See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Just Who Are We Radicals And Reactionaries?
Source:
The Dollar Vigilante
URL Source: http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/ ... we-radicals-and-reactionaries/
Published: Sep 26, 2013
Author: Dr. Kenneth Karger
Post Date: 2013-09-26 11:36:11 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1329
Comments: 53
“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” — H.L. Mencken I have often considered the possibility that I am the guy that Mencken described. But for those involved in the traditional political realm of left and right, I am simply delusional, labeled a “radical” by those on the right and a “reactionary” by those on the left. In fact, I am neither. Rather, I am the dreaded Libertarian who believes that government, if it must exist at all, must be structurally limited. And it is clear that in that belief I am a part of a small minority. To suggest to the majority (who remain emotionally invested in the pseudo left-right paradigm) that democracy is perhaps the worst form of government will get you written off quickly. To most, such an assertion is worse than delusional. It is traitorous. Most members of the herd don’t understand that the Founding Fathers likewise believed democracies were doomed to failure and that, left unchecked, ended up as nothing more than another form of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies: …have . . . been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (The Federalist, No. 10) It results in a deep and angry consternation that such a radical notion, an indictment of the revered democracy that America now exports at the end of a gun, was not suggested by the likes of radicals or reactionaries, but by James Madison, the U.S. President referred to on the White House’s own website as the “Father of the Constitution.” Few people believe he was radical or reactionary. Even fewer people know of his disdain for unfettered democracy. And that is unfortunate. Democracy, as a form of government, is like a ship without a rudder. It will move, but it is impossible to determine a direction. Each of the individual liberties so many Americans are proud of come from a republic with a constitution firmly protecting individual rights against intrusion by government, not a democracy that fundamentally assumes that 51 percent of the people are correct 100 percent of the time. In a pure democracy, if 51 percent of the people want to enslave a group or steal their personal property, they have the legal (and moral) right to do so. No property rights, no personal freedoms and no individual rights, regardless of genesis, are immune to a majority wanting to eliminate them. As did Madison, Ayn Rand, the often-reviled objectivist philosopher and novelist, railed against such tyranny, saying that individual rights should not be subject to a public vote and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, noting that the smallest minority on Earth is the individual. Simply put, without effective structural limitation, the majority in a democracy can (and will) oppress the minority by simply having or buying more votes. The irony of a democracy is that it functions only if it can be restrained from actually being one. Such was the idea of the framers of the United States Constitution, and they were right. Where they got it wrong was to assume a determined majority could not and would not trample the structural hurdles put in front of them. They will and they have. A good example is the 2nd Amendment, simple in its wording, clear in its intent: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The anti-gun minority — or majority, or whatever the current polls shows them to be — argues that the words do not mean what they say. In a disgraceful and intellectually deceitful rewriting of history, they suggest that the Founders meant the right to have a hunting rifle, since so many people hunted for food at that time in history. But, in fact, history tells a different story. To wit, the 2nd Amendment’s purpose was to ensure that if and when another government needed to be overthrown, the people would have the armament to get it done. Such clarity is lost on those with an agenda to rewrite the 2nd Amendment, and so they do. Recently, a textbook in the state of Texas for students in Advanced Placement programs quoted a new version of the old 2nd Amendment: The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia. Such difference is not a simple oversight. An oversight is leaving out a marginally important phrase or a misspelling a word, not a dramatic sentence restructuring that changes the entire meaning of the sentence. And it is not as if there is any historical support for that revised language. To the contrary, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” And, if that wasn’t clear enough, he left no doubt of the Framers’ intent when he wrote: And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. “Arms” meant then (and still mean today) everything necessary to fight a war against a tyrannical government, not necessarily to overthrow it but to protect oneself from its abuses. Any comment to the contrary is merely ignorance of history or the worst form of disingenuous historical revisionism. To that end, I am reminded of former Senator Daniel Moynihan’s admonishment: “You are entitled to your own viewpoint, just not to your own facts.” The ability to protect oneself from government is best evidenced in modernity by the increasingly frequent abuses of citizens by government agents. An elderly man in my hometown of Fort Worth, Texas, was killed when a half dozen police broke into his house and he pointed a gun at what he believed to be intruders. Indeed, they were intruders; but they wore badges and bulletproof vests. It turns out they had the wrong address, which government writes off as merely being a mistake and which resulted in his being killed. Murdered is a better term, if only because it is more accurate. Last week, cops killed a Florida State athlete when he ran to their car trying to get help. They shot him 11 times and used a Taser on him. A few months ago, police in Los Angeles shot up a truck carrying two women delivering newspapers. Officers riddled the pickup with bullets and shot the women because their truck was similar to a fugitive’s truck. In the minds of government officials, that gave the police the right to do what they did: open fire without warning. These are but examples among dozens from a rapidly growing police state — the very kind the Framers worried would one day grow out of a failed Republic and a successful democracy. Rarely are the agents of government punished. The message of government is clear: We will protect our own, no matter how egregious their acts. Just as the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it likewise isn’t about protecting ourselves from the bad guys. Rather, it is to protect ourselves from the good guys who become bad guys, which is the eventuality of any democracy, the regrettable, but necessary, end game.
Dr. Kenneth Karger lives with his wife in Fort Worth, Texas, and Chetumal, Mexico. He is the brother of Jim Karger, a frequent contributor to The Dollar Vigilante and TDV’s concierge in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
""""noting that the smallest minority on Earth is the individual."""" Any American that quotes Alissa Rosenbaum needs to quote what she really thought about Americans. Rand said also that the " the masses are but mere lice, with barely a right to life". she was congratulated for saying so by von Mises and Hayak. Hypocrite Rosenbaum was the usual hate filled jew, nothing more. Disdain for the lice that could not stand on their own. Died in NYC, living on Social security and medicare under another name. Cruz even mouths the uttering of that sick jew.
Mises I can believe. Are you sure about Hayek? "If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbados, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest; have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.'" Well, I can't help who people choose to quote in their articles. And I think you would agree that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. Personally, I have never read any of Ayn Rand's books so I actually know almost nothing about her. Other than the issue of the author quoting someone you would rather he hadn't, did you like the article? I thought it was good but then, if I hadn't thought it was good I wouldn't have posted it. Paul Craig Roberts
Written in stone sure? No. Would have to research to check memory. Rosenbaum was a champion about property rights and racism, here is one of her quotes containing both... Regarding American Indians..... "They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent".
James... See my number 4...
Yeah, she was definitely wrong about that. Sometimes I think it's too bad the Indians didn't have repeating rifles or AK-47's or an armory full of SKS rifles. Their Homeland Security would have been much improved.
Paul Craig Roberts
James... Things become a little more clear when one realizes and accepts that the jews work both sides of the streets. For instance, currently, Ted Cruz taking on the establishment, both parties etc etc, music to my ears. However, when one does an honest research on his background, there is too much to turn a blind eye, just because he is playing the music I want to hear.
She was most definitely a nutjob.
"If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbados, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest; have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.'" Jew scum. "Have Brain, Will Travel
It's said that repeaters are what did for Custer at the Little Big Horn. The more conspiratorially minded say that someone slipped the Injuns Henrys and Winchesters because Custer was aiming for the White House. Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
The more conspiratorially minded say that someone slipped the Injuns Henrys and Winchesters because Custer was aiming for the White House. More likely it was his refusal take along a gatling gun that would have mowed down the offense in an unfair advantage. Similarly, he was reprimanded early on in his Plains Patrolman career for bringing the Cheyenne back to the fort with him instead of mowing down all of their villages at Washita and beyond less humanitarianly. Contrary to popular belief, I think these two battles at the start and end of his 11 year career out West were the entire extent of his "Injun Killer infamy", which cost him some status in Military circles the first time and his life the last one. The Indians had enough respect for him as a warrior to not scalp his body at the Little Big Horn. He was aiming for the Ulysses S. Grant White House through his testimony on the Trader Post corruption scandal (which was central to the impeachment process of that admin's Secretary of War, Belknap). Oops. If Americans see past the contrived character assassinations of Custer that are in-vogue these days, they might recall that Cabinet officials and others can be impeached too, even when already out of office. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I read someplace that he turned the Gatling Gun down because he didn't think it was an effective weapon in Indian warfare. It was a big bore spray & pray weapon that overheated quickly and didn't have the aiming ability of subsequent machine guns. Some writers say that it might not have been the weapons (the Cav was outnumbered in sheer count of rifles) but the fact that the troopers only fired about 20 rounds a year in training. They also had poor firing discipline. Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
Some writers say that it might not have been the weapons (the Cav was outnumbered in sheer count of rifles) but the fact that the troopers only fired about 20 rounds a year in training. They also had poor firing discipline. I believe that he was not much afeared of being outnumbered because he was confident in his estimations that each trained troop could take out about 10 or more Indians if they had to, even if those opponents had rifles. People say a lot of dubious things about Custer. Just a hunch, but I suspect that he may have been effectively assassinated by insider-arrangements somehow, using the Little Big Horn battle as a cover-up, because of his Trader Post corruption scandal testimony. The old Errol Flynn movie, They Died With Their Boots On, gives some insight on that D.C. War Department issue -- but not directly in reference to the impeachment process of Grant's Secretary of War, Belknap, iirc. Edited for punctuation + last sentence. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Most interesting thread once it swerved over to Custer - thanks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Custer's own lack of planning and his ego probably contributed greatly to that defeat. That and underestimating "the enemy." Paul Craig Roberts
You're very welcome. Mighty pleased to hear that. :) Edit to add: P.S. Hat tip to randge for the swerve. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Some say it was largely due to the fog of war, literally, that obscured his line-of-sight on a scouting Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I guess there are any number of reasons why that particular defeat happened. All we really have at this date is just guesswork. Paul Craig Roberts
I guess there are any number of reasons why that particular defeat happened. All we really have at this date is just guesswork. Recommending: Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors by Stephen E. Ambrose iirc, Ambrose reports that the Indians were contemptuous of Major Reno and/or Captain Benteen, who they considered cowardly. Not scalping Custer or mutilating his body, as they did others who died at the Little Big Horn, was a show of respect for him. However, according to Ambrose, the Indian women who went to the scene afterward used needles to "open his ears" so that he could hear better in the afterlife. Edited for punctuation + line 1 after the link and spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Saved this link awhile back. The Wild West Magazine writer agrees with your comments to some degree although he says that the story is not as straightforward as we've been led to suppose. This is the end of a long article on Little Big Horn & Custer's defeat. It's worth a read, and there's lots of stuff here on the firearms used for those that are into this topic. Wild West is worth bookmarking, BTW. Great stories posted every week. Problems arose, however, when tactics broke down from midlevel and small-scale, to micro-scale. According to then Brevet Major Edward S. Godfrey, fire discipline–the ability to control and direct deliberate, accurate, aimed fire– will decide every battle. No attack force, however strong, could reach a defensive line of steady soldiers putting out disciplined fire. The British army knew such was the case, as did Napoleon. Two irregular warriors could probably defeat three soldiers. However, 1,000 soldiers could probably beat 2,000 irregulars. The deciding factor was strength in unity–fire discipline. It was as Major Godfrey said: 'Fire is everything, the rest is nothing.' Theoretically, on the Little Bighorn, with a small-scale defense in suitable terrain with an open field of fire of a few hundred yards, several companies of cavalrymen in close proximity and under strict fire control could have easily held off two or three times their number of Indian warriors. In reality, on the Little Bighorn, several companies of cavalrymen who were not in close proximity and had little fire control, with a micro-scale defense in unsuitable, broken terrain, could not hold off two or three times their number of Indian warriors. The breakdown stems from an attitude factor. Custer exhibited an arrogance, not necessarily of a personal nature, but rather as a part of his racial makeup. Racial experience may have influenced his reactions to the immediate situation of war. It was endemic in red vs. white modes of warfare and implies nothing derogatory to either side. Historically, Indians fled from large bodies of soldiers. It was Custer's experience that it was much harder to find and catch an Indian than to actually fight him. Naturally influenced by his successful past experiences with small-unit tactics, Custer attacked. He was on the offensive. He knew he must remain on the offensive to be successful. Even after Reno had been repulsed, Custer was maneuvering, looking for another opportunity to attack. The positions that Custer's dead were found in did not indicate a strong defensive setup. Even after the Indians had taken away the initiative, Custer's mind-set was still on 'attack.' Although a rough, boxlike perimeter was formed, it appeared more a matter of circumstance than intent. Custer probably never realized that his men's very survival was on the line, at least not until it was too late to remedy the situation. The men were not in good defensible terrain. They were not within mutual supporting distance. They were not under the tight fire control of their officers. Custer's troopers were in detachments too small for a successful tactical stance. When the critical point was reached, the soldiers found themselves stretched beyond the physical and psychological limits of fight or posture–they had to flee or submit. Seemingly out of supporting distance of his comrades, the individual trooper found himself desperately alone. The 'bunkie' was not close enough. The first sergeant was far away. The lieutenant was nowhere to be seen. The trooper responded as well as he could have been expected to. He held his ground and fought, he fired into the air like an automaton, he ran, he gave up. Some stands were made, particularly on and within a radius of a few hundred yards of the knoll that became known as Custer Hill, where almost all of the Indian casualties occurred. When it came down to one-on-one, warrior versus soldier, however, the warrior was the better fighter. George Armstrong Custer may have done almost everything as prescribed. But it was not enough to overcome the combination of particular circumstances, some of his own making, arrayed against him that day. Inadequate training in marksmanship and poor fire discipline resulting from a breakdown in command control were major factors in the battle results. Neither Custer's weapons nor those the Indians used against him were the cause of his defeat. Battle of Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
Thanks for this additional information.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Thank you.
Paul Craig Roberts
Custer is famous for graduating 34th out of his class of 1861 at West Point. Unfortunately, there were only 34 members of the 1861 West Point Graduating Class. Not sure if this is true, but it would explain a lot. I'm pretty sure it's true, but I wasn't there. corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
Much like McKook.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Custer would have needed 100 years of college to do as much damage as Johnny-boy. corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
Only because Custer didn't live to be in cogress or the white house.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Assuming Custer had lived and never made it to Washington, he couldn't have lived long enough to do a thousandth the damage to this country as that idiot McCain and his boytoy, Lady Lindthey Graham. Paul Craig Roberts
I'm off to ride my low rider bikie through Ted Kennedy's flock. Wish me luck.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
LOL! Godspeed my friend.
Paul Craig Roberts
The 'lil thugs' just don't seem to act as tough with 300lb of steel, reflectors, and viking charging at them.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
BWAHHAHAHAHA!!!
Paul Craig Roberts
I'm serious, some Section 8 "family" moved into the neighborhood a couple weeks ago and have been terrorizing all the old folks and church families. Bach's Fugue in D Minor, combined some spooky valkyries crap usually works.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
That, or a 12 gauge in 00 minor, should do the trick.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
None of them are over 16, they'd have the police on me. My attorney has also advised against skittles laced with cyanide. I'm hoping Ludwig's 7th will disrupt their flock. corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Add a strobe light to your rolling contraption: darkies are scared of anything that approximates 'spirits' or seems unnatural.
As did Madison, Ayn Rand, the often-reviled objectivist philosopher and novelist, railed against such tyranny, saying that individual rights should not be subject to a public vote and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, noting that the smallest minority on Earth is the individual.
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
she was congratulated for saying so by von Mises and Hayak.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
#3. To: Cynicom (#1)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#4. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#2)
Mises I can believe. Are you sure about Hayek?
#5. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#6)
#8. To: Cynicom (#4)
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
#9. To: Cynicom (#1)
Alissa Rosenbaum
#10. To: James Deffenbach (#6)
Yeah, she was definitely wrong about that. Sometimes I think it's too bad the Indians didn't have repeating rifles
#11. To: randge, 4 (#10)
It's said that repeaters are what did for Custer at the Little Big Horn.
The more conspiratorially minded say that someone slipped the Injuns Henrys and Winchesters because Custer was aiming for the White House.
#12. To: GreyLmist (#11)
More likely it was his refusal take along a gatling gun that would have mowed down the offense in an unfair advantage.
#13. To: randge (#12)
(Edited)
I read someplace that he turned the Gatling Gun down because he didn't think it was an effective weapon in Indian warfare. It was a big bore spray & pray weapon that overheated quickly and didn't have the aiming ability of subsequent machine guns.
#14. To: GreyLmist, all, 4 (#13)
#15. To: randge (#10)
The more conspiratorially minded say that someone slipped the Injuns Henrys and Winchesters because Custer was aiming for the White House.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#16. To: Lod (#14)
(Edited)
Most interesting thread once it swerved over to Custer - thanks.
#17. To: James Deffenbach (#15)
(Edited)
Custer's own lack of planning and his ego probably contributed greatly to that defeat. That and underestimating "the enemy."
maneuver maneuver to accurately assess the scope of "the enemy" encampments.
#18. To: GreyLmist (#17)
Some say it was largely due to the fog of war, literally, that obscured his line-of-sight on a scouting manuever to accurately assess the scope of "the enemy" encampments.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#19. To: James Deffenbach, Lod, randge, 4 (#18)
(Edited)
Some say it was largely due to the fog of war, literally, that obscured his line-of-sight on a scouting
manuever maneuver to accurately assess the scope of "the enemy" encampments.
#20. To: James Deffenbach, GreyLmist, Lod, Cynicom Turtle (#15)
Custer's own lack of planning and his ego probably contributed greatly to that defeat. That and underestimating "the enemy."
Dividing up a command in the near presence of an enemy may be an act to be avoided during large-scale maneuvers with army-sized units, but such is not the case during small-scale tactical cavalry maneuvers. Custer adhered to the principles for a successful engagement with a small, guerrilla-type, mobile enemy. Proven tactics called for individual initiative, mobility, maintaining the offensive, acting without delay, playing not for safety but to win, and fighting whenever the opportunity arose. It was accepted that Regular soldiers would never shirk an encounter even with a superior irregular force of enemies, and that division of force for an enveloping attack combined with a frontal assault was a preferable tactic. On a small scale, and up to a certain point, Custer did almost everything he needed to do to succeed.
#21. To: randge (#20)
#22. To: randge (#20)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#23. To: randge, GreyLmist, James Deffenbach, Lod, Turtle (#20)
(Edited)
#24. To: Dakmar (#23)
#25. To: Lod (#24)
Much like McKook.
#26. To: Dakmar (#25)
#27. To: Dakmar (#25)
Custer would have needed 100 years of college to do as much damage as Johnny-boy.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#28. To: James Deffenbach (#27)
#29. To: Dakmar (#28)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#30. To: James Deffenbach (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: Dakmar (#30)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#32. To: James Deffenbach (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: Dakmar (#32)
#34. To: Lod (#33)
#35. To: Dakmar (#34)
if that doesn't get the desired result, hit'em with Enya -
#36. To: Dakmar (#32)
-Alex Kurtagic
#37. To: X-15, Dakmar (#36)
LOL! Reckon he could clean out the District of Criminals and Corruptions with that?
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#38. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
This paragraph says it all. ;) Just as the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it likewise isn’t about protecting ourselves from the bad guys. Rather, it is to protect ourselves from the good guys who become bad guys, which is the eventuality of any democracy, the regrettable, but necessary, end game.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#39. To: BTP Holdings (#38)
Yes, I think it is a superb article. Thanks.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#40. To: Cynicom (#1)
very interesting post cyni. what else do u know about these athiest jewish "austrian" economists?
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
#41. To: Artisan (#40)
Firstly, anything that the Rockefeller clan touches, is soiled for life. Mises and Hayek were on the payroll nearly from the beginning. """ Importantly, the involvement of the Rockefeller dynasty in promoting Austrian economics predates the Volker Fund. Indeed, Rockefeller, who was taught by Hayek in London, “had been intermittently subsidizing Hayek since his Vienna days at Mises’ business cycle institute” according to Mirowski and Van Horn. Already in 1926, Ludwig von Mises’s first tour in the United States was paid by the Rockefeller Foundation. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which supported Mises in the 1940s, was also heavily sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Mises’s salary in New York was paid by Lawrence Fertig, Kohlberg’s colleague at the AJLAC, and by the Volker Fund."
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest