Fiver

I'm amazed that this piece aired on Fox Business as it doesn't sound like the usual propaganda and lies that you'd hear on Fox News.

__________________
This isn’t my America.

zimok

What if they're telling people what they want to hear?

Obama was portrayed as a 'savior' as well from G.W. Bush.

Lots of great points, but the only way things will ever change is revolution... not election.

__________________

You can't effectively ride two horses at once.

Yuma504

WHAT IF - all of these questions were already answered by someone decades ago?

I introduce to you Carroll Quigley :

Carroll Quigley (November 9, 1910 – January 3, 1977) was an American historian and theorist of the evolution of civilizations. He is noted for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown University, for his academic publications, and for his research on secret societies.


One distinctive feature of Quigley’s historical writings was his assertion that secret societies have played a significant role in recent world history. His writing on this topic has made Quigley famous among many who investigate conspiracy theories.[2]:96, 98 Quigley’s views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about conspiracy theories.[4]
[edit] Quigley’s claims about the Milner Group

In his book The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, written in 1949 but published posthumously in 1981, Quigley purports to trace the history of a secret society founded in 1891 by Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner. The society consisted of an inner circle (“The Society of the Elect”) and an outer circle (“The Association of Helpers”).[5]:ix, 3 The society as a whole does not have a fixed name:

This society has been known at various times as Milner's Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set. ... I have chosen to call it the Milner group. Those persons who have used the other terms, or heard them used, have not generally been aware that all these various terms referred to the same Group. It is not easy for an outsider to write the history of a secret group of this kind, but, since no insider is going to do it, an outsider must attempt it. It should be done, for this Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century.[5]:ix

Quigley assigns this group primary or exclusive credit for several historical events: the Jameson Raid, the Second Boer War, the founding of the Union of South Africa, the replacement of the British Empire with the Commonwealth of Nations, and a number of Britain’s foreign policy decisions in the twentieth century.[5]:5
In 1966, Quigley published a one-volume history of the twentieth century entitled Tragedy and Hope. At several points in this book, the history of the Milner group is discussed. Moreover, Quigley states that he has recently been in direct contact with this organization, whose nature he contrasts to right-wing claims of a communist conspiracy:

This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements.... This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.[6]:949-950

Yuma504

Continued:

Quigley also stated:
“ It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930s. It must be recognized that the power of these energetic Left wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused as they were in the 1950s, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers. Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from the admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress set up in 1953 a Special Reece Committee to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the "most respected" newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worthwhile. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece Committee's general counsel, Rene A Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called "Foundations: Their Power and Influence."[6]:954-955 ”
According to Quigley, the leaders of this group were Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner from 1891 until Rhodes’ death in 1902, Milner alone until his own death in 1925, Lionel Curtis from 1925 to 1955, Robert H. (Baron) Brand from 1955 to 1963, and Adam D. Marris from 1963 until the time Quigley wrote his book. This organization also functioned through certain loosely affiliated “front groups”, including the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and the Council on Foreign Relations. After 1960, while the offspring of the Milner Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs still remained dominant in political affairs, much of the influence of the original circle around Milner (who edited periodicals like The Round Table) dwindled, as other political power-brokers took over the power structures their predecessors had established.[6]:132, 950-952
In addition, other secret societies are briefly discussed in Tragedy and Hope, including a consortium of the leaders of the central banks of several countries, who formed the Bank for International Settlements:
The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.


GOOD READ: Tragedy and Hope : Carroll Quigley : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Hydrorank

Great points and a great video thanks for sharing ,

i have to say is," i dont want to say that this country is full of dumb people, but the people in this country lacks of

List
1. knowledge - know your history, know where you stand
2. manners - people are too fucking dumb they dont even realize what is manners anymore
3. character - character = diamond that can scratch any surface - frank sinatra
4. responsibility

Yuckystuff

Got that on the bookshelf. Heavy fucker too.

Love the Judge, he spits truth regularly. But they've got him buried on the FOX Business channel which gets about 1/100th the viewers as the regular channel.

Eldarion

Hes on the business channel now? I thought freedom watch was internet only.

__________________

Fiver

Did no one see this post? Where are Luke and the rest of the Libertarians on here?

__________________
This isn’t my America.

Andrew Scherer

freedom watch has been on fox for a long while, it's def an out of place program on that network

why they have it and what their agenda is with it I have no idea

__________________

Imhotep

What an awesome video. So eloquent in a simplistic delivery of truth that makes one think. More of such works are needed in the mainstream.

guerilla

Judge Napolitano is a Ron Paul style libertarian. He's spoken at the Mises Institute, and has written some very anti-government books.

Freedom Watch is one of a few really good shows they hide on Fox Business.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

schockergd

They let anyone on fox business, even people like me!

__________________


Shut up and make some money already.

PM Me if you want a discounted PPC-Coach Subscription.

infoslob

Curious, which major network would this not be out of place on?

The least surprising major network that would air a piece like this is Fox.

REIMktg

What if Ron Paul is just merely a distraction by the Republicans in order to lure enough conservative voters that dislike the other candidates all in an effort to split the vote and elect an uber moderate like romney.

The country does need a change. Paul is unfortunately the best person in the country that has risen to the top of the bowl, in spite of his many shortcomings.

__________________

music4mic

The Judge has been a "Fox News Contributor" for a while. Of course, this was Fox Business as someone mentioned which is not Fox News, it gets way less viewers. That said, they started his show out as a internet stream only, so it's good they have him on at all.

guerilla

Concern trolling

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

JakeStratham

Also good: Stossel Show with John Stossel - Fox Business

Side note: Focus less on groups (Fox), and more on the ideas of the individual (Stossel, the Judge, etc.). There are gems everywhere.

__________________
Kickass Threads: guerilla - $25 That Can Change Your Life

lukep

My only possible explanation why Faux lets this kind of thing run on their business channel is the same as why they have Ron Paul on their main channel at all: To be able to point to evidence that they are fair and balanced.

This whole 'fair and balanced' motto they have is just so twisted and misused that I literally don't know anyone who would fail to snicker when they hear it said... Yet they keep on trying, doing things like this or have Dr. Paul on just so they can say they're fair and balanced. (Then meanwhile spend all of the rest of their airtime working against Paul and these what ifs.)

Sadly the american public is so far past too stupid that I'd sooner suspect their pets of seeing through this charade than the american viewers themselves.

__________________

Fiver

Even Infowars was in shock that this was aired.

» Judge Napolitano: What If the Establishment is Lying to Us About Ron Paul? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

__________________
This isn’t my America.

behnk01

Simple.

They ignored him up until the point they realized he had a chance, and they realized they're past actions of ignoring him were exposed to enough people that they (fox) in turn looked bad.

__________________
Get free geoparting & offer competition reports. AIM me.

--

Tinychat.com/Wickedfire - Wickedfire LIVE!

REIMktg

Nice. I can always count on you to make me lol, even at my own expense, which is fine.

In this instance I was building on the "what if's" in thread consistent fashion stating that it is possible that the Republican establishment allows this type of support for Paul because he is derailing conservatives in order to get their preferred moderate, Romney, through the primaries.

It's a plausible explanation, they will give just enough exposure and credibility to Paul to lure the hard right to forget the others and cast a vote for him, just to split the vote enough for Romney to win. Paul is like the new Perot in many ways.

You can note, that my last sentence was a capitulation that even I am beginning to like Paul more, on some issues, and that means that many others are falling for him because they are not thinking of some of his less desirable positions.

__________________

Jack7Gordon

Intresting...

lukep

This one's even better:


It's a full 5 minutes of Dr. Paul worship!

__________________

paulieg

he's right, except in his conclusions. ron paul isn't the answer - no politician is. if you're going to maintain the present socioeconomic system, sortition and plebescites, both with fitness tests (literacy, intelligence, logical reasoning, critical thinking and issue awareness), are about the only workable solution.

i like ron paul in general, mind you, although why he's making such a big deal about abolishing the epa when it is the best example of something a federal government can do better than individual states and regulation that's actually necessary is entirely beyond me.

-p

paulieg

this.

with that said, i've often wondered why you can advocate complete freedom (which requires complete responsibility) in the face of the fact that people who can't tie their own shoelaces can't possibly exercise enough judgement to achieve that responsibility benchmark. mind you, i have the same problem as an anarchist

-p

guerilla

Learn economics.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

REIMktg

Is this not a furtherance of the establishment to divide the vote and ensure a Romney victory - go ahead LukeP - see this conspiracy its right in front of you.

I really am not certain our economy can handle a "Paul Shock" unless he limited his impact to smaller government and decreased regulations. Imagine the power vaccuums created internationally if he pulls out, will he be gradual? How many would die in the resultant power grab?

We can say to audit the Fed, but to be honest, the resulting economic chaos will take another 10 years to sort out, 10 years of misery for those that are already hurt in this recession - yes, the poor will be hit hardest.

The result of Paul could very well be a fiscally sound yet prudent economy where everyone has a lower standard of living and is in essence living through austerity measures when a more measured approach, limiting and or eliminating growth in spending for a set number of years could have a more gradual impact that can be absorbed without sacrificing productivity or standard of living ad of course keeping the floating fiat currency we now have, not trying to go back to a gold standard knowing very well the finite supply can never feul the growth of a 16T$ economy.

__________________

guerilla

This ^^ is a good example of why people should learn economics.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

Yuckystuff

quadruplefacepalm.jpg

GangsterProfit

That initial video is awesome. It's the same reason why I get extremely frustrated when people talk about someone being "unelectable", because it may be the only chance you have at actually voting. The illusion of choice is a horrible thing.

Bobby

paulieg

i have and despite what randroids think, the invisible hand of the free market doesn't solve every single practical problem with their ideology. it took regulation to stop tens of thousands of workers dying in unsafe factories every year and stop every company with industrial waste dumping it in the river. the facts (as in history) shows that in the absence of minimum wage laws, a race to the bottom ensues in a capitalist industrial economy (not a free market economy, mind you, that hasn't been tried). today, the state of delaware has bad air quality because states upwind of it insist on running dirty coal-powered electricity generation facilities and, for all their efforts, they can't do a damn thing - air and water cross state lines, zomg. the overarching theme here being that any actor acting to maximize short-term financial gain will externalize any and all costs possible and the marketplace can't discourage that behaviour because consumers, even if they were inclined to vote with their dollars, can't and/or won't research the behaviour of every actor involved in the production of every good and service.

it may very well be possible to have a free society with a free-market, rather than capitalist, economy where these issues are easily addressable. indeed, as an anarchist, that is my hope. no one, as of right now, knows what that could look like and indeed can't - it would, for one, require rolling back division of labour and capital creation through artificial scarcity create through an award of property rights beyond those conferred by the homesteading axiom. these two things are so central to the development of our civilization after feudalism that we have very little concept of what life could be like without them and how we could achieve the same standards of living in their absence. keeping what we've got now, removing all regulation and hoping the invisible hand will somehow sort everything out shows an ignorance of facts, reality and history (in no particular order).

-p

paulieg

considering i and he were talking about entirely different things, your putdown = fail.

-p

paulieg

yeah, it would get bad, but that's what deleveraging and market corrections do. valuing nominal growth over prudent monetary policy is what got us here in the first place, time to pay the piper imo. the sooner we do it the better - if you think it's painful now, imagine how painful it will be once it becomes the only option. with that said, it couldn't happen now - congress wouldn't vote for it and even if it did, there would either be a coup or a revolution as a necessary consequence of such a quick drop in living standards.

as far as the gold standard goes, it's a non-starter which anyone with half a brain will tell you, unless you revise it to use nominal gold and then we're back to a fiat currency in another guise. in any case, it is entirely unnecessary - prudent monetary policy can be achieved without it and if, as i and many others hold, governments can not be trusted to have the discipline required all that is needed is the removal of the state monopoly on the issuance of instruments of value exchange.

-p

lukep

Ruh-roh...

popcorn.gif

__________________

paulieg

care to answer any of my critiques? still looking for an american-style libertarian to do it in an intelligible fashion (as in not 'learn economics' or 'read atlas shrugged'). you folks really have trouble dealing with questions raised by people well versed in anarchist thought

-p

Human

Napolitano is a boss.

__________________
It's only after you've lost everything when you're free to do anything.

I used to be a shit poster. Now I try not to be.

REIMktg

@ guerilla & yuckystuff - I do understand why you do not understand my point. But you are going from theory and I from real world implications. Changes can be made gradually that will not ruin the lives of the masses. Sudden changes and the resulting consequences destroy lives while the economy "adjusts" and quite frankly - I do not want to destroy lives for the greater good. You throw a guy out of work or have him underemployed for 4-10 years, well, that can screw his live, ruin his kids high school years and future or even cause increased strife, divorce, even suicide all for changes that could have been made more gradual.

@paulieg - I do not believe in the gold standard although likely for different reasons. In the end - it will not work. As far as sucking it up, well that type of sudden shock is not necessary, we can, in spite what others say, cut back spending to a few years back, limit growth, stabilize business expectations, reduce regulations and grow right out of the current problems.

__________________

kingfish

No surprise really Napolitano is a great guy and a Ron Paul supporter.

__________________

Andrew Scherer

This gold standard issue is not even applicable. Once in a while I see it rehashed here on this board, I'm not sure why.

Nobody is looking to go back to the gold standard. Ron Paul wants free competition in currencies.

__________________

paulieg

because that's the Libertarian position i see stated all over the place.

-p

paulieg

our deficits are not the root cause of the problem, they are a symptom. growth based on keynesian deficit spending and an unsound monetary policy with x20-x40 multipliers is the problem. those two things are the biggest bubble going, although they're also the best managed bubble, but a bubble nonetheless. you can't manage a smooth transition away from that because the announcement of that transition would cause a panic.

-p

Yuckystuff

The Libertarian position is generally to have competing currencies.

guerilla

It wasn't a put down.

When I say learn economics, what I really mean is learn economics and philosophy.

And please stop calling yourself an anarchist if you're for government regulation. It makes genuine anarchists like me look bad.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

guerilla

Ah, the inevitable appeal to reality.

"You guys might be right in theory, but I am right in reality."

Easily the most lazy and mindless assertion in argument anyone can make. Without any fact or reason.

Might as well say "I am right because I am right and you are wrong because you are wrong"

Why not just say it like that and be a man? Be a man, do the right thing.

See below.

The economy is going to adjust and destroy a lot on its own. The path you advocate ends only one way. Bankruptcy. Go look at what happened in Argentina. Then imagine that happening in the US. Ugly.

Fear mongering doesn't work on intelligent rational educated people. Save it for an audience stupid enough to believe it.

Yes, people will have to adjust to the end of their borrowing ways. People will have to downsize their spending, take shittier jobs and make sacrifices.

The consequence of living above your means, is that you will have to live below your means. And people have been living above their means for a long time. The reckoning is not something the government can stop.

Gradualism is weak-kneed nonsense. People are going to be relatively poorer in the future than they are today. That's unstoppable. How and when it happens, it is still unstoppable.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

paulieg

you are implying that my knowledge in either or both of these areas is lacking in some way. while that may be true, you failed to point out what led you to that conclusion and that's just lazy ad hominem.

i don't support the existence of a government (unless established through voluntary association/disassociation obviously), so i can't possibly support any actions it may take, including enforcing regulation. however, there is a big difference between considering something desirable in general and considering something necessary given a specific set of circumstances.

we currently have a capitalist rather than a free market economy and our society is built upon the exercise of coercive force; personal responsibility has been supplanted by laws and regulation imperfectly crafted and imperfectly applied. under this set of circumstances, assuming we have no realistic prospect of changing them in the short to medium term and must make them as workable as possible, certain types of regulation are necessary or we wouldn't have clean water to drink or clean air to breathe. an oxygen addiction is a hard thing to kick.

i'm as reluctant to concede that such regulation is necessary under the current socioeconomic system as i was to exercise coercive force to fight neo-nazis in my (largely misspent) youth. however, admitting that there is a big difference between the world the way it ought to be and the world we live in is a sign of maturity and intellectual honesty, as painful as it might be for an idealist.

-p

paulieg

this. rei is very fond of logical fallacies, it looks like.

argentina is a bad example, as they've made out quite well considering. if anything, argentina is an example of what a default followed by a reinflation of the keynesian bubble can achieve in the short to medium term. naturally, it will all come crashing down, again, and considerably harder this time, but until it does it's a bad example

this.

gradualism isn't wrong because it demonstrates a lack of testicular fortitude and isn't hard core enough, it's wrong because it isn't possible. if it were possible, it could conceivably be desirable, but it isn't. once such a correction is accepted as even a slightly likely outcome, everyone will start deleveraging in a panic and the whole house of cards will come crashing down in an exceedingly short amount of time. you can no more make this gradual than you can make an evacuation of a ship by rats gradual once it starts sinking

-p

guerilla

That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem is this

"You're wrong because you're an idiot"

or

"You're wrong because you're black"

or

"You're wrong because you're too old"

What I wrote, is that you have not demonstrated an understanding of economics or philosophy with your post(s). Now maybe you are an expert on those topics, and your posts are just trolling. Or you're forgetful. Or you don't know what you're talking about.

I am not speculating about why you don't display a knowledge of those topics, nor do I attack you as being wrong simple because of some characteristic (true or false) about your person.

So please don't use terms like "ad hominem" unless you understand what they mean. When you misuse them, you demonstrate a lack of understanding about logical discourse.

Necessity undermines all ethics. Anything can be justified by the word "necessary".

I suggest you work towards a more coherent and consistent personal philosophy. When you invoke necessity, it's like using the word "but". "But" wipes out everything proceeding it.

"I am for the free market, but sometimes we need regulation"

"I don't believe in government, but sometimes regulation is necessary."

Again, economics and philosophy. Learn them. You can thank me later.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

Moxie

I agree, but having the biggest gun can sometimes allow one to live above their means, and the US military is still the big kid on the block.

"I don't believe in forced taxation, but I would support an amendment banning abortion (which would be enforced with the use of tax money)."

You were recently arguing to this effect, or trying to rationalize why someone like Ron Paul might present this argument.

__________________

REIMktg

Back to the personal attacks. Please, this is a message board, let's not talk about who is and who is not a man. I was arguing real world "implications" of theory in practice. Is the problem that you could not argue ,my point and therefore resorted to attacking my approach?



Fear mongering because I stated sudden jolts to the economy can harm the lives of those least prepared to weather the change? Once again, apparently you know I am correct and therefore prefer to attack my approach rather than the facts.


Weak kneed? Have you suffered in your lifetime? Have you seen lives destroyed over finances because of decisions for the "greater good"? This is the problem with the ivory tower, if gradual change is possible that's how it should be done. It is not necessary to slash and burn.


At one time in my life I would have made the same argument as you have, it was a time of intellectual exploration, reading, and academic development. Then I began to live and the ways in which I interpreted all that I had previously "known" changed substantially. I actually became much more conservative, but also understood the plight of the poor and the need for a safety net in a country this wealthy. The fact is, we can afford it. But we cannot afford everything.

It's one thing to talk strong about sudden change, but in practice, gradualism as you call it is best. Not that everything needs to be gradual, but everything does need to be tempered. For example, in housing, I would advocate taking the hits in a single quarter and moving forward, but that is a single industry. I would not advocate an approach that would hit multiple industries at a time. Call it tempered slash and burn.

__________________

guerilla

Calling your arguments lazy isn't a personal attack.

Calling you a fucking idiot and a loser would be a personal attack.

Good thing I didn't do the latter. Then you would really be able to beg for pity and play the victim to deflect from your inability to articulate facts.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.