INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM
The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. These are The Three Commandments of Freedom:
Only individuals have rights, not groups. Therefore, do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the alleged rights of groups.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
To favor one class of citizens over others is not equality under law. Therefore, do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
The proper function of the state is to protect, not to provide. Therefore, do not approve coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.
THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM
Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.
For the rational and historical support for The Creed of Freedom, see The Chasm in the Issues section of his site. This 21-page document will take 10 to 45 seconds to load depending on the speed of your Internet connection.
Background Articles and Videos
Freedom Force International speaker for Liberty in Pittsburgh
Rare Carroll Quigley interview
Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authored a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
[1 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
Carroll Quigley was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Tragedy and Hope (tragedy is all the people who must suffer and die for the NWO, and the hope is the NEW WORLD ORDER )
Professor Quigley was a Globalist, he supported the idea NEW WORLD ORDER and wrote about it, he, unlike the elites, thought the people should know about it.
“I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” — Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences…”
“The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations…”
“The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.” Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” Dr. Carroll Quigley
“As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley.”President Clinton, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, 16 July 1992
[2 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[3 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[4 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[5 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)
The Creature From Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
by G. Edward Griffin
Edward Griffin – The Subversion Factor
CFR – List of Members and Organisations Involved
Jimmy Carter Administration
President Carter (who became a CFR member in 1983) appointed over 60 CFR members to serve in his Administration:
Walter Mondale (Vice-President)
Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor)
Cyrus R. Vance (Secretary of State)
W. Michael Blumenthal (Secretary of Treasury)
Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense)
Stansfield Turner (Director of the CIA)
Gen. David Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Ronald Reagan Administration
There were 75 CFR and Trilateral Commission members under President Reagan:
Alexander Haig (Secretary of State)
George Shultz (Secretary of State)
Donald Regan (Secretary of Treasury)
William Casey (CIA Director)
Malcolm Baldridge (Secretary of Commerce)
Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (U.N. Ambassador)
Frank C. Carlucci (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
William E. Brock (Special Trade Representative)
George H. W. Bush Administration
During his 1964 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Texas, George Bush said: “If Red China should be admitted to the U.N., then the U.N. is hopeless and we should withdraw.” In 1970, as Ambassador to the U.N., he pushed for Red China to be seated in the General Assembly. When Bush was elected, the CFR member became the first President to publicly mention the “New World Order” and had in his Administration nearly 350 CFR and Trilateral Commission members:
Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
Richard B. Cheney (Secretary of Defense)
Colin L. Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
William Webster (Director of the CIA)
Richard Thornburgh (Attorney General)
Nicholas F. Brady (Secretary of Treasury)
Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Deputy Secretary of State)
Horace G. Dawson, Jr. (U.S. Information Agency and Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights)
Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)
Bill Clinton Administration
When CFR member Bill Clinton was elected, Newsweek magazine would later refer to him as the “New Age President.” In October, 1993, Richard Harwood, a Washington Post writer, in describing the Clinton Administration, said its CFR membership was “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.
Albert Gore, Jr. (Vice-President)
Donna E. Shalala (Secretary of Health and Human Services)
Laura D. Tyson (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors)
Alice M. Rivlin (Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget)
Madeline K. Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.)
Warren Christopher (Secretary of State)
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. (Deputy Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation)
Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense)
Colin Powell (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
W. Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor)
George Stephanopoulos (Senior Advisor)
Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger (Deputy National Security Advisor)
R. James Woolsey (CIA Director)
William J. Crowe, Jr. (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)
Lloyd Bentsen (former member, Secretary of Treasury)
Roger C. Altman (Deputy Secretary of Treasury)
Henry G. Cisneros (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)
Bruce Babbit (Secretary of the Interior)
Peter Tarnoff (Under Secretary of State for International Security of Affairs)
Winston Lord (Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
Strobe Talbott (Aid Coordinator to the Commonwealth of Independent States)
Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve System)
Walter Mondale (U.S. Ambassador to Japan)
Ronald H. Brown (Secretary of Commerce)
Franklin D. Raines (Economics and International Trade).
George W. Bush Administration
Richard Cheney (Vice President, former Secretary of Defense under President G.H.W. Bush)
Colin Powell (Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton)
Condoleeza Rice (National Security Advisor, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
Robert B. Zoellick (U.S. Trade Representative, former Under Secretary of State in the Bush administration)
Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)
Brent Scowcroft (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former National Security Advisor to President Bush)
Richard Haass (Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at Large)
Henry Kissinger (Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford)
Robert Blackwill (U.S. Ambassador to India, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
Stephen Friedman (Sr. White House Economic Advisor)
Stephen Hadley (Deputy National Security Advisor, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Cheney)
Richard Perle (Chairman of Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
Paul Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration)
Dov S. Zakheim (Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice President, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense).
David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full
Malcolm Rifkind: Working with Margaret Thatcher was ‘never dull’
Margaret Thatcher Dead At 87 – “The Iron Lady” – Stuart Varney
‘Iron Lady’ Margaret Thatcher dies at 87 after stroke
Margaret Thatcher “The Iron Lady” Dead At 87
Obituary: Margaret Thatcher
MARGARET THATCHER DIES AT 87 (WARNING! FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY)
BBC News Announcement – Margaret Thatcher Has Died
Margaret Thatcher dies: David Cameron pays tribute to ‘patriot Prime Minister’
Margaret Thatcher: Boris Johnson pays tribute
Margaret Thatcher changed global political landscape: Tony Blair
Remembering Margaret Thatcher: Pioneering Female Politician
Margaret Thatcher on The MacNeil/Lehrer Report
Thatcher and Reagan’s special relationship
Margaret Thatcher, British Conservative Hero, Dies at 87
MARGARET THATCHER 30TH ANNIVERSARY CLIPS – ’79 RESULT & JANET BROWN SPOOF
Margaret Thatcher – Capitalism and a Free Society
Margaret Thatcher Dies: How She Ended ‘Nanny State’
What did Margaret Thatcher do for Britain’s economy?
Margaret Thatcher dead: A look at her role as MP and mother
Sunrise: Remembering Margaret Thatcher
Sunrise: Margaret Thatcher: The early years
Margaret Thatcher – Thames Television – 1971 -1979
Margaret Thatcher, U.K. Prime Minster, Dies at 87
Margaret Thatcher concerned about “U.S. decline”
The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Iron Lady
Mike Pattison | A former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher
Introducing Margaret Thatcher! 5 March 1975
MARGARET THATCHER book discussion “The Downing Street Years” 1993
Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher discussing her memoirs “The Downing Street Years” with Brian Lamb on 4 November 1993.
margaret thatcher on her path to power
mrs thatcher gives an interview on her early life
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
Would Hayek Have Approved Obamacare?
Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)
Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie
Hitchens ’10: Margaret Thatcher & the Unions
Hitchens 2010: In Love with Argument
Margaret Thatcher – The Flame of Capitalism
1975 Oct 10 Fr
Speech to Conservative Party Conference
Winter Gardens, Blackpool
Thatcher Archive: speaking text
1045. MT spoke for 41 minute 16 seconds; the BBC Sound Archive has a complete recording. Evening Standard (10 October 1975) noted that the audience applauded every passage of the speech – not one was delivered without interruption. Parts of the text have been checked against material broadcast on ITN during the day.
Conservative Party (organisation), Autobiographical comments, Conservative Party (history), Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Economy (general discussions), Employment, Public spending and borrowing, Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Foreign policy (USSR and successor states), Foreign policy (Central and Eastern Europe), Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Higher and further education, Industry, Science and technology, Conservatism, Social security and welfare, Labour Party and Socialism, Industry, Conservatism, Labour Party and Socialism, Agriculture, Employment, Labour Party and Socialism, Conservatism, Secondary education, Health policy, Private health care, Labour Party and Socialism, Trade unions, British constitution (general discussions), Law and order, Labour Party and Socialism, Northern Ireland
Note by MT: “Relax. Low Speaking Voice. Not too slow”.
The first Conservative Party Conference I attended was in 1946.
I came to it as an undergraduate representing Oxford University Conservative Association (I know our Cambridge supporters will not mind.) That Conference was held in this very hall and the platform then seemed a long way away, and I had no thought of joining the lofty and distinguished people sitting up there.
But our Party is the Party of equality of opportunity—as you can see. (Laughter).[fo 1]
You will understand, I know, the humility I feel at following in the footsteps of great men like our Leader that year, Winston Churchill a man called by destiny who raised the name of Britain to supreme heights in the history of the free world. (Applause).
In the footsteps of Anthony Eden , who set us the goal of a property-owning democracy—a goal we still pursue today.(Applause).
Of Harold Macmillan whose leadership brought so many ambitions within the grasp of every citizen. (Applause).[fo 2]
Of Alec Douglas-Home whose career of selfless public service earned the affection and admiration of us all. (Applause).
And of Edward Heath who successfully led the Party to victory in 1970 and brilliantly led the nation into Europe in 1973. (Applause).
During my lifetime, all the leaders of the Conservative Party have served as Prime Minister. I hope the habit will continue. (Laughter)
Our leaders have been different men with different qualities and different styles. But they have one thing in common. Each met the challenge-of-his-time.[fo 3]
What is the challenge of our time?
I believe there are two—to overcome the country’s economic and financial problems, and to regain our confidence in Britain and ourselves.
The Economic Challenge
The economic challenge has been debated at length in this hall.
Last week it gave rise to the usual scenes of cordial brotherly strife.[fo 4]
Day after day the comrades called one another far from comradely names, and occasionally, when they remembered, they called us names too.
Some of them, for example, suggested that I criticised Britain when I was overseas. They are wrong.
It wasn’t Britain I was criticising. It was-Socialism. (Applause).
And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain—and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing.[fo 5]
As long as I have health and strength, they never will be. (Applause).
But whatever could I say about Britain that is half as damaging as what this Labour Government have done to our country?
Let’s look at the record.
It is the Labour Government that have caused prices to rise at a record rate of 26 per cent a year.[fo 6]
They told us that the Social Contract would solve everything. But now everyone can see that the so-called contract was a fraud—a fraud for which the people of this country have had to pay a very high price.
It is the Labour Government whose policies are forcing unemployment higher than it need have been—thousands more men and women lose their jobs every day.
There are going to be men and women many of them youngsters straight out of school—who will be without a job this winter because Socialist Ministers spent last year attacking us, instead of attacking inflation.[fo 7]Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
And it’s the Labour Government that have brought the level of production below that of the 3-day week in 1974. W’ve really got a 3-day week now,—only it takes five days to do it. (Applause).
It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease—they’ve run out of other people’s money. (Laughter).
And it’s the Labour Government that have pushed public spending to record levels.
And how’ve they done it? By borrowing, and borrowing and borrowing.
Never in the field of human credit has so much been owed. (Laughter).End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.[fo 8]
But serious as the economic challenge is, the political and moral challenge is just as grave, perhaps more so.
POLITICAL AND MORAL CHALLENGE
Economic problems never start with economics. They have deeper roots—in human nature and in politics.
They don’t finish at economics either.
Labour’s failure to cope, to look at the nation’s problems from the point of view of the whole nation, not just one section of it, has led to loss of confidence and a sense of helplessness.[fo 9]
With it goes a feeling that Parliament, which ought to be in charge, is not in charge—that the actions and the decisions are taken elsewhere.
And it goes deeper than that. There are voices that seem anxious not to overcome our economic difficulties, but to exploit them, to destroy the free enterprise society and put a Marxist system in its place.
Today those voices form a sizeable chorus in the Parliamentary Labour Party. A chorus which, aided and abetted by many Constituency Labour Parties, seems to be growing in numbers.[fo 10]
Anyone who says this openly is promptly accused of seeing Reds Under the Bed.
But look who’s seeing them now!
On his own admission, Mr Wilson has at last discovered that his own Party is infiltrated by extreme left-wingers—or to use his own words it is infested with them.
When even Mr Wilson gets scared about their success in capturing key positions in the Labour Party, shouldn’t the rest of us be?[fo 11]
And shouldn’t the rest of us ask him “Where have you been while all this has been going on, and what are you doing about it?” (Applause). The answer is nothing.
I sometimes think the Labour Party is like a pub where the mild is running out. If someone doesn’t do something soon, all that’s left will be bitter. (Laughter). And all that’s bitter will be Left. (Laughter).
Whenever I visit Communist countries, their politicians never hesitate to boast about their achievements.[fo 12]
They know them all by heart and reel off the facts and figures, claiming that this is the rich harvest of the Communist system.
Yet they are not prosperous as we in the West are prosperous, and they are not free as we in the West are free.
Our capitalist system produces a far higher standard of prosperity and happiness because it believes in incentive and opportunity, and because it is founded on human dignity and freedom. (Applause).[fo 13]
Even the Russians have to go to a capitalist country, America to buy enough wheat to feed their people. And that aftermore than 50 years of a State controlled economy.
Yet they boast incessantly while we, who have so much more to boast about, forever criticise and decry.
Isn’t it time we spoke up for our way of life? (Applause) After all, no Western nation has to build a wall round itself to keep its people in. (Applause).[fo 14]
So let us have no truck with those who say the free enterprise system has failed. What we face today is not a crisis of capital ism, but of Socialism. No country can flourish if its economic and social life is dominated by nationalisation and state control.
The cause of our shortcomings does not therefore lie in private enterprise. Our problem is not that we have too little socialism. It is that we have too much.
If only the Labour Party in this country would act like Social Democrats in West Germany. If only they would stop trying to prove their Socialist virility by relentlessly nationalising one industry after another.[fo 15]
Of course, a halt to further State control will not on its own restore our belief in ourselves, because something else is happening to this country. We are witnessing a deliberate attack on our values, a deliberate attack on those who wish to promote merit and excellence, a deliberate attack on our heritage and great past. (Applause).Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
And there are those who gnaw away at our national self-respect, rewriting British history as centuries of unrelieved gloom, oppression and failure.
As days of hopelessness—not Days of Hope.[fo 16]
And others, under the shelter of our education system, are ruthlessly attacking the minds of the young. Everyone who believes in freedom must be appalled at the tactics employed by the far Left in the systematic destruction of the North London Polytechnic. (Applause).
Blatant tactics of intimidation, designed to undermine the fundamental beliefs and values of every student.
Tactics pursued by people who are the first to insist on their own civil rights while seeking to deny them to the rest of us. We must not be bullied and brainwashed out of our beliefs. (Applause).[fo 17]
No wonder so many of our people—some of the best and brightest—are depressed and talk of emigrating.
Even so, I think they are wrong at giving up too soon. Many of the things we hold dear are threatened as never before, but none has yet been lost.
So stay here. (Applause). Stay and help us defeat Socialism, so that the Britain you have known may be the Britain your children will know. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.[fo 18]
Those are the two great challenges of our time.
The moral and political challenge, and the economic challenge.
They have to be faced together—and we have to master them both.
What are our chances of success? It depends what kind of people we are. Well, what kind of people are we?[fo 19]
We are the people that in the past made Great Britain the Workshop of the World. The people who persuaded others to buy British not by begging them to do so, but because it was best.
We are a people who have received more Nobel prizes than any other nation except America, and head for head we have done better than America. Twice as well, in fact.
We are the people who, among other things, invented the computer, refrigerator, electric motor, stethoscope, rayon, steam turbine, stainless steel, the tank, television, penicillin, radar, jet engine, hovercraft, float glass and carbonfibres. Oh, and the best half of Concorde. (Laughter).[fo 20]
We export more of what we produce than either West Germany, France, Japan or the United States.
And well over 90%; of these exports come from private enterprise. It’s a triumph for the private sector and all who work in it. Let us say so, loud and clear. (Applause).
With achievements like that who can doubt that Britain can have a great future? What our friends abroad want to know is whether that future is going to happen.
Well, how can we Conservatives make it happen?[fo 21]
Many of the details have already been dealt with in the various debates. But policies and programmes should not be just a list of unrelated items. They are part of a total vision of the kind of life we want for our country and our children. [Beginning of section checked against ITN Early Evening News, 10 October 1975] Let me give you my vision.
THE FREE SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY
A man’s right to work as he will to spend what he earns to own property to have the State as servant and not as master these are the British inheritance.
They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN Early Evening News, 10 October 1975.[fo 22]
But we want a free economy, not only because it guarantees our liberties, but also because it is the best way of creating wealth and prosperity for the whole country.
It is this prosperity alone which can give us the resources for better services for the community, better services for those in need. (Applause).
By their attack on private enterprise, this Labour Government have made certain that there will be next to nothing available for improvements in our social services over the next few years.[fo 23]
We must get private enterprise back on the road to recovery, not merely to give people more of their own money to spend as they choose, but to have more money to help the old and the sick and the handicapped.
The way to recovery is through profits. Good profits today, leading to high investment, well-paid jobs and a better standard of living tomorrow. (Applause).
No profits mean no investment, and a dying industry geared to yesterday’s world.
Other nations have recognised that for years now. They are going ahead faster than we are; and the gap between us will continue to increase unless we change our ways.[fo 24]
The trouble here is that for years the Labour Party have made people feel that profits are guilty-unless proved innocent.
But when I visit factories and businesses I do not find that those who actually work in them are against profits. On the contrary, they want to work for a prosperous concern. With a future—their future. (Applause).
Governments must learn to leave these companies with enough of their own profits to produce the goods and jobs for tomorrow.
If the Socialists won’t or can’t there will be no profit making industry left to support the losses caused by fresh bouts of nationalisation.[fo 25]
And if anyone says I am preaching laissez-faire, let me say this.
I am not arguing, and never have argued, that all we have to do is to let the economy run by itself.
I believe that, just as each of us has an obligation to make the best of his talents so governments have an obligation to create the framework within which we can do so. Not only individual people, but individual firms and particularly small firms. (Applause).
Some of these will stay small but others will expand and become the great companies of the future.[fo 26]
The Labour Government have pursued a disastrous vendetta against small businesses and the self-employed. We will reverse their damaging policies. (Applause).
Nowhere is this more important than in Agriculture—one of our most successful industries made up entirely of small businesses. We live in a world in which food is no longer cheap or plentiful. Everything we cannot produce here must be imported at a high price.
Yet the Government could not have destroyed the confidence of the industry more effectively if they had tried deliberately to do so, with their formula of empty promises and penal taxation.[fo 27]
So today what is the picture? Depressed profits, low investment, no incentive, and overshadowing everything government spending, spending far beyond the taxpayers means. (Applause).
To recover, to get from where we are to where we want to be, will take time.
“Economic policy” wrote Maynard Keynes “should not be a matter of tearing up by the roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.”[fo 28]
It will take time to reduce public spending, rebuild profits and incentives, to benefit from the investments which must be made. The sooner that time starts, the better for Britain’s unemployed.
One of the reasons why this Labour Government has incurred more unemployment than any Conservative Government since the War is because they have concentrated too much on distributing what we have, and too little on seeing that we have more. (Applause).[fo 29]
We Conservatives hate unemployment.
We hate the idea of men and women not being able to use their abilities. We deplore the waste of national resources, and the deep affront to peoples’ dignity from being out of work through no fault of their own. (Applause).
It is ironic that we should be accused of wanting unemployment to solve our economic problems by the very Government which has produced a record post-War unemployment, and is expecting more.[fo 30]
The record of Mr Wilson and his colleagues on this is unparallelled in the history of political hypocricy.
We are now seeing the full consequences of nearly twenty months of Labour Government.
They have done the wrong things at the wrong time in the wrong way.
They have been a disaster for this country.[fo 31]
Now let me turn to something I spoke about in America.
Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals.
We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise.
We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.[fo 32]
Engineers, miners, manual workers, shop assistants, farm workers, postmen, housewives—these are the essential foundations of our society. Without them there would be no nation. (Applause).
But their are others with special gifts who should also have their chance, because if the adventurers who strike out in new directions in science, technology, medicine, commerce and industry the arts are hobbled, there can be no advance.
The spirit of envy can destroy. It can never build.[fo 33]
Everyone must be allowed to develop the abilities he knows he has within him, and she knows she has within her, in the way they choose.
Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away.
Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it.
We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.[fo 34]
But they are made for you under Labour all right.
Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
Our education system used to serve us well. A child from an ordinary family, as I was, could use it as a ladder as an advancement.
But the Socialists are better at demolition than reconstruction, are destroying many good grammar schools.
Now this is nothing to do with private education. It’s opportunity and excellence in our State schools that are being diminished under Socialism.
And naturally enough, parents don’t like this. But in a Socialist society parents should be seen and not heard. (Laughter).[fo 35]
And another denial of choice is being applied to health.
The private sector helps to keep some of our best doctors here, and so are available part time to the National Health Service. It also helps to bring in more money for the general health of the nation.
But under Labour, private medicine is being squeezed out, and the result will be to add to the burden on the National Health Service without adding one penny to its income.[fo 36]
Let me make this absolutely clear.
When we return to power we shall reverse Mrs Castle ‘s stupid and spiteful attack on hospital pay beds. (Applause).
We Conservatives do not accept that because some people have no choice, no one should have it.
Every family should have the right to spend their money, after tax, as they wish, not as the Government dictates.End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.
Let us extend choice, the will to choose and the chance to choose.[fo 37]
I want to come now to the argument which Mr Wilson is trying to put across the country: namely that the Labour Party is the natural party of Government because it is the only one that the Trade Unions will accept.
From what I saw on television last week, the Labour Party did not look like a party of Government at all, let alone a natural one.
But let’s examine the argument.Beginning of section checked against ITN First Report, 10 October 1975
If we are to be told that a Conservative Government could not govern because certain extreme leaders would not let it, then General Elections are a mockery we’ve arrived at[fo 38] the one party state, and parliamentary democracy in this country will have perished. (Applause).
The democracy for which our fathers fought and died is not to be laid to rest as lightly as that.
When the next Conservative Government comes to power many Trade Unionists will have put it there. Millions of them vote for us at every Election.
I want to say this to them, and to every one of our supporters in industry.[fo 39]
Go out and join in the work of your Union.
Go to its meetings—and stay to the end.
Learn the Union rules as well as the Far Left know them, and remember this. If Parliamentary democracy dies, free Trade Unions die with it. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN First Report, 10 October 1975.[fo 40]
RULE OF LAW
I come last to what many would put first. The Rule of Law.
The first people to uphold the law should be governments. It is tragic that the Socialist Government, to its lasting shame, should have lost its nerve and shed its principles over the People’s Republic of Clay Cross. And that a group of the Labour Party should have tried to turn the Shrewsbury pickets into martyrs.
On both occasions the law was broken. On one, violence was done.[fo 41]No decent society can live like that. No responsible party should condone it. (Applause).
The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when its inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself.
There is one part of this country where tragically defiance of the law is costing life day after day.[fo 42]
In Northern Ireland our troops have the dangerous and thankless task of trying to keep the peace and hold the balance. We are proud of the way they have discharged their duty.
This Party is pledged to support the unity of the United Kingdom. To preserve that unity and to protect the people, Catholic and Protestant alike, we believe that our armed forces must remain until a genuine peace is made.
Our thoughts are with them, and our pride is with them too. (Applause).[fo 43]
I have spoken of the challenges that face us here in Britain. The challenge to recover economically. The challenge to recover our belief in ourselves.
I have shown our potential for recovery.
I have dealt with some aspects of our strength and approach.
And I have tried to tell you something of my personal vision, my belief in the standards on which this nation was greatly built, on which it greatly thrived, and from which in recent years it has greatly fallen away.[fo 44]
We are coming, I think, to yet another turning point in our long history.
We can go on as we have been going and continue down.
Or we can stop—and with a decisive act of will we can say “Enough”.
Let us, all of us, here today and others, far beyond this hall who believe in our cause make that act of will.
Let us proclaim our faith in a new and better future for our Party and our people.[fo 45]
Let us resolve to heal the wounds of a divided nation.
And let that act of healing be the prelude to a lasting victory. (Prolonged applause).
“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”
~Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961
Real Julia Rips Sexist Obama Ad
Romney: If you’re looking for more free stuff, vote for the other guy
G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy
Morning Joe Crew Blasts Obama #Julia Ad
Aldous Huxley interview. Brave New World. The changing face of democracy. Advertising and the Media
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World
The Ultimate Revolution | by Aldous Huxley
Closer look at “The Life of Julia”
The Life Of Julia
#Julia and Commie Cheerleaders!!
Pt. 1 – THE GREAT PETER SCHIFF DISSECTS BARACK OBAMA’S “THE LIFE OF JULIA”
Pt. 2 – THE GREAT PETER SCHIFF DISSECTS BARACK OBAMA’S “THE LIFE OF JULIA”
Individualism vs Collectivism – The True Debate of Our Time
Obama the Barbarian? Obama Parts with Left, And Wages War Across Globe
Julia Has Changed Her Name To Cecilia
Simon & Garfunkel – Cecilia
Celia, you’re breaking my heart,
You’re shaking my confidence daily.
Oh Cecilia, I’m down on my knees, I’m begging you please to come home.
Celia, you’re breaking my heart,
You’re shaking my confidence daily.
Oh Cecilia, I’m down on my knees,
I’m begging you please to come home.
Come on home.
Making love in the afternoon with Cecilia Up in my bedroom,
I got up to wash my face When I come back to bed, Someone’s taken my place.
“All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.”
~Edgar Allan Poe
Paul Simon – American Tune (1975)
Many’s, the time I’v been mistaken
And many times confused
Yes, and often felt forsaken
And certainly misused
But I’m all right, I’m all right
I’m just weary to my bones
Still, you don’t expect to be
Bright and bon vivant
So far away from home, so far away Irom home
And I don’t know a soul who’s not been battered
I don’t have a friend who feels at ease
I don’t know a dream that’s not been shattered
or driven to its knees
But it’s all right, it’s all right
We’ve lived so well so long
Still, when I think of the road
we’re traveling on
I wonder what went wrong
I can’t help it, I wonder what went wrong
And I dreamed I was dying
And I dreamed that my soul rose unexpectedly
And looking back down at me
And I dreamed I was flying
And high up above my eyes could clearly see
The Statue of Liberty
Sailing away to sea
And I dreamed I was flying
We come on the ship they call the Mayflower
We come on the ship that sailed the moon
We come in the age’s most uncertain hour
and sing an American tune
But it’s all right, it’s all right
You can’t be forever blessed
Still, tomorrow’s going to be another working day
And I’m trying to get some rest
That’s all I’m trying to get some rest
Simon and Garfunkel – American Tune
President Barack Obama’s Plan For America
Congressman Paul Ryan’s Pathway To Prosperity
Citizen Raymond Pronk’s Takeoff To Peace and Prosperity
Eva Cassidy – Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Which Budgets Are Balanced And Are Living Within Ones Means?
Obama’s Plan For America
Democratic Party Budget Proposals
S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
“…Eva Marie Cassidy (February 2, 1963 – November 2, 1996) was an American vocalist known for her interpretations of jazz, blues, folk, gospel, country and pop classics. In 1992 she released her first album, The Other Side, a set of duets with go-go musician Chuck Brown, followed by a live solo album, Live at Blues Alley in 1996. Although she had been honored by the Washington Area Music Association, she was virtually unknown outside her native Washington, D.C. when she died of melanoma in 1996.
Four years later, Cassidy’s music was brought to the attention of British audiences when her version of “Over the Rainbow” was played by Terry Wogan on BBC Radio 2. Following the overwhelming response, a camcorder recording of “Over the Rainbow”, taken at the Blues Alley, was shown on BBC Two’s Top of the Pops 2. Shortly afterwards, the compilation album Songbird climbed to the top of the UK Albums Charts, almost three years after its initial release. The chart success in the United Kingdom and Ireland led to increased recognition worldwide; her posthumously released recordings, including three UK #1s, have sold more than ten million copies. Her music has also charted top 10 positions in Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. …”
Glenn Beck on 10-07-10 – Fabian socialism – Part 1
Glenn Beck on 10-07-10 – Fabian socialism – Part 2
Glenn Beck on 10-07-10 – Fabian socialism – Part 3
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4
Tactics for socialist takeover of nations 1 of 2: Fabianism & Leninism
Tactics for socialist takeover of nations 2 of 2: Fabianism & Leninism
Background Articles and Videos
A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
The gradual revolution of the Fabian Socialists is quickly becoming a reality in America.
Monday, August 4, 2008
“…The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a very small group of elitist socialist that sought to reform society gradually into one of socialism instead of through violent revolution. At first their purpose was to be an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation, but their true goal was to accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change. In fact, one of their symbols is a Turtle with the motto: “When I Strike, I Strike Hard”. Another symbol is the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing and the Globe on an Anvil being hammered into the Fabian model.
The Fabian Plan for gradual Socialist Revolution was as definitive as it possibly could be, to say it has been a conspiracy is simplistic in the extreme. It instituted a widespread educational program for its leadership and its minions, as time progressed, it opened schools, such as the London School of Economics, and the New School of Social Research.
One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State, which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State. It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity. Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn’t advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land, instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.
If you look at Britain, you will see that they accomplished their goals with ease and while American has been more difficult, the goals are the same and they have made enormous advances toward those goals, as we all know. Much of their accomplishments have been realized without using that dreaded word: Socialism. They have brought the Fabian Dream to America through an extremely brilliant system that has been openly accepted by the voters of this country without the hint of suspicion on their part that they were voting a Socialistic system into place.
Now, make no mistake about it, Fabian Socialists are Statist, they are absolutely authoritarian in their philosophy. Their long-term goal has always been a Socialistic Dictatorship with full-imposition of a very legalistic society where the individual is simply a part of the collective. An example of this can be found in the writings of one of the founders of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw speaking of the Socialist Utopia, he said: “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”
Of course, all of this would be in the best interest of society as a whole and the whole made up simply of parts, individuals merely cogs in the machine of social justice. This idea of social justice is the biggest selling point and perhaps the easiest to peddle to the people. Programs of social reform, incremental at first, allowed for the tempering of the people; allowing for them to grow accustom to the intervention of the State in the affairs of the individual. Of course, such reforms are never an end unto themselves only stepping-stones to a greater Socialist construct of society.
Regarding the great strides made toward these goals, Max Beer stated with confidence: “There was no reason for Socialists to wait for revolution. The realization of socialism had begun the moment when the State became accessible to social reform ideas.” Indeed, the revolution was already half realized at the moment when the State stepped over the threshold of progressive social construction and intervention into the private lives of the people.
The first step in any Socialist plan is the reform of capitalism, when the capitalist system is sufficiently neutralized the rest comes relatively easy. The first step to an efficient plan of capitalist neutralization is control over the money supply and for that a central bank is required along with a fiat monetary system, in this country that was initiated with the advent of the Federal Reserve. Later, of course must come effective controls over major infrastructure and services, all accomplished through the New Deal. The New Deal accomplished substantial feats toward the Fabian Socialist construct with numerous price controls, quotas, subsidies, inspections, regulations, licenses, fees, penalties and massive government interventions into what was formerly private enterprise. Although you would never hear politicians of either political party to admit to support the ideals of socialism, they nevertheless not only support such measures, but also promote them.
We have recently seen a greater push toward socialism, though few realize it. The government is assuming more and more responsibility for and authority over the economy, all under the guise of protecting the people from potentially unscrupulous free marketeers. We are being moved yet another step closer to the dream-society of the Fabians. Of course, these are simply steps, essential parts to a much broader agenda, one that is authoritarian in nature and execution, even the centrally planned economy is a mere step, not the end product. It is all carefully crafted, manufactured to ensure the most popular support possible for “people-friendly” solutions while instituting a fraudulent system of central control over the unsuspecting public. The system has been marketed to the public, one specific component at a time, each component essential to the completion of the whole and that is the brilliance of this gradual imposition of Fabian Socialism in this country.
The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the system of private ownership and free enterprise, it is the cornerstone of our system of government and without it our freedoms and liberty are in jeopardy. Central economic planning is, in a very basic sense, the keystone to Fabian Socialism, for in order for it to succeed, central State planning and control must replace the system of free enterprise. While it was not necessary for the State to actually own or directly control all the elements in the economy it is enough for the State to have the right to assert itself in any area that it deems necessary. The Fabians called it “the democratization of economic power”, in other words socialized and centralized control over economic direction within the country.
In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book “The Road We Are Traveling” spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.
1. Strong, centralized government.
2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.
3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.
4. Government control over employment.
5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.
6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.
7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.
8. A managed monetary system.
9. Government control over foreign trade.
10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.
11. Government regulation of labor.
12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.
13. Heavy progressive taxation.
It should be evident that while Socialist no longer use the name that the plan is Socialism at its heart. The Fabian Socialist Revolution began in earnest in this country in 1933 with the imposition of the Welfare State and has been steadily progressing since. Those who are promoting this system, whether in the Republican Party or Democratic Party, are nothing less than Traitors, guilty of a type of high treason that deserves the most punitive penalty for such treachery. Listen carefully to the propositions of both McCain and Obama; I suspect that you will quickly find both of their positions are not only similar, but propose in essence and detail the Fabian Socialist construct. The system that these marauders are imposing upon us will ultimately alter our system of government beyond recognition. …”
The road we are traveling, 1914-1942 guide lines to America’s future
as reported to the Twentieth Century Fund by Stuart Chase.
“…Stuart Chase (March 8, 1888 – November 1985) Born in Somersworth, New Hampshire was an American economist and engineer trained at MIT. His writings covered topics as diverse as general semantics and physical economy. His hybrid background of engineering and economics places him in the same philosophical camp as R. Buckminster Fuller. It has been suggested that he was the originator of the expression a New Deal, which became identified with the economic programs of American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He had a cover story in The New Republic entitled “A New Deal for America”, during the week that Roosevelt gave his 1932 presidential acceptance speech promising a new deal, but whether Roosevelt’s speechwriter Samuel Rosenman saw the magazine is not clear.
His 1938 book The Tyranny of Words was an early (perhaps the earliest, predating Hayakawa) and influential popularization of Alfred Korzybski‘s general semantics. …”
“…Meanwhile Chase’s growing influence had attracted the attention of Franklin D. Roosevelt ’04, then governor of New York. The men first met in 1931, shortly before the publication of Chase’s book A New Deal. FDR made use of its economic arguments and made a “new deal” the focal point of his 1932 speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination. Though not a Brains Truster, Chase later served in FDR’s “kitchen cabinet”; in 1937, the president told Chase’s father that his son was “teaching the American people more about economics than all the others combined.” Others concurred: in 1942 a magazine writer noted, “[H]e perhaps more than any other one person has made economics interesting and understandable to everyday people like you and me.”
A steadfast believer in adult education and lifelong learning, which he considered essential for participatory democracy, Chase was a noteworthy defender of the common citizen’s aptitude for understanding vital civic questions. Across seven decades and 49 states, he mesmerized lecture audiences with disarmingly simple and inspiring insights into the social issues that were his passion. His writing also crossed disciplines, finding connections among disparate themes to challenge his readers, as in the provocative “Bombs, Babies, and Bulldozers,” which integrated thermonuclear war, overpopulation, and destruction of the environment for the Saturday Review in January 1960. …”
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#1
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#2
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#3
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#4
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#5
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#6
Background Articles and Videos
“…Norman Dodd (June 29, 1899 – January 1987) born in New Jersey, was a banker/bank manager, worked as a financial advisor and served as chief investigator in 1953 for U.S. Congressman B. Carroll Reece Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (commonly referred to as the Reece Committee). He was primarily known for his controversial investigation into tax-exempt foundations. Norman Dodd was interviewed by the Journalist G. Edward Griffin just before he died and a interview documentary was produced as a result which has gained a very wide audience in later years. …”
“…His claims about his investigative work have become the cornerstone of theories implicating the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others. It was stated by him that these or other foundations were involved in the intentional instigation of the United States into World War I and attempting to mould world history through the explicit control of education in the United States. His allegations stem from reviewing the minutes of the Carnegie Institute and their explicitly stated plans listed therein. …”
President Obama should recognize that Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Roger Ailes are friends.
President Obama should also recognize that their audencies are massively huge.
When President Obama attacks Fox News and talk radio, Obama is attacking hundreds of millions of viewers and listeners–Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, conservatives, libertarians, liberals, progressives and even socialists and communists.
Why is President Obama obsessed with them?
Fox News routinely, if not daily, points out President Obama’s lies, broken promises and economic policies that are destroying jobs, wrecking the economy and killing the American dream.
Listen to Fox News, talk radio and the blogs every day and the three most common observations about President Obama is he is a habitual liar, a highly arrogant narcissist and is very good reading speeches from a teleprompter.
What is striking about the President’s well read speeches is the high pronoun density of the words I and me–one of the many clues that you may be listening to a person with narcisstistic personality disorder.
Two other clues are the lying and body language.
President Obama should make the red phone call and seek professional help, therapy and a life line from the President’s Analyst!
Glenn Beck Installs Red Phone for White House
Sgt. Crowley Helps Gates down the stairs while Obama dashes ahead with no regard for old people
Glenn Beck–The President’s Analyst–The Head Man of Head Men–has been waiting for a call from the White House.
Glenn feels the President’s pain.
Glenn is the man with empathy.
Glenn crys on air–real tears!
Make the call Mr. President.
Otherwise, you will continue to repeat your mistakes.
Bill Kristol Wants Arrogant Obama to Apologize to HIM Over Gates
The narcissist personality disorder starts with abandonment and abusive treatment as a child.
The President’s Analyst: The “N” word
It always ends badly.
The President’s Analyst: This little card…
Background Articles and Videos
How to Recognise a Narcissist?
Frequently Asked Question # 58
Narcissism, Pathological Narcissism, The Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), the Narcissist,
and Relationships with Abusive Narcissists and Psychopaths
By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
Emotional, Verbal, and Psychological Abuse, Domestic and Family Violence and Spousal Abuse
“…Narcissism is regarded by many scholars to be an adaptative strategy (“healthy narcissism“). It is considered pathological in the clinical sense only when it becomes a rigid personality structure replete with a series of primitive defence mechanisms (such as splitting, projection, projective identification, or intellectualization) – and when it leads to dysfunctions in one or more areas of the patient’s life.
Pathological narcissism is the art of deception. The narcissist projects a False Self and manages all his social interactions through this concocted fictional construct.
When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having they failed to see through the narcissist earlier on.
But the narcissist does emit subtle, almost subliminal, signals (“presenting symptoms”) even in a first or casual encounter. …”
“Haughty” body language – The narcissist adopts a physical posture which implies and exudes an air of superiority, seniority, hidden powers, mysteriousness, amused indifference, etc. Though the narcissist usually maintains sustained and piercing eye contact, he often refrains from physical proximity (he is “territorial”).
The narcissist takes part in social interactions – even mere banter – condescendingly, from a position of supremacy and faux “magnanimity and largesse”. But he rarely mingles socially and prefers to remain the “observer”, or the “lone wolf”.
Entitlement markers – The narcissist immediately asks for “special treatment” of some kind. Not to wait his turn, to have a longer or a shorter therapeutic session, to talk directly to authority figures (and not to their assistants or secretaries), to be granted special payment terms, to enjoy custom tailored arrangements – or to get served first.
The narcissist is the one who – vocally and demonstratively – demands the undivided attention of the head waiter in a restaurant, or monopolizes the hostess, or latches on to celebrities in a party. The narcissist reacts with rage and indignantly when denied his wishes and if treated equally with others whom he deems inferior.
Idealization or devaluation – The narcissist instantly idealizes or devalues his interlocutor. This depends on how the narcissist appraises the potential his converser has as a Narcissistic Supply Source. The narcissist flatters, adores, admires and applauds the “target” in an embarrassingly exaggerated and profuse manner – or sulks, abuses, and humiliates her.
Narcissists are polite only in the presence of a potential Supply Source. But they are unable to sustain even perfunctory civility and fast deteriorate to barbs and thinly-veiled hostility, to verbal or other violent displays of abuse, rage attacks, or cold detachment.
The “membership” posture – The narcissist always tries to “belong”. Yet, at the very same time, he maintains his stance as an outsider. The narcissist seeks to be admired for his ability to integrate and ingratiate himself without investing the efforts commensurate with such an undertaking.
For instance: if the narcissist talks to a psychologist, the narcissist first states emphatically that he never studied psychology. He then proceeds to make seemingly effortless use of obscure professional terms, thus demonstrating that he mastered the discipline all the same, as an autodidact – which proves that he is exceptionally intelligent or introspective.
In general, the narcissist always prefers show-off to substance. One of the most effective methods of exposing a narcissist is by trying to delve deeper. The narcissist is shallow, a pond pretending to be an ocean. He likes to think of himself as a Renaissance man, a Jack of all trades. The narcissist never admits to ignorance in any field – yet, typically, he is ignorant of them all. It is surprisingly easy to penetrate the gloss and the veneer of the narcissist’s self-proclaimed omniscience.
Bragging and false autobiography – The narcissist brags incessantly. His speech is peppered with “I”, “my”, “myself”, and “mine”. He describes himself as intelligent, or rich, or modest, or intuitive, or creative – but always excessively, implausibly, and extraordinarily so.
The narcissist’s biography sounds unusually rich and complex. His achievements – incommensurate with his age, education, or renown. Yet, his actual condition is evidently and demonstrably incompatible with his claims. Very often, the narcissist lies or his fantasies are easily discernible. He always name-drops and appropriates other people’s experiences and accomplishments.
Emotion-free language – The narcissist likes to talk about himself and only about himself. He is not interested in others or what they have to say, unless they constitute potential Sources of Supply and in order to obtain said supply. He acts bored, disdainful, even angry, if he feels that they are intruding on his precious time and, thus, abusing him.
In general, the narcissist is very impatient, easily bored, with strong attention deficits – unless and until he is the topic of discussion. One can publicly dissect all aspects of the intimate life of a narcissist without repercussions, providing the discourse is not “emotionally tinted”. …”
“…The narcissist is an actor in a monodrama, yet forced to remain behind the scenes. The scenes take center stage, instead. The Narcissist does not cater at all to his own needs. Contrary to his reputation, the Narcissist does not “love” himself in any true sense of the word.
He feeds off other people, who hurl back at him an image that he projects to them. This is their sole function in his world: to reflect, to admire, to applaud, to detest – in a word, to assure him that he exists. Otherwise, the narcissist feels, they have no right to tax his time, energy, or emotions.
The main body of research about Narcissism is surveyed in the book.
Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Re-Visited offers a detailed, first hand account of what it is like to have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It contains new insights and an organized methodological framework. The first part of the book comprises more than 100 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding relationships with abusive narcissists and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The posting of Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Re-Visited on the Web has elicited a flood of excited, sad and heart rending responses, mostly from victims of Narcissists but also from people suffering from the NPD. This is a true picture of the resulting correspondence with them.
This book is not intended to please or to entertain. NPD is a pernicious, vile and tortuous disease, which affects not only the Narcissist. It infects and forever changes people who are in daily contact with the Narcissist. In other words: it is contagious. It is my contention that Narcissism is the mental epidemic of the twentieth century, a plague to be fought by all means.
This tome is my contribution to minimizing the damages of this disorder. …”
“…The Money Masters explains the history behind the current world depression and the bankers’ goal of world economic control by a very small coterie of private bankers, above all governments.
The Central bankers’ Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1988 in the “Basel I” regulations imposed an 8% capital reserve standard on member central banks. This almost immediately threw Japan into a 15 year economic depression. In 2004 Basel II imposed “mark to the market” capital valuation standards that required international banks to revalue their reserves according to changing market valuations (such as falling home or stock prices). The US implemented those standards in November, 2007. In December 2007 the US stock market collapsed and credit began drying up as banks withheld loans to comply with the 8% capital requirement as collateral valuations began to drop. The snowball effect of tightening credit, which reduces economic activity and values further, which resulted in further tightening of credit, etc., has produced a worldwide depression which is worsening.
Those capital standards have not been relaxed despite the crushing effects on the world economy* the credit contraction it requires has caused. Why? Because:
“The purpose of this financial crisis is to take down the U.S. dollar as the stable datum of planetary finance and, in the midst of the resulting confusion, put in its place a Global Monetary Authority [GMA - run directly by international bankers freed of any government control] -a planetary financial control organization”- Bruce Wiseman
*The U.S did modify these rules somewhat a year after the devastation had taken place here, but the rules are still fully in place in the rest of the world and the results are appalling.
“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money…” .- Prof. Carroll Quigley renowned, late Georgetown macro-historian (mentioned by former President Clinton in his first nomination acceptance speech), author of Tragedy and Hope. “He [Carroll Quigley] was one of the last great macro-historians who traced the development of civilization…with an awesome capability.” – Dr. Peter F. Krogh, Dean of the School of Foreign Service (Georgetown) …”
Mark Levin – Constitution vs. Obama Redistributio of Wealth
Mark Levin ~ The Time is Now (Part 1 of 3)
Mark Levin ~ The Time is Now (Part 2 of 3)
Mark Levin ~ The Time is Now (Part 2 of 3)
the best of mark levin.
Rush interviews Levin PT1
Rush interviews Levin PT2
“…Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American radio host, lawyer, author, and political commentator who served in the Reagan administration. He is the host of The Mark Levin Show, a nationally-syndicated talk show that airs throughout the United States, and the President of Landmark Legal Foundation. He is the author of multiple bestselling books and a contributor to various other media outlets.
Mark R. Levin grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he was graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. Levin also earned a JD from the Temple University Beasley School of Law.
Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
He has practiced law in the private sector, and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.
Levin has participated in the Freedom Concerts, an annual benefit concert to aid the families of fallen soldiers, and he uses his radio program to promote the concerts. Levin is also involved with Troopathon, a charity which sends care packages to soldiers serving overseas.
In 2001, the American Conservative Union awarded Levin its Ronald Reagan Award.
Levin began his broadcast career as a guest on conservative talk radio programs. For many years he was a frequent contributor of legal opinions to The Rush Limbaugh Show, where Limbaugh referred to him on-air as “F. Lee Levin,” a tongue-in-cheek reference to the famous defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. He was also a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show and eventually got a radio slot of his own, on WABC, following Sean Hannity’s program. Hannity has nicknamed Mark Levin “The Great One.” Levin and Hannity remain frequent contributors to each other’s programs, often calling in and facetiously referring to each other as “Doctor Hannity” and “Doctor Levin.”
Levin began his radio hosting career in 2002 as a Sunday afternoon host on WABC. His radio show, a mix of political and social commentary from a conservative point of view, covers legal issues in some detail, including decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Levin follows the traditional talk radio model of taking listener calls throughout the show. In the fall of 2003, his show filled the 6-8 p.m. (ET) time slot. As of February 2, 2009, his show was expanded to three hours, namely, 6-9 p.m.
As of 2006, his show is syndicated by Citadel Media (formerly known as ABC Radio Networks) on over 150 stations as well as on the XM America Right and SIRIUS Patriot channels. Levin’s show has been rated number one in its time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas – Fort Worth and Washington, D.C. According to Talkers Magazine,The Mark Levin Show is tied for the fourth most-listened to talk show with The Laura Ingraham Show on commercial radio in the United States, with more than 5.5 million listeners weekly.
Levin occasionally has guests on his show, including Republican politicians, conservative pundits and commentators, and a variety of entertainers such as Jackie Mason, Jon Voight, and Clint Walker.
Levin is supportive of the military and civilian first responders, and ends nearly every radio show saying “We salute the men and women of the armed forces, policemen, firefighters, and emergency personnel.” He regularly plays the themes for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marines. He plays “America the Beautiful” as performed by Ray Charles every Friday.
Levin’s show has garnered criticism from moderate conservatives. New York Times columnist David Brooks labeled Levin as one of a number of “people I consider loons and harmful for America”. Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has emerged as a leading critic of Levin and repeatedly criticized Levin’s approach as an example of right-wing broadcasters who have adopted an angry tone and posed a negative influence on both conservative politics and civil discourse. Mark McKinnon, former advisor to George W. Bush and John McCain, has condemned Levin’s “jaw-dropping hate language about the President” and accused him of “reveling in the President’s failures”.
For his part, Levin dismisses Frum, Brooks and others as “phony conservatives” and “ineffective lightweights who shoot spitballs at conservatives. Levin believes that Frum, Brooks, et al. are used by liberal pundits and organizations who try to portray them as the real face of conservatism in order to make Levin and others look like extremists.
Mark Levin’s new book, published today, is essential reading. It is a remarkable work on several different levels. It takes no degree of clairvoyance to predict that it will become an enormous best seller and very soon begin to influence the national political debate.
Liberty and Tyranny artfully presents a harmonious marriage of the timeless with the timely. On the one hand, the book is a thorough yet compact briefing on the major political issues of this era. On the other hand, the author brings to bear the principles of the American Founders and Framers of the Constitution (and the great thinkers who guided them), illustrating, dissecting, and explaining our current political arguments, while enlightening the reader with the genuine wisdom bequeathed to all of us — the sacred trust of the Founders, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and Federalist Papers, all of which are quoted and applied with insight and precision.
Think of it as an outstanding tutorial in applied political philosophy, and you will begin to grasp the scope of Mark Levin’s achievement. The fact that the book is lucid, unpretentious, and utterly accessible to anyone who cares to focus and think, means that it will elevate the quality of political thought and dialogue across a broad swath of the American populace.
If you care passionately about America, and worry for its future — and who doesn’t, given the current national leadership? — then you owe it to yourself to buy and devour this marvelous work. It is an essential antidote to what ails America at the moment. …”
Book Review: Liberty and Tyranny A Conservative Manifesto
“…In his New York Times best selling book, Levin provides two key weapons for anybody who considers himself a conservative. Firstly, he outlines this history of what he identifies as a shift towards Statism. While some might read Levin and claim that he is a bit of a conspiracy theorist or that he is blowing things out of proportion (for example when, in Chapter 8, he seems to make the case that the EPA’s banning of DDT wasn’t about ‘protecting the environment’ but was, instead, about controlling the world, even if it meant allowing folks in Africa to die), I read it as being a terrifyingly honest and accurate look at the realities of the world as we know it.
The history of ’statism’ that he provides is unbelievably eye opening. BUT, the two most important chapters in the book are on the Constitution and on Federalism. In his chapter on the Constitution, Levin reminds all of us of the importance of our Constitution. He provides a short explanation of the biggest lie that Liberals and Statists use: that the Constitution is a ‘living breathing’ document. It is not, as Levin and others have pointed out, living and breathing; it is undying and never changing. It is the bedrock for our Nation.
Levin uses the Constitution chapter to lead into his discussion of Federalism and it’s importance. The obvious argument in favor of Federalism always has been the “experiment” function–the idea that a state can examine and put into practice various ideas in order to find the best and most effective strategy before implementing that idea at the National level. But Levin also introduces readers to a less discussed function of the Federal system: mobility. This is not something that is taught in school or in college, nor is it something I had considered before, but Liberty and Tyranny makes an excellent case for this function. Simply, Federalism allows the citizen to move from state to state to avoid or to find state-level governmental functions that best suit each individual. The most obvious example is the exodus from New York City of such leading New Yorkers as Rush Limbaugh in response to the ever-rising tax-rates the city imposes. …”
Mark Levin’s new book ‘Liberty & Tyranny’ is a timely bestseller
“…Instead, Levin is channeling the old fashioned language of conservative icons like Burke and Kirk, Buckley and Chambers, and the stirring, majestic cadences of the Founders and The Federalist.
Liberty & Tyranny is actually a stylistically more challenging read than Conscience of a Conservative (1960), the last book widely touted as a popular (but note: not necessarily populist) conservative manifesto.
This passage early on in Liberty & Tyranny is a typical example of Levin’s style throughout:
“The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does (…) the Statist demands even more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind’s existence. Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions, what is left to limit the Statist’s ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray?”
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a man (and it is invariably a man) who tries to write like that is a geek and a crank who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, for whom “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, and the results are cringe worthy. But incredibly, Levin pulls it off.
“…Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. Karl Marx, the father of communist thought, posited that communism would be the final stage in society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution and only possible after a socialist stage develops the productive forces, leading to a superabundance of goods and services.
“Pure communism” in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism and the policies of the various communist states which had government ownership of all the means of production and centrally planned economies. Communist regimes, all inspired only by the Leninist current, have historically been authoritarian, repressive, and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power.
As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism.
Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions. The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, as well as others forms of communism (such as Luxemburgism and Council communism), but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and Anarchist communism) also exist.
Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology. …”
“The main characteristic of collectivism is that it does not take notice of the individual’s will and moral self-determination. In the light of its philosophy the individual is born into a collective and it is “natural” and proper for him to behave as members of this collective are expected to behave. Expected by whom? Of course, by those individuals to whom, by the mysterious decrees of some mysterious agency, the task of determining the collective will and directing the actions of the collective has been entrusted.”
~Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate foundation of Economic Science (2nd ed.), p. 107
Senator Obama’s “ Civilian National Security Force”
Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel´s Plan for The Draft – MANDATORY SERVICE – for everyone 18-25
AmeriCorps Paramilitary Propaganda Ad
Glenn Beck – The History of ACORN & AmeriCorps
Byron York returns to the Glenn Beck show for another AmeriCorp update
Michael Savage – Obama Military Youth Corp in Full Gear!!! Wake up America!!!
Michael Savage on Civilian National Security Force of Barack Hussein Obama and Upcoming Fears
Savage: Occult Hitler & Obama’s Parallel
ABC-Obama’s Brownshirts Ready to “Take Orders” and “Do his Bidding”… scary
Glenn Beck Clips 07-24-09 Seg 1-Glenn Does the Americorp PLEDGE in Costume!
Hitler youth camp
A Former Hitler Youth Warns America (Part 1)
A Former Hitler Youth Warns America (Part 2)
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism Part 1 of 4
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism Part 2 of 4
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism Part 3 of 4
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism Part 4 of 4
“It is a double-edged makeshift to entrust an individual or a group of individuals with the authority to resort to violence. The enticement implied is too tempting for a human being. The men who are to protect the community against violent aggression easily turn into the most dangerous aggressors. They transgress their mandate. They misuse their power for the oppression of those whom they were expected to defend against oppression. The main political problem is how to prevent the police power from becoming tyrannical. This is the meaning of all the struggles for liberty. The essential characteristic of Western civilization that distinguishes it from the arrested and petrified civilizations of the East was and is its concern for freedom from the state. The history of the West, from the age of the Greek πόλις [city-state] down to the present-day resistance to socialism, is essentially the history of the fight for liberty against the encroachments of the officeholders.”
~Ludwig von Mises,The Ultimate foundation of Economic Science (2nd ed.), p. 99-100.
Background Articles and Videos
Obama’s Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary
“…Barack Obama’s recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 <
speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
“People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”
The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinkerarticle In his campaigndocument entitled “The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama’s Plan For America,” Obama’s “Service” section runs a close second to “Education” in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs’ statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps’ budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps – there a corps – everywhere a corps corps. …”
“…Public Alliesis a national movement grounded in the conviction that everyone leads. We believe that everyone can make a difference, and work to inspire more citizens to believe in themselves, step up and act. Throughout our nation’s history, lasting social change has always resulted from the courageous acts of many, notjust the inspiration of the few.
The Civil Rights movement, for example, resulted from thousands of individuals throughout communities taking action as much as from the leadership of Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Rosa Parks was a seamstress and a volunteer with the NAACP, who attended training on nonviolent civil disobedience at The Highlander School before the fateful day she chose to spark a movement. Today, more citizens need to be engaged, skilled, and prepared to lead if we are going to solve our most pressing problems. We believe the leadership needed is already resident in communities – it’s only a matter of finding, cultivating, and connecting these leaders. We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for.
Mission Public Allies mission is to advance new leadership to strengthen communities, nonprofits and civic participation. We are changing the face and practice of leadership in communities across the country by demonstrating our conviction that everyone can lead, and that lasting social change results when citizens of all backgrounds step up, take responsibility, and work together.
Programs Public Allies employs three integrated strategies to develop the next generation of leaders and re-define leadership for our times:
Our signature AmeriCorps Ally Program identifies diverse young adults and prepares them for leadership through paid full-time nonprofit apprenticeships and rigorous leadership training.
(learn more about the Ally program)
Our Alumni Programs connect and engage our growing network of diverse leaders and invests in those positioned to make the greatest impact.
(learn more about the Alumni programs)
Our training and consulting arm, The Leadership Practice, magnifies our results by helping leaders and organizations better harness the assets of diverse teams and communities (learn more about the Leadership Practice)
Since 1992, almost 2,500 Allies have completed the program with over 90% having met or exceeded their nonprofit placement’s performance goals and over 80% continuing careers in nonprofit and public service. Our track record of results and impact have led to recognition and honors from the Pew Partnership for Civic Change, The Bridgespan Group, McKinsey & Co, Fast Company, and others. …”
“…Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism[dubious – discuss] – the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society.  Collectivism is widely seen as being opposed to individualism. Notably these views are sometimes combined in systems. …”
“…Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract is considered an example of collectivist political philosophy, which maintains that human society is organized along the lines of an implicit contract between members of society, and that the terms of this contract (e.g. the powers of government, the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens, etc.) are rightfully decided by the “general will” – that is, the will of the people. The people are represented by the government; essentially the government decides what is right for the people. This idea inspired the early socialist and communist philosophers such as Karl Marx.
According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy “collectivism” refers to any philosophy or system that sees any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc) as more important than the individual. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, “collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In socialist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.”
“…The Sturmabteilung (help·info), abbreviated SA (German for “Storm detachment” or “Assault detachment” or “Assault section”, usually translated as “stormtroop(er)s”), functioned as a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party. It played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s.
SA men were often called “brownshirts” for the colour of their uniforms; this distinguished them from the Schutzstaffel (SS), who wore black and brown uniforms (in comparison to Benito Mussolini’s blackshirts). Brown-coloured shirts were chosen as the SA uniform because a large batch of them was cheaply available after World War I, having originally been ordered for German troops serving in Africa.
The SA was also the first Nazi paramilitary group to develop pseudo-military titles for bestowal upon its members. The SA ranks would be adopted by several other Nazi Party groups, chief among them the SS. The SA was very important to Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, but was largely irrelevant after he took control of Germany in 1933; it was effectively superseded by the SS after the Night of the Long Knives. …”
“…The term Sturmabteilung predates the founding of the Nazi Party in 1919. It originally comes from the specialized assault troops used by Germany in World War I utilising Hutier infiltration tactics. Instead of a large mass assault, the Sturmabteilung was organized into small squads of a few soldiers each. The first official German stormtroop unit was authorized on 2 March 1915; German high command ordered the VIII Corps to form a detachment for the testing of experimental weapons and the development of appropriate tactics that could break the deadlock on the Western Front. On 2 October 1916, Generalquartiermeister Erich Ludendorff ordered all German armies in the west to form a battalion of stormtroops. First applied during the German Eighth Army’s siege of Riga, then again at the Battle of Caporetto, their wider use in March 1918 allowed to push back Italian lines tens of kilometers.
The DAP (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or German Workers’ Party) was formed in Munich in January 1919 and Hitler joined in September of that year. His talents for speaking, publicity and propaganda were readily recognized and by early 1920 he had gained some authority in the party, which changed its name to the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers’ Party) in April 1920.
The precursor to the SA had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to growing the party through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Munchener Beobachter (later renamed the Volkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbrauhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberlbrau beer hall. Some 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler’s military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators “flew down the stairs with gashed heads.” The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party’s Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2000 persons at the Hofbrauhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his army friends, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed.
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 1/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 2/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 3/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 4/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 5/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 5/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 6/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 7/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 8/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 9/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 10/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 11/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 12/13
G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 13/13
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 1 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 2 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 3 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 4 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 5 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 6 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 7 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 8 of 9
G. Edward Griffin lastest interview 1of9 federal reserve inflation fed Part 9 of 9
Background Articles and Videos
G. Edward Griffin
“…G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. Starting as a child actor, he became a radio station manager before age 20. After writing for the 1968 Wallace campaign, he began a career of producing documentaries and books on often-debated topics like cancer, Noah’s ark, and the Federal Reserve, as well as on right-libertarian views of the U.S. Supreme Court, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted Laetrile as a killer of cancer cells, a view not accepted by a majority of scientists. He has also promoted the Durupınar site as hosting the original Noah’s ark, against skeptics as well as near-Ararat Creationists. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism. In 2002, Griffin founded the individualist network Freedom Force International. …”
“…Griffin enrolled in the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, became a Certified Financial Planner in 1989, and described the U.S. money system in his 1993 movie and 1994 book on the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island. This popular book has been a business bestseller; it has been reprinted in Japanese, 2005, and German, 2006. The book also influenced Ron Paul during the writing of a chapter on money and the Federal Reserve in Paul’s New York Times number-one bestseller, The Revolution: A Manifesto, which recommended Griffin’s book on its “Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America”.
The title refers to the November 1910 meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia, of seven bankers and economic policymakers, who represented the financial elite of the Western world. The meeting was recounted by Forbes founder B. C. Forbes in 1916, and recalled by participant Frank Vanderlip as “the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System”. Griffin states that participant Paul Warburg describes the Jekyll Island meeting as “this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy”.
Griffin’s work stresses the point which Federal Reserve chair Marriner Eccles made in Congressional testimony in 1941: “If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.” Griffin advocates against the debt-based fiat money system on several grounds, stating that it devours individual prosperity through inflation and it is used to perpetuate war. He also described a framework of central bankers underwriting both sides of an ongoing war or revolution. Griffin says that the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the World Bank are working to destroy American sovereignty through a system of world military and financial control, and he advocates for United States withdrawal from the United Nations.
Edward Flaherty, an academic economist, characterized Griffin’s description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as “conspiratorial”, “amateurish”, and “suspect”. Griffin’s response was that Flaherty had miscategorized the book with other publications and had labeled all criticisms of the Federal Reserve as the results of conspiracy theory.
Griffin’s dreams of a free-market, private-money system superior to the Fed caused economist Bernard von NotHaus to deploy such a system in 1998. Griffin states that von NotHaus’s private silver certificates, known as Liberty Dollars, are “real money”.