Posts tagged Neocon
The recent opening of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity was a watershed moment in American history. There has never been anything quite like it. Ideologically diverse, the Ron Paul Institute reaches out to all Americans, and indeed to people all over the world, who find the spectrum of foreign-policy opinion in the United States to be unreasonably narrow. Until Ron Paul and his new institute, there was no resolutely anti-interventionist foreign-policy organization to be found.
Neoconservatives have not responded warmly to the announcement of Ron’s new institute. Whatever their particular gripes, we can be absolutely certain of the real reason for their unhappiness: they have never faced systematic, organized opposition before.
The Democrats would see Lincoln pried out of his temple before supporting nonintervention abroad, so they pose no fundamental problem for the neocons. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is real opposition, and he can mobilize an army. The neocons know it. What’s Tim Pawlenty up to these days? Where are his legions of well-read young fans who seek to carry on his philosophy? You see the point.
For the first time, strict nonintervention will have a permanent voice in American life. It is another nail in the neocon coffin. The neocons know they are losing the young. Bright kids who believe in freedom aren’t rallying to Mitt Romney or David Horowitz, and, like anyone with a critical mind and a moral compass, they are not going along with the regime’s war propaganda.
At this historic moment, I thought it might be appropriate to set down some thoughts on war – a manifesto for peace, as it were.
(1) Our rulers are not a law unto themselves.
Our warmakers believe they are exempt from normal moral rules. Because they are at war, they get to suspend all decency, all the norms that govern the conduct and interaction of human beings in all other circumstances. The anodyne term “collateral damage,” along with perfunctory and meaningless words of regret, are employed when innocent civilians, including children, are maimed and butchered. A private individual behaving this way would be called a sociopath. Give him a fancy title and a nice suit, and he becomes a statesman.
Let us pursue the subversive mission of applying the same moral rules against theft, kidnapping, and murder to our rulers that we apply to everyone else.
(2) Humanize the demonized.
We must encourage all efforts to humanize the populations of countries in the crosshairs of the warmakers. The general public is whipped into a war frenzy without knowing the first thing – or hearing only propaganda – about the people who will die in that war. The establishment’s media won’t tell their story, so it is up to us to use all the resources we as individuals have, especially online, to communicate the most subversive truth of all: that the people on the other side are human beings, too. This will make it marginally more difficult for the warmakers to carry out their Two Minutes’ Hate, and can have the effect of persuading Americans with normal human sympathies to distrust the propaganda that surrounds them.
(3) If we oppose aggression, let us oppose all aggression.
If we believe in the cause of peace, putting a halt to aggressive violence between nations is not enough. We should not want to bring about peace overseas in order that our rulers may turn their guns on peaceful individuals at home. Away with all forms of aggression against peaceful people.
(4) Never use “we” when speaking of the government.
The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say “we” when discussing the US government’s foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of “we” when discussing their government’s foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.
But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government’s foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them – why, you’re insulting my foreign policy!
Likewise, the use of “we” feeds into war fever. “We” have to get “them.” People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, “they” can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice “we” dispense to them.
The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes “we” have committed. But we haven’t committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.
(5) War is not “good for the economy.”
A commitment to peace is a wonderful thing and worthy of praise, but it needs to be coupled with an understanding of economics. A well-known US senator recently deplored cuts in military spending because “when you cut military spending you lose jobs.” There is no economic silver lining to war or to preparation for war.
Those who would tell us that war brings prosperity are grossly mistaken, even in the celebrated case of World War II. The particular stimulus that war gives to certain sectors of the economy comes at the expense of civilian needs, and directs resources away from the improvement of the common man’s standard of living.
Ludwig von Mises, the great free-market economist, wrote that “war prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest.”
Elsewhere, Mises described the essence of so-called war prosperity: it “enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income.”
(6) Support the free market? Then oppose war.
Ron Paul has restored the proper association of capitalism with peace and nonintervention. Leninists and other leftists, burdened by a false understanding of economics and the market system, used to claim that capitalism needed war, that alleged “overproduction” of goods forced market societies to go abroad – and often to war – in search for external markets for their excess goods.
This was always economic nonsense. It was political nonsense, too: the free market needs no parasitical institution to grease the skids for international commerce, and the same philosophy that urges nonaggression among individual human beings compels nonaggression between geographical areas.
Mises always insisted, contra the Leninists, that war and capitalism could not long coexist. “Of course, in the long run war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations…. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war…. The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another.”
“The market economy,” Mises said simply, “means peaceful cooperation and peaceful exchange of goods and services. It cannot persist when wholesale killing is the order of the day.”
Those who believe in the free and unhampered market economy should be especially skeptical of war and military action. War, after all, is the ultimate government program. War has it all: propaganda, censorship, spying, crony contracts, money printing, skyrocketing spending, debt creation, central planning, hubris – everything we associate with the worst interventions into the economy.
“War,” Mises observed, “is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds; war destroys.”
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things.
Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all.
Peace builds. War destroys.
May 1, 2013
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and CEO of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.
Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Ron Paul has been retired from Congress for only a few months, but he’s certainly not shying away from politics. The former US representative has already announced his new project: the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
In a press release sent to the media Friday afternoon, the Ron Paul camp confirms that the long-time Texas representative will launch a think-tank of sorts in order to carry on his ideologies after his time in office has ended.
“After decades in and out of the US House of Representatives leading the call for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties, Dr. Paul is launching a revolutionary new vehicle to expand his efforts. The Institute will serve as the focal point of a new coalition that crosses political, ideological and party lines,” the statement begins.
According to the press release, the Ron Paul Institute will focus mainly on two issues: education and coming generations.
“It will fill the growing demand for information on foreign affairs from a non-interventionist perspective through a lively and diverse website, and will provide unique educational opportunities to university students and others,” his office says.
“The neo-conservative era is dead. The ill-advised policies pushed by the neo-cons have everywhere led to chaos and destruction, and to a hatred of the United States and its people. Multi-trillion dollar wars have not made the world a safer place; they have only bankrupted our economic future. The Ron Paul Institute will provide the tools and the education to chart a new course with the understanding that only through a peaceful foreign policy can we hope for a prosperous tomorrow.”
Ron Paul, 77, says he will formally unveil his latest endeavor next Wednesday at a conference in Washington, DC, only a stone’s throw from the congressional office he occupied for nearly three decades. Slated to attend the conference are the members of the Institute’s board of advisors, which contains a number of high-profile names including noted economist Lew Rockwell, the CEO of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a longtime collaborator of Paul’s — he served as the congressman’s chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, and later advised the politician as he vied for the presidency.
Also on the Institutes board is Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (NC), Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (TN), former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Just earlier this month, Ron Paul unveiled his own homeschooling curriculum for students, which he describes as a program aimed to provide “education in liberty like no other.”
“Students will be exposed to thinkers they would never encounter in a government school. They will know history and economics better than anyone their age,” Rockwell wrote in an editorial announcing the start of the “Ron Paul Curriculum” published in The Daily Bell.
Photo source: http://rt.com
Published on Jan 26, 2013 by Eduardo89rp
Ron Paul giving the Carl Davis Distinguished Lecture on “The Libertarian Future”
“I don’t think (Ron Paul supporters) have been disrespected.” – Mitt Romney
The Grand Old Party produced a scripted appeal to the faithful. The 2012 Republican Party convention in Tampa, designed to sell a filtered image of a country club version of conservatism, begs the historic substance of a traditional embodiment of true timeless values. Hitting a range of obligatory themes is not equivalent to standing for the principles of a constitutional republic. Appealing to the estranged elements of the GOP needs more than words to restore faith and hope. Reasoned policy stands require a refutation of the failure of the Neoconservative agenda. So do not be duped by the language in the platform.
The indomitable Phyllis Schlafly loves the planks, in the article: Republican Party platform best yet.
“It rejects a long list of United Nations treaties, including the treaty on women’s rights, the treaty on the rights of the child, the treaty on persons with disabilities, the arms trade treaty and the Law of the Sea treaty. The platform also rejects Agenda 21, including its proposal for a global tax and various U.N. declarations on the environment.
Altogether, the 2012 Republican Platform is an excellent document written by grass-roots conservatives. It is a true reflection of American values.”
Now how can any red blooded conservative disagree with a political party that rejects the globalism of the United Nations? Well, our distinguished champion at the Eagle Forum engages in wishful thinking, if she believes that the platform is anything more than tomorrows fish wrapper paper.
For a concise analysis of the irrelevance of the planks in the platform, view the John Nichols: Mitt Romney Versus the Tea Party video. In politics, deeds count, while rhetoric blows away with the wind.
Judge a campaign by the political handlers and their records. Examine the viewpoints that the political endorsers are committed to their core. The notion expressed by the New York Times in Platform’s Sharp Turn to Right Has Conservatives Cheering may give temporary joy, but the ugly underbelly of the NeoCon purity sect is at work to purge the party of the residual of real conservatives.
** I’d like to preface this to the Daily Paul crowd by saying that this was written directly to neo-cons who don’t actually realize that they’re neo-cons and that while some here might not relate to my opinions or share my journey to enlightenment, I feel that many will. **
I’m sick of my only option being which establishment candidate can you stomach the most? How many times will we have to say “I don’t really like any of them, but…” and vote right down party line. I’m 29. I voted for the “compassionate conservative” Bush in 2000 because he was the republican. I defended the hell out of him and voted for him again in 2004, obviously, because he was the republican. Same in ’08. I naively wanted Romney, but voted McCain (like there is any difference) so I could help the team win.
I listened to Rush and Levin and Glenn. I watched Foxnews and only Foxnews, regularly. I’d brag about how “I don’t watch the mainstream media” unable to see the irony that Fox has more viewers than every other cable news channel combined. I would go to Drudge multiple times daily and keep up with only the news cycle that he peddled. I was informed. I knew I was informed. Liberals know nothing, liberals hate and are destroying this country, liberals don’t care about patriotism OR the constitution OR freedom, blah, blah, blah. While that’s true, they don’t I was never looking at the other side of the same coin. Why hadn’t they informed me of the path of destruction, debt, and disregard for our Constitution that the “conservative” majority Congress and Bush had actively been undertaking for the last two decades? Why don’t they ever talk about how deficit spending really started under Reagan, ramped up with Clinton, and then exploded with Bush? And why wasn’t I smart enough to see through it?
The reason is that the “conservative” party was hijacked long before many of us were ever born and we’ve never gotten a chance to truly appreciate or learn about what REAL conservatism is. We get accustomed to getting our news from comfortable sources. Sources that reinforce our beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are right. Here’s something everyone should know: Ron Paul is the last remnant of what, for the majority of our nation’s history, was considered conservative.
By Chuck Baldwin
Aug 6, 2010
The GOP is frantically searching for the person who will lead them to the Promised Land (translate: White House) in 2012. Barack Obama is leaving a death stench so heavy that even most of the political allies in his own party are asking him to stay away from their reelection campaigns. You gotta give it to Obama: he has done in one term what most Presidents cannot accomplish until their second (lame duck) term. The problem is, the GOP just can’t seem to find their Moses (or even their Ronald Reagan). That means, as far fetched as it sounds now, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. And, once again, when any Democrat candidate for President wins, the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves. 2012 could be another example.
You see, the GOP (including their lackeys at Fox News) either really don’t know what a constitutional conservative looks like, or they do know what he or she looks like and don’t want them leading the party. I believe the answer is the latter, but in either case, the GOP continually does nothing to groom constitutionalist conservatives for leadership. Just the opposite: such people are routinely ignored, shunned, besmirched, or impugned. (Can anyone say, “Ron Paul”?) Is it any wonder that by the time the general election comes around, the GOP candidate for President is usually nothing more than a Democrat-lite, or a “Democrat in Drag” to borrow from Steve Farrell.
That brings me to one of the people that the talking heads at Fox News and other GOP propaganda centers are routinely discussing as their 2012 Presidential hopeful: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
According to Reuters News, “Republican former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday [July 25th] he will decide after November’s congressional elections whether he will make a run for the White House in 2012.”
Here’s what Gingrich is looking at: he wants to see if the GOP makes significant gains in both houses of Congress in the November elections. If the GOP wins one house (especially if enough real conservatives win), I predict Gingrich will enter the race. So he can ride a conservative wave into the White House in 2012? No! So he can derail any potential conservative momentum that the Tea Parties might be able to create in this year’s November elections. You see, Newt Gingrich is the Grinch Who Stole Conservatism from the GOP.
Some of us are old enough to remember Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” that produced huge Republican victories in both houses of Congress back in 1994. However, what did that “Conservative Revolution” (as it was called then) actually produce? The answer: NOTHING! Newt’s promise of smaller government was immediately forgotten. Instead, Gingrich, along with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, facilitated and helped orchestrate further expansion of the federal government. The “less government” theme that swept house freshmen such as Joe Scarborough, Steve Largent, Sonny Bono, Bob Barr, Helen Chenoweth, John Shadegg, and J.C. Watts into Congress quickly evaporated and this new neocon Republican Party was born.
Mark it down, if Newt Gingrich is the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee in 2012, he will do to whatever grassroots conservative momentum is brought about by this year’s congressional victories what he did to the “Conservative Revolution” in 1994: DESTROY IT!
Newt’s track record is there for anyone to see. So, why does Fox News continue to promote him as a leader of smaller government or constitutionalism? Does Fox News even have a clue as to what limited government really means? Apparently not.
Remember, Newt Gingrich is a long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is a notorious proponent of globalism and archenemy of national independence, State sovereignty, and limited government. Does anyone at Fox News recall what Admiral Chester Ward said about the CFR? (Plus, how many of the Big Shots at Fox News are themselves members of the CFR?)
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956 to 1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common–they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”
Aaron Jones is at CPAC representing Revolution PAC to bring Ron Paul supporters across the nation independent, insider coverage about the factions within the conservative movement. Aaron reports that while there is of course the normal talk and posturing from the neocons there is something that no one is talking about. Ron Paul’s absence at CPAC is in many ways doing more to bring attention to the man and his ideals than his presence would. Aaron reports to the RevPac HQ that there are many subtle flirtations with ideas of auditing the Fed, returning to the gold standard, and the destruction of American civil liberties. Ron Paul and his ideas are the elephant in the room at CPAC this year as many supporters have come to show their support for liberty in this largely establishment stronghold. These Patriots are showing the “conservatives” attending that we are here to stay; that we will take the message of liberty where it is needed regardless of whether Dr. Paul is there. There is no doubt that Ron Paul’s ideals are influencing the conversation at CPAC this year and will continue to do so. No one defects from the cause of liberty once their minds have been awakened.
Watch the video for a surprise appearance by Ron Paul!
Stay tuned to more updates from Revolution PAC and our boots on the ground as our CPAC coverage continues.
What is scary is that Obama is interchangeable with Perry, Romney, Gingrich, or even George Bush. And on every issue they would be the same. Do you like the flyer in the video? Grab that and more here http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27703&p=17… print them and share them. And share this video.
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
GINGRICH’S NEOCON THINK TANK BEHIND RON PAUL ATTACKS )
The US State Dept funds a group called the FDD – Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This is a neocon think-tank where the Ron Paul attacks are originating. Specifically from a guy named James Kirchick. And guess who’s an advisor at FDD? Newt Gingrich.
google: Gingrich Skulking Behind Ron Paul Attacks
GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, a corporate-financier sponsored Council on Foreign Relations member also was a “distinguished advisor” at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a warmongering, Neo-Con think-tank and the architects of both the costly unending wars America has been fighting for the last 2 decades and the resulting war profiteering. The FDD is also the same think-tank from which attacks against Ron Paul are being launched via FDD “fellow” James Kirchick.
Image: A screenshot from FDD’s website featuring James Kirchick’s profile. Kirchick is leading an attack on GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, falsely accusing him of being racist and “antisemitic.” The fact that Newt Gingrich, a contender in the GOP presidential race, is also involved with the FDD calls into question the integrity and legitimacy of the US State Department-funded FDD, Kirchick, and Gingrich himself. (click image to enlarge)
The FDD, perhaps in an attempt to maintain some sort of “plausible deniability” has removed Gingrich’s name from their organizational charts, however letters he signed as an FDD “distinguished advisor” can be found dated 2007-2008. The Land Destroyer Report had also cited throughout this year that Newt Gingrich was still an adviser at FDD, however the links are now dead.
Image: A screen shot from AEI’s website (accessed December 21, 2011) featuring Newt Gingrich’s profile which states he is an advisory board member of the FDD. (click image to enlarge)
Compounding this immense conflict of interest and possible fraud, is the fact that Newt Gingrich is also a “former senior fellow,” and currently a “scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute which hosted a recent GOP presidential foreign policy debate. Gingrich’s biography on the AEI website also states that he is, “an advisory board member of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies,” suggesting that indeed, he is a current adviser at the FDD from which recent attacks on Ron Paul have originated.
s it then hypocrisy, or irony that FDD has on its leash a homosexual “journalist,” Kirchick, ceaselessly attacking Gingrich’s and other establishment GOP contenders’ only real competition, Ron Paul? Especially when Gingrich has used the issue of homosexuality as a political football throughout his career, including during his current presidential campaign?
Kirchick is described by the FDD as, “a leading voice on American gay politics and international gay rights, he is a contributing writer to the Advocate, the nation’s largest gay publication. Mr Kirchick is a recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Journalist of the Year Award.” Either Kirchick is disingenuous about his concerns for promoting the homosexual cause, or Gingrich and his Neo-Conservative peers are disingenuous in opposing it. At the end of the day, it isn’t about sexual orientation, it is about the pandemic of exploitative deceit and hypocrisy that infests America’s political establishment.
It would seem Gingrich’s “moral” views hold steady for as long as he is in front of the camera, and in reality is willing to work with anyone and do anything to climb up the sycophantic ladder of globalist elitism, at the cost of the principles he disingenuously peddles, and the well-intentioned people who foolishly invest their trust in him.
Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at
Land Destroyer Report.
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
For the record, not a GB fan, as I have seen shows done extremely well (G. Edward Griffin) and many others done for ratings verses information. This sniplet I thought was worth sharing.
With all of the history lessons we should have learned about the Constitution.
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!