PDA

View Full Version : The Libertarian Deception?


rangergord
08-22-2005, 07:08 PM
How to do this.

Freaking wake up man. The Chicago School is where free trade economists are trained. The "Chicago School" is synonymous with the "Rockefeller School".

Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chicago+School+Rockefeller+School&btnG=Google+Search)

It took me a while to figure this twist out. It's when I noticed the Taft-Roosevelt-Wilson election was exactly the same thing as the Bush-Perot-Clinton election that I made the connection.

The insiders needed Roosevelt to topple Taft (against the FED) to install Wilson (for the FED). Wilson was a D the congress was held by the R. (This trick required a Holiday.) Exactly the same thing happened 80 years later when the insiders needed Perot to topple Bush to install Clinton to get NAFTA passed. Since the D was in control of the congress it was necessary to have a D Pres to press against the D grain (pro labor) to get it on their (the insiders) time table.

I thought free trade was a good idea until I saw how they elected Clinton and how the D party was gutted by older constituents as a result. Some call it Newt's contract on American, others say it was a reaction to Hillarycare but that's pure BS. It was because Clinton got enough D's to turn their back on the people that voted for them and they stayed away or registered a protest vote.

So here's the gig. The R's are war mongers who get us bogged down (like Johnson). The people pissed at Clinton and the D's are dead or senile. The R's got their freedom stripping laws. When they are replaced by the D's, we'll get collectivism and mulitculturalism on steriods and America will be defeated.

Maybe the FED tightens, if necessary, to bring this all about.

Back to the subject of free trade. Name one country that has ever risen to power using the economic prescription of the "Chicago School". Just one.

Thumper
08-22-2005, 07:31 PM
From what I've vaguely heard, it's not true free trade. The US bank of exports actually subsidizes the outsourcing of American companies, and of course third world countries don't give their workers all kinds of insurance, thus being able to deliver a cheaper product.

Basically it's not the level playing field that everyone imagines.

55132
08-22-2005, 09:00 PM
The chicago school is the craddle of what we now call the neocons (you know bush and his cronies)

Interestingly its origin comes from a german jewish imigrant called robert straus. To make things more interesting this jew was one of germanies nazi party founders and ideoloques and was a close friend of adolf hitler. He left germany when the party started to become more antijew (or so they say) but this did not stop many jews from serving the nazi party or financing them.

Robert Strauss landed in chicago where he became the basis of the chicago school of politics where most of the top neocons graduated.

I wish i still had the link to the articles that exposed these facts but i lost it in a system crash/
Its not easy to find.

Minuteman
08-22-2005, 09:11 PM
Yes, yes, yes it's not free trade at all. They have to get rid of the manufacturing base in the US because the US is going to be a gigantic nature preserve with only the rich and famous being allowed to have exotic vacations here.
Lets send all or our manufacturing to low wage, OSHA, EPA and union free countries so CEO Joe P. Asswipe can pocket the difference. You as a consumer get the added benefit of buy the same thing six times because the quality sucks.
The town of Bradley Illinois gets ordered to buy the strawberries from Mexico for it's school department,known to have been picked by hepatitis C workers, because you can't interfere with the "finacial interests" of the Maquiladora Strawberry Company.
To top it all off the electronics industry gave China, RED China, as in you know Communist, Tianamen Square, Microsoft censor words like "freedom" "democracy", the latest 300mm semiconductor wafer fab technology for free.
Why? CEO I.F. Littleboys got his bonus.
Got water?
Got ammo?
Last summer before Armageddon.
Enjoy. Don't take me too seriously. I'm a worst case senario guy.

rangergord
08-26-2005, 02:32 PM
55132 wrote:
The chicago school is the craddle of what we now call the neocons (you know bush and his cronies)

Interestingly its origin comes from a german jewish imigrant called robert straus. To make things more interesting this jew was one of germanies nazi party founders and ideoloques and was a close friend of adolf hitler. He left germany when the party started to become more antijew (or so they say) but this did not stop many jews from serving the nazi party or financing them.

Robert Strauss landed in chicago where he became the basis of the chicago school of politics where most of the top neocons graduated.

I wish i still had the link to the articles that exposed these facts but i lost it in a system crash/
Its not easy to find.

Economic School, not Political School. Think Adam Smith and The Austrian School.

Free Traitors.

rangergord
08-26-2005, 02:38 PM
Thumper wrote:
From what I've vaguely heard, it's not true free trade. The US bank of exports actually subsidizes the outsourcing of American companies, and of course third world countries don't give their workers all kinds of insurance, thus being able to deliver a cheaper product.

Basically it's not the level playing field that everyone imagines.

It's the pure embrace of materialism.

rangergord
08-26-2005, 02:47 PM
Minuteman wrote:
Yes, yes, yes it's not free trade at all. They have to get rid of the manufacturing base in the US because the US is going to be a gigantic nature preserve with only the rich and famous being allowed to have exotic vacations here.
Lets send all or our manufacturing to low wage, OSHA, EPA and union free countries so CEO Joe P. Asswipe can pocket the difference. You as a consumer get the added benefit of buy the same thing six times because the quality sucks.
The town of Bradley Illinois gets ordered to buy the strawberries from Mexico for it's school department,known to have been picked by hepatitis C workers, because you can't interfere with the "finacial interests" of the Maquiladora Strawberry Company.
To top it all off the electronics industry gave China, RED China, as in you know Communist, Tianamen Square, Microsoft censor words like "freedom" "democracy", the latest 300mm semiconductor wafer fab technology for free.
Why? CEO I.F. Littleboys got his bonus.
Got water?
Got ammo?
Last summer before Armageddon.
Enjoy. Don't take me too seriously. I'm a worst case senario guy.

Well, let's put it this way. Britian has one foot in the EU and one foot in the "special" (as though we -- in the US -- are retarded) "relationship".

Correct me if I'm wrong, they (Britian) can switch sides on a dime.

nohope187
08-26-2005, 07:38 PM
Okay, so the US only produces the illusion of free trade via debt creation. I guess this has been goin' on for the last decade or so? So if our situation is exactly the same as Rome, but more sophisticated, how the fuck can people be so fucking naive as to expect a different result?... Wait, nevermind. :-( :-? :-x

psholtz
08-26-2005, 09:09 PM
The Taft-Roosevelt-Wilson election in 1912 was not so much Republican versus Democrat, as it was Morgan versus Rockefeller. It's impossible to understand the history of the U.S. between the Civil War to WWI, w/o understand the war (and it was literally a war) that was being waged by Rockefeller and Morgan.

Ultimately, these two sets of interests united and joined powers, no later than when Stalin took power in Russia in 1924.. but ... before then, there was a vicious battle for control of the country, and the world, being waged between Morgan and Rockefeller.. WWI was largely an expression of this battle, w/ Morgan siding w/ Britain while Rockefeller sided w/ Germany. Both sides were fighting for Russia, w/ Morgan "paying" the way for the Communist Revolution in 1917, and (I believe, although I'm still trying to make sense of some of the historical clues) Rockefeller eventually grabbing a coup d'etat over there in Russia.. at least until Stalin came along and kicked them both out (1924), hence creating the need for Rockefeller+Morgan to unite, rebuild Germany, and finance a strongman in Germany (Hitler) to run back into Russia and reclaim those precious oil fields for Morgan/Rockefeller..

Anyway, point is, in 1912, the war between Morgan + Rockefeller was still in high gear. Taft was a Rockefeller man, Roosevelt and Wilson were Morgan men. Once you know that, the election kinda makes sense..

nomad
08-26-2005, 09:43 PM
Awesome psholtz ... where can we get more info

and details on the Morgan/Rockefeller struggle ?

psholtz
08-27-2005, 08:09 AM
nomad wrote:
Awesome psholtz ... where can we get more info

and details on the Morgan/Rockefeller struggle ?
Murray Rothbard's works (esp his historical works) are a great place to start! :-P

I've also been blogging about it a bit, on my blog, which you'll find in my sig, or else at this address:

http://abovethepresident.blogspot.com/

alumbrado
08-28-2005, 07:47 PM
Do your research on Cordell Hull, the father of the international free trade. WTO, GATT, EU, NAFTA, CAFTA and eventually FTAA all traced back to Cordell Hull.

alumbrado
08-28-2005, 08:02 PM
psholtz wrote:
The Taft-Roosevelt-Wilson election in 1912 was not so much Republican versus Democrat, as it was Morgan versus Rockefeller. It's impossible to understand the history of the U.S. between the Civil War to WWI, w/o understand the war (and it was literally a war) that was being waged by Rockefeller and Morgan.

Ultimately, these two sets of interests united and joined powers, no later than when Stalin took power in Russia in 1924.. but ... before then, there was a vicious battle for control of the country, and the world, being waged between Morgan and Rockefeller.. WWI was largely an expression of this battle, w/ Morgan siding w/ Britain while Rockefeller sided w/ Germany. Both sides were fighting for Russia, w/ Morgan "paying" the way for the Communist Revolution in 1917, and (I believe, although I'm still trying to make sense of some of the historical clues) Rockefeller eventually grabbing a coup d'etat over there in Russia.. at least until Stalin came along and kicked them both out (1924), hence creating the need for Rockefeller+Morgan to unite, rebuild Germany, and finance a strongman in Germany (Hitler) to run back into Russia and reclaim those precious oil fields for Morgan/Rockefeller..

Anyway, point is, in 1912, the war between Morgan + Rockefeller was still in high gear. Taft was a Rockefeller man, Roosevelt and Wilson were Morgan men. Once you know that, the election kinda makes sense..

Um, Morgan and Rockefeller were in this type together before World War I. Both were instrumentally involved in the formation of the Federal Reserves in 1911 through their associates, much to Taft's knowledge (remember Taft was a 33rd degree Freemason).

Morgan wasn't interesting in the control of oil but the control of the oil industry's financial managements and resources through the British oil companies. Rockefeller wanted Russian oil 100% but the British involvement in the Persian oil fields veered him away from Russia (Middle Eastern oil fields have more oil than Russia's). Germany have the eye on that, too and hope to establish a connection with their Middle Eastern ally: the Ottoman Turks. The British saw the writing on the wall of a German-Turk Empire oil network and initiated a festering war in the Balkans prior to the Great War to distract Germany and the Habsburg Empire. Morgan and Rockefeller sided with the British when the Great War broke out. Germany never stood a better chance of winning the war throughout and the Ottoman Turk Empire fell apart after the war, giving the British an unprecedented control of the Middle East and the American a future in oil politics and geopolitics.

And the rest is history.

psholtz
08-28-2005, 10:54 PM
alumbrado wrote:
Um, Morgan and Rockefeller were in this type together before World War I. Both were instrumentally involved in the formation of the Federal Reserves in 1911 through their associates, much to Taft's knowledge (remember Taft was a 33rd degree Freemason).
Yes, Morgan and Rockefeller were both involved in creating a central bank, since from their perspective a central bank is a "policy neutral" instrument that can be used to silently transfer wealth from the population at large into their corporate interests..

That doesn't mean that they didn't still fight it out over who's corporate interests were the beneficiaries of central bank policy..

I don't claim to be an *expert* on this era of U.S. history, but I've reading some of Rothbard's works in this area, and have found them highly interesting.. The idea of a Rockefeller/Morgan split existing in the U.S. from the Civil War to WWI is a thesis of Rothbard's.. I recommend you to him for further info..

Morgan wasn't interesting in the control of oil but the control of the oil industry's financial managements and resources through the British oil companies.
Yes, true..

Rockefeller wanted Russian oil 100% but the British involvement in the Persian oil fields veered him away from Russia (Middle Eastern oil fields have more oil than Russia's). Germany have the eye on that, too and hope to establish a connection with their Middle Eastern ally: the Ottoman Turks. The British saw the writing on the wall of a German-Turk Empire oil network and initiated a festering war in the Balkans prior to the Great War to distract Germany and the Habsburg Empire. Morgan and Rockefeller sided with the British when the Great War broke out. Germany never stood a better chance of winning the war throughout and the Ottoman Turk Empire fell apart after the war, giving the British an unprecedented control of the Middle East and the American a future in oil politics and geopolitics.
All true, except that Rockefeller's Standard Oil (or what was left of it after the breakup) supplied all of Germany's oil during WWI. Rockefeller interests were also behind subversive programs wherein Allied food shipments were diverted to Germany, to keep Germany well fed and equipped to continue fighting the war.. and historically, before and after WWI, Rockefeller had always been quite well connected in Germany..

Perhaps they really were just fighting a war for the sake of a war, but one nevertheless gets the sense that there was a *genuine* corporate battle for control of oil (esp between Rockefeller on the one hand, the British on the other), at least until 1927, when they seemed to unite viz the Red Line Agreement (an agreement which I believe was probably precipiated by Stalin's rise to power in the Soviet Union, although I have no hard evidence of that).

Again, I'm no expert.. just reporting some of my observations.. :-P

truebeliever
08-28-2005, 11:04 PM
I have NO particular knowledge to add. However, the lecture "The Politics Of Cancer Therapy" is still up on my site. Griffin lectures of Rockerfella's instramental role in financing Hitler through I.G Farbin.

www.members.iinet.net.au

rangergord
08-30-2005, 02:02 AM
Rothbard I've read. Just another Free Traitor in the Rockefeller School tradition.

Way back when things were different. You picked a horse. Now you bet both ponies or risk jail.

The "power stuggle" between Morgan and Rockefeller was primarily show. Roosevelt and Wilson would sign the Fed, Taft would not. Morgan encouraged Roosevelt to grab the third party movement which insured the Fed and subdued the third party movement.

--

The Libertarian movement was about to achieve valid party status and was a threat. The insiders were running Clinton to get NAFTA but he was flawed. They had Perot lined up.

You do remember Perot dropped out of the race and Bush surged forcing a Perot return. He (Perot) claimed he left because of R dirty tricks.

--

Teddy Roosevelt is known by false Histroy as the Trust Buster. In his term their were more Trusts created then busted. Under Taft, there were fewer Trusts created then busted in less time. (Less than half of the Trust creations, more than double the busts.)

Taft hit Morgan targets for real. (As apposed to hitting coal, an obsticle to Rockefeller.)