Who was William Shakespeare Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings - Vol 1 - The New Atlantis

[lorenhough]

play

Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings - Vol 1 - The New Atlantis


AFR's newest release deals with the mysterious founding of the greatest nation on earth. The first in the new series, "Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings" seeks to unfold the fascinating hidden history of early America. Was the dream of a democratic empire envisioned by Queen Elizabeth I? Could this dream have been handed down through secret societies? Who was William Shakespeare ?
http://www.conspiracyschool.com/node/203

 

[Jerry Russell]

"Secret Mysteries" is a film series written & directed by Chris Pinto of Adullam Films.

http://www.adullamfilms.com/SecretMysteries.html

From their about page,

http://www.adullamfilms.com/AboutUsPage.html

Adullam Films was founded in 1999 by writer/director Chris Pinto for the purpose of chronicling through film & video production the chief evidence of our time that proves the word of God is true, and that Jesus Christ is coming soon. Chris is also the host of the Noise of Thunder Radio Program, where issues of history and the Bible are the chief topics of discussion and debate, dedicated to defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[lorenhough]

play

Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings - Vol 1 - The New Atlantis


AFR's newest release deals with the mysterious founding of the greatest nation on earth. The first in the new series, "Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings" seeks to unfold the fascinating hidden history of early America. Was the dream of a democratic empire envisioned by Queen Elizabeth I? Could this dream have been handed down through secret societies? Who was William Shakespeare ?

Athena 'shakes her spear' at ignorance

the video above gives insights [ will I am] LH

Athena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena
Athena or Athene, often given the epithet Pallas, is the goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, mathematics, strength, war strategy ...

John Dee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee
John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was a mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher, imperialist and adviser to Queen Elizabeth I.

• 
  Francis Bacon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
Francis Bacon was born on 22 January 1561 at York House near the Strand in London, the son of Sir Nicholas Bacon by his second wife, Anne (Cooke) Bacon, the daughter ...

• Rosicrucianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism
  Rosicrucianism is a philosophical secret society said to have been founded in late medieval Germany by Christian Rosenkreuz. It holds a doctrine or theology "built on ...

2:10 in video above talks about why the man who is believed to be Shakespeare could not have been him, and was more likely a group of people led by sir F. Bacaon, etc.

KNIGHTS OF THE HELMET in Knights Templar Forum
ancientlosttreasures.yuku.com/topic/6062/t/KNIGHTS-OF-THE-HELMET.html
see Athena helmet with spear
FRANCIS BACON AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE HELMET. One of these men is genius to the other And so of these, which is the natural man And which the spirit?

Is Shakespeare Dead?: Mark Twain: 9781483984957: Amazon ...

. Is Shakespeare Dead? is a short, semi-autobiographical work by American ...

part 2

 

[Richard Stanley]

Thanks Loren, for the great video and the almost missed Livingston link.

The latter led me to Livingstone's post on Libertarians and Ayn Rand (and many other related things), which DL has now saved me from having to do. He even discusses a suspicion of mine about the Austrian School economist's agenda. I'm gonna have big fun with ousia. I have been developing an idea that Libertarianism is a Trojan Horse, and thus its key sponsorship by the radically Catholic Kochs.

Paul’s newsletter was a joint effort between he and another popular political commentator, Lew Rockwell.[30] With Murray Rothbard, Rockwell formed the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which Paul still has a close working relationship. Von Mises (1881-1973) had also become one of the closest economic advisers of Engelbert Dollfuss and Otto von Habsburg of the Knights of Malta as well as Mont Pelerin, and both of Coudenhove-Kalergi's synarchist Pan-European Union. Rothbard was born in the Bronx, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland. In 1954 Rothbard, along with several other students of Ludwig von Mises, associated with novelist Ayn Rand.
Address : <http://www.conspiracyschool.com/comment/2240#comment-2240>​

The video has a lot of great material, that of course, will make a lot of people uncomfortable, but even with as much as they got right this is yet another case of selective interpretation. By this I mean just how much esoteric paganism and masonry is within the entire Bible. And they left the entire Jesuit aspect of American history completely unmentioned, albeit they do have some Jesuit material available separately.

 

[lorenhough]

Athena 'shakes her spear' at ignorance

the video above gives insights [ will I am] LH

Athena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena
Athena or Athene, often given the epithet Pallas, is the goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, mathematics, strength, war strategy ...

John Dee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee
John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was a mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher, imperialist and adviser to Queen Elizabeth I.

• 
  Francis Bacon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
Francis Bacon was born on 22 January 1561 at York House near the Strand in London, the son of Sir Nicholas Bacon by his second wife, Anne (Cooke) Bacon, the daughter ...

• Rosicrucianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism
  Rosicrucianism is a philosophical secret society said to have been founded in late medieval Germany by Christian Rosenkreuz. It holds a doctrine or theology "built on ...

2:10 in video above talks about why the man who is believed to be Shakespeare could not have been him, and was more likely a group of people led by sir F. Bacaon, etc.

KNIGHTS OF THE HELMET in Knights Templar Forum
ancientlosttreasures.yuku.com/topic/6062/t/KNIGHTS-OF-THE-HELMET.html
see Athena helmet with spear
FRANCIS BACON AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE HELMET. One of these men is genius to the other And so of these, which is the natural man And which the spirit?

Is Shakespeare Dead?: Mark Twain: 9781483984957: Amazon ...

. Is Shakespeare Dead? is a short, semi-autobiographical work by American ...

part 2

 

[lorenhough]

x

Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings - Vol 3 - Eye Of The Phoenix, Secrets of the Dollar Bill
Occult
“Eye of the Phoenix” documents the bizarre history of the design of the dollar bill, exposing the occult activity surrounding the FDR administration. There is perhaps no other period in U.S. history when so many people were so deeply involved in the occult, and held positions of power that reached all the way to the White House. Phoenix focuses specifically on the years prior to World War II leading up to 1935, when the Great Seal was taken out of obscurity and placed on the foundation of America's currency. According to official records from the State Department, FDR and his Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, specifically chose to use the Great Seal because, as Freemasons, they believed the “Novus Ordo Seclorum” (which they equated with the New Deal) could only be fulfilled under “the eye” of the Great Architect of the Universe (the god of Masonry). Two heavily influential occultists during the FDR era were Manly P. Hall and a Russian mystic named Nicholas Roerich. Manly Hall's writings influenced Freemasonic presidents FDR and Harry S. Truman. It is even said that Hall was responsible for the number of stones on the pyramid of the Great Seal, and for the identification of the eagle as a phoenix. Meanwhile, Nicholas Roerich was an international figure and Theosophist. His quest for Shambhala and the Stone of Destiny (symbols of the New World Order) captivated Henry Wallace. According to a variety of sources, it was Roerich's influence over Wallace (and ultimately FDR) that led to the placement of the Great Seal on America's currency. As American Heritage writes: “The State Department grew very nervous about Roerich, but he had influence in the Oval Office.” Some Christian leaders continue to downplay the occult nature of the dollar bill; but once you understand the beliefs and influence of Roerich, Wallace and Manly Hall, you will clearly recognize the Luciferian nature of its design. Also discussed in this documentary are: the Bohemian Grove, the Illuminati past and present, Theosophical Society, Benjamin Creme and the Maitreya (i.e. Antichrist); along with a prediction for how the dollar will be used to establish the New World Order.

Volume 1: The New Atlantis
Volume 2: Riddles in Stone - Secret Architecture of Washington, D.C.
Volume 3: Eye Of The Phoenix, Secrets of the Dollar Bill

 

[lorenhough]

x

Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings - Vol 3 - Eye Of The Phoenix, Secrets of the Dollar Bill
Occult
“Eye of the Phoenix” documents the bizarre history of the design of the dollar bill, exposing the occult activity surrounding the FDR administration. There is perhaps no other period in U.S. history when so many people were so deeply involved in the occult, and held positions of power that reached all the way to the White House. Phoenix focuses specifically on the years prior to World War II leading up to 1935, when the Great Seal was taken out of obscurity and placed on the foundation of America's currency. According to official records from the State Department, FDR and his Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, specifically chose to use the Great Seal because, as Freemasons, they believed the “Novus Ordo Seclorum” (which they equated with the New Deal) could only be fulfilled under “the eye” of the Great Architect of the Universe (the god of Masonry). Two heavily influential occultists during the FDR era were Manly P. Hall and a Russian mystic named Nicholas Roerich. Manly Hall's writings influenced Freemasonic presidents FDR and Harry S. Truman. It is even said that Hall was responsible for the number of stones on the pyramid of the Great Seal, and for the identification of the eagle as a phoenix. Meanwhile, Nicholas Roerich was an international figure and Theosophist. His quest for Shambhala and the Stone of Destiny (symbols of the New World Order) captivated Henry Wallace. According to a variety of sources, it was Roerich's influence over Wallace (and ultimately FDR) that led to the placement of the Great Seal on America's currency. As American Heritage writes: “The State Department grew very nervous about Roerich, but he had influence in the Oval Office.” Some Christian leaders continue to downplay the occult nature of the dollar bill; but once you understand the beliefs and influence of Roerich, Wallace and Manly Hall, you will clearly recognize the Luciferian nature of its design. Also discussed in this documentary are: the Bohemian Grove, the Illuminati past and present, Theosophical Society, Benjamin Creme and the Maitreya (i.e. Antichrist); along with a prediction for how the dollar will be used to establish the New World Order.

Volume 1: The New Atlantis
Volume 2: Riddles in Stone - Secret Architecture of Washington, D.C.
Volume 3: Eye Of The Phoenix, Secrets of the Dollar Bill

The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews

 

[Craig_Bickford]

Thanks Loren, for the great video and the almost missed Livingston link.

The latter led me to Livingstone's post on Libertarians and Ayn Rand (and many other related things), which DL has now saved me from having to do. He even discusses a suspicion of mine about the Austrian School economist's agenda. I'm gonna have big fun with ousia. I have been developing an idea that Libertarianism is a Trojan Horse, and thus its key sponsorship by the radically Catholic Kochs.

Paul’s newsletter was a joint effort between he and another popular political commentator, Lew Rockwell.[30] With Murray Rothbard, Rockwell formed the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which Paul still has a close working relationship. Von Mises (1881-1973) had also become one of the closest economic advisers of Engelbert Dollfuss and Otto von Habsburg of the Knights of Malta as well as Mont Pelerin, and both of Coudenhove-Kalergi's synarchist Pan-European Union. Rothbard was born in the Bronx, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland. In 1954 Rothbard, along with several other students of Ludwig von Mises, associated with novelist Ayn Rand.
Address : <http://www.conspiracyschool.com/comment/2240#comment-2240>​

​

This might be off subject a bit, but I do not understand the endless conflation, guilt by association and contrived connections between Rand and every onerous libertarian and neo-liberal economic oriented writer or promoter on the planet. I'm fairly new to her works and know very little about the technical side of the Austrian school, only having heard about the basics of their particular approach to economics, but every time I see her name evoked like some sort of desert cult djinn, it's endlessly blamed for all the abhorrent crony capitalism of the later twentieth century. Is that accurate? Then there's the connections to Anton lavey, and some of the commentators on his article who are basically saying the same thing I am saying here; did Livingstone even read any Rand?

Set me straight Mr. Stanley, or maybe at the very least direct me to some relevant litterature on these connections beyond the later day name dropping every scoundrel capitalist seems to do these days that only constitutes a guilt by association in my mind (ala her self interest theories being conflated with unabashed greed, which is fairly laughable in my estimation). Maybe I'm a little biased (though again I'm openly stating much ignorance about the specifics of the Austrian school and their theories, which I believe should be delineated from her particular economic theories, or maybe that is wrong as well?) since I find almost nothing wrong with her Objectivist philosophy and I am rather impressed with her as a literary figure and as a strong positive female role model, who just seems to be vilified at every turn.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Craig,

I'm also an admirer of Ayn Rand's novels. But I've come to believe it's a mistake to view Objectivism as a complete answer to all political problems. She tends to assume that her inventive capitalist heroes will use their economic & political power fairly & equitably (not necessarily true) and also that natural resources & land should be freely exploited.

I haven't done a survey, but I think it's safe to say that most every "onerous libertarian and neoliberal economic oriented writer on the planet" would point to Ayn Rand as a major source of inspiration. Whereas most authors of a more progressive bent, would find some cause for criticism.

 

[Craig_Bickford]

Agreed, I should have included some qualifying remarks about her political vision. I currently lean more towards the model that guys like Molyneux promotes, which unfortunately brings it right back in line with the Mises crowd. Unfortunately I like aspects of these ideas but hate other parts of them. One example would be private ownership of resources. Absent a government or church (feudal period), how would self interest lead to corrupt monopolies? Especially when ownership implies an interest in preserving resources for long term cultivation. This is where I think there might be some false theories on corrupt human nature being snuck in by Rands detractors to prove an argent with inaccurate historical premises. Again I'm new to this subject so I'm whiskey unqualified to actually argue it, but I'm skeptical when the Rand slur gets pulled out like a wild card.

 

[lorenhough]

Agreed, I should have included some qualifying remarks about her political vision. I currently lean more towards the model that guys like Molyneux promotes, which unfortunately brings it right back in line with the Mises crowd. Unfortunately I like aspects of these ideas but hate other parts of them. One example would be private ownership of resources. Absent a government or church (feudal period), how would self interest lead to corrupt monopolies? Especially when ownership implies an interest in preserving resources for long term cultivation. This is where I think there might be some false theories on corrupt human nature being snuck in by Rands detractors to prove an argent with inaccurate historical premises. Again I'm new to this subject so I'm whiskey unqualified to actually argue it, but I'm skeptical when the Rand slur gets pulled out like a wild card.

don't let me poison the well you must look at what she says point by point.
just for fun; who would know its a small world allen watt told us about this also; welcome to the world of the elite
The Illuminati is Real: Ayn Rand – Rothschilds Mistress ...
planet.infowars.com/activism/...is-real-ayn-rand-rothschilds-mistress

• Rating: 1/2 ·
• 2 ratings

Ayn Rand… 1957. The following is a piece, a large piece, of Ayn Rand’s Truth… The prior article is a smooth read. It has bookends; it does not read the same ...

 

[Craig_Bickford]

Ok I'm done derailing. Thanks for the links Loren.

 

[lorenhough]

don't let me poison the well you must look at what she says point by point.
just for fun; who would know its a small world allen watt told us about this also; welcome to the world of the elite
The Illuminati is Real: Ayn Rand – Rothschilds Mistress ...
planet.infowars.com/activism/...is-real-ayn-rand-rothschilds-mistress

• Rating: 1/2 ·
• 2 ratings

Ayn Rand… 1957. The following is a piece, a large piece, of Ayn Rand’s Truth… The prior article is a smooth read. It has bookends; it does not read the same ...

more
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/07/ayn-rand-atlas-shrugged-philip-rothschilds-mistress-2418728.html
Ayn Rand’ Book “Atlas Shrugged”, was ordered written and produced by Philip Rothschild, the leader of the Illuminati in his day and age. She was, at that time, one of Philip Rothschild’s mistresses. She was already a well-known author and her books sold nationwide. She wrote this book, it was suppose to be a novel. It’s 1100 pages

When you study Atlas Shrugged, you will find out that you are reading the front pages of the paper today. The oil shortage that doesn’t exist. They state that they destroy their own oil wells, that they hide their own oil so nobody can have it. They state how they destroy the coal mines and shut the coal mines down, they shut the electricity down, they state how they cripple the country and no food is grown. It states how they pit and derail trains so that no trains go. It states how they sink and pirate thousands of ships every year

 

[Craig_Bickford]

I have no access to the Readers Digest to understand what that reference is at the moment, but a lot of that other info seems like unsubstantiated conjecture. Maybe it's true, I really have no idea. I also have not read any of Rand's fiction and honestly am not interested in doing so. The description of the 50 page segment in Atlas Shrugged I heard about that has a Hank Reardon speech (or some other character) sealed the non deal on that for me. I'm picky about fiction and hundreds of pages of proselytizing libertarian fiction does not sound fun to me, at all.

That being said she could be corrupt to the bone, it seems like we find out more and more that most of our assumed political or ideological movements are co-opted operations so it wouldn't be surprising. I do however think most of her non fiction writing is interesting. In particular her philosophy and possibly also her economics ideas. I have no use for ARI or the Atas Society, the first seems like a front to some degree for Israeli lobbying and the second seems like an obvious attempt at mainstreaming the politicized and controlled version of libertarianism into the public consciousness minus the obsessive Rand cultiness her followers are known for allegedly. In my opinion Peikoff is a hawkish lunatic. He has a great logic series but he seems like wants to nuke the middle east. But like with anything I suppose, we can take the good parts and ditch the bad ones or the unworkable elements, and I like Randian philosophy somewhat and I ditch the bad parts. She is worth looking into though, I agree. All our chosen luminaries and celebrities are, if for no other reason that most of them are probably propped up by Intel quite possibly in some way or manner, or are attempting to contribute to some weaponized social science nightmare that some oligarchs may want us to swallow whole.

What I find annoying though is her name used as a pagorative or in a circumstantial ad hominem attack (what I was suspicious of that Livingstone was doing), based solely on the use of her name or an association. I know people that do this and it is just confusing to me. Thanks for the info guys, I'll look more into this later.

 

[Richard Stanley]

​

This might be off subject a bit, but I do not understand the endless conflation, guilt by association and contrived connections between Rand and every onerous libertarian and neo-liberal economic oriented writer or promoter on the planet. I'm fairly new to her works and know very little about the technical side of the Austrian school, only having heard about the basics of their particular approach to economics, but every time I see her name evoked like some sort of desert cult djinn, it's endlessly blamed for all the abhorrent crony capitalism of the later twentieth century. Is that accurate? Then there's the connections to Anton lavey, and some of the commentators on his article who are basically saying the same thing I am saying here; did Livingstone even read any Rand?

Set me straight Mr. Stanley, or maybe at the very least direct me to some relevant litterature on these connections beyond the later day name dropping every scoundrel capitalist seems to do these days that only constitutes a guilt by association in my mind (ala her self interest theories being conflated with unabashed greed, which is fairly laughable in my estimation). Maybe I'm a little biased (though again I'm openly stating much ignorance about the specifics of the Austrian school and their theories, which I believe should be delineated from her particular economic theories, or maybe that is wrong as well?) since I find almost nothing wrong with her Objectivist philosophy and I am rather impressed with her as a literary figure and as a strong positive female role model, who just seems to be vilified at every turn.

I can't discern what your association of 'libertarian' and 'neo-liberal' is. I assume by "neo-liberal" that you mean "classical liberal" as I don't think too many of today's libertarians would think of themselves as modern day "liberals", and thus even "neo-liberal"?

In any case, my position has evolved to that markets, while great economic engines for certain domains of human activity, are not optimal for others. Hence I believe that hybrid economies are best. One should employ the best tool for the job at hand. Like any tool that an individual or group attempts to employ, it must be done with care and not cavalierly.

... One example would be private ownership of resources. Absent a government or church (feudal period), how would self interest lead to corrupt monopolies? Especially when ownership implies an interest in preserving resources for long term cultivation. This is where I think there might be some false theories on corrupt human nature being snuck in by Rands detractors to prove an argent with inaccurate historical premises.

I think the basic flaw here is in assuming the basic uniformity of human motivations, and that everything flows from such as Rational Selfish Interest, once the evil government or church is eliminated. Which of course denies Irrational Selfish Interest, or sweeps it under the rug. There are some people who attach other motivations to their economic activities as well.

Well, I guess that you can argue that the recent raising of a 60 year old medicinal pill from $3 to about $750 was indeed an ownership interest in preserving resources, and/or evidence of the negative influence of government policies, like patents etc., but I'm at a loss to explain how having no government (or church) would prevent the same type of person from doing the same.

There is a principle of psychological addiction involved. In one of my posts I discussed that CNBC had a documentary where they interviewed numerous 'capitalists' involved in mergers and acquisitions, where to a man they were all addicted to doing the next deal and seeing how much money they could pocket from each one. This, after all, is their divine (Yahweh, Randian, or whatever) right to buy and sell and dispose of otherwise profitable companies and their jobs (in the process reducing competition in the market). One of them had blue collar roots and he didn't give a damn any more than they others. Neither the church or the government was standing in their way.

"Absent a government", as you say, who is to set original ownership rights? I asserted to ousia elsewhere that I should rightfully own everything, till yalls compensate me properly that is. Silence is consent, and apparently since then he's been too busy trying to come up with the rent check to detail his promised prophecy that might save us all from the Shemita.

In my opinion, things are moving towards a top down global control paradigm. I don't think that the solution to that is doing the complete opposite, i.e. global anarchy. The latter will, sooner rather than later, just lead to a reboot societies to the end of the last Ice Age and a need to repeat the past mistakes and relearn the old lessons -- How to deal with the strong men and psychopaths.

 

[lorenhough]

Ayn Rand’ Book “Atlas Shrugged”, was ordered written and produced by Philip Rothschild, the leader of the Illuminati in his day and age. She was, at that time, one of Philip Rothschild’s mistresses. She was already a well-known author and her books sold nationwide. She wrote this book, it was suppose to be a novel. It’s 1100 pages.

When you study Atlas Shrugged, you will find out that you are reading the front pages of the paper today. The oil shortage that doesn’t exist. They state that they destroy their own oil wells, that they hide their own oil so nobody can have it. They state how they destroy the coal mines and shut the coal mines down, they shut the electricity down, they state how they cripple the country and no food is grown. It states how they pit and derail trains so that no trains go. It states how they sink and pirate thousands of ships every year.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145

 

[Jerry Russell]

Apparently I was mistaken about 'every' Libertarian an admirer of Ayn Rand. She actually was very insulting towards Libertarians, and Murray Rothbard, at least, returned the feelings.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

The rumor that Rand was affiliated with Philip Rothschild seems to have come from John Todd. This is not necessarily a reputable source, especially if you believe Mark Tice's critique.

http://www.markdice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121:john-todd-qformer-illuminatiq-member-exposed-as-fraud&catid=66:articles-by-mark-dice&Itemid=89

 

[Craig_Bickford]

I can't discern what your association of 'libertarian' and 'neo-liberal' is. I assume by "neo-liberal" that you mean "classical liberal" as I don't think too many of today's libertarians would think of themselves as modern day "liberals", and thus even "neo-liberal"?

In any case, my position has evolved to that markets, while great economic engines for certain domains of human activity, are not optimal for others. Hence I believe that hybrid economies are best. One should employ the best tool for the job at hand. Like any tool that an individual or group attempts to employ, it must be done with care and not cavalierly.



I think the basic flaw here is in assuming the basic uniformity of human motivations, and that everything flows from such as Rational Selfish Interest, once the evil government or church is eliminated. Which of course denies Irrational Selfish Interest, or sweeps it under the rug. There are some people who attach other motivations to their economic activities as well.

Well, I guess that you can argue that the recent raising of a 60 year old medicinal pill from $3 to about $750 was indeed an ownership interest in preserving resources, and/or evidence of the negative influence of government policies, like patents etc., but I'm at a loss to explain how having no government (or church) would prevent the same type of person from doing the same.

There is a principle of psychological addiction involved. In one of my posts I discussed that CNBC had a documentary where they interviewed numerous 'capitalists' involved in mergers and acquisitions, where to a man they were all addicted to doing the next deal and seeing how much money they could pocket from each one. This, after all, is their divine (Yahweh, Randian, or whatever) right to buy and sell and dispose of otherwise profitable companies and their jobs (in the process reducing competition in the market). One of them had blue collar roots and he didn't give a damn any more than they others. Neither the church or the government was standing in their way.

"Absent a government", as you say, who is to set original ownership rights? I asserted to ousia elsewhere that I should rightfully own everything, till yalls compensate me properly that is. Silence is consent, and apparently since then he's been too busy trying to come up with the rent check to detail his promised prophecy that might save us all from the Shemita.

In my opinion, things are moving towards a top down global control paradigm. I don't think that the solution to that is doing the complete opposite, i.e. global anarchy. The latter will, sooner rather than later, just lead to a reboot societies to the end of the last Ice Age and a need to repeat the past mistakes and relearn the old lessons -- How to deal with the strong men and psychopaths.

I don't have the time right now to respond to the rest of this reply in full ( and I'm probably not qualified to respond to any of this), but it deserves a response because I would not agree with most of that. Just as a sampler using that drug fiasco as an example is a bit much. It's an outlier and an extreme example at best, and a little disingenuous to use that as an example of what would happen if we had no government or church to run everyone's lives to some extent, if that's what you're getting at.

Most of the price-fixing or manipulation that happens as I understand it is because government allows it to happen or the corrupt environment makes fertile ground for these types of situations, or you've just simply got a convergence of public-private partnership's which influences the corruption, and we're back to synarchism or syndicalism, which it can be argued is the situation we're in right now . The situation you're describing is also happening under the watchful eyes of a Government regulatory structure, the same one that is supposed to safeguard people from this happening. Is this not proving my point, in an extreme sense? I just don't understand what that is an example of besides what we are seeing today, the problem being paraded around as an excuse for the root cause of the issue.

This is my understanding of the current use of the term neoliberalism, which is in line with laissez faire economic attitudes, or at least that's how I'm using the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

 

[Craig_Bickford]

Apparently I was mistaken about 'every' Libertarian an admirer of Ayn Rand. She actually was very insulting towards Libertarians, and Murray Rothbard, at least, returned the feelings.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

The rumor that Rand was affiliated with Philip Rothschild seems to have come from John Todd. This is not necessarily a reputable source, especially if you believe Mark Tice's critique.

http://www.markdice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121:john-todd-qformer-illuminatiq-member-exposed-as-fraud&catid=66:articles-by-mark-dice&Itemid=89

That was my understanding that I didn't have any citations on hand as ", thanks .

I did not realize the source this is John Todd, that's interesting. I should dig out the old tapes that my grandparents made of talks John Todd gave at Seventh-day Adventist churches in the Northeast way back when, and see if I can find a cassette player to play them on. I too do not find John Todd to be a credible source, i'm very suspicious of the sudden conversion and tell-all dog and pony show of former illuminati insiders who do the church circuits. I don't believe John Todd ever had any sources for his material either, I think they were just talks he gave based on his eye witness accounts.

 

[Craig_Bickford]

I don't have the time right now to respond to the rest of this reply in full ( and I'm probably not qualified to respond to any of this), but it deserves a response because I would not agree with most of that. Just as a sampler using that drug fiasco as an example is a bit much. It's an outlier and an extreme example at best, and a little disingenuous to use that as an example of what would happen if we had no government or church to run everyone's lives to some extent, if that's what you're getting at.

Most of the price-fixing or manipulation that happens as I understand it is because government allows it to happen or the corrupt environment makes fertile ground for these types of situations, or you've just simply got a convergence of public-private partnership's which influences the corruption, and we're back to synarchism or syndicalism, which it can be argued is the situation we're in right now . The situation you're describing is also happening under the watchful eyes of a Government regulatory structure, the same one that is supposed to safeguard people from this happening. Is this not proving my point, in an extreme sense? I just don't understand what that is an example of besides what we are seeing today, the problem being paraded around as an excuse for the root cause of the issue.

This is my understanding of the current use of the term neoliberalism, which is in line with laissez faire economic attitudes, or at least that's how I'm using the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

I'd like to retract my use of the word disingenuous which in hindsight seems a little harsh and out of place. How about 'confusing' instead.

Here is a fun little rebuttal SM published to deal with some particularly misguided and common attacks on libertarianism. Maybe this can sum up some of the confusion and angst that I see and can relate too when libertarian theories or their founders are dismissively relegated to the scrap heap of silliness. I know DL and most likely no one here was doing that, and DL had reasons and probably some good ones to question the origins of the Austrian school and its followers in relation to the goals of the oligarchs, and I'm not trying to dismiss that either, but once the standard unthinking rhetoric of the public image of these ideas starts to line up with researchers I find it's sometimes best to take a step back and make sure we are all not painting the group of thinkers in question with the same brush (aka Rand as an associate of the possibly compromised tool of the oligarchs Rothbard etc).

Freedomain Radio! Volume 6: Shows 2120-2575 - FDR2483 11 Questions You Should Ask Hypocritical Libertarians - Rebutted!

Libertarians have a problem. An endless slew of terribly written articles slandering them with baseless and vicious assertions. Stefan Molyneux dissects "11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites" by RJ Eskow. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2483_11_Questions_For_Libertarians.mp3