What you will now see from the Media

[Conza88]

Sean Hannity just said...

 

[Bruno]

A "Conservative Manifesto" my ass. I've listen to that guy before and here is a 110% frothing at the mouth unapologetic neocon boot-licker. It is no wonder he HATES Ron Paul. Levin is the guy who told people on air to call Ron Paul's congressional phone number and tell him to drop dead, he then challenged Ron Paul supporters to call his show and defend him. During the show, so many Ron Paul supporters called it shut down his phone lines so he could field calls from the usual neocon rabble. So Levin just sits there on air playing music for 3 hours because he has nothing to talk about except to occasionally chime in and say no Ron Paul supporters are calling so they must not exist.

Now he wants to write a book about liberty and tyranny and call it a "conservative manifesto"? Someone needs to tell him the real manifesto has already been written, by Ron Paul.

Levin is a copy-cat sack of shit. He forgot to wrap that flag on the cover around a cross and nail himself to it.

well said

 

[Conza88]

Sean Hannity and Dick Morris say CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WERE RIGHT!

MAnn Coulter Endorses Ron Paul in 2012

 

[Mini-Me]

I just hope that in their attempt to regain some credibility by admitting to some truth, these guys unwittingly help people wake up to a much greater extent than they ever intended. I never expected them to openly say the conspiracy theorists were right about the NWO...but if they repeat things like that enough times, they just might accidentally convince more Average Joe's to actually start listening to us and maybe take our warnings about the globalist agenda a bit more seriously in the future.

 

[Conza88]

http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf

The individualists and laissez-faire liberals were stunned and embittered, not just by the mass desertion of their former allies, but also by the abuse these allies now heaped upon them as “reactionaries” “fascists,” and “Neanderthals.” For decades Men of the Left, the individualists, without changing their position or perspectives one iota, now found themselves bitterly attacked by their erstwhile allies as benighted “extreme right-wingers.” Thus, in December 1933, Nock wrote angrily to Canon Bernard Iddings Bell: “I see I am now rated as a Tory. So are you—ain’t it? What an ignorant blatherskite FDR must be! We have been called many bad names, you and I, but that one takes the prize.” Nock’s biographer adds that “Nock thought it odd that an announced radical, anarchist, individualist, single-taxer and apostle of Spencer should be called conservative.”2

...

But the intriguing point is that, as the far larger and more respectable conservative groups took up the cudgels against the New Deal, the only rhetoric, the only ideas available for them to use were precisely the libertarian and individualist views which they had previously scorned or ignored. Hence the sudden if highly superficial accession of these conservative Republicans and Democrats to the libertarian ranks.

Thus, there were Herbert Hoover and the conservative Republicans, they who had done so much in the twenties and earlier to pave the way for New Deal corporatism, but who now balked strongly at going the whole way. Herbert Hoover himself suddenly jumped into the libertarian ranks with his anti-New Deal book of 1934, Challenge to Liberty, which moved the bemused and wondering Nock to exclaim: “Think of a book on such a subject, by such a man!”

A prescient Nock wrote: Anyone who mentions liberty for the next two years will be supposed to be somehow beholden to the Republican party, just as anyone who mentioned it since 1917 was supposed to be a mouthpiece of the distillers and brewers.3

...

In fact, the individualists were in a bind at this sudden accession of old enemies as allies. On the positive side, it meant a rapid acceleration of libertarian rhetoric on the part of numerous influential politicians. And, furthermore, there were no other conceivable political allies available. But, on the negative side, the acceptance of libertarian ideas by Hoover, the Liberty League, et al., was clearly superficial and in the realm of general rhetoric only; given their true preferences, not one of them would have accepted the Spencerian laissez-faire model for America. This meant that libertarianism, as spread throughout the land, would remain on a superficial and rhetorical level, and, furthermore, would tar all libertarians, in the eyes of intellectuals, with the charge of duplicity and special pleading.

Sound familiar?

 

[idiom]

Lol, who the hell put History on Loop?

 

[Conza88]

The "Left" has a turn. Then its the "Right"'s turn...

It's like a god damn seesaw. The only way to get out of the loop, is to convince others there are better games to play.

Like "Hide and Go seek".

The State should go hide, and leave everyone the hell alone, whilst the rest of us go seek out a peaceful co-existence of Liberty and prosperity.

 

[Josh_LA]

The "Left" has a turn. Then its the "Right"'s turn...

It's like a god damn seesaw.

is there anything that isnt?

Capitalism vs socialism?
Democrat in office vs Republican?
Inflation vs deflation?

Did you have a point you thought we were too stupid and not know already?

 

[Conza88]

is there anything that isnt?

Capitalism vs socialism?
Democrat in office vs Republican?
Inflation vs deflation?

Did you have a point you thought we were too stupid and not know already?

Capitalism vs socialism? - Capitalism without the state? Sure.
Democrat in office vs Republican? - Libertarian Party for starter.
Inflation vs deflation? - Neither. Free market in money.

Any other false paradigms? Sure.

But yeah, duality seems about right.

No offense intended to the bloke who is receiving a trophy. Sorry you had to be compared to Josh_LA.
​

 

[devil21]

Good thread. I fully agree with your assessment. Is someone getting paid to do what they do? If so, they can and will follow orders to keep that check coming. Even if it's selling out their country.

 

[Conza88]

Lol, who the hell put History on Loop?

Holy shit. Pg 185

In the light of hindsight, we should now ask whether or not a major objective of National Review from its inception was to transform the right wing from an isolationist to global warmongering anti-Communist movement; and, particularly, whether or not the entire effort was in essence a CIA operation. We now know that Bill Buckley, for the two years prior to establishing National Review, was admittedly a CIA agent in Mexico City, and that the sinister E. Howard Hunt was his control. His sister Priscilla, who became managing editor of National Review, was also in the CIA; and other editors James Burnham and Willmoore Kendall had at least been recipients of CIA largesse in the anti-Communist Congress
for Cultural Freedom. In addition, Burnham has been identified by two reliable sources as a consultant for the CIA in the years after World War II.10

Moreover, Garry Wills relates in his memoirs of the conservative movement that Frank Meyer, to whom he was close at the time, was convinced that the magazine was a CIA operation. With his Leninist-trained nose for intrigue, Meyer must be considered an important witness.

Furthermore, it was a standard practice in the CIA, at least in those early years, that no one ever resigned from the CIA. A friend of mine who joined the Agency in the early 1950s told me that if, before the age of retirement, he was mentioned as having left the CIA for another job, that I was to disregard it, since it would only be a cover for continuing Agency work. On that testimony, the case for NR being a CIA operation becomes even stronger. Also suggestive is the fact that a character even more sinister than E. Howard Hunt, William J. Casey, appears at key moments of the establishment of the New over the Old Right. It was Casey who, as attorney, presided over the incorporation of National Review and had arranged the details of the ouster of Felix Morley from Human Events.

"At any rate, in retrospect, it is clear that libertarians and Old Rightists, including myself, had made a great mistake in endorsing domestic red-baiting, a red-baiting that proved to be the major entering wedge for the complete transformation of the original right wing. We should have listened more carefully to Frank Chodorov, and to his splendidly libertarian stand on domestic redbaiting: “How to get rid of the communists in the government? Easy. Just abolish the jobs.”11 It was the jobs and their functioning that was the important thing, not the quality of the people who happened to fill them."​

...

It was Kirk, in fact, who brought the words “Conservatism” and “New Conservatism” into general acceptance on the right wing. Before that, knowledgeable libertarians had hated the word, and with good reason; for weren’t the conservatives the ancient enemy, the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Tory and reactionary suppressors of individual liberty, the ancient champions of the Old Order of Throne-and-Altar against which the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals had fought so valiantly?

And so the older classical-liberals and individualists resisted the term bitterly: Ludwig von Mises, a classical liberal, scorned the term; F.A. Hayek insisted on calling himself an “Old Whig”; and when Frank Chodorov was called a “conservative” in the pages of National Review, he wrote an outraged letter declaring, “As for me, I will punch anyone who calls me a conservative in the nose. I am a radical.” 15

They branded him a Conservative.. when it was basically insane to do so. JUST LIKE NOW, they're trying to corrupt the differentiation between real Libertarians and the NEO-CON scum.

 

[devil21]

Ron Paul = Frank Chodorov

Off to Google this Chodorov guy.

Hmm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Chodorov

Frank Chodorov (1887–1966) was a U.S. thinker and member of the Old Right, a group of libertarian ideologists who were minarchist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and (later) anti-New Dealers.

That sounds familiar. Kinda freaked out now.

 

[BuddyRey]

This is a really, really great thread!!!

You've done it again, Conza. Took the words right out of my mouth!

We started winning over a lot of liberals during Ron Paul's campaign, and the sudden clammy embrace of FAUX News, Glen Beck, and Ann Coulter is a clear-cut attempt to rub some of their RINO stank off on us in the eyes of sympathetic but easily deluded Obamatons.

 

[Conza88]

Frank Chodorov, R.I.P. by Murray N. Rothbard

Chodorov's archives at LewRockwell.com

He was on par with Albert Jay Nock, Mencken etc. The Old Right radicals.

The difference between then and now though; is that Rothbard considered the need to make alliances, with the anti status quo wing of the day. With the left at one stage, and the right in another. So they could get published and tried to convert the others in those movements to Libertarianism.

Today though - we have the internet. We have LewRockwell.com, LvMI, C4L, YAL, all of which is starting to snow ball.

This is the difference. We don't need alliances. We need more joining our ranks.

 

[Johnnybags]

At this point I'll take any help

to get the masses of asses stirred up. Beck,Malkin,Coulter are just setting up their "book sales" based on the rising anger in America. They go where the money flows and its flowing towards populism and the constitution rebirth books. Mark my words, a Beck book will be forthcoming.

 

[Conza88]

[Mitt Romneys sideburns] Damn, john stewart is an ass. There was a clip where he was showing a bunch of Fox News people talking about how fascism has come to America. He had Napalitano on here, suggesting that Napalitano just started up when Obama got elected. When in truth, Napalitano calls just about every politician a fascist.

 

[BuddyRey]

[Mitt Romneys sideburns] Damn, john stewart is an ass. There was a clip where he was showing a bunch of Fox News people talking about how fascism has come to America. He had Napalitano on here, suggesting that Napalitano just started up when Obama got elected. When in truth, Napalitano calls just about every politician a fascist.

Really?!

Wow, what an ass Stewart is. Napolitano has been railing against Gov't for years.

 

[Josh_LA]

Capitalism vs socialism? - Capitalism without the state? Sure.
Democrat in office vs Republican? - Libertarian Party for starter.
Inflation vs deflation? - Neither. Free market in money.

Any other false paradigms? Sure.

But yeah, duality seems about right.

Not saying they're true paradigms, just saying that they swing back and forth, not saying there aren't other options out there.

 

[Josh_LA]

Good thread. I fully agree with your assessment. Is someone getting paid to do what they do? If so, they can and will follow orders to keep that check coming. Even if it's selling out their country.

I agree, why is that wrong?

Nobody owes his country or his community anything (or simply, nobody owes another person anything unless he agreed to it)

 

[devil21]

I agree, why is that wrong?

Nobody owes his country or his community anything (or simply, nobody owes another person anything unless he agreed to it)

Actually, people do owe their country and their community something. It's called loyalty. When you are disloyal to your country it is called TREASON. When media types go out of their way to support the globalist agenda, the false right/left, etc they are committing treason. They are only helping to end the sovereignty of the nation.