Comment: Oh Goldspan ... We May Agree On More Than You Know ...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks man, (see in situ)

Oh Goldspan ... We May Agree On More Than You Know ...

... because, I suspect, you don't know about many of the particulars that lie just beyond the snap of your judgment, unseasoned yet by Enquiry ... And still you do not seem too curious about such spicy matters that may lurk just around the four corners of snug interests in a steady diet of boxed lunch comfort food.

I meant to preface my mention of the 'intergenerational conspiracy' reference I served up. I offered it as an example of saucy, sometimes enlightening, reading available to open minds unencumbered by conventional naivete which might classify all such 'theorizing' as beyond the acceptable pale of self imposed conformity to a permitted orthodoxy of polite company and proper upbringing. We saw examples of such strictures during the Ron Paul campaign, what with the Beltline tighting camp championed by Jack Hunter types urging libertarians to go cold turkey on consumption of 'truth', and condiments of opposing conspiracies, in order for a better fit. Their menu would exclude anything but prepackaged servings of standard fare. They would jettison any raw unprocessed cravings of the wing nut contingency. I understand the point. Beautify and influence people. Notwithstanding such expediencies, I don't generally subscribe to most issues of the zealotry for other reasons than attention to svelt correctness ( I drink raw milk but still brush my teeth with fluoride, for instance). I will admit I find a great number of tin foiled musings to be diversionary simpleton complexity. I find myself, nevertheless, rarely daunted by pressures to prescribe the scope of 'legitimate' inquiry to the confines of permissibly 'respectable' discourse. So I don't shy from the talk of paranoids, even the rough around the edges extremes, complete with 'biographical details' including 'intergenerational' familial, social, and economic connections that prove, as Rothbard's work documented, the conspiratorial complicity of bankers through the ages. But I agree with you -- it is not about one or another biographical connection such as religious or club affiliation. ( Jewishness, Masonry or 'Skull and Bones' membership, for example). It's a syndrome of an inevitably evil consequence to statism:

"[The State is not] a social institution administered in an anti-social way. It is an anti-social institution administered in the only way an anti-social institution can be administered, and by the kind of person who, in the nature of things, is best adapted to such service."

-- Albert Jay Nock
'Our Enemy, The State'
http://mises.org/document/4685

So no, the 'crazy' deep structural crackpot site I reference is not any more my home page than the Mises organization's website, which, likewise will never be mainstream. The truth is out there; it's where you find it.

Mystified ? Well yes... and wishing you en-lightened bearing. ( Thank you, BTW, for YOUR fine write up and kind words. )

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3249599

Shine on. ;-)