-Caveat Lector- .............................................................. Forwarded from the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]: From: Book Search Co-ordinator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Conspiracy Theory and Libertarianism Date: Saturday, October 23, 1999 11:05 AM My my, James, what a change. You've moved from your usual name calling and abuse to something with some substance. [Not very much substance, as we shall see below, but any improvement is welcome.] Oh come off it, James. You know very well, if you are half as educated as you claim to be, that the modern tradition of liberty originated as an ENGLISH reaction to the failed ENGLISH Revolution of the 17th Century, and that the American Revolution of a hundred years later was simply a continuance of that dissident tradition. James Responds: Your ethocentrism is a bit telling Craig. Liberty, I am sure, has a wider pedigree than you imply. Further, the modern tradition of liberty is just about extinguished, esp. in Britain...perhaps because it was always more fraud than reality. >The 17th Century English revolution was a Religious revolution. Basically, >the Puritans wanted control of the State to impose their own tyranny as >opposed to the tyranny of a Catholic or Church of England power structure! >Liberty had little or nothing to do with it. Surely, Britain did evolve >fairly decent traditions of tolerance, liberty and law prior to Continental >Religious tyrannies like France, Russia, etc Learning from the exhaustion >of the religious wars and an infusion of the French Enlightenment of >Voltaire, the Illuminati, etc. America was Established with a better >tradition of Liberty, but mostly, as Spooner and others have shown, liberty >was often just a rationalization for a new Oligarchy and more subtle >tyranny. Too bad the Federalists beat the anti-Federalists. You just simply don't seem to be able to read, James. If you will look at what I said, it was not that the dominate institutions in either Britain or the U.S. were libertarian but that the modern tradition of liberty [i.e., LIBERTARIANISM] that arose as a REACTION to the FAILED English Revolution. I don't think that this is a bit ethnocentric, since if you bother to look at the French and Russian traditions of liberty you will find that (1) they were largely inspired by the very roots I point to, rather than having a domestic origin and (2) they were highly flawed from the outset [see Hayek's essays on "Liberty: True and False" etc.] The Italian liberty movement is something else entirely, but no one in the U.S. seems very familiar with that tradition in any case, and since I live in the U.S. my silly ethnocentrism [to say nothing of pragmatism] tends to focus on what matters here rather than in the remnants of East Prussia. > >>>or, to put it more bluntly, that >>I'm working from reality and you're working from fantasy. I make a whole >>series of substantive criticisms of the way that you go about your analysis >>of the world, and, instead of focusing on any of those points or responding >>to any of those points, you say I'm "lying about you" because you really >>didn't mean that it was a bad thing that Reagan and the Pope "conspired" to >>liberate Poland. [Then why did you bring it up as a "conspiracy" James? >>>Isn't a "conspiracy" a bad thing in your world?] >> >>James Responds: You will never catch me saying conspiracy is necessarily a >>"bad" thing...it is constant and everywhere and relative. The Pope and >>Reagan's plan was good for US Imperialism, bad for Soviet Imperialism, >>problematical for British Imperialism, good for the Germans etc. > >Well then, James, why is conspiracy so central to your analysis of how the >world works, one might say the only element of your analysis? If conspiracy >per se is a neutral thing, and merely a natural tendency of individuals >seeking the aid and assistance of their fellows, why are you so obsessed >with conspiracies? The primary persons that historically have been >similarly so obsessed have been royalists or other supporters of some >established order of things that see a "conspiracy" [usually inspired by >Satan or mad anarchists] to disrupt their holy institutions. > >James Responds: I can't help it that so many libertarians are rock headed >about conspiratorial ruling class theory. The government is obviously a >conspiracy against liberty....Am I obsessed with conspiracy or are "normal >people" just blind as bats? Let's assume for the moment that there is such a thing as "the government" [which there isn't], then the result of your observation that it is engaged in a "conspiracy against liberty" is, what exactly, James? Is the result that we should swallow just any urban legend that someone comes up with about what "the government' is up to now? Is the implication that since "the government" is engaged in a "conspiracy against liberty" that we should be worried about the Pope or the Royal Family taking over and striping us of whatever liberty we have left. Sorry, James, but this evasion doesn't wash. Most libertarians understand [or should understand] that it is [to use the shorthand expressions that you guys seem to be able to comprehend] the "nature" of government to be a perpetual enemy of liberty and to always tend toward the most outrageous acts of tyranny. From that one can't deduce, however, any of the outlandish nonsense that you and your fellow conspiracy buffs daily toss around. > I just apply praxeology to all human action, >not just the sterile case that von Mises analyzed. Von Mises and most other >economists analyze the case in which force and fraud is outlawed. The more >common case is where force and fraud are overtly and covertly >institutionalized at the behest of a conspiratorial ruling class. Where do you get this stuff, James? Have you ever read Mises? Do you have any idea what "praxeology" is about? > >>Why do you >>project simple mindedness? Never heard of the subjective theory of value? >>A praxeological principle that applies to human action including >conspiracy. > >James, please don't lecture me on economics, I have a Ph.D. in the subject >and was reading Mises before you were born. > >James Responds: Apparently, you read von Mises so long ago you forgot to >view conspiracies in the context of subjective value. Just how old are you? >Are you so sure I am young? I read von Mises when I was in college in >1964. Sorry, I confused young of spirit [not particularly wise] with young chronologically. In 1964 I was 15, not yet in college and it would be another year or two before I'd read most of what Mises had written. Mea culpa. Now I suggest you go back and reread it. > >>It may be possible to define an objective "good" and "bad", but certainly >>the validity of conspiracy theory does not rest upon such an >accomplishment. > >Well, I fail to see the point of your version of "conspiracy theory" if it >never gets around to distinguishing between good and bad conspiracies. > >James Responds: Better get back to praxeology. Do you need to identify >good economic firms vs bad economic firms to study economics.....you again >are forgetting or never understood subjective value. James, you're not addressing the point again. The point of praxeology and the rest of technical economics is to describe the propensities for one sort of action versus other sorts that arise in alternative institutional settings. The whole "economic calculation" argument, for instance, is not to say that capitalism is "good" and socialism is "bad," but simply to say that if socialism does what it says it will do that it can't then carry out certain functions that we more or less take for granted in a market based system. As opposed to this sort of positivist [value neutral] analysis, your whole approach is normative from the outset. The proposition you seem to start from is not merely that people have a tendency to form "conspiracies" [otherwise know as "coalitions" or "clubs" or whatever] to promote their mutual private and collective goals [probably a true hypothesis for various reasons] but that such conspiracies are per se bad because they are conspiracies, and that we should spend our time going about exposing such conspiracies. Further, James, instead of concentrating on a marshalling of evidence for and against an alleged act of a given conspiracy the "reasoning" usually seems to go something like this: (1) there is what appears to be a flu epidemic internationally, but this epidemic is atypical in certain respects [it is, for instance, more severe than most and the particular virus seems to be reoccurrent over a long period of time]; (2) these results might also be consistent with repeated spraying of toxins on the populations experiencing the epidemic; (3) certain persons here and there have reported black helicopters spraying something; (4) we know that the U.S. and other governments have, at various times, subjected groups of people to infections or toxins, with or without their knowledge and consent, to test out these "techniques"; (5) THEREFORE, the recent flu epidemic is not a flu epidemic at all, but the U.S. and Britain [led no doubt by the Pope and Queen] are systematically spraying their populations with bacterial agents or toxins that are creating flu like symptoms. Sorry, James, but the above sort of argument just doesn't cut mustard, either from the standpoint of building a credible case of a certain activity or as an implication of "praxeology" or the observation that "governments are engaged in a conspiracy against liberty. It is simply a jumble of wild conjectures hooked together with rumor and innuendo. And, frankly, I've never seen you do anything but the above sort of "analysis". > >[Neither do I see that you have ever made this distinction before, but >let's presume otherwise.] So, o.k., let's take your positivist >interpretation for a minute and ask what exactly conspiracy theory does for >us. Does it, perhaps, tell us something that is of interest to someone >other than the academic historian [who wants to know who did what] or the >public prosecutor [who wants to know who to have arrested and prosecuted]? >No it doesn't. The fact that certain people have certain motives or goals >for what they do doesn't AT ALL effect the results of their actions. You >may show that those 18th Century Jewish International Bankers formed a >conspiracy to monopolize the world's gold supply, but then, as Adam Smith >showed, something else would simply take the place of gold as money. The >British Royal Family may want to rule the world, but their ability to do so >is quite another thing. Have you ever heard of the economic/sociological >principal of the "results of human action, but not of human intentions," >[Ferguson & Hayek] James? Did you ever imagine that wishes and intentions >aren't the same thing as consequences and results? If you understand that >distinction, James, then why do you care that this group or that wants to >do this or that? A truly positivist interpretation of >social/economic/political consequences of various SYSTEMS or proposals for >change is a result of the analysis of the structure [of incentives created >by the structure] of institutions, not an analysis of the conspiracies of >groups or the intentions of individuals. Mises is not to the contrary. > >James Responds: Don't lecture me on economics. I read von Mises and >Rothbard and Popper and von Hayek in the early 1960's. Study of the >empirical data shows the extent to which various conspiracies are effective >or frustrated. Why would you think I think that all are successful....LYING >AGAIN? Compulsive lying! I'm sorry that you are having trouble reading again, James, perhaps the above additional example will help. [But I doubt it.] > >The point of conspiracy theory is that elites achieve their >quasi-monopolistic positions by building and manipulating a powerful State >that provides the special privileges that keep them in power and rich, ie. >they enlist to State to prevent the competion that would othewise create a >truly pluralistic, libertarian tending society. They do this by Statist >propaganda campaigns to convince the people that an all powerful State will >serve the people while knowing that the State always serves the elite at the >expense of the people. Well, if this is the point, they why the obsession with the Queen [who is entirely powerless to do anything with the British state or any other] and the Pope [who has power only over the Vatican]. If you are looking for those "elites [who] achieve their quasi-monopolistic positions by building and manipulating a powerful State" these choices would seem to be at the bottom of the list. That they are at the top of this list tells us what about your credibility, James? > >A related point of conspiracy theory is geopolitical analysis. The final >outcome of geopolitics is the collision of the various conspiratorial power >blocs. Not at all irrelevant. > >> >>>You also contend that you >>have NEVER stated that the Queen is head of the International Drug Cartel, >>although you persistently and always maintain equally absurd things about >>>the royal family [such as their desire AND ABILITY to rule the world]. >> >>James Responds: No desire for world rule? Now that is rich. > >Can't read, can you, James? Even when I put it in caps for you and >illustrate it through examples. Desire is one thing. Ability is another >thing > >James Responds: Never said that desire and ability are the same thing. >Liar! See above and your webpage. > >> The Royal >>Family patronized the Rhodes/Milner Round Table Groups at the turn of the >>Century for nothing? The Royal Family has seen themselves as world >>conquerors, Caesars or Alexanders, for Centuries. Never said they had the >>ability under current circumstances to rule the world. > >Then what exactly is the point? I'm certain that the current rulers of >Ethiopia also have the desire to rule the world [as do you], but I'm not >concerned about them [or you] achieving that goal. As I said before, if you >have an unlimited amount of time to waste, I suppose that you can spend it >worrying about hypotheticals rather than realities. Most of us don't have >that luxury. > >James Responds: The power of the British Oligarchy is no longer what it >was, but it remains an extremely powerful bloc and one of the more >disciplined economic/intellectual power blocs. Last time I checked, Britain >is still the largest foreign investor in America. No accident that most of >the anti-Clinton propaganda emanated out of Britain and Rupert Murdoch. I see. Now criticisms of Clinton are a Royal Family conspiracy. Interesting. Everytime I think that you've come up with the ultimate in weird hypotheses you top your previous efforts. >Watergate was the British Anglophile reaction to the Nixon-Rockefeller >opening to China which infringed on Britain's traditional entree to China >via Hong Kong. This time around, the Rockefeller stooge (Clinton) is much >better insulated from Brit/Anglophile attacks. Apparently, the Rockefeller >forces effectively control the major media (except for Rupert Murdoch's Fox) >to thwart the Brit/Mellon Scaife campaign. Let's assume that all of this is true, James. From this important knowledge what can we deduce [be specific] about what should be done and how we should react differently than we might otherwise? Is Clinton to be supported because the Royals are after him? Is he any less despicable as a President or a human being? How about Nixon? What exactly is the lesson to be learned, James? > >> Quite the contrary I >>have stated that they are one of several geopolitical power groups. >>Compared to their prime prior to WWI when they were fairly close to ruling >>the world, they are hard pressed, fighting against other power groups for >>control of the American "dumb giant" super-power. > >Come off it, James. The British Royal Family has had zero power, zip, >nadda, since the 19th Century. > > >James Responds: Guess I will have to lecture you on history as well. The >British Empire reached its greatest power just prior to WWI. That is nice, but we were talking about the Royal Family. Now you've slipped over into talking about the British Empire. Can you tell the difference? > Its greatest >geographical extent between the Wars when the whole Middle East fell to it. >Only World War II allowed the Rockefeller/US Empire to take precedence. >The Queen, a multi-Billionaire, meets with the leaders of the City regularly >to co-ordinate the control of Parliament via Patronage and bribery just as >William of Orange used his financiers after the Glorious Revolution to >control Parliament in the interest of supporting his wars against Lous XIV >in the interests of the Netherlands. What utter nonsense. The Queen controls Parliament through use of her vast billions and extensive power over the City of London. Oh my, God, what a moron. > > >>>The problem we're having, James, is that you can't seem to address any of >>>my substantive points >> >>James Responds: What substantive points?...one would think you would >>mention again these VERY cogent points. Please state them concisely >without >>lying so I can deal with them. That should be a real challenge for you. > >See above and my previous post [which you have conveniently erased]. > >> >>>, but pick at every small tangential point possible. I >>tend to view that as either psychosis or, much more likely, blatantly and >>consistently dishonest and a very deliberate attempt to draw attention away >>from the substance of my responses to you and your fellow conspiracy >>fanatics. You, on the other hand, state that I "consistently lie," although >>the only "lies" you point to are fairly justifiable characterizations of >>>what you say every day. >> >>James Responds: I pick at your characterizations because they are >>mischaracterizations. Your lies are all that makes them "work". Your >>compulsive lying behavior is probably a subconscious defense of the Statist >>memes that infect your mind. > >No, James, I think that it is due to the alpha wave disrupter that the >state has aimed at my brain which is currently unprotected by an official >A-albionic aluminium bennie. Or maybe it is an after effect of the toxins >sprayed in our neighborhood by black helicopters. Or ...... > > >James Responds: Ah! Silly characterizations! That clinches your >argument, I suppose? No, but it ACCURATELY isolates the character of your arguments. > >> >>>Doesn't seem like there is much middle ground, does there? You think I'm a >>compulsive lier, and I think that you're a psychotic and/or a deliberate >>deceiver [or, in the technical language that you may feel more at home >>>with, "a confusion agent"]. >> >>James Responds: There are many paradigms of reality that people can hold >in >>the face of the same data. Not at all surprising that there is little >>middle ground between folk within varying memetic fields. There should be >a >>wide gap between advocates of liberty and memetically manipulated "cells" >of >>the State. Check your premises! >> >> James >> > >Please, James, don't even try to paternalize me or spin off some silly >psychological theory that you picked up from one of our local [Arizona] >scamsters. It is just toooooo obvious. > > >James Responds: Arizona? Now you lie about non existent Arizona >associates? Never been there! > >Craig Bolton That is, however, where this "mimetic field" babble originated from, James. Perhaps you haven't heard, you don't have to physically visit a place anymore to pick up some meaningless terminology from one of its residents. CJB a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by: *********************************** Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales, rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. To Discuss Ideas: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/ For Ordering Info & Free Catalog: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html For Discussion List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] text in body: subscribe prj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ** Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html> Every Diet Has Failed! What Can I do? Click Below to "Ask Dr. Kathleen"! http://www.radiantdiet.com/cgi-bin/slim/deliver.cgi?ask-1364 *********************************** DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
