This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: It's Not About Obama...
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.
»
- 25828 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Gao, I think you made a BINGO!
Yeah, gee, not having to listen to you prattle on about your groundless, made-up beliefs is a real fucking BUMMER...LOL... But you're absolutely right--the Constitution does guarantee your right to say stupid, pointless shit that's not going to do ANYTHING to keep you out of a coffin or an incinerator at some point in the next century. So please, REGALE us with your thoughts...
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.
Why don't you just answer the goddamn question: WHAT'S WRONG WITH SODOMY AND ATHEISM?
Regarding the atheism point, in particular, the record of atheists in the 20th century is self-evident:
http://www.savageleft.com/poli/mbc.html
(Stats courtesy of Rummel at U of Hawaii)
Regarding sodomy - if offers no virtue and therefore opposes liberty.
ROTFLMAO!
I think we got us another AnAnonymous here folks!
Talk about running amok in his own circular arguments!
Make me laugh.
PS: If 'sodomy' offers no 'virtue', how about oral sex? Or what about sex outside of the narrow limits of procreation? Are you still worried about going blind for touching yourself in 'the naughty place'?
Feel free to articulate the virtues of blowjobs.
If you wish to live as an animal, you'll be treated like one.
What is your definition of "virtue"?
I put up the definition of virtue and liberty for him/her on the first page.
It's not up to me, it's been pretty much determined by the successes and failures of human history.
We may all agree that there is virtue in activities like being prudent, respecting property rights, being persistent, and not being gluttonous.
"Regarding sodomy - if offers no virtue and therefore opposes liberty."
I see. Does eating any particular type of breakfast, or not eating breakfast, offer virtue?
No? Then breakfast (or no breakfast) opposes liberty.
Yes? Then list for us the types of virtuous breakfast (or no breakfast).
sounds like your angling to drop your trousers in the house of god!
There is no need to articulate the virtues or sodomy or atheism, only the virtue of individuals to decide for themselves if those behaviors have any virtues.
How about you explaining your apparent support of authoritarian control over others' lives.
Well, Stalin decided for himself that the Ukraine should be starved with a forced famine.
By your definition, that was a virtuous decision.
You don't seem to realize it, but your notions of subjective virtue are the very bases of the totalitarianism you claim to despise.
So, do you support authoritarianism or not, Bastiat?
whether he supports it or not is secondary to the service to open debate he has done by (inadvertently?) exposing the 'authoritarian' underpinnings of 'libertarian- ism' ...
which, as with all isms... finds it's source in the continuum of continental corruptions of philosophic reasoning which under-girded our forebears systems of trade and enterprise previous to needing a meddlesome intellectual class tasked with diverting us into a phony 'enlightenment' which proved to be nothing more than the 'en-lighten-ment of our collective wealth and resouces... to the favor of a class of moneychangers who buy and sell the academics behind such froth as 'eConomics with a cynical mirth worth of Machiavelli hisself.
I wish that peeple would desist in bashing the messenger... in favor of open discussion of the principles which are being debated... for once.
Machiavelli was a smart guy- he got his uber politically correct reductio ad absurdum warning, written in the far more widely comprehensible Italian, blessed by a Medeci Pope, and it is still used an example (by both sides) five hundred years later...
He hasn't "opened debate". That would require stating at least a semblance of fact, AND, stating one's own position beyond mere opposition. Attacking a thing, is not the same as debating a thing.
He hasn't "opened debate". That would require stating at least a semblance of fact...
to the best of my knowledge, the only prerequisite for opening a debate is[err/// was???] to state an opinion...
I'm sorry if I haven't yet caught on to the 'new normal' here... which appears to hinge upon corresponding to the prevailing 'opinion' masquerading as 'fact' ....
my very bad... apologies in advance /// massa! (no image privileges accrue to yur humble poster... pls picture a cowtowing peon ............. here.
The Argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y (starts at 1:17 of 6:07)
Forcing starvation on another person violates their property rights, a tenet of libertarianism.
I think we would all agree that respecting private property is an objectively virtuous endeavour.
And yet you object to "sodomites" who are exercising their property rights of their own bodies.
I've simply noted that liberty doesn't exist without virtue and I've respectfully requested that somone, anyone, elucidate the virtues of sodomy.
Not a single person has been able to do so yet; perhaps you will be the first?
You're just arguing in circles. Forever be labeled a troll.
I've offered at least ten opportunities for someone to elcuidate the virtues of sodomy.
No one's been able to do it.
OMG, you really don't make sense. Stalin WAS the state. He wasn't acting as a private individual.
Under totalitarianism, there is no distinction. Stalin was an individual who was the state. Hitler was the same.
Their individual decisions are the state's decions and, since they're wrong a lot, totalitarianism inevitably collapses after wreaking mayhem and miserty upon those trapped within its clutches.
No, it does not. You intentionally skipped over "decided for themselves". Stalin did not decide for himself, he decided for Ukraine.
He decided for himself that, in his opinion, it was virtuous to starve the Ukraine.
Point being - subjective notions of virtue are the very basis of the totalitarianism that libertarians claim to despise.
Liberty cannot exist without objective, shared virtue. It never has and it never will.
Thank you Anusocracy. This is the only question that matters.
On the way to shooting yourself in the foot by attacking the Libertarians on the most supercilious grounds... you actually stumbled over the exposed tap root of the truth! Pure luck or idiot-savant>!>??? Tough call Bastiat/ But I'll take you up on your invitation to critique your critique!
True indeed! The Austrians and their 'libertarian' hangers on contributed mightily to the ascendance of the Chicago Gang, the shutting down of all real 'indigenous' debate over economic choices, and the diversion of attention into the false paradox of tax revenue policy as creator\destroyer of productive capital.
How did this come about? By their abandonment of the critical distinctions between land, labor, and capital, and failing to follow up on the insights of their own progenitor Bohm-Bowerk in regards to the time(or 'period of production')element he inherited from Ricardo's Theory of Value... the Austrian-Libertarian economists ceded the field to the neo-classical nut jobs who were tasked by the moneychanger/rentier classes to attack all ideas which would challenge their 'right' to parastize societies via their land speculations and control of taxation policies.
More importantly.... why did this ceding of the field come about? After all, the Austrians were heavily engaged in defending the rights(and the means)of capital to flow in the most productive and socially useful ways.... right?????
Err... wrong. As yet another Vienna-born Euro-school of the same sort as their sionist-sponsored brethern of the 'marx-engels' angle ... the factionalists of the "Austrian School" were tasked with merely upholding one end of the dialectical dead end which is modern e-CON-omics... when all the while, the new world was full of bright native sons and daughters like the muckracking journalist Henry George*... whose empirical studies of the lived truth of their society gave them the power to advance the really 'radical' notions of land tenure... social equality of opportunity... and encouragment of productive forces which the continental Con-fusionists only pretended to propose... in order to Con-ceal the way to a healthy body politic!
Land labor and capital. Because neo-classical economics insisted on wiping out the distinctions between these three dynamic factors, the native Merikan propensity to find practical solutions to the problems of production were defeated... diverted... and finally, submerged under the weight of a foreign banking cartels' "Reserve Bank" freakenstein formula... and all debate ended - except for the phony left-right factionalist fakery.
The real antecedents of present day Libertarianism are hardly to be found in atheism chumly... their masters are those who worship at the altars of Baal and Mammon... but they do use their duped bumboys of the 'right' to keep the scam going ... so maybe you are half-right!
*Norte Merikans interested in waking up from their long slumber as dwarves in the service of their dialectical seducers might want to get acquainted with the legacy of Mr. George... who at one time was the best selling author of the C19th... a candidate for mayor of NY whose victory was stolen by Tamany Hall long before 'chads' were introduced... and whose advanced economic thinking was the true flowering of native Merikan genius... all buried and forgotten now .... save for the great patriot scholar Mason Gaffney... whose efforts to rekindle real debate may be found http://masongaffney.org/blog/index.php/2009/06/the-four-vampires-of-capi... or http://masongaffney.org/blog/index.php/2009/12/interview-on-after-the-cr...
perhaps this is only a side-remark to your thesis (which I still have to digest), but I have always seen Land, Labour and Capital as three forms of capital which the classic divided because of their different political underpinning
in fact, Capital, Labour and Land ties in with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity
classical Capital is connected with Liberty, the favourite preoccupation of the classical Capitalist
classical Labour is connected with Equality, the favourite preoccupation of the classical Labourer
classical Land is connected with Fraternity, the favourite preoccupation of the classical Landlord
the last one might need an explanation (here a different one, same thread): Fraternity is derived from blood-ties of tribal descendency. only "modernity" and the transfer from Tribe to Nation of the Fraternity Principle prevents us from requesting Tribal Land in the most visceral and unconscious way possible
Ghordius... thank you for providing the thread links... which make it infinitely easier to respond to your message.
land is not a fixed possession. It is an item which is subject to the bounds of time... in the sense that only those who occupy[and have the means to hold] a space are the 'transitional' owners of it... nothing more... and nothing less. When our peeples 'settled down' into a sedentary program... and lost the feature of mobility that was the hallmark of our racial success... the attrition began...
up until the time of the re-awakening of our imaginations with the opening of the great 'western' spaces...
the epic raconteuring of which... via... ironically the spaghetti western series of our own Cervantes - aka "Clint" ... made in Espana with production Italiano! ... gave a couple of generations access to the sacred mysteries of what could take place when 'man' reclaimed the freedoms which are always lost to him when too closely proximate to the moneychangers and their missionaries.
As Henry George discerned... from living in and of 'the west' and observing the tenor of 'tenure' thereof... land is a collective resource valuable only due the the individual efforts of iconoclastic peeple who seek out empty spaces to fill with their dreamings.
All else... we must abandon, instead and return to the fraternities of folks who seek the means of their survival from their own genius... not from praying/preying pon others... as is the prevailing current of our own ...misbegotten... times.
Guns... gold... and two fresh mounts... not very 'continental' it's tru... but it will do! It will do...
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.
_____________________________
The virtues of sodomy or atheism from an 'american' point of view?
It provides 'americans' with material to gossip.
Gossiping is glue for an 'american' group. And for 'americans', the group is all.
Actually, "the group", and collectivism in general, is much more reflective of your own Chinese Communist reality than it is of Americans, for whom the individual is traditionally, and even today, much more important than any group identity.
But feel free to continue spewing your nonsensical and bigoted fantasies --- it is what you do best. One might even say that you are the parangong of it.
Welcome to the AnAnonymystical world. It's a whacked-out sort of place, you'll see.
akak said:
Undisputably crusty.
Evertheneverless, don't hold breath waiting for 'AnAnonymist' propagator to explain virtue of parangongomy. Reads like waiting the Dalai Lhama welcomed back to Tibet during one's lifetime.
On another hand, given 'AnAnonymist' proclivity for roadside feceism (looks like a Chinese Citizenism Communautist national sport), probably wise to hold nose...
Welcome to the AnAnonymystical world. It's an olfactorially disgusting sort of place, you'll see.
"All wars are, at the heart of it, religious"
This could be one of the wrongest statements I've ever read in any comment section of any site over more than a decade. All wars are about RESOURCES. Religion is a tool the wealthy use to trick the average guy to go out and die for them.
A materialist would certainly think that. It's truly amazing how far the primitive superstitions of marxism have permeated modern thinking. You happen to be exhibit A. And you probably don't even know it.
Once again here you appear to be your own worst enemy...
if you are gonna take on the dragon... in it's own den... you needs be at least equipped with the sword of logical consistency! Why would you defeat the most salient part of your critique by referring to the primitive superstitions of marxism... when clearly the superstitions employed by both wings of the dialecticalist dissimulationist factions to drown debate are rooted in the same source!
Marxism and "libertarianism" have their roots in the same talmudist corruption of a certain abrahamic 'religious doctrine' that sought to provide it's adherents with an ontological rationale for their exclusivism and hegemonistic attitude towards the rest of humankind... the corrupters merely took that predilection to it's extreme by imposing the 'godhood' of their own caste onto the whole structure - replacing the metaphysical sky god with their own supposed divinity... that kind of inverted 'humanism' is a 'religion' in every aspect...
and those who attempt to shield themselves from the logical consequences of supporting the rhetorical tautologies of contemporary talmudisms' cabbalistic majical systems by using 'atheism' as a refuge... will find 'dialectical materialism' to be a very harsh master indeed.
Proceed with your attack Master Bastiat... but kindly turn your sword towards your enemy, instead of at your own throat!
Actually, if one considers the luciferian religion of the elitist globalists, their religion plays a huge part in the fomenting of wars. Resources are important, too, but their reality requires continual war for many reasons, one of which is most certainly religious.
Were you sodomized recently, Bastiat? And if so, has this made you an angry person?
I'm guessing he is a Roman Catholic --- either former altarboy. or priest. Or both.
Obsession of F. Bastiat guy with atheism and sodomy reads like self loathing over secretly enjoying receipt of sodomy in the ass as a choirboy.
Just pointing the rather obvious contradictions of the juvenile nonsense that is today's liberatarianism.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-libertarian per se, I'm just pointing out that as a "philosophy", it's contradictory, inconsistent, and seems completely ignorant of all of the lessons of history that are readily available.
You are just spouting nonsense.
Libertarianism, in contrast to EVERY branch and form of statism, is the most logically consistent political philosophy known to man.
Like our dear Chinese troll AnAnonymous, your every post consists not of logical arguments, but merely unbacked assertions. You do not converse, you gibber.
Like our dear Chinese troll AnAnonymous, your every post consists not of logical arguments, but merely unbacked assertions. You do not converse, you gibber.
______________________________
If 'americans' were not 'american', they would be elected for madness.
The way 'americans' wallow in their own fantasy while dismissing how much they are bogged down in their fantasy is impressive.
'Americans' are hooked on power. It is part of the priviledge of power to be able to impose showdowns anytime a dissent view is emitted.
It is the 'american' game of "come and catch me if you can"
When you are in power, you can try to refuse to bow down to facts. And impose a showdown to anyone pointing out a fact instead of accepting the fact.
Unbacked assertions for 'americans' can range from stating the most obvious observation as the founding fathers for a part of them owned slaves (a statement that 'americans' on this site consider as an unbacked assertion) to there were no WMDs in Iraq (a statement that the 'american' servants to the 'american' WeThePeople repelled in order to unleash their war against Iraq)
There is no discontinuity between an 'american' elite and its base. Both display the same behaviour, on different scales.
Both use power to impose their burden of evidence for the most obvious observations possible, making the statement that it is not about facts but about power.
'Americans' did not care about WMDs in Iraq. The question they asked when demanding to "back up the assertion" was whether somebody could stop them.
'Americans' rely on coercion. Massively. Their 'american' dream can not exist without subduing part of humanity.
The way it is in an 'american' world.
Blah blah blah blah "citizenism" blah blah blah blah blah blah 'americans' blah blah blah blah blah blah 'americanism' blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blobbing-up blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Welcome to the AnAnonymystical world.
It's a boringly repetitious and bigoted world, you'll see.
AnAnonymous, going full excretard, said:
Nice projection. Best.
AnAnonymysticism has a long story of denial since inception. Denial is Chinese citizenism.
"Full excretard!" How I enjoy typing it. Who gets the credit, FourthStooge, for "Roadside shitting Chinese citizenism?" Is that you, too?
I do relish in the poetry of the ZH threads, but "full excretard" is praiseworthy indeed.
This guy is the one that deserves any credit:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c9_1328304616
Libertarianism, in contrast to EVERY branch and form of statism, is the most logically consistent political philosophy known to man.
______________________
What about cannibalism? Are people free to make their minds on that one?
Trendy 'americans'.
Welcome to an 'american' world, it is a cosy place to live in, you'll see.
More Chinsese citizenism nonsensical babble.
Cannibalism is not, to the best of my knowledge, a political philosophy.
Except, of course, during Great Leaps Forward Into Starvation, when Chinese citizens are forced to eat grass and even their own infants to survive the Maoist Long March of Insanitation.
Welcome to the AnAnonymystical world. It's a deranged place, you'll see.
akak said:
The Great Leap Forward has to be depicted as a non Chinese Citizenism Communautist Party ideological pollution through the importation of 'american' ideas.
It has to be this way all day long if you believe Chinese citizenism citizens.
One picture pours a thousand words:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/graphics/eating_babies2.jpg
It claims to. In deed, by denying virtue, it leads to the precise opposite of what it claims to believe in.
Not that much different from marxism, frankly.
All philosophies are inconsistent in some regards, otherwise they would be tautologies, as most religions are. I don't really believe in a complete and perfect philosophy; that's dogma.
I don't see that you've made a single substantive argument against libertarians, and in fact, akak has already bloodied you up pretty badly. I don't subscribe to any political philosophy, being more of an empiricist, but I think it might be helpful if you would provide more concrete examples, rather than to invoke abstract ideas like virtue.
BTW, I have a lot of gay and atheist friends, and they are not at all concerned about what you think. Just FYI.
Man you don't know shit about Libertarians! Look at the root word. LIBERTY. Which means "leave me alone in every way" Social and fiscal! Dems are about social liberty and Repubs are supposed to be about fiscal liberty. They both know that they have one half of what real free people want. That's how they keep us pitted against each other. Libertarian want the best of both but it doesn't matter. Stupid ass mainstream idiots cannot seem to get passed the 'political play' which is by design. Wake up. I thought ZH would have gotten this point across by now. Guess not. Pity
The (paleo) marxists were all about freedom, too. Hell, even Obama care is supposed to be about "freedom".
It takes more than words.
Socialism and freedom cannot be further apart
Oh, I agree. I'm just pointing out that Marxism was conjured up as a path to "true freedom". Which, practically speaking, means the death of all mankind.
Marxism is basically the manifestation of a primitive suicidal instinct manifested at the macro-level of society.
My guess is you come from The Blaze or World Net Daily.
You guys still buthurt because the libertarians called out the Republican Party as Trotsky-ites?
Your troll-spree trying to lose the neocon-trotsky reputation of the Republican party by trying to associate Libertarianism with communism is pretty transparent. Repeating buzz words like 'marxism' and 'libertarianism', like it's going to sublimanally hypnotize us. Haha.
That may work when you have programs with no guests, where you can spew your propaganda. You "ditto-heads" should try being virtuous by sticking to the constitution.
Liberty cannot mean "leave me alone in every way" as it is a very expensive ideal to maintain.
"leave me alone in every way" is the ideal of the Baron, straight out of the Magna Charta conflicts against the ultimate authority of the King (backed by the Church). One man, his land, or at least his "castle". It's also the ideal born from low-density territories, where authority & consensus is dispersed, ineffective and less in demand
contrast this with the ideal of the Citizen, straight out of the conflicts between cities and the King/Barons (or, here, the less powerful Emperor and the more powerful Great Lords). The same man, but in a high-density environment that demands more authority/consensus, and where the same man is engaged in more organizations that include more people and where specialization is more advanced
the first problem arises when people try to apply the first principle to high-density environments or the second one to low-density ones
the second one arises with urban sprawl: people get confused. is this frankenstein called suburb a low or high-density environment?
interestingly, a gated community has more the character of a city-fortress, which leads many libertarian to both try to be part of one but then chafe against all the regulations a fortress naturally generates
---------
I was of the impression that Freedom and Liberty as words were going in the direction of being the first the preference of the right and the second the preference of the Left, or, respectively, of the Land and of the City. but of course I still maintain that Libertarians are just one branch of the Liberal "family" of political thought and the other two are Equality (which starts with asking for the same law to be applied or not to everyone equally) and Fraternity (which starts with the preference individuals give to the same "blood", i.e. "tribal preference", which can be transferred to Nationality)
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity - you can force one higher than the others, but they are human needs, and each one has a tendency of return in force if neglected too long
as usual, your articulate and cultured representation... coupled with a well managed macro-historical reprise of the major players in the European narrative...
serves to beguile us into a somnolent acceptance of your ultimate thrust...
a pox upon your house sire, err... "citizen" Ghordius.
No human was ever needful of liberty... nor equality... and every man amongst was possessed of fraternity...
until the usual suspects imposed their agenda pon our peeples... in order to defraud us of what we had... in order to make us pine for what we had never needed... when we rode together as tribes of freely associated human beings... and elected our warrior kings from the best amongst us.
As usual... so close to the truth... mon liege... yet so far from it! Our history did not begin with the conflicts between Barons and city states. But it will end... soon nuff... less we make our ways back to what we might never have left... save for the voices of wormtongues and race traitors. [I number you not amongst the latter... merely amongst the sadly over-educated]
just a moment, I have to post here a side-remark link to your very intriguing reply
so, where to begin? of course, "a pox upon your House" can be ignored, my House is used to it ;-)
thank you for your appreciacion of the delivery of my message. though I'm not sure if you are not reacting too fast on it. please let it marinate, if You will
from your reply, I guess that Fraternity, i.e. the Tribal Blood Bond, is a very strong preoccupation for you. as I write, it's also strongly connected to Land (as such, only a result of tribes stopping their nomadic ways and settling down)
but isn't a question of perception, in this case your sentiment that Fraternity is neglected, in our modern times?
imho this is a side-conflict - inside the Fraternity Nexus - the one between The Tribe and The Nation
to put it in a different way, don't you think that there are lots of people more preoccupied with Liberty and Equality?
-------------
"Our history did not begin with the conflicts between Barons and city states" - perhaps a misunderstanding
very roughly, the history of Anglo-Saxon polities was more strongly defined by the conflict between Barons and King - meanwhile our continental history had a stronger emphasis on the trilateral conflict betwen Dukes, Emperor and Free Cities (with the Papacy thrown in for "entertainement value")
if you go back in history, there are other defining conflicts, which differ slightly per region and time, nevertheless often on the theme of City vs Land
this has, imho, nothing to do with the conflict you hint of, which is, if I understand you properly, of a tribal origin - inside the Fraternity Nexus
I left this thread last night at 11PM & come back now & what do I see?...
~~~
I can't begin to summarize it all in a short reply, but I can't believe that, by now, there has been complete failure to mention the spirit or attitude of Robespierre's "Cult of the Supreme Being" as it pertains to the argument...
To synthesise:
- This thread is supposedly about the Bolshvik Revolution & Marxism
- Has morphed itself into 'Libertarianism" & other 'ISMS'
- &, of course, the relative merits of the ideaoligies
But in the process, it practically assumes that the 'Bolshevik Revolution' [& more importantly, the [plural entities], that financed it & pushed it through] was the first of such phenomenon... IT WASN'T... The French Revolution was the blueprint...
The French Revolution succeeded in three major upheavals in zero time flat:
1. Basically ~ then end of the Hapsburgs [represented by the Bourbons in France]
2. The end of Catholic Church power in France
3. The 'blueprint' for a societal behavior in a power vacuum
"Ideologies" [whether they be "Communist Manifesto's" or what have you] are a load of postscript horseshit... The only thing that's important is WHO survives in a power vacuum & what they tell you to believe... Robiespierre had his 'Terror' & used the guillotine to tell you what to believe & who was in charge... "The Cult of the Supreme Being" was basically his bridge too far [IOW ~ when he started applying his own version of 'scripture' to the whole affair, his days were numbered]...
The rest, as they say, is history... In the power vacuum [which was, the Hapsburg/Bourbon monarchial dynasty & the Catholic Church replaced by the guillotine], the 'moneychangers' wrested control of Europe... This was the 'Rothschild' gambit [where the next thing you know, Napoleon becomes emperor & Rothschild is taking over the Bank of England]... The fucking Bolshevik revolution was an 'echo' of this whole affair... A bit of tidying up [of the Romanovs] after 'The Continent' was already taken care of & they had jumped the pond to New York...
Wow... what can I say?
... Francis ol sock...
never knew you had it in you! Tween you and our inhouse 'baronial'-class brethern -the no less than 'glorious' Ghordius - for the first time that I can ever remember here...
I am fully satiated with the feeling of being amongst minds non pareil... and my joyfulness with the collective erudition on this thread
...knows no bounds! Yet it needs be noted that only by the very vexaciousness of our correspondent Bastiat could we reach such a level! To him... a toast I proclaim...
a suitable time after which... I shall assemble my response to the missives received!
The most 'relevant' thing posted in this thread thus far was YOUR previous comment that said "Some author posts a load of TRIPE"... That sums it all up right there...
~~~
Arguing 'Obama' or the 'Bolshevik Revolution' in the grand scheme of things is like trying to figure out the relevance of Justin Beiber [& his important contributions in the anthology of Rock-N-Roll history]...
one must also not forget that the French Rev was in turn inspired by the Magna Carta, which, as i understand it, was signed by the King under threat of the sword by a collection of land barons.
although i personally disagree that Ghordius is defending an ideology per se, rather dissecting the basic principles (or archetypes) on which ideologies are formented.
I was hoping that you'd show... and take up my long overdue introduction of the nativist Mericano genius to cue a discussion of the land tenure thing which ... imho... is the biggest elephant ever to NOT enter a room[being too BIG to fit therein!]
But I think that this thread will be stale long fore that could occur... shall we bookmark the thought to the next appropriate occasion?
btw... Ghordius is not defending an 'ideology'.... as a bonafide(and refreshingly openly declared)member of that very "baronial" caste which has given him the means to articulate his thoughts in such magnificent manner....
he is 'fending' the interests of his modern day ilk.... much transformed in appearance and allegiance...
but nevertheless... the same underneath the expensive gift wrappings! With more of his type... we might begin to roll back the tide... via an alliance of freemen with their 'betters'!
biggest elephant ever to NOT enter a room -- yup, henry molded a beast for a room that is yet to be constructed. funny thing is that once it fits in, it has such a capacity to fill the space so elegantly, that it narrows the debate surrounding the color field down to where fights over pink vs. yellow vs. blue will be made obsolete. of course, there will also be those who will insist on arguing what shade, but most will be too busy (myself included) growing green to deny that anything put pink is self-evident for the time being.
exactly the reason why it has yet to enter the room (or rather, a room built for the occasion)...but perhaps our continued shared whispers in the dark corner will help to call its appearance, once & for all.
he is 'fending' the interests of his modern day ilk... as well as he has every right to, on equal footing in an open & transparent conversation for the sake of the betterment of all. as you say, his willingness to do so is refreshing.
as a bonafide member of that very "baronial" caste -- a glass of champagne does wonders for any karmic abrasions, real or perceived ;~)
who loves ya Ghordy?!
Francis, I have never seen Smith present this understanding of the French Revolution. I have, I think on threads for his pieces? If he's done it and I've missed it, I'm sorry, but I don't think Smith has, and that may be part of the problem you're noticing on the thread?
imho, this analysis of yours G is much too valuable to be buried in this soon to be dead thread. i humbly propose that if you have a moment (or few), you flesh this out a bit more and submit to the Tyler-boro as a stand-alone post. a work-in-progress summary above-the-line perhaps, to be fleshed out in fraternity below-the-line in the comments.
might make for a quite interesting discussion to pursue out how each aspect of LEF equates with each aspect of LLC, but also to play around with the different seemingly-contradictory combinations like you noted below with urban redneck.
just a couple metric grams to ponder...
@JOYFUL, tip-e, Clash, Ghordius
~~~
Bookmarked... [I just wish I'd have stayed up all night last night]...
@Clash ~ IMO... All understanding of the present state of affairs [globally], stems from The French Revolution...
Let me qualify that:
- 'Globally' = 'Western Culture' in this instance... Like 'Snake Plissken' ~ the 'Asians' don't give a fuck about your war or your President...
- The dynamics of the 'POWER VACUUM' is the SUBJECT of this issue [the rest is PREDICATE]...
- 'ISMS' are horseshit... They only exist in a power vacuum... We're actually still in one...
- I'll think of more shit to add to this...
@ francis : of course it's all horseshit...but it's also some of the best fertilizer on the planet, if properly decomposed.
just needs us fly larvae to pick it apart to its elements, ja?
I mention it (FR) only b/c I think I've called Smith out on it before but can't remember if it was him or someone on a thread or two? I'm no huge Smith fan but find reasons to increasingly appreciate him. And my memory fails on certain matters, especially comment thread/ZH histories.
I've brought this point up on here several times b/c too many ZH readers and others like Max Keiser, etc, like to present the FR as some ideal, true revolution. That's an errant, underinformed, and skewed perception, imo. Yours is much more on target. While your harshness is disconcerting to me, I often find you disturbingly insightful.
I might trace historical relevance further back than you, Francis, as far as your superlative comments about the FR's importance. But I admire that you want to interject the more accurate and very important perception of the FR into the broader discourse. I think Smith and many commenters miss it or at least fail to demonstrate this important understanding of it.
My question for you, Francis, is that if I can trace luciferianism back to times that predate Judaism, and if I can demonstrate how certain elements of Judaism have been more or less co-opted by luciferianism (much like the R party did to the Tea Party), would that make a difference in your, um, somewhat controversial, overall approach? And if that wouldn't do it, what would or could?
What if I were to add to that position the improbability that Jewish people, being of such small number, could control the world in such an absolute fashion? Would the NE elite or British elite really allow this? Isn't it more likely that the world's most powerful "Jewish" families are an important part of a cabal that extends beyond Judaism?
Isn't it clear to you that many Jewish people do not believe every word of the Talmud or Kabballah? I don't know that I've ever seen you clarify this point before. If I missed it, I apologize.
Long before I even knew what was in the Talmud, I had Jewish people tell me, to my face, that they did not believe or follow what was written in there about the Goy, etc. They wanted me to understand that they did not believe it (and at a very tough time in my life, which they understood).
Luciferianism flourishes in all religions and in many subsets of those major religions. Judaism is not without its ruptures and sects, btw.
If you really think that "Jews," rather than luciferians, is the proper term for the folks in charge, whose fault all of this mess is, then why would the powerful families of Europe and America go along with it instead of merely wresting powers from the otherwise defenseless minority?
Could it be because luciferianism needs the holy land, too? IE instead of Jerusalem being holy to three major religions, it is holy to four?
Just some thoughts. Since no one is probably even looking at this thread anymore, just wondered what you might say. Thanks in advance for the time.
One more thought--the FR was largely a Templar construct, yes? Or no? How much wealth does the Catholic Church have?
There are a lot of power players here. What links them? It's not Judaism. It's luciferianism.
Urban Redneck, on a personal note I suspect that both your nick and your answer underline what I just wrote. The "perfect" lifestyle of the "Redneck" seen through the lens of the Baron/Freeholder is quite expensive... in an urban setting. then it implies a certain autarchy, and a city is all about a shared autarchy, starting with a shared supply of water, a shared supply of food, a shared supply of defence, etc. etc.
longing for a different lifestyle or just conscious of the contradictions? btw, imho contradictions are the spice of life anyway
I was thinking along the lines of a popular redneck quote this time of year- "Freedom isn't Free" which can be traced back to at least the fyrd vs leding on this side of the pond. The original federalist/anti-federalist schism in the US was largely urban/rural for that reasons you alluded to.
Autarchy isn't sustainable, especially against the perpetual coveting of oligarchs and autocrats who need to feed their desire for expanding domains by engineering economic collapse and war, when they tire of good old fashioned plundering.
I recognize the need for balance, which is best achieved with two feet firmly, and paraconsistently, planted at a distance from each other, whereas a lot of modern (political) ideology desperately attempts to precariously balance within an Aristotelian trap.
"Won't happen because "libertarians" don't have, and will never have, the religious fervor of the marxists, islamists, or Christians."
I'll make it simpler: Libertarians are cowards.
When it comes to the 2nd amendment, America has two kinds of people, sheep who don't care about it, and cowards who won't do what it says. It crosses all religious lines, all political lines, all idealogical lines, all any kind of lines.
Those xxx million guns in private hands will never be used for their 2A purpose "maintaing a free state". Never. Ever.
And because they won't be used for their 2A purpose, the 2A right will be taken away. It'll still be right there in the constitution, but no individual gun owner will have it anymore. They may still have guns, but they won't have the right to have guns, they'll be viewed as criminals by govt, arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, not collectively, but individually, just like there won't be any collective confiscation, but there will be individual confiscation.
And yes, gun owners will cower in fear saying "Glad it wasn't me" watching a swat team haul some other gun owner off to prison.
"It's not time yet"?
Guess what. It'll never "be time". Ever.
So go ahead, whine and bitch and complain on all the damn internet blogs you want about the govt, Obama, the Fed, fiat currency, QE, bailouts, rigged markets, NDAA, Obamacare, and whatever the fuck else you wana whine and bitch and complain about, but that's ALL you'll ever do COWARDS.
If what you say is true....then I assume you have the intellectual honesty to count yourself among the cowards? If not, then what are you doing posting here engaging in the very 'whining and bitching' you rail against? Why aren't you out somewhere using the 2A for its intended purpose right this very moment?
Let's face it, guy.....NONE of us WANTS to die. Or worse yet, get renditioned to some backwater 'facility' to never be heard from again. Certainly not any of us with families. But rest assured....there WILL come a time when the choice to physically resist or submit will be presented to all of us in critical mass. When that time comes, as I fear it will......we will find out what exactly each of us is made of.
And no, I don't relish the thought of that moment's arrival. I can only hope that when it does, I won't lack the courage to pledge my life, fortune, and sacred honor in the fight.
"count yourself among the cowards?"
Nope, I'm in a 3rd group actually, realists who don't think America is worth saving, leave or just get used to living in oppressive soviet russia type society, which millions of russians seem to get along ok in.
Rights and liberty don't last forever in any nation, and they won't here either. As successive generations care less and less about those concepts, they fade away over the decades, exactly what we see happening in America.
And no, they're not from "God", and they're not "unalienable". Founders were wrong on that. Very wrong.
It was a popular concept back then, in that society, but we're 200+ years away from that society now, and that concept is fading fast, fewer and fewer Americans care about it anymore, "fairness" is the popular concept now, go ask any woman, and most men believe it too. When the vast majority of society believe "fairness" rules, there's nothing you can do about it. It's a tide you cannot stop.
"When that time comes, as I fear it will..."
Nope, it won't ever come. It won't ever "be time". Cowardly GOs will keep coming up with excuses to put it off, and there won't be any so-called "2nd American revolution". Only fools believe there will be. Right wing nutcases. And they are nutcases for believing such a wild fantasy.
There will be no surrender of firearms in America, period.
That said, there is a fine line between courage and stupidity.
* Prudence. Discipline. Fortitude. Virtue. *
Hey idiot, keeping firearms is NOT what 2A is about.
It's about "maintaining a free state". That's the clearly stated purpose of 2A, right there in the first few words. But xxx million cowardly GOs aren't going to do that. Not now, not in the future, not ever.
Govt knows it, and yes they'll move right along stripping away that right. Once you lose the right, having firearms makes you a criminal. They may not come after your guns, but they'll come after you sooner or later. When you're in prison or some internment camp, they won't care about your guns, you won't be able to use 'em.
And no, they don't have to round up all of you. Just the rowdy ones talking about "revolt" or posing some other sort of "threat". That's right, you're the "terrorists" now. It's stated in all sorts of govt publications.
Use 'em or lose 'em.
You cowards won't use 'em, so you'll lose' em. They may not be taken from you, but you'll be taken from them. Either one works.
Just like guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns don't launch a "revolution", people launch a "revolution".
All they have to do is make sure people can't launch a "revolution" with guns or anything else. They know most GOs are cowards who won't risk their comfy lifestyle, others might but won't without leadership from rabble-rousers, so all they have to do is round up the few rabble-rousers and put them away, threat eliminated, (just like Hitler did, just like Stalin did), and yes they know who the rabble-rousers are (way better than Hitler and Stalin did), they spend lots of time keeping up with who the rabble-rousers are, boatloads of govt goons devoted to it, and now IRS via Obamacare.
Prudence, temperance, and fortitude seem to be virtues that you need to brush up on a bit.
That's all you've got idiot? Cute little euphamisms?
You're pathetic.
Your virtual obsession with 'virtue' is virtually unvirtuous.
Congratulations, Bastiat. What could be more important than people understanding the subject of this article. Yet, you have managed to push the right buttons that have sent the libertarians into a frenzy! Hence, for several pages we get to read a bunch of regulars spouting off their crackpot ideologies instead of discussing the important topic at hand. Atheism, Libertarianism, Homosexuality--what a potent brew for derailing a discussion. My hat is off to you, supertroll!
He did his job. Some of them get paid well to distract.
If only.
Well, thanks.
One's ability to spark debate is an invaluable contribution to the spontaneous creative content generation that is moving adaptive, creative, media properties, such as Zero Hedge, even further ahead of the NYT, Wash Post, LA Times, and the rest of the legacy quasi-socialist welfare-state media institutions.
All you've done here is derail discussion of an important piece. It's highly suspicious.
That might be the case with other commenters, but all you've done is show you're a right wing nutcase believing ridiculous fantasies like "oh yea, you watch, we're gonna get off our lazy gutless (christian) asses and do it ...someday".
Idiot.
Tax revolt just like the forefathers....
Demand an end to:
The Federal Reserve
The Media Cartel
The Republican Party
The Democrat Party
The Banking Cartel
The MIC
The IRS
And who funded the Bolsheviks? New York bankers.
and who funded Hitler? New York Bankers. And who funded Hirohito? New York Bankers. And who funded China's "to be rich is glorious"? New York Bankers. and who wiped Brazil off the map in the 80's? New York Bankers. And who created the housing bubble in the 2000's? New York Bankers. And who's going to sell high right and then buy this bubble they just made? New York Bankers. And is all in on this war and craziness going on all around it? New York Bankers. I mean...honestly. "you haven't even scratched the surface" here. in fact you're complimenting them really. you could argue the only thing saving you from the New York Bankers right now IS the Fed actually.
Again, the 'NY Bankers' are only the US branch of the whole.
Shysters are the culprits, regardless of profession. Bankers, lawyers, politicians, et. al.
Power= corruption=power= corruption.............
The NY Bankers you allude to were the same ones that own the City of London.
Google Red Shield... The NY faction were part of who Brandon was talking about. Read my other post.
Ah, agent 'Trotsky' (Lev Davidovich Bronshtein) comes up: http://www.biography.com/people/leon-trotsky-9510793. And agent 'Lenin' was a lawyer by education, I believe. Say no more.
p.s. Speaking of undercover agents, I'm partial to Agent Romanoff, in The Avengers. Beam her up, Scotty. >;-),
Why do these guys dance around the fact that the vast majority the of the Bolsheviks and Chekists/Beria's NKVD were cheesepopes and murdered something like 50 million Russian Christians during Communism's reign of terror?
I was just about to say articles like this don't usually go over so well (especially lately) here on zh.... AND here you are.
Speaking of reigns of terror... inquisition manifest destiny naga hiro dresden carpet bombing of se asia iraq afghan world bank... but 50 million you say???
Damn. Did we win?
It's an equal opportunity financial discrimination.
That's OT- the example discussed in the article was Russia/Soviet Union.
Oh please... It was the title alone that gave you the boner.
It's Not About Obama
Try not to confuse armed military conflicts with mass genocide of unarmed people, many times through deliberate starvation.
Ah yes... Like embargos and trade restrictions and things like the Trail of Tears, for example.
Mentioned was Dresden. But they deserved it. After all, they were Krauts. Amirite?
Good thing we'll never be like the Krauts.
Just ask Jim. This is a'Murica, fuck yeah. And I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to make money.
So whats your point? America evil all else good? passivism is the only solution?
Not at all. Besides, the opposite was EXACTLY your point.
Mass genocide or genocide by a thousand cuts. You make some sorta distinction. I don't. Get it?
So its all relatavism. One act, one death is the same as any other. If we are attacked we should not react because WE likely deserved it? The death penalty for a multiple murder is the same as someone killed by a lousy driver. Everything is not equal. If you want to surrender to your executioner because of the sins of the father, you are free to do so. Just don't insist we all drink from your koolaid pitcher. Maybe I'm readingbtoo much into it but it just hits me completely wrong. I agree with much of what the author is saying here except he offers NO solutions, other than to suggest to not do anything stupid. like we have a chance with that.
whoa now lousy driver straw man.
But anyway.
Whether permissive or pre-emptive... You say tomato
Should YOU have any REAL solutions you'd care to discuss.. solutions beyond those false choice solutions humanity has come to worship, I'm all ears.
I believe in the basic principles of our Republic and also feel that our ability to protest against our government peacefully is of the most basic nature. For people to suggest that it is a waste of time is to say the republic is lost. My intention is not for revolution but the public demand thatpeople be held accountable. If we cannot do that, we can do nothing at all. And we have seen very little action. We all here argue this and that, many in direct opposition to one another ideas but yet it seems in reality, no one is doing anything but venting.
Because if they did, they'd get banned from posting on ZH...
~~~
Nobody wants daddy to take their T-Bird away...
What's been going on in the world post the fall of the Bourbon's is so fucking obvious only idiots, sychophants, & water carriers fail to see it...
The c-popes have plenty of those in the US these days.
What's a "cheese pope"?
And why did your so-called "christian God" let them murder 50 million? What sort of gutless weak-ass "God" is that?
You "christians" worship a myth, a fantasy existing only in your idiot minds, dumbasses.
The Nazis wanted to avoid a Jewish/Christian desert God, and decided to create a new myth (opium for the German masses). They resurrected an old myth of Norse mythology, which had strong gods and were not under the control of a priest class. They wanted Norse gods that did not "turn the other cheek", or wait for a "god" to solve their problems -- if they only prayed hard enough.
As for Religion vs. Atheism: Atheism is basically about "I'm tired of the Vapor-Ware (bullshit)."
Look folks, there is nothing and nobody up there, except maybe advanced alien civilizations. Who may or may not have created us, who may or may not have played a hand in our evolution. But they most certainly did not create the earth or the sun. Much less the Universe.
The Abraham religion and its 2 spinoffs (Christianity and Islam) were concocted by semi-literate sheep/goat herders thousands of years ago. By guys with no real 'education' (by today's standard), and of 'dubious hygiene' (by today's standards). Q: What, now we're supposed to just accept their view of the Universe and each man's purpose in life? Because of... 'what' and 'whom' exactly? What is it they they 'knew' or can teach me? ROTF, LMAO.
If I can't/won't believe what DC and Wall St are selling, why should I believe in the invisible and untestable products these guys invented? Peddle your vapor-ware and controlled doses of Galactic Hopium elsewhere, so you can live off the 'Human Ponzi'.
"Galactic Hopium"
Love it !! :)
Very well said. If you don't get it the first time, read it again.
No kidding....I think that similar ops are still in style today !!
Not sure this will go over well with my neo-con uncle.
you have one of those too, huh?
When the educational system was lost to these...... I don't even know what to call them...... ideas, everything else was lost.
You want to know why things seem upside down now? Look at education. In that world, everything going exactly as planned. Everything's A-OK. Make 'em stupid and passive and you got 'em through the dependency that breeds. Forever.
And that's the pleasant side of it. You won't have to worry about black helicopters coming over the hill. They'll make your own kids rat you out.
Not sure how it is where you are but around my neck of the woods there is BIG push on about bullying. Way over the top, in my opinion. You should hear the comments from the kids. Suddenly everything they don't like is someone bullying them. Can't wait for "gun violence awareness week." OK, little Johnny, do you parents have a gun in their house? Good boy. We'll send people over to have that removed right away. You're such a good boy, Johnny. We'll make you safe from your parents. Good boy.
I read this one today, and Glad you posted it Tyler. This one is SOO important.
It ain't Obama, nor Bush, nor Clinton, nor ....
Brandon has the right target. A few hundred years of the Red Shield et al...
The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.
Harry TrumanFor example:
The great wealth of the Russian Czars was entrusted to the Rothschilds, $35 million with the Rothschild's Bank of England, and $80 million in the Rothschild's Paris bank. The Rothschilds financed the Russian Revolution which confiscated vast portions of the Orthodox Church's wealth. They have been able to prevent (due to their power) the legitimate heirs of the Czars fortune to withdraw a penny of the millions deposited in a variety of their banks.
The Mountbattans, who are related to the Rothschilds, led the court battles to prevent the claimants from withdrawing any of the fortune. In other words, the money they invested in the Russian Revolution, was not only paid back directly by the Bolshevists in millions of dollar of gold, but by grabbing the hugh deposits of the Czars' wealth, the Rothschilds gained what is now worth over $50 Billions.(41)
......Read this one too. Great map overview also.
http://orientalreview.org/2013/05/16/globalist-blitzkrieg-signals-largest-geopolitical-reordering-since-ww2/
If cops murder 700 citizens every year standing up for their rights on their own property and then go on paid admistrative leave for 4 weeks whilst the local media covers it up does this not constitute a Concord every fucking year? I know "long train of abuses" blah, blah, blah
There's no question that it's a long train of abuses. The questions are what to do about it.
It shouldn't be funny, but i get a picture John McCain flying to a desert and having a strategic military meeting with insurgents, possibly at some huge desert buffet - where all these guys are sweaty, carrying ak47s and chest bumping John. Then he takes off his suit and he is secretly dressed as a terrorist and leads the charge into the desert.
That pussy would only lead a charge to a buffet line.
I don't get the bitch about marches. I would not suggest any kind of armed march, but I do think if we could get five million peaceful people to show up in DC, they could not be ignored. Less than 3% of Cairo showed up and the world demanded the overthrow of their government. I know its not the same and would never expect our media to be as adoring, but we have to be heard and leaders held accountable. As this author suggests, a revolution facilitates the globalist's agenda when violence takes place.
You didn't pay attention. He suggested that people be careful who they follow into battle, not that battle was unncecessary. He's right, a march on washington is a stupid idea from a strategic standpoint. Also, the Egyptian revolution was a CO-OPTED revolution enginnered by the West, just like the author warned about. The point is to fight smart, not dumb, or lazy.
And yet no smart suggestions other than to not be manipulated into doing something stupid. We are being hearded like dumb animals because that is how we respond largely. So called smart people are likely to be trampled by the dumb ones if not eliminated by those really smart ones orchestrating all of this. How in the hell is a march on DC strategically stupid? All of his examples were not non violent. If we can't non violently protest in mass then our country is done. The only "smart" thing at that point is every man for himself. In that case there is no "country" left to save. What smart things are we supposed to do, buy gold and wait for the end of the world? Come on, lets hear some smart talk! What is it?
Not being manipulated into following the wrong people is the PRIMARY smart thing that ANYONE can do. The reason our society is in the mess it is in is exactly because so many Americans have followed corrupt leadership and bad examples. I seriously doubt you have any better advice than the author, but hey, why don't you take a shot and give us YOUR solution? If you are going to expect us to solve all the world's problems in the comments section of an article, then why don't you get us started?
So you think you have not and are not being manipulated now? We have a whole world busily following what ever pied piper that comes along offering goodies or at the very least the removal of said goodies from others. Just give me one idea. I put mine out there and it was "stupid". What was the author's our your's for that matter. Again, avoiding manipulation? Thats it? Every living thing is manipulated by something, be it gravity, wind, rain, sun or "theres never been a better time to buy". Lets see how "stupid" your ideas are.
So, it's not that we're not offering solutions, it's that we're not offering solutions that YOU happen to personally agree with. I'm sorry, but no one here is interested in going out of their way to make Oldwood happy. If you have a solution that would make YOU happy, then let's hear it. I'm certainly all ears...
Without the element of surprise, it's a suicide mission before the boots are on the ground. Normandy comes to mind.
Surprise? Are you planning on sneaking a nuke under someone's mattress? If we have learned anything of late, it is not about surprise or even fact, it is about organizing. Have you noticed what our glorious leader's primary job skills are?
The Egyptian revolution was organized and timed by the Muslim Brotherhood who knew the US president would not tolerate the level of violence required by an ailing Mubarak to put down the demonstrations.
The myth that the revolution was co-opted by the West is spouted by the:
1) MB collaborators,
2) America haters
3) Ignorant, or
4) Some combination thereof
You mean the same muslim brotherhood that has operatives IN the obumbler administration? THe same guys that came in a rewrote our military and FBI manuals to remove reference to islamic fundamentalism? That muslim brotherhood?
Yes, the one with Weenie's wife, Humpa Weenie, running the MS.
Keep posting Running Man. Fuck the down arrows.
Globalists, Collectivists. CFR, the Burgers, et al.
Globalist Blitzkrieg Signals Largest Geopolitical Reordering Since WW2http://orientalreview.org/2013/05/16/globalist-blitzkrieg-signals-largest-geopolitical-reordering-since-ww2/
From a strategic standpoint? Depends. If your goal is to get arrested and get your arms siezed, then sue the shit out of the city (or the independent state of DC, whatever it really is), then maybe it's strategically sound?
What about the Heller case? Are not DC's laws already ruled unconstitutional? Then how could they possibly arrest and charge a single marcher?
It seems to me (and I'm no lawyer, for sure) that the SC is already on the marchers' side? Perhaps the trap is being set, then, BY the marchers, not for them?
Luckily for us, this is actually a moot point. The banks fucked up with unwise and endless leverage, rehypothication and credit default swaps. Even if the system wasn't terminal since 1913 (or 1971 depending on your point of view), it is CERTAINLY terminal now. Really, it was always just a matter of time since the Central Banks took control.
I'm looking forward to a time when we can end this silly ponzi foolishness, sit down, and talk about who the fuck actually owns what. Then we can live honestly and free from that point. Yeah, I know, I'm a dreamer, but a person's got to have something to believe in, right? :-)
That "sit down" is going to more resemble a massacre, as the victims, well informed as they will eventually be, will want--no, need--revenge, as real People have died because of these criminal psychopaths; families have been destroyed; communities have been plundered and eviscerated; faith, hope, and ambition have been abandoned as fools' errands.
Yes, there will be blood; and not all of it will be flowing from the severed heads of the guilty such as Blankfeind and Dimon--though they will surely die violent brutal deaths. No, in the Days of Retribution which are coming, no doubt, uniformed, angry victims will slash the heads off of anything that resembles anyone who works or has ever worked for the killing machine, a k a, Wall Street.
"Collateral damage" dear Presidents; and sometimes it is necessary to achieve the "security of the nation."
Yes, like I said, I have my dreams. I'm actually inclined to agree with you though, for the most part anyway. I just don't share the same suspicion that folks robbed of their rightful property will have the wherewithal to concentrate their anger in the right place.
Globalist agitprop.
(He says) They are all the same. Bush McCain Obama etc etc etc. You can't change anything so don't even bother to try.
What a pussy. To hell with all the wimps who have sold their souls for Obama phones, food stamps and Obama care.
Where did he say that "you can't change anything"? He merely suggested that we don't follow false leadership, because IF we do, nothing will change. Get it?
Not to rain on your parade, but check out who George W Obombo wants to appoint FBI director.
It was in the news today, and demonstrates once again that there is no political choice in the USSA.
And someone as good as you are with pictures might check this out. Is it a rat on Mars? Is it a curious rock?
The real question, of course, is why FOX News doesn't ask the more obvious question: Is this really a photo of the surface of Mars, or did someone simply find a rat in the rubble of obviously faked pics?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/29/mars-rat-spied-by-nasa-curiosi...
Sorry that it's a bit off topic, but NASA and its Nazi henchmen are not above suspicion, and they get a ton of money. There is a huge revolving door, too, between them and the MIC. Just sayin'.
Misinformation is a tool of oppression, too.
The history of humankind has been the willingness to sacrifice any freedom for a scrap of bread. We, as a society, have done this to ourselves. We refuse to sacrifice anything for what we know is right. We count as sacrifices those things that have been taken from us without a fight. We have sacrificed our freedom and souls for the "gifts" society has provided. The illusionary security of a job, a home and food, only to discover we are living within the walls of a zoo.
LIbEral
You can't spell "liberal" without a lie.
This lazy, pandering, pointless "article" lacks even a nodding aquaintance with even the most basic critical thinking skills.
Why do I say that? Why, because I can feel it, and I think many others can feel it too.
Meh.