Webster Tarpley makes the same connection of epidemics and pandemics to the banking class that I do but fails to see into the insidiously debilitating practice of creating credit out of nothing. This connection is not far-fetched. By keeping people impoverished you keep infrastructure minimal to non-existent; by keeping people involved in interminable wars, you keep them in a state of constant stress and immune-compromised conditions; by stressing people economically you wear them down; by siphoning resources to a military establishment you reduce the number of hospital beds per 1000 people (we clock in at 3.05 beds per thousand, very close to LAST! England is worse at 2 beds per thousand) for the simplest of economic reasons: all resources are SCARCE! (By the way, these hospital bed statistics correlate to the closeness of a society to the center of world finance, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England.) Tarpley is dead wrong when he ascribes the problem to free markets, however---we have no free market! You cannot even begin to have a free market with a debt-based money and with government political interference on how the fake money is spent, you can throw the free market out the window completely. Then he goes on to blame von Mises and Hayek, who staunchly recommend honest money! In fact Tarpley doesnt question the nature of our money at all. He likes this type of money, if only his experts can allocate it! I am very disappointed in his progressive analysis. If he lived 100 years ago he probably would have approved the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 because all progressives know how to spend your money better than you do. So did Lenin and Stalin and Mao. His analysis relies totally on the politically correct central planning objectives of so-called progressive liberalism. His position caters totally to political solutions and to control of the allocation of politicized money by liberal politicians (the only experts apparently) and in this interview he shows no understanding of the effect of debt-based money created ad libitum on the purchasing power of the currency, a fact of life which oppresses the middle and lower classes especially hard. Basically he opts to play the tired political game and has no fear that giving nation state governments the power to do good, as per his definition, it will not also give them the power to do bad, which history has definitely shown to be the case. Basically, as much as I can identify with Webster Tarpleys outrage, I find that he fails to strike at the root. For Chrissake, just give the people a stand-alone money and get out of their way. Keep government in its proper role of vigorously defending the non-aggression principle and quit fighting unnecessary wars for the banking class. youtube/watch?v=g_euVbd491Y
Posted on: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:06:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015