The Federal Reserve has been counterfeiting dollars at a rapid pace. Amazingly, they want prices to rise faster (how nice of them). Well, they're ultimately going to get what they want. Ron Paul tackles the great enabler of big government on today's edition of Myth-Busters!
By Ron Paul
This is a crucial moment for Donald Trump's upcoming presidency. Neoconservatives are trying to get closer to Trump, and if he ends up appointed any of them to Cabinet positions, it can be a very bad sign for his administration.
During his campaign, Trump made some encouraging statements about backing off and being less confrontational with Russia. That's all for the good, but these upcoming appointments are critical and can end up raining on the parade. I'm on RT's CrossTalk to discuss in detail:
By Chris Rossini
The words of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are so easy to grasp:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There are no asterisks or footnotes. There are no sentences that follow which start with the words "unless" or "however". The right to defend your life and property shall not be infringed by the government. Period.
Let's take a look at Oakland today.
Oakland is in the leftist state of California, with a leftist Mayor, and leftist "gun control" laws. These laws infringe on the right to defend your life and property. Leftists want people to believe that they don't need guns to defend themselves.
Sure criminals will always have guns, and sure criminals have an incentive to do their dirty work where they know that citizens are unarmed, but the police will stop them, right?
Well, unless the police have the ability to be in all places at all times, the answer is NO!
The police show up after the fact. They arrive after the shooting starts. This is not a fault of their own. They're not omnipresent. They're not everywhere at all times.
So if a criminal comes at you with a gun, he can play shoot-em-up at least until the police arrive on the scene.
What happens if the police arrive, and they can't help? Then what?
Well, let's go back to the riots that are happening right now in Oakland. Rioters are destroying businesses.
Oakland's Mayor sent a letter to business owners. The whole letter was published at ZeroHedge, but here's the key section that should raise eyebrows (emphasis added):
Tens of businesses including many of our small businesses and other institutions vital to Oaklanders were hit hard...
So thugs are rioting and looting the area, and the police can't help.
Where does that leave you in leftist Oakland, with its "gun control" laws? How are you supposed to defend your life and property?
There is an antidote to this madness, and it's often referred to as "the law of the land":
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Government wants everyone to believe the fairy tale that it's always there for you and protecting you. You don't ever need a gun. Only government should have the guns.
Well, that fairy tale has turned into a nightmare in Oakland, California.
Where does Ron Paul buy his gold?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reminded President-elect Trump of America's Article 5 obligations to defend other NATO members. Meanwhile the NATO military build-up on Russia's borders accelerates. Will President Trump stand up to NATO demands?
By Ron Paul
"Populism" was one of the big buzzwords of this election cycle. It was largely attached to the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, with both candidates referred to as "populists" despite having distinctly different political philosophies. Still, they both used the approach -- with success -- to tap into the deep dissatisfaction of the average American voter. For Donald Trump, populism has paid off well: In a shock to the political establishment, Trump has ridden populism straight to the White House. But we must understand what populism is really all about.
Populism has traditionally been understood to include trade protectionism, low interest rates, and government welfare to the poor and middle classes. The philosophy is meant to appeal to the common person, as opposed to establishment elites. Populism has historically seen a revival when economic conditions have deteriorated for the average person while the elites continue to prosper.
While the presidential race captured our attention the most, several ballot initiatives across the country were important indicators of how the liberty movement is doing. We review the big and small contests on today's program.
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Politics is of its very nature is biased in favor of intervention and planning. Even in its “minarchist” or “night-watchman” version, politics is based at root on the idea that some decisions must be made coercively and imposed on unwilling minorities – or even majorities, as the case may be. This is contrary to the principle we observe in private life every day: the consent of both parties is necessary for a transaction to take place.
The state never stays “limited” in the long or even medium run, as we’ve seen for ourselves, and before long it worms its way throughout civil society. Once it becomes entrenched in some area of social life that had previously been managed by voluntary means, people grow accustomed to the state’s new role, even coming to view it as indispensable. The spirit of spontaneous, voluntary cooperation, therefore, atrophies and dies. This, in turn, is cited as justification for still further state interference, and the cycle continues.
In the modern state, politics is coupled with government education in a one-two punch to the voluntary sector. That is, the moral principles and the unstated assumptions that govern politics have already been drilled into the heads of the young well before they become eligible to vote. By that time they have imbibed every comic-book platitude about the selfless public servants who are just out to improve everyone’s well-being. Were it not for the indoctrination of the public from a very young age, the state’s racket would be far more obvious and transparent.
(Incidentally, the first lesson kids in government schools learn is that if enough people want something – “free” education, for example – you should get it by having goons seize the funds from your neighbors. Why, how else could anything get done?)
The best known of the intellectual constructs by which the state seeks to legitimate itself must be the “social contract.” To evaluate this construct properly, consider how contracts function in civil society. You and I are interested in, say, an exchange of services for money. You are going to paint my house, and I am going to give you a cash payment. We spell out the terms of our understanding in a contract.
These terms may include the nature of the work, a deadline by which the task must be completed, and perhaps even the name of an independent arbitration service we agree to consult if one of us believes the contract is not being properly honored.
Contrast this with the state’s so-called social contract. Here, nobody signs anything. You are assumed to consent to the state’s rule because you happen to live within its territorial jurisdiction. According to this morally grotesque principle, you have to pack up and leave in order to demonstrate your lack of consent. The state’s authority over you is simply assumed (or it takes the form of a contract nobody ever signed), with the burden of proof on you, rather than – more sensibly – on the institution claiming the right to help itself to your life and property.
If my cooperation with the system is only under duress, and my repeated insistence that I do not consent is insufficient to indicate my lack of consent, then what kind of crazy moral system is this?
Is there an analogous situation in the private sector? Do we just assume you intended to buy a car or a house or to enter into a labor agreement, on the basis of dubious inferences? Do we not instead sign form after form, drafted in meticulous legal language, to ensure that the nature of the activity in question is clear to everyone?
Oh, but the state provides services, and you should pay for them! Again, though, when anyone else provides services, I decide for myself whether I want to use them (in which case I pay), whether I prefer an alternative provider of the service, or whether I choose not to avail myself of the service at all.
Ah, but the services the state provides aren’t the kind that can be provided competitively on the market, so you must be corralled into paying for them, like them or not.
But this is a mere assertion. Education is provided on the market and always has been. Scientific research was funded more copiously per capita before the state became heavily involved. Poverty relief took place on a vast scale long before the world’s welfare states amounted to much of anything. Even security and legal services can be and are quite effectively provided on the free market.
All right, so the state’s social contract may not amount to a hill of beans, and in fact is a transparent attempt to legitimize behavior we would not tolerate from any other actor or institution, but what about written constitutions? Aren’t these at least partly contractual in nature, and don’t they restrain government from the worst abuses?
Let’s consider the United States Constitution as a test case since conservatives and even many libertarians point to it as one of the most brilliant political documents ever drafted.
The minarchist calls for a “night watchman” state, a state that limits itself to the production of security and adjudication services. (I shall leave aside the cognitive dissonance in warning about the dangers and wickedness of the state on the one hand, while simultaneously proposing the absolute necessity of the state in providing the most important and fundamental services of all.)
Interestingly, the US Constitution actually calls for something less than a night-watchman state, in the sense that most security services are assumed to rest with lower levels of government, and are not a federal function in the first place. So this would appear to be an excellent test of the “limited government” position, for here is a document that begins with such a limited government that it’s even less government than minarchists themselves would call for.
Well, how has it worked out?
For the answer to that question, simply look around you.
“The Constitution hasn’t been obeyed,” comes the reply. Well, no kidding.
What reason would politicians have for obeying the Constitution? Once it is believed that the state may legitimately initiate force and levy taxes, it’s not much of a leap to consider how those powers might be turned to the advantage of industry X or constituency Y. Meanwhile, people who protest this development as a departure from the Constitution will be an isolated minority left in the dust, laughed at by the plotters and schemers who can’t believe anyone seriously expected this institution to remain limited. Where’s the money in that?
No, the Constitution cannot be exonerated. If it lacks institutional safeguards to prevent the egregious abuses of our own day, then it is a failure. Human beings have failed to follow it? Well, did we not realize from the start that fallible human beings would be in charge?
In Lysander Spooner’s unforgettable formulation: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
Strictly speaking, the US Constitution was conceived of as an agreement among the states, to which the US government, being the creation of that agreement, was not itself a party. But for the sake of argument, let’s do as some do, and think of written constitutions as being roughly analogous to an agreement between the government and the people.
Who gets to adjudicate disputes over whether the terms of this contract are being violated? An independent third party? Of course not. The state’s own courts decide. And in the case of the US, those courts are populated by people trained in US law schools – where, with insignificant exceptions, students are taught to believe preposterous, a historical interpretations of the Constitution’s most important clauses: commerce, general welfare, “necessary and proper,” and the Supremacy Clause.
Good luck waving your copy of the Constitution in that setting.
So there is certainly something fishy about the state. We are urged to apply special rules in our moral evaluation of this institution, rules we would indignantly reject in any other context.
As for the state’s supposedly indispensable role, once we grow up and leave behind the scare tactics from our sixth-grade textbooks – without your public servants you’ll starve, or be poisoned, or drive an exploding car – we discover how little we need the state after all. The historically unprecedented explosion in living standards all over the world had everything in the world to do with market-driven capital accumulation and zero to do with government spread-the-wealth schemes.
The truth of the matter is this: the only welfare the state is concerned about, at root, is its own. As Murray N. Rothbard was fond of pointing out, we can get to the heart of what the state is really all about by considering the kind of crimes it treats the most severely:
We may test the hypothesis that the state is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the state pursue and punish most intensely—those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the State’s lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the state as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the state’s openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d’etre.
If the nature of the state is as I have described it, we should not be surprised by two related phenomena: (1) the glorification of the state, its record, its motives, and its nature; and (2) the demonization of the free market economy, which operates independently of the state. The public must be led to consent intellectually to its own subjection, to come to believe that the state’s confiscations and abuses are truly for their own good. What the state needs is to bring about a society-wide Stockholm Syndrome. It accomplishes this task through a combination of (1) fear and (2) persuading us of its legitimacy.
Libertarians must continue to take direct aim at both of these. First, fear: many people believe, based on what their formal education taught them, that under laissez-faire big business would exploit everyone, the environment would be despoiled, and children would be working in factories. We have plenty of ammunition to use against these concerns.
But legitimacy is truly the state’s most potent weapon. Legitimacy is what allows the state to get away with its moral enormities. It is because the public believes state activity to be legitimate that it tolerates it even for a moment. This is why the state and its hangers-on are so eager to ensure we buy into the social contract nonsense and the various other means by which the state seeks to justify itself. When that legitimacy is cast into doubt, things happen.
Recall what Ron Paul says when he’s asked what he thinks about the fact that roughly 50 percent of Americans don’t pay income tax: “We’re halfway there!”
Libertarians should have thought the same way about Donald Trump’s threat to undermine the legitimacy of a President Hillary Clinton: if one major presidential candidate’s legitimacy is undermined, we’re halfway there!
No matter how the election turns out, libertarians should be about their proper business: de-bamboozling the masses, exposing the state for what it really is, and defending liberty as the root of everything we cherish.
This article was originally published at LewRockwell.com
What will change and what won't change after today's vote? Foreign policy? Fed? Media? Congressional authority? Economy? We'll offer our take on what to expect after the "most important election in history."
By Jeff Deist
Silver Lining: The Media has Lost Control of the Narrative
I want to talk about some of the silver linings in this awful election, and one of the most obvious is this: technology really has allowed us to override the media gatekeepers, challenge the official narrative, consume real news and real facts, and threaten the political establishment’s grip on public opinion. The information genie is out of the bottle, and it’s not going back. In the digital world people are abandoning what Tom Woods calls the 3x5 index card of allowable opinion and having real debates, without any media filter.
It’s possible to get the “news” from social media feeds tailored to one’s own viewpoint. So when CNN, for example, shows poll results that suggest a certain trend, we’re all supposed to accept this as gospel truth. But if CNN never shows up in your social media feed, and you don’t watch CNN (and I know you don’t), it’s as though the poll never happened, at least for you. And there are more and more people turning off and going around the gatekeepers. The bottom line is that the media and the parties have lost control of the approved narrative.
Our challenge is not getting information; it’s sifting through all of it. The avalanche of 24-hour news, websites, and social media creates so much white noise that the political class actually hides its criminality in plain view. They just hope it gets drowned out. In the Watergate era, one simple story — a burglary — held the country in thrall for months. Today, every WikiLeaks dump seems to contain the seeds of a thousand Watergates. The information is there for anyone who wants to find it. So it’s not that we don’t know what politicians are up to, it’s that we know too much — and a kind of fatigue sets in that entices us to shrug and accept it.
Silver Lining: Progressives Have Been Exposed
Consider another silver lining: Progressives and Democrats have been fully exposed as the illiberal authoritarians they’ve always been, regardless of their stated policies or objectives. The election has made plain their real character, their reactionary tactics, and their now-open agenda. The idea that conservatives exist, or even participate in elections, is an affront to them. The 2016 election has brought this reality home to average people in so many ways — but it is especially visible in the open hatred and contempt for Trump supporters. Whatever you think of Trump, this public unmasking of the Left is something new.
People in this room already know what real liberalism is. But the people who stole that word, today’s progressives, do not. They are not building a blue-collar working class movement, to put it mildly. These are not your father’s liberals, organizing union halls or telling us to make love, not war. They care nothing about civil liberties, and as for peace, well, just look at the who’s who of neoconservatives endorsing Hillary Clinton. And we’re not just talking about crazy college kids who will grow out of it, or a handful of Marxist radicals. Mainstream Democrats, including Hillary and Obama, are directly responsible for using identity politics to further themselves by inflaming hatred and distrust.
And as for the Left’s sacred love for democracy, they now openly discuss abandoning democratic outcomes when the retrogrades have the audacity to vote the wrong way. We’ve seen this with the Brexit vote in the UK, and we’ve seen it here when the New York Times ponders how to nullify votes from unwanted segments of the electorate.
Notice the progressive tactic of floating outrageous trial balloons, and then retreating to a halfway position that by comparison sounds almost sensible. So when a small group starts demanding that we all use 31 gender pronouns, we can laugh it off as absurd. But it plants a seed for the future. When an actress posts an animated video celebrating the extinction of white males, we can dismiss her as a hateful lunatic. But where will the conversation be in a few years?
And yes, progressives use the state to advance their goals. Many of you probably heard about the University of Toronto professor who is under fire for refusing to use those 31 gender pronouns. He may well lose his job, and beyond that may be summoned before a government tribunal to pay a stiff fine. If you think that criminal speech codes are not coming soon to America because of the First Amendment, I have to disagree.
And even when no criminal sanction is forthcoming, progressives set out to destroy the lives of those who disagree with them. Case in point is the NYU professor who created a pseudonym to tweet mocking criticisms of campus PC. He has been thrown under the bus by his administrators, placed on leave, and may well be fired. So while he may never face criminal sanctions like his Canadian counterpart, he will live the rest of his life in a jail cell of sorts. His academic career, relationships, and finances will all shrink. He will be boxed in and his life will get smaller.
This is who progressives are today: religious enforcers of an approved worldview based on an ever-shifting PC code. One thing is certain, and this is where so many libertarians go wrong: the overwhelming threat to liberty today is from the Left, not the Right. It’s frankly silly to pretend otherwise, much as we correctly insist that we are not conservatives. The existential threat to liberty is not posed by 5 skinhead idiots running around in the woods somewhere wearing bedsheets, it’s posed by millions of progressive authoritarians who are everywhere — like the one teaching civics at your kid’s school. But they’ve overplayed their hand in the 2016 election, and awakened millions of Americans as a result.
Silver Lining: The Right has Self-Destructed
Let’s not kid ourselves, though, that the right is any better just because it lacks power. But talk about silver linings: we are witnessing the death of the Republican Party before our eyes. It’s incredible to watch, even though it was always inevitable: demographic changes in states like Texas and Florida already doomed the GOP to extinction as a national party. But Trump and the election have accelerated this reality.
Let’s face it: Today’s conservatives don’t conserve anything, except political jobs. And the GOP is a party that never stood for much of anything, except war and banks.
The modern GOP is globalist, militarist, corporatist, and anti-populist. The Right chose neoconservatism over non-interventionism, Wall Street over Main Street, city over country, and the managerial state in DC over federalism and state’s rights. They chose the Fed over gold, Lockheed Martin over Woolworth, and Goldman Sachs over your Hometown Bank and Trust. They rejoiced in the rise of the 20th century imperial presidency. They chose supply-side over laissez-faire, Milton Friedman over Mises, tax credits over constitutionalism. They embraced the welfare and regulatory states, instead of making the optimistic case for capitalism and ownership and opportunity. They’ve allowed the Left to cast them as racists and reactionaries. They blessed entitlements just to keep their cushy seats in Congress and their political perks. They chose to nationalize social issues and cede huge amounts of illegal power to the Supreme Court. They chose John McCain and Mitt Romney over Ron Paul!!!
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a movement that deserves to perish! Conservatives, and their Republican Party vehicle, have lost any claim to the mantle of private property and personal liberty. They exist solely to be “less progressive” than progressives, while accepting the underlying principle that the state runs our lives: the only questions are how it does so, to what degree it does so, and toward what ends it does so.
The Way Forward is Right in Front of Us
While we can celebrate the decline and fall of the media and 2 parties, we also have to recognize that we have been given a gift. A gift of clarity, as the facade of democratic elections cracks. A gift of dissatisfaction, of animosity toward the state and the political class. A gift of populism, with all of its inherent opportunities and dangers.
The 2016 election is a gift, and our job is to unwrap it: to turn the nation’s contempt for politicians into contempt for politics itself. But to do this we need the courage to rebrand libertarianism.
I didn’t say we need a “new” libertarianism, because there is no such thing. Liberty is simply the negation of state power in society — not a political third way between Left and Right and not a hybrid ideology. No, what we need is a new libertarian branding, we need better sales and marketing, not a new product. We already know liberty works. Theory and history prove this. But liberty hasn’t endured, has never been widely understood or accepted, and is always under assault.
We might even have to reconsider the term “libertarian,” much as it pains me to say it. As Mises predicted, socialists successfully hijacked our rightful label — liberalism — and we don’t have decades to reclaim it. As a brand, libertarianism — at least the milquetoast version being peddled very unsuccessfully by Gary Johnson and Bill Weld — needs a makeover. We are not “low-tax liberals,” we don’t impress anyone by parroting meaningless progressive slogans like “social inclusion,” and we don’t advance liberty by claiming to share progressive ends. Our winning message is not Democrat-lite, Republican-lite, and it’s definitely not libertarian-lite!
The Johnson/Weld approach has resulted in a huge wasted opportunity to reach out and win this election’s biggest prize — millions of disaffected conservatives ready to abandon the GOP for a candidate as unlikely as Trump — all because of some masochistic need to convince progressives that we’re not mean heartless right wingers. And yet how many angry Bernie-ites or Occupy Wall Streeters will actually vote for Mr. Johnson, rather than Hillary or Jill Stein?
But it’s not just the current campaign. Libertarians have for decades made the enormous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to social institutions — in other words, to civil society itself! Yet civil society is by definition the very means by which we organize human affairs without the state. And do we really not understand that family is the first, last, and most important line of defense for the individual against government?
The strategic cost has been incalculable. Liberty has been sold as an ideology for atomized individuals, for soulless economic actors concerned only with getting rich in the gig economy, for drug and sex-obsessed libertines, for people without any allegiance to anything other than their own immediate self-interests.
What a mistake! If we know anything about human nature, it is that we all desire to be part of something bigger than ourselves. Just because we as libertarians don’t want that something to be the state doesn’t change this! Yes, nationalism that goes hand in hand with statism and militarism is dangerous. But we can’t wish away the entirely natural human impulse to form in-groups and alliances in a dangerous and unpredictable world. Should we denounce Cherokee nationalism? Should we shut down Oktoberfest and St. Patrick’s Day, on the grounds that it’s wrong to celebrate identity in every sense?
Liberty shouldn’t separate us from our families or the fabric of our communities; on the contrary, it should enhance community. I look forward to the day when being a libertarian is unremarkable, like having green eyes or being Catholic or having particular tastes in music. Liberty should offer the binding glue of cooperation, not some unnatural hyper-individualism, divorced from human experience.
So let us promote a different vision of liberty, a robust, muscular, pragmatic vision that accords with reality and human nature. One that is not at war with culture, tradition, family, religion, and community. One that fits the world as it is: hardboiled, pragmatic, results-oriented, focused on issues and market solutions.
An effective libertarian message must be:
In other words, we should re-brand libertarianism to fit the world as it is, to sell in the marketplace of human action. This is the moment liberty-minded people have been waiting for — the biggest political and social upheaval since the 1960s. The way forward is right in front of us, if only we choose to see it. Thank you very much.
This article was originally published at The Mises Institute, and is an excerpt from the Dallas-Ft. Worth Mises Circle, November 5.
By Chris Rossini
Our lives are ruled by the ideas that dominate them. If the ideas of liberty, peace and prosperity excite you, and you want to do something about it, it's probably time to find out what you're up against. The opponents of liberty are many. Liberty advocates are outmanned, but not outgunned. Nothing is more powerful than the truth.
It's always a good idea to know your opponents. Understand them inside and out. How do they think? What do they believe? What do they say? Read their books and articles. Don't just surround yourself in a bubble of libertarian writing and videos.
This is the exact opposite of what most of liberty's opponents do. They don't understand liberty and often have no intentions of ever understanding it. They don't read libertarian books or articles, but surround themselves with those who only agree with them. Their tactics are all the same: smear, name-call, distort, and hide the truth.
So let's start looking at the ideas that dominate so many minds today, and thus create the unfree world that we see around us. I've grouped the ideas into three broad categories: The Dead, The Dying, and The Alive & Kicking.
This is not a comprehensive study of our opponents, but a launching pad for those who are hungry for some direction. If you're hungry, you'll dive in and put the pieces together by using the resources given at the end of this article.
Communism & Socialism
Communism and socialism carry the torch on how bad ideas can lead to complete disaster. No private individual, group of individuals, or corporation can generate the amount of destruction that governments can create under a communistic/socialistic regime.
The 19th century acts as a great educational example on how government can literally kill hundreds of millions of its own people, all for an impossible and utopian idea.
While authoritarians surely still exist in our world, they've at least ditched communism and socialism as their dominating ideologies.
Can these ideas be revived again someday? Of course. People are always capable of repeating their mistakes. But as of today, there are only a couple of communist/socialist countries left in the world (Cuba, North Korea, etc.) and no one is looking to emulate them. The authoritarians of the world have ditched socialism in favor of the ideas of fascism, which we'll cover in more detail below.
We can thank the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises for driving the final intellectual nail into the coffin of socialism. For he was the one to show that socialist leaders are unable to calculate without market prices. In other words, without market prices, there's no way to rationally know where resources should be added to, and where they should be withdrawn from. Socialism, (i.e., where government owns all the means of production) must always be an irrational basket-case.
So while there are surely so-called "socialists" in our midst (much like there are people who still believe that the Earth is flat) there are other more menacing ideas that need to be tackled by the advocate of Liberty.
These are the ideas that fall under the works of the late John Maynard Keynes. They are the antithesis of sound money, free markets, and the sanctity of private property. They are also the ideas that power the largely fascist-dominated economies of the world (which includes the U.S.) today.
The good news is that the ideas of Keynesianism are running on fumes. Ever since the 1970's, the walls have been closing in on them. Ultimately they're going to find themselves in a box and they won't be able to get out. Time is not on their side. Until then, the liberty advocate must continue to pound away at all of their errors, and point the way to economic sanity.
What Keynesians say:
- "Do you think the Fed Chairman will raise rates at the next meeting?"
- "The Fed needs to stimulate the economy."
- "If people don't start spending soon, we're headed for another recession."
Neoconservative ideas power the U.S. military empire and the never-ending string of wars that have existed most (if not all of) your life. The neocons are behind them. Their goal is for the U.S. to be the world's sole superpower.
If neocon ideas power the U.S. empire, and the empire is the biggest that the world has ever seen, why are their ideas in "The Dying" category? Well, things are not always as they seem. Neocon wars have been spectacular failures...unbelievable failures...and the ramifications continue to pile up with each passing day.
Neoconservative war making has nothing but Keynesian money-printing to give them a few more puffs of oxygen. After that, they are toast. Liberty advocates must continue to state the obvious and push for a foreign policy of non-intervention and peace.
What Neocons say:
- "What should the president do about Syria?"
- "Do you think the president will go to war over XYZ?"
- "We need to beat them over there, rather than over here."
- "America is an exceptional nation bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world."
The Alive & Kicking
Now it's time to get to the menacing ideas that deserve constant rebuke from liberty advocates.
The notorious fascist Benito Mussolini described Fascism as such: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
This is the idea that authoritarians around the world have latched onto: the marriage of government and corporations. In other words, the outward appearance of a marketplace that is guided by government force.
While countries under socialism quickly reach the point of disaster, fascism is a process of slowly bleeding civilization to death. It is for this reason that the fascist economy is also known as a "vampire" economy.
The solution, of course, is a free market with sound money instead of government central planners printing up counterfeit money by the trillions. This is the big economic battle of our day.
What Fascists say:
- "We need government and business to work together to solve the XYZ problem."
- "The free market can't fix this problem alone."
- "We need 'common sense regulations' to confront the XYZ problem."
While economic communism/socialism may be dead as a doornail, the Marxists did not leave the scene without unleashing a bunch of zombie ideas on the rest of us. The goal is to destroy western culture.
The best way to sum up their tactics are "create the problem" and "divide & conquer".
We see Cultural Marxist propaganda everywhere. These are the thought police and political correctness bullies. In their utopian fantasy, when western culture is finally destroyed, they will raise up people who can finally understand and appreciate economic Marxism.
What Cultural Marxists say:
-Bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, fat shaming, ageism, trans-, bi-, eco-, pan-, whiteness, privilege .... All to be regulated, monitored, and controlled by violent government force.
A mental prison for everyone, if everyone is foolish enough to allow it.
This was just a very broad overview of the major opponents of liberty. You can become a master at understanding liberty's opponents by visiting the following sites:
- Ron Paul Liberty Report
- The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity
- The Mises Institute
- Future of Freedom Foundation
- Sovereign Man
- International Man
Where does Ron Paul buy his gold?