"The Holocaust is the biggest and most persistent lie in history." - Ursula Haverbeck
Rand Paul, Trying To Play In "Big-Leagues," Goes For IsraelI'm big fan of Ron (not Rand) Paul--less of a fan for Rand, though I try to understand the horrible situation--practical politics cannot do without that money exclusively controlled by Jews.Thus Rand Paul, trying to play in "big leagues" has to suck-up to someone among the Jews, and we see he goes for Israel--unfortunately.The only thing to be done, I submit, is to most seriously advocate the REAL Christianity--thus anti-Semitism--this against Jews' foremost advocates and political allies, the Judeo-Christian (JC) hereticalists who support Israeli terror-state.An interesting mode of this anti-JC activity is demonstrated by the good people at Whtt.org who go out to the JC churches and hold-up signs about the murder of the Palestinian people by Israeli terror-state.Most of all though, patriots ought to emphasize the PRACTICAL purpose of Christianity--to oppose those satanic henchmen and psychopaths, the Jews. Thus it would surely be good to note the great rationalist implications for Christianity against mysticism of Jews, esp. as in way of Kaballism.For note Christianity emphasizes TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH above all/any other precepts, including "faith," "love," "good," or peace, truth the only way to Godly happiness (Gosp. JOHN 14:6).That's the real weak pt. for ZOG, my good comrades, their JC suck-alongs, the single strongest political interest group among gentiles, making up 40 million people, or so.
The apple does not fall far from the tree.Austrian economics is libertarian economics.Austrian economics is Judaic economics.Libertarian politicians hide behind cries for small government.Libertarian politicians are internationalists and really want a one world government and banking system and no national sovereignty.
For those interested in finding out about Austrian economics, their site is Mises.org. Many economists were Jews, don't forget, and many of them looked for most scientific way of understanding economics--not too easy thing, don't forget. The Austrians, founded by Menger, much re-defined by Mises and Rothbard were and are noted for their emphasis upon classic, liberal freedom--of the sort of original USA, don't forget.
Rand love's illegal aliens too...
he's a dirtbag......
"Rand has a purty mouth", said the Rabbi.
I deem Rand Paul a lost cause.Matthew/Boston
Rand Paul is very, very good or israel. Rand knows who his masters are.
Since when does Israel come to America on "bended knees" about anything?! Israel comes to America clutching a dagger behind her back.I'd rather see a foreign country burning an American flag than destroying three skyscrapers and killing 3,000 Americans. It's a tiny -and I mean tiny - consolation to see the trace of resentment Rand Paul wears on his face as he speaks about backing-up Israel.Matthew/Boston
Everyone commenting here so far is spot on.The economic system/ monetary system issues discussed by ron paul would have done absolutely nothing to address the underlying systemic problem that ensures our perpetual "Interest Slavery".Gottfired Feder wrote a book about "Breaking the Chains of Interest Slavery". That book inspired Hitler to enact his principles - which pulled Germany out of the depression.It's sad to see some folks looking to rand paul as some sort of potential "savior". At best, he's playing "practical politics". What that means is that he's just another Washington Whore. No more. No less.On this blog, John discusses many of the serious problems facing us. You don't see rand paul standing up and fighting for us. You see rand paul groveling to dual citizens. "But he's only doing that because he HAS to". Yeah - right.Do you think John Friend would grovel before those bastards? Hardly.The jews make a point to cull any potential political "problem people" so that all we're left with is a bunch of mercenaries who lick the boots of jews on-demand.The "immigration" issue is a death knell to our people and to the future of your children. You think it's bad now? Just wait 15 years. Your kids won't be safe. And I'm not exaggerating.Diversity will be assaulting them every chance they get.The jews are setting us up for extermination. What do you see rand paul saying about this? LOLHas rand paul mentioned anything about Diversity being White Genocide? LOLPeople like rand paul are actually worse than the jew enemy he serves.
A site warning about unlimited immigration.https://www.numbersusa.org/Federation for American Immigration Reform.http://www.fairus.org/The Gang of Eight pushing immigration, led by super-Jew Zionist "Chuck" Schumer.http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/cosponsorsFrosty Wooldridge, a pasionate leader against uncontrolled immigration. He's a semi-regular on Mike Harris' Short End Of The Stick.http://www.frostywooldridge.com/Matthew/Boston
Frosty Wooldridge is a big NO for me. At one time I was very much against all the illegal immigration from Mexico into Texas and I even went to a Wooldridge rally where he was with his friends on their motorcycles. I still am against illegal immigration but not for the reasons Wooldridge is. I want the USA to survive as a constitutional republic and I want legal immigration laws to be carefully promulgated and closely followed and enforced. (I should say "wanted" because America did not survive.)Illegal immigrants who will work for nothing and are not offended by living under a system where everybody is taking pay-off money under the table are destroying the jobs and families and livelihoods of legal American citizens.Truth is though, it is NOT all the illegal immigrants who have destroyed America. It is the power elite at the top who have sold us out to international banking corporate interests.Wooldridge’s and eugenicist Dr. John Tanton’s “ sustainable / population control / eugenics / genocide” agenda is crystal clear to anyone just by looking over the titles of Wooldridges articles that were posted at NewsWithViews.comI guess my anti - "keeping the race pure" ideology is not popular on this forum, but to me every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, has a soul, and should be treated with basic dignity.
Jeannon, no-one sensible would be worried about a eugenics agenda. Improvement in health, intelligence, civility (the goal of eugenics) is good. The powers that be have a dysgenics agenda, dumbing us down and making us less healthy, less moral.Population is not being reduced in your society by those who have the power to do so. They are reducing the White population it's true, but due to invasion by non-Whites and differing breeding patterns between races population overall is increasing.Finally, if you're against keeping the race purely as it is, that means you're for changing the race. You need to justify why we need to change, and justify how you're gonna force change on those who just want to remain themselves (as God made em if you like, and with a basic dignity your anti-White 'anti-racism' is denying them). My guess is you don't really want to go there and you don't have much to justify your fears and fear mongering. If you would jut think about how the easily observable, non-controversial facts don't match conspindustry radio's wild claims, you'd start to be able to get a grip on these issues.
I did not say I was "against keeping the race purely as it is." I think people living together peacefully is more predicated on common religious beliefs than color of skin. Jesus does not care one white about one's DNA, ancestry, or color of skin.I have not deciminated fears and fear mongering. I have endeavored to speak truth as I am commanded to love truth by the One Who is Truth.You are wrong on the issue of eugenics.I am not “worried about” a eugenics agenda, however, I do have a respect for reality and the historical record. Eugenics has been a major part of the Plan of the elites and secret societies for centuries. English aristocracy, along with John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes, were occultists and eugenicists. Ruskin spoke of English blood as “the best northern blood” and “the white man’s burden” and my words, to take over the world and cull the unwashed masses. The wars, the genocide and the ethnic cleansing, the corporate takeover of global agriculture, population control, environmentalism (most of it) we see are all tools of the eugenics agenda. Here a few choice quotes from Fabian Socialist, and inside planner of World War I, Bertrand Russell. "Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1953) pgs. 49-50"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1953) p. 50."At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."
Jeannon, when you say you're 'anti-"keeping the race pure"' that can only mean you oppose those who want to stay White. The only place that will certainly lead to is a place without White people. I've never been inclined to think you yourself are motivated by anti-White animus, I think rather it's clear that you're in the grip of ideas that code for anti-Whiteness even while they present as something else entirely. You provide no reason to link eugenics ('the production of fine offspring by improvement of inherited qualities') with the dysgenic policies and trends we can observe. Indeed we are being made passive, unthreatening plebs, like sheep for the slaughter. But how different that is to the goal of Francis Galton or contemporary eugenics advocates such as Richard Lynn or Raymond B. Cattell. It's apparent to anyone familiar with our prevailing culture that the regime has a special hatred of eugenicists like Lynn and Cattell who advocate policies that would improve human intelligence, social conscientiousness and health. And not just because the regime is ideologically opposed to the basic idea of eugenics, that some people's genes are more likely than others' to express in socially valuable behaviours. But also because the regime actually prefers us thick, sterile, unresisting.Finally, wars, genocides, and ethnic cleansing are human business as usual. If they happened also during the period when eugenic ideas were somewhat en vogue, it would be wrong to link them with eugenics, for precisely the same reason it would be wrong to link the sun's rising tomorrow with the ongoing conversation here. On the other hand, you provide an argument for why we should not link eugenics with current events ... if Ruskin and eugenics really were about preserving “the best northern blood” and promoting “the white man’s burden” to 'take over the world and cull the unwashed masses' then how come in this era when eugenicists are entering their 'Endgame' it's White people who are in retreat, disprivileged legally, culturally, economically and politically; and being colonized by non-Whites in numbers that dwarf any colonization of Africans and Asians by Europeans?
"Jeannon, when you say you're 'anti-"keeping the race pure"' that can only mean you oppose those who want to stay White."That is the second time you have operated your illogic and misrepresentation on my comment.I said"I guess my anti - "keeping the race pure" ideology is not popular on this forum"The ideology on this forum seems to be "keeping the race pure" and that includes any race, I presume, not only the White "race." I simply do not adhere to "keeping any race pure" ideology. That does not mean I believe people ought to ignore race differences because people of the same race have the best chance of making a marriage work.But basically when I read the bible all people are of ONE BLOOD and we are all descended from Adam and Eve. The idea of "race" is not in the bible. I think what God did to the people who started building the Tower of Babel tells us that God wants there to be people groups and sovereign nations, not a one world government with all people speaking the same language, though I do believe a single language for commerce and other purposes is practically beneficial.People who immigrate to the USA fail and stay poor if they do not pick up the English language fairly quickly. That is why our elites want them to be able to continue speaking their native language in the grade schools and everywhere. The elites want to keep more and more people economically depressed. That is part of the eugenics program too.Evolution and Galton and Freud and all of that unproven "science" is about eugenics and forming a one world death and slavery system for all, and of course, destroying faith in God, destroying souls, any destroying solidarity of peoples based on faith in Jesus Christ.I do not think human beings are like race horses. I do believe God eventually forbade incest because the gene pooled became messed up, and our laws have reflected that wisdom.But for our elites to decide who can breed and under what conditions is Satanic because our elites are Satanic. They have succeeded in making it near impossible to obtain gainful employment or a secure income to marry and raise a family. And make no mistake about it, the ones who will be dictating the rules on who can breed with whom will only be the moneyed Luciferian, freedom hating, sovereignty hating, moneyed elites. Truth is they intend for breeding to be done strictly in a test tube.The White people of the USA are of the descent of several European countries, countries that were Catholic Christians. White racial supremacy was not even part of their thinking at all. They were all White. The destruction of Catholics in the USA began with the eugenicist moneyed elites who started the USA, most of whom were Deist Freemasons. Jefferson greatly admired Voltaire and John Locke greatly influenced Voltaire. The Judaized "Christianity" and occult Luciferian eugenicist social engineers came out of England.
Well Jeannon, I don't share your religious beliefs or your political ideas about satanists, occultists, luciferians and eugenicists being behind all The Bad Shit. But insofar as they help you defend freedom, national sovereignty and the traditional family and oppose the medical cartel, the war-party, the repressive state and steps toward a one world government, I'm not going to bitch too much about them.
Well said,AnonymousMarch 21, 2014 at 6:12 AMThe usury problem is a huge problem that most of us cannot fully grasp, not me anyway. I was waiting for E. Michael Jones' new book on usury but it seems to be delayed and I do not know its status. I believe it is published by his own publishing company, Fidelity Press, so the publishing company is not the problem."The "immigration" issue is a death knell to our people and to the future of your children. You think it's bad now? Just wait 15 years. Your kids won't be safe. And I'm not exaggerating."The social engineers, read that Judaics, have been genociding White Catholic ethnic groups for decades. Large Northern urban cities have had their inner core replaced with poor share croppers from the South, or high rise enclaves for the moneyed elites.Remember its all about KONTROL. Any person or group of people who might pose a threat to their power must be dealt with.Read Michael Jones book,The Slaughter of Cities Urban Renewal, Ethnic CleansingThis book was published many years ago and Dr. Jones was way ahead of the curve on the subject on within-the-USA engineered destruction by immigration.http://www.culturewars.com/Slaughter%20of%20Cities%20flyer.pdf_____"It's sad to see some folks looking to rand paul as some sort of potential "savior". At best, he's playing "practical politics". What that means is that he's just another Washington Whore. No more. No less."His father's voting record is a deceptive political manipulation as well. As just one example of many, I did a bit of research months ago as follows..."I just did a bit of research to find out exactly who voted for the Graham-Leach-Blyly Act in 2008, the bill that repealed the Glass Steagall Act, and gave us our many too-big-to-fail banks. The Republicans voted overwhelmingly for this horrible bill. Ron Paul did the politically correct thing and abstained from voting because he could see that his vote among his fellow Republicans would not be needed to get the repeal Act passed and he might get a few political points by being able to say he did not vote for this bill, which has turned out to be the ruination of our economy.“and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5
I have covered the fake, Ron Paul, for years (at first, I was taken in). Rand is no different and likely much worse:http://buelahman.wordpress.com/?s=Ron+PaulThanks for sharing, John!
I agree, Rand Paul is a treasonous shill. But that does not justify this libertarian-bashing session. First, Rand Paul openly denies he is a libertarian, and he does not talk nor act like a libertarian.At the beginning of each podcast, John Friend endorses the Barnes Review. Murray Rothbard was a colleague and supporter of Barnes. When Barnes died, Rothbard published a moving obituary, calling Barnes "the last of the truly erudite historians." This obit is today republished on the Mises Institute's website:http://mises.org/daily/2784Rothbard's contribution to the book, "Harry Elmer Barnes Learned Crusader" on historical revisionism is republished on LewRockwell.com:http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard27.htmlIf you promote Barnes, then dismissing Rothbard out of hand is unjustified.Next, consider Rothbard's analysis of David Duke's policy platform:"It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleolibertarians, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites, what's wrong with any of that?"http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.htmlOr this:"The genetic basis for inequality of intelligence has also become increasingly evident, despite the emotional abuse heaped upon such studies by fellow scientists as well as the lay public. Professor Richard Herrnstein has recently estimated that 80 percent of the variability in human intelligence is genetic in origin."http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.htmlRothbard may have been jewish, but he got labelled anti-semitic, so he must have been doing something right:http://chelm.freeyellow.com/rothbard.htmlRothbard was likely THE most oustpoken critic of the Federal Reserve ever to write on the subject. If you care about ending jewish domination, ending the Fed has got to be at the top of the list. Rothbard, and Mises, were so anti-establishment, the universities where they taught wouldn't even pay their salaries!In fact, it is libertarians at large that lead the way to ending the Fed. I don't see white nationalists protesting in front of the Fed banks, but I do see crowds of libertarians.Lets talk about ethnic migration. I see a handful of folks moving to the northwest, and a couple of jokers failing in North Dakota. Meanwhile, the so-called "free state project" already has a couple thousand white people moved into New Hampshire, already the whitest state.Yes, libertarians rhetoric is politically correct. But set aside what they say and look at what they support: end the jewish-controlled Fed, end the jewish-dominatic broadcasting cartel known as FCC-licensing, support freedom of association and reject forced integration, end welfare for immigrants, illegal or not, reject hate-speech laws. No, libertarians won't frame their positions that way because it sounds politically incorrect, but that's what they are.Finally, I address some errors. Jeannon writes, "Libertarian politicians really want a one world government and banking system." That's 180 degrees from the truth. Please provide your source for that claim or retract it.Another wrote, "The economic system/ monetary system issues discussed by ron paul would have done absolutely nothing to address the underlying systemic problem that ensures our perpetual "Interest Slavery." Yet, Ron Paul is the only living politician to call for abolishing the Fed, which is the foundation of jewish-controlled "interest slavery." If you want to confront interest slavery, you should be embracing Austrian Economics, not rejecting it.I'll conclude where I started. Rand Paul bad. Agreed. But don't dismiss the value of Austrian Economics. Sometimes the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. But other times it rolls down a hill and is rotten to boot.
Very good comment, thank you! Lots to think about.
Excellent comment, yes. Here is "free Market" explained for Catholics by the prominent Ron Paul supporter and historian Tom Woods. Could be interesting if you are in the right target group - The Church & The Market 53:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAJmlx2S50
The 'Paleolibertarian Strategy' of Rothbard, Rockwell, Gottfried and Paul was an explicit attempt to capture the energy, funding and voters that David Duke had inspired, and bring them into the libertarian movement (of racial dead-ends and escape hatches for Jew-Bankers). The Ron Paul newsletters in various guises, ran for several decades, the racial stuff was mainly a feature of the 90's era newsletters, following the decision to co-opt the appeal of Duke and neutralize his threat. The newsletters raised millions from Paul's supporters who had every reason to believe they were the words or at least the ideas of Ron Paul. When Paul was later to deny writing them and reject the ideas contained in them, it was an admission of a colossal financial fraud. That Paul's victims still support him is good evidence that they were the type of people who could be easily manipulated into giving their loyalty to a movement that would not serve their interests or in other words, that the Jewish libertarian cult appeals mainly to moronic White people. *** In all his time in America, Mises had essentially just two employers: the Rockefeller Foundation, who must have looked favourably on his promotion of an alternative financial system that would not transfer control of the economy out of the hands of the Fed cartel owners (the owners of gold being one and the same faction); and the John Birch Society, for which he was the financial guru, once again with a mission to promote the safe Jew-Gold non-alternative (plus here, radical individualism and the dismantling of White American race-consciousness, and the idea that 'collectivists' - Nazis and Communists were the real threat, while Jews like he were their friend).Mises's longest working relationship and closest friendship was with Coudenhove-Kalergi, architect of the EU and propagandist for White genocide and Jewish rule. Mises and his Jewish lieutenants never tolerated propaganda for Jewish genocide and White rule over others, that would be 'racism' and 'collectivism', but his principles didn't extend to protecting White people from Jewish aggression.These double standards (really a single standard: 'What's good for the Jews?') continued into the modern era, where Jews like Michael Levin and Paul Gottfried who contributed to the Paleolibertarian project and the Ron Paul/Rockwell newsletters defended Israel's right to its Jewish character but opposed White nationalism. And in the clip we hear Rand Paul, deeply influenced by these 'people' promoting Israel's sovereignty, but denying America's, where 'an attack on Israel will be considered an attack on America'.
The other wing of libertarianism is no better, with Ayn Rand and her followers constantly at war with any possible expression of 'collectivism' or race-consciousness among their non-Jewish marks, but constantly geeing them up to defend Jewish interests: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil. Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency .... [Rand itself]Headlines from the Ayn Rand Institute:Israel Should Wage a Real War - The Ayn Rand Center for ."Peace" Process: Israel's Path to Suicide - The Ayn Rand CeIsrael Should Wage War on Palestinians - The Ayn Rand CentIsrael Must Commit to Victory Over the Palestinians - The Ayn RIsrael Should Escalate War Against Hezbollah - The Ayn RanWorld Leaders Should Support Israel's Offensive - Ayn RanIsrael's Enemies Are America's Enemies - The ... - Ayn Rand IThe U.S. Must Stop Undermining Israel's War on Terrorism - ***With ideological heroes like these (plus of course MLK and Rosa Parks), is it any wonder the Pauls are as they are?
Most of the Libertarians I have encountered online are what I call "baby-eaters". They continually want to dismantle any semblance of help for the poor (citizens or not). They want no Social Security for our elders. They support further "free market" ideology, to a point that they have no problem with sending even MORE jobs to far away places, just as long as the corporations profit. Why? Of course, because the markets are FREEEEEE!They (like Ron Paul) suggest cutting the military budget back to (GASP) 2008 levels and at the same time cut social help (to those same people suffering from their Chinese job send away).Ayn Rand was one of the worst and is worshiped by many of these fakes (or dupes who believe the bullshit) and what did she do when she got sick?Yep. Took the "welfare" instead of spending her own ill gotten booty from her books the dumb asses so rave about.Oh, and many Jews seem to love them, to intermingle with the dupes, which, to me, is reason enough to doubt the ideology. Have you ever heard of a Libertarian calling out the Jew World Order? Not on any national level I can think of.And as far as Rand not being a libertarian, why did he say to Chris Wallace when asked about any run for POTUS:I would absolutely not run unless it were to win. You know, points have been made and we'll continue to make points, but I think the country really is ready for the narrative coming, libertarian Republican narrative, also because we have been losing as a national party...Now one might argue that he didn't mean it as it was plainly said. However, the Young Americans for Liberty (certainly a libertarian movement once enamored with the fake, Ron Paul) would argue that Rand is, in fact, a libertarian.As a matter of fact, in 2009 when asked by CNN about a potential Senate run, he described himself, "Libertarian would be a good description, because libertarians believe in freedom in all aspects of your life – your economic life as well as your social life as well as your personal life."Now someone might say he was just spouting shit and using his father's image to get further along in a political career (which only bolsters my video), but to say he denies it is not wholly truthful.In my opinion, he is NOT really a libertarian (just the fact that he supported the recent Enforce The Law Act shows he is no real lover of liberty. He is but an opportunistic shill (like his dad, but not as smart). At least Ron didn't don the beanie and hump the wall (as far as I have seen).I think it is evident that Libertarianism is just a platform to tap into people who embrace liberty (of which I do), but it also is a mixed bag of Big Money supporters who on one hand don't mind the corporations sending the jobs away, want some gold-backed currency that will simply enrich the people who own gold (that is NOT the poor folk), and at the same time look forward to the dead babies they can eat when they starve to death because of those job losses (in other words... heartless and mean).I should mention that many interactions with libertarian types go fairly well... UNTIL I mention Israel and the Jews. Then, they show their other face. That is telling.
"Finally, I address some errors. Jeannon writes, "Libertarian politicians really want a one world government and banking system." That's 180 degrees from the truth. Please provide your source for that claim or retract it."My source for that statement is my own observation after reading quite a bit about Libertarians and libertarians over the years and having voted for them many times. There is something seriously flawed about their "free trade" and "free markets" tenets. They think the whole world ought to be trading amongst themselves in an international "free market." That is anti-national sovereighty.There are some people that need help and Christians ought to be the ones providing it. There are some people who are able to help themselves but don't, and those people should not be helped. St. Paul said he who will not work will not eat.I think libertarian philosophy is utopian. It never has existed and it never will. I think it is best to live life by the tenets taught to us by the One Who is Truth and is our Lord and Savior. The poor we will always have with us and the rich we will always have with us. I think God wants there to be individual sovereign nation states who should be able to make what ever trade deals they think are best for their interests.The rich are able to attain unending wealth and unlimited control of people by playing on the international financial field. They have no allegiance to any country.Also, I think I have some very twisted multi-layered strategies by those of the Jewish revolutionary spirit. They do not really care about their own people, Israel or anything like that. They appear very much, as Michael Hoffman and others say, want to incite or spur what they call "anti-semitism". Their goals are to take over the world and rule the world, and eliminate most of us.The rich use their money to enslave and control and eliminate the middle class and the poor. They could care less about "the level playing field" of a "free market." The golden rule -- he who holds the gold rules.
"The rich use their money to enslave and control and eliminate the middle class and the poor."No kidding. That's why we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve. The people leading the way on that issue are libertarians. But you want to shoot yourself (and the rest of us) in the foot by saying that abolishing the Fed is "utopian?" If you want give up and fail, that's your choice, but don't drag the rest of us down with you.(And BTW, contrary to your assertion, the rich are not able to attain unending wealth. They are able to attain unending money by controlling the central banks. Don't confuse wealth with money. Wealth, by definition has value. Money, history proves, can lose all its value and very quickly)
Fed COUNTERFEITING: ZOG's Main Weapon For Practical PurposesWell said, anon: "Jeannon" habitually speaks in un-justified generalities, in my view. Fed COUNTERFEITING is the practical key to things.I think Jeannon's worst problem has to do w. Christianity and what its real nature is--which, I say and prove, is really all about reason (TRUTH above all/any other values, according to Gosp. JOHN 14:6, hence the objective reality) against Jew lies (JOHN 8:44) built upon irrationalism and subjectivism, esp. "good-evil" delusion/heresy (Pelagianism), this phony "good" always the worst enemy of TRUTH.Jeannon and lots of people have difficulty w. meaning of "usury"--which is NOT NOT NOT merely charging of interest. Problem w. the word, "usury" is its ancient origin which is only described, not defined. "Usury," in order to have any real meaning, MUST then have to do w. issuing of "fiat-money" which is fraudulent for having no real, commodity money backing it, interest then charged upon the fake money--which cannot be paid due to the finite commodity money vs. the nearly infinite and always increasing "fiat," un-backed variety.Thus it's extremely important to emphasize the rational aspect of Christian and white culture--AGAINST the satanic, mystic Jew--a glorious culture featuring individual freedom in accord w. rule-of-law, sanctity-of-contract, property rights, etc. Jeannon has most difficulty simply for a coherent, ordered structure for argument, I observe.Practically, the obvious problem is the Fed COUNTERFEIT scam behind everything else for ZOG--remove that and ZOG will fall. But what will replace?--that's why Austrianism and the Pauls are good for economics, though it's certainly true they're far too tolerant of Jew monsters and psychopaths. Still the Pauls are USEFUL to opposing the establishment, providing excellent arguments and observations, and especially, for opposing ZOG's MAIN weapon, the Fed.
"But you want to shoot yourself (and the rest of us) in the foot by saying that abolishing the Fed is "utopian?"I said libertarianism is utopian. I did not say "ending the Fed" is utopian.If you are going to criticize my comments, please don't construct a straw man to knock down. Criticize me on the up and up.I don't see much difference between wealth and having lots of money. It seems like a distinction without a difference. But I guess you have to find some petty semantics thing to latch on to.Because I am not for libertarianism or Libertarianism does not mean I am against ending the Fed.A central bank is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.I have listened to Ellen Brown and Bill Still and they are both A OK with fractional reserve banking. Even the bank of North Dakota does fractional reserve banking. That is creating money out of nothing just like the Fed does.I am saying as I have said before, Rand and Ron are cut from the same cloth no matter how much Rand seems to be going against his father's ideas. You study Ron Paul's voting record and he voted for many of the things that the neocon Republicans wanted and voted for. Big business, big international business. Also take a look at how much money went into the campaign coffers of father and son from the Too Big To Fail banks -- hundreds of thousands of dollars. I bet if I looked back far enough I would see that Ron voted for all the incentives for US corporations to move their factories overseas.Austrian economics is Jewish economics. Period. That economic philosophy strongly influences father and son.
"Austrian economics is Jewish economics. Period. That economic philosophy strongly influences father and son." Jeannon* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *This, above-quoted fm "Jeannon" is just empty assertion and REPEATED poppy-cock--so what's "Jewish economics"? My understanding of Jew "economics" is socialism and communism, featuring the typical collectivism of Jews.Don't forget that in the 19th and early 20th cent. many, many, many of the "economists" were Jews who came to have widely divergent views. Some of these Jews chose to defend the REAL thing--the real science in accord w. verifiable facts and logic--such were and are the "Austrians," founder of which was Menger, a JewThus Austrianism begins w. the subjective nature of "value" for economics and production--in opposition to Adam Smith and Marx, for examples--which value then is only made "objective" momentarily when it's taken to market and the prices agreed upon by the buyers--only the market then can give objectivity to value.Thus the Austrians insist upon the completely FREE market as only and best means of understanding true and real value as an objective entity, fair and just for all parties. Best ref. for Austrianism is Mises.org--they also have lots of neat vids too.
Jeannon, Ellen Brown and Bill Still both oppose FRL:http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/ponzi.phphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbq7NRnCQDMYou've probably picked up the bad idea that Brown and Still are dangerous 'funny money' advocates from the same people who gave you the good idea that fractional reserve lending is a problem and came to associate the two ideas.They want us to think Brown and Still are dangerous because their promotion of a debt-free money system would radically reduce the market for private banking and the bankers' ability to manipulate the economy. Meanwhile they want us to focus on fractional reserve lending rather than debt based money per se, because 100% reserve or commodity (eg. gold) standard banking still allows huge scope for manipulation and centralisation. This aspect of conspindustry culture is a hangover from Mises's days scripting the Big Jew Banker-friendly economic policy for the Birchers. Eustace Mullins and Still deserve pretty much all the credit for forcing a real alternative solution into the discussion.
Nick: u simply don't understand money--it must be commodity and FINITE in quantity--otherwise it will just be replicated and proliferated at will. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S "debt-money"--loaned and interest charged on it, as this is just "icing-on-the-cake," and secondary to the COUNTERFEIT nature.US Fed is LITERALLY just legalized COUNTERFEITING--w. interest charged to boot. U're making same mistake as Brown and Still by saying COUNTERFEITING is okay, just don't charge the interest.
I know you were told that apsterian, I know who told you it, and I know why they told you it, but it's not true. Tell me if I'm wrong. Let's go to the source of most sources, Rothbard, THE CASE AGAINST THE FED:1) "Money, in our economy, is pieces of paper issued by the Federal Reserve" [p.10] ""This 'Federal Reserve Note,' and nothing else, is money." [p.11]2) "in each country its governmental 'Central Bank' (in the United States, the Federal Reserve) is the sole monopoly source and creator of all money." [p.11]Identify one error from those two quotes and get some kudos for not being a totally bamboozled Austard. Identify two and you're now showing average intelligence and perceptiveness of the world around you. You can pull up your pants now. Identify three and you're well on the road from (a real) serfdom. Identify four and you may relax, have a beer, jump on the wife - you're a MAN. Identify five or more and you're now ready to discuss the money question.The 'counterfeiting' meme originates with the Austrians, and has been widely disseminated by the Mises-led/misled conspindustry since the Birchers' glory days. Nowadays, because it's endlessly parroted by talk show hosts and bloggers who don't know what they're talking about, but do know what they must say to fit in with Griffin, Jones, Stadtmiller, Anderson, and sound like they do know what they're talking about, honest and trusting listeners/readers like yourself think the Fed just must be counterfeiting. Here's Rothbard, CATF:3) "But let us suppose that in this idyll of prosperity (MR has just painted a fanciful picture of how bountiful life would be under a Gold Standard - ND), sound money, and successful monetary calculation, a serpent appears in Eden (here you have to wonder if he isn't laying it on the gullible 'goyim' just a little too thick -- you must have noticed all those WASPish names listed as benefactors in the front of all the 'Austrians' books ... poor desperate deluded bastards): the temptation to counterfeit, to fashion a near valueless object so that it would fool the people into thinking it was the money-commodity." [p.21]That's how the Austrians in print define the Fed's 'counterfeiting', where they have to be more cautious in print than in speech because people are apt to go back and read and think on the written word. Now you tell me, what then are the Fed supposedly counterfeiting?
Babbler's Question AnsweredNick: u just babble, pretending to urself u make any sense--I guess u think u're soooooooo clever for ur babble.Rothbard is indeed excellent source, regardless of ur babbling. But there's also G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature From Jekyll Island" for outstanding expo.Now I'll answer ur question, the ONLY thing in all ur babble that makes any sense--and I note it's pathetic thing u can't figure out what's being counterfeited, considering all ur babbling.For when real (hence commodity) money is stored or ware-housed in a bank, a receipt is necessarily issued, this receipt then capable of being used as substitute for the real thing.Fiat-money then, backed by "legal-tender" laws, forcing people to accept it in exchange for real goods & svcs, is literally (legalized) counterfeiting for the honest receipt money. Q.E.D.
"For when real (hence commodity) money is stored or ware-housed in a bank"Yes, that's what Rothbard said. But since that condition does not obtain, you agree the answer to the question, 'what are the Fed counterfeiting?' is 'Nothing'?
Griffin, JEKYLL ISLAND, was a rather blatant rip-off of Eustace Mullins, THE SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE. But where Mullins was a good and honest protege of Ezra Pound and identified the Jewish nature of the parasitism and pointed vaguely towards a solution that would free us and firmly away from the Gold Standard that would not, Griffin was Jew-friendly and Jew-Gold boosting all the way.
Real Money Can ONLY Be CommodityNick: u just don't understand money, but don't worry; there are lots like u. Real money, by definition, is commodity, finite in quantity, and with "intrinsic value," meaning it has its own value on the market, this commodity now used as (a) medium of exchange, (b) store of value, (c) unit of account. Just ck history. Gold & silver are simply the best, most convenient commodities to use as money.Paper bank receipts for this stored commodity money can be also used, but this isn't money, strictly speaking, rather money substitute. Fiat money is the counterfeit of these genuine receipts, and obvious problem is the fiat money is ALWAYS replicated/proliferated, far beyond what is stored in banks, leading to inflation.Charging interest on issue of fiat-money is optional, mere complication. Primary fraud is the legalized counterfeiting.In history, the criminals are always switching back & forth--fiat money that charges interest vs. fiat money without interest--neither of these work; get a clue. Only commodity money renders prosperity, though in course of inevitable CYCLIC decline of the culture, it gives way to fiat-money and inflation--always. Thus we find ourselves well into "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler.
I appreciate your interest, apsterian, this stuff does matter and it's important we hash these things out.But just humour me and show you're able to speak in your own voice, not the voice of others. Rothbard was wrong, wasn't he, when he wrote:1) Money, in our economy, is pieces of paper (ie. it's not just paper, is it?)2) Money, in our economy, is pieces of paper issued by the Federal Reserve (ie. it's also pieces of paper that were issued from other sources, isn't it?)3) Money, in our economy, is pieces of paper issued by the Federal Reserve (ie. the Fed issues money in non-paper forms, doesn't it?)4) This 'Federal Reserve Note,' and nothing else, is money (ie. other things qualify as money, do they not?5) in each country its governmental 'Central Bank' (ie. not all countries have a central bank, do they?)6) its governmental 'Central Bank' (ie. not all central banks are government-controlled institutions, are they?)7) its governmental 'Central Bank' (in the United States, the Federal Reserve) is the sole monopoly source and creator of all money (ie. there are other sources of money in the US are there not?)You said Rothbard is an excellent source but that I do not understand money. But if he is wrong on all this asbsolutely basic stuff and I am right, then how come you're in his camp?How do you account for the fact that Austrians will haul Ellen Brown over the coals endlessly for using an apocryhal quote to support her well-founded arguments (which arguments they tend to ignore), yet they all worship Rothbard who published such errant nonsense as the above?
'Real money, by definition, is commodity, finite in quantity, and with "intrinsic value"' - apsterianEven commodity money hasn't always been finite in quantity, wheat, salt, cigarettes, etc. Rothbard was right at least once:In the sparsely settled American colonies, money, as it always does, arose in the market as a useful and scarce commodity and began to serve as a general medium of exchange. Thus, beaver fur and wampum were used as money in the north for exchanges with the Indians, and fish and corn also served as money. Rice was used as money in South Carolina, and the most widespread use of commodity money was tobacco, which served as money in Virginia. The pound-of-tobacco was the currency unit in Virginia, with warehouse receipts in tobacco circulating as money backed 100 percent by the tobacco in the warehouse. /endquote"Gold & silver are simply the best, most convenient commodities to use as money" - apsterianIf a commodity were to be used, it would be most convenient to use one that is cheaply sourced. Gold and silver are not cheap. Best is subjective: gold and silver certainly are best for those who own the most gold and the future gold supply in form of mines. This cohort happens to be almost identical to the cohort behind the Federal Reserve, from whom, allegedly, we're all seeking freedom.and so on ...
Notes On MoneyNick: u're nearly hopelessly at sea on simple issue of money. Try to think about how things would have to have been at dawn of civilization. Real money is only commodity, best being gold/silver--reason is money doesn't essentially change basic barter nature of "trade"--trading value for value. Money merely streamlines barter--doesn't essentially change it.Bank receipts for real commodity money is actually money substitute--they can be used long as partner in transaction trusts that receipt will duly be honored--it doesn't have to be "legal tender," backed by gov.Fiat-money is not real money, of course, but is what would be called "currency" or perhaps "cash," requiring gov. coercion for "legal tender" status. But it is true that it's used as money and the gov. calls it "money," and people get in the habit calling it money.Rothbard is one of the best economists of all time; u can well have confidence in him, but of course, u're right for thinking things out for urself. Great thing about Austrians is there are other good economists (Mises.org) who can further elucidate Rothbard who, unfortunately, is no longer w. us.Ellen Brown and Bill Still are charlatans, though I'm sure they believe in what they tell u, but u gotta finally figure things out for urself--they don't understand what money really is.Problem w. "cheaply sourced" commodity money is u'd have to carry large volume/amount in order to exchange for even small value. Virtue of gold/silver is small amount can afford large value. Also, as metal, gold/silver serves best as store of value. Note further, all races, cultures, and civilization, all throughout hist. have recognized gold/silver as money--that's pretty objective.
I in no way have picked up the idea that Brown and Still are funny money advocates. I just look at things from a far distance and neither of them seem to be offering a real solution. I do not know what the solution is but I object, and do so by commenting, to the idea that Brown's ideas are a panacea. They are not. I called in to a show where Brown was the guest. I asked her if the Bank of North Dakota used FRB. She replied yes and sort of discounted my concern stating something like that is the way all banks have to handle credit among themselves. I called in to a show where Bill Still was the guest and heard him say he was against FRB and then in almost the next breath stated he thought the Bank of North Dakota was a great idea. I told him what Brown told me and he sort of did some fancy footwork but did not answer my question regarding his apparent contradictory stance. I think Mullins and Still have provided very truthful and valuable insights to all of us. Still is very in with the Mises org and as I have said, I do not think Austrian economics offers real solutions, and may even be a deliberate deception of some kind.The money that is created via FRB is debt based money too and compound interest is being charged on money created out of nothing.I see deep overwhelming corruption at every level of government and business and I do not think state owned bank like ND is crook proof in its operation..The entire banking system is just a criminal cabal. Bankers are white collar thugs and gangsters. Many people are seeing this, even those of us who really have no idea how much money is involved or how deep the rabbit hole goes. LIBOR was like 7 trillion stolen. There have been numerous federal agency investigations of US banks since 2008 and tens of millions in fines levied, a pittance, but no one at the top ever goes to prison. There have been 12 or more banker suicides in the last year and these are not happening just because banking is such a high stress job. Something is about to blow at the top.
Jeannon, I'm not sure I understand your point about Brown, North Dakota and FRB. If Brown said, 'that is the way all banks have to handle credit among themselves' then perhaps it is. If that enriches private interests behind the Fed somehow, I presume this would be just one more reason why she'd like to do away with the private profit interest of the Fed.Bill Still isn't at all cosy with the Mises crowd. They tend to all see the same problems, naturally - even the Mises crowd have to talk about the same problems we can all see if they hope to divert our energies away from real solutions - but Still and Brown vs. the Austrians offer very different remedies. And while Still and Brown are calm, polite and measured in the way they address the Austrians, the Austrians show their Jewish roots by trying to bully, smear, mock and ridicule Brown and Still rather than deal with the facts they put forth.
This is why I love John Friend's blog - because he elicits the best rational minds out there as commentators. The first comment I read was from Jeannon, and her (?) position seems to be Bible based with the New Testament church as the model for society. Dare I say she is Church of Christ? But, no, the C of C is as Jew-friendly as the rest of the JC denominations. But in matters of money, she is apparently suggesting a Treasury note as the means of removing the current moneyed elite. Her repeated statement that "Austrian economics is Jewish economics" would certainly seem to be truthful, but did she miss the scripture, "Woe to those who say they are Jews, but are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."? How could this be possible in this day and age? Does that mean, even to the present time, there are true Jews and fake Jews? What is a Jew? Is it a question of race or religion, or both? Moving on to another commentator, Nick Dean: he seems to be what I would call Aryan Brotherhood, which again seems to put all Jews in the same tent. However, he can be forgiven if he disregards the reference to the wanna-be Jews because the Aryan Brotherhood is not Christian or Bible-based. The AB and other whites-only groups believe that the pure white race is superior to all others, including Jews. All of this discussion about race was incited by Friend's posting of a film of Rand Paul at the Wailing Wall, oddly enough. May I suggest that if the Jews were ever a tribe they were descended from Judah, and some of those, though by no means all, were practicing Judaism, which is the religion and system of law derived from the earlier Babylonian civilization where they dwelt in captivity as evidenced by the Book of Daniel? But it would stand to reason that the later historians in the form of the conquering Romans mistook all those who were practicing Judaism, and living in the former kingdom of Judah (or the Southern tribes of Israel), as being Jews. But the New Testament writers were not confused - knowing precisely what tribe they were of (Paul said he was a Benjamite - now that is a tribe not a religion) - clearly being able to identify practicing Jews as Edomites (Idimians - as Herod was), Canaanites, Kenites, or even Ethiopians as the case may be. Finally, Jeannon seems convinced that there is no mention of race in the Bible, that Jesus wasn't concerned with anybody's DNA, and that race has no relevance to the message of Christ whatsoever. However, just as slave owners in 19th century America did not refer to their slaves as men, but as cattle or beasts of the field, nor did the old testament refer to the non-Adamite races as fellow men and women. The Adamite race, true to its name, blushed red in the face and was fair skinned. And Noah was said to be pure in his generations as the reason for him and his family alone to be picked to carry the Adamite race forward after the flood. That word "generations" would be our modern word for "genetics", and sure enough the problem with those who did not survive the flood was because "the sons of God (or the naphtali) looked upon the daughters of men (Adamites) and found them fair", which of course they were, but this resulted in miscegenation or a mixing of the seed which is repeatedly condemned as a violation of God's law throughout the first 5 books of the Bible. And as a further winnowing of the Adamic race, Abraham who was justified by faith fathered Isaac (and his sons or Saxons or Scythians) who father Jacob-Israel, and it was that seedline that would become the great nations of Europe and comprising 90% of the white race. I hope this clarifies the Jewish question in properly identifying the Europeans as the true seedline of Jacob-Israel, and most of the Jews as being of Tartar, Turkish, and Armenian extraction. However, even these Jews are not the Synagogue of Satan, but are simple practicing a religion called Judaism.
keyman, is the following a criticism?"The AB and other whites-only groups believe that the pure white race is superior to all others"I ask not because I'm AB (I'm not) because my admittedly limited understanding of CI is that you guys think we Europeans are the true Hebrews of the Old Testament, e.g.,"I hope this clarifies the Jewish question in properly identifying the Europeans as the true seedline of Jacob-Israel"and my admittedly limited understanding of Old Testament scripture is that you guys (the true Hebrews of the Old Testament) see yourselves and are seen by God as superior to all others?Cheers/Shalom!
Rand Paul's appearance at Berkeley the end of last week, speech and interviews, can be heard on line.
Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.