Jim Marrs re: National Socialism
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
What does everyone think about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1PvsOO2-AM
Food for thought or nonsense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1PvsOO2-AM
Food for thought or nonsense?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Marrs is dead on.
Not just here,
but with his thoughts on the Fed, JFK, and just about any other topic he starts talking about.
The guy has been doing deep primary research for several decades, and he speaks the truth.
However, don't expect a positive reaction to this clip around here.
Most around here seem to think that NAZI is the wave of the future for this country.
God forbid you try to argue against the insane dictatorial socialist direction this country is headed in. Oh no. God forbid. You would be told you had no compassion, and were a disgusting Free Market Idealist or some shit.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You know, food stamps, medicare, public education, social security, housing assistance, universal health care, and extreme government control of the economy via a central bank are generaly NOT considered hallmarks of a free market republic.
Those are more typical of a socialist society.
Roll your eyes all you want.
And just in case you had some deluded vision of socialism, it has historicaly failed to "right" the inequity between rich and poor in just about every country with which it has been implemeneted. All socialism ever did was steal wealth from some members of the upper classes and redristribute it to the protected members at the top of the pyramid, while throwing table scraps to the masses.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
as per the video:
"Instead of the benefits going to the people it goes to the corporations"
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Corporate Welfare.
I think some of us forget that, as far as the law is concerned, corporations ARE people.
At least, they have the very same rights as a true US citizen.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
1. Care to elucidate that concept?
That is exactly my understanding also. No arguments to be had there.
sadly...
edit: I should clarify.... I agree with you, and it sucks...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And corrupt they will stay.
Let me ask you this...
Why do you think the founders of America viewed the strict LIMITATION of government as the best safeguard to personal liberty?
After you wrestle yourself for the answer, come back and explain to all of us how the idea of providing limitless authority to government, in the vain hope that it will exercise that power for the true good of the individual, will someday pay off.
We can all sit around here and theorize on perfect government and philosophical ideals, but i thougth that was just the sort of naive thinking we shunned here?
The world can't even perfect LIMITED government with out massive corruption, opression, and outright criminal enterprise.
What makes you think it is anywhere close to being able to implement limitLESS government?
Are there any responsibilities that you DO think are best left to the individual to fulfill? Please expound.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hi Drifting........I agree with this statement, somewhat.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That's like saying your airplane was hijacked by its pilot....
So, you disagree with my statement to drifting?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Not particularly. I simply disagree with its implication -- that somehow communism or socialism have failed to be realized because they were "hijacked". They weren't hijacked. You can't hand over the yoke of an airplane to someone, give them limitless authority over your airplane, give them a vague description of where you want to go, and then complain when your plane plunges into the ground.
Socialism isn't a plane that failed to fly because of its pilot. Socialism is a plane that failed to fly because it's not a plane at all. It's simply a destination.
sigh...........ok, I'm going to be a bit long winded to get to my point.......
My main problem with a lot of arguments here is the fallacy that if one believes that there is one big solution, you have to believe that there is only one big problem. So, once you have identified the bad guy, he gets blamed for everything. The identified group or institution becomes a scapegoat, so that even problems that have nothing to do with it are laid at its door. What communists, anti-communists, Nazis and other ethnic nationalists, religionists, fringe movements, and revolutionaries, whatever, of every kind all have in common is that they can name the source of society's ills in one or two words. For you and others like you, the word is 'government'.
I'm sure you look back at the Communists of the past with contempt, with their vision of a world of peace and plenty brought about by centralized bureaucracy. The result of that vision is quite distasteful, no? But the terms it was described in before the fact (thus my hijacking argument) are eerily reminiscent (to me) of the way the Libertarians of today foresee a revolution in the opposite direction, abolishing public property instead of private property, and without hindsight, each argument sounds about equally credible to the listeners of its time.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Often, yes.
When have I, or "others like me" ever claimed that government is the primary "source of society's ills"? Disagreeing with advocates of expanded government doesn't mean that one thinks government is somehow the Greatest Evil. Certainly I believe that government is a major cause of social problems, but it is far from alone in that regard.
This is an excellent point. Building a new society based largely on a distaste for an old one is foolish at best and horribly dangerous at worst. Socialism grew out of a distaste for capitalism and has long been defined more by an abolishment of private enterprise or various forms of inequality as opposed to being defined upon new systems of exchange. Similarly, many Libertarians simply propose a world without government, foolishly and dangerously assuming that the simple absence of governmental authority will somehow create some kind of freeman's utopia.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
While I appreciate that you recognize there are other contributing factors to 'social problems', it hard for me to believe your above statement when you have implied differently by not only your arguments you've made here time and time again, but by your stated philosophical leanings. Your arguments always lead to the big bad gov't. You asked 'When have I, or "others like me" ever claimed that government is the primary "source of society's ills"?' then say, 'Certainly I believe that government is a major cause of social problems.' So all you have said here to me is that, indeed, the gov't is the biggest problem, more so than anything else. 'Government' is still your 'bogeyman.'
One of my problems with the current libertarianism movement is that it is clearly an article of faith that one must believe that certain untested actions will have beneficial outcomes. Since the 'real world' offers no evidence whatever to back up these expectations as certainties, but only offers the hope that it might happen if the 'path is cleared.' Seems to me any sensible person has to conclude that trying it might be quite a gamble. But I've been told time and time again here that it's no gamble at all.
And then the whole concept seems like wishful thinking to me. Especially when the fall back belief is that, should some hopes fail (we discussed this in another thread, but an example would be the idea that too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability in a society, a statement that you agreed with if I remember correctly), it would only mean that such failure is therefore the right outcome and should be embraced.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Thanks!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
LOL...first, this is a political message board. Hence the focus on government. Second, I constantly get arguments like "without government, we'll have corporate overlords" to which I agree regarding that possibility, but point out that it's simply disingenuous as this is typically coming from someone typically justifying their perferred, existing overlords.
What? I've said that government is a "major cause of social problems". This doesn't mean "government is the biggest problem". Government is one of many problems, while at the same time being part of many benefits. Furthermore, government is not my 'bogeyman'. Those who invoke force, be them governments, corporations, terrorists, churches, or anyone else are my 'bogeyman'.
Government, by nearly any definition, is a force monopoly. Hence my distate for government. But that certainly does not mean that government is somehow unique in that regard. A monopolistic corporation in a libertarian utopia that extracts tributes from millions or enslaves thousands or launches violent wars against its neighbors is no better than the government that came before it. However, the possibility for such an incarnation does not somehow justify today's monoplies on tributes, slavery, and warfare.
If someone is telling you that abandoning government is "no gamble at all", then that person is a fool. Can you show me where I've said that or someone else has said that an absence of government is not a gamble?
Most advocates for free societies are simply rejecting the force of the state via a belief in the moral correctness individual liberty. Since individual liberty carries with it a license to do all kinds of stupid and potentially harmful things, anyone who claims this to be "not a gamble" doesn't even understand their own position. On the flipside, someone who advocates for any social system on that platform is equally foolish, be them libertarian, socialistic, or anything else.
Many pro-liberty individuals, myself included, do believe that a freer society is a better society. However, my definition of "better" is probably fundamentally different than yours or someone else's. This then begs for multi-pronged approaches created by and tailored for those for whom they would work best, something which I advocate for here on this board everytime I tell someone to live in the way they feel best, even if I think their values are contradictory or ridiculous. All I ask is to simply not be forced to be included in things I find to be morally corrupt.
Failure absolutely should be embraced, when failure is the appropriate ends of your given means! In other words, if you're trying to beat a square peg into a round hole, you're not going to change your behavior until you embrace the disconnect between your means and ends.
Oh come on now! Now that is a coy response if I've ever seen one!
So what is 'biggest' problem? If you don't believe gov't is the biggest problem, then why all the focus on the gov't? I don't see you spending too much time discussing other perceived problems. Oh yeah, because, 'this is a political message board. Hence the focus on government.' Come on now, ffg, you've stated your position here pretty clearly and proudly time and time again. Don't shy away from it now. The fact is your stance, as you have presented it to me, is rife with ideological absolutism, believing that your own opinions and moral judgments must be right. I think that is because it is based off of axiomatic principles rather than on weighing different points of view.
I reminded of this whole 'force' debate you and I have had in the past. To me, it appears that libertarians want to impose a system of Libertarian law on everybody, without regard to their own wishes. According to you guys, this system is simply the only one that's morally permissible, all others being in some abstract sense a violation of everyone's rights. You argue that I can be as communistic (or whatever) as I want in my own community, but this disregards the fact that my whole group would have no choice about living under laws based on the most rigid and extreme interpretation of property rights, in which if we go broke we're screwed. I am not fond of movements that want to dictate to non-members what the only allowable way to run a society is, no matter how well they argue that the other systems, not theirs, are the ones really doing the dictating.
Your analogy didn't really help me out here. Can you elaborate?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'd say that the communist/socialist regimes we've seen in the past are as much communist/socialist as the ideas of radical muslim extremists are islam sentiments. Distortions, if you will.
naděje umírá poslední
The two biggest problems facing society are:
1) A lack of understanding of our environment vis a vis our survival and happiness (not enough brain)
2) The use of force by various populations against other populations (too much brawn)
Government plays rolls both positive and negative in the above. I would argue that their role, overall, is a net negative.
Because of "all the focus" here on government being the biggest solution, to which I disagree. 90% of my posts here are responses to someone suggesting that government is the solution to any given problem.
I am an absolutist, I do think my opinions and moral judgments are right, and they are based more on axiomatic principles than "weighting different points of view". The irony, however, is that I'm the last person here advocating for you or anyone else here to be a slave to my ideals and time and time again I've invited you and others to live exactly the way you wish to so long as you do not force me to participate. This is the fundamental difference between the average advocate of socialism and the average advocate of liberty. The socialist makes no room for dissenting lifestyles. The libertarian demands that room fundamental to his or her view.
Yet I have no interest in doing this and everytime you try to put these words in my mouth I swallow them. Please try to understand:
If you have no interest in liberty or economic freedom, give them up to your chosen extent. I do not care what you do with your freedoms, your money, your labor, your life. They are not mine to dictate. If you want laws, enact them and enforce them. If you want taxes, enact them and collect them. If you want violence, arm yourself and fight. Simply do not force me to live by your standards, do not force me to pay for your values, do not force me to march in your army. I disagree with your principles and do not wish to live by them. And I support your right to disagree with mine and to live by your own.
LOL...you can be as communistic as you want in your own community, but somehow you think this is not enough until you get to dictate what other communities do? That doesn't make much sense.
What I'm telling you is to be as communistic as you like and you may feel free to ignore, reject, or even completely repeal any "laws based on the most rigid and extreme interpretation of property rights, in which if we go broke we're screwed". I'm not proposing a universal system of property rights to which those who disagree should be subject. Yes, I believe rigid interpretations of property rights to be a good thing. But if you don't agree, then don't live by property rights. Ignore them. Compromise them. I don't care. I certainly don't want a federal system of property rights being imposed upon 49% of a nation that disagrees with them.
But do not expect universal property rights when you yourself refuse to accept them. In other words, don't expect to steal a car while at the same time owning it. Don't steal from others and then be angry when others steal from you -- your own ideology demands it.
If you want to live communistically, do it. Find some land and squat on it. Bring your friends. Make some good music and grow some food. But do not pretend that someone else somewhere else has some kind of obligation to your survival. Do not pretend that you may dictate to them a way of life while valuing the ability to choose your own. Do not contradict yourself.
Failure should always be embraced when one's actions are destined to fail. Embracing the ends to your means is the theoretical definition of knowledge itself. Those who promote liberty absolutely promote failure for those whose actions should fail, just as they promote success for those whose actions should succeed. The rejection of failure, the pretense that one's means can always lead to one's chosen ends is a disconnect that leads to atrocity.
Too often on this board I hear statements like "we must have xxxx, regardless of what it would take". These are the statements of those who would never embrace failure and, as such, pay no heed to the means to their desired ends. And with that they invite means most awful.
I don't have much time right now, so I'll leave you with this................
You definitely excel at proving that everyone else is tyrannical! I'll give you that. You talk about force all the time, yet it is your philosophy that imposes absolutes. Absolutism creates intolerance, of the sort that leads to violence. Once you convince yourself that any other agenda is morally wrong and violates your rights, it's not that big a step to the conclusion that you have a right to use force on those trying to advance the opposing cause. To hear you guys talk about rights to self-defense and defense of property, and the incompatibility of those rights with such things as taxation for government actions outside the limited role you envision, I have to wonder what reason you'd give for NOT having taken up arms.;) And the odious Objectivist branch of the Libertarian movement (you're familiar with those guys
At least with what we've got now we can adjust it and change our minds, we can incorporate a variety of differing philosophies, and make compromises back and forth. A society built on true Libertarian principle allows little or no compromise on any matters of law, and settles all such questions by simple absolute principles decided in advance by a small group of ideological leaders. We are then expected to live with the consequences as best we can, and if we happen to end up worse off than before, that doesn't matter. The important thing is not that we do what we feel works best for ourselves, but that we stick by the principles. I am not going to support putting some random tool's opinion of moral principle ahead of the consequences for real flesh and blood people. That's a form of 'liberty' that, from my point of view, looks suspiciously like theocracy.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
"Impose" implies a target. Who or what is my target?
(LOL..."absolutism creates intolerance" is an absolute)
"Intolerance" implies a target. Who or what is my target?
Were I of the belief that my ends justify any means, you'd be right.
That doesn't surprise me.
The reason I haven't "taken up arms" is the same reason I'm asking you to drop yours.
"Morality ends where a gun begins" -Rand
For all her faults, Rand built an entire revolutionary model around sloth as opposed to violence. You're going to have a tough time supporting this one.
This is ironic coming from someone defending the compulsory prescription of a philosophy. And we can talk about compromise the minute you disown coercion.
So much for liberty then. Odd that you would find this to be "true Libertarian principle".
LOL...where am I saying you have to "support putting some random tool's opinion of moral principle ahead of the consequences for real flesh and blood people"? You don't and shouldn't have to! Put your own principles ahead of those thing. Put them behind those things. Put them on equal footing. I don't care what you do with them. Simply don't pretend that you can put my principles on either side of them.