President Trump yesterday recognized Venezuelan opposition legislator as the legitimate president of the country and warned that “all options are on the table” if Venezuela’s elected president moves against protestors or expelled US embassy staff who refuse to leave Caracas. US neocons applaud Trump’s move. Does the US president finally have his very own “Syria” on his hands? On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
The same old pattern. We encourage right wing candidates to drop out and then say the elections are illegitimate.
The US did it in Haiti, Nicaragua and in Venezuela in the past. How many others I couldn’t say. This must be election tampering 101 in CIA school.
“This must be election tampering 101 in CIA school.”
Absolutely right. The US intervenes both overtly and covertly in elections all over the world, in every form from propaganda to funding to assassination. Then US media goes berserk because some Russians run some cheesy Facebook ads here.
And yet we hear endless flap about Russia interference.
Not to forget Iran.
This is Allende ’73 all over again. This isn’t socialism vs democracy, it’s socialism vs fascism. As an anarchist, I’d prefer neither (unless we’re talking libertarian socialism), but I’ll take Allende over Pinochet any day of the week. Maduro is a reactionary caudillo but history almost guarantees his replacement will make him look like a saint. Pinochet fed college students to dogs (literally). This won’t end well.
Did Allende’s “security forces” murder hundreds or thousands of Chileans in the streets (and in midnight “disappearances”), as the UN Human Rights Commission says Maduro’s have (only Venezuelans, not Chileans)?
This isn’t Allende v. Pinochet. It’s possible Pinochet v. actual Pinochet.
Hundreds of thousands?
There is armed combat in the streets (from both sides) but those exact numbers sound a bit inflated. I remember human rights commissions making similar claims in Yugoslavia that didn’t pan out.
Maduro is a thug who probably doesn’t deserve to share a sentence with Allende or Chavez, but this has devolved into a civil war with both sides swapping atrocities. The one difference between the sides is that the opposition are a Yanqui funded mercenary force.
“Hundreds of thousands?”
No, just as I wrote, hundreds OR thousands (the initial UN report’s low end was 500, but that was some time ago).
Yes, the US is presumably funneling “regime change funding” to the “opposition.” Just as Cuba, among others, funds the regime’s mercenary force.
Nations simply cannot mind their own business. OTOH minding other nations’ business creates jobs to put it bluntly.
Cuba’s funding of foreign operations is a pittance compared to ours, not that I support either. A poor country receiving aid from an even poorer country to fight off an imperial force that threatens them both is a lot different than the wealthiest country on earth dumping cash in the coffers of a colonialist oligarchy. Come on, Tom, give me a break.
Venezuela was an increasingly rich country until it tried to go the Cuban route. Now it’s just Pinochet II: This time it’s personal.
Venezuela was also an increasingly unequal country. People didn’t vote for Chavez because they were rich.
I do like the movie title, though. Personally, I would go with Pinochet II: Electric Boogaloo. But that’s just me.
But Cuba is irrelevant here. We have some control over our government thanks to the VERY limited democracy we have. Our job is to stop US intervention – period.
One solid libertarian wrote that he has been getting enormous grief from his conservative friends for taking a solidly anti-interventionist stand on Venezuela. They call him a “socialist” for that, a sobriquet tantamount to “Satan” in those circles. But the courageous guy persists. And so I do not think that Tom should worry about such criticism – his principled stance against intervention is what makes reading him most worthwhile.
It is the same in “progressive” circles. Those who back Trump’s withdrawal from Syria are charged with being Assadites or lovers of all things Trumpian (and therefore racist, of course) or puppets of Putin. So it is the same thing on the faux left.
It is not easy to be consistently anti-interventionist, but it is worth the effort. Ron Paul’s example (and Stephen F. Cohen’s at what is regarded as the other end of the spectrum – problem is that is the wrong spectrum) may save us yet.
So be careful when you raise the horrors of Cuba. You may be slip sliding away from yourdf anti-interventionist position.
p.s. I lived in Colombia for a while decades back and I visited Cuba for a while about the time that Hugo Chavez died. If I were an average Latino, I would much prefer Cuba -where an education, healthcare, housing and food are all guaranteed. True Cuba has not developed further than that essential level (and the China example was being discussed as a remedy when I was there) – but life is better for the working classes than in Colombia. BUT Cuba’s sort of socialism has consistently failed to produce high levels of prosperity.
Is there a source for the charge that the opposition is ‘Yanqui” funded? Share, please. Thanx.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/av44kg/does-the-uss-funding-of-the-venezuelan-opposition-matter
https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07CARACAS1637_a.html
Still unclear why we should care about Venezuela. And if we go in, Trump is done in 2020. That is undeniable.
Do you mean like many said Bush was done in 2004 after two invasions? Which is an undeniable fact.
Yea, except Bush didn’t run on the premise of ceasing foreign entanglements. And even bigger than that was Bush won both due to both elections being rigged in his favor. Trump won in spite of things being rigged in Hillary’s favor. Don’t assume I wrote my first comment as a Trump hater. I just call em like I see them. If he don’t start acting like campaign trail Trump real soon, I won’t be voting for him. I’ll stay home.
You just proved my point. And that is: all kinds of factors contribute to re-elections. The American public on the whole is indifferent to wars. Wars often galvanize people to support a sitting president sadly. Trump has whole state apparatuses to rig elections. State governments (the majority of state governments were RED in 2016 and are currently)) are where gerrymandering and rigging takes place. More importantly, you ask why we should care about Venezuela? Answer: U.S. imperialism. And if you think because Trump ran on the premise of ceasing foreign entanglements that he would continue that premise you’re naive. I seem to recall 59 missile strikes launched in Syria under Trump; I can’t count how many drones. Foreign entanglement ceasing? If you lived through the Bush years you’d know that rhetoric does not policies make. And Trump is full of rhetoric and lies–thousands of them, whether you hate him or not. You can vote for him or not, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that U.S. imperialism is real and we all have to pay for it. The people it affects pay more. That’s why Venezuela is important. Human life is important. Or should be. Getting to be less and less important by the day.
Has nothing to do with me being naive. But he will lose support over this. That is all I am saying. Trump knocked many out of their comfy slumber, which is good. But now that many more woke, they are woke for real and won’t stand for any more of this. If anybody is being naive, it certainly isn’t me.
Now maybe I am wrong, but you are giving the me impression you want more illegal wars. And if so, that’s on you. But our men and women needs to stop spilling blood for no reason other than feeding the Banksters, the Military-Indust Complex & Israel. Protect OUR borders. To hell with the rest of the world.
You asked a naive question! Not knowing or appearing to ask why people should care about any country threatened with violence by a U.S. head of state appears not to appreciate death paid for by everyone. And the death of civilians. War kills civilians. All the time. Anytime. Always has. You asked the question, did you not? I don’t think it was facetious either. Trump knocked few out of slumber. And he will most likely be knocked out of office sooner than later. He is full of insults, bluster, and lies. All of which can lead to war. But this is not about Trump, but about your question about Venezuela.
No you misunderstood the question. It was more rhetorical than anything. I know the real why. Contrary to you talking to me like I am a damn child, I know the deal. I have known the deal since I was a damn child. I figured this crap out when I was 14 and Poppa Bush ran his illegal war in Iraq. So take your ‘know-it-all, everyone but me is naive’ attitude elsewhere.
Oh, and BTW I figured this crap out when I was 14 and Nixon ran his immoral war in Vietnam. Which has taught me to be clear on war. That and being in the army.
Blah, blah, blah. You want a damn cookie?
You didn’t figure out anything but how to be rude and obnoxious to people online while hiding behind a keyboard.
Just accept the fact that you wrote down a messy thing. It wasn’t rhetorical. It was just ambiguous: “Still unclear why we should care about Venezuela.” If you were trying to ask a rhetorical question, it’s a very poor example. Just face it and move on. It’s better that way. No need to continue arguing whatever point you were trying to make. If you did care, you wouldn’t even be rhetorical. about the situation in that country. If you really don’t care, then just say it. And say it plainly. If what I’ve said is rude or obnoxious, sorry. I’m just trying be clear and straight forward. Finally, good luck with your attempts to make an argument. If that’s rude, I’m sorry. It’s sincere. Build strong arguments going forward. Good luck.
Then stop wasting pixels if you’re not “unclear” about Venezuela! It’s important to be crystal clear if you hope ever to advocate against war. Or do you advocate for war? Hard to tell. Doesn’t matter anyway, really. After all this is an anti-war forum.
IT WAS RHETORICAL. Get over yourself.
Didn’t work. Sorry. Better ways to be rhetorical. Good luck next time.
Dude, maybe be mature and just say ‘ok my mistake’
after I clearly explained, multiple times, what I was saying exactly, and move on instead of running your mouth and lecturing me about the obvious.
God luck, dudette. Try again next time. A chocolate cookie might help you feel better.
The grand irony here is I am criticizing a possible war on a blog called ANTIWAR, and am getting attacked for it.
I just took a quick run back through the comments. If anyone is attacking you for criticizing a possible war, they’re doing so in comments that are only visible to you. All I see is a weird and seemingly pointless argument over your writing style.
Hallelujah! On point, Thomas.
Yea the eyes see what they want to see. I criticized this potential war in my first comment, than this other clown proceeds to lecture me like a child. I guess standing up for myself is attacking people these days. Glad you decided to chime in to prove that not only are your readers part of the Borg Collective and freak out for difference of opinion, but the moderator is General Borg attacking his readers. Don’t worry I won’t be back. I don’t waste my time where difference of opinion is unwelcome. Ya’ll are no better than HuffPo, or CNN with your thought policing. Good day, and God bless.
“Yea the eyes see what they want to see.”
Tell me about it.
Nobody attacked you for criticizing a war. I didn’t attack you at all. Nor did I accuse you of attacking anyone. And yet you “saw” all three of those things.
“God luck, dudette.”
Evidently calling people names isn’t an attack ? Looks to me as if Trump’s ego has at least a match if not a clear odds on favorite.
Violence paid for by all taxpayers through threat of violence by the government (don’t pay taxes for war making, you lose. And the loss (could be one’s freedom) happens by threat or real violence.
“Violence paid for by all taxpayers”
Taxes don’t pay for anything, that is a naive statement.
You’re really naive to say that taxes don’t pay for anything. If you think wars say like WWI, WWII, Vietnam and everything in between wasn’t paid for by American taxpayers please get thee to a library.
You need to go to the library and learn how a fiat system works and quit pretending you know what the hell you’re talking about instead of spreading more ignorance around while acting like an online jackwagon.
The war debt was merely hidden due to the expansion of our economy after the war flattened what were the big economic players at that time. That’s a big part of the reason we stayed neutral in both wars as long as we did. You can make the debt go from 120% of GDP down to almost nothing by increasing the size of the economy.
You’ve been indoctrinated by neoclassical economists on TV.
You’re also a bitter person with a horrible attitude and huge ego.
I’m sorry I even replied to your trolling, provocative remark. No more from me. Spray the insanity that “taxes don’t pay for anything” far and wide. I just won’t be there with you for the ride.
I’m sorry you’re so obtuse you actually think taxes are redistributed inside a fiat system. There’s not a pool of money and they don’t set around a table counting and dividing tax returns up and sending them to different federal agencies. The government writes revenue off the books in a simple accounting exercise and then issues new bonds which are sold off to investors.
That’s how you tax system actually works and how it works for any sovereign nation with a fiat system. All sovereign nations have the exclusive right to create their own currency, this is why the EU is such an issue.
Taxes destroy currency, PERIOD. That’s why I laugh at libertarians who complain about how worthless the dollar has become and how much money the fed creates while screaming for lower taxes. They are adding to the problem and are too ignorant to even know it.
The very definition of a deficit is how much money is taken in/destroyed vs how much is created/spent. Otherwise you’d have an ever increasing amount of currency and it would have to end up worthless in the end. You have to destroy a certain amount of the currency to prevent that from happening.
You don’t have to thank me, I don’t mind helping ignorant people like you out since, I’m not a miserable opinionated jerk, like your posts prove you to be.
“Yea, except Bush didn’t run on the premise of ceasing foreign entanglements”
In 2000, he ran on a “humbler foreign policy.”
In 2004, after the Libertarian hit 5% in polling in New Mexico and launched a multi-city campaign tour, he rushed out there to firm up the state and campaigned on a plan to withdraw US troops from the Korean peninsula.
Pulling troops from Korea is different than starting an illegal war after promising to not only not do it, but to end all our current wars as well. And to hell with Bush, I was talking about Trump and only Trump. Again, I say these NOT as a never-Trumper. But I don’t worship him as God either. If he does good, I will be the first to say so. But if he does something horrible, I will be the first to criticize. Its called thinking freely and not blindly supporting anything just because ‘its on my side’. Man, you people are so stuck in a ‘this or that’ mentality.
“Still unclear why we should care about Venezuela”
Because this is done in our name ?? Because innocent people will end up dying for the profit of some plutocrat who almost certainly produces nothing other than corruption ??
Trump could be done in 2020 regardless of foreign policy all together. No one can say until then
Does anyone know that Venezuela just happens to be one of the few remaining nations that don’t have a Rothschild central bank?
“If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” ~ Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife
The Central Bank of Venezuela has been running monetary policy there since 1979.
And it’s one of the last central banks not owned by Rothschild & company. I guarantee if we invade Venezuela, a Rothschild central bank will be installed.
As the late General Smedley Butler made so clear, most wars are bankers’ wars.
So Venezuela’s central bank managed to destroy its economy all on its own, without any help from the Rothschilds? Interesting.
I guess you didn’t know that socialism doesn’t work. That figures.
If you also think the Deep State “cares” about the people of Venezuela and that’s why the call for regime change, then I’ve got a bridge I know you’d love to buy.
Neither of those sentences make any sense at all.
I’m well aware that socialism (assuming a working definition of socialism as government control of the economy) doesn’t “work” (assuming that “work” is defined in terms of maximizing the welfare of those subjected to it).
The Deep State doesn’t “care” about anything, since it’s an aggregate rather than an entity, but to the extent that it ACTS as if it cares about anything that thing is perpetuation/maximization of its own power.
The US regime replacement project is just as foul as the regime it aims to replace.
Let’s recap your “arguments”:
First, you claimed that Venezuela has a Rothschild central bank when it doesn’t.
Next, you blamed Venezuela’s failed economy on its central bank rather than the true reason — socialism.
Suffice to say, it’s your revolving “arguments” that make no sense at all.
“First, you claimed that Venezuela has a Rothschild central bank when it doesn’t.”
I claimed no such thing.
“Next, you blamed Venezuela’s failed economy on its central bank rather than the true reason — socialism.”
“Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” — plank number 5 of Karl Marx’s outline for the transition to socialism.
Odd that you put “arguments” in scare quotes, since you, not I, are the one pretending that what’s occurring here is argumentation.
In response to my statement of fact that Venezuela does not have a Rothschild Central Bank, you replied:
“The Central Bank of Venezuela has been running monetary policy there since 1979.”
I guess you don’t read your own comments. You were caught in a false claim and you know it.
Feel free to cite where I claimed that Venezuela has a “Rothschild” central bank.
You can’t, because I didn’t.
If you want to argue with what I actually wrote, fine — but arguing with what you wish I had written doesn’t seem very productive, especially when you’ll get called on it every time.
You wrote that in response to my statement that Venezuela does NOT have a Rothschild central bank. So either you didn’t know there was a difference between a central bank and a Rothschild central bank or you were hoping readers of your reply would not know there’s a difference.
You also wrote this: “So Venezuela’s central bank managed to destroy its economy all on its own…”
Meaning, obviously, that you don’t even know that SOCIALISM ruined Venezuela’s economy.
You’re so transparent, you’re funny!
Thanks for confirming that I wrote what I wrote rather than what you pretended I wrote. You having some kind of obsession with “Rothschild” is your own affair, not mine.
Socialism ruins every economy it touches.
And central banking is a key element of (state) socialism.
Except you fail to mention the fact we live in a capitalist economy around the globe and try to pretend as if sanctions by capitalist nations play no part in the destruction of the economy in these countries.
You can blame bad policy for ruining an economy but ignoring the economic warfare capitalists wage on socialist countries is truly dishonest.
I am well aware that we live in a capitalist economy around the globe.
I am also aware that sanctions by capitalist nations play a part in speeding up the destruction of the economy in socialist nations.
I ignore nothing.
“Socialism ruins every economy it touches.”
Actually capitalism has and is destroying all countries around the world as we speak.
It has and continues to kill millions upon millions to this day.
So it’s the “free market” that is the killer. Not the ism, since all markets have to be a mix of socialist and capitalist.
Capitalism is not “the free market.” It’s the government-controlled market scenario that serves as a bridge between feudal socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marx’s theory.
I’m not a capitalist because I’m not a Marxist.
Except the “free market” is a fairy tail since you can’t have a market place without rules and you can’t enforce rules without government. So there’s that.
“you can’t enforce rules without government.”
Depends on what you mean by “government.”
If you mean “you can’t enforce rules without the state,” then you have positively no idea what the hell what you’re talking about.
Four people ordering pizza together are a “government.”
If you think ordering pizza is enforcing rules then I don’t want ever want to eat pizza with you or allow you to govern anything.
So when you’re sitting around with friends and decide to order pizza, how does that work?
In most cases, there’s a discussion of where to order the pizza from and of what crust type and toppings people desire. An amicable decision is made. The group has governed itself according to rules established ad hoc and amicably rather than imposed by a “ruling pizza class.”
In most cases, there’s also such an ad hoc rule on who pays — the host, or split the check, or whatever. Once again, arrived at by unanimous consent governance, not by East Armpit, New Jersey Ordinance #2451, Section B, Subsection 2, paragraph iv.
And if the Pizza ends up making everyone sick to the point they incur medical expenses and miss work……….
So in other words, you have no answer for what happens if someone doesn’t pay their share for the pizza or the pizza makes everyone sick. Nor can you point out who will enforce any legal action that might take place saying there could be a hearing or judgement made surrounding the issue to begin with. Besides, all anyone would have to do is just cross over into the next county or state……..
If someone doesn’t pay their share for the pizza, the group doesn’t invite him to split pizza with them again, and in fact he probably doesn’t get invited to the next get-together at all.
If the pizza makes everyone sick, then the matter has exceeded the specific government’s purview. Just as international state matters aren’t settled domestically, matters involving more than one entity aren’t settled by only one of those entities. It’s not obvious that the matter between the group of pizza buyers and the pizzeria has to be settled by an armed gang claiming a monopoly on the use of force within a specified geographic area, aka a state. There might be an agreement as of the purchase that disputes will be settled by this or that independent arbitration agency. Or, in the absence of such an agreement, the group might send one of its members to the pizzeria to ask them whether they’d rather pay doctor bills or face a publicity campaign telling everyone in their town “don’t buy from Pizzeria X unless you want food poisoning.”
So, once again, when you said that rules can’t be enforced without government, did you mean “government,” or did you mean “state?” In the former case, you’re absolutely right. In the latter case, not only are you wrong, but the state has proven itself over and over again to be probably the least fair and least efficient rule-enforcing/dispute-resolving machine humanity has ever had the misfortune to create.
“If someone doesn’t pay their share for the pizza, the group doesn’t
invite him to split pizza with them again, and in fact he probably
doesn’t get invited to the next get-together at all.”
So no such thing as compensation for getting ripped off is what you’re saying….. that’s some real justice right there !
So Thomas’s answer is vigilantism over justice. Hatfield and McCoy over a court system that could meter out settlements with a relative standard agreed upon democratically across several counties or states or even the country.
The Hatfield and McCoy feud took place directly in the presence of a “court system that could meter out settlements,” etc.
In pizzacracy, the standard is better than “democratic.” It requires the UNANIMOUS consent of all parties.
Yeah, way back in the days that the libertarians brag about being so great.
And in pizzacracy it is more than likely never going to be unanimous and therefor not ever gonna happen.
Problem not solved.
“Yeah, way back in the days that the libertarians brag about being so great in my imagination.”
Fixed, no charge.
“And in pizzacracy it is more than likely never going to be unanimous and therefor not ever gonna happen.”
That’s strange. I was under the impression that my house wasn’t the only one where pizza got ordered at get-togethers.
I’m pretty sure that what you’re saying is the pizzacracy model is unacceptable because everyone else isn’t going to consent to let you run their lives.
Just so you know, Rothschild was the founder of central banking and the international banking cartel. Hence the name “Rothschild central bank.”
Though your backpedaling on what caused Venezuela’s failed economy is humorous, it would be wise to stop digging and start educating yourself a little on the history of banking — it’d be a much better use of your time. Just a suggestion.
You making up stuff and pretending I said it is not evidence that I’m uneducated on the history of banking (I’ve done plenty of reading on it, including but far from limited to Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island).
Is there any particular reason to believe that the Central Bank of Venezuela, which appears on numerous lists of “Rothschild-owned central banks,” isn’t a Rothschild-owned central bank?
It’s obvious, from your replies including this last one, that you don’t know the history of banking, wars, who owns the Rothschild central banks, nor Venezuela.
You do know the titles of books that you’ve obviously never read, though!
“You do know the titles of books that you’ve obviously never read, though!”
I think that is at least a little bit unfair, considering you do not personally know Thomas, or what he has and hasn’t read. My own experience with him is that he is quite knowledgeable and well read, and has many times pointed myself and others to written sources which can enlighten us.
I really don’t see why you are taking such an argumentative tone with him. It would appear to me that you both agree that State socialism is harmful to the people living under it. Thomas was simply bringing up the facet of socialism he thought did the most damage in Venezuela, and that is central banking. If you disagree with that then say so, instead of trying to perpetuate an argument where none was intended.
I wouldn’t say that central banking did the MOST damage to Venezuela, necessarily.
The guy is just pissed off that he got caught making an assertion that appears to be incorrect and that he either can’t or won’t offer evidence for, and thinks he can bluster his way back to credibility. This too shall pass.
According to Thomas, it was (his quote) “Venezuela’s central bank managed to destroy its economy, without any help from the Rothschilds.”
His later remark was his accusation about my “obsession with Rothschild.”
Thomas did not bring up socialism until I did, of course. Then he backpedaled.
So my question to is: Do you and Thomas work for the Federal Reserve and/or is Thomas simply so arrogant that he’s incapable of admitting when he’s wrong about anything?
In either case. you both have my sympathy.
Nice try. But I see that you felt the need to change what I said while simultaneously putting it in quotes to pretend I said it.
And that you still haven’t offered any reason to believe your assertion that the Central Bank of Venezuela isn’t a “Rothschild” central bank.
I’m wrong a lot. When I notice that I’m wrong, I admit it. And no, I do not and never have worked for the Federal Reserve (or for any other bank).
You may or may not be wrong a lot. Hard to tell when you spend half your time lying and the other not making any sense at all.
“So Venezuela’s central bank managed to destroy its economy all on its own, without any help from the Rothschilds? Interesting.”
Above is a “copy & paste” of your original comment.
It’s been fun, but I’m done arguing with someone who makes comments and then denies making those comments. I’m also done arguing with someone who doesn’t do his own research. Have a nice day!
Thanks for correcting your altered version of my comment (removing the “that” you added and taking out the question mark from the original so as to falsely convey the impression that the comment was made other than sarcastically).
In order to be done arguing, you’d have had to start arguing in the first place. Making a claim that you can’t or won’t back up, then trying to back down the person who questions it by insulting him and lying about what he said isn’t “arguing.”
“So Venezuela’s central bank managed to destroy its economy all on its own, without any help from the Rothschilds? Interesting.”
As you can see, there’s no “that” in your comment. Try reading your comments sometime.
Again, the REASON our gov’t is calling for regime change in Venezuela is because Rothschild & company are intent on installing a central bank there — just as they did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and are attempting to do in Syria, Iran, and Russia.
BTW, I didn’t insult you — it was your own comments that insulted you.
Correct. You inserted a “that” in your false “quote” of it the first time around to make it look like it wasn’t sarcastic, then corrected it when I noticed (as you had hoped I wouldn’t).
If you can’t even keep track of your own deceptions, you probably shouldn’t bother trying to continue them by questioning other people’s memories of what you lied about.
LOL. An added “that” typo changed your meaning??? Hilarious!
You might notice (which is doubtful because so far you haven’t even noticed your own comments) that I copied & pasted your exact comment the 2nd time.
I’m done here but I’ll leave you with some advice — you’d better get a grip on your paranoia. It’s not good for one’s health.
Finding you irresistibly mockable isn’t “paranoia.”
I notice you keep saying you’re done.
And that that’s becoming as difficult to believe as everything else you say.
But never mind who ran it before then since you have the buzz word “central bank” to demonize in order to demonize socialism along with it.
If you haven’t ever noticed, with or without central banks, we’ve all been nothing but slaves to capital and the concept of there being anyone among us that can be considered “elite”.
There are no successful economic systems as of yet. Choosing to go McCarthy isn’t any sort of solution.
We’ve all been slaves to the ruling class. All of us — whether the ruling class calls itself “capitalist” or “socialist.”
Marx’s theory of history, which far from being “anti-capitalist,” posited capitalism as a necessary transitional step from archaic socialisms like feudalism to his dictatorship of the proletariat, actually took some account of the situation (by noting that the state is always the executive committee of the ruling class). He wanted to destroy class as such.
Unfortunately, when he cribbed class theory from the libertarians, he changed up the classes from Comte/Dunoyer’s “productive class” and “political class” to “capital” and “labor,” since when history has irrefutably established the error of his new attempt at distinction.
I backed Trump, but if he goes through with this I could care less if Maxine Waters cannibalizes him.
Now we see a new tool in the toolbox used for interfering in other nations’ elections. Meanwhile Trump supports the deep state foreign policy agenda and the Dems seek confrontation with Russia. Let’s have a draft and war! Let’s let Hillary start it so her minions can go and die by the millions! Then we will see how deep Democratic support is for her. Let’s bring back the citizen army and draft snowflakes by the millions.
“Let’s bring back the citizen army”
The draft would bring back, not the “citizen” army, but the slave army. The initiated State violence of the draft, is of the same nature as the initiated State violence of aggressive warfare. One reinforces the other. You reap what you sow, and violence begets violence. All who take the sword, will perish by it.