This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Peddling The Corruption Of Liberty
Submitted by Tibor Machan via Acting-Man.com,
Liberty’s Detractors
Ever since the idea of individual liberty has achieved some measure of credibility over the world, those who would be unseated by its limited triumph had to find some way to discredit it or trump it somehow. One way was to re-christen servitude, to make it appear like an even more important kind of liberty than what individual liberty, properly understood, amounts to.

Puppets and puppeteers…
When a human being is free in the most important, political sense, he or she is sovereign. This means he or she governs his or her own life—others must refrain from intruding on this life, plain and simple. That life may be fortunate or not, rich or not, beautiful or not, and many other things or not, but what matters is that that life is no one else’s to mess with. One gets to run it, no one else does.
Now this is a very uncomfortable idea for all those folks who see all kinds of benefits from running other people’s lives. But they cannot champion this now in so many words, what with individual liberty having gained solid standing, so the only way to remedy matters for them is to claim that their oppression brings even greater freedom to people than the respect and protection of individual liberty.
The Ruse of “Positive” Freedoms
So, we have the kind of “freedoms” propounded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the freedoms now dubbed “positive.” These freedoms do not get rid of those who would use you, interfere with you, invade your life, rob, kill, or assault you but promise, to the contrary, to take good care of you without your having to do much by invading others, by violating their individual liberties.
These are the entitlement rights offered up by proponents of the welfare state, all those who claim that government is best when it is generous, when it becomes the Nanny State—meaning, when it enslaves Peter to serve Paul:

Franklin D. Roosevelt: made a nanny state out of a Republic. Benjamin Franklin once noted that the founders had given US citizens a Republic, “if you can keep it”. This afterthought turned out to be prophetic.
I am not sure about what exactly motivates this ruse—some of it is surely the thirst for power. When you want to enslave people, promise them a special kind of liberty. Castro managed to win over millions of Cubans this way, as did other Marxists in Eastern Europe and in Latin America, as well as some jihadists.
Maybe a few folks actually honestly believed that this kind of political alternative is best for us all, but it is difficult to imagine what would persuade them of such a fraudulent notion. Giving people this “positive” freedom must always involve depriving other people of their individual liberty, their “negative” freedom, which is to say, their sovereignty and their freedom from having others interfere with their lives, from depriving them of their resources and labor and regulating (nudging) them to the hilt.

Marxists and other ideologues of their ilk all have in common that they promise their supporters a better material life than they could achieve otherwise. Not only have they never named the price their subjects would have to pay, but their promises turned out to be false as well.
Clear Thinking and Eternal Vigilance Required
Now, there is little that can be done about this in the short run—when people put their minds to such deceptions, the only ultimate defense is clear thinking and vigilance, which is unfortunately always in short supply and needs to be slowly cultivated. Too many people are tempted by the promise of effortless living, of getting all their problems solved at the point of a gun turned on others who will be coerced to come up with the solutions.

This is such a sweet notion to those who are lazy, who feel left out, or who believe that they are entitled to everything all those who are better off already have going for them, so the power-hungry have a good marketing ploy here.
Envy, maybe, or the bogus political ideologies promoted by those who just must step in to govern the world as they see fit—as I say, I am not sure what kind of mental acrobatics manages to allow people to live with themselves in peace who perpetrate such fraud.
Despite the fact that there is little one can do in response, other than to keep spelling out just what a ruse it all is, perhaps now and then institutional barriers can also be built. Yet, since they too depend upon ideas, ideas that are so easily corrupted, the only real answer is the old one about eternal vigilance. I say, it’s worth it, so let’s go for it.
- 14821 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


It is all for the children.
corruption is a lie http://www.philiacband.com/propaganda.html
The appeal of Socialism and Communism is that the individual can get more from the system than they put into it.
The appeal of Liberty is that you can get out of the system about what you put into it.
Gary Allen called, he wants his politically incorrect labels back.
"The appeal of Socialism and Communism is that the individual can get more from the system than they put into it."
Setting aside that one of those ideas is merely a step in the direction of the other (which in turn has itself the endgame of complete self governance), the appeal of them is that, by definition, the overwhelming majority gets out of the system pretty much what they put into it.
Eg, an 'appeal' of socialism is that everyone is equal before the law; law that everyone has a hand in making.
The 'appeal' of the talking point you lot so love to misnomer as 'Liberty' is nothing more than might makes right.
Eg, an 'appeal' of socialism is that everyone is equal before the law; law that everyone has a hand in making.
I want no part of socialism and so I could have no hand in making that system. Millions, perhaps billions of other individuals agree with me. So you're either lying or fantasizing.
The 'appeal' of the talking point you lot so love to misnomer as 'Liberty' is nothing more than might makes right.
Government exists solely because it claims the exclusive moral right to use violence. Government depends on involuntary action coerced by the use of that violence or the threat to do so. That is synonymous with "might makes right."
Free markets are an invention of civilized men who know that voluntary cooperation always leads to better outcomes for those involved than does compulsory adherence to the demands of an elite class. The way you've conflated voluntary interaction for "might makes right" is really quite bizarre.
"I want no part of socialism and so I could have no hand in making that system. Millions, perhaps billions of other individuals agree with me. So you're either lying or fantasizing."
About what, the thing you apparently know little about? If you say so...
"Government exists solely because it claims the exclusive moral right to use violence"
No, it exists because a lot of (in some cases even most!) adults got together and made some adult decisions regarding consensus morality. A level of morality that even anarchists can accept.
Sorry it's so difficult for you that you didn't volunteer to be born. Maybe next time aorund?
If you want to convince people that you own them and the products of their labor you'll have to try harder. Look how quickly you abandoned your compassionate tone and insistence that "everyone has a hand in socialism" and scornfully attacked my maturity rather than counter the issues which I raised. Socialism depends on forced compliance so naturally you don't see the need to overcome reasoned objections. Misdirection and lies backed by guns and prisons work so much better for your purposes.
Ah yes, it's all so clear now: like an azure sky of deepest summer. You can rely on me, William.
You find me persnickety; I've been correcting the same people on the same things for quite some time now. You'd think they'd, I dunno, read a book, or something. I mean had to read all their fucking books.
It can get on a person's nerves, no?
Mostly I just try to have fun with it though.
So which do you hate most, Gov't, or socialism or communism? Are they just all one thing to you, really; all bad all round? Is it an evenly distributed kind of rage? Doe it have thundering peaks and calmer valleys, with verdant plains of seething resentment?
I have a BA in Literature in English and scored in the 97th percentile in the Literature in English Graduate Review Exam. But you've come to the conclusion that I haven't read any books. No doubt hitting so far from the mark is not unusual for you.
You might want to read a book by George Orwell called 1984. In it he describes a condition called "doublethink." Your insistence that voluntary interaction equates with "might makes right" while the compulsory nature of government in the form of an armed elite does not equate with "might makes right" is a fine example of doublethink.
I try not to ever think, double or otherwise (though after a couple of double single malts.... ya know what i saying?) of my employees as 'elites'
Not saying they can't be better than me, mind you. Sometimes the best people end up in the most unlikely places:
‘Suppose it is granted that a plongeur’s work is more or less useless. Then the question follows, Why does anyone want him to go on working? I am trying to go beyond the immediate economic cause, and to consider what pleasure it can give anyone to think of men swabbing dishes for life. For there is no doubt that people–comfortably situated people–do find a pleasure in such thoughts. A slave, Marcus Gato said, should be working when he is not sleeping. It does not matter whether his work is needed or not, he must work, because work in itself is good–for slaves, at least. This sentiment still survives, and it has piled up mountains of useless drudgery.
I believe that this instinct to perpetuate useless work is, at bottom, simply fear of the mob. The mob (the thought runs) are such low animals that they would be dangerous if they had leisure; it is safer to keep them too busy to think. A rich man who happens to be intellectually honest, if he is questioned about the improvement of working conditions, usually says something like this:
'We know that poverty is unpleasant; in fact, since it is so remote, we rather enjoy harrowing ourselves with the thought of its unpleasantness. But don’t expect us to do anything about it. We are sorry for you lower classes, just as we are sorry for a cat with the mange, but we will fight like devils against any improvement of your condition. We feel that you are much safer as you are. The present state of affairs suits us, and we are not going to take the risk of setting you free, even by an extra hour a day. So, dear brothers, since evidently you must sweat to pay for our trips to Italy, sweat and be damned to you.’
This is particularly the attitude of intelligent, cultivated people; one can read the substance of it in a hundred essays. Very few cultivated people have less than (say) four hundred pounds a year, and naturally they side with the rich, because they imagine that any liberty conceded to the poor is a threat to their own liberty. Foreseeing some dismal Marxian Utopia as the alternative, the educated man prefers to keep things as they are. Possibly he does not like his fellow-rich very much, but he supposes that even the vulgarest of them are less inimical to his pleasures, more his kind of people, than the poor, and that he had better stand by them. It is this fear of a supposedly dangerous mob that makes nearly all intelligent people conservative in their opinions.’
American Progressive Manifesto
We American Progressives believe it is self-evident that government has the power (or should have the power) to implement any good idea, and that when we are all on the same page, everyone benefits, but now, let’s think for ourselves, and explain why.
Effective government is necessary for the health and prosperity of everyone today and for future generations. A threat to government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
Government has some powers delegated from the power of individuals, such as the power to borrow and spend, and government also has unique powers that may not be legitimately exercised by individuals independently of government, such as the power to kill or to tax other individuals. Government thus has these unique powers, not because they were delegated by individuals who do not possess such powers, but because those individuals agreed to be bound by government.
We know that 97% of individuals, if given the choice, would agree to be bound by government rather than live without the benefits of government. Every individual instinctively knows that his life without government would be short, nasty, and brutish.
Although we would like to grant the 3% the right to live without government, many of those reactionaries would not get vaccinated, and many more would possess weapons. Therefore, it is self-evident that the health and prosperity of the other 97% dictate that all 100% of individuals must agree to be bound by government.
Everyone must be bound by government at all times, even when they disagree – especially when they disagree. Otherwise, Rule of Law would devolve into chaos and threaten the health and prosperity of everyone. No one can be above the law.
While we Progressives do not always agree with each other, we always accept the authority of government because effective government requires that 100% accept the authority of government. Anyone who does not accept the authority of government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
We are glad government forces us to pay taxes because even the most noble progressive are only human, and we would not always voluntarily pay taxes if we could avoid it. We know that about ourselves because we are also the most in touch with reality, and yet, we are so noble that we want to be forced to pay taxes anyway because we must for the health and prosperity of everyone.
Some governments have committed atrocities in the past, but we will not let our governance commit atrocities. However, individuals and businesses will always allow themselves to be ruled, and thus, if Progressives do not rule, then a worse faction would rule. Any other faction would be less effective and may even commit atrocities, and thus a threat to our rule is a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone. In other words, we are the good guys, in the vernacular, as it were.
Given that we are the good guys, and that we know we are right, then if we think for ourselves, we can deduce many other self-evident corollaries, such as the fact that it is OK to lie to maintain our rule. Such action is not only OK, but it is indeed noble. It is the Noble Lie advocated by Plato.
For all these reasons, it is thus legitimate for progressives to take any action up to and including killing any number smaller than a majority in order to maintain our rule. Obviously, if we had to kill a majority to maintain our rule, then our rule would not have been legitimate. We are people of principle after all.
More important than maintaining our rule is defending government itself. Government would be justified in killing a majority rather than letting anarchy prevail. Then, at least, the surviving minority would have the blessings of government.
More important than maintaining government and defending our rule is defending the future. For example, defending the planet is the most critical element of defending the future, and thus we would be justified in killing all but a tiny remnant of individuals if that were necessary to stop a threat to the planet, such as Global Warming, but of course, if it were possible to save the planet by merely sterilizing (instead of killing) all but a small remnant of humanity, then we would do that instead.
Another threat to the future is bad genes. In order to improve the human gene pool, it could be necessary to kill and/or sterilize all but small remnant of humanity. It should be self-evident that any such eugenics program should begin with those reactionaries who are least progressive.
By now it should be clear that only by our rule can everyone experience the full blessings of government; and though we mean to rule with benevolence, make no mistake, we mean to rule.
"Another threat to the future is bad genes. In order to improve the human gene pool, it could be necessary to kill and/or sterilize all but small remnant of humanity. It should be self-evident that any such eugenics program should begin with those reactionaries who are least progressive."
hahaha!
So that's why North Carolina, Texas, et al were the hold outs on ending their eugenics programs: they've always been so darn 'progressive'
Though it doesn't exactly explain why T. Douglas and the CCF never had a eugenics program...
Wow, you guzzled that whole koolaid bottle, didn't you?
Liberty certainly can equal might makes right. But, and here's the point you are missing, it doesn't have to. The point of liberty is that it is up to society to determine what they want, and if liberty is your highest value as it was for those who wrote our constitution, then you allow members of society to create, through free and voluntary cooperation, whatever society they wish. The free and voluntary cooperation is the point of liberty. Liberty trusts that people will create a healthy society if given the freedom to do so of their own accord.
On the other hand, socialism is not "everyone equal before the law" as you claim it is. Instead, socialism is the same "might makes right" that you are accusing liberty of possessing. Socialism depends on group voting, and group voting is might makes right. Those greater in number get to tell those lesser in number what to do. And the crazy part is that you swallow this bait and switch without a blink or hiccup, never tasting the bullshit that you gulp down and proclaim to be delicious.
Democracy only possesses one specific belief, which is that the might of the majority makes right. That's it. Other than that, anything is possible under democracy. Democracies could, for example, vote to imprison all members of a particular ethnic group and never violate the tenets of democracy. So democracy cannot be the goal of any society that wishes to stay healthy.
Instead, freedom must be. What is crazy about the pretzel logic you folks always trot out is that you never really think it through. You claim that liberty always results in an unfair world, and you believe that people are capable of creating a better world by redistributing the consequences of a free world to something more visually in line with your tastes. And in the process you pat yourself on the back for loving and trusting other humans enough to want to work together to create a better world. You think you are the good guys.
But, who actually distrusts other humans more? Those who feel the need to use the force of police and laws and courts and armies to force other people to do what they say? Or those who trust that, absent the imposition of force by police and laws and courts and armies, they would be able to work together freely and voluntarily with other humans to create a healthy society? Because lovers of Liberty are the latter, while Socialists are the former. Socialists don't actually trust other people. They don't like the outcome of a free system, because Liberty is a game in which they found themselves to be a loser. But, they never admit that the failure is their own, because their ego cannot stand this hit. So instead, they tell themselves that Liberty creates a fundmentally unfair world, and in order to right this wrong, they are willing to trade some freedom for a more fair world, and this bothers them not one whit, because in their minds the freedom they are trading is the freedom of other people, not their own. And, they are willing to trade the freedom of other people in order to get things.
Which is why Socialism is nothing more than a band of thieves, backed by the logic of thieves, although they try to cloak it in feel good morality, once again in order to protect that oh-so-fragile ego whose inability to accept the consequences of their own limitations launched the whole convoluted train of self serving rationalization in the first place. Who by imposing the right of might on a society always and inevitably poison society, and then of course blame its subsequent implosion on the selfishness of those who resent having things taken from them by force.
When my sister was very young, she used to go up to other kids, declare loudly and imperiously "YOU MUST LEARN TO SHARE" and then snatch away whatever toy she wanted. Of course, she quickly outgrew this infantile logic to recognize that this was nothing more than naked self interest, no matter what pretty sounding phrases she said before she took what she wanted.
Some people however, such as yourself, never progress beyond 3 year old logic. And every society led by adults using the logic of three year olds will collapse about as quickly as you would imagine it would.
Now there's a great screed packed to the borders with dblthink. Where are you on that one Billy?
"Liberty certainly can equal might makes right."
Yeah, somebody is having their unalienable right to 'Liberty' abrogated in that exchange. You do know it takes two to tango, right?
"On the other hand, socialism is not "everyone equal before the law" as you claim it is."
You're correct that it is not just that, but it sure the fuck is inherent to the actual definition of the idea, and essential to it functioning successfully.
"But, who actually distrusts other humans more? Those who feel the need to use the force of police and laws and courts and armies to force other people to do what they say? Or those who trust that, absent the imposition of force by police and laws and courts and armies, they would be able to work together freely and voluntarily with other humans to create a healthy society?"
I didn't realize this was a contest, but your unconditional Marxist trust is touching. Unicorn based, but childishly sweet. Can you show me an historical example of your trustopian dream ever working out different from a nightmare for any length of time?
In fact, the very reason more meritocratic systems of gov't have formed is because a few sociopathic apples always spoil it for the rest of us by transgressing what would otherwise be consensus mores. Subsequently grown-ups got together and volunteered to compromise in order to mitigate the patently flawed belief that might makes right. No, I don't completely trust my public servants with the power they are mandated by the masses to wield, which is why I prefer to keep them under public scrutiny. In my opinion this is wiser than relying soley on opaque, inscrutable and unaccountable might to behave fairly by default despite mountains of historical evidence to the contrary.
Re: the dangers of 'democracy'. They can be mitigated by a constitution protecting the individual from the masses, just as the democratic aspect protects the masses from the individual. This form of gov't isn't "Might Makes Right", it's the masses (composed of individuals) deciding what is allowable within the limits of the individual rights they all (sociopaths excepted) accept as inviolate. And then empowering a publicly monitored group of employees to enforce those rules.
Anyway, who provides the force in your imaginary society that never existed yet was somehow commonplace for fair-skinned immigrants murdering and stealing their way across the continent in the mid 1800's USA ? Ans. The Inscrutable Mighty, just or not, so back to my original point.
Logic doesn't care how old you are, it just is. Your sister's selfishness is worthless as an analogy of socialism, and not just because she wasn't seeking to empower labour.
Time to update that tattered, outdated and debunked Ronald Reagan approved lexicon you keep referencing as if it is gospel; which, really, is all I am asking. The only thing you have to lose in doing that is your lack of credibility on the subject.
"Re: the dangers of 'democracy'. They can be mitigated by a constitution protecting the individual from the masses, just as the democratic aspect protects the masses from the individual. This form of gov't isn't "Might Makes Right", it's the masses (composed of individuals) deciding what is allowable within the limits of the individual rights they all (sociopaths excepted) accept as inviolate. And then empowering a publicly monitored group of employees to enforce those rules."
Right...... Sounds great and idealistic and utopian (humorous that you try to accuse me of the same thing), except for Stalin's observation:
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
Which, of course, is always the downfall of all centrally controlled enterprises, whether we are talking about democracy or socialism or communism or fascism, they always get parasitized and corrupted and ruled by a hidden oligarchy. Those who wrote our Constitution understood this, which is why they came to the realization that the only solution was to remove the power altogether, because otherwise power becomes corrupted.
What you are left with, of course, is voluntary cooperation between members of society. And, if you try to apply even just the teensiest little bit of logic, you realize that if the numbers of good folk in society are large enough to outvote the bad through democratic means, then they are also large enough control society the same way through voluntary cooperation, because absent the imposition of force by police or laws or regulations or armies, you don't have to cooperate or interact with those who are poisonous to society. You simply marginalize and ostracize them and rob them of any power to poison society, because in a society controlled by free and voluntary cooperation, you don't have to work with anyone you don't want to.
So sad, GoinFawr. I know you think you have a brand new idea and are very excited about it, but your idealistic little idea is actually old and wrinkled and worn out, and has destroyed every society that has ever been foolish enough to listen to the likes of you.
Thanks for playing, though.
The appeal of Socialism and Communism is that the individual can get more from the system than they put into it.
The appeal of Liberty is that you can get out of the system about what you put into it.
History shows that you get more out of liberty than you put into it. That's what made America great at one time. That's how the tired, poor and hungry immigrants from Europe became the American middle class.
" That's what made America great at one time."
this is a silly question because there are just so many moments and eras to choose from:
Exactly what time was that again?
Surely the refrence to European immigration, the establishment of the middle class and specifically the Emma Lazarus allusion give you a clue, don't they?
So you think a fresh herd of European settlers (literally) stealing across the continent while committing genocide under the pretext of a flying spaghetti monster's commands will restore 'Liberty'?
You're bold, I'll give you that!
And who knows, if the TPP goes through you just might get your wish! Only it'll only consist of 30 or so of them, with accents like the Highlander (once he was in 80's NYC). And they will already be wealthy beyond your wildest imagination, but they'll do to you what you'll let them, anyway. Because you're useful like that.
Bonne chance!
My great-great-great grandfather arrived in the United States from Ireland in 1847. He didn't genocide anyone, he escaped genocide. That's bold.
The TPP is a collectivist endeavor tending toward the formation of world government. That's your wish, not mine. More doublethink on your part.
Your irrelevant but quack-quack-quackingly fascinating family anecdotes are a testament to your duckspeaking abilities.
Just because your family (may have for all I know) quietly swept in behind John Chivington doesn't mean they didn't see the benefits of all the theft and murdering; it certainly doesn't change how your favoured era of genocide went down on the whole. And I don't recall reading many stories of freshly escaped from genocide immigrated Europeans picking up their easily accessed weapons to remedy the stealing and murdering
But how dare you pretend to know what I wish? You who apparently think socialism, communism, and Government are synonyms! I mean what's a BA worth these days where you are to?
C U Next Tuesday!
when was the last time you had your assed kicked GW ?
i am guessing it's been a while.......keep running it...it'll happen soon.
Depends on what you mean by "assed kicked" (sic)
"i am guessing it's been a while.......keep running it...it'll happen soon."
Hold your breath then.
Who is this "GW" you type of?
Ass kicked..assed kicked....if you don't know what that is ....how old are you? ...you said it's been a while....was it your ma?
@Billy The Poet
You have a BA in following orders. Aka doing well in the school "system" formerly called compulsion.
America pffft wrote the constitution while liberty loving souls were busy stealing Indian lands and owning black slaves.
You probably live in a western country that practises neo feudalism and has ggenerous public and corporate welfare.
But yeah i believe you. You'd give it all up in a heartbeat. (Which you could but you don't Hobbes worked out why in Leviathian) you don't because what you would get out is less than this terrible system.
Disclaimer i am a communist. Just to clue you in not sure if you have read Marx he loved capitalism except. *drumroll* he suggested worker's own the means of production. That is worker's own the productive enterprise or capital. That is worker's should be capitalists and not just serfs to oligarchs and connected people.
I don't care tbh there is one principle that seems to rise over and over. Might is Right.
America pffft wrote the constitution while liberty loving souls were busy stealing Indian lands and owning black slaves.
That was a violations of the liberty of the Indians and the blacks. But you don't care for liberty so why would you care if their rights were violated? Seems like you want it both ways -- the Indians and slaves should have liberty but no one else should.
Just to clue you in not sure if you have read Marx he loved capitalism except. *drumroll* he suggested worker's own the means of production.
Unions spend a billion dollars every election cycle in an effort to control those who own the means of production politically but for some reason they never use that money to simply buy the means of production.
Of course in a Communist system in which no individual owns anything it isn't possible for a worker to own the means of production, that blessing is only bestowed upon the group as a whole as represented by the government or the party. Only a system based on liberty allows an individual worker to own and fully control his own means of production.
Money is what corrupts Liberty. How the CORRUPTION took wings>>>
https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/the-corrupt-federal-...
A medium of exchange and a store of wealth are essential to any economy which would function in the long term. Moralizing about the proclivities of particular individuals does not change the obvious utility of money.
It does not occur to people who support these positive "rights" that what they are doing is basically bribing people for votes. I explained that Bernie Sanders is bribing people with government entitlements for votes, and a Bernie supporter just replied, "so you think he is bribing people because he holds liberal values? get out."
Agree. Bribery permeates the whole system of government.
My first thought was that politics should be a limited sacrifice for your country not a life time career. But I'm not sure that would stop corruption with any significance. My second thought was its the out of control debt thats the problem. It feels like we're headed toward a time when the govt would prefer for you to work (and pay more taxes) up until the day you die. But I think ultimately liberty dies by a thousand cuts. The media propaganda, the govt involvement in drugs, the constant fake or "sponsored "bogey-man...Al Qaida, ISIS. The govt agenda to pit conservative vs liberal, rich vs poor, black vs white...Now you have the president making laws that don't even go through congress. Whats the opposite of liberty? Serfdom? Bondage?
First, you have to realize that the surface of the planet is the first level in hell.
There are many sublevels.
Liberty never had a chance.
That's what they want you to think. When the time comes it will be much easier than you think.
If there is an anti-clickbait,...
Tibor is the best. Pure and clear and concise. Like a speech before battle.
Got me.
Grumpy Marxism is Conflict Theory of Economics. By the process of dialectical materialism the 1%ers have taken all the disposable income of all for the last 40 years. Marx was right, and the masses will overthrow the so-called 'rich' as soon as TBTF lights the fuse over at JPMorgan Chase, or Goldman Sachs.
Don't ever forget that Fuld thought he was an invincible American Investment banker that was exceptional to the point of infalliblity like the Pope, eh.
Jamie Dimon & Lloyd Blankfein are performing like Kim Kardashian's ass IMHO.
Its not the lies. Its that we fall for them.
There is this thing. The big kids are suposed to look out for the smaller ones. In the same light the sharper ones have a similar duty to look out too.
TV, Hollywood and the rest of the media condition the sheep to believe the lies, red white and blue and all the other crap.
Conservatives, which I am one of them, foolishly believe that Megan Kelly was the problem not Fox/Murdoch and TV in general. It is all shit, lites, propaganda and brainwashing.
TV, Newspapers and Hollywood just made the sheep easily compliant.. They use these soft methid to control the sheep. In some cases a few targeted murders and false flags gets them back in line. This contrasts with say the Zolsheviks mass murder of 30 million Christians in Russia/Ukraine. If they had TV then they may not have had to murder so many but those dual citizen non-Christian Bolsheviks orginally from NYC, Germany, London like to muder and kill.
This is the same as the mass murder of Europeans and Americans plus other innocents in Asia/ME in various and endless banksters wars.
Hhundreds of years of European wars by banksters culling millions of Christians.
A phony USA Civil war that killed 1.1 million Christians and unleased dual shitizen red shield carpet baggers on the south. One main target to steal and control was textiles and cotton plus tobacco And every other (bankster) war you can think off.
TV, Hollywood, newspapers and other media control the people to enlist in wars for their own suicide. This is how strong and pervasive thought control is. Sign up and enlist to go murder and be murdered.
Find on youtube some of the speeches Charles Lindberg gave against the banksters wars. They smeared him as an isolationist, traitor and murdered his baby to shut him up. He sounds like Ron Paul on steroids. Amazing stuff. He was a real patriot.
Megan who? I thought you didn't watch the monarch project. I'd monitor it if I had time, but business is business. I'm glad you're still auditing this circus. I see what you see.
That's odd. I was singing "One Way Out" by the Allman Bros. I guess that could be the subtitle of the NT as well.
Maybe. But "that man down there, might be your man. I don't know."
That live version on Eat A Peach kicks ass!
Corporations make the decisions. Look no further than Ukrainian debt restructuring -
Ukraine fails to secure debt write-off at US talkshttp://www.rt.com/news/312509-ukraine-debt-talks-california/
From a globalist perspective, nations are the unions of the workers TNCs employ. From here on said "governments" will do a better job, or die.
Kill
"Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the “free” workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are “entitled” only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery... Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
— Vladimir Lenin
Hillary and her perverse, deviant ilk want to be queen bees where there is no hive. And never will be.
-- Monad
I've seen a few obsequious drones in her presence monad.
Miffed
Dear lady, I swear by all flowers, we are not bees. We are the men the God we cannot possibly understand, made.
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." — Vladimir Lenin
And the only thing that stands against that pronouncement is all of recorded history.
Case in point. To graduate high school now, students are required to do many hours of volunteer labor.
Government-coerced slave labor.
There was a time when the high school kids bagged groceries, mowed yards and picked up garbage. Now, those jobs have become the "jobs that Americans don't want." The kids spend their lives in their parents' basements and the hard work and innovation that made this country thrive is out the window.
You're late but you're catching up.
Eugene O'Neill attended Princeton University in the oughts for one year. He was probably expelled because he allegedly threw a beer bottle at or through the window of Professor Woodrow Wilson.
Oo rah.
Author must understand that by imposing on people definition of what freedom means, he is denying the freedom of sovereign man of choosing what freedom is, exactly the freedom he is talking about, leading us into logical dead end.
Anyone's freedom infringes on other's freedom unless you buy western move mantra, of unlimited opportunities supported by unlimited resources, that no longer even applies.
According to author's logic when there are less people around there is more chances for freedom since it is harder to infringe upon the others freedom while natural resources are plentiful per capita. Unfortunately it has been disproved by historical record showing that propensity to infringing on others’ freedom (slavery) is well-established in human society regardless availability of natural resources.
Concept of freedom is social and political and always will mean something different to different people no mater what political propaganda want us to uniformly believe.
Author unfortunately did not escape that trap of political “isms”, socialism, capitalism etc., meaningless words prostituted by anyone in power that bring nothing to the debate on government and social order.
There is one fact, which cannot be denied, that we’re social creatures and that’s probably why we are still around and may be that’s why we will go extinct in near historical future.
Anyone's freedom infringes on other's freedom unless you buy western move mantra, of unlimited opportunities supported by unlimited resources, that no longer even applies.
You're confusing positive rights with negative rights just as Tibor warned against. Only if you believe that you have a right to a particular amount of scarce goods or services can your statement be true. But no one has such a right.
Natural rights consist solely of the right of the individual to not be physically harmed by another or to not have his property damaged or stolen. Your right not to be injured in no way conflicts with my right not to be injured. In fact, our rights reinforce each other as we have reason to come together voluntarily in common cause to secure those rights.
There is one fact, which cannot be denied, that we’re social creatures and that’s probably why we are still around and may be that’s why we will go extinct in near historical future.
We'll go extinct if people continue to believe that social creatures require herding and thinning rather than the freedom to engage in voluntary interaction. Free association binds society and not involuntary compliance.
Eternal vigilance, indeed.
People these days need to learn how to
1. analyze
2. read and write properly (spelling included)
3. debate
4. understand math and know when they are hearing bullshit like Obama winning 100 percent of more than one precinct at a time....
5. research ideas and make educated judgments about information instead of just accepting others sayings (Ie folks who talk about 'tax cuts for the rich' but can't speak a word past the bumper sticker slogan)
In short....THINK!
I think #5 is critical though. Too many folks have been brainwashed into the fake left-right paradigm.
Love the graphics by the way. Is that Kim Jong Hillary on the end there? The jowls kinda look similar.
Don't forget accuracy of language. The government says that it can bomb people for their "freedom" or force people to purchase certain goods through "free trade." Lots of folks hear things like that and come to the conclusion that freedom and free trade are bad things when in reality they are grossly misrepresented by those who do the opposite of what they say in an attempt to obfuscate and confuse.
The fact of the matter is that freedom is good, we know that, potential oppressors know that and so they cloak their attempts at enslavement in the guise of freedom. Doublespeak by the elites leads to doublethink in the minds of the confused populace.
Billy I need you to be a poet. Express yourself, all the way. This is the root of the problem. Sing loud.
No boy. You need to learn to let people be, and enjoy them as they are, not as TV taught they should be. Live your own life, let others do the same. Get along.
I have a place in my sphincter for Rodan. I have dealt with a lot of french art. Perhaps its because he was the first impressionist to game Americans, bigtime. Or how big he screwed his fellow worthy frog artists. Or his overall anal humor, as it is expressed in his work. Woody Allen might enjoy it but I never did. You figure it out for yourself.
You are an American soldier. The things you value to save your life are your art. Thats the nature of it. The rest is glamorizing your combat, without giving you, the soldier credit. its grotesque, yes?
Then you and I are grotesque to the people we saved. We should just kick it until their domestic enemies arrive.
Do you now understand demoralization? Because the enemy brings concentration camps.
Still, we goy can negotiate. No kikes went to either front. FU ConocoKissinger
Fight or die
Sun Tzu suggests that winning without fighting is the best method.
Which is why the kikes are outsmarting you.
The complaints about the kikes are voluminous around here. A LOT of very outsmarted people obviously hang out here. My condolences.
Me? I'm from the Milton Friedman/Ludwig von Mieses school of kikes.
When you can, thats good. Obie & Sharpton are your examples. Snail works. We the just, can eradicate all opposition, slomo. You already know this. But we aren't dealing with the just... Historically, Europeans prefer poison. I personally prefer aerodynamic incendiary warfare.
You'll get all of it.
BTW I hate rapists. They don't get a trial. They get me. I buried several of your apologetic hassidic POS. IME Kike males are as likely to rape as arabs = pimps, and the females are just as often saddists. Yellen looks like a goblin. They all do. They aren't homo sapiens. Mutants. 30" wide hips as in 80" waistline, 36" @ shoulders? WTF are you? So many on campus these days.
You're in a world of shit. You went off the rule of law. Now its my law.
Suck it.
Rodan is a giant flying dinosaur like beastie that shoots rays out of his mouth from Godzilla movies.
Auguste Rodin is a dead Frenchie artiste.
Look at his work.
Not only have they never named the price
That is the key. The price is never named
LET IT BE KNOWN as of December 1, 2014, under the court decision of August 25, 2014 that convicted the United States Corporation and their officers of fraud, extortion, human trafficking, involuntary servitude, murder, high treason, and crimes against humanity, all corporate governmental, judicial and enforcement powers and authority are revoked and nullified and all such personnel are hereby ordered to immediately STAND DOWN.
Any further corporate governmental intervention into any matter regarding any activity in any of the several states related to the Respublica of Earth, United States of America is now considered a Breach of the Peace.
LET IT BE FURTHER KNOWN that anyone disregarding this ORDER is considered personally liable for acts leading criminality against the People and faces immediate arrest and detainment by the Court of Ages, Earth District Natural Law Peace Officers deputized by the Court which includes all militia and National Guard.
http://www.courtofages.com/usa-orders.html
http://www.courtofages.com/intl-orders.html
http://www.courtofages.com/documents.html
Clint Eastwood in -The Outlaw Josey Wales - 1976
This scene sums it up for me -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tx5LAhQFpo
Love that scene.
Eternal vigilance and clear thinking are required, but so are times when you shoot the oppresive bastards in the guts and finish them with a bayonet to the chest.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Jefferson
Oh, YAWN. An individual cannot be sovereign without the control of those resources necessary for survival: the farmer's land, the tradesman's tools, the fundamental means of self-support without becoming the slave, whether in law or in economic fact, of another. No employee who is not sufficiently well-paid to be able to say "Take this job and shove it," is free. And so long as the majority of employees are in debt up to their ears for the funds necessary to remain employed under the dictatorial terms of employers, there is no freedom for the working classes. And there is no way for them to accumulate sufficient resources to obtain freedom, so long as long-winded and patronizing elites suck up not only every spare nickel, but every penny that may be earned out for the next three decades, like a super-charged vaccum cleaner.
It's amazing how well France was able to function after the near-elimination of their aristocracy and upper church hierarchy in 1789. If those people had actually been the "productive", "creative", or "essential" classes, the Revolution wouldn't have been nearly so easy. But the fact is that while aristocrats BECOME aristocrats in the beginning by being the finest examples of what their societies most require, by three centuries out their descendants are . . . Kardashians. Or as the Nazis said in a different context, "useless eaters."
Eat the rich. Redistribute their gazillions to the best of the working classes -- those with skills in trades and experience in making the most out of scarce resources. That's where you'll find a nation's productive potential, not in the windbags and hot-air projectors on the marketing and venture capital circuits. And yes, I'm talking about Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Oh, YAWN.
Perhaps if you didn't sleep through class you might understand the subject better. Liberty means that no individual has the moral authority to hurt you or take your property. Disliking one's job or other conditions in one's life can not be equated with a lack of liberty.
It's amazing how well France was able to function after the near-elimination of their aristocracy and upper church hierarchy in 1789.
If you liked the hyperinflation, poverty and food riots which occurred in late 18th century France you'll love the Fourth Turning. Careful what you wish for, Robespierre.
Eat the rich. Redistribute their gazillions to the best of the working classes
Are you an American or citizen of another modern Western nation? If so you have vastly more wealth than the residents of third world nations. When you give everything you own to the aborigines and bushmen we'll know that you aren't a hypocrite. Until then you're just another rich, hypocritical communist wannabe.
It took Governments around the world to bring an end to slavery and child labour.
The businessman, with his eye on the bottom line, would never do such a thing.
Bankers have demonstrated why un-regulated free markets are a utopian fantasy.
We de-regulated banks and trusted bankers and they rigged every market they could.
We removed the 1930s legislation designed to prevent another 1929 and they did it again in 2008.
We can thank the bankers for reminding us of the necessity of legislation and why it was enacted in the first place.
There is lots of financial regulation because bankers are incompetent, unscrupulous and entirely without morals.
Are Libertarians:
a) Naive
b) Deluded
c) Both of the above
The rich man’s freedom – to spend his money as he chooses.
Western market reforms were imposed on Russia that bought chaos, created the oligarchs and left the majority with next to nothing.
The majority now had the Western freedom to do what they wanted, but didn't have the money to do anything at all (even eat in a lot of cases).
The Russians had been shown the hollowness of Western freedoms if you have no money and the grass is no longer greener on the other side of the fence.
Putin bought an end to the chaos and restored order.
Putin now has approval ratings of over 80% something most Western leaders can only dream of.
The Libertarian freedom of spending your money as you choose is a rich man's freedom.
When the poor always outnumber the rich it can never work in a democracy.
Libertarian ideas require a dictatorship.
Such is life in Jewmerica. Antarctica is for exiling Jews.
Antarctica is SG only, so hands off, as Admiral Byrd found out. What is really in question is the nature of 'Free Will', which isn't a freebie here in Purgatory, but rather something one earns the old fashioned way, through hard 'work'.
All of these type of articles are for the sheeple, to keep them riled up and anger and willing to give up that free will, that they have innately, but haven't yet 'awakened' and realized.... Sleeping Beauty analogy... from Dune: "The Sleeper Must Awaken", etc.... There is a method to the apparent madness. Only a few percent ever 'graduate' from this situation, thus it resets and repeats over and over again. The universe is but a school for self-conscious awakening, 'God' playing with Itself, so naturally everyone and everything is 'equal' innately, but completely not so in terms of self-conscious awareness, which is all life is really about. 'Some take the high road, some take the low road'... but it isn't whether one is a hare or a turtle, but rather whether one is awake and aware or not. Our brains are setup for pattern recognition, so thusly in our lives, the patterns repeat and repeat... like lessons in school. Half of humanity just got here, so to speak, while the other half is expected to 'wake up' and smell the roses... but watch for those thorns, what good is a lesson if it's too easy? Purgatory is Earth as Eden after the Fall, the Dark side rules here, thus the pattern of the rise and fall of every civilization... they are the obstacle course, choose to join them or choose to join the 'other' team, it's all up to us, but that Choice can only be made after we wake up and realize WTF is going on and why... knowledge is power.