It is my belief that the NRO, JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), SAD (CIA Special Activities Division), NSA, ESF (Exchange-Stabilization Fund) and other truly low-profile groups within the government act as the "gateway" between the public apparatus of government and the people that really run everything: the Power Elite. This is not to imply that the Power Elite are a monolith... they are not. But there is no simple correlation between the Dog and Pony show of Republican versus Democrat Presidential election contests and the deep, permanent power interests that operate behind it all. Watch Eyes Wide Shut to get an idea of what I mean.
Clayton -
The "reason beer is better than Jesus" list made me think of this:
Clayton is NASA excluded from that list?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Elaborate on the Eyes Wide Shut analogy
This made my day!
A Modest Proposal To Boost US GDP By $852 Quadrillion: Build The Imperial Death Star
@Jargon: I'm of the opinion the Moon landings were faked. So yeah, NASA should be on the list.
@JJ: The Power Elite routinely and casually do what the common man considers nearly unthinkable: orgies, drugs, even murder. And they cannot be held accountable - when Harford (Cruise) tries to follow up after the orgy, he is easily warned off by an intimidating display of prescience. If they can even imagine wealth and power beyond Bill Gates or the President of the United States, the masses tend to think of the ultra-wealthy/powerful as high-life versions of themselves - kind of like the cigar-chawing image protrayed by Donald Trump. Sure, the ultra-wealthy fly around in private jets and helicopters and golf on the most exclusive courses but, in the limit, they're still subject to the same laws as everybody else. Without this mythical belief, it would not be possible for the punditry to persuade the masses to adopt all these hare-brained Tax-the-Rich schemes.
The reality depicted in Eyes Wide Shut is that the Elites live in a parallel universe. This parallel universe can be called private power where your surname matters a lot more than your occupation or what position you occupy in a government bureaucracy. But this parallel universe can only exist in large part because it is 'off the radar' of the public which is too wrapped up in the latest sports scandal or national kidnapping story. So, you can't exactly have Wilfred Van Der Hooten* walking in to the Oval Office to hand President Obama his marching orders on official letterhead from "The Power Elite". Instead, the influence is indirect - through party officials, through religious leaders, through think tanks, through media outlets, through foundations and, yes, through societies... secret or otherwise.
In particular, I believe that some secret societies are simply the operational arm of a particular private power center. They need proxies to act on their behalf and the proxies are happy to receive influence and opportunity in return. Some of these secret societies have managed to "stake out turf" in various governmental agencies and it is through this conduit that various private power interests are able to exert direct operational influence on the government even when they do not control the government through the Presidency.
*fictional
I’d have to do more research on the moon landings to come to a firm opinion on it, but I’m short of time at the moment. Still, there was a moment in your clip, Clayton, of an astronaut bent over and seemingly being pulled into the air without any help. That is suspicious.
A quick google search found this: "Some have pointed out the possibility that in order to create the effect of weak gravity on the moon, the astronauts were carried by thin wires and filmed jumping around. NASA then slowed down the film, according to the conspiracy theorists, in order to make it look like they were floating through the air. Doubters have gone far enough to construct their own wiring systems, film themselves and slow down the footage to compare it to NASA's video. Scientists refute this claim because of the dust kicked around by the astronauts as they jump around the moon's surface. If NASA filmed the video on Earth, the dust would gather into clouds because of air in the atmosphere. Instead, the dust is kicked up and falls right back to the ground without collecting or floating around. NASA would have had to build an entire studio and suck all of the air out to create a vacuum, something that would be incredibly difficult even by today's standards."
Since the government is wrong about wars, the economy, healthcare, etc., I wouldn’t be surprised if they falsified some more history.
I don’t use a fictional film as evidence that unnamed powerful people are engaged in “orgies, drugs, even murder.”
Three news stories:
“VP” Rand Paul and the Imaginary Romney/Paul Connection
FACT CHECK: Gingrich energy ad errs on facts
Study: Candidates' plans lead to huge deficits
Gero:I’d have to do more research on the moon landings to come to a firm opinion on it, but I’m short of time at the moment. Still, there was a moment in your clip, Clayton, of an astronaut bent over and seemingly being pulled into the air without any help. That is suspicious.
That was actually the weakest part of the video. It's not obvious when he initially starts to get up, but if you pay attention, you'll see he's being pulled up by his left arm with the other astronaut's right arm. It's just not easy to see because those arms are on the far side of the camera behind their bodies.
The most interesting part of this post comes toward the end, when Robert Wenzel gives his pick:
As for my choice for president from the universe of those dead and alive, it would be Ron Paul, but I do not make this choice lightly. I have a second choice. I once asked Lew Rockwell what people didn't know about Ron Paul. He thought for a minute and then confidently said that they don't know how good a politician Dr. Paul is. Since then I have watched Dr. Paul from a "political view" and I have to say from the way he has been accumulating delegates to other moves he has made, he is indeed one very shrewd politician. I think he has moves thought out for the future that no one in the Republican political establishment has thought out, and that's what probably really scares the establishment. Anyone who would want to be president and put the United States back on the track of liberty would have to have a very strong personality, the pressure on such a man to do otherwise would be enormous, and such a person would have to be politically shrewd person to know just how to advance liberty and take apart the state. Ron Paul has those traits. The only competition I think he would have from all political leaders, dead or alive, would be from Ludwig Erhard.
This is not a joke. If you don't know talk radio, you may not even know this guy's name, but make no mistake. This is one of the highest rated radio talk shows in the country. (As in, top 5). Look it up if you don't believe.
His response to the caller sounded scripted.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
So, they're bulldozing the bin Laden compound. Does this sound familiar?
Daniel Muffinburg:His response to the caller sounded scripted.
I'd say it sounded about on par for a guy who's been in broadcasting and basically doing that show and taking callers for almost two decades.
Savage always says dumb shit like that. I listened to him when I was in my early 20's but then the testosteronal neo-conservatism thing lost its appeal for me after George Bush expanded the size of the Federal Budget at a record-breaking rate. In fact, in an indirect way, I have the neocons to thank for my eventual shift to anarchism. While I was a pro-defense conservative, I could clearly see that the blockbuster Federal budget was simply being wrapped in tanks, ships and the American flag as an excuse to spend.
And what the big-budget "conservatives" miss is that health & human services spending has risen in proportion to defense spending. Sure, the Republicans have led the charge for more defense spending but anyone who thought this was going to come at the cost of reductions in health & human services spending is out of their gourd. And in the bizarro world of government finance, if defense spending doubles while HHS spending stays flat, that constitutes a "reduction" in HHS spending, that is, a reduction in the share of government expenditures. So, if you double the defense budget, guess what else you have to double? That's right, welfare.
Morons.
I always maintained Conan O'Brien was the most unfunny guy on television. Maybe he can make up for it in other ways:
NY Daily News:
“I am excited to continue my run with TBS because they have been fantastic partners,” O’Brien said in a statement. “This means I’ll be taping episodes of ‘Conan’ well into the Ron Paul presidency.”
(ht LR)
I wanted to make sure everyone caught this excellent, eloquent piece that provides the perfect response to all the Republicans we can't avoid running into who resound the "fair share" argument...
Meet Rick Berman, A.K.A. "Dr. Evil"
"...The only competition I think he would have from all political leaders, dead or alive, would be from Ludwig Erhard."
Nice, so I am not the only one who finds it astonishingly amazing and ironic how extremely lucky Germany was that Ludwig Erhard came to power after such a bastard like Hitler. Erhard finally and against all advice from the allies did the right thing.
Haha, check your syntax there...
Hehe... right, slightly misleading. Syntax is corrected. :)
John Stossel’s Illegal Everything aired on Fox News on Saturday, February 24, 2012. Watch it if you missed it.
Rand Paul as a Potential Anti-Dick Cheney
Taking the Fed Economists Head On
The causes of the protests in Afghanistan
O M G
Epic
'It's a Sin': Iran Calls on Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons
Iran, who is suspected by many western nations of secretly developing weapons of mass destruction, has proposed a ban on nuclear weapons, calling their production or possession as “a great sin.” “The production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi in a speech to the UN-hosted Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Tuesday. He said Iran does not see any glory, pride or power in nuclear weapons, but, “quite the opposite.” Salehi suggested a limited number of options for states worried about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. "We have clearly stated time and time again that there are two alternatives in dealing with Iran's peaceful nuclear program. One way is engagement, cooperation and interaction. The other is confrontation and conflict," he said. However, he stressed that Iran is “confident of the peaceful nature of its program,”“does not seek confrontation, nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable, legitimate rights." Iran maintains that it is seeking peaceful cooperation with western countries, despite all allegations and sanctions.
Iran, who is suspected by many western nations of secretly developing weapons of mass destruction, has proposed a ban on nuclear weapons, calling their production or possession as “a great sin.”
“The production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi in a speech to the UN-hosted Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Tuesday.
He said Iran does not see any glory, pride or power in nuclear weapons, but, “quite the opposite.”
Salehi suggested a limited number of options for states worried about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
"We have clearly stated time and time again that there are two alternatives in dealing with Iran's peaceful nuclear program. One way is engagement, cooperation and interaction. The other is confrontation and conflict," he said.
However, he stressed that Iran is “confident of the peaceful nature of its program,”“does not seek confrontation, nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable, legitimate rights."
Iran maintains that it is seeking peaceful cooperation with western countries, despite all allegations and sanctions.
Politicians’ Religious Beliefs Are Generally Fair Game
London-based oil executive linked to 9/11 hijackers
FBI misconduct reveals sex, lies and videotape
Teen Locked in Autistic Body Finds Inner Voice
No Easy Fix for Gas Prices
11 Reasons To Get Your Kids Out of the Government Schools
Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy
The Jeb Scenario: Can You Say “President Bush” again?
http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/2/prweb9222932.htm
Awesome!
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/backing-the-wrong-horse-how-private-schools-are-good-for-the-poor/
EDIT: @Bert - please god let that spread around enough so that we don't go to war...
It's better than the pink model drone they sent back to our overseers. They indirectly called every other super power who has nuclear weapons a bunch of sinners. The Christian right has nothing to say back, they can only agree and condemn our own nuclear policies and hypocrisy.
So I happened to be going through some old books, some I never read, but bought in a lot off Ebay because it seemed like a good deal. Anyway, 3 of them happen to be;
Individuals and their Rights by Tibor Machan Money and Inflation: A Monetarist Approach by McCulloch On Liberty: Man v. The State by Milton Mayer
Anyone read these before? Worth the time to read?
Jargon - amazing article!!
+1
That article was really awesome. Just goes to show how much propaganda is sloshing around the global press as "settled fact."
Just goes to show, that if someone who lives in a one-room shanty can afford "private" education, so can any american with a job. Education is just a person teaching you something, not a building.
Also I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's great:
http://mises.org/daily/5903/The-Mystery-of-the-Marginal-Pairs
Bert:Individuals and their Rights by Tibor Machan
I'm actually going through that book right now. Machan is a sort of post-Randian/Aristotelian realist/ethical naturalist. He makes a natural-rights argument that , as far as I can tell, you probably won't be convinced by unless you are already a believer in ethical egoism.
The book is useful, though, to the extent that it contains all sorts of interesting replies to skeptics and critics, either of libertarianism, of moral philosophy, or even of the possibility of knowing anything at all.
One trouble I have with Machan's minarchism is that he claims that while people can get together and form a minimal state via "consent of the governed," people could not in doing so consent to "taxing" themselves in order to provide welfare for others (only nightwatchman functions). Any such "social contract" would be invalid because it involves making decisions over which you have no authority (other people's liberty).
But this seems to be inconsistent with the libertarian notion that he defends elsewhere, that positive rights can be incurred through contract. Why couldn't people get together and agree to give up a certain portion of their income every year to provide for others? (E.g. mutual aid.)
This seems to be a shortcoming of minarchism he doesn't address (at least so far that I've read; I'm only on Chapter 4).
This guy feels really strongly about IP
Fred Wilson: "Everybody Is a Pirate, So Fix the System"
John James: This guy feels really strongly about IP
You forgot the period. Dude, you're pefectness is fading.