FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Interesting Ron Paul Update
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 489
Location: A Wonderful World

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This may sound naive and being an aussie i only look from here, but wouldnt Ron Paul be the preferred pick for President?

I mean he seems to be more relatable then the other dudes.
Speaks less 'pollie talk' then the others.
Acts as if he cares.
But he is a politician.
And we all know they can be dodgy.
Who would you prefer if it isnt Ron Paul?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rustyh wrote:
Who would you prefer if it isnt Ron Paul?

There are certainly other alternative candidates to consider:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James D

Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 1004

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ormond said (on page 1 May 8th -boy am I slow!):

"The whole MSM must be required to give time to all candidates who are able to reach a set quota of popular votes in a pre-election. Those who say, raise a required number of votes get to run. That pre-election can be held up to two years before the final election.

Following would be debates, public service announcement time from the MSM required by law, and not one of the candidates could be refused equal time, or shut out of any debate.

As I said, instead of a convention with a few representative voters from each state, the vote has no convention, and is a nationwide election from a ballot of all contenders for their party's ticket. "

Sounds a bit like the Cuban system where first the candidates are selected from their neighbourhoods and must receive 50% plus one vote to be nominated for the second ballot (Castro included) and then to be elected they must again receive 50% plus one vote (you can vote for one cadidate, none or all on the list).

If that happened in the States and Ron Paul being so popular that he got 98% of the vote - would that make him a dictator?

Oops! Careful! Wouldn't want anyone to know Cuba has a democracy!
God forbid - they be trying to give The Palestinians free elections next!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1512
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from abcar's transcript of the video, per ron paul:
'and he just wants to steer the airplane he doesn't want to land the airplane'.

i always felt funny about that concept.
if you were a bad guy, would i make such a fucking remark??????

ormond said, and this is key:
What I interpret from his reply is that he's saying that it's beyond Presidential authority and abilty to expose the truth on certain matters. His position meanwhile is clearly neither MIHOP or LIHOP, but the version 2 of the official story - blame it on 'incompetence' of 2001 era intelligence and 'security'.

I'm not comfortable with the position, since the whole 'security' crackdown internationally rides on such assumptions.

let's think for a bit (and we are), if we - BFN'ers and Full Spectrum Liberty-ers - ran for president, what kind of remarks could we be making in order to become president in these times? what could we really SAY?

abcar's interjection in blue:
"It's hard to say exactly what you can do unless you have total control of appointing the people in the investigation." (So the president wouldn't have control? interesting)

no shit... now what would we say if we ran for president?

also ormond:
If the 50 year rule holds, that will be 2013...the year after the US is going to be absorbed into an NAU. obviously if that's the plan, by then knowing who killed Kennedy won't matter for squat.

will it take a president, then - obviously not.


just cos things are fucked up doesn't mean it isn't progress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't expect Ron Paul to wear his feelings about 9-11 on his sleeve, not as a Presidential candidate.

I'd venture to guess that he sees 9-11 truth as a campaign killer, (I don't know why he wouldn't,) and that 9-11 truthers will support him as he casts as wide a net as possible. We're already doing that for him.

I was a little upset about his "blowback" episode in one of the last debates. On the other hand, the fine line between "blowback" and "camouflage" disappears with a modicum of research and a little wakeful speculation.

At this point I'm still an apologist for Ron Paul's rather weak performance on 9-11.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been out and about, so I'm doing a "drive-by" posting today.

Check out THIS lady on America, Martin Luther King, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Go to 1:42 for the Jackson/Sharpton remarks.


I'd vote for Elaine Brown for President in a minute.

(cross-posted on another thread about MLK)
Back to top

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paradox wrote:
Also, out of curiosity, what's wrong with the Birchers? I keep reading on this forum that's it bad, somehow. Does anyone have substantial allegations against them?

Doesn't the fact that the Birch Society SPIED ON LEFT-LEANING AMERICANS, ACTIVISTS, DISSIDENTS, collecting dossiers while on hire for the NSA, CIA, and FBI, qualify them as deserving of anger and derision? How about promoting insane anti-communist hysteria to be used in witchhunts against a wide swath of Americans, for purposes of both revenge and intimidation into silence about injustice and govt tyranny?

Or do you think the NSA, CIA, and FBI represent real freedom?

search "Western Goals" birch spy FBI CIA NSA

Here's the top response on Namebase.org:
The last example of hype is from a 1988 article, which suggests that the right also suffers from an overactive technical imagination:

Retired Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub, a member of the board, says Western Goals wanted to build a computer data base containing the leadership structure and membership of every left-wing group in the country. The right, he says, needed to match the left's ability to mobilize on short notice and track the activities of conservative Americans. "The radical left," he claims, "in this country has an incredible, computer-connected network that has enormous files connected with them."

There's some real freedom and democracy. Western Goals, a subsidiary of the John Birch Society, ran a 1960's version of a privatized PATRIOT Act. So why the fuck is Alex Jones so much against the PATRIOT ACT, when his daddy's JBS (who he now sides with a spiffed-up version of) used to do the same thing.

I think this 1993 article debunks the idea that such a database ever existed or could ... but now? Daniel Brandt, who has his debunkers himself, is behind Google Watch.

Singlaub is Ollie North's guy, colleague of Pat Robertson, and together they and all their ilk supported Latin American death squad leaders, like Mont of Guatemala who stated that "every good Christian should carry a Bible under one arm and a machine gun under the other arm". They also said that the only thing worse than "communists" (i.e. peasant laborers who wanted to organize or even ask for a raise) was the "scum of the earth" the Jesuit priests who (at least in South America) defied the Pope and began to stand up for the poor. Kill A Priest was one of their programs.

Western Goals is repeatedly mentioned here:

This one article seems to provide the best summary:
Substantial evidence links Sasakawa to the Yakuza. He also headed, for a time, the World Anti-Communist League. Moon himself called the League "fascist." Although the Korean messiah was heavily linked to the group, he once made a superficial show of severing his connections -- which continued in a subterranean fashion.

Moon's "church" is, in sum and in short, largely a mechanism for organizing and financing post-war fascism. Moon front groups have had economic and/or personal linkages to WACL, to the fascist National Front party of France, and to Western Goals -- itself linked to the National Front, to the John Birch Society, to death squad leaders, to apartheid South Africa, and to a host of similar unlovelies.

Moon funded the "cocaine coup" which briefly brought fascists (including Nazi fugitive Klaus Barbie) to power in Bolivia.

Another key early figure in Moon's Unification Church was Japanese terrorist leader and war criminal Yoshio Kodama, who, after the war, became perhaps the most important power within the Yakuza.

In the 1970s, the Fraser Committee investigated Moon's role in the Tongsun Park blackmail/bribery scandal. The lead investigator was Robert Boettcher, who later wrote a book about Moon called Gifts of Deceit, which reveals in its opening pages that the Korean "messiah" would show Nazi films to his young followers to "instill discipline." He has loudly proclaimed America to be "satanic" in its individualism, and has praised Germany for training its citizens in "totalism."

These Nazified alliances did nothing to scare off the Bush family, which has been linked with Moon's group since the 1970s.

But wait, isn't the John Birch Society FOR Individualism and AGAINST "collectivism"?
JBS is for individualism of powerless people, and against the riff-raff collectivising, but they are FOR the collectivization of the rich and powerful in the form of institutions and think tanks.

Last edited by dilbert_g on Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

indigitydogdignation wrote:
"McCarthy was right!" Evil or Very Mad (not) is a common by-product of this non-thinking, (cognitive dissonance doesn't begin to describe the problem - and there ARE too many people chanting 'McCarthy was right,' these days. It's not helping any.)

Let's keep it simple.

McCarthy's career began defending Nazis who lined up and machine-gunned American POWs like so many Jews. The USG wanted to prosecute them, McCarthy defended them. He was a not-so-stealth Nazi-lover, along with Dulles (although he crossed Dulles later on behalf of fascist J. Edgar Hoover who was having a power struggle with CIA).

Ann Coulter wrote a book praising McCarthy. Her and her ilk at Fox News back McCarthy. Fox News is the overt right wing replacement for covert Operation Mockingbird, which served to create a pseudo-left. JBS was in one way or another part of that Mockingbird orbit of Helms, Cord Meyer, and Frank Wisner, to generate anti-communist hysteria and smear it all over a wide range of Americans.

Nuff said?
Back to top

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for informing me. I did not know about the complexity of it the Birchers. I had vague impression that they where 'against communists' but not that they collaborated with the alphabet soup.

On a note related to the topic at hand, Ron Paul has been denied attendance at the Iowa debate. While it's a minor step, it does show that certain people do not like his forthright approach.

And on the topic of the alphabet, I cannot conceive that all of them are 'against' us. It's hard to say who is pulling the strings up there, but I do think that many who work in them have good intentions and act so. May I suggest that you adjust your perception to not create more enemies than you have?
Washington medical marijuana

Last edited by paradox on Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary: "Nuff said?"

No, and you can keep things as simple as you want, and the Birchers reading your expose' will likely do the same. I'm aware of their problems but I'm more concerned with the rank and file, why the organization is still going strong (or is it?) ....and how long it will take for the average member to see that their outfit has been marginalized like so many other opposition groups. Problem is most people in the 60's, 70's and 80's who smelled the conspiracy wanted to network, to meet in neighborhood groups, have cocktail parties. JBS cast a net that was wide enough to attract thinkers and idiots alike. JBS weighed in, and a lot of people got stuck in it.
About 18 years ago a libertarian contact took me to a JBS cocktail party. He didn't tell me 'where we were' until I had embroiled myself in a long discussion with someone who seemed remarkably well informed and much more discerning than I would have expected most anyone to have been at that time.

There are two John Birch Societies, there always were; the leadership and it's abrasive surface rhetoric stands somewhat apart from the ordinary member. I'd hope by now that most Birchers would have found greener pastures but my sense is that many of them aren't as aware of the alternatives as they should be. Their core membership might be older and not as adventurous online.

Last edited by indigitydogdignation on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to reply to Paradox and Wantanswers, albeit briefly (what a joke! briefly Laughing ) because time is limited and I've gone over this numerous times.

1. You should be aware that although being "against communism" is just an idea, like disliking fish or cigar smoke, disliking the ideology of communism, "Anti-Communism" was or became an ideology in and of itself. An entire full-fledged ideology full of rules, myths, etc.

Anti-communism existed LONG before communism. In the 1500's, the aristocracy was opposed to the "Levellers" who were working serfs in England who wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Anti-communism cropped up in Shay's Rebellion, where the General Benjamin Lincoln accused them of being "Levellers" who fought in the Revolution and thus wanted total economic equality. He used this line to convince Washington to scrap the Articles and have a new Constitution with more protection for property. However, though Wikipedia says they were fighting debts and taxes, another article explained that speculators during the War had lent money at a discount on Colonial Scrip, and now wanted to be repaid at face value. Governor John Hancock refused to enforce these debt collections, but a subsequent Governor sicced the army on them, and started seizing these soldiers farms. Not much has changed insofar as "support the troops" has it?

Some of these myths include the idea that democracy itself, i.e. self-rule, is "the road to communism". Hence, democracy should be limited or curtailed. Huh? By popular vote? Naw. By rule of the elites, of course, backed by military force. That's how it's always been done. Let's just say the Cold War mythology led to "excesses", like the War on Terror.

George Kennan, considered the grandfather of anti-communism, repudiated it on his deathbed. He and/or others remarked that rather than preserving "FREEDOM", it turned the USA into a mirror-image or analogue of Stalinism, with secret spies and "narcs" turning in "suspected commies", people getting blackballed in their profession (Norman Finkelstein was recently denied tenure at De Paul, for his stance on Palestine and the lies of Israel, for pointing out hipocrisy, and for his battles with Alan Dershowitz. A colleague of Finkelstein was also booted. The student body is strongly protesting. Same shit, same repression, different subject.)

2. Wantanswers: You specifically cited almost verbatim the Neo-Liberal philosophy of the Milton Friedman, Chicago School, Hayek, Newt Gingrich, etc. crowd. In short almost sarcastic answer I have to ask: Why are you against Bush or Clinton then? Clinton did NAFTA. He removed "taxes" (tariffs, duties) from the rich and corporations. As the result, corporations went on a hiring boom and there's good paying full employment all over America. The NAU should even bring more prosperity.

Obviously the answer is that the savings did not result in "more jobs" except maybe some small marginal employers. Like when they looted or underfunded their pension funds they legally owed to their employees, they defied the "rules of the market" and just applied the fake profits to their bottom line, boosting their own stock prices and their subsequent payout on inflated stocks, boosted their own capital gains.

3. Wantanswers: You're basically citing a philosophy that was promoted with BILLIONS of Dollars of PR money by corporations who were members of the National Association of Manufacturers, and other pro-fascist groups. They interjected pro-corporate, anti-communist hype on TV, movies, radio, music, and mostly in schools and forced PR documentary-viewing at work.

Sounds like they taught you good.

4. Taxes are bad when they don't provide needed services. But any money you spend is a waste when commensurate services are not provided. It's a ripoff. What's real bad is when a monopoly situation prevents you from shopping for a cheaper price.

True enough, taxes are mandatory. However, they pay for community services, if they are not stolen or shifted to military expenses like the TWELVE TRILLION spent on the Cold War. Democracy (and common sense) was repressed to keep the insane budget going, even during and following Vietnam.

But they've taught you to hate the welfare mother down the block. Keeps your eyes off the real ripoffs.

You don't have to be any kind of socialist to figure out this math: Any form of "welfare" money, if it does not go back to the CIA's cocaine traffickers or Latin America, is spent in each community at local stores. Whatever your views about non-working people (Socred, where are you?), at least that money is somewhat recycled in local economies, not sent offshore to fund some puppet dictator or into some hedge fund to rip off some small country, or to build shit to blow up. But the mil budget is sacrosanct.

5. I dont have time to write an essay, but what I think you should do is round out your education. Get ALL the Neo-Liberal education you want. Listen to Rothbard and Mises and their semi-fascist-lite buddies on Mises.org.

Then go to Liberalism Resurgent, one of the many mirror sites by the late Kangas are read his rebuttal.

Also, don't miss Michael Parenti (there are others). Try my site:

Listen to what he says against capitalism. Then think about that for a while. Don't just listen to one side.

Basically, yes, govt will be corrupt, but so is business. Govt gets corrupted BY business, by greedy private people. The formulas about how capitalist nirvana will work, don't, because smart capitalists "game the system". They literally turn it into a rigged casino. Now instead of govt regulating business, they have joined together in crime.

Actually, Karl Marx, whatever his flaws, predicted exactly what is happening now. He said that (don't quote me) "free market" governments were the Executive of the Capitalist Class (those who don't lift a finger and live off investments and other people's work their whole lives), serving business primarily, helping the bourgeois (the rich billionaires and multi-millionaires), and he said that as time marched on they would continue to merge and become as one. He said that "economically-liberal" "free market" democracies would turn into fascist states, as it became more difficult to exploit foreigners in strange places, as new conquests faded.

Patrick would probably be able to clarify that, but that's roughly it.

Ironically, Samuel Huntington and Zbignew Brzezinski roughly AGREE with Karl Marx, in their own writings. They agree that social unrest will arise, as corporate rule rises and rich and poor become divided. Their solution is that it will become more necessary to control the masses in America, by various forms of trickery and force, whatever is necessary.

The "free market" is not free. It's freedom for MONEY, not people. As a matter of fact, I think it was Michael Hudson (or maybe Loren Goldner on the Corporations thread) who pointed out that, ironically, "free market economies" could ONLY exist under totalitarian systems. This is because working and poor people tend to rebel against massive slashes in govt services and slashes in wages, dictated by "free market" policies and austerity measures. (Ron Paul's campaign is based on implementing these "austerity measures" being fought and thrown off in Third World slave colonies of America.)

The two main promoters of "free market economics" seemed to agree. Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek both thought that Pinochet and his bloodbaths were just dandy, because he saved Chile from communism, by overthrowing the popularly-elected Allende. Kissinger arrogantly said they had to rescue Chile from the stupidity of their own people. (I just read that ITT in Chile had ties to German Nazis.)

Right now, in my home town, the rightwing FM radio station, which was having orgasms over Bush's tax cuts to billionaires, as if this would somehow trickle down to roads paved with gold or some shit, are now angry when the CITY or STATE cannot provide services. Well, Bush's war PLUS TAX CUTS means that local govts have to RAISE NEW TAXES (which offsets the puny tax cuts for 90% of the people) and/or slash needed services which the vast majority uses, like schools and roads and even cops, and start to sell off assets to private companies who begin to charge market prices (i.e. however much they can get away with charging) for the same services people used to get cheaply.

Bolivia recently got past that when the govt 'privatized' their water, just fucking GAVE IT to Bechtel. Not only that, Bolivian workers PAID for part of Bechtel's construction project that was designed to make Bechtel richer. Then people's water prices went up 25x, and they were forbidden by law (totalitarian free market again) from collecting rainwater from the clouds and raindrops which apparently became Bechtel's property too.

There's a LOT of bullshit they smear on that.

I will offer this one caveat: extreme communism, because it mandates total equality and must make sure that no one is cheating or working a black market and taking side-profits, must institute extreme controls and surveillance. Corporations which count keystrokes and such or spy on workers to make sure they are not moonlighting, which conduct random privatized piss tests for drugs, do the same thing. Somehow that's OK because it's private, not government. But I'll grant you that point. Absolute communistic equality = absolute tyranny.

But Absolute economic freedom, the freedom of the wealthy to accumulate more and more wealth for generations and keeping it in the family without returning it to the system, that is also a recipe for totalitarian tyranny, only it's tyranny of wealth instead of communist govt. This was tried. Adam Smith. It failed. The Holy Market and it's Invisible Hand-God did not magically redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom via work and pay, like Smith predicted. And Smith only predicted that would happen IF certain conditions applied, which don't, like perfect equality of information and opportunity.

Obviously, corporations have more info and controls. If you're very lucky, very unique, when you apply for a job you are so desireable that the corporation needs you as bad as you need it. However, most of the time, they have stacks of applications as well as third-party body-counters and head-hunters to supply them with an overabundance of choices and "information" and "opportunities". Individuals have far less clout, most of the time anyhow. And as more and more people are replaced with high-tech gadgets, productivity can go through the ROOF without leading to job gains, only leading to looser and looser and more desperate labor markets.

Insecure Workers is a positive outcome not only for business, but for government. (Just like the govt is FOR terrorism.) US govt policies are designed to prevent full employment and to keep a large number of unemployed people around. Insecure Workers was a success story cited by Business Week in the 90's.

In response to this situation, and to grassroots rebellion over this, THIS is why the much maligned "modern liberalism" including forced wealth redistribution arose. Now the "Great Society" was certainly caused to fail by design, as $1 billion was shoved at it by LBJ. but $50 billion for the war -- guns and butter -- but the public was taught that helping the poor is what failed, because the poor -- especially minority poor -- could not be helped. They were taught that this caused crime. But no one noticed the exploding levels of white collar crime (and the Vietnam War was a white collar crime spree to the max) (like Iraq). No one in the mainstream pointed out that it was WAR SPENDING, not welfare spending, which was bankrupting the system. It not only created massive GOVT debt, it also squandered it on high tech bombs and military gadgets instead of investing in civilian infrastructure and opportunities which would naturally multiply. Blacks who wished to have more opportunities to become self (community)-sufficient, to overthrow Jim Crow residue, to form their own community orgs and political parties, and exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, were crushed by the govt as "uppity". (Panthers)

OK, I could say more, but this is enough for now. Please check out both sets of viewpoints, if you will. I've absorbed much Libertarianism, from the horse's mouth, from the anarcho-capitalists, who are only slightly more 'pure' than Ron Paul. Once you've listened to at least a couple Parenti critiques, and/or Kangas, then we might be able to entertain a dialogue about the pros and cons of it all, not just lobbing ideologies at each other and dodging them when they get tossed back.

Last edited by dilbert_g on Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:10 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

indigitydogdignation wrote:

There are two John Birch Societies, there always were; the leadership and it's abrasive surface rhetoric stands somewhat apart from the ordinary member.

That was MY impression too.

I met a VERY NICE Bircher fellow, down at the antiwar display in downtown Cleveland, walking amongst a lot of Greenies. He looks like a stereotypical nerd guy, down to the horn-rimmed glasses, and is a very energetic debater. I think a retired city worker. He knew that 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB.

However, if you read above, I think the bulk of the philosophy of JBS, because it categorically opposes things like unions and liberals and government (at least social-istic aspects of govt, even aspects that Jefferson and Patrick Henry would have approved of), and offers some lip service against corporate tyranny (those corporations that are allegedly aligned with "communism", like Rockefeller), is a Trojan Horse of Liberty. Most of the right wing pro-Liberty stuff -- at least if you have listened to any serious communist critiques of pure free capitalism -- lead down a philosophical path to what so many SAY they FEAR: The New World Order of Global Corporatism.

Global Corporatism does not need governments, really. Only to enforce the property rights of the propertied, i.e. the corporate class of very very very rich. Government even backs the property rights of the RICH corporate class against the poor and middle class corporate class, by rules and decisions which hurt small business and un-propertied workers (not everyone is smart enough to be an entrepreneur, or lucky enough to be "connected"), while favoring the big business which "buys" government as a commodity.

In the end, Global Free Market Corporatism can probably eliminate governments completely, as they privitize Law Enforcement and even Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive itself. They are halfway there. Privatizing ALL government services, including Law, IS a part of libertarian philosophy. They KNOW that people are accustomed to Obeying the Law, so they keep government around because it has a fig leaf of legitimacy with the public, insofar as obeying many unjust laws or accepting the consequences without "getting political".

If you look at the JBS philosophy, THAT is where they are going. Eliminate government regulation. Not fight to REPAIR government (public) regulation so it serves the public interest, so there IS such a thing as a public, so there IS such a thing as a society. Just total freedom for "the businessman", and for the mythological figure of "the all-wise entrepreneur" who single-handedly competes with global corporate monoliths. It's a neo-liberal fairy tale, when it comes to the bottom line. Look at my city with all the boarded up examples of the "free market" shaking out inefficiencies.

In a very real sense, JBS is not merely anti-socialist, or anti-collectivist as G. Edward Griffin likes to say, it's anti-social at it's very roots. Like Chomsky said, the ideal society they envision is millions of disconnected individuals going to work and coming home and plopping themselves in front of the boob tube for Football and The Gong Show (reality tv) and the like, with a six-pack of beer. Better yet, include a LARGE slave-labor class working in prisons. With the twin spectre of prisons (debtors' prisons included) (see child support enforcement, like my fugitive friend is trying to work his way out of) and grinding poverty, they expect people to just be too damn tired and beaten down and resigned to the inevitable to fight back for actual justice. And too dumbed-down and powerless to do anything. This is the ideal situation.

And the super-ideal mid-term situation, IMO, is to get people to DEMAND these changes, to HATE government itself, to fashion their own chains of corporate globalization. Get out that Nike T-shirt and all those Logo clothes, maybe a corporate tattoo.

By the way, a young friend I know who was in DeMolay, straigtened me out on the Masons. Yes, the Founding Fathers included many Masons. The Catholic Church called them Satanists, just like General Mont (Guatemala dictator) referred to Jesuits as scum for helping the poor and for supporting real democracy. These Masons, though rich and powerful themselves, were principled, and believed in the things they wrote in the Declaration and Constitution. They believe in loyalty, charity, justice, liberty, freedom, happiness, etc. They believe that Man, as created by a Creator, has Inalienable Rights. (Know them by their works.)

DeMolay org, by the way, honored Jacques DeMolay who was tortured and martyred (bar-b-cued) and refused to rat out his friends to the Catholics, I think the Knights Templar and/or other Masons.

However, according to my friend's studies -- and this makes perfect sense -- the Masons were usurped in power by another fraternity --- Skull and Bones. Skulls have a philosophy which is almost diametrically opposed to Masonry. Skulls believe that the elites are elites because they deserve to be elites. They believe in family, friends, aristocracy, bloodlines, and insider club of special ruling class people. They are against charity and liberty and Inalienable Rights. They believe in "I got mine". (This is roughly the philosophy of the Straussians a.k.a. Neo-Cons too. They are elite. You suck. You suck them off, slave.)

They are a cult of criminals -- I assume you've seen Cremation of Care, even though Alex Jones mixes it up with "occult mythology" and makes it way more spooky, what they do is symbolically BURN their living, infant Conscience in a funeral pyre every summer.

A quick glance and you can see how American society has evolved along these lines and incorporated these messages and philosophy seamlessly into their lives, including in much of popular culture, especially non-political rap music and self-aborbed pop music. It's a culture of total selfishness and disconnectedness from humanity. Skulls. (Yet at times, they still give lip service to Mason ideals. Bush said he was a Compassionate Conservative. Later, I heard him say "I think it's compassionate to give people (billionaires) back their money.")

Skulls seem to have not only destroyed grassroots humanity and solidarity and community, but all-but-destroyed even the idea of solidarity and community. At least they WANT to eliminate it, drive it out, suppress it. In place of a new "Communist Man" ideal (either Marx's or Che's widely-criticized idea of a society of Men and Women who cooperate rather than fight to take advantage of one another by a few scraps), they have created a "Neo-Liberal Man" ideal of total selfishness and self-absorption. And it only took billions of dollars of anti-communist indoctrination to accomplish that shift.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Page 19 of 22

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.