The often argued, "groups don't really exist" fails to acknowledge that "individual" doesn't really exist either. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Rather, everything is relative to everything else, and existence is a "web" where everything affects everything else. "Individualism vs collectivism" is a false argument. Relativity is reality, and our society would be much better off if we abolished this primitive argument.
He is correct.Its actually Oligarchical collectivism.George Orwell gave us the hint in the book 1984,with the name of the book that O'Brien gives Winston.When he rips the cover off and its actually called" Practice & theory of oligarchical collectivism" =feudalism /meaning slavery & death of people controlled Elite(billionaires not millionaires)Monarch's of England & Europe,Banking Elite/20 families that own all the fortune 100's.
@MrSammy1776 My sentence was badly written... it should have clearly said that the founding documents intended to form a representative republic (based upon We the People approving/creating the enumerated powers uno) but have gradually been boiled into an oligarchy, a banking oligarchy. Presidents T. Jefferson and A. Jackson attempted to rid this country of that threat.
Surely in a democratic system the process of voting and in effect choosing who we want to rule safeguards the individual anyway, to the extent that the republic does?
@getgot1 I'll chime in here at this time.... The answer is, no. We have a constitutional republic!
Technically there r only 3 forms of gov't... the only association the USofA has to 'democracy' is by default... We aren't a monarchy or oligarchy. Reality is we have become a banking oligarchy which grew tentacles into fascism where corporations directly access congress by lobbying. Congress COULD simply NOT entertain lobbyist (ex: Ron Paul) but many say outlaw lobbying. I say UPHOLD OATHS.
@anyusmoon1 Well at least you are agree that we are some how have a democracy. Your constitutional republic is actually based off the principles of classic liberalism which includes Checks and balances, liberty of individuals, 1st amendment rights, also a liberal democracy.
@anyusmoon1 But don't have direct democracy (Switzerland does and they doing better), that a form of government controls policy, laws, and elects judges but we have Representatives for choosing those. I am glad that you recognize that we aren't a monarchy or a oligarchy, of course that's why we kicked the British crown out and that's were trying to corporate greed out of Washington.
You can never see trees. If we can never see trees then what are those groupings of trees in the amazon? In the pacific northwest? I agree with Griffin in many subjects, but his dialectic is weak here.
@bobbygnosis If you would locate the 0:00 of the specific use of the word trees we can more easily converse about it because I think he says you can never see a forest (a term for many trees) because you can only see trees. Its easy to forget about a single tree when you're focused on the 'forest'. Where individual rights (God-given rights) are prized you cannot sacrifice the tree for the 'forest'. Hope this helps.
If we only focused on individuals then our bodies would be meaningless since they're collections of individual cells. I'm not saying the group is more important than the individual - I'm just saying that you [the reader] are a collection of cells that have no ability individually to process the information your interpreting.
This is amusing because it flies in the face of individualism. This is the beginnings of 'paradoxical.' Neither is more important. Both are important.
@bobbygnosis You are mistaking living breathing human beings with SOULS as something that is no more than a cell. Your God-given rights are the key consideration here and your freedom to have individual choice (that doesn't harm another individual). You have to defend one tree of none of the trees have any value.
@anyusmoon1 "The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few."
I understand your argument. And I know that Ayn Rand does not approve of self sacrifice. I also agree very much that we must protect individuals. I'm not saying I have an answer because I don't believe such a thing exists (these are, after all dialectic entities we're discussing).
Individuals come together to make bodies. Bodies are more powerful than individuals. That's why we have tribes / states / etc. Just saying.
@bobbygnosis Yes, and as my own channel states... Individualists are not isolationists. Human beings are, for the most part, colonists; not loners. Just by the simple fact of being fruitful and multiplying we create groups. Nevertheless, the flight attendants instructions come to mind... Affix your own oxygen mask before attempting to help those next to you.
@anyusmoon1 Like I say - I agree with you in protecting individuals. I'm not saying otherwise. I simply regard the whole thing as a balancing act. If you knew that you could save everyone you know and love by sacrificing yourself I bet you'd ponder it. Any thinking / feeling human would (empathy for fellow man and all).
My point: these are not easy issues. Without trees there is no forest. A forest is stronger than a lone tree. Which is more important? Neither. All of the above.
@bobbygnosis You obviously don't know what you're talking about and have no depth whatsoever. Having multiple cells has nothing to do with consciousness, which is individual and singular. You are your own consciousness, no one else shares it with you or it would be pointless to give any opinion at all. I wouldn't compare a forest and a tree with humanity. Humans are exceptional in nature.Exclusively capable of deep thought. Contrary to what you might think, your opinions are sacred to you alone
@bobbygnosis Terrible reductionist thinking. A better analogy would be to say there are only computers, not Internet. Or there are only individual neurons in the brain, no brain. the brain is an abstraction. Instead of attempting to understand the dynamic btwn group and individual and how they need each other, he plunges straight into a simple, false dichotomy.
@slmrcs Reductionist thinking is in vogue right now. Has been for a few centuries. I fall into it myself. Such false dilemmas / dichotomies are so common they're rarely noticed as such. I'm trying to be more forgiving to such things now. Mostly in the hopes that, if only for myself, I'll be more calm and personable. The world is full of people who are batshit crazy and I think the only thing you can do is sit down and let it happen. Help when you can, but mostly observe.
G. Edward Griffin is one of the fewer individuals who are able to independently* analyze the information and use logics to conclude it. So all of you pseudo-intellectuals should think twice before objecting his fully justified statements.
*Without any influence that limits one's perception e.g. emotions.
@soulwam It didn't help you to understand when he said.. 'all you see are trees'? In other words, the very thing before your eyes is one tree after another; each tree stands by itself, bears fruit, grows, provides shade etc it just happens to be standing next to another that does the same thing.
Human examples might be easier to relate 2. U may be standing in a 'crowd' or 'group' but you are still an individual. Laws protect individual rights whether the crowd likes you the individual or not.
@anyusmoon1 , but I can still see the crowd, especially if they are stampeding towards me, apparently baying for my blood. Perhaps by a supreme act of discipline one might hold one's ground and address individuals in the group before they knock me to the ground or perhaps i can run or take cover, but it seems like a dangerous practice, to train myself to forget that when individuals are in a crowd they tend to behave as a crowd.
@soulwam :-) I know what you mean... there is real danger in promoting the idea of Group Think, mob rule, DEMOCRACY. This is why we must be vigilant in keeping gov in the strict chains of the constitution. Of course at this point the constitution is totally ignored but that's where we're at, not a good place.
I believe in many liberal points, as drugs legalization, weapons for responsible people, demilitarization, and a lawfull state, but we can´t eliminate free education, health, security, at least not in Mexico.
I also don´t believe in politicians, it´s important that people rises from above to under and implement a new way of government, politicians, and state always under the control of people, and people under the control of state at the same time.
We need democracy, we need competition between corporations, we need transparency, we need to grow small and medium bussiness and protect them against big corporations, we need to protect the environment not to give it to corporations, we need to legalize drogs, let people get weapons in a responsible way to defend themselves against violence, demilitarize the country, state must loose excesive power against the people..
Who ever said anything about the state declaring a religion? That is also repugnant to the constitution. The limited fed system was created because the founders knew that 'We The People' were self-governed by Judeo-Christian ethics. I am not at all describing a theocracy, nor does the constitution. Bastiat is a genius and he totally supported FREE WILL, FREE MARKETS, CAPITALISM and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS being the only thing gov is created to defend. You are seriously confused.
And even when Marx, Smith were not totally right, or totally wrong we gotta learn from them, because they were genious who tried to do something good for people and applied all their knowledge on the political matter, you expect us to rule with a bible on our hand? No, i´m sorry.
And i repeat again, religions are all false, nobody has ever talked or seen GOD anywhere, maybe he exists maybe not, but would he have let people divide into religions? No way, there would be only one religion..
At least ur coming clean on allegiances. The immorality State issue rights, divvying fruits of indy labor 2 others is so repugnant to progress, freedom that u may as well marvel at 'genious' of Egyptian rulers over their entire slave system, included their own ppl not just concurred nations. Ur admiration of slavery, imprisonment of free will & all other natural rights is probably more repugnant 2 ur own countrymen as it is 2 u.s., which is why many of u try 2 push it here rather than there.
Finally, about GOD. I don´t deny the existence of a god, since the universe had a beginning, and the participation of a supreme order is a posibility, but do you believe on the holy bible? What if i believe in the Quran? Or in the Baghavad Gitá?
Why should i believe on christians version of god more than a Hindu´s one, or a Muslim´s one?
existence of god is a mistery, since it´d be a paranormal principle and incomprehensible for human beings, people who tell you about him is lying.
Plato talked about the midpoint, the moderation on life issues, and that is what we need, you should learn more about mexican economy and you´d know that liberalism would worsen things.
You also must read Adam Smith, he pointed that state should take care fo education and security, how do you pretend to defeat poverty, you don´t?
You just want the invisible hand to feed the greater good?
That´s the problem between liberals and communists, they´re too extremist.
@Mrgokueldestructor Plato was a socialist. The evolutionists are statists as well preferring faith in their theories rather than God, and that is fine except they gain state funding to do it and deny the teachings of creation science. The evolutionists hate and deny God because they love darkness, not the light, they love lies and SELF rather than obedience to God and Gods commandments.
Sucker? So anyone that don´t think like you is a sucker? That is your way to defend your standpoints?
My invision of socialdemocracy is a law state, it should provide cheap education, health and security for those who can´t pay it, there would be revocable leaders, demilitarization, and civil defense groups, the government efectively would loose power over the people, it would be obliged to serve the common interests.
You know nothing about economy, you just want liberalism because u like it.
The expression wasn't a defense, but I c that all the other discussion is basically being ignored. It's funny how that works... someone raises objections and each and every one I carefully address but questions or obvious entry for counterpoint back go COMPLETELY unanswered! Whenever hypocrisy is challenged, particularly in politics, the opponent goes limp, silent, suddenly off tangent. Oh boy, but say any little expression to cause a tiff and wow, it's like not another word was ever typed.
And 'your vision' is a STATIST vision which invites all the other scenarios i've already addressed. So, my response here is ASKED AND ANSWERED.
What particular challenge are you making regarding economics? Nothing pertinent was asked. You raised no points- but probably should have because heres the facts socialism is funded by fascism. Your society and mine are under siege by banking oligarchs who print money out of thin air and ruin free markets and fairness.
@anyusmoon1 i don´t know wich answers you expect, but let me put you an example citing the mexican situation.
We have 60 millions of poor people, we have13 mllns not reaching health, education, even some not reaching drinking water, and you want to turn education, health, security, even woods and if possible air private?? Are you fucking kidding me?
I respect and defend private property, people to run their own bussines, but you think people´s security, happines, lives have a price? No way..
@anyusmoon1 Ooops sorry, except to say that if the Mexican people don't like the form of government they have they should do something IT not ours (the u.S. of A).
@anyusmoon1 Now, you expect governments to rule under gods law, and what laws are those? Sending people who don´t worship god to a place of fire and anger and torture? Kill homosexuals, extermine atheists?
My friend, the bible was written thousands of years ago by ignorant people who thought the earth was flat, and who aproved slavery and mass killings.
You have no idea about politics, Smith, Bastiat, Marx are genious who dedicated their lives to create systems of government..
@Mrgokueldestructor Who ever said anything about the state declaring a religion? That is also repugnant to the constitution. The limited fed system was created because the founders had knew that 'We The People' were self-governed by Judeo-Christian ethics. I am not at all describing a theocracy, nor does the constitution. Bastiat is a genius and he totally supported FREE WILL, FREE MARKETS, CAPITALISM and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS being the only thing gov is created to defend. You are seriously confused.
@anyusmoon1 I agree, time and space are insuficient to expand a concrete explanation, even so we agree that communism is against human nature, that people like you and me deserve to gain money according to our own abbilities, but what i don´t agree is that even seas and woods should be private as liberals claim, or that we should trust capitalists to defend workers and poor people because they simply won´t.
Even so i admire Thomas Jefferson too much, Adam Smith etc..
@Mrgokueldestructor Well, I don't relish seeing people struggle but it is GOOD that the good (no, great) people of Mexico are finally standing up against the NWO raping their beautiful country!
What this entire dialog has failed to get across to you are the points in common but there's insufficient time and space to properly describe why your ideas are proven impossible and freedom to succeed and fail are the only remedy for poverty and under-industrialization.
So that´s what you think? Using your logic someone could tell me when he sees my profile picture, ''you can´t be white, because all mexicans are brown and tinny'' you actually make no logic, you try to rule the world from ilogic standpoints and you try to give mankind rights given by a person whose existence isn´t proved?
Politics aren´t ruled by bible, they´re ruled by constitutional rights, rights that are humanly inherent.
@Mrgokueldestructor There is no moderation on socialism because there is no way the government can possibly be the proper arbiter of all human desires, values, worth and needs. Once the camels nose is in the tent its over.... the earlier points cover this I suggest you read them and comment thereto.
The u.s. constitution and all the constitutions of each of the 50 states absolutely is based upon GODS LAWS- to suggest otherwise is totally ignorant.
Whatever happened 2 "what's good 4 the goose is good 4 the gander"? We all got ears, noses & throats (a type of Dr.) We all need fresh air, clean water & real food (not from phony pharms). The core rats all form consortiums, concentrate their power & run in thru the highest offices, lording it over us all. followin individualism we're as self-divided & so R auto-conquered. Besides, these 2 notions aren't mutually exclusive. "Many hands make work light" frees each to chase dreams, or do whatever
New Full 2-hour documentary exposing Federalization of Local Police Departments. Exposes the TSA, the DHS Report, The DOJ Report, the MIAC Report, the VA Report, and the Texas Manual defining Americans as Terrorists, and more---Spread the word!
Title: "American Police State: To Protect and Serve the New World Order"
Wow, this, itself is a form of fascism. Capitalism has been more detrimental to our planet as a whole than any other economic system or social structure.
Sry, what r u talking about? The 'system' for the last 100 years... has not been capitalism- especially the last 30 to 40 years, its been fascism.
The fake kung-fu fighting the dems and reps pretend in legislature is merely to fool the public from the fact that corporatism (congressional cronies) fascism has taken over and replaced capitalism.
The big pharma, agro, media moguls are all in the pockets of both sides.
True free markets would restore lawful scope of fed gov and faith.
@ProkofievRules Many don't realize, including probably obwazzo, that fascists in fact FINANCE socialism/communism. I repeatedly TRY to point out to them- communism/socialism eat themselves out from within because they kill the host, BUT the 2 systems control masses of people (with force) in a way that increases power to the power holders by eliminating choice and GOD from the people they wish to enslave.
@Holyw4ffl3 Hi, i´m from Mexico, i oppose communism since it takes away individuality, i oppose governments, bureaucracy, i defend individual private property, but what liberals never mention is how will they decrease the big gap between rich and poor that capitalism has created?
I mean, if tomorrow the world turns ''libertarian'' what will happen with the millions of peoples in Africa dying on starvation?
@Mrgokueldestructor Are you catholic? Do you have faith in Jesus Christ? I'm always a bit shocked at foreigners seeing Americans as ungenerous and uncharitable. Where in all the billions we give away in charity do you get the idea we don't give to the needy?
Anyway, the answer to the poverty question resides squarely in four places 1) honest money; 2) no entitlements for corporations ie corp welfar and 3) ZERO foreign entitlements; 4) gov stays OUT of the way. Risk & reward urge people 2 strive
@anyusmoon1 Catholic? I hate catholicism, i´m an agnostic and yes, the USA donates millions every year, but curiously their percentage of GDP donated is the lowest on the world.
Also the incomes from the Third world to the USA are enormous in raw material, capital, etc..
The roll of the USA's ''friends'' like Israel, Colombia, Pakistan are rolls of military bases for international state terrorism, and no the people from the US is not bad, their government is, their system is..
@Mrgokueldestructor The system IS bad and it is unlawful. The people have been deceived which appears to be commonplace all over the world especially in Mexico. You should watch the video documentary about Argentinas horrible deceptions. Although the Argentinian people complain bitterly about the NWO fascists and the international bankster just like we u.s. citizens do their solution is socialism and I disagree with that the same way I disagree with fascists.
@Mrgokueldestructor Capitalists? First, that is defined and means one that lives off of his savings ie interest or investments. The investor gets bids for work and workers bid for the jobs. Contracts are written. Broken contracts are fought / defended like always in court.
Yes sacrificing a few for the greater good IS dangerous and that is socialism. Socialism IS dangerous.
Balance is achieved because there's no limit or stopping the individual. Likewise there is no guarantee. Failures fail
@anyusmoon1 So the sacrifice of the few 4 the greater good is dangerous, but the sacrifice of the greater good 4 the few isn´t? I don´t like it. Also there´s no guarantee of a better society? Mh, liberalism is as dangerous as communism.
I defend individuality, but we´re forced to live in a society to survive, an ideal economy is created to preserve individuality and to satisfy society, we can´t sacrifice nor the individual or the society.
We don´t need liberalism or communism, we need a balance
@Mrgokueldestructor No... sacrificing the greater number for the fewer is equally repugnant. THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE CENTRAL THEME HERE.
I don't know what liberalism means- pls define.
Yes the society is challenged. No one said it would be EASY. That's the problem right there... everyone wants EASY. It is very difficult for individuals to respect the right of another who they themselves disagree with. That will never change. Socialists expect gov to legislate morality.
@anyusmoon1 I´d say the central theme is the individual within the society.
I´m myself a great admirer of Adam Smith, he´s in my top five and believe me, he had a very diferent idea of what capitalism is right now, you´ll know it better than me.
I´m not begging 4 a strong central power, i believe in a moderation, descentralization, drugs and weapons legalization, but the we can´t just disappear state, i think it must be done gradualy, buliding a society without sacrificing individual..
@Mrgokueldestructor Who said anything about making the state disappear? I'm not calling for anarchy, no way. I'm AM calling for a return to lawful government with strictly limited federal powers, the state and the people reserving the principle powers and defending individual GOD GIVEN rights.
You are a socialist it's clearly stated on your page. You are not agnostic otherwise you would not display icons defiling the Lord.
@anyusmoon1 No you didn´t, but even for a state to work at the minimum, there must be smart and selfrighteous persons who can achieve themselves the happines and needs for a decent life, for a minimum state we need minimum needs, if you come around Mexico you´ll know we can´t enter to liberalism that easy.
What i beg for isn´t a communist state, but a state of law and liberty that can achieve a general happiness and satisfaction, than we can handle it better.
Agreed- our u.s. constitutional republic was INTENDED to operate in a VERY strictly limited way and represent the states to the rest of the world. It was NEVER intended to interact with 'we the people' but rather act in a defense of this country as a whole and the protect/defend the individual rights of the human beings that consented to bring the federal government into existence.
How does ur statement 'state= health, food, edu' equate to MINIMUM? It doesn't. UR either deceived or deceitful.
@anyusmoon1 I´m a socialdemocrat, and yes, i am a socialist, not a communist which is very diferent.
I´m in a point of moderation, a conservative principle between individuality and equality.
And yes, i´m an agnostic, i attack the religious belief of god, nevertheless i understand the homo sapiens must stay skeptical before such a complicated matter, illogical things can´t be explained logically, from logic we can´t enssure the existence or inexistence of the illogical.
@Mrgokueldestructor Re: your being a socialdemocrat / socialist here is what I have to say... That is all fine and well if the form of government in the country you were born or naturalized to IS LEGALLY SOCIALIST. The chief complaint of u.s. citizens is the USURPATION AND DECEIT done to/used against our lawful form of government which is a constitutional republic. THAT is unacceptable. YET, if you advertised or campaigned that US WILL NOW BE SOCIALIST the public would NEVER go for it.
Next Re: Socialism and 'moderation' THERE IS NONE! you surrender your GOD GIVEN RIGHTS to the state. It then claims to give you privileges instead and that IT can grant more or take them away. There's a sucker born every minute and all socialists are suckers to think that gov is benevolent and will take care of you. Mans power over man corrupts and absolutely power of one man over another corrupts absolutely.
@Mrgokueldestructor You call yourself a thing (agnostic) because of doubt others have? It's fair to say God requires faith and thus the other side of the coin is doubt or unfaithful disbelief. However it appears you diffuse your certainty that God does not exist (atheist) with softer terms like agnostic yet pepper the conversation with attempts at mocking or ridicule. This is either ignorance, which is fine because that is curable, or speaking out of both sides of your mouth with is deceitful.
@WorldWarPropaganda: Uhhhh....What are you talking about? The top income bracket (excluding the shady accounting their lawyers help them with) pay well over 1/2 of every dollar to a bureacracy to shower on those who will trade their votes for monthly payments. You're allowed to hate George Bush (as I do), but outright distortion of political reality isn't going to fly on this page.
It seems he's ignoring the obvious contradiction of a democratic republic: he says the majority should rule, only without "denying the rights of the individual", and yet rulership is inherently a violation of the ruled. If we accept that the individual has a right to own property, we have to recognise that it is rights-violating to tax him, and yet constitutionalists don't seem to mind taxing people to pay for their preferred level of collectivism. It's an inescapable contradiction.
@Hostile No, you appear to be confusing cooperation and set limits on 'rule' in a constitutional republic with what might be your desire or preference for anarchy? There are times and places whereby the individuals agree that a single person cannot defend the whole against foreign enemies for instance. The 'rules' of our republic defend the individual against usurpation of the majority (or is supposed to anyway).
@anyusmoon1 Who cares if it's a constitutional republic? No American alive has signed a contract agreeing to be subject to tax slavery and state collectivism, so the existence of the state perpetually and completely violates all individual rights no matter how fancy your constitution is. The contradiction remains inescapable: either you're free to own property, or you're property of the collective state.
And yeah like you admitted at the end there, the rules of the republic have failed awfully.
@Mezocosm So? Neither do I and openly, happily discuss / explain why. Our constitutional republic is not based on 'eastern philosophies' and, thankfully, isn't beholden to them in the slightest.
Ladies and gentlemen here is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the collectivist (mezocosm) and of the reason our founders created written law to rule rather than the desires, fads, whims of groups or despots. mezocosm wrote email rather than in comments the following: Mezocosm
eastern philosophy
Please be responsible in your arguments, its not about winning. It is about the highest understanding possible. Thank you for your video uploads.
Damn straight, I use to be fascinated with Eastern philosophy before I realized the superior practicality of Western philosophy. There is a reason why most progress in the world these past 500 years has originated in the West, and I believe it is fundamentally a difference in philosophy.
Mezo, you're free to immigrate to communist China or the Philippines, or Singapore if you like eastern ideas so much. They are largely seen for what they are and rejected here.
Thanks for this. As I do research on the emergent church which is very much collective minded when an individual relationship with God(individual salvation) is seen as selfish as they are for the most part involved what is going on today. Google emergent evolution to see how they put this as a part of the whole. Besides quite a bit borrowed from German philosophers, somehow, when they do not offer up a philosopher very much a part of the final solution-well those Jews were just selfish!
@crabtrap Ha! Good one! Me too. But lets not feel too bad, the education system has been derailed for years- check out Griffins classic interview of Norman Dodd for a real mind blower. Even though it will really tick you off it somehow is vindicating to know the dumbing down of America was deliberately cast upon us rather than an intellectual deficit in the gene pool.
@69vmac So true! And the particularly wonderful aspect to Griffins approach is the NON blame-game mentality. I cannot tell you how discouraged I am about patriots being divided by the hatreds.
Near every forest are other trees...maybe a few feet away...maybe miles away. At what point do those trees no longer belong to that particular forest? Further proof that the individual trees are the true matrix.
@anchoviehaterz Unfortunately what has happened is, with debt money systems in place ie Federal Reserve fiat currency; Bankster oligarchs are in charge; they control the 'public' nefariously via phony struggles that suggest a different outcome. 1) democrats control the socialist (labor) faction; 2) republicans control the fascist (corporatist) faction. The outcome always pushes the constitution OUT and the usurpers gain a foothold. Gone on now for 90 years, things are really bad.
It is the individuals that make the group and collectivism for example, in IRAN the revolution has happened twice there because of the people's choices yet later on they are still unhappy with their decision because the group of people there don't know anything about politics and think that they should follow whatever their peers agree to because they are easily persuaded by them.
so i think that THE INDIVIDUALISTIC REPUBLICANS should rule a country since they individually know whats logically know whats best for all individuals.
@anchoviehaterz So as not to leave the conversation without a remedy to the oligarchy coup please do some research into the Constitution Party or if nothing else the Libertarian Party. These two represent the only hope of an already formed political element to truly represent the constitution and individual freedoms that are to be protected thereby.
You remind me of Glen Beck with one major improvement, you don't end up tying every bad thing that happens back to Obama. A lot of what he says looses credibility with me because he does that.
You rip them all up
I don't know why you take it to heart the way you do but its you not me so I wont judge you for it. Don't give yourself a stroke.
I wish you hadn't turned off embedding. I really want my FB conservative friends, well Republican's that think they are conservative to see this.
@anyusmoon1 sorry, i got confused on where I was posting the comment. I thought i was still on your video, the last one you made. I haven't posted much. Facebook conservative friends. I grew up in the deep south, most of my friends group up to be republicans but they are not conservative. you are, you're more conservative than myself. That's okay, maybe I've not fully learned yet. haha.
@Flirtilizer :-) I figured it out :-) Thanks for chiming in again though. Yes, I understand... conservatives aren't really conservative just as potatoes have eyes but cannot see. Pews and government seats are chock full of them.
@Flirtilizer Copy the URL and paste it into your blog. Most people are sophisticated enough to open two sessions of Firefox or two tabs, which ever they prefer which enables watching Youtube and typing comments or rebuttal on a blog. :) Hope that is doable- if you get an traction let me know.
This Ideal has been showing up a lot in entertainment over the last 5+ years... The BBC show Prime Evil had a whole pinnacle scene in one of the last episodes that even used the line. I also know a few collective groups. They are small and work well, but are psuedo-collective as they have some individual rights and some collective. If a small group wants to live that way fine... but not my nation... no thanks..
@wiseroldowl Read your vlog page and thanks for helping to contribute to shining the beacon of truth. Now for the ultimate mind-blower, your next video playlist ought to be the Norman Dodd interview... if you thought you were reeling under the theories represented in Indy v Collectivism, just wait till you see/hear the facts and testimonies of norman Dodd about the education system and non-profit foundations stealing truth, history, culture and nefariously reshaping all to lies and distortion.
@anyusmoon1 I am going to look it up next. Thanks for the info! I have been watching the decline of education for so long and Homeschooled my 7 children because I really think that Education is only to prepare them for prison and slave work.
@wiseroldowl Hallelujah to Home Schoolers!!! YEAH! So pleased to meet you and proud there are Americans left who value not only large families but a lifestyle that includes mothers raising there own, let alone taking the initiative to educate them. All I can say is wow! my hat is off to you.
The Norman Dodd interview, in my opinion, defines the phrase 'must see'... and for all Americans but especially home-schoolers.
@BearWindAppleyard Uh people (We the People) DO rule and we vote on who will sit in the seat of local, state and some federal positions to DEFEND OUR RIGHTS, period. That's the extent to which this Constitutional Republic is a democracy, the vote. What those idiots in Congress have done is turned the language upside down and inside out where you and others like you don't know what is up or down. Just because the republic employs a democratic tool (the vote) it doesn't mean its a democracy.
@anyusmoon1 The founding fathers knew that democracies eat themselves from the inside out and are a deplorable form of governance. The founders also knew that the key to this grand new experiment known as a Constitutional Republic relied upon We The People being SELF GOVERNED!
Self governance is entirely predicated upon knowledge of what the government is supposed to do and what it cannot do! It is supposed to defend individual freedom, protect contracts (not be a party to them) and law.
@BearWindAppleyard It never ceases to amaze me the quality of persons that come on this comment section. Thank you for posting this great correction. I appreciate and any others reading here will too.
If you prefer I can delete the prior post- just post a reply here. Thank you. And I'm glad you're one of the ones that 'gets it'. :-)
@anyusmoon1 G edward griffin is a faniatic that may have alot of knowedge but is intellectually dishonest. the gold standard will not work. there is no master conspiracy
@jonLukasC 'A fanatic', 'no master conspiracy' you say? Have you seen the live testimony of Norman Dodd? Read, perchance, the book 'Tragedy and Hope A History of the World in Our Time...' by Carol Quigley? What of the conspiracy of good and evil Christ Himself tells about? Is this intellectually questionable as well?
I strongly suggest you arm yourself better. Pulling out a toy gun against the likes of giants in political thought is foolhardy.
@anyusmoon1 I have read tragedy and hope the all 1310 pages of it. have you?
it mentions conspiracies but speaks very strongly against the idea of a master conspiracy. Carroll quigley in an interview call the people who believe in the protocols of Zion and Illuminati conspiracies crack pots.
the book also tells of the great loss of power by the international bankers after 1932.
@jonLukasC In his epic video series "Capitalist Conspiracy" Griffin stands shows exactly where he stands on the subject and in fact clears up much of the confusion and usual bickering between the blame-gamers (religious, political party, race). He dispels the ideas that any one group has the wheel. I don't know where you're coming from and don't think you do either.
I hate politics honestly im an independant because most of it has to do with fucking competition greed buy outs bail outs etc.. So I do not vote for ANYONE there all fake liars back stabbers who dont really care about the public and care about themselves on getting paid good and making them look good.. So Fuck the government fuck the politicians i aint voting for no one or paying taxes so the stupid immagrents can mooch off of my fucking money FREAKS!!!
@TalentlessNoob I appreciate that you're frustrated and angry, you have an important message for people to read but.... you'll have to rethink the language you use when posting on my videos.
@anyusmoon1 yeah! sorry about the language but I am NOT paying for my taxes so it can go to illegal immagrents because then I would be considered a criminal in allowing them to enter my country screw that! I'm just frustrated with all the health care bill passing and now the dollar decreasing and Obama pushing more laws its just making me mad.. Obama reminds me a lot like Hitler but thats just my opinion.. I do enjoy the video though so thats a plus lol.. but hope you had a good weekend / week
@TalentlessNoob I totally agree. Injustice is intolerable and especially by government. You might enjoy my recent video called Freedom in Peril- realize though, it is a video reply and thus includes some references to the original poster's vid, but the gist is easily understood. Another vid you might like is 545 People... Anyway, with great respect to your patriotism and pursuit of truth in income tax I salute your willingness to also be a gentleman. :-)
@BenTennison16 HA! That's a laugh- what part of japan's inflationary recession are you applauding?
Japan has a distinction not found in many other countries and that is a culture of severity in self-governance. America USED to have such fortitude but it is fast becoming a long forgotten attribute.
The evolution of liberalism is indeed a wonderful guise behind which financial terrorists hide, promoting liberalism when making profits and promoting socialism when making losses which they want the taxpayer to pay for. Neo-Liberalism has been sold as an economic ideology and it has destroyed and continues to destroy economies, putting them further in the back pocket of internationalists.
I like Griffin, but I dont agree with this collective vs Individual arguement. Ayn Rand was a fool btw.
@goatman257 You might enjoy my recent video reply to Keynes and His Influence... I talk briefly about stolen words (ie redefining words). Charlotte Iserbyt also lectures widely about the subject of misdirection through redefinition.
Rand fell into lockstep with the NWO crowd and their humanist ideology- that was her biggest failure, IMO.
@goatman257 - what you're describing is socialism. Big Corporations and and taxpayers paying their losses has little to do with Capitalism....Capitalism would prevent exactly what you are describing.
@manoman0 goatman is correct to the extent that promoters of socialism were in fact industrialists (actually fascists) who hid behind the terms/labels such "Capitalist", "philanthropist".
They were hell bent on siphoning off the excesses from the middle-class for the sheer power of doing so and to control the future work forces and crush the American spirit ie re-shape the sovereigns into serfs.
@anyusmoon1 - I still stand to my opinion that "running industries" does not necessarily depict one as being a "capitalist". As you clearly state "..who HID behind..."
@manoman0 Yes, it is a sad state of affairs when we have to ask if every debater, every commenter, every inquirer understands the definitions of this or that and THEN ask if the 'actions', 'works' and 'deeds' of the subject industrialist meets with those definitions. Obscurity and lies do make honest inquiry nearly impossible but not quite impossible :-)
This is the most ridiculus and hyper-simplistic way of describing things.
Things aren't between collectivists and individualists. Too many flaws in this video to name them all, coupled with the hyper-simplicity is why Libertarianism is a fools ideology. It is a con designed to serve the wealthy minority and there are plenty of suckers who are conned to rail against their own interests in service of those who could care less if they lived or died.
I disagree with a lot of what he says. He has an obscure perception of what Collectivism is. It isn't neccessarily simply the idea that the majority are superior to the individual, rather that things can be achieved in a greater fashion if we work as a group, and it is our responsibilty as a human being to work as part of a group in order to achieve a ''better-ness'' not just for ourselves, but for society as a whole. And this does work, take Hitlers economic recovery of Germany for example.
@Blackoutpr1 The entire gist of this pertains to GOVERNMENT. You are of course correct that 'man is not an island' and we live harmoniously with other people but do so on a voluntary basis. The entire principle of freedom to choose is what drives success- of everything from faith, love all the way to work and play.
Good point, I am the type to not recognise when others make strong arguments, however ''freedom'' is an interesting concept to philosophers. And I personally, in the UK, feel we are not entirely free, in many respects. So my question would be how much freedom would you say is neccessary or sufficient for success? And my other question would be, freedom means one will opress another in some way. Therefore, for the one being oppressed, has freedom not been what has driven their lack of success?
@Blackoutpr1 The only repression of freedom should be stopping you from harming others in either bodily or contractual. If you harm others you must be detained, provided a trial by your peers and if found guilty- penalized.
Same applies to fraud, breaking a contract or other malfeascance.
Am I ? Politically we are not free at all in this country. No matter how we vote, our choice in voting will not get us anywhere under the oligarchy that our ''democracy'' is. For example, in the 1984 general elections, the Labour party got 27.6% share of the vote, and 209 seats in parliament. The liberal/SDP got 25.4% of the vote, and only got 23 seats. Clearly, no matter how we vote, due to the current constitution, we are not free to have our votes, our choice represented.
@Blackoutpr1 Er... your question was a philosophical one, was it not? If we're talking about current (socialist, fascist) affairs, ie reality that's a whole different question. :-)
So if we begin with the premise that success, love, peace nor progress, can be achieve without freedom and your question is how do we restore it, we'll need a whole lot more room than 500 characters count :-) But initially it begins at home, the family and education.
It was. I was just responding to your statement that I am free with an example to suggest otherwise.
Yes your probably right lol. I have enjoyed this discussion, It is nice to see somebody on youtube who isn't going to either kill me or have sex with my mother.
@Blackoutpr1 What happens when the needs of an individual goes against the needs of the group? Is it morally justified to sacrifice any given individual for the "better-ness" of the group or for society as a whole? And Hitler's recovery of Germany had nothing to do with the success of collectivism. He quit paying reparations, and stole from both his own people and other countries. If you quit paying your credit cards and stole, you would be rich too.
Fantastic point ! And i'm sure this is something a lot of people would accept. However for me, as a philosopher, i have to pick up on your use of the word Morally... This opens up a pan of debates in itself, but in responce to your question I can flip it around. Is is morally justified to forgoe the needs / desires of a majority, for a small group? Of course I don't mean killing the minority. But it would be morally ludacris to reject something 99% of a population want due to 1% disagree'ing.
@Blackoutpr1 The problem with your question is the assumption that everyone must follow the decision of either the collective or a single individual. For instance, in the collective, if the majority choose to eat chocolate ice cream, those who do not like chocolate are left to suffer. In your reverse question, you are assuming that one individual is choosing chocolate for the collective. In individualism, we all get our own choice of chocolate or not.
Of course, I am using it for a yes/no situation in politics, rather than a more open question such as you said. For instance, if 78% of the British population wished to leave the EU, would it be fair for a 22% to hold this back, because we need to ''protect the minority'' the answer is no it wouldn't.. There is no individualist approach which can change this from a yes/no question. Somebody is going to lose out. Therefore, it should be the minority, rather than the majority, for obvious reasons.
@Blackoutpr1 Ahh, but there in lies the difference to the collectivist and the individualist. The collectivist assumes that all if not most questions must be applied to the whole. For instance, should pain medication be limited as to how much can be prescribed? What color should people be allowed to paint their houses? Should seat belts be worn as law? Should 16 year olds be limited to how much they can work and earn?
Good point for your selected examples, but in terms of my case of Britain and the EU, there would be no way to escape this affecting the whole. Just for the record im not particularly aligned to collectivism or individualism, i'm just one of those philosophers who likes to criticise ideas :)
@Blackoutpr1 And this is why there exists a role for government. Government exists to arbitrate disputes between individuals where individual wants and needs collide. Anarchy can not exist for long as certain individuals will always push their wants and needs above others. The problem with collectivists is that they try head off disputes by assuming the wants and needs of individuals by forcing them into groups. This is the definition of stereotyping, an evil all its own.
Noone really sees the Versailles treaty and IT'S role in creating Nazi Germany..
The French deliberately stepped on Germany out of revenge and rivalry, and placed INSANE monetary and economic demands on Germany, and then abused them with the French and Belgian armies when Germany couldn't comply.
They also hyperinflated the German dollar and deliberately created the state of desperation that caused Germany to come out swinging. Leave it up to the French to make enemies..
@Shawnster65 I was not denying the fact that the reparations were unjust and were the catalyst that brought the Nazis to power. I was pointing out the fact that Hitler was not the economic genius that everyone makes him out to be. In fact, his economic recovery was limited and short lived. After unilaterally canceling Germany's debt, he relied on theft and slavery to grow the German economy.
If you haven't seen it... the six-part series, on my playlist, of G Edward Griffins interview of Norman Dodd is MUST SEE eyewitness testimony of who, what, when and where this very thing took over our education system etc.
The often argued, "groups don't really exist" fails to acknowledge that "individual" doesn't really exist either. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Rather, everything is relative to everything else, and existence is a "web" where everything affects everything else. "Individualism vs collectivism" is a false argument. Relativity is reality, and our society would be much better off if we abolished this primitive argument.
RipTheSystem33 3 weeks ago
He is correct.Its actually Oligarchical collectivism.George Orwell gave us the hint in the book 1984,with the name of the book that O'Brien gives Winston.When he rips the cover off and its actually called" Practice & theory of oligarchical collectivism" =feudalism /meaning slavery & death of people controlled Elite(billionaires not millionaires)Monarch's of England & Europe,Banking Elite/20 families that own all the fortune 100's.
Collectivism = socialism,communism,fascism,=feudalism/slavery
MrSammy1776 3 months ago
@MrSammy1776 My sentence was badly written... it should have clearly said that the founding documents intended to form a representative republic (based upon We the People approving/creating the enumerated powers uno) but have gradually been boiled into an oligarchy, a banking oligarchy. Presidents T. Jefferson and A. Jackson attempted to rid this country of that threat.
We need to do so again.
anyusmoon1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Didn't the Founding Fathers got into a little house to map out how this country should work. That's Collectivism, Remember WE THE PEOPLE. '
getgot1 3 months ago
Comment removed
getgot1 3 months ago
Surely in a democratic system the process of voting and in effect choosing who we want to rule safeguards the individual anyway, to the extent that the republic does?
babycuddle2 9 months ago
@babycuddle2 Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 Don't we have a Constitution Democracy? That why we have a Representative Democracy.
getgot1 3 months ago
@getgot1 I'll chime in here at this time.... The answer is, no. We have a constitutional republic!
Technically there r only 3 forms of gov't... the only association the USofA has to 'democracy' is by default... We aren't a monarchy or oligarchy. Reality is we have become a banking oligarchy which grew tentacles into fascism where corporations directly access congress by lobbying. Congress COULD simply NOT entertain lobbyist (ex: Ron Paul) but many say outlaw lobbying. I say UPHOLD OATHS.
anyusmoon1 3 months ago
Comment removed
getgot1 3 months ago
@anyusmoon1 Well at least you are agree that we are some how have a democracy. Your constitutional republic is actually based off the principles of classic liberalism which includes Checks and balances, liberty of individuals, 1st amendment rights, also a liberal democracy.
getgot1 3 months ago
@anyusmoon1 But don't have direct democracy (Switzerland does and they doing better), that a form of government controls policy, laws, and elects judges but we have Representatives for choosing those. I am glad that you recognize that we aren't a monarchy or a oligarchy, of course that's why we kicked the British crown out and that's were trying to corporate greed out of Washington.
getgot1 3 months ago
You can never see trees. If we can never see trees then what are those groupings of trees in the amazon? In the pacific northwest? I agree with Griffin in many subjects, but his dialectic is weak here.
bobbygnosis 10 months ago
@bobbygnosis If you would locate the 0:00 of the specific use of the word trees we can more easily converse about it because I think he says you can never see a forest (a term for many trees) because you can only see trees. Its easy to forget about a single tree when you're focused on the 'forest'. Where individual rights (God-given rights) are prized you cannot sacrifice the tree for the 'forest'. Hope this helps.
anyusmoon1 10 months ago
@anyusmoon1 5:14
If we only focused on individuals then our bodies would be meaningless since they're collections of individual cells. I'm not saying the group is more important than the individual - I'm just saying that you [the reader] are a collection of cells that have no ability individually to process the information your interpreting.
This is amusing because it flies in the face of individualism. This is the beginnings of 'paradoxical.' Neither is more important. Both are important.
bobbygnosis 10 months ago
@bobbygnosis You are mistaking living breathing human beings with SOULS as something that is no more than a cell. Your God-given rights are the key consideration here and your freedom to have individual choice (that doesn't harm another individual). You have to defend one tree of none of the trees have any value.
anyusmoon1 10 months ago
@anyusmoon1 "The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few."
I understand your argument. And I know that Ayn Rand does not approve of self sacrifice. I also agree very much that we must protect individuals. I'm not saying I have an answer because I don't believe such a thing exists (these are, after all dialectic entities we're discussing).
Individuals come together to make bodies. Bodies are more powerful than individuals. That's why we have tribes / states / etc. Just saying.
bobbygnosis 10 months ago
@bobbygnosis Yes, and as my own channel states... Individualists are not isolationists. Human beings are, for the most part, colonists; not loners. Just by the simple fact of being fruitful and multiplying we create groups. Nevertheless, the flight attendants instructions come to mind... Affix your own oxygen mask before attempting to help those next to you.
anyusmoon1 10 months ago
@anyusmoon1 Like I say - I agree with you in protecting individuals. I'm not saying otherwise. I simply regard the whole thing as a balancing act. If you knew that you could save everyone you know and love by sacrificing yourself I bet you'd ponder it. Any thinking / feeling human would (empathy for fellow man and all).
My point: these are not easy issues. Without trees there is no forest. A forest is stronger than a lone tree. Which is more important? Neither. All of the above.
Cheers.
bobbygnosis 10 months ago
@bobbygnosis You obviously don't know what you're talking about and have no depth whatsoever. Having multiple cells has nothing to do with consciousness, which is individual and singular. You are your own consciousness, no one else shares it with you or it would be pointless to give any opinion at all. I wouldn't compare a forest and a tree with humanity. Humans are exceptional in nature.Exclusively capable of deep thought. Contrary to what you might think, your opinions are sacred to you alone
Jidster01 9 months ago
Comment removed
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@bobbygnosis That "dialectic" was only a few words, it was a phrase. You;re a nitpicker.
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@bobbygnosis Terrible reductionist thinking. A better analogy would be to say there are only computers, not Internet. Or there are only individual neurons in the brain, no brain. the brain is an abstraction. Instead of attempting to understand the dynamic btwn group and individual and how they need each other, he plunges straight into a simple, false dichotomy.
slmrcs 4 months ago
@slmrcs Reductionist thinking is in vogue right now. Has been for a few centuries. I fall into it myself. Such false dilemmas / dichotomies are so common they're rarely noticed as such. I'm trying to be more forgiving to such things now. Mostly in the hopes that, if only for myself, I'll be more calm and personable. The world is full of people who are batshit crazy and I think the only thing you can do is sit down and let it happen. Help when you can, but mostly observe.
Peace and love, homie.
bobbygnosis 4 months ago
G. Edward Griffin is one of the fewer individuals who are able to independently* analyze the information and use logics to conclude it. So all of you pseudo-intellectuals should think twice before objecting his fully justified statements.
*Without any influence that limits one's perception e.g. emotions.
ernis1100 10 months ago
@ernis1100 Indeed. He is gifted in communications and teaching with a natural sense of justice and Truth.
anyusmoon1 10 months ago
He lost me when he told me i couldn't see the forest.. !
soulwam 11 months ago
@soulwam It didn't help you to understand when he said.. 'all you see are trees'? In other words, the very thing before your eyes is one tree after another; each tree stands by itself, bears fruit, grows, provides shade etc it just happens to be standing next to another that does the same thing.
Human examples might be easier to relate 2. U may be standing in a 'crowd' or 'group' but you are still an individual. Laws protect individual rights whether the crowd likes you the individual or not.
anyusmoon1 11 months ago
@anyusmoon1 , but I can still see the crowd, especially if they are stampeding towards me, apparently baying for my blood. Perhaps by a supreme act of discipline one might hold one's ground and address individuals in the group before they knock me to the ground or perhaps i can run or take cover, but it seems like a dangerous practice, to train myself to forget that when individuals are in a crowd they tend to behave as a crowd.
soulwam 11 months ago
@soulwam :-) I know what you mean... there is real danger in promoting the idea of Group Think, mob rule, DEMOCRACY. This is why we must be vigilant in keeping gov in the strict chains of the constitution. Of course at this point the constitution is totally ignored but that's where we're at, not a good place.
One soul at a time. That's the only Way.
anyusmoon1 11 months ago
thanks for this man..
JohnGaltHasSpoken 11 months ago
I believe in many liberal points, as drugs legalization, weapons for responsible people, demilitarization, and a lawfull state, but we can´t eliminate free education, health, security, at least not in Mexico.
I also don´t believe in politicians, it´s important that people rises from above to under and implement a new way of government, politicians, and state always under the control of people, and people under the control of state at the same time.
Reciprocity ensures good behavior of both.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
Oh and the march won´t be just againts scarcity, it´ll be againt insecurity, high prices, low wages for workers, unemployment, lack of democracy..
this is what i call checkmate..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
Finally i´ll tell you what Mexico needs.
We need democracy, we need competition between corporations, we need transparency, we need to grow small and medium bussiness and protect them against big corporations, we need to protect the environment not to give it to corporations, we need to legalize drogs, let people get weapons in a responsible way to defend themselves against violence, demilitarize the country, state must loose excesive power against the people..
we´ll try..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
Who ever said anything about the state declaring a religion? That is also repugnant to the constitution. The limited fed system was created because the founders knew that 'We The People' were self-governed by Judeo-Christian ethics. I am not at all describing a theocracy, nor does the constitution. Bastiat is a genius and he totally supported FREE WILL, FREE MARKETS, CAPITALISM and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS being the only thing gov is created to defend. You are seriously confused.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor u won't succeed
discouniverse 11 months ago
And even when Marx, Smith were not totally right, or totally wrong we gotta learn from them, because they were genious who tried to do something good for people and applied all their knowledge on the political matter, you expect us to rule with a bible on our hand? No, i´m sorry.
And i repeat again, religions are all false, nobody has ever talked or seen GOD anywhere, maybe he exists maybe not, but would he have let people divide into religions? No way, there would be only one religion..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
At least ur coming clean on allegiances. The immorality State issue rights, divvying fruits of indy labor 2 others is so repugnant to progress, freedom that u may as well marvel at 'genious' of Egyptian rulers over their entire slave system, included their own ppl not just concurred nations. Ur admiration of slavery, imprisonment of free will & all other natural rights is probably more repugnant 2 ur own countrymen as it is 2 u.s., which is why many of u try 2 push it here rather than there.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Finally, about GOD. I don´t deny the existence of a god, since the universe had a beginning, and the participation of a supreme order is a posibility, but do you believe on the holy bible? What if i believe in the Quran? Or in the Baghavad Gitá?
Why should i believe on christians version of god more than a Hindu´s one, or a Muslim´s one?
existence of god is a mistery, since it´d be a paranormal principle and incomprehensible for human beings, people who tell you about him is lying.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
Plato talked about the midpoint, the moderation on life issues, and that is what we need, you should learn more about mexican economy and you´d know that liberalism would worsen things.
You also must read Adam Smith, he pointed that state should take care fo education and security, how do you pretend to defeat poverty, you don´t?
You just want the invisible hand to feed the greater good?
That´s the problem between liberals and communists, they´re too extremist.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Plato was a socialist. The evolutionists are statists as well preferring faith in their theories rather than God, and that is fine except they gain state funding to do it and deny the teachings of creation science. The evolutionists hate and deny God because they love darkness, not the light, they love lies and SELF rather than obedience to God and Gods commandments.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Sucker? So anyone that don´t think like you is a sucker? That is your way to defend your standpoints?
My invision of socialdemocracy is a law state, it should provide cheap education, health and security for those who can´t pay it, there would be revocable leaders, demilitarization, and civil defense groups, the government efectively would loose power over the people, it would be obliged to serve the common interests.
You know nothing about economy, you just want liberalism because u like it.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
The expression wasn't a defense, but I c that all the other discussion is basically being ignored. It's funny how that works... someone raises objections and each and every one I carefully address but questions or obvious entry for counterpoint back go COMPLETELY unanswered! Whenever hypocrisy is challenged, particularly in politics, the opponent goes limp, silent, suddenly off tangent. Oh boy, but say any little expression to cause a tiff and wow, it's like not another word was ever typed.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
And 'your vision' is a STATIST vision which invites all the other scenarios i've already addressed. So, my response here is ASKED AND ANSWERED.
What particular challenge are you making regarding economics? Nothing pertinent was asked. You raised no points- but probably should have because heres the facts socialism is funded by fascism. Your society and mine are under siege by banking oligarchs who print money out of thin air and ruin free markets and fairness.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 i don´t know wich answers you expect, but let me put you an example citing the mexican situation.
We have 60 millions of poor people, we have13 mllns not reaching health, education, even some not reaching drinking water, and you want to turn education, health, security, even woods and if possible air private?? Are you fucking kidding me?
I respect and defend private property, people to run their own bussines, but you think people´s security, happines, lives have a price? No way..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor I have no comment on the Mexican government.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 Ooops sorry, except to say that if the Mexican people don't like the form of government they have they should do something IT not ours (the u.S. of A).
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 Now, you expect governments to rule under gods law, and what laws are those? Sending people who don´t worship god to a place of fire and anger and torture? Kill homosexuals, extermine atheists?
My friend, the bible was written thousands of years ago by ignorant people who thought the earth was flat, and who aproved slavery and mass killings.
You have no idea about politics, Smith, Bastiat, Marx are genious who dedicated their lives to create systems of government..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Who ever said anything about the state declaring a religion? That is also repugnant to the constitution. The limited fed system was created because the founders had knew that 'We The People' were self-governed by Judeo-Christian ethics. I am not at all describing a theocracy, nor does the constitution. Bastiat is a genius and he totally supported FREE WILL, FREE MARKETS, CAPITALISM and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS being the only thing gov is created to defend. You are seriously confused.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 I agree, time and space are insuficient to expand a concrete explanation, even so we agree that communism is against human nature, that people like you and me deserve to gain money according to our own abbilities, but what i don´t agree is that even seas and woods should be private as liberals claim, or that we should trust capitalists to defend workers and poor people because they simply won´t.
Even so i admire Thomas Jefferson too much, Adam Smith etc..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 ''Ooops sorry, except to say that if the Mexican people don't like the form of government they have they should do something''
Hehehe, just turn on your TV tomorrow, and see the march against scarcity in Mexico city, it is scheduled for tomorrow at 5:00pm, center Mexico hour.
Just listen to the people´s slogans and demands, if you see some claim for liberalism you will defeat me, i sincerely doubt it..
Tomorrow, 5pm, Mexico city...
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Well, I don't relish seeing people struggle but it is GOOD that the good (no, great) people of Mexico are finally standing up against the NWO raping their beautiful country!
What this entire dialog has failed to get across to you are the points in common but there's insufficient time and space to properly describe why your ideas are proven impossible and freedom to succeed and fail are the only remedy for poverty and under-industrialization.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
''THERE IS NO MODERATION ON SOCIALISM''
So that´s what you think? Using your logic someone could tell me when he sees my profile picture, ''you can´t be white, because all mexicans are brown and tinny'' you actually make no logic, you try to rule the world from ilogic standpoints and you try to give mankind rights given by a person whose existence isn´t proved?
Politics aren´t ruled by bible, they´re ruled by constitutional rights, rights that are humanly inherent.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor There is no moderation on socialism because there is no way the government can possibly be the proper arbiter of all human desires, values, worth and needs. Once the camels nose is in the tent its over.... the earlier points cover this I suggest you read them and comment thereto.
The u.s. constitution and all the constitutions of each of the 50 states absolutely is based upon GODS LAWS- to suggest otherwise is totally ignorant.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
i really like this guy.
gerwazjana 1 year ago
@gerwazjana Yep, me too :-)
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Whatever happened 2 "what's good 4 the goose is good 4 the gander"? We all got ears, noses & throats (a type of Dr.) We all need fresh air, clean water & real food (not from phony pharms). The core rats all form consortiums, concentrate their power & run in thru the highest offices, lording it over us all. followin individualism we're as self-divided & so R auto-conquered. Besides, these 2 notions aren't mutually exclusive. "Many hands make work light" frees each to chase dreams, or do whatever
reforest4fertility 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
New Full 2-hour documentary exposing Federalization of Local Police Departments. Exposes the TSA, the DHS Report, The DOJ Report, the MIAC Report, the VA Report, and the Texas Manual defining Americans as Terrorists, and more---Spread the word!
Title: "American Police State: To Protect and Serve the New World Order"
youtube.com/watch?v=Ho_4wCvMP44
nnwo2010 1 year ago
N-I-E-T-Z-S-C-H-E
viletree 1 year ago
@viletree ?-?-?-?-?
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Wow, this, itself is a form of fascism. Capitalism has been more detrimental to our planet as a whole than any other economic system or social structure.
ogwazzo 1 year ago
Sry, what r u talking about? The 'system' for the last 100 years... has not been capitalism- especially the last 30 to 40 years, its been fascism.
The fake kung-fu fighting the dems and reps pretend in legislature is merely to fool the public from the fact that corporatism (congressional cronies) fascism has taken over and replaced capitalism.
The big pharma, agro, media moguls are all in the pockets of both sides.
True free markets would restore lawful scope of fed gov and faith.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@ogwazzo So what you're really saying is that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Zedong were way better than having more Rockefellers and Goulds.
el oh el.
ProkofievRules 1 year ago
@ProkofievRules Many don't realize, including probably obwazzo, that fascists in fact FINANCE socialism/communism. I repeatedly TRY to point out to them- communism/socialism eat themselves out from within because they kill the host, BUT the 2 systems control masses of people (with force) in a way that increases power to the power holders by eliminating choice and GOD from the people they wish to enslave.
Make sense? :-)
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1: Good post, as a libertarian I felt obliged to reply to that drivel, but I think you summed it up quite nicely :)
Holyw4ffl3 1 year ago
@Holyw4ffl3 :)
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@Holyw4ffl3 Hi, i´m from Mexico, i oppose communism since it takes away individuality, i oppose governments, bureaucracy, i defend individual private property, but what liberals never mention is how will they decrease the big gap between rich and poor that capitalism has created?
I mean, if tomorrow the world turns ''libertarian'' what will happen with the millions of peoples in Africa dying on starvation?
How would the poor get a decent education?
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Are you catholic? Do you have faith in Jesus Christ? I'm always a bit shocked at foreigners seeing Americans as ungenerous and uncharitable. Where in all the billions we give away in charity do you get the idea we don't give to the needy?
Anyway, the answer to the poverty question resides squarely in four places 1) honest money; 2) no entitlements for corporations ie corp welfar and 3) ZERO foreign entitlements; 4) gov stays OUT of the way. Risk & reward urge people 2 strive
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 Catholic? I hate catholicism, i´m an agnostic and yes, the USA donates millions every year, but curiously their percentage of GDP donated is the lowest on the world.
Also the incomes from the Third world to the USA are enormous in raw material, capital, etc..
The roll of the USA's ''friends'' like Israel, Colombia, Pakistan are rolls of military bases for international state terrorism, and no the people from the US is not bad, their government is, their system is..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor The system IS bad and it is unlawful. The people have been deceived which appears to be commonplace all over the world especially in Mexico. You should watch the video documentary about Argentinas horrible deceptions. Although the Argentinian people complain bitterly about the NWO fascists and the international bankster just like we u.s. citizens do their solution is socialism and I disagree with that the same way I disagree with fascists.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@Holyw4ffl3 How can we assure that capitalists aren´t abusing on their employees?
The motto ''we can´t sacrifice the few people for the greater good'' sounds dangerous for me.
Then, how will we dicrease poverty, abuse, hunger?
Will the ''few ones'' on the top keep the right to enrich while the masses on the bottom would get poorer?
I mean, how could we make a balance?
I´m trying to learn more about liberalism, previous thanks 4 the answers, u can include some link too..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Capitalists? First, that is defined and means one that lives off of his savings ie interest or investments. The investor gets bids for work and workers bid for the jobs. Contracts are written. Broken contracts are fought / defended like always in court.
Yes sacrificing a few for the greater good IS dangerous and that is socialism. Socialism IS dangerous.
Balance is achieved because there's no limit or stopping the individual. Likewise there is no guarantee. Failures fail
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 So the sacrifice of the few 4 the greater good is dangerous, but the sacrifice of the greater good 4 the few isn´t? I don´t like it. Also there´s no guarantee of a better society? Mh, liberalism is as dangerous as communism.
I defend individuality, but we´re forced to live in a society to survive, an ideal economy is created to preserve individuality and to satisfy society, we can´t sacrifice nor the individual or the society.
We don´t need liberalism or communism, we need a balance
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor No... sacrificing the greater number for the fewer is equally repugnant. THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE CENTRAL THEME HERE.
I don't know what liberalism means- pls define.
Yes the society is challenged. No one said it would be EASY. That's the problem right there... everyone wants EASY. It is very difficult for individuals to respect the right of another who they themselves disagree with. That will never change. Socialists expect gov to legislate morality.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 I´d say the central theme is the individual within the society.
I´m myself a great admirer of Adam Smith, he´s in my top five and believe me, he had a very diferent idea of what capitalism is right now, you´ll know it better than me.
I´m not begging 4 a strong central power, i believe in a moderation, descentralization, drugs and weapons legalization, but the we can´t just disappear state, i think it must be done gradualy, buliding a society without sacrificing individual..
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Who said anything about making the state disappear? I'm not calling for anarchy, no way. I'm AM calling for a return to lawful government with strictly limited federal powers, the state and the people reserving the principle powers and defending individual GOD GIVEN rights.
You are a socialist it's clearly stated on your page. You are not agnostic otherwise you would not display icons defiling the Lord.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 No you didn´t, but even for a state to work at the minimum, there must be smart and selfrighteous persons who can achieve themselves the happines and needs for a decent life, for a minimum state we need minimum needs, if you come around Mexico you´ll know we can´t enter to liberalism that easy.
What i beg for isn´t a communist state, but a state of law and liberty that can achieve a general happiness and satisfaction, than we can handle it better.
minimum state= minimum needs.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
Agreed- our u.s. constitutional republic was INTENDED to operate in a VERY strictly limited way and represent the states to the rest of the world. It was NEVER intended to interact with 'we the people' but rather act in a defense of this country as a whole and the protect/defend the individual rights of the human beings that consented to bring the federal government into existence.
How does ur statement 'state= health, food, edu' equate to MINIMUM? It doesn't. UR either deceived or deceitful.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 I´m a socialdemocrat, and yes, i am a socialist, not a communist which is very diferent.
I´m in a point of moderation, a conservative principle between individuality and equality.
And yes, i´m an agnostic, i attack the religious belief of god, nevertheless i understand the homo sapiens must stay skeptical before such a complicated matter, illogical things can´t be explained logically, from logic we can´t enssure the existence or inexistence of the illogical.
Mrgokueldestructor 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor Re: your being a socialdemocrat / socialist here is what I have to say... That is all fine and well if the form of government in the country you were born or naturalized to IS LEGALLY SOCIALIST. The chief complaint of u.s. citizens is the USURPATION AND DECEIT done to/used against our lawful form of government which is a constitutional republic. THAT is unacceptable. YET, if you advertised or campaigned that US WILL NOW BE SOCIALIST the public would NEVER go for it.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Next Re: Socialism and 'moderation' THERE IS NONE! you surrender your GOD GIVEN RIGHTS to the state. It then claims to give you privileges instead and that IT can grant more or take them away. There's a sucker born every minute and all socialists are suckers to think that gov is benevolent and will take care of you. Mans power over man corrupts and absolutely power of one man over another corrupts absolutely.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@Mrgokueldestructor You call yourself a thing (agnostic) because of doubt others have? It's fair to say God requires faith and thus the other side of the coin is doubt or unfaithful disbelief. However it appears you diffuse your certainty that God does not exist (atheist) with softer terms like agnostic yet pepper the conversation with attempts at mocking or ridicule. This is either ignorance, which is fine because that is curable, or speaking out of both sides of your mouth with is deceitful.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Down with Collectivism!!
CANNaBISnow 1 year ago
@CANNaBISnow A hearty AMEN!
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@CANNaBISnow
Dont worry Collectivism does not exist in America. Enjoy, your downfall.
WorldWarPropaganda 1 year ago
@WorldWarPropaganda: Uhhhh....What are you talking about? The top income bracket (excluding the shady accounting their lawyers help them with) pay well over 1/2 of every dollar to a bureacracy to shower on those who will trade their votes for monthly payments. You're allowed to hate George Bush (as I do), but outright distortion of political reality isn't going to fly on this page.
Holyw4ffl3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" Billionaires Decide Who Lives Who Dies "
If you haven't seen this video on You Tube ...
you must see it...about 5 min long. Its happening folks... if you don't know it... your not watching.
" Billionaires Decide Who Lives Who Dies "
onstageagain 1 year ago
It seems he's ignoring the obvious contradiction of a democratic republic: he says the majority should rule, only without "denying the rights of the individual", and yet rulership is inherently a violation of the ruled. If we accept that the individual has a right to own property, we have to recognise that it is rights-violating to tax him, and yet constitutionalists don't seem to mind taxing people to pay for their preferred level of collectivism. It's an inescapable contradiction.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile No, you appear to be confusing cooperation and set limits on 'rule' in a constitutional republic with what might be your desire or preference for anarchy? There are times and places whereby the individuals agree that a single person cannot defend the whole against foreign enemies for instance. The 'rules' of our republic defend the individual against usurpation of the majority (or is supposed to anyway).
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 Who cares if it's a constitutional republic? No American alive has signed a contract agreeing to be subject to tax slavery and state collectivism, so the existence of the state perpetually and completely violates all individual rights no matter how fancy your constitution is. The contradiction remains inescapable: either you're free to own property, or you're property of the collective state.
And yeah like you admitted at the end there, the rules of the republic have failed awfully.
Hostile 1 year ago
quoting anyusmoon1 "Get thee behind, go hence- your unwelcome here"
gotcha, bye. G Edward Griffin is lacking in education.
Mezocosm 1 year ago
He knows and cares nothing about eastern philosophies
Mezocosm 1 year ago
@Mezocosm So? Neither do I and openly, happily discuss / explain why. Our constitutional republic is not based on 'eastern philosophies' and, thankfully, isn't beholden to them in the slightest.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Ladies and gentlemen here is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the collectivist (mezocosm) and of the reason our founders created written law to rule rather than the desires, fads, whims of groups or despots. mezocosm wrote email rather than in comments the following: Mezocosm
eastern philosophy
Please be responsible in your arguments, its not about winning. It is about the highest understanding possible. Thank you for your video uploads.
What part of upholding law is irresponsible?
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@Mezocosm
This isn't the east.
Ghostski 1 year ago
@Mezocosm
Damn straight, I use to be fascinated with Eastern philosophy before I realized the superior practicality of Western philosophy. There is a reason why most progress in the world these past 500 years has originated in the West, and I believe it is fundamentally a difference in philosophy.
Mezo, you're free to immigrate to communist China or the Philippines, or Singapore if you like eastern ideas so much. They are largely seen for what they are and rejected here.
yoakamae 1 year ago
I fucking love this good man, thank you GEG
Kirin9 1 year ago 7
Thanks for this. As I do research on the emergent church which is very much collective minded when an individual relationship with God(individual salvation) is seen as selfish as they are for the most part involved what is going on today. Google emergent evolution to see how they put this as a part of the whole. Besides quite a bit borrowed from German philosophers, somehow, when they do not offer up a philosopher very much a part of the final solution-well those Jews were just selfish!
daveme7 1 year ago
@daveme7 Very interesting dave, thanks. i definitely will look this up.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
i wish Mr Griffin was my history/economics teacher,maybe i would have stayed awake.
crabtrap 1 year ago
@crabtrap Ha! Good one! Me too. But lets not feel too bad, the education system has been derailed for years- check out Griffins classic interview of Norman Dodd for a real mind blower. Even though it will really tick you off it somehow is vindicating to know the dumbing down of America was deliberately cast upon us rather than an intellectual deficit in the gene pool.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Griffin is the ultimate fighter for truth and liberty. His book, Jekyll Island, was life-changing. God bless him!
69vmac 1 year ago
@69vmac So true! And the particularly wonderful aspect to Griffins approach is the NON blame-game mentality. I cannot tell you how discouraged I am about patriots being divided by the hatreds.
Thank you brother for commenting.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Near every forest are other trees...maybe a few feet away...maybe miles away. At what point do those trees no longer belong to that particular forest? Further proof that the individual trees are the true matrix.
jscottupton 1 year ago
They think that voting for a democrats gives them freedom when really it is the republicans that offer more freedom to the individual.
anchoviehaterz 1 year ago
@anchoviehaterz Unfortunately what has happened is, with debt money systems in place ie Federal Reserve fiat currency; Bankster oligarchs are in charge; they control the 'public' nefariously via phony struggles that suggest a different outcome. 1) democrats control the socialist (labor) faction; 2) republicans control the fascist (corporatist) faction. The outcome always pushes the constitution OUT and the usurpers gain a foothold. Gone on now for 90 years, things are really bad.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
It is the individuals that make the group and collectivism for example, in IRAN the revolution has happened twice there because of the people's choices yet later on they are still unhappy with their decision because the group of people there don't know anything about politics and think that they should follow whatever their peers agree to because they are easily persuaded by them.
anchoviehaterz 1 year ago
so i think that THE INDIVIDUALISTIC REPUBLICANS should rule a country since they individually know whats logically know whats best for all individuals.
anchoviehaterz 1 year ago
@anchoviehaterz So as not to leave the conversation without a remedy to the oligarchy coup please do some research into the Constitution Party or if nothing else the Libertarian Party. These two represent the only hope of an already formed political element to truly represent the constitution and individual freedoms that are to be protected thereby.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Comment removed
anchoviehaterz 1 year ago
You remind me of Glen Beck with one major improvement, you don't end up tying every bad thing that happens back to Obama. A lot of what he says looses credibility with me because he does that.
You rip them all up
I don't know why you take it to heart the way you do but its you not me so I wont judge you for it. Don't give yourself a stroke.
I wish you hadn't turned off embedding. I really want my FB conservative friends, well Republican's that think they are conservative to see this.
Flirtilizer 1 year ago
@Flirtilizer Hi. When you say 'you remind me of Glen Beck' are you referring to, Mr. G. Edward Griffin?
When you say 'you take [it] to heart..' who are you speaking of and what is 'it'?
Just curious... what are 'FB conservatives'?
As to 'embedding' maybe you can paste a link to the video, will that work?
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 sorry, i got confused on where I was posting the comment. I thought i was still on your video, the last one you made. I haven't posted much. Facebook conservative friends. I grew up in the deep south, most of my friends group up to be republicans but they are not conservative. you are, you're more conservative than myself. That's okay, maybe I've not fully learned yet. haha.
Flirtilizer 1 year ago
@Flirtilizer :-) I figured it out :-) Thanks for chiming in again though. Yes, I understand... conservatives aren't really conservative just as potatoes have eyes but cannot see. Pews and government seats are chock full of them.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@Flirtilizer Copy the URL and paste it into your blog. Most people are sophisticated enough to open two sessions of Firefox or two tabs, which ever they prefer which enables watching Youtube and typing comments or rebuttal on a blog. :) Hope that is doable- if you get an traction let me know.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
This Ideal has been showing up a lot in entertainment over the last 5+ years... The BBC show Prime Evil had a whole pinnacle scene in one of the last episodes that even used the line. I also know a few collective groups. They are small and work well, but are psuedo-collective as they have some individual rights and some collective. If a small group wants to live that way fine... but not my nation... no thanks..
wiseroldowl 1 year ago
@wiseroldowl Read your vlog page and thanks for helping to contribute to shining the beacon of truth. Now for the ultimate mind-blower, your next video playlist ought to be the Norman Dodd interview... if you thought you were reeling under the theories represented in Indy v Collectivism, just wait till you see/hear the facts and testimonies of norman Dodd about the education system and non-profit foundations stealing truth, history, culture and nefariously reshaping all to lies and distortion.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 I am going to look it up next. Thanks for the info! I have been watching the decline of education for so long and Homeschooled my 7 children because I really think that Education is only to prepare them for prison and slave work.
wiseroldowl 1 year ago
@wiseroldowl Hallelujah to Home Schoolers!!! YEAH! So pleased to meet you and proud there are Americans left who value not only large families but a lifestyle that includes mothers raising there own, let alone taking the initiative to educate them. All I can say is wow! my hat is off to you.
The Norman Dodd interview, in my opinion, defines the phrase 'must see'... and for all Americans but especially home-schoolers.
Anything by Charlotte Iserbyt is excellent.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Comment removed
BearWindAppleyard 1 year ago
@BearWindAppleyard Uh people (We the People) DO rule and we vote on who will sit in the seat of local, state and some federal positions to DEFEND OUR RIGHTS, period. That's the extent to which this Constitutional Republic is a democracy, the vote. What those idiots in Congress have done is turned the language upside down and inside out where you and others like you don't know what is up or down. Just because the republic employs a democratic tool (the vote) it doesn't mean its a democracy.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 The founding fathers knew that democracies eat themselves from the inside out and are a deplorable form of governance. The founders also knew that the key to this grand new experiment known as a Constitutional Republic relied upon We The People being SELF GOVERNED!
Self governance is entirely predicated upon knowledge of what the government is supposed to do and what it cannot do! It is supposed to defend individual freedom, protect contracts (not be a party to them) and law.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
BearWindAppleyard 1 year ago
Comment removed
BearWindAppleyard 1 year ago
@BearWindAppleyard It never ceases to amaze me the quality of persons that come on this comment section. Thank you for posting this great correction. I appreciate and any others reading here will too.
If you prefer I can delete the prior post- just post a reply here. Thank you. And I'm glad you're one of the ones that 'gets it'. :-)
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 G edward griffin is a faniatic that may have alot of knowedge but is intellectually dishonest. the gold standard will not work. there is no master conspiracy
jonLukasC 1 year ago
@jonLukasC 'A fanatic', 'no master conspiracy' you say? Have you seen the live testimony of Norman Dodd? Read, perchance, the book 'Tragedy and Hope A History of the World in Our Time...' by Carol Quigley? What of the conspiracy of good and evil Christ Himself tells about? Is this intellectually questionable as well?
I strongly suggest you arm yourself better. Pulling out a toy gun against the likes of giants in political thought is foolhardy.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 I have read tragedy and hope the all 1310 pages of it. have you?
it mentions conspiracies but speaks very strongly against the idea of a master conspiracy. Carroll quigley in an interview call the people who believe in the protocols of Zion and Illuminati conspiracies crack pots.
the book also tells of the great loss of power by the international bankers after 1932.
jonLukasC 1 year ago
@jonLukasC In his epic video series "Capitalist Conspiracy" Griffin stands shows exactly where he stands on the subject and in fact clears up much of the confusion and usual bickering between the blame-gamers (religious, political party, race). He dispels the ideas that any one group has the wheel. I don't know where you're coming from and don't think you do either.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
I hate politics honestly im an independant because most of it has to do with fucking competition greed buy outs bail outs etc.. So I do not vote for ANYONE there all fake liars back stabbers who dont really care about the public and care about themselves on getting paid good and making them look good.. So Fuck the government fuck the politicians i aint voting for no one or paying taxes so the stupid immagrents can mooch off of my fucking money FREAKS!!!
TalentlessNoob 1 year ago
@TalentlessNoob I appreciate that you're frustrated and angry, you have an important message for people to read but.... you'll have to rethink the language you use when posting on my videos.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 yeah! sorry about the language but I am NOT paying for my taxes so it can go to illegal immagrents because then I would be considered a criminal in allowing them to enter my country screw that! I'm just frustrated with all the health care bill passing and now the dollar decreasing and Obama pushing more laws its just making me mad.. Obama reminds me a lot like Hitler but thats just my opinion.. I do enjoy the video though so thats a plus lol.. but hope you had a good weekend / week
TalentlessNoob 1 year ago
@TalentlessNoob I totally agree. Injustice is intolerable and especially by government. You might enjoy my recent video called Freedom in Peril- realize though, it is a video reply and thus includes some references to the original poster's vid, but the gist is easily understood. Another vid you might like is 545 People... Anyway, with great respect to your patriotism and pursuit of truth in income tax I salute your willingness to also be a gentleman. :-)
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
I am legion for we are many.
International72521 1 year ago
Groups don't exist? A group is more than one individual. Individuals are an abstract concept, too.
Erudecorp 1 year ago
rubbish, Japan is a collectivist country and look at its freedom, economy, etc
BenTennison16 1 year ago
@BenTennison16 HA! That's a laugh- what part of japan's inflationary recession are you applauding?
Japan has a distinction not found in many other countries and that is a culture of severity in self-governance. America USED to have such fortitude but it is fast becoming a long forgotten attribute.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
The evolution of liberalism is indeed a wonderful guise behind which financial terrorists hide, promoting liberalism when making profits and promoting socialism when making losses which they want the taxpayer to pay for. Neo-Liberalism has been sold as an economic ideology and it has destroyed and continues to destroy economies, putting them further in the back pocket of internationalists.
I like Griffin, but I dont agree with this collective vs Individual arguement. Ayn Rand was a fool btw.
goatman257 1 year ago
@goatman257 You might enjoy my recent video reply to Keynes and His Influence... I talk briefly about stolen words (ie redefining words). Charlotte Iserbyt also lectures widely about the subject of misdirection through redefinition.
Rand fell into lockstep with the NWO crowd and their humanist ideology- that was her biggest failure, IMO.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@goatman257 - what you're describing is socialism. Big Corporations and and taxpayers paying their losses has little to do with Capitalism....Capitalism would prevent exactly what you are describing.
manoman0 1 year ago
@manoman0 goatman is correct to the extent that promoters of socialism were in fact industrialists (actually fascists) who hid behind the terms/labels such "Capitalist", "philanthropist".
They were hell bent on siphoning off the excesses from the middle-class for the sheer power of doing so and to control the future work forces and crush the American spirit ie re-shape the sovereigns into serfs.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
@anyusmoon1 - I still stand to my opinion that "running industries" does not necessarily depict one as being a "capitalist". As you clearly state "..who HID behind..."
manoman0 1 year ago
@manoman0 Yes, it is a sad state of affairs when we have to ask if every debater, every commenter, every inquirer understands the definitions of this or that and THEN ask if the 'actions', 'works' and 'deeds' of the subject industrialist meets with those definitions. Obscurity and lies do make honest inquiry nearly impossible but not quite impossible :-)
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
This is the most ridiculus and hyper-simplistic way of describing things.
Things aren't between collectivists and individualists. Too many flaws in this video to name them all, coupled with the hyper-simplicity is why Libertarianism is a fools ideology. It is a con designed to serve the wealthy minority and there are plenty of suckers who are conned to rail against their own interests in service of those who could care less if they lived or died.
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman The con you push serves the minority sir. This discussion emboldens ALL by recognizing that individuals are first, groups are incidental.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
I disagree with a lot of what he says. He has an obscure perception of what Collectivism is. It isn't neccessarily simply the idea that the majority are superior to the individual, rather that things can be achieved in a greater fashion if we work as a group, and it is our responsibilty as a human being to work as part of a group in order to achieve a ''better-ness'' not just for ourselves, but for society as a whole. And this does work, take Hitlers economic recovery of Germany for example.
Blackoutpr1 2 years ago
@Blackoutpr1 The entire gist of this pertains to GOVERNMENT. You are of course correct that 'man is not an island' and we live harmoniously with other people but do so on a voluntary basis. The entire principle of freedom to choose is what drives success- of everything from faith, love all the way to work and play.
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
Good point, I am the type to not recognise when others make strong arguments, however ''freedom'' is an interesting concept to philosophers. And I personally, in the UK, feel we are not entirely free, in many respects. So my question would be how much freedom would you say is neccessary or sufficient for success? And my other question would be, freedom means one will opress another in some way. Therefore, for the one being oppressed, has freedom not been what has driven their lack of success?
Blackoutpr1 2 years ago
@Blackoutpr1 The only repression of freedom should be stopping you from harming others in either bodily or contractual. If you harm others you must be detained, provided a trial by your peers and if found guilty- penalized.
Same applies to fraud, breaking a contract or other malfeascance.
Other than THAT- you are free.
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
Am I ? Politically we are not free at all in this country. No matter how we vote, our choice in voting will not get us anywhere under the oligarchy that our ''democracy'' is. For example, in the 1984 general elections, the Labour party got 27.6% share of the vote, and 209 seats in parliament. The liberal/SDP got 25.4% of the vote, and only got 23 seats. Clearly, no matter how we vote, due to the current constitution, we are not free to have our votes, our choice represented.
Blackoutpr1 2 years ago
@Blackoutpr1 Er... your question was a philosophical one, was it not? If we're talking about current (socialist, fascist) affairs, ie reality that's a whole different question. :-)
So if we begin with the premise that success, love, peace nor progress, can be achieve without freedom and your question is how do we restore it, we'll need a whole lot more room than 500 characters count :-) But initially it begins at home, the family and education.
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
It was. I was just responding to your statement that I am free with an example to suggest otherwise.
Yes your probably right lol. I have enjoyed this discussion, It is nice to see somebody on youtube who isn't going to either kill me or have sex with my mother.
Blackoutpr1 1 year ago
@Blackoutpr1 What happens when the needs of an individual goes against the needs of the group? Is it morally justified to sacrifice any given individual for the "better-ness" of the group or for society as a whole? And Hitler's recovery of Germany had nothing to do with the success of collectivism. He quit paying reparations, and stole from both his own people and other countries. If you quit paying your credit cards and stole, you would be rich too.
TracyII77 1 year ago 2
Fantastic point ! And i'm sure this is something a lot of people would accept. However for me, as a philosopher, i have to pick up on your use of the word Morally... This opens up a pan of debates in itself, but in responce to your question I can flip it around. Is is morally justified to forgoe the needs / desires of a majority, for a small group? Of course I don't mean killing the minority. But it would be morally ludacris to reject something 99% of a population want due to 1% disagree'ing.
Blackoutpr1 1 year ago
@Blackoutpr1 The problem with your question is the assumption that everyone must follow the decision of either the collective or a single individual. For instance, in the collective, if the majority choose to eat chocolate ice cream, those who do not like chocolate are left to suffer. In your reverse question, you are assuming that one individual is choosing chocolate for the collective. In individualism, we all get our own choice of chocolate or not.
TracyII77 1 year ago
Of course, I am using it for a yes/no situation in politics, rather than a more open question such as you said. For instance, if 78% of the British population wished to leave the EU, would it be fair for a 22% to hold this back, because we need to ''protect the minority'' the answer is no it wouldn't.. There is no individualist approach which can change this from a yes/no question. Somebody is going to lose out. Therefore, it should be the minority, rather than the majority, for obvious reasons.
Blackoutpr1 1 year ago
@Blackoutpr1 Ahh, but there in lies the difference to the collectivist and the individualist. The collectivist assumes that all if not most questions must be applied to the whole. For instance, should pain medication be limited as to how much can be prescribed? What color should people be allowed to paint their houses? Should seat belts be worn as law? Should 16 year olds be limited to how much they can work and earn?
TracyII77 1 year ago
Good point for your selected examples, but in terms of my case of Britain and the EU, there would be no way to escape this affecting the whole. Just for the record im not particularly aligned to collectivism or individualism, i'm just one of those philosophers who likes to criticise ideas :)
Blackoutpr1 1 year ago
@Blackoutpr1 And this is why there exists a role for government. Government exists to arbitrate disputes between individuals where individual wants and needs collide. Anarchy can not exist for long as certain individuals will always push their wants and needs above others. The problem with collectivists is that they try head off disputes by assuming the wants and needs of individuals by forcing them into groups. This is the definition of stereotyping, an evil all its own.
TracyII77 1 year ago
Of course it cannot, Anarchism is the weakest political ideology in my opionion.
Blackoutpr1 1 year ago
Noone really sees the Versailles treaty and IT'S role in creating Nazi Germany..
The French deliberately stepped on Germany out of revenge and rivalry, and placed INSANE monetary and economic demands on Germany, and then abused them with the French and Belgian armies when Germany couldn't comply.
They also hyperinflated the German dollar and deliberately created the state of desperation that caused Germany to come out swinging. Leave it up to the French to make enemies..
Shawnster65 1 year ago
@Shawnster65 I was not denying the fact that the reparations were unjust and were the catalyst that brought the Nazis to power. I was pointing out the fact that Hitler was not the economic genius that everyone makes him out to be. In fact, his economic recovery was limited and short lived. After unilaterally canceling Germany's debt, he relied on theft and slavery to grow the German economy.
TracyII77 1 year ago
Very true, and agreed. :-)
As far as theft and slavery, Germany
was in just that spot under the Versailles treaty, and unfortunately, 2 wrongs never made a right.
And no, Hitler was not an economic genius, he simply adapted the tactics of those who created him.
France was warned by the US, Britian and Italy, NOT to do this, but they laughed and shrugged it off.
This should be a warning from history: NEVER underestimate desperation or ridicule those in that state.
Shawnster65 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anarcho collectivism is the best system.
HailRasec 2 years ago
And in 2009 Obama care is trying to Kill Granny!
ngonea 2 years ago 2
collectivism is what has lead to the global tyranny and persecution called gangstalking
seaneire 2 years ago 8
Indeed it has.
If you haven't seen it... the six-part series, on my playlist, of G Edward Griffins interview of Norman Dodd is MUST SEE eyewitness testimony of who, what, when and where this very thing took over our education system etc.
anyusmoon1 2 years ago