to be anything better than they were. 

If the Bolsheviks were such a tool of Wall Street then why did the Soviet Union not set up a central bank that was friendly to Wall Street's interests? 

Your statements are insulting in their tone and in their lack of any understanding. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:05 | 3609873 runningman18
runningman18's picture

If you read "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution" your questions will be quickly answered with extensive research and evidence, unless that is, you are afraid of being wrong...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 22:34 | 3612504 Promethus
Promethus's picture

Wow, this article is total CRAP. The Czar was ousted by a provisional government in March of 1917, not the Communist. The South didn't march on Fort Sumter. The Fort is an island so no marching on water allowed. The British at Lexington and Concord weren't wiped out. Custer was wiped out, the British had casualties. And the Military over throwing the President - the author has obviously never been in the military.

Fri, 05/31/2013 - 04:02 | 3612840 runningman18
runningman18's picture

The Czar was not "ousted", he abdicaterd in the face of an overthrow by the Bolsheviks which he KNEW was coming.  The South did march on Fort Sumter; to march or to "muster against" means to "attack", I'm sure the author was not infering that they walked on water.  The British were indeed wiped out.  When you lose a third of your forces and are being shot at on the run all the way back to your hidey hole, that is called being wiped out.  Also, there have been many groups over the years that have suggested military coup against Obama.  Smith only pointed out that this strategy has been used in the past by the globalists, and that it is a bad idea to support such a thing.  

This article clearly ruffled some feathers, as the illogical behavior of some of the responders has shown.   But, then again, that's what great writers do - ruffle the feathers of sleeping fools.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:10 | 3610499 ECE
ECE's picture

what the hell do you think is happening right now?   the elites have never been as wealthy and the discrepancy between the rich and poor is now at all time record.

so much for the liberal bleeding heart to always put the small guy first.   what horsecrap.

the system is certainly broken but the socialist policy of the left is blowing another hole in an already sinking ship.

nice try with the comparative article though.   and John Mccain is no conservative.    Just another part of the problem with this leviathan government.

 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:55 | 3610006 hivekiller
hivekiller's picture

70 percent of retired us generals take jobs with defense corporations.

 

http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/11/20/report-70-of-retired-us-generals-take...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:05 | 3609402 Son of Loki
Son of Loki's picture

Panasonic to cut 5,000 workers(Reuters)

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/panasonic-cut-5-000-workers-024128506.html

 

I guess moar of the 'jobless recovery' in action.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:05 | 3609519 Akrunner907
Akrunner907's picture

I am trying to figure out who our own "Baghdad Bob" is for the US.  

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:12 | 3610512 stuman
stuman's picture

That would be Jay Carney.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:19 | 3609325 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Statists harbor the R and the D sign. Have them hanged, drawned and quartered, all of them, and let their God sort them out. Let the libertarians inherit the earth, let the government-is-our-mommy and you-need-a-permit-for-this trash die or eat each other...which will happen as soon as one big catastrophe wipes out this thing we see as a civilization.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:26 | 3609338 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Won't happen because "libertarians" don't have, and will never have, the religious fervor of the marxists, islamists, or Christians.

Numerous reason for that, but I'll give you four:

- All wars are, at the heart of it, religious

- In terms of religion, most libertarians today are closer to marxists (atheism, sodomite marriage) than the other main religions.

- Today's libertarianism is mostly juvenile nonsense that's only slightly less confused than its neo-marxist cousins.

- The libertarian "philosophy", if that's what you want to call it, doesn't stand up to serious intellectual scrutiny.

 

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:30 | 3609343 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

What a stupid fucking comment.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:32 | 3609346 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Feel free to critique it.  I've yet to find a libertarian who can articulate the virtues of sodomy or atheism - two primary tenets of their core neo-marxist dogma.

Funny thing is - today's libertarians have more in common with their neo-marxist cousins than anyone else.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:36 | 3609350 howenlink
howenlink's picture

Libertarianism is NOT about the virtues of sodomy or atheism.  It is about allowing people to make free choices without using the coercive powers of the state to prevent actions that you deem immoral.  We advocate freedom.  You advocate force.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:41 | 3609359 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

You advoctate license. There is no utopia where freedom exists without virtue.  Never has been, never will be.  For myriad reasons.

You're spewing out the same utopian nonsense that Karl Marx conjured up.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:45 | 3609362 akak
akak's picture

There is no utopia where virtue exists without freedom.

 

Your namesake would spit on your misuse of his moniker here.

 

PS: Unlike the Marxists, both past and present, libertarians do not and never have fallen into the trap of believing that their philosophy can or will lead to utopia.  That is merely a strawman of your own creation.  A perfectly free society would inevitably still not be a perfect society, given human nature and inherent human weaknesses.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:52 | 3609375 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

So then, what are the virtues of sodomy and atheism - two of the primary tenets in the core dogma that is today's libertarianism?

The notion that liberty exists without virtue is absurd.

Libertarians seem to have this absurd notion of freedom without responsibility.  Human nature doesn't work that way.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:52 | 3609381 akak
akak's picture

 

So then, what are the virtues of sodomy and atheism - two of the primary tenets in the core dogma that is today's libertarianism?

Purely rhetorically, I could ask you where you get the absurd notion that ANYONE has ever held the belief that libertarianism enshrines sodomy and atheism, but we both know that there would be no point in doing so, as your assertion is a complete strawman.

Thank you, though, for representing and showcasing the willful and ignorant arrogance that is statism.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:00 | 3609394 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Maybe my sample size is too small, but I've not met any self-proclaimed libertarians who are not atheists nor embracers of the notion of sodomite marriage. 

I've met fewer still who can articulate the virtues of the atheism and sodomite marriage that they dogmatically cling to.

Today's libertarians tend to mistake license for liberty.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:05 | 3609403 Vooter
Vooter's picture

You still haven't told us why sodomy and atheism aren't virtuous.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:17 | 3609437 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Maybe I just don't know what the virtues of sodomy and atheism are.  Perhaps you can explain?

No one else seems capable of it.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:34 | 3609471 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Their virtues are pleasure, you poor thing. And if you want to try to tell us that pleasure isn't a virtue, guess what? NO ONE'S LISTENING! Nobody cares. You're going to pass through this life and die alone, just like the rest of us. And no one--NOT A SOUL--will ever care what you thought about "virtue"...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 02:19 | 3609578 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I love your soul Voots... if that is appropriate. Bastiat?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:20 | 3610527 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Maybe I missed that part in the "Theory of Moral Sentiments".

In fact, if one reads the great books of Western civilization, one will find no references to the virtues of the sodomy or atheism that you so vocifersouly claim to somehow magically exist.

If sodomy and atheism are so virtuous, why didn't Jefferson, Burke, Smith, Montequieu, or Hume point that out?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 12:04 | 3610660 Parabox
Parabox's picture

Pleasure is not a virtue, it is a vice.  Another collectivist trying to confuse people by defining something as its opposite.  No one will love me?  What a petulant child.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:08 | 3609522 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

I think no one responds to you because they feel you have an agenda and simply are itching for a fight. Virtuous behavior appears to be what you deem it and, therefore, any contrary views are branded aberrant. This is diametrically opposed to the true meaning of libertarianism which fundamentally is about free will. My sample size of Libertarians is small as well however only a couple are atheists( most agnostic) and all do not believe in gay marriage. Not that they have anything against gays but they believe marriage as an institution has be taken over and corrupted by the state to extract money from the citizenry. I happen to agree with this and though I am a heterosexual married women, I would never have gotten married in the legal sense had i known what it would do to us financially. Gays have not figured this out yet seeing marriage as a tool for societal legitimacy. It is not. Legitimacy comes from within, not from a state sanctioned piece of paper.

People can be virtuous and be a "sodomite" ( your term) and an atheist. That you believe these are mutually exclusive is your problem. Broaden your horizons and meet more people, your prejudices may fade if you don't cling to tightly to them.

Miffed;-)

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 02:13 | 3609525 akak
akak's picture

Nicely stated, Miffed --- as always.

 

EDIT: And the junkmonkey haters are crawling out of the woodwork once again to automatically junk every one of my posts.  Just look, three (and counting) assholes downvote me merely for praising another poster's thoughtful comment?  That is just sick.

Fri, 05/31/2013 - 00:27 | 3612732 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Akak, I have a confession to make. I do truly appreciate your kind comments and am saddened that people down arrow you for it. Writing and verbal expression was never a forte for me growing up, much to the disappointment and consternation of my mother. English was her passion and no daughter of hers was going to be anything but brilliant in conversation and written composition. When my leanings went toward the sciences she refused to allow me to take chemistry in high school because it conflicted with a Literature class she wanted me to take... even though I was already taking 2 other English courses. The next step was quite hurtful. She brought out all our family IQ tests and laid them out on a table. She pointed out I had the lowest IQ in our family and could never expect to be capable attaining any science degree. I bit my lip bloody and was determined to prove her wrong. And I did. But because I had defied her she didn't speak to me again. She died this mothers day. I tried to talk to her when I knew she was dying but my brother said she was cursing my name and crying out how I was such a fucking disappointment so i stayed away. I always wished at some point she would have said she was proud of me or that she respected my hard work and accomplishments even though they weren't her wishes. Now I'm facing the finality of a perminantly shut door.

So, when you say what you do I drink it up like a parched desert plant after the first rain. It really warms my soul more than you can imagine or intend I'm sure. I just want to say thanks. However I am faced with the truth and must take my own advice. Legitimacy does come from yourself not from others. That is the path I must start to walk down. I think I will return the kindness you have shown me. Perhaps I can deflect a few of those arrows away from you and on to me. You don't deserve them. Thanks again for everything, you are a gem among pirates!

Miffed;-)

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:55 | 3609746 de3de8
de3de8's picture

Just do what you want so long as it does not impact me and in addition, don't tell me i have to like it.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:15 | 3610525 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Subjective virtue impacts you because it is the basis of totalitarianism.

If you don't think that totalitarianism is going to affect you, you're incredibly naive.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:14 | 3610520 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

You're naive.

Subjective interpretations of virtue are the very basis of the totalitarianism that libertarians claim to oppose.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:20 | 3609535 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"I've not met any self-proclaimed libertarians who are not atheists nor embracers of the notion of sodomite marriage."

Get out from under your fucking rock. Don't confuse libertinism with libertarianism. There are a shitload of Christian libertarians out there.

As for gay marriage, just because one is libertarian doesn't automatically mean one is for gay marriage. One obvious starting point is, how and why the fuck is the state involved with marriage in the first place?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:25 | 3609538 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

No shit.

Why does one have to get a marriage license?

Two queers cannot be married, it is not the definition.

If they wish a form of partnership, they must invent a new word. Marriage is already taken by male+female.

Buggariage?

Lesbiarige?

Whatever.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:47 | 3609559 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The whole gay marriage debate is really about the meaning of the word.  There are other ways to protect rights without changing definitions.  I think it has less to do with rights and more to do with creating new norms.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:21 | 3610545 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Fair enough. I mentioned the small sample size of my experience in a prior post.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 02:06 | 3609572 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Bastiat - tend to your own knitting dear, and let others tend to theirs. Worrying about what people do in their bedrooms or what goes on in their head is a bootless exercise in futility. All that lovely passion gone to waste when you could find yourself a cause where you might actually make a difference. You will never convert the godless with all your piety or wit and the gay boys and girls don't care if they offend your sensibilities. In fact, they revel in it.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:04 | 3609709 StandardDeviant
StandardDeviant's picture

You certainly seem to spend a lot of your time thinking about this...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:23 | 3610554 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

If sodomy and atheism are so virtuous, why didn't Jefferson, Burke, Smith, Montequieu, or Hume point that out?

In fact, I haven't found a single reference to the supposed virtues of sodomy or atheism in any of the great works of Western civilization.

Maybe I just missed them; perhaps you can enlighten us?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:37 | 3610592 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature"

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 12:53 | 3610749 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I've read much of Jefferson's work and I've never seen that quote.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to provide a source.

 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:05 | 3609404 akak
akak's picture

Speaking of making mistakes, there is a subtle but significant and fundamental difference between tolerance and endorsement --- a difference that is usually lost on statists of all stripes, who invariably demand that society be straightjacketed, by coercive force, into their usually very narrow vision of "virtue".

Where free and voluntary action is hindered or curtailed, acting in a virtuous manner is hindered or impossible.  Virtue cannot exist without both free will and freedom.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:18 | 3609439 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I'm saying that existence isn't enough. 

The default conditoin of mankind's existence is tyranny, servitude, and serfdom. 

Liberty depends upon virtue, which is much more than existence.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:22 | 3609448 akak
akak's picture

 

The default conditoin of mankind's existence is tyranny, servitude, and serfdom.

That is an assertion without any logical or factual basis.

I can equally assert that the default condition of mankind's existence is freedom --- and it is only the manipulative, coercive, pathological control exerted by sociopaths under the guise of "the necessity of government" that has lead to so much of human history being dominated by tyranny, servitude and serfdom.

You defend the very thing you putatively argue against.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:29 | 3609460 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Here's a brief list of historical and modern civilizations that existed under what we would describe as tyranny, servitude, and serfdom:

- Ancient Egyptians
- Aztecs
- Mayans
- Incas
- Babylon
- National Socialist Germany
- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
- DPRK

And your examples are?

 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:33 | 3609468 akak
akak's picture

Logic is not really your forte, is it?

Merely listing some societies in which relative tyranny prevailed is hardly proof that tyrrany is the "default position of mankind".  I could equally make the argument that because most men wear pants, the wearing of pants is the default position of mankind.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:00 | 3609509 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

You've plenty of opportunity to provide counter-examples or to answer the questions I've posed.

So far you've done neither.

Exhibit B for why today's libertarians are not taken seriously in the real world.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:10 | 3609521 akak
akak's picture

You are really quite a stupid person.

The reason that I do not make any counter-list of societies is because doing so would be pointless and irrelevant, just as your idiotic list was pointless and irrelevant.  Merely demonstrating that tyranny HAS existed is far from proving that it is the "default position of mankind".

How old are you, 16?  Public school education, correct?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 05:03 | 3609684 Acet
Acet's picture

Not surprising.

Anybody that can't find the built-in lack of clarity in "humanity needs virtue" (good luck finding a definition of "virtue" agree to by all people) clearly has never learned the scientific method.

Here's a simple and easy rule from libertarianism: "Law has no business in regulating Moral"

Oh yeah, when it comes to sodomy and atheism I follow the Dutch principle: "Anybody can do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody and I don't have to see it".

[In fact, I find two guys going at each other in the privacy of their own home (where I don't have to see it) far less insulting that somebody making a show of their religious beliefs in public.]

[PS: It's quite interesting from a psychological point of view to that there are some people out there that think about sodomy far more than the actual sodomites. Makes you wonder what kind of repressed urges they carry around]

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:30 | 3610577 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I've provided 8 examples. 

You've provided 0 counter-examples.

QED

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 02:08 | 3609577 Dealyer Turdin
Dealyer Turdin's picture

As it is always easier to destroy than create, especially without tools of dissemination like the printing press, it is hard to "prove" much using the collective library.  Those who say, don't know.  Those who know, don't say.  You are asking what those who spoke said.  Mostly, those who were free chose paths that did not lead to documentation.  You have the indescribable awsomeness of America before Columbus to digest if you wish.  We have (official collective) destroyed what we could not understand, and now, you want the records of what we did understand as your medium of challenge.

Yawn.  Go outside.  Find a star with a label on it.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:27 | 3609457 Vooter
Vooter's picture

"I'm saying that existence isn't enough."

PROVE IT.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:30 | 3609461 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

History proves it. 

A subject that you seem willfully ignorant of.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:46 | 3609737 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

You are very good at misdirection. You have turned a significant number of serious comments and commenters onto your topic which is a direct attack a people who prefer liberty over slavery. You use no logic, just make blanket statements and provide no real examples for support because any examples you provide are baseless and unproven... just statements designed to enflame and elicit comments... slimey.

Very well done. No go back into your little troll hole, slimeball.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:25 | 3610563 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

If sodomy and atheism have so many virtues, why didn't Jefferson, Burke, Smith, Montequieu, or Hume point them out?

I've yet to find a single reference to the supposed virtues of sodomy or atheism in any of the great works of Western civilization.

Maybe I just missed them; can you point me to the sources?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:40 | 3609827 20834A
20834A's picture

Are you a Christian, F. Bastiat? You speak much of virtue, but your definitions of it are rather Old Testament- the 'do not' variety. When Jesus came, he specifically emphasized the positive, the Law of Love.  Is tolerance (not to be confused with approval) a virtue? Apparently not to you. In spite of Jesus' injuncture  "Let he without sin cast the first stone"? And let's not forget that he hung out with the dregs of his society. Or that he wanted folks to treat their neighbors as they would their own brothers. Or that they should turn their other cheek. I'm one of those agnostic Libertarians who will not act with hate toward a gay neighbor. Rather, I will excersize my right to forego associating with them in all but general, neighborly ways. Your type of Christian must give Jesus a migraine. 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:20 | 3609536 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

There are plenty of us Libertarians who personally believe in Theism and are not in favor of buggery.

I am, however, not going to Force someone into a religion, or tell 2 guys to quit their buggery. I also expect my Theism to be respected and my choice to not be a buggerer to be respected.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 05:49 | 3609703 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Devout Catholic (by choice) and hard core Libertarian (by choice) here. As for your fixation on "sodomites and atheist" not sure WTF you're yapping about but in my version of a healthy society homosexuals and atheist are welcome to participate.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:02 | 3609397 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Why aren't sodomy and atheism virtuous? Who's making the call--you? LOL...holy shit, you are one CONFUSED little boy. And why stop at sodomy and atheism? What about all of the other disgusting shit that humans do to one another on a DAILY basis around the world, including right here in your beloved West? How does that square with your "no liberty without virtue" concept? Do me a fucking favor and BLOW ME...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:16 | 3609435 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Well, then - what are their virtues?

I've asked that question multiple times and I've yet to receive an answer.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:25 | 3609455 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Pleasure, like any other human activity.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:59 | 3609506 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Stalin derived pleasure from killing kulaks. Pol Pot from killing those with glasses. Frank Marshall Davis apparently derived pleasure from buggering mulattoe boys.

Your point is?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:02 | 3609513 akak
akak's picture

We're all still trying to figure out your point.

Now, let's see you perch that red herring on top of that strawman again.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:29 | 3610570 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

If sodomy and atheism have so many virtues, why didn't Jefferson, Burke, Smith, Montequieu, or Hume elucidate them?

Maybe I just missed them - perhaps you can point me to the sources?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:11 | 3609881 20834A
20834A's picture

*Happiness*, like any other human activity. (There, fixed it for you)

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:55 | 3609744 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

Anyone who understands the first thing about people who want freedom (Libertarians) understand that it is all about individual inalienable rights and not about any particular talking point. It is more about people free from being buggared or forced into any one particular religeon and not what they choose to do with their freedom.

Psychopaths want to force people to do what psychopaths want them to do with no consideration for individual rights. They will do it through force and think nothing of murder if it increases their power. This is anathema to Libertarians and toads and trolls who support the murdering psychopaths do not deserve the attention they crave.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:52 | 3609380 Chump
Chump's picture

And beware anyone who claims to know what a perfect society is for that matter.  People who use language like that often end up enforcing their vision with varying amounts of bloodletting.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:02 | 3609396 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Today's libertarians, like today's neo-marxists, seem awfully dogmatic in their commitments to the notions of atheism and sodomite marriage.

Despite the lessons of history.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:07 | 3609410 akak
akak's picture

Don't knock 'sodomy' until you've given it a chance.

 

PS: I prefer Gomorrhism myself.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:14 | 3609429 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I was just pointing out the rather obvious contradiction of those who claim to support liberty and yet deny the virtue upon which it depends.

The fact that libertarians tend to have similar idelogoical leanings as neo-marxists (atheism, sodomite marriage) seriously undermines their quasi-intellectual position and is one reason why they aren't taken very seriously in the real world.

Western civilization, on the other hand, is consistent philosophically because it recognizes the nature of mankind as, among other things, aggressive, selfish, and sinful.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:19 | 3609442 akak
akak's picture

You keep building and propping up those strawmen.

Oh, and by the way, the preferred modern term is not "sodomite", it is "faggot".

 

PS: You have yet to explain how same-sex love is inherently unvirtuous.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:24 | 3609451 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I've simply pointed out that liberty has never existed without virtue and that those who proclaim to be in favor of liberty, while denying virtue, are contradicting themselves.

Furthermore, that rather obvious contradiction is one reason why today's libertarians aren't taken very seriously in the real world.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:28 | 3609458 akak
akak's picture

So once again, how is same-sex love, or marriage, inherently unvirtuous?

As for atheism (which I simply consider a manifestation of freedom of thought and intellectual integrity), what difference does it make to YOU what others choose to believe, or not believe?  Again, what is inherently unvirtuous in atheism?  I know a hell of a lot more ethical atheists than I do so-called "Christians".

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:56 | 3609504 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Stalin loved killing kulaks. Some priests love buggering little boys.  Are those inherently unvirtuous?

I would say that the answer is yes. Maybe it's just me. 

The most likely alternative to objective virtue seems to be subjective force.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:01 | 3609511 akak
akak's picture

Wow, logical discussion and analysis is apparently entirely outside of your capabilities, isn't it?

So ALL atheists are to be judged by the actions of one sociopathic madman who happened to call himself one?  And child rape is equivalent to a loving, voluntary relationship between consenting adults?  You have one sad and mixed-up mind there, buddy.

Maybe once you get to high school things will begin to look a bit clearer to you.

 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 07:59 | 3609860 20834A
20834A's picture

And members of Westboro church love to...?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 12:28 | 3610715 Parabox
Parabox's picture

... make real Christians look crazy.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:33 | 3609545 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

This is an area where conservatives and libertarians don't mix well, even if they both oppose statism.  Libertarians believe conservatives would impose a moral standard, conservatives believe without a moral standard a society would slowly self destruct (which is what is arguebly happening in much of the west) therefore you will not have liberty.  A breakdown of traditional structures does make it easier for the population to justify the need for central govt.  The breakdown of the traditional family is one of the reasons why subsequent generations have become dependent on govt. welfare.  The founders had much to say about the need for virtues in a free society, there's hundreds of quotes on the subject.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:40 | 3609481 denverdolomte
denverdolomte's picture

"I've simply pointed out that liberty has never existed without virtue and that those who proclaim to be in favor of liberty, while denying virtue.."

What? 

Virtue; noun; 

  1. Behavior showing high moral standards: "paragons of virtue".
  2. A quality considered morally good or desirable in a person.

Liberty; noun;

  1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
  2. An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

And your choices you chose are atheism and sodomites? Paradoxly your choice words are contradictions to your denial of true libertarian beliefs. I will explain, as a liberterian person of virtue I do not oppose other peoples choices in lifestyles or religions to the point that it does not physically effect my personal well being, what another does is their choice within the constraints of human safety and well being. Transversely my beliefs should not be put on any other single person because of what I believe is right or wrong or choice of religion. 

Whats wrong with the world is a bunch of people like yourself that use a thesaurus to write a sentence, only believe in their own mantra, have never made an attempt to look beyond the fence and understand the world for face value. No ones beliefs are the right ones, no one has the right ideas that will be the best for every person, but it's idiots like you that can't see beyond your head in your ass to ever make a single attempt to fix anything through compromise.

Here's a libertarian ideology for your learn self responsibility and respect for your peers. When you stop sounding like a jackass and actually bring something of value to a conversation people may actually take you fucking seriously.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 09:11 | 3610068 20834A
20834A's picture

Wait, which is it? Liberty has never existed without virtue? Or tyranny is the default position of humankind? Isn't there an inherent contradiction in that position? You give a list of repressive societies. The Spartans deemed themselves 'virtuous'. Yet they were notable for their LACK of liberty. I throw your challenge back at you and ask you to list 'virtuous' societies where liberty was all. I guarantee that every example you may come up with will have huge holes.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:04 | 3609871 durablefaith
durablefaith's picture

Although it seems likely that you are a master thread hijacker that should be ignored instead of debated...I'm going to reluctantly take the bait and reply.

As a committed Christian, ordained minister, and bible thumper, I have had an interesting journey the last few years around this area of libertarianism and "conservatism" and it completely conflicts with your charachterization.

The vast majority of the 300,000 pulpits in the USA have been gag ordered by their concern over their 501c3 status. The vast majority of tea partiers and liberty advocates I have encountered are disillusioned Christians who are seeking another way (outside of their mute churches) to address the crumbling social fabric and burgeoning government in the country they love. They are at different places on their learning curve and run the gammut from Neocons to Libertarians but the path leads consistely to libertarianism.

Well over 90% of the liberty advocates I have encountered are bible thumpers who morally oppose sodomy, gay marriage, the welfare state and hold what you would consider conservative views on a wide range of ethical issues.

As far as your comment about separating freedom from ethics, I would counter that Jesus gave us the tie breaker on all situations where principles seem to conflict saying "treat others how you want to be treated for this sums up the law and the prophets". I dont want government telling me what size coke to drink, whether I can defend myself, and what seeds I can grow in my garden. Therefore I support the right of the obese to order jumbo cokes, I support the right of veterans getting mental care to retain or purchase weapons, and I support the right of the hemp crowd to grow whatever they want in their back yard for their use.

This doesnt make me immoral or godless. Quite the contrary. I am seeking to get my political views in alignment with the teaching of Jesus because government is merely an expression of how we treat each other.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:08 | 3609415 Chump
Chump's picture

That is certainly something.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:13 | 3609425 akak
akak's picture

That is the parangong of crustiness, even, the very nib of the mattering thing.

Welcome to the 'bastiatism' world.  It's an intolerant and mixed-up world, you'll see.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:14 | 3609428 Chump
Chump's picture

Ha!  They're perfect for each other...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:53 | 3609499 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Why would anyone tolerate those who proclaim liberty while engaging in deeds which actively undermine it?

Today's libertarians seem awfully confused about the differences between license and liberty.

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be nefarious, but rather a function of highly-correctable ignorance.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:57 | 3609505 akak
akak's picture

You still have yet to explain how same-sex love and marriage is supposedly unvirtuous, and supposedly undermine liberty, instead of being a manifestation of it.  Same for atheism, for that matter.  Or does liberty thrive under ANY religion, as long as there IS religion?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:32 | 3609464 EmmittFitzhume
EmmittFitzhume's picture

Organized religion is equally responsible for tyranny as a marxism(atheism) is. Just fucking get out of everybody else's business

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:50 | 3609494 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Certainly, marxism is an organized religion.  In fact, marxism began as a reaction to Christianity in 1840s Germany.  In all its essentials, marxism is a primitive counter-Christian religion that maintains atheism as one of its core tenets.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:22 | 3609444 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

That's because freedom cannot exist without virtue.  Never has, never will.

In fact, we see in the states today, we see a rapidly declining civilization correlated to the collapse of virtue.  We see it each and every day.  At least some of us do.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:25 | 3609453 akak
akak's picture

And YOU are the one who is both qualified to define that "virtue", as well as enforce it by the coercive power of government, correct?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:48 | 3609491 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I think it's pretty well defined in historical terms and proven by the success of Western civilization.  Prudence, persistence, and moderation come to mind, in particular.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:53 | 3609497 akak
akak's picture

Actually, I agree with you there, and we are possibly surprisingly similar in the personal ethics which we each hold.  The apparent difference between us is that I do not feel the need, nor the right, to impose my beliefs on others, and coercively interfere in their lives, as long as they refrain from doing the same to me.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:20 | 3609901 Mr. Mandelbrot
Mr. Mandelbrot's picture

There is no truth without paradox.  The truth is that people are too stupid to make their own decisions.  However, they must be allowed to do so no matter the harm that befalls themselves or others because the alternative is the ultimate tyranny of evil . . .

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 12:43 | 3610760 Parabox
Parabox's picture

I would argue that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, because they have never had to before.  Society and the State have always been there to show them the "right" decision.  Let people make their own mistakes and actually suffer the consequences and they will learn quickly enough.  Self responsibility is a core tenet of libertarianism and thus we believe that all people have the ability, and the duty, to make their own decisions.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 16:15 | 3611414 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

You know what's interesting?  The number of Up Arrows to some very stupid and outlandish comments made by WVI and F. Bastiat.  That stat tells me the number of Trolls that are supporting these statements. 

The exercise then becomes:  Find the Troll. W/o losing sight of the article's points:  Regime Change!

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:41 | 3609361 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Feel free to point to specific examples to support your assinine theories.

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:47 | 3609370 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

How about the history of Western civilization?  Of course, it tends to be a topic that libertarians seem to know absolutely nothing about.

That said, we can use the counter-Western example of marxism to draw parallels with today's libertarians.  In particular, there are three primary attack vectors that the marxists use in their war against Western civilization:

1. Attacking the family

2. Attacking Christianity

3. Atacking private property

 

For whatever reason, libertarians go two for three in those marxist attack vectors by supporting the nonsense that is sodomite marriage and by subscribing to militant atheism.

In sum, it seems that libertarians fully buy into the utopian nonsense that Marx conjured up, disagreeing with Marx simply on the means to those ends.

 

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:54 | 3609386 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

I have to stop feeding the trolls.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:07 | 3609411 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

I don't understand what FB is talking about....is he against getting head or for them?  Is there marriage without giving and receiving head?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 08:27 | 3609912 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Good question. Does the virtuous liberty that Fred proposes require the state to prohibit hetero-sexual sodomy inside of marriage?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 13:14 | 3610843 Creepy Lurker
Creepy Lurker's picture

Well of course it does. And to make sure you are truly deserving of your liberty, he just wants to put a small camera in the corner of your bedroom. Don't worry! Modern technology makes them so small you won't even notice. And he promises the recording will be erased shortly afterward... LOL

Really guys, why have you been feeding this troll? You must be bored.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 15:38 | 3611308 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

It does not.

It does, however, unequivocally recognize the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:00 | 3609390 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

Absolutely not.  I consider myself a Christian, I support private property, and I believe in strong families (like to think I have one).  I am a libertarian, and believe that each person should come to their own conclusions on 1) and 2) while not infringing on any of them for anyone else.  I think you have libertarians confused with leftist anarchists.  All the libertarians I know consider the ideas of Marx antithetical to their beliefs.  You Sir, are confused.  Suggest you hang out with some libertarians for a while and keep an open mind.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:03 | 3609398 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Fair enough.  You're the first one I've heard from who isn't an atheist and who does not embrace the notion of sodomite marriage. A good start, I suppose.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:07 | 3609412 Vooter
Vooter's picture

You STILL haven't told us what's wrong with sodomy and atheism. I'm waiting...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:10 | 3609420 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Same comment as above:

Because liberty doesn't magically exist.  Tyranny, servitude, and serfdom exist as the default conditions of mankind.

In other words, one cannot consistently proclaim to support "liberty" while at the same time opposing the "virtue" upon which it rests.

Liberty requires virtue. Always has, always will.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:19 | 3609443 Vooter
Vooter's picture

You STILL haven't told us why sodomy and atheism aren't virtuous. What are you, fucking stupid? Answer the question, retard...

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:35 | 3609473 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

"...retard..."

Retard?  He's hijacked the thread just like the left/right statists do getting 'us' to argue about WHAT I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT.

Concentrated private power is as dangerous as concentrated state power.  In our current dilemma they're nearly indistinguishable.  The corporate powers own the state apparatus, locking out small, upstart innovators.  WHY?  Because capital investments are always at risk and seek to lock in their current advantages.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:45 | 3609487 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Regarding atheism, in particular, here are the stats - courtesy of RJ Rummel at U of Hawaii:

www.savageleft.com/poli/mbc.html

 

Regarding sodomy - perhaps I'm just unaware of its virtues that claim somehow magically exist.

Perhaps you can enlighten us all on the virtues of sodomy?  You seem to be an ardent supporter of it.

 

 

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:10 | 3609422 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Are you for real...?

I think not!

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:04 | 3609399 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Are you an escapee from your city's anencephalic retard school?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 01:11 | 3609524 Raynja
Raynja's picture

i think you are confusing libertarians with liberals.............

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 06:40 | 3609732 redwater
redwater's picture

Bwhahahaha!

Your accusations of libertarians being oblivious to history is rediculous. How's your sense of history?

The christians and catholics have aided and abetted the greatest pedophile ring in human history. Their history of bloodshed and debauchery are legendary, if not demonic.

I see one of your types every once in a while in other forums. Clumsily trying to associate libertinism with libertarianism. Or liberalism with libertarianism. It may fool one of two of your eighty -ear old neocon fellows in the religious forums, but not here.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 15:36 | 3611300 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Substantially better than your sense of grammar.

But what isn't?

Wed, 05/29/2013 - 23:53 | 3609383 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Who said sodomy and atheism have to have virtues? And for the record, I think atheism is as laughable a waste of time as theism. I personally don't care what people believe, as long as they just SHUT THE FUCK UP about it. But that aside, what exactly are your concerns about sodomy and atheism? I'm dying to hear this. How exactly are sodomy and atheism affecting your completely stupid, inconsequential existence on this planet?

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:06 | 3609401 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

Thankfully, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees I don't have to shut the fuck up about it.  You and everyone else are free to not listen, with my regrets about your loss.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!