← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · toddbrendanfahey
Thread ID: 14903 | Posts: 31 | Started: 2004-09-04
2004-09-04 07:23 | User Profile
U.S. Military Coordinated the 9/11 Attacks
by anonymous
September 4, 2004 As a former nuke weapons loader on supersonic "robotic" F111 swing-wing bombers in "US"AF (AKA New World Order's AF), and as a private pilot myself, I've seen a few strange things that made me instantly realize the Pentagon perpetrated "treason" as the "airliners" smashed into buildings on 911. Obviously, to anyone who does not live in the Star Trek Zone - only the "US" millitary could successfully coordinate such a scheme. It boggles the mind to even attempt to imagine the logistics required. It also required cooperation from all agencies of US government, the global media empires, the airlines and Wall Street's global bankers.
A typical US military air strike, such as the 1-hour bombing by USAF and US Navy on Libya in Operation EL DORADO CANYON in 1987 requires 10,000s of highly skilled professionals working in synchronicity. The individuals do not even "need to know" what the heck is going on, as they are always told it is "just another War Game". Thus I was busy loading nukes when our jets returned from their sneak attack Libya, where they bombed President Qaddafi's tent and killed his daughter (after "'US' Special Forces" rescued him from harm's way), and accidentally killed 40 other innocent bystanders as they slept in their homes in downtown Tripoli...
[complete commentary here: [url]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1869][/url]
2004-09-04 12:55 | User Profile
Todd,
Since the [URL=http://batr.org/911/]"War of Terror" [/URL] is based upon 911 myths, a house of cards rests upon a foundation of sand.
However, the public persists in living in deep denial. The average voter would never dream of examining any evidence that contradicts official fantasies. This election cycle demonstrates the level of the brain dead has reached critical mass. The next demand will be to silence and slate for removal voices like yourself, (your recent tragic experience is just the beginning).
If people refuse to confront the demons that control the nightmare, what possible road block is left to slow down the total Lukidization of American society?
As you are aware from the comments and defense of Zionism, by a noted columnist that often appears on our good friend, Jeff Bennettââ¬â¢s [URL=http://www.federalobserver.com/index.php ]Federal Observer[/URL] site, that is posted on our [URL=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATR/]BATR Yahoo Group [/URL] - the confusion within the ââ¬Ëso calledââ¬â¢ Patriotic community is acute.
Three year hence, the ââ¬ËPatriotizationââ¬â¢ of the U.S. has become a ACT of publicly demanded treason. As the fools cast another meaningless ballot, the plotters refine their next step towards total consolidation.
Submit that a fresh strategy needs to be designed and implemented to continue the struggle. Open for suggestions.
The list of strong voices for sanity are few. What realistic options are left?
SARTRE
2004-09-04 15:28 | User Profile
I posted this before,,,,,,,Go to "The Power Mall . Com" and get the DVD "911 In Plain Site",,,,, $20.00 including shipping and handdling.
It shows the hole in the Pentagon ,,,,,before,,,, it came down, the hole is only 14 to 16 feet wide,,,,, you can see the offices and paper laying around and nothing was burned.
The Twin Towers,,,,, you can clearly see, on both occasions, missiles being fired just before the inpact.
You will hear and see many witnesses saying that there were explosions and that the buildings were taken down by "inplosions",,,,,,
Get it.
2004-09-04 16:11 | User Profile
Ponce,
Understand your point and agree that all kinds of evidence is available.
Notwithstanding, all the proof in the world could be put in front of the public and they would see only what they want to believe.
The cold hard reality is that the public equates government as America. No abuse or lie is too great to stop them from waving the plastic flags made in China.
Wish truth, facts and evidence would turn the tide. Don't see it happening.
SARTRE :disgust:
2004-09-05 06:00 | User Profile
Hundreds of thousands of new people are beginning to understand for real that the official Government line is not proveable, and in fact bears no semblance to reality. It's gonna take some more time for it to spread. People like me who are up and up on all of it, through shortwave, participating AM stations, and the internet are talking to our families and friends and distributing literature and suggestions to the general public. We can overcome this, it's so incredibly sad that it happenned. What I truly fear is that these powers, when bereft of all love for man, could be capable of unleashing a more serious assault. Then martial law will be declared. All rights will end. The roads will be blocked. You will not be able to transport you and your loved ones. Curfews and rationing will be Government applied, and mandatory " testing " which will include blood sampling for DNA and retina scans and fingerprinting. The phase after that is force implanted microchips. Many will willingly take the microchips, the size of less than a rice grain, themselves .. most will refuse, but in the third phase we will be forced to understand that we have no power. All the secret weapons hed for 20 years will come forth. Magnetic rays, plasma rays, tasers, electro-magnetic disruption units capable of casusing coronary arrest ( heart attack ) upon a general field of hundreds of people. The only fundamental hope we have to ask help from is our own human decency to save us. Only if enough Military Police, FEMA unit people, CIA and FBI and National Guard and Cops .. these are the ones who are necessary in order to make it truly happen. This is why talking to them is paramount. Don't you think it can't happen. Concentration Camps, Guillotine executions, confiscation of property and the absolute inablity to fight back on a physical level. The Process has Began.
2004-09-05 11:32 | User Profile
Exelsis_Deo,
Frankly the Carter era was the closest to a rebellion of attitude. That was based upon economic fear. Without financial disruption on a personal level, the rank and file will be content in their denial.
Sorry, but the trend seems clear. A lost of character within the public, compared to former generations is all around us and declines even more with every cycle of repression.
Wish you were accurate with your guarded optimism. Your assessment regarding: [I]ââ¬ÅOnly if enough Military Police, FEMA unit people, CIA and FBI and National Guard and Cops .. ââ¬Å[/I] is entirely correct; however, when was the last time a government loyalist openned up and shared their soul? They are beasts that see their identity within their service to the State. Their ultimate goal is personal privilege, retirement and benefits and if that requires the elimination of a Bill of Right culture, they will obey their orders.
If this was not so, how would it be possible to maintain an unbroken course into Despotism that is dependent upon the actions of government employees to implement tyranny? Regretfully, our nature is not filled with [I]ââ¬Åhuman decencyââ¬Â[/I]. With the Republic now long dead, the inhabitants eagerly accept their indoctrination into global centralization as inevitable. The reason it proceeds uninterrupted, rests upon the resignation that individuals have lost all respect for themselves. If even a singular govââ¬â¢t person is unwilling to act morally, the prospects that many can and will band together is very remote.
If significance resistance was likely, your dread regarding massive forcible incarceration would be entirely accurate. Notwithstanding, the ability to control is more lethal through economic subjugation because its effectiveness is disguised as a solvable problem awaiting a government solution. Why risk an armed reaction when a planned manipulation produces the desired result? The clones see a life less ordinary, as a danger to themselves and people like you and me as ââ¬ÅEnemies of the Stateââ¬Â. Getting it half right could be a start. But how do you instill integrity in the characterless?
SARTRE
2004-09-05 12:40 | User Profile
Time itself convicts the preposterous government line on what happened on 9/11. The more that time passes, the more obvious it becomes that 9/11 was an inside job. The official line on what happened at the Pentagon is completely ridiculous, explained away by the most simplistic claims. I seriously hope more people come to the conclusion that 9/11 was simply an operation that enabled the government to invade and conquer Arab countries for the good of Israel and the eventual enslavement of the American people.
2004-09-05 14:40 | User Profile
xmetalhead,
Nicely put, with the proper conclusion. Yet; while we all should attempt to hold on to some political hope, the reality is that the public will refuse to confront facts and evidence.
The example of a ââ¬Ëso calledââ¬â¢ conservative pundit, cited here, illustrates that when one mentions Israel as the greatest benefactors of 911, you get stiff opposition. The dispensational blockheads who see Zionism as a blessing, are central to the Amen corner. Ask any columnist what happens if you are blunt, vocal and expose the central issue.
The reason that the conservative movement has been hijacked from the inside is a result from the phony patriots supporting an Israel First policy. The NeoCon traitor list is easy to compile and document. Getting mainstream conservatives and Republicans to confront and deal with the treason is almost impossible.
Every attempt to present the argument among sites that like to bill themselves as ââ¬Ëconservativeââ¬â¢ falls upon publishers who dare not challenge the Zionist policy. These editors are all fake Americans. Many of their sites have proven to be plants to counter the real facts. None of this should be new, but often folks forget or are unable to recognize their true friends.
All the empirical evidence in the world will not alter the insincere heart. When you multiply all those who dare not question the deeds of their own government, the expectation that an awakening is possible - seems a reach. Intellectual, sure folks can act properly, but when you add into the equation the lack of principle among our ââ¬Ëso calledââ¬â¢ right wing allies, itââ¬â¢s not going to happen.
A different approach is necessary. Just look at the success of the disinformation regarding the Zionist mole scandal! If 911 can be explained away in fairy tale terms, the veracity that U.S. policy is made for the ultimate advancement of a Talmud society, will be spinned into oblivion.
When Mike Wallace rails on 60 Minutes the hidden history of the War on Terror, you wonââ¬â¢t see any of the reports on our [URL=http://batr.org/911/]911[/URL] site. Keep the struggle alive, but itââ¬â¢s time for all of us to appreciate the depths of public denial from reality.
SARTRE
2004-09-05 14:56 | User Profile
[URL=http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=758]Bush Admin Orchestrated 9/11 says Senate Candidate[/URL]
INN Correspondent and Radio Producer James Hogue (ny911truth.org), reports, that today, at a press conference in Burlington VT at 1:00 PM EST , U.S. Senate candidate, Craig Hill, revealed photographic proof of the Bush Administration's complicity in the 9/11 attacks...
He presented visual evidence of the demolition of [B]WTC 7[/B] and visual evidence disproving the official story of the attack on the Pentagon...
Craig Hill's web site (HillSenateNow) will be up soon.
A report of the press conference will be given tomorrow, Friday on [url]http://www.wgdr.org[/url] at 4:30 pm.
INN couldn't reach Craig Hill for a comment.
WTC 7 is a crucial topic. Consider our 'Wrack' article - [URL=http://batr.org/wrack/011104.html]911 has become the ultimate excuse [/URL]
SARTRE
2004-09-08 00:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SARTRE]Exelsis_Deo, Wish you were accurate with your guarded optimism. Your assessment regarding: [I]“Only if enough Military Police, FEMA unit people, CIA and FBI and National Guard and Cops .. “[/I] is entirely correct; however, when was the last time a government loyalist openned up and shared their soul? They are beasts that see their identity within their service to the State. Their ultimate goal is personal privilege, retirement and benefits and if that requires the elimination of a Bill of Right culture, they will obey their orders.
If this was not so, how would it be possible to maintain an unbroken course into Despotism that is dependent upon the actions of government employees to implement tyranny[/QUOTE]
Because, friend, as you are well aware the vast majority of people in these government branches would act like you were a wacko if you said the " Global Elite " or Illuminati " or " Zionists " or " Freemasons " or " Neoconservatives " etcetera had these nefarious plans. They would laugh our ass out of the bar, while the utmost echelon of their hierarchy knows exactly what we're talking about, exceedingly more than we are capable of tracking. However, right now, they still need their henchmen. And the henchmen have not been innoculated nor compensated to the degree you suggest. Nor yet even compromised. They do not believe they are mercenaries of the NWO. They believe they are doing the Right Thing. And the Elite still need their muscle. There will be a point if the NWO control pushes too far, you will see vast desertion and unwillingness to cooperate. The "eye " has planned for this contingency, but is yet unwilling to push the envelope.. they are waiting only one or two more generations..
2004-09-08 12:27 | User Profile
Exelsis_Deo,
Within political party circles there was never any laughing about the plan. When patrons sat themselves down at our TAP room bar, they were not afforded the luxury of apathy. The customerââ¬â¢s rights were defined by their participation. The most notable denial agents were off duty police. Talked a good patriotic line, but would arrest any member of their family when ordered.
While they may rationalize that they are not compromised: ââ¬ÅThey do not believe they are mercenaries of the NWOââ¬Â, their conduct conforms to the definition of government whores. The only ââ¬Åright thingââ¬Â, for them, is what advances themselves.
Again wish it was so: ââ¬Åsee vast desertion and unwillingness to cooperateââ¬Â, but doubt it would be extensive or daring. Respect and confidence in the current crop of ââ¬Ëcitizensââ¬â¢ is nil. Events seem to support that the time line wonââ¬â¢t need to wait much longer. Over the last forty years, the smug system servants have been saying you are a wacko . . .
SARTRE
2004-09-08 13:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SARTRE]Exelsis_Deo,
Within political party circles there was never any laughing about the plan. When patrons sat themselves down at our TAP room bar, they were not afforded the luxury of apathy. The customerââ¬â¢s rights were defined by their participation. The most notable denial agents were off duty police. Talked a good patriotic line, but would arrest any member of their family when ordered.
While they may rationalize that they are not compromised: ââ¬ÅThey do not believe they are mercenaries of the NWOââ¬Â, their conduct conforms to the definition of government whores. The only ââ¬Åright thingââ¬Â, for them, is what advances themselves.
Again wish it was so: ââ¬Åsee vast desertion and unwillingness to cooperateââ¬Â, but doubt it would be extensive or daring. Respect and confidence in the current crop of ââ¬Ëcitizensââ¬â¢ is nil. Events seem to support that the time line wonââ¬â¢t need to wait much longer. Over the last forty years, the smug system servants have been saying you are a wacko . . .
SARTRE[/QUOTE]
I think that there's a lot of anger among the goyim front line cadres in the FBI, CIA, NSA, the Pentagon and so forth about the open teason run by Feith and the other neocons.
They're deeply pissed off.
But they're also careerists, so as long as they have their careers to finish, they will push it only so far.
But this is where collapse makes all things possible. If the FBI agents miss a couple of paydays because of a federal payment crisis, then some might just start to feel they have little to lose. Same with the Pentagon.
I agree that it's not likely under the current regime - the whole Feith spy scandal is clearly being spiked across the boards. But if the Crunch comes, all bets are off.
Walter
2004-09-08 13:34 | User Profile
Sartre, I watched NOVA last night on PBS which was a program dedicated to how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed. The show makes a strong case of why the towers eventually collapsed due to the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires. Check it out [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/]here.[/url]
However, I still think these types of programs are distractions from the real cause of the event and worse, reinforce the official 'kamikaze Ay-rab acrobatic freedom-hating pilot theory'.
2004-09-08 16:19 | User Profile
Walter,
As usual you hit the key point. To whatever degree there is a chance for regime replacement, it must court the disgruntled who are on the inside. The very few who retain a noble conscience would be essential - even if they just influence a massive stand down. Individual dissenters are easily removed when they become too disruptive.
The ingredients for a renewal of ââ¬Åinner voicesââ¬Â could arise out of the 911 treason. Yet, the government culture severely penalizes confidents that truly cherish the Republic.
The idea that such a revolt is acceptable, does not appeal to most. The notion that is may be necessary, tempt even fewer. But the vast majority contribute and enable the systemic treason as the normal course of survival within the police state. There are very few Patrick Henryââ¬â¢s cashing a government check.
The unknown element is how the disgruntled opinion makers, those who now tread water in their careers of concessions, would react to a dramatic change of heads? Obviously you wonââ¬â¢t find a defender of the Republic from within the judiciary - they only protect the establishment order. The citizenry fear the potential of a free society more than the chains of a secure prison.
xmetalhead.
Will review the link. The demolishing of WTC building 7 is the account that defies all logic. Until it can be rationally explained, that collapse brings down the entire disinformation campaign.
SARTRE
2004-09-09 07:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SARTRE]There are very few Patrick Henryââ¬â¢s cashing a government check. [/QUOTE]
Ain't that the unvarnished truth?
It's a problem inherent in the system.
The personality type that made the American Revolution tend strongly to the private sector (including espeically owning their own businesses).
Conversely, government tends strongly to attract people with what I call the "employee" mentality - "I put in my 40 hours a week (while doing enough not to get into hot water but no more), they pay me, and that's that." The mentality is characterized by a limited feeling of ownership and responsibility for the broader system, along with strong incentives to milk the productive for whatever they have.
That's what we have now. And it's irreversible at this point.
I agree with Yggdrasil - our best (perhaps only) hope is a general collapse of the current imperial system.
When our carrerists in the CIA cease getting paid (or have their salaries so eroded by inflation they can't support themselves decently) they'll react. I can imagine mutinies in the Army like happened during Vietnam as the tours become longer and longer and the pay gets crappier and crappier.
With our new King George running amock in imperial misadverntures, we might just get our wish.
That's why we must organize now.
Where, oh where, is our leader?
Walter
2004-09-09 10:27 | User Profile
Walter,
What leadership has there been during our lifetime? The GOP went into the tank when Taft was robbed of the nomination. By todayââ¬â¢s standards, Ike was OK, but just look at the crew that was part of his administration. The significance of the Perotââ¬â¢s first run jelled the discontent of the electorate. 18.87% was remarkable.
[url]http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1992[/url]
Especially after his erratic behavior, his shortcomings helped to wreck any chances for other third party bids. Nevertheless, itââ¬â¢s way too late to elect our way out of this mess.
In the current environment, leadership is seen as celebrity. If Arnold is the long awaited star, itââ¬â¢s time to stop watching movies. No doubt a [I]ââ¬Ågeneral collapse of the current imperial systemââ¬Â[/I], would produce an opportunity. However, one should never underestimate the ability of the system to paper over all the reasons for default.
Those ââ¬Ëcarreristsââ¬â¢ will get the Praetorian Guard treatment. Yet, that doesnââ¬â¢t mean that they will turn on the emperor. The potential for mutiny in the lower rank and file, could resemble a slave revolt, but will they have a Spartacus to lead them?
What is needed is a Cincinatus, will one emerge? Thatââ¬â¢s the unanswered question, and the yearning hope that might displacement the despotic circus. Would the plebeians rally to supplant the patricians? What are the odds - probably slim to none. Rome fought continuous civil wars to install a new blood soaked Caesar. But that should not be our objective. The removal of the entire corrupt party, patronage and public ward society is a prerequisite to revive the spirit of the old republic.
Living under a Trilateral banner isnââ¬â¢t a rule by a triumvirate of leadership. The symbol of skull and bones foretells the fate of the empire. Substituting a different emperor didnââ¬â¢t restore senate representation. In order to do away with the core sham, requires the eradication of the fraudulent legitimacy that claims authority. As long as people believe in a dictatorship as lawful, a real leader in the mold of George Washington will not emerge. Since the barbarians have already crossed into the provenances and demand even more bread and spectacles, where will the legions come from to halt the mongolization?
Our stock has become so depleted and marginalized, that civic cries will be heard to support the state. If the masses are unwilling to eliminate and abolish the Federal Reserve swindle, where will the courage be found to replace the interdependent institutions that link, extend and perpetuate the global gulag?
Today the standard to rise to general requires the Bendict Arnold gene. Laws that were originally codified to protect citizens from government, now have been so perverted that they deserve to be disobeyed. That attitude, of civil disobedience, is the real leadership needed to implode the system.
Sometimes the record to serfdom is invoked in the cultural wars. From the ADL stable of diplomacy comes the debunking of The Franklin Prophecy.
[url]http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/franklin_prophecy.asp[/url]
From a site that takes the opposite viewpoint:
[url]http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-references-gentile-benjamin-franklin.html[/url]
The point is simple. Is there any vision in the substance of the quote? Doesnââ¬â¢t matter if these remarks were made by Franklin or are contrived. The consequences of our history should be evident. Since treason is the official foreign policy and the reporting of Israeli moles is being buried, how much more indignity is necessary to support a real leader with the courage to confront the systemic betrayals?
Are there any nationalists within the military or the intelligence community that will make war upon the power elite? If silence regarding 911 is required to secure a pension, what are the prospects of bring to justice the NeoCon traitors?
The War on Terror is a [URL=http://batr.org/911/]War [B]OF[/B] Terror[/URL] . 911 is just the beginning, a test of will. So far Americans flunk. Nothing new - any real leaders will be eliminated . . .
SARTRE
2004-09-09 10:57 | User Profile
Sartre:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply - it's always a pleasure to converse with you.
I really like Yggdrasil's vision of this thing. While I don't doubt there's an element of wishful thinking in this, Yggdrasil does have a coherent theory of how this thing could unfold.
The books Ygg cites are all "must reads" standing alone, but taken together I think he's really on to something important.
Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies" is of central signficance. Tainter just does a bang-up job of proving that collapse is an economic thing that will arise under certain circumstances, and that collapse is not a return to the stoneage, but rather is the falling of a system back down to a lower level of complexity that makes economic sense. Thus, the USSR collapses not to the Dark Ages, but rather to a simplified collection of nation states. Same for Yugoslavia.
And hopefully the same for us. Tainter describes many factors influencing collapse, including wars and the need for "bread and circuses." Obviously, we have those things in spades, with the GOP embracing LBJ's guns and butter programs.
Another book is Prechter's theory on Elliot Wave Theory. I'm a sceptic on this, but some folks believe it, including Ygg himself, who apparently makes his living trading stocks using Elliot theory. Anyway, if you buy this, we're in for a massive "millenial wave" downturn, which makes major changes inevitable. At least they will entail enormous "stress factors" as Tainter would call them.
So, I'm hoping for a collapse.
Our job is to create the social structures back upon which the imperial system will fall. This means millions of us undertaking actions such as getting marketable skills, opening our own businesses, getting out of debt (real important), buying a house in the country with a garden to repair to when the shite flies into the ventilation.
We must organize now. And there are a lot of good things happening. Homeschooling is the most eloquently beautiful rejection of the empire and its twisted values I can imagine. That's wonderful. We all have a role to play in rebuilding our core institiutions of marriage, family, community, and private property.
In my opinion the main work for us is in the economic realm - we must spread the ideas of Distributism, reinstitute private property, ban corporations, outlaw usury.
But that's enough out of me today!
Regards,
Walter
2004-09-09 12:57 | User Profile
Walter,
The economics are the trigger. Either a designed collapse, or a crack that degenerates into an out of control - life of its own. If it starts as a surprise all heaven and earth will be used to steer into a direction that advances the NWO.
When speculating in the late 70ââ¬â¢s the lesson of the silver crash was liquidation only. With no way to trade out of long positions, the spot price sank like a rock.
Cycles are real and Prechter is revered as a prophet. Attended a few hard money monetary conferences during the Carter era.
The reality of legal tender laws means that governments will force their rescue programs upon the public. No way to escape the confiscation scheme. New counterfeit script will enter the economy.
The crux of a day for reckoning is the unserviceable debt.
All futures, options and derivatives; especially shorts destroy free enterprise.
Economic topics always get the most hits from our essays. But what the point of playing the shell game? As long as there is no political alternative the money wonââ¬â¢t save anyone.
Our hill has all the rural advantages, but without a well position general, there will be no seven days in may . . .
Will review Yggdrasil and Tainter.
SARTRE
2004-09-09 14:30 | User Profile
Sartre: I'm trying to spark interest in a discussion of Distributism, but have had few takers thus far. Perhaps we could get a lively discussion going over on the Distributism forum under Business and Economy.
Ygg is an occasional contributor here on OD. I cut & paste below [URL=http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/index.htm] his list of books[/URL] that I think taken together form a coherent framework for understanding our current predicament and how to save our own bacon.
While I agree with most of Ygg's choices, I could do without some of the NS references (I think they distract from the core task of forming a Christian Nationalist movement).
In addition, I would include a few books that prove that human tribes are in fact organisms (Wilson's "Darwin's Cathedral") and that the free market institutions are essential to the good function of the social organism (I suggest we consider for inclusion in our own classics list David Korten's "When Corporations Rule the World", Belloc's "Restoration of Property", a book on the Mondragon Cooperatives of the Basque Country and its relationship to the Basque National movement - forgot the name and just ordered it from Amazon. Also, the book on the computer modeling of artificial societies - Ygg referenced an Atlantic Monthly article reviewing that, I have it in my library someplace).
For me the jury is still out on Elliot Wave Theory, but my mind is open. It seems to go well with the organismic view of human society.
In addition to Tainter's book, I highly recommend the Mating Mind. That's a real eye opener that explains well why our people love to mouth the insanely self-destructive nostrums of multiculturalism (it's sexual advertising dressed up as altruism).
Walter
Books - The Seven Pillars of WN with their Ancestors and Progeny:
Don Quixote - Miguel De Cervantes At the Crest of the Tidal Wave - Prechter The Posen Speech Oct. 4, 1943 - Heinrich Himmler 2. Evolution and Ethics - Sir Arthur Keith
A New Theory of Human Evolution - Sir Arthur Keith The Mating Mind - Geoffrey Miller Genetics & Education - Arthur Jensen The Bell Curve - Herrenstein & Murray Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton The Book of Matthew - St. Matthew 3. Jewish History, Jewish Religion - Israel Shahak
The Samson Option - Hersh By Way of Deception - Ostrovsky The Fatal Embrace - Ginzberg The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion - Anonymous The Controversy of Zion - Douglass Reed The Book of Matthew - St. Matthew 4. The Culture of Critique - MacDonald
The Ordeal of Civility - John Murry Cuddihy Margaret Meade and American Samoa - Freeman A People Who Shall Dwell Alone - MacDonald The Book of Matthew - St. Matthew 5. Albion's Seed - Fischer
Locksley Hall - Alfred Lord Tennyson No Offense, Civil Religion and Protestant Taste - John Murray Cuddihy The Decline of the Wasp - Schrag The Demographic Struggle for Power - Milica Zarkovic Bookman 6. The Dispossessed Majority - Wilmot Robertson
Time on the Cross - Fogel & Engerman Alien Nation - Brimelow Oswald Mosely - Robert Skidelsky White Power - George Lincoln Rockwell My Awakening - Duke 7. The Collapse of Complex Societies - Joseph Tainter The Social Contract - Richard Ardrey The Turner Diaries - William Pierce Paul Revere's Ride - Fischer Civil War II - Thomas Chittum The Prince - Machiavelli
2004-09-09 17:30 | User Profile
Walter,
Please read my private message.
If Distributism means: [url]http://www.justpeace.org/encourdistributism.htm[/url] I would pass on an ecumenical approach.
I'm a product of a fine traditional Catholic education, who reject the politics of the Church, while accepting the direct disclosed accounts of Christ's own teachings. The catholic (universal) certainly applies to the message of Christââ¬â¢s gospel, but hasnââ¬â¢t been politically successful to achieve peace on earth.
The economics of Jefferson are required to achieve Liberty. The mercantile interests of Hamilton breeds empire.
G.K. Chesterton and H. Belloc both have fine insights. However, community does not extend to the multitude. Separate is best, in order to achieve justice.
Much like the designs for global interdependence, the flaw resides in the dream of world benevolence. Just not consistent within our nature. The Elliot Wave Theory tracts human behavior as cycler and attempt to predict direct changes and intensity.
The compulsion for contrived conflict is necessary to push the cattle into the pin. 911 is a bull market move in despotism. Christian charity is not practiced by NWO operatives. Distributism might be an option, for some, if willing accepted; however, those who reject its sympathies may well resist a communal standard.
If markets can be predicted, the underlying human behavior must be understood. Apply this test to the globalist agenda and comprehension of current events start to make sense.
The reason that the rich get richer is that the sheep follow the wrong tune. If one wagers on futures, you better know itââ¬â¢s a house game. The terrorism mayhem is being used as the [URL=http://batr.org/wrack/011104.html ]ultimate excuse [/URL] to de-legitimize movements of national (tribal) liberation. The globalist own the house, make the rules and rapes the suckers.
Our conclusion is that the meek will have to wait a little longer to inherent this world . . .
SARTRE
2004-09-09 18:59 | User Profile
Sartre:
I believe in the free market, and I used to be a libertarian.
And I still believe in the free market - nor more fervently than ever - it's just that I've come to understand that some of the things we take for granted are not conducive to the good functioning of the free market.
I think that most of it, in economic terms, boils down to cost internalization. Posner wrote an influential book about how much of the common law can be seen in terms of forcing economic actors to bear the costs of their own actions.
But modern capitalism is all about cost EXTERNALIZATION. This is expressed in a number of legal institutions.
The most obvious example of a bedrock capitalist institution that was consciously designed to allow passive investors to externalize costs onto society is the corporate organizational form itself, with its complete rupture of management and ownership that created a parasitic rentier class of corporate managers; limited liability of wholly passive investors that gave rise to the virtual reality of the stock markets; and the legal fiction of corporate personhood endowed with Constitutional rights that made a total mockery of our human rights. The first step toward restoring the free market is to end (at least the routine) use of the corporate organizational form, and to return to the use of sole proprietorships and general partnerships (also production cooperatives, like the Mondragon enterprises).
Ridding ourselves of the corporation would have tremendous beneficial effects, as behemouths like Walmart that made their money looting social capital would become legally impossible.
Other vehicles for cost externalization are usury and media advertising that plays on human frailty, but that's another discussion.
Actually, I'm not arguing anything that the Chicago School in theory should not accept. I'm a fanatic about the free market. It's just that, true to Adam Smith, I've come to accept that the free market operates in a broader social context. The health of that broader social context is nowadays called "social capital," and corporations a very good at privatizing that social capital and then turning it over to the parasitic corporate elite and faceless investors.
Call it what you want, I think Distributism is just Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson (who hated monopolies, as you know) by another name.
Walter
2004-09-09 19:16 | User Profile
In capitalism, certain players grow larger and larger until they can distort the marketplace to a significant degree. Distributism encourages the most widespread ownership of property possible. Like Econ 101, it simply holds that the free market functions best with perfect competition.
2004-09-09 23:30 | User Profile
Walter and Quantrill,
Most purest libertarians part ways with our American First economic advocacy. Since Corporate/Capitalism is hostile to real Free Enterprise, and Free Markets only exists in theory; it may be more realistic to view our historic tariff trade relationships as beneficial to our own domestic interests.
If one seeks to equalize world trade as a more efficient method of production and distribution, the end result will be dominance of Corporate/Globalism. Itââ¬â¢s not our duty to save the world or export prosperity abroad. It is in the national interest to be as self sufficient and independent as possible. Commerce is good, and when fair trade can be instituted, it should be sought. Profits belong to the entrepreneur who accepts the risks of business.
The use of the corporate organizational form, inhibits wide prosperity. Returning to the use of sole proprietorships and general partnerships would extend the upwardly mobile middle class. However, that sensible shift into economic sanity will be fought every inch of the way by the controllers of capital.
The march to endorse Free Trade has destroyed our own domestic economy. Central bankers, the IMF, World Bank etc are the enforcers of Globalism. The U.S. economy could survive quite well and restore employment back to industrious citizens by closing the welfare door of favored offshore transnationals. Only approved monopolies dominate under this current world trade system. A free market cannot exist when trade only flows in one direction.
If your goal is defined as: [I]ââ¬ÅDistributism encourages the most widespread ownership of property possibleââ¬Â, [/I] and judged from a domestic perspective, thatââ¬â¢s fine. The use of the term is quite different from the example previously used to illustrate its meaning.
The only practical method to culturally expand (itââ¬â¢s still a war of ideas) the economic autonomy for the greatest number of enterprising citizens is to breakup the Corporate/State financial model of restricting capital, that favors cronyism. Before a populist ownership society could emerge, the public needs to realize that the banking establishment serves only to impoverish the taxpayers.
If itââ¬â¢s a national goal to advance home ownership, what makes exporting local industries offshore beneficial? When socialism becomes policy, Jeffersonââ¬â¢s dream disappears. Replacing State/Capitalism wonââ¬â¢t happen when people continue to feed the usurer.
Thereââ¬â¢s no magic bullet that will ship Wall Street elitism offshore, and issue a genuine hard money currency for domestic exchange. Your desire for a free market can only be achieved under circumstances that allow for local political sovereignty. Globalism is the antithesis of freedom.
Tie this back into 911. When a country is deployed to foster and expand an empire, the pragmatic concerns of domestic economic prosperity are lost with the expansive debt and costs to support a huge growth in the State. The economic solution requires a political revolution.
SARTRE
2004-09-10 13:02 | User Profile
I agree with most of your comments. I think that we should focus not on Free Trade - which is really just a cover for large corporations to better loot social capital and externalize costs. We should focus rather on attacking the main pillars of Capitalism's virtual reality - the corporation, the fiat money system, manipulative advertising, and usury. If we could attack those things, the vast concentrations of money and power that make outrages like NAFTA possible would be nuetralized.
[QUOTE][SARTRE]The use of the corporate organizational form, inhibits wide prosperity. Returning to the use of sole proprietorships and general partnerships would extend the upwardly mobile middle class. However, that sensible shift into economic sanity will be fought every inch of the way by the controllers of capital.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly right. The problem can be seen as one of passive versus active investing. Passive investing is tolerable to a certain extent (we must always have some "play in the joints" as Justice Holmes put it), but it should be disfavored in law just as active investing should be strongly favoured.
Passive investing destroys social capital since it separates ownership from management. As Belloc said, "delegated ownership is a contradiction in terms." This all leads to socially irresponsible absentee landlordism. And really, that's precisely what capitalism, with its faceless investors acting through virtual reality systems like corporatins, is.
The bedrock social institution of private property is itself a UNITY of ownership, management and material liability. Passive investing seeks to duck socially beneficial material liability by offerring this deal: "I will give up most day-to-day management of my investment and retain only ownership, but in exchange society will give up full recourse against me for the consequences."
This definitional splitting of the indicia of private property destroys the institution. It's like "re-defining" marriage. If marriage was what the Middle Ages called it - a man and woman "until death do them part" - is "re-defined" to mean "until one of us gets sick of it", then clearly the institution itself is destroyed by legal legerdemain. So too Capitalism takes the socially beneficial UNITY of ownership, management, and liability for debts that is private property, splits those indicia apart, and then brazenly re-defines these mere components as the institution itself. Capitalism slanders the venerable institution of private property by calling publicly traded stock and even futures and derivatives "private property." It's really quite insane.
One might as well take an automobile to a chop shop, take it apart into its main systems, and then call the engine, the brakes and the cooling system all "automobiles."
Absentee landlordism if allowed to become too common is an awful problem that caused untold human suffering in places like Ireland and Poland, and indeed in the American South. A passive investor cares only for dividends, and since he faces limited liability for the actions of his hirelings, he doesn't particluarly care what they do so long as they keep that money flowing. An English absentee landowner sitting in London cared not whether the Irish peasants were dispossessed by his overseers, so long as he received those rents. It's the same with modern day stockholders. Indeed, the big stockholders like pension funds are so broadly and deeply invested across the economy that ANY time and efforts spent on managing a company is just a dead waste. This is the problem we face now - endemic absentee landlordism.
We must take aim at the legal institutions of passive investing, while reinforcing the legal protections of active investing. In my opinion, that's nearly the whole of the Distributist program. For the most part - not always but favoured as a matter of basic public policy - investors should be directly involved with managing their investments, and should likewise stand materially answerable with all of their property (not just the amount invested) for the consequences of that investment. Private property is all about making people take a keen interest in the management of their property because they stand to lose it if they're negligent of the rights of others or the interests of the community at large.
To repeat, delegated ownership is a contradiction in terms. Modern capitalism is based on an oxymoron, and must fail.
[QUOTE]A free market cannot exist when trade only flows in one direction.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. But more fundamentally, a free market cannot exist when the very institution of private property is defined out of existence.
[QUOTE]The only practical method to culturally expand (itââ¬â¢s still a war of ideas) the economic autonomy for the greatest number of enterprising citizens is to breakup the Corporate/State financial model of restricting capital, that favors cronyism. Before a populist ownership society could emerge, the public needs to realize that the banking establishment serves only to impoverish the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but it's not only the banking system with its fiat funny money. It's usury - a thing unconditionally condemned by the Catholic Church in better times at least.
[QUOTE]If itââ¬â¢s a national goal to advance home ownership, what makes exporting local industries offshore beneficial? When socialism becomes policy, Jeffersonââ¬â¢s dream disappears. Replacing State/Capitalism wonââ¬â¢t happen when people continue to feed the usurer.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. End usury. It's inherently sinful.
And there are workable altenatives. Mondragon and Islamic Banking spring to mind.
[QUOTE]Thereââ¬â¢s no magic bullet that will ship Wall Street elitism offshore, and issue a genuine hard money currency for domestic exchange. Your desire for a free market can only be achieved under circumstances that allow for local political sovereignty. Globalism is the antithesis of freedom.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Without a general collapse, none of this is possible.
The good news is that the collapse will be of this "virtual economy" of fiat money, manipulative advertising, publicly traded stock, and derivatives. Our job now is to spread the word - get out the news that there is a Third Position that is radically free market.
2004-09-10 13:42 | User Profile
Walter, Sartre, I agree with most of the points both of you have made.
Sartre - I am looking at Distributism from a nationalist perspective, which is how both the English Distributists and the Southern Agrarians viewed it. Indeed, it is the only way it can be successful. It is not desirable to take responsibility for spreading real property ownership throughout the world, but it is within one's own people. Your comments indicate you understand this very well.
Walter- You wrote: [QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I think that we should focus not on Free Trade - which is really just a cover for large corporations to better loot social capital and externalize costs. We should focus rather on attacking the main pillars of Capitalism's virtual reality - the corporation, the fiat money system, manipulative advertising, and usury. If we could attack those things, the vast concentrations of money and power that make outrages like NAFTA possible would be nuetralized.[/QUOTE] You may be right that those are more desirable targets, but they are also much tougher ones. Restricting Free Trade, while difficult, is an actually achievable political goal, because it has populist appeal. Abolishing the corporation does not.
2004-09-10 14:33 | User Profile
Walter,
Visit the BATR [URL=http://batr.org/mercantile.html ]Mercantile[/URL] page. Note the concept of - velocity of money - then review some of our economic essays.
Seems that Mondragon is a version of socialism. Basic point missed is that people are not equal. Very few have the self discipline to own and manage an enterprise. There will be competent owners and workers who prefer to labor as hired help.
When one acquires sufficient capital to sustain economic existence, the natural impulse is to invest their funds. Anyone who labored in the warfare of business, and understands the concentrated disadvantaged competing against Fortune 500 size public companies, will opt for a pay out departure, when and if the opportunity occurs. The unmistakable reason is that economies of scale, severe restriction to new capital to expand and compete, and most important - slanted government regulations that favor the large corporate donor - who drafts the legislation.
Passive income derived from invested capital is the Holy Gail that built family fortunes. Understand all the social inequalities that stem from excessive concentration; however, virtually every businessman I ever met would cash out for a very simple reason. The present global economy no longer works for the small business venture. Surely, there are many exceptions, but the hand writing on the wall is well known by anyone who has the responsibility to make good on a payroll.
The Mondragon theory hits a stone wall with savvy entrepreneur when it is based upon the concept of a Cooperative. Wealth is created from the genius of individual inspiration - able to implement commerce under dedicated leadership. Economic populism does not translate into shared decision making. The boss is the boss for a reason. The alternative is an economy based upon the Merchant Class . . .
Passive income derived from dividends is valid. Interest paid on saved capital invested is subject to well-founded criticism. It would be naive to argue a grassroots economic theory to folks of independent means. The operational principle is that people conducts their affairs in their own best interests. Those who have succeeded and survived the system, are less inclined towards altruism. Thatââ¬â¢s human nature.
All models for economic prosperity need to be based upon sound business practices to produce meaningful wealth. The reason that the Corporate/State can so easily snuff out proprietor rivalry, is that the entire political-economic matrix is designed to eliminate real competition. Small business is the solution not the enemy of employees.
Better bring this back to the topic. With the homeland security centralization of the domestic economy, what chance does local ownership have to remain in business? Government contracts donââ¬â¢t flow to regional enterprises.
Sorry Walter, you are spinning wheels that will fall upon the heads of the entrepreneur. Will take leave on this subject.
SARTRE
2004-09-10 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE][SARTRE]Seems that Mondragon is a version of socialism. [/QUOTE]
Mondragon isn't socialism, if by that we mean the state ownership of the means of production. Mondragon is all about private property. And if you want in, you have to have an idea and some capital to plop into whichever business that we have.
The idea is that labor should be united with the means of production to the extent feasible. Employee ownership is the goal, as you note.
[QUOTE]Basic point missed is that people are not equal. Very few have the self discipline to own and manage an enterprise. There will be competent owners and workers who prefer to labor as hired help.[/QUOTE]
That's right, and Distributism surely has nothing against letting the thrifty and ambitious grow wealthy while allowing slothful spendthrifts to suffer. The whole point of regulation of the free market, and that means making sure the local wastrel can't avail himself of the state and tax unduely his productive neighbors.
As Belloc makes clear, we're not trying to enforce results written in stone. Indeed as the Holy Father himself made clear in Rerum Novarum, economic inequality of itself is no vice. Distributism simply aims at establishing ground rules that force economic actors to internalize their costs, preventing monopolies, and encouraging a very broad class of self-employed business men and women. It certainly is not aimed at achieving absolute equality, nor does it have anything at all against finding a job.
As I said on another thread, starting a business and employing people is the second best thing any man can do in the economic sphere. The first best thing he can do is to help the employees start their own businesses.
[QUOTE]When one acquires sufficient capital to sustain economic existence, the natural impulse is to invest their funds.[/QUOTE]
Right. But this is where the "well regulated" part of the economy comes in. We need to set the rules such that active investment is encouraged, and passive investment is not.
[QUOTE]Anyone who labored in the warfare of business, and understands the concentrated disadvantaged competing against Fortune 500 size public companies, will opt for a pay out departure, when and if the opportunity occurs. [/QUOTE]
That's for sure, which is why the rules of the game must change.
A sole proprietor grocery store owner has zero chance against the corporate chain with its vast stockpiles of passive capital. But if that corporate chain were forced by law to reorganize into a general partnership with all those passive investors fully liable for the debts of the partnership, then suddenly we'd see the chain store broken up into more manageable local units.
[QUOTE]The unmistakable reason is that economies of scale,[/QUOTE]
Actually, this is a common misunderstanding. Economies of scale are about dividing fixed costs over larger production runs. But that's achievable without resort to corporations. I should add paranthetically that large corporations are not as efficient generall speaking as small businesses, which tend to be extremely frugal with their resources.
Anyway, economies of scale are not what the big corporations are about. That which the corporate libertarians call "economies of scale" is really the financial clout corporations use to externalize their costs onto society at large.
[QUOTE]severe restriction to new capital to expand and compete, and most important - slanted government regulations that favor the large corporate donor - who drafts the legislation.[/QUOTE]
Right. Large corporations use their vast warehouses of passive capital to externalize their costs by setting the rules of the game in their favour.
Distributism is all about disallowing this, and forcing all economic actors to internalize their costs, most especially by not allowing the artificial limitations on liability that corporations are designed to achieve.
[QUOTE]Passive income derived from invested capital is the Holy Gail that built family fortunes. Understand all the social inequalities that stem from excessive concentration; however, virtually every businessman I ever met would cash out for a very simple reason. The present global economy no longer works for the small business venture. Surely, there are many exceptions, but the hand writing on the wall is well known by anyone who has the responsibility to make good on a payroll.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. That's why we must change the rules of the game such that they disfavour large scale passivie investing and encourage active investing, especially employee owership of the means of production.
[QUOTE]The Mondragon theory hits a stone wall with savvy entrepreneur when it is based upon the concept of a Cooperative. Wealth is created from the genius of individual inspiration - able to implement commerce under dedicated leadership. Economic populism does not translate into shared decision making. The boss is the boss for a reason. The alternative is an economy based upon the Merchant Class . . .[/QUOTE]
I invite you to look into Mondragon a bit more. The word "cooperative" might be throwing you off. This is private property. Actually, much like a cooperative apartment house, but instead a business. It's not that much different than a general partnership.
This is most emphatically NOT state owned property. Mondragon was inspired by Rerum Novarum, which clearly and firmly rejected both socialism and capitalism, and taught instead employee ownership of the means of production (especially land) as the third and best way forward.
[QUOTE]Passive income derived from dividends is valid. [/QUOTE]
Dividends imply the joint stock company, which Adam Smith loathed, and which are to my mind invalid because they proceed from an artificial limitation on the investor's liability.
Distributions from a general partnerships are different in that key respect, and thus are perfectly fine. The more the better!
[QUOTE]Interest paid on saved capital invested is subject to well-founded criticism. [/QUOTE]
I believe that all lending at interest should be banned. Most Distributists wouldn't go that far, and would rather allow interest lending for "productive loans" but not for "non-productive" (i.e. consumer) loans. I think that for administrative reasons, the distinction would be impossible to enforce, and that it's better to adopot a bright line rule against usury.
By the way, this is the position Islamic Banking takes. All lending at interest is forbidden, but they've come up with some very creative fig leaves that respect the ban on usury while providing a flexible and workable banking system. We have a few lessons to learn from their experience, IMHO.
[QUOTE]It would be naive to argue a grassroots economic theory to folks of independent means. The operational principle is that people conducts their affairs in their own best interests. Those who have succeeded and survived the system, are less inclined towards altruism. Thatââ¬â¢s human nature.[/QUOTE]
Distributism isn't about altruism. It is about reinstituting private property.
[QUOTE]All models for economic prosperity need to be based upon sound business practices to produce meaningful wealth. [/QUOTE]
Right, which is why the Mondragon experience is so important. Here is a movement based on free enterprise and private property that grew from one tiny business making Sterno stoves to an $8 billion/year in revenues. Mondragon is a very BIG association of small and medium sized businesses. it is the largest business in the Basque Country, and one of the largest businesses in Spain.
I point out also that Mondragon played a key role in maintaining a Basque national identity within a larger Spain.
Not that it's perfect, but surely Mondragon helped countless people buy into ownership of their jobs, and it was done without the tyrranical rule of finance over labor.
[QUOTE]The reason that the Corporate/State can so easily snuff out proprietor rivalry, is that the entire political-economic matrix is designed to eliminate real competition. Small business is the solution not the enemy of employees.[/QUOTE]
Bull's eye!
[QUOTE]Better bring this back to the topic. With the homeland security centralization of the domestic economy, what chance does local ownership have to remain in business? Government contracts donââ¬â¢t flow to regional enterprises.[/QUOTE]
Zero chance. Which is why we need to end the routine use of the corporate organzational form.
[QUOTE]Sorry Walter, you are spinning wheels that will fall upon the heads of the entrepreneur. [/QUOTE]
Why do you say that? The policies Distributism advances are aimed at helping the individual entrepreneur against the depradations of concentrated capital.
Walter
2004-09-10 23:48 | User Profile
Walter,
Seems you wonââ¬â¢t let me go on this one!
OK, while operating under several corporations, you will never hear a defense for the practice coming from us. The most secure method to protect private property is to organize under trusts. (in some case offshore). Many pay good money to get that advise.
First off socialism doesnââ¬â¢t need to require state ownership to qualify under the broad functions of a ââ¬Åcollectiveââ¬Â mentality. Having always been an employer, the experience of ESOP forms of business ââ¬Åemployee ownership of the means of productionââ¬Â is not operationally robust. The need for a brain trust - usually embodied within the responsibility of a majority owner - make a business work. While you can increase motivation through sharing ownership benefits, the rank and file will never accept the necessity of self discipline, or commitment for financial responsibility.
Since I know the grocery game very well, you are assuming too much muscle form the chains. This is one industry where an individual can still survive and under a special niche, prosper. The big advantage of the nationals is their leverage in buying. Having been on the wrong end of that stick, you would be amazed how inefficient the big boys can be because of the shortcoming from hired management.
However, the economy of scale that the chains have is the effective ability to sell and endure significant losses because of their enormous cash flow. The desire to drive out persistent small players is at the heart of the chain strategy.
Dividends are simply a distribution of profits. The name for the term is not the crucial concern. South African mines have long paid out huge distributions (dividends) because their organizational philosophy was to go out of business when the ore played out. This is a very different mindset from most companies.
Interest is a topic well beyond this thread, and should be reviewed another time.
The core issue regarding private property is that it is ownership by an individual. There is no communal ownership nature, for it to be personal. If you allow for and accept a partnership, there is no sensible or necessary reason to restrict the number of partners. Understand the fallacy of limited liability and all the rationalization that lawyers push to confuse on the subject. However, excluding all the legal contortions, issuing shares in an non public (meaning not traded on an exchange) business is a valid method to finance a business endeavor or divide up profits.
Suggest you attempting to use a model that defines terms differently than normally accepted in business.
The bottom line about rule changes is that some entity demands the authority to make those changes and to enforce obedience upon business conduct. There is no easy answer, and the likelihood that such reforms can and would be successful are most remote.
The freedom to buy and sell is still at the center of authentic commerce. Greedy monopolists may be just more talented businessmen. The key factors that separates the marketplace players from the financial thieves are the structures of the financial exchanges, regulated by their friendly government bureaucracies.
Rerum Novarum, if you understand its pronouncements as - employee ownership of the means of production (especially land) as the third and best way forward - denies the nature of the corrupt soul and drives the politics into a radical liberal theology. Acknowledging that RV is a product of a more traditional era (which is a positive), it is a very hard sell to accept a universal redistribution of resources under the justification that people have a ââ¬Årightââ¬Â to ownership.
Private property is an end result of a political struggle, paid for from acquired wealth. Itââ¬â¢s not a fair deal, and based upon the current condition of our corrupt nature, not much more should be expected.
Your distributists may function within a homogeneous society such as the Basque identity, but the mere fact that such a region is denied their own self determination, is the core reason for Spanish unrest. If you solve the political separation, fine; practice the economic experiment.
However, attempting to extrapolate a theory that may work within a like community (been there and was called an Anglo) to a multicultural society with a long history of economic elitism is like waiting for the Church to distribute her wealth to the poor.
The entrepreneur is a creator of wealth that is motivated by his own betterment. If customers value the product or service, he will profit. If the society benefits from the commerce, he will be pleased, but that is not his prime motivation. If you were my competitor, I would work to expand my market and if that meant a loss from your business, so be it. Business is going to war.
Markets grow and wealth will expand, but there is no guarantee who reaps the rewards.
No doubt the Corporate/State is the enemy of Free Enterprise. Yet, aiming to help individual entrepreneurs is not what is needed. Replacing the privileged and protected - rule making system - for the business behemoths is the prime requirement. Need to drop the communal collective as a right or method to stir the creators of wealth. So far, Iââ¬â¢ll remain retired.
SARTRE
2004-09-11 08:06 | User Profile
Please see [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88990#post88990]Betrayal of Adam Smith[/URL]
2004-09-11 10:59 | User Profile
Walter,
Attempts to use a coercive government to advance the ââ¬Åpublic interestââ¬Â is the phony justification that advance centralization. There is no need to debate the current condition of economic serfdom that is the true end product of Globalism; itââ¬â¢s a given. Smith simply re-enforces the need for a homogeneous society to transact beneficial economic commerce.
[QUOTE]"In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Smith made no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest-to protect the poor against the rich. We can imagine that given the experience of his day the possibility never occurred to him."[/QUOTE]
It should be obvious that governments act to secure the social and economic positions of those engaged in and defend their contrived rules, enforced by punitive penalties.
So are we to expect such governments to promote the principles that Smith advocate?
For ââ¬Åthe pursuit of self-interest into optimal public benefitââ¬Â, surely you would not envision relying upon a bureaucracy to achieve that end? The entire basis of Statism is rooted in the fallacy ââ¬Åitââ¬â¢s for the childrenââ¬Â . . .
It should be apparent that the reason that economic tyranny is the model for modern society lies in the surrender of consumers to the dictates of the Corporate/State. When folks start to talk about the ââ¬Åpublic benefitââ¬Â, it usually is defined by another expansive reach of centralized government.
So whatââ¬â¢s the point? Unless you have a viable competing currency/barter alternative, and ignore legal tender laws, you are wearing chains just like the rest of us. Now if you conclude that scrapping the entire geopolitical transnational interdependent system, you would have a chance to restore localism. The tenants of Distributism, even if they were the ideal, wonââ¬â¢t sell in the marketplace of ignorant fools who keep the fraud of consumerism alive. Progress is a dangerous concept when it comes to spending money.
As long as the independent businessman is stifled and unable to emerge as an effective choice to service the real needs of consumers, the world will continue into economic consolidation. Only a political tumult can or would offer a slim opportunity to take out the trash and start anew.
Last assessment on this top. If it is prudent to consider: U.S. Military Coordinated the 9/11 Attacks - what force on earth will prevent the Global/Corporate/State from compelling the perverted economic realities of the NWO upon humanity? The starting point is to accept the need to disobey . . .
SARTRE
2004-09-11 14:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE][SARTRE]Attempts to use a coercive government to advance the ââ¬Åpublic interestââ¬Â is the phony justification that advance centralization. There is no need to debate the current condition of economic serfdom that is the true end product of Globalism; itââ¬â¢s a given. Smith simply re-enforces the need for a homogeneous society to transact beneficial economic commerce.[/QUOTE]
I am not advancing the use of state power to achieve an end. Indeed, I'm arguing for less state interference in the economy.
The incorporation statutes are one of the most egregious examples of state intervention into the economy that I can think of. Here we have the full power of the state arbitrarily limiting the liability of passive investors at the expense of active investors (owner-operators) and society as a whole. This limited liability is designed expressly to distort the risk/benefit analysis of investments, artifically skewing the rules of the game toward passive investors/financiers and against active owner-operators.
The problem is that we've grown so used to doing business in this wholly artificial corporate environment that we've forgotten just how thoroughly contrived and deeply hostile to the free market the entire scheme is.
I am arguing for the free market - for getting the state out of the business of artificially allowing passive investors to externalize their costs of risk onto society as a whole by means of the incorporation statutes that are enforced by the full weight of the state's coercive powers.
Distributism is all about the allowing the free market to function, and that means removing artificial impediments to it, especially by repealing the incorporation statues.
[QUOTE]It should be obvious that governments act to secure the social and economic positions of those engaged in and defend their contrived rules, enforced by punitive penalties.[/QUOTE]
Right, and the incorporation statutes are just one of the most important ways financial power bought off the state at the expense of real human labor.
[QUOTE]So are we to expect such governments to promote the principles that Smith advocate?[/QUOTE]
This will only happen in the context of a collapse.
[QUOTE]For ââ¬Åthe pursuit of self-interest into optimal public benefitââ¬Â, surely you would not envision relying upon a bureaucracy to achieve that end? The entire basis of Statism is rooted in the fallacy ââ¬Åitââ¬â¢s for the childrenââ¬Â . . .[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm arguing precisely against bureacracy, for example repealing the incorpration statutes that would be a terrible blow against all bureacracy, both state and corporate.
[QUOTE]It should be apparent that the reason that economic tyranny is the model for modern society lies in the surrender of consumers to the dictates of the Corporate/State. When folks start to talk about the ââ¬Åpublic benefitââ¬Â, it usually is defined by another expansive reach of centralized government.[/QUOTE]
That's for sure. The point is, however, that there really is a social organism. It exists. The health of that organism is of paramount concern. That means leaving its nervous system - the free market - free to function without artifical state interventions, such as the incorporation statutes.
[QUOTE]As long as the independent businessman is stifled and unable to emerge as an effective choice to service the real needs of consumers, the world will continue into economic consolidation. Only a political tumult can or would offer a slim opportunity to take out the trash and start anew.[/QUOTE]
That's right. No collapse, no distributist system.
[QUOTE]Last assessment on this top. If it is prudent to consider: U.S. Military Coordinated the 9/11 Attacks - what force on earth will prevent the Global/Corporate/State from compelling the perverted economic realities of the NWO upon humanity? The starting point is to accept the need to disobey . . .[/QUOTE]
But our people are incapable of even conceiving disobenience in their present satiated state. Only a severe shock can do that. We need a collapse of the current virtual economy if we hope to stand a chance against ZOG.
Which is why I like Ygg's analysis so much. He seems to think we'll actually get one, and Tainter's book is indeed the cause of much hope, when viewed through the lens of precipitoius neo-Kahn actions. They pile stress vector upon stress vector, and at some point a collapse must happen.
Our job is to get out the good word of Distributism - the good news that there is a third way that is radically free market and that avoids the terrible distortions of the free market inherent in both Capitalism and Socialsim. We need to at least communicate the idea of a real free market in the minds of our people, such that when the wholly virtual economy of Capitalism collapses (may it collapse soon!) we can avoid the knee-jerk reaction toward state sponsored socialism that is sure to follow.
That's why Mondragon is so important for us. Here we have an experiment over 60 years that proves the Third Way works. The fact that it works best within a homogeneous society like the Basque Country is very good news for us nationalists, as it bolsters our argument that in order for the thing to work, we really must separate ethnic groups into some sort of separate political entity (with some measure at least of sovereignty), including whites.
The problem is one of vocabulary. We're so used to thinking within the categories that the Marxists and their "corporate libertarian" progeny handed us, that we don't recognize the organic free market when we actually encounter it, such as the Mondaragon Cooperatives.