Amen Pat! The fools will continue until the country is broken beyond repair.

I think that Pat meant FLN instead of FALN. Unless, of course, Puerto Ricans helped in the struggle against the French.

Go Pat, go. It’s not surrprising that the pimps for the “New World Order"---or the
“libertarian” view of “free trade” (enforced by the US military) which benefits international
finance capitalism at the expense of both American working folk, and strips other countries
of their economic sovereignty.

Bah! All the “libertarians” have accomplished is to prove that Marx was right...the final stage of capitalism is imperialism, or “democratic capitalism”, as Bush2 and the neo-cons call it. The global economy and economic interdependency has not created peace, but endless war. Where Wall Street investment goes, American soldiers
follow to enforce the “free trade” that nobody wants except the fat cats and the Wall Street
bankers!

JP, can you please explain how libertarianism, with its two bedrock principles of non-aggressiona dn property rights, has anything to do with the war-corporatism-socialism forced upon the world by DC?  ST

Simon sez: “JP, can you please explain how libertarianism, with its two bedrock principles of non-aggressiona dn property rights, has anything to do with the war-corporatism-socialism forced upon the
world by DC?”

REAL world “libertarianism”, or “free trade”, is Alan Greenspan, Wall Street Bankers and the
CEO classes. “Free trade” or economic interdependency has only created more war...where
Wall Street dollars go, the soldiers follow to protect it. All “Austrian Economics” has
proven is that Marx and Lenin were right all along, imperialism is the highest stage of
capitalism. The world is more economically interdependent, but US military is enforcing
the rules of international finance capitalism at the point of a gun to make it work.

YOUR vision of ‘libertarianism” doesn’t exist in the real world...it is the reverse of
communism, utopian and dogmatic, it is the mirror image of communism.

I’m all for limited government, non-interventionis but “laissez faire” is a utopian fantasy, adn
and it the opposite for real conservativism of the Russell Kirk variety.

JP, good to hear from you.  You mistake the hijacking of the US economy by the US centgov for"rel world frre trade”.  I agree that the US empire uses its military to try to enforce its writ across the world but to say that such imperialism is the result of laissez faire econ is remarkable.  Our problems are caused by two much State, not too much freedom.  Would you argue that US cits have more economic, political, and social freedom than say 20n years ago?  Is NAFTA the only barrier to open warfare on NA continent (NAFTA is no more free trade than you are King Farouk)?  Libertarians have been fighting for the abolition of fiat money and the FED for decades - are those two state institutions anything but State creatures?  It’s the nature of the State that has brought the US to its current dilemna, not the free market.  Trusting the State-corporatist alliance to right itself is like asking a pyromaniac to prevent fires.  ST

“Because, if all U.S. troops were brought home from Europe and Korea, 10,000 rice bowls would be broken. They are the rice bowls of politicians, diplomats, generals, journalists and think tanks who would all have to find another line of work.”

Pat is absolutely correct on the above point.  And this is why we’re bogged down in the Mideast and are likely to stay that way until the country is completely bankrupt.

I’ve never been one to subscribe to conspiracy theories.  But I think the reason that 9/11 conspiracy theories are believed by a third of Americans is they sense the truth of Buchanan’s words.

Endless war is the price we pay for a central government that has almost become limitless in scope and power.  Endless war is nothing more than a means for such a government to justify its own existence, and for the politically well-connected to flourish at the expense of the rest of us.

Try calling up a radio talk show with the point that the size and scope of the US central government needs to be reduced.  Invariably the talk show host will reply that we live in a world that is far too dangerous to countenance such a thing.  So, endless war is also an excuse for conservatives to act like liberals or fascists.

The big reason conspiracy theories aren’t plausible to me is that people will do the right thing only after they’ve exhausted all other possibilities.  I fear that the American people won’t see the error of their ways until it’s too late.

Should we not want to protect Poland, because we can afford defense more easily than
her? Wouldn’t Poland be worth protecting because it is European and Europe is under an
onslaught by Moslems and non-whites via immigration and nuclear missiles such as Iran’s?

@whatwemaybe,

If Poland is inclined to import Moslems than why should we protect their borders.  Iran has no nuclear missiles.  Iran is pursuing nuclear energy to allow them to sell their oil on the open market.

Simon sez: “I agree that the US empire uses its military to try to enforce its writ across the world but to say that such imperialism is the result of laissez faire econ is remarkable.  Our problems are caused by two much State, not too much freedom.  Would you argue that US cits have more economic, political, and social freedom than say 20n years ago?  Is NAFTA the only barrier to open warfare on NA continent (NAFTA is no more free trade than you are King Farouk)?  Libertarians have been fighting for the abolition of fiat money and the FED for decades - are those two state institutions anything but State creatures?  It’s the nature of the State that has brought the US to its current dilemna, not the free market.  Trusting the State-corporatist alliance to right itself is like asking a pyromaniac to prevent fires.”

Simon, you might agree with me then, that the corporation is an extention of the state, but most so-called “libertarians” call it, “private enterprise system”. Fiat money? YOu mean return to
the gold standard. Well, gold is a great store of value, but fails miserably as a medium
of exchange, when it doesn’t grow proportionately with economic activity, it creates deflation,
which is great if you are a debt holder, but not if you earn your living with your labor.
It’s as if you didn’t listen to Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, probably the 2 most
famous --- or infamous depending on your point of view --- “liberatarian” economists in the
USA, both which champion “fiat” money, as you call it. It’s as if you hadn’t a clue about the
economic history of 19th Century America, which was a series of booms and busts, under teh
so-called “gold standard”.

BTW, the FED isn’t “fiat money”...fiat money is the “greenback” that financed the Civil
War...the FED is “privatized money”...in other words, pure “libertarian” theory.

I’m not sure what world you come from, but the facts are that the more economic dependent
on foreign food, energy and manufacturing the US has become, the more the military budget
has grown as a proporation of the federal budget, and the more interventionist the US
has become in it’s foreign affairs.

The problem you have to explain is how the expansion of militarism and interventionism
has grown at the same time as the US has dropped it’s protectionist economic policies. In some perfect
world, perhaps your “laissez faire” exists, but I and the rest of us have to live in the
real world. Keep your utopian visions to yourself, or maybe express your yearnings for
heaven on earth, by becoming a Christian or Jewish mystic---which would have about as
much relevance to today’s political economy as the rants and raving that goes on with the
utopian free market fundamentalists like yourself about the present condition of the world.

Nothing better illustrates the similiarities between Obama and McCain than their
over arching commitment to a foreign policy that is a relic of the last century.

Well done Pat !

And lets not forget the weapons industrial complex. How much money do we throw at them to buy junk that will never be used, well, except to kill some Iraqi family celebrating a wedding.

And then there the thousands of crazy bullies and borderline criminals we have in private armies getting paid 100K+ a year basically to stand around in the desert and do nothing.

And McCain just wants to expand this- with what money? All he’ll have left is monopoly money. If Bush did this much damage in 8 years, can you imagine what 8 years of a McCain tyranny would look like?

JP, as long as you post your inverted views of economic reality at this site I will post agians you unless or until barred by the editors.  If you have a weblog please give me the address and we can carry on the economic deciscussion if you wish.  I am a anarchist, not a libertarian, but what about the following in place of US current foreign policy - as fast as possible withdrawl from all overseas military bases, cessation of all foreign aid, and reduction of naval and air force to protection of the fifty states.  Curtailment of all CIA and other covert programs, limiting same to intel gathering only.  Suggestion only - keep discussion to the thread topic, and take our econ differences to other stage.  ST

Buchanan’s appeasement complex towards the Stalin-loving Russians is vile. (OF course, what do you expect from a person who wants to rehabilitate Hitler because neocons hate him!)

The only reason we want to put an ABM system in Europe is the Russian-backed Iranian nuclear and missile programs.
The Poles rightly fear Russia’s pathological revanchism and understand that hosting such a system would make Poland a target. So they want to improve their defensive systems in exchange for this nuclear bullseye.
Seems rational to me.

RonL, please reveal how PJB’s recommendation for a constitutional foreign policy is appeasement.  Also state where the Iranian missiles are located within that country (given your ability to discern Iranian nukes when no on else has been able to do so, I assume you are secretly posting from within Iranian borders, so please be careful).Please explain how Russian revanchism differs from US limited foreign involvement with its small professional military, with its over 800 mil bases in over 140 countries (latest figures from Robert Higgs).  ST

RonL,

If the Russians want to play footsie with Iran in order to advance Russian interests against a bellicose, anti-Russian US, it’s because they have that luxury, secure in their strength of will to bloodily suppress militant Islam within their own borders, to the extent it’s even allowed in.

Compare them to stupid, impotent Americans, who scream bloody murder and threaten to bomb Muslim homelands, even as Wahabbist mosques are built in our cities.

Russian nationalism is Europe’s and the US’s natural ally against militant Islam, but the idiots who run our foreign policy are still fuming over the stories of the Cossacks raiding great-granddad’s shtetl.

RonL and his neocondoms like to disguise their Middle East imperialism as “Wilsonian,”
as if a pure idealism drives their policy of regime change against any budding powers.
But why would someone invoke that befuddled president, Woodrow Wilson? Didn’t his greatest
triumph, the universally-reviled Versailles Treaty, serve as the very springboard for
World War Two, the war that broke Europe and quite possibly Western Civilization? Wasn’t
the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University specifically established to prevent
America’s involvement in another foreign policy debacle like the Versailles Treaty? People
outside the Beltway still suffer from the delusion that Washington is populated with “Foreign
Policy Experts.” Are there any here at all?  What we do have is plenty of tribal politics masquerading
as “Wilsonian.”

RonL. with all due respect we can’t fight Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey,Egypt,and Saudi Arabia so that dear little Israel can forever have a nuclear monopoly in the middle east. You can’t keep 500 milliion people away from nuclear power foreever. Israel will just have to get along with it’s neighbors or disappear.

RonL,

Its the neo-cons not Pat Buchannan who are doing a bang up job of reviving Hitler.  The similarities to pre-WWII Germany are compelling.

“Buchanan’s appeasement complex towards the Stalin-loving Russians is vile. (OF course, what do you expect from a person who wants to rehabilitate Hitler because neocons hate him!)”

First, your libel against Russians:  It seems to me you’re painting with a pretty broad brush when you refer to Russians as “Stalin-loving”.  The vast majority of Russians have no love for Stalin.  If you have evidence to prove me wrong, I eagerly await it.

And how do you figure Buchanan is trying to “rehabilitate” Hitler?  I’d like to see some substantiation for your very inflammatory claims.

Liberals need to be called out on this kind of garbage.

JP & ST the people have not yet evolved beyond the twin towering facades - the
SemiticFacade and/or = in the other culture the PlatonicFacade. That’s why jews yet
‘believe’ Greeks were to blame and celebrate ‘Greek’ defeat, in the re-opening of their
own temple as ‘Hanukka’ every year. And Greeks don’t want to become Levantines which
they don’t realize they became anyway in spirit vis a vis Plato prior to xianity. The
average jew & greek yet wants to be deceived because they are imbalanced toward the
instinctual/fantastic side of the coin at the neglect of the affectionate/human side of
the same coin. St. Paul attempted to say jew, greek etc. they’re all the same in that
regard. More TIME needs to pass or elapse before people will become generally balanced
between both sides of the coin rather than relying primarily upon instinct, and
imagination alone at the expense of the other side of the coin which is affection and
being present in the human real. Both sides of the coin are necessary it’s just that
they need to become approximately balanced rather than the one side facing up all the
time. Evolution is slow and that requires more TIME. I mention this because it affects
your perceptions of politics and which way or ‘system’ would work best. NOTHING really
works presently and nothing can, due to a remaining much more intrinsic human imbalance
as i’ve described that pervades classes etc. At the moment sadly there’s really yet
only the fight out there outside on the streets to see who’s ‘right’ and who’s ‘wrong’.
In that regard the answer is neither and both. And of course the pen is used as well as
the sword. So keep on doing what you do...way it is. Blesses. (did someone sneeze?) No I
just mean good will.

I’m sure this is nothing more than the latest expression of RonL’s deep and abiding love for the Polish people.  Why, I’ll bet he has a Pilsudksi poster on his bedroom wall!

We let the opportunity pass by, opting instead to use our wealth and power to convert the world to democratic capitalism.

Was that it? ‘Cause it sure looked to me like we immediately went about picking every international fight we could possibly find to keep vital that military-industrial complex our ruling elite finds so lucrative and handy. No sooner was the Cold War over than the first phase of our grand Mideast Project had begun. (Ambassador Glaspie’s sucker play with Saddam in 1990 doesn’t make sense unless we see Gulf War I as Step A in dominating this oil-rich and Israeli-encumbered region.)

And then it was Bosnia and then Russia again… and North Korea! Shucks! And if all else turns into Sesame Street, we’ve still got those restive Persians to contend with!

But, to think, I was wrong all along. So it was democratic capitalism!… Well, gawrsh! Here’s the problem with that: Democratic capitalism just kind of sounds peaceful. Forget about all the crap we’ve been told the Persistent Disciples of the Fat Ghetto Visionary - businessmen are the last folks to get on board with wars; there’s little money to be made in violent sectors, unless you’re in the bullet business. Far better to start up a factory or plow a farm in peacetime. Less gear to replace. Y’know?

But as a cover story, Democratic Capitalism sounds good. Noble, even. A real cause. Much better an approach than the alternative perception: “We’re Going to Kick Your Ass Because You’re Where We Want To Be”

Upon completing this post I shall go purchase a refreshing beverage and hoist it in honor of Mr. Buchanan.

I agree with Pat.

America should remove herself from Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America.

The benefit is as China just demonstated in Zimbabwe - China gets a 250 billion dollar mineral acquisition and Mugabe gets a house.

Taiwan can fall to China. Russia can start to reclaim it’s old Empire and beyond.

The vital oil reserves protected in the Middle East can go to either or both.

The resources of Africa can be split up.

America can then isolate herself until she becomes marginalised. Have I missed anyone?

What Pat misses in all of his selective examples is why this has become so. The reason why Russia is no longer a threat is because America did the exact opposite of what Pat is suggesting.

Of course he’s the genius who believes Churchill is responsible for World Wat II not Hitler.

Traps:

“The benefit is as China just demonstated in Zimbabwe - China gets a 250 billion dollar mineral acquisition and Mugabe gets a house.”

It was Western meddling that put Mugabe into power in the first place.  Ian Smith and his compatriots only gave up the ghost because of unrelenting pressure from Britain.  Ditto with China.  If the West hadn’t meddled in China they’d still be driving rickshaws rather than posing as a future existential threat to our existence.

“Taiwan can fall to China. Russia can start to reclaim it’s old Empire and beyond.”

How much more of your paycheck are you willing to fork over to guarantee sovereignty in these places?  Are you willing to risk your life, or the lives of loved ones, to guarantee their sovereignty?  If not, why would you expect others to make these sacrifices?  Remember, a liberal is one who is generous with other people’s money, and never his own.

“The vital oil reserves protected in the Middle East can go to either or both.  The resources of Africa can be split up.”

What do you think the Arabs are going to do with their oil if they don’t sell it to the West?  Drink it?  Just because the neocon media didn’t bring up the horrible suffering in Iraq brought on by the oil embargo of 1990-2002 didn’t mean it wasn’t real.  Likewise with African minerals.  These things will be sold to the highest bidder.

“What Pat misses in all of his selective examples is why this has become so. The reason why Russia is no longer a threat is because America did the exact opposite of what Pat is suggesting.”

The reason this has “become so” is so the elites can have a pretext to maintain their power and privilege at the expense of the rest of us.  And to your point on the fall of communism, I challenge you to show me a more ardent cold warrior than Buchanan.

You’ve been listening to too much Rush, Laura, Sean, and the rest of the ex-conservatives.  And it’s obviously a poor excuse for reading and thinking for one’s self.

It’s as if you didn’t listen to Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, probably the 2 most
famous --- or infamous depending on your point of view --- “liberatarian” economists in the
USA, both which champion “fiat” money, as you call it.

Nope. Greenspan backed a <a href="http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html">gold standard.</I>

Simon seZ:  “I am a anarchist, not a libertarian, but what about the following in place of US current foreign policy - as fast as possible withdrawl from all overseas military bases...”

An anarchist? Well that explains a lot why you think “Laissez Faire"---read the rationale of
oligarchy---is fine and dandy. I might remind you that 18th Century Southern Plantation owners
called themselves “libertarians"---while basing their economic wealth on their slave labor.

Enough said, you’re an anarchist. We need no other discussions. You can go off in your fantasy island,
but the rest of us have to live in the real world.

Tat Twan sed: “Greenspan backed a gold standard.”

It is not surprising, since Greenspan ran the Fed in such a way as to increase the profits of
Wall Street bankers at the expense of people who work for a living. Which is the same effect as
having a gold standard.

As usual, the “libertarians” prove what I’ve often said: “libertarianism” is merely the rationale for
oligarchy. It is anti-Christian, and anti-labor. Greenspan is the anti-christ, and his mentor Ayn Rand is the
devil herself. <chuckle>

Mr Populist, but it is not “the people” that truly matter, nor the “oligarchy”, but the Natural Order itself that truly matters.

There need not be any strife between “labor” and “management”, between “tenet” and “landlord”, nor between “subject” and “king”.

Where the anarchist” goes wrong is he subscribes to a world view that abolishes Authority itself and replaces it with the individual; where the “populist” goes wrong is that he insists this Authority be given to everyone - the populist is a democrat.

The Traditionalists (and “conservative”, outside of America) is determined that the Natural Order relies upon an organic understanding of Authority, and those that have the Authority have a responsibility to those under their authority, and vice versa.

In short, the American oligarch is what he is, because he is entirely informed by his “Enlightenment” culture.  Where the “Enlightenment” is not quite so strong, you will find a more Natural form of Authority wielded by the so-called “oligarchs”.

Dunny Veg

The fact that the West put Mugabe in means that China taking 250 billion dollars worth of vital resources is justified strategically?

Following that theory because Saddam was a Western invention why not concede the oil?

How much of my paycheck?

You make it sound as if the size of a persons paycheck is not linked to external events. They are. If America is forced to pay for energy from states controlled by foreign powers they will be in big trouble. Ask Ukraine what Russia does with energy when it’s in the driving seat.

Or are you too busy falling for micro garbage to see the big picture. Start reading buddy.

The Arabs don’t need to sell to the West hombre. The market is so vast that if America (who has no choice unless you consider vast shrinkage of the economy an alternative)opts out there are plenty takers out there.

America is a hyper power. The benefits she merits as a result of that don’t fall to the elite exclusively. Not by a 300 million miles. Lose your control of trade and strategic geo-political positions and you’ll find the elite living it up but the man in the street finding things a whole lot harder.

As for Pat’s credentials and in light of his views on how the West was won and lost I dare say the Cold War was won despite Pat.

As you, incredibly, suggest for others start thinking before you believe anything simply because you like Taki’s mag.

I also happen to like it despite myself.

I must be getting old.

Patrick Hall sed: “The Traditionalists (and “conservative”, outside of America) is determined that the Natural Order relies upon an organic understanding of Authority, and those that have the Authority have a responsibility to those under their authority, and vice versa.”

Careful. This could be an argument for slavery as well. I really don’t disagree with this statement. What populism is championing the interests of the working folk against the oligarch. But where you do have a
“natural” authority, the authority would naturally respect the interests of the working folk,
and therefore no need for populism.

But elites being what they are, “populism”, or a movement to stand up for the working folk is necessary for a stable political order.

Traps says “Ask Ukraine what Russia does with energy when it’s in the driving seat.””

Ask the USA what has happened to oil prices even though we are spending hundreds of billions for military bases all around the world?  We don’t get a discount no matter how much we are a “hyper power”.  We pay full market price just like everyone else does.  So we get the cost of being this “hyper power” and get no benifits

Also the only thing that happened to the Ukraine is that they no longer get low priced subsidized energy from Russia which is not surprising since why would Russia want to subsidize the Ukraine after the “Orange revolution “ types kept on insulting Russia.

JP, Alan G abandoned libertarianism over 30 years ago.  Uncle Milty has some libertarian ideas but was also influential in giving us the withholding tax.  Fiat money is not backed by any commodity, only by State’s tax and bond power.  FED money is no more private money then FED is ‘private corp’.  FED is a crony capitalist bunko scheme.  Gold standard held price of bread at five cents a loaf, 1860 - 1910, much more stable that fiat money system.  Today’s ‘dollar’ (actually federal reserve note) worth 95% LESS than it was in 1913, by US centgov statistics. So I’m not to post here, and threaten your fairy-tale economic empire? You are unfamiliar with historical facts or in total denial of them, engage in illogic, smear tactics (slave owners = anarchists, shame on you).  Who appointed you BOSS of this site to read out whom you please? You dread having your nonsense revealed, so I ask anyone curious to try http://www.mises.com and http://www.lewrockwell.com to understand libertarianism, not JP’s orwellian whoppers. ST

“The fact that the West put Mugabe in means that China taking 250 billion dollars worth of vital resources is justified strategically?”

I don’t like it at all.  But then I don’t like the US central government’s policies at all, and that’s the gist of my position.

But to answer your question:  Why should I trust the government that gave away the Panama Canal and the old Long Beach Naval Shipyard to the communist Chinese.?

As with the old Soviet Union, we find ourselves in the untenable position of having a government openly acting against its own citizens and interests.

“Following that theory because Saddam was a Western invention why not concede the oil?

“How much of my paycheck?”

If I conveyed the impression that Hussein is a “Western invention” I did so unintentionally.  Saddam was a jerk, but actually he never did anything to us.  He would’ve been more than happy to sell us oil had we permitted him to do so.

I also sympathize with your paycheck line.  One of the legion of things I like least about the Republican party is that they’ve allowed Americans to live in a kind of financial never-never land as voters can now support Republicans, get government goodies, and stiff their kids and grandkids with the bill.  It’s criminal and the reason we don’t feel the cost of this war in our paychecks.  We certainly should.

What’s also criminal is that the cost of this war is only a needless addition to higher gasoline prices.  The American people need to be disabused of the notion that the Republican party can give them a free lunch.

The reason gasoline prices are so high:  You may recall back in the mid nineties when NAFTA and GATT were being debated that the proponents argued that these treaties would open up new markets overseas.  Of course they were correct.  These treaties opened up new markets for limited resources, such as petroleum.

“You make it sound as if the size of a persons paycheck is not linked to external events. They are. If America is forced to pay for energy from states controlled by foreign powers they will be in big trouble. Ask Ukraine what Russia does with energy when it’s in the driving seat.”

Our free trade policies will be the ruin of the dollar, and hence our way of life.  Against their best judgement, Americans have tolerated the shabby free trade deals because of all the neat China goodies in Wal Mart that are dirt cheap.  But because there is no free lunch, now we begin to pay the real costs associated with those goods.

America has been buying goods from states it wanted little to do with since its earliest days.  That won’t change.  Again, it must be noted that most of the big oil producing countries need to sell their oil as badly as we need to buy it.  If you think petroleum is expensive now, just wait until we “own” all that oil with our troops.

Ukraine is a special exception as it’s a landlocked country that has been bullied by its superpower neighbor for most of its history.  That doesn’t apply to the US.

“The Arabs don’t need to sell to the West hombre. The market is so vast that if America (who has no choice unless you consider vast shrinkage of the economy an alternative)opts out there are plenty takers out there.”

Yes, the Arabs do need to sell oil to us.  Since petroleum was discovered in the Muslim countries their populations have exploded.  They would literally starve, as Iraqis did, if a successful boycott can be kept up.  Yes, the Arabs could boycott us, but the law of supply and demand dictates that if they were to do so, with low demand and a big supply that prices would collapse.  This is not in the interests of the producing countries.

“America is a hyper power. The benefits she merits as a result of that don’t fall to the elite exclusively. Not by a 300 million miles. Lose your control of trade and strategic geo-political positions and you’ll find the elite living it up but the man in the street finding things a whole lot harder.”

Due to government policy, the US is rapidly losing its hyperpower status.  Unless we get our trade deficits under control (we literally haven’t had a surplus since one month in 1976), we’re going to resemble Russia after the collapse of communism:  A huge, broke state with piles of extremely dangerous weapons and a desperately poor population.  Our trade policies are killing us.

“As for Pat’s credentials and in light of his views on how the West was won and lost I dare say the Cold War was won despite Pat.”

Nixon, Ford, and Reagan would disagree with you on Pat’s cold warrior credentials; he was in these administrations.  Or aren’t Nixon and Reagan cold warriors either?

I’m pretty new here myself. I share your enthusiasm for Takimag too.

As far as my arguments go, I always look for those who have better arguments than I do.  They become my arguments too.

Patrick Hall, I do not submit to political authority willingly, since I believe that the State is nothing more than a vampire writ large.  Government in the Nockian sense is a different matter entirely, as are other authorities, such as economic and spiritual.  ST

Poland is importing Moslems, but not nearly as much as other Western countries, and some of its Moslems in Poland are Tatars who haved lived there for centuries. In fact, Poles themselves are immigrating to the US, UK, Ireland and Germany, all countries that are importing Moslems.

In a very theoretical case, if Iran or Libya or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Syria were acquiring nuclear weapons, should the US provide missile defense technology to Poland which can’t afford it’s own?

“Give me control of a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.” -Baron Rothschild ... He
was the ‘inspiration’ for the current federal reserve system which led to the great depression of 1929,
10 plus years later (by design?), and to the current situation we are in today. Is this correct?
ST, if the state is a vampire writ large as you say above (I agree unless it’s local as in a village),
then state-capitalism since the federal reserve is then the vampire writ larger? And now that we’re off the
gold standard the vampires are in charge of the blood bank, right? JP’s heart is in the right place but
he doesn’t see that inflation is the biggest tax on the poor and the middle class. The more money the
vampires print for themselves (since it’s not backed by any commodity like gold or silver etc.) to loan,
the less it’s worth. They don’t ever feel inflation because they get the fiat paper first before it filters
down into the economy which is when inflation occurs. People’s homes for example don’t accumulate in
value, they only are a hedge in keeping up with inflation, like buying gold or silver is a hedge or owning
anything other than consumables which lose value right after they are purchased like cars, t.v.’s etc.
In this *debt system which is designed so that no one can stay ahead of their debt (given inflation) except those at the very top of the pyramid, it was inevitable that home owners would have had to borrow against those homes
just to keep their same standard of living which was in fact, and is, declining. They weren’t borrowing
against increased value, they were only borrowing against what had kept them abreast of inflation. The
system is rigged that everything will eventually get sucked up by those at the top of the pyramid. So
they went global in order that when we in the u.s. were sucked dry by them and their debt system they
wouldn’t collapse with us. In the meantime they not only print the money while we alone carry the burden
of inflation, in this marxist inspired *state-capitalistic system, we the taxpayers also underwrite,
insure and leverage everything they do. Since it is in fact designed that we cannot get ahead but only
keep jogging in place on their treadmill until we fall off of it, how is that any different than
the slavery we fought a civil war to end? The old slavery was of a specific people in a system that at
least was yet a free enterprise system, but this new slavery is just as unjust or more so since in this
system the slavery is invisible (systemic.) ST does this make any sense to you? The system itself
today is designed to eventually and inevitably give everything up to the very few at the top of the pyramid scheme.
Correct? Since that is the system isn’t it thus a slave system? It’s not just ‘oligarchic’ which is
itself at least visible, it is a pernicious, systemic and thus to the person at large *invisible, slave
system. No? What do you think? Is it only the ‘state’ to blame? Or is it *also the war of cultures, in
contemporary speak east v. west or jerusalem v. athens? I think it is also cultural. Look who after all
was the inspiration for the current federal reserve (bunko, as you put it) system - Baron Rothschild.

Dunny Veg

You old triangulator you… :0)

Jeff the W, you have my agreement.  Throw in some plutocrats and there you go.  ST

Simon sez: “Fiat money is not backed by any commodity, only by State’s tax and bond power.  FED money is no more private money then FED is ‘private corp’.  FED is a crony capitalist bunko scheme.  Gold standard held price of bread at five cents a loaf, 1860 - 1910, much more stable that fiat money system.”

Yes, the FED is a crony capitalist bunko scheme. In other words, “private money”...sorry, “crony
capitalism” is private money. “Libertarians” are always grumbling about the power of the state, but
always in denial that private conspiracies in restraint of trade are worst. Oh, yeah, the “market” will
correct “in the long run”, but my friend in the “long run” you’re dead.

I’m not sure where you got the notion that the stable price of bread had anything to do with the
gold standard, and any self-respecting “free marketeer"---free mouseketeer really---should understand that.

Of course, you miss the fact that from 1860 to 1910 there were constant booms and busts, caused by a
deflating currency, not to mention the havoc that the declining real incomes of small farmers (the majority of the population) that kept your bread price so “stable”.

Nor the fact that the the bankers that financed the civil war were demanding payment in GOLD, which as a “commodity”
rose in value. In other words, they demanded that the gold they loaned the government be paid back
with INFLATED gold dolars. Which is what all the bull-toss about the gold standard was all about…

Look, let me explain to you the facts of life. You can’t eat your gold. It can only buy what what
the economy produces, increasing productivity sets price of bread, not some mystical “gold standard”.
Ultimately, what your money can buy is dependent on the productivity of the economy.

The USA’s declining productivity is the REAL reason that the value of the dollar is falling, and this
inability to produce anything that anyone needs is the source of all our problems, that you want to lame
on “fiat money”, whatever that means.

Jeff sez: “JP’s heart is in the right place but he doesn’t see that inflation is the biggest tax on the poor and the middle class. The more money the vampires print for themselves (since it’s not backed by any commodity like gold or silver etc.) to loan, the less it’s worth.”

Your heart might be in the right place in criticizing the FED, but your economics is strictly
voo-doo 19th Century mysticism. The declining value of the dollar is due to America’s declining
productivity. No, I don’t mean the “productivity” that Alan Greenspan brags about, which was
achieved during his “golden” reign <snicker> by stifling wages, cutting pensions and health insurance,
and making everyone work longer hours. I mean actually producing something someone needs.

So the Mystics in the “free market fundamentalist” camp have set up this ponzi scheme of China/SEAsia sending us
computers and electronic whizbangs and Walmart junk in exchange for our “fiat” <chuckle> dollars, which
is supposed to make the pain of cutting our wages, job security and benefits less painful. In turn, the
Chinese/SE Asians loan us back the dollars and charge us interest for the trouble. To finance a war in
the mideast, the goal of which is to dominate the supply of oil, and thus preserve the dollar as the medium of exchange, so that the ponzi scheme won’t collapse like a house of cards. And the US economy along with it.

The real reason that the dollar is falling is that the USA produces more then it consumes, and the
productivity in REAL goods and products---not the Greenspan/WallStreet/CEO class defination of
“productivity"---is falling. If US productivity was GROWING, then the Chinese/SE Asisns would use their
dollars to buy American MADE goods. But since the US doesn’t make anything that the Chinese/SE Asians
want, then they have to do something with them. So the lend them back to us to finance the federal
deficit. And most of the federal deficit is caused by WAR-Mongering.

So there you have it, Simon and Jeff. Pure IMPERIALISM, as defined by Marx and Lenin. That’s what
your “free market” economics has created.

As for the “gold standard” versus “fiat money"---which you mean the FED, which is really “private
money” as I explained to your before---any situation where the economy grows faster then the gold supply, there is deflation, which is good for debt-holders, and bad for debtors, as you are paying back loans with dollars that are worth more then when you took out the debt.

Good for Wall Street, bad for Main Street.

JP, you cannot eat frns, either. I’ll take being called a ‘free-mouseketeer’ over a chattel slavery advocate anytime, so we are making progress.  If you believe price stability under gold standard was less than after the establishment of the FED, fine.  I again direct anyone interested in the libertarian take on history and the economy to check lewrockwell.com or mises.org. Both sites give fine examples of how the State and its minions have made a train wreck of the economy, has always done so, and what remedies are available.  JP, I do not have a weblog, or I would invite you there to continue our discussion.  Otherwise I will limit my econ comments to your posts unless the Takster posts an econ column.  ST

Please go to http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13213 for rebuttal of some of JP’s more preposterous statements, and then ask yourself whether or not his ideas, or libertarianism, represent the dead and deadly ideology of marxism (non-Groucho form).  ST

It is telling when, on a website dedicated to conservatism in America, we have a “populist” and a “libertarian” arguing.

Neither of the positions are “conservative”, and neither would be accepted among “true conservatives”, yet we must endure their kind in America…

Meanwhile, I’ll take another snuff of tobacco and a glass of wine, and see what is resolved between these Liberals...if anything - or nothing!

PH, this is a conservative site that has far more viewers than posters, which is why the claptrap of writers such as JP needs challenge.  More space is wasted here attacking libertarians while so-called ‘conservative’ issues such as gun-control and abortion are generally put to the side. If you care to label libertarianism, as opposed to libertinism, liberal, more power to you. Effete snobism, real or faked, has its place, too.  ST

libertarianism, liberal, etc.

They have their place outside of “conservatism”, unless, of course, you are wishing to conserve Americanism, which, in all ways, includes Liberalism.  Non-American conservatives, however, are quite offended by the American “conservative’s” penchant for Liberalism.

Mr Tregarth, you and “Joe Populist’s” struggles are like watching two mules fight over a corn cob.

PH, nice that you can write on behalf of “non-American conservatives” - must be grand to have that kind of powere and knowledge of so many other people.  Curious as to how many you represent, and how you obtained your position.  When one has nothing to add to a discussion but hot air and self-importance, one should equate the various positions - saves time and cogitation.  ST

American “conservatives” owe their electoral victories to the working class white guy. Consequently,
“populists” are an intrinsic part of the conservative coalition. As is discussed by other contributors
on this site--not posters like me---Republicans have been winning elections talking like social
populists on issues like abortion and gun control, while they govern like oligarchs, giving bailouts
to Wall Street speculators, while encouraging unrestrained immigration and increases in the H1B Visa
“contract” workers from other countries.

I’ve got news for you..the “conservative” values of family, community, religion and love of country ARE
“populist” positions, shared by the broad majority of working class white folk, under assault from
the metrosexual liberals.

Populists believe in conservative social values, but NOT laissez faire, which is just a rationale for
oligarchy.

Simon, I grew up on Von Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Friedman, Hayek...so don’t think I don’t understand
your political economic theories. It’s just that so-called “libertarians” take these theories as holy
writ, and therefore become dogmatic ideologues, a mirror image of communists they are claim are their
enemy. ALL government is bad, the unrestrained free market is the ONLY way....no matter what the consequenses for
for the folk, and my favorite piece of your holy writ, “in the long run”, the market “adjusts"…

If you really understood Pat Buchanan, you’d know that his presidential campaign was based on restrainign
the power of Wall Street bankers, breaking up the corporate conglomerates into component parts, shutting
down immigration until wages started growing again, and imposing restrictions on dumping...as well as
a return to an America First foreign policy.

In other words, a POPULIST economic policy. Don’t tell me that I don’t deserve a voice at this or any
other ‘conservative’ forum.

JP, we see the world differently, so I advise the interested to seek other website where your fallacies are put to rest, rather than waste time here.  At no time did I seek to have you barred from this site or to quiet your keyboard.  It is the exchange of ideas and the winnowing of the wheat from the chaff that matter, not silencing dissent.  I have learned much from the back and forth with you and others who disagree with me on this topic and others, but I am trying to respect the theme of the author’s post.  ST

Simon sez: “JP, we see the world differently, so I advise the interested to seek other website where your fallacies are put to rest, rather than waste time here.”

As usual, you sound like a communist in reverse, whose mentality you “free market fundamentalists” miror image in dogmatic certainty that you demand to impose on the rest of us by force rather then persuasion. 

As I said before, I’m throughly acquainted with the dogma of your political economy, whose ideas
I embraced in the hormone inflicted passion of my youth. You think I’ve not read Von Mises, Rothbard,
Hayek or Milton Friedman? You are sadly deluded-as well as dangerous--if you think my ideas are “fallacies”, and yours are holy writ.

I prefer to call my self a “realist” as opposed to you “utopians on the right” as Kevin Phillips described
you. My populism is the backbone of the electora success of the conservative movement. This movement
canot be viable in a democracy withiout me and mine. You on the other hand, can exist quite nicely among the
metropolitan liberals, who embrace the basic tenets of your “libertarianism"--destruction of America’s
economic sovereignty, unrestrained immigration, and destruction of the “populist” values of family, community, church, and love of country.

“I prefer to call my self a “realist” as opposed to you “utopians on the right” as Kevin Phillips described
you.” -JP

We’re not that far apart, in my opinion. It is declining REAL productivity which is hurting us
on top of the inflation caused by the printing of the fiat paper. What’s really sad and a
double bind is that as the dollar loses value internationally it would help our balance of
trade in terms of our exports - if we still produced anything of merit to export. JP you’re
correct on that score. HOWEVER it was the *State-capitalistic system big biz + big Gov. that
permitted things like NAFTA in the first place via - of all things a demorcratic prez. in
Billiam Jefferson of the Clintons. No? He was trailer trash movin’On’UP to the eastside… he
finally got his white trash PIECE of the PIE - but JP at your expense, thanks to the STATE. No?
What about -me- I wanna move on UP - but billiam NEVER helped neither would or could Hillary or
O’Cain or McBama. JP, how about a ‘loan’ - you’re kind, right?! ... Movin on’Up… Ain’t life
grand?!

“Simon sez: “JP, we see the world differently, so I advise the interested to seek other website where your fallacies are put to rest, rather than waste time here.”

As usual, you sound like a communist in reverse, whose mentality you “free market fundamentalists” miror image in dogmatic certainty that you demand to impose on the rest of us by force rather then persuasion. 

I “demand to impose on the rest of us by force”?  I believe in non-aggression and private property, so for you to invert my views to your own (JP, what would you have the state do to the violators of your financial/protectionist laws, shake their hands?).  You blame me for the violence YOU would start, then assume your views are those of the other readers of this site. That you claim to have read libertarian/anarchist literature is meaningless unless you understand it.  Cannot debate this topic with you here because you live in your bizarro econ world of state worship.  You do post well on several foreign policy issues, so best of luck.  ST

Re pullback can be problematic - ain’t that the truth.  While doing research on a story about Chinese Gordon, I got to see how these Imperial projects occur and how they typically are mismanaged.

Basically, the Manchester textile mills had their supply chain of cotton disrupted during the American Civil War and began to rely more upon Egyptian cotton.  The ruler of Egypt at that time was Ismail, later to be Khedive Ismail, who borrowed lots of money from European banking houses to finance speculative business ventures in his country, most of which didn’t prove profitable.

To make a long story short, he eventually had difficulties making payments, so the European creditors sent representatives (Goschen and later Baring) to represent their interests and curb his spending.  Cutting the military budget irritated the officer corps who revolted and would have taken over the country (and repudiated the debts) so the British intervened and kept a puppet Khedive on the throne.

The Mahdist uprising in the Sudan was beyond the capacity of the Egyptian government to deal with, so the European “advisors” basically dictated that Egypt had to abandon the Sudan.  The Khedive didn’t like having his prestige diminished, so he intrigued against it as much as he could.  Gordon went to report on the situation, became besieged in Khartoum necessitating a relief expedition which arrived late and the Sudan fell into the hands of murdering bandits.

Probably between 1885 and the Second Boer War, this was the most talked about foreign policy gaffe in the British Empire and there was much talk about how Britain’s honor was stained by not setting up a suitable government in the Sudan before withdrawing.  Wilfred Scawen Blunt, a left-wing aristo, made polemics against the British Empire in the Nineteenth Century, an influential journal.  Oh yeah, and the Brits stayed in Egypt until the 1950s.

So basically the Brits intervened in Egypt to protect the investments of prominant British bankers and in the process became responsible for the government of millions of Muslims who resented their presence in their country.  Plus ca change ...