Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Thank you! Great show!
ReplyDeleteLike a bottle of hard liquor or a pack of cigarettes, Schlanger {snake, in German]should come with a user warning.
ReplyDeleteWell it sure is hard to keep track of al the vacillating the LLs have done over the years: first they were faux left [LL was in the Socialist Workers' Party], then the faux right [neo-Nazi], now they seem to have staked a claim to the faux center. well, at least they have given up violent strike-breaking. I wonder if the blood has dried yet.
Hard to remember all the lies Mr Snake told, correcting the ones I can remember would take all day. But off the top of my head, he made false representations about:
Hillary Clinton
George Soros,
Abe Lincoln,
Milton Friedman,
FDR
but by far his worst lies were about Alexander Hamilton. He says that H's bankng system let economists run monetary policy rather than it being in the hands of private bankers. He then says Lincoln resurrected Hamilton's system.
Wrong on all counts. H's bank was a private bank [in which Hamilton owned shares] run by his buddy Robert Morris, the great counterrevolutionary and flim-flam man. Economics as an academic discipline didn't exist in those days, but none of the people we now recognize as economists from that period--Ricardo, Smith, Law etc--had anything to do with that bank. Unlike what the snake told us, Hamilton's bank was in no way different from our Fed.
Lincoln did not create a national bank, he chartered a few to create currency by buying non-transferable bonds AND HOLDING THEM as collateral against which they could loan money. If a bank had $100 in bonds, they could make $110 in loans. If they redeemed $50 worth of their bonds, they could now only lend %55. They had an incentive to buy and hold bonds. Contrast this with Hamilton's bank or the Fed which as full authority to make loans out of thin air pretty much without restriction.
I could go on, but we just heard a bunch of lies from a professional liar.
Those of us who have been politically active over the years know who the Larouchies are, you should too.
How despicable can you get, Mr Small Fry?
Delete" Like a bottle of hard liquor or a pack of cigarettes, Schlanger {snake, in German]should come with a user warning."
Schlanger {snake, in German) Really?
Snake in German?! No,it's not!!
You need to lay off the booze and THINK before you post your mistaken and inaccurate bullshit, Mr Small Fry.
Fryett (asshole in ANY language).
Frying (it) tonight!!
The word for snake in German is "Schlange" not "schlanger", eine Schlange/a snake, die Schlange/the snake.
ReplyDeleteCognate with verb " schlingen" to wind/loop/coil/wrap/twine. "Schlange" also means "queue" as in a line or file of people.
The word "Schlanger" does not exist in German although it may exist in some German dialects - perhaps meaning someone who winds/coils (wool?/thread?/hair? etc., etc.).
I am sure Mr Harley Schlanger will concur.
Perhaps your GERMAN should carry a "Warnhinweis" or a " Hinweis auf der Gesundheitsgefährdung ".
Eine falsche Schlange = A snake in the grass.(literally - a false snake).
I could write more but I won't spoil it for you.
Anyone who spouts the old nonsense that the Larouche movement is linked to Nazism or is a serious problem because as Larouche developed his ideas over time, first thinking that certain "leftist" thinkers were great when they in fact had some problems as well as some insights, is ill-informed or unfair.
ReplyDeleteNo-one has to buy into everything Larouche says, or those who follow him say, but they are really great about the economy and about the involvement of Great Britain's sicker elite elements, in great conspiratorial actions such as drug running/laundering.
As to Hamilton:
The truth is that though Hamilton was linked to private bankers, the ideal of a NATIONAL bank, though still benefiting also some private lenders, is a proper ideal.
Ideas and institutions develop over time. Not all things the Constitution writers espoused were truly humane (non-feminist and non-blackist attitudes being major ones), yet the foresight they had was humane and allowed for advances.
When referencing Hamilton's National Bank, we have to remember HISTORICAL CONTEXT. The USA was bankrupt from its war; the investors of Europe were clamoring for their money (which meant that particularly in Great Britain, the speculators were rubbing their hands hoping to re-absorb the USA after the USA might default on its loans from the Dutch, etc.).
In getting private investors to found the National Bank, Hamilton was doing the only thing which he could think of which would benefit his friends and his country, AND he was being foresightful, at the same time.
Just because the idea would ultimately need to be updated NOW, to make a truly NATIONAL BANK (the Federal Reserve nationalized would do), so the truly NATIONAL BANK idea would now have no private lenders or managers, does not make Hamilton's insight wrong.
His INSIGHT was right: a Congress-controlled (people-controlled) national bank, which would lend to PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISE at low interest rates, would be a necessary part of the only way to save the USA economically.
Other parts would be: Glass-Steagall; outlawing foreclosures for the length of the depression; and national projects; as well as re-outlawing and re-inforcing the laws which already outlaw derivatives of certain kinds; and a 1% Tobin tax (tax on securities trades).
And of course there are other things: a true national health system ... not a national insurance scam with limits on service, justified by false statistical analysis (Obamacare and the Death Panel system of Orszag and Daschle and Ezekiel Immanuel), and cutting and letting languish poverty supplements.
These things are things which only the Larouche movement has made abundantly clear regularly, on a large scale. Tarpley has also emphasized these, though he dissociates himself from the Larouche movement on many things now.
The Larouche movement has its blind spots and its polarized, rarefied language. But it also has some great points.
Schlanger said nothing wrong about Lincoln, Friedman, FDR, or Soros. Hamilton's mistakes and gifts I elucidated above/
ReplyDeleteYes, Larouche movement people do underplay the mistakes and selfishness involved in Hamilton's actions; but they are right about the ideal and what would be possible if it were cleaned up for the modern use.
Well said, Clare.
ReplyDeletepart one
ReplyDeletewell i knew the larouchies would sandblast me, that's their historical role.
clare, yr view of hamilton's intentions r entirely too rosy. he wasnt afraid of british capital, he was working for them. the rothschilds made hamilton a rich man. and as htheir tool he DID NOT SUPPORT a congress controlled bank, nor a NATIONAL bank in the sense of being a nationalized/socialized bank. that was discussed at the continental congress and rejected largely due to the efforts of hamilton. that bit in the Constitution he reluctantly agreed to after the original draft of the thyat document was not ratified by the states. and that bank was private--controlled by robert morris. this stuff about hamilton supporting a 'people's' bank' is just plain wrong. read his essays in the federalist papers. he says that the bank should b in the hands of businessmen, not elected officials, because, he argues disengenuously, they are the experts. [all the while he's plotting with robert morris] i dont know where u come by yr info clare, but it's dead wrong.
there's a whole new wave of revisionist history about the american revolution, none of it flattering to hamilton. i suggest u read tery bouton, woody holton, ray rafael [with taming democracy being the best place to start], or go to the primary sources: madison's 'notes on the continental congress', or the letters of robert morris, or robet yates' memoirs. hamilton was a shyster, pure and simple.
Schlanger said nothing wrong about l, f, fdr, or soros? wrong on all counts.
re lincoln: snake says lincoln revived hamilton's old bank. absolutely false. lincoln issued greenbacks as long as he could in an effort to NOT have a hamiltonian style bank. he did everything he could to avert this. but when congress refused to reissue
g'backs, he chartered certain banks, but he did NOT create a central bank. these r facts. here's something i wrote recently if u r interested; http://saveourcola.blogspot.com/2012/01/2012-year-of-fascism-in-america.html
part two
ReplyDeletere friedman: snake called him a fascist. this is absurd! fr' based his whole career on the idea of free markets, he is an icon to those so deluded. fascism REJECTS free markets categorically! fascism was capital's antidote to socialism. at the end of ww1 russia, hungary and bavaria had gone socialist. on the street level workers' council controlled the economy--production and distribution-- in the rest og germany, austria, italy, and in parts of poland, rumania, greece, etc. socialism's basic thesis is that economic classes r in conflict, and that the working class will/should rise up and overthrow capitalism and create a classless society. this idea was dangerously popular for international capital, so they invented fascism. knowing they could not possibly get away with free-market crap, the fascist line went like this--classes r not in conflict, races and nationa are [and to the fascist these were one and the same]. classes can and should cooperate with one another within a given nation, and that they have a responsibility to do so. the rise of socialism, they explained, was due to the excesses of free-markets. consequently it was the role of the government to b a neutral broker between classes, and to plan and oversee the economy to make sure that it works to everbody's advantage. these are the ideas put forth by hitler, mussolini, and goebbels.
friedman rejects government control of the economy completely. thus it is just plain ridiculous to describe friedman as a fascist.
u might read dutt's fascism and the social revolution; polanyi's the essence of fascism; or noske's the three faces of fascism. or go to the primary sources and read mein kampf, mussolini's book [cant remember title] or goebbels' the a b c of fascism.
part three
ReplyDeletere fdr; my apologies but i cant remember exactly what the serpent said, but he said something about fdr and trade unions or workers which wasnt true. sorry but i'm not going to re-listen just to make the point.
re soros: he says soros worked for the nazis. that's false. the nazis were supported by the zionists who approved of hitler's [stated] plan of relocating jews to palestine. the round-ups and deportations of jews were conducted by local jewish councils run by zionists [i think it was the WZO, but maybe another group]and called judenrate in german. soros' father was a member of such a judenrat in hungary, and it was responsible for collecting property from the deported. the money would then b deposited in banks owned by jews. soros jr was not even a part of the judenrate as i recall, but acted directly at the behest of his father. neither soros nor his father worked for the nazis.
info on the judenrate abounds but much of it is extremely tendentious. that having been said i believe goetz ali's book hitler's beneficiaries is useful. while not a particularly good book, manchesters rise and fall of 3rd reich.
deals with this topic.
re "Anyone who spouts the old nonsense that the Larouche movement is linked to Nazism or is a serious problem because as Larouche developed his ideas over time, first thinking that certain "leftist" thinkers were great when they in fact had some problems as well as some insights, is ill-informed or unfair."
nonsense? excuse me? u have a lot to learn about the history of the movement. first LL was a socialist, then he did a volte-face and took a rightist, john birch-y line. is this a 'development'? this is a 180! and, of course, now he's abandoned both positions and become something a a right-populist whose agents spew bullshit like mr snake.
it is not i who is ill-informed.
regarding larouche having some good ideas: any propaganda effort has to make itself popular with those whom it endeavors to deceive.
About FDR and LaRouche's general ideas, Dave Fryett is full of mistakes: only FDR and his team stood by the people's needs for business to flourish and do its job, not falter in non-investment during Depression time, or send its money into the equivalent of derivatives.
DeleteThe idea that Hamilton's intentions were "not rosy" entirely I already emphasized. The point is: what he did was actually good for the nation, and with improvements would be part of the only solution to the current crisis: a National Bank. The need for private lenders to start one in Hamilton's time, is now unnecessary: we can issue our own credit to ourselves to create monetary flow. But the bank he helped create stood against the London bank, and lent money at low interest to production. That is the point here.
About being a "socialist" and then a "rightist": as you should know, being a "conspiracist", there are problems in all sides, and gifts in all sides.
DeleteLaRouche still has blind spots -- about the Moon photos, for instance -- but he has ultimately come to a good middle and aware position, regarding the benefits of social responsibility (socialism as social-economic positive, not socialism as takeover/over-control nonsense), and the benefits of protecting the nation state (right-wing as responsible conservatism, not right-wing as rabidly laissez faire and reactionary policies).
I think your own reactions are too emotionally distraught and you are not seeing the gifts in everybody's points; LaRouche has ultimately done so with the movements he joined and refined into his own more comprehensive position. Not that he's as perfect as his followers make him out to be, but in general, if you get used to his manner of speaking, his thoughts are often comprehensive and multifarious.
Fascism was lack of government control over the worst capitalist instincts; it called itself socialism to woo the people to the idea their own economic impulses for the best capitalist (workers' rights and business innovation) instincts should be controlled and subsumed to "help the state", but unlike with FDR's suggestion that business is part of and should contribute to the well being of the state through the state of the people, fascism disavows the real state of the people.
DeleteHands-off, laissez faire government (lack of governance) of the worst human rights and economic rights abusers in business, is a form of letting jackals take over, just as much as forcing jackals on someone through Pol Pot or Mao is.
Do not fall for Friedman any more than you would for Mao. Hitler combined both.
Clare, u say i'm full of mistakes; could u name them plz.
ReplyDeleteas i didn't actually say anything about FDR it's hard to see y u say i'm mistaken.
yr view that he 'sttod by the people's need for business to flourish' is certainly a revisionist idea. the main body of comment on FDR is that he stood by labor, not capital. certainly capital in that day [nor this] shares yr view that FDR was pro business.
mostly capital screamed that it was his policies--namely tax and international trade--that kept the country from rebounding. FDR instituted the most progressive tx regime ever seen. it is known as the great compression by economists, and he was called a class traitor for it.
i can't see how u get the idea that business flourished under him. facts plz.
re hamilton: his ideas were NOT helpful for the country. they were helpful for the northern merchants and the southern planters. they were an unmitigated disaster for labor, free and slave.
his bank did NOT stand against the BoE. it was in fact owned by the same people. again, if u r get yr info from the larouchies u need to fact check always--twice. they r infamous for their--oh lets b charitable--mistakes
re larouche: i am under no obligation to forgive him for all the union- and strike-breaking his goons have done. yr picture of him as a broad-minded, reflective philosopher, u r entitled to it, but i don't have to agree and it is unjust of u to suggest that i'm distraught' if i cannot see the wisdom in conservative ideology. u have yr opinions, and i have mine.
ReplyDeletere yr interpretation of fascism: lotsa mistakes here.
ReplyDeletefascism by definition WAS government control over all capitalist instincts. that's what hitler, mussolini, goering, goebbels et al said. certainly u r not going to suggest they were not fascists r u? whether they really intended this, or ever tried to regulate the apital which brought them to power, is an open question. but this is what fascists claimed fascism was.
secondly, fascism didnt call itself socialist, just the germans did--national socialism.
listing workers' rights as a capitalistic impulse is curious indeed, given it hasnever happened.
fascism doesnt disavow the 'real state of the people', this is PRECISELY what it claims to b. it isnt my idea, but it is the idea they sold to the public.
i do not fall for friedman nor laissez-faire capitalism [nor any other kind]. i just said that he wasnt a fascist, and he isnt. i'm not a stalinist, but it is simply not correct to call him a fascist either. i wasnt, nor will i ever, endorsing friedman. a choice between friedman or mao is not one i'd like very much, but if that's it then i'd pick mao.
friedmanism is the belief that allowing a rich few a free hand to ruthlessly pursue profit by whatever means at their disposal will produce the best results for everybody. i'm happy to report that i'm smart enuf not to believe that.
ReplyDeleteand in reality capital knows it isnt true, it's just a marketing ploy. something to tell the uninformed.