Paul Craig Roberts tells it like it is. He correctly perceives that the USA is on a dangerous path to fascism, and that each step down that dangerous road is proceeding with very little opposition from a largely docile population. But he does believe America has one last chance to stop the rot and reverse the decline, before it’s too late …
Sometimes only comedy can reveal the truth …
“Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes its laws.”
So said Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild. But what did he mean? It’s pretty clear. If you control the issuance of money – as debt – then you control everything that happens.
This is a very pertinent issue right now, because the global financial system – a system built entirely on debt – is collapsing around us. You know this is happening because the only “solutions” being offered to ameliorate this debt crisis is more debt. It’s just a big ponzi scheme, and sooner or later is must come crashing down.
And it’s easy enough for anyone to understand the stupidity of it all. Just ask yourself, if you were up to your eyeballs in debt, what would you think of someone who said he had the solution to your problem by offering you a new bigger debt to take care of the old debt? All that would do would buy you some time, until you could not pay off the new debt either.
Of course, many commentators have noticed this, and some even call for the “state” to take over the issuance of money – and to take that prerogative away from the “bankers”. But would that solve the problem? Of course not! Would you trust politicians to issue money in a sane and sound way, and not use their power to simply print the stuff to buy more votes?
The solution the world’s debt crisis is to take the power away from banks to create debt, and to ensure that money – as an economic tool – is provided by the market, debt free.
You see, money can come into the world in two ways – either as debt, or as a asset. If you lend money into existence, then the very fact that interest is charged on that debt ensures the debt will always grow.
On the other hand, it’s entirely possible to have a money system that is completely out of government control and not based on debt at all. How so? Well, take Bitcoin for example – an experimental currency that comes into existence without any debt being incurred, and is issued without any central authority.
Bitcoin is a computer generated currency that is totally outside the system. It has no central bank, no issuing authority, no offices, no headquarters, no “federal reserve” – and even better, is not debt. It is a technological answer and solution to the crisis of debt we are all drowning in. Of course, Bitcoin is just the first such financial service, and there could be many more – and even better ones to arrive on the market in the future.
The point is, money should be a market-driven means of exchange. Whether it’s gold, silver or bitcoins – what’s important is that the money being used cannot be manipulated by governments or the central banks that governments give monopoly power to.
To rid ourselves of the sociopathic political class – that group of people who produce nothing but pain and misery in the world – we have to rid ourselves of their primary tool of control – money issued as debt.
We need debt-free, non-government money – money that arises out of the free market place and which has to compete like any other product or service.
However, the ‘powers that be’ will not give up the debt-issuance ponzi scheme easily. So the one bright light on the horizon is that their corrupt system will self-implode and that all the world will witness the spectacle and swear never to let bankers take control of the means of exchange ever again!
Okay, I admit it, I don’t vote. I know that politics is not the answer – it’s the problem. However, Ron Paul and his bid for the US Presidency is a special case.
What makes Ron Paul important is the fact he represents a consistent view – Constitutional government – and his steady rise in the polls shows that he has a constituency, even though the MSM have tried to discount it.
No longer though. There is a very good chance he could win the Iowa caucus, and such a possibility is already being discussed in the media. Such a win would push him to solid “top tier’ candidate position and the MSM would no longer be able to ignore him. Sure they may attack him, but his increasing popularity would force them to take him more seriously.
The question would then arise: Can Ron Paul win the Republican nomination? Well, given the typical base of the Republican party, that looks unlikely – unless they wise up to the fact that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that could actually beat Obama. Why? Because his support is not just from Republicans, but also independents (around 20% of the electorate), as well as disenchanted Democrats.
So in a face-off with Obama, I believe Paul would fare better than Romney or Gingrich (if he’s still around!).
But what if Paul does not win the nomination – due to the irrational and short-sighted viewpoint of the majority of Republicans? That’s when an independent ticket could suddenly materialise. In fact, when repeatedly asked if he will rule out an independent run, Ron Paul hedges by saying things like, “I’m not thinking about that at all”.
The fact is, if Paul does not win the Republican ticket, then his followers will literally demand he run as an independent. And if he does, that’s when things will really get interesting.
Why? Because as an independent he will attract voters who may ignore him because of his “Republican” label. As an independent he would be able to stand on principle (as he always does) and be a catalyst for potential real change in America – without the “baggage” of being a Republican.
The important point here is not so much whether he wins or not, or even whether politicians can actually make the changes that are needed. No. What really counts is that he would bring to the debating table – and to the consciousness of millions of Americans – issues that really do need to be aired. It is this “educational” function of a Paul campaign that is most important (and I would venture to say it’s what is also most important to Ron Paul), because it brings to the table the really big issues of the day, and would force both the populace and the politicians to confront reality.
There is another issue also. If I were a Republican strategist I would be really worried by Ron Paul. Why? Because to try and prevent him from getting the Republican nomination, and succeed, is only likely to push him to an “independent” run, where he will do even better. Truth is, if the USA is in crisis mode when the Presidential elections are held, a person of the character and vision of Ron Paul (who stands head and shoulders above the other political hacks) could surprise all the pundits, upset the apple cart and do a “home run”.
In this era, nothing is impossible.
For that reason, Ron Paul matters.
The video speaks for itself. Dr Ron Paul, a rare breed of politician – one who actually believes what he says, and who stands on principle. Will America take notice, or is it too late …
Judge Andrew Napolitano says it’s now … in this short but powerful video:
Ed Griffin eloquently explains what collectivism is in this video, and why it can only lead to tyranny.
The drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, a targeted assassination, sets a very disturbing precedent and sets the government apart from the moral and legal code the rest of us are supposed to abide by.
I know plenty of people will be happy to see this guy dead – regardless of whether he is guilty of any specific crime or not. For consider the fact he has not been indicted for any crime. Not only that, he was a US citizen.
Sure, the US will claim it’s at “war” and that killing in war is permitted. Just as with Osama bin Laden, it would appear that executive orders to kill suspects – without trial – are becoming the norm.
But this is a dangerous path we are on. For consider this: why is it that the state can do things we, as individuals, cannot do? Why is it the state is above the law? How come we would get put in prison for doing things our governments are doing?
If I were convinced that the guy down the road was a murderer, would that give me the right to kill him without due process? Of course not. My legally sanctioned actions would be limited to reporting him to the police in order for the law to take its course. Any action outside the law – i.e. taking the law into my own hands – would itself be unlawful.
Until we demand that our rulers/leaders/sociopaths-in-charge follow the same rules as the rest of us, we are leaving ourselves open to becoming victims of this extrajudicial process ourselves.
