Monday, May 12, 2008
Jewish nationalist plot to obstruct Justice thickens
Here is an excellent article from the Homo Sapien Underground blog, about how Israel supporters are working to bury the esponiage case against AIPAC officials using money from the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
The Industrial Devolution
The phenomenon occurring in the West can best be described as the Industrial Devolution, exactly the opposite process that occurred in the Industrial Revolution. Rather than wages increasing, capital accumulating, and manufacturing expanding, real wages are declining, peoples' capital is being whittled away through consumption, and the manufacturing base is disappearing.
Let's look at what is happening to America in more detail:
Since 1971, real median income for the 25-34 demographic has actually declined. This effectively means that despite all of the new technologies created since 1971, things like the internet, mobile phones, and multi-GHz computer processors, the lives of this generations' young are harder than they were for the young that lived in 1971.
The average savings rate has reached historical lows, now in the negative. This can be seen in the following chart:
People are spending more than they have, to buy products from merchants based in East Asia. East Asia is under going its own industrial revolution, complete with rising standards of living, mobility, and increased life expectancy, while America is traveling the road to serfdom.
Every election cycle more plans to fix what previous plans created are peddled by the same political class. These plans are enriching the political class like never before:
Meanwhile political ignorance is overwhelming the ability of the populace to control its destiny.
Every cycle, a new savior is peddled by the political class, be it Obama, Clinton, or McCain, offering a different version of economic salvation, while promoting policies that fundamentally are exactly the same as that of their predecessors, with the only difference between them being cosmetic. Meanwhile, Washington's dirty little secret is ignored:
When someone like Ron Paul does arrive, someone who tells the truth and offers the correct prescription, he is systematically sidelined by the media, who have long ago cross-pollinated with the political class:
The forces that have overtaken the West stem from our own failure to maintain cultural harmony. We have pitted ourselves against one another, too fixated on winning the various political/social blood feuds we find ourselves in to look out for the national interest. We have tried, using various ideologies -be they black empowerment, feminism, environmentalism, evangelism, conservatism, or multi-culturalism- to find absolution, but none have brought America into harmony.
Various forces, each separate and fighting for its own identity, have torn the national identity apart, and turned America's political system into a sad farce.
The question is, what is the answer? How do we stop the devolution? Every one is too paranoid to become a follower of someone else's movement, but perhaps the ideology of liberty provides the room needed for big egos to coexist. The Ron Paul movement only asks that you respect others' liberty, social and economic, for the same from others in return, and this mutual respect binds its followers. Perhaps this sort of flexible and tolerant ideology is what can allow America to regain its national vigor, and propel America to another golden age of expansion.
Let's look at what is happening to America in more detail:
Since 1971, real median income for the 25-34 demographic has actually declined. This effectively means that despite all of the new technologies created since 1971, things like the internet, mobile phones, and multi-GHz computer processors, the lives of this generations' young are harder than they were for the young that lived in 1971.
The average savings rate has reached historical lows, now in the negative. This can be seen in the following chart:
People are spending more than they have, to buy products from merchants based in East Asia. East Asia is under going its own industrial revolution, complete with rising standards of living, mobility, and increased life expectancy, while America is traveling the road to serfdom.
Every election cycle more plans to fix what previous plans created are peddled by the same political class. These plans are enriching the political class like never before:
Washington is all about the money, he writes. In 2005, the Census Bureau listed seven suburban counties around the capital as among the 20 richest in the country. And it’s not just Republicans cashing in on their service. “Upon leaving office,” he notes, “more than half of the senior officials in the Clinton administration became corporate lobbyists.”
-New York Times
Meanwhile political ignorance is overwhelming the ability of the populace to control its destiny.
Every cycle, a new savior is peddled by the political class, be it Obama, Clinton, or McCain, offering a different version of economic salvation, while promoting policies that fundamentally are exactly the same as that of their predecessors, with the only difference between them being cosmetic. Meanwhile, Washington's dirty little secret is ignored:
When someone like Ron Paul does arrive, someone who tells the truth and offers the correct prescription, he is systematically sidelined by the media, who have long ago cross-pollinated with the political class:
"For a variety of reasons, some of them are obvious and some of them are mysterious, Ron Paul gets less coverage than he does raise money, and he gets less coverage than he gets votes. We can go on and on about this. There is no doubt, it’s an objective fact, that the press has decided Ron Paul is not a viable candidate."
-Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism
The forces that have overtaken the West stem from our own failure to maintain cultural harmony. We have pitted ourselves against one another, too fixated on winning the various political/social blood feuds we find ourselves in to look out for the national interest. We have tried, using various ideologies -be they black empowerment, feminism, environmentalism, evangelism, conservatism, or multi-culturalism- to find absolution, but none have brought America into harmony.
Various forces, each separate and fighting for its own identity, have torn the national identity apart, and turned America's political system into a sad farce.
The question is, what is the answer? How do we stop the devolution? Every one is too paranoid to become a follower of someone else's movement, but perhaps the ideology of liberty provides the room needed for big egos to coexist. The Ron Paul movement only asks that you respect others' liberty, social and economic, for the same from others in return, and this mutual respect binds its followers. Perhaps this sort of flexible and tolerant ideology is what can allow America to regain its national vigor, and propel America to another golden age of expansion.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SECONDS FROM NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST
“USS LIBERTY” was clearly painted on her stern. There could be no mistake as to who we were. Israel knew we were American and we knew we had been identified as American and friendly as the Israelis themselves have since admitted. They plotted us on their war table and made positive ID of our ship as the LIBERTY.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Most Evil Thing in the World
We know of a lot of evils in this world: US support for Saddam in the 1980's and the subsequent lies to get the US to invade Iraq in the 2000's, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet Gulags, the 18th century slave trade, etc, but none of them in my mind compare to something that is being carried out right now: the Social Security and Medicare scam.
How could I compare mass murder to the mismanagement of government retirement/health-care funds you ask? In the same way I compare the slave trade of the 18th century to that carried by the Roman empire 2000 years ago and conclude that the 18th century slave trade was a greater evil despite the one of the Roman Empire having been carried out on a far greater scale. I see it as the greater shortcoming of humanity relative to its moral potential at the time of the event. The 18th century civilization that had the capability to create Thomas Paine's Rights of Man and John Locke's belief in the equality of man is expected to function at a higher moral plane than that of Roman antiquity.
In this light, what is being done right now, as we speak, to every single American, is unfathomably evil. Every single day, this evil is being carried out, with the implicit consent of the majority of the population.
The government, under the guise of social welfare, has demanded that every individual hand over a portion of their income to the government Social Security Trust and Medicare Trust. Trillions of dollars have been taken by force -at the threat imprisonment- from millions of people, in the most developed and democratic nation in the world, the original Constitutional Republic.
The justification given for this violation of the citizens' individual liberty has been that the good that would come from the Social Security and Medicare programs would so outweigh the evil of using coercion, that on the balance it would be morally acceptable.
Instead, every year, as we speak, politicians, with the help of hundreds of thousands of their campaign aids, volunteers, and supportive media organizations, have been spending that Social Security and Medicare money on other programs, making it mathematically impossible for the United States government to ever provide Social Security and Medicare payments to all the people who were forced to contribute to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
Watch this video in which the Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, says that the present Social Security and Medicare obligations of the government are impossible to fulfill due to decades of fiscal irresponsibility by politicians:
A nation that has a free press, the strongest and longest tradition of liberty and equal justice of any nation in the world, the most advanced communication network in the world, 24 hour news channels, and the greatest number of computers connected to the internet, is in effect watching passively, with eyes wide shut, as the political class steals in slow motion from generations of Americans. Over several decades, millions of people are being condemned to die a slow and painful death in poverty when they are too old and sick to work.
A nation as advanced as the United States has the benefit of having at its disposal a comprehensive record of human history and its many tragedies, as well as its many moral triumphs, to study and learn from, and yet it is simply consenting to this vile evil being carried out. Nothing in my mind is as evil as this.
How could I compare mass murder to the mismanagement of government retirement/health-care funds you ask? In the same way I compare the slave trade of the 18th century to that carried by the Roman empire 2000 years ago and conclude that the 18th century slave trade was a greater evil despite the one of the Roman Empire having been carried out on a far greater scale. I see it as the greater shortcoming of humanity relative to its moral potential at the time of the event. The 18th century civilization that had the capability to create Thomas Paine's Rights of Man and John Locke's belief in the equality of man is expected to function at a higher moral plane than that of Roman antiquity.
In this light, what is being done right now, as we speak, to every single American, is unfathomably evil. Every single day, this evil is being carried out, with the implicit consent of the majority of the population.
The government, under the guise of social welfare, has demanded that every individual hand over a portion of their income to the government Social Security Trust and Medicare Trust. Trillions of dollars have been taken by force -at the threat imprisonment- from millions of people, in the most developed and democratic nation in the world, the original Constitutional Republic.
The justification given for this violation of the citizens' individual liberty has been that the good that would come from the Social Security and Medicare programs would so outweigh the evil of using coercion, that on the balance it would be morally acceptable.
Instead, every year, as we speak, politicians, with the help of hundreds of thousands of their campaign aids, volunteers, and supportive media organizations, have been spending that Social Security and Medicare money on other programs, making it mathematically impossible for the United States government to ever provide Social Security and Medicare payments to all the people who were forced to contribute to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
Watch this video in which the Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, says that the present Social Security and Medicare obligations of the government are impossible to fulfill due to decades of fiscal irresponsibility by politicians:
A nation that has a free press, the strongest and longest tradition of liberty and equal justice of any nation in the world, the most advanced communication network in the world, 24 hour news channels, and the greatest number of computers connected to the internet, is in effect watching passively, with eyes wide shut, as the political class steals in slow motion from generations of Americans. Over several decades, millions of people are being condemned to die a slow and painful death in poverty when they are too old and sick to work.
A nation as advanced as the United States has the benefit of having at its disposal a comprehensive record of human history and its many tragedies, as well as its many moral triumphs, to study and learn from, and yet it is simply consenting to this vile evil being carried out. Nothing in my mind is as evil as this.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Ron Paul says politicians afraid of AIPAC
Ron Paul speaking at the Arab American Institute Conference:
Watch the clip at the 9:50 minute mark of this video:
The sad part is, there is the get out of Iraq caucus, which is made up of really really hardcore left democrats, and many of them from the black caucus, and yet when they come up with some of these resolution, even they capitulate, and I ask them "you know this is war propaganda?" and they say "I know I know, but there's a limit how much we can take on AIPAC. There's just a limit to what we can do." They will back off.
Watch the clip at the 9:50 minute mark of this video:
Friday, February 8, 2008
The Wall Street Journal and Ron Paul
The Wall Street Journal has been known, for a while now, to be one of the main pillars of the neocon/Israeli-lobby propaganda machine. It was one of the principal media organizations behind the drumming up of support for the invasion of Iraq, and it has recently published several articles from the warmongering godfather of neoconservatism, Norman Podhoretz, urging the US to bomb Iran rather than use diplomacy.
One of their columnists, Bret Stephens, recently wrote a commentary attacking Ron Paul's policy of non-interventionism and libertarianism is general.
In it he calls Ron Paul "fringe", his position one borne of "libertarian conceit", and his followers "cult-like". He defends the current US policy of interventionism and especially continued US aid to Israel and military interventionism in the affairs of Israel's neighbors.
Bret Stephens is a Jewish neoconservative and former editor and chief for the right wing Israeli paper the 'Jerusalem Post'. When John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University published their groundbreaking work "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", Bret Stephens, predictably, was one of its main critics.
The Wall Street Journal is an important facet of the Israeli lobby's propaganda efforts and its attack on Ron Paul is part of this effort to promote pro-Israeli interventionist US foreign policy.
Here are a few of the ridiculous arguments made by Stephens to try to discredit Ron Paul's policy position:
1) The fight against the Barbary pirates was extremely limited compared to the 700+ American military bases in 130 countries, plus the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan that is going on today. One can't compare a small naval incursion against pirate bases to decade long occupations involving half a million troops. Get real.
2) The tanker wars of the 1980's were a DIRECT result of American sponsorship of Iraq in its war against Iran. Even if we were to accept that a tanker wars scenario could happen in a world where the US didn't intervene every where, protecting those tankers is a far cry from 700+ military bases in 130 countries, with half a million American troops.
3) World War 1 was a completely unnecessary war that did not serve America's national interest. It served the narrow interests of the banks that, according to the Nye Committee, loaned Great Britain 85 times more than they loaned Germany (and therefore did not want the UK to lose the war). American intervention in WW1 cost America over a hundred thousand lives and led to the Versailles Treaty, which led to World War 2.
Private mercenaries should protect those Americans who trade in foreign countries. One can't expect the American government to protect American enterprises that go to dangerous foreign nations to do business. That would be, in essence, socializing the risk of international business. If foreign nations are obstructing international trade routes, then that is a job that the US navy can take care of. No foreign military bases or decade long occupations are needed to keep international water ways open. This is a ridiculous argument and justification for America's current policy of interventionism.
As far as mercenaries being "authorized to build aircraft carriers, Aegis cruisers and nuclear submarines", no absolutely not. The American government should not sanction or give access to proprietory American military technology to any mercenaries contracted by US nationals in foreign countries. If an American wants to do business in a foreign nation, the American government should have no authority to aid him/her in any way.
That's absolute nonsense. Libertarianism makes no assumptions about human nature, it makes simple declarations about the rights of man. One does not have a right to force someone else to contribute money to the protection of a foreign interest. It's as simple as that. All of this philosophical bullshit about nihilism and "the quest for prestige and dominance" has nothing to do with this discussion.
Who said any thing about pacifism? The libertarian does not argue against fighting, but against forcing, by government mandate, every citizen to bear the costs of foreign adventures that do not serve the purpose of furthering national security.
I'm not surprised that Bret Stephens completely misses the argument for a non-interventionist foreign policy and uses weak spurious historical analogies to counter Ron Paul. A weak argument such as his cannot stand the light of honest scrutiny.
One of their columnists, Bret Stephens, recently wrote a commentary attacking Ron Paul's policy of non-interventionism and libertarianism is general.
In it he calls Ron Paul "fringe", his position one borne of "libertarian conceit", and his followers "cult-like". He defends the current US policy of interventionism and especially continued US aid to Israel and military interventionism in the affairs of Israel's neighbors.
Bret Stephens is a Jewish neoconservative and former editor and chief for the right wing Israeli paper the 'Jerusalem Post'. When John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University published their groundbreaking work "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", Bret Stephens, predictably, was one of its main critics.
The Wall Street Journal is an important facet of the Israeli lobby's propaganda efforts and its attack on Ron Paul is part of this effort to promote pro-Israeli interventionist US foreign policy.
Here are a few of the ridiculous arguments made by Stephens to try to discredit Ron Paul's policy position:
Dr. Paul's own remedy is that if "we trade with everybody and talk with them . . . there's a greater incentive to work these problems out." But here's a rub.
As historian Michael Oren observes in "Power, Faith and Fantasy," his history of America's 230-year involvement in the Middle East, as early as the 1790s "many Americans had grown dismayed with the country's Middle East policy of admonishing the [Barbary] pirates while simultaneously coddling them with bribes." It was precisely out of a desire to "trade with everybody" that the early American republic was forced to build a navy, and then to go to war, to defend its commercial interests, a pattern that held true in World War I and the Persian Gulf "Tanker War" of the 1980s.
1) The fight against the Barbary pirates was extremely limited compared to the 700+ American military bases in 130 countries, plus the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan that is going on today. One can't compare a small naval incursion against pirate bases to decade long occupations involving half a million troops. Get real.
2) The tanker wars of the 1980's were a DIRECT result of American sponsorship of Iraq in its war against Iran. Even if we were to accept that a tanker wars scenario could happen in a world where the US didn't intervene every where, protecting those tankers is a far cry from 700+ military bases in 130 countries, with half a million American troops.
3) World War 1 was a completely unnecessary war that did not serve America's national interest. It served the narrow interests of the banks that, according to the Nye Committee, loaned Great Britain 85 times more than they loaned Germany (and therefore did not want the UK to lose the war). American intervention in WW1 cost America over a hundred thousand lives and led to the Versailles Treaty, which led to World War 2.
These details of history pose a problem not just to Dr. Paul's views of the Middle East, but to the intellectual architecture of libertarianism itself. Liberal societies are built on the belief in (and defense of) individual rights, but also on the overawing power of government to transform natural rights into civil ones. In the same way, trade between nations is only possible in the absence of robbers, pirates and other rogues. Whose job is it to get rid of them?
A strict libertarian might offer that mercenaries could be authorized to build aircraft carriers, Aegis cruisers and nuclear submarines to keep the freedom of the seas in the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca. But what happens when the pecuniary interests of mercenaries collide with the political interests of the U.S. or some other government? Ultimately, some kind of decisive power is needed there too, at least if the trading opportunities libertarians claim are so precious stand any chance of flourishing.
Private mercenaries should protect those Americans who trade in foreign countries. One can't expect the American government to protect American enterprises that go to dangerous foreign nations to do business. That would be, in essence, socializing the risk of international business. If foreign nations are obstructing international trade routes, then that is a job that the US navy can take care of. No foreign military bases or decade long occupations are needed to keep international water ways open. This is a ridiculous argument and justification for America's current policy of interventionism.
As far as mercenaries being "authorized to build aircraft carriers, Aegis cruisers and nuclear submarines", no absolutely not. The American government should not sanction or give access to proprietory American military technology to any mercenaries contracted by US nationals in foreign countries. If an American wants to do business in a foreign nation, the American government should have no authority to aid him/her in any way.
Mankind is not comprised solely of profit- and pleasure-seekers; the quest for prestige and dominance and an instinct for nihilism are also inscribed in human nature, nowhere more so than in the Middle East. Libertarianism makes no accounting for this. It assumes the relatively tame aspirations of modern American life are a baseline for human nature, not an achievement of civilization.
That's absolute nonsense. Libertarianism makes no assumptions about human nature, it makes simple declarations about the rights of man. One does not have a right to force someone else to contribute money to the protection of a foreign interest. It's as simple as that. All of this philosophical bullshit about nihilism and "the quest for prestige and dominance" has nothing to do with this discussion.
There is a not-incidental connection here between libertarianism and pacifism. George Orwell once observed that pacifism is a doctrine that can only be preached behind the protective cover of the Royal Navy. Similarly, libertarianism can only be seriously espoused under the protective cover of Leviathan.
Who said any thing about pacifism? The libertarian does not argue against fighting, but against forcing, by government mandate, every citizen to bear the costs of foreign adventures that do not serve the purpose of furthering national security.
I'm not surprised that Bret Stephens completely misses the argument for a non-interventionist foreign policy and uses weak spurious historical analogies to counter Ron Paul. A weak argument such as his cannot stand the light of honest scrutiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)