Yuku free message boards

Mother Jones doesn't have a hidden agenda. They are clearly REDS.

Only the naive, bamboozled young deserve the benefit of the doubt. The LEFT wants tyranny. They prove it over and over and over. . . they loved Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. There are no limits to their evil.

I'd think consorting with Toffler was a way of Newt expanding the hearing he gets on University campuses, etc. His thinking is quite different than Toffler's.

I yield the point about Toffler. As for the rest, who on the Right, except in anything but a superficial way, ever addresses the subject of corporations and their abuses?

If Leftism is inherently bad (as Kuehnelt-Leddihn went to demonstrate) then is the NHS, a product of Leftism, inherently bad? And then if David Cameron supports the NHS, does that make him a Leftist, or is he constrained by politics?

If we admit for cultural differences, just as we admit for conflict among ruling classes, as well as between them, is it necessarily Leftist to conceive of an economic order which varies from the classically liberal concept?

You seemed to imply in comments elsewhere that McCain is not a conservative. What makes Gingrich a conservative and McCain NOT a conservative, in your estimation, if it is in fact correct for me to characterize your view that way?

We may say that "wing" indicates a matter of degree, so there are "right-wing" and "left-wing" health care plans. Philosophically, though, can there ever be such a thing as a "health care plan" of the Right?

It follows that "organic" conservatism ala Edmund Burke, etc. may admit the idea of a conservative welfare state, and in fact, this is really what Irving Kristol was getting at, and what was at the core of "neoconservatism", a term which has now been bastardized as one of derision for the partisians of proactive foreign policy.

The "policy wonk" fiddling of a conservative welfare state is exactly the mentality that Heritage represents, and regardless of whether one gives credence to stories of Fabianist manipulation, it seems to me that this practically gives into the advancement of the Left.

Who is David Cameron? National Health Service NATIONALIZES the human body. Incredibly evil. I can't imagine why any decent person could vote for it, but I'm willing to listen.

I don't know that the classical concept of a "liberal" economic order is all that well defined, so a lot of variation is possible. Is National Defense to be socialized? Roads? Courts? Licensing of Trades and Professsions? Education? Socializing the individual's body (ie. medical care) is incredibly socialistic, however, and has innumerable consquences in creating a pretext to control the individual's actions on to infinity.

I do think Gingrich has a touch of McCain, but I'm not convinced it is as bad. Gingrich's criticism of Rush Limbaugh's hope Obama would fail, pandering after the Big Media, appearing in environmentalist ads, etc. betrays too much of willingnes to compromise.

McCain is positively sick in this regard. Surely, he puts his desire "reach accross the aisle" for compromise, for worthless for false, wishful thinking "unity" above all conservative principles except, perhaps national defense.

von Mises coined the idea of "planning for freedom." In my view, the perfect "health care plan" would be to repeal each and every law local, State, and National that touches on any aspect of health care.

For instance, Dr(s) should not be bothered unless desired by conditions that a little advice from your Pharmacist and some pills (all would be non-prescription) could handle. . .

NeoConservative believe I think that the Welfare State is here to stay or at least here to stay for a long time and that by fiddling they can ameliorate its evils and maybe even move to an extent toward liberty. They run the risk, of course, of fiddling in ways that just make the Welfare State more durable.

My experience indicates that most Dr(s) are no better at diagnosis, and maybe worse, than me and my internet browser. I only need them for complicated procedures, operations, real diagnostic mysteries, etc.

David Cameron is the leader of the UK Tories, and quite likely the next PM. He is pro-NHS and pro-"Green", but claims to be anti-EU. There is a row in the Tory party right now because a number of other prominent Tories (which would make up the new cabinet if the Tories win the next election) have backed up Republican claims of how horrid the NHS is, and this is embarrassing Cameron. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/16/tory-mps-back-nhs-dismantling

We might say that Republican solutions are nearly always less socialistic, but if we choose to support them, are we not merely allowing a more gradualist pace to socialism? As you put it, "fiddling in ways that make the Welfare State more durable". Practically speaking, does this not mean we should be as critical of Republicans when they fall short of the free market ideal they claim to defend, as we are of Democrats when they make a frontal assault?

The Republican compromisers seem to be more insidious. It was Gailbraith who congratulated Nixon for advancing socialism far beyond what LBJ could have done. You acknowledged this yesterday by referring to Nixon as a "turncoat". Ironically, Nixon was opposed to the Eastern Establishment, although unfortunately this took the form of class resentment instead of ideological opposition.

Oh, OK. Could be that Cameron is a Nationalist who puts maintaining UK sovereignty above all, thus his support for NHS and Environmentalism. Fighting domestic socialism might in his judgement impede his opposition to the EU. Just charitable speculation on my part.

Another difference is that the NHS was established in Britain in 1948. ... Read MoreEliminating it would be an earthquake of incredible proportions. Supporting socialized medicine at its onset is much more important. Far few excuses.

Apparently, Nixon wanted to be accepted by the Eastern Establishment. He probably thought he was when Nelson Rockefeller took him under his wing a put him in the White House. Rockefeller policies fell into place rapidly including Medicare and the new China Policy. Few realize that the China Policy was an anti-British policy which undermined Britains control of the China Trade via Hong Kong (why the Brits opposed MacArthur eliminating Communist China in the 1950s).

Watergate, in my analysis, was the Anglo Faction fighting back against the Rockefeller ascendancy via Nixon. It all ended with the quite possible assassination of Nelson supposedly found dead in bed with "young aids". . . due to a drug use. . . "poppers" that intensify orgasm but a hard on the heart. . .??

Republican solutions are Ok with me if they postpone the really bad solutions proposed by the Dem(agogue)s. The devil is in the details.

Even America was not founded on a Blake Slate. The 13 States already existed as mini-States drawing on various aspects of the British State. A prior collectivism existed which made the "new" order possible. Therefore, I think it is possible and CONSISTENT to violate pure and perfect liberty to preserve the State. . .

My previous impression of your views was that you were a libertarian, but it seems you have more of a conservative-libertarian synthesis.

You may be right about Cameron. There are some who feel he is posturing, pandering to a faction within his party for electoral benefit; but he has chosen to form a coalition in the European Parliament with the other anti-EU parties.

"it is possible and CONSISTENT to violate pure and perfect liberty to preserve the State" - Some libertarians trash Lincoln as a tyrant, but if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede, England and France were poised to invade the States.

Quigley wrote that mercantilism ("State Capitalism giving favored Merchants special privileges") preceded other forms of capitalism. Russia was never allowed to develop her mercantile stage.

It was during the Renaissance that the nation-state came into being, and the idea was to spread Christian civilization globally. By the time of the Enlightenment, the global mission starting becoming secularized, and "imago dei" had given way to a more naturalistic conception of man.
It seems to me that United States was founded at the point in ... Read Morehistory in which the transition between the two had started, and that this conflict between the secular and religious is the source of much present day conflict in U.S. politics (i.e., "Red" vs "Blue" state).

I have heard about conflict between the "Rockefeller" faction and the "Anglo" faction (Rothschilds, the City, etc.) but I am unfamiliar with a lot of the details. What books could you recommend that would fill me in?

Murray Rothbard was a chronicler of it. Dr. Emanuel Josephson offered a lot a material in his Rockefeller Internationsalist, Strange Death of FDR, and Federal Reserve Conspiracy. I wrote a lot about it in threads at our www site: a-albionic.com under the rubric of Competing Conspiracies vs Master Conspiracy.

Sounds right about Russia. Merchant activity was very limited as compared to agriculture organized around the Church and Serfdom. It was a matter of degree, however. Certainly, there were many monopolies granted by the Czars and/or lesser nobles in their domains.

Yes, Murray Rothbard, for example, claimed Lincoln was a tyrant. Yes, I now think there was value in preserving the Union due to geopolitics.

LaRouchians get it partially wrong though. The Catholic Holy Alliance, NOT BRITAIN, put Maxmillian in Mexico ready to snap-up the SOUTH (if things had gone right).

Britain was in conflict with the Pope's Holy Alliance all over the world, probably the reason they never took the side of the South even though their textile industry was badly damaged.... Read More

Good example, though, of how Geopolitics is and must be "prior" to internal policy, etc.

An interesting point not often mentioned but confirmed in the recent Rockefeller Bio: TITAN, is that the Warburgs of GERMANY financed Rockefeller via Kuhn Loeb. Then Standard Oil went forth to battle Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum world-wide, etc.

So, really, the Rockefeller-Anglo conflict was really part of the Anglo-Prussian ... Read Moreconflict over the unification of Germany. The Western Principalities of Germany were in alliance with Britain naturally enough because one of their bloodlines sat on the British Throne since the Glorious Revolution.

The brute force and socialist cunning of Bismark engineered the Prussian unification of Germany spoiling the Stockmar Plan of Queen Victoria's consort Albert (Saxe-Gotha) to unify Germany as a limited monarchy on the British model and as an integral part of the British Empire. Of course, Prussia fell into alliance with the Catholic Church and two titanic European civil wars followed (WWI and WWII).

To me, it is a tragedy that Britain is submerged to the extent it already is in the EU. Really an unspeakable evil that Britons of any stripe are anxious to abandon their legacy to the EU. Getting out of or destroying the EU would be worth any kind of duplicitous strategy that might work in my mind. I have no idea if any such thing is in the cards. I doubt it.

Maybe the Queen thinks she can eventually covertly rule the whole of Europe through EU membership. . . who know what She thinks.

I read about France and England being poised to invade the U.S. in G. Edward Griffin's book on Jekyll Island. I've never quite understood if I am supposed to take "Holy Alliance" in its literal textbook definition, or if there is a variant ruling class conspiracy definition. Wouldn't it be simpler to refer to the conflict as between Protestant and Catholic powers in Europe? How was France part of the Holy Alliance?

The American Almanac site is very interesting, but Larouche himself I do not care for. The Larouchians are in fact the polar opposite, the Left parallel, of the Birchers. Larouche spends entirely too much time consorting with Communists. It is never clear to me who exactly these "British" are to which he often refers. And if, as he says, Obama is opposed to fascism, why is Larouche PAC spreading the Hitler mustache posters?

"The Treaty of Maastricht made the Queen subject to the European Union...at the point the Treaty [of Lisbon] was given Royal Assent the British Constitution was abolished."
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/queen-of-the-gutter/

Treaties are just scraps of paper, of course, that go by the boards when anything import comes-up.

Seems to me the unwritten British Constitution might actually be more powerful that EU scraps of paper under the right circumstances, crisis, etc.

LaRouche's pro-Islamism makes me sick. The Golden Age of Islam occured immediately after their conquest of the remnants of Classical Civilization! Once the momentum of Classical Civilization was gone the profound evil of Islam was evident.

I am not sure the Queen has any geopolitical ambitions or agenda. Her son is a bit nutters, though.

I saw the same page about the Holy Alliance when I went to google it the other night, but that was it. Is the term used in conspiracy theory that much? If so, then I find it curious that not much effort has been made at a definition.

Why won't Facebook let me view all the comments? Well, in any case, you had said somewhere that Griffin was unreliable. I read Creature from Jekyll Island when I was 18, it very informative but he went all over the place topically. Rothbard's Case against the Fed is more systematic and better written.