Replies

Sorry I took so long getting back to you. This by way of suggestion is where you lay out some very errant premises, adopted in the name of expediency.

We have moved into a newer century of trade unparalleled. Of interactions all across the world, unparalleled. (China excepted for known reasons).

We have moved into a century of trade heavily subsidized (if you look at Skousen’s famous list of Communist goals, “free trade” is number 4). Interaction and trade have been stripped of any consideration of the externalities of risks generated by the extension of those investments. Those risks are socialized on the backs of the American taxpayer via the military budget (among other things) whereby we protect the narrow interests of investors abroad.

As I watched more and more foreign investors not only buying up American businesses, but stationing here domestically. I wondered then about "capitalism". Leftist assert that capitalism is evil; but they are huge practioners of the economic practice of "capitalism"; and their marketing programs all involve the politics of "humanism". (The standard "feed the children" linguistics.)

Allow me to quote Orwell here. Here is a little quote written in 1933 from Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell:

In reality, it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain. Later, when the Right Wing forces were in full control, the Communists showed themselves willing to go a great deal further than the Liberals in hunting down revolutionary leaders.

[Snip]

Between the Communists and those who claim to stand to the Left of them there is a real difference. The Communists hold that Fascism can be beaten by alliance with sections of the capitalist class (the Popular Front); their opponents hold that this maneuver simply gives Fascism new breeding-grounds. The question has got to be settled; to make the wrong decision may be to land ourselves in for centuries of semi-slavery.

What you are watching are more symptoms of bad policy executed over more than a century rather than independent events attendant to mere technical advancement. It began before the ink on the Constitution was dry, another reason historic background in that post should have got your attention.

I saw that if America did not likewise work to maintain an edge in the "global" market, we were going to become inheritors of the dictates from another (or other countries).

We already did at the collapse of Brettonwoods when Nixon put up the entire mineral estate of the United States as security for additional debt. Ever since then, hard rock mining has been the bête noir of the EPA unless it is foreign owned. That’s how it works, as was explained in that post you hadn’t read. Interestingly, we had borrowed the money to protect the people who held the debt!

The late 80s and 90s saw fewer people saving and investing; and more simply consuming their income with material (non asset) goods.

That change is a product of a successful leftist public education and media monopoly that conditioned people to feel instead of to think. Massive research into human and animal ethology during the ‘50s had its payoff, not to mention Rockefeller’s investment in Kinsey. Emotions are very easy to manipulate.

Tax increases are used, as I understand these, as principally "give outs" (pork) or as asset leverage in investments.

When Clinton did it, it was to lower interest rates.

In CA, the socialist capitalists had so thoroughly saturated the "market" with advertisings, the stock markets were being saturated with foreign dollars.

You are one of the few people I have seen on FR who understands the power of media cheerleading in capital markets. One could see The Economist doing a real job on the bag-holders pumping the dot com balloon and then popping it hard just before Bush was elected. At first the bag-holders came running as if there was no end. Once it did end, there must have been some good companies built with OPM to be had for very cheap.

To stay competitive, Republicans sought to outbuy the socialist capitalists in currying foreign trade and investments in THEIR countries.

And got bought in the process.

I suppose one could say, our Republicans were building allies in the newer markets with their own brand of trade.

Either gambit is destructive to domestic wealth formation and relies instead upon selling or hocking the future. It can’t go on forever.

Socialism is an easier sale by pitching collectivist control of other people’s wealth by democratic means, as every communist knows. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism."

I was a small business owner in the 90s, under the Clinton Admin, crushed by their policies. And I do not forget the retro-active tax they levied on Americans. I saw that (retro-tax), at the time, as a quick infusion of cash for the Democrats to play "foreign and domestic games" with.

It wasn’t as much as the “peace dividend.” Then there was hiding inflation by tweaking the “market basket of goods” by which to calculate the CPI. Clinton had a keen grip on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by which to keep said propaganda machine going. The guy did have flair.

Ultimately, what does it all boil down to: Who's got the money. Every socialist will deny it, except maybe George Soros.

Funny, and there I thought it was all about who had the hot idea for a whole new industry. Silly me.

Republicans are upfront about "business".

Are there still Republicans in big business? “Moderates” don’t count because they go both ways (innuendo intended).

When conservatives were screaming at Republicans as being "members of the "evil" CFR" I understood their lament; but it didn't make sense to me.

Perhaps you should read Tragedy and Hope.

If you want to be on the cutting edge you've got to be near your competitors.

“If ya kain’t beat ‘em join ‘em” in this case is a compromise with evil, that ends up being incremental movement toward evil. It isn’t necessary. I’d have preferred that as, “keeping your enemies close,” which is very different. You have to know what they’re doing, but schmoozing yourself into being one of the crowd rubs off and usually leaves one smelly (as well as having wasted valuable time). For example, if Bush gave a crap about transparency or competition, he’d be pounding the Europeans about Oil for Food.

Laura Bush recently spoke at a WEF event. I watched to see if any in this forum dare speak ill of her, or refer to her as taking part in the "conspiracy in the "sameness" of the two parties"; but I didn't observe that happen. Americans really, really like and respect First Lady Laura Bush. But she went to where the power brokers meet. And, I applaud her for it.

As a damsel in the lions’ den or as representative of a power broker?

I've been watching after results -- seems to me Democrats are getting more desperate than ever; which tells me some "money" international interests may have moved in another direction. Dems are obviously upset.

They’re not desperate at all. Hillary is a shoe-in unless something catastrophic happens to her. As it is, it’s far more likely something will happen that is catastrophic to Republicans, such as a good ol’ fashioned act of terrorism coming out of Mexico. She’s way too cocky for something not to be afoot.

President George Bush I, raised taxes; and did not get re-elected. President Bill Clinton not only raised taxes; his admin made some of those increases RETRO-ACTIVE. Not a word.

Property taxes are effectively retro-active. They can change after the decision to invest has been made. Bet you’d never thought of that.

Yes, I was a Bill Simon supporter. I observed what happened. Didn't like it. But if big monied interests are not going to throw their weight behind Simon; nor will the Republicans - especially in a state like CA. I know this seems rather unprincipled. But if the "big donor" base, those with the large mega corps aren't going to be there to support the agenda, what's there to do? Win the battle but lose the war?

Here arises a key source of difference, grounded in something, the implications of which I don’t think you fully understand out of a simple lack of faith.

The donors will follow a winner. In Simon’s case for example, the leadership may have been evil, but it was Simon’s battle to lose. His power in the campaign, earned in a huge come from nowhere victory over a moneyed and connected Dick Riordan, was in the base that brought him there. He did the losing by allowing the GOP to set his agenda after the primary, which was so early there was plenty of time for him to have energized and organized the base (which is cheap for a man of his means) over the ensuing summer during which he was totally invisible. It could have been fixed. Simon had no clue what the CAGOP was going to do to him. He’s not his dad, and too nice a guy. Had he not been so ambitious in seeking the governorship as his first elective office, I think he might have had a bright future in politics. To what degree his effort was to cut off Dick Riordan, I don’t know.

What conservatives have failed to do is to show how their policies benefit traditional Slave Party constituencies: the urban poor, immigrants, children, etc.

And in CA, those who do so, don't win. Good grief! For an intelligent and insightful person, your key assertions sure can be poorly supported. May I suggest the Political Graveyard so that you can offer better evidence? So California won't vote conservative? Consider the spate of recent ballot propositions:

Prop 227	English only education in public schools	Passed
Prop 209	No more affirmative action in State hiring or education	Passed
Prop 22	Heterosexual marriage only	Passed
Prop 187	No benefits for illegal aliens	Passed

Simon lost to Davis by only 325,000 votes after the most incompetent campaign in history and while being stabbed in the back by his own Party. An unknown McClintock lost be even less after being outspent 5:1. The problem is urban media, a gerrymandered legislature, and a GOP “leadership” so focused upon favors from government that they won’t rock the boat. The problem is not the voters. <p>

How many times have we seen this at local levels? Pete Wilson took some VERY unpopular stands. And got his head handed to him; primarily through the media artistic craft known as MSM, and their allied "monied interests". And Pete Wilson *had* political chips to play with. He still got it handed to him.

Oh really? Pray tell, what were these courageous stands? The tax increase? He did get re-elected, even after repeatedly screwing conservative candidates, after shafting mom and pop businesses, after costing a the equivalent of a free college education to every California student for him implementation of MTBE and leaky plastic gas tanks, BECAUSE he took a stand behind a conservative measure in Proposition 187. Had he not done so, he would have lost. It wasn’t because he was a moderate that he won a second term, it was because, when faced with certain defeat, Pete broke down and did something conservative no matter how much it clearly pained him to do so. So then what did he do? Did he thank the people who brung him? Nope. He turned right around and screwed the base all over again, defunding conservative candidates and lading them with bogus “moderate” environmental regulations that WILL do more harm than good.

In re yours regarding Wilson and Davis using the same...Arnold belongs to EXACTLY the same financial interests Davis and Wilson did. political "financial interests". Can you name me exactly WHICH other "financial interest" org Repubs should be going to?

The voters. I already told you, Republicans need to return to grass roots campaigning. It’s what got Reagan elected. All “financial interests” get you is total dependency upon media. We lose there.

Dems keep winning in CA.

Well, we might sue the media for having made a continuous in-kind campaign contribution!

Which "other" financial interest would better benefit Republicans? What this all suggests to me, is not that Repubs are losers, per se -- but you go with the company that brings you results.

Seems to me Reagan did a pretty good job of getting re-elected. So, why are Republican “moderates” crapping on everything he stood for?

Those "corporations" are running the boat, and that's what infuriates Republicans and conservatives alike, IMHO.

Those corporations have no loyalty to either party.

Show me the alternative.

The voters. Give them a candidate with real life experience, communications skills, and a solid grip on how conservative principles solve real issues. I know, it’s asking a lot. Here’s a clue: they usually aren’t found in country clubs.

So, what's the alternative to dealing with huge corporations and monies which are indeed what every country is interested in?

Traditional grass roots activism. It works. The problem is that, without it, the people don’t usually get serious until it’s too late.

Everyone WANTS THEIR CUT -- right down to the local level.

I think you are amplifying but one side of the usual American character. Given that this is the most charitable country on earth, not quite everyone is that way. Further, Reagan gained much of his power by amplifying people’s better halves.

I think Republicans have gotten the message. And they learned it from the Dems: Money talks and BS walks.

I’m afraid you’re right at least in the short term, which is why the reforms I suggest work incrementally (the ones in that booklet I sent). Wholesale reforms just aren’t going to happen.

I am not anti-corporation. Large or small.

I am against the structural advantages corporations have enjoyed since the adoption and de rigueur Supreme Court reinterpretation of the 14^th Amendment. IMO, it was planned that way as a payoff on foreign debt that financed the Civil War.

It's what people do. And have done so ever since they could figure out what to put on their shingle.

To which there is only one long-term cure: the eventual collapse of government education. See booklet. It won’t take much.

I wish individual conservatives had more money.

I wish they weren’t so cheap when it comes to political campaigns, but the small business / resource landownership base has been structurally impoverished by regulation and liability law. See booklet.

If I'm willing to stand up for them. If I'm willing to deal with the consequences of my choices. If I stand up to government and lose; its going to hurt. Next time, I'll try a smarter tact when making this choice.

Is THAT what happened to “our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor”! Who knew?

It would seem I didn’t learn that lesson.

Let me tell you what I saw in the 80s and 90s -- NOT ENOUGH CITIZENS STANDING UP.

When I went on speaking tours to promote the ideas in the book (that’s right, I didn’t care if I sold very many, I was looking for people who could DO something with it), what I saw was very similar: Most were looking for a guy on a white horse. It’s a popular calling. There is a horde of think tanks and activist groups loaded with popular pundits I call “town criers,” some of them real characters. People fall in line to resist any impending tyranny, rather than look for ways to obviate the need for police action, and make a tidy profit too. IMO, it’s a twofold habit, born out of the rural welfare of the New Deal and the habituation to unconstitutional Federal land use control. They feel powerless.

I also got to see this in the new "red states" -- this belief that the "worst" cannot happen here" mentality. It can! It does!

No kidding. Some ranchers I know in Utah have figured it out. The problem is that there is nearly always a prominent sell-out who sets the ugly precedent for the NGOs.

Huge, vested monied interests are running us all in a myriad of directions. It's fine and great to stand up for the constitution. That's A-OKAY WITH ME! But, in order to support our constitution, an infusion of money to actually combat the "investors" socialist agenda is a very important matter.

I don’t think so or I wouldn’t be doing what I am today: building a foundation for a monster legal case. Sure it’ll cost money to fight it, but there I’ll just have to trust the Lord to be there when the time comes. It may well be painful, but it’s that “lives, fortunes, and Sacred Honor” thingy.

Dems say that Repubs are "overly money focused". What a BS charge when it was the Dems who launched the "personal is political" and the "total honesty" media blitzkriegs (campaigns) on the heels of Watergate. And they continue to rake in big bucks and while "denouncing" capitalism "publically".

So, why don’t Republicans call them on it? Do you know how many times I have tried to educate them on how such activism works to no avail?

So, what is wrong with Republicans buying up positions and large stock shares to counter the BS?

Um, because conservatives don’t have that kind of money?

Shareholders have a say; board members and large share holders have an even bigger say. That's smart playing. Because that's what is really boils down to: "interests".

Mutual funds crush shareholder consortia. Frankly, I have a problem with that financial architecture, but (for once) don’t have any idea what I would recommend.

Socialism is good for the wealthy, because they can buy a government with the power to deliver the goods. Conservatives who believe in limited government are incapable of raising those funds.

They have only just begun forming their own PACS and coalitions.

You’re kidding, right? There are so many property rights organizations alone it would fill a small phone book. Then there are all the pro-life and morality groups. You must be talking about something different, so perhaps you would like to elaborate here.

I see the bigger hand as "do we maintain America as a sovereign nation" versus "do we give up and give foreign countries their sway".

This is a total non-starter with me. Such a question is off the table, because no other form of government even gives lip service to my property rights.

It all comes from those so-called "evil" board meetings and CFR, and Trilateral and WEF forums -- that's where the players meet and greet. Play fluff, and you'll not get very far.

Now, why pray tell, to you call these groups, “so-called ‘evil’” when it is precisely these who are using government to rob the American property-owner with crooked regulations?

Offer a better deal than your opponent, folks who follow the money will back you - and no matter where they are based in the world.

We’ll start with a productive nation. Slavery wasn’t a very effective economic system, even for Rome.

The left screams that "capitalism" is evil -- while they support capitalism unwittingly. They go for the "human agenda"; but those in the know in the socialist circles know EXACTLY the importance of money.

No, they support socialism, not capitalism, unless within “capitalism” you include fascism.

The problem is, the everyday person in conservatism knows this too. Money is important. You can give the best speech in the world, full of truth and power; but unless you have the "powers" to back it up? It doesn't fly very far.

You are starting to sound like an inside-the-beltway type here. There are tens of millions of Americans possessing millions of rounds of ammunition who might pick a bone with you on this one.

By undermining them demographically. It won't take much because: Most red states are not heavily populated, and Federal regulations are depopulating rural areas

Very astute. You are right. The same forces which "overtook" CA and a lot of this country in re: investors -- is coming right at them.

And the Minuteman Project is just winding up.

I pray they can stop intraparty bickering, and pull it together to fight this onslaught. I wonder if the base will be just as befuddled as Californian's were way back then -- thinking "it just *couldn't* happen here".

I don’t. If we were waiting for “bickering” to end there would be no Minuteman Project and that demographic war would be a fait accompli, or is that what your customers at the GOP want?

I hope your research project worked out the way you wanted, if not the way you anticipated.