American Coup D'Etat:

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:44 pm

Isn't what's being described here called "corporatism"? If so, isn't corporatism almost interchangeable with fascism?

by **rothbardian** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:06 pm

Gouda-- I'm trying to figure out what happened to our original topic. You made the statement in regard to Halliburton--"Who needs taxes with all the other income they got coming in." Do you understand that Halliburton has no place to go for their money other than theft through taxation and counterfeiting? It is hugely erroneous to say that the Fed is privately owned. The Fed is a group of private banks who have had themselves successfully 'governmentalized'. They have seized governmental powers (placed themselves under a governmental covering, if you will)and now literally print up all the counterfeit money they want. I would argue that this entire governmental system needs to be dismantled (per the advisory of the Declaration of Independence) just as the very title of this thread pines for.

by **Gouda** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:23 pm

quickly.. Roth, I agree with you the Fed needs to go. It is quasi-governmental de jure, but de facto it is a secret society of capitalists who are able multiply loaves and fish, and they hold more power than goldman sachs, err, I mean the "honorary treasury secretary," Paulson. chigger..I think "corporatism" is a pretty good description of what we've got here. Where's does the de facto Power lie? Roth confuses it for "government."

by **rothbardian** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:31 am

Gouda-- Maybe you prefer to move on to discuss other things but if not, I would ask you this-- You mention that I view the concept of "government" incorrectly. Let's stick with the Halliburton illustration here: Where have I drawn incorrect lines in regard to the 'corporation' and the government? Where was I 'confused' in my analysis comments about Halliburton (or the Fed)?

by **Gouda** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:36 am

Roth, you are wed to the de jure non-reality. You are confused about real, de facto POWER. Our government does not hold de facto power. It should hold de jure  and de facto power, and we are to believe it does, but it does not. Halliburton, as one example representing the M-I-I complex, has hijacked the government as part of a larger trend in economic globalization/domination which relies on a militaristic, racist capitalist system breaking down states and democracy everywhere, rendering them meaningless. You should be liking that action. A simple fact: the capitalist system holds real power, not government bureaucracy, which by your own admission is lazy and inept. Lazy ineptitude does not exactly evince power, does it. Look at what is going on worldwide: the global market (globalization of capital), based on a capitalist system, or regime, holds de facto power and its main engine is the global military-industrial-intelligence complex fueled by a parallel trade in drugs, sex and guns, money printing, interest voodoo, and speculation. International corporations are the latest incarnation of plutocratic control, its most efficient beast. Robert Kaplan, enabler for the plutocracy and no friend of democracy, puts it very well here (The Coming Anarchy, pp.80-81) : <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Corporations are like the feudal domains that evolved into nation-states; they are nothing less than the vanguard of a new Darwinian organization of politics."<hr></blockquote> Yes, we have a bad, bad, corrupt government, and part of it need to be downsized (defence & homeland security for starts) - but the Puppetmaster, if you will, is the corporatist plutocracy. That is not democratic government. I do not deny there can be a better way about capitalism, creative enterprise, free (Fair!) markets and positive globalization, but at this stage of human evolution, unfettered capitalism would simply form a new feudal order run by plutocrats funneling wealth to the top tier whether there is a "government" or not. In the US, there may have once been a democratic government, but it surely exists now as a corporate national security state while they try to call it a "democracy." They'll use whatever is there and if it is not there they'll create or co-opt it. I do not believe a government is one in which corporate capitalists send their agents to the statehouse to incorporate further bodies and make laws favorable to them before returning to the corporate payroll. Why bother with the state middleman? Well, they have to, for now, to maintain the de facto illusion of de jure democracy. I believe a good government beholden and accountable to an educated people could reverse the national security state and dismantle the halliburtons of this world. Just the idea of an empowered, educated public participating in their government at all levels is in itself a radical notion these days, signifying "regime change." Chavez and Morales are proof that the process can be started, however imperfectly (don't forget, they are under immense pressure and external attack, by design, meant to make them look bad.) Maybe the autonomous zapatista regions in Chiapas are a better example, but I don't think most of us are ready for that yet. Anywho, I agree with you here: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You would know as well as I do that Halliburton is not the will of the people...it's the will of the gang that has taken over the government.<hr></blockquote> So let's take the government back - not in the Howard Dean sense - more in the sense of what the Mexican people are doing. Oh, and hang the rich fuckers! ******* (On edits: grammar touchups and unnecessary wording axed, though surely there is a lot more unnecessary wording where that came from...) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 8/31/06 4:54 am

by **Gouda** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:24 am

Roth, here is something to get you up to speed on privatization and economic globalization. The privatization wave By Henry C K Liu PART 2 of his series World Order, Failed States and Terrorism <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GB12Dj01.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Glo...2Dj01.html</a> <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/world-order.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/oth...order.html</a> Just a taste: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The meaning of privatization The term "privatization" is generally defined as any process aimed at shifting government functions and responsibilities, in whole or in part, to the profit-driven private sector. Privatization of government responsibilities is touted by conservatives as the remedy for government inefficiency and corruption. Yet the record shows that both public and private sectors, given the opportunity, have shown equally high propensity to become corrupt and unethical...<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Privatization" is an expansive term covering virtually any action that involves exposing the operations of government to market pressures, ranging from contracting out janitorial services at government facilities to selling off the Naval Petroleum Reserve. The broader definition of "privatization" also includes a wide range of public-private partnerships, such as voucher systems to purchase public services from private companies. The military-industrial complex is a form of creeping privatization. The creation of public corporations, quasi-government organizations and government-sponsored enterprises falls under the general category of privatization through corporatization. <hr></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr>Privatization is in essence the selling of failed government.<hr></blockquote> Now, what if government was purposely made to fail by those who wish to sell it off? Go talk to one Dick Cheney for the answer. Disclaimer: I have not yet read Liu's whole series, but from what I have read, Liu does not go there. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 8/31/06 6:39 am

by **rothbardian** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:44 am

You state: "...the capitalist system holds real power, not government bureaucracy..." Going back to the Halliburton illustration-- Halliburton has no power, financial or otherwise, except what it draws from government resources. So...I'm not following you. And the quotes you provided about "privatization" are strictly mainstream pro-government stuff that I see as full of error. One example quote: "...the record shows that both public and private sectors, given the opportunity, have shown equally high propensity to become corrupt and unethical..." Nothing could be further from the truth. Compare the 'public' or government judicial bureaucracy with any private system. Government judges are a nightmare of corruption and inappropriate activism. I have previously provided one example (out of many)-- The NFL's privately hired judges, who routinely make multi-million dollar and billion dollar judgment calls. There is virtually ZERO corruption and absolutely ZERO activism. Any NFL judge who took it upon himself to change the rules, per his own fanciful whims (the way it happens every single day in the government's judicial system) would be fired out of a cannon.

by **Gouda** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:17 am

Wow, I can't argue with you on the brilliant success of the private NFL judiciary! If it works in the NFL, well then, I am willing to roll that out for the benefit of everyone not wearing helmets, cleats and tightpants. (How do I make that slapping-the-forehead emoticon?) One point of agreement where I think roth and others may find consensus: smashing abusive centralized power. However, roth's view of ultimate evil and power being located in a stupid, lazy and inefficient government bureaucracy is contradictory in itself, and this contradiction is outdone only by the contradiction in logic arguing that free, unfettered, efficient, competent enterprise won't actually do a much better job constructing a centralized tyranny to leverage profit advantages. You decide: a bloated, lazy, stupid, sleeping, clueless bureaucracy vs. a lean, sleek, efficient whipsmart business machine. Refs: your decision? (How's about I slip you a grand or two; swing it my way, like.) Could I hand the baton off to anyone else? I tire of running in circles in on a muddy track in a stadium with the lights off.

by **rothbardian** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:52 pm

Well, that took a bit of an ugly turn. Is the sarcasm really called for? Is that some device you rely on? As I said, if your not interested in the conversation, bow out. It's no biggie. But the little slaps and smacks...what's that? Returning to the subject, I just have to repeat your quote. You said: "...the capitalist system holds real power, not government bureaucracy..."  And my response was and is...that Halliburton (keeping this whole topic simple and understandable) is dead without government sustenance. The moment government money were to be cut off, Halliburton dies. Your statement appears to be inaccurate. As to the NFL example...I don't know what to tell you but...slapping your forehead does not constitute a good rebuttal. So I couldn't tell what your specific objection is. When a community privately hires it's own judges, I have seen a very positive dynamic kick in. For one thing, there is accountability DIRECTLY to the community. It hard (if not impossible) to argue with the NFL judges corruption statistics compared to government judges. It's no contest. If you notice, with a government police officer or judge, when they screw up (a police officer shoots youth who had a cell phone in his hand, not a gun) there is a weird negative dynamic that kicks in-- the police bureaucracy has concerns about it's status, so it tends (over and over) to 'cover' for the officer...or the rotten judge. The key difference with a government employee is that his accountability is first and foremost to the BUREAUCRACY and not the community. And the bureaucracy's first priority is self-preservation, hence they have a strong and pervasive inclination to gloss over their flaws and/or flawed employees. How many years did it take to oust that rotten judge (remember the recent news story?) who was pleasuring himself right there in the courtroom in front of other personnel? Thus we are dealing with an immorally inefficient ( and therefore invalidated ) system.

by **Gouda** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:31 pm

C'mon, you know I do not rely on sarcasm (too much) in discourse. Don't play the wounded puppy. I don't think I am immodest in saying that my argumentation is sincere, somewhat informed, and heartfelt. It's nothing personal at all; relax, take it in stride, and damn it, give us something other than a freaking NFL example illuminating the purity of capitalistic private enterprise - something that might apply to the real world of peoples, cultures, complex society. Your stand on Halliburton, I am afraid, is contradictory and not exactly bolstered by your previous defense of Walmart, and Nike (see "How to Fight Tyranny" thread.) If I have failed to show how much power they hold, even over government bureaucracy, well then I appeal to others to help me do a better job. I do think, however, this very board has accumulated a wealth of intelligence on the destructive power of corporations, privatization, and the M-I-I complex. One just needs to go back and browse the archives. A study of NOLA post-Katrina ought to do the trick for any open-minded, intelligent person. This board has equally trashed the government. So let's try to reach an understanding on what is wrong with both government and the capitalist system each and work toward a better way. OK, perhaps I could have tried to exit with more grace, but I find your lack of thoughtful recognition of counterpoints (you did not consider or address even 5% of what I said) and disingenuous claims of confusion akin to battering one's head with stale baguettes. You will not deviate from your orthodoxy, your creed. You do not seem interested in building consensus or mutual understanding. I even suspect you are missing some of rothbard's own points of agreement with the "left." Are you interested in any basis of unity? Or is that too "collective" for you. So, yes, I leave it here: The corporate national security state (birthed by the M-I-I complex and Wall Street) was pulled through a gateway in 1947 and is, I think, one of the more significant signposts marking one "coup d'etat" of the US government, its democracy, and its citizens. There've been others to be sure, and now it seems to be a rolling coup as democracy is mocked, black is white, and markets merge globally. So I want to dismantle this type of state, especially its sick capitalist enablers; I am interested in examining alternative systems of political economy and organization, but it would be foolish to think that a capitalist system does not need some form of (good) government. Unless we also do away with the capitalist system, as it now exists...then we're talking. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/1/06 1:49 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:06 pm

I'm not going to pretend that the arguments that both of you have been making aren't way over my head. But I will say that I don't think that it's capitalism itself OR government bureaucracy that's at fault. More likely it is the junta that has been running our brand of capitalism for its own purposes since WW!!, if not earlier (probably earlier). They have parasitized our government. Their goal seems to be to immobilize government as it continues to feed off of it, making the government a paralyzed parasite host. Frankly, I don't buy the "inefficient government bureacracy" meme. That's is simply propaganda that has been promoted by the junta, a meme that has been swallowed by the public for decades. As a matter of fact, I remember seeing a study (can't find it at the moment) that Social Security was one of the most efficient organizations running, maybe among insurance organizations, but I can't say until I find it. But it's been a very useful meme to promote as the junta pushes for further and further privatization. Meanwhile, capitalism could have had a different outcome if the big ones hadn't been running the government for the last four or so decades. I'm thinking banking, energy, weapons. Feel free to add to that list. I'm remembering at this moment how Cheney had Ken Lay and other buddies in to help formulate the "government's" energy plan. Meanwhile, the biggest corporations(which have become big at the political trough) squeeze out the smaller ones, keeping the smalls in line by sub-contracting to them, with the clear message that if they don't "cooperate", they will not profit at this trough. I think our earlier politicians understood the dangers of capitalism, which is why they put in some limits on its power, such as in the anti-monopoly legislation. As those limitations have been eroded, the junta's powers have grown. I'm not even going to get into the whole anti-communism era, as I think much of that was just the junta, worried about losing its trough.

by **911 Eye Witness** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:10 am

That retired Colonel, Donn de Grand-Pre has been referring to Sept. 11th as an "administrative coup" since late 2001. I think the case could be made. There has been a change in government since then. How many people have been purged or put into place? Or how many new departments have been founded? Before 911 the Neocons & company were scheming but the plans really started going into effect after.

by **rothbardian** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:27 am

Gouda-- You'll be relieved to know I was completely "relaxed" as I sat at my keyboard tapping out a few complaints about some of your expressions. And I would think you also need to "relax" about my expressions...specifically, my expressions of complaint about your expressions of complaint. (?) OK, now that I'm thoroughly confused...let me just say that my entry point into this discussion was all about the definition and boundaries of privatization. You had said that the true power resides with these corporations, and I cited the very simple and easy-to-understand example of Halliburton, which contradicts your claim. It is completely and utterly obvious that the moment Halliburton is cut off from government funding, it dies. Therefore, this whole concept of corporate 'wealthpower' (as AnnaLivia likes to say) is off-track and erroneous. I avoided your numerous other comments because it just seems to me you're running away from a very simple question regarding Halliburton. Here however, are a few of your comments: "Lazy ineptitude does not exactly evince power, does it." I think we've gone over this before. Government is both dumb and powerful. George W. epitomizes this-- he is both dumb and powerful. As LilyPatToo has said, it is amazing how much colossal screwing up goes on, on the part of these nincompoops, as they blunder onwards and forwards. "A simple fact: the capitalist system holds real power, not government bureaucracy....fueled by a parallel trade in drugs, sex and guns, money printing, interest voodoo, and speculation." The "fuels" you are listing are ALL government sustenance, and if the government were removed, those corporations which deal in such things would again....die. Take the illicit drug trade. Obviously the PTB have used the centralized power of government to first criminalize drugs...then they force thousands of tons of these drugs down America's throat, causing widespread addiction. Then they charge exorbitant prices for these illegal drugs. It's a kind of tax. Only by utilizing the powers of government can they pull this off, and have been able to enrich themselves in this way. The same goes for the weapons market-- only because there exist all these corrupt centralized governments which are able to extract large sums of tax dollars, and who deal weapons amongst each other...can all these huge weapons transactions take place. The weapons transactions are being paid for by corrupt governments. When the power of government is removed, this market obviously dies. The Cleavers certainly aren't looking to buy billions of dollars worth of weaponry....but they're forced to fund the purchases. "I believe a good government beholden and accountable to an educated people could reverse the national security state..." There is a critical and fatal flaw in this sentiment. 'Good' people take up the positions of power only to do good. They then dutifully leave this position of power to politely make room for a successor. Bad people get into these positions and immediately go about consolidating their power and attempting to retain power permanently. It is therefore foolhardy to create these positions of power in the first place. The obvious effect of eliminating these power positions is that it dramatically limits the ability of evil people to perpetrate evil. They're limited to their OWN resources, not that of an entire nation. One of the classic mantras of classical Libertarianism is...that "democracy" is a great big scam. There is also a dramatically greater motivation for bad people to seek power. 'Good' people view civic duty as a 'sacrifice' not an opportunity for power and riches. Only the best of the 'good' will volunteer for such. For bad people, it's the end of the rainbow. The extreme and desperate motives of the bad people in their quest for power consistently runs circles around the more pedestrian motivation levels of 'good' people. Think about it--If you have a competition between two parties, where if the one party wins, he gets to do 'chores'....but if the other party wins, he gets fabulous illicit riches and power...it's a ridiculously unfair competition. P.S. You have yet to specify how my example of a private community like the NFL...is invalid. The NFL has financial dimensions greater than many governments of the world. They have made their privatized judicial system operate like clockwork. Where's the beef? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 9/2/06 11:27 pm

by **Gouda** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:05 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is completely and utterly obvious that the moment Halliburton is cut off from government funding, it dies. Therefore, this whole concept of corporate 'wealthpower' (as AnnaLivia likes to say) is off-track and erroneous.<hr></blockquote> OK, good, we agree that Halliburton needs to die. But I have a much simpler virtually impossible way to do it than you do. Let’s take a different look at what you say by giving government (and us) the lead role: the moment a responsible government (of, by, for the people) emasculates the US Defence, Energy, State and Homeland Security departments, and responsible regulatory bodies take apart all giant and/or multinational corporations, then Halliburton dies. The moment a responsible government organizes and orients around peaceful principles, Halliburton dies. Even simpler, and almost what you are saying: the government should cut off funding to Halliburton - we should demand this of the government and raise hell if our demands are not met. Problem is, this is not about to happen, because Halliburton owns the politicians, or are in fact acting as politicians. But getting rid of the government alogether is even more unlikely to happen, because, again, the corporate powers find fake government quite useful, and, well, they hold the most power. So both options are pretty unrealistic, but it is more likely that we can eradicate the defence department before we eradicate the entire government. I am just looking at practicalities of scale here. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Government is both dumb and powerful. George W. epitomizes this-- he is both dumb and powerful.<hr></blockquote> George W Bush holds no de facto power. George W Bush (and any showpiece US president) is animated by the private sector and is not allowed to move beyond parameters set out by the not-so-dumb agents (Rove is pretty smart and effective as Bush's brain, no?) of interlocking elite cliques of Wall Street and the Intelligence Community; Rockefeller may be part of one of those – you may know of him. Let's not equate Bush with government. My point was simply to expose your contradiction. I actually think a bureaucracy can be effective. Not all bureaucrats are lazy stupid or inept. However, if a bureaucracy is lazy, inept, corrupt etc. (such as parts of the UN) you do not have much to fear from them. I find competant mechanisms a more formidable foe. Those behind Bush, for example. Delegitimize capital and corporations and global markets, and you bleed its government representatives, like Bush, dry. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The "fuels" you are listing are ALL government sustenance…<hr></blockquote> Tell me how, for example, Iran-Contra (simple example) was about sustaining the US government, and not about making conditions in Central America more favorable for the expansion of a northern-dominated free market zone. How does the heroin market emanating from Afghanistan (no government) sustain the US Government for the sake of sustaining the US government? Who is benefitting from this and controlling it? Non-state, transglobal private operators primarily. What about the insatiable demand for deep black projects such as zero-point energy (benefits the owners) or MC research and development? Moreover, private entrepreneurs and shadow operatives do not always need government to raise funds from drugs, arms, sex - nor do the proceeds always go towards funding legitimate government programs. See Somalia & post-war Balkans: two examples as close to anarcho-capitalism as you can get. I believe it was Dyncorp with the most efficient, lucrative sex trafficking operation in the Balkans mid-to-late 90’s - like, when there was no government. (Hey, Iraq is another example!) Yes, governments are there, so they can be of use; but they are not essential, nor are they the end benefactor. Where there is a will there is a way, as they say. Get rid of government, and they will build and use something else. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>'Good' people take up the positions of power only to do good. They then dutifully leave this position of power to politely make room for a successor. Bad people get into these positions and immediately go about consolidating their power and attempting to retain power permanently. It is therefore foolhardy to create these positions of power in the first place. The obvious effect of eliminating these power positions is that it dramatically limits the ability of evil people to perpetrate evil. They're limited to their OWN resources, not that of an entire nation.<hr></blockquote> Not that simple, but well put enough for the purpose of the following mental exercise: Re-read this passage with “corporation,” “corporate board,” “CEO,” or Ken Lay in mind. Wow, works thay way too. Why yes, I agree with you that big corporations perpetrate evil, want to consolidate their economic power, retain it forever, and have unlimited access, not only to national resources, but also to World Resources (See India: Coca Cola. See the Americas: Monsanto. See Liberia: Firestone.) Governments can enable Monsanto or they can limit Monsanto - bottom line: Monsanto needs needs to be slapped down so that government can concentrate on legitimate, repsonsible functions. Dismantle capitalism, corporate structures and economic fiefdoms that these “bad” people rely on, and they would never be able to consolidate their power. Recognize the logic? This logic, however, speaks to the reality of plutocracies, corporations and markets, where de facto power is. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"democracy" is a great big scam.<hr></blockquote> Hey, I agree! Doesn’t have to be that way though. Not if we work together, make some sacrifices, and work hard enough on it. I guess that would go against your anti-social, right wing libertarian ethic, though. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There is also a dramatically greater motivation for bad people to seek power. 'Good' people view civic duty as a 'sacrifice' not an opportunity for power and riches. Only the best of the 'good' will volunteer for such. For bad people, it's the end of the rainbow. The extreme and desperate motives of the bad people in their quest for power consistently runs circles around the more pedestrian motivation levels of 'good' people.<hr></blockquote> Firstly, I do not agree with the “bad” people “good” people crap. Have they found the “good” and “bad” genes, have they? Not sure if you can relate, but those average pedestrians you give such short shrift to often contribute to society not as a "sacrifice" but as a necessity, a duty, and they do it with F***ing gusto! Ever talk to any regular, humble, non-profit driven "good" people? I guess the millions of pedestrians in Mexico, Bolivia, and Venezuala are a fluke of good people - and they are kicking the daylights out of your powerful profit-driven capitalist friends. Who is running circles around who? In the USA, I do believe there is dramatically greater motivation for people to seek profit over civic participation. We've been sickened by this ethos for generations. So if we de-legitimise and eliminate the profit motive (capitalism, no?) and the corporate engines atomizing society, then more people may be inclined to participate in community, civic, and political life. Or vice-versa. Either way, I like it. But if we are to live with profit and everyday evil, are you one to resist, stand-up, and participate? *** And about your NFL example, I guess I find it difficult to envision. Could I then rely on you to explain how the NFL system can be applied to the world most of us live in?

by **rothbardian** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:30 pm

Gouda-- You state: "George W Bush (and any showpiece US president) is animated by the private sector..." Aren't you sort of begging the very question at hand here? We haven't gotten past my question about Halliburton, in that regard. Corporations have no power beyond their ability to attract voluntary customers...UNTIL they grab hold of the centralized controls of government. Then they can engage in varying degrees of coercion against their customers; they also set up money printing presses (over at the Fed); they get the government to declare wars, and have the government pay them for those wars and the repairs after the war etc. -------------------------------------------------------- You ask-- "Tell me how, for example, Iran-Contra (simple example) was about sustaining the US government..." I don't understand your question here, nor do I understand how you could even think I would suggest such a thing, given all my previous statements. Iran-Contra didn't "sustain" the government...the government (overrun by evil psychopaths) "sustained" Iran-Contra. How could you have read anything else into my comments? --------------------------------------------------- Again, you ask-- "How does the heroin market emanating from Afghanistan (no government) sustain the US Government ..."  Again, backwards. The PTB make the money from illicit drugs. They have hijacked the powers of government to create this scenario-- First they make drugs illegal. Then they create huge oversight agencies to enforce those laws. THEN they themselves enter into the drug business with a near total monopoly...they shove hundreds of tons of drugs down (principally) America's throat...and charge exorbitant prices. All of that scenario is sustained by government. It is sustenance from government. -------------------------------------------------- "What about the insatiable demand for deep black projects such as zero-point energy (benefits the owners) or MC research and development?" Don't understand your question here. MC is funded by the government. ----------------------------------------- "...private entrepreneurs and shadow operatives do not always need government to raise funds from drugs, arms, sex..." Don't understand your point here either. There will always be a limited and legit market for drugs or weapons (think of the local gun dealer or the pharmacy) based on a limited number of voluntary customers. But to gain world-overshadowing financial dimensions of the PTB...it has only been possible through illicit control of illicitly coercive governments. There they have created an artificially huge market for drugs and weapons. You cite a couple of examples but you don't elaborate. Dyncorp is, again, a creature of government that wouldn't exist without government sustenance. So, I'm not following. ------------------------------------------ Quote: "Firstly, I do not agree with the “bad” people “good” people crap. Have they found the “good” and “bad” genes, have they?" There are good people and bad people. How is that inaccurate? You have this faith in the potential for good government. What do you base it on? Over 99% of the members of the national political community are corrupted and signed on to the whole KenDoll/BarbieDoll beauty contest baloney that is has become. Who or what do you think could come along to salvage the system (as opposed to "abolishing" it per the Declaration of Independence)? Howard Dean? He'll either cooperate with the PTB or he'll be JFK'd. Besides that...he and a long list of other 'progressive' hopefuls are all apparently too dim to have seen through the 9/11 scam. Therefore, when "9/11 Part Two" comes along (a hundred times worse than the first 9/11?) he or she will meekly climb onto the PTB "Let's nuke Iran" bandwagon...and the PTB world domination schemes will continue on, without a hitch. KEN LAY AND ENRON The thing you don't seem to notice about Ken Lay and Enron is...that when they did a bad job, they went out of business. That is the natural accountability of the private sector that doesn't exist in the government. If the government screws up, it can just raise taxes. The other thing about Enron is that most of the blame for Enron's failure goes to, again, the government. The Enron execs were not able to successfully predict the Fed's counterfeiting and (artificial) inflation/deflation cycles. And because most execs are signed onto the Wall StreetJournal/ NYTimes/HarvardBusinessSchool/Keynsian economic theory/baloney...they had no sense of the danger they were in. Get rid of the Fed...and you'll get rid of 90% of the unpredictability of the market, which the Enron people were grappling with. -------------------------------------------- THE fundamental and tragic flaw of this 'democracy' concept is the notion that because of the fallibility of human nature and the desire to take that which does not belong to us (whether the poor from the rich, by stealing and other crimes, OR rich from the poor, also by various kinds of theft ) we need to place ourselves under coercive authorities who will protect us from these people. It is precisely BECAUSE OF this fallibility that we should NEVER EVER have positions of coercive authority As I have said-- evil people who, indeed want to take that which is not theirs, are attracted to these positions, and do not politely step aside when the time comes. Once these power positions are brought into existence, they have no qualms of trying to parlay it into a 100% control...totalitarianism. AND....INDEED...that is where we now find ourselves-- the brink of the abyss. --------------------------- Another quote: "And about your NFL example, I guess I find it difficult to envision. Could I then rely on you to explain how the NFL system can be applied to the world most of us live in?" Don't know what else to explain-- America is a community. The NFL is a community. The quality of the NFL's judicial system is vastly superior to that of the U.S. Obviously, privately hired judges would need to have expertise in the particular laws of the community they had been hired by.

American Coup D'Etat:

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

Re: privatization

911 = Administrative Coup D'Etat?

Re: 911 = Administrative Coup D'Etat?

Re: 911 = Administrative Coup D'Etat?

Re: 911 = Administrative Coup D'Etat?

Who is online