Project for a New American Century....going swell and peachy

.
.
.
.

Empires Then and Now

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts at Global Research

Great empires, such as the Roman and British, were extractive.

The empires succeeded, because the value of the resources and wealth extracted from conquered lands exceeded the value of conquest and governance.

(The British in India used brute force and starvation as a means of controlling the population from 1757--1947, along with de-industrialization, and de-urbanization....and a local military which ranged in size from 340,000 in 1857 to 230,000 in 1940, and an aggressive brutal colonial police force, and an Intelligence Service to back up their power. Allied to this were a local elite of Maharajahs (500) and Zamindars (4--5000) with their own private militias. Propaganda, through a strictly control press, missionary work and British education also played their part in the controlling mechanism.

The USA by contrast in the modern sense in Afghanistan and Iraq relied too much on military power, without developing the other essential requirements of empire. The USA's occupation of Afghanistan is a military security operation where 99% of the expenditure goes, instead of focusing on other things such as schools, hospitals roads, infrastructure......and their Afghan clients are too shady....Ahmed Karzai and the like.....perhaps the influence of Israel has "distracted" the Americans from pursuing a purely colonial wars which have long term goals in mind. South Vietnam is an example of where a corrupt client regime loses a whole war for the USA, intentionally it seems)

The reason Rome did not extend its empire further east into Germany was not the military prowess of Germanic tribes but Rome’s calculation that the cost of conquest exceeded the value of extractable resources.

The Roman empire failed, because Romans exhausted manpower and resources in civil wars fighting amongst themselves for power.

(The military grew too huge from about 25 legions or 130,000 men to about 600,000 fighting men and auxiliaries by the 3rd century AD.....and the empire became too big and unmanageable which is the reason it was divided.....and YES constant wars with other peoples such as the Germans and Persians in particular had a significant impact....the German tribes eventually ransacked a much weakened Rome, and the Eastern Roman Empire was engaged in prolonged unnecessary wars with the Persians and eventually the victorious expanding Arab empire)

The British empire failed, because the British exhausted themselves fighting Germany in two world wars.

(3 Cheers to Germany........ and the Rothschilds for creating and organizing them...Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!)

In his book, The Rule of Empires (2010), Timothy H. Parsons replaces the myth of the civilizing empire with the truth of the extractive empire. He describes the successes of the Romans, the Umayyad Caliphate, the Spanish in Peru, Napoleon in Italy, and the British in India and Kenya in extracting resources. To lower the cost of governing Kenya, the British instigated tribal consciousness and invented tribal customs that worked to British advantage.

(This may seen an academic "revelation" to Western readers, but not to Third World people to a great extent----empires mostly, save those of the Persians, Indian Mauryan and Chinese empires are destructive and exploitative of the peoples they conquer)

Parsons does not examine the American empire, but in his introduction to the book he wonders whether America’s empire is really an empire as the American (people) don’t seem to get any extractive benefits from it.

After eight years of war and attempted occupation of Iraq, all Washington has for its efforts is several trillion dollars of additional debt and no Iraqi oil.

After ten years of trillion dollar struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Washington has nothing to show for it except possibly some part of the drug trade that can be used to fund covert CIA operations.

America’s wars are very expensive.

(Modern mechanized wars are very expensive......in the 19th century colonial wars you used poorly paid infantry recruited from the margins of society.......Scottish Highlanders and poor poverty stricken Irish...themselves also the victims of London and the South East seat of power, and not much artillery....required in the case of the evil British empire)

Bush and Obama have doubled the national debt, and the American people have no benefits from it.

No riches, no bread and circuses flow to Americans from Washington’s wars.

So what is it all about?

The answer is that Washington’s empire extracts resources from the American people for the benefit of the few powerful interest groups that rule America. The military-security complex, Wall Street, agri-business and the Israel Lobby use the government to extract resources from Americans to serve their profits and power. The US Constitution has been extracted in the interests of the Security State, and Americans’ incomes have been redirected to the pockets of the 1 percent. That is how the American Empire functions.

The New Empire is different. It happens without achieving conquest. The American military did not conquer Iraq and has been forced out politically by the puppet government that Washington established. There is no victory in Afghanistan, and after a decade the American military does not control the country.

(To repeat for the umpteenth time the Taliban with their all white official flag is a CIA manufactured "Controlled Opposition" who fight very poorly, but justify the American presence in Afghanistan)

In the New Empire success at war no longer matters.

The extraction takes place by being at war.

Huge sums of American taxpayers’ money have flowed into the American armaments industries and huge amounts of power into Homeland Security. The American empire works by stripping Americans of wealth and liberty.

This is why the wars cannot end, or if one does end another starts. Remember when Obama came into office and was asked what the US mission was in Afghanistan? He replied that he did not know what the mission was and that the mission needed to be defined.

Obama never defined the mission. He renewed the Afghan war without telling us its purpose. Obama cannot tell Americans that the purpose of the war is to build the power and profit of the military/security complex at the expense of American citizens.

(......and continue the Opium operation that wreaks havoc on Iran, Pakistan, India, Central Asia, Ukraine, Russia, Europe and North America....affecting millions of vulnerable poor, lower stratum of society in such countries mostly.....this specific area is the biggest crime of the occupation in Afghanistan, and the one MSM people don't talk about.)

This truth doesn’t mean that the objects of American military aggression have escaped without cost.

Large numbers of Muslims have been bombed and murdered and their economies and infrastructure ruined, but not in order to extract resources from them.

It is ironic that under the New Empire the citizens of the empire are extracted of their wealth and liberty in order to extract lives from the targeted foreign populations.

Just like the bombed and murdered Muslims, the American people are victims of the American empire.

The coming American Revolution.

.
.
.
.
The USA was founded over two centuries ago.

This did not happen automatically or inevitably. The 13 Colonies, unlike say India enjoyed many of the benefits of being part of the burgeoning British Empire........security protection against Spain, the Red Indians and the French, and access to the huge market of the empire, where raw materials from the 13 colonies had a huge guaranteed market access, at favorable not exploitative prices.

The living standards of the average colonial was better than their counter-part in the United Kingdom, especially those living in the "Celtic Fringe" in Scotland, Wales and Ireland........and the reason why most American immigrants from the United Kingdom to the USA are from those parts originally, and why Scotch-Irish have dominated America for the better part of two centuries in various spheres.

So unlike in India, where the British military plundered, grew opium for export to China, taxed like there was no tomorrow, transported South Indians to work in plantations in Malaysia and elsewhere, and starved to death 30 million 1757--1947........the situation in the 13 Colonies was pretty agreeable for the settlers who were at that time mainly from the UK.

AND yet despite all this they revolted against the Evil British crown.

Perception and what is acceptable depends on many things, though education is significant among them. Many of those who signed the declaration of independence were mainly from Middle Class and Upper Middle class background. They were well read enlightened men who were born and bred within the "age of reason" and influenced by philosophers such as John Locke who, "advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.".... wikipedia.

In the "Two Treaties of Government" published anonymously in 1690.....Locke "outlines a theory of civil society. John Locke begins by describing the state of nature, ........ and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those that have the consent of the people. Therefore, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.".....wikipedia.

Over two centuries have passed, and London again through the House of Rothschilds now controls the USA via the Jewish community and secret Jews within American society.

It is true the USA is the richest nation on earth with a $15 trillion economy, and per capita income approaching $50,000, BUT these impressive figures bellies many problems within the USA which burdens a significant section of America.

First and foremost is the endless wars that the USA conducts and further seeks out which have cost the lives of about 6300 servicemen officially in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in reality the cost is far far higher approaching 100,000 deaths....if the deaths recorded later from wounds are counted, and the suicides from the stress of combat. Beyond this unnecessary human tragedy, there is also the cost of modern warfare....into the trillions of $, after 10 years of fighting. This clearly cannot be sustained forever. No nation however well managed and efficient can sustain this.

On the civilian side 50 million Americans are on food stamps living in poverty, with the working class suffering because they must maintain two jobs to survive. The middle class are being squeezed. The government is cutting back on social welfare, and all benefits. Privatizing education is being debated.

The Federal Reserve established since 1913 by the Rothschilds of London through their agents in America is wrecking havoc on the economy, as is Wall Street. The operations of the Federal Reserve and Wall Street is inimical to the general welfare and well being of the average American. The USA is being turned into a feudal economy with a few rich people, owing fealty to the Rothschilds of London, and on the other side a mass of harassed, poor over worked people representing the majority.

Clearly this situation cannot last and Revolution is inevitable? Or can it?

From our experience of the Great Depression where possibly 3-8 million American starved to death, we see that even in the land of the free and brave, people obediently followed the laws of the land and there was no great revolution between 1929--1933.

On the other hand the USA State has anticipated possible revolution and since the 1960's has built a considerable Police State to deal with any potential revolutionary movements. Concentration camps with watch towers have been constructed around the USA, which can house up to 10 million people, and the list of 30 million American subversives have been drawn up by the FBI as and when the need requires. Drills have been undertaken for the mass arrest of large numbers of people........Operation Falcon for the future.

For the Rothschilds of London there is no compromise, no live and let live. They must have their way exercised through the UK state, the USA and other International bodies. They must have their trillions more at the cost of more innocent lives.

Obviously to hedge their bets they have infiltrated possible revolutionary groups such as the "Tea Party" movement which in reality is "controlled opposition" led by Sarah Palin a crypto-Jewess and on the Republican side with strong Jewish tendencies Michele Bachmann. These female figures indicate to us the TRUE SOURCE of the original problem in the USA and the world.

Islam bashing and loving Israel cannot solve the mortgage crisis, the Wall Street banker crisis, the Federal Reserve national financial crisis, the governance crisis, the Capital Hill corruption crisis, the Presidential crisis, the poverty crisis, the unemployment crisis, the healthcare crisis, the education crisis, the crime crisis, the immigration and open border crisis; the constant wars for Israel crisis; American Jews who work for Israel crisis; Rothschilds agents in government crisis.

Nor will countless Hollywood manufacture of comic strip superhero's help the situation either. They may appeal to some adolescent boys, but have no relevance for the majority of the population......who see and face the REALITY of the situation.

Americans must organize for REVOLUTION, and must be wary of crypto-Jewish infiltration of their organizations. They must take inspiration from the Founding Fathers, and read about their true struggles of many hard thankless years against the might of the British empire.























______________________________

Pollster: Americans Are “Pre-Revolutionary”

Infowars.com and Paul Watson.

Amidst riots in central Europe that have now spread to London and a debt downgrade that threatens to plunge the United States into a double-dip recession, Americans’ lack of confidence in their leadership is so crippled that they are now “pre-revolutionary,” according to pollster Pat Caddell.

A new Rasmussen poll shows that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, an all time low. This dovetails with a record low for Congress’ approval rating, which stands at a paltry 6 per cent, while 46 per cent of Americans think most members of Congress are corrupt, with just 29% believing otherwise.

“The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed – a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence – is down from 23% in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet,” according to Rasmussen.

The poll was conducted before Friday’s U.S. debt downgrade, indicating that the figures could be even more dire in the aftermath of what some analysts believe is a precursor to a new great depression.

The results of this survey indicate that Americans are now “pre-revolutionary” says pollster Pat Caddell, who described the outcome of the poll as “unprecedented”.

This conclusion follows Caddell’s observation last November that “a sea of anger is churning” amongst Americans who “want to take their country back” and that the nation stood on the brink of a “pre-revolutionary moment”.

Caddell’s conclusion that Americans are on the verge of rising up against a system in which they have lost all trust cannot be easily dismissed as partisan rhetoric. Despite working for numerous Democratic presidential candidates, including Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden, Caddell has been a vociferous critic of both Democrats and Republicans on several issues. Back in early 2008, before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the start of the financial crisis, we warned that inflation and economic uncertainty would cause a massive social dislocation, which would lead to riots globally. Gerald Celente and others repeated the warning in late 2008. Over the last 18 months, we have now witnessed such scenes across the Middle East and in France, Spain, Greece, Italy and most recently London.

Indeed, the only major western country not to experience significant social unrest since the economic collapse is America, although anecdotal evidence of rising crime and thefts suggests a turning point could be just around the corner.

Should violence plague American streets as a result of a deepening economic crisis, U.S. troops have already been prepared to deal with such a crisis.

As we reported three years ago, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were being re-allocated to occupy America, running checkpoints and training to deal with “civil unrest and crowd control” under the auspices of a Northcom program that revolved around deploying 20,000 active duty troops inside America to “help” state and local officials during times of emergency.

The date set for the completion of this program was 2011, just in time to deal with the “pre-revolutionary” fervor that many fear will now manifest itself in Greece-like mayhem as a result of the fallout from the debt downgrade and America’s slide towards economic collapse.

Libertarianism dominated by neo-liberals Fronts?

.
.
.
.

Yes I advocated for Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential elections, because whilst he did not seem perfect, fundamentally what he was saying made more sense compared to the standard stock of policies offered by Obama who I knew would change when actually elected, and McCain who I thought was too unstable emotionally, and thus definitely should not have been the next American President at such a sensitive time.

Ron Paul seemed sincere and didn't have the flamboyant political hyperbole of many a Capitol Hill politicians. He comes on Youtube regularly, or Alex Jones and so forth and says the right sensible things about the Fed, fiscal responsibility, the American debt, trade about American foreign policy and much much more.

But this writer in the article posted below is suggesting, as with his son "Ayn" Rand Paul......if Paul senior would have been elected he would have done an Obama, but with greater sincerity. He is in fact an essential part of the American establishment........providing controlled opposition view points to that youthful middle America fraction which is truly disillusioned with the two party system.

Upon reflection Ron Paul seemed such a weak fragile person (too old, like McCain), one wonders what he would have actually achieved if elected as President. Not sour grapes.

With allegations of the Zionist control of the Tea Party Movement, with crypto-Jewess Sarah Palin fronting it regularly with Jew controlled Fox News openly promoting it, and now it seems Ron Pauls dynasty politics is rooted in neo-liberalism by another name.....who else is there in America that can save the country from the abyss and actually represent the basic interests of the average American from endless war; endless hours of work; endless government regulation without the commensurate increase in public services and an endless all powerful police state that make basic liberties in the country meaningless.

How does one create in America a powerful grassroots anti-establishment party which is not subsequently subverted, infiltrated and guided by slippery Jews for their tribal causes?

How does one create a powerful grassroots party which is not subverted by the FBI and subsequently labelled as terrorists, through agent provocateur speeches and actions.

The Presidential campaign funds amassed by Ron Paul that doesn't have to be given back, that which has not been spent, right?

__________________________________

Rand Paul: Libertarian or Just Another Milton Friedman Neocon in Disguise?

Posted by willyloman

Originally by Scott Creighton

Rand Paul’s ”business first” philosophy is showing through… he said Barack Obama’s criticism of BP for its handling of the Gulf oil spill “sounded un-American”

‘I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business’. Huffington Post

Rand Paul’s libertarian education (apparently shaped by the Lewis Powell memo ) is starting to show through…

(Rand) Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are “always someone’s fault” and added, sometimes accidents just happen. MSNBC

So, to Rand Paul, it’s “un-American” to find fault with a business that has been deliberately skirting their responsibilities and containment procedure costs and as a direct result of these cost saving practices, their preventable oil spill promises to grow into the largest ecological disaster in our history.

An independent researcher investigating the Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident has released preliminary findings, based on accounts from rig employees and others, that the accident was the result of a series of mistakes and flawed decisions, which had compromised safety.

… ”This disaster was preventable,” Bea writes, “had existing progressive guidelines and practices been followed.”

… Bea also says “drilling and well completion operations did not meet industry standards.” NBC

Opps. Guess Rand was wrong about that one… someone should ask Rand if it’s “un-American” for someone to do an independent investigation and does the fact that BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum factor into Rand’s “un-American” comment at all? Does Rand Paul think it’s “un-American” to find fault (where it belongs) with a FOREIGN business?

You get that Rand? Maybe you should rethink that whole… “its un-American to criticise business” thing. Or at least that “sometimes accidents just happen” line. You’re hemorrhaging credibility Rand and your ”Friedman” side is showing. Is it really possible to be an anti-establishment corporatist?

But I guess Rand Paul may have something there; perhaps our forefathers wouldn’t have given a shit if businesses all across America decimated our entire east coast for nothing more than the love of a few dollars and then put up “Whites Only” signs in their windows. Maybe that is what the Founding Fathers really wanted America to become. Maybe that really is “Liberty”.

Of course I come from a different school of thought as far as what I think our Founding Fathers had hoped for in America. I also think our moral structure as a society may have evolved a little since then. But that is just me and I am not looking to line my pockets with corporate “campaign contributions” either… so maybe that factors somehow. Who knows. Personally, I kinda remember how ben Franklin and other Patriots were rebelling against the privately owed Bank of England when we first decided to part ways with the English. That would be a “business”, you know.

But what I find most odd is that a libertarian like Rand Paul is all about “personal responsiblity” when it comes to dismantling the social safety net – he feels that retirement savings should be left to the individual (privatizing social security) and that unemployment insurance and Medicare should pretty much be abolished because it is ultimately the responsibility of the individual to look out for themselves… but when it comes to big business Rand Paul and the libertarians (“neoliberals/neocons”?)seems to think that it’s “unAmerican” to even start to hold them responsible (not that Obama is doing ANYTHING OF THE SORT with BP)

(Rand Paul’s America ”hold people responsible to the point where they can starve in the streets and leave big business alone to the point were they can destroy our beaches and wildlife”… does that about sum it up? He’ll fit right in congress won’t he?)

So is this latest quip of his just an out of context misquote or is it a glimpse into the melting down of another candidate who is pretending to be one thing, but he keeps letting his truer nature slip out? I suppose if Rand wants some big time donation money from BP, hell, he just got it. But what about his anti-establishment facade that it took him and his daddy and Alex Jones so long to craft? Is that going bye-bye now that Rand is getting closer to sucking at the teet of his oligarchical birthright?

Who is Rand Paul? What does he really stand for?

Let’s see…

In the now infamous interview, Rand Paul couldn’t bring himself to say that Woolworth’s lunch counter shouldn’t have been segregated…

RACHEL MADDOW: Should—Woolworth lunch counters should have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.

RAND PAUL: What I think would happen—what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe that any private property should discriminate either, and I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to. But what you have to answer, when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to brind up, but if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants. And then, do you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants? Democracy NOW!

(“Guns in Woolworths”?! What the hell does that have to do with the question? This interview was painful to watch… by the way, that “abstract, obscure converstation” he mentions just happens to be the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

This latest set of Rand Paul pearls of libertarian wisdom are evident in his past as well. From a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News

“The Daily News ignores,” wrote (Rand) Paul, “as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.”

… “A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination,” wrote Paul, “even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities.” Washington Post

In a world of spiraling “public/private partnerships”, where the government (and therefore the role government plays in our everyday lives) is being consumed by the privately owned corporations, Rand (Ann Rand?) Paul’s libertarian ideology (where “freedom” is primarily focused on the “freedom” of completely deregulated business to do exactly as they wish to do; as the “market” dictates) is a dangerous and potentially explosively regressive concept.

The most obvious of these issues was brought up recently as Rand Paul seems poised to win a seat in the senate simply because he is Ron Paul’s son (can you say “Oligarchy“? “is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious hegemony.”) and it deals primarily with his idea that private business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they wish, as is evidenced by Rand Paul’s 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News shown above.

Now, to be fair, Rand Paul’s spin doctors have come up with an answer to the growing criticism he is facing; he says he does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

Aside from the fact that wasn’t the question, Rand Paul (like most lying politicians) decided to answer the question he would rather have been asked rather than dealing with the one in front of him. Yes, Rand Paul believes that in a “free society” business has the right to discriminate against anyone they choose.

Why is that so destructive in this day and age and especially when it comes from someone like Rand Paul? Because, Rand Paul also believes in the privatization of most government services… like education. Rand Paul has a very interesting view of education… he wants to eliminate the Department of Education in favor of homeschooling.

Rand Paul’s website has this up under his “education” position…

As the Federal Government has increased the size and budget of the Department of Education, test scores and scholastic performance have markedly dropped. More money, more bureaucracy, and more government intervention are eroding this nation’s educational standards. Meanwhile, home-schooled children continue to excel as evidenced by their test scores and rapidly growing admission rate into some of the nation’s most prestigious educational institutions.

Rand proposes to restore the parental right to be responsible in educating children. He supports reduced taxes so that parents can allocate more of their own funds to homeschooling, if they so desire. He seeks to prevent the Department of Education from regulating homeschooling and will fight to keep the Federal Government’s hands out of this promising alternative to conventional education. Rand recognizes the potential and scholarly prowess of homeschooling and will ensure that homeschoolers are allowed the freedom to compete alongside those who attend public and private schools. Rand Paul

The debate surround homeschooling is too vast for me to jump into at this time. But effectively what homeschooling actually does is that it perpetuates the class system. Let’s face it; some parents are more qualified than some teachers to provide a real education to their children, and as far as I know, homeschooling is allowed in many states in this country already, were the parents to choose that route. However, the flip side of that is a bit more grim; not ALL parents are better suited to educate young people. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. How many parents can teach trigonometry, algebra, world history, a foreign language… to their children?

Without a doubt, the children of the educated classes will certainly have an advantage over those born to lower and working class parents. This kind of advantage is exactly what one might expect to find a privileged son in a oligarchal system to advocate. Keep the ignorant… ignorant. Keep the privileged… privileged.

Now I can’t say much about Rand Paul’s philosophy on privatization other than I know he supports it. If he supports a completely privatized education system run by privately owned businesses, does that mean he would support the idea of those institutions being able to discriminate at will? That is the exact kind of answer people have been looking to get out of him since this whole thing started and he simply refuses to delve into it.

So in order to try to understand where he is coming from I decided to spend a little of my investigational energies looking into that thing called “Libertarianism”. I had previously thought they were the epitome of the neoliberal agenda.

I was right.

You see, like when Obama pretended to be a “progressive” and a “liberal” running for the White House, I figured that Rand and his Daddy both decided that they would never win any seat of power running on the Libertarian ticket, so, like Obama, they pretended to be something else… republicans. That being the case, I figured I should take a look and see just what that Libertarian thing really stands for. You’re gonna love this.

1.Right now the Libertarian Party (the party of “Principle”) is chaired by Bill Redpath… a man who got his MBA from… wait for it… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)

2.Right now the Libertarian Party Secretary is Bill Sullentrup… a man who got his MBA from … wait for it… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)

3. Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian the Cato Institute with which he has been associated since 1988 and he went to school at… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)

(anybody see a pattern developing here?)

4. The CATO Institute is the libertarian (little “L”) think tank in Washington. It was founded in 1977 as a direct consequence of the Lewis Powell Memo (called “Attack of American Free Enterprise System”) The memo itself laid out a surprisingly libertarian viewpoint about how American businesses were under attack…

… The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.

… Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.

… There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.

Powell, 1971

The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy. Reclaiming Democracy

The CATO Institute supported the Bush administration on these issues: “most notably health care , Social Security, global warming, tax policy, and immigration, Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives” on these issues.

The Cato Institute established its Project on Social Security Privatization in 1995, renaming it the Project on Social Security Choice in 2002.

The libertarian CATO Institute was founded by Charles Koch who is the brother of the Libertarian Party’s 1980 vice presidential candidate, David Koch. In 2008, Charles Koch was listed on the Forbes 400 as having a personal net worth of $17 billion. His brother, David Koch, is even wealthier and “is New York’s second wealthiest resident, after Michael Bloomberg.”

The Koch’s of the libertarian CATO Institute and the Libertarian Party didn’t build their own fortunes; the inherited them from their oil baron father, Fred Koch. What they inherited was nothing short of the second largest privately own company in America, Koch Industries. “Koch Industries also is well-known for its long-time sponsorship of free-market foundations and causes“ … no shit…

5. The libertarian movement itself…

“Additionally, various political parties and factions have worked to develop the goals of libertarianism, and numerous writers and intellectuals have become public figures within the American libertarian movement by laying out broad philosophical tenets underlying libertarianism, as well as specific strategies aimed at effecting practical changes toward libertarianism. Examples include:”

• Ayn Rand, who rejected libertarianism herself, played a substantial role in libertarianism.
• Milton Friedman, along with other Chicago school economists.
• Murray Rothbard, along with other Austrian school economists.

You notice how they have Milton Friedman stuck in there? He’s the founder of the neoliberal IMF type “Shock therapy” style of economic “reforms” that we are facing right now. Isn’t it odd how he is so closely associated with the “libertarian” philosophy? I thought he was a “neocon”?

“In the 1980s, pro-property libertarianism grew substantially more popular and gained considerable influence in Republican administrations, though at the national level the Libertarian Party still fared poorly.”

“Also, George W. Bush‘s “personal accounts” for Social Security are modeled in part upon privatization proposals long supported by some pro-property libertarian groups like the Cato Institute…”

Many trade barriers have been lifted, (NAFTA, GATT, outsourcing jobs overseas) reducing what most libertarians argue are unneeded interferences with functioning markets and the right to use one’s property as one sees fit.

Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan have exerted considerable influence over monetary policy in favor of libertarian goals.

Ronald Reagan popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms, though many libertarians are ambivalent about his legacy

Conclusion

To say that libertarian philosophy is closely akin to that of the neoliberal/neoconservative movement is not only valid, its painfully obvious to anyone who has a little time to research it. In fact, modern libertarian philosophy was founded at pretty much the exact same time (and then apparently the leading libertarians were taught at the neocon founding university, the University of Chicago, where Leo Strauss put it all into motion)

From “How the Neocons Stole Freedom” – Ronald Reagan, and Ugly Truth

Ironically, it was Richard Nixon who fractured the Republican Party, driving out the Libertarian wing with his announcement of Wage and Price Controls on August 15, 1971. The Libertarian Party was officially founded on December 11, 1971, by David Nolan and a small group of former Republicans in the living room of activist Luke Zell in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

David Nolan had been an officer of three organizations at MIT which were working for the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. The three separate groups operating at MIT in 1963-64 were Young Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom (“YAF”), and Youth for Goldwater. The officers overlapped, making it possible for them to have more presence on the campus. Nolan came to the ideas on individual freedom, economics, and the Constitution from Barry Goldwater, Robert Heinlein, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” and other fiction, and Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.”

Soon after this, the first wave of eager and ambitious Trotskyites, soon to re-label themselves as Neo-Conservatives (“NeoCons”), left the Democratic Party to become Republicans. The first of these were Irving Kristol, his wife and son, William Kristol. These were soon followed by the cadre that, at present, still comprises the main intellectual end of the NeoCon cabal.

These idea-mongers had found a flush living re-packaging the strategies of Leo Strauss for use on Republicans and Libertarians. These included posh weekend-seminars that helped them identify potential academics and intellectuals who could accept their ideas with a straight face, keeping a clear eye on the potential for self profit.

Soon, the need to suborn and redirect the nascent Libertarian Movement and Party would be turned over to Edward H. Crane, III, and other profit-minded people. Melinda Foster

Rooted deep within Rand Paul is the same libertarian philosophies that drove Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, Alan Greenspan, George Bush, David and Charles Koch, Lewis Powell, and all the other neocons and neoliberals who are currently busy ruining this nation.

It is not surprizing that Rand Paul tries as best he can to distance himself at this point from that obvious fact.

Having not really cared about Rand Paul in the past (I did think his Alex Jones “money bomb” was a bit over the top) I didn’t spend much time looking into his positions. I always knew that his father was just one little tiny step away from the worst neocon you can think of. Sure he says we shouldn’t be in Iraq, but what do Ron and Rand really do for the establishment that justifies them not kicking them out like they easily did with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney?

Well, that is easy.

Ron and Rand’s jobs are to bring the neoliberal economic agenda to the young people and offer it up as an “alternative” to what is going on today. When in fact, it is actually the neoliberal/libertarian agenda that is behind every single problem we face.

Rand Paul is as “different” as Barack Obama is. During Obama’s candidacy I tried to warn people that voting for Barack was the same as voting for George W. Bush all over again. Not many listened. But they know it now.

On that note, I have to say that voting for Rand Paul would be the exact same thing as voting for Barack Obama and George W. Bush and for that matter, the neoliberal Hilary Clinton. He represents the same oligarchical power structure and the same corporatist and business first mentality. He represents the globalist agenda but like Obama he just puts a more pleasant face on it.

Just like Obama’s campaign, Rand is pretending to be one thing while he is really something very different. If the neocons and the neolibs wanted him out, trust me, he would be out. But with very little exception, Rand Paul shares many of their core beliefs and pout as they might in their WWE style, the neocons don’t have any problem with another Milton Friedman economic theory supporter in office.

I said it before all this research and I will say it again… Rand Paul is a neoliberal scumbag… just like his daddy… and he doesn’t deserve your vote.

____________________________

The American elite and its problems.

The problem of America, is a problem with the elite of America solely. Problems that seriously harm America and will continue to harm America, and as the lone super power creates problems for the world.

The elite can be very roughly divided into two segments. The old one related to the early settlers, mainly Protestant, though not exclusively, exerting power and influence in various parts of American society from industry, to real estate and the military/bureaucratic/security structure.

Then there is the new elite which came to the fore when they engineered the artificial first financial 9/11 in 1929 and exerted their grip over America, based primarily around New York, who solely derive their wealth from the financial sector, and they are exclusively Jewish and of course tribal with a vengeance. They control the media, their other great asset, and are attempting to expand into the security sector to further enhance their power.

No problems here so far, after all elites are not always an exclusive group, and they come and go, they morph over time, although they attempt to maintain their cohesive 'exclusiveness' by marrying within themselves.

The problem for America is that this new elites allegiance is of course not to America but to Israel first, and then to themselves over the rest of the world, by creating a New World Order, where they are at the center managing the world through various supra national bodies. This dysfunctional state of affairs in the USA creates problems, because the vast majority of Americans obviously want to think about themselves first, as individuals and as a nation state and will continue to do so.

By contrast, this new elite will attempt to increase their control over the whole of America, as their whole objectives have yet to be satisfied. In fact given their North African religion it will never be satisfied ever, as they don't have the requisite WASP 'ethics' of moderation, and frugality, or real hard work. They want it all now! A clear clash thus must arise between America and this new elite over America's long term destiny and who will shape it, and how.

The artificially created police state legislation will work for the moment, but not indefinitely, and sooner or later it must slide into armed conflict between Americans. The new elite of course have anticipated this, and they have spent billions building huge concentration camps around America, and training private armies to fight fellow Americans without thinking about it-----'Operation Falcon' 2006 being a dry run, as was Katrina 2005, as was 9/11 in 2001, and as is Iraq. For these descendants of the North African religion, there are no shortage of idiot WASP's who will front their cataclysmic policies, which are all too apparent to see in America and the world.

But even that too must come to an end sooner or later, as the trick of waving the flag, and the dreams of empire fade into the reality of financial bankrupcy, an exhausted military, and an ever hostile world, which is slowly mobilising around and against Amerikka on various issues.

One of the secrets of the survival of the British elite in the UK (It too has its Jew element), was and is their intrinsic ability to compromise at critical times of history----to read the real situation and get it. The result is that Britain is an effectively managed country, which enjoys stability and prosperity, despite having a government which is not very popular. In rare situations where their arrogance over came their intrinsic common sense, they lost; The American war of independence being a prime example.

By contrast the USA is not an effectively managed nation, with the government enacting many banana republic laws that must harm the nation. The government in power know this to be the case but they persist with such policies. Their only response is not a fundamental change of policies, but more of the same. and a tightening of the screw. 'SOMETHING MUST GIVE' as the old saying goes, and the new elite do not fear, because for them it is a big world; today they are in America, tomorrow they can be in Israel, and if that's too close to the real action, there is always Europe.

And so the new elite in America choose new puppets to pass their policies. The Democratic party by its structure and funding is the Israeli party of America par excellence, though they have yet to hold a party convention in Tel Aviv.

Bill Clinton's presidency was the most Jewish centric presidency of the USA, and was a landmark in that sense that key state institutions were occupied by Jews. Under his leadership, while their little whore sucked his cock, they radically consolidated their power in all areas of government, and laid the ground work for the next program.

The baton is passed.

Then they elected a rehab clown, and his amoral sidedick to take their project further, with an audacious, and many respects clumsily executed false flag op, in Noo Yawk and its hinterland again, with Israel's help and direction naturally. It in the one hand represented their confidence, and on the other their laxity.

The baton is passed.

Now their next plan A is to get Hilary Clinton into power, and continue with their consolidation work, with a possible attack against Syria and Iran, or Pakistan under her watch. Their Plan B in respects to the presidential elections is Barack Obama, but in reality in terms of policy there is very little difference between the two, and hence they don't really attack each other.

Voter fraud was used in New Hampshire via the Diebold machines to get her the requisite votes, and an artificial improbable swing of 20% was engineered for her, and significantly different to what most pollsters predicted. Obama is silent, and praised Hilary for her 'victory' as he is an insider and he too one day will get his chance as his posture and messages are theirs. And so this 'election farce' goes on.

So children what are we do? Should we huddle into the corner and cry? Fear not, as there are always many constructive options for the good majority in America. One first must expect the old American elite to read the situation, and what is in store for them and for future American politics, which hopefully encourages them to become more active in American politics----its their duty. It is a duty to their race, their nation, and yes to the world.

Second, to be more vigilant against the Diebold, and eventually get rid of it as most normal countries use, pencil and paper to vote. In addition it would be polite and appropriate if the Bush administration stopped lecturing the rest of the world about the fine points of democracy. It would be polite and appropriate if election monitors from America didn't go around the world monitoring and OK'ing elections in other countries.

Finally give Ron Paul a one term chance and see how that plays out; I guarantee that his administration won't be worse than Hilary Clinton's, Obama's or Bush II. Organise around him, and help him.

He is a good American.

The time to be confused, bemused stops here, NOW.