Red Tide A-Risin'
By Ted Lang
1-8-8
| We've all heard such
expressions as "nothing new under the sun" and "the more things
change, the more they remain the same." The advantage that the
Internet now brings to us all is the ready and quick availability of
fact and truth. But just as in any inquiry-based effort, even the
Internet and its free market of historical fact and truth requires
thoughtful approach. The most powerful components of the Internet
are, of course, the search engines and online compiled facts and
encyclopedias that preclude a one-sided, biased delivery that dumbs-down
rather than informs, as is the intent of The Establishment's
mainstream "public" media. The MSM propagandizes against national
sovereignty and shills for the Zionist international central
banker-controlled New World Order. Once one understands this MSM-enforced opinion template, political labels such as neocon, left-liberal, Democrat, conservative, Republican, are rendered completely meaningless and lose any and all of their original philosophical identity. Political activity is reduced merely to selectively reported and editorialized events behind a mantra intending the enslavement of all Mankind. The power elite will use individuals grouped and classified as an army, a police force, or just brown-shirted goons with superior weapons of death and torture to instill fear and terror in a society to force all to their will. This is being perpetrated against all individuals in a society that wishes only to live and let live, and that simply wants to be left alone. The Establishment desires this power so that it and it alone will be the sole point of control allowing its members and their chosen to enjoy untold luxuries by creating horrendous deprivation for the masses. Schemes for world conquest have always used grouping and classification agendas by small, secretive political cabals to carefully plan and carry out their intended actions relying almost totally on groupthink propaganda. This propaganda pits one class or group of citizens against another, thereby reinforcing and augmenting "class struggle," not to help one class achieve advantage over the other, but to isolate and weaken both thereby reducing society's ability to resist the intentions of the enslavers. Recently, on Cspan, I heard my own arguments preached back to me. I have always debunked political labels by reducing them to the basic groupthink philosophy of life; namely, that there are two philosophies concerning human life. Author and Internet writer, Thom Hartmann, restated the position I always use to define the two basic political philosophies, which is that Man is either basically good, or basically bad. Hartmann made no bones about the fact that he is a "liberal," or perhaps a "progressive," and therefore believes that man is basically good. I flipped out momentarily, since I have always had the opposite view as concerns that opening scenario relative to basic political philosophy. The problem with Hartmann's observation is that he fails to differentiate between Old World liberalism, usually identified nowadays by the term "classical liberalism," and the typically, and as far as I am concerned, correctly denigrated, "left-liberal" moniker of today depicting their agenda as one of "big government tax-and-spend" nannyism. This philosophy easily identifies with the "welfare-warfare" state. Real liberalism, meaning the libertarian liberalism of Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and their kind, has always been the original intent of our constitutional republic These "liberals" were real liberals, meaning that they believed in God's purpose of creating His world for our enjoyment as stated by John Locke, thereby endowing us with life, liberty and property in order to do so. If an Old World liberal saw Man as being basically good, the opposing view, of course, saw Man as being basically bad, and therefore, the latter view requires big, forceful and basically terror-dispensing government. But if the goodness doctrine was classical liberalism, what then identifies its opposite? Certainly, given our reliance upon Locke's views reiterated in our Declaration of Independence, our nation was at its starting point; so what was there to conserve? Clearly, the opposite of a liberal political philosophy during our nation's founding would certainly not be "conservative," at least not as we understand the term today. But if it were, what precisely was there to conserve? Monarchy? Divine right? All the king's men and all the king's horses? What? Again my opening salvo: those who believe in the goodness of Man believe in the supremacy of the individual; those who believe Man is basically bad believe in BIG, POWERFUL GOVERNMENT. Period! End of discussion! So show me just one war since the formation of the various national sovereignties around the world where the society of one has waged war on the society of another. Please try! Show me just one! All wars fought since the Dark Ages were perpetrated by the GOVERNMENT of one society against the GOVERNMENT of another! People do not declare wars on one another; governments do. Understanding our nation's founding, there was indeed a "face off" between the strong advocates of individual rights, identified as anti-Federalists, and the advocates of big government, known as Federalists. George Washington, unquestionably this nation's greatest patriot, and also a Federalist, offered this analysis: "Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Individuals come to life and into this world alone, and will leave life and die alone. This is what it means to be an individual. You cannot experience another's pain, or another's suffering, or another's pleasure and happiness, or live another's life. Your individuality is unique. This was our Creator's intent. And Locke's interpretation served as the basis for our nation: INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Such individual freedom cannot be delegated to another by anyone; and any individual who tries to do so, both rejects his/her own individuality and becomes a ruling despot. Those who have read my work know that this whole line of reasoning is redundant. I've stated this more times than I care to remember, so why am I doing so again? Unbelievably, our current political environment is once again being assailed by communist philosophy! They're back! Using the "newspaper mentality" approach of returning to a premise already settled, stated and accepted, they're pretending that their query has never been either addressed or considered. They're trying to tire US out! The comrades are hand wringing and whining! And the rising Red tide and their mignons in the MSM are now attacking and smearing 2008 presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul. The good and real "doctor of democracy" [yes, I know we're a constitutional republic] is now being smeared for his fabulous support of the free market, capitalism and smaller government. Several commentary pieces by those of an obvious communist philosophical outlook, which of course by its very nature embraces big, all powerful government based on the inherent evil in Mankind, have been posted by sites that I have written for. I have no problem with this one who desires to help form public opinion has, in my humble opinion, no right to challenge the opinion of others. In fact, as far as I am concerned, helping to initiate opinions, even those opposing my views, should be a commentator's objective. My disagreement stems from the fact that opinions formed upon falsehoods, lies, and even other opinions that have not been substantiated by fact, are not really opinions, but begin to fall into that poisonous realm defined as propaganda. And in my judgment, the attacks upon Dr. Paul easily fall into this category. Given my position on opposing views and opinions, I will not identify the protagonists. I will not even cite their sites! It is not my intent to initiate a distractive writing contest, but rather to challenge instead the false basis relied upon by Dr. Paul's critics. But before itemizing and refuting the charges, we need to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when our warmongering presidents plotted and connived to initiate wars against other nations, and who were in all likelihood unaware of their being manipulated by the international Zionist bankers, and when they were still dependent upon fooling the Congress and the people. World War I was initiated by The Establishment, then primarily the House of Rothschild international central bankers and its Zionist New World Order "statesmen," Bernard Baruch and Louis Brandeis. To enslave American government and its citizens to their will, they concocted and rammed through Congress the private Federal Reserve System and the income tax. Many "Jewish" writings, particularly the efforts of Theodor Herzl and the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," have always articulated the ultimate goal of Zionism as desiring and maneuvering towards rule over the ENTIRE world. And the Zionist's methods were to gain fruition via international communism. Here is the crux of Karl Marx's ten points as laid out in his Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly [our Federal Reserve System].
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. [Our biased one-sided MSM and the need to control the Internet.]
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all the children in public schools.
One of the Internet comrades generating this rebuttal offered that Marx observed the evils of capitalism, clearly evidencing her preference for his views as opposed to the views of Locke, Jefferson and Washington. Another pointed out, when attacking Paul directly, that Paul supported "weak government." And still another lamented the demise of the Soviet Union which served as a powerful counterbalance to the unrestrained forces of capitalism." World War I didn't "make the world safe for democracy" as President and Establishment stooge and buffoon Woodrow Wilson offered; it made the world both safe and receptive to international communism destined for Zionist control! And World War II was yet another concoction of the Zionist bankers. It was the Zionist Rothschild bankers that originally financed Hitler; it was the Zionist bankers who WROTE the Versailles Treaty Hitler used as the pretext to invade other nations to get back territories the Zionists stole from the German people and gave to other nations via that abominable Treaty; and it was the very same Zionists that tricked Hitler and turned his monstrous government loose on innocent and vulnerable Jews. Hitler was created by Zionism! And so was communism! World War II represented a horrific squandering of human life in the Zionist-created conflict between "national" socialism and "international" socialism to ensure progress towards international Zionist control of the world through communism. All socialism isn't bad ALL communism IS! Socialism's most egregious flaw is that it fails to take into account the differences in each and every individual human. It intends compassionate solutions, through big and all powerful government, and focuses on group and class vulnerability which is in a collective sense a non-individual economic and political condition. Communism is by far much worse in that it fails to recognize completely the uniqueness of individuals, and maximizes government force against all. When one examines the absolute worst aspects of American society today, it isn't free market capitalism that is the culprit; it is the Zionist-Communist Establishment that has as its sole objective the total control of all Mankind! I have already documented the components of "The Establishment": the Zionist House of Rothschild-Rockefeller bankers: big and powerful corporate lobbies who have bought and now fully control Congress AND the White House; the Israel lobby, and the military-industrial complex. And although, the preponderance of this totally powerful and wealthy cabal may be that of a corporate-capitalist nature, this form of capitalism is a grotesque creature brought to life by ever-burgeoning, self-growing, increasingly centralized one-government-fits-all collectivism INITIATED by left-liberals and so-called progressives. It is the left of "modern" liberals and so-called progressives that have sent US backwards in time to the governments of monarchs and advantaged rulers protected by a new "divine right," and that new divine right is money. And this money was created by the Rothschilds and their "American" Federal Reserve System. The left has paved the way for big, powerful central government; their real complaint is, however, that they are no longer able to control it! They created it, and now The Establishment has stolen it from them. It is they who created the power of a Teddy Roosevelt, a Woodrow Wilson, a Franklin Roosevelt, a Harry Truman, and the USS Liberty traitor Lyndon Johnson. These left-liberal/progressive creations have now morphed into the Cheney-Bush dictatorship. Look at the ease and the astonishing power evidenced by the Israel lobby; two of AIPAC's top honchos should right at this moment be in court facing charges of espionage. Why aren't they? Because they are part of The Establishment, and The Establishment rules. Remember how they booed dehydrated Democratic Party prune Nancy Pelosi and ordered her to give Bush carte blanche for attacking Iran? Where is The New York Times story on whistleblower Sibel Edmonds? When will this report be released? What happened to the "DC Madam" story? What about the White House pedophile ring? When will we be hearing from Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and FoxNews regarding these glaringly important stories? Our bleeding heart comrades complain that Ron Paul doesn't support gay rights, or concern himself with the poor. Why should sexual preferences be controlled by government? And how is big brother/mother government doing in New Orleans in terms of helping the poor? And one even called Paul a racist for not wishing to interfere in an argument involving a black high crime area. Paul decided the neighborhood and the community needed to solve their problems, and not the federal government. When Dr. Walter Williams took the side of white pizza shop owners and denounced the black neighborhoods by allowing crime on their streets and not taking more direct action themselves, he was denounced, but NOT accused of racism. Why? Because he is African-American, just like Bill Cosby who similarly denounced black neighborhoods in Newark, New Jersey, two years ago. Why can African-Americans denounce black neighborhoods, but white folks cannot do the same? This isn't "diversity!" And it isn't racism on Dr. Paul's part. What the comrades are doing is bestowing special rights, which are in effect privileges, to one group while denying the same equal rights to other groups. If each individual were treated equally, which was the intent in both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution's Bill of Rights, neither group could cry "racism." Although I promised not to make direct reference to the work of any of the communist-oriented competitors, I must make an exception in this case: "Though Paul is unlikely to triumph in the primaries, it is worth taking stock not only of his actual positions, but more importantly the libertarian underpinnings that have wooed so many self-described leftists and progressives. Because at its core, the fetishism of individualism that underlies libertarianism leads to the denial of rights to the very people most radicals aim to champion workers, immigrants, Blacks, women, gays, and any group that lacks the economic power to impose their individual rights on others." In just that one paragraph, we see a communist philosophy that can only be described as a serious psychosis brought on by possibly severe brain damage. Just look at the words! Individuality isn't real it's a "fetish." And we need to champion the "rights" of "groups" that are economically unable to IMPOSE their collective individual rights on others, whether or not this imposition is perpetrated against an individual OR the combined individuals of another group. This is communism folks! It is NOT what America is about. And although they pooh-pooh individuality regarding each and every single human being as being unique as our Founders tried to do in deciphering God's intent, it helps to be an atheist as well and to establish the myth of a "separation of church and state" as opposed to the First Amendment's prohibition in not allowing our Government to establish a unique religion for US all. Only through individuality as designed by our Maker can we better appreciate His world. Big capitalism was created by The Establishment to serve the governments of nations, particularly ours, in providing returns on central banker "investments" and providing them with huge profits. The central bankers enhance their wealth through their financing of wars and "investing" in Third World nations to gain control of budding governments and societies. The huge and rapidly expanding debt created here in America by their planned wars and invasions is destroying our money, our international credit, as well as saddling US with increased consumer prices for goods no longer made here. This is driving up the personal indebtedness to one and the same bankers. Our credibility as a decent, moral, trustworthy national sovereignty is at end. Blaming this on ALL capitalism is like Hitler's lunacy in blaming ALL Jews for the World War I Zionist conspiracies in starting the war, bringing America into it, and then smashing German sovereignty with the Versailles Treaty. And they're at it again, but this time around it is US who will have our money system destroyed, our consumer products made unaffordable starting with gasoline and then going to basic food prices, and resulting in the total impoverishment of America. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was initiated by the bankers! It was planned and deliberate, just like everything else The Establishment has and will continue to saddle US with to destroy our national sovereignty and our will to resist. Blaming the florist, the supermarket, the plumber, carpenter and electrician, the Ma and Pa grocery store, and the local pizza shop for everything that is wrong with our once powerful and freedom-providing nation is the height of absurdity and totally asinine! It was our concept of basic individual human freedoms and the CAPITALISM resultant from it that built this once great nation. It is BIG GOVERNMENT that has destroyed it. And big government serves The Establishment, not the American people! Think of how these big "capitalist" corporations relate to you and your neighbors. Have you bought a jet fighter from Lockheed-Martin lately? How about an M1-A1 tank from General Motors? A nuclear submarine perhaps from General Dynamics? This isn't capitalism this is an aberration merging big government with big banking and the big corporations of The Establishment. Isn't it odd that Fascist Benito Mussolini coined the word "corporatist?" Why not consider ordering a pizza from federal utopia! Or how about a plumber to fix your Al Gore toilet? Can we wait any longer to put him in a rocket to the sun to have him fix the sunspots causing "Global Warming?" Fascism is NOT capitalism. The only ones who believe and assert it as such are communists. World War II was about national socialism and fascism versus international communism. Communism won check Marx's ten principles again. And there is no such thing as a free market, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch. Blaming Ron Paul for our current plight citing free markets and capitalism is not only totally out of left field; it is outrageously stupid as well! © THEODORE E. LANG 1/08/08 All rights reserved Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
Article Reproduced From www.Rense.com
Pictures on top of page were added to the article by Gnostic Liberation Front. |