Saturday, May 29, 2010
LBJ Talks to Martin Luther King, Jr. about the Vietnam War
Telephone Conversation - July 1965
Starting in 1965, King began to express doubts about the United States' role in the Vietnam War. In an April 4, 1967 appearance at the New York City Riverside Church—exactly one year before his death—King delivered a speech titled "Beyond Vietnam." In the speech, he spoke strongly against the U.S.'s role in the war, insisting that the U.S. was in Vietnam "to occupy it as an American colony" and calling the U.S. government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He also argued that the country needed larger and broader moral changes:
"A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: 'This is not just.'"
King also was opposed to the Vietnam War on the grounds that the war took money and resources that could have been spent on social welfare services like the War on Poverty. The United States Congress was spending more and more on the military and less and less on anti-poverty programs at the same time. He summed up this aspect by saying, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
Many white southern segregationists vilified King; moreover, this speech soured his relationship with many members of the mainstream media. Life magazine called the speech "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi," and The Washington Post declared that King had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people."
King stated that North Vietnam "did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had arrived in the tens of thousands." King also criticized the United States' resistance to North Vietnam's land reforms. He accused the United States of having killed a million Vietnamese, "mostly children."
The speech was a reflection of King's evolving political advocacy in his later years, which paralleled the teachings of the progressive Highlander Research and Education Center, with whom King was affiliated. King began to speak of the need for fundamental changes in the political and economic life of the nation. Toward the end of his life, King more frequently expressed his opposition to the war and his desire to see a redistribution of resources to correct racial and economic injustice. Though his public language was guarded, so as to avoid being linked to communism by his political enemies, in private he sometimes spoke of his support for democratic socialism. In one speech, he stated that "something is wrong with capitalism" and claimed, "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected "traditional capitalism," he also rejected Communism because of its "materialistic interpretation of history" that denied religion, its "ethical relativism," and its "political totalitarianism."
King also stated in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech that "true compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar....it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." King quoted a United States official, who said that, from Vietnam to South America to Latin America, the country was "on the wrong side of a world revolution" King condemned America's "alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and said that the United States should support "the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World rather than suppressing their attempts at revolution.
King spoke at an Anti-Vietnam demonstration where he also brought up issues of civil rights and the draft. "I have not urged a mechanical fusion of the civil rights and peace movements. There are people who have come to see the moral imperative of equality, but who cannot yet see the moral imperative of world brotherhood. I would like to see the fervor of the civil-rights movement imbued into the peace movement to instill it with greater strength. And I believe everyone has a duty to be in both the civil-rights and peace movements. But for those who presently choose but one, I would hope they will finally come to see the moral roots common to both."
Starting in 1965, King began to express doubts about the United States' role in the Vietnam War. In an April 4, 1967 appearance at the New York City Riverside Church—exactly one year before his death—King delivered a speech titled "Beyond Vietnam." In the speech, he spoke strongly against the U.S.'s role in the war, insisting that the U.S. was in Vietnam "to occupy it as an American colony" and calling the U.S. government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He also argued that the country needed larger and broader moral changes:
"A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: 'This is not just.'"
King also was opposed to the Vietnam War on the grounds that the war took money and resources that could have been spent on social welfare services like the War on Poverty. The United States Congress was spending more and more on the military and less and less on anti-poverty programs at the same time. He summed up this aspect by saying, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
Many white southern segregationists vilified King; moreover, this speech soured his relationship with many members of the mainstream media. Life magazine called the speech "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi," and The Washington Post declared that King had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people."
King stated that North Vietnam "did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had arrived in the tens of thousands." King also criticized the United States' resistance to North Vietnam's land reforms. He accused the United States of having killed a million Vietnamese, "mostly children."
The speech was a reflection of King's evolving political advocacy in his later years, which paralleled the teachings of the progressive Highlander Research and Education Center, with whom King was affiliated. King began to speak of the need for fundamental changes in the political and economic life of the nation. Toward the end of his life, King more frequently expressed his opposition to the war and his desire to see a redistribution of resources to correct racial and economic injustice. Though his public language was guarded, so as to avoid being linked to communism by his political enemies, in private he sometimes spoke of his support for democratic socialism. In one speech, he stated that "something is wrong with capitalism" and claimed, "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected "traditional capitalism," he also rejected Communism because of its "materialistic interpretation of history" that denied religion, its "ethical relativism," and its "political totalitarianism."
King also stated in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech that "true compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar....it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." King quoted a United States official, who said that, from Vietnam to South America to Latin America, the country was "on the wrong side of a world revolution" King condemned America's "alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and said that the United States should support "the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World rather than suppressing their attempts at revolution.
King spoke at an Anti-Vietnam demonstration where he also brought up issues of civil rights and the draft. "I have not urged a mechanical fusion of the civil rights and peace movements. There are people who have come to see the moral imperative of equality, but who cannot yet see the moral imperative of world brotherhood. I would like to see the fervor of the civil-rights movement imbued into the peace movement to instill it with greater strength. And I believe everyone has a duty to be in both the civil-rights and peace movements. But for those who presently choose but one, I would hope they will finally come to see the moral roots common to both."
Thursday, May 27, 2010
African History
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8WFRr9M50RgJ:blackmalepowermovement.forumsland.com/blackmalepowermovement-about86.html+blackmalepowermovement.foru&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://nubianem.tripod.com/blackafroasia/id5.html
http://nubianem.tripod.com/blackafroasia/index.html
http://blackafricanamericansunited.blogspot.com/2007/12/creating-african-american-african-pan.html
http://nubianem.tripod.com/blackafroasia/id5.html
http://nubianem.tripod.com/blackafroasia/index.html
http://blackafricanamericansunited.blogspot.com/2007/12/creating-african-american-african-pan.html
Friday, May 07, 2010
Rainchild on the Economy
First of all no I don't listen to Lyndon Lerouche. You wanna know where my Economic Doctrine comes from? Stephen Zarlanga's the Lost Science of Money. Go and read it! I also read from essays by Benjamin Franklin whom I admire and somewhat Identify myself with. I NEVER read anything from Lerouche okay? SO there isn't going to be an argument over that because I'm not going to defend him.
Ron Paul's Economic doctrine comes from Adam Smith one of the MINOR founding fathers. He was friends with Jeremy Bentham who was a British agent. Bentham wrote an essay called "In Defense of Usury". The Mises insitute, which is linked to Ron Paul's campaign for liberty website has lovely essays like, "The case for a 100% gold dollar", and "In defense of the Robber Barons". (The Rockefellers).
Ron Paul's economic doctrine is the same as scharzanegger's. Cut everything, and hope the economy recovers.
The fact is Ron Paul wants us to do a) cut spending Obama wants us to do be B) subsidize banks that make nothing useful for the economy (which, is a vindication of Herbert Hoover's spending plan). When we should be doing C) revolutionize industry
Even the GOP says that we should spend SOME money. The Austrian economist says don't spend anything.
I don't care if Roosevelt was a Zionist, what he did worked, and we recovered. And I haven't seen any proof that he was. I've seen proof that Churchhill was.
And besides everything that was nationalized during the Roosevelt era was done through chapter 11 of the United state code. It's called a banking seizure and it's a required under the US code to do so. There is nothing communist about it because he didn't legislate it. By not seizing these bankrupt banks our government is breaking the LAW, and is making it harder to reform our debt money system. Everything he nationalized was temporary. It was done to convert policies not control business.
Even Roosevelt said referring to the bill that repealed the gold standard that he had not read the bill in fact no one had read it, but it passed. If he's zionist then why would he be allowed to do that even if he was ignorant of it? Who influenced our government to get rid of the gold standard then?
And who was the first to call Roosevelt a communist? Why it was the John Birch Society, which was funded by Nelson Rockefeller (zionist). Who was behind the Iran contra? why It's the Council for National policy, some of which were members of the John Birch society. The council for national policy set up Clinton's impeachment. They want a theocratic government in the United States. And what is Ron Paul an unofficial member of? The controlled John Birch Society. He's even been in a documentary with these people.
You want to balance the budget? Be prepared for a recession or in this case a depression.
http://wealthmoney.org/budget.html
Andrew Jackson is no hero. He may have ended the bank, but he also single handedly triggered the panic of 1837, which caused a depression, which led to the civil war with his imbecilic Specie Circular of 1836.
Read that again... I was clearly talking about Obama. NOT RON PAUL
Ron Paul is on the A train obama is on the B train I'm on the c train. can't you even read?
And here's your proof that the John Birch society was Rockefeller funded
http://www.seekgod.ca/rockefeller.htm
What he's talking about by making the federal reserve note "legal tender" is to make the federal reserve a bureau of the treasury with the American monetary act. If we did that the treasury would only be able to pay interest to itself. Ending it would allow foreign banks to parasite off of us like the bank of England did in the panic of 1837, but it's more likely that this time the dollar would be replaced with SDR's. If the federal reserve note is distributed by th treasury than there are no treasury notes,which means no loans from central banks, which means no interest, which means it's not based on debt. It makes the Federal reserve a PUBLIC BANK.
-Rainchild
_____________________________
From http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=105934.360
Of course i obviously agree, there has to be a form of saftey net for the very situation we are currently witnessing ( An incalculable Depresssion that will result in starvation and death if not addressed ). I would agree , it has to be reformed to prevent the massive abuse (Like illegal aliens not paying for it and getting the benefits anyway) , but to call medicaid/medicare "Socialism" is by definition a falsehood and is a big problem because calling a social net, "Socalism" or "Marxism" in this case narrows everyones views to the Preditory Capitalist System VS. the "Socialist" system when infact, you can of course have none of the above if you broaden your perspectives. I see the labeling of all Government activities as "Marxist Socialism" , which the mises website does in nearly all of their articles as a deadly threat to humanity.... which is why i attempt to highlight that "Marxist Socialism" is when the Government Seizes the Means of Production - not when the Government constitutionally provides for the General Welfare of the public. I know you understand this, so do not think i am attacking you here, i am merely highlighting it because i think it's very important.
In regards to both systems being the same, i'd certainly have to disagree with you there.... due to the fact that a fixed exchange rate system would allow the new currency to be pegged to current price levels to avoid the very deflation that an actual domestic gold coin barter standard would result in. That is the major issue here, an International Gold Standard can be pegged to current price levels, but a Domestic Gold Coin standard obviously cannot due to the impossibility of obtaining enough Gold to peg to current price levels..... In addition, a Domestic Gold Coin standard is the use of a commodity as Currency , which i've highlighted as not a "Storage Unit of Wealth" - but a means of exchange valued by a Nations net productive output per capita. So what you have here is using a volatile piece of metal (in the case of Gold) being used as a currency. This means gold mining drives currency levels as opposed to economic expansion - i believe doing this is a grave mistake and a also addressed this in my original post, as Mining for Gold really bears to resemblence to an actual economies expansion rate at all, while Infrastructure infact directly represents an economies expansion rate.
In regards to competeing currency (Specifically for private obligations) i'd also have to disagree , the reality of the situation is that this has indeed been attempted by none other than Andrew Jackson, and the result wiped out the perceived "Weaker" currency, and many families savings were wiped out along with it just because they held state issued notes and not gold convertable notes (Which later imploded the economy anyway)..... so i would also disagree that a competeing currency would help becuase the weaker currency would inevitably be dumped and wiped out. If there were a way to introduce competeing currency without this threat - i perhaps would not be opposed to it, but to my knowledge i simply cannot think of a way for a competeing currency to provide for the General Welfare Clause in any way shape or form.
-Revolt 426
_________________________
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=105934.360
In our current situation the "Not matter what" phrase i used still stands. In my view, saving human lives during a Depression is far more important than deficit spending to "Balance the Budget" , as Mouslini said in his drive towards Corporatism, as Mayor Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzeneggar parroted recently during economic hardships in regards to cutting public programs..... and as Obama is saying to "Cut Medicaid , Medicare" and now, Social Security - if however, we seized the insolvent banks rather then bailing them out and ended our occupation of numerous countries it is my sincere beleif it would not put us into debt, specifically with good monetary reform that increases the nations physical productive capabilities. The point of a social net is not only a moral one to provide health care (I'd suggest reforming and expanding medicare/medicaid) , but one that preserves the nations productive workforce from being wiped out, because without that workforce there is obviously no chance of a recovery.
I'd also emphasize as Webster Tarpley did - no gutting of Social Security during a Depression. We are well aware 401k's/Pensions have been wiped out and with GM/Ford (Our last productive industry) going down this is going to drastically expand this problem.
As you can see from the following, the powers that be are still to this day parroting the Mousilini "Balance the Budget" during economic hardship stuff, all the while completely dumping every cent of our GDP into bailing bankers out of a black hole......
-Revolt 426
It's Now Public: After Health Care, Obama Intends to Dismantle Social Security
June 17, 2009 (LPAC)—None other than Mr. Peter Orszag himself took to the pages of today's Financial Times to assure London financiers, that "once health-care reform is in place," Social Security is next on the Obama administration's chopping block. The pledge by President Obama's Office of Management and Budget Director is made in the concluding paragraph of a signed op-ed touting the Obama administration's fascist health-care reforms as "A Medical Plan to Boost America's Fiscal Health;" not to secure human health, but that of the financial system.
In its June 10 report on its annual review of the U.S. economy, the International Monetary Fund reported that it had received similar assurances from Obama administration officials: "We welcome the Administration's intention to work toward developing a political consensus on Social Security reform once health-care reforms are complete," the IMF wrote. This arm of the usurious monetarist system insisted the U.S. must be ready to further bailout Wall Street if necessary, but "substantial further measures will be needed to rein in soaring entitlement costs over the longer term."
Thus, is it again made bare, that the intention of the current fascist controllers of the Obama administration, is to rip up the U.S. Constitution, its General Welfare clause, and the entitlement programs which defend human life. With FDR's life-saving Social Security program still in place, old people in the United States may not "get out of the way" as fast as Prince Philip would like. Deny them health care and Social Security both, in the middle of an economic breakdown crisis, and killings en masse are guaranteed.
_________________________
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=99961.80
As a re-occuring phenomina in the U.S., i would like to address this issue shortly.
This has been planned for years , and the secession is part of the plan. The plan is to Break the United States into pieces.
The Plan has been derived by Bankers and Royalty in London, The Netherlands and Saudi Arabia with their collective moles in Wallstreet.
This is repeatative issue that has once caused a Civil War, that is always orchestrated the SAME EXACT WAY, and i will explain how, obviously to some people's disliking but it has to be said regardless.
It always starts with the Country going back on the Gold Standard. There is no denying this if you wish to go throug the Nations history of Un-Correctable Depressions, each was caused by the Gold Standard besides our Current one, which took twice as long to create because it was designed to be a Globalized Meltdown based on Privatized Central Banks.
What a Gold Standard does in reality, is it puts a CAP on production and population levels..... Contrary to some myths, an economy is driven by physical production, and the private sector is driven by the Nations underlying infrastructure. For example, a very specific example because we are witnessing the very same thing that occured in the mid 1800s known as the Civil War, which was an attempt by Lord Palmerston on behalf of the British Empire to cut the United States in half.
This began with Andrew Jackson enstating a Domestic Gold Standard, Coins or Convertable notes to compete with the State issued currency. People began purchasing the Gold Notes and using them for transactions - this resulted in the disintigration of the State issued currency which bankrupted many people in the Nation. Eventually, the Gold Convertable Notes were over-lent and a bubble was formed..... Followed by Martin Van Buren, who established Independent Treasuries to make loans in the name of the free markets, this bubble expanded and exploded in 1837 resulting in the Great Panic of 1837, a Depression that lasted nearly a Decade.
The reality of this Depresion is, the Nation never recovered. What happened was, the Government - being bankrupt and on the Gold Standard, was unable to issue currency for PRODUCTIVE means. That means building roadways, bridges and other infrastructure required for production and trade to function. As a population GROWS, the infrastructure must be MODERNIZED, or the population will fall into poverty. If the Currency circulation levels do not match the population on a Gold Standard...- you get deflation.. which means it is extremely hard to obtain currency.
The South was hit very hard by this and was very much de-undustrialized for it's time........ This unfortunately lead to the South becoming Dependent on Slave Labour with the HELP of the British and Dutch who were shipping them in via the East India Company and other Dutch Ships.
Over the next 20+ years the Nation was on the Gold Standard, and never recovered..... more and more the South became dependent on Slave Labour to produce capital. The British eventually sent in Agents such as Confederate General Albert Pike and other infiltraitors on behalf of Lord Palmerston, who was ready to attack Lincoln's army on a whim if Robert E. Lee won certain battles. Lord Palmerston also made free trade agreements with the South to purchase low priced Cotton from Slave Labour without tariffs , which is the real reason why they began seceeding. They did not want a protective tariff because they were dependent on the Dutch and the British to function economically.
When Abraham Lincoln came to office, numerous states seceeded from the Union - this was going according to the British Plan to cut the Nation in Half. The Nation was 100% BANKRUPT and unable to fund the war, or build anything because the Gold Standard did not provide the necessary currency to expand the economy.
Lincoln took the Gold Standard down, and Revived the Greenback and issued them directly into Infrastructure projects. His projects were in the form of Science Driver economics, which was the Intercontinental Railway and Agriculture Science... These are essentially low or zero interest federal loans in which the Government provides currency to build something then recovers it when it is built.
As Lincoln began his projects, more states began seceeding from the Union under British lead agents and this became a tremendous problem. The British controlled confederacy attempted to assassinate Lincoln numerous times , Lincoln however had balls of steel and was not afraid at all. His biography is quite incredible.
Anyway, we all know what happened during the Civil War, but it is often unsaid that the entire war was orchestrated by the British Empire. Eventually, Czar Nicholas the Second of Russia sent his Navy to Block any BRITISH attempt ( yes, Russia has ALWAYS been our ALLY) to intervene in the Civil War.
After the war was won, Lincolns greenback had modest inflation because it was funded by the credit of the United States as opposed to borrowing from other Nations, HOWEVER - His Intercontinental Railway and other infrastructure/science driver investments paved the way for an economic boom.
The Railway in particular freed us from British Controlled Trade and i will explain the idea behind this. In the 19th Century, the British Empire was a MARITIME empire, meaning they operated by NAVAL POWER. There was no Nation on the planet that could match British Naval Power alone.......
This meant they controlled the NAVAL trade routes which the U.S. had been depending on prior to the railways completion.. and this was the primary reason Lincoln was assassinated.
His Intercontinental Railway allowed the United States, with it's own Sovereign Currency, to bypass British controlled trade routes with high speed , Nation Wide Transport. This obviously cut costs and sped transport up massively........ Things like this SPUR economies. Things like Hydro-Electric Dams, Bridges and Waterways in the 1930's SPUR economies.......
Without an underlying infrastructure, you cannot have a productive modernized economy with any decent living standards because you would end up on the local barter system.
Therefor, Lincoln's victory over the British during the Civil War was not of Matmatical economics, but of SCIENTIFIC ECONOMICS
So i would advocate everyone to be very weary, this is being setup on the model of the Civil War, our country has been De-industrialized by a Private Central Bank that can act beyond Congressional Appropriations and issues currency via loans to other banks rather then direct issuence into infrastructure like Lincolns Greenback Model.
Do not blame the Greenback for the currenct crisis, because we do not have a Greenback. We have a FEDERAL RESERVE BACK, which is nothing of the sort. Since the Death of Franklin Roosevent and the Death of JFK, Currency has not been issued via Federal Lending into infrastructure but rather printing and loaning from one private bank to other private banks to do whatever they want with.
A currencies value is determined by the Nations ability to produce and Transport goods that other nations wish to purchase. After the Intercontinental Railway was completed, as i said we had an economic boom. This was a direct result of that railway and economic policy. The current situation is, all of the private banks are BANKRUPT, so it is required that to preserve current population levels, the nations infrastructure be rebuilt and modernized to match the populations needs to produce and transport physical goods that other nations wish to purchase. When other nations purchase these goods, they sell their currency and purchase our currency to buy them, this makes our currency stronger.... Gold does not do the trick in these regards...
-Revolt 426
Ron Paul's Economic doctrine comes from Adam Smith one of the MINOR founding fathers. He was friends with Jeremy Bentham who was a British agent. Bentham wrote an essay called "In Defense of Usury". The Mises insitute, which is linked to Ron Paul's campaign for liberty website has lovely essays like, "The case for a 100% gold dollar", and "In defense of the Robber Barons". (The Rockefellers).
Ron Paul's economic doctrine is the same as scharzanegger's. Cut everything, and hope the economy recovers.
The fact is Ron Paul wants us to do a) cut spending Obama wants us to do be B) subsidize banks that make nothing useful for the economy (which, is a vindication of Herbert Hoover's spending plan). When we should be doing C) revolutionize industry
Even the GOP says that we should spend SOME money. The Austrian economist says don't spend anything.
I don't care if Roosevelt was a Zionist, what he did worked, and we recovered. And I haven't seen any proof that he was. I've seen proof that Churchhill was.
And besides everything that was nationalized during the Roosevelt era was done through chapter 11 of the United state code. It's called a banking seizure and it's a required under the US code to do so. There is nothing communist about it because he didn't legislate it. By not seizing these bankrupt banks our government is breaking the LAW, and is making it harder to reform our debt money system. Everything he nationalized was temporary. It was done to convert policies not control business.
Even Roosevelt said referring to the bill that repealed the gold standard that he had not read the bill in fact no one had read it, but it passed. If he's zionist then why would he be allowed to do that even if he was ignorant of it? Who influenced our government to get rid of the gold standard then?
And who was the first to call Roosevelt a communist? Why it was the John Birch Society, which was funded by Nelson Rockefeller (zionist). Who was behind the Iran contra? why It's the Council for National policy, some of which were members of the John Birch society. The council for national policy set up Clinton's impeachment. They want a theocratic government in the United States. And what is Ron Paul an unofficial member of? The controlled John Birch Society. He's even been in a documentary with these people.
You want to balance the budget? Be prepared for a recession or in this case a depression.
http://wealthmoney.org/budget.html
Andrew Jackson is no hero. He may have ended the bank, but he also single handedly triggered the panic of 1837, which caused a depression, which led to the civil war with his imbecilic Specie Circular of 1836.
Read that again... I was clearly talking about Obama. NOT RON PAUL
Ron Paul is on the A train obama is on the B train I'm on the c train. can't you even read?
And here's your proof that the John Birch society was Rockefeller funded
http://www.seekgod.ca/rockefeller.htm
What he's talking about by making the federal reserve note "legal tender" is to make the federal reserve a bureau of the treasury with the American monetary act. If we did that the treasury would only be able to pay interest to itself. Ending it would allow foreign banks to parasite off of us like the bank of England did in the panic of 1837, but it's more likely that this time the dollar would be replaced with SDR's. If the federal reserve note is distributed by th treasury than there are no treasury notes,which means no loans from central banks, which means no interest, which means it's not based on debt. It makes the Federal reserve a PUBLIC BANK.
-Rainchild
_____________________________
From http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=105934.360
Of course i obviously agree, there has to be a form of saftey net for the very situation we are currently witnessing ( An incalculable Depresssion that will result in starvation and death if not addressed ). I would agree , it has to be reformed to prevent the massive abuse (Like illegal aliens not paying for it and getting the benefits anyway) , but to call medicaid/medicare "Socialism" is by definition a falsehood and is a big problem because calling a social net, "Socalism" or "Marxism" in this case narrows everyones views to the Preditory Capitalist System VS. the "Socialist" system when infact, you can of course have none of the above if you broaden your perspectives. I see the labeling of all Government activities as "Marxist Socialism" , which the mises website does in nearly all of their articles as a deadly threat to humanity.... which is why i attempt to highlight that "Marxist Socialism" is when the Government Seizes the Means of Production - not when the Government constitutionally provides for the General Welfare of the public. I know you understand this, so do not think i am attacking you here, i am merely highlighting it because i think it's very important.
In regards to both systems being the same, i'd certainly have to disagree with you there.... due to the fact that a fixed exchange rate system would allow the new currency to be pegged to current price levels to avoid the very deflation that an actual domestic gold coin barter standard would result in. That is the major issue here, an International Gold Standard can be pegged to current price levels, but a Domestic Gold Coin standard obviously cannot due to the impossibility of obtaining enough Gold to peg to current price levels..... In addition, a Domestic Gold Coin standard is the use of a commodity as Currency , which i've highlighted as not a "Storage Unit of Wealth" - but a means of exchange valued by a Nations net productive output per capita. So what you have here is using a volatile piece of metal (in the case of Gold) being used as a currency. This means gold mining drives currency levels as opposed to economic expansion - i believe doing this is a grave mistake and a also addressed this in my original post, as Mining for Gold really bears to resemblence to an actual economies expansion rate at all, while Infrastructure infact directly represents an economies expansion rate.
In regards to competeing currency (Specifically for private obligations) i'd also have to disagree , the reality of the situation is that this has indeed been attempted by none other than Andrew Jackson, and the result wiped out the perceived "Weaker" currency, and many families savings were wiped out along with it just because they held state issued notes and not gold convertable notes (Which later imploded the economy anyway)..... so i would also disagree that a competeing currency would help becuase the weaker currency would inevitably be dumped and wiped out. If there were a way to introduce competeing currency without this threat - i perhaps would not be opposed to it, but to my knowledge i simply cannot think of a way for a competeing currency to provide for the General Welfare Clause in any way shape or form.
-Revolt 426
_________________________
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=105934.360
In our current situation the "Not matter what" phrase i used still stands. In my view, saving human lives during a Depression is far more important than deficit spending to "Balance the Budget" , as Mouslini said in his drive towards Corporatism, as Mayor Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzeneggar parroted recently during economic hardships in regards to cutting public programs..... and as Obama is saying to "Cut Medicaid , Medicare" and now, Social Security - if however, we seized the insolvent banks rather then bailing them out and ended our occupation of numerous countries it is my sincere beleif it would not put us into debt, specifically with good monetary reform that increases the nations physical productive capabilities. The point of a social net is not only a moral one to provide health care (I'd suggest reforming and expanding medicare/medicaid) , but one that preserves the nations productive workforce from being wiped out, because without that workforce there is obviously no chance of a recovery.
I'd also emphasize as Webster Tarpley did - no gutting of Social Security during a Depression. We are well aware 401k's/Pensions have been wiped out and with GM/Ford (Our last productive industry) going down this is going to drastically expand this problem.
As you can see from the following, the powers that be are still to this day parroting the Mousilini "Balance the Budget" during economic hardship stuff, all the while completely dumping every cent of our GDP into bailing bankers out of a black hole......
-Revolt 426
It's Now Public: After Health Care, Obama Intends to Dismantle Social Security
June 17, 2009 (LPAC)—None other than Mr. Peter Orszag himself took to the pages of today's Financial Times to assure London financiers, that "once health-care reform is in place," Social Security is next on the Obama administration's chopping block. The pledge by President Obama's Office of Management and Budget Director is made in the concluding paragraph of a signed op-ed touting the Obama administration's fascist health-care reforms as "A Medical Plan to Boost America's Fiscal Health;" not to secure human health, but that of the financial system.
In its June 10 report on its annual review of the U.S. economy, the International Monetary Fund reported that it had received similar assurances from Obama administration officials: "We welcome the Administration's intention to work toward developing a political consensus on Social Security reform once health-care reforms are complete," the IMF wrote. This arm of the usurious monetarist system insisted the U.S. must be ready to further bailout Wall Street if necessary, but "substantial further measures will be needed to rein in soaring entitlement costs over the longer term."
Thus, is it again made bare, that the intention of the current fascist controllers of the Obama administration, is to rip up the U.S. Constitution, its General Welfare clause, and the entitlement programs which defend human life. With FDR's life-saving Social Security program still in place, old people in the United States may not "get out of the way" as fast as Prince Philip would like. Deny them health care and Social Security both, in the middle of an economic breakdown crisis, and killings en masse are guaranteed.
_________________________
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=99961.80
As a re-occuring phenomina in the U.S., i would like to address this issue shortly.
This has been planned for years , and the secession is part of the plan. The plan is to Break the United States into pieces.
The Plan has been derived by Bankers and Royalty in London, The Netherlands and Saudi Arabia with their collective moles in Wallstreet.
This is repeatative issue that has once caused a Civil War, that is always orchestrated the SAME EXACT WAY, and i will explain how, obviously to some people's disliking but it has to be said regardless.
It always starts with the Country going back on the Gold Standard. There is no denying this if you wish to go throug the Nations history of Un-Correctable Depressions, each was caused by the Gold Standard besides our Current one, which took twice as long to create because it was designed to be a Globalized Meltdown based on Privatized Central Banks.
What a Gold Standard does in reality, is it puts a CAP on production and population levels..... Contrary to some myths, an economy is driven by physical production, and the private sector is driven by the Nations underlying infrastructure. For example, a very specific example because we are witnessing the very same thing that occured in the mid 1800s known as the Civil War, which was an attempt by Lord Palmerston on behalf of the British Empire to cut the United States in half.
This began with Andrew Jackson enstating a Domestic Gold Standard, Coins or Convertable notes to compete with the State issued currency. People began purchasing the Gold Notes and using them for transactions - this resulted in the disintigration of the State issued currency which bankrupted many people in the Nation. Eventually, the Gold Convertable Notes were over-lent and a bubble was formed..... Followed by Martin Van Buren, who established Independent Treasuries to make loans in the name of the free markets, this bubble expanded and exploded in 1837 resulting in the Great Panic of 1837, a Depression that lasted nearly a Decade.
The reality of this Depresion is, the Nation never recovered. What happened was, the Government - being bankrupt and on the Gold Standard, was unable to issue currency for PRODUCTIVE means. That means building roadways, bridges and other infrastructure required for production and trade to function. As a population GROWS, the infrastructure must be MODERNIZED, or the population will fall into poverty. If the Currency circulation levels do not match the population on a Gold Standard...- you get deflation.. which means it is extremely hard to obtain currency.
The South was hit very hard by this and was very much de-undustrialized for it's time........ This unfortunately lead to the South becoming Dependent on Slave Labour with the HELP of the British and Dutch who were shipping them in via the East India Company and other Dutch Ships.
Over the next 20+ years the Nation was on the Gold Standard, and never recovered..... more and more the South became dependent on Slave Labour to produce capital. The British eventually sent in Agents such as Confederate General Albert Pike and other infiltraitors on behalf of Lord Palmerston, who was ready to attack Lincoln's army on a whim if Robert E. Lee won certain battles. Lord Palmerston also made free trade agreements with the South to purchase low priced Cotton from Slave Labour without tariffs , which is the real reason why they began seceeding. They did not want a protective tariff because they were dependent on the Dutch and the British to function economically.
When Abraham Lincoln came to office, numerous states seceeded from the Union - this was going according to the British Plan to cut the Nation in Half. The Nation was 100% BANKRUPT and unable to fund the war, or build anything because the Gold Standard did not provide the necessary currency to expand the economy.
Lincoln took the Gold Standard down, and Revived the Greenback and issued them directly into Infrastructure projects. His projects were in the form of Science Driver economics, which was the Intercontinental Railway and Agriculture Science... These are essentially low or zero interest federal loans in which the Government provides currency to build something then recovers it when it is built.
As Lincoln began his projects, more states began seceeding from the Union under British lead agents and this became a tremendous problem. The British controlled confederacy attempted to assassinate Lincoln numerous times , Lincoln however had balls of steel and was not afraid at all. His biography is quite incredible.
Anyway, we all know what happened during the Civil War, but it is often unsaid that the entire war was orchestrated by the British Empire. Eventually, Czar Nicholas the Second of Russia sent his Navy to Block any BRITISH attempt ( yes, Russia has ALWAYS been our ALLY) to intervene in the Civil War.
After the war was won, Lincolns greenback had modest inflation because it was funded by the credit of the United States as opposed to borrowing from other Nations, HOWEVER - His Intercontinental Railway and other infrastructure/science driver investments paved the way for an economic boom.
The Railway in particular freed us from British Controlled Trade and i will explain the idea behind this. In the 19th Century, the British Empire was a MARITIME empire, meaning they operated by NAVAL POWER. There was no Nation on the planet that could match British Naval Power alone.......
This meant they controlled the NAVAL trade routes which the U.S. had been depending on prior to the railways completion.. and this was the primary reason Lincoln was assassinated.
His Intercontinental Railway allowed the United States, with it's own Sovereign Currency, to bypass British controlled trade routes with high speed , Nation Wide Transport. This obviously cut costs and sped transport up massively........ Things like this SPUR economies. Things like Hydro-Electric Dams, Bridges and Waterways in the 1930's SPUR economies.......
Without an underlying infrastructure, you cannot have a productive modernized economy with any decent living standards because you would end up on the local barter system.
Therefor, Lincoln's victory over the British during the Civil War was not of Matmatical economics, but of SCIENTIFIC ECONOMICS
So i would advocate everyone to be very weary, this is being setup on the model of the Civil War, our country has been De-industrialized by a Private Central Bank that can act beyond Congressional Appropriations and issues currency via loans to other banks rather then direct issuence into infrastructure like Lincolns Greenback Model.
Do not blame the Greenback for the currenct crisis, because we do not have a Greenback. We have a FEDERAL RESERVE BACK, which is nothing of the sort. Since the Death of Franklin Roosevent and the Death of JFK, Currency has not been issued via Federal Lending into infrastructure but rather printing and loaning from one private bank to other private banks to do whatever they want with.
A currencies value is determined by the Nations ability to produce and Transport goods that other nations wish to purchase. After the Intercontinental Railway was completed, as i said we had an economic boom. This was a direct result of that railway and economic policy. The current situation is, all of the private banks are BANKRUPT, so it is required that to preserve current population levels, the nations infrastructure be rebuilt and modernized to match the populations needs to produce and transport physical goods that other nations wish to purchase. When other nations purchase these goods, they sell their currency and purchase our currency to buy them, this makes our currency stronger.... Gold does not do the trick in these regards...
-Revolt 426
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)