Editor's Note: Actually, the "Internet Reformation" may be described as contributing to a big upswell of "free market thinking", but a free flow of information defines the folly behind letting "the magic of the market place" do our bidding. That thinking has got us into this mess in the first place.
The Daily Bell
Romney's moment: The Republicans' chosen battleground is the very shape and scope of US government ... Mitt Romney has been introduced to the American people in many guises: the hard-nosed executive who saved Utah's Winter Olympics; the middle-of-the-road governor who brought universal health care to Massachusetts; the repentant and radicalised Right-winger who campaigned (twice) for his party's presidential nomination; and now, since the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, as the fiscal conservative to bring sanity to the nation's finances. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Paul Ryan believes in smaller government. This race is shaping up to be one of a legitimate clash of philosophies.
Free Market Analysis: It is almost time for the US presidential election. Let the lying begin. The biggest lie of all – an elite dominant social theme – is that Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, is some sort of small-government budget cutter, and that Romney now shares that view.
But to accept Ryan's role, you have to accept the larger nonsense about this being a "generational" election – one defining America's aggregate "soul." To believe this, of course, one has to believe that modern US presidential elections actually bring change. This is hard to fathom. What's the difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama? Not much, we'd suggest.
Even Ronald Reagan, probably the most libertarian president of the late 20th century, was more of a rhetorical change-maker than a budget cutter. He talked a good "small government" approach and seemed sincere in his sentiments but the reality was that fedgov swelled under his stewardship, especially military and Intel budgets.
Nonetheless, the power elite that wants to run the world is trying again to portray the US presidential election as some sort of important event. It is important to this elite because they seek an "electoral" buy-in. They want to give the impression of choice. Here's more from the article:
This week, in Tampa, Mr Romney will – if he can raise his voice above Tropical Storm Isaac – be attempting to synthesize these personae into something at once more complex and more simple: a commander-in-chief ...
Americans' attention will be on Tampa not merely because of the storm warnings, but because there is a palpable sense – thanks in part to the selection of Mr Ryan – of how much this contest matters.
Often in elections, what appears to be a cataclysmic contest of ideology turns out to be a choice between shades oftechnocracy. Not this time. The Republicans' chosen battleground is the very shape and scope of US government, not least since a combination of political and fiscal pressures mean that whoever is elected will face choices that could ultimately determine whether the world's greatest power remains not just prosperous, but even solvent.
Okay. Not so fast ... An article in the Daily Beast, admittedly not one of our favorite publications, gives us a different perspective on Ryan. Entitled, "Defense Hawks, Rejoice—Paul Ryan's Your Man!" and written by Eli Lake, the article reviews Ryan's stance on budget cutting and finds that his attitudes tilt toward "neocon" regarding America's "role in the world."
We learn that Ryan has been extensively briefed by such people as Elliott Abrams and Fred Kagan, both prominent militarists during the Bush years.
According to Lake, Abrams believes that Ryan's views are reflective of the historical GOP and thus, it is implied, he is more than ready to take up what could be said to be the "White Man's burden" – making the world safe for a certain kind of sociopolitical philosophy.
Ultimately, this philosophy is globalist and has little or nothing to do with the GOP or even presidential elections generally. US presidents are merely caretakers at this point.
The animating force of nation-state politics these days has to do with ways of transferring power and authority to internationalist bodies like the IMF, World Bank and especially the UN. Whoever is elected in the US – Romney or current President Barack Obama – will merely continue this trend.
Ryan has been presented as a budget cutter because there has been a big upswell of free-market thinking thanks to the Internet and what we call the Internet Reformation. It is a convenient persona but not a real one.
Congressman Ron Paul, a real free-market thinker, was denied a Republican nomination he might well have received if not for a variety of dirty tricks that sapped his momentum. Whether Ron Paul would have won or not may be debatable but there can be no doubt that Ryan has been selected to present a small-government facade behind which the Romney campaign can take shelter.
The fascinating thing about Ron Paul was that he actually attacked the military-industrial wing of the power elite. US soldiers and the entire establishment, in fact, are seemingly merely a means to a globalist end, he explained.
Of course, you won't hear this sort rhetoric anymore. The election is to be presented as an important one to ensure that people focus on the outward facade of democracy rather than the proverbial man behind the curtain. Here's how Lake sums up Ryan and his positions:
Ryan is best known as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, a position he has used to make a national case for significant cuts to social-welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Though he voted for a 2011 bill that forces the Pentagon to cut up to $600 billion from defense spending over the next 10 years if a balanced-budget deal is not reached by January, he has also worked closely with Republican defense hawks to stave off those cuts.
The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Howard "Buck" McKeon, said he was "very happy" with the Ryan pick. McKeon said he has worked closely with Ryan to come up with ways to at least put off what is known as the sequestration cuts, and he praised the Wisconsin lawmaker for his overall philosophy in defense.
"He understands the Reagan principle of having a strong defense and the Eisenhower principle of having a big enough military that no one would ever think about attacking you," McKeon told The Daily Beast.
This election is not a "game changer." It is a pretend affair designed to distract people from the reality of their situation, which is that they are powerless to affect the globalist, militaristic drift of their country and culture. The REAL philosophical struggle being waged is between those who have used the Internet to awaken people and those who serve the elites in sowing obfuscation and confusion.
Conclusion: There is a real process of change occurring, and people are making up their minds about how they want to live and work. But it is not taking place at the ballot box.
The Daily Bell
Dominant Social Theme: Paul Ryan believes in smaller government. This race is shaping up to be one of a legitimate clash of philosophies.
Free Market Analysis: It is almost time for the US presidential election. Let the lying begin. The biggest lie of all – an elite dominant social theme – is that Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, is some sort of small-government budget cutter, and that Romney now shares that view.
But to accept Ryan's role, you have to accept the larger nonsense about this being a "generational" election – one defining America's aggregate "soul." To believe this, of course, one has to believe that modern US presidential elections actually bring change. This is hard to fathom. What's the difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama? Not much, we'd suggest.
Even Ronald Reagan, probably the most libertarian president of the late 20th century, was more of a rhetorical change-maker than a budget cutter. He talked a good "small government" approach and seemed sincere in his sentiments but the reality was that fedgov swelled under his stewardship, especially military and Intel budgets.
Nonetheless, the power elite that wants to run the world is trying again to portray the US presidential election as some sort of important event. It is important to this elite because they seek an "electoral" buy-in. They want to give the impression of choice. Here's more from the article:
This week, in Tampa, Mr Romney will – if he can raise his voice above Tropical Storm Isaac – be attempting to synthesize these personae into something at once more complex and more simple: a commander-in-chief ...
Americans' attention will be on Tampa not merely because of the storm warnings, but because there is a palpable sense – thanks in part to the selection of Mr Ryan – of how much this contest matters.
Often in elections, what appears to be a cataclysmic contest of ideology turns out to be a choice between shades oftechnocracy. Not this time. The Republicans' chosen battleground is the very shape and scope of US government, not least since a combination of political and fiscal pressures mean that whoever is elected will face choices that could ultimately determine whether the world's greatest power remains not just prosperous, but even solvent.
Okay. Not so fast ... An article in the Daily Beast, admittedly not one of our favorite publications, gives us a different perspective on Ryan. Entitled, "Defense Hawks, Rejoice—Paul Ryan's Your Man!" and written by Eli Lake, the article reviews Ryan's stance on budget cutting and finds that his attitudes tilt toward "neocon" regarding America's "role in the world."
We learn that Ryan has been extensively briefed by such people as Elliott Abrams and Fred Kagan, both prominent militarists during the Bush years.
According to Lake, Abrams believes that Ryan's views are reflective of the historical GOP and thus, it is implied, he is more than ready to take up what could be said to be the "White Man's burden" – making the world safe for a certain kind of sociopolitical philosophy.
Ultimately, this philosophy is globalist and has little or nothing to do with the GOP or even presidential elections generally. US presidents are merely caretakers at this point.
The animating force of nation-state politics these days has to do with ways of transferring power and authority to internationalist bodies like the IMF, World Bank and especially the UN. Whoever is elected in the US – Romney or current President Barack Obama – will merely continue this trend.
Ryan has been presented as a budget cutter because there has been a big upswell of free-market thinking thanks to the Internet and what we call the Internet Reformation. It is a convenient persona but not a real one.
Congressman Ron Paul, a real free-market thinker, was denied a Republican nomination he might well have received if not for a variety of dirty tricks that sapped his momentum. Whether Ron Paul would have won or not may be debatable but there can be no doubt that Ryan has been selected to present a small-government facade behind which the Romney campaign can take shelter.
The fascinating thing about Ron Paul was that he actually attacked the military-industrial wing of the power elite. US soldiers and the entire establishment, in fact, are seemingly merely a means to a globalist end, he explained.
Of course, you won't hear this sort rhetoric anymore. The election is to be presented as an important one to ensure that people focus on the outward facade of democracy rather than the proverbial man behind the curtain. Here's how Lake sums up Ryan and his positions:
Ryan is best known as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, a position he has used to make a national case for significant cuts to social-welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Though he voted for a 2011 bill that forces the Pentagon to cut up to $600 billion from defense spending over the next 10 years if a balanced-budget deal is not reached by January, he has also worked closely with Republican defense hawks to stave off those cuts.
The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Howard "Buck" McKeon, said he was "very happy" with the Ryan pick. McKeon said he has worked closely with Ryan to come up with ways to at least put off what is known as the sequestration cuts, and he praised the Wisconsin lawmaker for his overall philosophy in defense.
"He understands the Reagan principle of having a strong defense and the Eisenhower principle of having a big enough military that no one would ever think about attacking you," McKeon told The Daily Beast.
This election is not a "game changer." It is a pretend affair designed to distract people from the reality of their situation, which is that they are powerless to affect the globalist, militaristic drift of their country and culture. The REAL philosophical struggle being waged is between those who have used the Internet to awaken people and those who serve the elites in sowing obfuscation and confusion.
Conclusion: There is a real process of change occurring, and people are making up their minds about how they want to live and work. But it is not taking place at the ballot box.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment