35 votes

Max Keiser Interviews Alex Jones: Threshold of Tyranny Passed



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

to each his own...

...in the FREE marketplace of public expression...

Jones does not utter the words "threshold of tyranny".

For the record, whoever wrote the title to this interview, which included the phrase "threshold of tyranny passed", used words not uttered by Jones in the interview.

The reason I looked into this is that it is preposterous to think that with whatever are the latest encroachments on our liberty, the "threshold of tyranny" has finally been crossed. Don't tell the Americans, but that "threshold" was crossed in the very First Congress of the United States when it established an unconstitutional central bank (Bank of the United States, also now referred to as First Bank of the United States).

There should have been an uprising against the government at that time to shut down both the central bank and the tyranny of unconstitutional government, but the people lacked the character to take a stand....just as they do today.

Indeed, they wait until things are at long last unbearable, rather than to become proactive at the first experiment upon our liberties:

We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.
~James Madison

Taking "alarm", however, even if any significant number of Americans were doing so, is a far cry from taking whatever sort of action is necessary to stop the tyranny. No, it is much easier for the cognitive miser simply to HOPE, against facts readily available through direct observation, that things will somehow "get better". Thus do they assure themselves that certain meaningful "thresholds" have not yet been crossed.

Jack

Neither does this guy

http://www.dailypaul.com/271465/nobel but the point seems obvious in the link on that post. Do you think I am over reading the information. I find the information very concerning.

Bear, I believe you have mirsread my post.

I have great concern for these recent events regarding our growing police state.

The point of my post, however, was to criticize the notion (from whatever the source) that the "threshold of tyranny" is only now being crossed. It was crossed in 1789 by the First Congress of the United States and has never been retreated from since. That is, tyranny came in and was never forced out.

So when people see whatever is the latest encroachment and they panic that "this borders on tyranny" or "this is unconstitutional" or "this is getting out of hand", they unwittingly reveal that they don't have a very good handle on history, for these sorts of things have been going on since the very first Congress---practically since before the ink on the Constitution was dried.

That was my only point.

And yes, I am very concerned.

Jack

Thank you Jack,

for setting me straight. I had read your complete post, but then when I went back to link this story, I linked only by your title. That was my bad. I am sorry.

Are you aware of Patrick Henry, I believe he felt that tyranny was being crossed with the very creation of the US Constitution http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/henry.html :

"I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.

The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing�the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous..."

It is my understanding that perhaps Hamilton pushed the constitution so that a state bank could be created.

...

It is my understanding

It is my understanding Hamilton pushed for the constitution so that a central bank could be created. - bear

Yep.

It's refreshing to know someone else sees this relationship. A rubric, a foundation, a frame, has to be built for substance to appear and to build on. Can't build without something to build on. So, before declaration/voicing of construction, a cause for declaration/voicing. Path: settling of Europeans, war against natives, declaration, construction (in words, then in action) and projection of construction, both kinds.

Ever wonder why many of the politicians in that era, mid to late 18th century, visited England and France? Well, where were the money changers, the banksters? I see no sense why someone elected to make law would visit a country to understand his country.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

I owe my Early American history lessons to Josf

I certainly didn't learn that at school...or on my own. I was spoon feed...sometimes it was spinach...the last thing I wanted to hear. Part of me still wonders if unsettling the founding of the constitution could be used by enemies to topple the country, and that bothers me. I have always been the patriotic, we are the good guys, sort. But the facts seem too enormous to ignore.

Yeah. Some of the history is,

Yeah. Some of the history is, as you said, unsettling.

It takes a long time to talk about this subject. I support the constitution even though I think credibility on this subject, revisionist history, is strong. Why I support the constitution, a document to restrain government, is because I view it as a map, something to refer to. Although I think it was put in place to build government, it can be used to take the government apart while giving the individual something to point to and the government something to do, which would be response, if someone were to remove his freedom.

I want to avoid moving from one extreme to another especially when the rate of that movement is faster than human nature, because such a rate would cause trouble. I would guess that trouble, too, would be in addition to trouble today, as if replacing it wasn't bad and the wrong route. Yes, I see trouble would be compounded. It's quite unfortunate many DPers promote anarchism. For some reason, they omit the cause of our problems when they talk about anarchism. They forget the controllers, the banksters, the persons who caused mankind's problems.

The anarchists talk as if restoring goodness is a matter of using gold and silver, technology and decentralization while omitting discussion about the controllers or if talking about the controllers then omitting what should happen to the controllers, whose control and influence I think are vast and must be known so that mankind avoids partaking in, avoids perpetuating, the things that are the controls and influences. This anarchist's omission is usual and it's worrisome because it fits the route to descending into the grip of the controllers. Here, I use descending to contrast it to ascending. I say it to help envision the second half of gaining control of mankind, the transformation of what condition indentured servitude was brought through -- centralization, the "ascension" -- into enslavement which false decentralization will bring, the last and lasting illusion, one where technology is central to life.

As much as I want decentralization, I'm not naive. Certain things must be done to prevent decentralization, which I believe is happening, from being false. I can think of no better thing for the American to use to start and maintain decentralization than the still-in-the-minds-of-Americans-even-if-vaguely document defending him, the U.S. Constitution.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Great post.

The anarchist position (and indeed what would have happened to the American Revolution if it went down that road) can be summed up by the Jacobin takeover of the French Revolution. - Wanton bloodshed, war, famine, genocide and ultimately, military dictatorship. Followed by the military defeat of the whole thing and a return to the monarchy they were trying to escape from in the first place.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Thanks, Willl. I'll have to

Thanks, Willl. I'll have to research the Jacobin takeover. I've heard about it, but I don't know about it.

About anarchism, I can't shake my belief after studying how the world works that anarchism is anything desirable unless it happens gradually at the conclusion of a long time, say, 100 years, in which Americans have lived in freedom while its government acted in defense of freedom. To even think about anarchism as plausible before a generation (read: a 20-year span) of people living in freedom or especially now kicks sense to the curb and brutalizes it.

I'm confused why someone would think replacing a framework of life 320 million people live in or think they live in (and could return to if the banksters are captured) by a condition absent ability to serve justice against those who violated someone's freedom when the majority of those millions of people who likely are without comprehension of freedom begin to sense the absence of an entity defending freedom.

I recognize steps are needed. Perhaps anarchism can work. I'm not against striving for excellence. I'm not against striving for utopia. Hey, why not strive for utopia? But utopia today? No. Not a chance today. And not for a long time, likely.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Max Keiser gave it that title.

That was not hard to figure out. If Max feels this is the threshold, he is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to entitle his interview as such. Much of his discussion with Stacy is a discussion of the many thresholds that have been passed. It is almost as if you "looked into this" by checking your own opinion, rather than watch the video?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Fishy

Why are you waxing defensive on a simple point of fact?

Is there anything in my post is that not factual?

Yes, of course I watched the video. In fact, I said as much, did I not? Or did you not read my post for details?

I don't know who you are, of course, since you are anonymous. I hope, however, that you are more reasonable and kind in person than you are online.

Jack

Jack, sweetie pie, I am defending the person you attacked.

The OP did not put it in quotes, they merely carried over the title. Your comment (note these two little marks coming up....) "Jones does not utter the words 'threshold of tyranny.'" 'See? You put little marks to indicate a direct quote that the OP did not put there.

Next up:
"For the record, whoever wrote the title to this interview, which included the phrase "threshold of tyranny passed", used words not uttered by Jones in the interview."

Let the record show, Mr. Attorney, that it was simple as could be to determine that the man who CONDUCTED the interview uttered those words, and put them in the title.

The rest of your post is a rant about how often that threshold has been crossed already as justification for you to declare Max's statement "preposterous." Ironically, your rant nearly mirror's Max's... Making me wonder if you watched it. If so, apparently you did not understand it.

As for my "anonymity" - it would take about three clicks to figure out who I am. I keep my name to promote aquaponics, and to keep my time. I already changed it once and lost almost a year of "seniority."

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Line by line, fish.

I will reply to your sloppy rebuttal line by line, with a bit of disdain for what a colossal waste of time your rebuttal comprises.

Jack, sweetie pie, I am defending the person you attacked.

I named no person. And as for "attacking", I attacked an idea, and not a person. Your use of the word "attacked" here is acrimonious. Further, as we shall see below, you don't seem to be able to correctly identify who is responsible for the words in question.

The OP did not put it in quotes, they merely carried over the title.

I will stipulate that the OP "did not put it in quotes". As to merely "carrying over" the title, however, please produce that title. At the video linked in the original post above, the following title is used: Max Keiser Asks Alex Jones When Americans Will Revolt

Unless you are suggesting that whomever posted it to YouTube has since changed the title, it would appear that your assumption here is erroneous. But that didn't stop you from stating boldly in a prior comment, "Max Kaiser gave it that title."

If this is so, please provide a source for this assertion.

Your comment (note these two little marks coming up....) "Jones does not utter the words 'threshold of tyranny.'" 'See? You put little marks to indicate a direct quote that the OP did not put there.

You seem not to understand that quotations marks have more than one use. I was quoting the exact WORDS used, and not necessarily any particular SOURCE for those words. In fact, as my post said, I was commenting on "whoever wrote the title to this interview". I never named any person. Nor did I CARE who it was. It was a point of fact that the words "threshold of tyranny", as used in the title of this very thread, do not appear in the video---nor in its title at YouTube. And as I stated, the reason this is worth pointing out is the grand error that such a phrase represents when used of recent events. But you don't want to discuss THAT, now, do you?

Next up:
"For the record, whoever wrote the title to this interview, which included the phrase "threshold of tyranny passed", used words not uttered by Jones in the interview."

Let the record show, Mr. Attorney, that it was simple as could be to determine that the man who CONDUCTED the interview uttered those words, and put them in the title.

Really?

The world "threshold" is used one time in the video, at approximately 2:38. It is used by Kaiser in this way: "...we just listed fifteen examples of that threshold that has been crossed...". But again, in no place does anyone in this video use the phrase "threshold of tyranny".

So even though you consider it a "simple" matter to show who used the words, you take the foolish tack instead and merely assume a fact not in evidence.

Further, you do not and cannot refute my statement with which you appear to be arguing with your "simple as could be" retort.

The rest of your post is a rant about how often that threshold has been crossed already...

No, it is not. It is a rant about how that threshold was crossed once in 1789 and has remained crossed ever since them. You really should read more carefully before attempting to summarize one's post. But that would require what is known as "due diligence"--a concept that means far more to some than to others.

... as justification for you to declare Max's statement "preposterous."

As far as I can tell, Kaiser never uttered the words "threshold of tyranny". The only place I know that those words appear is in the title to this very thread upon which we are discussing. And I note, for the record, that never did I identify which person was the originator of that phrase.

Ironically, your rant nearly mirror's Max's... Making me wonder if you watched it. If so, apparently you did not understand it.

No, you're a blockhead who got peeved that I pointed out a problem with the notion represented by a certain phrase I saw in print. You decided to give me a piece of your mind, but you didn't read my post well enough to understand its intent. Nor did you watch the video well enough to determine whether I was right about the phrase in question---nor whether YOU were right about it. Indeed, you did not know that the phrase was not spoken by Kaiser. You're just now learning that from me. Yet you're quite willing to post assertions about it on the World Wide Web, as if you know something, and as if I should somehow demur in your enlightened presence.

I never took issue with anything on the video, but only with the phrase "threshold of tyranny", which apparently is found only in this thread.

Now, I've just invested about thirty minutes of my life to reply to your asinine post---and 45 minutes if you include the time I just spent fact checking and editing my work. You will note that I have utilized fact, logic, and sourcing in my argument. The result of this is that I am still right in what I wrote originally. The late breaking news, however, is that this recent bout of discussion--and more properly, the research it prompted on my end--has proven that you are rash and sloppy.

Jack