The Ron Paul Conspiracy

20 years ago Paul and his kooky friends cooked-up a conspiracy to attain high office and change America:

In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”
SOURCE

Funny how Paul's supporters see conspiracy everywhere yet this sort of thing by their own candidate passes unnoticed as 'the usual stuff of politics'.

The Libertarian cabal? The Libertarian conspiracy? Oh no! Only other people conspire.....only other people build up networks.....etc. lol.

For anyone but themselves this stuff would be self-evident proof of malevolent conspiracy, but for the conspiracists supporting Paul it's all perfectly normal and absent the least possible whiff of anything sinister. Funny.

What's a little hypocrisy amongst friends?

Ron Paul: Gingrich taking Freddie Mac money 'immoral'

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Sunday called Newt Gingrich's acceptance of more than $1 million from a government-controlled mortgage lender "immoral."

Paul, who has called on Gingrich to apologize for the $1.6 million he received in his role with Freddie Mac, said while the former House speaker isn't under any legal obligation to return the funds he should consider the move.

"I wouldn't have taken their money just for the fact that I think it's an immoral thing," Paul said Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."

SOURCE

Paul wouldn't have taken the money because it's 'immoral'. But then compare what Ron Paul obviously considers moral - accepting campaign finance from Neo-Nazi Don Black (Stormfront):

Paul keeps donation from white supremacist

Aide: Candidate to take money and 'try to spread the message of freedom'

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said.

"Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

SOURCE

So, taking money from Freddie Mac is immoral, but taking money from Nazis is fine. Bizarre sort of morality.

Stormfront, Spotlight, Willis Carto......Ron Paul

From the New York Times article on Ron Paul and the controversial newsletters:

Mr. Black of Stormfront said the newsletters helped make him a Ron Paul supporter. “That was a big part of his constituency, the paleoconservatives who think there are race problems in this country,” Mr. Black said.

“We understand that Paul is not a white nationalist, but most of our people support him because of his stand on issues,” Mr. Black said. “We think our race is being threatened through a form of genocide by assimilation, meaning the allowing in of third-world immigrants into the United States.”

Mr. Black said Mr. Paul was attractive because of his “aggressive position on securing our borders,” his criticism of affirmative action and his goal of eliminating the Federal Reserve, which the Stormfront board considers to be essentially a private bank with no government oversight. “Also, our board recognizes that most of the leaders involved in the Fed and the international banking system are Jews.”

Mr. Paul is not unaware of that strain among his supporters. Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto.

SOURCE

Egyptian forces raid NGOs

The Guardian is reporting "US 'deeply concerned' after Egyptian forces raid NGO offices in Cairo."

Relations between Egypt's military rulers and the United States threatened to hit a new low after Egyptian security forces launched unprecedented armed raids on a series of high profile human rights and pro-democracy organisations.

The 'usual suspects' are named in the article, including IRI, NDI and Freedom House:

The raids included targeting the US-government funded National Democratic Institute – founded by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright – and the International Republican Institute, whose chairman is Republican senator John McCain. Both organisations are affiliated with the two major US political parties.

Security forces also raided the offices of Washington-based Freedom House.
SOURCE

Hmmm.

Ron Paul's newsletters drawing justified criticism (finally)

The following is a selection of commentary on Ron Paul's newsletters. Pleased to say they generally closely validate and support all the things I've been saying about him (and his supporters eg 911 Troof) these last 5 years or more.

Paul knows where his bread is buttered. He regularly appears on the radio program of Alex Jones, a vocal 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorist based in his home state of Texas. On Jones’s show earlier this month, Paul alleged that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a “propaganda stunt” perpetrated by the Obama administration.

In light of the newsletters and his current rhetoric, it is no wonder that Paul has attracted not just prominent racists, but seemingly every conspiracy theorist in America. The title of one of Paul’s newsletter series – the Ron Paul Survival Report – was a conscious appeal to followers of the “survivalist” movement of the 1990s, whose ideology blended white supremacy and anti-government militancy in preparation for what Paul himself termed the “coming race war.”

As Paul told The Times last week, he has no interest in dissuading the various extremists from backing his campaign, which is hardly surprising considering he’s spent three decades cultivating their support. Paul’s shady associations are hardly “bygone” and the “facts” of his dangerous conspiracy-mongering are very much “in evidence.” Paul has not just marinated in a stew of far-right paranoia; he is one of the chefs.

Of course, it is impossible to know what Ron Paul truly thinks about black or gay people or the other groups so viciously disparaged in his newsletters. What we do know with absolute certainty, however, is that Ron Paul is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who regularly imputes the worst possible motives to the very government he wants to lead.
SOURCE

Here's an old video of Ron Paul taking credit for the newsletters he now disavows:



On the strategy which produced the newsletters:

This is new to the Paper of Record, but Julian Sanchez and I wrote about this -- these two exact essays -- nearly four years ago.
Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."
The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an "unholy alliance of 'corporate liberal' Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America."
Why has it taken four years for these public domain facts to become "news"? How did Paul slide through a year of televised debates, where his rivals were asked about their opinions of "submission" in marriage and accusations of affairs, and never get a question about this stuff? Paul's associations haven't changed in four years. His explanations haven't changed. You can see why Paul's fans might get annoyed or paranoid about this. They thought they'd litigated this stuff already, and earned a pass.
SOURCE

Again, on the writers of the report:

Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

But a source close to the Paul presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. "If Rockwell had any honor he'd come out and I say, ‘I wrote this stuff,'" said the source, who asked not to be named because Paul remains friendly with Rockwell and is reluctant to assign responsibility for the letters. "He should have done it 10 years ago."

Rockwell was publicly named as Paul's ghostwriter as far back as a 1988 issue of the now-defunct movement monthly American Libertarian. "This was based on my understanding at the time that Lew would write things that appeared in Ron's various newsletters," former AL editor Mike Holmes told reason. "Neither Ron nor Lew ever told me that, but other people close to them such as Murray Rothbard suggested that Lew was involved, and it was a common belief in libertarian circles."

Individualist-feminist Wendy McElroy, who on her blog characterized the author as an associate of hers for many years, called the ghostwriter's identity "an open secret within the circles in which I run." Though she declined to name names either on her blog or when contacted by reason, she later approvingly cited a post naming Rockwell at the anonymous blog RightWatch.
SOURCE

Here's TNR's "A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters"

Lots of good links in that one.

Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?

A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed

Given that the most shocking racist and homophobic content from his actual newsletters is reprinted in the span of just one eight-page mailer, it offers a stark picture of just how focused the publication was on these conspiracy theories. You can read the full letter here.
SOURCE

I especially liked the libertarian criticism of Ron Paul as it reflects some of my own criticisms against Paul (and his support) - for example, the incongruency of a belief in 'Liberty' versus support for secure borders and opposition to immigration. This is a difficulty Paul's supporters, such as Alex Jones and the 911 Troofers have never managed to properly address - they've managed to avoid all serious criticism until now, because they control their own media and refuse to embrace any criticism.

Well, now RP is out in the open, such criticism cannot be avoided. In such a light, I guess it can only be a positive thing RP is attracting significant support in his Presidential run - finally he (and his belief system) are attracting attention in places where Paul and his supporters cannot exercise control, as they do at Prisonplanet and WhatReallyHappened.com etc. Good.

The party is over, conspiro-nuts! Great. Whilst the conspiros obviously won't reconsider anything, the coverage should at least successfully delegitimise their creed in the eyes of 'normal' people. Success.

Ron Paul under scrutiny - racism? Whooops.

Source: FoxNews

It's also featured in the Guardian.

Ron Paul: racist newsletter scandal won't go away
Ron Paul says he knew nothing of a racist newsletter published under his name two decades ago. But he hasn't offered a convincing explanation – and that could hurt him in Iowa

And it's at their source too, of course..



Honest Ron. sure.

Paul has claimed that the newsletter, which compared African Americans to zoo animals, warned of a coming race war, and generally promoted racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views, was written by other authors and he was unaware of its content — even passages written from his perspective. He has not offered up any of the names of the six to eight writers he said were responsible for writing the incendiary material, however, and reporters are pressing him for more details

"racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views" - never! I mean, why would racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views be found amongst Ron Paul's racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia support?

He now says he disavows such views. Maybe someone should tell his "racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia" supporters that he's disavowed them?

Why hasn't Paul ever told them?

** ETA - Here's a link to one of Ron Paul's solicitations for subscription to his "newsletters".

Super-committee fails - shock!

The Guardian reports that "...the 12-member committee announced on Monday that after months of talks it was unable to bridge the deep ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats."

Who is surprised?

Republicans are concerned that the automatic cuts in military spending, amounting to $600bn over 10 years, will severely damage the Pentagon's ability to maintain national security.

The cuts in military spending will be matched by $600bn in domestic spending.

Defence secretary Leon Panetta has described the size of the military cuts as "devastating".

Two Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, issued a joint statement saying: "As every military and civilian defence official has stated, these cuts represent a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and cannot be allowed to occur."
SOURCE

Substantial military cuts? Excellent!!

The deadlock on the supercommittee was blamed by the Democrats on a long-time Republican political lobbyist, Grover Norquist, who leads a campaign against tax rises. Norquist has persuaded Republican members of Congress over the years to sign pledges never to raise taxes. All six Republicans on the committee had done so.

If they had agreed to tax rises, they would be open to charges of reneging on the pledges they gave to Norquist, potentially damaging when they stand for re-election.

But the Repubs knew this when they decided on those 6 members of the committee? The answer was decided then, obviously.

So, no tax-rises but automatic spending cuts. Just what the 99% asked for? Well, some of them certainly did, not that you'd get that impression if you asked OWS......

But again, it's more evidence of how divided the nation is, how divided the people and their representatives are. Conspiracists like to make out that there's some great conspiracy subverting democracy and moving events to some predetermined end. But the reality is people cannot agree amongst themselves, neither can the representatives they elect. It isn't that everyone agrees on everything - rather people strongly disagree across the aisles, even though they're politically very close (there's no raving socialists in the Congress, for example).

The super committee came about because of an inability to agree over the budget, re the debt-ceiling (some wanted cuts, some opposed cuts). So it's no surprise the committee can't agree a few months later (and why should a committee of 12 decide it anyway?) 12 can't agree, 300 million can't agree. This is not evidence of a coherent 99%. Not at all - they are split, near 50-50.

Reductions in fuel-duty tax -- paid for by cuts in social security benefits

How despicable is that? There's the measure of your 99%!!! Cut fuel duty, and make people on benefits pay for it. The poorest are being made to suffer so as to subsidise travel costs of industry and commuters. Brilliant! How many on benefits have cars? Not many, obviously.

The very poorest are being made to make life more bearable for the many, rich and poor alike. Seems fair, right? It follows a campaign by Britain's best-selling newspaper, The Sun, which is read by working-class audiences whom one might presume to be most supportive of the 99% thing. But no.....

These are the people Occupy need speak to, not bankers and stockbrokers and 'the powers that be'.

Despicable. Let's see the outrage of the 99% now? Keep looking, I suspect.

I had previously asked how OWS (and the 99%) would respond to proposals to cut benefits. We shall see.

OWS/OLSX included in its first list of demands the abolition of the Royal Mayor of London! Laughable. Nobody gives a shit. Whereas Benefits cuts will effect millions of the very poorest and most vulnerable. Lets see some action?

Spain shifts right

Spain has elected the conservative right. After all those protests about cuts etc? Now they are in for even more. So much for the revolutionary 99%.

Spain has evicted the incumbents. Just as happened in UK. And whilst people protest cuts, they elect parties which will deliver even more stringent cuts.

BBC says:

Correspondents say many are angry with the Socialists for allowing the economy to deteriorate and then for introducing tough austerity measures.

So now they're going to get even more cuts? Err....K.

People are simply reacting against the ruling parties, and electing the opposition - regardless of the policy. This certainly doesn't speak of a major sea-change shift leftwards....certainly not towards some class-conscious revolution as OWS supporters seem to claim. Rather it speaks of the 99% not really knowing what to do, other than throw out the incumbent. People want change but not any particular ones. 'Socialists' are thrown out for conservatives, conservatives are thrown out for 'socialists'. Difficult to see that as a changed political landscape - rather it's reaction.

Greece had an election in 09, in which the socialists were elected over the incumbent conservatives (who were blamed for the crisis.) Now the socialists are being blamed for the ongoing crisis. We might say the same of America - Bush out, Obama in - with Obama suffering from the fallout and the ongoing crises.

But in Spain (and UK) 'socialists' were blamed for the crisis - as the incumbents - and were voted out in favour of conservatives.

Has it made any difference to the respective outcomes?

Clearly there's little reason to crudely blame either party exclusively because both parties have been in power in different places and all face similar problems. So electing the opposition in place of the incumbents is hardly likely to seriously address the issues.

I wish somewhere would at least have the nerve and audacity to try a seriously leftwing approach to the problem. Maybe we can look at Venezuela as an example, but it's an oil economy, and a developing one not a mature mixed economy like a major European state.

In ways it'd be most interesting if Ron Paul won in upcoming US elections (next year?). At least he'd finally be proven as ineffectual, or highly destructive, or - what would be a big shock - successful. At least it'd be something different instead of this ineffectual musical chairs thing.

Whilst supposed 'socialists' vie with 'conservatives' for power, we see there really isn't much difference in the policies, nor the outcomes. No-one is trying genuinely socialist or radical policies.

This is the roar of the 99%?

The 99% are the problem

All organisations and institutions must submit to democratic, parliamentary authority. That battle has already been won, generally, in the West at least.

The problem is the use the 99% put their vote to. Wall St must already submit to Congress - the London Stock Exchange must already submit to Parliament.

The problem is the electorate - not Wall St - not the London Stock Exchange.

Most of the voices claiming to speak for and with the authority of the 99% have nothing to offer - they have nothing to replace that which they seek a revolution to dispose. This is the height of stupidity.

I applaud the sentiments of OWS etc, but it's laughably vacuous imo. Abolish "greed"? Yes, sure. How? SILENCE.

Reduce inequality? Sure. HOW? Silence.

Oppose bank bailouts? Sure - and then we have no banks and the role they play in the economy is gone.....with the effect that....what? There's no economy? Nobody can borrow money to start a business? Great!

And what of the depositors? If the banks are allowed to fail, the depositors lose all their money. The depositors are the 99%. Did OWS forget, or do they not know?

Printing money costs nothing - and moderate inflation only hurts those with money saved: anyone on index-linked pensions, benefits and wages is safe. The wealthy with money hate inflation more than anyone else - debtors love it. Creditors hate inflation - debtors love it.

OWS speaks of public ignorance and self-interest imo. It's framed in rhetoric of concern and class solidarity but I think all that is a fraud. The public never much cared for class solidarity on the way up, only on the way down. Indeed, on the way up that was exactly what they threw overboard - I AM ALRIGHT JACK. Has everyone forgotten? It seems so.

Surprised? I'm not. I think OWS is full of shit. I'm sure lots of people really believe in what they're doing, but they're late to the party and we really need ask why. Well, they're upset because their "I'm alright Jack" paradigm isn't working, and so now they're asking for social/class solidarity. Oh right.....now you insist on it?

I'm appalled by the responses I have been getting from OWS supporters to my criticisms. I'd suspected OWS might be prone to fascism and the responses I have had are outrageously (verbally) violent and aggressive. Hardly dissuades me from my original position. It's grotesque.

Black smoke means cool fire? Rubbish

911 Troof has frequently claimed that black smoke in fires is evidence of a "cool" fire. FireEngineering.com say otherwise: they say the blacker smoke, the hotter the fire. They call energetic, dense black smoke "black fire" and say that it can reach temperatures of 1000F, that it causes damage to steel and that it should be treated 'like fire'.

In the UK there was a major fire at a oil storage depot - Buncefield. The fires produced highly energetic, dense black smoke. Nobody can say they were 'cool' fires (they melted the storage tanks). For example:

Troofers have been known to claim about 911 fires that

the smok [SIC] in the clip I posted is very BLACK smoke meaning the fires aren't as hot. Whiter smoke means a more hotter fire.

SOURCE

How can they be taken seriously? Here's another photo of an oil fire, in Pembrokeshire during WW2:

I think you can just about make out the black smoke, right?

The fire burned for three weeks and is the largest single seat fire in UK ever.It took 650 firemen to fight it. But according to 911 Troof, it wasn't a "hot" fire.

Sure.

FireEngineering.com have an article called 'THE ART OF READING SMOKE'. It says

"the more black the smoke, the hotter the smoke."

“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F! Treat black fire just as actual flames.....
SOURCE

Oh, and oil-fires can't melt steel?

robertlindsay.wordpress.com on Curt Maynard

I don't know if I agree with this dude on racism, but there we go. It's here for the record - what Curt Maynard was.

-------------------

The other White Supremacist death is that of Curtis Maynard, another WN nutcase, just like Barrett. I had read Maynard’s blog a few times, and it was really over the top! Ranting, raving, screaming, yelling and racist as all get out. He struck me more as a raving nut as opposed to your often cool-headed White racist. It turns out, incredibly, that Maynard, like Barrett, was also sampling some interracial sexual forbidden fruit (What is it with these guys, anyway?)

His ex-wife was Hispanic. They had a big messy divorce and breakup, and the other day Maynard went over to her house with a shotgun and chased her around the yard. She hid, terrified, with her young child, in the bushes.

Maynard found her and shot her dead.

Then he ran to his truck and drove away. A neighbor came out with his rifle but decided it was too dangerous to engage Maynard. The police quickly caught up with him and pulled him over.

Maynard pulled out his shotgun and blasted a round in his skull.

The strange saga of Curt Maynard was over.

I must say I don’t understand these guys. If they hate non-Whites so much, why can’t they stop fucking them? Fucking’s about as intimate as you can get. If you as a White person want to screw non-Whites of your own, the opposite, or both sexes, by all means help yourself, but why be a White Separatist at the same time? Something tells me a lot of these WN types are just not right in the head.

It’s a common line these days, mostly promoted by anti-racist Jews after the Holocaust, that racism is some sort of a mental disorder, and racists are all mentally disturbed, if not stark raving nuts. They’re all portrayed as dysfunctional fuckups and societal outcasts. I doubt if this is true. It’s understandable the Jews want to get back at their enemies for what was done to them, but there’s no reason to lie. A lot of this stuff is coming out of the Frankfurt School in Germany, where Jewish sociologists recast anti-Semitism and racism as a mental illness.

The Old South was extremely racist, and much of the rest of the US was too. Racism against Indians, Blacks and others was simply normal. Even in most of this century, casual White racism was the norm. In Germany, an entire nation went over to wild racism during World War 2. The Arab and Muslim World is furiously anti-Semitic.

I seriously doubt that the majority of Southerners, Germans, Arabs or Muslims are mentally ill, dysfunctional societal fuckups and losers. Racism isn’t all that healthy, but a society seething with racism is not a society of the mentally ill losers, outcasts and fuckups. Forget it. Many people can be well-adjusted in spite of their virulent racism.

The reason so many WN”s are whacked-out mentally disturbed loons nowadays is that White Supremacism is proscribed, thanks to decades of hard work by us anti-racists. As a condemned and disparaged philosophy, most normal Whites will shy away from it, whether they have tendencies that way or not. A society of outcasts will tend to attract a lot of flaky people who are already on the margins of society in addition to more normal folks.

This is the reason there are so many kooks and whackjobs on the WN scene.
SOURCE

Banned from Big Dan's Little Fascist Blog - Again

So confident of their "Troofiness" are Big Dan and his side-kick-parrot, Plunger, that they can't stand the least criticism. When asked to stand up claims about the dancing Israelis and UMS being MOSSAD (claims made by their Fascist sources but which Dan, Plunger and 911 Troof repeat ad nauseum as FACT) they blathered various vague and inconsequential rubbish about Jews - even citing 1954 and such like. All the usual rubbish, but nothing to substantiate the claims of their fascist sources - AmericanFreePress and Chris Bollyn.

Big Dan's is yet another little fascist, conspiracy hole that purports to criticise fascism whilst promoting Fascist sources, Fascist views, Fascist news.

Big Dan's Little Fascist Blog links to former AFP writer Chris Bollyn under the heading, "Fighting Fascism". It includes a listing for Willis Carto's American Free Press under the heading "NEWS" and Mike Rivero's WhatReallyHappened appears under a heading of "THE BEST NEWS".

Big Dan defends his use of the Fascist Press on the grounds it is "more honest" than mainstream. Dan offered Bollyn's book on 911 (which scapegoats Jews, obviously) as evidence.

Anyway, after proving Bollyn, Big Dan and Plunger to be liars making claims based on nothing, they banned me, and deleted my comments. Again. The usual response of the Troofy wing of the Fascist party.



For some previous on 'Big Dan's Little Fascist Blog' - here.

Highlights include recommendation to read Hitler's Last Testament, so as to get the real lowdown on Jooos. Other sources include various Carto organs, Benjamin Freedman, Father Coughlin, William Luther Pierce....you know, the usual leftwing, liberal and anti-fascist stuff, right? Sure. Far-right dude! Errr, I mean "Far out!"

Dr Larry Simons, the world's leading expert on 911 proven Wrong, Wrong, Wrong (again)

Dr Larry Simons, the world's pre-eminent expert on the new pseudo-science of Conspiracism-ism, was tonight refusing to answer calls to his BlogSite.

Meanwhile, pressure mounts around the world for Dr Larry to simply admit he was "Wrong Wrong Wrong". So far, Dr Simons' only response is to continuously delete posts to his website.

This follows an incident earlier this week when, in a shocking new development, Larry Simons put his entire spoonful of credibility behind his own claim that

the smok [SIC] in the clip I posted is very BLACK smoke meaning the fires aren't as hot. Whiter smoke means a more hotter fire.

Responding to this shocking outburst, the Peoples' Champion and fearless blogger, the_last_name_left responded by quoting an article published by FireEngineering.com which completely refutes Larry Simon's claims.

The FireEngineering.com article in question is called 'THE ART OF READING SMOKE' and is freely available online. Refuting Larry's claims entirely the expert publication clearly says

"the more black the smoke, the hotter the smoke."

Moreover, to make the point more clear, the article proceeds to explain what it calls "Black Fire":

“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F! Treat black fire just as actual flames.....

Readers should note here that "black fire" (thick, energetic, dense black smoke) is stated by real experts to represent fires that can be burning at temperatures of over 1000F - the temperature at which steel loses half it's strength.

As the shock of the world-renowned-expert Larry Simons being proven completely wrong (again) reverberated around the world of the blogosphere, Simons responded by repeatedly deleting the offending posts by the_last_name_left.

Pressure was said to be growing on Simons as his own claims to be 'a fearless troof-seeker' were proven completely untenable. However, Simons - who claims to be a doctor, architect, fire-expert and world-renowned Conspiracist - has released the following confusing statement -

"the definition to "black fire" is not mentioning what the COLOR of the SMOKE is...it is simply the name given to the FIRE----NOT the SMOKE"

But even supporters of Dr Larry The Architect were last night heard to be mumbling about how he was talking "so much shit" and how the phrase "Black Fire" clearly meant 'smoke', and not fire - as Dr Larry claims.

As fears for Dr Larry's sanity grow, pop-psychologists suggest Larry's only possible response is to admit he had indeed been proven WRONG WRONG WRONG and that his entire basis for claiming 'the fires weren't that hot' has been securely refuted by experts in the field.

Meanwhile, back at the_last_headquarters_left, internet-blogger the_last_name_left was once again busy sipping nice cold beer, and between smiles reflecting that "it's all in a day's work", girls.....

"Far right is on the rise across Europe....."

The Guardian today reports on a publication by thinktank Demos:

The far right is on the rise across Europe as discontent with the fallout from globalisation reverberates across the continent, a study has revealed ahead of a meeting of politicians and academics in Brussels to discuss the rapid spread of hardline nationalist and anti-immigrant groups.

The study reveals a continent-wide spread of hardline nationalist sentiment among the young, mainly men. Deeply cynical about their own governments and the EU, their generalised fear about the future is focused onto cultural identity, with immigration – particularly a perceived spread of Islamic influence – a big concern.

"We're at a crossroads in European history," said Emine Bozkurt, a Dutch MEP who heads the anti-racism lobby at the European parliament. "In five years' time we will either see an increase in the forces of hatred and division in society, including ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, or we will be able to fight this horrific tendency."

.... experts say, the polling booths and demonstrations are only part of the picture: online, a new generation is following these organisations and swapping ideas, particularly through Facebook. For most parties the numbers online are significantly bigger than their formal membership.
SOURCE

Well, there's no doubt about that.

.....others argued that Islam is simply antithetical to a liberal democracy, a view espoused most vocally by Geert Wilders, the Dutch leader of the Party for Freedom, which only six years after it was founded is the third-biggest force in the country's parliament.

This is a "key point" for the new populist-nationalists, said Matthew Goodwin from Nottingham University, an expert on the far right. "As an appeal to voters, it marks a very significant departure from the old, toxic far-right like the BNP. What some parties are trying to do is frame opposition to immigration in a way that is acceptable to large numbers of people. Voters now are turned off by crude, blatant racism – we know that from a series of surveys and polls.

"[These groups are] saying to voters: it's not racist to oppose these groups if you're doing it from the point of view of defending your domestic traditions. This is the reason why people like Geert Wilders have not only attracted a lot of support but have generated allies in the mainstream political establishment and the media."

While the Demos poll appears to show economics playing a minimal role, analysts believe the current eurozone crisis is nonetheless likely to be a recruitment boon to vehemently anti-EU populist parties which are keen to play up national divisions. "Why do the Austrians, as well as the Germans or the Dutch, constantly have to pay for the bottomless pit of the southern European countries?" asked Heinz-Christian Strache, head of the Freedom Party of Austria, once led by the late Jörg Haider.What is indisputable is that tSuch parties have well over doubled their MPs around western Europe on a decade ago. They have also spread geographically. "What we have seen over the past five years is the emergence of parties in countries which were traditionally seen as immune to the trend – the Sweden Democrats, the True Finns, the resurgence of support for the radical right in the Netherlands, and our own experience with the English Defence League," said Goodwin.

The phenomenon was now far beyond a mere protest vote, he said, with many supporters expressing worries about national identity thus far largely ignored by mainstream parties.

Gavan Titley, an expert on the politics of racism in Europe and co-author of the recent book The Crises of Multiculturalism, said these mainstream politicians had another responsibility for the rise of the new groups, by too readily adopting casual Islamophobia.

"The language and attitudes of many mainstream parties across Europe during the 'war on terror', especially in its early years, laid the groundwork for much of the language and justifications that these groups are now using around the whole idea of defending liberal values - from gender to freedom of speech," he said.

"Racist strategies constantly adapt to political conditions, and seek new sets of values, language and arguments to make claims to political legitimacy. Over the past decade, Muslim populations around Europe, whatever their backgrounds, have been represented as the enemy within or at least as legitimately under suspicion. It is this very mainstream political repertoire that newer movements have appropriated."Jamie Bartlett of Demos, the principal author of the report, said it was vital to track the spread of such attitudes among the "new generation" of young, online activists, far more numerous than the formal membership of such parties.

"There are hundreds of thousands of them across Europe. They are disillusioned with mainstream politics and European political institutions and worried about the erosion of their cultural and national identity, and are turning to populist movements, who they feel speak to these concerns.

"These activists are largely out of sight of mainstream politicians, but they are motivated, active, and growing in size. Politicians across the continent need to sit up, listen, and respond."

Hmmmm. What a horrible affirmation of what I have suspected. I'd rather be wrong......
---------------------------------


*ETA - over 600 public comments on the thread already.

I haven't read all the comments (yet) but I notice it's difficult or impossible to distinguish whether the respondents are actually socialists or National Socialists (Nazis). And nobody seems to be making the point that they're hard to distinguish, even though the article itself made the point.

Who knows if the respondents are actually National Socialists? (The Guardian has to be the premiere english-speaking left-wing newspaper? But it's a target of far-right propagandists, speaking under the protection and promotion of the liberalism of the Guardian. And so how do we tell if its respondents are socialists or National Socialists? How do we tell? And BTW is there no more an english word for premiere than....that french word? Oooops - I've succumb! Latinus aberrantum Caecillius. Or something.)

Here's a challenge to OWS - benefits

Ministers are considering alternatives to an inflation-linked rise to benefits, government sources have said.

Benefits are due to go up by 5.2% from next April, in line with September's inflation figures.

But the government is worried about the cost of such hikes and the impact on public opinion given the current low wage increases.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the government would "not balance the books on the backs of the poor".

He said "difficult decisions" would have to be taken, but he would not "provide a running commentary on decisions and debates which haven't even been held in government yet".

Sources would not say what other options were being considered instead of an inflation-linked rise. It is not thought that any change to the planned 5.2% rise in pensions is being considered.

The BBC News channel's chief political correspondent Norman Smith said one possible option could be raising benefits in line with the average inflation rate for the year, rather than the September figure.

Freezing payments
The Financial Times is reporting that Chancellor George Osborne has asked officials for alternative models, including a rise in line with average earnings growth of about 2.5% or freezing some payments.

It is understood the government will have "resolved" the options by early December when the uprating of benefits is presented to Parliament.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated that the 5.2% September inflation figure will add £1.8bn to welfare spending next year.

It said freezing all benefits and pensions would save about £10bn and linking benefits increases to wage rises would save £5bn.

A further option of switching from the September inflation figure to an average inflation figure calculated over six months could save about £1.4bn, the IFS added.
SOURCE - BBC
===========

Let's see OWS - and the fabled 99% fiercely support raising benefits at least in line with inflation. If they don't, then they are acquiescing in a cut to the income of the very poorest.

This is a big challenge to the notion that the 99% support social solidarity, and protection for the poorest. We shall see. I don't hold any expectation that benefits will rise in line with inflation - none whatsoever. Nor do I expect the country at large to support doing so: the supposed class solidarity of the 99% is a myth.

RIP Elouise Cobell

For 14 years Elouise Cobell fought a legal battle to recover billions of dollars that had been systematically plundered from Native Americans by the US government.

During the action it emerged that the government's Bureau of Indian Affairs had, over the previous 100 years, sold off Indian land to farmers and prospectors but failed to pass the money on.

A qualified accountant, Yellow Bird Woman, as Cobell was known in her native Blackfoot nation, raised the huge sums of money necessary to fight the case.

Along the way she encountered opposition from the various US administrations she had to tackle but eventually, on the election of Barack Obama, the government paid out more than $3bn (£1.9bn) in what became the largest class action in US history. The sum was a lot less than the $27bn (£16.9bn) Cobell estimated had been stolen from Native Americans over the century.

Great article on OWS - by Brendan O’Neill @ Spiked-online.com

In the increasingly whiffy camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral, amid placards declaring ‘The End is Nigh’, apparently a new kind of politics is being born. Young women talk about ‘politics starting again’. The media cheerleaders of the Occupy movement claim it represents ‘a substantive change not just to the nature of modern politics, but to the way in which it is done, demanded and delivered’. From New York to Madrid to Tokyo, the inhabitants of the so-called tent cities proudly declare themselves ‘citizens of a new world’.

Is all this occupying really the start of something new? No. And not only because on the rare occasion when the protesters issue a coherent demand they end up echoing ideas we’ve heard a thousand times before. (Their call for tougher independent regulation of the financial industry was pilfered from the Financial Times.) More fundamentally, their globally contagious protest represents the death agony of something old rather than the birth pang of something new. What we’re witnessing is the demise of the progressive left, but – and here is the Occupy movement’s twist – that demise is dolled up as something good, something positive, where instead of addressing the vacuum at the heart of modern left-wing thinking, the occupiers make a virtue out of it.

Around the world, the occupiers are adapting to the decayed state of radical left-wing thinking, moulding themselves around the organisational and political disarray of the left. All the negative things about the left today – the lack of big ideas, the dearth of daring leaders, the withering of organisational structures – are repackaged as positives. Leaderlessness is transformed into a virtue, the enabler of a fairer, more consensual form of politics. The absence of overarching ideology is sexed up as ‘liberation from dogma’. Even the thoughtlessness of the Occupy movement, both in terms of its lack of deep thinking and the way it has spread across the globe in a fairly thoughtless, meme-like fashion, is turned into a good thing: this is ‘unthought’, declares one observer, where creeds emerge ‘without much articulation of why they’re necessary, [almost] as reflexes’.

Time and again, the Occupy movement makes a virtue of vacuity. Consider its celebration of leaderlessness. A placard at Occupy London says: ‘We have no leaders.’ Writing in the Washington Post, a supporter of Occupy Wall Street says ‘this is a leaderless movement’. The celebration of leaderlessness is meant to sound radical, proof that these people don’t need a Trotsky-style orator to tell them how to think or what to do. They’re free-spirited creatures who, in the words of the BBC’s resident Wannabe Marxist, Paul Mason, are ‘independent of any democratic structures and party hierarchies… living the dream of a communal, negotiated existence’.

Yet leadership isn’t simply about charismatic men bellowing instructions to crowds of nodding bods. Real political leadership represents the embodiment of an ideal, a goal, which people subscribe to and are willing to fight for. In eschewing leadership, or rather in celebrating the objective reality of a lack of decent leaders, the occupiers are actually turning their noses up at idealism and political purpose, at the very basic idea of having a goal and a strategy for achieving it. Indeed, the Washington Post piece says the wonderful thing about this ‘leaderless movement’ is that it doesn’t have ‘an official set of demands… there are no projected outcomes, no bottom lines, no talking heads’.

Here, we can glimpse what the celebration of leaderlessness really represents: an accommodation to the dearth of visionary thinking on the modern left. The great irony, of course, is that far from this leaderless movement being a hotbed of original, out-there thinking, ‘liberated from dogma’, there’s an extraordinary level of political conformism amongst the occupiers. They actually acknowledge this, but once again it gets sexed up, turned from an obvious fault into a ‘new way of doing politics’, a ‘reflex’ or ‘unthought’. One sympathiser writes about the phenomenon of ‘thought contagion’, where these protests are being ‘memetically reproduced’ around the world. The idea that this movement is really a meme – a meme being ‘an idea, behaviour or style that spreads from person to person’ – is now repeated everywhere in pro-Occupy literature. Some even cite Dawkinite theories of the ‘Meme Machine’ to explain the speedy spread of the Occupy movement.

That the occupiers are happy to discuss themselves in evolutionary biologist terms, as a contagion, is remarkable. Here, they’re making a virtue out of their lack of political consciousness, borrowing phrases from tomes on culture and evolution to try to make their inability to decide what they’re for sound like something sexily ‘reflexive’.

The phenomenon of ‘thought contagion’ – where we see the same ideas, slogans and even public-speaking methods being adopted in all the occupations – is actually a consequence of the occupiers’ eschewing of leadership. Far from liberating them from dogma, their refusal to organise, to lead, to draw up and distribute coherent demands makes them susceptible to all kinds of lazy thinking. Where a group that knows what it is for is, to a certain extent, insulated from external pressure, sustained by its own inner logic and principles rather than being constantly remoulded by faddish thinking, the fantastically amorphous Occupy movement is shaped and reshaped, like putty, by whimsy, style, the needs of the media.

So, at the St Paul’s camp there was much uncritical parroting of utterly mainstream ideas, from the demand that we have a ‘knowledge economy’ instead of a manufacturing one (copyright New Labour) to the notion that material aspiration causes mental illness (a bizarre idea born in academia and since embraced by political leaders). The thing that the occupiers imagine makes them free from bourgeois ideas that have apparently invaded the masses’ brains – their rejection of leadership and ideology – actually makes them susceptible to being clobbered by new received wisdoms.

The most striking thing at St Paul’s is the protesters’ obsession with ‘process’. All they talked about was the process of organising the camp: how to recycle, contact the camp doctor, engage with the police. Unable to say what the occupation is for, they have become myopically obsessed with simply ensuring that it chugs along, that it stays put. And of course, this existential stasis also gets sexed up. As one radical reporter puts it, a ‘common theme’ in the various Occupy camps around the world is ‘the fetishisation of form and process over ideology’. A Guardian commentator implores the occupiers to ‘resist the pressures to clarify their aims’ and instead to ‘dig in and fortify their camps’. He reckons the occupiers shouldn’t give in to the ‘nutter multitudes’ – that’s you and me – who want everything to be pigeonholed.

This is a see-through attempt to repackage serious ideological disarray as a daring refusal to bow to the external pressure to define one’s objectives, to stake one’s claim. The irony is that the Occupy movement has actually allowed itself to be utterly defined by external forces, becoming impressively conformist in both its outlook and its style. Every mainstream eco-piety finds expression in this movement. David Cameron-style demands for the punishment of bankers are here, too. Placards bombard you with trendy buzzwords like ‘sustainability’ and ‘empathy’. The low-horizoned thinking of the decadent modern bourgeoisie is widespread in the camps; indeed, according to Der Spiegel, top European politicians are ‘firmly on the side of the demonstrators’. When Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto, they aimed to make ‘the ruling classes tremble’. The Occupy movement, having made a virtue of its own shallowness and lack of big humanistic vision, merely makes the ruling classes smile with patronising approval.

SOURCE

Rivero - American Nationalist - Buys Japanese

Rivero's posted a picture of a Nissan he's having to use whilst his own car (another Nissan) is in for repairs. He says he misses his old Honda.


I know his cars are manufactured in USA, but nevertheless, the point remains. He could buy a Ford, or GM, or....

If he buys domestically produced Japanese cars because they're cheaper, then he can hardly complain that companies choose to offshore production. If they didn't, whilst others do, they will lose sales because of higher costs.

If he buys domestically produced Japanese cars because they're better quality, then he can hardly blame the US government policy and its supposed encouragement of offshoring for the decline of American manufacturing.

OWS London

OWS London have successfully managed to turn the subject of their protest into a legal/ethical fight with St Paul's Cathedral.

By camping outside St Paul's the protesters have managed to transfer responsibility for dealing with them onto the church, completely sidelining the Stock Exchange, Lombard St, capitalism, etc. Now the church is wracked by debate about how to deal with the protesters - it is the church that has been forced to undertake legal action to remove them, not "international capitalism" etc. Pathetic.

The protesters made a big deal about the initial words of support the protest received from the Cathedral's clergy. But now those same people have asked the protesters to move on, they are refusing. Cynical. Obviously they don't really care about the respect due to the church and its ministers, they were simply exploiting it for political gain. Disgusting.

Get up, and move somewhere else. Like the Stock Exchange? Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes, does it?

Rivero supports OWS, but not revolt in Syria

How does that make sense? As if Syria is more liberal and democratic than USA? As if USA is more repressive and despotic than Syria? What a joke.

BBC are reporting that "Syria protesters call for no-fly zone". Why? Because "at least 37 people have been killed in crackdowns during protests calling for the downfall of the government held across Syria after Friday prayers."

Rivero goes crazy about one person in USA being severely hurt in OWS protests. Well, sure. But in Syria 37 people died in one night! According to the BBC, "More than 3,000 people have died in the unrest since protests broke out in March."

But check WRH's Syria section? See if Rivero expresses any outrage about it? Rather he's played it down, making out it is all a western inspired movement designed to topple a legitimate Arab leader. Incredible. As if Assad is some liberal Arab leader.....

BBC says : "Foreign journalists have been largely prevented from reporting from the country, making it difficult to confirm events on the ground."

Rivero doesn't care. Surprised?

When a US Congressman expressed a desire to aid Syrian revolt, Rivero responded thus:

Ah, of course, no (Hawaiian) Americans need concern themselves with Israel....errr...I mean Syria. Dude's a total joke. Why doesn't anyone notice?

Back in June Rivero reported a story which was headlined as "Russia, China Shield Syria from Possible UN Sanctions". Rather than get outraged at repressive nations protecting Syria, Rivero's comment was : "The leadership of both Russia and China are correct on this"

Nevermind that Rivero was originally agitating for support for Libyan uprising, and still supports "the Arab Spring" in principle. But clearly, what Rivero supports is uprising and revolt in western-friendly nations, whilst he totally opposes similar revolt in nations hostile to the West (and Israel, of course.)

Rivero seeks to protect regimes hostile to America (and Israel) no matter how repressive or authoritarian they might be or how popular the revolt might be. At the same time, he supports revolt in nations which are 'friendly' to American interest and influence. That's how he determines his view - the actual conditions of the people and the regime matter not in the least.

Rivero's radio on "Freedom" and "Freespeech" - With Paul Fromm

Here's Rivero introducing Mark Lemire and Paul Fromm as guests on his radio show:

Rivero says: "If you go and look at the issue of freespeech in Canada, there are two names that consistently show up as champions of freespeech and freedoms and human rights....and those would, of course, be Mark Lemire and Paul Fromm."

Here's a picture of 'champion of freedom', Paul Fromm, with some of his 'friends' - white power - world wide:

The radio show is about how Lemire and Fromm want to abolish the Canadian Human Rights legislation because it protects minorities from the filth that people like Fromm spew. Rivero makes out this is is a freespeech issue, of course, eliding the rights of minorities to be free of Fromm's hate which is designed to limit the freedom of minorities, if not annihilate them all together.

Frederick Paul Fromm (born January 3, 1949), known as Paul Fromm, is a Canadian White Nationalist, based in Port Credit, Ontario, with a radio show on the Stormfront web site and ties to former KKK members David Duke and Don Black (white nationalist) through Stormfront. He has been described by national media as "one of Canada's most notorious white supremacists".

Yet Rivero calls him a 'champion of freedom'.

And Lemire?

Marc Lemire is a figure in the Canadian white supremacist movement. He works closely with leader Paul Fromm, and is the webmaster of the Hamilton, Ontario-based Freedom-Site which he began in 1996. Lemire was the last president of the often violent Heritage Front organization from January 1, 2001 until the organization folded around 2005. Lemire's involvement with Wolfgang Droege and the neo-Nazi Heritage Front group began while he was a teenager in the early 1990s. Droege was found shot to death on April 13, 2005.

Champions of freedom! Rivero's radio show is described thus: "Mike's September 1st 2007 broadcast discusses the ADL's Marxist censorship tactics being employed in Canada and Free Speech patriot Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge response."

Freespeech patriot. AKA Nazi.

Here's a good one - Rivero, Ron Paul, OWS and Taxes

Here's Ron Paul speaking of taxes in his "Restore America" manifesto:

Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allow American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment.

And here's Mike Rivero, supporter of Ron Paul, writing about the repatriation of corporate taxes:

In an iconic example of how Congress puts big-money interests above others, bipartisan momentum is growing on Capitol Hill for a repatriation tax holiday — a huge, temporary reduction in the tax rate on money brought back to the U.S. from offshore tax havens. Critics say the repatriation tax holiday is a multi-billion-dollar tax giveaway to the world’s biggest multinational companies, with nothing in it for domestic businesses or ordinary Americans.
SOURCE

Hmmm. Hypocrite.

Advocates of spending cuts now lament spending cuts

Previously Rivero et al had criticised the lack of spending cuts. Now they want a General Strike because of.....spending cuts.

Rivero supports Ron Paul, whose recent plan to "restore America" plans for $1 trillion cuts immediately.

Moreover, for years Rivero and co have been touting abolition of income tax and also claiming it is unconstitutional. They've promoted "Freedom to Fascism" and such junk....but now they protest cuts in spending.

Where's the sense to this? It's complete opportunism. Anything goes, so long as it's critical of government.

Here's another example of the confusion/hypocrisy: this was posted at WRH -
Rivero's response?

I don't think this really came from OWS. It's another "They are all socialists" propaganda hoax.

Ah, it's a hoax. Rivero knows these things.

Criticism of "structureless groups"

Found this at a socialist website, writing specifically about OWS:

This is the "ideology of structurelessness" analysed by the American feminist, Jo Freeman, in 1970 in her essay on The Tyranny of Structurelessness.

At that time in the womens movement the same emphasis was placed "on what are called leaderless, structureless groups as the main focus of the movement" as Occupy Wall St does today.

Freeman showed that there was in fact no such thing as a structureless group, only formally and informally structured groups:

"Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature coming together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably structure itself in some fashion...the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others.

This hegemony can easily be established because the idea of structurelessness does not prevent the formation of informal structures, but only formal ones...Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power...For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit...

An unstructured group always has an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites...

When informal elites are combined with a myth of structurelessness, there can be no attempt to put limits on the use of power. It becomes capricious..."
SOURCE

The full essay can be read here. Very good it is too.

You have been blocked by the owner of this video

http://youtu.be/wdAywGX_Nb0

David Duke - Occupy (Zionist) Wall Street

Odd. But it makes perfect sense, of course. Maybe nothing (except opposition to Iraq war, and 911 Troof) shows the growing seduction of the ignorant left by the (far) right so much as OWS.

How many times does he say "zionist"? Yes, we get the point, Duke.

Certainly the (national) socialism of fools. He criticises Ron Paul, whilst Ron Paul supporters also support OWS - even at lewrockwell.com

What a mess of nothing: everyone supports it, apparently, because it means all things to all people. Can't please all the people all the time? OWS almost manages it? Doesn't do a thing for me....

Ron Paul supporters at OWS - cut taxes

According to the IRS, the top 1% of income earners for 2008 paid 38% of income tax revenue, while earning 20% of the income reported.

The top 5% of income earners paid 59% of the total income tax revenue, while earning 35% of the income reported.

The top 10% paid 70%, earning 46% and the top 25% paid 86%, earning 67%.

The top 50% paid 97%, earning 87% and leaving the bottom 50% paying 3% of the taxes collected and earning 13% of the income reported.

The Tax Foundation stated that for 2007, the top 1% of earners paid more than the bottom 95% combined
===========

And Ron Paul supporters want to cut taxes! And they seem to support OWS movement. Crazy.


The 1% (as OWS likes to call them) are paying 38% of taxes. Ron Paul's solution? Cut taxes. Yet the bottom 50% are paying just 3% of tax revenue, apparently. Hardly makes sense, does it?


Figues for calendar year 2009 here.

From their summary:

The amount of individual income tax paid steeply declined by $166 billion, twice the decline from 2007 to 2008. Nationally, average effective income tax rates were at their lowest levels since the IRS began tracking them in 1986. The average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 12.24 percent in 2008 to 11.06 percent in 2009.

As the data below show, incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum fell from 2008 to 2009, as did their share of the nation's income and income taxes paid. In 2009, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI), compared to 2008 when those figures were 38.0 percent and 20.0 percent, respectively. Both of those figures-share of income and share of taxes paid-were their lowest since 2003 when the top 1 percent earned 16.7 percent of adjusted gross income and paid 34.3 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent's constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. The 2008 reversal of this trend continued in 2009. In fact, the income share for the top 1 percent of tax returns was lower in 2009 than in 2000, largely due to differences in capital gains.

Another indicator of this reversal in the income and tax shares of the top 1 percent is that, as in 2008, the top 1 percent no longer pays a larger percentage of total income tax than the bottom 95 percent. This trend was exacerbated by the aforementioned precipitous drop in AGI in 2009. During 2009, the bottom 95 percent (AGI under $154,643) paid 41.3 percent of the total collected, a larger share than the 36.7 percent paid by the top 1 percent (AGI over $343,947).

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

======================

I think that goes some way to supporting the idea that OWS is not a reaction to a realisation that the system is unjust and becoming more so (the figures say different), but rather a reaction to the fact cheap credit for the middle and working classes has been switched off, and their own security and self-interest has taken a hit. They didn't care previously, when the top 1% were doing even better than they are now. After all, who takes the real hit when the stock market crashes? Do the poor own shares? Of course not - not even by proxy via pensions and suchlike. Imagine how much some of the wealthiest have lost these last years? The evidence is there in the tax returns......capital gains returns are way down....so much so that it has caused the top percentile's tax returns to decrease as a share of the national return.

Interesting comments on OWS

Guardian

Ron Paul's Restore America Rubbish

Here's his plan:

SPENDING:
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year
of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet
departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and
Education), abolishing the Transportation Security
Administration and returning responsibility for security
to private property owners, abolishing corporate
subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and
returning most other spending to 2006 level

Wow. Eliminate 5 departments, just like that! Including the department of education!? lol

a 10% reduction in the federal workforce

More unemployed. Fewer people spending money. Great.

Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows
American companies to repatriate capital without
additional taxation, spurring trillions in new
investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the
Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings

The 1% will be gutted, I bet. Are you listening Mr Rivero? And how about you OWS folks? Crikey.

Bill Mitchell - a Modern Money Theory guy - on Ron Paul's "Plan to Restore America"

The full, and loooong blogpost is here.


When an Excel spreadsheet runs wild

US Presidential candidate Ron Paul released his – Plan to Restore America – yesterday, saying that it will deliver a balanced budget within three years – cutting public spending by $1 trillion in year one, slash “regulations” and “reign in the Federal Reserve and get inflation under control”.

The 11 -page document has lots of tables and graphs and says that “America is the greatest nation in human history” (plaudits) but if you search for some theoretical framework or some evidential-basis for the numbers presented you will be very disappointed.

You will read that Americans have a “respect for individual liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government” and that returning (public) spending (mostly) to 2006 (nominal) levels is somehow good. Cutting federal employment by 10 per cent is also good. Cutting all regulations is also good.

But that is about as far as the textual rendition goes before you hit the tables and graphs. When I read the document I couldn’t help thinking that someone had run wild with an Excel spreadsheet.

The Bloomberg Editorial yesterday (October 19, 2011) – Hidden Utility of Ron Paul’s Balanced-Budget Plan – saw some benefit in Ron Paul’s plan.

They said that “American voters … enthusiastically embrace the need to cut, cut, cut. But they baulk when asked to name specific programs to downsize or lop off” and so Paul’s proposal:

… performed a valuable public service this week when he unveiled a budget plan that shows exactly what balancing the $3.8 trillion budget through spending cuts would look like.

The fact is that the proposal doesn’t show “exactly” anything other than that someone can manage a spreadsheet with some formulas. The Plan to Restore America is devoid of economics which renders it a useless piece of rhetoric – strong on ideology but weak (tragically so) on analytical clout.

The Bloomberg Editorial says that:

In broad terms, Paul … [would be] … slicing $1 trillion from the budget in his first year in office … He would pare back most other programs to 2006 spending levels … would also starve the revenue side of the ledger. Corporations would see tax rates drop to 15 percent from 35 percent. He would extend all the Bush-era tax cuts, abolish taxes on estates and investment income. He wouldn’t end Social Security, but he would let young people opt out of the retirement program. As for that $1 trillion sitting in the overseas bank accounts of U.S. corporations, Paul would allow the money to come home tax-free …

True to his libertarian principles, Paul takes care of that problem by trimming the federal workforce by 10 percent …

And, it goes on.

The Bloomberg Editorial provides some local knowledge to tease out some of the practical implications – for example, “there would be no agency to oversee national parks, federal lands and offshore drilling. Land would have to be auctioned off to the highest bidders, most likely oil-and-gas, coal and timber companies”.

Further, “(e)ach state would have to become the regulator of its financial, manufacturing and health-care industries. A patchwork of rules would result. States might soon engage in a dangerous game of regulatory competition” and some “25 million elderly households … [who] … now depend entirely on Social Security for income … [would be left] … unable to buy food or pay heating bills”.

They also say that “(l)ow-income families would be hit the hardest” by the changes to Medicaid and food stamp programs – effectively culling them of all value.

Even on its own terms (that is, if the spreadsheet doodling was a reasonable representation of what can be achieved) the plan is drastic and likely to be chaotic and damaging to the ordinary citizen. The irony of US politics at present is that the grass roots support for the conservative austerity push is coming from working class Tea Partiers who will be the most damaged by the very policies they in their moments of frenzy seem to be supporting.

But, of-course, the Ron Paul exercise stands in denial of the underlying macroeconomics. It is one thing to make up some numbers and relate them to specific government departments that would have to close to get those numbers etc. But if you do not understand how these aggregates relate over time then the exercise become futile and a gross misrepresentation of what is possible and what is likely.
....
The Proposal reads as if Ron Paul thinks the net government outlays do nothing. Even if we agreed that a lot of government spending was not desirable in terms of the way in which the real resources were deployed (so we might say wasteful with better uses indicated) from a macroeconomic perspective the spending still creates income which multiplies throughout the rest of the economy. There is no getting away from that.

What do the 10 per cent of federal employees do each day with the incomes they earn? They go into shops and spend it which creates output and further employment. What does all these other outlays do? They create economic activity (however desirable in substance) throughout the US economy.

The overwhelming evidence is that private spending is subdued because households are in fear of unemployment and business firms already have enough productive capacity to meet the current level of spending and have no incentive to invest in further productive capacity.

Rising unemployment and falling demand (from the near $US1 trillion cuts in 2013) would further undermine private confidence.

The Plan to Restore America considers that the spending cuts will be replaced by the private sector. But that hope is not supported by any credible evidence. The evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion.

It is all very well to preach to the Americans about how great their nation is and to swathe your narrative in terms of patriotism but the market system doesn’t respond to that level or type of discussion. If people are losing their jobs they won’t increase their consumption. Firms will not invest if sales are falling.

And if the private sector further contracts, it is also unlikely that the government’s budget will be able to achieve the sort of outcomes that Ron Paul has in the later columns of his spreadsheet (2014 and on).

Clearly, Ron Paul thinks that by scrapping a swathe of regulations this will create growth.

I recently considered that view this blog – Some further thoughts on the OWS movement. I examined the evidential validity of the claim that growth is being stifled in the US at present by government regulations and intervention. This is the constant Republican (and Ron Paul) narrative and stands in total denial of the lack of spending explanation for the stagnant growth and persistently high unemployment.

The evidence provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics – their Extended Mass Layoffs data – overwhelmingly supports the claim that American firms have been sacking workers because there is a shortage of demand (spending). The firms that volunteered “government regulations/intervention” as the reason for laying off their workers constituted a minuscule proportion of the total.

No-one who was familiar with this data would conclude that business regulation is choking the American labour market or was in any way responsible for the substantial drop in labour demand and the rise in unemployment.

The tax debate is similarly compromised. Why would a firm employ more workers if they cannot sell the product even if they can lower the price somewhat if costs fall? I will consider that topic in another blog.

Ron Paul’s plan is in denial of these macroeconomic linkages and will fail before year one is over.

Conclusion

The Bloomberg editorial says that the Plan to Restore America is not a sound approach. They claim their is an “egalitarian way for Americans to share in the burden of achieving fiscal responsibility, but there’s no reason for entire Cabinet departments, the social safety net and the economy to be crushed in the process”.

It is interesting that they hold their “egalitarian” austerity plan out as being reasonable. In fact it also involves drastic and likely to be damaging cuts in net public spending. That they present this as the “reasonable” approach tells you how extreme the public debate in the US about fiscal policy has swung to the conservative (and uninformed) right.

Confused much?

OWS.....Peter Schiff. Crikey.

So now it's a lack of capitalism that OWS are protesting about? Right, I see.....

Schiff was Ron Paul's 'economic advisor' in 2008. He's an extreme free-marketeer - a Miseian Austrian twit. So he thinks Wall St is over-regulated. Sure.

Is he one of the 99%? Emphatically no! Wiki says

Peter David Schiff is an American businessman, author and financial commentator. Schiff is CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a broker-dealer based in Westport, Connecticut and CEO of Euro Pacific Precious Metals, LLC, a gold and silver dealer based in New York City.

If Rivero or anyone else imagines Schiff is part of the 99%, well, they already had their say:

In the Republican primary, held on August 10, 2010, Schiff lost the nomination to Linda McMahon.

The results were:
49% Linda McMahon
28% Rob Simmons
23% Peter Schiff

Ultimately, the election was won by the Democratic Party primary winner, Richard Blumenthal.

So, he couldn't win amongst the Republicans, and the Republicans couldn't win against the Democrats. Some 99%.

From Schiff's blog:

Ah, ok then. At least Schiff knows the score.

Wow - ain't that some propaganda?

Fairplay, that's a pretty inclusive bit of propaganda: Libya, the Federal Reserve, conspiracy, NY Cops, OWS and assassination. Laughable. But Rivero considers it worth promoting and commenting upon.

Interesting to compare his attitude to this obvious rubbish with his attitude to the supposed Iranian-backed assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador, in Washington. He dismissed that immediately, as propaganda. But this nonsense is just "unconfirmed". Funny sort of critical faculty he has.

And where does this rubbish originate? Rivero sources it to www.Presscore.ca - a Canadian registered site which appears to have the shortest registration information on record - Sibernet domain services. Ho hum. Very reliable source, I'm sure. Article begins:

The Federal Reserve bankers have offered $billions to the CIA mercenaries in Libya to come to the United States and start a bloody rebellion. The Federal Reserve bankers sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make their offer and terms. According to high ranking U.S. military officials the plot by the Federal Reserve bankers calls for Libyan mercenaries to enter the United States as guest of the Federal Reserve banks.

Ehm.....it's a joke? It should be, but I don't think the writer is kidding anyone but their self.

Why would the Federal Reserve bankers finance protests that call for their being abolished? The European controlled Federal Reserve bankers have been trying to destroy the United States as we know it. First by financing the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. That assassination started WWI. Then they orchestrated the Great Depression. Then they financed a little known Austrian named Adolf Hitler who they ordered to start WWII. Then the Korean War and the Vietnam War. When all those attempts failed to destroy the United States – through war, they tried through debt. They illegally took the gold and silver backed U.S. dollar out of circulation and began issuing their own worthless interest bearing counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes. Their intent was to cause the United States to be destroyed through debt.
Now that the United States is bankrupt the Federal Reserve bankers want another major war – WWIII. They need a war in order to bring about the Vatican’s Fourth Reich – aka New World Order.

Oh Lordy. It makes for a pretty amusing parody of Rivero and co. What a joke.

Presscore.ca's ABOUT page says

This past year alone over 38 million people have visited PRESS Core.ca. Why? PRESS Core is your source for in depth investigative reporting on news that affects us all. PRESS Core publishes what others refuse to publish – the truth. PRESS Core presents the FACTS, not FICTION.

PRESS Core was originally called nbGazette.com, created in 2001 by Paul W Kincaid, formerly of Upper Dorchester, New Brunswick Canada.

HAHA. 38 million people have visited the site? Sure. This Kincaid dude is a well-known "nut" which makes him highly suitable to be amongst Rivero's sources.

Rivero WRONG, Again

Here's Rivero just a week ago, claiming that what Gadaffi did wrong was refuse to buy into usury and central banking (his usual stupid complaint):

And here's Rivero making the same point more clearly, back in August earlier this year:

Yet today, we have the News Agencies reporting that the new Libya will have

"....an Islamist tint, Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation in the country and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.

......new banks would be set up to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest. For the time being, he said interest would be canceled from any personal loans already taken out less than 10,000 Libyan dinars (about $7,500).
SOURCE

So, Rivero is DEAD WRONG AGAIN. The new Libya is going to be Islamist, with Sharia Law and opposed to usury - which completely contradicts Rivero's analysis and predictions. AGAIN.

Moreover, the Libyan transitional leader was said to have "wished anti-government protesters in Syria and Yemen "victory". Again showing Rivero's analysis to be DEAD WRONG.

See here, here and here, for Rivero's earlier shameful and hypocritical volte-face over Libya.

He's been wrong again and again - even changing position totally, only to be proven wrong again. What a klutz.