“The Paradox of the Outraged”

October 18, 2011 § Leave a comment

I read a really great article on Mises.org this morning called “The Paradox of the Outraged.” It does an amazing job of going deeper into the issues that I raised in my last blog post. In fact, he even mentions “social justice”(what are the chances of that? :)).  It was damn good, and I highly recommend it.

Advertisements

The OWS protests and the inherently contradictory “social justice” movement

October 15, 2011 § Leave a comment

In the midst of the Occupy Wall Street mania, it’s become incredibly clear to me that the real “movers and shakers” of international banking, and thus, international politics, must be incredibly pleased. I mean, there are people in the streets who are actually naïve enough to be clamoring for exactly the same type of “social justice” system that these globalist bankers have been planning. In fact, the current wave of protests and the incredibly backwards demands that many of its participants clamor over, really makes one wonder just how much the globalist bankers were involved in the creation of Occupy Wall Street to begin with.

Conspiracy theories aside, I find this entire “movement” to be incredibly aggravating. It makes me feel almost hopeless that this world will ever understand the true motivations of those in power—that is, not politicians, but the banking elite who truly call the shots in the international system. The truth is, the OWS protests are most likely music to ears of the of the “1%”(ignoring the arbitrary and imbecilic nature of such a number).

Granted, the faction of OWS protestors who tend to associate with the Ron Paul Revolution, actually pose a threat to those in Wall Street and abroad who have created the situation that we find ourselves in. Obviously, the American media will do it’s damndest to ignore such a truth, and only report about this faction in as much as it will hurt Paul’s standing among likely Republican voters, who see OWS as nothing but a collective liberal, immature, and desperate cry for handouts.

I’m almost finished reading the book “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. In many ways, this blog post was motivated by what I’ve read so far, and how it’s drastically affected the lens through which I’ve examined the OWS protests as a whole.

Griffin claims, with significant evidence, that the major players of the international banking system have been using Central banking as a means to promote a New World Order, which would be controlled “behind the scenes” by the same influential bankers that currently make significant decisions across the globe.  Griffin shows that a majority of the most prominent proponents of central banking were in fact communists (namely, John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White). These individuals saw central banking as an invaluable tool in bringing state control to human society.

Somewhat ironically, the large swaths of the OWS protestors who call for “social justice” in the form of increased state control, and redistribution of wealth, are playing right into the hands of the same bankers that they are supposedly rebelling against.

What a sad state of affairs.

A Nation of Dependence

October 3, 2011 § Leave a comment

The vast land that we now refer to as the United States of America was built on the notion of “independence”. Independence from the British, independence from a mercantile system, and most importantly, independence from an overbearing leviathan state. This is evidenced just by looking around us– hell, I grew up nearby a town called “Independence, Ohio”. Needless to say, the idea of Independence is essential to American society, and I’m convinced that the spirit of Independence still lives on in the American soul.

Wikipedia defines Independence as follows:

Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over its territory.

The key here, is the term self-government, which according to Wikipedia

…can be used to describe a people or group being able to exercise all of the necessary functions of power without intervention from any authority which they cannot themselves alter.

Of course, there is no better way to “alter” an authority than to refuse it’s orders. Or put differently, having the ability to opt-out of a body of  authority, is the key to true independence in it’s purest form. The authority which should be obeyed, is that of the free market.

Wikipedia makes a distinction between “Independence” and “Revolution” as follows.

Attainment of independence should not be confused with revolution, which typically refers to the violent overthrow of a ruling authority. While some revolutions seek and achieve national independence, others aim only to redistribute power — with or without an element of emancipation, such as in democratizationwithin a state, which as such may remain unaltered. Furthermore, some countries were granted independence without any revolutionary acts. The Russian October Revolution, for example, was not intended to seek national independence; the United States Revolutionary War, however, was.

Although their point is valid, I think further distinction needs to be made. Both Wikipedia articles for the terms “Revolution” and “Independence” mainly work around the assumption that such movements only occur within the framework of the state. This isn’t necessarily always the case, at least theoretically. Furthermore, there should be some clarification to the statement that revolutions are typically violent. Although this may be the typical case, it should be emphasized that any worthy revolution will be one of ideas– not guns or violence. Admittedly, those same ideas may lead to the initiation of violence by those who lose power when the people become enlightened. But just because temporary violence may be the end result of a revolution, it does not mean that violence should be the means of any revolution.

Most importantly, revolution in this context is merely a means by which to gain independence. Independence, that is, from a central body of force and coercion. The key then becomes to facilitate such a revolution by further spreading an idea throughout society. If a critical mass of emboldened, enlightened individuals can be reached, then the revolution stands a very good chance of at the very least, shifting the public discussion in their direction. Thanks to the work of Ron Paul, and the people he has inspired, I fully believe that we have reached that critical mass in the United States today.

God bless. Please comment if you enjoyed(or we disgusted with) this post. 😉

 

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for October, 2011 at The Liberty Minded Individual.