The argument for socialism goes against history and every attempt to make it work.

The argument for socialism goes against reason by appeals to emotion.

The argument for socialism goes against human nature and the quest for liberty and self responsibility.

The argument for socialism contains an inherent need for a powerful state apparatus acting as the nanny.

The argument for socialism demands conformity, uniformity, and regimentation. For needs to be fulfilled efficiently, needs must be homogenized and leveled.

The opposite of socialism is not capitalism, it is the free market model sans capitalization. It is unregulated trade.

Unregulated trade does not equate to unregulated products; safety, honest business practice, etc.

Unregulated trade in the free market need not necessarily lead to private ownership of utilities, and infrastructure. Local government has a place in such industries as; fire departments, police, water district, electricity, mass transport systems [bus or rail].

Unregulated trade need not embrace corporatism, the use of a fictitious entity can be regulated by statute, and charters limited.
The rise in corporatism in the US was a judicial slight of hand and unconstitutional, when corporations were granted “personhood” [Santa Clara v Southern Pacific]

Unregulated trade does not mean putting up with usury and the counterfeit “money” syndicate. It is the responsibility of Congress to regulate weights and measures of precious metals.
The government has no mandate to generate wealth under the Constitution, only the responsibility to create a level playing field free of criminal activity {malum in se}.

Central planning cannot be exacting to the needs for production. A national economy is overwhelmingly complex.

Profit is incentive, one that withers in a socialist regime.

Competition encourages innovation and ingenuity. Under socialism the only outlet for ingenuity is political intrigue.

In closing, Monopoly Capitalism is not a “free market”, the use of this term in a monopoly capitalist market is simply Newspeak. What has not been attempted since the end of the republic is actual free trade. Socialism has been tried countless times, in fact the present system in America today is a synthesis of corporatist monopoly socialism and communitarianism.

And this, is a police state.

A government given the responsibility to care for a peoples every vital need—MUST be given the power to carry such a task out, which means the power to rule your every vital action. This is the very definition of TYRANNY.




  1. This is an article I originally published on COTO1 on August 19, 2010.

    The article caused quite a firestorm of a reaction from some of the members of COTO at that time. Especially insulted was ‘Waldopaper’ who begins his “rebuttal” thus:

    “Red-baiting! Straw-man!
    To go through it point by point: nope. nope. nope. wrong (resembles #2). not really. “libertarian” drivel. in what universe? that IS socialism. getting closer. meaningless. inaccurate. more “libertarian” drivel. even more LD. In closing, newspeak double plusgood.”~waldopaper on August 19, 2010 at 3:11 am


    • My point number two is:

      The argument for socialism goes against reason by appeals to emotion.

      And this was ultimately all Waldopaper could offer, all put in his weird Waldoian rhetorical woowoo and urban spraycan poetry. This is the kind of pop-tart that modern universities produce, Prefab Sprouts with preprocessed dialogs built in: Rote-werx.

    • “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”~Edward Langley

  2. Now, I won’t make an appeal to the ‘lower common denominator’, those who cannot follow a travelling thought, who cannot connect the dots. But I do make a straightforward case and give evidence to my assertions.

    And again what I find with those who do not get it, is that they are stuck in an emotional state that simply feels like passion lent to what they see as ‘reasonable’ – but it is not, it is emotional driven defense of something that causes the angst of ‘defensiveness’ anchored in the frustration of not having a rational basis for something they have invested so much of their lives into.

    They have failed to grasp the nature of the the game played on their heads. That they have been programmed by repetition of mantras steeped in dogma, a false paradigm that permeates the modern high technological world of postmodern humanity.
    As True Believers, crossing that first threshold of genuine individual thought is a frightening situation. The closer they get to what they have miss-perceived as an abyss of demons and monsters and fire breathing dragons, the more the fear and loathing kicks in.

    They do not yet grasp that they have been terrorized by myths of bogeymen designed by the ones who have stolen their minds, and pickled them in vats of electronic vinegar.
    The Voodoo Rituals of Electronic Neuromancy, the “devil” as “high-tech”.

    [Remember all language is metaphore, whether blatant or subtle.]


    “National security” is code for, “shut up, we don’t have to tell you nuthin”.

    Hegel’s dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels’ grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can’t be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist’s global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

    Don’t try to hide behind some squall of shit.

    You can always tell these kinds of guys; the perpetual victim, they will rhetorically frame anything you can possibly say as a ‘threat’. The real deep psychola’ being their tissue-paper thin, hyper-fragile ego structure. Of course this leads to hyper emotional language, ei; psychobabble.

    If you simply call one of these lunatics an asshole, they can’t take it–exploding into long harangue barrages, often ending in the ‘question’, “You want to kill me don’t you?” And accusing you of “hating” them. Simply because you said they are an asshole, but certainly are not emotionally connected enough to generate any imagined ‘hatred’.

    As far as the “reasoning” path they took there…well, that leaves any sane person going, “Wha-th’fuck?”

    Then they start to “psychoanalyze” YOU. This guy says to me that I am a “homosexual” for referring to his asshole.
    When you have to explain to anyone in this culture that using the Anglo-Saxon vernacular is simply a generic put-down—having no connection to the technical nature of the term…well, then you know you’re talking to a real fruitcake.

    Or, a disinformation shill.

    This psycho-game is also taught as a technique for scattering the flow of blog debates. Under the uber-strategy of FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE the front lines of the war of terror is everywhere/anywhere, including MINDWAR.
    This psychological warfare is waged in all forms of medium. And it is panoptic.

    Some will come forward and call these assertions, ‘Conspiracy Theory’. But there is nothing at all ‘conspiratorial’ about it. The openly proclaimed official military posture of FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE is by no acceptable definition a “theory”, and as it is public knowledge, and it cannot be defined as a ‘conspiracy’ in the common sense of that meaning, “hidden”.

    As far as the analysis of this topic being referred to as “theoretical”, this is only true in the scientific meaning of the word; because the actual data and information is NOT theoretical—this information comes from the white papers , position papers, open testimony of officials, etc. The analysis is deep and forensic, relying on the scientific method and therefore adhering to the rules of logic.

    Through long and persistent study a conspiracy is indeed revealed. But this cannot be defined as theoretical, as it is a verifiable fact of history and current affairs. It is in fact an “Open Conspiracy” as H.G. Wells propagates in his early work, THE NEW WORLD ORDER, a Fabian Socialist manifesto. This Utopian cheerleader, Wells was tragically disappointed near the end of his life when he realized the inhuman aims of the agenda he had so enthusiastically supported. His appeals against it becoming ever more bitter, until he came to the point of utter hopelessness.

    This cynical hopelessness expressed by Wells in his last writings cannot be easily hand waved, for as those who have come to understand this insidious plot, the fruition of this brave New World Order is upon us. Those who fail to grasp this are taking part in their own ruin. This is what it means to be well adjusted in a psychotic society.

    Even ‘blowback’ is a modified limited hangout used as cover for deeper hidden lies.
    Those lies covering the fact that the ‘blowback” is actually part of the original agenda.
    The ‘blowback’ often being a false flag operation.

    This revetment was suggested in the shadows during the 9/11 “investigation”; in that the actions of the accused hijackers were not predicated on “hating our freedoms”, but because of US imperialism in the Middle East. This is just enough mud to obstruct the clearer view, that being al Qaeda is actually a subsidiary of western intelligence.

    Free Masonry, has to do with physical building masonry only in an allegorical sense. The materials used in Masonry is psycho-social-political. It has to do with social engineering. It is in the same sense that Jesus was a ‘carpenter’, it means “master” in that allegorical sense. Jesus was a social engineer in the spiritual sense.
    The issue, as always is intent. What is the intent of those who control modern Masonry? What is the intent of those who control the modern “Church”? Well…what are the results? “By their fruits ye shall know them”.

    Keep in mind, just because they have confused you, doesn’t mean that they are confused. A stage magician isn’t baffled by his ‘magic’. Do you really believe that those who control the world don’t know how to control the world?
    As George Orwell wrote; “Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past”. Put bluntly, those who control the present write the official history—that is control of the past.

    Yea…and in the history of the occult placement of DC is the weird situation that the real point of “power” as these mystics wanted was some twenty miles off the eastern seaboard in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This all has to do with the ‘magical’ meridians of a global matrix. Deep psychobabbular woo woo…but when you control the reins of power, any weird story you want to believe will work for you. It’s essentially, “I’m cool cuz I’m special” in whatever costume you want to put it in.

    We must not lampoon an imaginary being? This menu has crassberry jam on cracked actors.
    DC, once a swamp always a swamp. The truth of things, places and beings remains obvious.
    Corporations are imaginary beings. States are imaginary beings. Humans are flesh and bone beings.

    Naiveté is not innocence. It is ignorance.

    Going along to get along is fine until you get where they are taking you.

    There are no secrets, just things you failed to pay attention to.

    Liberty is a discovery of enlightened reason—not an invention of revolution.

    A Champion of an Imaginary Being:

    Who is Cass Sustein?

    Cass Sunstein was born on September 21, 1954 into a Jewish-American family.

    In 1981, the first year of the U.S. Presidential administration of Ronald Reagan, Skousen was asked to be a charter member of the conservative think tank, the Council for National Policy, founded by Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind series of books. Other early participants included Paul Weyrich; Phyllis Schlafly; Robert Grant; Howard Phillips, a former Republican affiliated with the Constitution Party; Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail specialist; and Morton Blackwell, a Louisiana and Virginia activist who is considered a specialist on the rules of the Republican Party.Skousen’s proposals with the group included a plan to convert the Social Security system to private retirement accounts, as well as a plan that he claimed would completely wipe out the national debt.

    The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. “There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein

    In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush’s creation of military commissions without Congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist that “under existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions” and that “President Bush’s choice stands on firm legal ground.”
    Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, “The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” They go on to propose that, “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”,[22] where they suggest, among other tactics, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”[22] They refer, several times, to skeptics of the government-promoted narrative of the September 11 attacks as “extremist groups.”
    Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts.
    “Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”

    What an incredible absurdity the assertions of Sustein and Vermeule are. The raw unmitigated fact is that the official story of 9/11 is itself a “conspiracy theory”, and it is thus verifiable that it is Sustein and Vermuele themselves who display for the candid world to see; that it is they who suffer from the crippled epistemology. These people are simply highly decorated jackasses. Typical for this psychotic society.

    “Rather than engaging with the conceptual debates, we will proceed in an eclectic fashion…”

    It is quite illustrative that Sustein and Vermuele duck engaging in the conceptual debate, for as revealed as we follow their line of “reasoning”, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual philosophical, and epistemological validity of conspiracy as a motor in the movement and evolution of society.
    Their entire argument is based on an open and blatant appeal to authority. To any sane and rational person, such argumentation fails on the launching pad. The primary failure is that of ‘false assumption”.

    All are invited to assume that the concept of a conspiracy is on its face an absurd proposition. From this platform the authors then go on to defend a conspiracy theory, in utter abandon of reason and sanity. This is remarkable idiocy, naked and blatant.

    One cannot help imagining Orwell chuckling from his celestial cat-perch.

    But then for them to ‘tacitly’ suggest that there is some sort of “common cause” between the designated “terrorists” and the “conspiracy theorist”, is disassociative illogic—a subtle assertion with no basis even offered:
    “These theories exist within the United States and, even more virulently,
    in foreign countries, especially Muslim countries. The existence of both domestic and
    foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks…”

    What is obvious here is that Sustein and Vermuele’s work is merely a continuation of the psychological myth spinning operation begun September 11,2001. This is pathos.

    “We bracket the most difficult questions here and suggest more intuitively that a conspiracy theory can generally be counted as such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”- Sustein and Vermuele

    This is an incredibly narrow and spurious definition that the authors have “suggested more intuitively”.

    It is verboten “conspiracy theory” only if the “machinations of powerful people” are scrutinized. As we discern from the entire treatise, it is the powerful people and systems under their control which is not to be questioned, for it is ‘Conspiracy Theory’ with a triple XXX rating.

    “Service intellectuals instinctively know the bounds of discourse, beyond which the full fury of power’s opinion mill and influence will be aimed against the heretic.” –Rancourt

    To continue with Sustein and Vermuele:

    [1] “A conspiracy theory posits that a
    social outcome evidences an underlying intentional order, overlooking the possibility that
    the outcome arises from either spontaneous order or random forces. Popper is picking up
    on a still more general fact about human psychology, which is that most people do not
    like to believe that significant events were caused by bad (or good) luck, and much prefer
    simpler causal stories. Note, however, that the domain of Popper’s explanation is quite
    limited. Many conspiracy theories, including those involving political assassinations and
    the attacks of 9/11, point to events that are indeed the result of intentional action, and the
    conspiracy theorists go wrong not by positing intentional actors, but by misidentifying

    {1A}>> And this “misidentifying” is not addressed in specifics; yet one more time we are fed THEORY:

    [2] A broader point is that conspiracy theories overestimate the competence and
    discretion of officials and bureaucracies, who are assumed to be able to make and carry
    out sophisticated secret plans, despite abundant evidence that in *open societies* government action does not usually remain secret for very long.

    {2A}>> This assertion that the US is an “open society” is a ludicrous proposition to anyone with the slightest grasp on the nature of the panoptic maximum security state the US has openly become.
    This position alone is a death knell to the veracity of these blatant propagandists. Thus far every point in their reasoning is based on false propositional assumptions.

    The “abundant evidence” actually available simply refutes the official conspiracy fable in almost every minute detail.

    [3] Recall that a distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is that they attribute immense power to the agents of the conspiracy; the attribution is usually implausible but also makes the theories especially
    vulnerable to challenge. Consider all the work that must be done to hide and to cover up the government’s role in producing a terrorist attack on its own territory, or in arranging to kill political opponents. In a closed society, secrets are not difficult to keep, and distrust of official accounts makes a great deal of sense. In such societies, conspiracy theories are both more likely to be true and harder to show to be false in light of available information.

    {3A}>> The adoption of the grand strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance, as openly espoused by the federal government should leave no doubt as to the “immense power” of the agents of this conspiracy.

    “Consider all the work that must be done to hide and to cover up”… Consider all of the systemic networks already in place providing “need to know” nomenclature for concealment. The phrase “national security” has been a virtual mantra of condescending ‘spokesmen” of this criminal syndicate posing as ‘government’ for decades.

    This naïve, yea, jejune assertion that the US has open and transparent government is at the core of this spurious argument being propagated—for it is the core of the indictment of those who have deconstructed the system and described it in its naked state; imperial, tyrannical, vicious and evil.

    This lollipop veneer the authors of this book attempt is surprisingly shallow. The appeal to authority is a constant subtext by empty assumption.

    Let it not be forgotten that these two authors are considered “legal scholars”, even “constitutional scholars”, held in high esteem by this system. They are service intellectuals, apologists for the system that has buttered their bread so lavishly. One does not become prominent in a criminal system by pointing out its criminality.

    That these authors can claim a grasp on the Constitution is simply incredible to any sane person who has studied the document and it’s history. To pretend to not understand that we are in the state of ‘Ultra Vires’ lawfully–as supposed ‘experts’ is absurd.

    These authors are presenting disinformation, in the same covert way that they suggest infiltration and government manipulation.

    In fact this is a textbook for teaching disinformation. It offers openly fascist models of secret agents posing as “just some other concerned citizen”. This blatant dishonesty is hand-waved as a necessity in a “time of war”, which is the most insidious lie from which the rest squirm like maggots from dead meat.

    The ‘War on Terror’ is a fabrication of social engineering.
    My assertion is not some‘theoretical’construct, but historical reality based on empirical actuality, on testimony of those involved in the construction of the scientific dictatorship. From Bernays and Lippmann to the post-modern “think tanks”, the history of socio-psycho technique is covered in minute detail. For “scholars” such as Sustein and Vermuele to plead ignorance on such issues is completely unbelievable. Therefore, they unmask themselves as the Agent Provocateurs they so plainly are.

    This nation was founded by conspiracy theorists, and if it is to be saved it will be by conspiracy theorists. The most eloquent conspiracy theory ever penned is The Declaration of Independence. Take my advice, read it someday.

    [4] “To think, for example, that U.S. government officials destroyed the World Trade Center and then covered their tracks requires an ever-widening conspiracy theory, in which the 9/11 Commission, congressional leaders, the FBI, and the media
    were either participants in or dupes of the conspiracy.” –Sustein and Vermuele

    {4A}>>“We were set up to fail”–Hamilton and Kean, co-chairs of the 9/11 commission.

    “The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

    “Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

    John Farmer, a former Attorney General of New Jersey who was the Senior Council to the Official 9/11 Commission has written a book and in there he bluntly states that the story and the conclusion of the 9-11 Commission are “entirely and inexplicably untrue.” So even the Chief Council for the 9-11 Commission says the story they told us is not true.

    General Ahmad, while in Washington, met with CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. On the morning of 9/11, General Ahmad was in a meeting with the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss, a former 10-year veteran of CIA clandestine operations. Porter Goss was later put in charge of a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, and later became the CIA director.

    Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf.–Michael Meacher, former British MP and Blair cabinet member.

    So yes, this analysis requires a systemic conspiracy theory, which the facts indicate, and yet Sustein and Vermuele ply their empty “intuitive-based” social theory that willfully dismisses such open sourced facts. It is they who are the obvious example of cognitive dissonance, an illustration of a totally scrambled epistemic construct. It is this very construct that is the architecture of the synthetic paradigm this criminal system has produced–that shills such as Sustein and Vermuele attempt to bracket into place on their wall of crumbling credibility. ~ William Whitten © 2010

    • An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

      It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

      These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

  4. “The evidence is in the hands of the perpetrators. I would bet the farm on a surveillance plane at 20000 ft or more taking part in Vigilant Guardian which was recording the FULL EVAN (EM, Scalar , Visual (IR) and all audio (dB, SPL, Hz) Zero Point Spectroscopy and weightings data and a host of other data.

    We did not coin the nuclear ground zero. They did. An admission and example of the codex and lexicon that the mind controllers introduce into the hosts to resolve the trauma programming vacuum left from a false flag implosion.”~Puddy Dunne on September 24, 2014 at 10:05 am
    “I would bet the farm on a surveillance plane at 20000 ft or more taking part in Vigilant Guardian..”~Puddy

    Obvious conjecture, a presumption with no proof whatsoever.

    “We did not coin the nuclear ground zero. They did. An admission..”

    They did not coin the term “nuclear ground zero” – “ground zero” is the term used, it is euphemism and metaphor. Reading the “nuclear” aspect into it is indeed YOUR term Puddy.

    • And this is another reason why’o’why I find Puddy’s ‘leadership’ at COTO a wad of rhetorical and pseudo-scientific bullshit.

      Puddy seems to be an idiot savant, and the idiot aspect of that term is the crucial part to keep in mind.

    • “The origins of the term ground zero began with the bombing of Japan The Manhattan Project. Atomic is the reference to the term ground zero. One goes with the other. They coined ground zero, therefore a knowing person would attach nuclear/atomic. Why must we play this game?”~Puddy

      A “knowing person”? WTF? Anyone with any sense knows the origin of the term “ground zero” — but a “knowing person” doesn’t “know” that every time the term “ground zero” is used it implies “nuclear/atomic” that is the way schizophrenics think.

      “Ground Zero of the Next Major Energy Boom – Issue #817
      Wall Street Daily ”

      Read the article above–it has NOTHING to do with nuclear.

      And the reason we “play this game” is because you present your intuitions as though they were facts. No one has come close to proving 9/11 was a nuclear event – every one who pushes this bullshit has the same disingenuous approach – stacking conjecture and presumption atop one another as if it really proved something it clearly doesn’t. THAT is the game, not my pointing out that it is a game.

  5. Crawford Kilian @Crof · 1 day ago
    Ground zero in Guinea: the #Ebola outbreak smoulders – undetected – for more than 3 months h/t

    ground zero
    1. The target of a projectile, such as a missile or bomb.
    2. The site directly below, directly above, or at the point of detonation of a nuclear weapon.
    3. The center of rapid or intense development or change: “The neighborhood scarcely existed five years ago, but today it is the ground zero from which designer shops and restaurants radiate” (Robert Clark).
    4. The starting point or most basic level: My client didn’t like my preliminary designs, so I returned to ground zero.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.

  6. “The point was clear that the above are facts. The point was that they were trying to place the event up to the level of trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the minds of sheeple. Where you got the impression I was calling 911 a nuclear event in that paragraph is beyond my ability to determine. It;s a dead end after this.”~Puddy Dunne on September 24, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    BULLSHIT in caps. This is plausible deniability by Dunne. He complains too late in the argument that he wasn’t really calling 911 a nuclear event – he is backtracking. I call it a flat out lie. He has argued for Dew and Nukes before … too many times before to believe this anal hurlant at this point.

    I despise such disingenuous nonsense as this. Puddy has been one of the most persistent boosters for the existence and use of exotic weapons, not only on 9/11, but in all and any event that has taken place.
    For him to now say that I misread his intent is simply bullshit.

  7. ‘Karl Marx was a Totalitarian’ – Crispin Sartwell

    In the “Communist Manifesto” Marx and Engels propose the immediate imposition of a dictatorship of the proletariat:

    “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. . .
    [We propose] centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. . . .
    Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. . . .
    Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, particularly for agriculture.”


    • “Now these little items, which have that nice Khmer Rouge tang, are alternated with some reforms that have come to pass, such as universal free public education and a progressive income tax. Well I more or less regard those as despotic proposals too. But at any rate, once you have given the state a complete monopoly on communication, transport, and capital, you should anticipate being its victim. And only a quibbler could possibly hold that such proposals are not totalitarian. Nod along to forced labor for class enemies, give the state complete control of all production and all communication, throwing in transportation, banking, and education, and you have the very paradigm of a totalitarian state.
      Marxist Nightmares that devoured the twentieth century:
      It is revealing that, in response to Bakunin and many other anarchists’ assertion that Marx was an “authoritarian socialist,” Marx himself responded not that that was false, but that authority was necessary. You can’t have large-scale industrial production without authority, said Marx, and Marx loved large-scale industrial production. You can’t have a revolution without authority. You can’t have a political situation without authority. Indeed, you can’t have successful human life without authority. In other words, in response to the charge that he was an enthusiast about authority, Marx enthused about authority. “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon – authoritarian means, is such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in reactionaries” (Reader 733).”

    • Does the sermon of DAS CAPITAL by Marx not have a political aim? Is the “economics” put therein not meant to achieve political and sociological ends?
      Is a “school of thought” not another term for a “philosophy”?

      “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875.The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen.

      So the fundamental question arises, who decides? On either side of this equation, where is the concept of freedom of choice? Is this not a blatant and outright denial of the concept of Unalienable rights to Liberty?

  8. “Let me draw a parallel. The Republic of Plato is the founding document of Western political theory. It is of overwhelming importance and contains a hundred fundamental insights and foundational thoughts. But it is a directly totalitarian text. It endorses an intensely hierarchical or caste society. It says that philosophers should rule, and with absolute power. One of the recurring themes is that the rulers will have to lie to the people continuously in order to control them, and it says they ought to. It proposes that the rulers match people up for mating in a gigantic eugenics program designed to entrench the class structure more in each generation: mate shoemakers with shoemakers, male soldiers with female soldiers, philosopher kings with philosopher queens. It says unauthorized infants should be killed. And so on. Aristotle was the first to systematically attack the Republic on such grounds, and in a democratic era, we must find the basic ideas repugnant.”~~Sartwell

    I have come to these very conclusions myself after reading The Republic.
    As far as real democracy is concerned, and not the false paradigm of Bernaysian Democracy – the only path to this principle is statelessness, that is anarchy.
    Finally an adult society, with no Parental State.


  9. “Indeed, one of the many drawbacks of Marx’s authorship is its extreme scientism, which is typical of its period. One might compare in this regard, for example, the writings of Auguste Comte. But Marx’s lifetime coincides with a period in which science is the only engine of epistemological legitimacy, in which almost every thinker makes a claim to science or risks being dismissed entirely. But science itself is a structure of epistemological authority. When Marx sneers at every opponent as unscientific, he’s saying: this is not my opinion. My expression of my values, my vision of a future for humanity are not the values and vision of any particular person. They are the voice of objective reality. This is a basic tension at the heart of Marx. The communist future he envisions is the inevitable outcome of the impersonal material forces of history. It is a kind of coincidence that this future is also obviously what Marx wants. So then why is he creating organizations to try to drive it forward? And why is he constantly trying to ridicule and delete alternative accounts and the people who put them forward? All he had to do was wait. Marxism is a vast system of moral and political ideals. Calling that a science is profoundly self-deluded, and it functions primarily as a claim to authority.”


  10. “The victory of authoritarian/state/Marxist socialism over anarchism, which was more or less total in the twentieth century, was an utter disaster for the left and for the human species. Indeed, I would say that state socialism infected the entire lefthand side of the political spectrum. There is almost nothing, I propose to you, in American liberalism except enthusiasm for state power. There is no solution to any problem that does not consist of a new bureaucracy and increased coercion. That is what American liberalism is: love of the state as our savior, a theme we might call Hegelian, bent to the left by Marx. The architecture of the huge housing projects of the Great Society was Stalinist architecture, and the huge housing project was a top-down disaster, as can be seen by the fact that these buildings are being imploded all over the country. And one thing they accomplished was the utter destruction of previously-existing actual communities.
    The idea of liberty has been abandoned to the right, and then ridiculed as reactionary and ridiculous. The only people who worry at all about liberty in America today are tea-partiers. That is really too bad, and if American leftism is driven by a desire to help people, and particularly the least fortunate among us etc., then I would strongly recommend that the first step would be to emphasize the autonomy and creativity of those people themselves, to listen to their own account of what’s wrong and what they actually want. There needs, in other words, to be a revival of a libertarian left.

    And as we emerge from our century of Marxist holocausts, I would think the left could look to the history of anarchism for a bit of inspiration. Anarchism in its best moments calls on each of us to liberate ourselves. It makes each of us responsible for our own freedom, rather than calling on an intellectual vanguard to drive the proletariat from its false consciousness into a collective millennium. It does not purport to know the shape of the future, or to impose a shape on the future: the totalitarian heart of all statist political philosophies. It imagines an open future which we create together, an improvisational collaborative work of art. It doesn’t purport to understand everything: anarchism is not a science. It is a release.

    That, I propose to you is the only liberation worth having: not the liberation in which we free you forcibly whether you want to be free or not, but a liberation in which we allow you to live as you like. Rousseau, who really is the origin of European leftism, said that people must be “forced to be free”: the formula of the totalitarian left ever since. It’s exactly as contradictory as it sounds, and all it yields is force, not freedom.
    Here is our situation: we have been abandoned down here on this planet. We have been released to create our own lives, apart and together. We have no idea where we are headed: the world massively exceeds our control and our understanding. Indeed, we massively exceed our own control and understanding. It is a fearsomely risky situation. We can react to it in terrible fear – try to pretend we can know the future by divination or by “science,” try to foreclose on it by violence and coercion. Or we can try to open ourselves to it or involve ourselves in its spontaneous self-creation. That is the anarchist alternative.”
    . . . . . . . . . .

    Indeed. Splendid … Right On!!

  11. You’ll never put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    By Humpty Dumpty, I mean, ‘government’. It is a daydream, a fantasy that has never existed but in the collective imagination.


  12. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: political science

    Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists “see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works.”[2] Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.
    Obviously one must be a polymath to grasp political science.

  13. Upon reading Plato’s ‘Republic’ the first time, several years after reading Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, I was immediately struck by the analog Huxley had drawn to ‘Republic’.

    In an argument on a political blog, I made mention of this. My opponent would have none of it, saying I was making it up out of whole cloth. I replied that he was lacking imagination and taking it too literal.

    I now find that I am not alone in this assessment, I have now seen several articles making the same comparisons.

    Thank you for yours, it is well expressed.

    Willy Whitten, \\][//

    • “Government which bears resemblance to Plato’s Republic is found in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World … based on the text of Plato’s Republic”

      Brave New World, Plato’s Republic, and Our Scientific ……
      May 18, 2014 · Brave New World, Plato’s Republic, and Our Scientific Regime by Matthew J. Franck.


      ‘Brave New World’, Plato’s ‘Republic’, and Our Scientific ……/29a44g/brave_new_world_platos_republic_and_our
      Jun 27, 2014 · ‘Brave New World’, Plato’s ‘Republic’, and Our … I feel like after reading this I can actually begin to understand Plato’s Republic whereas before I was …

      2nd Brave New World Comment | The Ancient Greeks: Tragedy …
      Apr 27, 2011 · I am glad that Kyle just recently posted something about Brave New World. … and I was also shocked to see so many parallels to Plato’s Republic.
      Yup … \\][//

  14. “I mean that virtually all progressive or radical or liberal or other intellectuals are primarily intellectuals who have in practice divorced commentary and analysis from reform via direct challenges to the system at the point of their strongest connection to the system, at work. The point at which the individual has the most leverage in changing the system, in actually changing the system, is the point at which the system has the most power over the individual, the point of the individual’s strongest connection to the economy, at work (university, think tank, law office, etc.).

    To refuse to challenge one’s employer, to refuse to fight one’s own oppression, and to mask this refusal with rationalizations and intellectualizations is to do more harm than good. To pretend that the world is somehow changed by “good” ideas, to want to participate in the reflection without significantly participating in the action, is to contribute to hiding the truth about societal change: That change results from directly fighting one’s own oppression and that opposing power in this way has real consequences beyond a difficulty to publish or negative reviews.

    Virtually all intellectuals write for other intellectuals in a musical chairs game of ideas that is disconnected from oppression’s realities.
    A slave does not bite the hand that feeds him/her. Most radical intellectuals are tied within certain bounds. For example, note the radical intellectual’s aversion to “conspiracy theories.” Radical professors play the important role of co-opting activist students and delegitimizing threatening observers.
    The maintenance of the hierarchical structures that control our lives depends on a “vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed” (Harold Pinter, Nobel Lecture, 2005). The main institutions that embed us into the hierarchy, such as schools, universities, and mass media and entertainment corporations, have a primary function to create and maintain this tapestry. This includes establishment scientists and all service intellectuals in charge of “interpreting” reality. In fact, the scientists and “experts” define reality in order to bring it into conformation with the always-adapting dominant mental tapestry of the moment. They also invent and build new branches of the tapestry that serve specific power groups by providing new avenues of exploitation.

    If we accept this, then it follows that all systemic instruments (such as liberal foundations) that enable service intellectuals are part of the same program.
    I am not an “anti-capitalist activist”. I am an individualist anarchist and I feel much more affinity to individualist libertarians than to anything right or left. I believe that the capitalism of Adam Smith is more consistent (but not consistent) with human freedom than the communism of Marx. I don’t believe that the anarchic ideal can be achieved via socialism or communism (or capitalism). And I believe that what we have now is closer to fascism than anything else.”~Denis Rancourt

  15. We’ve just been informed by our colleagues at Agora Financial that a major U.S. government agency plans to “disrupt” sections of the stock market on the following dates…
    Monday, Oct. 20, 2014
    Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2014
    Friday, Dec. 5, 2014
    Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2014
    Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014
    ~Wall Street Daily – September 27, 2014


  16. “One knows … that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. … It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them.”~ Foucault
    – debating Chomsky in 1971

  17. “Pull your fucking self together America. You are the planet’s superpower. Your religious fanaticism and over-the-top insecurities and over reactions cost lives and destroy nations. Get a grip. Find some balance. Teachers are suppose to challenge their students (and parents by extension). That is what education is about, a battlefield of ideas not a fucking cabbage patch for growing automatons.

    If you don’t find a way to put the intellectual discourse and challenge back into your schools and bring the real world and its complexities into your classrooms then you are headed towards fascism and a lot of us outsiders (the rest of the world) are fucked in the ass.

    Diversity. Debate. Reasoned responses. Self knowledge. Confidence of self.

    Stop this “protect our children from ideas” shit. Otherwise they will not learn to discern ideas and will become pathetic automatons who only discern what is different in order to attack it.

    You are taking us straight to hell.”~Denis Rancourt

    Now THAT is what Anglo-Saxon is for…


  18. Fear Porn: Conspiracy theorist information used to generate sexual excitement in Red necks, religious extremists and dudes that live in their mom’s basement.”~Urban Dictionary

    “Culture is your operating system.” ~Terence McKenna

    In a technocratic system a culture is the scum grown in a petri dish.

    My 3rd X used to call me “Dr. Doom’n’gloom” … nonsense, I don’t have a PhD.


  19. Stockholm Syndrome

    Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 8% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]

    Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]

    Partial activation of the capture-bonding psychological trait may lie behind battered-wife syndrome, military basic training, fraternity hazing, and sex practices such as sadism/masochism or bondage/discipline.[14] Being captured by neighbouring tribes was a relatively common event for women in human history, if anything like the recent history of the few remaining primitive tribes. In some of those tribes (Yanomamo, for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is descended from a captive within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of females were abducted and incorporated into the tribe that captured them.[14]

    A psychopathic society is one wherein the entire (vast majority) are held captive by a power elite. In effect the general population suffers from a cultural form of the Stockholm Syndrome.

    • What we have here with Hillary Clinton is a modified limited hangout. The US didn’t “cut ties” with anybody, they just changed their manipulative tactics, And they didn’t create al Qaeda AFTER the soviets invaded Afghanistan – they suckered in the Soviets with the crazy Wahhabi jehadists; Brzezinski is very clear on this point, and he is the one behind the whole operation.

  20. Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice
    By Craig Biddle

    The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

    Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

    Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

    Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?

    Individualism does, and we can see this at every level of philosophic inquiry: from metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality; to epistemology, the branch concerned with the nature and means of knowledge; to ethics, the branch concerned with the nature of value and proper human action; to politics, the branch concerned with a proper social system.


  21. When I am the one who is cut, and you are the one who bleeds – THEN I will buy your collectivist bullshit.

  22. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.

    What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

    If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

    There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.

    But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.”~ Ayn Rand
    -“Textbook of Americanism,” in The Ayn Rand Column (New Milford, CT: Second Renaissance Books, 1998), p. 90.

    • “Oklahoma” as Agitprop

      Anyone who has seen the play ‘Oklahoma’ will grasp the underlying psychopathy in the point of view of the authors. It is really very twisted collectivist nonsense that drives the subtext of the story. The one individual in the story is framed as the villain. Admittedly he is not a pretty picture and is given a pitiless persona. All of his foibles are cliche’ social taboos painted in the worst light. That he is driven to desperation by psychological torture induced by “the hero” and his herd, although plainly put, the emotional palate offered leaves the audience without pity for this poor soul and relishes his final demise.

  23. The prime responsibility of an individual to his own rights to liberty is to not disparage nor abuse those same rights of others.

    Thus we are reminded of the errors of context in the strictures of Malum Prohibitum, which are steeped in the nonsense epistemology of collectivism, resulting in such absurdities as laws wherein the “victim” and “perpetrator” are claimed to be the same individual (victimless crimes – drug laws).

    And the absurdities are stretched even further in claiming the abuse is against a substance, ie: “substance abuse”. And lastly asserting a ‘theoretical harm’ against ‘society as a whole’. As to this last proposition, it is a fact that any real harm an individual can bring to a society (society as victim) is already defined by Malum In Se: A “drunk driver” as the cause of an automobile accident has committed a real offence by causing real and actual damage.

    This is why the motto: “What I smoke, drink, eat, and think is nobody’s business but my own,” is morally and practically correct.

  24. The feelings of empathy generated by the imagination when one is aware of the eternal now and the infinite oneness of the universe in being are valid for that state of consciousness The validity however shifts with shifts of context, which is in experience the same thing as ‘states of consciousness’ – these are obviously simply views one takes from various angles of considering things.

    Of course identifying with “The All” will generate feelings of empathy for that “All”, just like the very personal experience of seeing someone in pain draws empathy from the knowledge we are all mortal and liable to such experiencing of pain ourselves. If you can successfully imagine being “in someone else’s shoes,” you have a well balanced perspective. How far to ‘connect with’ someone else’s pain will depend on particular circumstance. Your familiarity with the afflicted person will have the greatest bearing on what actions you actually take. Actions will be modified by philosophical and practical considerations the more removed you are from the afflicted.

    To come back to the opening sentence here for a summation, the feelings of universal empathy can lead to dire consequences if not considered in the real practical considerations of your real relationship and knowledge of who are the afflicted and how you came by the knowledge that they were. A critical assessment of the sociopolitical realities are essential before action is to be considered.

  25. “Nec eventus modo hoc docet—stultorum iste magister est—sed eadem ratio, quae fuit futuraque donec res eaedem manebunt, immutabilis est.”

    “And it is not only the outcome which teaches this – that school-master of fools – but reason itself, which was and will be unchanging so long as the same conditions will hold.”

  26. “I raise these disparate examples to make it very clear that a repetitive use of deceptions as pretexts for war does not by itself prove a common authorship for them. These deception events do not flow from some kind of master conspiracy, but rather a predictable sociodynamic that occurs when the leaders of an expansive quasi-democratic state are persuaded there is a need for war, a need which they know their public will not understand. I shall return to this point in my conclusion.”~Peter Dale Scott

    This paragraph is dubious when one considers that there is extensive evidence of such a master conspiracy in the open literature. And that accounting for this “predictable sociodynamic” as a planned agenda involving interlocking directorates of members of powerful organizations, have actually designed this ‘predictable sociodynamic’. [See: Bernays, Quigley, Sutton, et al.]

    And consider the meme of “design masquerading as diagnosis”.

  27. A government given the responsibility to care for a peoples every vital need—MUST be given the power to carry such a task out, which means the power to rule your every vital action.
    This is the very definition of TYRANNY.~ww


    • Oh & yes but also, I got another email from Mr Z. He said he didn’t mean to end the conversation, just that the ‘quick back and forth’ was not possible at this time.

      That is cool. I told him it was fine with me, that I would like to hold back on asking anymore questions, and that he can explain to me what he thinks I should know about Marx as far as the most recent literature that has come available reveals.

      Of course, what we have here is totally irrelevant to the original assertions that Antony Sutton didn’t know what he was talking about. Sutton was not criticizing Marx individually, he was showing how the works of Marx were used in the world of Realpolitik, the way it manifested on the world stage and who were the instigators behind the scenes. Whether Marx moved away from “Hegelianism” in his later writings or not, his Dialectic was put into practice for the purposes of driving the world to the New World Order Superstate.

      Being curious as to what Mr Z has to say, I will just absorb it. Regardless of what these details may be, Marx advocated a strong central state and collectivist measures. As my criticisms of what that must ultimately result in are generic ones, it matters not which brand name the collective agenda comes under.

      And yes, I think studying Marx in the 21st century is archaic and mere historical curiosity. The effects left Marx’s hands even before he was dead, the Monopoly Capitalists are still driving this Machine… THAT was Sutton’s point – and his proofs thereof stand.

  28. Remember a “state”, a “government” is no less a fictitious entity than a corporation. Authority is given “personhood” in the state.

    What distinguishes ‘government’ from every other form of association? It is the monopoly of the use of force and coercion to enforce it’s rules (laws).

    Recall as well that the Unalienable Rights of Liberty are not granted by the ‘government’ nor ‘the state’, they are inherent in the simple fact of being born a human being.

    Liberty is not an INVENTION of revolution. Liberty is the DISCOVERY of enlightened reason.

    • “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”~ Madison – The Federalist # 55

  29. Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

    “Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

    Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

  30. “People like the Resetters.

    ​Personally, I don’t want the system “reset”. I want it abolished. And that makes me, and those like me, something more than a threat than the passive ,”Feed me, Big Brother!”​ dilettantes of the Reset Cult. Reset this genocidal, rapacious system? Hardly.

    “Prove all things” wrote my jailed ancestor Peter Annett, in a “seditious” pamphlet he wrote in 1761 that simply asked for proof that Christ had actually performed miracles. From Bridewell prison in London, Peter commented in a letter to friends shortly before he died,

    “Reason is divinity taken flesh in us, for nothing that is true can be in opposition to Reason. Armed thus, we will drive falsity to the bottomless pit, extinguish pious enthusiasm and superstitious zeal, and raise humanity from the darkness of fear and religious presumption to that Truth, knowable and provable to the simplest mind, that makes all things good.”

    If the new world is indeed around the corner, it won’t come in the form of money or any official “reset”, nor will it be given to us by anyone or anything: especially invisible saviors. It will come from clear minds, awakened conscience, and the love of humanity for itself and our belief in ourselves.

    Reset nothing. Recreate everything.”~Kevin D. Annett

  31. I have been a ‘patriot’ to the principals of Liberty since the 6th grade. I had a remarkable teacher, Mr. Kellogg, who spent a week on The Declaration of Independence, he had that knack of being able to communicate to kids our age. And there was something urgent in his presentation and explanation.

    I remember the last class of that week walking home alone in a plastic yellow raincoat with red galoshes, splashing through the puddles in glee! I was FREE!! I really GOT IT!

    My passion for Liberty has never waned.

  32. The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study, by N. Scott Arnold
    JULY 1, 1996 review by David Gordon

    N. Scott Arnolds outstanding book makes a vital contribution to the debate over socialism; but Arnold has in part misconceived his own achievement. Since the collapse of socialism in the Soviet bloc, the world has had to recognize a fact long known to students of Mises. Centrally planned socialism is not, as its proponents imagined, a system vastly more efficient than the “anarchy of the market.” Far from it: socialism cannot solve the calculation problem and thus cannot function at all.

    Absent a price system, socialist planners cannot determine which resources should be directed to the consumer goods they wish to produce. Faced with the collapse of their dream, what can socialists do? Oskar Lange offered the most popular socialist response: why not a socialist system that uses market pricing? The schemes that have drawn inspiration from Langes idea have been many and various; but the main instance Arnold wishes to investigate may be simply described. (Incidentally, Lange was not, as Arnold states, Misess first opponent in the calculation debate [p. 39].)

    The type of socialism Arnold considers relies heavily on workers cooperatives. Firms are not owned by capitalists–these the socialist regime has banished to outer darkness–but by the workers who labor in them. But like capitalist firms, cooperatives buy and sell on a free market: no central authority directs them to set certain prices. The state does not remain totally idle: its policies largely determine the rate of investment. With this plan, market socialists hope, the advantages of socialism can be retained and the problem posed by Mises avoided.

    What is one to think of this system? Arnold establishes, with immense skill at careful argument, that market socialism is far inferior in economic efficiency to the free enterprise system. But he thinks that he is doing something else as well. I propose first to describe the main lines of Arnolds criticism of market socialism and then to explain how he misconceives his own project.

  33. EPGAH has written a comment saying that this article seems to be an argument “against socialism”.
    Very prescient, sort of… grin. My argument is absolutely against socialism and collectivism.

    I am afraid his argument against “Anarchy” is in fact an argument against “chaos” – they are in fact entirely different matters.

    There has never been a “democracy” in the modern world that was not a Berrnaysian Democracy, that is oligarchy masquerading as “democracy” — in fact even the original ‘democracy’ of Ancient Greece was an oligarchy, with democracy only for the slave holding oligarchs.

    Now EPGAH, I do not allow just anyone to pop in here posting privileges. I do not know you, and you would have to be vetted before that will happen. Read more of the blog to get a sense of the totality of where I am coming from. If you wish to continue making comments that is fine, they will just not be published until I get a better sense of who and what you are,.

  34. As I have explained before a few times; I did not intend for this blog to be a “public forum”, it is more a journal of my own thoughts and ideas. I have allowed a few people that I consider trusted friends posting privileges here. I have had exchanges with them for a good many years, and know that they will abide by my wishes not to overwhelm any of the threads with huge verbose arguments.
    If anyone wishes to debate, another site that is specifically designed as a forum must be the venue. Not here in my living room.
    One forum I attend regularly is Truth & Shadows. The current thread at this time is at:

    Thank you, Willy Whitten – \\][//

  35. I think that Israel’s part in 9/11 is well established, if not well understood by the general public. However I think it is a simplistic analysis that leads to the assertion “Israel did 9/11”. Once the larger analysis of the architecture of modern political power is grasped, one begins to comprehend that both Amerika and Israel are simply garrison states for a Global Empire. Often this empire is euphemistically referred to as, the New Word Order.

    So in my view, the perpetrators of 9/11 are the elite circle of this global cabal who effectively control all military and intelligence organizations on the planet. by effectively controlling all national governments on the planet. This global “Power Elite” is often seen as a financial elite and that is the major tool of influence: Finance. But wealth is not the ultimate goal, the ultimate goal is political power.

    The global oligarchy is here and now. If one reframes what is referred to as the American Empire, and notes that the US occupies the entire planet under the auspices of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’, maintaining military bases in virtually every state on every ‘corner’ of the globe, one sees that ‘fruition’ is at hand for the New World Order. It is a done deal.

  36. An Anarchist FAQ – I.1 Isn’t libertarian socialism an oxymoron?
    In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come across the so-called “libertarian” right. As discussed in section A.1.3, the word “libertarian” has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. Indeed, outside of North America “libertarian” is still essentially used as an equivalent of “anarchist” and as a shortened version of “libertarian socialist.”
    . . . . . .
    This is a long and dreary argumentum verbosium that eventually ends up proving that “libertarian socialism” is in fact an oxymoron.

  37. “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”~Robert A Heinlein

    “COLLECTIVISM: Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals.” — Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher

    “Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights …” — Nathaniel Branden

    “collectivism … treats society as if it were a super-organism existing over and above its individual members, and which takes the collective in some form (e.g., tribe, race, or state) to be the primary unit of reality and standard of value.” — Prof. Fred D. Miller

    “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
    “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.”~Ayn Rand

    “Collectivism is a form of anthropomorphism. It attempts to see a group of individuals as having a single identity similar to a person. … Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group.”~Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands

    “The foundation of individualism lies in one’s moral right to pursue one’s own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.
    “But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party’s happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.
    “Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right.” ~Shawn E. Klein

    “Don’t forget that pure democracy is a form of collectivism — it readily sacrifices individual rights to majority wishes. Since it involves no constitutional bill of rights, or at least, no working and effective one, the majority-of-the-moment can and does vote away the rights of the minority-of-the-moment, even of a single individual. This has been called ‘mob rule,’ the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and many other pejorative names. It is one of the greatest threats to liberty, the reason why America’s founding fathers wrote so much so disparagingly of pure democracy.”~Bert Rand

  38. Episode 309 – Solutions: Agorism
    Many people have their own theory about the way the world should work, but few combine it with action. Today on The Corbett Report we explore the writings of Samuel Konkin, and how his central idea, agorism, combines the theory and practice of freedom through counter-economic action. Agora! Anarchy! Action!


  39. The following is the definition of “corporatism” from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
    “the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction”

    Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism. They are all “collectivist” economic systems. Under corporatism, wealth and power are even more highly concentrated than they are under socialism or communism, and the truth is that none of them are “egalitarian” economic systems. Under all collectivist systems, a small elite almost always enjoys most of the benefits while most of the rest of the population suffers.

    There are only two states; whether states of existence, states of mind, or political states; and those two states are “Individualist” or “Collectivist”.

    “In an article that was posted earlier this year on Addicting Info, Stephen D. Foster Jr. detailed how our founding fathers actually felt about corporations….

    >The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

    After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense.

    Our founding fathers would have never approved of any form of collectivism. They understood that all great concentrations of wealth and power represent a significant threat to the freedoms and liberties of average citizens.

    Are you not convinced that we live in a corporatist system?

    Well, keep reading….”~Michael Snyder

  40. Willy Whitten – 5 months ago

    Socialism is for dummies, so this is a good title for this talk.
    I don’t think we should not discuss “socialism”. Socialism should be understood for what it is. Collectivism of any sort, under any brand name is the same ugly beast.

    Does anyone hear the pleas to the emotions in this rhetorical presentation?
    “capitalism” isn’t doing so well” in the US because it is only “capitalism” in name. We have a collectivist system here already, it is a planned economic system run by the Federal Reserve – it is “monopoly capitalism”.

    The real divide is between the Unalienable Right to Liberty, and the Collective Right to disparage those rights for the “good of the many” – but who speaks for the many? It is government, and government is the system with the monopoly on the use of force.
    The real question then is: do you have the right to voluntary association? Or are you forced into the association by the mechanisms of force?
    * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * *
    Philippe James says, “The least coercive system would be one in which everyone has an equal say in the creation of these rules and decisions are made on the basis of consensus.”

    — Which “consensus” this generations? The next? How long does a “consensus” really last? The answer is usually about as long as it takes some of those who agreed to it, that they had different ideas as to what certain words meant. And then the dissent starts anew, and people pretend that they really know what the other guy means by certain terms and how they are strung together in certain sentences and phrases.

    Few seem to grasp that language is METAPHOR, and the allegories making up ones own internal language varies with personal experiences.

    People may sit together in the same church for years taking it for granted that they all agree on what the preacher means by certain sermons and what they mean…all on pure assumption. Then one day someone jumps up and argues, “That’s not what the Bible means!!” And suddenly you and a few others who may have had some nagging doubts bubbling up in the back of your mind, find yourself agreeing. And then a few clandestine meetings are held of this dissenting group, and the next thing you know there is a local “Reformation”… and on and on societies go through these experiences, generation after generation.

    Until one day a guy named Philippe James comes along, and having some prestige and political clout in his community says, “The least coercive system would be one in which everyone has an equal say in the creation of these rules and decisions are made on the basis of consensus.” And the word spreads fast that there has arisen at last a wise leader. And followers gather in hordes after a time until a new system is brought about based on Jamesism, and it is predicated on the principles of:
    “Everyone has an equal say in the creation of these rules and decisions are made on the basis of consensus.”

    And everything is peachy for a time, even though some have already pointed out, “hey didn’t some dude centuries ago name Thomas Jefferson say something very close to that or along those lines?”
    Yea, yea… how did that all work out for those people? … etcetera, etcetera, etcetera …
    ~Willy Whitten — 1/28/2016
    * * * * *
    Philippe James –11:20 AM, Reply:

    “Willy Whitten so what you’re saying is that consensus is impossible therefore rules should be created and enforced in a non-consensual, coercive manner.

    Perhaps if you dropped all the blather and tried to think logically you would figure out that your positions are contradictory.”
    . . . .
    My Reply:
    Willy Whitten – 11:32 AM:
    “so what you’re saying is that consensus is impossible therefore rules should be created and enforced in a non-consensual, coercive manner.”~Philippe James

    That is in fact what is known as a ‘Straw Man’ argument. I did not say nor insinuate any such thing.
    If Phillippe James would drop his biases and try to think logically he might discover that he doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about.
    . . . . .

    Philippe James Replies:
    “Willy Whitten so explain to me how your non-consensual, enforced rules are not coercive.”
    . . . .
    Willy Whitten 17 minutes ago
    I have never argued for “enforced rules” – You have. I have always argued against coercion, and “government” having the power and monopoly on violence to enforce their arbitrary rules made in the guise of “consensus”.

    Willy Whitten — 8 minutes ago
    STRAW MAN Arguments are made by silly commentators who attempt to put their own words into somebody else’s mouth; and then argue with themselves to the point of exhaustion. I would suggest forgoing such a futile exercise. ~ Willy Whitten, Rhetorician

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s