12 votes

They are Crooks! Karen Hudes Update


And this from John Williams


It's just a matter of time for the DOLLAR from thin air.

Comment viewing options

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

I know this is going to sound

I know this is going to sound bazaar but it came to me in a sickened instant... because Karen Hudes is playing ball internationally & with US super council of governors (set up for distribution of territory in agenda 21 ???)...and everything else is now in great financial upheaval caused by design ...is she part of the redesigned solution that everybody will clamour for to bring US into New World Order of things???

Problem-reaction-Karen Hudes provides the false solution?

Larry Summers was instrumental in creating the derivatives fraud nightmare
Larry Summers was Karen Hudes neighbor and their kids went to school together

Karen says the Vatican is the enemy, but never mentions the name of the Vaticans banker since the mid 1800s (hint: also controls the IMF, world bank, federal reserve, Bank of England, international bank of settlements, created a giant phony carbon trading scam, controlls trillions through tax free foundations, Etc)

Debbie's picture

I've only heard her say that their children went to the same

school, but even he lived in her neighborhood, that doesn't mean anything - they both worked in DC.


Could be a coincidence

But I don't believe it is. What are the chances that one of the architects of the planned economic implosion lives down the street from the supposed whistleblowing savior? If she really had legitmately gone to Larry with that info she would have ended up like Michael Hastings or Andrew Breitbart.

Here's the full quote:
"So,I warned the secretary of the treasury Larry summers, who lived just down the street from me because our kids were going to the same elementary school"

Just When You Thought

Just When You Thought "Cyprus" Isn't Going to Happen Here. Guess What IMF Just Said WE Need to Do?

Re Karen Hudes

If I understood correctly, I found what she said both scary and reassuring at the same time - scary because the bankers will not go down easy; reassuring because she claims to have the states and sheriffs behind her.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


Here in time and place, worldwide, there is an exposing of the criminals who hide behind false authority that has been building since the last World War.

This time and place, worldwide, is similar to the time and place leading up to the events that became known as The Civil War in the area that was once a voluntary Union of States called America.

Either the criminals hiding behind false authority are going to be exposed and no longer capable of perpetrating the crimes they current perpetrate, including the crimes called Aggressive War (for profit of the few at the expense of the many), and including the crime of issuing Fraudulent Money through a Fraudulent Legal System of National Debt, and there will be a time period in places World Wide whereby competition and free markets work to Force the quality of government (defense of Liberty) up and the same Force of competition in free markets Force the quality of money (accurate accounting) up, while both costs (government and money) are Forced down for the consumers, because that is what happens when there is competition in free markets, or, rather than a time period World Wide when competition reigns for that time, instead, instead of competition in government and money in free markets for a time, instead of that, instead of that happening after the current criminals are no longer hidden behind their false government lies, there will be a time when new, better, more effective lairs, robbers, thieves, and assorted criminals take over the power of false government, because, at is may happen yet, the current bunch of criminals managed to get their World War III off to a blazing rate of accelerated growth of destruction that consumes so many people that the remaining survivors are even less powerful than they are now in defending Liberty (competitive free markets of everything including government and money), or some other less obvious events transpire in the near future.

Karen Hudes is (or is claiming to be) basing much of her optimism on a computer program of significant power and reliability.


Yes, I guess it go different ways.

Thanks for your reply. Btw, Josf. I know you were friends with bear. Do you know if she's okay? She hasn't posted in a long time, and I'm worried.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Larry summers ....

Karen's neighbor and who's kids go to school with hers...that alone is enough for me to know who Karen really represents...and it ain't you and I.

Source? Come on, you need to

Source? Come on, you need to back your comment up. I used to live in Maryland, does that make me an insider???

Come on, back it up. Prove that Karen has a deep connection to Larry Summers because that's what you're implying so back it up!!!!

In her own words

At about the 6:45 minute mark of this video:


"So,I warned the secretary of the treasury Larry summers, who lived just down the street from me because our kids were going to the same elementary school"

This is not the only very questionable thing she's said, there's been many things.

I throw the BS flag on you BSDetector

What would You say if you discovered that a man in your NEIGHBORHOOD was a child molester.

Would you keep your mouth SHUT?

Of course you would by your idiot logic. Karen is talking about the Rule Of Law. Something your parents didn't teach you.

She never exposed Larry

She talked about him as if he is legit and we know he is a Focking crook. Grow up Bear1intheass I know all about rule of law. If she was for real, she would have later added " who I later discovered was instrumental in the worldwide derivatives fraud".

Key points

I could not sit and listen to John Williams, and unless someone else offers a reason for me to do so, I won't.

A key point is:

Is the United States of America a corporation having made investments on behalf of the corporate financiers and that corporation (legal fiction) is currently going under, and soon that corporation will no longer be operating as a viable corporation.

Are there 50 Constitutionally Limited Republics joined voluntarily into a mutual defensive Federation whereby members of a very sneaky criminal organization have raided the savings accounts of all the members of these Republics, and after some 200 years the members of these Republics have finally woken up in sufficient numbers to regain control of their own free market, voluntary, constitutionally limited Republics within their own voluntary Federation, whereby the criminals who formed the original corporation are all dead and gone, but the current financiers of said corporation still have enough power to start, and perpetrate, World War III if the plug that powers them is not pulled very soon, and that POWER PLUG IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE and THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (both of which were formed in 1913)?

In other words, is the good faith and credit of the American people enough POWER to begin to turn this Standard of Living in America from steady decline into steady improvement, while, at the same time, the good faith and credit of the America people is sufficiently powerful to reduce the cost of living instead of the steady rise of the cost of living being in FORCE?

In other words, are we the people set to regain Liberty, competition, free markets, productive power remaining in the hands of those who produce it, and therefore more productive economy ensues, or are we the people going to be driven, and led, to slaughter as the criminals who took over our voluntary government force us into losing World War III?


wow! very interesting!

She mentioned bitcoin and that 49 states have already signed up for a constitutional convention!!!! Yikes, that doesn't sound good.
: /


Keeping this information front and center, for my own use, thanks to your efforts.

Please note: The collective power of the so called "Jesuits" has been very effectively suppressed (censored) for centuries.

That suppression of that information has been effective despite the efforts of many people working to blow the whistle on those numbers of people who constitute the so called "Jesuits," and therefore, it may be a good idea, for anyone who has been in the dark concerning the so called "Jesuits" to understand that collective power of falsehood.

Consider, please, the few times that Alex Jones has managed to break into Corporate Monopoly (so called) Mainstream Media, and the significance of that record of that event.

Similarly, there has been such things as Conspiracy Theory with Jessey Ventura on Corporate Monopoly Television.

How many times have you ever heard the term "Jesuits" when listening to any media of any kind?

Here is one competitive source of information concerning the collective power of the so called Jesuits:


"The Jesuits were founded initially as The Company of Jesus on "Assumption Day" August 15, 1534, also being the traditional feast day for Lucifer since 70CE, in a secret ceremony in the crypt of the Chapel of St. Denis by Ignatius of Loyola (born Íñigo López de Loyola) and Francisco Xavier, Alfonso Salmeron, Diego Laínez, and Nicolás Bobadilla all from Spain, Peter Faber from Savoy in France, and Simão Rodrigues from Portugal."


"The Society of Jesus (abbreviated as S.J.), also known as the "Jesuits", is a male Christian religious Order of the Catholic Church founded on August 15, 1534 and first recognized by Papal Bull Regimini militantis ecclesiae on September 27, 1540."


Has anyone ever seen the title of S.J. before?

This is new to me.

I understand the significance of the words offered by Karen Hudes when she connects The Jesuits with China.

Take, as you will (your power of will, if you still command it), the following three links as a source of information that can construct a series of events that are very destructive for a very simple reason: To Consolidate Power into ONE POWER.




All sides of World War II being FINANCED through the Central Bank known as The Federal Reserve (a.k.a. Wall Street and the emerging American Military Industrial Complex = Consolidation of POWER) from a source that is one individual human being named Anthony Sutton, who was not allowed to be "Best Seller" on "National Television" during his efforts to blow the whistle. Is there any mention of The Jesuits in the work of Anthony Sutton?

Did he miss the central connecting link?

Is the following information accurate?


One of the great historical anomalies is the behaviour of both Adolf Hitler, Fr Himmler S.J. and Fr Joseph Stalin S.J. in the Nazi Russian Invasion. Contrary to spin historians, these men had not only shown ruthless pragmatism in managing power until this point, but were actively working together on a number of military and scientific fronts until the invasion.

A frequent excuse given is that fiercly Catholic Hitler had become “drunk” with power and decided to invade Russia because he hated the Russians. But Hitler was a mere soldier, compared to Fr. Himmler S.J. the new Grand Inquisitor of the Roman Catholic Church and his massive army of assassins and torturers.

Instead, it is much more certain that Jesuit Superior General Ledochowski instructed Himmler to push for the assault on the understanding this would complete a clean sweep of Catholic National Socialism over Catholic National Communism. Similarly, it is clear that Count Ledochowski said something in reverse to Fr Stalin S.J. – that this was the plan that would ultimately destroy Germany as Stalin’s behaviour against his own country and people was nothing other than treacherous.

Arguing over which point of view is the more competitive (higher in quality, more accurate, less destructive, less divisive, less costly) and which point of view is accurately measurable as being misleading, HELPS, AIDS, works in favor of, and benefits those who profit handsomely through WAR made LEGAL.

It is significant that NOW, right now, someone is blowing the whistle on The Jesuits, and it is significant that there is now, right NOW, a record being made of a connection between The Jesuits and The Chinese (The so called "government" of China, not the industrious people in China).

Does the information mean:

No longer will there be a World Reserve Currency POWER dominating the whole world and causing Booms and Busts on a schedule so as to keep POWER flowing to that ONE CONSOLIDATED POWER, because World War III WILL NOT go off on schedule.

World War III goes off on schedule, placing Russia (corporation) against The United States of America (corporation), and China stays out of the way until the right moment when China enters the War and cleans up the mess, and China emerges as The New World Reserve Currency Consolidated Monopoly of Fraud and Extortion POWER made Legal by the few who have the POWER to do so, and get away with it again, like a broken record, or like a Business Cycle on steroids?


What better way to divert attention from the real operators than

by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism? Anthony Sutton

There is an extensive literature in English, French, and German reflecting the argument that the Bolshevik Revolution was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy"; more specifically, a conspiracy by Jewish world bankers. Generally, world control is seen as the ultimate objective; the Bolshevik Revolution was but one phase of a wider program that supposedly reflects an age-old religious struggle between Christianity and the "forces of darkness."

The argument and its variants can be found in the most surprising places and from quite surprising persons. In February 1920 Winston Churchill wrote an article — rarely cited today — for the London Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled "Zionism Versus Bolshevism." In this' article Churchill concluded that it was "particularly important... that the National Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion . . . and take a prominent part in every measure for combatting the Bolshevik conspiracy." Churchill draws a line between "national Jews" and what he calls "international Jews." He argues that the "international and for the most atheistical Jews" certainly had a "very great" role in the creation of Bolshevism and bringing about the Russian Revolution. He asserts (contrary to fact) that with the exception of Lenin, "the majority" of the leading figures in the revolution were Jewish, and adds (also contrary to fact) that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship were excepted by the Bolsheviks from their policies of seizure. Churchill calls the international Jews a "sinister confederacy" emergent from the persecuted populations of countries where Jews have been persecuted on account of their race. Winston Churchill traces this movement back to Spartacus-Weishaupt, throws his literary net around Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman, and charges: "This world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing."

Churchill then argues that this conspiratorial Spartacus-Weishaupt group has been the mainspring of every subversive movement in the nineteenth century. While pointing out that Zionism and Bolshevism are competing for the soul of the Jewish people, Churchill (in 1920) was preoccupied with the role of the Jew in the Bolshevik Revolution and the existence of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
Another well-known author in the 1920s, Henry Wickham Steed describes in the second volume of his Through 30 Years 1892-1922 (p. 302) how he attempted to bring the Jewish-conspiracy concept to the attention of Colonel Edward M. House and President Woodrow Wilson. One day in March 1919 Wickham Steed called Colonel House and found him disturbed over Steed's recent criticism of U.S. recognition of the Bolsheviks. Steed pointed out to House that Wilson would be discredited among the many peoples and nations of Europe and "insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia."1 According to Steed, Colonel House argued for the establishment of economic relations with the Soviet Union.

Probably the most superficially damning collection of documents on the Jewish conspiracy is in the State Department Decimal File (861.00/5339). The central document is one entitled "Bolshevism and Judaism," dated November 13, 1918. The text is in the form of a report, which states that the revolution in Russia was engineered "in February 1916" and "it was found that the following persons and firms were engaged in this destructive work":
(1) Jacob Schiff Jew
(2) Kuhn, Loeb & Company Jewish Firm
Management: Jacob Schiff Jew
Felix Warburg Jew
Otto H. Kahn Jew
Mortimer L. Schiff Jew
Jerome J. Hanauer Jew
(3) Guggenheim Jew
(4) Max Breitung Jew
(5) Isaac Seligman Jew
The report goes on to assert that there can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution was started and engineered by this group and that in April 1917 Jacob Schiff in fact made a public announcement and it was due to his financial influence that the Russian revolution was successfully accomplished and in the Spring 1917 Jacob Schitf started to finance Trotsky, a Jew, for the purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia.

The report contains other miscellaneous information about Max Warburg's financing of Trotsky, the role of the Rheinish-Westphalian syndicate and Olof Aschberg of the Nya Banken (Stockholm) together with Jivotovsky. The anonymous author (actually employed by the U.S. War Trade Board)2 states that the links between these organizations and their financing of the Bolshevik Revolution show how "the link between Jewish multi-millionaires and Jewish proletarians was forged." The report goes on to list a large number of Bolsheviks who were also Jews and then describes the actions of Paul Warburg, Judus Magnes, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and Speyer & Company.
The report ends with a barb at "International Jewry" and places the argument into the context of a Christian-Jewish conflict backed up by quotations from the Protocols of Zion. Accompanying this report is a series of cables between the State Department in Washington and the American embassy in London concerning the steps to be taken with these documents:3
5399 Great Britain, TEL. 3253 i pm
October 16, 1919 In Confidential File
Secret for Winslow from Wright. Financial aid to Bolshevism & Bolshevik Revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mendell Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Max Breitung & one of the Guggenheims. Document re- in possession of Brit. police authorities from French sources. Asks for any facts re-.
* * * * *
Oct. 17 Great Britain TEL. 6084, noon r c-h 5399 Very secret. Wright from Winslow. Financial aid to Bolshevik revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews. No proof re- but investigating. Asks to urge Brit. authorities to suspend publication at least until receipt of document by Dept.
* * * * *
Nov. 28 Great Britain TEL. 6223 R 5 pro. 5399
FOR WRIGHT. Document re financial aid to Bolsheviki by prominent American jews. Reports — identified as French translation of a statement originally prepared in English by Russian citizen in Am. etc. Seem most unwise to give — the distinction of publicity.
It was agreed to suppress this material and the files conclude, "I think we have the whole thing in cold storage."
Another document marked "Most Secret" is included with this batch of material. The provenance of the document is unknown; it is perhaps FBI or military intelligence. It reviews a translation of the Protocols of the Meetings of the Wise Men of Zion, and concludes:
In this connection a letter was sent to Mr. W. enclosing a memorandum from us with regard to certain information from the American Military Attache to the effect that the British authorities had letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. Copies of this material will be very useful to us.
This information was apparently developed and a later British intelligence report makes the flat accusation:
SUMMARY: There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action....

However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed "letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion." If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point — particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else — then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism.

It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.5 This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.

The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.

What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?

Antony C. Sutton

Goldspan, you bore the hell out of me.

The Hatred in your Heart must be eating you alive.

Peace to you my friend. You will only find it in your own heart. It was there when you were born. You are only speaking as BS of evil. You know it, and I know it. ;)

Who in the hell was talking to you peckerhead?

Butt out!

And you don’t know dick……which is evident every time you open your mouth!


Your comments are always appreciated! You always provide such detail in where I was mistaken for the path of truth that you stand for.

"Submitted by Goldspan on Wed, 10/30/2013 - 17:13. Permalink

Butt out!

And you don’t know dick……which is evident every time you open your mouth!"

I wouldn't expect any other thinking from a man that has been in your shoes.

I pray for you.

Who is diverting attention?

There is, in fact, a World Reserve Currency Power.

Who is confused about it, name someone, and then name someone else who is, actually, as a matter of fact, confused about it, name anyone who can claim that "it" is somehow a "religious" struggle.

I don't.

Religion is, if it is anything, a method of avoiding conflict among human beings.

So who spreads falsehoods concerning any false fronts placed in front of the actual criminals who actually have the POWER to write themselves a check for as much money as everyone else combined, and get away with it for centuries?

The central banking crime of extortion and fraud world wide is not tough to figure out, and not at all difficult to find the culprits.

Follow the legal fraud money, such as the Current World Reserve Currency known as Federal Reserve Notes, back to the source of it, and there, like following the rainbow to find the pot of gold, will be those few who use the money they steal to buy the wars they need to keep their POWER over their victims.

So who is confused about it?

Name one person.

If you are naming Sutton as the one person who is confused about it, then my guess is that you are the one confused, since each LABEL used by the criminals are merely LABELS, nothing more, as a means of covering up the facts, so it is not a confusion to use their current LABEL when the criminals are currently using the current LABEL that LABELS the criminals.

Sutton was very meticulous in his work, so it is very likely that the changing of the LABELS from Jewish Conspiracy to Jesuit Conspiracy, or to NeoCon Conspiracy, would be as obvious to Sutton as it would be to the actual criminals who work to manufacture new LABELS for the same old reason: to mask the actual criminals perpetrating the actual crimes of WAR FOR EXCLUSIVE PROFIT.

Once the crime is known for what it is, the labels serve as inculpatory evidence, no longer serving the purpose of deception.

That is proven to be factual when any one of you, any one reading this, finally realizes the nature of the crime, and you see, for a fact, that Federal Reserve Notes PROVE that a crime is NOW in progress, and each manufactured unit of FRAUD money exists as PROOF that the criminals are still getting away with the CRIMES they perpetrate.

National Debt is merely extortion covered up by fraud made legal by criminals UPON the whole country.

Internal Revenue "Service", or extortion made legal, is the violence arm of the National Debt Crime.

The "Federal" Reserve, or Monopoly Central Banking, is merely fraud made legal to cover up the violence made legal by the same criminals UPON the same country.

Fraud merely covers up the naked violence of extortion.

Those doing the extorting can claim that they were just following orders, without question.

3 SOURCES follow:


"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

The Central Bankers MUST crush all legal money competitors in ORDER to get a working Monopoly (whereby there is no force of competition forcing money quality up, and money cost down TO THE CONSUMER).

When the First Bank of the United States was competitively thrown out, the criminals tried for The Second Bank of the United States, it was also thrown out, and then there was an time called Wildcat Banking, just before the so called Civil War.

Back to the first source:


"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

Federalism was working during the time between 1776 and 1788, but that competitive government or Free Market government design was removed with the first Con Con in 1787.

When the final nail goes into the coffin of Liberty each one of us will be at each other's throat.

Each nail is ours to remove, or ignore.


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Bonus link 4:


"There can be no doubt we are in the middle of the greatest power struggle since World War II. It is uncertain whether the Jesuits will prevail and the system restored to order, or whether the Vatican and Illuminati will succeed in breaking the shackles of forced subservience after 200 years."

Either the information is useful or not, and if the idea is to use the information available to gain at someone's expense, then that is just another person joining in on the crime made legal, if on the other hand the information available is useful in defense against being used by criminals, then that is what happens in time and place for that individual, or for that group.


You were the one singing the

You were the one singing the praises of Anthony Sutton and I was familiar with his work, so I thought I would show others exactly what the guys thinks about the Jews and the international banking conspiracy. Man……did I touch a nerve or what? You trot this guy out….but do you know anything that he says.

You asked if I am confused….YES….by you. Your post does not follow a cognitive thought, allow me to illustrate.
Hamilton…….what you posted is exactly what is written in the book…..but what is YOUR point? Are in favor of or against a National Debt?

If for…….then you would probably also be in favor of “internal improvements”……known as crony capitalism……….a nation bank…..ie a central bank……and war or the military industrial complex….these are the philosophies of Statism exercised as Mercantilism, which is exactly what Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris plan was when they called for the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to address the so called “weaknesses” of the Articles of Confederation.

If you are against Hamilton’s National Debt then you would be also against the U.S. Constitution because what the Constitution was……….was a plan to implement a coup d’état over the States with the bribe of assuming their Revolutionary Wars debts. Further proof of your confusion was the addition of the paragraph of “voting with your feet” which would have been maintained with the Confederation of States vs the removal of that option with the ratification of the U. S. Constitution.

As far as the banking conspiracy ……to be honest….and you won’t like me saying this, but I truly don’t think you know a damn thing about banking or the history of banking……you are only regurgitating what you have read and heard, but with no real knowledge or understanding.

Let me asking you a question……..wouldn’t you agree the truly insidious problem of the world is inflation? G. Edward Griffin named it in The Creature from Jekyll Island…..this was the mechanism of turning government debt into fiat currency called the Mandrake Mechanism. Did you know that the process was design and implanted by the Republicans and Lincoln during the Civil War? Yeah the Backing Acts of 1863,64 &65 creating the National Banking System. Yeah you are still under the impression that the Federal Reserve Act was where it started. So this inflationary design had been functioning for 50 before Jekyll Island….before most of the bankers you blame were even alive……but what was alive at the time was the State…….that is who to blame here and it’s not a conspiracy it is corruption in your beloved Constitution……We don’t have a conspiracy problem……we have a philosophical problem…..it is State Absolutism vs Natural Law Liberty.

I suggest you read a few books mostly Rothbard.
The History of Banking and Money
The Mystery of Banking
Economic Thought before Adam Smith ( both volumes…..this will introduce you to Absolutism vs Natural Law)

Or you could just read my post “The Journey to Jekyll Island”

You’ve got to stop reading this crap which you referenced in your post.


Do you know who sponsors this website….these people.


these people are straight up ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT control freaks…..it’s this supposed to be what you are against……this is why you sound so confused…..

I detect some coloring with a false brush.

"You were the one singing the praises of Anthony Sutton..."

Your version of what I did is contained within the words you choose. My version of what I did was published even before your words were chosen by you. What I actually did was offer evidence that adds to the mountains of evidence (FRNs for example) that point to one most POWERFUL group. As to praiseworthy people, those deserving praise, I'd like to know the meaning intended by the words you have chosen.

What do you mean by your use of the word "praise" in context as follows?

"You were the one singing the praises of Anthony Sutton..."

Also: I'm not much on singing, but I am working on a cover for the song Cortex the Killer by Neil Young. Currently I am a very poor singer.

"Man……did I touch a nerve or what?"

If the medium of exchange was not black type on white background the quote above would have to be, by necessity, a false statement, since your version of what I may have felt, is out of place in my thinking. No such touching of nerves happened by you, so what is the inspiration for asking such a question?

Difficulties conveying accurate meaning through type?

"You trot this guy out….but do you know anything that he says."

I have found further evidence of possible willful intent on your part to color what I do with a false brush there in those words. What do you mean by "trot this guy out"? What I did was link work done whereby the work having been done points to the source of the causes of World War II. Rather than World Wars being some accidental occurrence blamed upon the evil nature of everyone, what is more accurate as a focus of defensive effort in case the same type of people doing the same types of things are occurring now?

1. Collective blame for collective punishment.
2. Accurate accounting instead

Find those who benefit most, and see if those are the people who are pulling the strings that are pulled in each case where there are major losses of innocent lives?

I have no intent to "trot" or "praise" or do anything similar, unless you can explain to me how those words somehow paint what I do in an accurate way.

I don't spend a whole lot of time focusing my effort on Anthony Sutton. I use the work he did, in those three works, to show a Central source of World War, which is not a mystery anymore to a whole lot of people. The phrase "all wars are banker wars" is not my invention, and it is not Anthony Sutton's invention either. These "money changers" go back a long way.

"Your post does not follow a cognitive thought, allow me to illustrate."

This is familiar territory for me. Someone accuses me of some nebulous wrongdoing, then the same accuser claims that the wrongdoing that the accuser says I've done will be shown to me, and the end result, so far, is that the accuser points out where the accuser confuses what I wrote with what the accuser thinks I've meant to covey with my word choices.

What I actually meant to convey is what I know I meant to convey with my word choices.

What the reader attributes as being what I meant to convey with my word choices.

When 1 is not the same meaning as 2, who is to blame for the confusion?

"Hamilton…….what you posted is exactly what is written in the book…..but what is YOUR point? Are in favor of or against a National Debt? "

The point of offering the link to the book where the quote was found is an effort to inspire other people to read the book. I did not praise the author of the book, and I did not trot the guy around. The intended meaning by the author, to me, is clearly conveyed in English through those word choices.

Hamilton made campaign promises so as to get National Debt started, then Hamilton broke those National Debt promises once Hamilton gained Despotic Power.

Hamilton and Washington assembled a conscripted, monopolistic, "National" army to invade the formerly sovereign state of Pennsylvania, to collect a National tax and to crush a money competitor, that was in 1794.


That last sentence is my version of the words quoted on Hamilton. I was able to get the message from the book clearly. I may be wrong, of course. Where am I wrong?

Do I favor National Debt? The answer is maybe. If National Debt is the result of National defense against a clear and present danger, such as what was happening between 1776 and 1783 then I favor crediting those who defend against such things with the credit they earn, so the flip side of that is indebtedness concerning those who defend against attacks by criminal invaders, even when the criminal invaders constitute the largest criminal army then on the planet Earth. The problem with choosing the word "National" for that Debt, in the case of the Revolutionary War, is that there was no Nation (Monopoly) during the Revolutionary War, instead it was a Confederation of Constitutionally Limited Republics.

After Hamilton and the so called Federalists gained their National Debt Monopoly in 1788, then the liars started crushing money competitors, and then the liars started making their crimes exclusively legal for them to do at will, including the practice of making purchases as investments that pay the few very well and cost the many everything.

"If for…….then you would probably..."

No thanks on your false versions of me, if that is what you are offering me, no thanks. If you are offering warnings to other people, then you are to be warned against, not me, you are the one resorting to deception.

"...these are the philosophies of Statism exercised as Mercantilism, which is exactly what Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris plan was when they called for the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to address the so called “weaknesses” of the Articles of Confederation."

Somehow the intended meanings were not transferred intact and you find cause to blame only me? Not often do I find someone who has made the Hamilton-Morris connection, but I do appreciate those who have managed to see that conspiracy by those money changing central banking folks. Thanks for that, I consider that a reinforcement of what I have offered here in this Topic, even if you think I am somehow accurately placed in opposition to the accurate accounting of what actually happened.

"If you are against Hamilton’s National Debt then you would be also against the U.S. Constitution because what the Constitution was……….was a plan to implement a coup d’état over the States with the bribe of assuming their Revolutionary Wars debts."

I am not against constitutionally limited Republics, so get that straight please, but as to the Usurpation that occurred in Philadelphia, I am most certainly against it, what it was intended to accomplish, and I am not alone.

Here are two very good sources:


"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

There was a deal made between criminal slave traders in the south and criminal money changers in the north called The Dirty Compromise; making slavery legal. How bad does it get? Make torture and mass murder legal too?


George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788

Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.

"Further proof of your confusion was the addition of the paragraph of “voting with your feet” which would have been maintained with the Confederation of States vs the removal of that option with the ratification of the U. S. Constitution."

How is that (in your mind) my confusion? The Constitution was a Usurpation of Liberty: clear as day is not night.

"As far as the banking conspiracy ……to be honest….and you won’t like me saying this, but I truly don’t think you know a damn thing about banking or the history of banking……you are only regurgitating what you have read and heard, but with no real knowledge or understanding."

What you truly think and what is demonstrable in fact appears to be a question worth answering to me, not a dictate handed down from on-high to down-low, as your words command into being.

"...fiat currency called the Mandrake Mechanism. Did you know that the process was design and implanted by the Republicans and Lincoln during the Civil War?"

I know that there is no inherent wrong in paper money, as there is no inherent wrong in self defense weapons.

Four sources follow, and I've read The Creature from Jekyll Island.

If your claim of my ignorance is as accurate as you dictate, then perhaps you have read and understand the following four sources, and the quote from the last 2 sources, as proof of your authority to dictate to me how stupid I am.




A Parasite City.

Suppose 5,000 men to own $30,000 each; suppose these men to move, with their families, to some desolate place in the state, where there is no opportunity for the profitable pursuit of the occupations either of commerce, agriculture, or manufacturing! The united capital of these 5,000 men would be $150,000,000. Suppose, now, this capital to be safely invested in different parts of the state; suppose these men to be, each of them, heads of families, comprising, on an average, five persons each this would give us, in all, 25,000 individuals. A servant to each family would give us 5,000 persons more, and these added to the above number would give us 30,000 in all. Suppose, now, that 5,000 mechanics—shoemakers, bakers, butchers, etc.—should settle with their families in the neighborhood of these capitalists, in order to avail themselves of their custom. Allowing five to a family, as before, we have 25,000 to add to the above number. We have, therefore, in all, a city of 55,000 individuals, established in the most desolate part of the state. The people in the rest of the state would have to pay to the capitalists of this city six per cent on $150,000,000 every year; for these capitalists have, by the supposition, this amount out at interest on bond and mortgage, or other wise. The yearly interest on $150,000,000, at six per cent, is- $9,000,000. These wealthy individuals may do no useful work whatever, and, nevertheless, they levy a tax of $9,000,000 per annum on the industry of the state. The tax would be paid in this way. Some money would be brought to the new city, and much produce; the produce would be sold for money to the capitalists, and with the money thus obtained, added to the other, the debtors would pay the interest due the capitalists would have their choice of the best the state produces, and the mechanics of the city, who receive money from the capitalists, the next choice. Now, how would all this be looked upon by the people of the commonwealth? There would be a general rejoicing over the excellent market for produce which had grown up in so unexpected a place, and the people would suppose the existence of this city of financial horse-leeches to be one of the main pillars of the prosperity of the state.

Each of these capitalists would receive yearly $1,800, the interest on $ 30,000, on which to live. Suppose he lives on $900, the half of his income, and lays the other half by to portion off his children as they come to marriageable age, that they may start also with $30,000 capital, even as he did. This $900 which he lays by every year would have to be invested. The men of business, the men of talent, in the state, would see it well invested for him. Some intelligent man would discover that a new railroad, canal, or other public work was needed; he would survey the ground, draw a plan' of the work, and make an estimate of the expenses; then he would go to this new city and interest the capitalists in the matter. The capitalists would furnish money, the people of the state would furnish labor; the people would dig the dirt, hew the wood, and draw the water. The intelligent man who devised the plan would receive a salary for superintending the work, the people would receive day's wages, and the capitalists would own the whole; for did they not furnish the money that paid for the construction? Taking a scientific view of the matter, we may suppose the capitalists not to work at all; for the mere fact of their controlling the money would insure all the results. We suppose them, therefore, not to work at all; we suppose them to receive, each of them, $1,800 a year; we suppose them to live on one-half of this, or $900, and to lay up the other half for their children. We suppose new-married couples to spring up, in their proper season, out of these families, and that these new couples start, also, each with a capital of $30,000. We ask now, is there no danger of this new city's absorbing unto itself the greater portion of the wealth of the state?

There is no city in this commonwealth that comes fully up to this ideal of a fainéant and parasite city; but there is no city in the state in which this ideal is not more or less completely embodied.


Bills of exchange, bank checks, and negotiable paper of all sorts add just so much to the body of the currency; and this issue is unlimited by law, and unlimited in fact, except by the exigencies of trade. They are just as really currency as the specie dollar, the greenback, or the bank bill. A field which has no fence up one of its sides is not fenced in, no matter how high and strong its fences may be on the other sides. So, the volume of currency is not, in any true sense, limited by prohibitions of free banking, by a return to specie basis, or by any other means, so long as negotiable paper can be freely issued by individuals; and this free issue of negotiable paper is too useful, and too well entrenched in necessity, ever hereafter to be interfered with. Commerce can be hindered and trammeled to some extent—by statute arrangements claiming to regulate the currency, whether by restrictive measures, or by flooding the community with over-issues; but the volume of the currency can no longer be adjusted by such means.

Money is, as well as any other product offered by producers is, competitive when it is offered competitively in a market that is not criminally made into a Monopoly, and money will therefore be forced ever higher in quality and ever lower in cost to the consumer, not so much for the producer.

What is the highest quality and lower cost money ever in human existence according to your understanding of money?

I have my own understanding, and your answer can be compared competitively with my answer, rather than you dictating to me what my stupid answer is according to you.

"Yeah you are still under the impression that the Federal Reserve Act was where it started."

Who are you claiming has such ideas as you claim they have in their head? If you are directing those thoughts to me, as you claim that those thoughts are mine, then you are guilty of coloring me up with your false brush strokes, in fact, proven by you, again.

"...is corruption in your beloved Constitution…"

I have my own understanding of love, what it is, what it is not, and I am incapable of loving a piece of paper. Your words directed at me are false. Why?

"……we have a philosophical problem…..it is State Absolutism vs Natural Law Liberty."

Failing to find agreement because one of us makes up fiat thoughts to be placed in the other person's head, is an example of a larger problem. Blaming the victims for the actions of the criminals, for example, seems to be ubiquitous?

I use my own methods of communicating the full measure of the problem and the full measure of the solution to the problem.

1. Problem = criminals gaining the power of government

2. Solution = stop paying the criminals so well, and they may actually look for a productive job

How to get from 1 to 2?

End the FED (produce and use better money)
End the IRS (The IRS taxes users of Fraud Money, don't use the fraud money)
Bring the Troops Home (the first one is in the mirror)

A good place to start work may be here:


"I suggest you read a few books mostly Rothbard."

I did. He is one of the Gold Bugs, and he lies, falsifies, and employs the same tactics you are using on me now.

Birds of a feather?

Rothbard page 215-216
The Spooner-Tucker Distortion

It should be remembered by radicals that, if they wanted to, all workers could refuse to work for wages and instead form their own producer's cooperatives and wait for years for their pay until the products are sold to the consumers; the fact that they do not do so, shows the enormous advantage of the capital investment, wage-paying system as a means of allowing workers to earn money far in advance of the sale of their products. Far from being exploitation of the workers, capital investment and the interest-profit system is an enormous boon to them and to all of society.

I have a copy of The History of Banking too.

I like this work:

In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.

His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces.

"Or you could just read my post “The Journey to Jekyll Island”"

Someone so readily able to personally attack me earns my trust in what they have to offer (dictates)?

"You’ve got to stop reading this crap which you referenced in your post."

The person who produces what you call "crap" offers one one one questions and answers which is far more than almost everyone else does, when someone offers information voluntarily. Most people parrot the dictators they follow without question.

"these people are straight up ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT control freaks…..it’s this supposed to be what you are against……this is why you sound so confused….."

A monopoly built upon strictly voluntary association (no behavioral modification, response conditioning, manufactured consent, meaning: no fraud, no threats, and no violence used to create "volunteers") is what happens in free markets, there is FORCE applied by all the many shoppers shopping for better instead of worse. The best corners the market, and that is an effective monopoly, until something better is produced by a producer that produces something better, and then the shoppers vote with their shopping votes.

Frank at UCADIA offers something for those who claim that there are no alternatives to Involuntary Associations. If people want crime made legal, that is what they get, if they want something else, they will start shopping.

Your version of crap is not mine, even though you think you have authority sufficient to dictate to me what is, or is not crap TO ME.


First let me say thanks for staying on point

I have found a lot of people on here do not address the conversation and just blather on about what they have either read or heard. You and I agree on the larger picture and then there is a deviation as we go down the line.

Larger picture in which we agree…..there are two competing forces in the world…..One being Natural Law and one of Statism……you may not call it Statism…..but you recognize it as some force trying to control other men and protect their place in the world. Albert J Nock describes it in this manner. Man is endowed by his Creator with Rights (assigned by the Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty and initially Property). But man is also a social being and in this we tend to congregate in communities. In these communities we assemble to make sure the needs of other are achievable while protecting our own Right of Liberty. Therefore we allow the communities to assign leaders to make decisions for the community and the best interest of all. What we give of our Liberty to the community is now a little less Liberty for ourselves…..a tradeoff is occurring. What so often happens is the Leaders then began to believe that there are endowed to a greater portion of the community. As power begins to amass, others are draw to the path of least resistance and government interference begins to infringe on all peoples Liberty (I always capitalize Liberty, because the word means that much to me) for the benefit of the few.

The fact that you know James Otis gives me hope that you are open to the ideas espoused by Nock. James Otis has a significant role in the amending the U. S. Constitution to includes the Bill Of Rights. James Otis was a mentor to Thomas Jefferson and was mentored by, at least by his writing, John Locke.

Some philosophers before Locke had suggested that it would be good to find the limits of the Understanding, but what Locke does is to carry out this project in detail. In the four books of the Essay Locke considers the sources and nature of human knowledge. Book I argues that we have no innate knowledge. (In this he resembles Berkeley and Hume, and differs from Descartes and Leibniz.) So, at birth, the human mind is a sort of blank slate on which experience writes. In Book II Locke claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience. The term‘idea,’ Locke tells us “…stands for whatsoever is the Object of the Understanding, when a man thinks” (Essay I, 1, 8, p. 47). Experience is of two kinds, sensation and reflection. One of these — sensation — tells us about things and processes in the external world. The other —reflection — tells us about the operations of our own minds. Reflection is a sort of internal sense that makes us conscious of the mental processes we are engaged in. Some ideas we get only from sensation, some only from reflection and some from both.
Locke has an atomic or perhaps more accurately a corpuscular theory of ideas.[4] There is, that is to say, an analogy between the way atoms or corpuscles combine into complexes to form physical objects and the way ideas combine. Ideas are either simple or complex. We cannot create simple ideas, we can only get them from experience. In this respect the mind is passive. Once the mind has a store of simple ideas, it can combine them into complex ideas of a variety of kinds. In this respect the mind is active. Thus, Locke subscribes to a version of the empiricist axiom that there is nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses — where the senses are broadened to include reflection. Book III deals with the nature of language, its connections with ideas and its role in knowledge. Book IV, the culmination of the previous reflections, explains the nature and limits of knowledge, probability, and the relation of reason and faith. Let us now consider the Essay in some detail.
In the fourth book of An Essay Concerning Human UnderstandingLocke tells us what knowledge is and what humans can know and what they cannot (not simply what they do and do not happen to know). Locke defines knowledge as “the perception of the connexion and agreement or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our Ideas”(IV. I. 1. p. 525). This definition of knowledge contrasts with the Cartesian definition of knowledge as any ideas that are clear and distinct. Locke's account of knowledge allows him to say that we can know substances in spite of the fact that our ideas of them always include the obscure and relative idea of substance in general. Still, Locke's definition of knowledge raises in this domain a problem analogous to those we have seen with perception and language. If knowledge is the “perception of … the agreement or disagreement … of any of our Ideas” — are we not trapped in the circle of our own ideas? What about knowing the real existence of things? Locke is plainly aware of this problem, and very likely holds that the implausibility of skeptical hypotheses, such as Descartes' Dream hypothesis (he doesn't even bother to mention Descartes' malin genie or Evil Demon hypothesis), along with the causal connections between qualities and ideas in his own system is enough to solve the problem. It is also worth noting that there are significant differences between Locke's brand of empiricism and that of Berkeley that would make it easier for Locke to solve the veil of perception problem than Berkeley. Locke, for example, makes transdictive inferences about atoms where Berkeley is unwilling to allow that such inferences are legitimate. This implies that Locke has a semantics that allows him to talk about the unexperienced causes of experience (such as atoms) where Berkeley cannot. (See Mackie's perceptive discussion of the veil of perception problem, in Problems from Locke.

What then can we know and with what degree of certainty? We can know that God exists with the second highest degree of assurance, that of demonstration. We also know that we exist with the highest degree of certainty. The truths of morality and mathematics we can know with certainty as well, because these are modal ideas whose adequacy is guaranteed by the fact that we make such ideas as ideal models which other things must fit, rather than trying to copy some external archetype which we can only grasp inadequately. On the other hand, our efforts to grasp the nature of external objects is limited largely to the connection between their apparent qualities. The real essence of elephants and gold is hidden from us: though in general we suppose them to be some distinct combination of atoms which cause the grouping of apparent qualities which leads us to see elephants and violets, gold and lead as distinct kinds. Our knowledge of material things is probabilistic and thus opinion rather than knowledge. Thus our “knowledge” of external objects is inferior to our knowledge of mathematics and morality, of ourselves, and of God. While Locke holds that we only have knowledge of a limited number of things, he thinks we can judge the truth or falsity of many propositions in addition to those we can legitimately claim to know. This brings us to a discussion of probability.
So to paraphrase and include in the conversation at hand, your experience of the way of the world is what you have read or heard of the conflict between good and evil. This is demonstrated by your suggested reading materials and links. Although you claim no association or declaration, your actions expose the truth of your thoughts.

Having never been exposed to the “true” nature of the struggle between your perceived good and evil you find yourself searching for a better understanding and therefore any new information you categorize into your duopoly, without any understanding of the philosophy. Without an understanding of the philosophy there is no hope of understanding the people that don’t believe the same way you do and therefore no understanding of the problem and how to fix it.

Allow me to elaborate. In Rothbard’s book Economic Thought before Adam Smith he point out the philosophy of Natural Law by Socrates who taught it to Plato who taught it to Aristotle. Plato was more of an elitist and through his work developed the Statist philosophy. Aristotle although also an elitist not as much as Plato work more on Natural Law and is best described in this way.
Western civilization is in many ways Greek; and the two great philosophic traditions of ancient Greece which have been shaping the Western mind ever since have been those of Aristotle and his great teacher and antagonist Plato (428-347 BC). It has been said that every man, deep down, is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian, and the divisions run throughout their thought. Plato pioneered the natural law approach which Aristotle developed and systematized; but the basic thrust was quite different. For Aristotle and his followers, man's existence, like that of all other creatures, is 'contingent', i.e. it is not necessary and eternal. Only God's existence is necessary and transcends time. The contingency of man's existence is simply an unalterable part of the natural order, and must be accepted as such.

To the Platonists, however, especially as elaborated by Plato's follower, the Egyptian Plotinus (204-270 AD), these inevitable limitations of man's natural state were intolerable and must be transcended. To the Platonists, the actual, concrete, temporal factual existence of man was too limited. Instead, this existence (which is all that any of us has ever seen) is a fall from grace, a fall from the original non-existent, ideal, perfect, eternal being of man, a godlike being perfect and therefore without limits. In a bizarre twist of language, this perfect and never-existent being was held up by the Platonists as the truly existent, the true essence of man, from which we have all been alienated or cut off. The nature of man (and of all other entities) in the world is to be something and to exist in time; but in the semantic twist of the Platonists, the truly existent man is to be eternal, to live outside of time, and to have no limits. Man's condition on earth is therefore supposed to be a state of degradation and alienation, and his purpose is supposed to be to work his way back to the 'true' limitless and perfect self-alleged to be his original state. Alleged, of course, on the basis of no evidence whatever - indeed, evidence itself identifies, limits, and therefore, to the Platonic mind, corrupts.
Plato's and Plotinus's views of man's allegedly alienated state were highly influential, as we shall see, in the writings of Karl Marx and his followers.

Because you live in the duopoly of good and evil and not aware of the differences of the philosophy, you thoughts cannot be reconciled into a path of cognitive thought. If you approach a newbie or sheeple and start spouting all the conspiracy crap all you are going to do is drive them away……If you approach them with a few simple questions you have a chance to bring them into the fold. Depending on their station in life…ie dependent on the State for the livelihood.

1. Do you think we should have sound money?
2. Do you think we should have more or less government?

This brings me to some of your post and quotes and let me exhibit some confusion. While you espouse the virtues of natural law in some of the information you discredit yourself with statist rhetoric in the next. For instances, James Otis, the Declaration of Independence, The Magna Carte ( BTW the significance of the MC was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. Really natural law was only implied in the MC, the Bill of Right was an attempt to make them more explicit).

So your sense of Natural Law and therefore Natural Rights is sound….but then go down this path of Statism with your links to straight up Marxism…….are you doing this intentionally or on accidently?

Example this link.

The Labor Dollar……seriously?


Where to began…..ok …..how about the Labor Theory of Value….Marx. Do you understand this? The labor theory of value is that if you take all the imputed cost of a product, this is the price in the market place. For a while this was the way prices were set, because the competition was sparse. But once markets began to open up and more entrepreneurs entered the market place, price became subjective to the value of the buyer. But only with Richard Cantillion's ground breaking theory of the opportunity cost of capital did market price and value converge into a complete thought.

But for socialism the theory of value is the only way to make a non-competitive market place function….which cause shortages. But the labor dollar is so flawed I can’t believe you trot this out here. To paraphrase (people can read it for themselves) the thought is this….you have all these measurable quantities in the world…..that are not subjective…..A foot pound measures a unit of force, Horse power a measure of power exerted, man power 1/8th of horse power, OHM measures a unit of resistance…. these all are scientific measurement that are not subjective. What could be more measurable than an ounce? But the theory of the labor dollar wants people to believe that they (being someone has to be in charge) can develop a currency based of someone labor…......not to mention force it on the people through legal tender laws. I mean c’mon…….are a Marxist ……because you are certainly are not a Capitalist.

Here is what is says….did you think I would not read it?

The day’s work is to be made the standard and to serve as the Labor Dollar or the instrument by which all other work may be measured or estimated, must , therefore, be itself defined in all these three particulars.
1. Length of day
2. Severity of work
3. And I can even find the third and the writer admits the fallacy in the plan.

You espoused this as a Radical Idea…….why don’t we just go with the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard in my life……you want me to trust some…..what would have to be government body with the value of my labor……yeah right!

The writer goes on to find species as a system to be manipulated by nefarious people in the market….yeah but the market has a way of dealing with these people pretty effectively ….it’s only when those people payoff the government do they not get their just rewards. Speaking of the market…..do you know how species became the money? …….by thousands, hundreds of thousands of people voting each and every day to make it so….by the choice in the free market place and Liberty…..and you want to replace that with government control…..why not just stay with what we have now. Once again we have a philosophy problem not a corruption problem……would it be better to have a government that is forbidden from entering the market place for the benefit of the few…….to do away with mercantilism.

So the market place chose the medium of exchange as species….the truly beneficial effect of the choice is that when the gold was stored in a warehouse ( known as a bank) the species acted has a check on the amount of bank notes that could be issued…..it was only when the government stepped in and allowed the banks to break their contractional agreement that a problem occurred. Are you starting to see a pattern with this whole government interference thing? Beside….if you have a Labor Dollar….how would you check the control of over issuance….you going to carry a couple labor hours down to the bank to make sure there are not over issuing labor dollars……no “someone” would have to be in charge of it…..more government.

This brings me to your lack of knowledge of banking and banking history. If you knew banking history you would understand that loan banking and deposit banking are not the same and did not merge together until the 13th or 14th century and in England there were no deposit banks until the mid-17th century.

As far the dude that wrote the Parasite City and your link to Mutual Banking …..W.B Greene….just from the headlines of the chapters I would guess he was a Greenbacker….which if you don’t know was in favor of the government issuing the currency…..bad idea, but I will admit I did not read it all. He might have some things I agree with but in order to take him seriously he would have to overcome this mindset.

Society established gold and silver as a circulating medium, in order that exchanges of commodities might be facilitated; but society made a mistake in so doing; for by this very act it gave to a certain class of men the power of saying what exchanges shall, and what exchanges shall not, be facilitated by means of this very circulating medium. The monopolizers of the precious metals have an undue power over the community; they can say whether money shall, or shall not, be permitted to exercise its legitimate functions. These men have a veto on the action of money, and therefore on exchanges of commodity; and they will not take off their, veto until they have received usury, or, as it is more politely termed, interest on their money. Here is the great objection to the present currency. Behold the manner in which the absurdity inherent in a specie currency - or, what is still worse, in a currency of paper based upon specie - manifests itself in actual operation! The mediating value which society hoped would facilitate exchanges becomes an absolute marketable commodity, itself transcending all reach of mediation. The great natural difficulty which originally stood, in the way of exchanges is now the private property of a class, and this class cultivates this difficulty, and make money out of it, even as a farmer cultivates his farm and makes money by his labor. But there is a difference between the farmer and the usurer; for the farmer benefits the community as well as himself, while every dollar made by the usurer is a dollar taken from the pocket of some other individual, since the usurer cultivates nothing but an actual obstruction.

Here is an opposing view from Rothbard.

What determines the price of money? The same forces that determine all prices on the market—that venerable but eternally true law: “supply and demand.” We all know that if the supply of eggs increases, the price will tend to fall; if the buyers’ demand for eggs increases, the price will tend to rise. The same is true for money. An increase in the supply of money will tend to lower its “price;” an increase in the demand for money will raise it. But what is the demand for money?
In the case of eggs, we know what “demand” means; it is the amount of money consumers are willing to spend on eggs, plus eggs retained and not sold by suppliers. Similarly, in the case of money, “demand” means the various goods offered in exchange for money, plus the money retained in cash and not spent over a certain time period. In both cases, “supply” may refer to the total stock of the good on the market. What happens, then, if the supply of gold increases, demand for money remaining the same? The “price of money” falls, i.e., the purchasing power of the money unit will fall all along the line. An ounce of gold will now be worth less than 100 loaves of bread, 1⁄3 of a television set, etc. Conversely, if the supply of gold falls, the purchasing power of the gold-ounce rises.

So Rothbard completely demolishes Greene fear of price of money and therefore refutes this point of his thesis. I would say that Greene is acting on his emotions of what he sees in the market place as inequitable and exposes his true nature which is Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism in politics can be of at least two forms. One form is equality of persons in rights, sometimes referred to as natural rights; John Locke is sometimes considered the founder of this form.

Another form is economic egalitarianism, which emphasizes equality in ownership and control of the means of production. Karl Marx is considered a proponent of this form of egalitarianism, expressed in the slogan "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need". Marx's position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality.

Which once again points out the confusion of your positions…..you can’t be both. So which are a Locke Natural Rights or a Marx’s Statist?

So what do you think of my painting now?

Not my interest.

"So to paraphrase and include in the conversation at hand, your experience of the way of the world is what you have read or heard of the conflict between good and evil. This is demonstrated by your suggested reading materials and links. Although you claim no association or declaration, your actions expose the truth of your thoughts."

An offer of your expert opinion of my thoughts is noted, not wanted, not needed, not asked for, as I am capable of speaking for myself without experts proving to me that my own understanding of my own thoughts are somehow less valid than an interpreter offering an interpretation of my own thoughts.

"Without an understanding of the philosophy there is no hope of understanding the people that don’t believe the same way you do and therefore no understanding of the problem and how to fix it."

Your offer of a mysterious problem having no direct measure, let alone an accurate measure, to convey in any way other than by inference is not wanted either. I have already stated the problem as I see it, the problem that interests me, so of what possible use can your mysterious, unnamed, unmeasured, fiat problem be to me, in your mind?

The problem is the flow of power flowing from the victims to the criminals as the criminals grow stronger and as the victims grow weaker, as the number of criminals grow larger, as the number of victims grow fewer in number, there will be, if the trend is not reversed, a point at which the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in and the criminals start consumer each other.

You can argue all you want with whoever you think you are arguing with, it is not me. I have no use for your arguments, so what is the point of your addressing me with this nebulous argument of your exclusive construction?

"...you discredit yourself with statist rhetoric..."

Empty words are routine, where is an example of the exception to the routine?

You can talk all you want to whoever you think you are talking to, I have no use for your pretentious expertize over my thinking.

To me the problem is very simple, and it can be illustrated mathematically as a function of cooperation versus antagonism or what has been called defection.

Here is an example:


You can go on an on with your argument with whatever you construct as your antagonist. Your antagonist is not me. I have no use for your arguments. The problem I see is clear enough to me, I found it without your help. I know what it is, and I know the obvious solution to the problem.

Why are you claiming that your offers of your unique perspective is anything other than an offer? Why are you claiming that you, of all the possible ridiculous claims possible, know my thoughts better than I do?

I do not accept your non-competitive offers of my own thoughts, thanks, but no thanks, I am well able to think for myself. If I find anything you say worth anything to me, then I can thank you for the help.

"Where to began…..ok …..how about the Labor Theory of Value….Marx."

You can begin arguing with whoever you are arguing with at your own cost. I am not part of your argument. If you have a Labor Theory of Value in mind, you can keep it to yourself, or find someone who wants to know YOUR theory.

I don't.

Labor is valuable to me. Labor is valuable to other people. I know this, you may find someone to argue about it. What does your argument with some nebulous opponent have to do with me?

"But the labor dollar is so flawed I can’t believe you trot this out here."

Back into your verbal assaults?


I have no interest, at all, with you and whoever you are arguing with, concerning whatever fantasies you have in mind. Your argument has nothing to do with me.

"The writer goes on..."

I have read the link. I have no interest in hearing your twisted version of the link. Your capacity to twist into shape a series of words that you claim to be my thoughts proves to me, well enough, that your version of what is clearly written in English by someone else is not wanted, not needed, and out of place if you think your twisted version of the work done by the author is of any value to me.

"…..and you want to replace that with government control….."

I can speak for myself, without your unwelcome "help," so no thanks, I am not your person ventriloquist dummy if that is your idea in your mind with your offer of your twisted versions of my actual thoughts.

"So the market place chose the medium of exchange as species…"

Claims of monopoly power are often demonstrably false, so why do you think your claim is true?

Which market, which "specie," where was the source of said "specie" and how was the original claim of ownership facilitated and maintained?

The market, so called, is a thing, or a list of names in time and place?

"Are you starting to see a pattern with this whole government interference thing?"

Your use of words is meaningless to me without nailing down a definition for your use of words so as to remove the duplicity that can exist without those nailed down definitions, no longer duplicitous meanings of those words, such as "government" and "market" to name just two for a start.

When you use the word government do you mean a Voluntary Association involving an agreement to avoid resort to deception, threat, and violence as a means of one gaining at another one's expense?

My definition of government is that one, just defined that way, above.

If your definition of government is the same definition as my definition of crime, then we have a problem, whenever you say government, I think you are speaking about Voluntary Association, and if you mean crime, instead of government, then why not use the word crime instead of using the word government?

Can we speak English, or do we need to invent a new language?

"Beside….if you have a Labor Dollar….how would you check the control of over issuance…"

Labor Dollars work when they work where they work because the issuer is held accountable for over issues. I don't use Labor Dollars because I live within a network of people who are currently led to believe that Federal Reserve Notes are required to pay National Income Taxes, and the problems compound from those 2 false ideas to a point whereby there is no effective (domestic) competition working to force the producers of Federal Reserve Notes to increase the quality and lower the costs of their money products (costs paid by the consumers of that money), as the Monopoly Fraud Money continues to be financed by the victims of it, it will continue to be a Monopoly in force, by deceit, by threat of violence, and by actual violence. There may be enough force being applied in other constitutionally limited States such as Utah, and combined with foreign Countries combined into trading partnerships, such as BRIC, to effect competitive improvements in the product known as Federal Reserve Notes, however the producers of that product are probably going to continue with the plan of destroying all trust in that money, leaving the opportunity to replace it with either many competitive money supplies, or there may be an effective effort to replace the Federal Reserve Note Fraud money monopoly with something worse, such as a new World Reserve Currency product produced by those same BRIC countries, enforced by those countries, as those countries are run by the same group of criminals running this one.

"This brings me to your lack of knowledge..."

Whatever drives your pretend authority over what I think is of no interest to me, it is false.

"Society established..."

Do you use that word to mean a thing unto itself or are you claiming that there is a list of names of people who constitute "society" so called?

I have less interest in the offers you offer of your thoughts as you continue to pretend to know what I think.

"... it gave to a certain class of men..."

What is it?

"Here is the great objection to the present currency."

Again, your offers of your thoughts on the subject of money are not wanted, not needed, not even competitive.

The Federal Reserve Note is a unit of evidence of a crime in progress. The crime is fraud, and all the victims need to do to find the culprits of that crime of fraud is to follow those Federal Reserve Notes back to the source of those Federal Reserve Notes, and there will be the criminals who are perpetrating that fraud.

"Here is an opposing view from Rothbard."

I have as much interest in Rothbards non-competitive ideas on money as I have in your non-competitive ideas on money. Rothbard wrote some very good reports on Washington, and the other criminals involved in the Federal Reserve Note fraud.

"So Rothbard completely demolishes Greene fear of price of money and therefore refutes this point of his thesis."

If you did not understand Greene, then my opinion is that you don't understand the fallacies of Rothbard. No argument, no need for an argument, you offer your viewpoints (unsolicited) and I offer mine. What you do with my offer is obviously similar to what I do with your offer: rejection.

No need to beat a dead horse?

"from each according to their ability; to each according to their need"

Perhaps Marx said that, perhaps not, I was not present.

I like these words (because I see a use for these words):

"For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead?" (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)

"Which once again points out the confusion of your positions…..you can’t be both. So which are a Locke Natural Rights or a Marx’s Statist?"

I don't accept dictatorial, monopolistic, orders when there are obvious, measurable, demonstrably competitive, alternates. No thanks on the lesser of two falsehoods (evils).

My understanding of political economy can be condensed down into once sentence. I don't need Locke or Marx interference.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

"So what do you think of my painting now?"

Abstract "art"?


Now I get it!

Now I understand why you believe what you believe…it’s hard to understand why someone who actually gets the whole concept of Natural Law takes such a turn into the whole Socialist concept of Marx…..but I understand now….you are an environmentalist....it that whole “station in life” concept .....you are dependent of the system which you despise. Don't worry I despise the state too....I just don't make my living from them.


This is how you come up with this gem of “understanding”......Are Joe....Did you write this?

Joe’s Law
This is both a description and an example of Joe's Law.

Joe's Law is a multi part economic law based upon the cost principle and the power principle.

Joe's Law therefore has many parts.

Part I of Joe's Law dictates:

Power reproduces itself

Power invested in the creation of power produces more power out of less power.


One oil well, gold mine, farm, Solar Panel, or Federal Reserve Bank (Communist State Bank) produced and running will produce enough power to re-produce another example of the original. At the time when the second oil well, gold mine, farm, Solar Panel, or Communist State Bank begins producing more power the total amount of power being produced will double.

Part II of Joes Law dictates:

Power produced into a condition or state of oversupply will push the price of power lower and therefore power reaching for over-supply will push the cost of power to zero.

Example: How much does oxygen cost? Oxygen is power. Plants produce oxygen. How much do we, as human beings, pay the plants for oxygen? How much do the plants charge the humans for the consumption of oxygen? The opposite of Joe’s Law Part II can be seen as a General Strike conducted by the Union of Earth Plant life. How much will the plants on this planet charge the humans for oxygen if the plants of this earth go on strike and stop producing and re-producing oxygen? How much will you pay for your oxygen once the supply of oxygen reaches a state of scarcity, which is the opposite of a state of abundance? Oxygen is power.
( BTW…..you must have forgot that plants are dependent on human exhaling carbon dioxide of to maintain life…..this is a symbiotic relationship, just as government and central banks are today).

Part III of Joe’s Law dictates:

When power is produced into a state of over-supply and the price of power reaches for zero there will be an increase in pecuniary (money) purchasing power since power reduces the cost of production. This part of Joe’s Law may be the most difficult part to comprehend for the human life forms on the planet earth. The plant forms probably know this law better at this time in human history. That does not bode well for the chances of human life’s survival when plants are smarter than human beings.

The easiest way to understand how Joe’s Law works is to first view the opposite of Joe’s Law as the supply of Oil reaches a state of scarcity and therefore the cost of living rises in almost lock step or inverse proportion, where each increase in the price of oil corresponds with an increase in the price of everything. As the price of oil doubles the price of everything doubles. As the price of oil reduces the price of everything reduces. This relationship is a natural law (Joe’s Law) and this relationship does not require the understanding of the people who are affected by this natural economic law. Plants don’t care either. For all the plants care, like the amount that the humans care, life on earth will die off for lack of care concerning true economic laws.
(BTW if oil becomes that scarce, alternatives would be found by entrepreneurs in a free capitalist market….in your world people would just languish in poverty)

Joe’s Law in its complete form (to be perfected if possible) reads as follows (dictates):

Power produced into a state of oversupply reaches for zero cost as purchasing power increases because power lowers the cost of production.

Another part of Joe's Law has to do with the currency of language.
This thread intends to move Joe's Law to the first page in a Google Search for "Joe's Law".

At this time 5:02 am Thursday May 8, 2008 the Google Search Engine lists Joe's Law (as described here) in third place. Joe's Law also says that new language can be moved to the top spot on the Google Search Engine.
And here we have a glimpse into your character……you are asking other to help you game or cheat a system to advance yourself.
Following your links and reading other post there can be only one conclusion, and fear not I am not writing this to “think for you” or persuade you in any way, you are hopeless. You think you are a special snowflake and your life is wrapped in a delusion. My only reason is to offer people an alternative to the lunacy inside your head…..man I bet that is a scary place.

But with that being said it all leads to Norn Chomsky. Who was a linguist “Another part of Joe's Law has to do with the currency of language”.

From an article at von Mises Institute

As Ayn Rand so eloquently argued, the ultimate means of production is the human mind. Chomsky of course doesn't want to abolish the private ownership of our minds (I hope.) What he means is hard capital: machines, buildings and so on. One would think that if private persons and business concerns cannot own these things, the state will do so. We call that state socialism. Chomsky apparently is against that too.

So, if the state isn't going to own income-producing property, and private concerns are not going to own it, who is going to own it? Apparently, and this all very fuzzy, the means of production will somehow be collectively owned by the workers themselves, wherein we arrive at the silly concept of anarcho-syndicalism. Instead of greedy capitalists owning the corporation, the workers themselves will own it. But it will not be ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold. That's capitalism.

No, he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. As Mises writes in Socialism, "as an aim, Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly in its favor."
Chomsky follows Marx in opposing the private ownership of the means of production, which he believes permits "elite groups" to :"command resources, based ultimately on their control of the private economy," and ends up excluding the public from "basic decisions concerning production and work."

Chomsky apparently holds to the labor theory of value, another Marxist concept. According to this theory, all the value of a business is contributed by the "workers". That worker we call the owner, apparently contributes nothing. Only someone who never owned a business could believe this preposterous theory. Since the owner contributed nothing to the business, why did the workers show up there in the first place?

According to the labor theory of value, the workers could have gone to a vacant lot, and produced the same amount of wealth by replicating the same physical actions they undertook working for the greedy capitalist, this time without a building and without any equipment, management, customers or business plan. If we take away the greedy capitalist, these little details must go as well. Just think of Marcel Marceau pretending to work. That's right. You syndicalists pretend to work and we capitalists will pretend to pay you.

Thus, based on all the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Chomsky and the gang are not satisfied with the opportunity to practice syndicalism. No, what they really want is to prevent others who disagree with them from engaging in forms of production based on private property. And, though they rarely say as much, they apparently intend to put their rivals out of business by brute force, deadly if necessary.

That is why, Chomsky's protests notwithstanding, the syndicalists are like their state socialist and Bolshevik cousins after all. Both believe that a worker-run utopia can and must be brought to fruition, by violence if necessary, against the bourgeoisie and anyone else who stands in their way.

Syndicalists are under the delusion that workers' lives will be idyllic once they get rid of their bosses. However, as Mises informs us, the real bosses of the workers, the ones who ultimately determine wages, working conditions and whether the workers are employed at all, are the cold-hearted, greedy and merciless consumers who purchase the workers' output, or choose not to. Thus, the new workers' co-ops will soon experience what any Maalox-chewing business owner already knows—the absolute tyranny that customers in a free market exercise over business firms and their owners.
Silly syndicalism has never gotten far enough to experience that dilemma. Yet, we can well imagine that, faced with this new and harsh reality—inefficient syndicalist firms producing shoddy and over-priced goods that the employees of other such firms do not want—there will be a demand for our old friend, the state, to be brought back into the equation to make sure all these syndicalist products are sold—at gunpoint. These left-wing "libertarians" may call themselves "anarchists" to shock bourgeois society and their parents, but it's all a fraud.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, as seen in action during the Spanish Civil War, is yet another dangerous leftist utopian fantasy. There, the syndicalists tried to abolish money, but ended up using "coupons" (money) instead. They promised to abolish the state, but instead created a bunch of mini-states—"committees." They promised that a new individual freedom would blossom, but what emerged was a frightening new totalitarian control by the committee, over every aspect of life.

All in all, an inmate at a maximum security prison in New York State today has somewhat more personal freedom than those who lived in Chomsky's "libertarian" paradise.

One of Noam Chomsky's favorite journals when he was young was called Living Marxism. Marxism is dead but Chomsky is still living Marxism. Noam said once, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them." You are correct, Sir! I have an offer that Noam should not refuse. If you stay away from economics and political theory, I will stay away from linguistics.
None of this is to take away from Chomsky's contribution to understanding US foreign policy. Chomsky is right to insist that the US be held to strict standards of morality in the conduct of foreign policy, and ought not to be permitted to get away with a double standard.

But standards of morality are no substitute for economic logic. Economics requires study and systematic thinking about the implications of action, choice, and ownership in a world of scarcity. It is a science that delineates the limits of how far the human mind can wander when thinking about what society can and should be. This is one reason that intellectuals, even great ones, take such pains to avoid studying economics, and instead latch on to fantasies like socialism and syndicalism.

Chomsky has said the social scientist has two main tasks: "imagine a future society that conforms to the exigencies of human nature, as best we understand them. The other, to analyze the nature of power and oppression in our present societies." We might add a third: to be open to the possibility that the results of one's investigations could contradict deeply held ideological biases.

When you get done.

If you ever conclude your argument with your imaginary opponent, I may be available for competitive exchanges of ideas.

My work load may be increasing, so accepting offers of tar babies may no longer be a competitive option.

As to the welcome republishing of my work, thanks for that, I appreciate it.


Competitive exchanges of ideas

would be a great idea, but i won't be around as much either....I am going to be doing some traveling for the holidays.

Merchantilism…what do you know?


The word Mercantilism (Merchantilism?) can be a subset of Involuntary Assocation or it can be a subset of Voluntary Association depending upon who defines the meaning of the word based upon the information used in defining the word.

If the information used to define the meaning of the word includes the actions that involved a rapid increase in the consuming of drugs in China, then those events can hardly be events defining Voluntary Association.



East India Company


If the information used to define the meaning of the word Mercantilism includes the actions that involved the enslavement of people for commercial profits, again, the concept of a Voluntary Association is not at work.



If the Merchants begin employing the concept of annuities, then those actions by those employers of that concept can be similarly inspected as to which category those actions fall under.

Voluntary Association (free market competition)

Involuntary Association (monopoly enforced by criminal means)


Well kind of where I was going with the question

…..but we can start here. The definition I know is a political-economic system of special privilege for those that serve the leader of the State……nothing is above the State…a symbiotic relationship between the State and Nobel’s back in the day…..today business…....this is a philosophy that the individual and the proponents of Natural Law fight every day since before Christ….450 years before Christ, from the Western’s world roots in Greece. Remember where I posted about Plato….this picks up from there and the State of Absolutism.
Polis translates to city…..at their time city state

Their (Plato & Aristotle) aristocratic bent and their lives within the matrix of an oligarchic polis had a greater impact on the thought of the Socratics than Plato's various excursions into theoretical right-wing collectivist Utopias or in his students'
practical attempts at establishing tyranny. For the social status and political bent of the Socratics coloured their ethical and political philosophies and their economic views. Thus, for both Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' for man was not something to be pursued by the individual, and neither was the individual a person with rights that were not to be abridged or invaded by his fellows.

For Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' was naturally not to be pursued
by the individual but by the polis. Virtue and the good life were polis- rather than individual-oriented. All this means that Plato's and Aristotle's thought was statist and elitist to the core, a statism which unfortunately permeated 'classical' (Greek and Roman) philosophy as well as heavily influencing Christian and medieval thought. Classical 'natural law' philosophy therefore never arrived at the later elaboration, first in the Middle Ages and then in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the 'natural rights' of the individual which may not be invaded by man or by government.

Plato's search for a hierarchical, collectivist utopia found its classic expression in his most famous and influential work, The Republic. There, and later in The Laws, Plato sets forth the outline of his ideal city-state: one in which right oligarchic rule is maintained by philosopher-kings and their philosophic
colleagues, thus supposedly ensuring rule by the best and wisest in the community.

To keep the elite and the subject masses in line, Plato instructs the philosopher-rulers to spread the 'noble' lie that they themselves are descended from the gods whereas the other classes are of inferior heritage. Freedom of speech or of inquiry was, as one might expect, anathema to Plato. The arts are frowned on, and the life of the citizens was to be policed to suppress any dangerous thoughts or ideas that might come to the surface.

Along with the rise of the absolute state, theories of absolutism arose and began to throw natural law doctrines into the shade. The adoption of natural law theory, after all, meant that the state was bound to limit itself to the dictates of the natural or the divine law. But new political theorists arose, asserting the dominance of the temporal over the spiritual, and of the state's positive law over the natural or divine order.

Mercantilism as the economic aspect of absolutism.

By the beginning of the seventeenth century, royal absolutism had emerged victorious all over Europe. But a king (or, in the case of the Italian city-states,some lesser prince or ruler) cannot rule all by himself. He must rule through a hierarchical bureaucracy.. And so the rule of absolutism was created through a series of alliances between the king, his nobles (who were mainly large feudal
or post-feudal landlords), and various segments of large-scale merchants or traders. 'Mercantilism' is the name given by late nineteenth century historians to the politico-economic system of the absolute state from approximately the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Mercantilism has been called by various
historians or observers a 'system of Power or State-building' (Eli Heckscher), a system of systematic state privilege, particularly in restricting imports or subsidizing exports (Adam Smith), or a faulty set of economic theories, including protectionism and the alleged necessity for piling up bullion in a country. In fact, mercantilism was all of these things; it was a comprehensive system of state building,state privilege, and what might be called 'state monopoly capitalism'.

As the economic aspect of state absolutism, mercantilism was of necessity a system of state-building, of Big Government, of heavy royal expenditure, of high taxes, of (especially after the late seventeenth century) inflation and deficit finance, of war, imperialism, and the aggrandizing of the nation-state. In short,
a politico-economic system very like that of the present day, with the unimportant exception that now large-scale industry rather than mercantile commerce is the main focus of the economy. But state absolutism means that the state must and maintain allies among powerful groups in the economy, and it also provides a cockpit for lobbying for special privilege among such groups.

With SO MANY people that derive their “station in life” from the government in these times it is virtually impossible to get people to listen to these ideas, people dependent on the State will tune out because they do not what to be accused of being part of the problem.