Monday, April 14, 2014

Susanne Posel

Agenda 21 and Bundy Ranch confrontation

54 comments:

  1. I attempted to verify Posel's statement about all police departments being corporations to no avail.

    Here is the link searching for "police association" doing a corp search at the Secretary of State website.
    http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/searchresults.aspx?onlyactive=OFF&Words=ALL&searchstr=police%20association

    Here is the link for Greensboro Police Officer's Association. You can see there is no phone # listed.
    http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Corp.aspx?PitemId=4872284

    Here is a google map search for the listed address. Which is a private home.
    https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=125+BERKSHIRE+ST.+GREENSBORO+NC+27403&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x88531be0f8f0699d:0x28aa646c9af445d1,125+Berkshire+St,+Greensboro,+NC+27403&gl=us&ei=COxOU4mXForKsQSBk4LQBA&ved=0CCgQ8gEwAA

    I live in Raleigh. There is no Raleigh Police Association.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm surprised Jim wasn't aware of Agenda 21. Keywords to remain aware of are sustainability and wildlife diversity.

    PS That was the most awful version of Midnight Special I've ever heard!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim does not go out looking for left-propaganda materials, it seems, or pedophile info, either. Some things have to be brought under his nose a few times. Anthropogenic Global Warming info has to be carefully discussed for him.

      He is just that way. Good man, though.

      Delete
    2. Why have you decided to constantly dog me Clare? I'm getting very sick of it.

      Delete
    3. Ian, Clare wasn't "dogging you", just making a clarification about me, which I appreciate.

      Delete
    4. Well, there wasn't any criticism,implied or direct in my post so I don't know why Clare felt she had something to correct, and where left-wing propaganda comes into what I said is beyond me. I have grown very tired of being lectured by her.

      Delete
  3. Exposed AGAIN: Suzanne Posel a.k.a. Sanne Cohen (Occupy Corporatism) http://www.4key.net/psyops-propaganda/exposed-again-suzanne-posel-a-k-a-sanne-cohen-occupy-corporatism/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Game Over: David COHEN POSEL (Occupy Corporatism – US Independent) Exposed as “Global Depopulation Policy” Pawn http://truthnewsinternational.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/game-over-david-cohen-posel-occupy-corporatism-us-independent-exposed-as-global-depopulation-policy-pawn/

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't hear this entire interview yet but Suzan was on jack bloods radio show the other day when I called in to defen Wolfgang Halbig.. It's really odd how jack acts , like a a scared puppy rolling over and peeing on its belly when you contest that sandy hook was a fraud. He seems otherwise pretty intelligent. You guys went on(Suzanne) to describe what kind if person might need to deal with reality by thinking everything to be a hoax and it made me feel really disgusted.
    I've heard that same cognitive dissonance as an excuse to go along with 9/11 or the JFK conspiracy so many times that I couldn't believe it became a tool for you guys to discredit me live on air for simply voicing my opinion. It's made me really second guess the 2 of you.
    Hopefully you guys spoke about sandyhoax

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .. I look forward to the rest of the interview. Peace!

      Delete
    2. stevie.t, it's not clear when you are talking about Jack Blood (who seems to have lost his way over Sandy Hook) and my interview with Suzanne Posel. And I don't get whatever is being exposed about her by truthnewsinternational.

      Delete
    3. susanne writes a lot of nonsence about sandy hook too. http://www.occupycorporatism.com/colorado-shooting-sandy-hook-mental-illness-gun-rights-advocates/

      Delete
    4. Jim,
      Sorry about the iphone thumb typing without my glasses..
      What I was trying to say is that Suzanne was on Jack's show the other day, right after he and I got in to it (when I called in) about his defaming of Wolfgang Halbig.
      I really can't figure out why Jack is so anti-Wolfgang. He seems to have this punk rock anti-success hang up which gives him this tendency to attack something that comes off too polished.
      He really went off the deep end with me and accused me of trespassing on his website by voicing my somewhat crude dissatisfaction in his comment section.
      He and Suzanne went in to this diatribe about how some people think everything is a hoax bologna, ignoring all the evidence that so obviously conclude that Sandy Hook is a complete hoax. I tried mentioning that all the victims were photoshop creations and he in return said most people's photos nowadays are photoshopped, completely missing the point that the images are FABRICATED people. Victoria Soto has the same head in nearly every shot pasted in to images with her fake family (who keep wearing green and fake crying as they spout anti-second amendment rhetoric).
      He even referenced you as someone who he wasn't a fan of for I guess getting upset with others in the truth movement and not being politically aligned with the right peeps.
      I still think he's brilliant but really resent him turning on Wolfgang. I would hate to discourage W.H. from pursuing the case that he's started and believe that the more people backing him the better but I realize trying to get everyone to agree is much like herding cats on acid.
      A little opposition is healthy but I'm sure the disinfo agents out there relish the infighting and claim a small victory every time we the truth tellers , have a little scrap.
      I was just wondering if you and Suzanne had any conversation on Sandy Hook?

      Delete
    5. Jack Blood appears to be ignorant about Sandy Hook, which is a bloody shame. He ought to read "Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax", "Wolfgang Halbig heads for Newtown in pursuit of the truth about Sandy Hook" and "Sandy Hook Elementary School: closed in 2008, a stage in 2012". Tell him I would be glad to come on his show and debate Sandy Hook with him.

      Delete
  6. An outstanding show! This program is essential listening for anyone wanting to grasp a big picture of the Nevada land grab and the direction for the world. Dr. Fetzer: Bill Gates has shown time and time again that he is a eugenicist and a promoter of the NWO. He has worked promoting the HIV/AIDS hoax, which has needlessly killed millions. (discussion here: http://barryb911.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-fraudulent-science-of-hiv-hoax.html)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good show. This woman seems to have a good grasp of the facts pertaining to the whole Agenda 21 eugenics New World Order plan. Very informative.

    Glad to see Fetzer is beginning to come around see the true agenda behind this big plan.

    The billionaire globalists could not give one hoot about endangered animals, nature or the environment. They are cynically playing upon the public's naivete. Their final goal is the total decimation of the middle class and the imposition of a tyrannical global government, all in the name of saving the earth from a global warming crisis they essentially ginned up out of whole cloth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a 'eugenics' plan? If the people in power are trying to make us smarter, healthier, happier, more capable and society more congenial (~Galton), they're not having much success.

      Delete
    2. The 'eugenics' nonsense talk is often accompanied with talk about depopulation. This also goes against easily observed facts.

      Where the global and American population is increasing rapidly, but the White populations are contracting, we're not looking at depopulation, but re-population; the replacement of White people with non-Whites.

      That's what's actually happening, and the conspindustry covers it up more actively than the mainstream media.

      Delete
  8. Brian Smith said : "The billionaire globalists could not give one hoot about endangered animals, nature or the environment. They are cynically playing upon the public's naivete. Their final goal is the total decimation of the middle class and the imposition of a tyrannical global government, all in the name of saving the earth from a global warming crisis they essentially ginned up out of whole cloth."

    Exactly. The "billionaire globalists " you speak of mostly appear to be left of center statists [i.e lovers of bigger and bigger governments-everywhere ].

    For example, Gates and Soros.

    Like Gates and Soros, Fetzer is also a left of centre, unrepentant statist.

    The major difference appears to be in their apparent income levels :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ 911truthnc

    I have no interest in listening to Posel so don't know what she said on the matter, but of course police departments are corporations! There's nothing sinister in this, it just means a legally recognized entity made up of more than one person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice point, Nick. If you listen to the show, you might be able to make quite a few more, right?

      Delete
  10. I agree with OBF's statement about Soros and Gates being left of center statists, but would not lump Fetzer in with this group. From what I have heard of his interviews, he is an old school FDR New Deal type of liberal - which could be a good or bad thing depending upon one's political persuasions, but he made clear in the interview that he in no way supports the draconian, anti-constitutional policies of the Agenda 21 globalist gangster cabal of which Gates and Soros are members.

    ReplyDelete
  11. brian smith said : " From what I have heard of his interviews, he is an old school FDR New Deal type of liberal"

    Fair enough Brian. Are you claiming that "FDR New Deal type of liberal[s]" were not globalist in intent?

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regarding the Nevada standoff : considering the month [April], and the fact that both the final post-seige, Waco conflagration, and the OKC bombing took place on April 19th in their respective years, I would not be at all surprised to see a violent Fed/rancher confrontation before the end of the month- maybe even this weekend.

    The Feds cannot afford to lose face.

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  13. FDR is said to have had a lot of communists in his administration. I have also read that the Delano family is an old money family that made it's fortune in the opium trade, so I am not saying FDR was some type of Olympian god as some would claim. You can't deny that his New Deal policies got our economy back again after the great depression, which may in fact have been engineered by the oligarchical class that he came from in order to get the people to accept more centralized government control. Nothing in history is simple, that is for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nothing in history is sure, it's that simple.

      Delete
  14. brian Smith said : "You can't deny that his New Deal policies got our economy back again after the great depression,"

    Yes I can, and I do. :-)

    Regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
  15. brian Smith said : "You can't deny that his New Deal policies got our economy back again after the great depression,"

    Onebornfree said :"Yes I can, and I do. :-) "

    To expand a little: the idea that FDR ended the Depression is a myth.

    It is what I would call a core "matrix-belief" - in other words a false belief propagated by the system [i.e "the matrix"] in order to try to ensure the continuance of that system.

    That belief itself rests on false inside-the-matrix beliefs about economics, human action, governments and politics, and ultimately results in a bare-faced historical lie:

    "America’s educational system has a supreme myth that serves as the foundation of American statism:

    “Franklin Roosevelt got America out of the Great Depression. He saved capitalism from itself.”

    "Actually, this was a joint effort. Hitler invaded Poland. Then England went to war to defend Poland, which was militarily impossible, which military strategists in Britain knew at the time. Then the British government started ordering American-made goods. Until wartime orders from Great Britain in 1940 began to stimulate domestic production in America, the American economy remained in depression."

    "In 1941, the American economy was still weak. Our entry into World War II, which Roosevelt had promised voters in his 1940 campaign would not happen, justified the Federal Reserve System’s policy of mass inflation. Wartime wage controls kept wages from rising. This lowered real wages, creating demand for workers. Then the draft boards pulled 12 million men into the military. Most were shipped overseas. Full employment at home was restored!"

    "War was Roosevelt’s tool of economic recovery: inflation, controls, and the draft."

    "This story of the New Deal is not in the high school and college history textbooks....."

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/07/gary-north/the-new-deal-conspiracy/

    regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  16. GDP and employment levels may have risen as a result of war production, price controls and the draft, but living standards deteriorated. Not only were millions of Americans enslaved and thousands killed, but material and labour were directed into products designed to be destroyed, while remaining consumer goods including food, clothing, fuel and heating materials were rationed. Historians tell us that ordinary Americans had less of everything during the war than in the years before.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nick Dean said :" GDP and employment levels may have risen as a result of war production, price controls and the draft, but living standards deteriorated. Not only were millions of Americans enslaved and thousands killed, but material and labour were directed into products designed to be destroyed, while remaining consumer goods including food, clothing, fuel and heating materials were rationed. Historians tell us that ordinary Americans had less of everything during the war than in the years before."

    Of course. As Randolph Bourne has said: "War Is the health of the state", and it _is_, quite literally.

    So the government, which itself _caused_ the great depression via its continued centralization of the economy post Civil war ,[including its entry into the 1st world war], got the US out of the depression via its entry into the 2nd world war. :-)

    As non-court historians like John T. Flynn have shown, the 2nd W.W. got the US out of the great depression, not the fascist domestic policies [ie the "New Deal"] of FDR.

    More like "out of the frying pan, into the fire." :-)

    But in order for the great centralization of the US economy to continue unabated, and to ensure future wars that profit TPTB, the FDR myth must be preserved via brainwashing, via the scam otherwise known as "public education" [i.e.indoctrination], which consists of the primary and secondary [college through university] levels of "education" and its alleged history textbooks and courses.

    Since, as I said, war is quite literally "the health of the state", the inside-the matrix-belief that FDR "saved" the US via the New Deal must be preserved and amplfied repeatedly, in order for the primary matrix system of theft and counterfeiting [taxes and government-run central banking] to continue unabated.

    And so it goes.

    See:"Government Funded Education:The Unvarnished Truth" :
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2012/10/government-funded-educationthe.html

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  18. obf ... "So the government, which itself _caused_ the great depression ... got the US out of the depression via its entry into the 2nd world war.

    Don't you see that when you un-link the depression from Americans' living standards and enslavement, and look only to GDP and employment rolls to date the 'end of the depression' you're prioritizing the interests of exactly the people you say you're against over the interests of the people as a whole.

    It's not true that the depression ended for ordinary Americans during the war. During the war their living standards deteriorated further.

    obf ... "So the government, which itself _caused_ the great depression via its continued centralization of the economy post Civil war ,[including its entry into the 1st world war]"

    The Fed not the government triggered the depression by contracting the money supply by one third. It's true of course that the Fed is a mechanism for wealth centralisation and that the government in 1913 allowed it to come into being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree, the war ended the depression and living conditions for the poorest Americans soared. All those out of work millions were overnight given employment on good wages. Any comparison between the 1930s and 1950s in terms of living standards and affluence shows that it was the war that saved America.

      Delete
    2. As I outlined already, you would need to compare Americans' living standards in 1942 vs 1937, 1943 vs 1938, etc. and show that you have made an adjustment that compensates for the introduction of mass-slavery (via compulsory conscription and military service, or concentration camps).

      Following WWII, during which artificial Fed-induced restrictions on the money supply had eased, and when money and labour were allowed to be directed toward productive ends rather than feed the war machine, Americans naturally prospered, as they had in other eras.

      Delete
  19. Nick Dean said : "It's not true that the depression ended for ordinary Americans during the war. During the war their living standards deteriorated further."

    Oh, I agree. That makes perfect economic sense.

    You say I said : "So the government, which itself _caused_ the great depression ... got the US out of the depression via its entry into the 2nd world war. "


    I really don't see what the problem is here, except one of your own making - that is, you have misquoted me to make your point .

    My original sentence included a "smiley" [ :-) ] at the end to indicate irony- perhaps you did not notice? :

    To repeat the original : "So the government, which itself _caused_ the great depression via its continued centralization of the economy post Civil war ,[including its entry into the 1st world war], got the US out of the depression via its entry into the 2nd world war. :-)"

    See? The smiley symbol makes all the difference in the world to interpretation :-) .

    Nick Dean said: "The Fed not the government triggered the depression by contracting the money supply by one third. "

    Fact: if you have a government in the first place, sooner or later there must come into existence a centralized banking/counterfeiting system , for reasons I will not get into here. Suffice to says its as inevitable as night following day.

    As to your claim that the Fed contracted the money supply by one third- this has been a subject of considerable debate in financial circles for many years- so you may be right, and you may be wrong- I don't know for sure.

    What I _do_ know for sure is that the larger a government becomes, the more it interferes with the economy in general, the more it taxes/regulates/centralizes, the more likely events such as the great depression are to occur- which was , after all, only the general markets reaction to the continually growing interference in its intricate workings via the government in general,[ and the Fed itself].

    Not to defend the Fed, but still, I think it is a mistake to lay the blame for the depression entirely at the Feds feet - other factors [some perhaps still unknown] were to blame for the markets general reaction to government interference in its mechanisms, I believe.

    regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Following the smiley, obf, is this,

      "As non-court historians like John T. Flynn have shown, the 2nd W.W. got the US out of the great depression, not the fascist domestic policies [ie the "New Deal"] of FDR."

      ***

      I didn't notice the tell-tale use of 'fascist' in your previous post to describe government intervention in the market. A Mises cultist, eh?

      Then naturally you associate economic improvement with increased labour plus lower living conditions.

      Delete
    2. The National Socialist government in Germany raised living standards at unheard of rates by intervening in the 'free' market, as I wrote elsewhere in these archives:

      Workers in the Third Reich enjoyed social and employment benefits far outstripping those in the allied countries whether ‘capitalist’ US and Britain or ‘communist’ Soviet Union or ‘socialist’ France: the money system was reformed and the private debt-money system replaced with a state issue of currency model - a massive transfer of wealth from bankers to ordinary Germans; foreign banks and enterprises were squeezed and German banks and businesses favoured protecting German jobs and businesses; foreign workers who depressed local wages and bid up local housing and other costs were encouraged to repatriate - improving the living standards of Germans; environmental regulations were put in place to ensure that irresponsible resource exploiters paid for the costs of their actions and that land, water and air resources that belonged to the whole nation were protected from pollution and private plunder; workers were guaranteed holidays and living wages for the first time; parents of young children received cash subsidies from the government to help with their extra expenses; educational opportunities and home ownership were extended and all Germans were guaranteed health care; family farms were defended against take-over by large agricultural combines, and so on.

      ***

      All of this is quite unlike anything the Roosevelt adminstration did. And it is widely accepted that in Germany national and personal debts were reduced, while national and personal wealth, health and happiness levels were raised.

      Delete
  20. Nick Dean said : "....Then naturally you associate economic improvement with increased labour plus lower living conditions."

    Help me out here Nick- I see no logic to your assumption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you recall I entered this discussion when you had talked about what you called 'economic recovery' to point out,

      "GDP and employment levels may have risen as a result of war production, price controls and the draft, but living standards deteriorated."

      Mises's economics leads to the same place, more work for less money (for the masses), so it's not at all surprising that you should confuse this with success.

      Delete
  21. Nick Dean said : "The National Socialist government in Germany raised living standards at unheard of rates by intervening in the 'free' market, as I wrote elsewhere in these archives"

    Which means that , as far as you are concerned, government intervention works/improves the general standard of living, right?

    Presumably, you believe that the US should now imitate what Germany did back then to similarly achieve the same alleged higher standard of living - or am I missing something here ?

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  22. obf ... "Which means that , as far as you are concerned, government intervention works/improves the general standard of living, right?"

    I don't make such generalisations because I'm not in a cult that makes an agent of the incorporeal 'state' to misdirect its followers so they don't look at the people controlling the state and other institutions. Governments can be for good or ill.

    obf ... "Presumably, you believe that the US should now imitate what Germany did back then to similarly achieve the same alleged higher standard of living - or am I missing something here ?"

    It would be an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nick Dean said: "I don't make such generalisations because I'm not in a cult "

    I hate to break it to you Nick ,but obviously you are very much in a "cult" - namely the cult that believes in ever- more government to "fix" society and its ills, it seems.

    Your statement "It would be an improvement." to my question makes this abundantly clear.

    Well good luck with the world improving through more government- get back to me and let me know how it all turned out in 20 years time, OK?

    And by the way, exactly which "cult" have you deduced that I am supposedly a member of, via your [assumedly] magical extra-sensory powers, [or did the all knowing, all seeing government give you that vital info] ?

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Third Reich was a smaller government than the current American one.

      You're an Austrian, yes?

      Delete
  24. Nick Dean said :"Mises's economics leads to the same place, more work for less money (for the masses),"

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The fact that you even would claim something so idiotic shows that you have not ever closely studied/considered the writings of economists/thinkers like Von Mises.

    But I am not going to try to persuade you out of your erroneous conclusions here [or anywhere else for that matter - you are entirely welcome to keep your delusions - I would perhaps merely suggest a course in reading comprehension at some point in time, if you ever feel up to it :-)

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like you and virtually all others, the Austrians were my first port of call when I began to doubt the prevailing monetary and economic dogma.

      Here's a quote from one of the holy texts I consulted early on, Murray Rothbard, THE CASE AGAINST THE FED:

      "Money, in our economy, is pieces of paper issued by the Federal Reserve. [p.10] This 'Federal Reserve Note,' and nothing else, is money ... in each country its governmental 'Central Bank' (in the United States, the Federal Reserve) is the sole monopoly source and creator of all money." [p.11]

      This was a sober, relatively scholarly book where Rothbard deliberately elaborated the Austrian catechism, and this is the portion where he told his readers what money is, in today's America. But it's chock full of errors isn't it?

      Show you're not a cult member and identify a few of the errors in that one small section of Holy Writ. Go on, obf, three or four at least if you don't want to look stupid ... Then explain why I'm the dummy for rejecting these lies.

      Delete
  25. I know many astute readers will be able to spot at least seven errors in that small quote from the Orthodox Jewish Version of 'Austrian' economics, but please let's not pre-empt obf, he might surprise us all.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nick Dean said : "Show you're not a cult member and identify a few of the errors in that one small section of Holy Writ. Go on, obf, three or four at least if you don't want to look stupid ... Then explain why I'm the dummy for rejecting these lies."

    Yet again you demonstrate your complete lack of reading comprehension- for I have already told you :

    " I am not going to try to persuade you out of your erroneous conclusions here [or anywhere else for that matter ]- you are entirely welcome to keep your delusions " .

    But look on the bright side, practically everyone here already agrees with you and your delusions [ basically more fascism as the only way "improve" the world] - I suggest you all get together in some new-fangled version of the Nazi uniform with Fetzer, Fox and Greenhalgh and start yourselves a little fascist party- or have you already done that?

    That way, I get something worthwhile to laugh at other than your own personal delusions [ i.e. your " a better world through fascism", er, "idea"] :-)

    Have fun, regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like you more if you could once in a while seem to think for yourself.

      Regards, Nick.

      Delete
  27. Nick Dean said : "I would like you more if you could once in a while seem to think for yourself. "

    This just in: I'm not interested in being "liked" by anyone here, including yourself. If it happens, it happens, although I will always do my best to try to discourage any such irrelevancies.

    As for not thinking for myself, I find it more than a little ironic that an individual like yourself who busies themselves with promoting/recommending the top down, entirely regimented, fantasy world supposed economic "solutions" of Hitler et al, would have either the gall [ or blind stupidity] to make such an accusation.

    However, your comment does serve to remind me that I am here surrounded by economic know- nothing fantasists who are convinced that they can ignore fundemental laws of economics to "improve the world"

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Meanwhile, back on topic: "What's Next For The Bundy's?"

    A former DEA agent outlines likely scenarios.

    Closing article quote:

    "Although I cheer for the Bundys and applaud the courage of their sweet family, my heart would much rather see them running now and hiding out in a freer country like Mexico as opposed to becoming a decimated family of martyrs ravaged by the state."

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/david-hathaway/whats-next-for-the-bundys/

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you are truly more concerned with the truth over personality issues, you'll happily step up to the plate and acknowledge the many glaring and obvious errors in that teeny tiny quote from Rabbi Rothbard. That is, if you are capable of identifying them.

    Maybe then we'll move on and discuss the falsehoods the Austrians propagate about the Third Reich and Fascism, which also you seem to have accepted uncritically as if they're Holy Writ.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nick Dean said : "If you are truly more concerned with the truth over personality issues, you'll happily step up to the plate and acknowledge the many glaring and obvious errors in that teeny tiny quote from Rabbi Rothbard. That is, if you are capable of identifying them.

    Maybe then we'll move on and discuss the falsehoods the Austrians propagate about the Third Reich and Fascism, which also you seem to have accepted uncritically as if they're Holy Writ."

    Nick, you just don't get it, do you?

    As I have tried to indicate elsewhere, I do not care what your beliefs about Austrian economic theory and related are, or are not- you are free to believe whatever you want, I just don't give a shit

    Therefor, I have no interest in either arguing with you, trying to "convert" you, or even to prove you wrong [history has already done that, repeatedly] unless you are willing to pay me for my time.

    I am, after all, a Personal Freedom consultant who gets paid to do exactly that : http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/ , and : http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com/

    If you are looking for free arguments with people who seem to have a lot more free time than I, and have a broadly "Austrian" economic perspective [however defined], over exactly why small groups of individuals with guns and laws etc cannot successfully plan an economy so that the general standard of living consistently rises [which is apparently your particular fantasy], then I would suggest you look up the forum "Liberty HQ" here:

    http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (expletives deleted ...)

      It is transparently not the the case that you are uninterested in whether or not we agree with you about Austrianism vs. Fascism vs. XYZ. Since the subject came up, when you quoted Gary North, April 19, 2014 at 8:25 PM, you have expended much time and words re-iterating the standard Austrian talking points and citing Randolph Bourne and John T. Flynn, in addition to North, all the while defending both Mises and "economists/thinkers like Von Mises."

      You have only feigned disinterest in the subject when challenged on points of fact to defend Mises's lieutenant and populariser, Murray Rothbard.

      In all your posts since then your evasions and excuses for being unable and unwilling to admit or identify Rothbard's lies have taken up much more time and space than would a simple factual cataloging of those lies.

      You're squirming because your identity is bound up with the online kudos all you Austrians give each other, which itself goes unchallenged on conspindustry forums because Mises was responsible for scripting the alternative media's economic approach as the Birchers' financial Rabbi-guru. Detach yourself, one born free.

      Delete
  31. Nick Dean said : blah, blah blah... etc. etc.

    "I'm sorry but I'm not allowed to argue until you pay" :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

    or, as previously linked : http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/

    Your choice Nick, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Bundy Ranch: The Agenda 21 "Shot" Heard Round The World" : http://www.activistpost.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-agenda-21-shot-heard-round.html#more

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete