Ron Paul: Oligarchs’ “Operation Briar Patch”

“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”

In the “conspiracy” media, few conclusions more closely approach consensus than that: 1) Ron Paul is the last and only hope of America, and 2) The manifold forces of darkness are arrayed against him.

I will not accuse the good doctor of being a secret zionist, freemason, jesuit or interdimensional reptile. I think he has in some respects been a courageous and useful public servant. I do, however, suppose that Ron Paul – whether he knows it or not – is a perfectly acceptable option, and perhaps favored by some elements of the power elite, to be elected in 2012.

The Andrew Jackson precedent

Most of those praising Paul will consider Andrew Jackson one of the truly great American presidents for having “killed the bank.”

Jackson started as something of a folk hero, having led the victory in the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. He would, however, ride that wave of popularity into the presidency under the patronage of a clique of British assets like Aaron Burr, Martin van Buren and Chief Justice Roger Taney. Once in office, Burr’s sponsor Jeremy Bentham, the British intelligence strategist and arch-defender of usury and pederasty, would carry on extensive correspondence with President Jackson.

To quote historian Anton Chaitkin:

“When John Quincy Adams ran for President in 1824, Taney backed Jackson against him, and went from being a Federalist to a Jackson Democrat without missing a step. In Congress in 1834, Adams skewered Taney with this sarcastic proposal: ‘Resolved that the thanks of the House be given to Roger B. Taney, Secretary of the Treasury, for his pure and disinterested patriotism in transferring the use of the public funds from the Bank of the United States, where they were profitable to the people, to the Union Bank of Baltimore, where they were profitable to himself.’ Adams’ speech containing this mock resolution was suppressed by the Jackson forces in Congress, so he privately printed it…”

Aside from his genocidal “removal” of the nearly-assimilated Cherokees to clear fertile land for slave plantations, Jackson’s legacy was one of nullification. Under the banners of “limited government” and “state’s rights,” he ended the prosperous but fragile era of national banking, protective tariffs, industrial development and public infrastructure. The effect was a hyperinflationary panic followed by a deflationary crash, then an intractable period of expanding slavery amidst stagnation and “hard times” that wouldn’t be truly reversed until the reforms of Abraham Lincoln decades later.

Ron Paul: Blinded by Ideology

Paul has been sponsored and supported not only by the alternative media, but by a network of “Austrian School” think tanks like the Ludwig von Mises Institute. As a young congressman enthralled with Austrian economics, Paul co-wrote “The Case for Gold” with Lewis Lehrman, a Jewish investment banker who later helped guide everything from the Project for a New American Century to the American Enterprise Institute to George Bush, Jr’s Arbusto Energy.

The Austrian School updated the ideas of Jeremy Bentham (free trade, usury and the illegitimacy of natural law) for the post-WW2 era. Its leading ideologues were Anglo-sponsored “anti-fascist” Jews like Friedrich von Hayek (the tutor of David Rockefeller at the London School of Economics), Ludwig von Mises (who owed his career in America to regular grants and appointments from the Rockefeller Foundation) and Ayn Rand, who popularized Bentham’s satanism under the name “objectivism”. Second-generation “Austrians” like Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman are little discussed as such, since they exposed the program by actually putting it in practice.

The Austrian program is essentially that of Andrew Jackson – anti-nationalism. Paul vows to “End the Fed” and replace it with a deregulated rat’s nest of private bank currencies (which is what led to the 1837 panic). No mention of bankruptcy for Wall Street or nationalization of credit and currency. He implicitly opposes all tariffs, regulations, subsidies, and any notion of morality in law (i.e. prohibitions on drugs, pornography and other key revenue streams of imperialism).

Paul is committed to paying Wall Street’s debts. His recently-published “Plan to Restore America” is an austerity handbook that puts the costs of free trade and bailouts on the backs of poor people (by cutting or eliminating school lunches, WIC, assistance to Indian reservations and other basic social welfare programs), the environment and what is left of labor unions, while reducing taxes on the wealthy (including elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes) and corporations.

Despite his welcome anti-war positions, he publicly cites only budgetary and constitutional reasons, never mentioning the human cost of war or larger geostrategic realities being foisted upon the American people. He has frequently expressed the desire to allow Israel to “deal with its neighbors” without US approval or intervention. It should be noted that more US foreign aid goes to Israel’s “neighbors” than Israel, which is why a substantial number of Israeli economists and zionist activists join Paul in opposing US foreign aid and “interventionism.”

What is the “New World Order”?

Look at the world’s true “oligarchs.” Do they derive their power from TSA body scanners, tear gas and reality TV? Of course not – these are merely used to demoralize the population. The global oligarchy controls oil and other strategic raw materials (mineral ores, grain, water, etc.), they control multinational corporations, they control locations of geostrategic importance (shipping routes, micro-state “firewalls” like Tibet) they control multinational banks and investment houses, and they use their monopolies on supply and information to speculate in international futures, stock and currency exchanges. The “New World Order” is not the overturning of our free-trade, deregulated neoliberal order, but its completion.

The great dream of every Rothschild and Rockefeller is not a global police state, but a universal “free trade” arrangement overseen by a global body. One where national borders proliferate but every national protection – every wage or price standard, regulation, subsidy, tariff or currency control – is removed, where every nation is brought to the lowest common denominator, and where all economic surplus flows to usury, drugs, entertainment, war and other imperial franchises. A global government of the “free market” and a global currency based not on political considerations but upon an arbitrary resource (like gold) that can be controlled by the Wall Street / industrial cartel complex. In a fenced feudal plantation, the oligarchs will have total control over who is being fattened and who led to the slaughter.

In Conclusion

The feudal outlook of British imperialism is clear to the discerning eye in Austrian tracts like The Road to Serfdom or Omnipotent Government, and is evident in the policy proposals of Congressman Paul. It is probable that Ron Paul, like his millions of half-educated but eager followers, lost the plot in an Austrian haze of fake data and quasi-mathematical proofs. Like Andrew Jackson, he received his education and support from a network of anti-nationalist financiers.

Will Ron Paul be elected in 2012? I’m not holding my breath, but I think it’s a dangerous possibility that could lead to the final dismantling of post-industrial America. At the very least, he represents an ideological “briar patch” for the slippery power structure that wants those of us willing to fight to fight ever more vigorously against our own interests.

For further reading / listening:

Treason in America, Anton Chaitkin

Invisible Hands, Kim Phillips Fein

The Legacy Of Friedrich Von Hayek: Fascism Didn’t Die With Hitler, Jeffrey Steinberg

The “Jewish” Conspiracy is British Imperialism, Henry Makow

In Answer to Objections Raised in Support of Ron Paul, Christopher Jon Bjerknes*

World Crisis Radio, Webster Tarpley (select November 12, 2011, a detailed critique of Ron Paul’s “Plan to Restore America”)

* I don’t share CJB’s monomania about Jews, but he explains a number of important points here in detail.

235 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Oligarchs’ “Operation Briar Patch”

  1. Albert Fish says:

    It is a pity that the author doesn’t know what he is writing about.
    For anyone who has studied the Austrian School of Economics and knows history this piece is a real laugh. A really sad laugh, but a laugh nonetheless.
    “The great dream of every Rothschild and Rockefeller is not a global police state, but a universal “free trade” arrangement overseen by a global body.”
    Free trade overseen by a global body isn’t free trade – is it? Moreover, that’s not what Austrian School economists want.
    I recommend reading anything by Murray Newton Rothbard and leaving the author of this twisted piece to suppurate in his own intellectual pustulence.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      “Free trade” is nothing more than trade without tariffs, and a lowest-common denominator approach to wages and regulations. The global body (like the WTO) makes sure the trade stays free – ie, no subsidies, no price controls, no tariffs.

      The relevant example in Jackson’s time is America, who Britain wanted to keep as a cotton plantation, and not an industrialized competitor on the Hamiltonian model.

      The relevant example today is China, who uses the old American system of tariffs, strategic currency valuation and heavy investment in infrastructure and industry to work toward better living standards. The goal of the “NWO” would be to remove those kinds of competitive barriers to keep China as a sweatshop paradise and not a first-world nation.

      Economics is less a science than a political process, and Murray Rothbard is a quasi-scientific fraud like the rest of them.

    • Use of the word “pustulence” does not validate your arguments that anglo-saxons should have the freedumb to steal and evict a whole nation of people from land that the anglo-saxons did not create but rather plundered and claimed statist title.

      It only shows you’re a hypocrite who tries to conceal your contradictions and blindness to any history, scientific fact, or universal reasoning of classical liberals, scientists, hethrens, and the bible alike, that land and legal tender are not capital, that refutes your position that it is about freedumb vs. state rather than liberty vs. tyranny. Title to land is state intervention in free markets. Gold as legal tender is state intervention in free markets.

      Capital must be produced by human labor. Legal tender is the currency decreed by the state as acceptable payment for taxes and debts at chartered banks. Land is the labor of the Creator, not man, and the encroachment on the right to land through the government allowing and enforcing private and exclusive claim to land without redemption to the people who are denied access violates natural rights.

    • If gold increases in value, you’re stealing a free lunch. Who pays for that free lunch. The person who makes you lunch. Reality is a bit more complicated than your delusional, over-simplified, contradictory, and child-like fantasy of libertopia.

      • OzzieThinker says:

        Yes, except going on “relative” “Industrial Revolution” gold values, the real price of gold should be in excess of $5000 an ounce. Some may argue that is the looting of the gold standard (ermmm removal, sorry) that has created the mess we are in today.

        Of course, if the gold standard had not been created in the first place, there would have also been nothing to “loot”. I chuckle as some of these posts and comments where everyone seems to miss the point. The key is the difference between honesty and dishonesty, fair and foul play. Add another layer – detailed transparency, distribute the weaponery equally and everything but purposeful cooperation would be pointless.

        But we have different IQ’s, some are stronger than others, plus those that “have” want all choices, maximum capitulation in their favour as well as eternal power. All remember if nothing was worth anything, everything would be worthless. In a worthless world, the power is broken and the MEEK INHERIT THE EARTH.

      • do you suggest that the free market is wrong and gold is not priced correctly because the state ceased to intervene in gold markets? that gold might not be a rare but relatively useless rock except when used as a conductor, ornament, free market store of wealth, or speculative asset as the the current price for the supply and demand of such reflects? lay off the peter schiff conspiracy theories.

      • OzzieThinker says:

        You both miss and make a good point.

        At the fundamental, who set’s value? There is talk about free market “self regulation”, but all that actually happens is cartels determine outcomes by creating false values via manipulating the ‘scale’.

        As money is the eccomonic linkage between markets, for the large picture, markets themselves become a useful facilitator in the chess game all about money enabling. The reason gold is the most traded valuable metal, is it used to be the security for a value “baseline”. Though the scale was sliding, gold always presented a reference point.

        In my humble opinion the free market ways have failed. They are absolutely unfair (in every sense of the word). Far from being self regulating, free markets have created internal and external instability. What should have been a riggerous cooperation of great minds has turned into a game of favourites and traitors with so many deals within deals being done there is no possibility for any cohesive outcome. Those that theorise a collapsed system helps the elite wallow in ignorance. Limited prosperity presents an endless cash crop of suckers. Total destablisation presents civil war.

      • I like what you have to say and the way you say it Keith.

    • the whole non-coercion principle is an absurdity and does not fit reality. even in complete and pure anarchy, there is coercion (tyranny). even if it is just you and the bear, if you cross the path of the bear, you might be coerced into becoming lunch. even if it is just you and eve in the garden of eden, eve might be coerced into sex and into becoming a battered house wife, and who knows what you’d do with the children.

      • OzzieThinker says:

        Actually everything “outside” natural law is in a state of anarchy. This means that our current human systems, which are wholesomely unnatural (as much as those that support them try to argue otherwise), defies natural law and [therefore] is anarchy. It is ironic that “anarchy” was the label given to those who dared to usurp the fantastical synthetic laws we “all” swear by. The anarchist has morphed into the “subversive”, “communist” and “terrorist”, which is distinctly different. Subversives, communists and terrorists work for [or are presented in a way that they work for] the synthetic law makers by “confusing” the status quo into a reaction [fear factor].

        We exist in anarchy and those that tried to repell it were ridiculed. True to form, the asidious parties who created the anarchy designed the false anarchists in a feeble attempt to finally, once and for all, end dissent. The current state of anarchy is based on the template that a large, slave workforce will unquestioningly follow orders from their undeserving masters, because those masters are too strong for them. Dissenters give the slave workforce strength to rebel and they cannot be allowed as they destroy the fabric of anarchy.

        Everything is the opposite of what it is.

  2. Brian says:

    This article is all over the place, and has no real point and fewer facts. The NWO conspiracy is not about “free trade” but about complete control and domination of the world’s population. Ron Paul disapproves of such a scheme. Apparently, you approve. Unfortunately, the Banksters will not care about you once they’re in control. One death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic. You and I, sir, will be statistics unless the NWO is stopped.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Wait – Ron Paul disapproves of global domination? Shit – I better start editing this article!

      • lol. i think he turned a blind eye to the easily verified facts from self-incriminating and credible sources (the ludwig von mises institute) that the rockefeller foundation funded the austrian school of economics and that ron paul partnered with lewis lehrman and pnac to promote the gold standard (easily verified at, the same people behind the united nations, federal reserve, and global banking cartel, because it did not agree with his brainwashing from the funded and controlled rebellion. you did not even mention the ties between ron paul and bilderberg attendee peter thiel and the constant parade of illuminati gestures by ron paul.

        there are other ties i can’t easily prove except to say that i was given inside information about soros funding of the libertarian party and activities (from a now deceased national political director of the lp) and have seen other interesting patterns with full-time activists having several aliases and association either by past or current employment or funding of organizations or activities from the church of scientology, peta, or the united nations.

      • it is also common and admitted knowledge that the alex jones show is funded by gold traders, which probably has strong enough bias in favor of promoting gold as “sound” and “honest” currency, to be disqualified as credible on monetary issues with such a bias. ron paul also holds significant quantities of gold and land, so ron paul should come with a disclaimer when he pumps gold and promotes ending the taxation of unearned wealth known as economic rent (speculative investments in land and natural resources) and considered capital gains by current tax law, which is taxed at a lower rate than earned income.

    • Thomas says:

      Furthermore, the provisions in the constitution allow for tariffs and tax on commerce and at no point has Dr. Paul indicated that the free market system would apply globally. In fact his position seems quite the opposite where he’d like to withdraw from the global economic landscape, which in my opinion is a great idea.

      As far as the central bank is concerned, if congress (as provisioned in the constitution) did the job of printing money and managing our economy what makes you think that would decentralize a one currency system? We don’t live in a time of nullification or state succession from the union. Many of the unconstitutional actions by the federal government should warrant enacting these provisions of the constitution; however, the states LOVE their entitlement handouts from the central bank and wouldn’t dare make a peep. They also more than likely fear for their lives because these NWO banksters are the darkest, dirtiest, heathenish scoundrels to walk the face of the earth.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        He may have toned down his rhetoric of late, but Paul clearly opposes all economic protections, especially tariffs, which are the basic tool for preventing what early American economists called “coolie labor.” He opposes “managed trade,” (whatever that means) and voted against NAFTA and WTO on that basis. If someone can explain how a free trade agreement with Colombia is worse than unofficial free trade with Colombia, I’d love to hear it.

      • you missed the point that a world gold standard is a global monetary system which could, is, and was placed under imf and world bank (u.n.) control, which is an unelected private body consisting of the international banking cartel and their transnational corporations.

        we were under a world gold standard in 1776. that is why the founders put us on a gold standard since americans were using spanish gold bank notes as currency since it was commonly accepted for trade with europe… because the monarchs and their banking cartel had europe on a gold standard off and on ever since they collapsed the roman empire with it…. and we remained on a gold standard except china who was on a silver standard through 1913 and up to the great depression when nations started to make a move towards debt-based and public monetary systems, away from the deflationary and unstable nature of a debt-based gold standard. look at the history of united states monetary policy from 1776 to 1935. it changed almost every 10 years due to a banking panic as the government tried to make gold as a stable means of exchange. in 1935, gold was demonetized as legal tender for payment of debts. you could still pay your taxes in gold and gold notes still circulated, but gold’s widespread circulation dramatically decreased in 1935 after the passing of the gold reserve acts of 1935. the public monetary and banking systems in iceland and canada came about during the great depression and lasted until the stagflation of the 1970s, thinks in part to educated, wealthy, and small populations, and people like p.m. mackenzie king and senator gerry maguire. i’m surprised they weren’t killed. i suppose the globalists did not care about canada and iceland too much while they were just too busy trying to guide monetary changes which were happening in every nation. they took control of canada and iceland anyway and put them under mountains of debt in the 1970s.

  3. Bob says:

    whoever wrote this is a retard

  4. chromelung says:

    You’re dead wrong in saying ‘Israel’s neighbor’s receive more aid than Israel’ from the USA. That is a lie and you know it is. Israel by far receives more than anyone. The $3 billion is a joke. THe real number is $30 billion minimum & this has been proven on Sibel Edmonds podcasts w/ CIA’s Phillip Giraldi. Plus,the best source you can come up and a wild accusation like that in which you link the whole paragraph to is the “Israeli National News”? LMAO! Come on, you’re a hasbarat, right? A Shabbaz goy maybe? You do know that’s an Israeli propaganda mouthpiece for the IDF? Just like DebkaFile is Mossad?

    • deadeyeblog says:

      If you put together the aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s well over $3b. Though of course most of that “aid” is for regime change and reconstruction contracts.

      I’m not defending Israel. Just repeating what their stated justifications are for opposing foreign aid. My guess is that because the $3b comes with the promise to buy US-made weapons, the Israelis would prefer to build more of their own.

      Here are more “official” links for you:

      If you can come away from my article accusing me of being a “hasbarat,” you either didn’t read it or you’re trolling.

  5. Randy Crow says: in my opinion is the mouth of Neocons, Banksters, Obama and basically everything I don’t like about this country. HuffPuff gives Paul either no coverage or coverage with a negative slant. If HuffPuff does not like Paul, I do. I’ve heard this Ron Paul is a Freemason mess for quite a while. We are running out of choices. Anyone is better than Obama is a given. I think the bad guys like Paul the least, so that puts him at the top of my list for now.

  6. right on – mises economics is the propaganda arm of fascism – its worth what you pay for it – you cant get a degree in it from a university – it is extremely biased – Free market collapsed out economy during the great depression – free market for oligarchs dsnt mean free market for people…

    • chris says:

      free market during the great depression?

      now thats a joke of a statement,sir

      • we were on a gold standard during the great depression. the whole world except china was on that same gold standard. the dollar was partially backed by gold [credit expansion was partially restricted by gold reserves], and the dollar increased in value during the great depression. ron paul would have loved his gold holdings during the great depression because he could have gained in wealth by doing nothing but looking at his yellow rocks. that was the primary reason why the great depression happened and why every nation changed their monetary system after the great depression.

  7. Thomas says:

    I suppose I’m at a loss concerning this post and I’m a bit confused. I have studied Austrian economics and I have never learned that if the markets determine competition and solvency that the free system wouldn’t work. Of course I agree that with the current level of subversion there are holes that can be manipulated by those who stand to lose the most; however, I have only heard of possibilities and options from Dr. Paul while nothing would tell me that a sweeping overhaul is even a feasible solution from his perspective. In my opinion these conservative and free solutions provide man the freewill that God has provided. If we choose to “go along” with the bad guys that is an individual choice; if not, then good for us, but gosh darn it GIVE-US-THAT-CHOICE! Do you advocate that the individual should not have the freewill to make their own decisions in every aspect of their lives without coaxing and corrosion from some so called leadership, regulation, commerce or entitlement?

    Secondly, how dare you compare Dr. Paul to Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a undereducated dolt who gained the office of the president via brutality and dishonesty. No wonder he is responsible for starting the democratic party. If the shoe fits wear it.

    I do see that it is too late and there is absolutely no hope to defeat these monsters, but I feel that Dr. Paul can at least provide sight to the blind to continue the fight by letting us know that we have a choice between good vs. evil, truth vs. lies and flesh vs. spirit.


    • there was a loaded worship of ron paul framed as a rhetorical question…. and a misunderstanding of the complexities of what a free market is and what it is not.

      read some albert j. nock. heck, learn the very basics of natural law rights from the macroeconomics taught in the bible. then, tell me, please, is private ownership and title to land statist fiction or free market economics.

      • your misunderstanding is a funded brainwashing from the rockefeller foundation. that is what you do not get and what they author is trying to get you to see (it is admitted fact by the ludwig von mises institute and other credible sources), that the alternative is a well-funded false alternative. the truth was common sense and basic biblical economic understanding until that understanding was completely lost with the parade of neo-classical economists coming the rockefeller foundation from several false stripes in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

      • and what the author is trying to get you to see.

  8. Nick says:

    If you feel so strongly against Ron Paul I would have hoped for just a little more compelling case than just weak assertions he’s, for example, against the poor because he would cut or eliminate “school lunches, WIC, assistance to Indian reservations and other basic social programs,” (government programs which create dependency) and would even cut “the environment” What a dangerous man!

    And thanks for pointing out the “great dream of every Rothschild and Rockefeller is not a global police state” but a “free market.” I simply had no idea they created a global police state by accident when their true objective was a “free market.” How vast must their wealth be that when they make a mistake, so many unintended consequences occur for the whole world!

    You use the term “free market,” and others so loosely their whole meaning is lost, as if for example “free market” didn’t also imply economic “freedom.”

    • deadeyeblog says:

      I was trying to keep it short (though it was still a bit too long). My case is not against Ron Paul per se, but the Austrian School program he’d be sure to implement. Maybe you should be asking why Ron Paul’s big plan had nothing about ending the fed, reinstating Glass Steagall, or recovering the bailout money. The “recommended reading” lists go into more detail about his program.
      A police state is not the end goal of the so-called NWO. It’s a necessary tool of social engineering and distraction so they can loot the economy. Note that there are not such tactics in a place like China which is not yet ripe for the picking. When there’s nothing more to take, the homeland security contracts will dry up, and we’ll be left to swat flies off ourselves.

      • people like to think of the new world order as some esoteric agenda, some ultimate police state and depopulation agenda. while there might be some truth, the underlying objective is still largely an aristocratic agenda, being able to live off the productivity of the serfs in luxury and total prestige, where the serfs won’t rise up against the aristocrats because they really believe in the economic order as divine, like a false free market as supported by ron paul. they don’t realize the wealthy are stealing the wealth. they’re pretty slick if the ron paul following is an indication of how brainwashed people can become in loving their slavery without realizing it is even slavery just because some investment banker like peter schiff (of the schiff banking family who created the federal reserve? i never really was able to find out for sure) says it is free market economics, when it is fraud of the financial, insurance, real estate industries and other industries of importance, stealing wealth through interest (and economic rent in the case of the gold standard) on the money supply, economic rent (control of land and natural resources), and other more simple forms of fraud, such as selling flu vaccines with a manufactured swine flu scare or helping big oil take control of more of the world’s oil supply through global warming hysteria and the implementation of carbon taxes and carbon trading scams which force small oil to sell out, not to mention that carbon taxes are a nice way to fund bombing of brown people who don’t believe in usury.

    • ron paul is committing economic and intellectual fraud, and he knows it. he knows who partners with him and who gives him the big donations and funds the big projects. he knows who puts him on television. he knows true classical liberalism and knows georgism. he was good friends with lp founder david nolan who is well known as a georgist. he knows he is wrong. and he knows what interests he works for, including his own gold and land holdings. ron paul is a wannabe aristocrat, who wants to steal wealth in his sleep as the fixed supply and increasing demand of the natural and common wealth of land and gold increases. land and gold is not produced by human labor. gold and land is not capital. gold and land is the product of the creator of the universe, which is being loaned to all by the creator. it isn’t being sold by the creator to the most abled. land is fundamental to the right to life and owning the fruits of your toil. without the fundamental right to land secured, your toil is being stolen by the land owner.

      “AFTER conquest and confiscation have been effected, and the State set up, its first concern is with the land…. In its capacity as ultimate landlord, the State distributes the land among its beneficiaries on its own terms.” — Albert J. Nock

      “This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour — nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times…People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

      “But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly — the landlord’s monopoly of economic rent — thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus.” — Albert J. Nock

      “Men did not make the earth… It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property… Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.” — Thomas Paine

      “Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.” — Adam Smith

      “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. ” — Thomas Jefferson, 1785

      “Landlords grow richer in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.” — J.S. Mill

      “God gave the world in common to all mankind. Whenever, in any country, the proprietor ceases to be the improver, political economy has nothing to say in defense of landed property. When the “sacredness” of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property.” — John Locke

      “Wherever, in any country, there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.” — Thomas Jefferson

      “A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1812

      “Moreover the profit of the Earth is for all….” — Ecclesiastes 5:9

      “Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.” — Ecclesiastes 5:18-19

      “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.” — Leviticus 25:23-24

      “It is quite true that the land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies — is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public. Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position — land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions.” — Winston Churchill

      “I have already read Henry George’s great book and really learnt a great deal from it… Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent love of justice.” — Albert Einstein

      “In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument…” — Milton Friedman

      “People do not argue with the teaching of George; they simply do not know it. And it is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.” — Leo Tolstoy

      “For as labor cannot produce without the use of land, the denial of the equal right to use of land is necessarily the denial of the right of labor to its own produce.” — Henry George

      “The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air — it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.” — Henry George

      “How can a man be said to have a country when he has not right of a square inch of it.” — Henry George

      Ron Paul is a fraud and should be put on trial for economic racketeering, crony capitalism, and just pure evil intellectual fraud.

      • what is government? what is coercion? what is anarchy? is it government or anarchy when adam coerces eve to submit to his desires in the garden of eden? it is government or anarchy when the bear coerces you into his stomach?

      • freedumb to steal, coerce, and commit fraud is not liberty and is not free market economics. do you really have free choice if all the land is claimed and you must purchase or rent land to just exist?

      • it really isn’t about freedumb and free choice is it? it is about liberty (enforced natural rights) vs. tyranny (coerced violation of natural rights).

      • Thomas Jefferson understood this complex balance…

        “Wherever, in any country, there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.” — Thomas Jefferson

      • i’ll be laughing at ron paul when he is also played the fool by the bankers like many of their pawns. gold is going to crash to around $150/oz. if we don’t go on another gold standard.

      • if the banks start loaning and give us another credit expansion, you better dump your gold. it will likely happen unless the new world order decides to depopulate us by sending us into a new dark age.

  9. BC says:

    Thank you for writing this.

    Congressman Paul also claims to be a true believer in the official story of 9ll. Fear, stupidity, or duplicity: pick one. (Unless you are a true believer too! 🙂

    (Look into the England’s “Glorious Revolution”, Orange, and the historic alliance between mercantile interests and the European royals. The answer to the puzzle of why The City et al was and remains untouchable by nominal sovereigns commanding deadly and effective armies … It is a ‘partnership’. I personally call it ‘outsourced sovereignty for global reach’.)

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Fear. And if he doesn’t have the balls to talk about it when 50 million people are listening, why should anyone believe he’ll be a courageous president?
      I’ve been trying to unravel the history of the Venetians (the Orange-men called themselves the “New Venetians” and brought usury and jews back to Britain, which seems to be the general pattern, from Babylon to Rome to Byzantium to Venice to Britain) by following Webster Tarpley’s leads. One of the most interesting resources I’ve come across is an old LaRouche article called “The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites” – highly recommended.

  10. Doug R. says:

    “Ayn Rand, who popularized Bentham’s satanism under the name “objectivism”.” Has the author ever read one of Ayn Rand’s books? Mrs Rand valued truth and the good. Objectivism is a philosophical system based on identifying reality and being intellectually honest about doing so. She was a avowed atheist, who despised all mysticism.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      I’ve read nearly all of them, and was a lukewarm admirer at one point. “Satanism” (at least its public face as expressed by people like Aleister Crowley) doesn’t necessarily mean summoning demons. It’s a philosophy of pure ego and will.
      I don’t remember Rand saying anything about truth or good. It’s all about individual will, fulfillment, ownership and self-esteem. She defined altruism as the greatest possible sin. Take the mumbo-jumbo away from Crowley or Anton LaVey, and there you have Rand.
      If you want to plumb the depths, Google “Ayn Rand and William Hickman”. If she was not “satanic,” there’s no such thing.

    • objectivism is an egoist philosophy of survival of the fittest, to the victor goes the spoils, like malthus, spencer, darwin, and stirner. objectivism is not a natural law philosophy. libertarianism is suppose to be a natural law philosophy, like that cicero, the bible, the classical liberals, the physiocrats, proudhon, spooner, and somewhat tucker. funny how the libertarians promoted ayn rand.

    • bentham and ayn rand follow the same philosophical reasoning, that natural rights are actually the law of the jungle, not inalienable rights, that positive law results from self-interest, not the desire to define and respect certain inalienable rights as being “morally” right or bestowed by a creator. i think bentham was properly criticize that humans, as animals, have a natural desire to foster cooperation and respect of inalienable rights and the further reasoning that natural law is really just a conceptual word to express a disagreement with a common law as not necessarily being right, that it depends on definition of what are natural rights. i would say that ayn rand had a further reach into pop culture than others of essentially the same category of philosophy.

  11. The author is a naive idiot. The corporations actually WRITE the current regulations! How much freer could they get? You have no idea how a true free market would work because you have never seen one. Private property rights, properly enforced, trump all your corrupt regulation slush fund schemes… fool

    • deadeyeblog says:

      I apologize for not having been alive in the stone age to see the wonders of a perfectly free market. Find me one regulation that enhances corporate power, and I’ll find you 100 that they repealed. Let’s start with Glass-Steagall…

      • i’d say many regulations are designed to push small business out of business. the original federal reserve was almost solely for that purpose, to put the big banks between the small banks and u.s. treasury. however, there is a whole set of good regulations, especially if you lump criminal law into regulatory law. many good regulations are being repealed at an alarming rate as public infrastructure is also being privatized at an alarming rate and in areas where it could be considered theft from the public and in areas where it should not be privatized. both sides have legitimate arguments.

    • Gregory Fegel says:

      It’s true that the Corporations and their wealthy elitist owners dominate our government, but the solution for that is not to eliminate the government and allow the corporations and the wealthy a free reign. From a populist point of view, a primary purpose of government is to restrain the wealthy from taking advantage of the poor. The problem now is that government isn’t doing its job of restraining the wealthy and the corporations from abusing the public and the commons, or environment.

      The enforcement of “private property rights”, without protections for the public and the commons, leads to slavery and Feudalism. Ayn Rand was an egoist, an elitist, and a materialist. Materialists don’t believe in the sanctity of the Soul, so they encourage the dominance of one human being by another. For a materialist, dominance is the goal of life, and competition is their method of achieving dominance.

      Not all atheists are materialists – many Budhists claim to be atheists – but a materialist who claims to be a Buddhist is actually not a Buddhist.

      Historically, many have defined materialism as Satanism, because Satan represents materialism. The equation materialism = Satanism is philosophically and historically valid. However, there is a caveat. There is evidence that in ancient times in the Middle East, some sects may have seen Satan as an entity whose sphere of activity was a natural part of God’s universe. That’s a subject that’s more complicated than I want to get into here and now.

      • i’m agnostic and consider myself to be buddhist, christian, and humanist, and a bit of personal beliefs about the relationship between infinity, nothing, and the finite, that eterntity and nothing created everything finite, while recognizing the complexity of self-awareness of being beyond our understanding, let along the complexity of what the different particles really are. light in itself is amazing when compared to physical matter. i just feel really small in my understanding when i really look at the universe and ask why. why this and not this. i can answer why do we exist with the simple question of why would we not exist?

        cooperative individualism is a pretty good label for true classical liberalism if you need an anarchist label for it.

      • if god and all of that is true… i more believe that religion was really an expression of philosophy by really bright people or really sick people who wanted to marry ten really young girls or rip the heart out of a virgin and drink the blood…. materialism could be a free gift from god if used correctly…. if you avoid problems with infidelity, the flesh can be considered a gift, a sort of temporary pleasure…. budhism view is that attachment is a cause of suffering, or really the loss of attachment, though appreciation of the natural and sentient is a rewarding experience, if you can let it arise and pass, without trying to attach to the attachment, separating true self (the self-aware soul) from the physical, cognitive, and emotional, though the true self is partly defined and made possible by the physical, cognitive, and emotional.

      • that the true self really does not control thoughts, emotions, and the physical function of the body and senses, but rather observes and loosely directs them.

    • private property rights? what are property rights? statist fiction? property rights are a violation of natural rights. you need to actually learn the different philosophies before you ignorantly speak of the fundamental issues of anarchist philosophy, property rights, and natural rights. you have no idea what a true free market is. you don’t even understand the basics of biblical economics, classical liberalism, and georgism, and how it compares to the neo-classical rockefeller foundation schools of marx, keynes, and mises. the neo-classical schools equate land and money to capital. capital was originally defined as the products of toil which generate income, with that income being called interest. land is a natural product in fixed supply not created by human toil but rather exploited by human toil. legal tender is a product of law. property rights and title to land are a product of law. they are not a product of human toil.

      mises is more like marx than the classical liberals. mises and marx both define capital and interest in the same way and apply it ignorantly to land and legal tender. the classical liberals defined land as a unique and fundamental component of production separate from capital and did not speak of legal tender as a component of production. mises and marx were both idiots and so are you for believing their funded and unscientific crap.

      • mises even created a scientific name for bullshit, praxeology, which he affectionately called his on verbal vomit not backed by any historical evidence or observed science.

      • natural law and natural rights are positive, inalienable rights, bestowed by the creator, whether real or imagined, that men are treated with equal protection under the law with certain inalienable rights.

        natural rights are sometimes conflated with anarchism, that natural rights are the right to shoot someone in your territory or to confiscate land by conquest, which is the egoist view of natural rights, the natural law of the jungle. natural law anarchism is aligned with conventional natural law rather than the egoist anarchism who view natural law as the law of the jungle.

        the early united states could be said to be one of natural law because the constitution declared certain inalienable right and common law because it violated inalienable rights when it came to slavery and other issues.

        natural law is really open to debate since it is ill-defined as there is always a common law bias in what natural rights are and that a government which attempts natural law is really contractual law with the governed.

        nonetheless, property rights are not the same as natural rights since property rights are of common law (statist fiction) and do not necessarily respect natural rights. there is some common ground with anarchism in this regards when anarchists say property is theft. what they really mean to say is that title to land is theft, which is considered natural law. this is why thomas jefferson stated that property rights can be extended as to violate natural rights… monopoly of land can violate natural rights… such as the right to your labor and the right to land so you can own the fruits of the labor without making tribute payments, paying land rents, to a land baron, with tenant farming, slave wages, homelessness, and unemployment being consequence or symptoms that natural rights are being violated by extension of common law (property rights).

        natural law and common law is just a means to describe that what you view as a right because common law respects it as a right might not necessarily make it right.

        when you understand this, you understand that your definition of a true free market might be quite different from what someone else may think of as a true free market. thomas jefferson and thomas paine certainly had a different definition of what a free market was than say ayn rand, ron paul, karl marx, and ludwig von mises. it depends on your definition of alienable rights and in terms of political economy, what you define as components of production and whether everything is capital, simplified and reduced into absurdity, or whether things need to be classified and differentiated, what those inalienable rights are and how government should be setup to respect certain inalienable rights and what those rights are. do you have the inalienable right to land? do you have the inalienable right to the full fruits of your labor? natural law advocates generally believe you have inalienable right to land and your labor. land is necessary for life and to secure the fruits of your labor. however, this right is limited when it violates the equal rights of others to have land, to live, and to own the fruits of their labor. you shouldn’t conflate the right to have land as the right to monopolize it. when you buy land, you’re really not buying it for the owner which common law says owns the land, you’re really buying it from the community, who all have equal claim to the land. the land owner should pay rents to the community. the community should not pay land rents to the land owner.

        you have the right to life… (you have the right to land)…. you have the right to property (you have the right to your fruits of your labor)…. you have the right to happiness (you have certain social rights)…. all these inalienable rights are dependent upon whether you’re violating those same rights of others… which is the basis of libertarian doctrine, though often poorly understood by those brainwashed by the ludwig von mises institute who conflate the extent of property rights with the extent of land rights.

  12. anon says:

    Whoever is paying you to bash Ron Paul isn’t getting their money’s worth.

    Trying to connect him to the global elite is laughable when you look at the other people running and their REAL connections to the global elite. Ron Paul is the only one who isn’t a sell out to corporate interests, which unsurprisingly is why he’s the only candidate the media has dubbed “unelectable” since his campaign began.

    At least most of the comments here show people aren’t as stupid as you had hoped them to be, they see right through this BS.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      If he’s so unelectable, why is he in every debate when they drove out Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer and even Donald Trump? Why is he on mainstream TV every day, with extensive interviews on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc.? Look how easy it is to destroy a politician – James Traficant, Gary Condit, Charlie Rangel, not to mention Paul Wellstone – and Paul gets to chair subcommittees and has his son elected to the US Senate. Again, I’m not saying Paul is a terrible guy. I am saying that his major policy positions, aside from anti-war but very much including “Ending the Fed”, are perfectly acceptable to the elite.
      None of these comments make any substantive critiques of what isn’t exactly a Pulitzer-worthy article. The logic is, “you said bad words about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is my hero. Therefore, you are wrong.”
      I wrote the article to give information to whatever fence-sitters are still out there, in hopes that the “truth movement” will leave the right-wing reservation and rediscover actual American traditions.

    • Gregory Fegel says:

      anon wrote: “Ron Paul is the only one who isn’t a sell out to corporate interests…”

      In my view, anyone who wants to eliminate the restraints that a government “of the people” (a theoretical and Constitutional construct, since we don’t actually have a government “of the people” in the USA) would place on the corporations and the wealthy (who are the biggest “property owners”), such as Ron Paul, has definitely sold out to corporate interests.

      If you didn’t “get” that, I will rephrase it. Ron Paul’s expressed intent to eliminate government regulations on corporations and commerce is definitely a “sell out to corporate interests”. Pruning government down to a pipsqueak, while allowing the corporations to flourish laissez faire, will bring the triumph of Feudalism.

    • the media does the same to newt gingrich. if they’re on the stage, they’re already pre-approved, though the media does have their favorites. a sure way to build a loyal and blind following is for the media to criticize a candidate into obviously biased ways.

      ron paul is funded by global elites and partners with them. the facts in the article are easily verified. i found them and verified them long ago. ron paul is more of a gate-keeper, steering stray sheep away from truth of true classical liberalism (and biblical economics) and towards a false paradigm, funded and created by the global elite and flawed where the paradigm matters most (land and money).

      i seriously doubt this blogger is funded given that he writes a wordpress blog and seems to have a hobby in the pursuit of truth rather than a full-time job and a book to sell to the brainwashed followers of the rockefeller foundation’s school of economics, where there is an underlying belief of the original source of funding of austrian economics that competition is sin.

      individual libertarian activists are often funded by the church scientology and other sources such as pnac, peter thiel, the rockefeller foundation, koch brothers, william volker fund, the united nations, and soros (soros tends to fund the biggest projects and the church of scientology funds the smallest, though i suspect that soros also funnels money through the church of scientology). some are just the brainwashed and ignorant. ron paul is definitely not part of the ignorant but knowingly tries to sell a fraud, though his land and gold holdings tens to indicate he is fully committed to pumping gold and land values so that he can confiscate a free lunch from the backs of the productive with economic rent on his holdings of the products not created by human toil. i could care less about his gold holdings since he is going to lose his ass soon on that. however, i am concerned he isn’t paying enough rent to the homeless for stealing their land.

      • i don’t think gold is going to $150/oz because of the legitimate high demand for use in cellphones. however, i think much of the price of gold is speculative and will be corrected back towards $800/oz or lower, depending on the sell off as a speculative asset and the demand for use in electronics. there are of course who really believe in gold as a low risk store of wealth and will hold it even though it may lose value much quicker than “fiat” money sitting in a savings deposit. it is fine if they believe this way. i’d rather them buy gold in the free market from someone who will put the wealth to productive use than have someone stuff gold as legal tender under mattress and hope it increases in value. that is what ron paul really wants. he wants the state to intervene in free markets and declare gold to be legal tender as he described in his book funded by pnac and co-authored with a chairman of pnac, lewis lehrman.

    • You shouldn’t compare Paul with the other candidates, but with the candidates that aren’t running.

      Then you will quickly see that Paul’s ‘solutions’ are just another way of looking at the same challenge: how to concentrate as much power and wealth in as few hands as possible.

  13. private citizen says:

    If the thesis is correct, then you’d think Paul would be getting the big corporate donations and support from the corporate media, no?

    • tom says:

      That’s a good point! I believe the last election it was mostly grassroots contributions – from the internet.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      No – the whole point is to make it look like the “elite” are against him – hence “briar patch”.

      • tom says:

        Well, that’s pretty sneaky of Ron Paul – to make it “look” like the elite are against him.

        The other major candidates are backed by big money interests but not Paul and yet Ron is being made to “look” like he’s worse than the rest? If not Paul, who else would be the “candidate” in your eyes? I read your solution to the current debt problems yesterday and it’s certainly one possible solution but how in heaven’s name could it be possibly be implemented without the perfect candidate? Or even an imperfect one?

      • deadeyeblog says:

        As I said, I don’t think Paul himself has to be aware of any agenda. I would assume a lot of people with big money have a different preference, but I know a few that love Paul. Check him out on – he has a higher percentage of “large individual contributions” than Barack Obama, and his own PAC that has taken in 500 thou. While he doesn’t court the big corporate donations, half of his donors are putting in up to $2,500. I don’t know about you, but I’m not about to donate more than $25 or $50 to any political candidate.

        While the mainstream media is clearly centrally-controlled, I don’t see “the elite” as an organized conspiracy so much as a community of interests in which various conspiracies exist. If you run a hedge fund, you like Ron Paul. If you import Chinese goods, you like Ron Paul (and might not like Mitt Romney, who’s the only one willing to utter the word “tariff”). Shit, Mitt Romney will probably vote for Ron Paul.

        Franklin Roosevelt and JFK weren’t perfect, but they were damn good. There are some great people in congress – Marcy Kaptur, Kucinich, Peter DeFazio. Call me crazy, but under the right circumstances, you could get some work done (and would avoid WW3 or total collapse) with a Clinton in office. I’m not looking for Jesus – someone a little better than the status quo and more effective public pressure would be a good start.

      • controlled opposition. the elites are hoping to destroy the banking system and in bring in microchip money instead of dollars. a cashless society. Nick rockefeller told Aaron Russo that one of their goals is to mcrochip everyone.

        My problem with all of the candidates is that they are treating this debt like it is legitimate nad has to be paid to the usurius private bankers of the federal reserve. Says who? screw them. they say the american peoplle have to pay the banks? . default on their “loans” wouldn’t paul want to return to theconstitutional practice of the US treasury printing money? he only support the constitution, so he must.

        Telling us we need to pay the bankers the debt they created by printing our money is a lie. It is as ridiculous as hospitals charging people for their treatment when they were involuntarily treated – i.e. mental hospitals . That whole system is unconstitutional, and is kidnapping and slavery. Since when do kidnap victims have to pay the criminals who kidnapped them? it is ridiculous .

      • i don’t think they understand the children’s story because it is being used to criticize their god, ron paul, the boiler room for gold, and the slick funding of austrian economics. they also completely missed the funding of austrian economics by the rockefeller foundation and the partnership of ron paul with pnac. you even left out a lot of other ties, such as ties to bilderberger peter thiel, george soros, and the activisism funded by the church of scientology, which is likely funded by people like soros. it is ok to them if the classical liberals and the bible disagree with mises in fundamental ways, that mises has more in common with marx than the classical liberals, and that the new world order funded mises, because alex jones says ron paul is against the new world order as alex jones pumps his own gold holdings and his primary advertising and capital investor of his show is that gold trader he always has on his show to sell gold coins.

      • the new world order in their eyes is stupid and they are smart because they listen to alex jones and read the von mises blog (or get funding from the church of scientology). the new world order can’t have possibly tricked them into believing in a false paradigm with slick funding. no, it can’t be, no, thomas jefferson didn’t really mean those statements that land should be taxed progressively, debra medina and arthur laffer were correct when they wanted to repeal all property taxes. no, it can’t be that john locke, adam smith, albert nock, j.s. mill, thomas paine, and thomas jefferson had the same beliefs as the bible, that the land should be taxed. no, it can’t be. we’re all funded by the new world order because we actually read a book. no, the income tax is good and property taxes and capital gains are bad because ron paul and the globalists say so, which just need to make government smaller, we just need to tax the poor more. usury is good. the bible was lying when it stated money shouldn’t be loaned into existence as interest. jesus just needed anger management when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers. no, ron paul is our holy savior. the golden bull and ron paul shall live forever. greed is good, especially when stolen through deflation, interest, and economic rent. no, deflation did not cause the great depression. that is a lie. the ludwig von mises blog said so. it is good when money gains in value. free lunches are good when the legal tender gains in value due to shortage of money supply. the elite love inflation, they don’t tolerate inflation because it is vital to their ponzi scheme of collecting interest on the public’s money supply. tribute payments by the working class to the holders of national debt. we should make national debt more expensive by making it payable in gold.

  14. g7enn says:

    As a former Paul supporter, who has finally done the research, I find the writer, in so far as he goes, is unfortunately correct. Now that the mist has been removed from my eyes, it’s obvious RP is a controlled politician, albeit a special one, one to fall back on. Think about it, all other candidates are corporate controlled. So somehow RP is not? If Obama is controlled then why not RP? Peter Thiel, a Bilderberger, is one of his funders and on his campaign committee (2008). He’s alleged the most frequent candidate to appear on Russia today, a George Soros media asset. He says he will eliminate social security, Medicare and Medicaid, a corporation’s wet dream if I ever heard one. He calls social security a tax when we all earned it? He openly praises the Vatican a historical and present day suppressor of the poor and a protector of child molesters. His gold standard will give keep money in the control of the rich corporations who can afford to buy it. No plans to bring banksters to justice. No plans to create meaningful US jobs. Total faith in the corporate manipulated free market system. And then those Freemason handshakes and weird hand signs.

    • congrats on being able to break your programming. i had to quit politics for 5 years and then really study and think about political economy for 2 years. better to stop and admit you were once a fool than to continue to deny it.

    • i almost fell off my seat laughing when some guest on cnbc was quickly cut off after stating that young people didn’t like ron paul because of austrian economics and his austerity plan, they didn’t even understand it all, they like him because of his foreign policy and because he wants to legalize pot.

      • if you notice that the news doesn’t criticize ron paul on his austrian economics, they criticize him on his foreign policy and the other reasons where the criticism is not fair. jon stewart did poke fun at goldbugs, but he is a comedian, poking fun at the kooks who do believe in austrian economics, before he gave him the illuminati handshake.

  15. BMF Jr says:

    December 5, 2011

    Pretty Sophomoric… Not even well written. Laughfulbly bad even.

    BMF Jr
    Bellbrook, Ohio

  16. anon all says:

    What I don’t seem to understand, is in light of what ALL HUMA\NITY is facing; why YOU HENRY (of all people) do not realize the importance of “open dialogue” about the real dangers of “crony-ism”. Paul is a game changer . . . pure and simple.

    So what if he goes against the current economic platform that throws money away to nations other than Israel. The game will change nonetheless, with or without Ron as president. And WE Will ALL be apart of it .

  17. Tullious says:

    First, I support Dr. Paul. I think he is better than the other GOP candidates. Second, your article is thought provoking. Whether I agree or disagree, I like to read different perspectives and you made interesting points. Thank you.

  18. Samuel Phiri says:

    Ron Paul is what is called controlled opposition
    to make it seem as if people have a chance, if only they elect him

    more false hope-just what we need.

    just remember this:
    nobody worth voting for is ever allowed to get as far as Ron Paul

    i suppose all we can do is just choose the lesser of two evils
    or resort to armed revolt.
    which is what the govt is sort of waiting for
    so they than lock everyone up in FEMA camps.

  19. G. says:

    Orwell doublespeak rules the earth. Free trade is doublespeak propaganda from global cartels. Subsidies and regulations fly all over the place under “free trade” labels. Big boys get a pass. You own ten chickens, you must RFID each. Tyson owns a barn full, and is allowed one tag for the lot. But, that is a “free market” doublespeak. Obama lately hands out crony passes from Obamacare. Government always works that way. This fact of government is what FDR worshipping LaRouchites refuse to face.

    Crooks use government to maintain cartels, not dictionary terms. They can’t sell “consolidate our cartel” slogans, so they yell “free trade” while destroying it. It was the same thing with the Fed, its founders pretending to fight the Money Trust (themselves) and offer stability. They made the Panic of 1907 to herd you into their scam. And you may search FDR+”Miss Effie” for first-hand history of Americans starving while FDR dumped potatoes into the river.

    Cartels cannot exist without government protection. The Fed is the money cartel, but many exist; oil, food. Oil sets prices at will. They wave a “free trade” flag to fool you. OPEC was a Kissinger operation and more oil rests under Alaska than the Middle East — capped and sealed away to keep prices high. The CFR gang funds environmental groups to keep a lid on oil production and refining, while they spray chemtrails to kill the environment. Big Sierra Clubs do nothing about chemtrails as the environment isn’t their job, just doublespeak. Their real job is Agenda 21 social engineering and cartel economic dominance. You are being played.

    Ron Paul wants dictionary definitions, while you show reality as if it were proof he is wrong. It is only proof of doublespeak. Worry more over his Masonic allegiance.

    Hamilton and Biddle were Rothschild agents. Hamilton married into the family. In Jackson’s day the War of 1812 over banking was fresh in living memory.


    The easiest way to steal money from someone is if the mark never knew they had the money in the first place….What is humorous when they cry shortfall and poverty is the FACT again: That they have more amassed wealth and annual income than Midas ever dreamed about.

    cafr1 dot com/WhoOwnsWho.html

    Hamilton would go on to profit immensely, as he later established the Manhatten Company, which later merged with the Rockefeller owned Chased Bank through the control of elite bankers Warburg, Kuhn, and Loeb, forming Chase Manhatten.

    granddistraction dot com/people/the-rothschild-dynasty/

    “Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress…. Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction – and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the recharter of the Bank.”
    — Nicholas Biddle

    What a stunning revelation. Here was the pure truth, revealed with shocking clarity. Biddle intended to use the money-contraction power of the Bank to cause a massive depression until America gave in. Unfortunately, this has happened time and time again throughout US history, and is about to happen again, in today’s world.

    Nicholas Biddle made good on his threat. The Bank sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to extend new ones. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep depression. Naturally, Biddle blamed Jackson for the crash, saying that it was caused by the withdrawal of federal funds from the Bank.

    dailykos dot com/story/2006/12/07/278792/-I-killed-the-Bank

    We in Africa are not allowed to trade locally or regionally, let alone internationally. Instead of giving us economic freedom to raise ourselves out of poverty and unshackling us from state serfdom, our leaders prefer grandiose political unification of the continent backed by foreign aid rather than opening up our huge continent to trade and economic freedom. Our leaders also refuse to face up to their own failures, while preventing us from using our ingenuity to build up our own future.

    africaliberty dot org/node/617

    • deadeyeblog says:

      The Manhattan Company was founded by Aaron Burr, not Hamilton. Hamilton’s wife was not a Rothschild, but the daughter of Philip Schuyler, an American General close to Washington. Typical of the total inversions of history to be found on many conspiracy websites.

      As to your main point, you seem to be saying that cartels need government to protect them from government. Sure – this is the essence of regulatory capture. But there are not very many laws or regulations that crush the “free market”. For example, Monsanto might use the courts to sue a couple small farmers under flimsy pretenses, but there’s nothing much stopping you from growing and selling open-pollinated corn. People still do it. The problem is that the cartel totally dominates the pricing, infrastructure and markets, and gains advantages that independent producers can’t overcome.

      Please explain how Ron Paul would stop Monsanto with the “free market”.

      • you could sue monsanto in civil court, demonstrating some violation of your property rights or civil rights. otherwise, rico laws would be necessary. however, rico laws are not for the big rackets, those owned and controlled by the biggest racket, the banks. you could also use anti-trust laws, but that would generally require a big enough to competitor who could pursue such justice, but that is a bit of a paradox considering there is an actual competitor big enough to complain about a trust and break a trust..i’d like to see the media trust busted up. however, they would rather talk about campaign finance reform while in the same breath they mention the power of pacs which are essentially a workaround for existing campaign finance laws.

  20. Awesome!!! Thanks, ‘deadeyeblog’. … 😉

  21. OzzieThinker says:

    A an ex business man, I have discovered that few seem to comprehend what the “free market” means in reality. For the less informed here, it means that those with the most gold will always be in a position to starve out (better technologies, lower prices, etc) the “competitor”, so smaller countries who opt for “free trade agreements” actually agree to starve out indiginous trade on the back of back handed corporate dollars.

    The books have been cooked for a severe period of financial speculation and I do not believe that Ron Paul can “fix” it. The only thing that will work is if the balance sheet is torn to shreds and the world “starts over”. Well actually, if the gold rate is artificially loaded, that could just solve it, but there are too many variables I think.

    My concern with Ron Paul is he is another fundamentalist fruitloop who will dedicate his “ministry” to expunging “deviance” from society. He will plough $’s into America’s defense and the LEA/FBI, while foresaking the proxy Israeli military machine and crooks-in-action (CIA). If Paul gets within a bulls roars of “looking like” he will be ellected, Israel will strike Iran either personally or by proxy (they are devote cowards after all). They have decided the war machine will win.

    The problem for Israel is they don’t know it yet but their war is going to go horribly wrong with consequences they couldn’t imagine. So, that said, I’m all fot the Ron Paul vote. He’s by far the best option by a stinking mile!

  22. Whoever wrote this article does not know anything about “The Road to Serfdom” or
    “Austrian economics.” Besides not knowing anything about economics, he knows nothing
    of politics. It’s easy to dis people who are dead and gone like Hayek, Mises and Friedman.
    But he gave no positive alternative or solution to the predicament of America. It sounds more like a misinformation article which the NWO loves to feed off with their confusion, fear and hopelessness. No doubt most of the candidates are a joke, but for all the weaknesses in Ron Paul, should we settle for another four years of Obama and see the country exponentially slide to collectivism? Politics is a nasty business nowadays. Of course RP
    knows more than he can say about 9/11, social security, the Fed, etc. but he is cautious in saying it!

    It is much easier to make a living by being a parasitic critic, pretending to know something.
    But like Friedman says in his intro to “The Road to Serfdom”: “The battle for freedom must be won over and over again.” Paul is for even the liberty for this jerk to find fault in him, not knowing that Paul himself has said that he is no perfect individual. God bless him for does not know what he says. Can someone please find me out “the perfect critic”?

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Thank you, oh guru. I’m glad you could descend from shambala to correct my errors.
      1. I don’t make a living at this – I’m just some guy who wrote a couple articles.
      2. I’m working on a “solutions” article. Our solution doesn’t start with any current candidate, but public education.

    • when you ask god to bless ron paul, perhaps you should read the bible to find out what god thinks of ron paul’s (peter thiel, et. al.) and hayek’s (rockefeller foundation and william volker fund) economic policies. you might be interested in finding out that milton friedman believes in the land value tax, the funding of a citizen dividend, and paying off the national debt with greenbacks while ending fractional reserve banking and fixing monetary supply on per capita basis (which i actually disagree on the per capita basis since per capita extends to non-citizens and since monetary supply tends to concentrate, causing deflation), which i largely agree with milton friedman but not when he worked for rockefeller foundation dollars.

      “Moreover the profit of the Earth is for all….” — Ecclesiastes 5:9

      “Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.” — Ecclesiastes 5:18-19

      “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.” — Leviticus 25:23-24

      “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers.” — Matthew 21:12

      “Thou shalt not lend upon usury (interest) to thy brother, interest on the money, or on anything that is lent with interest.” — Deuteronomy 23.19

      “He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent, he that doeth these things shall never be moved.” — Psalm 15:5

  23. Excuse me, please. I meant to say in the second to last sentence: “God bless him (the critic) for he does not know what he says…”

  24. The basic premise of this article is that Ron Paul’s ‘Free Trade’ agenda serves the Banks and Transnationals.

    I’m happy this is being pointed out. It is important.

    It is too bad that those awakening to the Fractional Reserve Banking scam are easily suckered into the Austrian Economics gatekeeping operation.

    Because people think debt is problem with our money they believe Gold is a good answer.

    But Gold is controlled by the same people that control the printing press.

    And the problem is not debt, it is interest.

    Under a Gold standard, you would still pay 300k interest on a 200k mortgage.

    In an interest free credit monetary environment, you would not.

    It is the 300k interest that our bosses want.

    That’s why they don’t care whether they have Gold or Paper as money, as long as they can charge interest on it.

    Paul will give them the Solution (Gold) after the Public Reacts (‘rEVOLution’) to the Problem (interest bearing debt to the bank as currency) they created themselves.

    Not much news under the sun.

    The only surprising thing is how many people actually fall for Paul.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      You said it, Anthony!

    • most of the fans of ron paul believe inflation is the problem… that inflation destroys jobs, discourages investment, makes production more expensive, is a regressive tax and form of theft, and destroys earned wealth, especially the wealth of the poor, who are mostly in debt and have no wealth and spend what they earn on payday…. if you believe inflation is the problem, i got title to a yellow rock on the moon that i would like to sell you. i just wish ron paul wouldn’t get inflation and deflation backwards all the time.

    • most ron paul fans believe that the government should make gold a free market currency by declaring it as a legal tender. most ron paul fans believe that the government needs to stay out of commodity markets and become commodity traders in gold. most ron paul fans believe that the tax rate should be zero and that we should make tribute payments to the holders of national debt in gold. most ron paul fans believe the government needs to stop intervening in free markets by intervening in free markets and declare gold to be legal tender.

  25. tom says:

    Ok , but this is the real world. We are not going to have an interest free anything. SO how do we deal with $16 trillion debt? No matter who’s elected president, the debt won’t go away with a majic wand. If Ron Paul is elected and pushes a gold standard, where is the gold coming from ? The IMF? The globalists want ALL the wealth we have in this country. The debt will most likely paid for by pensions, 401ks, and all other monies and we’re shit out of luck. So what is the solution to all this? We are pretty much doomed.

    • we have about $15T of money in supply. i suppose we’ll find $15T worth of gold to convert the existing money supply and $45T in gold to pay off private and public debts. perhaps gold is worth more than $5K/oz if you convert all existing wealth and debts to gold. i suppose ron paul is looking forward to a giant free lunch through the coercion of the state making gold worth much more than it really is worth in the free market.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I think Ron Paul should give up his body to death for tell people about 9/11 inside, Weather control (HAARP) and Chemtrial. It will create more people to be awaken and turn against NWO. Ron Paul is not only one who need to do the job…its us, we the people! Its my opinion… youtube is powerful tool to change the world

  27. Gods People says:

    Nice try Illuminatti. Why don’t you and all your NWO freaks go f yourselves. People are waking up. Your reign of evil will be over soon and all your minions can hang on a rope and dangle for the world to see.

    Your media blackout and this attempt to discredit Mr. Paul are thinly veiled attempts that might have worked 4 years ago. But not anymore. Your greed and arrogance will be your downfall.

    • god vehemently opposes ron paul’s economic policy….

      “Moreover the profit of the Earth is for all….” — Ecclesiastes 5:9

      “Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.” — Ecclesiastes 5:18-19

      “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land.” — Leviticus 25:23-24

      “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers.” — Matthew 21:12

      “Thou shalt not lend upon usury (interest) to thy brother, interest on the money, or on anything that is lent with interest.” — Deuteronomy 23.19

      “He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent, he that doeth these things shall never be moved.” — Psalm 15:5

      perhaps you are satan’s people or have been deceived by satan. perhaps ron paul and the austrian school of economics has the slick funding, and not some bloggers on the internet who have actually read a book or two not funded by the rockefeller foundation, bilderberger peter thiel, and pnac lewis lehrman. and who doesn’t buy the contradictions and satanic and feudalistic economic in direct opposition to the bible and the classical liberals who fought a revolution against european monarchs in america to overthrow the economic policy which ron paul supports. perhaps you are a stray sheep who has been herded by a gatekeeper to keep you from economic truth.

  28. Gods People says:

    Tom it is simple. We switch to a silver backed currency and tell the Federal Reserve to go f themselves. All the debt we owe is to them and based on a fake currency created out of thin air by the Central bankers and has no real value. We will then hunt down every last one of them and either string them up, or as I have proposed, tie them up in the major cities of the world and let the citizens stone them to death.

    Do you hear us Illuminatti? Or shall I say Central Bankers most notably the Rothchilds and Rockefellers. They are not the only ones but for name sake they will do.

    God will prevail.

    • perhaps god should have made clear that you should let caesar have his gold and his silver. inflation is not the problem. usury is the problem. the government does not print money. the government borrows money as interest-bearing debt. the public legal tender should benefit the people, god’s people, not the usurer. silver and gold both benefit the usurer. like the current debt-based money, commodity-based money is also based on debt, it must be borrowed as interest-bearing debt by the government to convert existing notes and debts to the new commodity-based legal tender. if the money was a true public and sovereign debt-free currency, the national debt could be paid off without a single dime in taxation, merely by converting fractional reserves to full reserves, eliminating usury from government and money supply and ending the control of the private banking cartel over our money supply. not only his gold and silver also based on usury, which the bible is clearly against, it is also based on economic rent. the bible also clearly opposes stealing wealth through economic rent. a true public and sovereign debtfree currency is the solution, not silver and gold, which are not only based on usury but also economic rent, which the bible clearly opposes gold and silver as money on both counts..

  29. Gods People says:

    Why? Are you satisfied with your enslavement?

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Enslaved? I’m David Rockefeller – life is great! The only reason me and my illuminati pals fund right wing economics and politics is because of our fear of Ron Paul – and our fear of being stoned to death, as you point out. It’s a reverse-reverse-reverse psychology thing that only a subtle mind like yours will be able to grasp.

  30. D.L. says:

    I like most of what Paul says and does, but you might be right about his being controlled opposition. Unfortunately, it might take his assassination (or not) to prove he was NOT controlled opposition (or is).

    But I totally agree with you about Ayn Rand (and have you ever heard one of her disciples, Andrew Wilkow, talk show host, on the radio–SiriusXM Patriot? I have visions of Wilkow and Rand fighting over who gets to eat the most poor people. A “Modest Proposal” indeed!)

    Thanks for the article…I always get this funny feeling Ron Paul really is too good to be true! Besides which, if he ever did get to be President he’d have to violate his own Constitutionality to get what he says he wants done: that is, he’d have to issue one executive order after another because he knows Congress will never do what he wants, such as “End the Fed,” and other stuff

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Thanks – I wouldn’t even call him “controlled” in the same way as the rest. He’s controlled by his own true beliefs, which makes him more dangerous than a con man like Obama.

      • i do not believe he really believes in his expressed beliefs. he tends to stammer around, display odd body language, and put his tongue in his cheek when you have him talk monetary issues. i think ron paul could possibly turn on the new world order if he gets elected, but i doubt he’d do that considering he has too much of his own wealth invested in gold and land and probably values his life even though he already has a foot in the grave. he could be just that brainwashed too. i just tend to give someone in his position the benefit of the doubt in regards to understanding and awareness, especially when he starts to not only do the baphomet horns but also the baphomet up-above and down-below gesture as well as the illuminati handshake. he was also an original member of the libertarian party. you don’t become part of such a circle without some in-depth understanding and knowledge. you’d don’t think he has ever had a good private debate with david nolan to not at minimum be aware of the georgist, classical liberal, and biblical arguments against the rockefeller foundation’s austrian school of economics?

  31. katie says:

    I don’t necessarily agree with you but it’s an interesting take on Paul. He does seem too good to be true but alas , is there someone out there better? Both parties are essentially the same. Democracy on the outs maybe?

    Your article doesn’t give much other than a blackeye on Ron. I don’t see any suggestions as to a “solution” so do you have any?

    Should the debt be paid or dissolved?

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Insolvent businesses should be bankrupted (including JP Morgan and other huge banks) – they have illegitimate assets like credit default swaps that need to be seized and held by the FDIC for $0, and legitimate assets like savings, bonds, etc. that can be resold into “the market” at face value.

      I’d apply this standard to the Federal Reserve – the interest owed to them is illegitimate, and we should buy back our bonds at their original value. A national bank can finance its own debt, on its own terms and without interest. A lot of the other debt projections on SS & Medicare are just bogus accounting tricks.

      If you “End the Fed”, you’ll be begging the Chinese central bank and Wall Street to finance your debt directly, and unlike the Federal Reserve, they aren’t obligated to show up to the auction or give you low interest rates.

      In terms of the bigger picture, I’d defer to something like Webster Tarpley’s “Emergency Plan” – reregulation, nationalize the fed, big infrastructure projects, protectionist tariffs and reindustrialization.

      • Crucial in any solution is the monetary system and especially interest.

        We know banks create credit out of nothing.

        We know how to this interest free.

        The state, but also individuals and corporations should be able to finance themselves without capital costs.

        The main problem is that capital is the scarce factor of production. Hence structural unemployment. This must end.

        Capital is nothing, it can be created sufficiently at zero cost.

        See here for the costs of interest and the sheer magnitude of the problem:

        In short: you lose 50% at least of your disposable income to interest (unless you’re a millionaire, in that case you gain through interest.

        Interest free credit should be the fundamental reform. All others are half measures at best.

        • OzzieThinker says:

          The modern world is rapidly heading to the point where it will either have to readjust the books or see a massive civil war across most nations. It is mindless to contemplate the people paying an eternal debt for ever on the back of survival rates regarless of the superficial arguments you use to address their slavery. Sheet, the negros had it better. It simply won’t happen. The elites can “fudge the firgures” any way they wish, but my advice to them is they need to beef up the middle class or things WILL, not “might” implode. Give the plebs real hope and they will side with your crazy schemes. Remove hope….watch out Mad Max.

          Greece and the rest of Europe will say a big FU very much to the austerity measures. What are you gonna do about it elitists? I sincerely hope the gold rate rises to the point you have “options” not to loose face too much. Some argue we never actually left the gold standard (in the mindset of financial thinking) so it looks like it is the ONLY option for the future.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        I’m not sure I’m with you on this one. It’s one thing for a national bank to fund railroads or a power grid or something. It’s another thing to imagine how self-financing a mortgage would work. Who’s going to sell you their house (or which bank will front the cash) when you say, “don’t worry, baby – I’ll pay you back the exact amount of the sale, amortized over the next 30 years”.
        I agree that monetary rent is too big a part of the economy. But for me, it begs the question of why education and housing, to name a few things, cost so much. A student should be able to pay their way through any state university with a part-time job. Part of the problem is that with so little personal savings in the economy, usury schemes proliferate and drive up the whole game. I’d like to see how the average debt can come down as a percentage of the average wage before figuring out how to pay less interest on exorbitant debts.

      • webster tarpley is too neo-classical for my tastes, though there is some legitimate classical arguments in his proposals. it is refreshing to see part of the truther media actually favor fdr measures rather than austerity measures. i just think he needs to justify his proposals with classical liberal principles. protectionism and reindustrialization is more pragmatism than natural law, trying to correct symptoms of problems. however, infrastructure is often supported by modern classical liberals though usually as part or after banking and monetary reform. however, i appreciate the need for a keynesian solution under current circumstance. you don’t want to fund common wealth landed infrastructure with interest-bearing debt or taxation on toil. it should be funded with public monetary expansion, nationalization of the federal reserve, and bringing about full reserve banking, if not bringing about public banking — i’m divided on that last one… eliminate the corruption of private banking and the institution of usury… allow the free market to provide credit outside of investment banking… or some hybrid of the two… though just bringing about the monetary and banking reform would effectively make commercial banking a rather dull industry of high revenues and small profit margins unless you do a limited fractional reserve banking model with the greenback or the even more limited fractional reserve banking model proposed by zarlenga where the additional reserves come from a centralized pool of reserves so there is a tighter control over credit expansion/contraction.. the real money is in investment banking anyway. bringing about full reserves and paying off the national debt would also bring about a surge of finance capital available for private investment or savings that the national debt put to non-productive use.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          I think there’s some animosity between Tarpley and Michael Hudson (and I’d assume Zarlenga & co by extension). I’d love to hear a debate – it’s too bad the whole monetary reform movement seems a bit stalled for the last couple years. Things were heating up back in ~2008, and Obama seems to have taken the air out of the “left.” I would guess Tarpley finds Hudson too obscurantist in his Georgist obsession with real estate taxes. Hudson has been an advisor to some countries like Latvia and has focused on their tax rates rather than obvious things like industry and regulations.

          I definitely would not call Tarpley (or FDR) a Keynesian. Keynes might say, “just flood the economy with free cash, and demand will drive the market.” As Tarpley has said a number of times, “you’ve got to create wealth before you can redistribute it.” The LaRouche people get their economics straight out of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey and the “American System” economists who dictated American policy for long stretches in the 18th and 19th centuries. You can read Hamilton’s plans or Carey’s “The Harmony of Interests” for free online – the latter really lays it all out. Or check out this lecture (sorry, bad sound) which has some really interesting background on Carey: ( I don’t think Tarpley & Co. would disagree with you very much on the issues of banking, usury and credit, they just focus a little more strongly on issues of production and protectionism.

          As Hamilton said, “a national debt, if not excessive, is a national blessing.” I think the view of “debt” is a bit different than what you call “debt-free money” – because debt is a claim on future wealth-creation, it puts the economy on the “treadmill,” as you said, to cancel the debt. A wealth dividend is fine one way or the other, but can’t be the basis of the economy or it will shrink to zero. Lincoln gave away countless acres of free land under the Homestead Act. Islamic countries subsidize(d) housing and food for everyone. But those were on top of an underlying economic engine based on production of raw materials and finished goods.

          Keith, I think if I want to drive up the comment count on this blog, I need to write a one-paragraph article called “Keith Gardner is wrong” and just let you go to down 🙂

          • A major problem is that there is simply is not enough demand. Both Keynes and CH Douglas (of Social Credit fame) made this all important observation. This is the reason Keynes want the Govt to mop up ‘excess’ production. CH Douglas’ approach was better: just print cash and give it to the people, so they have sufficient purchasing power to buy what is made.

            But both ignore the real problem: cost for capital/Usury. Half of both Govt’s and our income is lost to interest, and this explains structural lack of demand and chronic depression as witnessed by structural unemployment.

            the problem is not debt!! We could incur all the debt we would ever want, if it were not for interest. But interest makes the debt unpayable.

            The crucial thing to understand is, that interest is NOT spent back into the economy. It is either siphoned of to the ‘Financial economy’ or it is RELENT into circulation, which is NOT the same thing as spending into circulation. Because the interest lent back into circulation requires debt service over that new, interest based debt also, making the problem of the interest drain and depressed purchasing power ever more acute.

            So the answer is to reflate the economy by either debt less money, or interest free credit. This will solve the problem of insufficient demand AND it will end the lack of purchasing power because of interest

      • i tend to agree with deadeye in regards to debt-free rather than interest-free money. you still need interest rates and savings rates. though i think debt-free would make the large problem of interest seem a little less of an economic injustice. i also don’t see them actually trying a return to a gold standard though i wouldn’t put it past them. i think they’ll try to take things as far as they can until people start to wise up, when they’ll start expanding credit. people are also starting to discover credit cards in large numbers which likely has them concerned. i’m already seeing larger numbers of people becoming more wise in the blogosphere. or else we are actually just starting to find each other. in that sense, they might make a try for a gold standard since the level of ignorance seems to be very high out there among those who should not be ignorant — or the level of brainwashing of those who should not be brainwashed. i think they are more concerned about all the less politically active who have a basic economic understanding that deflation is bad and the great depression was caused by the gold standard. thank god they still teach that in high school economics and some of the bigger fish who they have less control over.

      • we are really blessed with credit unions. credit unions took the profit, and thus, the usury out of interest. the real christians and real christian leaders of previous generations really did great work to bless us with credit unions. i just wish they had the foresight to bless us with non-profit health insurance. we’re lucky to still have credit unions, and to have them more open to the public and even for small business use, considering the ignorance and brainwashing of much of the baby boomers and the generations which followed (the materialism and fake churches which replaced real christian values with values of the social club and the materialistic).

        many of the older generation still has large sums sitting in large banks despite their anger towards big banks. fortunately, the younger generation is more frugal and don’t buy in the big name bank as the better bank. credit unions provide everything free and have the best rates and not just for the well-qualified. i think young people believe the man really is trying to stick it to them, though they haven’t made the connection completely that the television and radio is all marketing trash and propaganda of the big banks and big corporations. the cynical nature of the culture of everyone being a liar and a scam artist has resulted in one good healthy attitude, to not trust the man. there are of course much of the older generation who do believe in credit unions as part of a pro-labor movement though it really is a christian anti-usury movement (thanks in part to the real catholics of the early to mid 1900s).

  32. Some feedback…

    Jason said (December 5, 2011): “What better way to usher in the new socialist America?”
    (<- despite his preceding non-logical / idiotic argument, Jason reveals all)

    Ken Adachi said: “To take care of Ron Paul Internet fans, the Illuminati uses Leftist minions to characterize Paul as either 'irrelevant" or a dangerous radical. I just read a ludicrous slam piece on Ron Paul posted at Henry Makow's web site yesterday titled "Let's Be Realistic About Ron Paul" by a Leftist nobody who only uses the name of "Deadeye Dick" in place of his first and last name. While trying to appear erudite and learned in an academic sense, his inane statements and dire conclusions about Ron Paul were as porous –and meaningless–as his "name."”
    (<- are you serious Ken ???, no further comment)

    Look ya’ll, USA incorporated pulled the wool over ours eyes with “Obama” (minority whatever)… what makes ya’ll it can’t happen again with fallback “Ron Paul”.

    & the sheep goes… bahahaahaahaa.

    Great article ‘deadeyeblog’!!! (curious on 'your' take… why 'briar patch'? 😉 )

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Note the ad hominem and absence of substantive critique. I’ve never heard of that guy, so I guess he’s a nobody too. At least my mom doesn’t think I’m a nobody – sniff –
      “Briar patch” comes from the Uncle Remus stories – Brer Fox catches Brer Rabbit, who pleads, “do anything but throw me in the briar patch!” The fox throws him in and the rabbit scampers away laughing. Kind of like the “NWO” saying, “please, anything but the free market!”

      • Ken Adachi is definitely not a nobody.

        But he’s dead wrong here.

      • Thanks deadeye. “Briar patch” & “Uncle Remus” were mentioned in movie, “Let’s Go to Prison (2006)”, just so ya’ll know.

        Take care. 😉

      • you really should not call it the free market that ron paul promotes since he promotes a crony capitalism called feudalism, where the idle rich can steal wealth off the backs of the poor through interest and economic rent through both ownership and control of land and natural resources and money supply loaned into existence at interest and based on the economic rent of gold. ron paul promotes exactly the same system the founding fathers fought a revolution against in 1776.

      • i shouldn’t say the poor but the productive, the working masses, the serfs….

      • who must pay most of their gold earnings earned through slaves wages back to the owners of gold because of interest and economic rent, not to mention tribute payments to pay interest on national debt made payable in gold.

  33. Correction (opps) – what makes ya’ll ‘think’ it can’t happen again with fallback “Ron Paul”.

  34. natalie golovin says:

    Very thought provoking read & the comments dialogue is a scream. You brought my skepticism to the surface-why I’m uncomfortable with Paul, though I support him over the other choices. I suggest you read the short Wiki description of Ordoliberalism. I ran into the term while skimming a Bloomberg article on Angela Merkel & the German perspective. Realized I’m not an Independent Libertarian with a taste for Revolution-but an Ordoliberalist! The name will never fly, but the system reads like a perfect hybrid-emphasis on perfect.
    Why do you think ZeroHedge likes Paul?

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Hi Natalie,

      Thanks for reading – I’m glad I could help put a bee in your bonnet 🙂

      I read about Ordoliberalism – sound interesting. Two red flags for me: 1. They advocate an “independent” central bank. Not sure if that means private? 2. In the last paragraph, they are compared favorably to the Frankfurt School, Aristotle and Oswald Spengler. Not a great starting point, and I’d approach it with a skeptical eye.

      I think the best economists for understanding the American system are Alexander Hamilton (read his reports on credit & manufactures) and Henry C. Carey (an advisor of Lincoln who wrote “The Harmony of Interests”). These are the ideas that were actually implemented. The New Deal had nothing to do with Keynes, who nobody listened to until the 1950s, but was largely based on these earlier ideas (high protectionism, infrastructure, industrial subsidy and regulations), and included important new ideas like parity pricing for agriculture.

      People seem to know more about Georgism (which makes no sense) than the very basic and common-sense programs that built America, Germany and other advanced nations. If you’re looking for a German example, Friedrich List was very influential on Carey and 19th century Germany.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Oh, and I don’t read ZeroHedge, but any financial speculator will be a big fan of free trade and a deregulated financial system. Paul actually did vote against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, though I’ve never heard him suggest reinstating it.

      I just love all these guys like Gerald Celente who talk about the tyranny of Wall Street then make their living speculating on gold. Banks and corporations have a perfectly legitimate right to raise and invest venture capital. That’s a totally different thing than betting on future events to the detriment of farmers, pension funds and currencies.

      • I like this comment.

        Because I agree about investors: they have no interest in truth. They are interested in returns.

        They can give good information, but never from the right angle.

    • zerohedge doesn’t support ron paul on monetary issues, but i assume he offers support because many of his readers are ron paul supporters. there is more to not support about ron paul, even among libertarians, such as his position on land being capital, hyper-austerity, privatization, deregulation, and globalization (such as selling public landed infrastructure to foreign interest).

  35. Truth pays little to no interest, yes. But, the times are a changing.

  36. homosaps says:

    Ron Paul is a limited hangout candidate. Ron doesn’t believe the U.S. government was involved in 911. Ronnie boy believes unions are unconstitutional, wants to abolish Social Security, Medicaid, student loans, the Minimum Wage, the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Health, Housing, Agriculture and the Interior, doesn’t believe in evolution, believes taxpayers should pay for religious home schooling and believes that states and parents should determine the education of our young. For a documented analysis of his troglodyte positions see
    Ron is also my first candidate for the tar and feather party.

  37. isabel says:

    Pls Author read this book
    and think ……..

    “Samuel Phiri says:
    December 5, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Ron Paul is what is called controlled opposition
    to make it seem as if people have a chance, if only they elect him

    more false hope-just what we need.

    just remember this:
    nobody worth voting for is ever allowed to get as far as Ron Paul

    i suppose all we can do is just choose the lesser of two evils
    or resort to armed revolt.
    which is what the govt is sort of waiting for
    so they than lock everyone up in FEMA camp”.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      A typical libertarian toilet reader. “Monopolists need government. Therefore, get rid of government.”

      It’s like saying “bullets travel through the air – therefore we should all live under water.”

      Governments exist, and have always existed, therefore monopoly capitalists use government institutions to their advantage.

      Government can be hijacked and used as the enforcers of monopoly capitalism/imperialism, or it can be used to prevent or destroy such conditions. If you just get rid of the rules, you will end up not with paradise, but a condition known as FEUDALISM, which is precisely what the Austrians want. Rich guys running the world, and your rights and potential determined by their willingness to bestow charity upon you.

      • KeanuReaver says:

        “Governments exist, and have always existed, therefore monopoly capitalists use government institutions to their advantage.”

        Devil’s advocate:

        Is it plausible that the monopoly capitalists not only use but also created the government ‘institution’ solely for corruption? Is this crazy talk?

        If “liberty” or totalitarianism is a false dichotomy, isn’t the option of “government” or feudalism a mirrored example of this idea as well? Because of it’s pervasive omnipresence in the human condition, is the ageless & timeless government no longer just a tool but a sapient titan who has lost it’s way because of bad influence?

        Since it is man’s nature to be free, to learn, to evolve …it seems inexplicable for him to continue using such an archaic and stagnatory “tool” like government due to stubborness, when evidence has proven to him that said tool has a seemingly uncanny ability to fail everytime it has been put to work. Will complete chaos ensue if he were to rid himself of this object and the reality it carves out? …Only for a short period until he would naturally secure self-preservation by using his imagination to “create” and/or discover a new model that would better harness his uncertainty and allow him to efficiently express his desire to progress in an ethereally familiar but alien landscape without the leash of statism.

        “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” — Buckminster Fuller

        The Austrian apologetics are hypocritical in expounding it’s ostensible laissez faire capitalism as a resolve to the current system since it’s methods have been put to practice and failed miserably as exhibited by Jacksonian democracy. Their candidate the honourable Dr. Paul seems to be relying on the opposition’s inarticulate attempts to countervail his arguments with redundant pro-imperialism rants and more specifically his constituents’ short memory as he consciously forgets to educate them on America’s period of Austrian economics and the role of government as protectionist …or it’s a sign for the early onset of dementia.

        …aaand I’m done.

        Great blog by the way. An exceptional read in the midst of Ron Paul mania.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        I’ll let Alexander Hamilton answer:

        “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”

        Government is simply a set of ground rules, and a mechanism for enforcement. A family is a government. A pickup basketball team is a government. You can’t NOT have government. People need to look long and hard of the consequences of Paul’s specific policies. What would be the net effect of destroying the EPA? Forget the dogma – look at the practical examples.

        His opponents don’t address or argue with his economic and political ideas, because they want the very same things. If Romney came out and said “I want to get rid of all remaining social programs, regulations and trade barriers, and replace the dollar with JP Morgan-issued gold certificates,” his campaign would be over. Paul can do it because he has spent decades cultivating a fringe group of activists that has no potential to cross over into the mainstream.

        I won’t be the least bit surprised if Paul wins the Republican nomination for that reason – people are sick of war, and his insane economic program is immune from criticism from the fakers in his party. If it’s down to 3 candidates, he only needs 35% of the nominating convention. But the general election will be a repeat of 1964, when Barry Goldwater got fucking demolished (~65-35%?) by Lyndon Johnson.

        I’d have been perfectly happy to vote for a genuine conservative like Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan. But a vote for Paul is a leap into the abyss on most issues.

        • natalie golovin says:

          I voted for Goldwater, Buchanan, Perot and wrote-in Paul in 2008. That confirms I’m outside the mainstream. Not afraid of Paul’s agenda because our system slows down and filters any political change. You have to reach far out to go a few steps & in my opinion, that’s all RP is doing. You can’t get on the radar as a real change agent without strong ideas. The implementation would not be a shock-just a course adjustment.

        • bluuu says:

          Sorry for the belabored reply but your responses to my advocative(devil’s :P) replies seem to be refutation based merely on the quotation of a king(or an aspiring one) and his argument for monarchy along with metaphors of government being a ubiquitous and wholly benevolent entity from a seemingly calvinist perspective.

          “To be or not to be” …an eternal state?

          The EPA is a federal agency that pushes the dogma of “global warming” by dismissing the work of opposing views and history …how pragmatic can they be? I think we can agree that carbon tasex suck for us peasants?

          Does voting even exist? I don’t lean toward it but pulling for the fellow who praises the popular negative freedoms that America celebrates over the positive freedoms that America needs is a scary individual indeed.

          This was a bitch to type because the info bars were covering have of what I was typing and I’m proper sauced… arrggghhh! Apologies if this came off sh*tty.

        • Gregory Fegel says:

          I’m in full agreement with deadeye on this. Many of us have gotten an idealistic view of anarchy as a state of peaceful cooperation, forgetting that with anarchy there is no organization that prevents the few from trampling the rights of the many, or preventing the many from trampling the rights of the few. The abolition of government will degenerate into rule by gangs, followed by Feudalism.

          Abolishing the Federal Reserve would be a good beginning, but, by itself, it will not create an economic Utopia; there will still be banks and complicated shell games that favor the inside traders.

          People who advocate a “free market system” that is unregulated by a government “of the people” are actually advocating Feudalism — the rulership of wealthy families and Mafias.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        Cutting $600 billion out of social services and regulations in one year sounds like more than a “course adjustment” to me.

        Ever notice how Austrians, whether Ron Paul, the early theoreticians or modern “academics” like Thomas DiLorenzo or Lew Rockwell, will NOT debate anyone on their economic and political theories? I addressed this issue a little in the other article on this blog. The only debate Thomas DiLorenzo has ever accepted was a kabuki performance with Harry Jaffa, a student of Leo Strauss and Barry Goldwater’s speech writer.

        Why is the “free market” immune from criticism in the so-called “truth” community? What do you suppose would happen if Alex Jones hosted a 2-hour debate between Webster Tarpley and DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell or any “Austrian” of his choosing?

      • feudalism is what resulted after gold collapsed the roman empire. however, feudalism should not be conflated with anarchism. tribalism is a more left-wing form of anarchy where the anarchist-state does not grant individuals exclusive title to land. feudalism is associated with monarchism where monarchs grant parcels of land to land barons who allow the serfs to work on the land for tribute payments to the king and land rents for the land baron. there are various levels of indentured servitude to the land baron and such servitude treated as contractual law…. you basically have the “choice” to become a slave or die and are coerced into signing the contract.

        the classical liberals tried to removed the landed coercion by progressively taxing land ownership so that the serfs could choose to purchase land. thomas paine went further to state that a citizen dividend should be funded to help people be able to afford land. henry george (and david ricardo) went further to state that land value taxation should be used, taxing 95% of the undeveloped land value, so that the law of rent may work to value land while creating virtually free land, the undesired land at the edge of civilization. modern georgists today suggest land value taxation and a portion of the collected land rents to fund a citizen dividend to make virtually free land absolutely free to guarantee the right to free land. having free land is the only way for people to deamnd fair wages or work for themeselves. furthermore, free land is the only way one can own the full fruits of their labor without it being stolen by economic rent and taxation. economic rent should fund govvernment. wages should not fund government. this philosophy follows the economics in the bible where the bible solution was a 50-year land lease and a jubilee where the land would come up for lease every 50 years.

      • the bible further states that the profit of the earth is for all (land and natural resources are for all) and that your toil is your own. tax land, not labor. the 50-year land lease is a land value tax where the full land value is taxed by the government. if those who can afford land have already leased land for themselves, the remaining land can be given to the poor. henry george and david ricardo described this as the law of rent, where if you fully tax land value, people would only take what land they need and can afford and they would take the land they want. the remaining less desireable land would be available for free for the poor.

      • true libertarians (georgists) believe that economic rent and the issuance of money supply should fund the public needs of a minimum government and that wages should fund the laborer and the production of real capital (machines, tools, etc.).

        royal libertarians (ron paul, austrian economists) believe that economic rent and the issuance of money supply should fund the landed and the usurer and that a tax on labor should fund a minimum government.

        true libertarianism (georgism) is free market economics following natural law. it is also called classical liberalism.

        royal libertarianism (ron paul, austrian economics) is a crony capitalism called feudalism and called other names like anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism (as if the serfs were not being coerced into indentured servitude because they did not have access to free land), and colonialism. it could also be considered a form of communism and oligarchy.

  38. isabel says:

    sad that is the only conclusion YOU got after read “The Incredible Bread Machine”
    “Because the basic principles of freedom are
    consistent with man’s nature, they work. And
    because the basic principles of collectivism
    (statism) are not consistent with man’s nature,
    they do not work, as not only history proves,
    but the state of the world today confirms. ‘page 127

    • deadeyeblog says:

      I’ve read plenty of “Austrian” apologetics by von Mises, von Hayek and others. I’m not going to waste my time critiquing a pamphlet.
      The whole thing is a false dichotomy to convince you that the only available options are “liberty” and totalitarianism. Go back to Plato and work your way forward. This argument has been settled for thousands of years.

  39. Matt says:

    I hope you’ll keep making posts, this is an excellent one.

  40. Gregory Fegel says:


    You posted a link to this article on the Les Visible blogsite, which led me here. Thank you for writing this succint, well-researched, and thoughtful analysis of the Ron Paul phenomenon. Thank you for your compassion for the common people. I look forward to reading more of your writing.

    I have written “The Godfather USA” and “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age”.

    – Gregory Fegel

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Hi Gregory,
      Thanks for your vote of confidence. I’m a very common person myself 🙂 I look forward to reading your essays – I think I may have seen the first one…

  41. Matt says:


    You mentioned Alex Jones letting Tarpley debate an Austrian…I’d love to see that as well, But I have a feeling it’d turn into a screaming match, with Jones leading the charge. You can get an idea of how Jones reacts to criticism of Ron Paul by hearing this exchange between Tarpley and Jones. Tarpley sank Jones’ battleship without even a flinch.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Thanks a lot, Matt,

      I haven’t heard this particular interview. Yeah – no opposing voice can get a word in edgewise with Jones, and he long ago stopped interviewing people in Tarpley’s camp like William Engdahl or left-wing politicians like Kucinich or Nader. But if you’re Lew Rockwell or “Steve Pieczenik” the mic is yours. I suppose the reasons become obvious when he cuts to commercial and you hear, “Bloodthirsty criminals want your guns!!” Who’s going to advertise on a pro-American System truther radio show?

      It’s a big unresolved issue that the “truth movement” is divided along some pretty huge fault lines. Instead of getting anything done, or even expanding the general knowledge base, the whole movement seems to be festering in niche issues.

      I’d love to hear some competent debate about:

      • Is our problem “big government” or Wall Street?
      • Who are America’s real founding fathers, and what did they believe? What is the nature of the split between “Hamiltonians” and “Jeffersonians,” what are the historical precedents, and what are the implications of accepting one view or the other? (Sorry, America-centric, but this country is still the main event until further notice)
      • Are “Jews” the creators or the creatures of oligarchy? Why does such a small population wield so much power, and how did this come to be? Does Israel control the US and/or Britain, or the other way around?
      • How does the “New World Order” really work, and what are its plans? Are we just talking about globalization, cartels, imperialism, etc.? Or is there really a “global government” in the works?
      • To what extent is it worth studying and debating UFOs, consciousness, secret technology, spirituality, etc.? Are these all just distractions from concrete politics?
      • To what extent is it worth studying secret societies, deep politics, etc? Or will these just wither away if the “exoteric” political environment is changed?

      There are probably a lot of good questions I’m leaving out. Maybe I’ll try to turn this into a blog post – it would probably get a lot more traction than talking about farm economics 😉 Any thoughts about how this could turn into an actual (probably online or in a series of debates) debate?

      • These are all fairly serious matters.
        But the crucial vault lines are about money.

        Austrian Economics is Jewish economics. Here’s why:

        1. Rothbard and Mises were Jews.
        2. They ignore interest, which is the central problem of money and the Money Powers most important weapon. Interest and ‘anti-semitism’ always were two sides of the same coin. Hundreds of the most brilliant Gentile minds over a thousand years denounced Jewish usury.
        3. They blame the state, instead of the Money Power
        4. They want a Gold Standard back, which is what brought them to power after the Middle Ages.

        Keep in mind, it’s not ‘the jews’. It’s the Synagogue of Satan, who call themselves Jews, but are not.

        The least we must find common ground is comprehensive monetary reform. And the least we need to get that is the understanding that Interest is the main tool of enslavement:

        Tarpley is not a serious problem for the Austrian Economists, since he does not address interest either. Tarpley is always complaining about lack of regulation and Wall Street, but he never challenges the nature of the money system itself.

        Here’s the problem with interest:

        Here’s how a real discussion with the Gold Bugs looks like:

      • Matt says:

        Hi Dick,

        I’d love to see a series of debates – be it here on this blog or somewhere else. I’d wish them to be thoughtful and polemical as your blog entries have been. However, this tends to be the problem with what I call “identity politics.” People identify with a doctrine, an individual, or a belief and if someone criticizes it, they become extremely defensive to the point where the discussion quickly descends into an exchange of hostilities. This tends to be the problem with many Austrians and hardcore Ron Paul/Peter Schiff/Von Hayek/etc fans, because they are a part of a political identity that is so ideological that in many cases they have lost all connection to historical reality.

        I find it ironic that many hardcore Paul supporters sound exactly like the Obamanoids did when he was being portrayed as a grand messianic figure who would save the world. Though, as you’ve rightfully pointed out, Ron Paul has been a useful public servant in some regards, but his view on economics is so anti historical that it begs the question as to why people are so devoted to him.

        I’ve thought about starting a blog on WordPress to help bring a dialogue to these questions. Perhaps it is something we can work towards.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        Matt – I totally agree, and hope you will start a blog. I’d love to read it!

        Anthony – Sorry, I think your comment got put in a queue because it had links. I have some things to learn about social credit (frankly I’ve been a bit turned off that people like Dick Eastman are always celebrating nazi economists and fringe people I’ve never heard of – it reminds me of Georgism, but I’ll spend more time trying to understand it.

        I still think you misunderstand W.Tarpley – I addressed this in a comment to your article at Henry Makow’s website. A national bank can and should issue interest-free lending and spending for matters of the national interest. But should they just give you credit for being a person and let you buy your house with it? Maybe that works in some tiny Arab sheikdom, but I just don’t see how you can remove the idea of monetary rent from a national economic system, even if just modest fees paid to a state bank or local credit union. I really like the idea of your Gelre and should read more about it. But as far as I can see, it’s basically a coupon system that relies on a real (multi)national currency. I’ve seen those in neighborhoods I’ve lived in, but it never gets past the local merchants. If you check out my article here on parity, that concept provides some easy direction on how to decide the supply of money for an entire economy. When a central bank can track the needs of the economy to produce and consume, it can open or close the spigot accordingly, and make sure that there are backstops for vital industries like farms, energy, etc. When it leaves pricing to “the market,” prices get deflated and usury becomes the only means by which producers can continue to operate. What I’m suggesting is that if you have a better option (ie fair prices for basic commodities, federal works programs as-needed), people will choose those over welfare and usury. I’m sure we’ll meet back up on this issue and I’ll keep an eye on your blog.

        On the Jewish issue, I’ve got mixed feelings. On one hand, Jews always seem to be at the center of trouble, going at least as far back as Egypt and Babylon. On the other hand, they seem to have been kept (until ~the 19th century at least) kept in a second-class status and dependent upon the the fortunes and favors of princes and kings. I see them in some ways as human shields for whoever has real political and money power. The jewish elite has always been involved in dirty dealing. And by the nature of being a nepotistic culture, garden variety jews get a lot of benefits just by being “good jews.” But when the economy collapses (as in Germany), they get dragged out in public and run out of the country or worse. I think the German word “hofjuden” implies this. They’re always right in front of the kings, but they’re not the kings. Lyndon LaRouche has a really interesting article called “The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites” you might find online.

        As to whether “Austrian” economics is jewish, it’s safe to say that it was represented almost entirely by jews, and fits the pattern. But without Rockefeller / Rothschild money, nobody would know about Ludwig von Mises or Ayn Rand. Then you’ve got to keep going up the totem pole to see who’s next.

        I’m still reserving judgement and trying to dig into the more ancient history (Venice, Byzantium, Rome, Babylon) of this issue more.

  42. I understand. And I fully agree too. I’m struggling with this for forever.

    On the other hand: banking goes back to Babylon, but so do ‘they’. It’s an old mystery tradition.

    And every nation has it’s shadows, it’s not like the US has very clean hands. We don’t feel repressed in bemoaning that.

    Like He said: ‘the synagogue of Satan, who call themselves Jews, but are not’.

    • Levantine says:

      I don’t see a serious issue. Surely you don’t mean that Jewry, genetically indistiguishable from other Semitic tribes & culturally increasingly diluted, may have a natural propensity for banking crimes. Judaism is not a secret cult and devout Jews regularly protest against Israeli policies. The Western establishment mafia involves many non-Jews. I don’t see a serious issue.

      • that’s not strange, few nowadays do. But Usury and Jewry are intimately related.
        It’s not for nothing that the main players of the Credit Crunch are all Jewish:
        Bernanke (and 3 of 4 other boardmembers), Trichet, Madoff, Blankfein.

        It’s been like that always. Hundreds of brilliant Gentiles throughout the ages have denounced Jewry’s usury, and even Allah Himself in the Q’uran had this to say:

        ‘That they (the Jews) took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.’ (sura 4.161)

        So while it is true that NWO is not exclusively Jewish, its finance arm is heavily dominated by Jews and Banking is at the core of the NWO.

    • i think the whole point about the religious background of oligarchs is pointless. there are a lot of people somewhat friendly with the ideas of george, the bible, and the classical liberals, and debt-free money, but they went down the road you are going, and ended up being called fascists and anarchists, like erza pound, eustace mullins, and others i wish not to name.

      silvio gissel, the physiocrats, ricardians, georgists, and classical liberals are much more plausible, as is stephen zarlenga (georgist), kucinich, bill still, ellen brown, david nolan (closet georgist if he is on payroll), and dan sullivan (the individual responsible for a resurgence of georgism in the libertarian party and very much concerned about land and monetary issues).

      don’t knock georgists if you don’t understand the philosophy. they are right on the monetary issue and they know how to fund government without taxation of labor. using economic rent to fund government would prevent a lot of social problems. as i stated before, if you don’t fix the land issue and you fix the monetary system, the land problem will be greater, since fixing the monetary issue will result in a real estate boom, creating poverty among prosperity, and eventually a real estate crash where the wealthy will absorb real estate for pennies on the dollar and become the next land barons. if you want to end the dismal nature of economics, you have to fix both the monetary issue and the land issue. if you fix the monetary issue without fixing the land issue, you are like ron paul, a crony capitalist, and will end up just the same with initially a dismal situation and then a new feudalism.

      • georgism is a big umbrella. dan sullivan was just the other day saying keynes have gotten a worse rap than he deserves. georgists understand there are several complex issues. sometimes an fdr solution does make sense because you’re deal with complex issues that a simple solution can’t always solve. you do have to be careful with solutions as you need to make sure you’re address the root problem first.

        for example, campaign finance reform is needed. however, limiting contributions is not going to work. it just creates super pacs, which can be considered worse. you don’t want to limit free speech through campaign finance reform. you do want disclosure, which we have. the root problem is financial juggery in the media. the important media has been been consolidated. we don’t have a fair and balanced media. there are 5 corporations who decide elections on television. that is the root of the problem… how to bring about a fair and balanced media. busting up the 5 media corporations and preventing mergers is part of the solution, but as we seen in history, the oligarchs can still buy out all the major newspapers and all the television stations, even if they are individual companies. they can even take control of public television. strengthening public television and busting the media trust can help. removing restrictions on campaign financing can help as well. having a public fund for candidates without the ability to raise capital could be made available, not for romney or obama to tap into, but the person with no funds who qualifies. ballot access reform would also be important. more bottom-up democracy would also help.

      • removal of regulations on newspapers and such would also help. opening up the radio and television to more broadcasters would help. the internet itself has helped.

      • OzzieThinker says:

        Keith, you make many and ranging excellent points. However, as with the “system” your thinking is stuck in a rut. I was going to write about the Babylonian system being misrepresented in its “theoretical analysis”. Though it has been represented, most of the vane pursuits of social functionality had been progressed, all and more of the limitations on power in place today were in place then and “double standards” were also prevelant.

        There was not the self-sufficiency we have today, even though there was an attempt to stockpile resources. Limited technologies appear to have been freely available to all, but information was witheld. Now limited technologies are available for those who can afford them, but information is widely available. In fact the internet is the biggest revolution the world has ever seen. Sure there is a lot of poor information presented as “cream”, but the cream is also available for those committed to the quest. This is not to say there are not “buried secrets” and I would doubt, that detail information on nuclear technologies could be found this way.

        The internet has had the effect of ensuring that a considerable (almost mind numbingly vast) resource is ‘freely’ available for the click of a button. This was NOT the case in other times. It is through this upgraded awareness in intelligent society, that demystification on the state of finances has dawned. Difficult questions like, “why should inheritance be allowed in fair society?”, “who sets value anyway?”, “why is there poverty at all in a world with comprehensive distribution mechanisms and vast resources stockpiles?”, “why aren’t the technologies [that don’t induce war] freely available?”, “what is a socially beneficial role for government and is money ‘necessary’?”, “if decisions motivated by the majority “choice” turn out destructive policies, should the voting majority [currently argued as the catalyst for balance] be scrapped?”, “why is the focus on macro governance, while micro governance is largely ignored?”.

        I believe that when a system is broken, patching it up does not fix it. Indeed as time goes by, the problems just get worse and worse and worse. Remove inheritance, limit power and reward for those in macro governance, give much greater asset priority to micro governance with real mechanisms for community cooperation and the “problems” we have today would vanish.

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        To Oz: Eliminating inheritance, without other measures in place, will not be an effective way to reduce wealth disparity because people will just find a way to circumvent it, for example, by gifting their fortunes to their heirs before they die.

        Here’s my panacea: eliminate wealth. There’s nothing sacred about wealth, and no, extreme wealth doesn’t create jobs or prosperity for the community. Currently the income gap is at an all-time high, but are the uber-rich creating jobs for the community? Nope. Why? Because the wealthy don’t create prosperity or jobs for the community. Actually, what wealth does create is poverty for those who don’t get to share in the wealth.

        I would eliminate wealth with a graduated income tax or a wage ceiling that would prevent anyone from earning more than $125,000 per year, which cumulatively amounts to $5 million in earnings over 40 years. I would also prohibit anyone from owning more than $5 million in personal property of any kind, including real estate. (Inheritances that exceeded the limit could be distributed to a wider number of heirs or be forfeited to the State.) Capitalism would continue, but it would be necessary for every large corporation to be supported by a large number of stockholders, because no one would be wealthy enough to make a huge and controlling investment. Worker-owned companies would become the norm. The State would have stewardship of the Commons, as it does now.

        • OzzieThinker says:

          Greg, you are absolutely right.

          The whole philosophic babble against a cooperative society is exclusively made by the current leeches who existed perpetually on the back of the “slaves” quarry. This is not to say that all or any of these leeches are bone idle, but they have all the choices whereas the slaves have no, or next to no choices.

          The disadvantage of a cooperative society is cudos would be limited to the exceptionally talented. The advantage would be social welfare would be everyone’s responsibility, and subject to sufficient operational support parameters, a social charter would be obscelete.

          Of course parasitic behaviour would have to end and therein lies the problem. There is not a single human being who does not seek any opportunity from circumstance and we need to evolve significantly before we are ready for self sufficiency. Prisons, law enforcement and criminals are merely symptoms of the “conflict of interests” in parasitic society. Lest none forget!

          • Gregory Fegel says:

            If I could only do one thing, I would eliminate extreme wealth, as I explained above.

            If I could do two things, the second thing I would do is establish the Right to Work as a fundamental and Constitutional Right. I see the Right to Work as a Natural Right, and I think that it should be the responsibility of the government (by which I mean the community of citizens) to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to work.

            Access to higher education should be entirely based on merit (test scores and performance), regardless of income. The high-IQ poor should be routed to grad school and the low-IQ affluent should be routed to trade school. Adults of all ages should be encouraged to retest and reenter the educational system when they want more education or a career change.

            The standard work-week should be linked to the employment rate, and the work-week should be adjusted to maintain full employment. With unemployment at 20%, the work-week should be cut back to 32 hours, to create more jobs and full employment.

            Mechanization and computerization are net eliminators of jobs. In about one hundred years, the work force in US agriculture has shrunk from 80% to 2%, with a large increase in productivity – thanks to mechanization. Even if all of the jobs that have been outsourced overseas were returned to the USA, we still would not be able to provide full employment – because mechanization and computerization are eliminating jobs at a steady pace. The compassionate, just, and practical solution is to reduce the hours of the standard work-week as needed.

            As long as technological progress continues, the jobs that are eliminated due to mechanization and computerization will never come back. So society needs to find a way to cope with an ever-increasing population of idle workers. Again, the compassionate, just, and practical solution is to reduce the hours of the standard work-week as needed.

  43. Levantine says:


    I’m not an American, or Westerner for that matter, and my knowledge of economics is likely better than ‘the average,’ but not great, so I couldn’t confidently judge your article.

    But in the conversation, a poster asked you: “If not Paul, who else would be the “candidate” in your eyes?” You answered:

    deadeyeblog – December 8, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    Franklin Roosevelt and JFK weren’t perfect, but they were damn good. There are some great people in congress – Marcy Kaptur, Kucinich, Peter DeFazio. Call me crazy, but under the right circumstances, you could get some work done (and would avoid WW3 or total collapse) with a Clinton in office. I’m not looking for Jesus – someone a little better than the status quo and more effective public pressure would be a good start.
    [end of quote]

    I think it’s pretty clear that no person, if elected for a US President, could do a lot.
    I’m confident that Clinton in office would have pursued virtually the same policy as the incumbent.
    And I surely can’t see him or Kucinich as significantly better than Ron Paul.

    One thing to keep in mind: as a rule, people always appear sharper (much, much sharper) when they criticise. And I’m wary of conflating humanistic appearance with political sense. Marx was a marvelous humanist who had enviable analytical skills – but he didn’t run his household successfully.
    Insofar, this is the best commentary on the situation I have come across:
    The only thing I can disagree with it (post #15) is the employment of the terms ‘isolationism’ and ‘patriotism.’ ( Also, it may be that the oligarchs would let Ron Paul “end the Fed,” only to replace it with something else. )

    Ron Paul is a character more interesting than powerful. The crucial thing is to animate the public, have many country-wide discussions such as this one, making people fight for their own empowerment. The people’s enlightenment can destroy social vampirism.
    deadeyeblog – “The “New World Order” is not the overturning of our free-trade, deregulated neoliberal order, but its completion. The great dream of every Rothschild and Rockefeller is not a global police state, but a universal “free trade” arrangement overseen by a global body. ”

    Economists would tell you what what passes for a “free trade” in the current neoliberal order simply doesn’t meet the conditions to be termed as such. I don’t agree with you.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      You say no elected president can accomplish much, yet your website cites the numerous accomplishments of Vladimir Putin. Putin throws oligarchs in prison, Ron Paul defends them.

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        Lately I have been hearing people praise Vladimir Putin because he “jailed the Oligarchs”, but what I’ve read about Putin is that he has his own Oligarch buddies and his own fascist credentials, and he has actually been targeting the competition as a chief of a Mafia would. Putin has a track record of using his political office for insider trading and sweetheart deals.

        The notorious Moscow Apartment false-flag Bombings of the summer of 1999 happened immediately after Putin’s resignation as head of the FSB and immediately before his becoming President. The manufactured crisis of the Moscow Apartment Bombings helped Putin get the Presidency. As recent former Head of FSB, Putin had to know that those were false flag bombings perpetrated by the FSB.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          All leaders have certain entanglements to get to such a position. Lincoln was a railroad lawyer who gave away free land to the railroads, JFK never would have made it to congress or the presidency without the mafia, FDR had to scheme with both Churchill and Stalin.
          – With Putin, I think you have to look at his net effect on Russia’s real economy, which is overwhelmingly positive, and how the force of his personality and presence affects the global situation. As for the oligarchs, it does seem like some of his pals made out pretty well on the repossession of companies like Yukos. But not as well as Khodorkovsky, and the “new oligarchs” are actual Russians who are managing the companies rather than raiding, short-selling and asset stripping them. I’m not an expert on this by any means, but there are a lot of provable facts to suggest Putin is a good, nationalist leader, and the suggestions to the contrary seem to be mostly accusations and innuendo.
          – Putin steps down, Libya and Egypt get overthrown. Putin coming in, the heat goes down quite a bit on Syria and Iran. Medvedev wanted to turn Russia into the “new silicon valley”, and Putin wants to set up multipolar world trade to break up dollar hegemony. He’s just an effective, competent leader who is good for his country.

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        Deadeye wrote: “With Putin, I think you have to look at his net effect on Russia’s real economy, which is overwhelmingly positive, and how the force of his personality and presence affects the global situation.” and “I’m not an expert on this by any means, but there are a lot of provable facts to suggest Putin is a good, nationalist leader, and the suggestions to the contrary seem to be mostly accusations and innuendo.” and “He’s just an effective, competent leader who is good for his country.”

        Yeah, Putin is a real good guy, like Jimmy Stewart in the movies. The Moscow Apartment bombings were just a few of many false-flag attacks which the FSB committed to create an excuse for the Russian genocide against, and occupation of, Chechnya. As Head of the FSB, there’s no way Putin cannot have been a party to the Ryazan bombings. In the late 1990s, Putin was also Deputy Chief of the Presidential Staff and a permanent member of Russia’s Security Council. Putin was famously involved in major government graft in St. Petersburg in the early 1990s, and in 1999 Putin orchestrated a smear campaign against the Prosecutor General of Russia, who had been aggressively investigating government corruption. Since Putin took office, numerous dissident journalists, including Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya, who criticised Putin or the Russian government, have been assassinated – probably by the FSB – on Putin’s watch, and probably on his authority.

        “[It] is we who are responsible for Putin’s policies … society has shown limitless apathy … as the Chekists have become entrenched in power, we have let them see our fear, and thereby have only intensified their urge to treat us like cattle. The KGB respects only the strong. The weak it devours. We of all people ought to know that. …People often tell me that I am a pessimist, that I don’t believe in the strength of the Russian people, that I am obsessive in my opposition to Putin and see nothing beyond that. …If anybody thinks they can take comfort from the ‘optimistic’ forecast, let them do so. It is certainly the easier way, but it is the death sentence for our grandchildren.” – Anna Politkovskaya in Putin’s Russia – Life in a Failing Democracy

        If false flag attacks that kill hundreds of our own citizens to start a Middle East War are okay, if shady sweetheart deals with Oligarchs are okay, if the assassination of dissident journalists by the State intelligence services is okay, then Valdimir Putin is a “good, nationalist leader” and an effective, competent leader who is good for his country.” We could sure use a guy like Putin, couldn’t we? Where have all the cowboys gone? Like Ronald Reagan.

        I suscribe to some degree with the idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, for example in reference to Russia, but canonizing Valdimir Putin and the fascist Police State that he represents is a mistake. Putin’s style of government is just as bad as what we have here, and it has the same type of elitist players or Oligarchs running it.

        • That’s fair.

          The demonization of Putin by the MSM is senseless, idealizing Puting as father of the motherland is too.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          I can see where you’re coming from.
          At the same time, whose interests are served by Chechnyan “separation”? Why does the National Endowment for Democracy pay Ilyas Achmadov’s bills and how did the get him asylum in the US, even over the Bush administration’s objections?
          Russia’s national interest is to have a corridor of friendly regions through which to build pipelines, roads, etc. to Iran and the middle east on one side, and China and India to the other.
          All the logical routes are choked by an encrustation of “separatist” movements sponsored by the west. It’s the same story with Kazakstan, Mongolia, Tibet and other backward regions based on “cultural dignity” or whatever word is being used these days by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
          It’s not a justification for running false flag attacks, but it’s an ugly reality that’s been around for a lot longer than Putin. Do you let your nation get divided or choked economically for the sake of some parochial interests? Or is there such a thing as a “noble lie” that serves the greater good?
          Not an easy thing to figure out, and I’m sure it’s a lot harder when you’re calling the shots.

          • That’s true deadeye, but the Money Power pits all Governments to fight each other. And they do. The question is not whether Putin is ably handling the fight from Russia’s point of view, but what he is doing to expose the handlers of these conflicts.

            He’s just doing the job given to him: to lead the Russians to the slaughterhouse, just like Ahmadinejad is hired to bring Iran to its knees, just like Merkel’s job is to surrender German sovereignty to Brussels and just like it’s Obama’s job to oversee the decapitation of the US as the Globe’s Hegemon.

            • deadeyeblog says:

              The question is; what could Russia, Iran or China do to avoid a conflict with the US/Israel/Britain/NATO? Their only options are:
              1. Surrender and let their nations become or remain decentralized, deregulated free trade zones controlled by “the British Empire”
              2. Court disaster while looking for ways to weaken their opposition.
              You can’t simply have peace with an aggressive enemy when the terms of peace destroy your national protections and institutions. It’s the same with Libya – if Gaddafi had given up before the first shot was fired, they’d be in the position Iraq is today.
              Or if Ahmadinejad was really a puppet of the west just designed to draw Iran into a conflict, what’s he waiting for? There have been no shortage of provocations, including attempted coups, assassinations, threats, military exercises, etc.

            • It’s really easy: they could start printing their own interest free money. That would make Russia the Globe’s Top Dog within 10 years.
              Of course the control the Money Power is not total and not direct. They can’t just give the order ‘attack’. These processes consist of endless lobbying. And the Iranian Military would not be pleased with a suicidal attack order.

              that’s also Obama’s problem: his generals know how stupid the Iran war is. Here’s a little something on Ahmadinejad, btw:

            • deadeyeblog says:

              I remember that article…

              Iran and China do have a government owned central bank, and what seem like pretty reasonable policies on interest:

              Russia has an independent central bank, though by law half of the bank’s profit goes into the federal budget. Compare that to the Federal Reserve, who can find trillions for Wall Street and zero for the US Treasury.

              Gotta get back to work…

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        Deadeye wrote: “At the same time, whose interests are served by Chechnyan “separation”? …Russia’s national interest is to have a corridor of friendly regions through which to build pipelines, roads, etc. to Iran and the middle east on one side, and China and India to the other. ”

        Chechnya has never been a willing participant in the Russian Empire. After the Caucasian War (1817-1864), Chechnya was defeated and annexed by Russia in the 1870s. After the fall of the Czar, the Chechnyans fought the Soviets for their independence, but were again defeated and annexed. In 1992, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, a Federation treaty for continuance of the post-Soviet Russian Empire was signed by 86 of 88 member states, with only Chechnya and Tatarstan refusing to sign.

        Chechnyans have always resented Russian federal rule, because ethnic Russians were given all the top positions in Chechnya, and what the Russians want most from Chechnya is its oil — with scaent compensation for Chechnyans. Chechnya is, like Iraq, sitting on massive oil reserves. Chechnya is not just a resource corridor; it is a resource spigot. My point is that the Chechnyans regarded separation from the Russian Federation to be in their own interest.

        Deadeye wrote: “Why does the National Endowment for Democracy pay Ilyas Achmadov’s bills and how did the get him asylum in the US, even over the Bush administration’s objections? All the logical routes are choked by an encrustation of “separatist” movements sponsored by the west. It’s the same story with Kazakstan, Mongolia, Tibet and other backward regions based on “cultural dignity” or whatever word is being used these days by Zbigniew Brzezinski.”

        Of course the Chechnyan rebellion would be supported by the US government, as an extension of Cold War politics. Just as Russia might support Iran today. But US support for the Chechnyan rebellion does not mean that the Chechnyans are not genuine and justified in their desire for independence. The same applies for Kazakstan, Mongolia, Tibet, and “other backward regions”. It’s not only a matter of “cultural dignity”, but of economic, social, and political rights – the right to not have your country, its people, and its resources be invaded, dominated, and exploited by foreigners. The Chinese propaganda claimed that China liberated Tibet from Feudalism – but the Chinese colonized Tibet with thousands of ethnic Chinese and gave them all the good jobs. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss – or worse.

        Deadeye wrote: “Do you let your nation get divided or choked economically for the sake of some parochial interests? Or is there such a thing as a “noble lie” that serves the greater good?”

        We could ask Bush Senior and Junior, Brzezinski, Bolton, Obama, and other members of the US/NATO/Israeli Mafia those questions. But never mind – we already know their answer. If what Russia did to Chechnya was okay, then what the US did to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya must be okay.

        Here’s a few questions: Is Russian dominance of Chechnya necessary for Russian survival, or is it merely a measure of Russian greed? Could Russia have cooperated with Chechnya instead of conquering Chechnya? Who did the Russian conquest of Chechnya actually serve – the Russian people, or the Russian Oligarchs? The “noble lie” is what the Oligarchs and their minions tell us when they want to take advantage of us.

    • “Economists would tell you what what passes for a “free trade” in the current neoliberal order simply doesn’t meet the conditions to be termed as such. I don’t agree with you.”

      Of course there is no free trade. All major industries are dominated by cartels under the Money Power’s control.

      But this is what they call free trade. It’s just one of their Orwellian constructs, like ‘Freedom is Slavery’ and ‘War is Peace’.

      If you keep that in mind, it’s very, very hard to argue with deadeye’s astute comment that
      “The “New World Order” is not the overturning of our free-trade, deregulated neoliberal order, but its completion. The great dream of every Rothschild and Rockefeller is not a global police state, but a universal “free trade” arrangement overseen by a global body. ”

      • Another crucial point to remember is, that it were the US and yesteryear Britain that were always promoting ‘free trade’, i.e. the hegemons.

        They meant access to local economies for their Transnationals with that. Unhindered by local restraints, regulations, whatever.

        Free trade is very beneficial for the most powerful market players.

        That’s why the Trillionaires love it so much and promote it in the public domain. It means free trade for THEM, not for us.

      • OzzieThinker says:

        You are only 50% correct. “Free trade” is market fixing to ensure the Rothschild et al global slush fund wins the lions share of the business. They also want a global police state to ensure there is no rebellion from the enslaved populations. Why is it such a “sin” to be a “dole bludger”? In their utopian concept there would be NO social welfare system. “Impaired” units (humans) would be terminated (put to death). Those who worked would be given just a little bit more than they needed to survive. Ownership of property or land would be imposible. Everyone would perpetually rent.

        In a capitalist system, fascism and communism are identical, with one accute exception. The communist system of capitalism is managed by government and therefore the government is the elite. The fascist system of capitalism has a token government simply instrumental in ensuring no external mechanism can affect the elite. There appears to be a serious plot to impletement either global strategy currently. The problem they are facing is either the “mindless underclasses” don’t take the bait or, buck the system. This is why a “cull” of society is not beyond the realms of possibility. It [the cull] would suit a dual purpose. Firstly it would rid the world [elite utopia] of dissidents. Secondly it would reduce the wider population to a managable size.

        The greatest aggrevators to the bourgoise/proletariat enslavement model are the middle classes. The middle classes are the real threat to the elite because they both want the same thing. Because the population has grown too big it has become impossible to function without a middle class. The question is how do you find enough “evil” super-strong henchmen to kill off 6 billion people and dispose of the bodies quick enough that chaos does not organise? I do not think it would be possible, but the only way of removing the middle class’s requirement would be a dramatic population reduction. The Bill Gates concept of infecting mass populations with genetically modified mosquitos carrying “killer viruses” is a dumb idea. He should stick to ripping off other’s technologies.

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        Anthony, you’re right about the NWO’s economic agenda, but they will still need a Police State to keep order. There will be nations that the NWO will want to “put in their place” with military intetrventions, and there will be dissidents and dissident movements that they will want to suppress. Plus the ongoing job of brainwashing and mind control in the schools and mass media. As we’ve seen already, a Security State is a big moneymaker for the corporate elite.

        Here’s a big “raspberry” for those (such as the Tea Party) who say that they want a “small government” PLUS a big military, intelligence, and security apparatus.

      • free trade is one of those delicate issues. i have a mixed view on it. i tend to favor a universal and flat trade tariff, like a general sales tax on imports and exports (and perhaps a tax on outsourcing). there are natural barriers to globalism. it costs money to transport goods. it costs money and service to outsource in a non-native language. you also have to consider the actions of your trade partners. subsidizing industry is a bad idea and should be guarded against. nations should agree not to subsidize specific industries, with exception of course for things it makes sense, such as landed and military infrastructure and perhaps even agriculture in a limited way. free trade barriers due increase the cost of access to the planet’s natural resources for the average citizen when the profit of the earth is for all, regardless of national boundaries.

      • a citizen dividend would again be a universal solution to make trade barriers progressive if a sales tax on imports/exports is used to fund a citizen dividend where the citizens are compensated for the costs of trade barriers.

      • at the same time i’m against the whole idea of trade tariffs. fixing the monetary and land issue (reforming or tax system), removing bad regulations on small business, and building high speed rail would go a long to fixing the problems. you don’t want to export the natural resources of your nation, but you do also want to import natural resources just the same. the exports are already taxed with the land value tax. you just don’t want to tax the labor on exports. you want your own labor competitive with the rest of the world. if the other nation subsidizes industry and untaxes natural resources, your people get tax free natural resources. import the natural resouces and allow your tax-free labor use it in production.

    • OzzieThinker says:

      Again, partially correct Gregory. The world is moving to global authoritarian governance, not by accident, but because that is the way things were. Contrary to fictious “scientific” history, there were multiple worlds populated by various intelligent life forms. The “God” was the planetary leader, whose authority was passed down through the bloodline. Therefore each planet had a particular flavour – as per the genetic disposition of the God’s bloodline. Horoscopes are meant to be based on “en-masse” harmonisation of consciously thought and its influence by others. The buffoons who read their “stars” can’t contemplate they endorse far away civilisations by their capitulation.

      I am seeing 3 critical outcomes coming from the internet age. Firstly, people have generally become aware that governments cannot be trusted (but they kinda new that anyway, but now there is no “faith”). Secondly, they desperately cling to the notion that “it ain’t that bad” and “providing I keep my nose clean, it won’t affect” me. Thirdly, as more and more people are affected the overall consciousness of humanity is heightened and when the balance is “tipped” you can forget talk about “nationalities”. It will be a “mad max” style free for all. Why do you think they [NWO] have engineered the “revolutions”? The way the NWO are playing their hand is setting up disaster for all. The human consciousness can smell a sham and when enough is enough, “enough is enough”.

      • the world has mostly always been under the system. we might have had temporary periods where an individual nation had good policy or a form of tribalism was cooperative and free of tyranny. however, for the most part, the “strongest” or most evil have always found a way to manipulate populations into some kind of economic or other tyranny.

  44. […] article below (referring to this A.M.) covers historical data that is not properly considered by most historians because the data is […]

  45. B OM says:

    I am glad to see you challenging Alex Jones as concerns his support of the anti-American and ultimately fascist Austrian School of Economics through Ron Paul.

    To all the Paulies out there.

    1. Ron Paul does not support the U.S. Constitution

    A. If he did he would issue Articles of Impeachment against President Obama as concerns the attack on Libya, NDAA and the murder of American citizens.

    B. He would not be a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics which does not support the notion of the nation supporting the general welfare as is one of the reasons we have a federal government as stated in the Preamble to the US Constitution.

    C. Ron Paul knows that 9/11 was an inside job but refused to stick his neck out ( as told to several reporters and 9/11 truth activists and candidates for higher office from Vermont.

    2. Ron Paul will not become President, but he could do something useful, by attending to his sworn obligation to defend the U.S. Constitution by calling for Obama’s Impeachment.

    A. If Paul does not call for Obama’s impeachment then not only is Paul a hypocrite, but a traitor as well. For Obama has committed impeachable offenses that can only be addressed by Congress and the People, not by a presidential campaign that will not win, but only elect another traitor who will inherit the same dictatorial powers in place now.

    B. By going back to Congress and calling for Obama’s Impeachment, Ron Paul or any one of our Congressmen could and should make a truly historical contribution by standing on principle over politics, thus acting as a true leader. This would overturn the whole fake political spectacle, that Ron Paul participates in, though were he will never be allowed to go anywhere with.

    3. Ron Paul is tolerated on the National Stage not for his anti-war and interventionist views but because his radical advocacy of the Austrian School of Economics free market fairy tale is what the globalist want.

    A. Paul’s fake populism is making constituencies embrace his idiocy to their own detriment which is what the elite want… This serves Romney, Newt, Petreas and Obama.

    Ron Paul is part of the fake economic dialectic of capitalism verses socialism or Keynianism all which have know idea of the American System of Economics.

    The Revolutionary War nor the Civil War were fought to support the Austrian School of Economics, which is but a rehash of the British System of Free Trade Slaveonomics.

    • OzzieThinker says:

      This is your typical unfair criticism.

      1 It would be madness for anyone even on the fringe of politics to contest 911 currently. Those who have end up dead – uhmmm accidentally, of course (*wink*). Paul’s newsletter – the one he “never read” laid his views out.

      2 Trying to ensure Obama provides correct identification for office of President is STILL ongoing. Paul knows that impeachment is impracticle at best and pointless at worst.

      3 The ecconomic model Paul is proposing for the US would radically change how the way things are done. You can describle “faux links” as a result of terminology used to determine a style of “ecconomic thinking”. With the RIGHT CHECKS and BALANCES, most eccomonic solutions will work. The issue is ALWAYS in the checks and balances, so let’s not confoos the issue for the dummies.

      Finally. Yes Paul will side with Israel, but he won’t pander to the beast if he does what he says. If another crackpot or liar is ellected as president, prepare yourselves for civil war. That’s the bottom line.

  46. i’ve been wanting to use the brer rabbit and briar patch analogy to describe ron paul’s relationship with the globalists and bankers and a return to the gold standard.

    • btw, good blog. i’ll have to dedicate some time to read it.

      “British System of Free Trade Slaveonomics” is a pretty good term to describe the crony capitalism, socialism for the rich, and feudalism of the austrian school of economics where land and money is treated as capital when in reality they are statist institutions which violate natural law.

      legal tender needs to be implemented interest-free to benefit the productive and allow for economic growth through controlled monetary expansion. legal tender needs to be free of usury (interest) and rent (gold). legal tender is a public instrument and needs to remain truly a public instrument. free market currency and legal tender is an oxymoron. free market currency (such as gold) ceases to be free market when it becomes legal tender. ron paul promotes corruption of free market currency when he promotes the gold standard and free market currency as use for legal tender, which is very orwellian to corrupt the free market and call it championing the free market.

      inflation would be an ideal progressive tax if it were a tax used to fund government rather than the means of aristocrats to extract tribute payments from the working poor. inflation encourages investment and job creation. inflation has no government forms. inflation is not only good, it is necessary for economic growth and job creation. there would be no money to hold a job and pay taxes if there was not some kind of monetary expansion. if the dollar loses value, everything else gains in value. inflation is the creator of economic activity. as more people are born, as more money is used in international trade, and as more wealth becomes concentrated and idle in the hands of the wealthy, you need to add more money to the supply to maintain a stable value. there is nothing bad about a controlled inflation rate resulting from government printing, especially if held in check by it’s natural enemy, the wealthy. we would not have inflation if printing money would benefit the public rather than the usurer. the wealthy only tolerate inflation because it benefits them, as it does under our current credit-based monetary system and commodity-based monetary systems. inflation is bad now because it is based on interest paid to bankers. if inflation was not based on credit expansion, inflation would not need correction through credit contraction. inflation is naturally corrected by economic growth, which is encouraged by inflation.

      there is everything wrong with deflation. deflation is destructive. deflation is theft. as the dollar gains in value, everything else loses value at the benefit of the idle who hold monetary units. deflation is socialism for the rich. deflation allows the idle and wealthy to steal a free lunch from the productive. deflation causes bankruptcy and halts production when the inputs of production becomes more expensive than the outputs of production.

      land is a distinct component of production, which is fundamental for not only production but for existence. the need to secure the right to land is a precondition to securing the right to your own toil and existence. the right of land is equivalent to the right to your own life, as well as peace and prosperity. it differs from capital in that it is not produced. capital has to be produced by human labor to be considered capital. the classical liberals, the physiocrats, and the writers of the old testament understood this.

      profit from economic rent should be taxed out of existence through land value taxation, removing profit from the mere private ownership of land, hiding the funding of government in the supply and demand for land, helping to prevent monopolization and inefficient use of land, making land more affordable through reducing idle demand, thereby, increasing supply.

      a citizen dividend should be funded with collected land rents to guarantee every citizen has the right to land and natural resources as to not violate natural law while still respecting private distribution and use of land with the free market, as thomas paine originally suggested in his essay, “agrarian justice.”

      the three schools of socialism, including marx for communism, mises for the crony capitalism system of socialism for the idle rich (the land/gold baron, the banker, and finance capitalist), and keynes for the hybrid system, did not understand this and made a fatal mistake (likely intended since it is clear that mises was funded by the king of robber barons, the rockefeller foundation, where competition is sin) when they equated land and money to capital.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Hi Keith,

      Thanks for stopping by. Sorry for beating you to the punch – maybe you can write an article called “Ron Paul: Tar Baby” or “Ron Paul: Confused Old Man Who Read a Couple Ayn Rand Books in the 60s”.

      I must admit that while I agree with many of Henry George’s principles, I’m not taken by the idea of a single tax on land. It seems like an excuse for free trade, and would allow JP Morgan to open a headquarters in Skunk Hollow, Arkansas to evade taxes.

      That said, I really like what I’ve read on your site and agree completely with your criticisms of libertarianism. Have you taken a look at my article on parity? I think price floors, trade barriers and subsidies have the effects intended by Georgism (and have actually been put to the test) without the loopholes. Maybe we can find some common ground…

      • i’m mixed on free trade and don’t agree with the george solution. georgism is a bigger umbrella than just the george solution. i believe in tax reform towards a 80-95% lvt combined with a lvt and away from regressive sales taxes and absolutely way from income taxation. i’m open to other solutions, including progressive sales tax with a citizen dividend. it really should be just called classical liberalism. labels suck but claiming your georgist is a good way to just say you’re in favor on a public debt-free monetary system (using monetary expansion to fund the public need rather than the usurer and away from usury in general) and a reform of taxes away from taxation on labor and real capital and towards taxation of undeveloped land values, or economic rent, and other forms of unearned wealth. there are more issues, but land and monetary are the two most fundamental and principle forms of economic tyranny which must be addressed. perhaps we should be called physiocrats, gisselists, classical progressives, or just real libertarians.

        georgists essentially believe in free markets. we believe in biblical economics (though many are atheists) that the land is for all and your labor is your own. we take libertarianism to a different extreme than the austrian economists. we want to eliminate all taxation on toil and remove other ways in which the wealthy extract the fruits of your toil unfairly, such as economic rent and usury. we don’t believe in slavery to fund minimum government. we don’t believe in the landed slavery. we don’t believe in monetary slavery. we believe economic rent and monetary expansion should fund a minimum government with many georgists believing we should guarantee free land through funding a citizen dividend with a proportion of collected land rents.

  47. Gregory Fegel says:

    I have been reading Anthony Sutton’s excellent book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, in which, among many other things, Sutton describes the participation of FDR and his Warm Springs Foundation, along with several close associates of FDR, in the pre-WW2 funding of the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. The possibility that FDR helped orchestrate WW2 to advance the profiteering and geostrategic goals of the international wealthy elite looms large. Eleanor, who was a big supporter of the UN, may have served as a ‘useful idiot’ for the capitalist/elitist NWO, which controls the UN.

    I have assembled a very large file of articles that demonstrate the role of Bill Clinton as a champion of the elitists. Since leaving office, Clinton has amassed a personal fortune by facilitating deals for predatory mining firms in Developing countries. Only a small percentage of the budget of the Clinton Foundation goes to charity, such as AIDs relief; the charity is simply a mask that serves to to disguise Clinton’s primary activity in supporting predatory mining and exploitative capitalism.

    The Dems and Pubs are both thoroughly controlled by the ruling elite at the highest level. There’s no chance of getting a real reformer into the Presidency through either the Dems or the Pubs. The only way to get a real reform President into office would be through an independent third party with a membership that is highly educated about the mechanisms of controlled opposition, realpolitik, propaganda, false history, and class warfare.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      I haven’t read all of Anthony Sutton’s work, but he strikes me as a highly prejudicial and sloppy historian. The “participation of FDR” you mention is that a guy named Walter Teagle, the president of Standard Oil, was also a board member of American IG Farben, and collaborated with the Germans on making synthetic lead and rubber, which became part of the Nazi war program. Teagle had been appointed by Roosevelt to the Federal Reserve board, and to head the Warm Springs Foundation, which raised money to rehab people with polio.
      – Hitler and FDR both came to power in 1933. Germany declared war on the US in 1941. Between those times, being a “Nazi collaborator” wasn’t exactly unusual. They hosted the frigging Olympics in 1936, and WW2 didn’t really get going until 1939.
      – Of course powerful people are going to associate with other rich, powerful people. It’s kind of like our previous exchange about Putin. Politicians need cash, and they need to extend favors and appointments to maintain a power base. I think it’s a mistake to take an overly conspiratorial view of “control” in connecting money to politics. Oligarchs are like heat-seeking missiles that take any advantage for self-perpetuation. They finance both sides of a conflict not necessarily because they create the conflict (though sometimes they play a big role) but because they “ride herd” in any direction they think they can benefit from the outcome.
      – But look at the potential outcomes vs. actual outcomes. Clinton did a pretty damn good job with the Oslo accords, then Yitzhak Rabin got assassinated. Did Clinton’s powerful buddies put him up to the whole thing just so there would be a big mess to clean up? No – there are a lot of competing agendas, some general consensuses, a number of conspiracies, and a number of examples of political figures doing the right thing, either out of conscience, or out of political need. IMHO, while there’s no perfect leader, Clinton was pretty decent, and FDR was about as good as you’re ever going to get.

      • I’m not too sure about this line of reasoning Deadeye.

        It certainly is true that Satan organizes his people with conflict. He likes the pain and survival of the fittest provides him with the most able servants.

        But the conclusion is not that some are not so bad (like Clinton or FDR). The conclusion is that they all vie for the recognition of the same master.

        Clinton got the US into NAFTA, he bombed Somalia and Iraq. He was involved in countless corruption scandals and was probably involved in the murder of some people trying to shine the light on him.

        We should not focus too much on Zionism: it’s only one problem, not THE problem. THE problem is a small cabal of ultra rich soulless monsters owning all the money supplies of all the nations.
        To them Zionism is just a tool, as is the Fed, the UN, the EU, the IMF, etc. We should keep that in mind while fighting these tools: we should not allow ourselves to lose sight of who is behind the myriad of threats.

        It is true Hitler declared, but only after years of outrageous provocation by FDR. FDR oversaw the partition of Europe, the inhuman bombing of the Third Reich. He sold Stalin as Uncle Joe to the American public. He was good friends with that other crypto Jew, Churchill, who is without a doubt fully comparable to Uncle Joe and Mao.

        It’s all fine that the rich and powerful hang out together.

        It is up to us not to vote them into office. Because nothing good comes out of that den of vipers.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          Then you’re right back to Ron Paul, anarchy and “the market” dictating public policy.

          – I used to share your disapproval of Clinton until I started to look into Hillary’s comment that he was the target of a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” One of the main authors of hit-books against the Clintons was Barbara Olson (JD Yeshiva University), who supposedly died in one of the planes on 9/11. She allegedly called her husband, the US Solicitor General, from a cell phone on the plane, which was impossible in 2001:

          – I also suspect Clinton had a role in diffusing crises intended in the Oklahoma City and first World Trade Center bombings. Did you know the first reports on OKC pointed the finger at “muslim extremists” before McVeigh was arrested? I wonder whether McVeigh even the intended patsy, or whether he was supposed to be connected to al Qaeda to get the Iraq war started earlier than it was.

          – I don’t know much about Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Whitewater, etc. But it’s pretty easy to “Chandra Levy” someone you don’t like (Gary Condit was the ONLY congressman who voted against the expulsion of James Traficant. What does that tell you?).

          – I’m constantly posting links to Anton Chaitkin lectures, but he’s got a great one called “Pentacostalism, Militias, Empire, & Subversion” going into the false-flag nature of attacks on right-wing patriots. It’s from the OKC era, but is pretty instructive today for anyone listening to the likes of Steve Quayle, Lindsey Williams, etc.

          – I’m not sure why no leader, with the possible exception of Gaddafi or someone like that – ever comes out and says it just like it is, without compromise. But I think it’s a lot more complicated than “they’re all working for satan.” Politics is a rat’s nest of espionage, blackmail, etc. on top of the need for public approval. If Obama came out tomorrow and said 9/11 was an inside job and he’s ordering an investigation, he’d suddenly have a cerebral hemorrhage, and we’d be hearing about how he was suffering from a tragic mental illness. Read Macchiavelli – even the good guys have to lie to keep playing the game.

          • Gregory Fegel says:

            Deadeye wrote: “Read Macchiavelli – even the good guys have to lie to keep playing the game.”

            The problem with that excuse is that as long as the “good guys” keep lying and playing the corrupt game, they function just like the bad guys and they bring no change. If it walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck.

            The supremely pessimistic view – which may be true – is that corruption and Mafias are the nature of all governments, and that politics and government can never be anything but a dirty business. The realization of that truth is what motivates some wise men to become dropouts from the system. They realize that what’s missing from human affairs is compassion, and that only by developing compassion can the evils of society be healed. Gandhi was both a drop-out and an activist.

          • “Read Macchiavelli – even the good guys have to lie to keep playing the game”

            i think this is what it all comes down to. If you are playing the game, you are most unlikely to be a ‘good’ guy. The point is, that the basic corruption lies in the idea of the means serves the end.

            So it is probably impossible to play the game and be a good guy. On the other hand, we can’t really blame them, because the game MUST be played. It is just nasty that the game is such, that the most despicable win.

            Why does the game exist? That’s an important question. Because we must get rid of the game. The game sucks.

            One of the key issues is that people give away their power. Their power to create money, but also their food, their land, their ability to enforce peace, their heritage and none too far off the air that they breath too.

            We must take power back and decentralize. Then there is not so much power to monopolize, it is more evenly shared. Because the power itself, the availability of so much power creates the disease. That power MUST be controlled, it’s natural law. The Dark Side is driven by the will to power and if we make power available, it will be usurped.

            So the change must come from the people. The system itself cannot be saved. There cannot be ‘good guys’ operating in the system, because only the depraved are given the opportunity to rise in the ranks. Sometimes a genius breaks through, but then it is always a historic occasion of which the people speak of centuries later.

            Satan rules in the world, even the Bible says so, but we can witness it, we know the world by its fruits.

            If ever the world is to see better days it will have to come from real freemen who take back what was taken. Not for themselves, but for the women and children, the elderly, the disabled, the incapable, the none too bright, in short, the people that they are responsible for.

            They take what is rightfully theirs and they leave what belongs to another. They must resist the wolves that prey on the sheep. They must maintain order in their own house.

            The masses must stop to behave like women, just following the leader. They must organize themselves and understand that their fates are all connected. The strong men must take charge.

            Such is natural law as I see it.

            But it is also clear that it is quite alien to what we have now… And I don’t know how to bridge the distance.

            • cynthia mckinney went that route too. i pretty much dropped out and just blog to let people know they’re not alone if they see the things i see. i’d rather fly really low and speak full truth than play a game and be on television.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          I should have mentioned, Executive Intelligence Review (LaRouche) did a number of articles on the effort to “get Clinton.” Take a look at “British monarchy moves to oust President Clinton” – there are a number of other ones. I believe Clinton had a direct role in getting LaRouche out of prison.

          • Gregory Fegel says:

            Regarding the Clintons:
            My views are not, and never have been what anyone would call right wing. I endorse socialism, although I recognise that, like democracy, socialism can be misapplied. My critique of the Clintons is coming from a true leftist perspective, and not from the faux-Liberal, faux-left image that the Clintons pretend.

            Other than the marginalized Greens and Socialists, the USA does not have a left-wing Party. The Dems are so right of center that they function as moderate conservatives. What’s more, both the Dems and the Pubs are controlled by the same wealthy elitists who select and groom both the Dem and Pub Candidates to serve as their puppets.

            The Clintons supported the Iran-Contra operations that were headquartered in Arkansas. That service for Reagan, the CIA, and the ruling elite earned the Clintons the White House.
            While in office, Bill Clinton functioned like other faux-Liberal Dem Presidents, paying lip service to domestic reforms and supporting US Imperialism. Now Bill brokers deals for predatory mining firms and Hillary openly promotes US Imperialism as Secretary of State.

            Barack Obama is another right-wing wolf pretending to be a left-wing sheep. Most of the sheep are fooled by the faux-Liberal Dem disguise.

            The Whitewater scandal was valid and real, but it was just a sideline, like Bill Clinton’s cocaine use, womanizing, and the drug-and-sex parties that witnesses say Bill attended. I haven’t thoroughly researched the suspicious deaths and murders that surrounded the Clintons, but I must say that since the Clintons were very involved in the Iran-Contra operation in Arkansas, the suspicious deaths would be par for that course. Now Bill Clinton travels the world in his private jet, accompanied by his posse, living the life of an international playboy and getting big bucks from negotiating deals between predatory miners and unscrupulous governments in Developing countries. Bill is, like his buddy Al Gore, a con artist.

          • Gregory Fegel says:

            To really understand the character of Bill Clinton, you need to learn about the Iran-Contra operation in Arkansas, and about Clinton’s post-Presidential activities. The Whitewater investigation was a “limited hangout”, while the much more important news about the Iran-Contra operation at the Mena, Arkansas airport got suppressed. See: “The Mena Connection – Exposing the CIA, Bush, Clinton, Iran Contra, And Drug Running” at

            “An independent group of researchers in Arkansas are charging that Governor Bill Clinton is covering up an airport used by the CIA and major cocaine smugglers in a remote corner of the Ozark mountains. According to Deborah Robinson of In These Times, the Intermountain Regional Airport in Mena, Arkansas continues to be the hub of operations for people like assassinated cocaine kingpin Barry Seal as well as government intelligence operations linked to arms and drug smuggling. A federal Grand Jury looking into activities at the Mena airport refused to hand down any indictments after drug-running charges were made public. Deborah Robinson says that Clinton had “ignored the situation” until he began his presidential campaign.” Clinton then said he would provide money for a state run investigation of the Mena airport. But according to Robinson, the promise of an investigation was never followed up by Clinton’s staff. In fact, a local Arkansas state prosecutor blasted Clinton’s promise of an investigation, comparing it to “spitting on a forest fire.”” – Paul DeReinzo, “Bush, Clinton, and the CIA” Sun Apr 4, 2004

            See also: “How the CIA laundered millions in drug profits from Mena and paid for Clinton’s 1992 election campaign” by John Dee

            For a good single source about Clinton’s post-Presidential activities, see Todd Purdum’s “The Comeback Id” at

            “Even more troubling is Clinton’s relationship with the Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. This winter, a lengthy investigative report in The New York Times disclosed that, in 2005, Clinton flew to the Central Asian country of Kazakhstan on Giustra’s MD-87 jet for what was billed as a philanthropic three-country tour. The two men had dinner with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has held the country in a vise-like grip for nearly two decades. At their meeting, Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to head the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which monitors elections and promotes democracy. That position was sharply at odds with official American foreign policy and came in the face of stinging criticism of Kazakhstan’s record on human rights from many sources, including the junior senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Within two days, Giustra’s company signed preliminary agreements allowing it to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency. And months after that the Clinton Foundation received a $31.3 million donation from Giustra that remained secret until a Giustra representative acknowledged it late last year. (Giustra has separately pledged another $100 million to the foundation.)” – Todd Purdum, “The Comeback Id”

          • someone from larouche called me asking me to donate. i got in a big discussion with the lady how they’re just blowing smoke and mirrors and aren’t proposing any real reforms.

            • Gregory Fegel says:

              I’ve been reading the Larouche article about Secret Knowledge of the Elites, and it will take me a while to finish it, but my impression so far is that, while I agree with some of it, some of the connections that Larouche makes and some of the conclusions that he reaches leave me questioning his reasoning. For example, Larouche describes Aristotle, Plato, and Alexander as historical characters, which I have good reason to doubt. I think that some of the diifferences that Larouche describes between Aristotle and Plato are not supported by the evidence. Larouche also seems to have little grasp of the Eastern philosophical traditions and how they relate to the Western tradition.

            • deadeyeblog says:

              Have you read Aristotle’s Rhetoric? He’s the patron saint of bullshit. Plato basically dismissed rhetoric as such, and his supposed student Aristotle’s major contribution to philosophy was to catalog the many ways to lie, evade and omit.
              – I don’t know where you got the idea that these guys weren’t real historical figures. There’s some debate about Socrates, who only seems to exist in Plato’s writing, but the others are widely discussed in contemporary accounts.
              – As for the eastern stuff, you’d probably come down on the side of a guy like David Livingstone (“The Dying God”) who I think is pretty interesting but totally upside-down on Plato.

            • OzzieThinker says:

              In addition to Deadeye;

              There was an Indian philosopher [who’s name escapes me] who wrote (1950’s) [words to the effect] “First there was a make-believe God. Then came a make-believe Book. Now we have make-believe science.”

              We tend to call most ancient texts “myths” or “legends”. This is partially because the style of writing/idiom/philosophy is lost on the modern age. But there is a rather more practical, sinister reason. They contradict our “history” and current “scientific” marketing initiatives. Plus some have been edited/altered to “change history”. Others are deliberate tracts of misinformation, but would have been guided by ‘unavoidable’ facts of the time..

              The chances are Cro-Magnon has taken billions of years to evolve (not “scientific “evolve”) to reasoning man. Piecing together the myths and legends it appears billions of years ago the earth revolved around a giant planet. Mars may have also been a “moon”. This comes from myths within myths and concerns the mythical Drogons, who lived in the Sirius B galaxy. The myths about these people are rather more enigmatic as talk about a star that has only relatively recently identified. Anyway the Drogons had to leave their galaxy 2.5 billion years ago due to an multi planetary catastrophe.

              The interesting thing about the Drogons is they promoted a philosophy very much akin to Aristotle’s “Universal Plan”, where the host planet was created by “God”. Man was a couple of steps behind God and in its reverence, the universe revolved around the host planet. Ok, I am not sure if the universe revolved around the host in Drogon philosophy, but the human egotistical denial has not altered in 2.5 billion years and by the looks of things we have learned squat by disasterous past failures.

              I believe that the impetus was to keep the serfs completely ignorant and with fake history censures and rewrites human development appears linear. It is actually cyclic, so we peak and rebuild, peak and rebuild. Extraordinary technologies wiped out the Atlantans 13,000 years ago (is the craft on the bottom of the Baltic Sea a testament?), the Indus “volcanic catatstophe” was actually a nuclear (or some other higher technology) disaster. That was 5000-6000 years ago. Were the Mayan’s wiped out by nuclear?

      • Gregory Fegel says:

        Just last week in Moscow, a big crowd protested Putin.

        Feb 4, 2012. “Despite fear that the frigid weather and bickering among the opposition would curb the turnout, the third mass protest in two months against the rule of Russian leader Vladimir Putin appeared to have been the largest Moscow has seen in a generation. Authorities clocked the turnout at 36,000, bigger than either of the December demonstrations. Opposition leaders estimated that 120,000 demonstrators swarmed Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square, while demonstrators said they believed they numbered 50,000 to 100,000.”

        You may be right about FDR, although I have doubts about him. I’ll get back to you regarding FDR after I read Sutton’s “Wall Street and FDR”. One of Sutton’s main themes throughout his books is that the wealthy elites of all nations habitually invest in war-profiteering, frequently supporting both sides in a conflict, to the detriment of most lower-class citizens. I think that Sutton is spot-on about that.

        “Wall Street and FDR” by Antony Sutton – read free online at:

        Click to access Wall_Street_and_FDR_by_A_Sutton.pdf

        “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler” by Antony Sutton – read free online at:

        I have almost zero trust for the “populist” claims of anyone from the upper class. Their charity is almost always a form of manipulation. Furthermore, even when Capitalist charity is sincere, it is usually achieved by robbing one group of poor people to raise the funds to help another group of poor people. It’s designed to make the donor look good for a targeted audience, but the net result is often more, not less, suffering for the poor.

        Deadeye wrote: “I think it’s a mistake to take an overly conspiratorial view of “control” in connecting money to politics.”

        I disagree with you on that. The wealthy businesspeople who pinch every penny when it comes to paying their workers, paying taxes, or making investments are not simply throwing fistfulls of cash out the window for the benefit of any charity or political group that comes walking down the street. Instead, their charity and their political contributions are designed to “pay off” for their own agendas.

        The USA’s ruling elite control both the Dem and the Pub Parties, the media, the educational system, and the corporate workplace. They have brainwashed the US citizenry into accepting their feudalistic and imperialist policies.

        Bill Clinton was groomed by the ruling elite for the Presidency. Clinton proved his usefulness by presiding over the Iran/Contra drug and arms smuggling in Arkansas. Clinton’s job was to ignore what was going on. His facile excuse was that Iran-Contra was a Federal operation and therefore none of his business. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton’s law firm serviced the BCCI, which laundered the Iran-Contra funds. The USA supplied arms to both sides during the Iran-Iraq War, which killed a million people and devastated the economies of both Iran and Iraq.

        While President, Clinton presided over the US/NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Clinton claimed that there were “at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing”, and Clinton compared events in Kosovo to the Holocaust. After the war, only 2,108 bodies were found, with a total estimate not exceeding eleven thousand. One of the most important duties of every US President is to serve as a cheerleader for the unnecessary wars that are orchestrated by the ruling elite for war-profiteering and economic and geostrategic dominance. The ex-cheerleaders Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had the “right stuff” in their resumes.

        Now the globe-trotting Clinton brokers deals for predatory mining firms.

        The Arab Spring uprisings have been orchestrated by provocateurs supported by Western NGOs. Libya was progressive and posed no threat to other nations.

  48. deadeye, could you allow a larger number of feedbacks? You can set it in ‘settings’ ‘discussions’ ‘Enable threaded (nested) comments X levels deep’

    It will allow me to answer some more threads that are now at their allowed max.


  49. Gregory Fegel says:

    Regarding Oslo: Every US effort to “mediate” an accord between Israel and the Palestinians is a sham. The US participation in the “peace process” is simply a demonstration of the USA’s sponsorship of the Western Colony that is Israel. At those conferences, the US representatives are the imperialist “elephant in the room”.

    “If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die,” the ex-president [Bill Clinton] said to wild applause at a Jewish fund-raiser in Toronto. – The New York Post, August 2, 2002.

    • Gregory Fegel says:

      Apparently Antony Sutton’s “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler” and “Wall Street and FDR” are the same book with a different title.

  50. simple answer why land is more fundamental than money. if you owned all the money and someone else owned all the land, the person with all the land would charge you all your money to rent the land.

  51. Matt says:

    I just learned today that Ron Paul received a $900k+ donation from PayPal founder and hedge fund operator Peter Thiel. Thiel is also on the Bilderberg steering committee. That should tell you something.

    • OzzieThinker says:

      You know, I heard that Hitler wore red socks. My next door neighbour does as well. Guess that makes him a NAZI, right?

      If you try hard enough, you can create Zionist connections – fiscal and otherwise, to every person on this planet. Best to judge by actions.But hey, those of your dreading Paul being ellected, don’t worry as the GOP ellections are rigged and Paul will not be allowed to get in the way of the Obama reellection.

      • Matt says:

        I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. I never mentioned Zionism nor was it implicit in my comment. My problem with Paul is that the economic policies he advocates represent the “new world order.” He is the one that in 2001 said that we had nothing to fear from globalism or free trade. Ha ha ha, look how that turned out. Globalism has destroyed the world, and he essentially wants more of it.

        • deadeyeblog says:

          Peter Thiel is a sodomite, Jewish, predatory hedge fund manager who is frequently associated with In-Q-Tel (the CIA’s tech front) and futurism. Oh, and he studies Leo Strauss:

          Therefore, you are an anti-semite.

        • OzzieThinker says:

          Matt, I am saying “on balance” Ron Paul is the best option – compared with the others, by a “green mile”. There has been a tendancy for those that fear Paul circumventing the “system” and beating the rigged vote to slander him. As with all politicians, until he gets in we really actually do not know what is going to happen. Yes, there are elements of his fiscal projections that do nothing to halt the so-called progression to the way of Zion. Sadly the slanderers are having an effect on the sane. Thus my “Hitler’s red socks” comment is very appropriate.

          But if you seriously look at the history of American and the reason it was “founded” [plundered], you will draw the conclusion that things happened because of the failed Union of Jacob. The Jacobite rebelions [England’s “French Revolution”] are deeply connected. Indeed it was French funding of the American war of independence that ultimately lead to the French Revolution. What was the Union of Jacob and why had it failed? It was that time period’s attempt at imposing Zionism on Celtic people, subtlely over centuries “turning the screw”. Zionism is based on the Pharisaic tradition and most people are ignorant of the Pharisaic tradition. How do you think that Moses was able to mobilise the Israelite “slaves” for the Exodus of Egypt for his own fiendish objectives? For those unware, the Exodus took place because Moses wanted the Kingship and not because of Pharaoh’s tyanous regime.

          Thanks to the Pharisaic tradition (the good part), the Israelites had strong guilds. Sure they were slaves, in terms of if they didn’t work they would not be fed, but they were not schackled. In fact not only were they free to go, but would have been BANISHED if they did not capitulate with their roles in the projects. The reason Moses kept droning on about the land of milk and honey is he was feeding them bullshit and took a calculated risk that eventually they were bound to strike honey….or perish. The reason the Paraohs gave chase was to secure the arc of the covenant and not to stop the exodus. America was founded on ground up Zionism and now has “evolved” to top down Zionism. It is no wonder the ignorant peoples doth protest so. As far as I can see Ron Paul is for ground up and all the rest want top down as the way forward.

  52. golden corral|investing in silver says:

    I am curious to find out what blog system you
    have been working with? I’m having some minor security problems with my latest website and I’d like to
    find something more secure. Do you have any recommendations?

  53. violence says:

    Asking questions are in fact pleasant thing if you are not understanding
    something completely, except this post offers pleasant understanding yet.

  54. The best strategy for completing these events is to slowly and carefully deactivate the viral detectors while in military disguise by getting close to them and using the sabotage button.
    Even with your abilities maxed out, the handful of
    Devastator attacks you unleash won’t be enough to destroy
    a hive. Hives usually have a variety of causative factors
    which includes foods, medications, chemical substances,
    weather condition (heat or cold), animal dander, dust,
    mold to name just a few.

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

%d bloggers like this: