Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Real class war is government vs. people

Posted 7 years ago on Feb. 12, 2012, 5:27 p.m. EST by darrenlobo (204)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The political left, in short, is still brain-locked in the outdated 19th Century concept of class warfare between business and labor. But the real class war today is government vs. people.

America is an anti-freedom corporatist-statist empire in which the class of beings who posses political clout and political connections ride roughshod over those who have neither.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Real class war is government vs. people - National Libertarian news | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-news-in-national/real-class-war-is-government-vs-people#ixzz1mD2pmMoq



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by votersway (15) 7 years ago

The only thing worse than anarchy is a class war. You manged to scrape the bottom of the political pond... uhh, stinks.

The real struggle is against corruption and deceit. Meticulous checks and balances are your best friends. We don't have enough of them now, that's the problem. Forget wars, seek truth and vigilance, organize!


[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

So far checks & balances haven't worked:

"Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?...It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."

--Patrick Henry from his speech "Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought?" opposing adoption of the constitution

[-] 2 points by votersway (15) 7 years ago

The checks and balances did work, more or less, but the world has changed. We need more of them and there is no other alternative. Your Patric Henry quote supports my position - he wasn't against any checks and balances, but against the insufficient ones placed in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were the foundation of the Constitution and they indeed referenced MORALS quite often. Patric Henry felt that morals are not enough - so he wanted better checks and balances.

Jefferson too was concerned with the lack of well defined financial checks and balances, but at that time the financial matters were not well understood.

Two days ago, I wrote a blog post about this: http://votersway.com/2012/02/10/thepoliticalcrossroads/

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

Patrick Henry opposed the constitution because he knew that the checks & balances idea was a crock. He was right.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 7 years ago

Clearly any state-enforced currency valuation will be just as preposterously dangerous as fiat money. The only way to ensure that people are able to deal with currencies that they value and get fair prices in exchange for what they produce is to let those people determine what they will accept as payment. This will promote those who produce bank notes to clearly and publicly document what their notes are backed by and exchangeable for. If they do not, their notes will be unattractive to those who wish to engage in economic interactions.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 7 years ago

Libertarianism is attractive to Americans as it promotes ‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom’. Lovely labels, well suited for the American market.

But just as ‘some are more equal than others’, ‘some will be more free than others’ when the Libertarians get their way.

Their Gold Standard (nowadays packaged as a ‘free market for currencies’) will allow the bankers to do what they love most: deflate the money supply and use the ensuing chaos to construct their New Order. Not to mention the massive wealth transfer to those few holding Gold.

It’s also instructive to see how the Money Power works: it just sells a few ounces to people starting to wake up and off they are. Instead of potential opposition, they are transformed into useful drones clamoring for the ‘reform’ the Money Power wanted anyway.

Hate the State, buy Gold and all will be well


[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

Let's think about this for a minute. It was JP Morgan who was behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System. No free market there. Do we hear the banksters, Rs, or Ds clamoring to end the fed? No. Yet somehow you came to the conclusion that the money power wants a free market. Planet Earth calling, they like the system the way it is.

"Their Gold Standard (nowadays packaged as a ‘free market for currencies’) will allow the bankers to do what they love most: deflate the money supply and use the ensuing chaos to construct their New Order. Not to mention the massive wealth transfer to those few holding Gold."

It is the fiat currencies that allow them to get away with this. That's why they created them.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 7 years ago

Ezra Pound was probably the greatest political commentator of the 20th century. He profoundly studied and explained the Money Power’s origins, ‘ethics’, methods, economics, sociological effects and of course its control over money.

And he didn’t call the Money Power ‘Fiat’, nor ‘Inflator’. He called her Usura.

Pound was very astute in his observations of money as a means of exchange and not a store of value

"And Gold? “The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the U.S. school histories. The 13 colonies rebelled, quite successfully, 26 years later, A.D. 1776.”

The Gold Standards of the past and most certainly of modern history, beginning in Amsterdam, were banker operations.

"The international gold dealings of the Federal Reserve System, and its active support in helping the League of Nations to force all the nations of Europe and South America back on the gold standard for the benefit of international gold merchants like Eugene Meyer, Jr. and Albert Strauss, is best demonstrated by a classic incident, the sterling credit of 1925." - Eustace Mullins, wrote in his book, "Secrets of the Federal Reserve."

J.E. Darling wrote, in the English periodical, “Spectator”, on January 10, 1925 that: “Obviously, it is of the first importance to the United States to induce England to resume the gold standard as early as possible. An American controlled Gold Standard, which must inevitably result in the United States becoming the world’s supreme financial power, makes England a tributary and satellite, and New York the world’s financial centre.”

Mr. Darling fails to point out that the American people have as little to do with this as the British people, and that resumption of the gold standard by Britain would benefit only that small group of international gold merchants who own the world’s gold. No wonder that “Banker’s Magazine” gleefully remarked in July, 1925 that:

“The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold standard.”"

So where the currently popular notion comes from that Gold is feared by the Bankers is really very hard to understand. It was certainly not the opinion of Mullins or Pound.

Who is Ed Griffin?


[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

"So where the currently popular notion comes from that Gold is feared by the Bankers is really very hard to understand."

The fact that we don't have a gold standard says a lot. The fact that the bought & paid for political establishment opposes it says more. Not to mention the bought & paid for academics like Krugman. It's really not that hard to understand.