Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT

[Hans Olo]

(02-14-2012 08:21 PM)sitra11ahra Wrote:  I dont defend collectivism, but dont we have as a species a biological imperative for it?

No, we don't.

Quote:Most if not all of our ancestors lived in collectivist societies.

They are all dead.

Quote:I mean it could explain why as was elaborated on the videos that even though our founding fathers put in the appropriate provisions to protect the rights of the individual we have still gotten closer and closer to a totalitarian state.

That's because a small state always grows itself.

Quote:And another thing that kind of confused me was that throughout the video he seemed to put a lot emphases on the needs of the individual being more important then that of the masses. I definitely agree that we have certain rights that we are endowed with at birth and that the state by no means should have power to deny us those, but what are those rights?

How about the right to life, liberty and property.

Quote:Does a corporation like monsanto have the right to poison our food with pestisides in order to maximize profits while we (the consumer) being the majority just has to sit and take it because this corporate entity has the appropiate amount of funds to protect it's interest?

No, we are suffering from Monsanto because GOVERNMENT protects it from being sued into oblivion by the people who have been harmed.

Quote:Like if there were a town and out on their borders there lived a small cult that partook in cannibalism should they still be heard from even if the majority of the town's people didnt agree with their practice?

Life, liberty and property. Cannibalism is taking someone's life against their will, violating their rights.

Quote:And how could a complete democracy lead to a totalitarian state any more than a democratic republic could or already has?

Democracy = rule by majority. Republic = rule by law.

Quote:He's right that with too much collectivism we get totalitarianism, but I feel at the same time too little government control in the right areas such as business leads to a plutocracy.

You feel?

Quote:the only reason minimum wage had to be established in the beginning is because certain individuals had amassed so much wealth and control that they were in a position where they could pay dirt and get away with it and the majority for a long time was helpless to stop it.

Minimum wage didn't HAVE to be established, you're already starting the sentence wrong. Your theory lacks basic understanding of economics. Even if you're rich, you still have to pay higher wages than your competitor. Unless GOVERNMENT protects you from said competition. Most of these fortunes you're talking about were created with the unfair help of GOVERNMENT.

Quote:Im not saying government is the answer I just feel that people like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds of the world are a perfect example of what happens when people are allowed to do whatever they want.

They become rich and prosperous?

Quote:People have the capacity for both good and bad and most of the time we a person's own individualism doesnt start infringing on another person's until it's too late and they're almost too powerful to be stopped.

"We a person's own individualism"? I don't understand what you're saying.

Quote:but I just think people forget what happens under a hardcore republican after having such a hard core democrat in office. They're both bad.

You're right about that, but that doesn't have anything to do with Individualism vs. Collectivist. Both parties are Collectivist in nature, there are only a few individualist politicians, like Ron Paul. Don't get caught in the party spectrum, I urge you not to.

[sitra11ahra]

(02-14-2012 09:09 PM)Hans Olo Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 08:21 PM)sitra11ahra Wrote:  I dont defend collectivism, but dont we have as a species a biological imperative for it?

No, we don't.

Quote:Most if not all of our ancestors lived in collectivist societies.

They are all dead.

Quote:I mean it could explain why as was elaborated on the videos that even though our founding fathers put in the appropriate provisions to protect the rights of the individual we have still gotten closer and closer to a totalitarian state.

That's because a small state always grows itself.

Quote:And another thing that kind of confused me was that throughout the video he seemed to put a lot emphases on the needs of the individual being more important then that of the masses. I definitely agree that we have certain rights that we are endowed with at birth and that the state by no means should have power to deny us those, but what are those rights?

How about the right to life, liberty and property.

Quote:Does a corporation like monsanto have the right to poison our food with pestisides in order to maximize profits while we (the consumer) being the majority just has to sit and take it because this corporate entity has the appropiate amount of funds to protect it's interest?

No, we are suffering from Monsanto because GOVERNMENT protects it from being sued into oblivion by the people who have been harmed.

Quote:Like if there were a town and out on their borders there lived a small cult that partook in cannibalism should they still be heard from even if the majority of the town's people didnt agree with their practice?

Life, liberty and property. Cannibalism is taking someone's life against their will, violating their rights.

Quote:And how could a complete democracy lead to a totalitarian state any more than a democratic republic could or already has?

Democracy = rule by majority. Republic = rule by law.

Quote:He's right that with too much collectivism we get totalitarianism, but I feel at the same time too little government control in the right areas such as business leads to a plutocracy.

You feel?

Quote:the only reason minimum wage had to be established in the beginning is because certain individuals had amassed so much wealth and control that they were in a position where they could pay dirt and get away with it and the majority for a long time was helpless to stop it.

Minimum wage didn't HAVE to be established, you're already starting the sentence wrong. Your theory lacks basic understanding of economics. Even if you're rich, you still have to pay higher wages than your competitor. Unless GOVERNMENT protects you from said competition. Most of these fortunes you're talking about were created with the unfair help of GOVERNMENT.

Quote:Im not saying government is the answer I just feel that people like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds of the world are a perfect example of what happens when people are allowed to do whatever they want.

They become rich and prosperous?

Quote:People have the capacity for both good and bad and most of the time we a person's own individualism doesnt start infringing on another person's until it's too late and they're almost too powerful to be stopped.

"We a person's own individualism"? I don't understand what you're saying.

Quote:but I just think people forget what happens under a hardcore republican after having such a hard core democrat in office. They're both bad.

You're right about that, but that doesn't have anything to do with Individualism vs. Collectivist. Both parties are Collectivist in nature, there are only a few individualist politicians, like Ron Paul. Don't get caught in the party spectrum, I urge you not to.

Yes we do have as a species a biological imperative towards collectivism and up until the end middle ages we have participated in collectivist societies. Just because over the past couple hundred years we've tried to separate ourselves from collectivist ideas (which we obviously havnt been 100% successful at) doesnt mean that we arent still genetically hardwired for it to some extent. And of course our ancestors are dead. Nobody lives forever. And if you mean that the way they existed amongst each other as a society is dead that doesnt mean that the surviving form of society that exists today is any better then the one they had, If anything its worse. In hunting and gathering tribes there was no poverty and everybody had a role to play - if you didnt work you didnt eat. Like I said I do not support a collectivist society in it's entirety and do agree with finding a median. I dont agree with welfare, but I do think that when a person or corporate entity is allowed to grow to a size in which they have influence over the economy as a whole that they should be responsible for those less fortunate. By this I do not mean giving money to those that wont work, but they should be forced to move factory jobs back to our country instead of allowed to exploit cheap labor in other countries just so they can maximize profits. Which goes back to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of the world. Yes they are rich and prosperous, but if their money is spent to ensure they make more by funding war and tyranny throughout the world then I dont care how hard they worked for it. You dont get to make my life worse just to ensure profit.

And you said a small state always grows itself, towards what? Ours have obviously been growing towards collectivism. I dont see how a republic is infallible in any way. If the people in power were to follow the constitution to the T then maybe it would work the way it's supposed too but thats obviously not going to happen.

And you said democracy is rule by the majority where as a republic is rule by law. What good is a law if it does not represent the majority of the people it governs? And a representative is still elected by a majority vote. How is that better? Instead of the people deciding whats good for them they have to rely on an elected official who they can only hope has their best interests at heart.

And as for minimum wage it needed to be established. Businesses competing for workers doesnt mean anything. One business could be offering 2 cents an hour and the other 3, youre still getting paid dirt. Not to mention women and blacks didnt get paid as much as white men so minimum wage also demanded equal pay for all workers. And if businesses regulating themselves through competition was really the case then how do sweatshops still find employees? Why dont they just go to a better paying job?

I guess in the end there is no way for me to prove my standpoint. I dont feel that the needs of the few should ever out way the needs of the many. I do not agree with a republic. I think a direct democracy is good. I dont think business should ever be allowed to grow to a size where it can influence government to take away the rights of people in order to ensure future profits. I dont believe in welfare or communism but I do believe that business should be held directly accountable for the state of the economy and should always have to provide jobs for it's nation of origin before it goes to another. I believe people are born with basic human rights but that doesnt mean that like the rockefellers and rothschilds that they should be allowed to do whatever they feel necessary in order to get rich even if that means hurting others.

And I have no party affiliation and for the most part support ron paul. I was merely pointing out a trend that I have observed in that when we have a democratic president everyone thinks the problem is liberalism, collectivism, socialism, etc and that when we have a republican in office everyone thinks the problem is militarism, fascism, corporatism etc without ever realizing that it is a mix of the two and that the whole point of the system is to display a difference in opinion while masking an overall uniformity.
I dont know I kind of ramble sometimes..

[Negentropic]

Quote:sitra11ahra wrote:

And you said democracy is rule by the majority where as a republic is rule by law. What good is a law if it does not represent the majority of the people it governs?

What do you mean by 'good' ? Where do you get your concepts of good or bad ? What 'good' can possibly come out of what 51 people say as opposed to the other 50 ?

Let's say 5 million and 1 people as opposed to the other 5 million say someone over 18 who had sex with a 12 year old deserved to be castrated in public and have his nuts fed to a Pitbull for breakfast, would that make it 'good' or 'just' ?



I could just as well say what 'good' is a law that DOES represent the majority of the people it governs?

Laws must be scientifically based in order to be 'good' just like anything else. What is 'good' must have a valid, irrefutable reason for being 'good' for the human organism and there is no such thing as a multiple human being or a collective human being, there is only the individual human being, the smallest unit. So, if you are not an ape and can show that you qualify as an individual human you will benefit from laws hopefully based on scientific investigation into the nature of man and human action.

http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf



I'm not a true-believer of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek or anyone of these guys but the Libertarian model of laissez-faire capitalism is the wave of the future, NOT the past. Libertarianism, unfortunately, cannot be established through a democratic system of hypnotized mass-media robots spoon-fed their programming since birth. Not enough of these people will ever wake up, despite the best efforts of everyone on the internet. Furthermore, even if EVERYONE wanted Ron Paul or some such Misesian Libertarian, the powers-that-be would still de-rail him or commit vote-fraud against him. Therefore the current system of massive initiation of force and fraud has to be destroyed and COMPLETELY REJECTED before anything else can be established. This is not a protest against capitalism and not even against STATISM but against FRAUD and initiation of massive force against individual well-being through the state. Hitler already proved that STATISM can work to a remarkable degree as long as it's not dominated by fraudsters. Nevertheless the huge advances that were made in Hitler's Germany in the 5 years of his reign before the war, the elimination of inflation, full employment, 5000 miles of autobahn laid, the inventions of the Jet engine, the first programamble computer, the helicopter, the first binary calculator, night vision technology, nuclear fission, the Volkswagen for 5 marks a week, 720 horse-power Mercedes that broke the land speed record at 268 MPH, etc., owed their success to the capitalistic or free-market aspects of fascism, NOT to the statist aspects. Hitler just kept the BIGGEST INITIATORS OF FORCE the planet has ever seen, THE BIGGEST FRAUDSTERS, which is to say the Jewish International Bankers out of the German citizen's life, so that the 'family business' could be extended to the whole nation, in effect, the ENTIRE NATION becomes the family business. He just made sure that SELF-DEFENSE FORCE was applied against all assholes both domestic and international who tried to get in the way until a proper transition could be made to a truly beneficial system of usury-free and political-rot-free capitalism at a future date, whether Laissez-Faire Libertarian or not, we will never know. What is certain is that scientifically the road of socialism, even if Nationalistic and usury free, does tend to create massive bureaucracies after a while that stifle the standards of living of all individuals within it. In 5 years, Hitler did remarkably well but 5 years is not enough to judge a system as ideal. Therefore, once the economy is saved from the lowest scumbag bandits to ever walk the face of the earth, it can again, through eternal vigilance, practice the hard discipline of freedom.

What the 'good' of the majority always means is the opposite of the 'good' of the minority as they see it. Therefore, the 'good' of the individual, or each individual member of the entire human race, the smallest minority possible is the logical solution and that 'good' can only be determined by each individual themselves, based on their own judgement of what's good or bad for them, as long as it doesn't violate the individual rights of another. By 'violate,' it means initiates force of some kind against another. Fraud is an indirect form of force.

There is nothing wrong with this system when it is kept, above & beyond everything else:

FREE OF USURY & PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE CENTRAL BANK BY JEWS OR ANYONE ELSE

FREE OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE COUNTERFEITING which is a corollary of the private ownership of central banks by International bankster elites

JUST THESE TWO GIGANTIC FRAUDS ALONE ARE A MASSIVE INITIATION OF FORCE INTO THE ECONOMY ABOVE & BEYOND ANY PURELY FASCIST OR NATIONAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE SUCH AS HITLER'S OR MUSSOLINI'S WHICH WAS A REACTION & SELF-DEFENSE FORCE AGAINST THESE FRAUDS & INITIATIONS OF FORCE INTO THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRIES, the surgical knife of fascism which was necessary to cut out the cancer as Ezra Pound called it.

Through these massive and fundamental initiations of force into the economy, a few elite are able use the government to enforce their own interests, protect companies that kiss their asses, buy up media companies to exercise mass manipulation, etc. THEN & ONLY THEN can individuals be manipulated away from their morals en-masse by a few douchebags to act in ways not in their individual best interests by powerful entities such as the mass-media. Then & only then do you have a society becoming increasingly more decadent such as Weimar Germany or the current Jewnited States, which is not just decadent but retarded to a degree the 1920s Germans cannot even begin to imagine.

[CharliePrime]

(09-25-2010 09:13 AM)Negentropic Wrote:  Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time

Is this DVD available as a torrent?

(05-03-2011 11:56 AM)FastTadpole Wrote:  The Corporation - A Voluntaryist's Review (2011)

Thanks FTP!

[Negentropic]

Quote:


http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20332.aspx


Neil replied on Sun, May 8 2011 2:07 PM


Here are some preliminary observations that I was able to dig up regarding the issue of Mises being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. I summarize my observations first and then give all the links and quotes later in this post. Keep in mind that these are all just preliminary observations; I do not have a full thesis statement or theory as of yet to explain it all. And I openly admit that I do a lot of speculating here as well.


1. It was Mises, not the Rockefeller Foundation, who initiated the whole funding process.


2. The Rockefeller Foundation was not too keen on funding Mises initially. Objections were raised because of Mises’s methodological approach to economic science (i.e., he wasn’t empirical and so didn’t fit in with the American approach) and also because of concerns over Mises’s Jewish heritage. It seems as if this methodological issue was an ongoing problem for Mises throughout his life. It might also have been an ongoing concern of the Rockefeller Foundation (possibly, although in 1935 the fund actually seems to contradict this claim).


3. The initial funding was, oddly enough, for studies in the area of “Industrial Hazards and Economic Stabilization.” I am not sure why Mises and allies would be put into a statist area that was openly against competition but they were. Possibly, the Rockefeller Foundation found a solution to this by putting them into a safer area of research regarding “comparative studies.”


4. These Rockefeller Foundation doubts about Mises seemed to fester and in fact got worse and worse over time. There was a group of doubters who openly wanted to cut Mises off from funding. They reduced his funding down to a pittance and eventually ‘fired him.’ They also were fairly candid about all of this.


From Austroliberalism to Anschluss: Oskar Morgenstern and the Viennese economists in the 1930’s by Robert Leonard. The link is:


https://depot.erudit.org/bitstream/00120...006_03.pdf


On page 6, in the section called “Social Planning and Contemporary Civilization,” Leonard writes that it was Mises who approached the Rockefeller Foundation and not the other way around. “Hayek’s memo was part of a campaign begun earlier that year by Mises to attract Rockefeller support.” One page 7, Leonard emphasizes that it was Mises who pushed hard for the Rockefeller funding. Also notice that the Rockefeller Foundation was not too keen on supporting Mises and had all these reservations.


In Vienna, one of the first to seize the Rockefeller opportunity was actually von Mises, who, in 1930, although he viewed social planning and control as antithetical to contemporary civilization, approached Van Sickle for support. The latter sought second opinions elsewhere. At Harvard, Bullock expressed reservations about the excessive Austrian emphasis on theory and deductive methods, as opposed to the empirical methods favoured by the American economists, but he spoke highly of Hayek and Morgenstern and underlined the need to preserve Viennese economics in the face of economic decline and inadequate university salaries.


Apparently, some of the reservations were due to the fact that Mises was Jewish. Keep in mind the context; we are in early 1930s Europe. Continuing on pages 7-8 of Leonard, and note that all the square bracket editorial editions are from the original, not me:


In his professional diary, Rockefeller’s Van Sickle hesitated. He was concerned that it would apparently be only a matter of time before Hayek received a call from elsewhere, and that Mises, who, because of his Jewishness, could never hope to be more than a Privatdozent in Vienna, was supposedly in negotiations with a German university. He wondered about the wisdom of funding in light of “present dissention in the SS [social science] field, and the anti-Jewish feeling [which] would complicate future relations of the RF [Rockefeller Foundation] in Vienna.” However, he was by and large well disposed towards the “very good men in Vienna.” A September dinner with Mises seems to have sealed the affair, and in November 1930 the Foundation guaranteed the Institute a generous $20,000 for the period till 1935.


The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1930 gives us a short summary of what Mises’s Austrian Institute was doing during this time period. The link is:


http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/upl...d-1930.pdf


The section that Mises’s Institute is classified under is called “Industrial Hazards and Economic Stabilization.” You can find the key references on pages 221 [Adobe Reader 229/389], 224 [Adobe Reader 232/389] and 227 [Adobe Reader 234/389]. There are some missing pages in this report labeled “Photographs Excised.” Notice that in the introduction section the Rockefeller Foundation’s purpose was to attack competition. They are blaming the free market for the Great Depression by suggesting some sort of ‘market failure’ explanation.


One of the most important of these is concerned with the hazards of economic enterprise, particularly as these relate to uncertainty of competitive outcome in such ways as to raise issues of general economic stability.


It seems to be counterintuitive. Why would someone committed to blaming the market economy turn around and fund the market economy’s staunchest supporter? Maybe the Rockefeller Foundation really didn’t expect major policy conclusions from Mises’s Institute. Notice how the amount of funding was relatively low. The total allocation for this project was $980,000 of which Mises got $20,000 or roughly 2%. The vast majority, $875,000 or over 89% went to Harvard. So my guess is that whatever Harvard was up to at this time is probably a better indicator of the true Rockefeller Foundation intention. I also noticed that the report specifically mentioned that the Austrian Institute was doing work on “comparative studies of a general character.” What can we infer from that? Maybe, and I am just speculating, the Austrian Institute was put into a ‘safe’ discipline of “comparative studies” in order to keep them far away from something dangerous like “policy proposals for decision makers.” Obviously, Mises’s policy proposals would not favor attacking competition or the market mechanism but would support free trade, lower taxes, and an unregulated economy. Mises might even be so bold as to attack central banking and fractional reserve money creation. After all, his whole thesis is that depressions are caused by central bank manipulations.


The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1935 also mentions what Mises’s Institute was up to at this time. The report praises the Austrian Institute for its high level of academic excellence. Why am I not surprised! The link is:


http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/upl...c-1935.pdf


On pages 211-212 [Adobe Reader 223/491 and 224/491] they write:


The Austrian Institute for Trade Cycle Research received $12,000 to be available over the two calendar years 1936 and 1937. Its work has been described in preceding Foundation annual reports as attempting to provide a prompt and accurate factual picture of business conditions in Austria and to improve methods of analysis. The institute's studies are published in book form and are regarded as significant contributions to the growing literature on the business cycle.

In a way, this quote seems either disingenuous or contradictory. Earlier, the Leonard report mentioned that the Rockefeller Fund was thinking of not funding Mises because of his methodological approach. Now, in 1935, they mention that Mises is helping ‘improve methods of analysis.’ So now are they saying that they like Mises’s approach to economic science? Of course the phrase 'methods of analysis' might means something different from 'methodological individualism' or 'deductive' or 'qualitative.'


Then, I noticed a trend in the literature that seems to suggest that the Rockefeller Fund wanted to move away from funding Mises and these feelings were growing over time. I am not sure what promoted this growing dislike of Mises. Maybe they really do not want his methodological approach after all.


An excellent source is Jorg Guido Hulsmann’s Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism.


The link is:


http://mises.org/books/lastknight.pdf


They easy way to do this analysis is to type in ‘Rockefeller’ and you will get lots of results. The theme of ‘methodological differences’ keeps coming up as well in Hulsmann's book. Apparently, the push was to fund the statistical and econometric approach over the verbal-qualitative approach favored by Mises. This was in the section about the London School of Economics and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Foundation.
The more vocal concerns about Mises seem to have started in 1936. For example, Hulsmann writes on page 723 [Adobe Reader 723 (740 of 1161)]:


One reason for his [Mises’s] renewed interest in returning to Vienna might have been the precarious financial situation of the Institute: in the course of 1936 it had become clear that certain elements within the Rockefeller Foundation were increasingly reluctant to lend further support.


By the time Mises moves to New York, we see that the Rockefeller Foundation has really cut him off. They are basically giving him a charitable handout. Hulsmann writes on page 800 [Adobe Reader 800 (817 of 1161)]:


The money from the Rockefeller Foundation was not enough to live on, and in 1941 it was almost all the income they had. He had never known such destitution.


Obviously, something must have made the Rockefeller Foundation really dislike Mises given that the Foundation gave him so little money that he had to live at a level Hulsmann described as ‘destitution.’ Finally, Mises gets ‘fired.’ The Rockefeller Fund totally cuts him off. Hulsmann writes on page 822 [Adobe Reader 822 (839 of 1161)]:


The second year’s bonus was a not-so-subtle good-bye. The Rockefeller Foundation’s Willits made it clear, and NBER’s Carson made it even more stark, that this extension would be the last one. Fortunately for Mises, he found a more amenable source of support independent of the Rockefeller Foundation: the National Association of Manufacturers.


My guess is this: Mises approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the simply reason that he needed money to hire staff, expand the Institute, pay for publishing costs of his monographs etc. It probably looked bad from a public relations perspective that the Rockefeller Foundation was going to be so into statist funding—since they openly blame market competition for the Great Depression in the 1930 report. So, they throw Mises a bone in order to look ‘balanced’ and ‘objective’ in their funding. It makes it look as if they are trying to find the 'truth' about what is really going on. But really, they don't care for Mises and his approach. As time drifts on, Mises's approach becomes more and more irrelevant to 'mainstream' economics. So they keep cutting his funding until they 'fire' him completely.


http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20332.aspx

Quote:
David Rockefeller then goes on to describe his decision to attend the London School of Economics, and how the way was paved for him through his family's generous grants to the institution from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial and from the Rockefeller Foundation. He also mentions his father's friendship with Sir William Beveridge, who was the director of the LSE, and who provided accommodations for David only a short walk away from the university.


While enrolled at the LSE the young David Rockefeller was personally tutored in economics by none other than Professor Friedrich A. Hayek, Rockefeller explains.
The economists at LSE were much more conservative than the rest of the faculty. In fact, its economists comprised the major center of opposition in England to Keynes and his Cambridge School of interventionist economics.


My tutor that year was Friedrich von Hayek, the noted Austrian economist who in 1974 would receive the Nobel Prize for the work he had done in the 1920s and 1930s on money, the business cycle, and capital theory. Like Schumpeter, Hayek placed his trust in the market, believing that over time, even with its many imperfections, it provided the most reliable means to distribute resources efficiently and to ensure sound economic growth. Hayek also believed that government should play a critical role as the rule maker and umpire and guarantor of a just and equitable social order, rather than the owner of economic resources or the arbiter of markets.


Hayek was in his late thirties when I first met him. Indisputably brilliant, he lacked Schumpeter's spark and charisma... Nevertheless, I found myself largely in agreement with his basic economic philosophy.


After spending a year under the care of Hayek at the LSE, David Rockefeller had to make a choice as to where he would finish his college education. It was not a hard choice to make,


After a year in London I was eager to return to the United States to complete my graduate work at the University of Chicago, which boasted one of the premier economics faculties in the world, including such luminaries as Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, George Stigler, Henry Schultz, and Paul Douglas. I had heard Knight lecture at the LSE and found his more philosophical approach to economics quite compelling. Lionel Robbins knew Knight well and urged me to study with him. The fact that Grandfather had helped found the university played a distinctly secondary role in my choice.


quotes in italics from Rockefeller's Memoirs


http://www.redmoonrising.com/AmericanBabylon/Part5.htm

It doesn't matter what is money when the system is dishonest



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKxdjxPkvgM




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzr1QU6K1o
Aug. 15, 1971... Tricky Dick abandons the gold standard.

Nixon announces the end of the Bretton Woods International Monetary System 41 years ago today. This was one of the most important decisions in modern financial, economic and monetary history and is a seminal moment in the creation of the global sovereign debt crisis confronting the U.S., Europe and the world in 2012.
The dollar has since fallen from 1/35th of an ounce of gold to 1/1750th of an ounce of gold.



Tom Waits reads Charles Bukowski




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhM-Dm2PHHo


The Genius Of The Crowd: Charles Bukowski




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gifEn61dZBc


Charles Bukowski on Individuality




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5lMLj76Zi4


Carson McCullers

she died of alcoholism
wrapped in a blanket
on a deck chair
on an ocean
steamer.

all her books of
terrified loneliness

all her books about
the cruelty
of loveless love

were all that was left
of her

as the strolling vacationer
discovered her body

notified the captain

and she was quickly dispatched
to somewhere else
on the ship

as everything
continued just
as
she had written it


Charles Bukowski





"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."-Alexis de Tocqueville


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Ricefoot's The Real Truth Behind The Illusion Of 9/11

http://vimeo.com/30094696


The Key - Collin Alexander

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds&

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (Full Movie) -

http://krishnatube.com/video/490/A-Funny...o-the-Moon

Deanna Spingola Interview with Bart Sibrel of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"

http://k004.kiwi6.com/hotlink/403ze98ykc...120316.mp3

Astronauts Gone Wild -

http://vimeo.com/24508433

September Clues

http://septemberclues.info/

Interview with Simon Shack of September Clues - Brian S Staveley, Justin Cooke - 04 / 08 / 2012

http://www.therealnewsonline.com/uploads...4-8-12.mp3

Last Days of the Big Lie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7tHB8tD34s


Michael Tsarion Archives

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1...ature=plcp

Terence McKenna Archives

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9...ature=plcp


John Friend's Blog

http://johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com/

Mami - Freedom Monkey Radio Commercial Free Archives

http://grizzom.blogspot.com/

[CharliePrime]

(04-11-2011 07:20 AM)R.R Wrote:  My individual rights are violated simply by the fact that I have to sell my labour for a unit of exchange that then entitles me to obtain what I need to live.

Hmmmm. Where have I heard this before?

Oh. I remember...

[Negentropic]

Quote:What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations have to fear (2.4.6)

I had remarked during my stay in the United States that a democratic state of society, similar to that of the Americans, might offer singular facilities for the establishment of despotism; and I perceived, upon my return to Europe, how much use had already been made, by most of our rulers, of the notions, the sentiments, and the wants created by this same social condition, for the purpose of extending the circle of their power. This led me to think that the nations of Christendom would perhaps eventually undergo some oppression like that which hung over several of the nations of the ancient world.

A more accurate examination of the subject, and five years of further meditation, have not diminished my fears, but have changed their object.

No sovereign ever lived in former ages so absolute or so powerful as to undertake to administer by his own agency, and without the assistance of intermediate powers, all the parts of a great empire; none ever attempted to subject all his subjects indiscriminately to strict uniformity of regulation and personally to tutor and direct every member of the community. The notion of such an undertaking never occurred to the human mind; and if any man had conceived it, the want of information, the imperfection of the administrative system, and, above all, the natural obstacles caused by the inequality of conditions would speedily have checked the execution of so vast a design.

When the Roman emperors were at the height of their power, the different nations of the empire still preserved usages and customs of great diversity; although they were subject to the same monarch, most of the provinces were separately administered; they abounded in powerful and active municipalities; and although the whole government of the empire was centered in the hands of the Emperor alone and he always remained, in case of need, the supreme arbiter in all matters, yet the details of social life and private occupations lay for the most part beyond his control. The emperors possessed, it is true, an immense and unchecked power, which allowed them to gratify all their whimsical tastes and to employ for that purpose the whole strength of the state. They frequently abused that power arbitrarily to deprive their subjects of property or of life; their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few, but it did not reach the many; it was confined to some few main objects and neglected the rest; it was violent, but its range was limited.

It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them. I do not question that, in an age of instruction and equality like our own, sovereigns might more easily succeed in collecting all political power into their own hands and might interfere more habitually and decidedly with the circle of private interests than any sovereign of antiquity could ever do. But this same principle of equality which facilitates despotism tempers its rigor. We have seen how the customs of society become more humane and gentle in proportion as men become more equal and alike. When no member of the community has much power or much wealth, tyranny is, as it were, without opportunities and a field of action. As all fortunes are scanty, the passions of men are naturally circumscribed, their imagination limited, their pleasures simple. This universal moderation moderates the sovereign himself and checks within certain limits the inordinate stretch of his desires.

Independently of these reasons, drawn from the nature of the state of society itself, I might add many others arising from causes beyond my subject; but I shall keep within the limits I have laid down.

Democratic governments may become violent and even cruel at certain periods of extreme effervescence or of great danger, but these crises will be rare and brief. When I consider the petty passions of our contemporaries, the mildness of their manners, the extent of their education, the purity of their religion, the gentleness of their morality, their regular and industrious habits, and the restraint which they almost all observe in their vices no less than in their virtues, I have no fear that they will meet with tyrants in their rulers, but rather with guardians.

I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience. I do not deny, however, that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all the forms that democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst.

When the sovereign is elective, or narrowly watched by a legislature which is really elective and independent, the oppression that he exercises over individuals is sometimes greater, but it is always less degrading; because every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine that, while he yields obedience, it is to himself he yields it, and that it is to one of his own inclinations that all the rest give way. In like manner, I can understand that when the sovereign represents the nation and is dependent upon the people, the rights and the power of which every citizen is deprived serve not only the head of the state, but the state itself; and that private persons derive some return from the sacrifice of their independence which they have made to the public. To create a representation of the people in every centralized country is, therefore, to diminish the evil that extreme centralization may produce, but not to get rid of it.

I admit that, by this means, room is left for the intervention of individuals in the more important affairs; but it is not the less suppressed in the smaller and more privates ones. It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other.

Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.

I add that they will soon become incapable of exercising the great and only privilege which remains to them. The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body.

It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.

A constitution republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts has always appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master.

--- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America




http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/Lojk...merica.pdf

Quote:"Any nation would furnish us with similar grounds of observation;
for, as I have already remarked, whenever men
collect together as a distinct community, the notion of honor
instantly grows up amongst them; that is to say, a system of
opinions peculiar to themselves as to what is blamable or
commendable; and these peculiar rules always originate in
the special habits and special interests of the community.
This is applicable to a certain extent to democratic communities
as well as to others, as we shall now proceed to prove
by the example of the Americans. Some loose notions of
the old aristocratic honor of Europe are still to be found
scattered amongst the opinions of the Americans; but these
traditional opinions are few in number, they have but little
root in the country, and but little power. They are like a
religion which has still some temples left standing, though
men have ceased to believe in it. But amidst these half-obliterated
notions of exotic honor, some new opinions have
sprung up, which constitute what may be termed in our days
American honor. I have shown how the Americans are con-
stantly driven to engage in commerce and industry. Their
origin, their social condition, their political institutions, and
even the spot they inhabit, urge them irresistibly in this direction.
Their present condition is then that of an almost
exclusively manufacturing and commercial association, placed
in the midst of a new and boundless country, which their
principal object is to explore for purposes of profit. This is
the characteristic which most peculiarly distinguishes the
American people from all others at the present time. All those
quiet virtues which tend to give a regular movement to the
community, and to encourage business, will therefore be held
in peculiar honor by that people, and to neglect those virtues
will be to incur public contempt. All the more turbulent
virtues, which often dazzle, but more frequently disturb
society, will on the contrary occupy a subordinate rank in
the estimation of this same people: they may be neglected
without forfeiting the esteem of the community - to acquire
them would perhaps be to run a risk of losing it.

The Americans make a no less arbitrary classification of
men’s vices. There are certain propensities which appear censurable
to the general reason and the universal conscience of
mankind, but which happen to agree with the peculiar and
temporary wants of the American community: these propensities
are lightly reproved, sometimes even encouraged;
for instance, the love of wealth and the secondary propensities
connected with it may be more particularly cited. To
clear, to till, and to transform the vast uninhabited continent
which is his domain, the American requires the daily
support of an energetic passion; that passion can only be the
love of wealth; the passion for wealth is therefore not reprobated
in America, and provided it does not go beyond the
bounds assigned to it for public security, it is held in honor.
The American lauds as a noble and praiseworthy ambition
what our own forefathers in the Middle Ages stigmatized as
servile cupidity, just as he treats as a blind and barbarous
frenzy that ardor of conquest and martial temper which bore
them to battle. In the United States fortunes are lost and
regained without difficulty; the country is boundless, and its
resources inexhaustible. The people have all the wants and
cravings of a growing creature; and whatever be their efforts,
they are always surrounded by more than they can appropriate.
It is not the ruin of a few individuals which may be soon
repaired, but the inactivity and sloth of the community at
large which would be fatal to such a people. Boldness of
enterprise is the foremost cause of its rapid progress, its
strength, and its greatness. Commercial business is there like
a vast lottery, by which a small number of men continually
lose, but the State is always a gainer; such a people ought
therefore to encourage and do honor to boldness in commercial
speculations. But any bold speculation risks the fortune
of the speculator and of all those who put their trust in
him. The Americans, who make a virtue of commercial temerity,
have no right in any case to brand with disgrace those
who practice it. Hence arises the strange indulgence which is
shown to bankrupts in the United States; their honor does
not suffer by such an accident. In this respect the Americans
differ, not only from the nations of Europe, but from all the
commercial nations of our time, and accordingly they resemble
none of them in their position or their wants.

In America all those vices which tend to impair the purity
of morals, and to destroy the conjugal tie, are treated with a
degree of severity which is unknown in the rest of the world.
At first sight this seems strangely at variance with the tolerance
shown there on other subjects, and one is surprised to
meet with a morality so relaxed and so austere amongst the
selfsame people. But these things are less incoherent than
they seem to be. Public opinion in the United States very
gently represses that love of wealth which promotes the commercial
greatness and the prosperity of the nation, and it
especially condemns that laxity of morals which diverts the
human mind from the pursuit of well-being, and disturbs
the internal order of domestic life which is so necessary to
success in business. To earn the esteem of their countrymen,
the Americans are therefore constrained to adapt themselves
to orderly habits – and it may be said in this sense that they
make it a matter of honor to live chastely.

On one point American honor accords with the notions of
honor acknowledged in Europe; it places courage as the highest
virtue, and treats it as the greatest of the moral necessities
of man; but the notion of courage itself assumes a different
aspect. In the United States martial valor is but little prized;
the courage which is best known and most esteemed is that
which emboldens men to brave the dangers of the ocean, in
order to arrive earlier in port - to support the privations of
the wilderness without complaint, and solitude more cruel
than privations - the courage which renders them almost
insensible to the loss of a fortune laboriously acquired, and
instantly prompts to fresh exertions to make another. Courage
of this kind is peculiarly necessary to the maintenance
and prosperity of the American communities, and it is held
by them in peculiar honor and estimation; to betray a want
of it is to incur certain disgrace."

~Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America - Chapter XVIII:
"Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -"



"When ranks are commingled and privileges abolished,
the men of whom a nation is composed being once more
equal and alike, their interests and wants become identical,
and all the peculiar notions which each caste styled honor
successively disappear: the notion of honor no longer proceeds
from any other source than the wants peculiar to the
nation at large, and it denotes the individual character of
that nation to the world. Lastly, if it be allowable to suppose
that all the races of mankind should be commingled, and
that all the peoples of earth should ultimately come to have
the same interests, the same wants, undistinguished from
each other by any characteristic peculiarities, no conventional
value whatever would then be attached to men’s actions; they
would all be regarded by all in the same light; the general
necessities of mankind, revealed by conscience to every man,
would become the common standard. The simple and general
notions of right and wrong only would then be recognized
in the world, to which, by a natural and necessary tie,
the idea of censure or approbation would be attached. Thus,
to comprise all my meaning in a single proposition, the dissimilarities
and inequalities of men gave rise to the notion of
honor; that notion is weakened in proportion as these differences
are obliterated, and with them it would disappear."
~Alexis de Tocqueville - from Democracy in America - Chapter XVIII:
"Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -"

http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/Lojk...merica.pdf

[Negentropic]

Quote:Characters of the Gregarious Animal
displayed by man.

When we come to consider man we find ourselves
faced at once by some of the most interesting
problems in the biology of the social habit. It is
probably not necessary now to labour the proof of
the fact that man is a gregarious animal in literal
fact, that he is as essentially gregarious as the
bee and the ant, the sheep, the ox, and the horse.
The tissue of characteristically gregarious reactions
which his conduct presents furnishes incontestable
proof of this thesis, which is thus an indispensable
clue to an inquiry, into the intricate problems of
human society.


It is desirable perhaps to enumerate in a summary
way the more obvious gregarious characters which
man displays.


I . He is intolerant and fearful of solitude, physical
or mental. This intolerance is the cause of the
mental fixity and intellectual incuriousness which,
to a remarkable degree for an animal with so
capacious a brain, he constantly displays. As is
well known, the resistance to a new idea is always
primarily a matter of prejudice, the development
of intellectual objections, just or otherwise, being
a secondary process in spite of the common delusion
to the contrary. This intimate dependence on the
herd is traceable not merely in matters physical
and intellectual, but also betrays itself in the deepest
recesses of personality as a sense of incompleteness
which compels the individual to reach out towards
some larger existence than his own, some encompassing
being in whom his perplexities may find
a solution and his longings peace. Physical loneliness
and intellectual isolation are effectually solaced
by the nearness and agreement of the herd. The
deeper personal necessities cannot be met—at any
rate, in such society as has so far been evolved—by
so superficial a union ; the capacity for intercommunication
is still too feebly developed to bring
the individual into complete and soul-satisfying
harmony with his fellows, to convey from one to
another


Thoughts hardly to be packed
Into a narrow act,
Fancies that broke through language and escaped.


Religious feeling is therefore a character inherent
in the very structure of the human mind, and is the
expression of a need which must be recognized
by the biologist as neither superficial nor transitory.
It must be admitted that some philosophers and
men of science have at times denied to the religious
impulses of man their true dignity and importance.
Impelled perhaps by a desire to close the circle
of a materialistic conception of the universe, they
have tended to belittle the significance of such
phenomena as they were unable to reconcile with
their principles and bring within the iron circle of
their doctrine. To deal with religion in this way
has not only been an outrage upon true scientific
method, but has always led to a strong reaction in
general opinion against any radical inquiry by
science into the deeper problems of man's nature
and status. A large and energetic reaction of this
kind prevails to-day. There can be little doubt
that it was precipitated, if not provoked, by attempts
to force a harsh and dogmatic materialism into the
status of a general philosophy. As long as such a
system is compelled to ignore, to depreciate, or
to deny the reality of such manifestly important
phenomena as the altruistic emotions, the religious
needs and feelings, the experiences of awe and
wonder and beauty, the illumination of the mystic,
the rapture of the prophet, the unconquerable endurance
of the martyr, so long must it fail in its
claims to universality. It is therefore necessary to
lay down with the strongest emphasis the proposition
that the religious needs and feelings of man
are a direct and necessary manifestation of the
inheritance of instinct with which he is born, and
therefore deserve consideration as respectful and
observation as minute as any other biological
phenomenon.


2. He is more sensitive to the voice of the herd
than to any other influence. It can inhibit or
stimulate his thought and conduct. It is the source
of his moral codes, of the sanctions of his ethics and
philosophy. It can endow him with energy, courage,
and endurance, and can as easily take these away.
It can make him acquiesce in his own punishment
and embrace his executioner, submit to poverty,
bow to tyranny, and sink without complaint under
starvation. Not merely can it make him accept
hardship and suffering unresistingly, but it can make
him accept as truth the explanation that his perfectly
preventable afflictions are sublimely just and gentle.
It is in this acme of the power of herd suggestion
that is perhaps the most absolutely incontestable
proof of the profoundly gregarious nature of man.
That a creature of strong appetites and luxurious
desires should come to tolerate uncomplainingly his
empty belly, his chattering teeth, his naked limbs,
and his hard bed is miracle enough. What are we
to say of a force which, when he is told by the full-fed
and well-warmed that his state is the more
blessed can make him answer " How beautiful !
How true !" In the face of so effectual a negation,
not merely of experience and common sense but also
of actual hunger and privation, it is not possible to
set any limits to the power of the herd over the
individual.


3. He is subject to the passions of the pack in
his mob violence and the passions of the herd in
his panics. These activities are by no means limited
to the outbursts of actual crowds, but are to be
seen equally clearly in the hue and cry of newspapers
and public after some notorious criminal or
scapegoat, and in the success of scaremongering by
the same agencies.


4. He is remarkably susceptible to leadership.
This quality in man may very naturally be thought
to have a basis essentially rational rather than instinctive if its manifestations are not regarded with
a special effort to attain an objective attitude. How
thoroughly reasonable it appears that a body of men
seeking a common object should put themselves
under the guidance of some strong and expert
personality who can point out the path most profitably
to be pursued, who can hearten his followers
and bring- all their various powers into a harmonious
pursuit of the common object. The rational basis
of the relation is, however, seen to be at any rate
open to discussion when we consider the qualities
in a leader upon which his authority so often rests,
for there can be little doubt that their appeal is
more generally to instinct than to reason. In ordinary
politics it must be admitted that the gift of
public speaking is of more decisive value than anything
else. If a man is fluent, dexterous, and ready
on the platform, he possesses the one indispensable
requisite for statesmanship ; if in addition he has
the gift of moving deeply the emotions of his hearers,
his capacity for guiding the infinite complexities
of national life becomes undeniable. Experience
has shown that no exceptional degree of any other
capacity is necessary to make a successful leader.
There need be no specially arduous training, no great
weight of knowledge either of affairs or the human
heart, no receptiveness to new ideas, no outlook
into reahty. Indeed, the mere absence of such seems
to be an advantage ; for originality is apt to appear
to the people as flightiness, skepticism as feebleness,
caution as doubt of the great political principles
that may happen at the moment to be immutable.
The successful shepherd thinks like his sheep, and
can lead his flock only if he keeps no more than the
shortest distance in advance. He must remain, in
fact, recognizable as one of the flock, magnified
no doubt, louder, coarser, above all with more urgent
wants and ways of expression than the common
sheep, but in essence to their feeling of the same
flesh with them. In the human herd the necessity
of the leader bearing unmistakable marks of identification
is equally essential. Variations from the
normal standard in intellectual matters are tolerated
if they are not very conspicuous, for man has never
yet taken reason very seriously, and can still look
upon intellectuality as not more than a peccadillo
if it is not paraded conspicuously ; variations from
the moral standard are, however, of a much greater
significance as marks of identification, and when
they become obvious, can at once change a great
and successful leader into a stranger and an outcast,
however little they may seem to be relevant
to the adequate execution of his public work. If
a leader's marks of identity with the herd are of
the right kind, the more they are paraded the better.
We like to see photographs of him nursing his
little grand-daughter, we like to know that he plays
golf badly, and rides the bicycle like our common
selves, we enjoy hearing of " pretty incidents " in
which he has given the blind crossing-sweeper a
penny or begged a glass of water at a wayside
cottage—and there are excellent biological reasons
for our gratification.


In times of war leadership is not less obviously
based on instinct, though naturally, since the herd
is exposed to a special series of stresses, manifestations
of it are also somewhat special. A people
at war feels the need of direction much more intensely
than a people at peace, and as always they
want some one who appeals to their instinctive feeling
of being directed, comparatively regardless of whether
he is able in fact to direct. This instinctive feeling
inclines them to the choice of a man who presents
at any rate the appearance and manners of authority
and power rather than to one who possesses the
substance of capacity but is denied the shadow.
They have their conventional pictures of the desired
type—the strong, silent, relentless, the bold, outspoken,
hard, and energetic—but at all costs he
must be a " man," a " leader who can lead," a
shepherd, in fact, who, by his gesticulations and
his shouts, leaves his flock in no doubt as to his
presence and his activity. It is touching to remember
how often a people in pursuit of this ideal has obtained
and accepted in response to its prayers nothing
but melodramatic bombast, impatience, rashness, and
foolish, boasting truculence ; and to remember how
often a great statesman in his country's need has
had to contend not merely with her foreign enemies_,
but with those at home whose vociferous malignity
has declared his magnanimous composure to be
sluggishness, his cautious scepticism to be feebleness,
and his unostentatious resolution to be stupidity.


5. His relations with his fellows are dependent
upon the recognition of him as a member of the
herd. It is important to the success of a gregarious
species that individuals should be able to move
freely within the large unit while strangers are excluded.
Mechanisms to secure such personal recognition
are therefore a characteristic feature of the
social habit. The primitive olfactory greeting
common to so many of the lower animals was doubtless
rendered impossible for man by his comparative
loss of the sense of smell long before it ceased to
accord with his pretensions, yet in a thriving active
species the function of recognition was as necessary
as ever. Recognition by vision could be of
only limited value, and it seems probable that speech
very early became the accepted medium. Possibly
the necessity to distinguish friend from foe was
one of the conditions which favoured the development
of articulate speech. Be this as it may, speech
at the present time retains strong evidence of the
survival in it of the function of herd recognition.
As is usual with instinctive activities in man, the
actual state of affairs is concealed by a deposit
of rationalized explanation which is apt to discourage
merely superficial inquiry. " The function of conversation
is, it is to be supposed, ordinarily regarded
as being the exchange of ideas and information.
Doubtless it has come to have such a function, but
an objective examination of ordinary conversation
shows that the actual conveyance of ideas takes
a very small part in it. As a rule the exchange
seems to consist of ideas which are necessarily
common to the two speakers, and are known to
be so by each. The process, however, is none
the less satisfactory for this ; indeed, it seems even
to derive its satisfactoriness therefrom. The interchange
of the conventional lead and return is
obviously very far from being tedious or meaningless
to the interlocutors. They can, however, have
derived nothing from it but the confirmation to one
another of their sympathy and of the class or classes
to which they belong.


Conversations of greeting are naturally particularly
rich in the exchange of purely ceremonial
remarks, ostensibly based on some subject like the
weather, in which there must necessarily be an
absolute community of knowledge. It is possible,
however, for a long conversation to be made up
entirely of similar elements, and to contain no trace
of any conveyance of new ideas ; such intercourse
is probably that which on the whole is most satisfactory
to the " normal " man and leaves him more
comfortably stimulated than would originality or
brilliance, or any other manifestation of the strange
and therefore of the disreputable.


Conversation between persons unknown to one
another is also—when satisfactory—apt to be rich
in the ritual of recognition. When one hears or
takes part in these elaborate evolutions, gingerly
proffering one after another of one's marks of
identity, one's views on the weather, on fresh air
and draughts, on the Government and on uric acid,
watching intently for the first low hint of a growl,
which will show one belongs to the wrong pack
and must withdraw, it is impossible not to be
reminded of the similar manoeuvres of the dog, and
to be thankful that Nature has provided us with a
less direct, though perhaps a more tedious, code.
It may appear that we have been dealing here
with a far-fetched and laboured analogy, and making
much of a comparison of trivialities merely for the
sake of compromising, if that could be done, human
pretensions to reason. To show that the marvel
of human communion began, perhaps, as a very
humble function, and yet retains traces of its origin,
is in no way to minimize the value or dignity of
the more fully developed power. The capacity for
free intercommunication between individuals of the
species has meant so much in the evolution of man,
and will certainly come in the future to mean so
incalculably more, that it cannot be regarded as
anything less than a master element in the shaping of
his destiny.


Some Peculiarities of the Social Habit
IN Man.


It is apparent after very little consideration that
the extent of man's individual mental development
is a factor which has produced many novel characters
in his manifestations of the social habit, and
has even concealed to a great extent the profound
influence this instinct has in regulating his conduct,
his thought, and his society.


Large mental capacity in the individual, as we
have already seen, has the effect of providing a
wide freedom! of response to instinctive impulses,
so that, while the individual is no less impelled by
instinct than a more primitive type, the manifestations
of these impulses in his conduct are very
varied, and his conduct loses the appearance of a
narrow concentration on its instinctive object. It
needs only to pursue this reasoning to a further stage
to reach the conclusion that mental capacity,
while in no way limiting the impulsive power of
instinct, may, by providing an infinite number of
channels into which the impulse is free to flow,
actually prevent the impulse from attaining the goal
of its normal object. In the ascetic the sex instinct
is defeated, in the martyr that of self-preservation,
not because these instincts have been abolished,
but because the activity of the mind has found new
channels for them to flow in. As might be expected,
the much more labile herd instinct has been still
more subject to this deflection and dissipation without
its potential impulsive strength being in any
way impaired. It is this process which has enabled
primitive psychology so largely to ignore the fact
that man still is, as much as ever_, endowed with
a heritage of instinct and incessantly subject to
its influence. Man's mental capacity, again, has
enabled him as a species to flourish enormously, and
thereby to increase to a prodigious extent the size
of the unit in which the individual is merged.
The nation, if the term be used to describe every,
organization under a completely independent,
supreme government, must be regarded as the
smallest unit on which natural selection now unrestrictedly
acts. Between such units there is free
competition, and the ultimate regulator of these
relations is physical force. This statement needs
the qualification that the delimitation between two
given units may be much sharper than that between
two others, so that in the first case the resort to
force is likely to occur readily, while in the second
case it will be brought about only by the very
ultimate necessity. The tendency to the enlargement
of the social unit has been going on with certain
temporary relapses throughout human history.
Though repeatedly checked by the instability of
the larger units, it has always resumed its activity,
so that it should probably be regarded as a fundamental
biological drift the existence of which is a
factor which must always be taken into account in
dealing with the structure of human society.


The gregarious mind shows certain characteristics
which throw some light on this phenomenon of the
progressively enlarging unit. The gregarious animal
is different from the solitary in the capacity to
become conscious in a special way of the existence
of other creatures. This specific consciousness of
his fellows carries with it a characteristic element
of communion with them. The individual knows
another individual of the same herd as a partaker
in an entity of which he himself is a part, so that
the second individual is in some way and to a certain
extent identical with hirnself and part of his own
personal,ity. He is able to feel with the other and
share his pleasures and sufferings as "if they were
an attenuated forrn of his own personal experiences.
The degree to which this assimilation of the interests
of another person is carried depends, in a general
way, on the extent of the intercommunication between
the two. In human society a man's interest
in his fellows is distributed about him concentrically
according to a compound of various relations they
bear to him which we may call in a broad way their
nearness. The centrifugal fading of interest is seen
when we compare the man's feeling towards one
near to him with his feeling towards one farther off.
He will be disposed, other things being equal, to
sympathize with a relative as against a fellow-townsman,
with a fellow-townsman as against a mere
inhabitant of the same county, with the latter as
against the rest of the country, with an Englishman
as against a European, with a European as against
an Asiatic, and so on until a limit is reached beyond
which all human interest is lost. The distribution
of interest is of course never purely geographical,
but is modified by, for example, trade and professional
sympathy, and by, special cases of intercommunication
which bring topographically distant
individuals into a closer grade of feeling than their
mere situation would demand. The essential principle,
however, is that the degree of sympathy with
a given individual varies directly with the amount
of intercommunication with him. The capacity to
assimilate the interests of another individual with
one's own, to allow him, as it were, to partake in
one's own personality, is what is called altruism, and
might equally well perhaps be called expansive
egoism. It is a characteristic of the gregarious
animal, and is a perfectly normal and necessary
development in him of his instinctive inheritance.


Altruism is a quality the understanding of which
has been much obscured by its being regarded from
the purely human point of view. Judged from this
standpoint, it has been apt to appear as a breach
in the supposedly " immutable " laws of ** Nature
red in tooth and claw," as a virtue breathed into
man from some extra -human source, or as a weakness
which must be stamped out of any race which
is to be strong, expanding, and masterful. To the
biologist these views are equally false, superfluous,
and romantic. He is aware that altruism occurs only
in a medium specifically protected from the unqualified
influence of natural selection, that it is the
direct outcome of instinct, and that it is a source of
strength because it is a source of union.
'

In recent times, freedom of travel, and the
development of the resources rendered available by
education, have increased the general mass of intercommunication to an enormous extent. Side by side with this, altruism has come more and more into recognition as a supreme moral law. There is already a
strong tendency to accept selfishness as a test of sin, and consideration for others as a test of virtue, and this has influenced even those who by public profession are compelled to maintain that right and wrong are to be defined only in terms of an arbitrary extra -natural code.


Throughout the incalculable ages of man's existence
as a social animal. Nature has been hinting
to him in less and less ambiguous terms that altruism
must become the ultimate sanction of his moral
code. Her whispers have never gained more than
grudging and reluctant notice from the common
man, and from those intensified forms of the
common man, his pastors and masters. Only to the
alert senses of moral genius has the message been
at all intelligible, and when it has been interpreted
to the people it has always been received with
obloquy and derision, with persecution and martyrdom.
Thus, as so often happens in human society,
has one manifestation of herd instinct been met
and opposed by another.


As intercommunication tends constantly to widen
the field of action of altruism, a point is reached
when the individual becomes capable of some kind
of sympathy, however attenuated, with beings outside
the limits of the biological unit within which
the primitive function of altruism lies. This extension
is perhaps possible only in man. In a creature
like the bee the rigidly limited mental capacity of
the individual and the closely organized society of
the hive combine to make the boundary of the hive
correspond closely with the uttermost limit of the
field over which altruism is active. The bee, capable
of great sympathy and understanding in regard to
her fellow-members of the hive, is utterly callous
nd without understandinj;- in regard to any creature
of external origin and existence. Man^ however,
with his infinitely greater capacity for assimilating
experience, has not been able to maintain the rigid
limitation of sympathy to the unit, the boundaries
of which tend to acquire a certain indefinite
-ness not seen in any of the lower gregarious
types.


Hence tends to appear a sense of international
justice, a vague feeling of being responsibly concerned
in all human affairs and by a natural consequence
the ideas and impulses denoted under the
term " pacifism."


One of the most natural and obvious consequences
of war is a hardening of the boundaries of the
social unit and a retraction of the vague feelings
towards international sympathy which are a characteristic
product of peace and intercommunication. Thus it comes
about that pacifism and internationalism are in
great disgrace at the present time ; they are regarded
as the vapourings of cranky windbags who have inevitably
been punctured at the first touch of the sword ; they are, our
political philosophers tell us, but products of the miasma
of sentimental fallacy which tends to be bred in the
relaxing atmosphere of peace. Perhaps no general
expressions have been more common since the
beginning of the war, in the mouths of those who
have undertaken our instruction in the meaning of
events, than the propositions that pacifism is now
finally exploded and shown always to have been
nonsense, that war is and always will be an inevitable
necessity in human affairs as man is what is called
a fighting animal, and that not only is the abolition
of war an impossibility, but should the abolition
of it unhappily prove to be possible after all and
be accomplished, the result could only be degeneration
and disaster.


Biological considerations would seem to suggest
that these generalizations contain a large element
of inexactitude. The doctrine of pacifism is
a perfectly natural development, and ultimately
inevitable in an animal having an unlimited appetite
for experience and an indestructible inheritance of
social instinct. Like all moral discoveries made
in the haphazard, one-sided way which the lack of
co-ordination in human society forces upon its moral
pioneers, it has necessarily an appearance of crankiness,
of sentimentality, of an inaptitude for the grasp
of reahty. This is normal and does not in the least
affect the value of the truth it contains. Legal
and rehgious torture were doubtless first attacked
by cranks ; slavery was abolished by them. Advocacy
by such types does not therefore constitute
an argument of any weight against their doctrines,
which can adequately be judged only by some purely
objective standard. Judged by such a standard,
pacifism, as we have seen, appears to be a natural
development, and is directed towards a goal which
unless man's nature undergoes a radical change will
probably be attained. That its attainment has so
far been foreseen only by a class of men possessing
more than the usual impracticability of the
mmor prophet is hardly to be considered a relevant
fact.


from "Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War" by Wilfred Trotter


http://archive.org/details/instinctsofherdi00trot

[6] Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, was influenced by both "The Crowd" by Gustave Le Bon and "Instincts of the Herd in Peace & War" by Wilfred Trotter. In his famous book "Propaganda" he declared that a major feature of democracy was the manipulation of the mass mind by media and advertising.



“I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live.

I think that’s one of the things that annoys liberals and conservatives about libertarians. Libertarians want to be left alone. Liberals and conservatives are unwilling to leave anyone alone." -- Clint Eastwood

[FastTadpole]

The Greatest Speech Ever Made



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
8 Million + YouTube views
Translated to 37 different languages.

I (used to) dig this Chaplin bit, I thought it begged a circumspect analysis of values but, upon further reflection on what was really being said, speaks in parallel to the outcry to rebel against oppression, it prescribes a moral set that advocates the "universal brotherhood" that was presented at a time when globalization via telecom and travel was undergoing a significant upgrade.

It pitches the globalist ideology by tugging and extending the scope of empathetic compassion to a scalar level ("millions of despairing men, women and little children") that can only be conveyed through technochratic mediums/gateways (eluded to as "progress" and "the power to create machines > the power to create happiness") that can only be appropriated by an executive conglomerate body of deferred (or as abstracted sold as "unified") power manifest as centrist systemic conduits. The speech plays "dictatorship" as an antonym to "democracy".

It also provokes a call to "fight for liberty" in an oppositional destructive context rather than a constructive approach to reform; a call that encompasses a transition from oppressed to a more productive form of submissive ideological serfdom to a more obfuscated, efficient form of tyranny - not subject to a dictator but to manipulate the masses towards an ideology to first construct, then serve a system.

Since then this system has revealed itself. It needs no dictatorship. It is propped up by pillars of faith in abstraction of economy, altruism, manipulated empathy, detached scalar communalism, codepedencies. This advocation of joining the fight for power redistribution globally only serves to further remove responsibility and power from the peon class from a more obvious tyrant to a more perpetual persuasion to manage a people towards an agenda.

In utilizing manipulation augmented by obfuscation a tyrant cartel can buffer themselves from their intent and subdue alternative motives that compete with their goal by simply coercing, distracting, bribing and oppressing most of the people all of the time. This is executed by the apparent illusion of consensual public will.

To counteract this homunculus manifest reality people, as individuals, cannot defer their free will and responsibility to another entity. We, as individual being need to embrace and own our thoughts, ideas, actions to resume and take control of our role in the assertion of our power.

This speech railroads and defines power to a receptive audience of those that know and feel their will is misrepresented. This free will is channels and perverted as ideological, globally displaced ("do away with national barriers, with hate and intolerance"), scalar unity to invoke a crusade ("fight to free the world of reason of science and progress") to institute a democratically and technocratically enforced system.

We're already past that though. This speech from the 1940 (Charlie Chaplin as Adenoid Hynkel / A Jewish Barber) is played out and we're already onto the next phase of moulding humanity. When you round up .. the system is a democratic manipulation, it is entrenched globally and it does collate power over the many by the few, by various means.

The next phase does not require a serf class. The infrastructure is installed to enable cybernetic/genetic transhumanism by dictate. Human beings are not a requirement of power. The role of humanity could plausibly be filled by a bio-engineered successor to the human race, drones, nanobots, neural networks, new age energy, interplanetary capability, advanced robotics imbued with AI poached from observation of the human species, the global 'smart' grid infrastructure ... The very "power to create machines" we so diligently slaved over is on the cusp of being be paved the path to our irrelevance... or as some are convinced to term it - our ascendancy to a new 'evolution'.

This call to action by Adenoid Hynkel is dated, the program has run, that hand has been played and played out. The intelligent step, at this point in time, that would assert affirm that free will can only be brought to fruition in one way.

An embrace of the expression of our own humanity in a direct non-convoluted fashion that embodies our solely derived personal values as an individual prospective of the collective comprised of our morals, fellows and ecology. An inherent drive against "hate against brute dictators" and that has been cleverly preyed upon by this speech to frame variants in power coalescence as opposition forces.

Values are inherent to our being. They are not rationalized but expressed naturally as a child would.

Elaborating on that much echoed call to "fight". This excerpt from the speech seemed to put that invocation into context to advocate a clear picture as to how to interpret the execution of the provocation, in no uncertain terms.

".. and so long as men die, liberty will never perish."

Fight for your freedom.
Fight for your rights.
Fight the power.
Fight for liberty.

Try substituting, in context of whatever the situation calls for as interperted your own voluntary, reflective and introspective analysis, the confrontational term fight with a more constructive derivative to effect and imprint your personal empowerment as you see fit.

Build
Own
Enact
Take Responsibility for
Fortify
Express
Live
Be

[Anarchist]

Hmm, interesting thread. Any society based on freedom excels more than one based on equality. To make a long message short, since there is no shortage of minds willing to make a long message, when there exists equality of lifestyle, as opposed to equality of opportunity, it is based on the concept of taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful. A simple figure could be that, on average, people live off $25k. So, when a man makes $40k, $15k is robbed from him and given to $10k person. Well, what incentive do people have, then, under equality of lifestyle, other than to achieve the best they can, which is the best everyone has? Typically, they have no incentive to work beyond that. So $40k man goes to $25k, since that is all he sees anyways. Now we have a problem, because $10k person is rather happy with getting a "free" $15k. What happens? Oh, standard of living goes down, new average is $17k. Thus, society falls.

Equality of opportunity, however, encourages success rather than punishing it. If one earns $50k, he should keep $50k. If one wants to achieve, he is free to do so. Assuming the market is not controlled to work against society, seeing as it is voluntary and centered around voluntary exchange, money is made by providing goods and services that people are willing to pay for. Man gets the benefit of $50k, other people get the benefits of the goods/services man provides, and everyone is happy. Does that mean some people will be stuck at $10k? Probably. But not only will their lifestyle be better due to the massive success around them, there will be enough opportunity, in theory, that they would be able to increase their standards should they decide to. Or, maybe they are happy with $10k because they own the land their house is built on, they grow the food they eat, have no taxes, and are entirely self-sufficient, making enough money on the side to afford luxeries. It is a possibility in an anarcho-capitalist system, and one I would prefer opposed to paying to use your house, paying to earn money, paying money on what you own, et cetera. Now, for a video and a petition.

Frederic Bastiat Wrote:A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)
Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us [1].

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

We have our answer ready:

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.

Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.

``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?

But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.

Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845

[Negentropic]

Quote: Fast Tadpole wrote:

I (used to) dig this Chaplin bit, I thought it begged a circumspect analysis of values but, upon further reflection on what was really being said, speaks in parallel to the outcry to rebel against oppression, it prescribes a moral set that advocates the "universal brotherhood" that was presented at a time when globalization via telecom and travel was undergoing a significant upgrade.

If Chaplin was so much against oppression he wouldn't be supporting Russian communism, the most genocidal tyranny in history, against Hitler's National Socialism which was the single biggest threat to world bankster hegemony and the single most democratically elected state in the history of the world. What other party ever FREELY received 98% of the vote of its people? Not only that but 90% of the people in the SAAR regions and 99.7% of Austria voted freely to re-unite with Germany.

Now, why would Austria, the Saar Region and the Sudetanland all vote freely and unanimously by over 90% of the vote to be re-united with 'big bad' Hitler and Germany ?

Because almost everything you've ever been told about National Socialist Germany by Charlie Chaplin, Billy Wilder and the rest of Hollywood and the entire mass-media western propaganda machinery is a lie.

Quote:WITNESS TO HISTORY
Michael Walsh

CHAPTER 4

HITLER, THE VOTE WINNER

75 Million Germans say "YES" to One Nation, One People, One Leader.


http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/...ory/5.html

Did any of the communist bloc countries vote freely to unite with the bolshevist butchers of Russia ? Ha ha hee hee ho ho

They were all conquered and given to the commies as a gift. People were shot dead when they tried to escape and a friggin wall was built in Berlin to keep them in. That's when they managed to stay of 40 degrees below zero Siberian gulags.

Both Chaplin and Billy Wilder are great artists but great artistry and complete charlatanism, immorality and even black conscious evil go hand-in-hand much more often than people care to imagine.

Billy Wilder

His Secret Work on a Holocaust Myth Movie

http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/wilder/


Seven Year Itch - 1955


Double Indemnity - 1944


Sunset Boulevard - 1950



Charlie Chaplin and Helen Keller

"Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn whatever state I am in, therin to be content" ~ Helen Keller

"I do not want the peace which passeth understanding, I want the understanding which bringeth peace. " ~ Helen Keller

"I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble. The world is moved along, not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker." ~ Helen Keller

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure. " ~ Helen Keller

"Literature is my Utopia. Here I am not disenfranchised. No barrier of the senses shuts me out from the sweet, gracious discourses of my book friends. They talk to me without embarrassment or awkwardness. " ~ Helen Keller






The Stark Truth: Interview with Bill Still of "The Money Masters" (1995) and "The Secret of Oz" (2010)
April 4, 2012

http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/...120404.mp3


America, land of the free-to-grope-your-testicles-in-public beaten-down android slaves of lying media whores

Robert Stark .

Outline and details of almost everything covered:

Northern Virginia


Still's latest book is called "No More National Debt"


The scope of banking history covered by "The Money Masters"


Jesus chasing the money-changers from the temple because they were jacking up the price of a certain type of silver coin which they had made the only coin acceptable to pay their temple tax every year


Roman Empire


Medieval England


In 1100 AD King Henry the first, son of William the Conqueror, discovered that he, the sovereign, was not in control of the quantity of money, so he wanted to fix that.


The goldsmiths that were controlling the economy and thereby controlling the sovereign King Henry by either lending out their coins liberally or not. When they lent the coins out liberally, those were the boom times, followed by the bust times when they called those loans in, just like today on the fiat money system.


Since King Henry couldn't hoard more gold than the combined power of the goldsmiths who were the bankers of that day, he decided to create his own money, his own SOVEREIGN money which was VALUELESS and MADE IT circulate as money just by simply declaring it as 'good for the payment of taxes.' These were called talley sticks, polished sticks of wood with notches cut in to determine the denomination, how large a stick was, and then the stick was split length-wise down the middle. The king kept half of it and, of course, counterfeiting the tally stick was punishable by death. A wooden stick splits UNIQUELY and it would be clear if somebody was trying to counterfeit it. These circulated as money.


G Edward Griffin, another Libertarian, derided Still for his historical findings, claiming that tally sticks were not really the money of the common man, they were only for very large transactions without ever having touched or seen a tally stick. Still is the only one to have gotten into the Bank of 'England museum to film them and the only one he filmed in the Money Masters was the biggest one they had which was 25,000 pounds denomination so Griffin didn't know any better.



Bill Still holding an original tally stick


When Still went back to the Bank of England museum for "The Secret of Oz," the head of the Bank of England museum brought out a wide spectrum of tally sticks including very small ones and he himself said that tally sticks circulated as money for the common man and were, in fact, 90% of the entire English money supply for some 720 years. That's why England, a little nation, without many natural resources, was able to create a huge navy and basically create the greatest empire of that millennium.


Tally sticks worked very well. They cut the bankers out of making a fortune by loaning the government money, so they obviously didn't like it one bit and finally managed to finagle their way into forming the Bank of England. This was the beginning of the PRIVATELY OWNED central bank system which we have been under ever since, to the detriment of We, the People and general prosperity.


The problem is TWO-FOLD, these are the 2 pillars upon which monetary reform rests:


Pillar # 1 : Nations should not be allowed to borrow. The majority of the people who buy government bonds are banks and central banks. The nation gives up its sovereignty and the banks take over sovereignty.


Pillar #2: Banks should not be allowed to lend money that they do not have, i.e., use fractional reserve banking. Through Fractional Reserve Lending the banks have the ability to leverage and multiply their money. If a bank has 1 million dollars it can go out and immediately lend out 10 million dollars at interest. They're not just making 4, 5, 6 % interest, they're making 40, 50, 60% interest. Therefore, through fractional reserve banking, the banks are completely controlling every national money supply on the face of the earth.


We have fix both those pillars or problems simultaneously or we will NEVER fix this and we are going to do nothing but have the middle classes DEVOLVE into a state of serfdom. This applies to all nations and not just the United States. They will all devolve back into a state of serfdom.


A lot of libertarians seem to believe that if you take all regulations off the banking system that everything will be hunky dory, the bankers are going to do the right thing, cut their profit margins down so that more money can flow into the middle class and that's not the case at all.


They have been mad at the United States in particular since the US won its freedom from England and thereby the privately owned central bank system. They're trying to gut the middle class and return us the state of serfdom that existed when the bank of England was first set up.


There are 20 different flavors of social credit, but part of every variation of social credit is nationalizing the banking system and creating a national bank which takes control of a good percentage of the lending in the country. Still: I disagree with that entirely, I think we need a thriving commercial banking market.


Bill Still's general thesis of life:


We need to deconsolidate power at every level of governance, whenever and wherever we can, to the greatest extent practical, especially in the banking community. As it is the big banks have complete monopolistic control of the American money supply and the money supply of every other nation on earth.


As a Libertarian Still is not for government intervention into much of anything EXCEPT the banking community.


We found out in congressional hearings in 2008 that despite the fact that banks were only supposed to be leveraged only 10 to 1 under the rules of fractional reserve lending, JP Morgan and Citibank were leveraged 52 to 1, Freddie & Fannie were leveraged 80 to 1 and Goldman Sachs were leveraged 333 to 1 ! Shortly thereafter, Mr. Obongo got on TV and announced that we need to eliminate that nasty old reserve requirement altogether. In other words, 333 to 1 is not sufficient for these vultures, only infinity will do.


Why would a nation borrow money ?


Why would we have a national debt ?


The government prints ZERO money. The banks create every single dollar in existence with the exception of coin money. Yes, the government does coin money. That's money without debt, the only form of money without debt that we have in the United States. Every single other dollar is created as an interest-bearing debt by commercial banks and that's got to stop.


Still: G Edward Griffin does a great job on the history but when he gets to implementing the solution he just takes a hard left turn and goes for the Austrian economic gold-backed money solution. This violates my primary objective in political life, that is deconsolidation of power.


Ron Paul and G Edward Griffin are for gold-backed money, Bill Still is against it.


Still: Gold is concentrated money. It is not de-consolidating the money power, it is just another consolidating of the money power. You can control the quantity of money if you have gold money such as we did in the post civil war period up until Roosevelt withdrew all the privately owned gold in the 1930s. You had many artificially created depressions during this period culminating with the great depression of the 1930s. (I don't know why Still fails to mention at this point that though the U.S. money was backed by gold at this time, fractional reserve banking had been on a wild streak since the creation of the Fed in 1913. Ron Paul and G Edward Griffin are not advocating returning to a gold-backed fractional reserve counterfeiting system but to a gold-backed non-fractional-reserve system where nobody is allowed to counterfeit or lend any money they don't have measurable in actual stored gold, silver or a combination of both; gold-backed counterfeiting is still counterfeiting on a leash and better than no leash or they wouldn't have gotten rid of gold-backing and the leash in the first place).


Still: you CAN control the quantity of money with gold, the question is WHO is controlling it. Banks were controlling the quantity of gold and they were controlling it for their private profit.


Banks have always made a profit from booms and busts. The whole science of economics is supposed to created stability or lack of volatility in the quantity of money. Banks make a lot of money out of creating volatility (I don't know why Still fails to mention the Jackson to pre-civil war period or that the creation of volatility is many times more empowered with fractional reserve banking than it would ever be if there was not fractional reserve banking allowed and every single dollar used in any loan was never counterfeit but only a receipt for gold or silver or some other durable commodity in storage. Withholding gold and silver is not counterfeiting, it's just withholding. It is COUNTERFEITING through fractional reserve and interest on created money that are the main problems. It is MUCH more difficult to create booms and busts by withholding gold and silver from the market that is representative of actual wealth created than with counterfeit paper as PROVEN by the Jackson to Lincoln period of American history covered in Still's film itself and conveniently ignored here; an economy where a hamburger is designated as equal to 6 gold or silver dollars can easily go back to a hamburger being only equal to 1 gold or silver dollar if metals are made to suddenly become 6 times more scarce by those who have hoarded most of it ) .


Still: all the big media outlets are mortgaged to the max just like every American is mortgaged to the max. When these networks are borrowed-out to the max, they cannot possibly do anything that the biggest banks don't want them to do or the biggest banks will surely put them out of business by not renewing their loans. That's how the control works.


The big corporations are also controlled and many times the big banks have hegemonic interest in those corporations' stock. In other words, it doesn't take 'controlling interest' or 51% to control a corporation, you only have to be the largest shareholder, even 5% or 10% will do it sometimes if it's the largest block of stock anyone has. That plus the fact that all these corporations have to have loans, it's pretty complete control.


Stark: you say you will get rid of the income tax and replace it with 18.8 % consumption tax or national sales tax ?


Still: the income tax is just a way for the richest individuals to not pay any tax. All of the illegal immigrants would have to pay the same consumption tax.


The 'fair tax' people want a 23 % tax


consumption tax or sales tax is the compromising libertarian's way of indirectly putting a gun to your head and initiating the force to pay tax by giving you a choice of not being able to buy anything instead. Completely contradictory to libertarian philosophy which bans initiation of force on moral grounds in ALL MATTERS (self defense force is never initiated force even if the criminal is brought to justice 10 years after the crime) and yet Still is an advocate of it.


Still was involved in Ross Perot's reform party before he became a so-called half-assed Libertarian willing to put a gun to people's heads to force them to pay sales tax instead of income tax and pretend it's morally different by being more indirect and supposedly in-keeping with the U.S. constitution. Actually this makes Still more of a constitutionalist than a Libertarian so he should just stop calling himself Libertarian.


Karl Denninger is Bill Still's chief economic adviser.


Working class gets a rebate in advance of the sales tax. If they don't want the government knowing where they are then they don't get their 'fair tax rebate'


Nothing is black and white in this area and you won't really know how to fine-tune it until you get into it. Safety nets are not in keeping with strict Libertarian philosophy but Still thinks we can afford to have it


Libertarian party is the third largest party and typically has ballot access in all 50 states. Therefore Still signed up with them while really being more constitutionalist than a Libertarian just to go against the so-called goldbugs in the Libertarian party.


Still: it's absolutely true that the elites control the gold so they would benefit from the gold standard (Still conveniently fails to mention degrees of benefit and the obvious fact that the elites benefit a 1000 times more without the leash of the gold standard)


The dirty little secret that no Austrian economist wants to talk about: Rockefeller foundation financed Ludwig von Mises the whole time he was in the United States


Still: The head of the whole gold-bug community historically has been Ludwig von Mises and the Institute that bears his name continues to push Austrian economic theory popularized by Ron Paul and Mises was brought to this country by the Rockefeller foundation. In fact, the Rockefeller foundation paid for him to be a professor at New York University for his entire career (Mises was only a visiting professor and was never a full professor at anytime in his life. He was denied a full professorship at any major US university and his influence spread only through a handful of students but this doesn't make a difference to Still, only the fact that the foundation was called 'Rockefeller.' Mises was also denied full-professorship in Vienna even before the Austrians voted by a 90% majority to re-unite with Hitler's Germany but all this makes no difference to Still, only the fact that Mises' theories somehow managed to stay alive and get passed down to Ayn Rand, Lew Rockwell, G Edward Griffin and Ron Paul).


Still: Are we to believe that the most elite of the elite foundations, the Rockefellers of Chase-Manhattan bank fame who have now joined forces with J.P. Morgan, is actually going to promote an economic theory that would be the most damaging possible to the biggest banks? I don't think so. (by that logic Still would have to advocate Hitler's National Socialism which absolutely obliterated the big banks out of Germany but mention Hitler's name and watch him run for cover with some nonsense about how all socialism has economically the same results when history proved him dead-wrong in the 1930s).


Still: I have video of Ron Paul making the inane statement that 'The constitution says that only gold and silver can be money,' and that is such a gross distortion of what the constitution has to say. On that ground alone I can't really respect a guy like Ron Paul. Then the stuff he says about the 'foreign policy situation' (Still doesn't elaborate what areas of Ron Paul's foreign policy he objects to), it's not surprise that he's polling only 20% (Still has illusions that he could do better which is funny since he can't even beat the top Libertarian candidate).





Stark: Another criticism I have of some Libertarians is that they kind of want it both ways, on the one hand they denounce the globalists and at the same time they don't necessarily want to have a strong border defense.


Still's platform however incorporates strong defense of the borders


The most important concept of the constitution that's never mentioned in the constitution itself is the separation of powers concept.


Still: Founding fathers knew consolidated power is a bad thing and as powers developed the tendency would always be towards higher and higher consolidations of power especially if bankers were allowed to buy into politics. So they set up this system where they tried to SEPARATE POWERS to the greatest possible extent, so that there would be competing powers, people would have to fight for power, competition would have to be maintained, the essence of an incentive-driven system. This applies to national sovereignty. National sovereignty is the bulwark of world freedom and cannot possibly be maintained if your government is borrowing money from bankers and at the same time has an open borders policy.


The march of civilization always empowers the middle class and gets rid of serfdom, not the other way around


Still: tariffs are constitutional, so are excise taxes, and consumption tax would fall under the category of excise taxes. At the start of the 1900's 90% of the U.S. government was funded through tariffs and excise taxes and when the income tax came in in 1913 that was supposed to be only 1% to being with, but we all know what happened. All direct taxes were ruled by the supreme court to be unconstitutional in the late 1800s, so that's why the had to pass an amendment, the 16th amendment to the constitution to make the income tax 'constitutional.'


Government borrowing kicks the can down the road. Without it, politicians would have to feel the immediate heat of immediately raising taxes if they decided to engage in spending


There a lot of things that the government spends money on that are not mentioned in the constitution. Defending the nation is mentioned but things like department of education should totally be sent back to the states. If you didn't like the abortion or marijuana policies of New York you could move to Connecticut where the abortion or marijuana policies would be different, on a state by state basis.


Individual liberties completely obliterated by the defense authorization act and SOPA


Still: I'm a copyright holder and I have suffered from extreme intellectual property theft, mainly from people in China and still I would not support that SOPA bill. To me it's much more important that the internet remain this bastion of freedom than for the government to come in with their internet police. I'd rather get less money and more freedom.


We spend a huge proportion of our personal wealth in the last month of life. We can make a huge dent by just manipulating the incentives that they have for hospitals.


Medical studies are driven by what's patentable instead of what's in the public interest. These medical studies are driven by what can make big pharma the most money, not by what's the most efficacious health driven solution to a problem


For example: Magnesium, is a product that's so incredibly cheap that no one studies it and yet if you look at older studies it's tremendously efficacious for any number of ailments.


Still: The money system must operate in the public interest. The people controlling the money system are either the government in the public interest or it devolves immediately to the banks. This whole thing about we're just going to have gold money and then it's going to go into the free market is complete nonsense, can't work, never has worked, never will work and that's why the goldbugs never have a plan for it to work because there is no plan, there can be no plan.


Hospitals are a big lobby and I can guarantee you that they're not lobbying on behalf of the public interest, they are corporations. Corporations have loans to pay off to the banks, so it's all driven by maximizing profits, so we just have to take that 'maximizing profit drive' out of the hospital system. I'm not saying we have to change our hospitals to publicly owned but we can do a lot just by changing the incentives.


The heroin-dose of hot-money injections from the five biggest central banks in the world just cannot continue


11 of Obongo's top 12 donors are all the biggest banks. The heroin-doses will get us through the elections and thereafter you will see the big crash


Still: I believe that this whole gold-backed money thing has been set up for decades to be the next solution and it is not, it is the solution that's been tried and has not worked before.


"The Money Masters" video alone has had 20 million hits on the internet and Bill's videos on you tube are seen in 172 countries per week.


The solution is:


1- No more national debt


2- No more fractional reserve banking; banks should only be allowed to lend money they actually have


If we implement these 2 solutions we can fix all of our economic problems.


http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/...120404.mp3

Quote: Nietzsche on Freedom

Friedrich Nietzsche



The following is section no. 38 of “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man” from Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Twilight of the Idols.

38. My conception of freedom. — The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it — what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.

These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection it is war that produces these effects, the war for liberal institutions, which, as a war, permits illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.

How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples? According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by “tyrants” are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; most beautiful type: Julius Caesar. This is true politically too; one need only go through history. The peoples who had some value, attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong. First principle: one must need to be strong — otherwise one will never become strong.

Those large hothouses for the strong — for the strongest kind of human being that has so far been known — the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand it: as something one has or does not have, something one wants, something one conquers.

"Lest you forget the nature of money/i.e., that it is a ticket. For the govt. To issue it against any particular merchandise or metal, is merely to favour the owners of that metal and by just that much to betray the rest of the public. You can see that the bill here photod. has SERVED (I mean by the worn state of the note). Certificates of work done. That is what these notes were in fact / before the bank swine got the monopoly. Thus was the wilderness conquered for the sake of pork-barrelers who followed."
-- Ezra Pound - postcard to Franklin D. Roosevelt


"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest (that we are) drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), "What is Government ?"




"The only one who knows this ounce of words is just a token is he who has a tongue to tell but must remain unspoken." -- Moondog

[Negentropic]

Quote: The Nagging Persistence of Tribalism

by Jim Goad


July 9, 2012


http://takimag.com/article/the_nagging_p...z20q2PLG4T


Last week in rural western Alabama, members of the Christian Identity movement teamed up with Klansmen to host a three-day shindig that ended on Friday with a cross burning. The event gained national attention after local residents complained about a flyer that specified “All White Christians Invited.”


Without a dandelion petal’s worth of irony among them, News One for Black America and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People condemned the blasphemous idea of an event designed exclusively for whites. On the other side of Alabama, the preposterously well-funded Southern Poverty Law Center, helmed disproportionately by members of a group who deem themselves “God’s chosen people,” have condemned the Christian Identity movement as a hate group for daring to deem themselves “God’s chosen people.”


Other critics used this isolated event, which even provoked considerable local criticism, to issue blanket condemnations of whites, Christianity, Republicans, and, of course, “the South,” although the South has always been America’s blackest region.


Predictably, the event’s attendees were scorned by “humanists” as stupid, repellent, and genetically retrograde subhumans who crawled out from under a rock. These “racist” throwbacks are to be despised, shunned, spat upon, and deserve violent retaliation—which, through no coincidence whatsoever, is precisely the sort of stereotyping they self-righteously condemn in “racists.”“You should tolerate whomever you like, avoid whomever you dislike, but NEVER tolerate anyone who won’t tolerate you.”


No matter the tribe, that’s how all tribes act—they seek to dehumanize and eradicate non-members. Why, it’s almost like they act that way without even thinking.


No cultural group on Earth seems capable of existing without demonizing and targeting a cultural “other.” Whether it’s manifested through blood (race and ethnicity) or water (religion and ideology), tribal behavior seems indelibly identical. Groups can’t seem to exist, much less thrive, without a designated scapegoad scapegoat.


Despite all the efforts to “get past” racism and “erace” it, all human social groups seem incapable of getting past the same sort of ingroup/outgroup, good guys/bad guys, devils/angels binary thinking for which they condemn those pesky, incestuous, snaggletoothed “racists”—who, as luck would have it, always seem to belong to the same race, even though, well, um, race doesn’t exist.


If “racism” is merely a dishonestly dirty word to describe white tribalism, it may cut deeper and ultimately be more ineradicable than relative trifles such as ideological and religious schisms. If it’s a natural instinct that can’t be eliminated without ceaseless Maoist-style propaganda, shaming, and coercion, then political measures to counter it must inevitably become totalitarian. I call it “egalitotalitarianism.”


If you want to get conspiratorial—or at least acknowledge the fact that “divide and conquer” is the oldest trick in the political playbook—stuffing a nation full of people who are bound to have tribal differences is a good way to keep them at each other’s throats rather than focused on the power mechanisms that control them.


I’m a rare bird in that I’m not seduced by any tribal drumbeat, whether ethnic, religious, or ideological. Yet by default, I belong to one of the world’s most persistently persecuted minorities in that I believe human history and social conflict are best viewed through the cold microscope of facts and logic rather than the dim prism of moralistic mystical groupthink. So when I approach the radioactive and comically stigmatized concept of “racism,” my first question isn’t “How do we stop it?”; it’s “Why does it exist in the first place?”


Modern social scientists, who are little more than unscientific socialists, variously view racism as a cancer, a sin, an aberration, and a mental illness rather than a natural and ubiquitous phenomenon. Ignoring the fact that every culture throughout human history has been ethnocentric, they frame racism as an exclusive product of white supremacy, European colonialism, and predatory palefaced capitalism. They also shellac it with a thick gloppy glaze of moralistic condemnation, depicting it as the worst and most destructive of all possible human instincts. The psychological establishment is well on its way to depicting “sociobiological” as personality disorders rather than natural drives toward self-preservation, which in a bygone era were seen as the epitome of mental health.


And they blame it all on “culture” rather than biology, oblivious to the idea that it is most likely sociobiological forces that dictate and generate culture.


Without devolving into the predictable orgy of cuss words and finger-pointing and crudely painted devil puppets and endlessly unspooling bloody-rag hysteria, a simple sociobiological explanation for the tribal instinct that’s known as “racism” would account for its ubiquity. It would also explain its nagging persistence despite the relentless and increasingly iron-fisted attempts to eradicate it. Maybe it’s merely a natural group survival instinct—neither innately “good” or “bad,” which are subjective value judgments—but objectively natural, so maybe you should all calm the hell down.


There’s a recurrent leftist tendency to mistake thought for reality and reality for thought. Accordingly, the mass-culture witch doctors known as social scientists, almost all of whom are balls-deep in cultural Marxism, have it upside down and ass-backwards—race is real, while “racism” is a social construct. They insist there’s no such thing as “the white race,” yet they blame “white people” and their “racism” for everything. They stomp their size-5 ballerina shoes and insist we need new double standards to counteract old double standards rather than, oh, doing the sensible thing and eliminating double standards.


Ever notice how no one on Earth seems more race-obsessed than so-called anti-racists? It must be exhausting to constantly have to stamp out all these fires that seem to keep lighting themselves. Unless an ocean of compelling evidence convinces me otherwise, I think the reason “we” can’t “get past” what’s known as “racism” is because tribalism is an evolutionary instinct. You see how much luck Victorian England had in squashing the sex instinct—it only yielded Jack the Ripper. I think the country is so psychotically perverse about race for similar reasons. Natural tribal instincts are being suppressed, yielding legions of tight-assed, insufferable weirdos.


Ethnic pride abhors a vacuum. The main problem with “cultural affirmative action”—or whatever you want to call the double standard that tolerates groups with “Black” or “Jewish” or “Hispanic” or “Asian” in their name but forbids it to whites—is that no one has defined exactly when “social justice” and “equality” are going to be achieved. Will it be when everyone scores exactly the same on intelligence tests and makes exactly the same income? Yeah, good luck with that project, Cap’n. What if that’s impossible without constantly imposing unfair rules—i.e., severely tilting the playing field you disingenuously claim you want to level?


For the longest time I was down with the whole “anti-racism” project until I realized one of its main platforms was continuing to allow people who didn’t share my biological ancestry to hate me for my skin. I thought the deal was that we were all supposed to drop the whole racial-pride thing. Instead, I wound up on my derriere in a game of Racial Musical Chairs. Not only did the other players refuse to abandon their ethnocentrism, they intensified it. Then I began to believe it wasn’t about fairness at all, it was merely a cleverly backhanded way of seizing power in a zero-sum Genetic World Series.


Conflict seems inevitable in human interactions. The term “the human race” would only acquire practical meaning if we were attacked by Martians. And if the only two humans left on Earth were identical twins, they’d find a way to somehow make it racial.The sanest route would be to treat everyone fairly while conceding that life is unfair. Presume that anyone who ignores nature and thinks everything is 100% nurture is a natural-born idiot. And you should tolerate whomever you like, avoid whomever you dislike, but NEVER tolerate anyone who won’t tolerate you.


http://takimag.com/article/the_nagging_p...z20q2PLG4T

Robert Stark interviews Jim Goad.


http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/...120620.mp3


Topics include:


Goad’s experience in prison vs. the public’s perception of prison life;


Goad’s rejection of moralistic arguments such as those used against so-called “racist”;


Israel to Africans–Go Home;

http://takimag.com/article/israel_to_afr...z1z89tURS9


We’re White, We’re Male, and We Suck!;

http://takimag.com/article/were_white_we...z1z89tURS9


European nationalism–golden dawn or old and gone;

http://takimag.com/article/european_nati...z1z89tURS9


Give the bigots a pill.

http://takimag.com/article/give_the_bigo...z1z89tURS9


Jim Goad is the author of four books, including The Redneck Manifesto.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684838...0684838648


He is the former editor of “ANSWER Me!” magazine and currently hosts JimGoad.net. Though many people find him to be beneath contempt, he sincerely claims he doesn’t know what the big deal is. At various points he has found employment as a radio host, a country singer, and a cabdriver. He lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia and writes for TakiMag. Known for his controversial political and socially charged viewpoints, Goad's work has been described as "compelling", "brutally honest"[1] and "original" by author Chuck Palahniuk. Comedian Patton Oswalt cites Goad's writing as an influence.



http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/...120620.mp3


You Meet the Nicest People in Prison

Why You Probably Won’t Get Stabbed or Raped if You Go Up the River

http://www.jimgoad.net/nicest.html


http://jimgoad.net/



http://chuckpalahniuk.net/interviews/authors/jim-goad





Red Ice Radio Interview with Bill Still of "The Money Masters" & "The Secret of Oz"

August 23, 2012

http://k006.kiwi6.com/hotlink/h2fw1d6512..._of_oz.mp3

[Negentropic]

"There is an invincible taste for prostitution in the heart of man, from which comes his horror of solitude. He wants to be 'two'. The man of genius wants to be 'one'... It is this horror of solitude, the need to lose oneself in the external flesh, that man nobly calls 'the need to love'. " ~Charles Baudelaire


"It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence, every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. . . . Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitable be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded; and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality." ~ Carl Jung (from The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, p.169)


"The idiosyncrasy of an individual is not to be understood as any strangeness in his substance or in his components, but rather as a unique combination, or gradual differentiation, of functions and faculties which in themselves are universal. " ~ Carl Jung (from The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, p182)


"With more foreboding than real knowledge most people feel afraid of the manacing power that lies fettered in each of us, only waiting for the magic word to release it from the spell. The magic word, which always ends in "ism", works most successfully with those who have the least access to their instinctual roots into the truly chaotic world of collective consciousness." ~ Carl Jung (from On the nature of psyche, p96).


"I have listened with great interest to discussions regarding decentralization and centralization and I have thought that the question of whether it is valid to decentralize or centralize is unanswerable because it deals with one one-way sign in two-way traffic. It is a static question in a dynamic universe.

Man was invented a mobile device and process. He has survived through his ability to advance or retreat as his mortal requirements have dictated. Of his two primary faculties, quickness is of great importance but intellect is first.

He recognized that vital quickness may be momentary reflex but that satisfactory continuities are proportional to his degree of comprehension of the consequence of his initiative. Degree of comprehension he measures in the terms of the complex integration of all individuals' all-time experience, as processed by intellectual integrity. His quickness would be a spontaneous servant to that integrity.

Despite intermittent submissiveness to runaway momentums of residual ignorance, man guards most dearly and secretly his freedom of thought and initiative. Therefrom emanates the social-industrial relay, from self starter to group starters.

Out of this freedom alone understanding may be generated. Man recognizes understanding as an activated circuit of mutual comprehension by individual minds. Understanding must be plural. However, because individual experience is unique, understanding can be developed only in principle out of the compounding significance of plurality of experience. Thus, man knows that the voluntary interactions of understanding dealing in fundamental principles will always master involuntary mass actions, and that individual freedom ever anticipates and ultimately masters mutual emergency."
~ from "Ideas and Integrities" by Buckminster Fuller (1963)

In the past 2 or 3 years I have researched and discovered enough buried facts about the most maligned man in history to realize the opinion that Hitler was a greater man than Churchill, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Truman, Barack Obongo, both Bushes and Billy Bob Clinton combined (even Mussolini was better than those losers combined). Hitler is up there with Thomas Jefferson in the pantheon of the greatest political leaders who ever lived.

All the proof is gathered on this thread:

Hitler was a great man and the Gestapo were fabulous police David Irving claims

http://concen.org/forum/thread-35132-page-4.html

All you Alex-Jones-weaned libertarian individualists (I am one too, the Jeffersonian variety, with many reservations, the foremost being Libertarianism can go eat hairy Jew balls unless it's ANTI-USURY first and foremost) sprung from the loins of Rand should know that Alice Ronenbaum was not very different than Hitler in her real views on race (expressed in her journals only and not for public consumption.

It's just that Rand's private views on race did not become known until her Journals were published post-humously by her dufus Jew heir Leonard Porkoff or whatever his name is, that lunatic that wanted to nuke Iraq.

So while blabbing away publicly in her well-known essay 'Racism' on how strong an anti-racist she supposedly was:

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism... Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men."

and bashing on the 'white trash,' of course, the way politically correct controlled opposition stooges are supposed to do under Rothschild command without ever daring to use the terms 'black trash aka nigger' or 'Jew trash aka kike' on pain of ostracism from society:

"Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters."

and tying it to the holohoax to boot:

"the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history -- all these are samples of racism, the atavvistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today's so-called "newly-emerging nations."

and bringing Czarist Russia into it in her anti-racist rant also while not mentioning that that Czarist Russia was mainly opposed to Jew infiltration of academia and had a very successful non-usurious State Bank in from 1860 to 1914, the very same period during which Rand's Jewish parents prospered in Russia (see the quotes from the Spingola / Goodson audio linked at the very end of this post):

"This accumulation of contradictions, of short-sighted pragmatism, of cynical contempt for principles, of outrageous irrationality, has now reached its climax in the new demands of the Negro leaders... Racial quotas have been one of the worst evils of racist regimes. There were racial quotas in the universities of Czarist Russia, in the population of Russia's major cities, etc."


She then uses the excuse of 'racism' to push laissez-faire, which, of course, is EXACTLY what the banksters want, since laissez-faire applied BEFORE the usurocracy is dismantled with ETERNAL VIGILANCE as Jefferson advised 200 years ago, PLAYS DIRECTLY into the hands of globalism and the NWO:

"There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism."

No, Miss Rosenbaum, there can be no such thing as THE RAPED allowing MORE RAPE of their own asses in the name of anti-racism, anti-tyranny or any other nonsense, without a COLLECTIVE & FULLY JUSTIFIED POLICE FORCE (as they had in Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany) throwing all the rapists in a dungeon first.

Once the RAPIST USURER SCUM are in prison, THEN & ONLY THEN, can a Jeffersonian system of European Individualism be slowly and carefully restored with ETERNAL VIGILANCE like he advised and which hundreds of millions of idiots forgot.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." ~Thomas Jefferson

Short saying, MASSIVE implications -

So all the while Rosenbaum was playing the anti-white-trash, anti-racist crusader in public, in private her views were quite different:

Quote:1. from The Journals of Ayn Rand (paperback pp. 466-467, April 1946):

Rand on race Journals of Ayn Rand

“Men’s intellectual achievements have always been so unequal that to the thinkers the majority of their brothers have always seemed subhuman. And some men may still be, for all the evidence of rationality, or lack of it, that they give. We may still be in evolution, as a species, and living side by side with some “missing links.”

We do not know to what extent the majority of men are now rational. (They are certainly far from the perfect rational being, and all the teachings they absorb push them still further back to the pre-human stage.) But we do know that mankind as a whole and each man as an individual has a chance to survive and succeed only to the degree of their general and individual intelligence. That is all a rational man can deal with, count on, or be concerned with. Let him, without wondering about actual numbers, or percentages of intelligence in others, act on the basis of “addressing himself to intelligence”- and he will win. And he will find that he does not have to fear stupidity. (Most men now are rational beings, even if not too smart; they are not pre-humans incapable of rational thinking; they can be dealt with only on the basis of free, rational consent.)

If it’s asked about those who are still pre-human, or near enough to it, and incapable of rationality to guide their lives? What if such do exist among us? The answer is: nothing. Their way of living is not ours; in fact, they have no way of living, no method or means of survival- except through imitating us, who have acquired the human method and means. Leave us to our way of living- man’s way- freedom, individual independence- and we’ll carry them along by providing an example and a world of safety and comfort such as they can never quite grasp, yet alone achieve.

We do this- but even if we didn’t, so what? If those creatures incapable of rational existence are sub-human, are we to sacrifice ourselves or be sacrificed to them? Are we to descend to their level? Are we to make them the goal of our existence, and service to them our only purpose? If these pre-humans are incapable of rational thinking and of independence, and therefore they need an enslaved, controlled, regimented, “protective” society in order to survive- we cannot survive in such a society. By definition, we are then two different species. Their requirements are opposite to ours. They’ll perish without us, anyway. But we will not be sacrificed to them. We will live in freedom- whether or not others can or will live that way."

Hitler's views on race and not sacrificing effort on non-Aryans that could yield much better results on Aryans were very simlar to Rand's. Rand has every right to being racialist if she wants just like Hitler or anybody else. The problem only starts when force is initiated against individuals in favor of an opinion and not in SELF-DEFENSE from their force initiation. In Hitler's way of looking at things, keeping the Aryan bloodlines pure against Jewish efforts to mix it with non-Aryans was legitimate self-defense even if having sex with someone of another race and then even deciding to have the child is a voluntary choice. Hitler felt that these kinds of 'voluntary choices' were like the choices of children who didn't know better and had to be regulated for them by a strong father figure looking after their interests.

Hitler was also much less of a hypocrite than Rand and though never installing segregation in Germany the way they had in most of the USA, he made German citizenship itself racial, in keeping with his principles, favoring the 98% majority and discriminating against 2%, therefore restricting non-Aryans from the higher professions into the skilled trades only and encouraging them to return to their own countries and civilizing their own if they considered themselves able.

Actually, though she would obviously never admit it, Rand, being the Nietzsche plagiarist that she was anyway, most probably just read "Mein Kampf" and took her own views of race of April 1946 directly from the heroic anti-usury, anti-JWO National Socialist head honcho himself.

Hitler didn't consider individuals to be equal in any way, cultures even less so. He maintained that the same amount of effort that it takes to make a non-Ayran into a scientist, doctor or lawyer, expended on an Aryan would give you far better results because of their many hundreds of years of civilization embedded in their DNA as they acquired that culture & civilization. Now, the cultures that haven't achieved the same level MAY be able to get there much faster and embed their DNA with advanced civilization behaviors GIVEN plenty of help from the Aryan civilizations that are already there. Hitler felt that it was not HIS responsiblity or the responsibility of other Aryans to go help these other cultures rise, it was THEIR responsibility to do it, if they so chose and thought themselves able. Any help that came from Aryans to these other cultures would only come AFTER they had taken care of their people first and it would come only in THEIR countries and be either straight charity out of the goodness of their hearts because they already have too much for themselves or a business co-operation on a non-equal footing, since the teacher is always the one calling the shots.

Therefore he passed some restrictive laws to encourage non-Aryans to go back to their own cultures and lift their own cultures up. Unfortunately, a lot of these people went back to their cultures to realize, they were far more persecuted there by their own than by the Aryans in Germany under Hitler.

If you were not of an Aryan bloodline, you were usually not considered fully German no matter how long you lived in Germany, no disrespect necessarily intended. If you were non-Aryan, you were not accepted into the Hitler Youth and even if you had the passing grades you did not qualify for the free high school education that Aryans got to get into the higher professions. After junior high school, you were restricted to a 3 year apprenticeship in one of the skilled trades. Outside of Germany, during the war, non-Aryan volunteers were accepted into the military ranks and even into the Waffen SS elite units (up to 60,000 Muslims whom Himmler considered fearless fighters & much superior to Italian soldiers), but INSIDE of Germany the racial restrictions applied.

Quote:"The ancient Aryans were very much aware of the necessity of spiritual practices. The lack of spiritual practices eventually brings down people genetically because it gets coded into your body's electric system or metagenics.

So genetics are actually metagenics. This is how the enemy domestication program works. The brain is interconnected with the shakra centers which are the macrocosm of the genetic or DNA information code in the body. By programming the mind via ideological software downloads this then reformats the neural pathways in the brain which is almost like a hard-drive and this corresponds to a programming command which is a frequency vibration or a filter. This interfaces with the chakra centers that send this program code into the overall energy body and imprints it into the genetic information code via epigenetics thus switching the overall psych into the program frequency. This plugs into the mass mind and then becomes a locked in program due to the collective psychic power of the mass mind.

Part of this enemy paradigm is the removal of spiritual knowledge and the removal of advanced humans out of society by murdering them and their bloodlines. The killing of them cuts off the head of the original system and then the head of the new system rules. Communism is the open practice of this and it culls out the most advanced genetics. Nietzsche understood this and termed it 'slave morality.' The degeneration effects of a lack of spirituality creates significant negative genetic effects and what Christianity does is remove this knowledge of spirituality from you." ~ David from Tejas

excerpted from this audio:

Down & Out Radio with Mike Sledge & Special Guest David from Texas - 09 / 13 / 2012

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drewma1313/...sledge.mp3

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drewma1313

Quote:"I suspect that the vast majority of men in my neighborhood became involved with the Not-Sees for reasons that had little to do with ideology. Like most German men, they were better craftsmen, mechanics, tailors and butchers than students of politics. The German school system, which had reserved secondary and higher education for an intellectual elite, simply didn't prepare them for political and philosophical thinking. Under Hitler, most of them had prospered beyond their wildest dreams; they had steady employment, tax deductions for multiple children, free health care, and many other formerly unheard-of benefits. They were convinced that a political party that had made good on its promise to wipe out unemployment, the scourge of the working class, deserved their support." ~ excerpt from "Destined to Witness, Growing Up Black in Not-See Germany" (page 105) by Hans Massaquoi

"The fact that all of my classmates had become card-carrying members of the Hitlerjugend had in no way affected our relationship. Those who were close to me before they joined the Jungvolk remained so afterward. We continued to play and have fun together and visit each other's homes as if nothing had changed." ~ excerpt from "Destined to Witness, Growing Up Black in Not-See Germany" by Hans Massaquoi

"He (Morell) also went from door to door passing out copies of virulently anti-Semitic Not-See literature. Parteigenosse (party comrade) Morell accepted unquestioningly his party's doctrine that Jews are the root of all evil, although I doubt seriously that in our blue-collar environment he ever knowingly met a Jew face-to-face, let alone was harmed by one. At the same time, he was totally color blind and exhibited a curious case of schizophrenia where I was concerned. For some inexplicable reason, his bigoted thinking did not extend to me. On the contrary, as the closest buddy of Karl, I was included in most of the Morells' activities and treated almost like a member of the family. To the dismay of my mother, who had come by her loathing of Not-Sees honestly, I had become a virtual fixture in the home of the biggest Not-See on the block." from "Destined to Witness, Growing Up Black in Not-See Germany" by Hans Massaquoi

"A few days before the opening of the games, Karl Morell startled me with sensational news. His father was taking him, his older brother, Hans, and several neighborhood boys on a one-week trip to Berlin, and if my mother would give her permission--and come up with the train fare and a few extra marks spending money--I was welcome to come along. At first, my mother was dead set against letting me go. But when I convinced her by way of a two-hour hunger strike that my life might as well be over if I couldn't go to Berlin, she agreed to have a chat with Herr and Frau Morell to learn more about the trip. After a lengthy discussion with the Morells, during which they assured her that I would be in good hands and that there was no better way for a boy to spend part of the school summer holidays than to see the nation's capital and the Olympic Games, my mother relented.

On the morning of our departure, our group of about ten boys from the neighborhood, some in Hitler Youth uniforms, each loaded down with heavy backpacks and canteens, journeyed by Hochbahn to Hamburg's Central Station. Before boarding a D-Zug (express train) for Berlin, Herr Morell had us fall in and stand at attention like an SS honor guard for a snappy military briefing on what to do and what no to do on the trip. For the occasion, he, too, carried a backpack, but although he did not wear his Amtswalter uniform, his polished brown riding boots and britches left no doubt about his Not-See Party membership.

The train was packed, mostly with schoolchildren who, like us, were venting their excitement by filling the air with deafening chatter and the occasional strains of a marching song. Listening to the cacophony and watching the landscape go by, I still found it difficult to believe that in a few hours I would be walking around our Reichshaupstadt (capital) Berlin, the city we kids had been taught to regard as the center of the universe.

When we arrived late at night at Berlin's famous Anhalter Bahnhof, we were hoarse from singing and dead tired. By the time we reached our youth hostel on the outskirts of the city, after a brief bus ride through Berlin's bustling night traffic and a quick look at the famous Brandenburg Gate and the Funkturm, Berlin's answer to Paris's Eiffel Tower, we were ready to hit the sack. But before we were allowed to go to sleep on the inviting mattresses that lined the walls of an attic dormitory, Herr Morell reminded us that we were breathing the same Berlin air as our beloved Fuhrer, and made us render the Not-See salute. The very idea of the Fuhrer's proximity gave me goose pimples that didn't go away until I was soundly asleep." ~ from "Destined to Witness, Growing Up Black in Not-See Germany" by Hans Massaquoi

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology.” ~ Ayn Rand

Quote:related to Rand's quote about Czarist Russia mentioned above here's the excerpt from:

Spingola Speaks 10 / 01 / 2012

Deanna Spingola interviews Stephen Goodson, a former (non-executive) Director of the South African Reserve Bank

http://k006.kiwi6.com/hotlink/919owrhusi....10.01.mp3

One of the criticisms of people who want to dismantle fractional reserve banking is:

well, give us an example of where state banking has succeeded. Goodson replies: The State Bank of Czarist Russia between 1860 & 1914 is one excellent example.

In 1815 at the congress of Vienna, they were discussing what to do with Europe after Napoleon's defeat. Of course, Napoleon had been defeated because he had set up a state bank, the Bank de France, in 1800. The whole purpose of the Napoleonic wars was to destroy Napoleon's bank. The Rothschilds used the British army, their usual dupes.

So in this 1815 congress, Czar Alexander I was approached by Nathan Rothschild who said:

Hey, how would you like to have a central bank like they have in England ?

Czar Alexander distrusted him completely because the Russians had been having enormous problems with their Jewish population, usury and the exploitation of the Russian peasants. Jews also controlled the liquor industry since they owned all the distilleries of Vodka.

Three years previously, Napoleon had wanted to form a pact with Russia and Czar Alexander had been willing to go along with it but he said to Napoleon: Look, England provides most of my industrial products. Can you replace them ? And of course, Napoleon couldn't because there were no roads or railroads at that time and the English navy was paramount on the seas. So that's why he invaded Russia.

So the Russian empire distanced itself from fractional reserve banking and in 1860 they set up the Russian state bank. This bank was under the ministry of finance, operated as the bank of the bankers, minted and printed the nation's coins and notes and it regulated the money supply. It also provided the commercial banks with very cheap loans.

In this way Russia built up the largest gold reserves in the world. This was because there was no usury there, there were no major parasites there extracting or creaming-off the industrial production.

This is proven by statistics which are available which show that the national debt of Russia was minuscule compared to France and Great Britain.

Russia at that time produced almost half of world's barley, oats, rye and wheat and at the end of the 19th century they were ahead of every country in the world in industrial output and mining production.

This also greatly benefited the peasantry as Czar Alexander II freed the serfs, who were about 50% of the population and by 1914 80% of the arable land was all under control of the peasants and so there was no reason whatsoever for a revolution.

The peasants' bank granted loans at a very low rate of interest, allowing them to slowly buy up land. Education was free right up to the university level and they had the finest system of code of laws. Labor legislation as also well-advanced. It was almost a perfect society, so the reasons that are advanced for the Czarist system's demise are all lies. Almost everything that is told about how the peasants were suffering is untrue. What is true is that during the war years of 1914 to 1917 there were disruptions of the food supply and things did deteriorate.

So the Russian state bank of the late 19th century is a perfect example of a state bank that functions for the benefit of everyone. It's a TOTAL UNTRUTH what's been told about Russia in the late 19th century. In fact, they destroyed that country. Tens of millions of people were murdered by the communist regime or sent to gulags to freeze to death. They literally wrecked their entire country.

Quote: Programme of the NSDAP, 24 February 1920


The 25 points of the NSDAP Program were composed by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler. They were publically presented on 24 February 1920 "to a crowd of almost two thousand and every single point was accepted amid jubilant approval." (Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter I) Hitler explained their purpose in the fifth chapter of the second volume of Mein Kampf:

The program of the new movement was summed up in a few guiding principles, twenty-five in all. They were devised to give, primarily to the man of the people, a rough picture of the movement's aims. They are in a sense a political creed, which on the one hand recruits for the movement and on the other is suited to unite and weld together by a commonly recognized obligation those who have been recruited.

Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.

THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST -
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

In these straightforward statements of intent, Hitler translated his ideology into a plan of action which would prove its popularity with the German people throughout the coming years. For many, the abruptness of its departure from the tradition of politics as practiced in the western world was as much of a shock as its liberal nature and foresight of the emerging problems of western democracy.


The Programme of the German Workers' Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.

"1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.

23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
© that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.

The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.


* On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler clarified section seventeen in the programme in order to stop political mischaracterizations: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the programme of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land.


http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

Adolf Hitler's speech on women



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRlfbUr852o



"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." (Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816)

“Germany’s unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.” Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, as quoted in: Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War (Foreword to the second edition 2001), originally published in 1938.

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread."-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred. If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen.”
~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

[GasseGeir]

Super good thread.

[fujiinn]

(03-29-2011 11:25 PM)FastTadpole Wrote:  This video sums up the real paradigm very succinctly.

Collectivism/Anarcho-Communism - Planned Chaos



18 Mar 2011
By mikeshanklin of Voluntary Virtues and Peace, Freedom, Prosperity

Related: Philosophy of Liberty - Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey - Book and Re-Encoded Video
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=38849

That video is anarcho-capitalist propaganda. I really can't understand why anarchists really care about the various "flavors" that are out there. All true anarchists are first and foremost against the state. How they choose to organize beyond that is irrelevant.

The first objection to anarcho-communism in that video is that it encourages central planning. I guess that the family as well encourages central planning. No wonder that the Bolsheviks killed all the anarchists they could lay their hands on (mostly anarcho-communists).