Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

by **jamesredford** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:45 pm

mr e: "" although his imperious tone does not help his case at all. Nevertheless, let's try to divorce the actual facts and logic from the tone and style in which they are stated. The man has some points which it would behoove all to heed. But then, so does Jeff, and so does Rothbardian! How can this be? Because they're all right. Socialism is a bad system. In certain forms, it has been responsible for horrific genocides. But then, so has capitalism. "" Capitalism has never been responsible for any genocide, or anything even approaching genocide. What capitalism is responsible for is the Western world's current longevity and prosperity, hence the reason why the current Malthusian, socialist misanthropes want so badly to do away with it. Real capitalism is simply what happens when people are left to be free. "" Both capitalists and socialists can marshal facts and lob them back and forth at one another. What each side misses is that they are both talking inside the box of statism. When Mr. Redford thinks socialism, he is thinking state socialism; it's the only kind he's ever known. When the lefties on this board think capitalism, they think state capitalism, since that's the only type that's been tried in recent times. ... "" Rather, they are thinking of mercantilism. Like I said previously, real capitalism is simply what happens when people are left to be free. Liberty is capitalism. But when I say socialism I mean it. Socialism requires statism. Unlike the ignorant socialists, I'm not currently suffering under my childhood government indoctrination (which basically goes: we need government lest the sky fall on us at any near moment). The socialists speak out of government-indoctrinated ignorance. I speak out of apodictic knowledge. "" ... Plenty of rotten things could be said about each system. What' s the common denominator between them? The state. After all, who does most of the war and genociding? States, that's who. Socialist states under "dictatorships of the proletariat." Capitalist states "protecting our national interest." "" Nothing bad can legitimately be said about capitalism, as it is simply the order which results when people are left to be free, i.e., the libertarian order where the only thing outlawed is aggression (i.e., initiation of force) against another person's just property, including the property in their own person. And this libertarian conception of liberty is the only coherent one possible for the reasons elaborated upon by Manuel Lora in the below article (particularly see the fourth paragraph in the below article): "NRA Reloaded," Manuel Lora, LewRockwell.com, November 10, 2005: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/m.lora5.html "" Without the tool of the centralized state as known today (and I have no exact definition of "state," but I do know that government begins to become really malignant when it gets beyond the local level), the worst crimes of humanity could have never happened. But what about the multinational corporations! comes a cry from the Left. Well, okay. The corporation, which many on the Right believe is a "private" institution of the "free market," is nothing of the sort. It is a creature of the state, which makes it part of the state. It is awarded state privileges that no actual living human person or regular group of persons enjoys. Long chicken-and-egg arguments could ensue over which entity has "corrupted" which. Consider that perhaps both are inherently corrupt by their nature. What are both the state and the corporation? They are groups of men exercising power and privileges over others. More to the point, one could say they are symbiotic systems of privilege enshrined by "laws" and customs to which we assent by our belief and obedience. And another sacred cow to many self-styled "free marketeers," and hardly discerned by most socialists, is the system of legalized counterfeiting called banking. If you really want to attack modern capitalism, this is the first place to attack, even before you hit the corporation. Any market economy needs a medium of exchange -- money or currency. This system, in essence, is a sophisticated system of sorcery in which a small class of men are awarded the monopoly franchise on creating out of thin air the necessary medium of exchange needed in any economy (called "money," but it's not money any more -- it's credit). Then they "rent" it out to everyone else via public or private lending. How is it "free-market" when the very medium of exchange, without which nobody can play the game, must be rented from a monopoly cartel at the price it dictates? Former bank president Edward F. Mrkvicka wrote in a letter to the Chicago Sun-Times several years ago that the Federal Reserve system is a "tool of totalitarianism." But since the FR is really a cartel of member banks, and all banking the world over works under pretty much the same rules (with some technical modifications in the Islamic world), then the whole world is under a totalitarian monetary system. In fact, international bankdom could be characterized as the preeminent sovereign power in existence on earth today, since all governments bend to its will, and furthermore, it has usurped a power traditionally exercised by the government and/or the people themselves. When you literally make the money, you can dictate as you wish. "Permit me to coin a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws," is the famous quote from the infamous M.A. Rothschild. (And no ... that's not "code" for anything, for you ADL operatives who seem to hang out here. Rothschild means Rothschild -- nothing more or less.) I could go on and on and on, and it's very late and I'm losing my focus. But I hope I have at least begun to make the point that all these systems are hopelessly intertwined. If one should be abolished, so should the other. (In fact, the ways in which capitalism has covertly served as the engine of "socialist" revolutions and regimes would probably astound Mr. Redford.) The State, generally, is bad news. It is the jack-booted thugs. It is the weapon of mass destruction. It is the vehicle of monopoly power. I don't need or want any such entity "taking care of" me. (When the government starts talking about "taking care of" you -- RUN.) But the State (beyond entrenched bureaucrats and their fiefdoms) is really only the servant of the private Corporate/Money Power Elites behind the scenes anyway. With either system, you're screwed. mr e "" Yes, the government loves to tell people how "free" they are, and how much "liberty" it gives to the common masses, but no matter what name it gives to itself we must look at its actions. Government is a monopoly on force--the exact opposite of capitalism. Real capitalism would be where everyone could hire their own private protection agency; or simply defend themselves as the need may arise (i.e., vigilantism). Thus, government is inherently socialistic, in that it arrogates to itself a monopoly on positive legal force. But this very foundation of government is evil, as it requires doing unto others as it itself would *not* have others do unto it. For more on that, see my below article: "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005: http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf

by **jamesredford** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:09 pm

pugzleyca3, the ruling elite have trust-funds and so-called "non-profit" foundations in place which shield them from having to pay taxes. The ruling elite actually get paid in taxes, for they are the ones that control the creation of money. For more on that, see the below resources: The Case for the 100 Percent Gold Dollar by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/story/1829 What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/money.asp For more on this subject, see the below article: "The Anatomy of the State" by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

by **robertdreed** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:19 pm

Jesus also said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." You're as much an impractical starry-eyed utopian as a college sophomore who's just fallen in love with "The Communist Manifesto." "Real capitalism would be where everyone could hire their own private protection agency; or simply defend themselves as the need may arise (i.e., vigilantism)." In real time, that "real capitalism" has played out as warlordism. See the history of China, Liberia, Cote D'ivoire, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan... The AUC in Colombia, that's a "private protection agency." So are the criminal protection rackets of organized crime, in places like Sicily and Hong Kong. Anarchy is a political version of the "liminal state." Liminal states are by definition unsustainable. Unless one is homesteading on an unpopulated frontier, governmental institutions eventually become preferable to the alternative that arises- "rule" by predating criminal bands. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/20/05 6:24 pm

by **robertdreed** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:35 pm

I like a lot of what Murray Rothbard has to say- but before going back to the "100% gold standard", one ought to consider that the overwhelming amount of gold resources in the world are held as "black money", beyond the reach of public entitities with the ability to coin money (that would be "governments", incidentally), in the hands of the super-rich. In particular, mercantile elites, corrupt military oligarchs, and huge banking dynasties...see David Guyatt's <a href="http://deepblacklies.com/">deepblacklies.com/</a> and Sterling Seagrave's books Marcos Dynasty and Yamashita's Gold for more details. Since no one knows how much gold there actually is in the world, there's no fundamental basis for its soundness as a currency medium. All that one can be sure of about gold is that it tends to maintain its worth within a wider system of currency exchange, and that it's compact enough to serve as a valuable that works as an exchange medium for a wide variety of goods- as long as the goods in question aren't too valuable. It's possible to run a modern household on the gold standard, if one can put up with the added hassles- but not a city.

by **jamesredford** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:32 pm

robertdreed: "" "Even the rich have to pay property taxes, assessments on real estate and they have to buy plates for their cars year after year, don't they? This to me means you never truly own anything because the government continues to tax it year after year. And if you don't pay, you lose ownership, if you can actually call it that. Owning cars and real estate is like entering into a contract with the goverment and it is one in which you never know what the terms are going to be from year to year and these terms are constantly changed unilaterally by them to your detriment because they can raise the cost of ownership whenever they please through enactment of new laws." The way the system is supposed to work, "the government" isn't some remote force that's immune to public feedback. For better or worse, the State of California held a public initiative- that's like a referendum, a ballot measure- on property taxes long ago, back in 1978. As a result, property taxes, far from being "constantly changed unilaterally" by the California State government, have been frozen at the same rates that were paid in 1978. This has helped impoverish the state treasury, over time. And they need the money- the population of California has gone up by around 40% since then, about 12-15 million people. But until a popular majority of the electorate decides to do something about it, "the government" can't do a thing to raise property taxes. "" I dearly hope the State of California goes bankrupt. As with all states, it cannot happen soon enough. "" As for auto licensing fees- consider that the autos are driven on public highways. In fact, if all you want to do is drive your car on your own private property, you don't need to register it. For those of us who feel a requirement for more interaction with the outside world, there are a lot of things that have to be paid for. Imagine a "deregulated" world free of smog controls, for instance. Welcome to modern China...well, in the USA, it wouldn't be quite that bad. But if regulation hadn't placed demands on IC engine technology to improve, I think it's reasonable to assume that the air in most urban areas would be at least three times as dirty as it is today. "" If smog is a genuine pollutant, then it is an aggression. In which case, the free-market is quite able to handle it. For more on that, see my below comments. "" I don't want any more government supervision, regulation, taxation, or above all criminal law sanction imposed than is necessary. But most of us live in a complex modern society with a lot of infrastructure, service, and maintenance requirements, for everything from public safety to water treatment. I'm not sure how one goes about using "competition" to provide "market choice" of waterworks for a city, for instance. In the end, you get one set of pipes, and they all route to the same place...to do otherwise would be madness. "" For how one goes about it, see the below: "Defense Services on the Free Market" by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html "The Private Production of Defense" by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security" by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf "Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism by Prof. David D. Friedman: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject: The Ethics of Liberty by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp --- James Redford, jrredford@yahoo.com, "Jesus Is an Anarchist," http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/an ... -jesus.pdf

by **jamesredford** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:57 pm

robertdreed: "" Jesus also said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." "" Which is exactly nothing, as everything Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion, therefore nothing is rightly his. For more on that, see my below article: "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005: http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf "" You're as much an impractical starry-eyed utopian as a college sophomore who's just fallen in love with "The Communist Manifesto." "" It is the statist who is the Utopian, as he believes that the government can be formed into a tool of good, instead of the tool of evil that it is and must always be, due to the very nature of what it is. My position is the most practical position which can possibly exist, for the greater the level of evil of mankind in general so also the more insane it is to give a group of them a monopoly of force over the rest of mankind. For more on your fallacy, see the below article: "The Anatomy of the State" by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp See also: "Defense Services on the Free Market" by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html "The Private Production of Defense" by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security" by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf "Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism by Prof. David D. Friedman: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html "" "Real capitalism would be where everyone could hire their own private protection agency; or simply defend themselves as the need may arise (i.e., vigilantism)." In real time, that "real capitalism" has played out as warlordism. See the history of China, Liberia, Cote D'ivoire, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan... "" I see those histories, but in them I see nothing to support your assertion. Like I said, capitalism is simply what happens when people are left to be free. "" The AUC in Colombia, that's a "private protection agency." So are the criminal protection rackets of organized crime, in places like Sicily and Hong Kong. Anarchy is a political version of the "liminal state." Liminal states are by definition unsustainable. Unless one is homesteading on an unpopulated frontier, governmental institutions eventually become preferable to the alternative that arises- "rule" by predating criminal bands. "" Rule by predating criminal bands is what we suffer under now. Government makes the mafia look like a heavenly paradise by comparison. Government is simply the biggest mafia on the block. All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. Government, throughout all of recorded history, has been the most methodical and efficient human-meat grinder to ever exist. It is a purely Satanical machination masquerading as humanity's salvation, but has always been--and forever will be so long as it exists--the scourge of mankind and our decline.

by **yablonsky** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:04 pm

here's a highly interesting and entertaining (imo) look at gold, ben bernanke, reserve banks, and financial armageddon: <a href="http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Writers/Mogambo/DREssays/MG121305.html">www.dailyreckoning.com/Wr...21305.html</a> anyway, embedded down a bit in the artcle is information that seems counter to this idea that we don't have a pretty good idea of how much gold there actually is..

by **jamesredford** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:14 pm

robertdreed: "" I like a lot of what Murray Rothbard has to say- but before going back to the "100% gold standard", one ought to consider that the overwhelming amount of gold resources in the world are held as "black money", beyond the reach of public entitities with the ability to coin money (that would be "governments", incidentally), in the hands of the super-rich. In particular, mercantile elites, corrupt military oligarchs, and huge banking dynasties...see David Guyatt's deepblacklies.com/ and Sterling Seagrave's books Marcos Dynasty and Yamashita's Gold for more details. Since no one knows how much gold there actually is in the world, there's no fundamental basis for its soundness as a currency medium. All that one can be sure of about gold is that it tends to maintain its worth within a wider system of currency exchange, and that it's compact enough to serve as a valuable that works as an exchange medium for a wide variety of goods- as long as the goods in question aren't too valuable. It's possible to run a modern household on the gold standard, if one can put up with the added hassles- but not a city. "" Your last sentence make no sense (i.e., even less sense than your usual sentences). It wouldn't make much sense to attempt to run a household on a "gold standard" if the country the house is located in is not on a gold standard. We could all try running our households on the "rice" standard right now if we wish, but it would make no sense. The point of a "gold standard" is as a medium of exchange. As such, it doesn't have much point unless one can use it as a medium of exchange beyond one's household. Gold (and silver) is the money (i.e., medium of exhange) which the participants in the market have voluntarily chosen throughout history when enough of it was available to be used as such. It is a natural medium of exchange, in the sense that it wasn't imposed upon the market participants by government decree like the fiat currency which we now suffer under, but was chosen by the market participants due to certain qualities that it has which make it particularly suitable as a medium of exhange. As well, a non-fraudulant gold (or silver) standard cannot be inflated like fiat currency, and hence the boom-bust business cycle which results from inflation of the money supply cannot occur under it. Again, for more on that, see the below resources: The Case for the 100 Percent Gold Dollar by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/story/1829 What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.mises.org/money.asp For more on this subject, see the below article: -- James Redford, jrredford@yahoo.com, "Jesus Is an Anarchist," http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/an ... -jesus.pdf

by **James Redford** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:35 am

zangtang: "" possibly the best post on a fascinating if at times infuriating thread. and the previous (wayback) poster who notes that what is required is not regime change but regime removal...... like the naive little fluffbunny that i am, i've always thought that the majority of people who enter politics (however deluded) do so with at least a smidgin of desire to make the world a better place, irrespective of which side of the charade their ego, beliefs and peer-group-needing-pandering-to lies. it then unfailingly goes to shit. does this leave us with but 2 options? - change the nature of humans - or change the nature of political power? Not the shade or angle or side of the fence - the NATURE of power. What is power? why is it seemingly irredivorcible (oh full marks!) from money? should we have a competition to see if anyone can conceptually rig up a functioning infrastructure where the very notion of power has been taken out of the equation? Or should we mutually agree to put the lords of Karma on hold for a bit whilst we kill the rich until there are no rich more? I've always loved the expression 'hope springs eternal' but at present, I just wish i could find solid reasons to be optimistic about the future...... 'Its you and me kid,...personally I think we're gonna get creamed!' "" Kill the rich? For most of the rich that would be murder. The problem isn't the rich--other than in the sense that most of them are beholden to the governmental system, as are most of the populace. The problem is people thinking that one can get good results from using evil means. Not that the ruling elite suffer under this fallacy in the same sense that the masses do, as the ruling elite know that their goals are not in the interests of the masses. But it is the ruling elite who have educated the masses since birth, so most of us hold their values when it comes to institutions. And the masses make excuses as to why we need to be enslaved. No, the masses don't have the intellectual honesty--or intellectual resources--to call it "slavery," but a spade is a spade. And so they'll vehemently defend their slavery unto death, and tell you all sorts of statist excuses as to why they must be enslaved lest the world unravel from its very seams. It is that fallacious belief which allows the ruling elite to exist, and hence why it is so commonplace, for the ruling elite have put much effort in insuring that the masses hold this fallacy to the utmost extent, as the ruling elite's very existence, as such, depends upon it. For more on that, see my below article: "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005: http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf

by **robertdreed** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:17 am

"a non-fraudulant gold (or silver) standard cannot be inflated like fiat currency" As long as there are massive hidden reserves in the hands of a few, all sorts of games can be played with a gold standard. But I'm bringing up a practical fact here, and theory-of-everything manifestoists tend to have difficulty with them. Not rhetorically- the supply of verbal rationalizations is one "resource" that's inexhaustible- but out in the actual real-world social macrocosm, the status quo ante that all of us have to grapple with, whatever it is about it that we wish to change. My challenge to anarchists is the same as it is to any other pure ideologue- go on, try to make it work in real time, for you. Don't expect the world to transform itself in your image. "It wouldn't make much sense to attempt to run a household on a "gold standard" if the country the house is located in is not on a gold standard." I think you're misunderstanding my statement. I'm referring to what's practical for a given scale and technological level of development of an economy. This isn't Lewis and Clark days any more. I'm reading a book about their expedition right now, and I'm repeatedly hit with that insight. But at a local community level, I don't see what the hold-up would be as far as requiring payment in specie, as long as there was 100 per cent agreement among the residents and mechants of the community. Or it could be possible to experiments with alternative currencies, or barter systems. The real pre-condition is finding honest, ethical people, and building a community of folks with a wide spectrum of skills useful in the modern world, from carpentry to medicine. A daunting task, but it sounds to me as if you're setting up that pre-condition for your anarchist dream, as well. Why not get started at the scale of your immediate surroundings, rather than demanding the dissolution of all governments, banks, and fiat currency systems? That's the ass-backwards way of doing it. You know, the Amish have very little to do with "government" or "the State." They take for granted that the secular world is rife with corruption. But they don't agitate for the dissolution of the government of, say, the State of Pennsylvania, or the Federal government (which, I might add, isn't so unmitigatedly "evil" that it compels military service despite sincerely held religious objections.) The Amish simply go their own way. They avoid debt, they pool their resources, they live frugally, and they prosper. I wouldn't say that they're anarchists, but their structures of governance are, to a fair degree, autonomous. The largest examples of anarchist communities in the history of the USA have been boomtowns, like San Francisco in the Gold Rush era. A surfeit of freedom, a gold standard of exchange, a free market that charged anything the market would bear. But it was a lousy place to be a woman, or to raise kids. Crime was taken for granted, which meant that the strong oppressed the weak. I feel the need to pop the bubble of the romanticism of personal firearms protection- the good guy doesn't always win the shootout just because he pulls a gun. And the potholes in the streets were big enough to swallow a stagecoach, and drown a mule. It didn't last. If the will of the people preferred anarchy, why didn't they rise up and revolt when institutions of government began to be imposed? p.s. Yablonsky, I couldn't open your link. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/21/05 12:40 am

by **yablonsky** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:25 am

the link should work fine rdr, try it again otherwise go here <a href="http://www.dailyreckoning.com/">www.dailyreckoning.com/</a> and click on 'The Bernake Defense' article..

by **yablonsky** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:27 am

n

by **robertdreed** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:48 am

From the article you referred to, Yablonsky: "...he answers his own question, which is mighty sporting of him, by saying, "More gold than exists in the world! Remember, all the gold ever mined in the history of the world is 150,000 tonnes. Annual mine supply is a mere 2500 tonnes annually!" Then it starts really getting good. He goes on, "Let's convert that to ounces, shall we? All the gold ever mined in the history of the world: 150,000 tonnes x 32,152oz./tonne = 4.8 billion ounces. At current prices of $524/oz., that's 2.5 trillion dollars!" So, now we have established that all the gold in the whole world is currently valued at $2.5 trillion..." See, I contend that this guy hasn't "established" anything, and that no one really knows how much gold there is in the world. But you'd have to read a dissenting source, like Sterling Seagraves' Yamashita's Gold, to have a idea as to what I'm specifically referring... The author of the article sounds like a fast-talking huckster to me, incidentally. By the way, I like gold as an investment, up to a point. I also like it as a hedge. But I'm not a nut, or a carny mark. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/21/05 2:04 am

by **yablonsky** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:53 am

oh i agree rdr, the magambo guru (whoever he is) hasn't established anything on this point..still entertaining (if erudite) reading; and rich in scope for my money..interesting topic matter as much as anything in my veiw..

by **jamesredford** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:56 pm

Another reasion why you should read my "Jesus Is an Anarchist" article, Jeff, is because it answers the questions which you seek--and, quite importantly, it answers them correctly. My said article explains why the world is the way it is. Not for nothing, folks: there is a reason why the world is the way it is. Some may be put off by some of the terminology that I use in my said article. Such as "Satan." Whether we call it the void, or darkness, or chaos, or hegemony, or hate, or destruction, or pain, the point is that there is a powerful and utterly diabolical inter-dimensional intelligence which is manipulating the affairs of mankind. Indeed, it "owns" this Earth. "Satan" is merely one name by which it is known. I invite all here to read my said article, and to give me their comments on it after they have done so. Below is located my said article: "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005: http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

Re: J Redford is right

Re: correction/clarification

James Redford...

Murray Rothbard

Re: correction/clarification

Re: James Redford...

Since no one knows how much gold there actually is in the wo

Re: Murray Rothbard

Re: Thank you mr E......

James...

Re: James...

Re: James...

Re: James...

Re: James...

The World as it Actually Is

Who is online